Charlie Rose talks to David Beers of S & P

By Charlie Rose

The most important question in my mind is why - and why now - did you make this decision?
Why, we talked for some time the progressive deterioration in public finances U.S., which is not new, and it is not due to the recession. It is a process which has been unfolding for much of the last decade. And then of course, in addition, the cyclical slowdown due to the serious recession did worse. If the Administration and Congress move to address these trends, they will go to deterioration due to aging of the population - things like Medicare, Medicaid and social security.

Why now, we have taken this decision because when one looks at the highly polarized debate going on in Washington and very strong differences between Republicans and Democrats, including the Administration, about what could be done, we believe that it is unlikely that they will be able to narrow the gap, particularly on the course of the next few months. And there is no assurance, even after the 2012 election, that the two parties would be able to meet and begin to have a significant impact on what is still a rising burden of the debt of the U.S. Government. When we compare U.S. financial history with a number of other sovereigns key - level AAA - Europe and also the Canada in North America it see us Governments taking action and describing programmes to reduce their structural deficits. And the United States course, we always talk about it.

Some are characterize as draw a shot across the bow of the U.S. Government. You see it say that?
No.. The way we see it is our way to see all our credit ratings sovereign, who is to give an independent opinion of what we believe that the underlying credit trends are. We do take a position on what are good or bad policy for Governments to pursue. We analyze what we think are the implications of these choices credit. This is true to the United States and it is true with other sovereign Governments 126 we speed around the world.

How would you describe the way in which the markets have reacted?
It is early days yet. And don't forget that the step we have taken is a negative perspective. We have confirmed the AAA rating at the same time and we reminded people that means negative outlook, which means that it is at least, in our view, currently one in three chance that the rating would be lower. We also said that if we lowered the rating it would be by a single step to AA +. If in the spectrum of ratings from S & P (MHP), if this happens, it would be indicated only a very fresh credit of U.S. permanent degradation. Of course, it is also true that a sovereign credit rating AAA has special significance in General.

If you lowered the rating, what do you think that the impact would be?
I know, because we know from experience in the world, that sometimes markets that align with our opinions and sometimes not. And this is what happened in Europe over the last decade. There is an eloquent testimony to that: since many years, the market has been pricing all euros and the sovereigns, including those that we read on today as the Greece, Portugal, the Ireland and Spain, to AAA levels. In a number of these cases, we took a very different view for a long period, and the market ignored this opinion.

It is suggested that this gesture is really an attempt to regain the credibility that agencies, including yours, scoring lost by established rating mortgage-backed securities - that it is an attempt to get out in front of a problem.
There are two things to say about this. One is, it is important to actually read what we say. This is why we all have our mis research free of charge, including our sovereign research, on our public website - for people to read our analysis. If they agree with us or not, always is a good idea before reach you a conclusion to read what we say.

The second thing to say, is that our performance of sovereign credit ratings is very strong. These ratings to continue to exercise in the manner they are intended. If you look at the retroactive to the default settings of the Government, which we have had a number over the years, particularly in the years since 15 or 20, the odds of doing the work to provide a prospective view of the risk of default.

The President and his economic adviser Austan Goolsbee and Secretary of the Treasury Geithner say there is now a focus on debt and action is in progress.
Well, we will see if this assessment is true.

Watch Charlie Rose Bloomberg TV weeknights at 8 am and 10 pm.

Emmy Award-winning journalist Charlie Rose is the host of Charlie Rose, PBS program every night.

View the original article here

Charlie Rose talks to Paul Ryan

By Charlie Rose

You have participated just the speech of the President on the reduction of the debt. Is this what you expected?
No, frankly, Charlie, it was quite the opposite of what I was expecting. I thought that with his invitation [to attend the speech]... He was extending an olive branch so that he could get back on the path to bipartisan solutions. And we have nothing else that. We have had dramatic distortions of our budget proposal. Earlier in the week when he sent his campaign manager mentioned that he was going to make this speech not his Budget Director or the Secretary of the Treasury, a small red flag went in my mind. But then when I got to the speech, and we heard it, it was extremely political, very partisan.

And it offers now - after the creation of a budgetary commission, he disavowed and did not in its proper budget - to create another commission to find ideas on how to correct the budget. It kicking in its budget. He said now we are going to have another commission, and oh, by the way, we will have this commission produce less deficit reduction, less savings than the prior commission produced. So I assume that we are going to do is to do without the President. We will have to talk to our colleagues here in the House and the Senate... because we have not any leadership of the President.

President Obama called your plan "a vision which says if crumbling roads and bridges to collapse, we can afford to fix their... but we can in a certain way more than $ 1 trillion in new tax breaks for the rich." How respond you?
I don't know even what to say on this subject. First of all, we don't talk even on the reduction of taxes. We are talking about keeping tax revenues where they [through permanent tax cuts Bush] and clean all the junk in the tax code for a flat, more equitable, more simple tax system. Therefore we are not talking about cutting taxes. We want to keep the tax revenues where they are and fix the tax code. All expenditure — you know, the partisan rhetoric of expenses - if you do set fees, Charlie, if you get spending under control, it will be money left for other things, roads, bridges, for education, of the environment. I am therefore surprised that he would use this kind of hyperbolic, rhetorical hyperventilation to describe our plan.

The Chairman said he may save money over the next 10 years by reducing the cost of health care, and which is more important than the creation of a program of good.
In fact, I think that he knows that this is not a good program. Its experts know that it is a premium support program. Good to give money to the person. They go on the market. This is not what it is. People get a choice. There is a difference of opinion here. And this is where he show us some recognition of the facts, the recognition was health care costs are growing too fast. President has said he wants this bureaucracy not elected without supervision or control of Congress to indiscriminately cut reimbursements Medicare, Medicaid, meaning the price of Government control. This does not occur.

You and President differ on the social pact between the country and its citizens?
I say Yes and I would like to explain why. We believe that we must repair our social safety net. Well, we believe that we need to have a. And that the social safety net must adapt to the 21st century. … We do not want to transform in a hammock that lulls people safety net in the life of complacency and dependency. We believe in social mobility, equal opportunities, not equality of results. There is thus a difference in philosophy here.

The Administration wants to treat as a single issue debt ceiling. Are you willing to do so?
No.. Because it is the only game in town. It is a piece of must-pass legislation. We consider that the debt limit we want to attach the expenditure cuts and spending controls to it.

The President speaks much to win the future and suggests that because we can't that without investment in education and science.
I think that the investment is an another euphemism for expenses. Look, 42 cents on every dollar that the Government spends today is borrowed money. Half of which comes from other countries, no. 1, which is China. You cannot sustain a viable economy if rely you on others to your Government cash flow. We get spending under control.

Emmy Award-winning journalist Charlie Rose is the host of Charlie Rose, PBS program every night.

View the original article here

Yemen opposition spurns talks, defines Saleh deadline - Reuters

Demonstrators carrying posters of revolutionary leader Che Guevara (L) and the late President of the Northern Ibrahim al-Hamdi Yemen during a demonstration demanding the eviction of President Ali Abdullah Saleh of the Yemen in the South of Taiz city on April 13, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Khaled Abdullah

SANAA. Thu April 14, 2011 6: 11 am EDT

SANAA (Reuters) - the Yemen opposition has rejected an offer Thursday to join the talks mediated by the Gulf in Saudi Arabia on a transfer of power and set a deadline of two weeks for President Ali Abdullah Saleh to resign.

Gulf Arab Foreign Ministers had said that they would invite Saleh, who has faced two months of demonstrations demanding his resignation and his opponents talks mediation on a transfer of power. However, the opposition a fight on the offer.

"We renewed our focus on the need to accelerate the process of quality (Saleh) down for two weeks.". "So we go to Riyadh," said Mohammed al-Mutawakkil, a prominent opposition leader.

Allies Saudi Arabia and West of the Yemen fear a deadlock in the State of the Arabian Peninsula could ignite clashes between rival military units in the capital and elsewhere and cause chaos that would benefit from a wing based at the al-Qaeda Yemen active.

Opposition of the Yemen first rejected a statement by the Council of the Gulf cooperation framework for the discussions, had been to be held in Riyadh, because it seemed to offer Saleh a waiver of prosecution in the future and has not asked for an immediate transfer.

Later, they met the ambassadors of Saudi Arabia and the Kuwait, Oman Tuesday seeking clarification of the understanding of the "transfer of power," GCC that does not specify a time for Saleh to resign.

Some opposition leaders had suggested that the talks could begin as early as Saturday, before said Mutawakkil clarifications offered by the ambassadors of the Gulf had been insufficient.

"We did not find in the clarification that the ambassadors presented everything which responds to our requests for immediate removal," said Mutawakkil. "There was nothing new by the ambassadors of the Gulf Cooperation Council."

Saleh agreed to the framework of the talks, even if another player key, General Ali Mohsen, a relative of Saleh, whose units are protecting the demonstrators in Sanaa, have accepted the plan of the CCG.

Technically, a transfer of power to the Yemen could last until the next presidential election scheduled for 2013, a perspective the opposition considers unacceptable.

Saleh has offered for new parliamentary and presidential elections this year in political reforms, but said that he should stay in power to oversee the change or to submit to what he calls the "safe hands".

(Reported by Mohammed Ghobari.) Written by Cynthia Johnston. (editing by Andrew Dobbie)

View the original article here

Gbagbo Minister says in talks on Ivory Coast cease-fire - Reuters

DAKAR. Tue, April 5, 2011 8: 00 am EDT

"I am at the residence of the Ambassador of France to negotiate a ceasefire, Alcide Djédjé said in an interview broadcast on Radio France International.

Asked if Gbagbo negotiated his departure, he said: "it is another step that I am not responsible for." We have to wait for the next few hours on it. I had a mandate to negotiate this step (a ceasefire). Now we wait. ?

View the original article here