'Cliff' deal lifts stocks and doubts

WASHINGTON — Despite the huge relief rally on Wall Street, the incomplete resolution of the so-called fiscal cliff will do little to boost the economy but assures an intense budget battle that is expected to weigh on spending and hiring at least over the next few months.

The New Year's Day deal let payroll taxes for all workers revert to their previous higher rate, though it avoided the worst of the "fiscal cliff" issues by blocking tax-rate increases on all but the wealthiest Americans and postponing federal spending cuts.

That means workers will start seeing on average about $20 less a week in their paychecks starting this month, a cut in incomes that is expected to dampen spending and contribute to slower hiring.

But that's not what business leaders and economists are fretting about; the payroll tax cut was meant to be temporary, and most had factored its expiration into their new year's forecast. The big concern is that the deal did nothing to reduce government spending and fell short of taking needed steps to stabilize the rising U.S. debt.

Lawmakers also left for the new Congress the hard work of raising the nation's debt limit before the end of February, the rough deadline for action in the latest Treasury Department estimates.

Policymakers still must try in the next two months to replace $1.2 trillion in automatic spending cuts over the next decade with a package that would cause less economic damage.

And the fates of many tax deductions and loopholes are up in the air because overhauls of the individual and corporate tax codes are expected to take place this year as part of a deficit-reduction plan.

Wall Street, however, rejoiced. In the exuberant first day of trading in the new year, the Dow Jones industrial average surged 308 points, or 2.4%, to nearly 13,413. The rally gave the Dow its best day since Dec. 20, 2011.

"There's relief that something got passed that was better than the worst-case scenario," said Doug Cote, chief investment strategist with ING Investment Management U.S.

But he called the rally one of "false relief" because the longer-term deficit problems remain an unresolved threat.

"There's still plenty of uncertainty, unfortunately, that remains," said John Engler, president of the Business Roundtable, a group of top corporate chief executives.

The group's quarterly survey last month projected the economy would maintain roughly last year's mediocre growth of 2% in 2013, and Tuesday's deal probably won't change that forecast much, he said.

Still, Engler said: "You can certainly say the potential for some harm was averted, but the potential for greater certainty still lies ahead."

Some analysts say prolonged uncertainty — coupled with the loss of consumer spending from higher payroll taxes — could hold back employers from hiring and spending as they wait for Congress to make more decisions about the budget.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics will release employment numbers for December on Friday, and economists are generally expecting continued steady growth of about 150,000 jobs, a decent number that would slowly bring down the unemployment rate.

But that report may be the best for months ahead if reduced demand and concerns about the upcoming budget fight cause businesses to pull back.

"The cautiousness on the part of businesses will persist," said Michael Gapen, senior U.S. economist at Barclays in New York. He reckons that the biggest hits to the labor market may be in the first quarter when companies purge payrolls after the holiday season.

The deal did extend emergency unemployment benefits for some 2 million long-term jobless workers who faced an abrupt end to their economic life support, providing about $30 billion in aid that would be pumped directly into the economy.

It also permanently fixed the alternative minimum tax, which threatened to hit millions of middle-income Americans because the provision, which was enacted in 1969 and aimed at making sure the wealthy paid some taxes, had not been indexed to inflation.

Businesses, too, expressed satisfaction with some parts of the tax agreement. Congress permanently extended much of the George W. Bush-era tax cuts, which gave companies clarity on income tax rates.

12.18 | 0 komentar | Read More

Hillary Clinton released from hospital after blood clot treatment

The secretary of State is released after treatment for a blood clot.

By Matt Pearce

January 2, 2013, 7:08 p.m.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was released from a New York hospital Wednesday evening after doctors treated her for a blood clot that had formed behind her ear.

"Her medical team advised her that she is making good progress on all fronts, and they are confident she will make a full recovery," Philippe Reines, deputy assistant secretary of State, said in a statement. "She's eager to get back to the office, and we will keep you updated on her schedule as it becomes clearer in the coming days."

Clinton had been hospitalized Sunday at New York-Presbyterian Hospital when an MRI turned up the clot, called a right transverse sinus venous thrombosis.

The scan was part of follow-up treatment she'd been receiving for a concussion after taking a fall three weeks ago while she was fighting the flu. The concussion forced her to cancel an appearance before a congressional committee looking into the attack on the U.S. diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Her failure to appear at the hearing prompted murmurs in some conservative circles that she was trying to avoid inquisitors.

Doctors said the clot didn't result in a stroke or any neurological damage. Clinton was treated for a blood clot in her leg in 1998.

Clinton is in her closing weeks serving as secretary of State, with Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) expected to succeed her.

ALSO:

12.18 | 0 komentar | Read More

Bieber urges crackdown on paparazzi after photographer's death

Justin Bieber and his collection of exotic cars have been tantalizing targets for celebrity photographers ever since the young singer got his driver's license.

A video captured the paparazzi chasing Bieber through Westside traffic in November. When Bieber's white Ferrari stops at an intersection, the video shows the singer turning to one of the photographers and asking: "How do your parents feel about what you do?"

A few months earlier, he was at the wheel of his Fisker sports car when a California Highway Patrol officer pulled him over for driving at high speeds while trying to outrun a paparazzo.

This pursuit for the perfect shot took a fatal turn Tuesday when a photographer was hit by an SUV on Sepulveda Boulevard after taking photos of Bieber's Ferrari. And the singer now finds himself at the center of the familiar debate about free speech and the aggressive tactics of the paparazzi.

Since Princess Diana's fatal accident in Paris in 1997 while being pursued by photographers, California politicians have tried crafting laws that curb paparazzi behavior. But some of those laws are rarely used, and attorneys have challenged the constitutionality of others.

On Wednesday, Bieber went on the offensive, calling on lawmakers to crack down.

"Hopefully this tragedy will finally inspire meaningful legislation and whatever other necessary steps to protect the lives and safety of celebrities, police officers, innocent public bystanders and the photographers themselves," he said in a statement.

It remained unclear if any legislators would take up his call. But Bieber did get some support from another paparazzi target, singer Miley Cyrus.

She wrote on Twitter that she hoped the accident "brings on some changes in '13 Paparazzi are dangerous!"

Last year, a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge threw out charges related to a first-of-its-kind anti-paparazzi law in a case involving Bieber being chased on the 101 Freeway by photographer Paul Raef. Passed in 2010, the law created punishments for paparazzi who drove dangerously to obtain images.

But the judge said the law violated 1st Amendment protections by overreaching and potentially affecting such people as wedding photographers or photographers speeding to a location where a celebrity was present.

The L.A. city attorney's office is now appealing that decision.

Raef's attorney, Dmitry Gorin, said new anti-paparazzi laws are unnecessary.

"There are plenty of other laws on the books to deal with these issues. There is always a rush to create a new paparazzi law every time something happens," he said. "Any new law on the paparazzi is going to run smack into the 1st Amendment. Truth is, most conduct is covered by existing laws. A lot of this is done for publicity."

Coroner's officials have not identified the photographer because they have not reached the next of kin. However, his girlfriend, Frances Merto, and another photographer identified him as Chris Guerra.

The incident took place on Sepulveda Boulevard near Getty Center Drive shortly before 6 p.m. Tuesday. A friend of Bieber was driving the sports car when it was pulled over on the 405 Freeway by the California Highway Patrol. The photographer arrived near the scene on Sepulveda, left his car and crossed the street to take photos. Sources familiar with the investigation said the CHP told him to leave the area. As he was returning to his vehicle, he was hit by the SUV.

Law enforcement sources said Wednesday that it was unlikely charges would be filed against the driver of the SUV that hit the photographer.

Veteran paparazzo Frank Griffin took issue with the criticism being directed at the photographer as well as other paparazzi.

"What's the difference between our guy who got killed under those circumstances and the war photographer who steps on a land mine in Afghanistan and blows himself to pieces because he wanted the photograph on the other side of road?" said Griffin, who co-owns the photo agency Griffin-Bauer.

"The only difference is the subject matter. One is a celebrity and the other is a battle. Both young men have left behind mothers and fathers grieving and there's no greater sadness in this world than parents who have to bury their children."

Others, however, said the death focuses attention on the safety issues involving paparazzi

"The paparazzi are increasingly reckless and dangerous. The greater the demand, the greater the incentive to do whatever it takes to get the image," said Blair Berk, a Los Angeles attorney who has represented numerous celebrities. "The issue here isn't vanity and nuisance, it's safety."

richard.winton@latimes.com

andrew.blankstein@latimes.com

12.18 | 0 komentar | Read More

The 'fiscal cliff' con game

Whatever the ultimate shape of the "fiscal cliff" solution that has preoccupied all Washington, and a fair swath of the rest of country, in the final days of 2012 and into the new year, Americans of all walks of life should be asking themselves this question: How do we like being conned?

The deal, passed by the Senate on New Year's morning, was made final late Tuesday when the House of Representatives signed on. Its essential elements include expiration of the President George W. Bush-era income and capital gains tax cuts on couples' incomes over $450,000, and a modest increase in the estate tax.

Unemployment benefits and tax credits for lower-income families will be extended. The payroll tax holiday that replaced a low- and middle-income tax credit in 2009 will end, but the tax credit won't return. Many other items, including the fate of automatic spending cuts mandated by the 2011 debt-ceiling deal, are being put off for weeks or months. Another debt-ceiling fight looms on the near horizon.

Almost everything mentioned above involves a con game of one sort or another, because almost none of it is what it seems on the surface. Since such fakery is certain to continue well into the new year, here's a quick guide to its basic features.

The deficit con: The big daddy. Despite the lawmakers' claims that the debate has been about closing the federal deficit and reducing the federal debt, none of the negotiating over the past weeks has dealt with those issues. Indeed, the tax and spending package will widen the deficit by some $4 trillion over 10 years, compared with what would happen if the tax increases and spending cuts mandated by existing law were implemented.

The House Republican caucus has consistently looked for ways to protect high-income taxpayers from a tax increase, at the expense of beneficiaries of government programs such as enrollees in Social Security and Medicare. If there's a dominant preoccupation with cutting the deficit lurking somewhere in that mind-set, good luck finding it.

The shared sacrifice con: If the goal has been for an approach to deficit cutting balanced among economic strata — and Democrats and Republicans both pay lip service to this notion — then the final deal is a fraud. Every working person earning up to $113,700 in wages this year will shoulder an instant tax increase of 2%. That's because the payroll tax holiday enacted in 2010 is expiring.

The tax holiday, which cut the employee's share of the Social Security tax to 4.2% from 6.2% of income up to the annual wage cap, was always designed as a temporary stimulus measure. But few people expected that it would expire at a single stroke — and without a countervailing working-class tax credit to soften the blow.

Monkeying with the payroll tax was never a great idea, because it undermined Social Security's essential funding mechanism. But what's often forgotten is that the holiday was implemented to replace an existing tax break for the middle class — the Making Work Pay credit—opposed by the GOP. But the credit isn't coming back, so the end of the holiday means a pure tax increase on the 98% of working Americans earning $113,700 or less in wages. For a couple touching, say, $80,000, the increase will come to $1,600.

Quiz: How much do you know about the "fiscal cliff?"

Compare that with the break reaped by taxpayers declaring income in the $250,000 to $450,000 range. That's the difference between the threshold at which President Obama proposed restoring pre-Bush tax rates and the level enacted by Congress. Exempting that slice of income from higher taxes saves up to $9,200 in taxes for families earning $450,000 or more (depending on the cost of phaseouts of exemptions and deductions for those taxpayers).

The estate tax con: There's no purer giveaway to the wealthy than this. The final deal raises the tax to 40% from 35% on estates over $10 million. (That figure is for couples, whose estates are each entitled to a $5-million exemption upon their deaths.) The alternative was to return to 2009 law, which set the tax at 45% on couples' estates more than $7 million.

Who pays the estate tax? In 2011, about 1,800 taxpayers died leaving estates of more than $10 million. Their average estate was somewhere from $30 million to $40 million. Their heirs cashed in on some of the most nimble tax planning on Earth: Although the statutory top rate was 35%, the average rate on estates of even $20 million-plus (the average gross value of which was $65 million) came to only 16.2%.

Estate tax bonus babies long have been protected by the myth that the tax falls heavily, and unjustly, on small family farms and businesses. The Washington-based Tax Policy Center found, however, that fewer than 50 small farms and businesses paid any estate tax in 2011. Their liability came to less than one-tenth of 1% of the total collected. On the other hand, more than 50% of the estate tax was paid by people whose income placed them in the top tenth of 1% of all taxpayers. These are the people protected by estate tax opponents.

The debt ceiling con: The original of this con is what put us at the fiscal cliff in the first place, for the automated spending cuts being dealt with now were put in place as the GOP's price to raise the federal debt ceiling and stave off a government default in 2011. The debt ceiling was not designed as a constraint when it was created in 1917 — it was convenient blanket authority for the Treasury to issue debt so that Congress wouldn't have to vote permission each time a new bond had to be floated.

Approval was always routine — the limit was raised 91 times between 1960 and the showdown in 2011. Now it's a hostage-taking situation, destined to return in the next month or two when Republicans who didn't get what they wanted in this week's cliffhanger menace the creditworthiness of the U.S. again.

For a brief shining moment, President Obama dreamed of folding an end to the debt limit into a fiscal cliff deal, but that didn't happen. The idea that the debt limit discourages fiscal irresponsibility is a scream. It doesn't now, and never has, stopped Congress from enacting any spending plan or tax break it pleases, creating a budget demand that has to be paid for with, yes, debt. If Congress wants less debt, it can cut spending or raise taxes. The debt limit is a dangerous weapon in the hands of irresponsible legislators, and it's time to take it out of their hands.

The bond vigilante con: This is the bedrock con that fuels deficit hawkishness. The idea is that if America doesn't get its debt under control, it will be punished by unhappy bond investors worldwide. U.S. interest rates will soar and the standard of living will plunge.

This con depends on voters overlooking that it hasn't happened. U.S. government bonds remain the most sought-after in the world. Remember August 2011, when Standard & Poor's cut America's credit rating because of poor fiscal policy and dysfunctional government? Neither condition has improved, but the yield on the 30-year Treasury bond has fallen from 3.75% to 2.82%, and on the 10-year note from 2.14% to 1.68%.

The bogeymen of higher interest rates and inflation that are supposed to follow inevitably from our current level of deficit spending have simply not materialized, and aren't visible on the horizon. Moreover, history suggests that more typically they're responses to vigorous economic growth, not to policies aimed at reviving recovery.

That's a clue that the whole fiscal cliff affair is a major con. There is no reason for the country to suffer now the austerity embodied in the spending cuts and tax hikes that were to come due Jan. 1; what's needed is continued stimulus to complete the economic recovery. Indeed, the starkness of the Jan. 1 deadline is itself a con — nothing except its own inaction prevents Congress from temporarily moderating the effects of the cliff by voting to defer tax increases and spending cuts, as it did this week.

In the golden age of individualistic rural America so beloved of today's conservative dreamers, people who perpetrated cons such as these would be tarred, feathered and ridden into the sunset on a rail. Today we allow them to set the agenda in Washington. Is that supposed to be progress?

Michael Hiltzik's column appears Sundays and Wednesdays. Reach him at mhiltzik@latimes.com, read past columns at latimes.com/hiltzik, check out facebook.com/hiltzik and follow @latimeshiltzik on Twitter.

12.18 | 0 komentar | Read More

House approves 'fiscal cliff' deal, rescinding broad tax hike

WASHINGTON — The House gave final approval Tuesday night to a bill to rescind tax increases for the vast majority of Americans, but only after a day of closed-door debate among Republicans, who were forced to allow a vote on a compromise many in their party disdained.

The final tally, 257 to 167, included most of the chamber's Democrats and fewer than half of the Republican majority.

The deal, largely negotiated by Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), had passed the Senate early Tuesday morning. It blocked income tax hikes for roughly 99% of households, but allowed rates to rise for those with incomes above $400,000 for individuals and $450,000 for couples.

It also renewed tax credits aimed at low-income households and college students, extended unemployment benefits, delayed automatic spending cuts in defense and other government programs for two months and resolved several other issues that Congress had left hanging.

The lopsided 89-8 vote in the Senate was engineered by McConnell and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to put as much pressure as possible on the House to follow suit. But as House Republicans gathered for the first of two private caucus meetings early on New Year's afternoon, many vowed to resist.

The mood did not last.

Early in the evening, Republicans held a second caucus meeting. This time, take-out Chinese food replaced sandwiches, and resignation subbed for defiance.

Several Republicans said afterward they feared that, if the bill failed and taxes went up, their party would take the blame.

"You do have to know when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em," Rep. Steve LaTourette (R-Ohio), an ally of Speaker John A. Boehner, said as he emerged from the meeting. "We've been beaten [in] this fight."

Even so, the decision by Boehner (R-Ohio) to bring the bill to a vote rankled many Republicans. The compromise, they complained, did virtually nothing to cut spending. And while it kept the low George W. Bush-era tax rates for most Americans, the tax hikes it did contain were anathema to lawmakers who had sworn to oppose any increase. Indeed, passage of the bill in the Senate marked the first time in two decades that any Republican in Congress had voted for an income tax increase.

Some Republicans balked at the economic stimulus provisions in the bill — primarily the low-income tax breaks, which were a priority for President Obama and House Democrats. They also objected that the bill would raise far more in tax revenues than it would trim in federal spending, which they worried set a bad precedent for future budget negotiations with the president.

In the first caucus meeting, Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia, the No. 2 Republican in the chamber, told members he could not support the bill. Others pushed for a vote on an amendment to add spending cuts.

For a time, Republican lawmakers said they were fired up to fight the Senate bill — many recalling with nostalgia Boehner's Plan B, which would have taxed incomes only above $1 million, roughly the top two-tenths of 1% of Americans. That bill never came to a vote, however, because the speaker was forced to yank it from the floor last month amid GOP resistance.

As discussions continued into the evening, however, Republicans increasingly began to accept that they had little choice. Senate leaders had made clear they would not consider any changes to the bill — and a head count of GOP members indicated that even if an amendment were added to cut spending, a majority of the caucus would still oppose it.

Lawmakers also warily eyed the clock ticking toward morning, when the financial markets would begin reacting if the picture in Washington remained unsettled. Economists have warned for months that the combination of across-the-board tax increases and spending cuts would raise unemployment and potentially bring on a new recession.

Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.), a veteran congressman, said, "I think we're at the time where people are tired."

"The timing is, people are ready to vote," he said. "The Senate sat on their duffs all year, and they had a great 48-hour push, but for the House this really has been a long one-year process. We've gone as far as we can go, and I think people are ready to bring it to conclusion."

"We have dealt with this issue long enough," said Rep. Bill Young (R-Fla.). "Both sides have given; both sides have gotten."

As Republican members of Congress debated what to do, influential outside groups sent mixed signals. Grover Norquist, author of the pledge against tax increases that most Republican members of Congress have signed, recommended that the GOP vote for the bill, while the Heritage Foundation and various tea party groups that have substantial influence over GOP conservatives called for the party to oppose it.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich took the opportunity to chide his one-time colleagues. "The GOP has been engaged in a two month dance of defeat and surrender!" he said in a Twitter message. "I hope tonight is the end of this self defeating strategy."

The official cost estimate by the Congressional Budget Office also added to the misery Republicans felt. The tax increases and spending cuts in the fiscal cliff would have sharply reduced the deficit — too sharply in the eyes of most economists. By comparison with those measures, the Senate-passed legislation would make the deficit worse by nearly $330 billion for the 2013 fiscal year, and just shy of $4 trillion over the course of the next decade.

The main elements that added to the deficit were the decisions to keep taxes low on 99% of American households and to make a permanent adjustment to the Alternative Minimum Tax to keep it from affecting millions of additional middle-class taxpayers. Even so, many members said they objected to voting on a measure that even technically made the deficit worse.

Democrats looked on in bemusement at the disarray across the aisle. Biden held a closed-door session with Democrats. He called for party members to support the Senate bill despite concerns expressed by liberals, inside Congress and out, that it set too high a threshold for tax increases.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) categorized the compromise measure as "gigantic progress." Throughout the day, she and other Democratic leaders repeated calls for Boehner to give the Senate bill an up-or-down vote.

The president monitored the action from the White House. Obama has no events on his schedule for the rest of the week, opening the way for him to return to Hawaii to rejoin his family on vacation. He could sign the bill into law while there.

[Updated at 8:05 p.m.: This post has been updated to reflect the final vote in the House.]

lisa.mascaro@latimes.com

kathleen.hennessey@latimes.com

Michael A. Memoli in the Washington bureau contributed to this report.

12.18 | 0 komentar | Read More

U.S. House approves bill to avert `fiscal cliff¿

From Times Staff

January 1, 2013, 8:16 p.m.

The House gave final approval to a bill to rescind tax increases for the vast majority of Americans but only after a day of closed-door debate among Republicans who were forced to allow a vote on a compromise many in their party disdained.

The final tally, 257-167, included the vast majority of the chamber's Democrats and fewer than half of the Republican majority. The Senate had approved its version early Tuesday on a lopsided 89-8 vote.

12.18 | 0 komentar | Read More

Jerry Brown readjusts his stand on the environment vs. business

SACRAMENTO — When Gov. Jerry Brown spoke to a crowd of beaming environmentalists and renewable energy advocates at the launch of a solar farm last year, he turned heads by praising another form of fuel: oil.

It was a surprising pivot from the man credited with helping to usher in the modern environmental movement as California's governor nearly four decades ago.

Back then, Brown enacted the nation's first energy-efficiency standards, signed strict anti-smog laws and blocked offshore drilling. But in his return engagement as California's chief executive, he has eased key regulations for oil companies, capped wildfire liability for timber companies and relaxed the state's landmark environmental law.

That strain of pragmatism has run throughout Brown's current governorship — and flummoxed many allies — and nowhere is it more apparent than on the issue of the environment.

As the state forges ahead with an ambitious program to combat global warming by penalizing major polluters, Brown has said he also wants to unshackle development and create jobs by overhauling California's signature environmental law. And although he signed legislation requiring the state to get a third of its power from renewable energy sources, he is supporting the oil industry's push for more drilling.

Brown's spokesman, Gil Duran, compared the approach to that of President Obama, who has touted what he calls an "all of the above" energy strategy.

"You have to pursue renewable energy — and California is leading the way — but you also have to have balance and common sense," Duran said.

Business leaders say Brown's moves are those of a chief executive who knows how to spur growth in a sluggish economy. Oil companies, timber firms and other business interests typically friendly to Republicans rewarded the Democratic governor's efforts by donating millions of dollars to his successful fall campaign to raise taxes.

Environmentalists say Brown's actions undercut his own efforts to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade and imperil the state's standing as a leader on climate change.

"He likes renewable energy. We think that's great," said Kathryn Phillips, director of Sierra Club California. "But it makes no sense for somebody who cares as much about greenhouse gas reduction as he does to be bending to the will of the oil industry or bending to the will of a private massive clear-cutter."

In 2011, when the oil industry complained that environmental scrutiny had slowed the permitting of drilling projects, the governor fired his top two regulators and appointed replacements who agreed to speed approvals. He said the regulators had needlessly held up routine permits, and the projects represented jobs and revenue.

Brown also pushed hard for legislation to limit the legal liability of timber companies in cases of wildfires caused by their practices.

Echoing the timber industry's concerns, the administration said the bill would prevent prosecutors from seeking "excessive damages" — payouts several times larger than the value of the damaged land. Federal authorities said the measure could make it more difficult to secure money to pay for recovery from destructive blazes.

In a nod to conservationists, the bill Brown ultimately signed also imposed a 1% tax on lumber sales to fund restoration efforts and oversight of the industry.

"He's balancing the practical needs of California with his philosophy on finding alternative sources of energy," said Allan Zaremberg, president of the California Chamber of Commerce. "Whether you agree with him or not, he's trying to find that balance."

Activists and industry both are preparing for key fights this year.

Hoping to boost the state's economy, Brown has signaled his desire to loosen the California Environmental Quality Act — the same law he used as attorney general to pressure cities and counties to comply with the global warming law.

The measure requires developers to go through a lengthy public process detailing their projects' potential environmental effects and how those would be mitigated. Business groups have long complained that activists, labor unions — even corporate competitors — abuse the law by filing frivolous lawsuits to delay and kill development.

In 2011 Brown heard their call and signed bills to help a football stadium proposed for downtown Los Angeles and other major projects avoid drawn-out CEQA litigation. "There are too many damn regulations," he said at a signing ceremony.

Brown, who as Oakland mayor tried to have the city's downtown exempted from CEQA, wants to further limit environmental challenges to projects such as California's high-speed rail system.

"CEQA is the safety net for the air we breathe and the water we drink," said Kassie Siegel, a lawyer for the Center for Biological Diversity. "If CEQA exemptions are a way for people to make a quick buck, we'll all regret them in the end."

Environmental groups and the energy industry are also concerned about the administration's proposed rules for hydraulic fracturing, or "fracking," a controversial drilling process that could help unlock billions of barrels of oil buried deep in California shale.

Although recently drafted regulations would require energy companies to disclose for the first time what chemicals they pump underground to break apart rock and release crude, the proposed rules would also allow firms to claim trade secrets and withhold information they consider proprietary.

Environmentalists and public health advocates have raised safety questions over the hundreds of chemicals that are typically used — many of them known carcinogens. And they fear the trade-secret provision could undermine the presumed intent of the regulations: disclosure.

Oil companies say the technology is safe and argue that such a clause is necessary to protect their competitive advantage.

Speaking to reporters after the November election, Brown said his actions would be guided by a simple question: "Do we have the right rules in place?"

"We are going to calibrate our regulations," he said, "to ensure that they encourage jobs as well as protect other aspects of public interest such as environment, health and good working conditions."

michael.mishak@latimes.com

12.18 | 0 komentar | Read More

Lunar New Year celebrants get no rest after Western holidays

At her store in Chinatown, Tracy Tieu replaces red and green Christmas trinkets with red and gold Lunar New Year decorations as she greets shoppers fresh from Las Vegas.

A mother strokes a jade dragon leaping from a dark wood emblem. A man and his wife unfurl scrolls bearing symbols of wealth. A student buys assorted little Buddhas, lining them up by belly size.

Inside the shop, Wing Ha Hing Gifts & Arts, Asian travelers this past weekend talk about how many aunts, uncles, cousins and grandparents they expect to host at noisy family gatherings.

One new year celebration may have ended — but for many Southern Californians the bustle of preparing for the Lunar New Year continues full force, with no time for holiday fatigue.

"We can't afford it," Tieu says. "We go with the season.... I order supplies six months in advance."

At crowded shopping plazas in Los Angeles' Chinatown and Koreatown, the San Gabriel Valley and Orange County's Little Saigon, seasonal foods line bakery shelves, holiday music plays on open-air speakers and Chinese, Korean and Vietnamese consumers are spending big — yet again — on their most important annual celebration.

The Year of the Snake begins Feb. 10. Those born under this sign are believed to have a good temper and strong passion, but can be suspicious.

The Lunar New Year is a time when debts are paid, arguments are laid to rest, hair is cut and homes are painted and polished and rituals are followed to sweep away ill fortune and welcome good luck. Doors and windows are decorated with themed images of happiness, prosperity and longevity, and incense is lighted in temples to pay respect to ancestors.

In the narrow, colorful shop her father opened in 1990, Tieu is surrounded by flowers, feng shui diaries, floating lotus candles and other traditional gifts.

Regina Gomez, a Chinese American from Nevada, was one of those hunting for bargains along Chinatown's main drag Sunday. She stopped at Tieu's store to prepare for the coming festivities. "When we buy for entertainment, it's better to buy for it here. It's less," she says, browsing with her kids, Shelby and Brittany. "I came to L.A. for Christmas and knew I should take a look before going home."

On the first morning of the new year, as everyone exchanges gifts and good wishes, Tieu plans to pass out crisp dollar bills in lucky red envelopes to some 20 nieces and nephews. "I have to give each of them at least $20 – anything smaller just isn't acceptable."

"It doesn't matter what we do or how much we gave for the previous holidays," adds Angie Tieu, her younger sister. "We have to remember the Lunar New Year, it's tradition, and we must spend."

On top of the financial costs, the extended holiday season carries health costs, said Calvin Ho, founder of the Plaid Bag Connection, a blog exploring the links between Asian groups outside their ethnic homeland. "We've been eating since the Moon Festival" in September "to Halloween, to Thanksgiving to Christmas and forward. Everyone overindulges because it's impossible not to."

Ho, who doesn't eat fried foods, says "with the holidays it's really hard to avoid it."

"Everything involves family," he said. "And when you are making multiple visits to different members of family day after day, you must sit down and share a meal. I get all my cravings in and it'll last until next fall."

Visiting Chinatown with her husband on Sunday, Elisa Aquino, who is half-Chinese, said she intends to serve dim sum dishes when she invites friends and relatives to her Carson home. "We go for a bang. High impact, lots of songs, lots of jokes.... I'm not cooking. We order," she adds.

Stephanie Yuan, working a souvenir kiosk nearby, said sales are brisk post-Christmas. "We are sold out of snake lucky charms," she says proudly, noting that the item features the animal highlighted in the 2013 Chinese zodiac.

"Here, you buy this one," she tells passing tourists, pointing to an Asian version of the Cheshire cat, complete with battery-operated paw, happy face and money pouch. On its white ceramic body is the Chinese character for $1 million. "It will lead you to a good way."

Merchants like Yuan and Thanh Ly, of neighboring Tambaba Fashion, can't take Lunar New Year off. "It's the day to sell," Ly says, folding traditional dresses made in Vietnam and Hong Kong. "We would like to have a vacation but we think about our living first. Some people buy last-minute."

Kevin Vong of Fresno isn't one of those. Outside Lien Hoa BBQ, he loads his truck with a whole roast pig, costing $195, carting it to a gathering to pray for the souls of his ancestors. He does this at the end of the Western new year, then again at the Lunar New Year. "I do not forget," he says. "I want someone doing that for me later. Years later."

anh.do@latimes.com

12.18 | 0 komentar | Read More

USC's dreadful performance is perfect way to conclude imperfect season

EL PASO — A football season that once swaggered through the warmth of a No. 1 ranking has curled up and expired in a cold, remote desert, buffeted by a chilled and foreboding wind.

The kid coach is bundled in a black hoodie and wearing sunglasses. He is standing 10 yards from most of his team. He is hunched over a play card, huddled into himself, alone.

The kid quarterback is battered by the wind, perplexed by the defense and wandering the sidelines looking for comfort or instruction. He receives neither and wanders alone.

The athletic director who has said he is "150%" behind this mess is on speed dial, but he cannot be reached for comment, which could mean nothing or everything. In offering his unwavering and unconditional support of the most underachieving team in college football history, he, too, could be alone.

Happy New Year's Eve, USC football fans. Are you ready for the mother of all hangovers?

Playing a losing team from a weakened conference in a secondary bowl game Monday, the Trojans did worse than simply lose. They didn't even show up.

In a 21-7 loss to Georgia Tech, Coach Lane Kiffin was distant, quarterback Max Wittek was despairing, the defense was battered for nearly 300 rushing yards, and even their scarf-swaddled fans finally had enough. In the final minutes of the game, Trojans fans rained boos down upon Georgia Tech for having the nerve to call timeout and extend their agony.

This wasn't just one bad game; this was the end of a season filled with bad games, the last milepost in arguably the most unsightly journey ever taken by a football team in NCAA history.

The Trojans went from No. 1 in the country to out of the rankings entirely, the first time this has happened in 48 years. The Trojans went from talk of an undefeated season to six losses, including five in the last six games. The Trojans went from Hollywood to El Paso to a tiny Sun Bowl conference room in which Kiffin tried to explain it all.

"A very surprising day," he said. "Obviously, it starts with the head coach."

Many believe this should be the end of the head coach. Even though Athletic Director Pat Haden assured me on Nov. 17 that Kiffin was returning next season and that he was "150%" behind the coach, many think he could and should change his mind.

Since that statement — oddly coming on the day of the loss to UCLA — the Trojans suffered through questionable play-calling in a loss to Notre Dame and then experienced an awful week here. Georgia Tech walked out of a Sun Bowl banquet because the Trojans showed up late, two Trojans tweeted nasty things about the city of El Paso, and even a giant Trojans thank-you ad purchased for the back page of the sports section of the El Paso Times couldn't fully make amends.

Although USC claimed bowl officials knew about its late banquet arrival, and although USC players aren't the first kids to tweet dumb things, there are no easy explanations about what happened in the week's culminating event. How on earth does a Trojans team supposedly loaded with NFL prospects gain only 205 total yards against a Georgia Tech team that gave up 510 yards to Middle Tennessee State? Or have only two more first downs than punts? Or commit three turnovers, giving them 34 for the season, the most ever for a team with a winning record?

"We had two great weeks of practice. ... I thought our guys were really into it," said Kiffin, shaking his head, showing again the apparent fraying in his connection with his team.

Kiffin later said he was huddled under the hoodie because he didn't want to wear a ski cap. He also said he was wearing sunglasses to hide a tiny bandage, which he said was covering a scrape caused by some horsing around with linebacker Hayes Pullard.

"C'mon, you know that how I looked is not the reason we lost this game," he said.

But all of it contributed to the perception of a coach who is not a strong leader, which is another reason Haden could ultimately change his mind and make a change. This lack of leadership spread to his players, even quarterback Matt Barkley, who began the season as a Heisman Trophy favorite and ended it as a no-show.

Yes, Barkley's season ended when he suffered a sprained shoulder against UCLA. But where was the quarterback on the sidelines Monday when Wittek could have used his counsel? Where was any veteran to support the redshirt freshman when he was clearly lost while completing 14 of 37 passes for 107 yards with one touchdown and three interceptions? And where were the veterans at the start of the fourth quarter, with the Trojans still trailing by only a touchdown, when USC trudged down the field while the Yellow Jackets bounced and danced in unified excitement?

"I never saw this coming," said senior defensive end Wes Horton. "With the talent and coaches we had, I thought we'd have a much better record."

Statements like that, and games like this, are all damning to Kiffin's cause. But remember, the two things that Haden said he liked about Kiffin are still true. Haden said he loves Kiffin's commitment to academics, and two Trojans were sent home from El Paso for academic reasons. Haden also said he loves Kiffin's recruiting, and the Trojans are still scheduled to have one of the nation's top hauls.

"We'll sign the No. 1 class in the country and go back to work," Kiffin said.

For now, that is true, and I wouldn't be surprised if it remained true. But I also wouldn't be surprised if Haden suddenly changes his mind and changes everything. By now, all shock has been drained from college football's most stunning team, its season ending Monday in the chilliest and most desperate of climes, with an embarrassing loss that was no surprise to anybody.

bill.plaschke@latimes.com

twitter.com/billplaschke

12.18 | 0 komentar | Read More

Hillary Clinton hospitalized with blood clot after concussion

WASHINGTON -- Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton was hospitalized in New York on Sunday after doctors discovered a blood clot stemming from her concussion, the State Department said.

Clinton, 65, has been out of the public eye for the better part of December, at first because of what the State Department said was a stomach virus and later because of the concussion, which she suffered after fainting at her Washington home.

According to a spokesman, the clot was discovered in the course of a follow-up exam for the concussion at New York Presbyterian Hospital. She is being treated with anticoagulants and will remain at the hospital for the next 48 hours so doctors can monitor her response to the medication.

"Her doctors will continue to assess her condition, including other issues associated with her concussion," Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines said in a statement. "They will determine if any further action is required."

The State Department had said earlier that Clinton was set to resume her normal office schedule this week.

Earlier this month, the former first lady and New York senator had cited her concussion in canceling her scheduled appearance before a congressional committee investigating the Sept. 11 attack on a U.S. diplomatic facility in Benghazi, Libya, that left four Americans dead, including the ambassador.

A separate high-level investigative panel issued a scathing report blaming the State Department for security lapses. Clinton took responsibility, writing to the congressional committee that she  accepted "every one" of the Accountability Review Board's 29 recommendations.

She also praised the board, saying it had offered "a clear-eyed look at serious, systematic challenges that we have already begun to fix." 

Some conservatives had accused her of faking her illness to avoid testifying before the committee -- an accusation that the State Department strenuously denied. 

12.18 | 0 komentar | Read More