text:
hi INDiA Copyright 2020
Dialogue and bridge-making in the subcontinent, the Mira Nair way
New Delhi, Dec 7 (IANS) Helming "The Reluctant Fundamentalist", shot in India, Pakistan and the US, was not easy but the overall outcome is "quite beautiful", says internationally acclaimed filmmaker Mira Nair, who hopes her film will help initiate a positive dialogue between the nations.
"The Reluctant Fundamentalist", an adaptation of the 2007 eponymous bestseller by Pakistani writer Mohsin Hamid, focusses on a young Pakistani chasing corporate success in Wall Street when 9/11 shakes up his life.
Nair, an Indian filmmaker based in New York, who would very much like her film to bridge the gulf between east and west, also believes the time has come to focus on the subcontinent in a "bridge-making way".
"My father came from Lahore and we were raised in Orissa, India. But we very much spoke Urdu. I never got a chance to be there in Pakistan, so when I went there in 2004, I really got inspired to make a story about modern Pakistan," Nair told IANS over phone.
Pakistan in real is different from the Pakistan she read about.
"It is so different from what you read about it in the newspapers. That was the first inspiration. Then I read Mohsin Hamid's book three months later. The film gave me a chance to make a dialogue with America.
"I know about these places very well because I have lived half my life in the subcontinent and the other half in New York City. It is now time that we focus on the subcontinent – not in a hostile way, but in a bridge-making way. In a way which is actually a dialogue," she added.
The movie was indeed a challenge for Nair, 55.
"Firstly, the adaptation of the film was a real challenge. It took us three years to adapt the screenplay. There were financial issues. When we started shooting the film, everything suddenly fell apart, but finally we have achieved something which is quite beautiful," she said.
"It was a real challenge, but we believed in the global ambition of the film. We wanted to capture the global landscape. There were many challenges that we faced, but it was the belief that kept me going. For the first time, I did the post-production of the film in India and I would say we had a terrific family," she added.
The film — about young Changez who finds himself embroiled in a conflict between his American dream, a hostage crisis, and the enduring call of his family's homeland — received accolades at the recent International Film Festival of India (IFFI) in Goa.
It was given the first Centenary Award and presented with a Silver Peacock, a certificate and a cash prize of Rs.10 lakh at this year's IFFI.
Nair also faced challenges finding the actor to play Changez. After a year and a half of research, she finally zeroed in on Pakistani actor Rizwan Ahmed.
"Rizwan is the best of them all and is simply astounding in the film," said Nair.
However, it was difficult to take actors to Pakistan because they did not get "insurance to secure them". "We shot for four days in Pakistan and 20 days' shooting was in old Delhi."
Asked about her experience of shooting in Pakistan, Nair said: "Pakistan is very embracing and it is easy to work with the local crew."
Nair began her film career as an actor and then turned to directing acclaimed documentaries, including "So Far From India" and "India Cabaret". Her debut feature film "Salaam Bombay!" was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film in 1988.
Her other critically acclaimed films are "Mississippi Masala", "Monsoon Wedding", "The Namesake", "New York" and "I Love You".
"The Reluctant Fundamentalist" will release in Indian screens April next year, through PVR Pictures.
(Priyanka Sharma can be contacted at [email protected])


text:
I. A Broken Economy
As Barack Obama prepares to accept the Democratic nomination this week, it is clear that the economic policies of the next president are going to be hugely important. Ever since Wall Street bankers were called back from their vacations last summer to deal with the convulsions in the mortgage market, the economy has been lurching from one crisis to the next. The International Monetary Fund has described the situation as "the largest financial shock since the Great Depression." The details are too technical for most of us to understand. (They're too technical for many bankers to understand, which is part of the problem.) But the root cause is simple enough. In some fundamental ways, the American economy has stopped working.
The fact that the economy grows that it produces more goods and services one year than it did in the previous one no longer ensures that most families will benefit from its growth. For the first time on record, an economic expansion seems to have ended without family income having risen substantially. Most families are still making less, after accounting for inflation, than they were in 2000. For these workers, roughly the bottom 60 percent of the income ladder, economic growth has become a theoretical concept rather than the wellspring of better medical care, a new car, a nicer house a better life than their parents had.
Americans have still been buying such things, but they have been doing so with debt. A big chunk of that debt will never be repaid, which is the most basic explanation for the financial crisis. Even after the crisis has passed, the larger problem of income stagnation will remain. It's hardly the economy's only serious problem either. There is also the slow unraveling of the employer-based health-insurance system and the fact that, come 2011, the baby boomers will start to turn 65, setting off an enormous rise in the government's Medicare and Social Security obligations.
Most of these problems aren't immediate, which helps explain why they have gone unaddressed for so long. And the United States remains a fabulously prosperous country, relative to almost any other country, at any point in history. Yet Americans seem to realize that something has gone wrong. In recent polls, about 80 percent of respondents say the economy is in bad shape, and almost 70 percent say it's going to get worse. Together, these answers make for the most downbeat assessment since at least the early 1980s, and underscore that the next president will be inheriting a set of domestic problems as serious as any the country has faced in a long time.
John McCain's economic vision, as he has laid it out during the campaign, amounts to a slightly altered version of Republican orthodoxy, with tax cuts at the core. Obama, on the other hand, has more-detailed proposals but a less obvious ideology.
Well before this point on the presidential calendar, it's usually clear where a candidate fits within the political spectrum of his party. With Obama, there is vast disagreement about just how liberal he is, especially on the economy. My favorite example came in mid-June, shortly after Obama named Jason Furman, a protégé of Robert Rubin, the centrist former Treasury secretary, as his lead economic adviser. Labor leaders recoiled, and John Sweeney, the head of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., worried aloud about "corporate influence on the Democratic Party." Then, the following week, Kimberley Strassel, a member of The Wall Street Journal editorial board, wrote a column titled, "Farewell, New Democrats," concluding that Obama's economic policies amounted to the end of Clintonian centrism and a reversion to old liberal ways.
Some of the confusion stems from Obama's own strategy of presenting himself as a postpartisan figure. A few weeks ago, I joined him on a flight from Orlando to Chicago and began our conversation by asking about his economic approach. He started to answer, but then interrupted himself. "My core economic theory is pragmatism," he said, "figuring out what works."
This, of course, is not the whole story. Invoking pragmatism doesn't help the average voter much; ideology, though it often gets a bad name, matters, because it offers insight into how a candidate might actually behave as president. I have spent much of this year trying to get a handle on what is sometimes called Obamanomics and have come away thinking that Obama does have an economic ideology. It's just not a completely familiar one. Depending on how you look at it, he is both more left-wing and more right-wing than many people realize.
II. A New Democratic Consensus, of Sorts
To understand where Obama stands, you first have to know that, for 15 years, Democratic Party economics have been defined by a struggle that took place during the start of the Clinton administration. It was the battle of the Bobs. On one side was Clinton's labor secretary and longtime friend, Bob Reich, who argued that the government should invest in roads, bridges, worker training and the like to stimulate the economy and help the middle class. On the other side was Bob Rubin, a former Goldman Sachs executive turned White House aide, who favored reducing the deficit to soothe the bond market, bring down interest rates and get the economy moving again. Clinton cast his lot with Rubin, and to this day the first question about any Democrat's economic outlook is often where his heart lies, with Reich or Rubin, the left or the center, the government or the market.
Obama has obviously studied this debate, and early on during the flight to Chicago, he told me a story about Reich and Rubin. The previous week, Obama convened a discussion with a high-powered group of economists and chief executives. He was sitting at a conference table, with Rubin two seats to his left and Reich across from him. "One of the points I raised," Obama told me, "is if you just use you, Bob, and you, Bob, as caricatures, the truth is, both of you acknowledge the world is more complicated." By this, Obama didn't simply mean that their views were more nuanced than many outsiders understood. He meant that both have come to acknowledge that the other man is, in part, correct. The two now occupy more similar ideological places than they did in 1993. The battle of the Bobs may not be completely over, but it has certainly been suspended.
Among the policy experts and economists who make up the Democratic government-in-waiting, there is now something of a consensus. They agree that deficit reduction did an enormous amount of good. It helped usher in the 1990s boom and the only period of strong, broad-based income growth in a generation. But that boom also depended on a technology bubble and historically low oil prices. In the current decade, the economy has continued to grow at a decent pace, yet most families have seen little benefit. Instead, the benefits have flowed mostly to a small slice of workers at the very top of the income distribution. As Rubin told me, comparing the current moment with 1993, "The distributional issues are obviously more serious now." From today's vantage point, inequality looks likes a bigger problem than economic growth; fiscal discipline seems necessary but not sufficient.
In practical terms, the new consensus means that the policies of an Obama administration would differ from those of the Clinton administration, but not primarily because of differences between the two men. "The economy has changed in the last 15 years, and our understanding of economic policy has changed as well," Furman says. "And that means that what was appropriate in 1993 is no longer appropriate." Obama's agenda starts not with raising taxes to reduce the deficit, as Clinton's ended up doing, but with changing the tax code so that families making more than $250,000 a year pay more taxes and nearly everyone else pays less. That would begin to address inequality. Then there would be Reich-like investments in alternative energy, physical infrastructure and such, meant both to create middle-class jobs and to address long-term problems like global warming.
All of this raises the question of what will happen to the deficit. Obama's aides optimistically insist he will reduce it, thanks to his tax increases on the affluent and his plan to wind down the Iraq war. Relative to McCain, whose promised spending cuts are extremely vague, Obama does indeed look like a fiscal conservative. But the larger point is that the immediate deficit isn't as big as it was in 1992. Then, it was equal to 4.7 percent of gross domestic product. Right now it's about 2.5 percent.
During our conversation, Obama made it clear that he considered the deficit to be only one of the long-term problems requiring immediate attention, and he sounded more worried about the others, like global warming, health care and the economic hangover that could follow the housing bust. Tellingly, he said that while he admired what Clinton did, he might have been more open to Reich's argument even in 1993. "I still would have probably made a slightly different choice than Clinton did," Obama said. "I probably wouldn't have been as obsessed with deficit reduction."
The new Democratic consensus isn't complete, obviously. Labor unions, in particular, would prefer more trade barriers than many other Democrats. During the primaries Obama nodded, and at times pandered, in this direction. Since then, he has disavowed that rhetoric, to almost no one's surprise. Yet his zig-zagging on the issue did highlight the biggest weak spot in his, and his party's, economic agenda. He still hasn't quite figured out how to sell it. For all his skills as a storyteller and a speaker, he has not settled on a compelling message about how to put the economy on the right path.
The lack of such a message has contributed to several of his worst moments over the last year. Most recently, the campaign has come out with a series of small-bore, populist energy plans a windfall-profits tax on oil companies, a crackdown on speculators, a partial opening of the strategic oil reserve that seem more political than economic. The most glaring misstep on this score was his comment this spring about bitter rural voters clinging to guns and religion. It was, in effect, an admission that his own message about the economy hadn't yet broken through.
III. A 'University of Chicago' Democrat
Starting in the early 1990s, Obama spent 12 years at the University of Chicago, mostly as a senior lecturer on constitutional law. It was a part-time job that helped him make money while he began to build his political career. But it also happened to place him inside what is arguably the intellectual center of modern American economic conservatism, the home of Milton Friedman and the laissez-faire philosophy known as the Chicago School of economics. By all accounts, Obama didn't spend much time with Friedman's disciples at the law school. Instead, he became friendly with another crowd: liberals who had come to think that Friedman was right about a lot, just not everything.
The Chicago School believes that markets that is, millions of individuals making separate decisions almost always function better than economies that are managed by governments. In a market system, prices adjust whenever there is a shortage or a glut, and the problem soon resolves itself. Just as important, companies constantly compete with each other, which helps bring down prices, improves the quality of goods and ultimately lifts living standards.
In its more extreme forms, the Chicago School's ideas have some obvious flaws. History has shown that free markets aren't so good at, say, preventing pollution or the issuance of fantastically unrealistic mortgages. But over the last few decades, as Europe's regulated economies have struggled and Asia's move toward capitalism has spurred its fabulous boom, many liberals have also come to appreciate the virtues of markets.
One of these liberals is Cass Sunstein, a prolific law professor who sometimes ate with Obama in the open, sunlit cafeteria off the lobby of the main building at Chicago's law school. Over sandwiches in that cafeteria this spring, Sunstein told me that he didn't think that Obama arrived at the law school as an old-style liberal or departed as anything like a Friedmanite. Yet Sunstein and other former Chicago colleagues I spoke with said they believed that Chicago had helped give Obama an intellectual framework for his instincts, at the least, and probably made him come to appreciate markets more.
Obama, when I asked him, agreed that his years surrounded by Chicago School thinking affected him. He tends to assign his motives to more intimate narratives, though, and he said that his grandmother, a high-school graduate who rose to become the vice president of a bank and was the family's main breadwinner, had the biggest impact. "She had to think very practically about, How do you make money?" he told me. "How does the system work? That led me to have an orientation to ask hardheaded questions. During my formative years, there was still ideological competition between a social-democratic or even socialist agenda and a free-market, Milton Friedman agenda. I think it was natural for me to ask questions of both sides and maybe try to synthesize approaches."
There is plenty of evidence that this synthesis isn't merely a part of a candidate's inevitable tack to the center for a general election. In Obama's memoir, "Dreams From My Father," he sympathetically recounts a conversation he had with a Kenyan farmer, in which the man complains both about rich people who won't pay their fair share of taxes and about burdensome government regulations on coffee growing. In Obama's second book, "The Audacity of Hope," he goes further: "Reagan's central insight that the liberal welfare state had grown complacent and overly bureaucratic, with Democratic policy makers more obsessed with slicing the economic pie than with growing that pie contained a good deal of truth."
The partial embrace of Reaganomics is a typical bit of Obama's postpartisan veneer. In a single artful sentence, he dismissed the old liberals, aligned himself with the Bill Clinton centrists and did so by reaching back to a conservative icon who remains widely popular. But the words have significance at face value too. Compared with many other Democrats, Obama simply is more comfortable with the apparent successes of laissez-faire economics.
Sunstein, now on the faculty at Harvard, has a name for this approach: "I like to think of him as a 'University of Chicago' Democrat."
It's a useful label. Today's Democratic consensus has moved the party to the left, and on issues like inequality and climate change, Obama appears willing to be even more aggressive than many fellow Democrats. From this standpoint, he's a true liberal. Yet he also says he believes that there are significant parts of Reaganism worth preserving. So his policies often involve setting up a government program to address a market failure but then trying to harness the power of the market within that program. This, at times, makes him look like a conservative Democrat.
From the beginning, Obama has sought out academic economists, rather than lawyers or former White House aides. His first economic adviser, Austan Goolsbee, is a young University of Chicago professor who shares Obama's market-oriented Democratic views. This summer, Obama added Furman, who has a more traditional background, having worked for both the Clinton administration and the Kerry campaign. But he, too, has a Ph.D. in economics, from Harvard.
As anyone who has spent time with Obama knows, he likes experts, and his choice of advisers stems in part from his interest in empirical research. (James Heckman, a Nobel laureate who critiqued the campaign's education plan at Goolsbee's request, said, "I've never worked with a campaign that was more interested in what the research shows.") By surrounding himself with economists, however, Obama was also making a decision with ideological consequences. Far more than many other policy advisers, economists believe in the power of markets. What tends to distinguish Democratic economists is that they set out to uncover imperfections of the market and then come up with incremental, market-based solutions to these imperfections. This helps explain the Obama campaign's interest in behavioral economics, a relatively new field that has pointed out many ways in which people make irrational, short-term decisions. To deal with one example of such myopia, Obama would require companies to automatically set aside a portion of their workers' salary in a 401(k) plan. Any worker could override the decision and save nothing at all or save even more but the default would be to save.
A more controversial version of Obama's market friendliness came from his health-care proposal, which, unlike Hillary Clinton's, would not mandate that people have health insurance. Like other Democrats, he was pushing for a big government program to deal with what he saw as market failures in health care and to bring down the price of insurance. Once the program was in place, though, he trusted a market of individuals to make its own decisions; once the government had subsidized health insurance, he thought the vast majority of the uninsured would sign up.
There are similar strains in Obama's proposals on housing and education, and it's worth remembering that these all came out before he was the presumptive nominee. The best example of his approach, however, may be his climate policy. By last year, Democrats in Congress essentially agreed that to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, the government should place a nationwide cap on these emissions and then issue tradable permits giving companies the right to produce them (thus the term "cap and trade"). Most Congressional bills envisioned giving away many of the permits to power companies. Economists, by and large, considered this giveaway to be the worst part of the plan. It would require Congress to decide how many free permits each company should get and would set off a frenzy of corporate lobbying.
The alternative was to auction off the permits to let the market set their value. "If you don't auction 100 percent of the permits," Goolsbee told me, "this could be one of the biggest pieces of corporate welfare ever." With Congress making the decisions, the power companies with the best political connections might get the permits. With a full auction, the permits would end up with companies willing to make the highest bids. Presumably, these would be the most efficient companies, the ones able to produce the most energy (and profits) for a given amount of greenhouse-gas pollution.
The auctions would have another big advantage too. They would raise billions of dollars for the government, money that could then be returned to taxpayers to offset the higher energy prices created by the emissions cap.
It seems likely that a President Obama would sign a cap-and-trade bill even if it did give away some permits. But candidate Obama has at least moved the debate toward a more pro-market solution.
IV. The End of the Age of Reagan?
"The market is the best mechanism ever invented for efficiently allocating resources to maximize production," Obama told me. "And I also think that there is a connection between the freedom of the marketplace and freedom more generally." But, he continued, "there are certain things the market doesn't automatically do." In other words, free-market policy isn't likely to dominate his agenda; his project would be fixing the market.
And it does seem to need fixing. For three decades now, the American economy has been in what the historian Sean Wilentz calls the Age of Reagan. The government has deregulated industries, opened the economy more to market forces and, above all, cut income taxes. Much good has come of this the end of 1970s stagflation, infrequent and relatively mild recessions, faster growth than that of the more regulated economies of Europe. Yet laissez-faire capitalism hasn't delivered nearly what its proponents promised. It has created big budget deficits, the most pronounced income inequality since the 1920s and the current financial crisis. As Lawrence Summers, the former Treasury secretary and Rubin ally from the Clinton administration, says: "We've probably done a better job of the last 20 years on the problems the market can solve than the problems the market can't solve. We're doing pretty well on the size of people's houses and televisions and the like. We're not looking so good on infrastructure and education."
The closest thing to an Obama doctrine on market regulation was a speech he gave in March at Cooper Union in New York, called "Renewing the American Economy." It included his usual praise of market forces, and his prescriptions for regulating the financial system were mostly mainstream Democratic fare, like tougher penalties for loan fraud, tighter rules and closer oversight for Wall Street. These steps might or might not prevent the next crisis, but they would certainly place a bigger emphasis on trying to do so. And the speech, if anything, probably placed Obama on the more aggressively liberal side of the Democratic platform. Afterward, Robert Kuttner, an unabashedly left-leaning Democrat, praised Obama for going "well beyond the current Democratic Party consensus."
Shortly before Obama's speech, the Federal Reserve made emergency loans to investment banks that hadn't officially been under its supervision. Obama argued that, going forward, the Fed had to be given permanent oversight of any such institutions, because their executives would henceforth assume that the government would come to their rescue. If taxpayers were going to be on the hook for those banks when they failed, he suggested, the government should have the chance to minimize the risk of failure. (Since March, Fed officials themselves have inched toward a similar position.)
There is, plainly, a big potential conflict between the University of Chicago side of Obama and the regulator side. A regulation that sounds sensible today can end up having nasty unintended consequences. But in Obama's view, the risks to market-based capitalism now have more to do with too little regulation than too much. He can sound almost righteous on this point. He talked to me about the need for a moral element to capitalism and said that the crony capitalism of recent years should be the nightmare of any market-loving economist. At times, this part of his message can seem to overwhelm his respect for the market. Obama's aides have justified his proposed windfall-profits tax on oil companies, for example, by saying that it makes up for the unjustifiable tax breaks the energy industry has received in the past. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a tax targeted at a specific industry, which, as some economists have pointed out, is just the sort of tinkering that the Chicago School detests.
V. Spreading the Wealth
The most tangible way that today's economy feels unfair is the lack of real income growth for most families. Earlier this year, when I interviewed Obama during the primaries, he was careful to say that he didn't think President Bush deserved all that much blame for the stagnant incomes of the current decade. Income growth for most families began to slow in the 1970s, and the causes of the great pay slowdown were complex. Obama didn't name them all, but a decent list would look something like this: new technologies that have made some blue-collar work obsolete; a slowing in the nation's educational attainment; the shriveling of labor unions; the increase in one-parent families, which are far less economically secure; and the rise of other countries that have huge low-wage work forces.
What Obama blamed the current administration for, he said, was aggravating these trends with the tax code. To a large extent, Obama's own economic agenda revolves around reversing Bush's tax policies and then going a bit further in the other direction. Here, more than in his regulatory approach, Obama stands on the left side of the Democratic Party, but not exactly in the traditional tax-and-spend ways.
It's helpful to start with a little history. When Reagan was elected, in 1980, tax rates on top incomes were so high that even liberal economists now say the economy was suffering. There simply wasn't enough of an incentive for rich people to start new companies or expand existing ones, because so much of their profits would have gone to the federal government. Someone making the equivalent of $5 million in 1980 in inflation-adjusted terms would have paid a combined federal tax rate of almost 60 percent, according to research by Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty, two academic economists. (These calculations cover not only income taxes but also payroll taxes, capital-gains taxes and others.) Reagan, by the end of his second term, had cut this rate to about 35 percent. Clinton raised it above 40 percent, but the current President Bush has reduced it to 34 percent. So over the same period that the rich have been getting much richer before taxes, their tax rates have also been falling far faster than the rates of any other income group.
Dating back to Reagan, Republicans have packaged tax cuts on high earners with more modest middle-class tax cuts and then maneuvered the Democrats into an unwinnable choice: are you for tax cuts or against them? Obama, however, argues that this is the moment when the politics of taxes can be changed.
To do this, he is proposing tax cuts for most families that are significantly larger than those McCain is offering, along with major tax increases for families making more than $250,000 a year. "That's essentially a major part of our economic plan," Obama said. "But it's also a political message." Economically, he is trying to use the tax code to spread the bounty from the market-based American economy to a far wider group of families. Politically, he is trying to drive a wedge through the great Reagan tax gambit.
The Tax Policy Center, a research group run by the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, has done the most detailed analysis of the Obama and McCain tax plans, and it has published a series of fascinating tables. For the bottom 80 percent of the population those households making $118,000 or less McCain's various tax cuts would mean a net savings of about $200 a year on average. Obama's proposals would bring $900 a year in savings. So for most people, Obama is the tax cutter in this campaign.
If there is a theme to the Obama tax philosophy, it's that the tax code is not quite as progressive as you think it is. Most of the public discussion about taxes tends to focus on the income tax, which taxes the affluent at a considerably higher rate than anyone else. But the income tax doesn't take the biggest bite out of most families' annual tax bill. The payroll tax does. And even as the federal government has been reducing income taxes over the last few decades, it has allowed the payroll tax, which finances Social Security and Medicare, to creep up. That's a big reason that overall tax rates for the bottom 80 percent of earners have not fallen as much as rates for the affluent.
Obama's second-most-expensive proposal, after his health-care plan, is the equivalent of a $500 cut in the payroll tax for most workers. (It is actually a credit that is applied toward income taxes based on payroll taxes paid.) In a speech this month in Florida, he proposed that the cut take effect immediately, in the form of a rebate, to stimulate the economy. For most workers, it would be the first significant cut in the payroll tax in decades, if not ever.
The other way that he would cut taxes involves a series of technicalities. But since the campaign began, Goolsbee has been arguing that those technicalities offer one of the best glimpses of how Obama thinks about the tax code. Right now, several big tax breaks that sound broad-based like those for child care and mortgage interest don't always benefit middle-income and lower-income families. Another example is the Hope Credit for college tuition, a creation of the Clinton administration. Obama wants to more than double the credit, to $4,000. More to the point, he would make it "fully refundable." As a result, a family with an income-tax bill of $3,000 wouldn't merely have that bill eliminated; it would also receive a $1,000 check. Increasingly, the income-tax system becomes a way to transfer money to poor families.
All told, Obama would not only cut taxes for most people more than McCain would. He would cut them more than Bill Clinton did and more than Hillary Clinton proposed doing. These tax cuts are really the essence of his market-oriented redistributionist philosophy (though he made it clear that he doesn't like the word "redistributionist"). They are an attempt to address the middle-class squeeze by giving people a chunk of money to spend as they see fit.
He would then pay for the cuts, at least in part, by raising taxes on the affluent to a point where they would eventually be slightly higher than they were under Clinton. For these upper-income families, the Tax Policy Center's comparisons with McCain are even starker. McCain, by continuing the basic thrust of Bush's tax policies and adding a few new wrinkles, would cut taxes for the top 0.1 percent of earners those making an average of $9.1 million by another $190,000 a year, on top of the Bush reductions. Obama would raise taxes on this top 0.1 percent by an average of $800,000 a year.
It's hard not to look at that figure and be a little stunned. It would represent a huge tax increase on the wealthy families. But it's also worth putting the number in some context. The bulk of Obama's tax increases on the wealthy about $500,000 of that $800,000 would simply take away Bush's tax cuts. The remaining $300,000 wouldn't nearly reverse their pretax income gains in recent years. Since the mid-1990s, their inflation-adjusted pretax income has roughly doubled.
To put it another way, the wealthy have done so well over the past few decades, with their incomes soaring and tax rates plummeting, that Obama's plan would not come close to erasing their gains. The same would be true of households making a few hundred thousand dollars a year (who have gotten smaller raises than the very rich but would also face smaller tax increases). As ambitious as Obama's proposals might be, they would still leave the gap between the rich and everyone else far wider than it was 15 or 30 years ago. It just wouldn't be quite as wide as it is now.
VI. Is He a European-Model Neoliberal?
Even some Republicans have started to wonder whether the Reagan strategy on taxes has run its course. Earlier this year, two young conservative writers, Ross Douthat and Reihan Salam, came out with a book called "Grand New Party." Their basic thesis is that the Republican Party, for all its successes over the past generation, has failed to cement its majority because of economics. If the party's agenda continues to revolve around tax cuts that mostly benefit the well off, the book argues, Republicans risk allowing a generation-long Democratic majority, like the kind that ruled the country from F.D.R. to L.B.J. To avoid this outcome, the authors offer an agenda of what they call Sam's Club Republicanism, focused on the working class.
For now, the people running the party, be they in the Bush administration or the McCain campaign, evidently do not share this concern. They have responded to Obama's tax proposals with the same kind of attacks that the party has been using since the 1980s. First, they have argued that Obama's tax increases would end up hitting every income group. Strictly speaking, this is true. Obama's increase on the corporate income tax would ultimately fall on all stockholders, even poor ones. In practical terms, though, most families own little enough stock that the other features of the tax plan would matter far, far more. That's why the Tax Policy Center numbers, which include the corporate tax increase, come out as they do.
The second criticism is that Obama's tax increases would send an already-weak economy into a tailspin. The problem with this argument is that it's been made before, fairly recently, and it proved to be spectacularly wrong. When Bill Clinton raised taxes on upper-income families in 1993, his supply-side critics insisted that he would ruin the economy. As we now know, Clinton presided over the longest economic expansion on record, the fastest income growth most workers had experienced in a generation and the disappearance of the federal-budget deficit. His successor, Bush, then did exactly what the supply-siders wanted, cutting upper-income tax rates, and the results were much worse. Economic growth wasn't quite as strong or nearly as widespread, and the deficit returned. At the very least, Clinton's increases did no discernible economic damage. Rubin, citing academic work on tax rates, made the case to me that rates under an Obama administration would not be nearly high enough to stifle innovation.
There is, however, a more philosophical critique of Obama's tax policies. It's one that Douthat and Salam make in "Grand New Party." The book doesn't mention Obama by name, but it contains one of the best summaries of his economic policy that I have read. The authors describe a new-model liberal consensus that weds "the free-market centrism of the Clinton years to a revived push for European-style social democracy." This neoliberalism, as they call it, wouldn't involve the big-government programs of the postwar years, but the government would come to play a larger role in the economy and would redistribute much more income from the rich to everyone else. "This is, in many respects, a deeply un-American solution to the problems facing our country," the authors write, "one that would emphasize dependence over self-sufficiency and bureaucratic condescension over self-help."
Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former head of the Congressional Budget Office who has been advising McCain since the primaries, made a more specific version of this same point to me. Since Social Security was founded, its benefits have been based on the amount of payroll taxes that an individual worker paid over his or her lifetime. The system is progressive, in that the rich contribute more than the poor and do not get out everything they put in. But Obama would make it vastly more progressive. Currently, only income up to $102,000 is subject to the tax. After a decade, he would leave income between $102,000 and $250,000 untaxed, but would begin taxing income above that. The people paying this new tax probably would not get any additional retirement benefits in return. "As a political matter," Holtz-Eakin argued, "it reveals a lack of judgment." A program with almost unrivaled political support, he added, could turn into yet another government transfer program.
During my recent conversation with Obama, he mentioned Sam's Club Republicanism in a different context, and I asked him if he had read "Grand New Party." He hadn't, he said, so I read him the line about dependence and condescension and asked for his reaction.
He said it made him think of Warren Buffett, an Obama supporter, who, if anything, might argue that he wasn't going far enough to change the tax code. "If you talk to Warren, he'll tell you his preference is not to meddle in the economy at all let the market work, however way it's going to work, and then just tax the heck out of people at the end and just redistribute it," Obama said. "That way you're not impeding efficiency, and you're achieving equity on the back end." He continued by saying that he thought there was some merit in Buffett's argument. But, he said: "I do think that what the argument may miss is the sense of control that we want individuals to have in determining their own career paths, making their own life choices and so forth. And I also think you want to instill that sense of self-reliance and that what you do will help determine outcomes."
VII. The New New Deal
Last summer, just before a highway bridge in Minneapolis collapsed, Obama was meeting with a small group of economists. At one point, according to several people who were at the meeting, Obama said he agreed that blue-collar workers were struggling primarily because their skills weren't as much in demand as they used to be. Technology has remade the economy, and education and retraining were the best ways for workers to keep up. But any public-policy response couldn't be about just education; it also had to take account of the psychology of the workplace, Obama continued. Some laid-off steelworkers might indeed be able to go back to school to become health-care workers. But many of them don't want to work in health care or any service job. Factory workers, he said, want to make something. It's part of their identity.
From there, Obama moved the conversation toward a discussion of how the government could improve the nation's infrastructure its backbone of bridges, roads, tunnels, airports and the like, much of which has seen better days. Since the dawn of the Age of Reagan, the idea that government spending can be a good thing for the economy has been out of favor, even among Democrats. But it's now making something of a comeback, particularly within Obama's camp. His agenda calls for about $50 billion in new annual spending on various investments, including infrastructure, alternative energy and scientific research. (To put that in perspective, the cut in the payroll tax would cost about $70 billion a year.)
These investments might pay off in all sorts of ways. They are a classic form of stimulus that could help the economy emerge from the housing hangover. They would provide jobs for former factory workers and others without college degrees, many of whom have struggled over the past generation, and for whom the current home-building slump has been yet another blow. Above all, the investments would have the potential to pay big long-term dividends, in the form of a national economy that operated more smoothly.
I came to think of this part of Obama's agenda as the Virginia model, thanks to Tim Kaine, Virginia's governor, who was one of the first Democrats to endorse Obama. Last year, Kaine began making the case to Goolsbee that the campaign should view Virginia as a model for the rest of the country. In just a few decades, the state has managed to transform itself in precisely the way that economists think the United States now must to a higher-wage economy with a more-educated population, a place that has prospered even while losing many of its old-line manufacturing jobs. And it did so with a crucial shove from the government.
For much of the 20th century, Virginia was a poor state, but after World War II, with the cold war under way and the military growing, well-paying defense contractors began to sprout up around the Pentagon, in northern Virginia. By the 1970s, Darpa, the Pentagon's research arm, began working on a computer network, which soon spawned a new form of communication: electronic mail. That computer system eventually became the Internet, and Northern Virginia suddenly had the beginnings of a brand-new industry. In recent decades, Virginia has also invested money in the port near Norfolk and has vastly expanded its colleges and universities. Today the state's per-capita income is 7 percent higher than the national average.
The trick for someone trying to replicate Virginia's success is figuring out which investments to make. As any Chicago School economist would remind you, the federal government has made its share of mistakes in this area, a recent example being subsidies for ethanol, which Obama, a farm-state senator, has championed and McCain has opposed. But Obama at least seems to have learned one lesson from the experience: His proposed new infrastructure spending would be overseen by a bipartisan board of unelected officials, rather than members of Congress.
More important, perhaps, is the fact that a single success, like the Internet or the Interstate highway system, can make up for a lot of failures. Jason Grumet, a Washington lawyer who is the Obama campaign's lead environmental adviser, made this point to me after I asked him why anyone should have confidence in the government's ability to pick winners. "We all talk about Apollo 11, but there were some pretty public, pretty awful failures along the way," Grumet said. "The United States didn't say: 'Well, we had some failures. We're going to give up getting to the moon.' "
VIII. Lots of Beef, Shortage of Message
When Obama gives a speech about his economic plan, there is often a moment when you can sense him shift from poetry to prose. He can be inspiring when talking about how the country ended up being the envy of the world. But when he comes to the part about what he wants to do next, how he wants to keep America the envy of the world, it can sound a little like a State of the Union laundry list.
His advisers are divided about how much of a problem this is. Some of them told me that he did have a unifying theme the middle-class squeeze and that it would become clearer to voters as they began paying closer attention to the race. Others said they didn't think Obama had yet come up with a simple way to explain how he would alleviate that squeeze. Obama himself seems well aware of the stakes. In 2005, on a call-in public-radio show, he told a listener that Democrats hadn't been as effective in telling a story about the country as Republicans. In the end, he said, people voted not for a hodgepodge of position papers but for someone who could explain to them where the country should be going.
So I asked Obama whether he thought he had been able to tell an effective story about the economy during this campaign. Specifically, I wondered, did he think he had a message that compared with Reagan's simple call for less government and lower taxes.
He paused for a few seconds and then said this:
"I think I can tell a pretty simple story. Ronald Reagan ushered in an era that reasserted the marketplace and freedom. He made people aware of the cost involved of government regulation or at least a command-and-control-style regulation regime. Bill Clinton to some extent continued that pattern, although he may have smoothed out the edges of it. And George Bush took Ronald Reagan's insight and ran it over a cliff. And so I think the simple way of telling the story is that when Bill Clinton said the era of big government is over, he wasn't arguing for an era of no government. So what we need to bring about is the end of the era of unresponsive and inefficient government and short-term thinking in government, so that the government is laying the groundwork, the framework, the foundation for the market to operate effectively and for every single individual to be able to be connected with that market and to succeed in that market. And it's now a global marketplace.
"Now, that's the story. Now, telling it elegantly 'low taxes, smaller government' the way the Republicans have, I think is more of a challenge."
Even if Obama does figure out how to meet the challenge well enough to get elected, there are any number of ways in which his plans could fail. He has never run any government entity no state, no city, not even a municipal agency and he may not prove to be good at doing so. The economy could deteriorate further, leaving him with a Clinton-like choice between manageable deficits and direct help for the middle class. Or maybe the many economists who like his agenda are simply wrong. Maybe his health-care program won't bring down costs. Maybe the Virginia model won't work for the rest of the country.
But it's not entirely clear what the alternative is, at least in the broad sense and at least for the time being. A much more left-wing agenda than Obama's would consist of erecting new trade barriers, reregulating various industries and otherwise getting the government even more involved in the economy than Obama would. This program has the dubious distinction of being disliked by both voters and experts alike. Populism hasn't won a national election, or even the Democratic nomination, in decades, and economists can point to any number of ways why it wouldn't work anyway.
Republicans, on the other hand, have an economic strategy that may still sell politically. But is there much reason to think that it would lead to a very different result from Bush's? There have now been two presidents in the last 30 years Bush and Reagan who cut taxes and promised that deficits would not follow. But the deficits did come, and they went away only after two other presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton raised taxes. It also seems fairly clear by now that tax cuts for the affluent do not necessarily trickle down to everyone else.
For Democrats who want to think the worst about their opponents, McCain's reliance on these ideas may be affirming. But it's really a shame. For the time being, only one party is applying the lessons of history to the country's biggest economic problems. There is no great battle of new ideas, and that can't make it more likely that those problems will be solved.
Shortly after I boarded Obama's campaign plane this month, one of his press aides warned me that the conversation might not last long. She explained that he was exhausted from two days of campaigning in Florida and might decide to nap as soon as he got on the plane. But a few minutes later he summoned me to the plane's first-class section, evidently choosing an economics discussion over a DVD of "Mad Men," which was sitting on his side table. His eyes were tired, and he looked a good deal older than he had only four years ago, on the night that he became famous at the 2004 Democratic convention. But we ended up talking for an hour. After I returned to my seat, the press aide walked back to tell me that Obama had more to say.
"Two things," he said, as we were standing outside the first-class bathroom. "One, just because I think it really captures where I was going with the whole issue of balancing market sensibilities with moral sentiment. One of my favorite quotes is you know that famous Robert F. Kennedy quote about the measure of our G.D.P.?"
I didn't, I said.
"Well, I'll send it to you, because it's one of the most beautiful of his speeches," Obama said.
In it, Kennedy argues that a country's health can't be measured simply by its economic output. That output, he said, "counts special locks for our doors and the jails for those who break them" but not "the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play."
The second point Obama wanted to make was about sustainability. The current concerns about the state of the planet, he said, required something of a paradigm shift for economics. If we don't make serious changes soon, probably in the next 10 or 15 years, we may find that it's too late.
Both of these points, I realized later, were close cousins of two of the weaker arguments that liberals have made in recent decades. Liberals have at times dismissed the enormous benefits that come with prosperity. And for decades some liberals have been wrongly predicting that economic growth was sure to leave the world without enough food or enough oil or enough something. Obama acknowledged as much, saying that technology had thus far always overcome any concerns about sustainability and that Kennedy's notion had to be tempered with an appreciation of prosperity.
What's new about the current moment, however, is that both of these arguments are actually starting to look relevant. Based on the collective wisdom of scientists, global warming really does seem to be different from any previous environmental crisis. For the first time on record, meanwhile, economic growth has not translated into better living standards for most Americans. These are two enormous challenges that are part of the legacy of the Reagan Age. They will be waiting for the next president, whether he is Obama or McCain, and they'll probably be around for another couple of presidents too.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Community Alternatives for Love and Limits (CALL): A community-based family strengthening multi-family intervention program to respond to adolescents at risk
Keywords: Empowerment, multi-family intervention, family strengthening, adolescents at risk
AbstractFamily strengthening has become a source of growing interest, research, and program design in the fields of prevention and treatment for problems of youth delinquency, school failure, alcohol, tobacco and other drug abuse (ATOD). Despite many studies that illustrate the positive outcomes of family strengthening programs and family-focused interventions, their use in communities has not advanced commensurate with their promise. This article offers a rationale for why programming efforts should continue to be directed towards family strengthening efforts as opposed to youth-focused only interventions. In addition, a community-based, family-strengthening alternative is described that addresses issues of youth delinquency while reducing barriers associated with availability, accessibility, and cost.
Copyright to works published in Advances in Social Work is retained by the author(s).


text:
Your Basket
Your basket is empty.
Coronavirus: Our latest delivery information - Click Here
100% Secure Online Ordering
Home > West Sussex > 5 florists in "Bognor Regis" > Fleur-de-lis > Products > Love Is...
54 London Road,
Bognor Regis,
West Sussex, PO21 1PU, UK
out of 5
based on 98 user ratings
(98 reviews) 98.27% positive
Very good service and my sister said the flowers were beautiful. And fresh
5 / 5
Beryl 4th Jun
thank you so much for a swift delivery. the flowers are beautiful and perfect my friend would have loved them this has meant a great deal to me especially living so far away.
Michelle 4th Jun
"Stunningly beautiful" was the response from my friend for the flowers that arrived on her birthday yesterday. They were delivered on my requested date despite the present difficulties - thank you.. I have used you before so was confident that this display would also be "very suitable". Thank you so much. I look forward to using your services again Gillian Noon.
Gillian 4th Jun
Very happy with service
Stephen 4th Jun
Was very happy with the bouquet???s appearance and prompt delivery I Hope the flowers last well Thankyou
Kathryn 4th Jun
Really speedy delivery and gorgeous flowers They look stunning for a special birthday present - thank you so much Damson in Bloom
Claire 4th Jun
Great service and lovely flowers
Neil 4th Jun
Excellent service,recipient delighted.Would definitely use again.
Susan 4th Jun
Thank you again, Sallys Florist from Lydney! It arrived on time, was beautifully fresh and recipient delighted. Couldn't ask for more! Sue
Susan 3rd Jun
Flowers delivered promptly this morning and a photo of the flowers sent to me showed were they beautifully arranged, my mum was thrilled with them. Thank you Jeans Flowers, will definitely use you again.
Rose 3rd Jun
Thank you, beautiful display delivered on time - thank you
David 3rd Jun
Beautiful flowers one very happy wife
Thanks will use again A***
Matthew 3rd Jun
Superb service in trying times
Great service beautiful flowers & delivered on day requested. Very happy recipient. Thankyou.
Pamela 3rd Jun
Lovely flowers delivered with immaculate timing.
Michael 3rd Jun
Excellent service. Beautiful flowers
Hazel 3rd Jun
Prompt service. Will definitely use again. Thank you.
Angela 3rd Jun
Excellent flowers delivered on time.
Jonathan 3rd Jun
Excellent service and recipient was delighted with the colour and arrangement of flowers
Will defiantly use your service again
Maureen 3rd Jun
Beautiful flowers Thankyou
Ronald 3rd Jun
Dear Customer, Thank you for supporting our independent florists who are operating contact-free deliveries. Due to the disruption of flower supplies into the UK, flower delivery dates cannot be guaranteed, but our florists will try their very best to fulfil your preferred date. To ensure best value and quality, orders are accepted on the basis of FLORIST CHOICE which enables the florist to substitute individual flowers and containers when necessary in order to complete the delivery and make your gift really special.
A beautiful arrangement of red roses, with complementary flowers and foliage. Surprise them today with this delightful little treat.
Same day delivery when you order before 2pm. Please note: the gift bag may vary from the one pictured.
NOTE! The florist may substitute individual flowers at their discretion.
54 London Road,
Bognor Regis, PO21 1PU
Change Postcode


text:
Current Location:GlobalChange Location
Home > Sectors > Fast Moving Consumer Goods
Fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) or consumer packaged goods (CPG) are low-cost products that are sold quickly, replaced, or fully used within a year, usually in a matter of days, weeks, or months, i.e. soft drinks, toiletries, and grocery items.
Our sector-focused team delivers expert insight into best practice, current trends, issues, demands and requirements of FMCG businesses. Our forum integrates best practice knowledge and thought leadership ideas to assist in every aspect of your property needs. By having a greater understanding of the issues effecting your business and aligning property requirements with business objectives, we can help keep you 'stay fresher and last longer' than the competition.
We understand that being in the right location at the right price is key to success, but there are challenges to consider:
The FMCG sector is facing increasing pressure to find greater business efficiencies and deliver increasingly complex customer demands. Real estate is a key element of the business process and often represents a significant cost... By having a greater understanding of the issues affecting your business we can align your property requirements with your business objectives, keeping you ahead of the competition.
Our combined team of professionals includes surveyors, accountants, project managers and business consultants whose skills are suited to meet your varied and complex requirements across the globe.
From real estate due diligence for merger and acquisition activity, to location analysis and portfolio optimization programs (including workplace strategy), our focus is helping you deliver your business objectives while reducing risk.
We help you optimize the value of your property while considering the impact on your firm's balance sheet; implementing everything from global lease administration, lease abstraction and database management to strategic analysis and assisting in decision making and execution.
To help minimize the associated risks of managing your corporate portfolio, we provide you with the detailed business data you need to properly and intelligently implement your corporate strategy.
By implementing the "intelligent client" role in managing transactions, our agents and brokers can advise and facilitate smoother transactions, whether it's a full property search and relocation or simply a lease renewal.
We help you deliver base build and fit-out projects on time, within budget, and to specifications. We also have specialist dilapidations, mechanical and electrical and quantity surveying teams in-house.
We advise, plan and deliver on all aspects of the day-to-day occupation of property including service delivery, compliance, financial management, and change and workplace efficiency. We deploy professional management teams supported by best -in-class/best-in-geography suppliers.
C&W has one of the largest fully integrated real estate valuation and consulting teams in the world. We act as the foremost valuation advisor to corporations, institutional investors, and lenders on critical debt and equity investment decisions.
We help to reduce the environmental impact of your property to comply with regulations and to save costs.
Our FMCG Group draws on the expertise, knowledge and experience of our global network of real estate consultants, brokers and dedicated FMCG sector country representatives. Cushman & Wakefield has an international network of nearly 15,000 professionals including researchers, strategists, business modelers, accountants, financial consultants and agents in 253 offices across 60 countries.
We have a broad range of clients in the FMCG sector including Kraft Foods, Unilever and Associated British Foods.
Office MarketBeat is a brief summary of the Office sector in key cities, providing comment on recent trends as well as market data and analysis of the impact on commercial real estate.
Retail MarketBeat is a brief summary of the Retail sector in key cities, providing comment on recent trends as well as market data and analysis of the impact on commercial real estate.
Residential MarketBeat is a brief summary of the residential sector in key cities, providing comment on recent trends as well as market data and analysis of the impact on commercial real estate.
Office MarketBeat is a brief summary of the Office sector in key cities, providing comment on recent trends as well as market data and analysis of the impact on commercial real estate.


text:
Home » Repurposed Furniture » other
By accessing this site you agree to the following:
The information provided on this site is of a general nature and may not be applicable to your particular circumstances. Please seek the assistance of a professional if you have any queries before undertaking your DIY task.
The owner of this site cannot be held liable for damage, by following the instructions laid out within this site or on any of the sites linked to this site.


text:
RBC.com | Français | | Contact Us
Skip Breadcrumb Links
About RBC > Media Newsroom > Speeches > Reaching out to children and families... Getting right down to business!
Charlie Coffey
Executive Vice President
Government Affairs & Business Development
RBC Financial Group
Haldimand-Norfolk R.E.A.C.H. 24th Annual General Meeting
Jarvis Community Centre
Jarvis, Ontario
Thursday, June 2, 2005
Her Worship Mayor Marie Trainer, ladies and gentlemen:
Thanks very much Lillian what a treat to be introduced by a R.E.A.C.H. board member and someone associated with the Norfolk Nuclear Medicine Service. I've heard marvelous things about the medical technology there - the high quality diagnostic testing that's available - not to mention the great work that you and your colleagues continue to do.
It's a pleasure to visit Jarvis and join you on the occasion of your 24th annual general meeting. I see some familiar faces in the room - faces like Deb Young, Shelley Chatterson, Michelle Connor, Karen Dickhout, Laurie Giancola, Lisa Hill, Theresa Ransome and of course Wendy Carron - faces that remind me of my visit to Renton last October for the Kids Matter from Charter to Action conference. And given her strong community leadership and support of children and families, I'm not surprised to see Mayor Trainer again.
I must tell you that I love the word REACH (in your case referring to Resource, Education And Counselling Help), as the word itself and the phrase "reaching out" (a phrase you use for your newsletter), have such a positive, inclusive and caring undertone. I even used the word and phrase for the title of my presentation this evening - "Reaching out to children and families - getting right down to business."
When I think about the importance of children and families, a couple of quotes come to mind. Novelist Edward Phillips once said: "Nobody brings out your shortcomings more quickly than a member of your family." How true is that? At the same time, it says so much about deep family ties and connections. And then there's one of the Famous 5, Nellie McClung's observation: "It's not so much a woman's duty to bring children into the world as it is to see what sort of world she is bringing them into." R.E.A.C.H. is certainly helping to make the world a better place for children and families.
As you're aware, the future economic well-being and growth
of our country rests in very small hands - Canada's kids.
Our kids will be the keepers of the key for Canada
in 2020 and beyond
that's why they deserve the very best
start in life right now. An investment in children and families
strengthens the very fabric of our workplaces and our country.
We must make smart investments in children and families -
in early learning and child care - to ensure a competitive
workforce and economy. Advocating sound policy and establishing
innovative strategies for children and families will contribute
to Canada's path to prosperity - Ontario's path to prosperity
- Haldimand-Norfolk's path to prosperity.
Strong, diverse public sector, community and business leadership needs to be at the same table when it comes to policy direction and issues about children, families and early learning and child care. History has proven time and time again that shifts or changes in public policy don't usually take off until the business community rallies behind them. You may remember what John Kenneth Galbraith said nearly 25 years ago: "The views of one articulate and affluent banker, businessman, lawyer, or acolyte economist are the equal of several thousand welfare mothers in the corridors of political power" (Toronto Star, February 21, 2005).
It's clear that business has a vested interest in supporting and influencing the development of sound public policy; as business has a stake in children and families, along with early learning and child care outcomes, i.e., education, employment, health, safety and community engagement. The link between economic development and reaching out to children and families may be an uncommon one - but it's time for corporate Canada to "get comfortable with the uncomfortable"! The time is now to convince corporate Canada to take a more active interest and leadership role in supporting initiatives like R.E.A.C.H. It's time for business to be better represented at AGMs like this one.
Business should know that Haldimand-Norfolk R.E.A.C.H. "helps children and youth who are experiencing emotional difficulties, who are in trouble with the law or who are over 16 years of age with no safe place to live." Business should know that R.E.A.C.H. "assists families who have children with developmental or physical challenges, as well as parents with a variety of child care needs." And business should know that R.E.A.C.H. offers counseling to adults with personal or relationship difficulties and contracts with businesses to provide Employee Assistant Program (E.A.P.) services to employees. It's time we get right down to business.
Business should know that over the years, R.E.A.C.H. has grown to include developmental services for children and adults, child care services, early years/CAPC/ family services and a residential program for youth. Business should know about R.E.A.C.H.'s Family Early Intervention Program, the licensed home child care program, initiatives connected with Child Clinical Services and the Partner Assault Response Program (PAR), starting this month - and that the organization is also a single point of contact for children's and developmental services funded by the Ontario Ministry. It's time we get right down to business.
Business should also know that last year (August 2004), R.E.A.C.H. submitted its first Community Service Plan for Children's and Developmental Services to the Ministry of Children and Youth Services and the Ministry of Community and Social Services. This is the kind of blueprint that will go a long way in engaging community partners and pushing the envelope on community leadership priorities. It's time we get right down to business.
And business should know that the children and youth of Haldimand and Norfolk Counties have led the way with the development of their own Charter of Rights - "that a responsibility statement was developed by adults regarding the community's accountability to uphold the rights and that the goal is for the Charter to be adopted by schools, businesses and social service agencies." I was delighted to see the Charter of Rights pamphlet - and the, oh so amazing quilt. As a side bar, I want you to know that your work with children's rights won't go unnoticed by the National Advisory Council for the Canadian Museum for Human Rights, a museum that will be built in Winnipeg. As chair, I'll ensure the Haldimand-Norfolk voice of children is heard.
Why am I involved, you might ask? Supporting children and families is an economic issue that requires more federal, provincial and municipal government action. Supporting children and families is an economic issue that needs corporate/business action. And supporting children and families is an economic issue that requires more community action - kids are everybody's business. As a business executive, children's advocate and parent, the only way to make a difference is to get involved and get others involved.
This is why I accepted the role as Chair of the Council for Early Child Development in Ontario last year. The Council "promotes the application of knowledge about human development to create a system of early child development and parenting programs for all children." This initiative involves school boards, as well as public health, municipal government and community groups. Dr. Fraser Mustard, who established the Council, recently received the Lawson Foundation Lifetime Achievement award that recognizes his contribution to early child development (ECD). Fraser has directed his $100,000 grant to the Council, particularly to the revision of the Early Years Study and the incubation of a national network on ECD evaluation.
More business leaders need to step up to the plate when it comes to investing in children and families. And they need to hear and discuss research findings - evidence. Here's some research at work that shows why investing in children and families is good economics and good business:
Facts, figures, and return on investment, is language that business gets. It also needs to get the message about what's at stake: current and future customers, employees and stakeholders, a healthier workplace (work/life initiatives), increased productivity, more attractive returns and corporate responsibility. The message is simple: we all bear a burden for failing to provide the "right start" to our children (and families).
We need more business leaders to view supporting children and families as an economic investment, as well as a health, education and social investment. It's an important economic investment because early learning and care enables parents to work, learn and train while helping to prepare children for a brighter future. It's a wise investment in 2005 to ensure a competitive workforce and economy in 2015.
As such, why wouldn't business consider workplaces that employ on-site/near-site child care centres, child care subsidies, after-school programs, parental networks, information and referral services, job sharing, flexible hours or extended parental leave/family care leaves? Why wouldn't business encourage investments in targeted children's initiatives, such as R.E.A.C.H., and representation on children's advocacy boards? And why wouldn't business support investments in children and family partnerships with governments and communities - and the sharing of promising practices? These are all elements of a sound business strategy that develops human capital, promotes a healthier workplace and sustains a competitive advantage.
May was a good month for reaching out to children and families. On May 6 (in Hamilton), Prime Minister Paul Martin, Social Development Minister Ken Dryden and Dr. Marie Bountrogianni, Ontario's Minister of Children and Youth Services, "announced an historic Agreement in Principle that further supports the development of quality early learning and child care for children and families in Ontario." The Prime Minister said: "For years, Canadian parents, child care organizations and governments have been working together to strengthen child care in Canada. This Agreement in Principle between Canada and Ontario builds upon those efforts and moves our country significantly closer to fulfilling a shared vision for early learning and child care." It's time we get right down to business.
On May 19, "ideas, energy and the enthusiasm of diverse sectors came together at the first meeting of the Ministry of Children and Youth Services' Leadership Council. This Council will work closely with the Partnership Strategies Office to promote and develop quality cross-sector partnerships in support of healthy and active children and youth." The Council chaired by Minister Bountrogianni, "brings together key business and community leaders to assist the Ministry in ensuring all children and youth have the best opportunity to succeed." It's time we get right down to business."
On May 26, Minister Bountrogianni, also spoke to the Ombudsman Ontario Special Needs report, "Between a Rock and a Hard Place." She said in part: "The report helps us understand how government-funded services have helped families -- and where there are gaps. New investments totaling more than $100 million -- more than a 15 per cent increase -- are already at work providing more services through children's treatment centres, children's mental health and autism programs. The Ombudsman has signaled that more needs to be done, and this government agrees. It's time we made special needs services for children friendlier and more sensible for families." It's time we get right down to business.
And the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) supports government action. On May 28, CanWest News Service reporter Eric Beauchesne stated in his Canada needs child care piece: "One in three Canadian sole parents are without work and face an increased risk of poverty," according to the OECD report - Babies and Bosses - released last month. "Although employment among single parents in Canada has increased in recent years, more can be done to reduce the risks of children growing up in poverty." The report also "recommends that governments here increase their support for child care, including out-of-school-hours care services, to ensure that a broader group of families have access to affordable good-quality child care." It's time we get right down to business.
RBC Financial Group must continue to support children and families too. We take pride in our After-School Grants Program and other children/family-focused initiatives. "As part of our ongoing commitment to create work/life options that support employees in meeting their diverse needs, we piloted (in 2004) an Emergency Back-up Child Care program for staff in the downtown Toronto area. Designed to respond to the needs of employees whose regular child care provider is ill/not available, whose usual child care site is closed, or whose child's school is closed due to bad weather, RBC sponsored free coverage for up to 5 days of a licensed child care provider close to the office. Based on the positive response from employees, we plan to continue offering some version of this program in 2005."
It's clear this room is filled with people who demonstrate the value of leadership in action and collaboration when it comes to reaching out to children and families - to partnership building in the community. Your President Kathryn Sloat, who's turning over the chair of the board this year (and remaining on as past president), has demonstrated remarkable strength, foresight and leadership for R.E.A.C.H. Then there's Don Stewart (who I also recall from the conference in Renton) and his tremendous work with the Children's Charter of Rights. And let's not forget Kelly Loro's impressive work with the Pervasive Developmental Disorder (PDD) group. I'm also gratified to see Marion Kuiper-Lampman here with her husband and daughters Sara and Samantha. Your father and grandfather, Evert Kuiper, was a REACH volunteer driver who will be remembered, always.
If only there was time to name all of you out loud In any event, it's an honour to be among champions - champions who appreciate the importance of investing in children and families.
I want to thank your outstanding executive director Leo Massi and the marvelous Carol Grant for inviting me to speak this evening and for helping to coordinate my involvement in this event. Leo, I understand you and your motorcycle made a special trip to the office last Saturday that had something to do with this presentation. And another thank you to everyone here - to the board - to the staff - to community leaders - to government and business representatives - to parents - to all volunteers - for what you do for children, families and for your neighbourhoods - and for what you'll continue to do in the months and years ahead. And thank you Sara and Samantha for being bright stars in our midst tonight.
In closing, children and family investments thrive on collaboration
in order to work and work effectively. They also require leadership
at all levels and business leadership at a high level. As
the saying goes, "it takes a village to raise a child"
when igniting the reaching out to children and families
flame, please remember that influencing a child's future and
our community's future - is one of the most important choices
we'll ever make! It's time we get right down to business.
Thanks very much


text:
Job Seekers, Welcome to Mississippi State College of Veterinary Medicine Career Center
The job you tried to view is no longer active.
See similar jobs below or perform a new job search.
See similar jobs below or perform a new job search.
Sort By
2,524 'associate OR veterinarian OR STATECODE:"VA"' Jobs
Virginia Beach, Virginia
Kempsville Veterinary Hospital
2 Days Ago
Lynchburg, Virginia
Addison Animal Hospital
2 Weeks Ago
Montclair, Virginia
Montclair Animal Hospital
6 Days Ago
Chantilly, Virginia
Chantilly Animal Hospital
2 Days Ago
Woodbridge, Virginia
Occoquan Animal Hospital
3 Days Ago
Manassas, Virginia
Independent Hill Veterinary Clinic
6 Days Ago
Smithfield, Virginia
Cypress Creek Veterinary Hospital
3 Weeks Ago
Fairfax, Virginia
Mainstay Veterinary Practice
1 Month Ago
Newport News, Virginia
Colony Animal Hospital
3 Weeks Ago


text:
|Version 18 (modified by 10 years ago) (diff),
Original Admin UI proposal: http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread/1edf77c9c8b1101d/4ecda5e4c982c7e1
Updated branch on Github: http://github.com/dgouldin/django/tree/soc2009/admin-ui
In general:
- Commits should be broken up into a series of patches -- 1 for each incremental improvement or feature (e.g. autocomplete, selector inlines, etc).
- All the JS for the admin should be minified, but we need to ship maximized versions too, for ease of editing, and then have a build process do the minification.
- Note: This may be better saved for last.
- Document where js libs come from for ease of checking on new versions and finding full source.
Suggested individual patches.
- An
OrderingFieldas suggested here: http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread/480662576c49edd/3aca77d981804528.
- Add
- Admin Inline updates, including
- Dynamically add new inline on page (depends on
- Drag and drop inline re-ordering if
order_fieldprovided on
ModelAdminclass. (depends on
- Selector Inlines (with dynamic adds and drag and drop)
- Dynamically add new inline on page (depends on
- ForeignKey autocomplete
- ManyToMany autocomplete
Summary of commits on the soc2009/admin-ui branch:
- jQuery itself.
- Stacked Inline add new inline dynamically.
- Selector Inlines (based on Wilson Miner's mockup http://media.wilsonminer.com/images/django/related-objects-stacked.gif)
- Tabular Inline ordering. Given an order_field on the
TabularInlineadmin object.
- models.fields.OrderField added, subclass of IntegerField with default=0.
- django.forms.formsets grew a
empty_formmethod with prefix set to
__prefix__which Javascript replaces with a value when dynamically adding new inlines.
- ForeignKeySearchInput widget, which does autocompletion on Foreign key fields.
- ManyToManySearchInput, autocompletion for m2m fields.
Possibly related tickets:


text: I was very nervous when I started last year too. I had a little business trickling in during the first part of November, but not enough. Then, about 10to 15 days before Thanksgiving the flood gates opened and I couldn't answer all the calls. I mean one day no calls and the next day my phone won't stop ringing. This went on through the first week of December. This is what I did for advertising: I ran a cool radio add with a contest/promotion. I did one direct mail out targeting home values of 300k plus. I did door hangers in upscale neighborhoods and all around the homes I decorated. I had tri fold flyers made with residential on one side and comercial on the other (I didn't have time to distribute). I put up yards signs at the homes I decorated (if the customer agreed) and at entrances to upscale neighborhoods. I ran an add on a local website. I had lettering on my truck. I had logo shirts, hoodies and caps for me and my guys. I tracked the source of every call and sale. Without a doubt the most effective advertising was lawn signs. The least effective (and most expensive) was the radio add, although I'm sure it helped with brand recognition. So, whatever you do, definitely make lawn signs a big part of the plan if your local ordinances allow. This season, I plan to limit my focus to door hangers, yard signs and customer referrals. I'm also going to beef up the lettering on my trailer and vehicles. By the way, I used Adeas Printing for my direct mail outs, door hangers and flyers and they did a great job.


text:
Search for:
Skip to content
Blofield Parish Council
With the community at its heart
The Council
What We Do
Who's who
Meetings & Minutes
Previous Years Meetings & Minutes
Getting Involved
Have Your Say
How do I report issues
Contact Details
Neighbourhood Plan
Freedom of Information
Councillors Register of Interest
Speed Awareness Sign Statistics
Annual Parish Meeting
Request for Funding Form
What is planning ?
Planning applications under consideration
Prevous Planning Applications
Major Developments
Do I need planning permission ?
Broadland Planning Application Search
Contact Planning Enforcement
Speaking at a Broadland Planning Committee Meeting
Broadland Local Plans
Our Villages
Welcome To Our Villages
Blofield Heath
Library & Mobile Library
Groups & Activities
Bus Routes
Doctors surgery
Schools & Pre Schools
Walking Routes
Photo Gallery
Village & Council News
A47 Blofield to North Burlingham
Speed Awareness Sign Statistics
Community Speedwatch
Notice Board
What's On
Focal Point
Blofield News
Broadland Directory and News
Contact Us
29th September to 28th October 2018


text:
Report: Seattle agrees to terms with Hart
Lake Buena Vista, FL (SportsNetwork.com) - The Seattle Mariners continued to bolster their lineup on Wednesday, agreeing to terms with outfielder Corey Hart.
CBSSports.com is reporting that it is a one-year deal.
The hope for the Mariners is that Hart will bat behind recently signed second baseman Robinson Cano, who is expected to be introduced in Seattle on Thursday after signing a 10-year, $240 million pact last week.
Hart missed all of the 2013 campaign for the Milwaukee Brewers with a right knee injury. However, he hit .270/.334/.507 with 35 doubles, 30 homers and 83 RBI over 149 games in 2012.
Although Hart has spent the majority of his career in the outfield, he did play 103 games at first base two years ago.
The 31-year-old Kentucky native had spent his entire career in Milwaukee after being selected by the Brewers in the 11th round of the 2000 amateur draft.
Over 945 games, the two-time All-Star has batted .276 with 154 homers, 508 RBI and 83 stolen bases.


text:
The Supreme Court will take up the issue of gay marriage for the first time, agreeing to rule on a California ballot measure banning the practice and a federal law defining marriage as solely an opposite-sex union.
The cases, which the court will decide by June, loom as a potential turning point on one of the country's most divisive issues. High court review comes as the gay-marriage movement is showing unprecedented momentum, winning victories at the polls in four states this year.
The California dispute will address whether gay marriage is legal in the most populous U.S. state, home to more than 37 million people. The case also gives the justices a chance to go much further and tackle the biggest issue: whether the Constitution guarantees same-sex marriage rights nationwide.
That question is "perhaps the most important remaining civil rights issue of our time," said Theodore Olson, a Washington lawyer leading the legal fight against the California measure.
In addition to the California case, the justices today said they will review the U.S. Defense of Marriage Act, a 1996 law that two federal appeals courts said impermissibly treats legally married gay couples differently than heterosexual couples. DOMA, as the measure is known, blocks gays from claiming the same federal tax breaks and other marriage benefits that opposite-sex spouses enjoy.
The case "is of exceptional practical importance to the United States and to tens of thousands of individuals affected," the Obama administration said in court papers opposing the law while urging the court to review it.
Support for gay nuptials has soared since 1996, when DOMA was approved 342-67 in the House of Representatives and 85-14 in the Senate before being signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
More @ Newsmax


text:
Any doubts or questions? Contact us!
Mon-Fri 8am-12pm | 1pm-5pm
We select the best design brands and work together with them. Why? In order to grant you 100% original products, with two times the certified quality, by both them and us.
We offer a reliable delivery service and the shipping is on us for orders over £250*. If you aren't satisfied, returns are easy. *conditions may apply, please read the FAQs for more information.


text:
Yes, I have started playing Spore.. No, it hasn't eaten into my WoW time yet… Above are some of the creatures I have creatured.. Um.. Well, and some houses/cars/etc too. I like that it shows each iteration of your creatures, but maybe it would be cooler of it made like a "folder" for it and showed the evolution. So, you could click on a creature and it would have a section that showed all the previous iterations of that creature in the game. Anyway, it is pretty fun although there are sections that can be a bit boring. You get past those though and it's a blast especially if you are a creative type. 🙂
In WoW last night? Oh yeah.. We headed into SSC even though we were a little short and wiped a few times on the Lurker.. 🙁 We had to call it after a couple hours though since people had to leave. Afterwards, I logged into Freez (yep, he is still level 70… 😛 ) and went to pick up his flying mount. ***DISCOVERED SHADOWMOON VALLEY*** … OMG… Ha!
After that Pil, Kezz and I took our (not so little) toons out to Netherstorm to start some of the quests there.. ***DISCOVERED NETHERSTORM*** .. OMG! So, anyway. Spent lots of gold. Made some gold too. Switched over to Furis/Fizz and got them about halfway to 56 with 2 quests in Burning Steppes (I think that is what it is called). I'm ready for someone to take me into BRD now I think. Tonight is Kara though. We are going to try to get together 2 runs at the same time! Wish us luck!


text:
OH Shoot: Fellaz Who Mess With Mothers That Are Breast Feeding, Make Sure This Does Not Happen To You! (Japanese Commercial)
Too bad
Please click the "Report" button below if the video on this page is not working properly.
Comments will only be displayed by verified emails. No Spamming or Racism.


text:
Morningstar states the obvious in its latest report on the pension liabilities of largest U.S. cities, but seeing the numbers behind it brings the municipal burden into stark relief, and in the largest of the large (New York City and Chicago), it ain't pretty.
"Overall, 22 of the largest 25 cities have the majority of their pension liabilities tied to single employer, agent multiple-employer, or cost-sharing multi-employer (CSME) plans in which the city is the majority participant," says the report, "The State of City Pension Plans 2013: A Deep Dive Into Shortfalls and Surpluses."
The report means that the pension liability will have to be funded either solely or mainly by the city. Large cities also tend to have greater autonomy in terms of pension benefits and, in many cases, funding decisions, Morningstar notes.
"Funding these plans can be a substantial burden to these governments, often accounting for a larger portion of annual spending than debt service. In rare cases, this has even led to municipalities filing for bankruptcy."
The report finds that while some cities are adequately managing their aggregate pension liabilities, many municipal pension systems "are coming under duress." The fiscal solvency and management of these plans vary greatly, according to two key drivers of Morningstar's pension analysis: the funded ratio and the unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL, or unfunded liability) per capita.
"In aggregate, the cities' pensions are 66.4% funded, with an unfunded liability of $3,776 per capita," it says. "However, the median ratios are markedly better, at 76% and $1,556 unfunded liability per capita. Some of the largest cities, most notably New York City and Chicago, are poorly funded, with large unfunded liabilities, skewing the overall data."
For comparison, Morningstar recently found that state pension plans currently have an aggregate funded level of 72.6%, with a UAAL per capita of roughly $2,600.
While New York City and Chicago fared poorly, Washington is the strongest among the selected cities, with its pension plans funded at over 100%, leading to a negative unfunded liability. Seven cities have funded ratios of at least 80%, which is considered to be strong by Morningstar and recommended by the Government Finance Officers Association.
In the table below, ordered by population, note that Funded ratio percentage column. Seven cities fall below Morningstar's fiscally sound threshold of a 70% funded ratio.
Aggregate Pension Data by City


text:
A 5-foot-long shark has died after being put in a pool at a Los Angeles home that was used for filming of a Kmart commercial.
The Los Angeles Times reports ( https://lat.ms/Xap8k2 ) Thursday that a letter from the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals was sent to the American Humane Association detailing the death. The incident was cited by a whistleblower who worked on the commercial.
The white-tipped shark died March 6 after being shipped from New York to Los Angeles. The shark was injected with adrenaline and received oxygen after it showed signs of stress. It was later removed from the pool and died that afternoon.
A Kmart spokesman told the newspaper that the incident was being investigated.
Information from: Los Angeles Times, https://www.latimes.com