Senate Passes Russian Trade Bill, With Conditions

The Senate voted on Thursday to finally eliminate cold war-era trade restrictions on Russia, but at the same time it condemned Moscow for human rights abuses, threatening to further strain an already fraught relationship with the Kremlin.

The Senate bill, which passed the House of Representatives last month, now goes to President Obama, who has opposed turning a trade bill into a statement on the Russian government’s treatment of its people.

But with such overwhelming support in Congress – the measure passed the Senate 92 to 4 and the House 365 to 43 – the White House has had little leverage to press its case.

And President Obama has shown little desire to pick a fight in which he would appear to be siding with the Russians on such a delicate issue.

Speaking to reporters shortly after the Senate vote, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said the president was committed to signing the bill.

The most immediate effect of the bill will be to formally normalize trade relations with Russia after nearly 40 years. Since the 1970s, commerce between Russia and the United States has been subject to restrictions that were designed to punish Communist nations that refused to allow their citizens to leave freely.

While presidents have waived the restrictions since the cold war ended — allowing them to remain on the books as a symbolic sore point with the Russians — the issue took on new urgency this summer after Russia joined the World Trade Organization. American businesses can take advantage of lower trade tariffs only with nations that enjoy normalized trade status

By some estimates, trade with Russia is expected to double after the limits are lifted.

But another effect of the bill – and one that has Russian officials furious with Washington – will be to require that the federal government freeze the assets of Russians implicated in human rights abuses and to deny them visas.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill were inspired to attach those provisions to the trade legislation because of the case of Sergei L. Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who was tortured and died in prison in 2009 after he exposed a government tax fraud scheme.

During the Senate debate, it was Mr. Magnitsky’s case, and not Russia’s trade status, that occupied most of the time.

One by one, Democratic and Republican senators alike rose to denounce Russian officials for their disregard for basic freedoms.

“This culture of impunity in Russia has been growing worse and worse,” said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican. “There are still many people who look at the Magnitsky Act as anti-Russia. I disagree,” he added. “Ultimately passing this legislation will place the United States squarely on the side of the Russian people and the right side of Russian history, which appears to be approaching a crossroads.”

Russian officials denounced the Senate vote.

“This initiative is intended to restrict the rights of Russian citizens, which we consider completely unjust and baseless,” said Konstantin Dolgov, the Russian foreign ministry’s human rights envoy, in comments to the Interfax news agency in Brussels. “This is an attempt to interfere in our internal affairs, in the authority of Russia’s investigative and judicial organs, which continue to investigate the Magnitsky case.”

Initially there was pressure on the Senate to pass a bill that punished human rights violators from all nations, not just those who are Russian. But the House bill applied only to Russia. And the Senate followed suit, as supporters of the bill wanted something that could pass quickly and not require a complicated back-and-forth with the House.

Ellen Barry contributed reporting from Moscow.

Read More..

Individuality takes center stage at Grammys

Fun. helped break up the sound of dance and electronic music on Top 40 radio with its edgy pop-rock grooves. Frank Ocean made a bold statement in R&B — with an announcement about his sexuality and with his critically revered, multi-genre album, "channel ORANGE." And Mumford & Sons continued to bring its folk-rock swag and style to the Billboard charts with its sophomore album.

They all were rewarded Wednesday when The Recording Academy announced the nominees for the 2013 Grammy Awards.

Those acts, who scored the most nominations with six each, were joined by typical Grammy contenders like Jay-Z and Kanye West, who also got six nominations. The Black Keys' drummer, Dan Auerbach, is also up for six awards, thanks to his nomination for producer of the year. His band earned five nods, along with R&B singer Miguel and jazz pianist Chick Corea.

"It feels like alternative music is back," said fun. guitarist Jack Antonoff. His band's gold-selling "Some Nights" is up for album of the year, competing with Black Keys' "El Camino," Mumford & Sons' "Babel," Jack White's "Blunderbuss" and "channel ORANGE," the major label debut from Ocean.

Fun. is nominated in all of the major categories, including best new artist, and record and song of the year for its breakthrough anthem "We Are Young."

Ocean, whose mother attended the nominations special, scored nods in three of the top four categories. His song "Thinkin Bout You" — which he originally wrote for another singer — will compete for record of the year with Black Keys' "Lonely Boy" and four No. 1 hits: Taylor Swift's "We Are Never Ever Getting Back Together," ''Somebody I Used to Know" by Gotye and Kimbra, Kelly Clarkson's "Stronger (What Doesn't Kill You)" and "We Are Young" by fun.

Song of the year, too, features some No. 1 hits, including fun. and Clarkson's jams, as well as Carly Rae Jepsen's viral smash "Call Me Maybe." But then there's Ed Sheeran's "The A Team," a slow groove about a homeless prostitute, and Miguel's "Adorn," the R&B singer-songwriter's crossover hit.

"It's like one of those songs that wrote itself and I was the vessel," the 26-year-old said in an phone interview from New York City late Wednesday, where he performed with Trey Songz and Elle Varner.

While Miguel's excited to compete for song of the year, he's more thrilled about his sophomore album's nomination for best urban contemporary album, a new category that recognizes R&B albums with edge and multiple sounds.

"That's a huge complement to say that your entire body of work was the best of the year," he said of "Kaleidoscope Dream." ''That's the one that means the most to me. I'm really hoping maybe, just maybe."

Miguel, along with Gotye, Alabama Shakes and the Lumineers, is part of the pack of nominees who have showcased individuality and have marched to the beat of their own drum in today's music industry.

Though nominated albums by The Black Keys and Mumford & Sons are platinum-sellers, their songs are not regularly heard on Top 40 radio. Electronic and dance music, which has dominated radio airplay for a few years, were left out of the top awards this year. Also, One Direction — the boy band that released two top-selling albums this years and sold-out many arenas — was snubbed for best new artist.

Lionel Richie has one of the year's top-selling albums with his country collaboration collection, "Tuskegee," but he didn't earn any nominations. And Nicki Minaj, who released a gold-selling album this year and had a hit with "Starships," wasn't nominated for a single award.

Jay-Z and West dominated the rap categories, a familiar refrain at the Grammys. Nas scored four nominations, including best rap album for "Life Is Good." Jeff Bhasker, the producer behind fun.'s breakthrough album, also scored four nods.

Swift, who released her latest album, "Red," after the Grammy eligibility date, still scored three nominations, including two for "Safe & Sound" with The Civil Wars. Country acts were mainly left out of the major categories this year, though the genre usually has success at the Grammys. Aside from Swift's pop song competing for record of the year, there is 21-year-old Hunter Hayes, who is up for best new artist against fun., Ocean, Alabama Shakes and the Lumineers.

"I'm so proud to be, as you say, representing country music in the new artist category," said Hayes, who is also nominated for best country album and country solo performance. "I don't even feel worthy of saying that, but it's so cool for me to be able to say that."

Swift hosted the CBS special with LL Cool J and it featured performances by The Who and Maroon 5, who received multiple nominations.

The five-year-old nominations show spent its first year outside Los Angeles, making its debut in Nashville, Tenn., at the Bridgestone Arena. It marked the largest venue the show has been held in.

The 55th annual Grammy Awards take place Feb. 10 in Los Angeles.

___

Online:

http://www.grammys.com

___

AP Music Writer Chris Talbott and AP Writer Caitlin R. King in Nashville contributed to this report.

Read More..

Well: Running in Reverse

This column appears in the Dec. 9 issue of The New York Times Magazine.

Backward running, also known as reverse or retro running, is not as celebrated as barefoot running and will never be mistaken for the natural way to run. But a small body of science suggests that backward running enables people to avoid or recover from common injuries, burn extra calories, sharpen balance and, not least, mix up their daily routine.

The technique is simple enough. Most of us have done it, at least in a modified, abbreviated form, and probably recently, perhaps hopping back from a curb as a bus went by or pushing away from the oven with a roasting pan in both hands. But training with backward running is different. Biomechanically, it is forward motion’s doppelgänger. In a study published last year, biomechanics researchers at the University of Milan in Italy had a group of runners stride forward and backward at a steady pace along a track equipped with force sensors and cameras.

They found that, as expected, the runners struck the ground near the back of their feet when going forward and rolled onto the front of their feet for takeoff. When they went backward though, they landed near the front of their feet and took off from the heels. They tended to lean slightly forward even when running backward. As a result, their muscles fired differently. In forward running, the muscles and tendons were pulled taut during landing and responded by coiling, a process that creates elastic energy (think rubber bands) that is then released during toe-off. When running backward, muscles and tendons were coiled during landing and stretched at takeoff. The backward runners’ legs didn’t benefit from stored elastic energy. In fact, the researchers found, running backward required nearly 30 percent more energy than running forward at the same speed. But backward running also produced far less hard pounding.

What all of this means, says Giovanni Cavagna, a professor at the University of Milan who led the study, is that reverse running can potentially “improve forward running by allowing greater and safer training.”

It is a particularly attractive option for runners with bad knees. A 2012 study found that backward running causes far less impact to the front of the knees. It also burns more calories at a given pace. In a recent study, active female college students who replaced their exercise with jogging backward for 15 to 45 minutes three times a week for six weeks lost almost 2.5 percent of their body fat.

And it aids in balance training — backward slow walking is sometimes used as a therapy for people with Parkinson’s and is potentially useful for older people, whose balance has grown shaky.

But it has drawbacks, Cavagna says — chiefly that you can’t see where you’re going. “It should be done on a track,” he says, “or by a couple of runners, side by side,” one facing forward.

It should be implemented slowly too, because its unfamiliar motion can cause muscle fatigue. Intersperse a few minutes periodically during your regular routine, Cavagna says. Increase the time you spend backward as it feels comfortable.

The good news for serious runners is that backward does not necessarily mean slow. The best recorded backward five-kilometer race time is 19:31, faster than most of us can hit the finish line with our best foot forward.

Read More..

Senate Passes Russian Trade Bill, With Conditions

The Senate voted on Thursday to finally eliminate cold war-era trade restrictions on Russia, but at the same time it condemned Moscow for human rights abuses, threatening to further strain an already fraught relationship with the Kremlin.

The Senate bill, which passed the House of Representatives last month, now goes to President Obama, who has opposed turning a trade bill into a statement on the Russian government’s treatment of its people.

But with such overwhelming support in Congress – the measure passed the Senate 92 to 4 and the House 365 to 43 – the White House has had little leverage to press its case.

And President Obama has shown little desire to pick a fight in which he would appear to be siding with the Russians on such a delicate issue.

Speaking to reporters shortly after the Senate vote, Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said the president was committed to signing the bill.

The most immediate effect of the bill will be to formally normalize trade relations with Russia after nearly 40 years. Since the 1970s, commerce between Russia and the United States has been subject to restrictions that were designed to punish Communist nations that refused to allow their citizens to leave freely.

While presidents have waived the restrictions since the cold war ended — allowing them to remain on the books as a symbolic sore point with the Russians — the issue took on new urgency this summer after Russia joined the World Trade Organization. American businesses can take advantage of lower trade tariffs only with nations that enjoy normalized trade status

By some estimates, trade with Russia is expected to double after the limits are lifted.

But another effect of the bill – and one that has Russian officials furious with Washington – will be to require that the federal government freeze the assets of Russians implicated in human rights abuses and to deny them visas.

Lawmakers on Capitol Hill were inspired to attach those provisions to the trade legislation because of the case of Sergei L. Magnitsky, a Russian lawyer who was tortured and died in prison in 2009 after he exposed a government tax fraud scheme.

During the Senate debate, it was Mr. Magnitsky’s case, and not Russia’s trade status, that occupied most of the time.

One by one, Democratic and Republican senators alike rose to denounce Russian officials for their disregard for basic freedoms.

“This culture of impunity in Russia has been growing worse and worse,” said Senator John McCain, an Arizona Republican. “There are still many people who look at the Magnitsky Act as anti-Russia. I disagree,” he added. “Ultimately passing this legislation will place the United States squarely on the side of the Russian people and the right side of Russian history, which appears to be approaching a crossroads.”

Russian officials denounced the Senate vote.

“This initiative is intended to restrict the rights of Russian citizens, which we consider completely unjust and baseless,” said Konstantin Dolgov, the Russian foreign ministry’s human rights envoy, in comments to the Interfax news agency in Brussels. “This is an attempt to interfere in our internal affairs, in the authority of Russia’s investigative and judicial organs, which continue to investigate the Magnitsky case.”

Initially there was pressure on the Senate to pass a bill that punished human rights violators from all nations, not just those who are Russian. But the House bill applied only to Russia. And the Senate followed suit, as supporters of the bill wanted something that could pass quickly and without requiring a complicated back-and-forth with the House.

Ellen Barry contributed reporting from Moscow.

Read More..

Obama Tells G.O.P. Not to Tie Debt Ceiling to Fiscal Debate

Doug Mills/The New York Times

President Obama spoke to members of the Business Roundtable in Washington on Wednesday.

WASHINGTON — President Obama warned Republicans on Wednesday not to use the debt ceiling as leverage on spending and tax decisions, saying he refused to engage again in the sort of brinkmanship that brought the country close to default last year and damaged its credit rating.

In a speech to the Business Roundtable, Mr. Obama said, “That is a bad strategy for America, it’s a bad strategy for your businesses and it is not a game that I will play.”

“Everybody here is concerned about uncertainty,” he added. “There’s no uncertainty like the prospect that the United States of America, the largest economy, that holds the world’s reserve currency, potentially defaults on its debts.”

While saying he would not “play that game,” a phrase he repeated, Mr. Obama did not say what he would do in response, but some Democrats have urged him in the past to simply raise the borrowing limit using his own executive authority and let the courts determine if he overstepped his constitutional bounds.

He seemed to embrace a suggestion by John Engler, the Business Roundtable president, to raise the debt ceiling enough to last five years. “John is exactly right when he says that the only thing that the debt ceiling is good for as a weapon is just to destroy your credit rating,” Mr. Obama said.

Mr. Obama was reacting to reports that Republican leadership officials were looking for a fallback in the current debate to avert an end-of-the-year fiscal crisis. Some Republicans foresee accepting Mr. Obama’s call to extend Bush-era tax cuts for the middle class while allowing them to expire for the wealthiest Americans, and then taking up the fight again when the nation’s debt rises to the point that the statutory borrowing limit needs to be raised again, which could be in late January or February.

Republicans view any vote to raise the debt ceiling as a chance to enforce more fiscal discipline on Mr. Obama. Speaker John A. Boehner has said any increase in borrowing capacity should be offset by spending cuts that exceed the increased debt. Mr. Obama has responded by proposing to take away the Congressional power to approve increases in the debt ceiling, but Mr. Boehner said last weekend that “Congress is never going to give up this power.”

Appearing before reporters on Wednesday, Mr. Boehner and other House Republican leaders implored Mr. Obama to sit down with them and begin negotiating in earnest to head off the looming fiscal crisis, but with flattery and aggravation, they made it clear that they were now playing on his turf.

Mr. Boehner and his leadership team did not give an inch on their opposition to raising tax rates on the wealthy or their insistence that any deficit-reduction plan emphasize spending cuts. But the speaker sounded exasperated as he insisted that he had moved toward the president’s position by agreeing to $800 billion in higher tax revenue over 10 years.

“The revenues we’re putting on the table will come from guess who? The rich,” he said, his voice rising. “There are ways to limit deductions, close loopholes and have the same people pay more of their money to the federal government without raising tax rates.”

Representative Peter Roskam of Illinois, a member of the Republican leadership, appealed to Mr. Obama’s own view of himself as a politician able to rise above partisanship, a characterization Republicans have rarely, if ever, agreed with.

“I’ve seen an attribute in President Obama when we served together in the Illinois State Senate, where he was able to rise above donkeys and elephants and transform some very controversial issues in a way that was powerful,” Mr. Roskam said, imploring the president to eschew the politics of the victor and seize “an unbelievable opportunity to be a transformational president, that is to bring the country together.”

The dueling public appearances underscored how far apart the two sides were, at least as a matter of principle. Mr. Obama’s plan calls for $1.6 trillion in new taxes over 10 years, mainly through allowing rates to rise on income above $200,000 a year for individuals or $250,000 for families. He has also revived a year-old plan to trim health care and other mandatory spending by $600 billion over 10 years, but he also wants to spend $50 billion in the short term to help the economy.

Read More..

Possible Wintour appointment gets London talking

LONDON (AP) — Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, John Quincy Adams ... and now Anna Wintour?

A report suggesting that the influential editor-in-chief of Vogue is one of the candidates being considered for the top U.S. diplomatic post in France or Britain has sparked spirited debate about her qualifications, exciting Britain's glamour-hungry tabloids but raising hackles at the conservative Daily Telegraph.

"Anna Wintour may be an enticing pick for a celebrity-fixated White House," wrote Nile Gardner in the Telegraph. "But she is eminently unsuitable for America's most prestigious diplomatic posting."

The possibility that the British-born Wintour would move into London's grand ambassadorial residence was raised several years ago by The Guardian newspaper — where her brother Patrick is a prominent journalist — and again this week by Bloomberg News, which based its report on "two people familiar with the matter."

Officials at the U.S. Embassy in London said they would not speculate on President Obama's eventual choice for a successor to Ambassador Louis Susman, who has announced plans to step down. White House officials have also refused to comment.

Officials caution that a decision is months away and would only follow the appointment of a new secretary of state to replace outgoing Hillary Clinton and would also include a thorough vetting process.

Guardian fashion writer Jess Cartner-Morley said the editor — the model for the imperious character played by Meryl Streep in "The Devil Wears Prada" movie — would be well-suited for an ambassadorial position.

"Wintour is generally acknowledged as whipsmart and extremely hard-working," she wrote. "She is enormously charismatic, a born networker and a formidable fundraiser."

Cartner-Morley also challenged the dismissive view that Wintour's many years in the fashion industry are not enough, citing recent ambassadorial choices of a retired investment banker and a retired car dealership owner.

"Is a career as one of the biggest global players in an industry estimated to be worth $900 billion to the world economy really so inferior and shallow by comparison?" the writer asked.

Vogue spokeswoman Megan Salt in New York said Wednesday said that Wintour is very happy with her present job.

Wintour raised $40 million for Obama's re-election through a number of campaigns and star-studded dinners she co-hosted with some of the most powerful people in the entertainment and fashion worlds. In August, she teamed up with movie mogul Harvey Weinstein for a fundraising dinner, after a successful party at Sarah Jessica Parker's Manhattan home in July.

The ambassadorial posts in France and Britain — formally known as the Court of St. James's — are among the most coveted in the diplomatic ranks. They also typically go to wealthy individuals willing to use personal funds to buttress the government-provided entertainment budget.

Wintour, 63, is best-known for her trademark glossy bob hairstyle, oversized sunglasses and haughty demeanor. Born in London, she started in fashion journalism at Harper's Bazaar and New York magazine, and after working at the helm of other glossies became editor-in-chief at U.S. Vogue in 1988.

Carne Ross, a former British diplomat who now runs a New York-based diplomatic advisory group, said Wintour's skills — "honed in the vicious world of the fashion industry" — would qualify her for a diplomatic posting.

Ross said a large part of an ambassador's job involves taking part in social gatherings, something Wintour would be comfortable with. Often most of the real political work is done by direct communications between the White House and the prime minister's office at Downing Street, he said.

"That diminishes the political significance of the ambassador's role," he said.

Mary Jo Jacobi, a presidential adviser during two Republican administrations, said Wintour would be an unusual choice but possibly an effective one.

"Vogue is a very successful, very large publication, and she has experience with big budgets and with challenging, difficult people," Jacobi said. "She knows how to marshal resources. And her job has involved a great deal of diplomacy."

Read More..

Willis Whitfield, Clean Room Inventor, Dies at 92

The enemy was very small but it was everywhere. World peace, medical advancement, iTunes — all would eventually be threatened.

Half a century ago, as a rapidly changing world sought increasingly smaller mechanical and electrical components and more sanitary hospital conditions, one of the biggest obstacles to progress was air, and the dust and germs it contains.

Stray particles a few microns wide could compromise the integrity of a circuit board of a nuclear weapon. Unchecked bacteria could quickly infect a patient after a seemingly successful operation. Microprocessors, not yet in existence, would have been destroyed by dust. After all, an average cubic foot of air contained three million microscopic particles, and even the best efforts at vacuuming and wiping down a high-tech work space could only reduce the rate to one million.

Then, in 1962, Willis Whitfield invented the clean room.

“People said he was a fraud,” recalled Gilbert V. Herrera, the director of microsystems science and technology at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque. “But he turned out to be right.”

Mr. Whitfield, who worked at Sandia from 1954 to 1984, died on Nov. 12 in Albuquerque. He was 92. The cause was prostate cancer, his wife, Belva, said.

His clean rooms blew air in from the ceiling and sucked it out from the floor. Filters scrubbed the air before it entered the room. Gravity helped particles exit. It might not seem like a complicated concept, but no one had tried it before. The process could completely replace the air in the room 10 times a minute.

Particle detectors in Mr. Whitfield’s clean rooms started showing numbers so low — a thousand times lower than other methods — that some people did not believe the readings, or Mr. Whitfield. He was questioned so much that he began understating the efficiency of his method to keep from shocking people.

“I think Whitfield’s wrong,” a scientist from Bell Labs finally said at a conference where Mr. Whitfield spoke. “It’s actually 10 times better than he’s saying.”

Willis James Whitfield was born in Rosedale, Okla., on Dec. 6, 1919. In addition to his wife, his survivors include his sons, James and Joe; a sister, Amy Blackburn; and a brother, Lawrence.

Mr. Whitfield became fascinated with electronics as a young man and received a two-year degree in the field after high school. He served in the Navy late in World War II, working with experimental electronic systems for aircraft. In 1952, he received a bachelor’s degree in physics and math from Hardin-Simmons University in Abilene, Tex.

By 1954 he was working at Sandia, which was involved in making parts for nuclear weapons and at the time was overseen by the Atomic Energy Commission. Mr. Whitfield’s duties soon included contamination control. By 1960, he had established his basic idea for the clean room.

“I thought about dust particles,” Mr. Whitfield told Time magazine in 1962. “Where are these rascals generated? Where do they go?”

The clean room was patented through Sandia, and the government shared it freely among manufacturers, hospitals and other industries.

Mr. Whitfield’s original clean room was only about six feet high, built as a small, self-contained unit. Some modern electronic devices, including the iPhone, are now built in China in huge clean rooms in structures that are more than a million square feet. Workers wear protective clothing, and other anticontamination methods have been added, but they still depend on Mr. Whitfield’s approach to suck up dust.

“Relative to these electronics, the particles are just massive boulders that would short out all of your electronics and make them not work,” Mr. Herrera said. “The core technology, just the cleaning part, hasn’t really changed a lot.”

Mrs. Whitfield said she was often been asked if her husband was a particularly fastidious man, and she always noted that he tended not to put his shoes away. He did live in a tidy house, though, and colleagues say he never tired of getting out a flashlight and shining it sideways across his coffee table to illuminate the prevalence of tiny dust particles that most people never notice.

Read More..

DealBook: Freeport to Buy Plains Exploration and McMoRan

Freeport-McMoRan Copper and Gold said on Wednesday that it would buy two oil and natural gas companies, Plains Exploration and Production and the McMoRan Exploration Company, in a return to the energy business.

The two transactions will create a natural resources titan worth about $60 billion, including debt, and will formally reunite Freeport with McMoRan, the oil exploration company it spun off in 1994.

Under the terms of the deals, Freeport will pay about $6.9 billion in cash and stock for Plains. That offer consists of $25 a share in cash and 0.6531 of a Freeport share, worth about $50 a share based on Tuesday’s closing prices.

And Freeport will pay $14.75 a share in cash and 1.15 units of a trust that will hold a 5 percent interest in future production of McMoRan’s deepwater exploration operations. Freeport and Plains together already own about 36 percent of the smaller exploration company. All told, the transaction values McMoRan at about $3.4 billion.

“This transaction will enable us to add assets with exceptional exploration and development potential to a world-class mining company to create a premier minerals and oil and gas business focused on value creation for shareholders,” James R. Moffett, Freeport’s chairman, said in a statement.

JPMorgan Chase is providing $9.5 billion to help pay for the cash portion of the deal and to repay some of Plains’s existing debt.

Freeport was advised by Credit Suisse and the law firm Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz. Plains was advised by Barclays and the law firm Latham & Watkins. McMoRan was advised by Evercore Partners and the law firm Weil, Gotshal & Manges.

Read More..

Republicans Balk at Obama’s Short-Term Stimulus

WASHINGTON — Republicans and Democrats are struggling to find common ground on a long-term debt deal. But as economic growth has weakened this quarter, they are at odds over what the flagging recovery needs in the immediate future, too.

The Obama administration is arguing that the sluggish economy requires a shot in the arm, and it included tens of billions of dollars of little-noticed stimulus measures in its much-noticed proposal to Congressional leaders last week. But Republicans have countered that the country cannot afford to widen the deficit further, and have balked at including the measures in any eventual deal.

The stimulus measures in the White House’s debt proposal stem from President Obama’s long-since-scuttled American Jobs Act proposal, and include a continuation of emergency support for long-term unemployed workers, an extension of the payroll tax cut, billions in infrastructure investment and a mortgage-refinancing proposal.

“We have a very good plan, a very good mix of tax reforms” and savings, said Timothy F. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, on ABC News last weekend. “We can create some room to invest in things that make America stronger, like rebuilding America’s infrastructure.”

But in his counteroffer, made on Monday, House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio did not mention any such measures. Republican aides said that securing stimulus was not the main priority given concerns about the country’s fiscal state, and they appeared to be holding back on supporting any stimulus measures to bolster their bargaining position.

“The president is asking for $1.6 trillion worth of new revenue over 10 years, twice as much as he has been asking for in public,” Mr. Boehner said on “Fox News Sunday.” “He has stimulus spending in here that exceeded the amount of new cuts that he was willing to consider. It was not a serious offer.”

As the debate rages in Washington, data has shown the recovery once again sputtering, with the underlying rate of growth too slow to bring down the unemployment rate by much and some of the economic momentum gained in the fall dissipating in the winter.

The weakness comes from the manufacturing and exports slowdown, disruptions from Hurricane Sandy and sluggish underlying wage and spending growth. The storm hit the economic juggernauts of New Jersey and New York hard, pushing down work and wages. On top of that, consumers and businesses might be holding back out of concern for the tax increases and spending cuts scheduled to take place at the first of the year unless Congress and the administration come to some agreement.

In recent weeks, many forecasters have slashed their estimates of growth in the fourth quarter. Macroeconomic Advisers, for instance, estimates the economy is expanding at only a 0.8 percent annual pace, down from 2.8 percent in the third quarter.

“It’s a pretty dramatic slowdown,” said Joel Prakken, the chairman of Macroeconomic Advisers, the St. Louis-based forecasting firm. “There’s weak demand, which just does not portend well for the coming quarters,” he said.

RBC Capital Markets put the current pace of growth at just a 0.2 percent annual rate. The chance of seeing “a negative sign in front of fourth-quarter gross domestic product is nontrivial, to say the least,” Tom Porcelli, chief United States economist at RBC Capital Markets, wrote in a note to clients last week.

If Congress and the Obama administration are able to agree on a budget deal, economists expect that economic growth will pick up in 2013. Stock markets might cheer, businesses might feel more confident about hiring workers and signing contracts and investors might feel more comfortable investing if Congress struck a deal.

The turnaround in the housing market, rising auto sales and higher consumer confidence all bode well, they note. Refinancing — supported by the Federal Reserve’s effort to buy mortgage-backed securities — would also flush more money into households.

Much of the current slowdown might be a result of temporary factors that might fade away, like fluctuations in how factories stock their inventories or the lingering effects of Hurricane Sandy.

Still, recent economic data has come in surprisingly weak. On Monday, the Institute for Supply Management reported that the manufacturing sector contracted in November, with an index of purchasing activity falling to the lowest level since mid-2009.

The report said manufacturers expressed “concern over how and when the fiscal cliff issue will be resolved” as well as a slowdown in demand.

Over all, unemployment remains high, and wage growth weak. Global growth has gone through a slowdown as well. It all adds up to a United States recovery that might remain vulnerable to shocks — like the Midwestern drought that slashed agricultural production this year, or the Japanese tsunami that depressed exports in 2011, or the long-simmering European debt crisis that has spooked financial markets — for years to come.

Economists remain nervous about the combination of the already weak recovery and the prospect of the tax increases and spending cuts — with billions of dollars of fiscal contraction likely to take place even if the White House and Congress reach a deal.

“We are worried about going too fast, too quick on the cuts side,” said former Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, on Monday at a meeting with reporters at the Bipartisan Policy Center. He was presenting a plan for a deficit reduction framework along with Alice M. Rivlin, the budget director under President Bill Clinton.

Ms. Rivlin added, “We don’t need an austerity budget.” Indeed, the two budget experts proposed including a one-year income tax rebate to give the recovery some breathing room.

Read More..

Is the iPad Mini as Good as the iPad?

The iPad Mini‘s screen doesn’t have the same “resolutionary” Retina display as its bigger brother, but don’t worry: the Apple snobs appear to have gotten over that. After spending time with his new baby-tablet, The New York Times‘s Nick Bilton gave in, calling the gadget his new “Desert Island Device.” (It replaced his iPhone, by the way.) The inferior screen had worried Bilton like it had others, but no longer: ”I used it for two weeks and my concerns about the screen’s quality are completely irrelevant.” It’s not that Bilton prefers the “fuzzy” screen, as he called it. But the portability of the lightweight Mini outweighs that for him, making this tablet, in his opinion, really the best tablet Apple has ever made.

RELATED: Prepare for an iPad Mini This Month

Considering all the fawning over the Retina display on the iPad proper, it’s pretty amazing to see reviewers toss that upgrade for something that Steve Jobs forbid the company to create. Bilton’s not the only one to prefer the new cousin, even if it is technically worse. Noted Apple-phile Jonathan Gruber said he hadn’t touched the fourth-generation iPad that Apple released this year as well “I’ve gone small and fuzzy,” he wrote. When the Retina display first came out, Gruber called it “pure joy” for his “dream iPad.” But a funny thing happened on the way out of the hype cycle: Apple put out something the masses were supposed to like more than the techies, and that just made everyone like it even more. Call it a holiday miracle, but the Apple snobs may be snobs no more.

Gadgets News Headlines – Yahoo! News

Read More..