From Kevin Flower
CNN
Decrease font Decrease font
Enlarge font Enlarge font

(CNN) -- The United Nations Human Rights Council will hold a special session Thursday to reopen discussion of Israel's three-week offensive against the Islamic militant group Hamas in Gaza.
In his speech Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the report an "absurd claim."

In his speech Monday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the report an "absurd claim."

According to a statement from the council, the meeting request came from the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and is co-sponsored by 18 members of the 47-member body based in Geneva, Switzerland.

The council commissioned South African Judge Richard Goldstone to lead a fact-finding mission into the hostilities in Gaza that lasted from December 27, 2008, to January 18, 2009.

Goldstone's group issued a report last month which concluded that both Israel and Hamas had committed "actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity."

The council received the report September 29, but took no action, after a request by the Palestinian Authority to defer discussion for six months.

The Palestinian Authority government of Mahmoud Abbas came under withering criticism by Gaza Palestinians for the move.

Abbas defended his request in a televised speech Sunday and vowed to work "to punish everyone who was responsible for the hideous crimes committed against our children, our men and women -- especially in our dear Gaza."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in a speech Monday at the opening session of the Knesset, called the war crimes charge "an absurd claim."
Don't Miss

* Abbas cites lack of support, tables report slamming Israel
* Israel calls talks with U.S. Mideast envoy 'useful'

"We will not agree to a situation where the [Israel Defense Forces] commanders and soldiers will be treated as war criminals after valorously defending the citizens of Israel against a loathsome enemy," he said.

Netanyahu said that if the report ultimately is referred to the U.N. Security Council or the International Criminal Court, it would deliver "a mortal blow" to the peace process.

There is an ongoing dispute about the number of people killed in the three-week military offensive that Israel called Operation Cast Lead.

The Gaza-based Palestinian Center for Human Rights put the death toll at 1,419 and said 1,167 of those were "non-combatants."

The Israeli military released its own figures earlier this year, claiming 1,166 people were killed, and 60 percent of those were "terror operatives."

The federal pay czar is trying to force the American International Group to reduce $198 million in bonuses promised to employees of its trading unit, where problems posed a threat to the global financial system last year.
Skip to next paragraph
Related
Times Topics: Kenneth R. Feinberg | American International Group Inc.
Add to Portfolio

* American International Group

Go to your Portfolio »

But the Treasury’s special master for compensation, Kenneth Feinberg, is running into legal hurdles because those bonuses fall outside new rules against bonus payments at companies receiving government assistance. The bonus agreements at issue were struck before last year’s emergency rescues by the Treasury and the Federal Reserve, and thus are not directly covered by the new rules.

The problem is a recurring one. A.I.G. payments early this year to the same employees elicited public outrage, though government officials said then that they had little legal authority to rescind pre-existing contracts.

To strengthen his hand, Mr. Feinberg is threatening to reduce the compensation packages he does control, according to a person close to the talks. That could mean shrinking the pay of other A.I.G. executives — including its new chief, Robert Benmosche — if the firm does not claw back part of the bonuses for the people in its trading unit, known as A.I.G. Financial Products.

At companies that received extraordinary government support, Mr. Feinberg’s task is to monitor and enforce rules governing new pay packages. He can approve or reject cash pay that exceeds $500,000 for top executives.

Mr. Benmosche, hired by A.I.G. late this summer, received a compensation package that includes $3 million initially and about $4 million in stock that he must hold for five years, as well as annual bonuses based on performance.

A.I.G. has a variety of employee bonus programs. The Financial Products group began a two-year retention program in January 2008, before its government rescue, designed to keep skilled employees from leaving and jeopardizing its derivatives portfolio .

After A.I.G. paid $165 million in retention bonuses to that group in March, it promised to try to recover much of the money to quell the uproar that ensued.

But the insurance company has recovered only $19 million of the $45 million it asked the recipients to repay, according to an audit of its compensation program and the government’s oversight.

A company spokeswoman, Christina Pretto, said in a statement that the people who had received that money had “until the end of the year to fulfill their commitments,” and that the company believed those people would honor them.

But the special inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program, Neil M. Barofsky, who conducted the audit, said some of the money appeared to be unrecoverable, because the employees had resigned rather than return the pay.

Other people are still weighing tax issues arising from those bonuses, and some have asked the insurer to dock their paychecks in the future, rather than make a single payment now.

The inspector general’s audit will be the subject of a hearing Wednesday by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

The report stated that Mr. Feinberg had “informally advised A.I.G. not to pay the full $198 million,” scheduled for payment next March, but did not reveal how sharply Mr. Feinberg hoped to pare the bonuses.

The amount of the bonuses at A.I.G. is quite small relative to the record amount of government assistance received by the firm over the last year, roughly $182 billion.

The $165 million in bonus pay made last March coincided with the news that A.I.G. had just posted the biggest loss in American history and would need a bigger rescue package. That led to stormy Congressional hearings and tours of the suburbs where some bonus recipients lived.

Company officials argued at the time that only a handful of the employees of financial products bore responsibility for the disastrous derivatives trading, and it was unfair to blame everybody for the harm caused by a few. The company also said it wanted to honor its commitments because skilled people might resign en masse if bonuses were rescinded.

The new audit pointed out that the bonus program for the Financial Products unit was unusual because it included payments to unessential people. It cited a $7,700 bonus for a kitchen assistant, a $7,000 bonus for a mailroom assistant and $700 for a file administrator.

The audit also described the lack of coordination between the Federal Reserve and the Treasury over A.I.G.’s compensation program. It said Fed officials had their own conversations with company officials about compensation last fall, and were further briefed over the winter by compensation specialists at Ernst & Young brought in to help.

But the Fed did not convey any of the information it had gathered to the Treasury until just before the bonuses were scheduled to be paid in March. Then, the Fed sent an e-mail message to the general counsel at the Treasury, the report stated, warning that the looming bonuses had “garnered press and congressional attention” and would “not be easy for Treasury and the Fed to defend.”

That message promised to supply more detail, but nothing followed for about a week.

“Despite the strong language” of the Fed’s messages, the audit found “that the e-mail did not raise any flags in Treasury.”

Stephen Labaton contributed reporting.

William C. Thompson Jr. walked into Tuesday night’s mayoral debate a likeable man who is being outspent 16 to 1, and whose views and background are more than a bit of a mystery to many New Yorkers.
Skip to next paragraph
Enlarge This Image
James Estrin/The New York Times

William Thompson greeted his supporters before his debate with Mayor Michael Bloomberg on Monday night.

Get up-to-the minute news from City Room, The New York Times and around the Web, including Twitter, YouTube and local blogs.
Campaign Tracker »
Multimedia
7 Candidates for the Mayor’s JobInteractive Feature
7 Candidates for the Mayor’s Job
Related
Bloomberg Defends His Record in First Mayoral Debate (October 14, 2009)
Dust-Up of the Debate Occasionally Obscures Some Facts (October 14, 2009)

Unfortunately for Mr. Thompson, he seemed to have exited in the same fashion.

Save for his accent, which carries the unmistakable cadence of his native Brooklyn, and for his insistent attacks on Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s flip-flop on term limits, Mr. Thompson, the city comptroller, resembled a painter who left too much of his canvas blank.

He grew up as the high-achieving son of a prominent politician and a teacher in Bedford-Stuyvesant, a neighborhood of elegant brownstones that now suffers a plague of foreclosures and homelessness. During his time on the Board of Education, he voted for two chancellors who concentrated on the poorest students and wrested power from corrupt local school boards. Test scores rose sharply in his final years there.

A viewer would have learned little to nothing of these facts. Mr. Thompson’s personal anecdote count Tuesday totaled zero.

The conundrum for Mr. Thompson is that he’s carved a three-decade career in public life by being a conciliator, a nimble-footed inside player herded board members to votes and — with one notable exception — really tried to avoid annoying former Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani.

He lacked power to make most policy decisions and seemed allergic to crusades. All of which is perfectly defensible, but public powerlessness is not the stuff of compelling narratives.

On Tuesday Mr. Bloomberg attacked him, erroneously, for being “in charge” of the schools in the 1990s. Mr. Thompson scrunched his face, incredulous.

“I was in charge?” he said, turning to look at the mayor. “Nothing could be further from the truth.”

Mr. Bloomberg replied with just a hint of a Cheshire cat smile.

In fairness, neither mayor nor comptroller made the night electric; Mr. Bloomberg in particular tended to dole out energy a miserly watt at a time. The city is sunk into recession’s mire, unemployment tops 10 percent — black male unemployment edges toward 50 percent — and foreclosure threatens working class families, and the candidates made glancing mentions of all of this. (Neither candidate uttered the word foreclosure).

A reporter asked the candidates about a controversial fact of life in minority communities: Police each year frisk more than half a million young men, more than 80 percent of them black or Latino. The number of frisks has increased during the past decade, sweeping up hundreds of thousands of teenagers and college students. Police have arrested fewer than 5 percent of this number.

Mr. Thompson wants to curtail it. “We know it’s being overused,” he said.

Mr. Bloomberg conceded no problem. “I do think the police have struck a good balance,” he said soothingly.

Mr. Bloomberg is not much for emoting. He rolls his eyes, his voice cuts monotone and his touch is rarely common. But he came into the night with considerable advantages. He is a reasonably popular two-term incumbent (residents tend to like his policies more so than him), and he sits atop a great green bag of personal swag, having so far spent $65 million of his own money on this campaign.

Mr. Bloomberg, an independent, is unsentimentally promiscuous about party loyalty. But in his governing style, he looks an awful lot like a moderate Democrat, which complicates matters for Mr. Thompson, who as it happens is a moderate Democrat.

None of which is to suggest that Mr. Thompson has no line of attack — the decaying economy suggests opportunity. But the Thompson campaign has been curiously relaxed — last weekend he appeared at two churches, according to his schedule. He offered passionate words Tuesday night about the plight of middle-class New Yorkers.

But he offered no storehouse of stories of actual suffering to put meat on the bones of his attack.

Instead Mr. Thompson concluded as he began, by doubling down on a single bet: term limits. The election, he said, will be New Yorkers’ referendum on term limits. “And that we say: We are not for sale!”

In less than four weeks, he’ll find out if that is enough.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The health care reform debate reached a new milestone Tuesday as a key congressional committee passed an $829 billion plan projected to extend coverage to an additional 29 million Americans.
"Now's not the time to pat ourselves on the back," President Obama says at the White House on Tuesday.

"Now's not the time to pat ourselves on the back," President Obama says at the White House on Tuesday.
Click to view previous image
1 of 2
Click to view next image

The Senate Finance Committee's bill would subsidize insurance for poorer Americans, establish nonprofit health care cooperatives, and create health insurance exchanges to make it easier for small groups and individuals to purchase coverage.

Among other things, it would cap annual out-of-pocket expenses and prevent insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The plan is financed by a combination of reductions in spending for Medicare and other government programs, as well as higher taxes on expensive insurance policies and new fees on the health industry.

The committee passed its long-awaited plan Tuesday with a 14-9 vote. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, was the lone committee member to cross party lines, breaking with other Republicans to vote for the measure. All the committee's Democrats supported the bill. Video Watch why there was applause after the vote »

The Finance Committee was the last of five congressional panels to consider health care legislation before formal debate begins in the full House and Senate.

President Obama expressed satisfaction, but said more work remains.
Don't Miss

* Industry group: Rates to rise under Senate health plan
* Tort reform could save $54 billion, CBO says
* Agency predicts health care bill will cost $829 billion
* In Depth: Health Care in America

"We are now closer than ever before to passing health reform, but we're not there yet," he told reporters in the White House Rose Garden. "Now's not the time to pat ourselves on the back."

Instead, he said, it is time to "dig in and work even harder to get this done." Video Watch Obama laud action, call for more work »

Obama singled out Snowe "for both the political courage and the seriousness of purpose that she's demonstrated throughout this process."

Democratic leaders in each chamber have now started the politically delicate task of melding together five pieces of legislation -- two in the Senate and three in the House.

Last week, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the Finance Committee's bill would cut the national deficit by roughly $80 billion over the next 10 years while expanding coverage to 94 percent of the country's non-elderly population.

"Ours is a balanced plan," said committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Montana. "Now is the time that will tell whether things are merely said, or whether something is actually done. Now is the time to get this done."

Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley, the committee's top Republican, said he wished he "felt better about the substance of the bill," which is "moving on a slippery slope to more and more government control of health care." Video Watch what Grassley had to say about health care reform before the vote »

Snowe indicated she has concerns with several aspects of the bill, but didn't want to see the reform process derailed.

"Is this bill all that I would want? Far from it," she said. "Is it all that it can be? No. But when history calls, history calls. And I happen to think that the consequences of inaction dictate the urgency of Congress [taking] every opportunity to demonstrate its capacity to solve the monumental issues of our time."

On Monday, an insurance industry trade group questioned several of the assumptions underpinning the bill. America's Health Insurance Plans released a report stating that, if enacted, the bill would increase premiums for families by an extra $4,000 by 2019. It said premiums for individuals would rise by an additional $1,500.

The analysis, conducted by the firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, threatens to undermine Obama's assertion that it is possible to expand coverage while slowing the rate of medical inflation.

A Finance Committee spokesman slammed the analysis, calling it "a health insurance company hatchet job, plain and simple." Snowe said it was "surprising" the insurance industry "would issue that kind of condemnation when you are trying to create a constructive approach" potentially worth billions of dollars to private companies.

The committee's plan, initially drafted by Baucus, is the only one under serious consideration that excludes a government-run public health insurance option. Several top Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have questioned whether it is possible to contain costs without creating a public option to serve as a check on private insurers.

Republicans and some conservative Democrats oppose the government-run insurance option, saying it would drive private insurers from the market and eventually bring a government takeover of the health care system.

Baucus has said the more conservative Senate lacks the votes to pass a public option; Pelosi has repeatedly insisted the more liberal House will pass a bill that includes one.

The Finance Committee plan was partly the result of months of negotiations between Baucus and five other panel members -- three Republicans and two Democrats. The proposal from the "Gang of Six" has been widely viewed as the only one with the potential of attracting any Republican support.

The vote came after the committee spent two weeks debating 130 amendments. Committee members boosted the bill's overall price by more than $50 billion in part by expanding insurance subsidies for individuals and families with lower incomes.

They also voted to exempt senior citizens from higher taxes on medical expenses.

The sweeping bill would be paid for in part by cutting spending on several health care programs -- including Medicare -- by roughly $400 billion. Another $200 billion would be generated by imposing a new tax on high-end health care policies, dubbed "Cadillac" plans by critics.

At the same time, new fees would be imposed on drug and insurance companies, medical device manufacturers and other industries tied to the health care sector.

Individuals would be required to purchase coverage or face a fine of up to $750.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's goal is to emerge with a single bill that can overcome a potential filibuster by winning at least 60 votes in the Senate. He wants to meet Obama's goal of designing a bill that will cost no more than $900 billion over the next decade.

Senate aides expect that effort to take a couple of weeks.

Joining Reid in the decision-making will be Baucus; Sens. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut and Tom Harkin of Iowa; senior Democrats on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee; and Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff.

Other key senators -- including Snowe, one of the Gang of Six -- are also expected to be involved.

Aside from wrestling with the public option, Democratic leaders have to resolve sharp differences over how to pay for a reform plan. Top House Democrats oppose a tax on high-cost policies, which they fear would affect many union members. They have instead proposed a tax surcharge on individuals with annual incomes over $500,000, or families earning more than $1 million.

To get a bill passed, Reid could implement a legislative option known as reconciliation, which would require only 50 votes instead of 60. However, Republicans have promised a "minor revolution," in the words of GOP Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, if Democrats resort to that rarely used tactic.
advertisement

Republican leaders, who have criticized the various Democratic plans for their size and scope, won't be involved in the upcoming negotiations. One senior Republican leadership aide recently quipped that she would be in her office with her feet on her desk during the talks because she wasn't going to be invited to offer suggestions.

If the House and Senate manage to pass health care reform bills, a conference committee would then negotiate a final version requiring approval from both chambers before going to Obama for his signature.