Texas plant that blew up carried $1M policy

McALLEN, Texas (AP) — The Texas fertilizer plant that exploded last month, killing 14 people, injuring more than 200 others and causing tens of millions of dollars in damage to the surrounding area had only $1 million in liability coverage, lawyers said Saturday.

Tyler lawyer Randy C. Roberts said he and other attorneys who have filed lawsuits against West Fertilizer's owners were told Thursday that the plant carried only $1 million in liability insurance. Brook Laskey, an attorney hired by the plant's insurer to represent West Fertilizer Co., confirmed the amount Saturday in an email to The Associated Press, after the Dallas Morning News first reported it.

"The bottom line is, this lack of insurance coverage is just consistent with the overall lack of responsibility we've seen from the fertilizer plant, starting from the fact that from day one they have yet to acknowledge responsibility," Roberts said.

Roberts said he expects the plant's owner to ask a judge to divide the $1 million in insurance money among the plaintiffs, several of whom he represents, and then file for bankruptcy.

He said he wasn't surprised that the plant was carrying such a small policy.

"It's rare for Texas to require insurance for any kind of hazardous activity," he said. "We have very little oversight of hazardous activities and even less regulation."

On April 17, a fire at the West Fertilizer Co. in West, a town 70 miles south of Dallas, was quickly followed by an earth-shaking explosion that left a 90-foot wide crater and damaged homes, schools and nursing home within a 37-block blast zone. Among those killed were 10 emergency responders.

State and federal investigators haven't determined what caused the blast.

The plant had reported just months before the blast that it had the capacity to store 270 tons of ammonium nitrate, but it was unknown how much was there at the time of the explosion.

Roberts said that even without a conclusive cause, negligence lawsuits can proceed.

"The law allows courts to presume negligence when something happens that would not ordinarily occur but for negligence," Roberts said. "A fire might be an unavoidable accident, but a fire of this magnitude resulting from a fire is not an unavoidable accident."

Lawyers will look for any other assets the company might have and search for other responsible parties, he said.

Via Yahoo News!

Atty: Texas plant that blew up carried $1M policy

DALLAS (AP) — A lawyer says that the Texas fertilizer plant that exploded last month, killing 14 people, injuring more than 200 others and damaging or destroying property for blocks in every direction was only insured for up to $1 million in liability.

Tyler lawyer Rancy C. Roberts said Saturday that he and other attorneys who have filed lawsuits against West Fertilizer's owners were told Thursday about the size of its policy.

An insurance industry group estimates that it may have caused up to $100 million in damage.

An attorney for United States Fire Insurance Co., of Morristown, N.J., confirmed the policy details to the Dallas Morning News (http://dallasne.ws/107cRT9 ). It didn't name the attorney. A company lawyer didn't immediately respond to a phone message Saturday left at his office by The Associated Press.

Via Yahoo News!

No policy changes are expected as Fed ends meeting

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Federal Reserve is widely expected Wednesday to stick with its aggressive efforts to strengthen a still-subpar economy.

The Fed will likely end a two-day meeting with a statement noting that job growth remains modest and that it's standing by its campaign to keep loan rates at record lows to help ease unemployment.

The central bank's efforts include buying $85 billion a month in Treasurys and mortgage bonds to try to keep long-term borrowing costs down.

Investors will have only the Fed's brief statement to study for clues to its thinking. This isn't one of the four policy meetings each year that are capped by a news conference by Chairman Ben Bernanke.

Besides buying bonds to keep long-term rates down, the Fed has said it plans to keep its key short-term rate near zero at least until the unemployment rate dips below 6.5 percent from its current 7.6 percent. The goal is for consumers and businesses to borrow and spend more to energize the economy.

Many economists had suggested that the Fed might scale back its bond purchases in the second half of 2013 if job growth accelerated. But the jobs report for March was surprisingly weak. And inflation has been running below the Fed's target rate, allowing it to keep stimulating the economy without igniting price increases.

"I am not looking for any major action from this meeting," says David Jones, an economist at DMJ Advisors.

The minutes of the Fed's last meeting in March indicated that some policymakers favored slowing and eventually ending its bond buying — as long as the economy and the job market kept improving. Some feared that keeping rates too low for too long could escalate inflation, fuel speculative asset bubbles or unsettle markets once the Fed has to start raising rates or unloading its record $3 trillion investment portfolio.

Early this month, though, the government said U.S. employers added only 88,000 jobs in March, far below the 220,000 average in the previous four months. Last week, it said the economy grew at an annual rate of 2.5 percent in the January-March quarter — a decent growth rate but one that's expected to weaken in coming months because of federal spending cuts and higher Social Security taxes.

At the same time, consumer inflation as measured by the gauge the Fed most closely monitors remains well below its 2 percent target. That gauge rose just 1 percent in the 12 months that ended in March.

Many analysts now think the Fed will keep the Fed's easy-credit policies unchanged, possibly for the rest of the year.

"The government's fiscal austerity is kicking in and hitting the economy hard," says Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics. "I am not looking for any change in Fed policy at this meeting, not with this weak growth and low inflation."

The Fed's goal is to keep price changes from hurting the economy. This could occur if inflation raged out of control or if the opposite problem — deflation — emerged. Deflation is a prolonged drop in wages, prices and the value of assets like stocks and houses.

The United States last suffered serious deflation during the Great Depression of the 1930s but Fed policymakers worry more about the threat of deflation any time prices go lower than 2 percent. They want to avoid following the path of Japan, which has struggled with weak growth and deflation for more than two decades.

Economists believe the latest economic data will embolden the majority of officials who back Bernanke's commitment to keep borrowing rates down until the economy shows sustained improvement — as long as inflation stays low.

Brian Bethune, an economics professor at Gordon College in Wenham, Mass., says the Fed needs to be especially cautious in signaling any policy shift because the U.S. economy has been serving as a global engine of growth. Many European countries are still struggling to escape a recession that followed the region's debt crisis.

"Anything the Fed did that could disrupt things or create uncertainty could tip the whole global economy back into recession," Bethune says.

Few expect the central bank to start raising short-term rates before late 2015 or early 2016. And many economists think the Fed will keep buying $85 billion in bonds each month for the rest of this year, before starting to curtail its purchases in early 2014.

Via Yahoo News!

Obama urged to reverse policy on no condolence letters for suicides

A group of senators is asking President Obama to send condolence letters to families of troops who commit suicide.No condolence letters are sent from the president to families of troops who kill themselves Eleven senators sign a letter urging a change of the "insensitive" policyThe policy has been in place for several administrations

Washington (CNN) -- A bipartisan group of senators is asking President Barack Obama to change the current "insensitive" policy of not sending condolence letters to families of service members who commit suicide.

A letter signed by 11 senators -- 10 Democrats and one Republican -- and sent Wednesday urges the president to "take immediate steps to reverse the long-standing policy of withholding presidential letters of condolence" to families of troops who killed themselves.

The policy, which goes back several presidents, has been the subject of protest by military families. CNN first reported in 2009 about the family of Spc. Chancellor Keesling, who killed himself while serving in Iraq.

The family set up a wall to pay tribute to Keesling in their Indiana home. Along with his uniform and the flag from his burial service, a space was left for the expected condolence letter from the commander in chief.

Upset when they learned a suicide did not merit a letter from the president, Keesling's father, Gregg, wrote to the president and the Army chief of staff requesting the policy be changed.

At the time, a White House spokesman said the administration was reviewing the "inherited" policy. Questioned about that review at a White House briefing in December 2009, the White House spokesman at the time, Robert Gibbs, said a review would be completed "shortly."

"If the president didn't care, the policy would remain unchanged and unexamined," Gibbs said.

Keesling has argued that his son's suicide was a result of what he was exposed to during war and deserves to be considered caused by battle.

The letter to the president this week seeks again to reverse the policy. The senators note that the Pentagon has worked hard to try to eliminate the stigma of mental health injuries and to lower the suicide rate.

A recent report, cited in the letter, noted that every 36 hours a service member kills himself or herself, in the examined period between 2005 and 2009.

"Unfortunately, perpetuating a policy that denies condolence letters to families of service members who die by suicide only serves to reinforce this stigma by overshadowing the contributions of an individual's life with the unfortunate nature of his or her death," the letter says. "It is simply unacceptable for the United States to be sending the message to these families that somehow their loved ones' sacrifices are less important."

The letter was signed by Democratic Sens. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Barbara Boxer of California, Ben Cardin of Maryland, Richard Durbin of Illinois, Patrick Leahy of Vermont, Mark Pryor of Arkansas; Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, Jon Tester of Montana, Mark Udall of Colorado, and Ron Wyden of Oregon; and Republican Sen. Richard Burr of North Carolina.

CNN

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Obama to spell out Middle East policy

Washington (CNN) -- President Barack Obama will use a major speech this week on the Middle East to reaffirm basic U.S. principles and policies regarding the region while also toughening his administration's stance against Syria's crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators, administration officials said Monday.

The speech Thursday at the State Department also will address the ongoing fight against al Qaeda following the May 2 killing of its leader, Osama bin Laden, as well as the current status of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, said the officials, who spoke on condition of not being identified.

Last week, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney told reporters that Obama's address will be a "fairly sweeping and comprehensive" take on the events that have upended governments in Tunisia and Egypt and pushed other countries to take steps toward reform. The speech comes nearly two years after a 2009 address in Cairo, the Egyptian capital, that called for "a new beginning" between the United States and the Muslim world.

This time, the Arab Spring that has launched demonstrations throughout North Africa and the Middle East provides the backdrop as Obama continues to enjoy a domestic political uplift from the successful U.S. mission to eliminate bin Laden at his compound in Pakistan.

What's next for the Arab Spring

According to the administration officials, major themes of the speech will focus on how change in the Middle East region came from the people who live there and provided them with an opportunity to gain a say in their future governance, and that the United States cannot impose change but will uphold principles such as freedom of assembly, the right to self-determination and respect for human rights.

Obama also will address situations in specific countries, and is expected to come out strong against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's violent response to protesters in his country, the officials said. They expect additional U.S. sanctions on Syria to be announced before the speech and said the new measures could target Assad by name.

Report: Iran sending banned weapons to Syria

Other countries likely to be mentioned by name include Bahrain and Yemen, but not with the same level of criticism as directed at Syria, the administration officials said.

Obama also will talk about how the Middle East protesters are demonstrating for freedom and democracy, rather than the bin Laden-al Qaeda ideology.

On Sunday, former National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair said that the speech will give Obama a chance to restate American backing for the outpouring of support for the Arab Spring.

"I think it brings us the opportunity to get on the right side of history, the things we believe in," Blair said. "The Arab Spring is not just about Israel, it is about freedom and democracy. And I think that sentiment is very powerful, plays to our strengths and we should be strongly in favor of that."

The Obama administration helped prod former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak to leave office in February after the country's military establishment refused to crush a popular uprising against his nearly 30-year rule.

U.S. forces took part in the NATO air campaign against Libya, where the allies have called for Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi to yield to an armed rebellion and leave power after nearly 42 years.

Arrest warrants sought for Gadhafi

Washington slapped sanctions on top Syrian officials after a violent crackdown on pro-reform protests there. But the clampdown on demonstrators and activists in Bahrain, a key U.S. ally in the Persian Gulf, has drawn only verbal protests from American officials.

"They are bottling up forces which will eventually push them out," Blair said. "So I think that what the United States does is to encourage that in general, and then we support specifically where we can."

While Obama's Cairo speech of 2009 was well-received, a feeling persists in the region that U.S. policy in reaction to the Arab Spring has been inconsistent. Expectations therefore are high for Obama to this time lay out a clear and strong statement of intent and action rather than general platitudes and half-measures that fail to materialize.

Blair served as director of national intelligence until May 2010, when he resigned after finding himself at odds with the White House and others in the intelligence community during his 16-month tenure. His predecessor, John Negroponte, said Sunday that other players, including the Arab League and the international community, will have to "step up" to support reform if it is going to succeed.

"The Libya case, I think, is instructive in that regard because you will recall that President Obama stipulated that there needed to be more unilateral and European engagement in that situation," said Negroponte, who also served as U.S. ambassador to Iraq under the Bush administration. "And I think ditto with respect to Syria."

Princeton University analyst Anne-Marie Slaughter told CNN's "Fareed Zakaria GPS" Sunday that Obama realizes the United States is "politically indispensable" to creating a broad coalition.

"But once we've done that, his idea is we shouldn't be the global policeman," said Slaughter, a former top State Department official. "Other countries have a really strong stake in these outcomes, and we should be willing to share responsibility with them."

Meanwhile, Negroponte said an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal is needed for Israel, a key U.S. ally, "to be viable over the long term." Though those efforts are currently stalled, "We can never take it completely off the table," he said.

Deadly clashes mark Israel's founding

The administration's Mideast special envoy, former Sen. George Mitchell, resigned last week after two years leading efforts to resolve the decades-old Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ongoing Israeli settlement construction in the occupied West Bank, the Palestinian Authority's efforts to reconcile the feud between the Hamas and Fatah factions that rule different Palestinian territories and Palestinian steps toward a unilateral declaration of statehood have driven the two sides further apart during that period.

Kishore Mahbubani, a former Singaporean diplomat and ambassador to Washington, told "GPS" that other countries will be watching the Americans closely because of the global reach of the United States.

"They'll always look at both American rhetoric and American deeds," Mahbubani said. "American power is present everywhere."

CNN's Matt Smith and Tom Cohen contributed to this story.

CNN Top Stories

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

U.S. to Appoint Envoy to Revive Myanmar Policy

Associated Press

Print Email Share Comments Recommend Tweet

WASHINGTON -- President Obama plans to name a defense official as special envoy to Myanmar who is expected to seek more help from the repressive government's neighbors in pressing for democratic reform. 

But building agreement on the best way to proceed will be tricky. Southeast Asian nations have called for lifting sanctions, which the U.S. still opposes, while regional powers India and China have their own strategic relationships with Myanmar and have shown little appetite for meddling in its internal affairs. 

To be confirmed by the Senate, Derek Mitchell, who is now the deputy assistant secretary of defense for Asian and Pacific security affairs, will likely have to voice support for sanctions and opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi. That could make it tougher for the envoy to negotiate with Myanmar's dominant military once he is in the job, said David Steinberg, a Myanmar expert at Washington's Georgetown University. 

Mitchell, a China scholar with long experience in Asia, declined to comment on his nomination, which is expected within a week and would require him to give up his current job. 

But a 2007 article he co-authored in Foreign Policy magazine when he was director for Asia strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies think tank, offers clues on how he'd like to operate as envoy. 

The article suggested bringing the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, China, India, Japan and the United States together in developing a road map that would lay out benefits if Myanmar pursued true political reform and national reconciliation, and the costs it would suffer if it continued to be intransigent. 

Since it was written, Myanmar has launched another bloody crackdown on democracy protesters, continued brutal military campaigns against ethnic minorities and seen thousands flee across its borders. U.S. officials also suspect Myanmar has nuclear ambitions and imported some Scud missiles from North Korea -- something Myanmar's neighbors would be worried about too. 

In the past two years, the Obama administration has retained sanctions but opened the door to dialogue. But in its foreign policy, Myanmar has been eclipsed by the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran's nuclear program and recent turmoil in the Middle East, among other issues. 

Lawmakers and human rights advocates have long pressed for an envoy for Myanmar to give it greater attention. After abandoning America's two-decade-long policy of isolating Myanmar, the administration has periodically sent senior officials to meet with Suu Kyi and the government, without making headway. Washington says it remains open to dialogue. 

Agreeing to talk has at least removed an obstacle to U.S. engagement with ASEAN, which has become a focus for deepening American trade and security ties in the region, countering the rising power of China. In a shift, ASEAN has also voiced some criticism of recalcitrant member Myanmar and urged reform. 

T. Kumar of Amnesty International USA said that regional diplomacy was the best way forward, although Myanmar has so far proved deft in balancing its ties with China and India and resisting international pressure. 

Steinberg said Myanmar's chief ally China in particular would view U.S. involvement with suspicion, and would likely only weigh in and call for modest reform if Myanmar faced a mass uprising or border fighting that threatened stability. 

"Working with ASEAN is the only route right now," he said. 

There is glimmer of an opening. After five decades of military rule, Myanmar has recently seen some political changes, albeit superficial ones. Having rejected an election victory by Suu Kyi's party in 1990, the military organized polls last year that were viewed by most of the international community as unfair. They ushered in a notionally civilian government still dominated by the military. 

It has freed Suu Kyi from years of house arrest, although it outlawed her party. 

Some European nations have now joined ASEAN in called for lifting sanctions -- even as rights groups, exiled Myanmar activists and some U.S. lawmakers seek to toughen them.

Print Email Share Comments Recommend Tweet View ArticleLeave a CommentSort: NewestSort: Oldest Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. You must login to comment.

View Article

View All Comments

Latest Politics VideosMore »

View the Original article

Gates: Little impact on military from gay policy

By Chip Somodevilla, AFP/Getty Images

Defense Secretary Robert Gates flies on a Blackhawk helicopter back to Camp Victory after meeting with Iraq's president and prime minister Thursday.

EnlargeCloseBy Chip Somodevilla, AFP/Getty Images

Defense Secretary Robert Gates flies on a Blackhawk helicopter back to Camp Victory after meeting with Iraq's president and prime minister Thursday.

Visiting troops at Camp Liberty in Baghdad, Gates was asked when repeal of the 17-year-old policy commonly known as "don't ask, don't tell" would occur and what its effect would be.

"My guess is you won't see much change at all because the whole thrust of the training is you're supposed to go on treating everybody like you're supposed to be treating everybody now, with dignity, respect and discipline," Gates told the troops. "And the same kind of military discipline that applies to — and regulations that apply to heterosexual relationships — will apply in terms of homosexual relationships."

GATES: Some U.S. troops may stay if Iraq wantsIn Washington, leaders from the four services testified before the House Armed Services Committee on the implementation of the new policy. Several expressed reservations last December when a divided Congress voted to repeal the law and President Barack Obama signed the legislation.

The repeal did not occur immediately as training and certification by the department were required before the ban is lifted. Training for the service members began around March 1 and is slated to be finished by summer's end.

Gen. James Amos, commandant of the Marine Corps, had testified last year that permitting gays to serve openly could disrupt smaller combat units and distract leadership from preparing Marines for battle. On Thursday, Amos said during a recent trip to Afghanistan, he was specifically looking for problems that might arise.

"There hasn't been the recalcitrant push back, not been the anxiety of the forces in field," Amos told the committee. He said one commander told him troops are focused on the enemy.

Last year, Gen. Norton Schwartz, chief of staff of the Air Force, had recommended waiting until 2012 to implement the new policy.

"We're mitigating the risk the way we're approaching this," Schwartz said Thursday. He added he was more comfortable with the policy now than he was last December.

Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of Naval Operations, said training was going well and the "type of questions reflect the professionalism and the maturity and the decency of our people."

Gen. Peter Chiarelli, vice chief of staff of the Army, said he met with commanders last Friday and "they indicated no issues so far."

Nevertheless, Republicans on the committee have been critical of the policy change, with Chairman Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon of California calling it a "rush to judgment."

"The one outcome that must be avoided is any course of action that would put the combat readiness of our military forces at risk," McKeon said.

Rep. Adam Smith of Washington state, the top Democrat on the panel, countered that forcing service members out of the military based simply on sexual orientation is far more disruptive.

"Gays and lesbians are currently serving in our armed forces, and we have the strongest military in the world," Smith said. "Driving thousands of qualified individuals out of our armed forces under "don't ask, don't tell" undermines our military's effectiveness."

Pressed by Republicans on the implications of the change, senior military leaders insisted the services would be able to retain talented members and it could potentially increase the pool of recruits.

"We will see good people serving," Roughead said.

Amos said it would "increase peace of mind for gays and lesbians in the Marines."

Rep. Vicky Hartzler, R-Mo., pleaded with the military leaders: "You are the last force to stop this onerous policy."

In a statement, Servicemembers United, an organization of gay and lesbian troops, said the "issue has been settled, the Department of Defense has embraced this change and trying to re-open this debate is a waste of both taxpayer money and the valuable time of these senior defense leaders in the midst of multiple overseas conflicts."

In fact, the hearing was interrupted for more than an hour for votes in the House and the senior military leaders had to wait before resuming their testimony.

Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters

View the Original article

Five policy issues that could derail budget deal

The fight over funding the government for the remaining six months of fiscal year 2011 is more than an argument over dollars and cents.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is insistent that "ridiculous" policy proposals based on "ideology" sought by House Republicans will not make it into a final deal to avert a government shutdown.

But House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, is equally adamant. "There is no agreement, and will be no agreement on a number until everything...is resolved," he said, including the "important policy provisions," that his chamber passed in February as part of a bill to cut $61 billion in federal spending.

Here's a look at five policy issues that threaten to derail a budget compromise:

Planned Parenthood: Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., pushed through an amendment to cut off federal funding for Planned Parenthood, as part of the House bill to cut $61 billion in spending for the rest of 2011. Eleven Democrats sided with Republicans on Pence's plan. Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y., said eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood would make it harder for women to get pap tests, breast exams, contraceptives, routine gynecological examinations and other services.

Health care law: The GOP-led House not only voted to repeal the nation's health care law, it also adopted several amendments that would strip government funding so President Obama's signature domestic achievement cannot be implemented. Republicans used repeal of what they call "Obamacare" as a rallying cry in the 2010 elections. Obama and congressional Democrats are unlikely to yield in budget negotiations on this one, since the president has vowed to veto any repeal effort.

Greenhouse gases and EPA: Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, pushed through an amendment to block the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change. Poe's proposal passed 249-177, with 13 Democrats backing his effort. Obama and Democrats in the Senate aren't budging. "Neither the White House nor the Senate leaders are going to accept any EPA riders they have in their bill," Reid told reporters recently.

Pell grants: House Republicans want to cut funding for these tuition grants to low- and moderate-income college students. The proposal would reduce the maximum Pell grant award by $845 and affect 9.4 million college students who receive this tuition aid, according to the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. President Obama's budget for 2012 calls for investments in higher education and ensuring students can obtain Pell grants.

Head Start: The House spending bill that passed in February would cut $1.1 billion from Head Start, which provides education, health and nutrition services to low-income children up to age 5. Reid singled out this program as one that couldn't be cut in a final budget deal when he appeared Sunday on CBS' This Morning. "We don't do it on the backs of middle-class Americans," Reid said of how to reach a budget compromise.

See photos of: Harry ReidTags:Harry ReidJohn BoehnerPlanned ParenthoodMike PenceNita Lowey .div-wrapper

View the Original article