Jim Yong Kim secures World Bank job amid criticism of US domination of role | Business | guardian.co.uk

The World Bank said in a statement: 'We all look forward to working with Dr Kim when he assumes his responsibilities.' Photograph: Andrew Harrer/EPA

The World Bank named Korean-born doctor Jim Yong Kim as its new president today amid criticism that the role had once more gone to a US-nominated candidate.

The 52-year-old president of Ivy League college Dartmouth beat Nigerian finance minister Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala to the post, the first time in the World Bank's history that the US candidate has faced a serious challenge.

US president Barack Obama nominated Kim to replace current World Bank chief Robert Zoellick in March. Kim, who was born in Seoul, the South Korean capital, is a public health expert – a change from the bank's usual nomination of candidate from the financial world.

The World Bank presidency has gone to a US candidate since the organisation was founded at the Bretton Woods conference at the close of the second world war. The International Monetary Fund (IMF), its sister organisation, has always been run by a European.

The US backed France's Christine Lagarde's nomination to the top role at the IMF last year after the shock resignation of Dominique Strauss-Kahn. In return, Kim received Europe's backing for the World Bank job.

But in recent years the organisations have faced growing criticism over their US/European duopoly. Ahead of the announcement, Okonjo-Iweala said: "You know this thing is not really being decided on merit."

"It is voting with political weight and shares, and therefore the United States will get it," she told reporters at a briefing on the country's 2012 budget.

A third candidate, Colombia's former finance minister Jose Antonio Ocampo, pulled out of the race Friday, calling the selection process a "political-oriented exercise".

Okonjo-Iweala said that although she expected her challenge to the US's nomination to fail, the process "will never ever be the same again".

"So we have won a big victory. Who gets to run the World Bank – we have shown we can contest this thing and Africa can produce people capable of running the entire architecture," she said.

Kim was a surprise nomination for the role. The 52-year-old is a leading figure in global health and a former director of the HIV/Aids department at the World Health Organization. He moved with his family to the US at the age of five.

Brazillian and South African government officials reiterated their support for Okonjo-Iweala on Monday. Before the announcement, South African finance minister Pravin Gordhan said there was a need to "look beyond the verbiage of democracy and the claims to democratic process, and ask whether in substantive terms the institution has met the democratic test."

In a statement, the World Bank said: "We, the executive directors, wish to express our deep appreciation to all the nominees, Jim Yong Kim, José Antonio Ocampo and Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. Their candidacies enriched the discussion of the role of the president and of the World Bank group's future direction. The final nominees received support from different member countries, which reflected the high calibre of the candidates. We all look forward to working with Dr Kim when he assumes his responsibilities."

Professor Simon Evenett, a former World Bank official who works at the University of St Gallen in Switzerland, said Kim's appointment was inevitable. "The Obama administration would almost certainly have withheld support for Lagarde's appointment to the IMF if European nations had not agreed in advance to support whomever was Washington's candidate for the World Bank," he said.

"There was never really a contest. Some developing countries probably figured this out and put up a strong candidate to embarrass the west, hoping that this will lead to a more open process in the future. Don't bet on that. The west won't give up its hold over these institutions until they need something from the emerging markets."

by Dominic Rushe the Guardian Apr 16, 2012


Jim Yong Kim secures World Bank job amid criticism of US domination of role | Business | guardian.co.uk

Obama's "Sneak Attack" on Senior Citizens - Forbes

There are a lot of senior citizens in the US now. The number is increasing by 10,000 every day as Baby Boomers turn 65—and start applying for Medicare and then shortly after that, for Social Security. These are the folks who once thought this would be the “Golden Years” when their years of hard work and savings and pension plans would let them live the good life, in places that are sunny and warm.

Then came the financial crisis and the stock market crash, the recession, and the “non-recovery.” Whatever “nest egg” they thought they had suddenly was mostly gone. Panicked, they sold their portfolio of securities on the way down, and then fearful of what came next, they didn’t buy back in on the way up. Thus they missed out on the stock market growth over the past 18-24 months. They are left with a much smaller “nest egg,” or none at all, and their pensions are either broke or being discontinued too.

As bad as that sounds, it’s not the “worst news.” The “worst news” is that President Barack Obama plans and policies constitute a multi-faceted “sneak attack on seniors.” Obama cleverly conceals this “sneak attack” while he assures seniors citizens he’s going to take care of them—and “nothing will change” for them. Nonsense!

Consider these actions, all planned or already created by Barack Obama and his minions:

1. Depress Interest Income: Interest rates have been held unnaturally low (by the Fed) for a very, very long time. Thus any money that senior citizens have in safe places like savings accounts, money market funds, and even most bonds, earns very, very little interest—between 0.3% and 2%.

2. Draining Remaining Social Security Funds: In his desire to show some economic growth and “buy votes” Obama created the “Payroll Tax Holiday,” which was supposed to be for a short time—like 6 months—because reducing the employee’s portion of payroll taxes by 2% takes that money directly out of what is used to fund Social Security. And now he has “gallantly” decided to do it again—for a year this time. This further drains a Social Security System which the president has refused to “fix and fund,” and continues to ignore as it becomes more and more insolvent.

But that’s not all. There’s more. Of course these are all part of the President’s grand plan to keep the (lukewarm) recovery going artificially until he can be reelected to a second term.

3. Dry Up Dividends, Gut Capital Gains: Obama’s latest tax proposal includes doubling the tax rate on dividends and capital gains, which is his way of paying for the irresponsible spending that is creating $5 trillion in deficits just four years. Every year Obama has been in office spending has exceeded revenue by more than a trillion dollars. The only way to over that is with tax increases, and while he talks about taxing the rich—a part of the taxes involved doubling the tax rate on dividends and capital gains. These two of the primary sources of retirement income for seniors, will be taxed more heavily and thus less desirable for companies to pay dividends.

4. New Taxes Hidden in Obamacare: There are hidden surprises in Obamacare—the massive health care bill that was supposed to fix everything—but doesn’t. The most notable one is a 3.8% tax on “unearned income,” which includes dividends, interest, and proceeds from the sale of a home (which many seniors are downsizing, and would use as a source of assets for retirement income.

5. Reduced Funding in Medicare and Rationing Health Care: This one might help seniors by shortening the time they’d have to endure the others, because part of the economic justification of Obamacare was to cut Medicare benefits by $500 billion over a period of years. How? By rationing health care—and refusing to pay for medical expenses incurred by people whose lives were nearing the end anyway. Medicare is already insolvent, and President Obama has not done anything to try fixing it—except take more money away from it.

After all, it doesn’t make sense to spend a lot on medical needs for really old people does it? Not to Barack OBAMA and his minions it doesn’t. They will do a “cost benefit analysis,” and if the medical costs are too high, their appointed commissioners will simply refuse to pay the benefits and let the older, more infirm senior citizens die (sooner). After all, seniors incur more than70% of their lifetime health care expenses in the last few years of their lives.

What the heck, Obama’s got a plan for everything. Save on interest rates, collect more taxes, depress dividend payments and capital gains, and sneak a few more hidden taxes in the 2000+-page Obamacare bill. If rationing health care reduces the number of people who live long enough to need that extra retirement income, it doesn’t matter that the first four steps in the Obama Economic Plan cuts the income of seniors so much their lives wouldn’t be very pleasant anyway.

To top things off, Obama keeps wasting money on high risk “green energy” projects like Solyndra, meanwhile blocking oil and gas exploration, stopping drilling and development of delivery projects like the Keystone pipeline. So what if America sends billions over to the Middle East for oil? So what if the cost of gas goes over $5/gallon. Seniors on reduced fixed incomes, with untreated medial conditions (under rationing) don’t need to be driving around anyway.

What a wonderful country full of HOPE and CHANGE that Barack Obama has planned for us senior citizens. Now hewants four more years, so he can “finish the job”—or “finish us off”—or both.

I am not making this stuff up. It comes right off the reports about Obama’s plans. You might want to share this with all your senior citizen friends, to make sure they know who and what they will be voting for in 2012.

by John Mariotti Forbes Feb 24, 2012


Obama's "Sneak Attack" on Senior Citizens - Forbes