24 December 2012Last updated at 19:24 ETBy Matt McGrathEnvironment correspondent, BBC News
Wildlife campaigners are at odds over a new attempt to ban the global trade in polar bear parts.
Some activists say the market for rugs and ornaments made from the bears is driving them to extinction.
But others argue that the most pressing problem for the species is climate change and the disappearance of polar ice.
The issue will be decided at a UN wildlife conservation meeting in Thailand in March 2013.
The Humane Society International/UK says that polar bears have been brought to a tipping point by climate change but that increased hunting in recent years is pushing the species "beyond the brink".
Continue reading the main story
?Start Quote
We can't be arguing for the science when it suits us and then ignore it when it doesn't suit our case?
End QuoteDr Colman O'CriodainWWF
"The drivers for the increase in recent years in the trade in polar bear parts are the extremely worrying and rapidly increasing prices being paid on international markets for polar bear parts," said Mark Jones, executive director of the Humane Society International/UK.
He points to the fact that in the five years up to 2012 there has been a 375% increase in the number of polar bear skins offered at auction, some selling for as much as $12,000 (?7,400).
Opinions divided
Every year around 600 bears are legally killed by hunters in Canada and in the decade to 2010 more than 30,000 bear parts were traded as trophies, rugs and ornaments.
Opponents of the trade have now proposed a ban on the international sales of polar bear parts. It will be tabled at the next meeting of the Convention on the trade in endangered species (CITES) taking place in Thailand next March.
The move is being supported by the US and Russian governments. The last time an attempt was made to change the ruling in 2010, it was defeated after the UK and the EU voted against. Mark Jones believes the UK government's position is very influential and wants them to support the ban.
"We urgently need the British government to step forward and be a champion for polar bears by supporting their maximum protection," he added.
But some prominent campaigners are against changing the protected status of the bears. WWF has had a long association with the iconic species but believes that the threat from international trade is not significant compared to the threat from climate change.
"If we were tempted to support it on the basis of trade being a major threat, it is not," says Dr Colman O'Criodain, WWF's wildlife trade policy analyst.
"We have to focus on what is the major threat and not distract ourselves with a relatively minor one. We can't be arguing for the science when it suits us and then ignore it when it doesn't suit our case," he added.
Little impact
WWF are supported by other groups including Traffic International and IUCN. But Mark Jones says the Humane Society International have broad support for their position as well.
"We're members of a very big campaigning group called the species survival network and we do believe we have a very wide consensus among groups on this particular issue," he said.
Dr Colman O'Criodain says that WWF won't actively campaign against the ban and will accept it if it is voted through. But he argues that would be a bad outcome for polar bears.
"You could say that this is just a distraction factor and that it could have the effect of making people think something has been done to address the threat when the net effect will be almost negligible," he said.
Indigenous groups in Canada are actively working against the proposed ban. And they particularly resent the fact that the US is leading the charge for change.
"The American government is using the threat of climate change to justify banning the international trade in polar bear parts while utterly failing to do anything to reduce their own activities," said James Eetoolook of the Nunavut Tunngavik, a group that represents Inuit interests.
They argue that their own research in the western Hudson Bay region carried out earlier this year indicated that bear numbers were increasing rather than declining.
Campaign groups in favour of the new ban are taking comfort from the fact that some governments are still undecided.
A spokesperson for the UK's department of the environment, farming and rural affairs added:
"We are currently considering the proposals ahead of the Conference of the Parties meeting next year."
Only 60 percent of consumers use a buyer broker when they are hunting for a house, according to the National Association of Realtors. By contrast, 89 percent of consumers selling their homes use a listing agent.
Why 40 percent of the people shopping for what is usually the single biggest investment of their lives do not want to be represented by an agent is the topic of this month?s question-and-answer session between John Rebchook, of InsideRealEstateNews.com, and Lane Hornung, CEO and founder of 8z Real Estate.
Hornung says that given the lowest inventory of homes in most metropolitan cities across the country, consumers need the help of a qualified real estate professional now more than ever.
John: Lane, why do you think so many people looking to buy a home don?t use a buyer broker?
?Lane: I think there is a misconception out there that a consumer will save money if he or she isn?t represented by an agent. But that is usually not the case. Typically, the home seller has a listing agent, so what usually happens is that the listing agent gets ?both sides? of the commission. That is, the fee that would have gone to the buyer?s agent goes to the listing broker.
John: Lane, do you think that a buyer?s agent often will get a better deal for the buyer than if they go it alone?
Lane: I do. A good listing agent works hard to get the highest sales prices and best deal for their clients, the sellers. The listing agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller.
Conversely, the buyer?s agent has a fiduciary duty to the buyer.? You want someone looking out for the best interests of you, the buyer. You want someone who is watching your back.
John: Is it all about dollars and cents?
Lane: Not at all. Buying a home is a very emotional experience. You want someone who can be somewhat removed and objective. Your agent may tell you that the seller is asking a fair price, or a low price, or a high price, based on the supply, demand and comparables. They may point out issues in the house that do not meet your needs or are actually at odds with what you have said you desire in a home.
A good buyer?s agent has the goal of also being your agent when the time comes to sell, so they are assessing whether or not a particular home may have challenges in the resale market.? These issues are often overlooked or simply ignored by a less than objective, emotionally engaged buyer.
John: With so many home buyers starting their search on the Internet, do you think a lot of consumers no longer feel they need an agent?
Lane: I think so. But the truth is, while the Internet is a great tool, and believe me, at 8z, we are big believers in using the Internet to empower buyers, there is so much information out there, it can mean information overload for consumers.
If a consumer is using sites like Zillow and Trulia to find a home, they could be missing out on listings for sale that take days or weeks to hit these sites. Conversely, they may become interested in homes that are no longer on the market as the data is often outdated. Consumers are much better off using information provided by an agent?s or broker?s website that is affiliated with the gold standard of listing data, the Multiple Listing Service.
John: Will having a buyer broker help reduce the stress of trying to find a home in today?s market?
Lane: Make no mistake, buying a home when there is a severe shortage, is very stressful. But having an experienced agent who can help you navigate these waters is extremely helpful. You may have to make a decision quickly or lose a home, but you need someone to put it in perspective. An agent can give you a reality check ? maybe it is worth bidding above the asking price, but maybe you are better off waiting.
Also, after a while, your agent will start to pick up on some things that you, the consumer, may not even be aware of. After an agent gets to know you, he or she will have a good idea of what you want or don?t want in a house and can really help you make the right choice. Sometimes people are too close to the situation and need someone who can step back and look at the home objectively.
John: How does a consumer pick a buyer?s broker?
Lane: First, you want someone who sells real estate full-time. There is no room in this market for part-time agents. If you have identified a neighborhood, find a broker who works in that neighborhood and really knows it. The average real estate agent only sells three homes a year. At 8z, our agents sell an average of 22 homes a year. We have true experience and deep knowledge of the real estate process and the areas we service.
John: Since prospective buyers may be spending a lot of time in the company of their buyer?s agent, I imagine the chemistry between them is important.
Lane: Definitely, it?s quite important. You want to make sure you are reading off the same sheet of music. You might even go out on a ?test? drive with an agent to look at a house to assess whether or not you click. And don?t be afraid to ask the agent for references.
John: What about hiring your brother-in-law, the agent?
John: I think consumers have become so sophisticated that hiring a family member or a friend of a friend, for no reason other than they are a friend or a family member, is becoming less common. Today?s consumer wants to hire an agent who knows the market and the area, knows the transaction cold, and will provide them with professional grade service.
John: Thanks, Lane.
8z Real Estate is a sponsor of InsideRealEstateNews.com. A question and answer with Lane Hornung is a monthly feature of InsideRealestateNews.com. If you have any topics you would like Lane to address, contact John Rebchook at JRCHOOK@gmail.com. To learn more about Hornung?s company please visit?8z Real Estate
NEW YORK (Reuters) - A pension fund that holds shares of NYSE Euronext has sued the exchange operator over its proposed $8.2 billion sale to IntercontinentalExchange Inc, saying the deal undervalues the company's stock.
The New Jersey Carpenters Pension Fund late on Friday filed a complaint in New York State Supreme Court in Manhattan contending that NYSE Euronext breached its duty to maximize returns for shareholders. The lawsuit seeks class action status on behalf of other NYSE Euronext shareholders and aims to block the sale.
It is the second such lawsuit filed against the exchange operator since the deal was announced on Thursday. An individual shareholder, Samuel Cohen, filed a proposed class action in Delaware Chancery Court on Friday that also seeks to prevent the buyout from going forward.
Under the deal, NYSE Euronext, which operates the New York Stock Exchange, will sell itself to Atlanta-based ICE. The stock-and-cash deal is expected to close in the second half of 2013.
At $33.12 per share, ICE's offer represents a 28 percent premium to NYSE Euronext's closing price last Wednesday.
In court papers, the New Jersey pension fund said the deal was based on a "hopelessly flawed process" that would favor NYSE Euronext Chief Executive Duncan Niederauer and several members of its board of directors.
The sale was "designed to ensure the sale of NYSE Euronext to ICE on terms preferential to ICE and designed to benefit NYSE Euronext's insiders," the pension fund said.
A spokesman for NYSE Euronext declined to comment. A spokeswoman for ICE, which is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit, did not return a call seeking comment.
The lawsuit also names as defendants Niederauer, NYSE Euronext Chairman Jan-Michiel Hessels, and other executives and board members.
The buyout is expected to help ICE compete in derivatives trading against U.S.-based CME Group, owner of the Chicago Board of Trade. Derivatives trading is highly profitable for the exchanges, and new rules next year will dramatically expand the demand for clearing over-the-counter contracts.
NYSE Euronext's stock market businesses are less valuable to ICE, and the company said it will try to spin off the Euronext European stock market businesses in a public offering, generating speculation it may also have little interest in the NYSE trading floor.
Profits from stock trading have been significantly eroded by new technology and the rise of other places for investors to trade, including venues known as "dark pools."
The cases are New Jersey Carpenters Pension Fund et al. v. NYSE Euronext et al., Supreme Court of the State of New York, No. 654496/2012, and Cohen v. NYSE Euronext et al, Delaware Court of Chancery, No. 8136.
(Reporting By Nick Brown; Editing by Martha Graybow, Andrew Hay, Bob Burgdorfer and Steve Orlofsky)
Prevent that other traditional seasonal event ? winter weight gain!
?
Christmas is almost upon us and because of it?s timing this year, the partying for some has already begun! Use these simple tips to help stay fit and healthy this year and get a head start on that Resolution.
1. Routine, Routine, Routine
Keep as close to your current exercise plan as possible. Parties to go to? Then squeeze in a quick run or workout beforehand or make sure that you have a tough session the day after a splurge (ie Boxing Day). Your body will thank you for it in the long term and you will feel infinitely better in the short term. The key here is planning ? identify where in your Christmas schedule you?ll have some time and book in a little you time.
2. Portion Control
This can be the toughest thing to manage at Christmas. It?s all too easy to eat until you literally feel as if you?re going to burst. Instead, try to stop before you feel full ? the hormones which tell us we are full actually don?t kick in until we are past the point of no return. So this year, eat until you feel about 80% full and in 15 minutes your brain will have caught up.
3. Choose the Right Party Foods
Most party foods are simple carbohydrates or very high in refined sugar or grains. Try to make intelligent snack choices ? go for unsalted nuts, smoked salmon or veggie bites. It?s very easy for the foods that surround the main Christmas meal to be the ones which do all the damage.
4. Drink Sensibly
We consume more alcohol over the festive period than at any other point in the year ? remember, you can still have fun without overdoing it! Also make your drink choices wise ones, champagne is a good low-calorie option as each glass equates to only around 80 calories and the resveratrol in red wine does confer some health benefits (although these are negated by over-consumption). Again, balance is key ? if you do decide to let your hair down, make sure you make up for it the next day (eat less and get out and exercise!).
5. Stay Hydrated
What with all this drinking, we often forget to keep taking in water. As well as staving off the next day?s hangover, alternating alcohol with water will also help to fill you up and mean that you eat less.
The main thing to remember is to enjoy the next couple of weeks with your friends and family. This time of year can do wonders for our mood ? especially important for us Scots, normally hunkering down in our dark, wet winters. If you do ?fall off the wagon? don?t beat yourself up about it too much, just resolve to be better the next day.
Merry Christmas and a Healthy, Happy New Year to you all from Gemma and I!
NEWTOWN, Conn. -- Three miles from Sandy Hook Elementary School, a white Colonial-style building stands about 50 feet back from the road, an unassuming presence in a town that never got much attention until now. On a recent day, a security guard got out of a parked car at the end of the driveway and said he?d received instructions to turn away anyone who didn?t work in the building. It wasn't hard to see why his employers might have hired him. In what appears to be a bizarre coincidence, the people working inside were among the country's most adamant champions of the kinds of weapons and ammunition that Adam Lanza used to kill 26 children and adults just down the road last week.
The Newtown-based National Shooting Sports Foundation, or NSSF, is the nation's premier gun manufacturers trade association, and in recent years the group has concentrated on marketing military-style assault weapons of the kind used by Lanza, James Holmes and other mass murderers. In the last decade, as the national interest in hunting has declined, gun manufacturers have increasingly relied on the sale of high-powered rifles, capable of killing many people in seconds. Behind the scenes, the NSSF has done much of the work of pitching those products to politicians, the media and gun buyers.
Doug Painter, a former NSSF president, delivered a pitch characteristic of the NSSF?s folksy approach in a video released by the group in 2009, a year when many gun-owners were worried that the newly Democratic White House would try to take away their weapons.
Holding up the same kind of rifle that Adam Lanza would eventually use to commit mass murder, Painter asked the camera, ?Am I gonna trade in Ol? Betsy for one of these?? He answered himself, ?Maybe not. But there?s a more important point to consider. Anti-gun folks insist on labeling these rifles as ?bad guns,? as opposed to more traditional-looking ?good guns.? How can any inanimate object be considered ?good? or ?bad???
The ad was part of a broad, multi-year effort by the gun industry-backed NSSF "to put a happy face on these military weapons,? said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the gun-control advocacy group the Violence Policy Center. "People would be shocked if they knew that the industry has taken guns that were designed for warfare and marketed them to civilians," said Sugarmann, who happens to be a native of Newtown, Conn.
* * * * *
Since the Sandy Hook massacre, the NSSF has stated publicly that it will not respond to media requests, and attempts to reach Steve Sanetti, the president, were unsuccessful. Nor did anyone answer at two publicly listed numbers for Painter, the former president. In a statement posted on its website, the group acknowledged the NSSF's proximity to the school, saying, ?there are not many degrees of separation in small communities like Newtown, and so, not surprisingly, we had family, friends and acquaintances that were affected.?
The group later added another statement, claiming that it would ?welcome the opportunity? to eventually become part of a ?full national conversation? aimed at improving the ?protection of our children and our communities.?
As that conversation unfolds, Sanetti, the group?s president since 2008, is likely to emerge as a controversial figure. A former Army captain, Sanetti previously served as president of Sturm & Ruger, a Connecticut-based company that produced the assault weapon used in the Norway massacre of 2011. He helped direct "the successful coordinated response to municipal lawsuits that threatened the firearms industry in the late 1990s,? according to a 2008 press release from the firm.
"I think the world of him," said Russ Thurman, a gun magazine editor and a member of NSSF's board of governors, who has noted in the past that while Sanetti's "long-term involvement in the legal issues has not been pleasant or glamorous," it is "important.?
The NSSF?s efforts to rebrand military-style semi-automatic rifles, or ?AR-15 rifles? in industry speak, as consumer-friendly recreational products can be traced back to 2009, when the group launched a national media campaign designed to convince hunters of the benefits of the newer, more expensive assault weapons.
In a newsletter released at the time, Sanetti emphasized how important the guns were to the industry?s bottom line. "The best-selling rifles in America today are those based on the AR-15 platform," he said.
In 2010, the group began working to promote the AR-15 with Guns and Ammo, a major gun magazine that devoted a recent cover story to the best guns for surviving a zombie apocalypse. The group also held combination seminars and shooting sessions where members of the media were lectured on the differences between machine guns and semi-automatic rifles (machines guns are even more dangerous). And yet it has rarely, if ever, attempted to advance the argument that these weapons are necessary, or even particularly useful. "Why are these guns so popular?" asks a lecturer in a video of one of the NSSF media seminars. "One word: They're fun!"
"These are fun fun guns to shoot," says an unidentified journalist in the same video. "As a mother of three I'd have no problem letting my kids, with the correct supervision and safety gear, you know, try one of these guns."
In order for gun manufacturers to keep growing, Sugarmann said, "they've got to do two things. First, find new markets, which is what they're doing with their womens' and childrens' programs. The other option is to find something new to sell the guys who already have guns. The answer for that is increasingly militarized weapons."
* * * * *
Statistically, it's difficult to discern how well these efforts are working. The gun lobby, led by the National Rifle Association, has a long history of suppressing statistical reports on both gun registrations and gun violence, while simultaneously painting a rosy picture of industry growth.
What's clear is that the gun industry's growing dependence on AR-15s has made it more vulnerable to any legislation that might limit the sale of ARs or high-capacity magazines. And so in April of 2010, the NSSF launched its first-ever political action committee, called NSSFPAC.
In its first nine months, the PAC raised $10,000. In the next election cycle, in 2012, it raised ten times that, $102,000. NSSF also spent $500,000 in the first ten months of 2012 on lobbyists, a nearly five-fold increase over the 2008 total.
The increased presence on Capitol Hill appears to have paid dividends. In its 2011 report, the NSSF boasted that its annual members' lobbying trip to Washington, D.C. had an "immediate result," the introduction of legislation in both the House and Senate to exempt lead bullets from regulations of toxic substances. And indeed, on April 14, less than a week after the NSSF visited Congress, one member in each house, Montana's Sen. Jon Tester (D) and Florida's Rep. Jeff Miller (R), introduced the legislation.
Asked about the timing of the bill, a spokeswoman for Sen. Tester disputed the NSSF's characterization. Tester, she said, consults his own constituents on Second Amendment issues, and "was getting ready to introduce the bill long before NSSF's fly-in." Miller's office did not respond to questions from HuffPost about the bill.
The group has also helped lead a successful lobbying effort in Connecticut, working with the NRA and other organizations to help defeat a proposed ban on high-capacity ammunition clips -- magazines containing more than 10 bullets. Jake McGuigan, the NSSF's government-relations director, told lawmakers that the bill would take a heavy toll on the state?s $1.3 billion firearms industry.
Adding to the irony of NSSF's proximity to Sandy Hook Elementary, the weapons industry's history in Connecticut stretches back almost to the very founding of the country, earning the state a proud nickname: "the arsenal of democracy."
Eli Whitney began manufacturing pistols in Connecticut in 1797, and Samuel Colt, the inventor of the Colt 45 and one of the architects of the industrial revolution, was born in Hartford and started producing guns there in 1848. The Connecticut River Valley, which stretches from Springfield, Mass., in the north to Old Saybrook, Conn. in the south, made Connecticut an ideal setting for industry. For more than two centuries, the fate of the state's industrial plants, gun businesses and military bases have been closely intertwined. As NSSF and many other proponents of the latest and most dangerous weapons models are quick to point out, gun makers in America have long looked to the military for inspiration and funding; the Colt 45 was initially designed for soldiers, and the Civil War financed the construction of many stately homes along the Connecticut River.
Last year, Marlin Firearms, a well-regarded manufacturer that had been in business in Connecticut for a century, closed its plant, costing the state hundreds of jobs. Following the Newtown shooting, the NSSF is facing what may be a far more formidable challenge. Legislation to ban assault weapons has gained momentum in Congress, and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) has vowed to reintroduce the expired 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban on the Senate's first day back in 2013.
One recent evening outside Sandy Hook Elementary School, a local man who'd come by to pay his respects said he owned a semi-automatic rifle and some 30-round magazines -- the same kind of ammunition that Lanza used and that the NSSF promoted.
He said he'd never heard of the NSSF, but he agreed with their message: powerful, military-style guns are fun.
"But big deal," he added. "I wouldn't mind if they banned them at all."
WASHINGTON (AP) ? Efforts to save the nation from going over a year-end "fiscal cliff" were in disarray as lawmakers fled the Capitol for their Christmas break. "God only knows" how a deal can be reached now, House Speaker John Boehner declared.
President Barack Obama, on his way out of town himself, insisted a bargain could still be struck before Dec. 31. "Call me a hopeless optimist," he said.
A look at why it's so hard for Republicans and Democrats to compromise on urgent matters of taxes and spending, and what happens if they fail to meet their deadline:
___
NEW YEAR'S HEADACHE
Partly by fate, partly by design, some scary fiscal forces come together at the start of 2013 unless Congress and Obama act to stop them. They include:
? Some $536 billion in tax increases, touching nearly all Americans, because various federal tax cuts and breaks expire at year's end.
? About $110 billion in spending cuts divided equally between the military and most other federal departments. That's about 8 percent of their annual budgets, 9 percent for the Pentagon.
Hitting the national economy with that double whammy of tax increases and spending cuts is what's called going over the "fiscal cliff." If allowed to unfold over 2013, it would lead to recession, a big jump in unemployment and financial market turmoil, economists predict.
___
WHAT IF THEY MISS THE DEADLINE?
If New Year's Day arrives without a deal, the nation shouldn't plunge onto the shoals of recession immediately. There still might be time to engineer a soft landing.
So long as lawmakers and the president appear to be working toward agreement, the tax hikes and spending cuts could mostly be held at bay for a few weeks. Then they could be retroactively repealed once a deal was reached.
The big wild card is the stock market and the nation's financial confidence: Would traders start to panic if Washington appeared unable to reach accord? Would worried consumers and businesses sharply reduce their spending? In what could be a preview, stock prices around the world dropped Friday after House Republican leaders' plan for addressing the fiscal cliff collapsed.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke has warned lawmakers that the economy is already suffering from the uncertainty and they shouldn't risk making it worse by blowing past their deadline.
___
WHAT IF THEY NEVER AGREE?
If negotiations between Obama and Congress collapse completely, 2013 looks like a rocky year.
Taxes would jump $2,400 on average for families with incomes of $50,000 to $75,000, according to a study by the non-partisan Tax Policy Center. Because consumers would get less of their paychecks to spend, businesses and jobs would suffer.
At the same time, Americans would feel cuts in government services; some federal workers would be furloughed or laid off, and companies would lose government business. The nation would lose up to 3.4 million jobs, the Congressional Budget Office predicts.
"The consequences of that would be felt by everybody," Bernanke says.
___
THE TAXES
Much of the disagreement surrounds the George W. Bush-era income tax cuts, and whether those rates should be allowed to rise for the nation's wealthiest taxpayers. Both political parties say they want to protect the middle-class from tax increases.
Several tax breaks begun in 2009 to stimulate the economy by aiding low- and middle-income families are also set to expire Jan. 1. The alternative minimum tax would expand to catch 28 million more taxpayers, with an average increase of $3,700 a year. Taxes on investments would rise, too. More deaths would be covered by the federal estate tax, and the rate climbs from 35 percent to 55 percent. Some corporate tax breaks would end.
The temporary Social Security payroll tax cut also is due to expire. That tax break for most Americans seems likely to end even if a fiscal cliff deal is reached, now that Obama has backed down from his call to prolong it as an economic stimulus.
___
THE SPENDING
If the nation goes over the fiscal cliff, budget cuts of 8 or 9 percent would hit most of the federal government, touching all sorts of things from agriculture to law enforcement and the military to weather forecasting. A few areas, such as Social Security benefits, Veterans Affairs and some programs for the poor, are exempt.
___
THERE'S MORE AT STAKE
All sorts of stuff could get wrapped up in the fiscal cliff deal-making. A sampling:
? Some 2 million jobless Americans may lose their federal unemployment aid. Obama wants to continue the benefits extension as part of the deal; Republicans say it's too costly.
? Social Security recipients might see their checks grow more slowly. As part of a possible deal, Obama and Republican leaders want to change the way cost-of-living adjustments are calculated, which would mean smaller checks over the years for retirees who get Social Security, veterans' benefits or government pensions.
? The price of milk could double. If Congress doesn't provide a fix for expiring dairy price supports before Jan. 1, milk-drinking families could feel the pinch. One scenario is to attach a farm bill extension to the fiscal cliff legislation ? if a compromise is reached in time.
? Millions of taxpayers who want to file their 2012 returns before mid-March will be held up while they wait to see if Congress comes through with a deal to stop the alternative minimum tax from hitting more people.
___
CALL THE WHOLE THING OFF?
In theory, Congress and Obama could just say no to the fiscal cliff, by extending all the tax cuts and overturning the automatic spending reductions in current law. But both Republicans and Democrats agree it's time to take steps to put the nation on a path away from a future of crippling debt.
Indeed, the automatic spending cuts set for January were created as a last-ditch effort to force Congress to deal with the debt problem.
If Washington bypassed the fiscal cliff, the next crisis would be just around the corner, in late February or early March, when the government reaches a $16.4 trillion ceiling on the amount of money it can borrow.
Boehner says Republicans won't go along with raising the limit on government borrowing unless the increase is matched by spending cuts to help attack the long-term debt problem. Failing to raise the debt ceiling could lead to a first-ever U.S. default that would roil the financial markets and shake worldwide confidence in the United States.
To avoid that scenario, Obama and Boehner are trying to wrap a debt limit agreement into the fiscal cliff negotiations.
___
SO WHAT'S THE HOLDUP?
They're at loggerheads over some big questions.
Obama says any deal must include higher taxes for the wealthiest Americans. Many House Republicans oppose raising anyone's tax rates. Boehner tried to get the House to vote for higher taxes only on incomes above $1 million but dropped the effort when it became clear he didn't have the votes.
Republicans also insist on deeper spending cuts than Democrats want to make. And they want to bring the nation's long-term debt under control by significantly curtailing the growth of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security ? changes that many Democrats oppose.
Obama, meanwhile, wants more temporary economic "stimulus" spending to help speed up a sluggish recovery. Republicans say the nation can't afford it.
___
IT'S NOT JUST WASHINGTON
Seems like they could just make nice, shake hands and split their differences, right?
But there's a reason neither side wants to give ground. The two parties represent a divided and inconsistent America. True, Obama just won re-election. But voters also chose a Republican majority in the House.
Republican and Democrats alike say they are doing what the voters back home want.
Neither side has a clear advantage in public opinion. In an Associated Press-GfK poll, 43 percent said they trust the Democrats more to manage the federal budget deficit and 40 percent preferred the Republicans. There's a similar split on who's more trusted with taxes.
About half of Americans support higher taxes for the wealthy, the poll says, and about 10 percent want tax increases all around. Still, almost half say cutting government services, not raising taxes, should be the main focus of lawmakers as they try to balance the budget.
When asked about specific budget cuts being discussed in Washington, few Americans express support for them.
___
THE COUNTDOWN
Time for deal-making is short, thanks to the holiday and congressional calendars. Some key dates for averting the fiscal cliff:
? Lawmakers aren't expected to return to the Capitol until after Christmas, leaving less than a week to vote on a compromise before year's end.
? Obama and his family also were leaving town for a Christmas vacation in Hawaii. The president said because the fiscal cliff was still unresolved, he would return to Washington next week.
? If lawmakers reach Dec. 31 without a deal, some economists worry that the financial markets might swoon.
? The current Congress is in session only through noon Eastern time on Jan. 3. After that, a newly elected Congress with 13 new senators and 82 new House members would inherit the problem.
___
Associated Press writers Jim Kuhnhenn, Alan Fram and Andrew Taylor and Director of Polling Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.
___
Follow Connie Cass on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ConnieCass
