GOP Presidential Hopefuls: Where They Stand On Health Care
Washington, DC, United States (KaiserHealth) – The declared candidates for the Republican presidential nomination have already been campaigning in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina. They’ve held several debates and competed in the Iowa straw poll. But they’re still developing their platform positions and honing their stump speeches.
KHN has assembled this chart to show where five of the candidates currently stand on major health care issues. The candidates are Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, former Utah Gov. John Huntsman, Rep. Ron Paul and Gov. Rick Perry, both from Texas and former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney. We will be adding issues – and candidates – in the days ahead.
We have sorted the positions by issue. To compare the beliefs and statements, you can scroll down the page or jump to from these links:
Medicare & Aging
Michele Bachmann
Voted for the Ryan budget plan, but later qualified her support, saying she thought it could hurt senior citizens.
Supports reducing future Medicare benefits for people who are now 55 or younger.
Claimed during the health overhaul debate that the law would create death panels and lead to rationing.
Opposes creation of the 15-member Independent Payment Advisory Board, saying the panel, charged with making binding recommendations to reduce Medicare spending, will cause seniors to lose control over their care.
Voted against allowing the government to bargain with pharmaceutical companies to get lower drug prices for Medicare Part D, arguing it would lead to draconian price controls.
Voted to override Obama’s veto of the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008, which temporarily blocked a Medicare pay cut for physicians, prohibited some Medicare Advantage marketing practices, expanded coverage of mental health services and authorized Medicare to cover new preventive services.
“Senior citizens will lose control over what they actually get in Medicare, because a politically appointed 15-member board that’s unelected and unresponsive to the will of the people called IPAB will make the decisions about what care we get and what care we don’t.” — Bachmann to conservative bloggers, June 2011
Jon Huntsman
Backed the Ryan budget plan, which proposed turning Medicare into a “premium support” program to curb spending.
Supported the August 2011 debt-ceiling deal, which leaves entitlement programs untouched in its first phase; the only GOP presidential hopeful to take this position.
“I admire Congressman Paul Ryan’s honest attempt to save Medicare. Those who disagree with his approach incur a moral responsibility to propose reforms that would ensure Medicare’s ability to meet its responsibilities to retirees without imposing an unaffordable tax burden on future generations of Americans.” — Wall Street Journal, May 31, 2011
Ron Paul
Argues that Medicare and other entitlement programs create undesirable dependence on the government, worsening the nation’s financial woes.
Views the Medicare’s Part D prescription drug program as an unwarranted expansion of the government’s role in health care and a “reminder that the GOP sometimes can’t resist the temptation of big government.”
Didn’t take part in Medicare when he practiced medicine; offered low-cost or free care to those who couldn’t afford his services.
Proposes redirecting resources from defense spending to fund Medicare for those already enrolled, while weaning younger people away from such assistance programs in favor of free market approaches.
“Why exactly should Americans be required, by force of taxation, to fund retirement or medical care for senior citizens, especially senior citizens who are comfortable financially? And if taxpayers provide retirement and health care benefits to some older Americans who are less well off, can’t we just call it welfare instead of maintaining the charade about ‘insurance’ and ‘trust funds’?” — Texas Straight Talk weekly address, Nov. 2010
Rick Perry
Argues that, based on the 10th Amendment, states should be able to opt out of Medicare and develop their own means of providing health care.
Led the charge in 2005 against a provision of the Medicare Part D program, which was designed to relieve states of prescription drug costs for low-income elderly people. The policy required states to pay a portion – known as “clawback payments” – of their savings back to the federal government. Perry argued this was unfair to states that had already reduced their Medicaid drug spending. His administration filed a lawsuit in 2006 charging that the policy was unconstitutional.
“I think every program needs to stand the sunshine of righteous scrutiny. Whether it’s Social Security, whether it’s Medicaid, whether it’s Medicare. You’ve got $115 trillion worth of unfunded liability in those three. They’re bankrupt. They’re a Ponzi scheme.” — Newsweek interview, Aug. 12, 2011
Mitt Romney
Said, as president, he would sign the Ryan proposal, but also pledged to put out his own plan for reforming Medicare and Social Security.
Wants to publish federal yearly balance sheet to help people understand the impact of entitlement spending on the budget and economy.
Promises he won’t slice benefits for current seniors or jeopardize their retirement security.
Marketplace
Michele Bachmann
Cites her experience as co-owner with her husband of Bachmann and Associates, a Christian-based mental health care counseling center that employs nearly 50 people.
Sponsored a bill in 2009 that she says would make medical expenses, including insurance premiums, tax deductible for everyone.
Supports the expansion of high-deductible health savings accounts.
Seeks to allow small businesses to band together through trade associations to purchase health insurance for their employees at a lower cost than they can get individually.
Backs tort reform to curb medical malpractice awards.
Jon Huntsman
Pushed as governor for the completion of Utah’s all-payer claims database.
Campaigned for reelection in Utah promising to overhaul the state’s health system and trim the number of uninsured residents.
Signed Utah laws that established a task force to consider comprehensive health system changes, created a tax credit for individuals purchasing a health insurance policy on their own and began setting up an electronic medical records system.
“It is unacceptable that a young father in Clarkston, Utah who works for a small business and wants to buy insurance for his family is denied coverage because of minor ailments. Should eczema or post-partum depression preclude a family from getting affordable health insurance?” State of the State speech, 2008
Ron Paul
Introduced legislation in 2009 to allow patients and physicians to opt out of the electronic medical records system set up by the federal government, to refuse to have those records shared with a third party and to repeal a federal program establishing a “unique health identifier” for each patient.
Supports creating tax credits and deductions for all medical expenses, exempting terminally ill people from paying the employee portion of payroll taxes, providing a payroll deduction to workers who are caring for a spouse, parent or child with a terminal illness.
Opposes caps on awards in medical liability cases.
Endorses a new tax credit for “negative outcomes” insurance bought by patients before medical treatment so they can be compensated for medical mistakes. Says it would reduce “the burden of costly malpractice litigation.”
Supports allowing insurers to sell across state lines, as well as association health plans.
Wants to expand high-deductible health savings accounts.
Rick Perry
Believes policymakers can best improve access to health care by working to improve the economy and increase jobs so that more people are covered under employer-sponsored health plans.
Opposes any federal action that would undermine states’ ability to regulate the health insurance and protect consumers.
Supports medical liability reform/tort reform to reduce frivolous lawsuits and reduce health care costs; cites a Texas measure that became law in 2003 as evidence of effectiveness.
Promoted investments in adult stem cell infusion and helped pass a health care measure that authorized creation of a state adult stem cell bank. He also personally received lab-grown stem cells during a spinal fusion to help with a back injury.
Supports allowing insurance companies to sell across state lines and efforts to help small businesses get better rates on health care plans.
Mitt Romney
Wants to “strengthen” high-deductible health savings accounts by allowing consumers to use them to pay insurance premiums.
Seeks to cap non-economic damage awards in medical malpractices law suits and favors giving states grants to fund other ways to deal with the liability issue, such as health care courts.
Urges restricting federal regulation of health care insurance, although he supports limited rules to bar insurers from denying coverage to those with preexisting conditions when they have had coverage for a specified period of time.
Says insurers should be allowed to sell their products across state lines.
Supports creating a tax deduction for people who obtain health insurance on their own.
Favors allowing individuals and small businesses to join together to buy insurance.
Health Reform Philosophy
Michele Bachmann
Founded the House tea party caucus and is a vociferous critic of the health law.
Co-sponsored legislation in the House to defund the health law.
Introduced in Jan. 2009 the “Health Care Freedom of Choice Act” to allow individuals to deduct all medical expenses.
“The American people spoke soundly and clearly at the ballot box in November and they said to us, ‘Mr. Speaker, in no uncertain terms, repeal this bill.’” — Remarks to the House of Representatives, Jan.’, 2011
Jon Huntsman
Supports repealing the health law, which he says is “top-heavy” and “government-centric.”
Signed in 2008, while governor of Utah, a law to overhaul health care and set up an insurance exchange — one of only two in the United States.
Opposes a federal mandate to require individuals to have health insurance.
Ron Paul
Outspoken opponent of the health law on policy, procedural and constitutional grounds.
Believes the individual mandate is unconstitutional; introduced legislation to end the mandate
Cites his experience as a physician to oppose the implementation of managed care: “We don’t have a right to medical care.”
Introduced legislation to create a market-based system “that reflects consumer choices while rationally pricing services.”
“If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual.” — Statement, Sept. 23, 2009
Rick Perry
Called the health law unconstitutional and a “train wreck of a plan” and supports its repeal.
Opposes the creation of a state-based health insurance exchange, as called for in the health law; his veto threat derailed a GOP effort to create a state exchange.
Did not commit to the health law’s high-risk insurance pool program, which was created by the health law, citing lack of program rules and reliable federal funding.
Believes states should develop state-specific health care reforms instead of “Washington’s one-size-fits-all solutions”
Texas is one of the 26 states involved in a multi-state lawsuit challenging the health law.
Signed legislation in July 2011 to clear the path for Texas to join multi-state health care compacts. The compact would, if approved by Congress, enable the state to opt out of federal health care programs and receive federal funds to fulfill those responsibilities.
“The federal government’s attempt to force every American to buy government-approved health insurance is an egregious violation of our Constitutional rights. The 10th Amendment and individual liberties must be protected, and I am committed to fighting the overreach of Obamacare and challenging these unconstitutional mandates, which have gone far beyond both the letter and spirit of the Constitution.” — Statement about district court ruling in Florida vs. HHS, Dec. 13, 2010
Mitt Romney
Known for working with Massachusetts Democrats to enact the precedent-setting 2006 state law requiring most residents to have insurance.
Supported – as part of this law – the creation of an online marketplace called the Health Connector, through which individuals and businesses can purchase insurance.
Argues that the federal law didn’t grow out of the Massachusetts law, saying the state reforms were tailored specifically to meet the needs of the state.
Says, if elected, he’d allow states to opt out of the federal health law and encourage Congress to repeal it.
“Mr. President, if, in fact, you did look at what we did in Massachusetts, why didn’t you give me a call and ask what worked and what didn’t? … I would have told you, Mr. President, that what you’re doing will not work. It’s a huge power grab by the federal government. It’s going to be massively expensive, raising taxes, cutting Medicare.” — GOP candidate debate, June 13, 2011
Medicaid
Michele Bachmann
Strongly opposes the expansion of Medicaid and other low-income health programs such as CHIP; repeatedly has criticized the expansion of Medicaid under the health care law.
Voted against the 2009 stimulus package, which included a temporary enhanced federal matching rate for the Medicaid program, as well as short-term COBRA continuation assistance.
Voted against expanding CHIP in 2009 and 2007.
Denounced last year’s decision by Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton to expand Medicaid coverage to nearly 100,000 state residents.
Came under scrutiny after media outlets reported that the Christian counseling business she and her husband own received federal and state government funding, including Medicaid payments.
Jon Huntsman
Supports reducing federal funding for Medicaid and turning the program into a block grant to the states.
As governor, implemented a preferred drug list to steer doctors and patients toward lower-cost medications, curb rising costs of Medicaid.
Restored “optional” dental and vision benefits by raising funds through private donations.
Expanded coverage by instituting a year-round open enrollment period for the Children’s Health Insurance Program.
“Let states determine what the percentage of poverty levels are, and let public officials rise or fall on how local citizens feel about those decisions. They’re in a much better position to understand their vulnerable populations than at the federal level.” — Wall Street Journal, June 25, 2011
Ron Paul
Voted against expanding CHIP in 2009 and 2007.
Opposed stimulus package, which included a temporary enhanced federal Medicaid contribution and short-term extension of COBRA coverage.
Rick Perry
Wants states to have more flexibility in administering Medicaid.
Joined with 32 other governors to oppose the health law’s maintenance-of-effort provisions, which prevent states from tightening Medicaid eligibility through 2014.
Opposes the health law’s expansion of Medicaid, arguing it will cost Texas taxpayers more than $27 billion over 10 years starting in 2014. Supports turning Medicaid into a block-grant program, which he says would “improve health care delivery, with innovation, flexibility and local input.”
Pushed a plan late in 2010 to opt out of Medicaid, a proposal that drew resistance from health care and nursing home advocates.
The 2010-2011 state budget signed by Perry included $12 billion in federal stimulus funds.
Outlined a Medicaid vision in 2007 to reduce the number of uninsured Texans by restructuring federal Medicaid funding; unsuccessfully sought a waiver from the HHS to pursue the changes.
Facing budget pressures, the state during Perry’s tenure as governor has relied on cuts to provider payments and controls on pharmacy expenses to rein in the program’s costs.
Texas has the largest percentage of any state’s population that is uninsured, ranks 49th in Medicaid coverage of low-income people and ranks 49th in per capita state spending on Medicaid.
Mitt Romney
Opposes the health law’s expansion of Medicaid coverage to more than 30 million people.
Backs block grants for Medicaid to allow states to use capped federal contributions to run Medicaid as they see fit.
– Provided by Kaiser Health News.
View full post on All Stories
Bank-owned home sales stay high
Washingtong, DC, United States (AHN) – Bank-owned house sales remained high during the second quarter of the year with homes in some stage of the foreclosure process, including short sales, rising to 31 percent of sales compared to 24 percent a year earlier.
However, that number was down from the 36 percent share during the first quarter of this year, according to market research by the online foreclosure marketplace RealtyTrac.
The average sales price of homes in foreclosure or bank-owned was $164,217, which was 32 percent lower than that of homes not in foreclosure. That figure is down by slightly less than 1 percent from the first quarter but a decrease of nearly 5 percent compared to the same quarter a year earlier.
James Saccacio, chief executive officer of RealtyTrac, put the situation into perspective.
“With average prices on distressed real estate trending down and average discounts trending up, this report is clearly good news for well-positioned buyers and investors looking for bargain real estate that will build them wealth in the long term and often cash flow as rental real estate in the short term,” Saccacio said in a statement. “Maybe less evident, however, is the good news in this report for distressed homeowners looking to sell, and even lenders saddled with large portfolios of delinquent loans.”
“The jump in pre-foreclosure sales volume coupled with bigger discounts on pre-foreclosures and a shorter average time to sell pre-foreclosures all point to a housing market that is starting to focus on more efficiently clearing distressed inventory through more streamlined short sales — at least in some areas.”
“This gives distressed homeowners who do not qualify for loan modification or refinancing — or who are not interested in those options and want to sell — a better chance of completing a short sale to avoid foreclosure. Streamlined short sales also give lenders the opportunity to more pre-emptively purge non-performing loans from their portfolios and avoid the long, costly and increasingly messy process of foreclosure and the subsequent sale of an REO — which may end up selling for a lower price than it would have as a pre-foreclosure short sale and in the meantime further stresses already overloaded REO departments,” Saccacio said.
View full post on All Stories
Lagarde urges policy makers to include measures that will support economic growth in short term
Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – International Monetary Fund Managing Director Christine Lagarde urged policy makers to push for measures that would support economic growth in the short term. She wrote in the Financial Times that there is a need to restore fiscal sustainability through credible consolidation plans.
She observed that central bankers are rushing to shield their economies from fiscal tightening and currency swings that pose a threat to new global recession.
She wrote that the present market turmoil had led many to believe that all policy options have been used. Lagarde said that policymakers must act with a common purpose, similar to how they came together in late 2008 to address the global financial crisis and prevented a second Great Depression.
However, she acknowledged that the situation in 2008 is different today because monetary policy is more constrained and the crisis caused large public debt among leading economies equal to 30 percent of their gross domestic products.
The IMF chief said fiscal adjustment would resolve the problem of the measures being neither too fast nor too slow. She pushed for a dual focus on medium-term consolidation and short-term support for growth and jobs.
Lagarde said that while not all nations have sufficient room to implement policies that would support growth, in some countries sharp deficit reduction would be the wrong strategy. She added spending reduction would not be enough, but revenues must also go up.
View full post on All Stories
Majority of Americans lack enough savings to handle $1,000 emergency
Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – The majority of Americans do not have enough money to deal with a $1,000 emergency, according to the National Foundation for Credit Counseling’s (NFCC).
NFCC conducted an online poll in July that found 64 percent of Americans would have $1,000 in savings to cover an unplanned expense and they would have to use some other source of money to cover it.
Nearly 2,700 people participated in the poll.
To resolve the problem, 17 percent of the respondents said they would borrow money from family or friends, 17 percent said they would have to neglect an existing financial obligation to come up with money for an emergency, 12 percent said they would have to pawn or sell an asset and 9 percent each said they would take out a loan or a cash advance from a credit card.
Only 36 percent of respondents said they tap a savings account to obtain funds for an unplanned expense.
Although using rainy day funds for emergency expenses is the best option to protect a person from the unknown and the reason to establish savings to begin with, it is likely that with high unemployment and underemployment and decades of stagnant or declining wages that many respondents no longer have enough money to save or they have already had to use all their emergency savings.
But the 64 percent who would not be able to tap savings to deal with an unplanned $1,000 expenditure are on shaky ground.
“Without adequate savings, consumers have poor resolution choices when an emergency arises,” said Gail Cunningham, spokesperson for the NFCC. “People often say they can’t afford to save, but the truth is that they can’t afford not to.”
However, Cunningham says it’s important to try to get in better financial shape.
“Selecting any option other than taking the money from savings should be a red flag,” continued Cunningham. “If saving money has always seemed out of reach, there is no better time than now to get to the root of the problem and protect yourself, your family and your financial future”
A study earlier this year by the National Bureau of Economic Research had found that 50 percent of Americans would have trouble coping with a $2,000 emergency.
View full post on All Stories
U.S. slapped with Standard & Poor’s rating downgrade
Washington, D.C., United States (AHN) – Standard & Poor’s on Friday downgraded the U.S. government”s “AAA” sovereign credit rating while other two major rating agencies Moody’s and Fitch kept the U.S. at “AAA” but Chinese rating agency Dagong Global Credit Rating Co. on Wednesday cut the U.S. from A+ to A with a negative outlook as Washington went through long-drawn inter-party political bickering before raising the country’s debt limit.
With the U.S. economy already facing an uphill task of recovery, Washington got more worried after the announcement of the downgrade and the U.S. President Barack Obama met the Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner before he left for Camp David Friday afternoon.
China with its largest hold of U.S. Treasuries commented, by proxy, through its official Xinhua news agency saying that Washington needed to “come to terms with the painful fact that the good old days when it could just borrow its way out of messes of its own making are finally gone”.
“We have lowered our long-term sovereign credit rating on the United States of America to “AA+” from “AAA” and affirmed the “A-1+” short-term rating. “We have also removed both the short- and long-term ratings from Credit Watch negative,” the credit rating agency said in a statement.
The downgrade, it said, reflects its opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan which Congress and the administration recently agreed to “falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government”s medium-term debt dynamics.”
“More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policy making and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011,” the agency said.
“Since then, we have changed our view of the difficulties in bridging the gulf between the political parties over fiscal policy, which makes us pessimistic about the capacity of Congress and the Administration to be able to leverage their agreement this week into a broader fiscal consolidation plan that stabilizes the government”s debt dynamics any time soon.”
S&P statement said: “The outlook on the long-term rating is negative. We could lower the long-term rating to “AA” within the next two years if we see that less reduction in spending than agreed to, higher interest rates, or new fiscal pressures during the period result in a higher general government debt trajectory than we currently assume in our base case.”
“When comparing the U.S. to sovereigns with “AAA” long-term ratings that we view as relevant peers “Canada, France, Germany, and the UK” we also observe, based on our base case scenarios for each, that the trajectory of the U.S.’s net public debt is diverging from the others,” it said.
Including the U.S., S&P estimated that these five sovereigns would have net general government debt to GDP ratios this year ranging from 34% (Canada) to 80% (Britain), with the U.S. debt burden at 74%.
By 2015, S&P projects that their net public debt to GDP ratios will range between 30% (lowest, Canada) and 83% (highest, France), with the U.S. debt burden at 79%.
“However, in contrast with the U.S., we project that the net public debt burdens of these other sovereigns will begin to decline, either before or by 2015,” it said.
On Monday, S&P will issue separate releases concerning affected ratings in the funds, government-related entities, financial institutions, insurance, public finance, and structured finance sectors, the statement added.
View full post on All Stories
Saudis assume role as banker of counter-revolution
Jerusalem, Israel David Rosenberg – Saudi Arabia and the other oil-rich kingdoms of the Gulf are emerging as bankers of counter-revolution, dispensing aid to governments, investing in business, making charitable donations and selling subsidized oil to countries under pressure from Arab Spring street protests and sagging economies.
Jordan, whose king is fending off calls for democracy, is the latest beneficiary of the largesse. On Monday, it received a $1 billion check from Saudi Arabia to cover its budget deficit and help prop up its economy. The donation brings total aid to Jordan this year to $1.4 billion and more is likely to come, including selling it oil at reduced prices, the Amman-based daily Al Arab Al-Yawm reported today.
“Saudi Arabia and the GCC as a whole want to insulate themselves from the secular and tribal and sectarian forces that are being unleashed by the revolt,” Theodore Karasik, director for research at the Dubai-based Institute for Near East and Gulf Military Analysis, told The Media Line. “They are watching with extreme caution in their near abroad because of the impact it has on their own states.”
The Arab Spring has created both threats and opportunities for Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies. On the one hand, it is has toppled old allies, like Egyptian President Husni Mubarak, and made other autocrats are vulnerable to an increasingly vociferous street. The mass protests and violence have undermined economies, increasing pressure on regimes.
On the other hand, the Arab Spring has raised oil prices – benchmark Brent crude was trading at $118 on Wednesday, filling the coffers of Saudi Arabia and other oil exporters, enabling them to disburse money to allies. At home, Riyadh has committed to spending $125 billion on created jobs and other programs just in a bid to keep its population content.
Jordan’s King Abdullah is a prime candidate for aid. A moderate pro-Western monarch, he has been buffeted by protests that call for everything from an end to corruption to his job. Meanwhile, Jordan’s economy is sinking. Tourism and construction, two mainstays of the economy, are contracting and unemployment rose above 13 percent in the second quarter. Inflation is accelerating and gas imports from Egypt needed to power generating plants have been repeatedly interrupted.
Saudi aid, however, has enabled the government to contain its budget deficit even as it has increased subsidies to pacify the population.
“Saudi Arabia’s stand at Jordan’s side during the difficult global economic circumstances, that witnessed a sharp rise in oil prices that adversely affected Jordan’s economy, underscores your true vision for the nation’s solidarity,” Abdulla said in a statement on Monday.
Not surprisingly, Egypt has been the biggest recipient of financial aid. The Arab world’s most populous and influential country, Egypt faces critical choices about how much freedom and democracy will prevail, the role of Islam and economic policy even as the country struggles with chronic strikes and protests, rising unemployment and inflation and a growing budget deficit. The results may well set the direction of the Arab Spring throughout the region.
In the last several weeks, it has been offered $4 billion in aid from the Saudis, including a $1 billion deposit at the Central Bank of Egypt, $500 million in bond purchases, $500 million for budgetary purposes and a soft loan worth another $500 million. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is kicking in another $3 billion in aid and soft loans to boost job opportunities and housing projects. Qatar announced that it will fund projects amounting to $10 billion or more.
Other have benefited as well. Tunisia, the cradle of the Arab rebellion, is getting a part of a $10 billion package from Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait to be shared with Egypt that was announced at the end of May. The poorer Gulf countries that have witnessed unrest have been helped, too. Bahrain and Oman have been promised $10 billion each over a decade.
Not all autocrats are being helped. Syria Bashar Al-Assad, an ally of Saudi Arabia’s arch-foe Iran who has failed to douse a four-month rebellion, isn’t known to have received any aid, nor has Libyan strongman Muammar Al-Qaddafi. In fact, in Libya, the rebels have been getting humanitarian aid and advice from Qatar and the UAE on how to use the oil under their control.
“On the Qatari side, there appears to be old family connections with the folks in Benghazi,” Karasik said. “The UAE is doing this because of proactive foreign policy regarding revolts in the region.”
Government-to-government funding isn’t the only way Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf monarchies give aid. Jordan as well as Morocco, whose king has so far succeeded on containing demands for reforms, were invited in May to join the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), a grouping of six Gulf countries. Membership would not only include more aid but make it easier for jobless Jordanians and Moroccans to work in the Gulf.
Jordanian Foreign Minister Nasser Judeh is scheduled to fly to Saudi Arabia next week for talks with the GCC on a framework for Jordan’s membership.
Some analysts and activist contend that private donations coming out of Saudi Arabia through government-supported charities are being used to create pro-regime messages via Islamic groups that assert that Muslims must obey their rulers and regard democracy as a violation of religion.
What do the Saudis want in return for their help?
That is left unstated, at least publicly. But it has been a source of concern for opposition leaders in recipient countries. When Egypt turned down help from the International Monetary Fund in June and agreed to take assistance from Gulf countries instead, its then-finance minister, Samir Radwan, had to defend the deal.
Asked in an interview with Al-Jazeera television whether money from the Arabian Peninsula came with any conditions, he answered: “None whatsoever.”
View full post on All Stories
