United State President Barack Obama on Saturday called on Democrats and Republicans to overcome their differences on health care reform and act on his proposal without delay.

“It is time for us to come together,” Obama said in his weekly radio address. “It is time for us to act. It is time for those of us in Washington to live up to our responsibilities to the American people and to future generations.”

On Thursday, Obama held a high-stakes health care summit with top Republicans, but failed to break an impasse over his historic reform drive, prompting him to warn he would press on with or without Republican help.

Civility largely prevailed at the grueling day-long meeting, after Obama warned against “political theater”, but there was no breakthrough on sharp ideological disputes threatening to suffocate his ambitious presidency.

Obama’s plan to provide health insurance to millions of uninsured Americans stalled in Congress early this year, after Democrats lost a Senate seat to Republicans as a result of a special election in Massachusetts to replace the late senator Edward Kennedy.

The setback resulted to the loss by Democrats of a 60-vote filibuster-proof majority necessary these days to pass most legislation in the upper chamber.

All Senate Republicans have been steadfast in their opposition to the health reform plan. Facts: Main points of Obama health care plan

Obama said in the address that at the summit, he had heard some Republican ideas that were “very worthy of consideration.”

But he admitted that the two sides had disagreed over whether insurance companies should be held accountable for denying care or raising premiums, and over giving tax credits to small businesses and individuals.

“Some of these disagreements we may be able to resolve,” argued the president. “Some we may not. And no final bill will include everything that everyone wants. That’s what compromise is.”

But he insisted Washington politicians could not lose this opportunity to move forward.

“The tens of millions of men and women who cannot afford their health insurance cannot wait another generation for us to act,” Obama said.

Ronald Reagan Birthday, I was barely old enough to vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980. I argued with my parents about the vote as they were recuperating 1960’s liberals. Reagan appealed to my sense of national pride and his clear message of personal responsibility interacting with a vastly reduced government. I had just taken my first economics class in college from a libertarian teacher. Reagan’s message of market economics mixed with a coach’s optimism is what attracted me.

My dad eventually found his way to the right side in 1984, a long journey from staffing for Cesar Chavez, civil rights organizing, and anti-American peace marches. The affirmative action issue and abortion issue turned this former liberal activist into a Republican.

Such was the reach of Ronald Reagan. He appealed not only to moderates but lifelong Democrats as well. What message do self-appointed “conservatives” offer today that appeals broadly? We obsess with pet issues like border fences and campaign financing while losing sight of the big picture.

Ronald Reagan never lost sight of the big picture, and he did not swoop down like a policy wonk on any particular issue. The conservative greatness of Ronald Reagan has less to do with his specific policy record than with his optimistic economic message and his foreign policy legacy. He defeated communism by steadfast determination which earns him a large chapter in the annals of history.

There is an alarming tendency these days for people desiring a “conservative” label to ascribe beliefs to Ronald Reagan which he did not share or promote. Radio entertainer Sean Hannity has a ridiculous segment on his program called “What would Reagan Do?” In it, he ascribes all of Hannity’s own beliefs to Ronald Reagan, thus defining conservatism in his own image.

The funny thing is nobody has heard Sean Hannity talking about the size and scope of the federal government, which was THE core conservative message of Ronald Reagan. Hannity applauded deficit spending, made excuses for the ‘No Child Left Behind Act’ and pretends now that Reagan would oppose an amnesty bill. (Reagan supported and signed an amnesty bill.)

Hannity isn’t the only one. WE ALL want Ronald Reagan back but we forget why. We project our version of conservatism on the current crop of candidates and come away disappointed. “None of them are Reagan” we think, as we recite a laundry list of issues that this or that candidate is at odds with today’s talk radio conservatives. We think we know what Reagan would do.

The thing is we don’t have to guess about Ronald Reagan. We have his record as both governor of California and President of the United States. We know what Reagan would do today because we know what he did then.

In truth, Reagan governed from the middle like all presidents try to do. And in doing so, his record would in many ways alarm talk radio conservatives today.

He was a “green” governor of California, still earning platitudes from the environmentalists in the state. As president, his pen stroked giant swaths of land into the national park system, something that fellow conservative Barry Goldwater also championed. So what would Reagan do on tree hugging environmental issues? Not a priority to him, but his record is a mixed bag at best.

As president, he presided over a large increase in the federal government. He did not steal our local power as much as George Bush, but he steered far away from the conservative ideal.

He did not talk much about social issues, making them a distant 3rd priority never acted upon during his administration. In fact, given three chances on the Supreme Court he appointed only one conservative. If Sanda Day O’Conner had not been put on the bench by Ronald Reagan, the immorality of affirmative action practices would have been forever banned three years ago.

He cut taxes. That was good, but he associated them with corresponding budget reductions, something he challenged congress to enact. Those phantom budget reductions never happened on his watch.

What Ronald Reagan DID was give people confidence in America again. He defeated communism, assuring the ascension of America as the only superpower in the world. He forcefully talked up small government, free-market conservative economic values, but he did not deliver on them. And he whispered about social issues we care about, but his policy inaction and bench appointments confirm that social conservatism was not his cup of tea.

So what would Ronald Reagan do today?

I hope he would remind us of his optimistic resonating conservative message, a message we have clearly forgotten. And I think he would tell the various factions in the Republican party to shut up about the tiny nuances of our wonkish pet policies.

He would surely remind everyone of his 11th commandment: “thou shalt not speak evil of fellow Republicans.” That was another part of Reagan’s legacy that today’s conservatives forget.

You see, Ronald Reagan understood that conservative ideology transcends the particulars. He realized that conservatism is a broad appeal when appealed broadly.

Brittany Murphy Heart Attack, How Did Brittany Murphy Died UPDATE: News reports state Brittany’s mother discovered Brittany unconscious in the shower and that it was Brittany’s mother who called 911. We’ve also learned Brittany was diabetic and, that her husband asked that Brittany’s body not undergo an autopsy. Despite Simon Montjack’s request, an autopsy may be scheduled to be performed as early as tomorrow, while the LAPD is investigating the circumstances surrounding Brittany’s untimely death.

We’re shocked to hear to the news that Brittany Murphy was pronounced dead this morning at Los Angeles Cedars-Sinai Medical Center after what the media is claiming a “massive heart attack” suffered at her home. According to the New York Daily News, Brittany’s husband, Simon Monjack called 911 this morning at 8 am with Los Angeles Fire Department responding to the call where Brittany was in “full cardiac arrest”.

On November 29, Huffington Post reported Brittany’s husband was rushed to LAX Hospital after his plane landed at LAX. Brittany must have been on the flight as, according to the Post, Simon, 39, was “incoherent” when EMS personnel boarded the plane, and, that Brittany argued with the EMS over whether he should be taken to the hospital.

WASHINGTON: US Health Care Bill Clears key Senate Test, President Barack Obama’s top domestic goal, remaking US health care, cleared a key Senate hurdle Monday with no room to spare and seemed all but sure to pass by his self-imposed Christmas deadline.

After hours of bitter debate, all 58 Democrats and their two independent allies closed ranks in a vote after 1:00 am (0600 GMT) to get exactly the 60 senators needed to end debate on a landmark compromise bill.

“What’s really killing more and more Americans every day is complications from our health care system,” Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in the final speech before the ballot.

All 40 Republicans voted against the measure, acknowledging that for the moment they lacked the power to kill the sweeping proposal but warning Democrats would pay a price in the November 2010 mid-term elections.

“It’s not too late. All it takes is one. Just one. All it takes is one. One can stop it — or every one will own it,” Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said in a vain last-ditch appeal for a Democratic defector.

Senators were scheduled to hold two more procedural votes a day apart and then a final ballot on Thursday — Christmas Eve — on passing what would be the most sweeping overhaul of its kind in four decades.

Passage would set up tough negotiations for the Senate and the House of Representatives — which approved its version of the bill on November 7 — to craft a compromise version they could send to Obama to sign into law.

Democratic leaders hope to do so before his State of the Union speech in late January or early February.

Intra-party Democratic feuds were expected over tough new restrictions on federal monies going to subsidize abortions and the Senate’s decision to strip out a government-backed “public option” to compete with private insurers.

The highly unusual overnight vote came after a day of often bitter debate inside the Capitol as Washington dug out from under the worst winter storm in years, which dumped a thick layer of snow and iced-over some roads.

“What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can’t make the vote tonight. That’s what they ought to pray,” said Republican Senator Tom Coburn, a medical doctor.

That drew a sharp rebuke from Senator Dick Durbin, the number two Democrat, who said he did not “think it’s appropriate to be invoking prayer to wish misfortune on a colleague.

“We are becoming more coarse and more divided here,” he scolded. “I don’t wish misfortune on any of my colleagues.”

The underlying legislation would extend coverage to 31 million of the 36 million Americans who currently lack insurance.

It would require most Americans to buy insurance and offer subsidies for low-income families to do so, while forbidding insurers from denying coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions.

Democrats said the bill met Obama’s goals of costing less than 900 billion dollars and not add to the deficit, citing findings from the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office that it will cost 871 billion over the next 10 years and cut the deficit by about 132 billion dollars.

Several Democrats invoked the name of late senator Ted Kennedy, who had made fixing US health care a main cause of his life, and his widow Vicki Kennedy was in the visitors gallery as the vote took place.

The United States is the world’s richest nation but the only industrialized democracy that does not provide health care coverage to all of its citizens.

Washington spends more than double what Britain, France and Germany do per person on health care, but lags behind other countries in life expectancy and infant mortality, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).

Health Care Bill, Health Care Vote Result, US House approves sweeping health care overhaul:-

WASHINGTON: The US House of Representatives has approved the broadest US health care overhaul in a half-century, handing President Barack Obama a major victory on his top domestic priority.

Obama hailed the “historic vote” and said he was sure of signing the ambitious overhaul in 2009.

“Tonight, in an historic vote, the House of Representatives passed a bill that would finally make real the promise of quality, affordable health care for the American people,” Obama said in a statement savoring the political triumph.

“The United States Senate must follow suit and pass its version of the legislation. I am absolutely confident it will, and I look forward to signing comprehensive health insurance reform into law by the end of the year,” he said.

After hours of bitter debate and an appeal from Obama to “answer the call of history,” lawmakers voted late Saturday 220-215 for a 10-year, trillion-dollar plan to extend health coverage to some 36 million Americans who lack it now.Facts: Health bill

The chamber’s Democrats erupted in loud cheers and triumphant applause the moment the bill had the 218 votes needed for passage, about 11:07 pm (0407 GMT), a happy din that grew deafening when a gavel made it official.

The president had paid a rare visit to Congress to lobby for unity among his Democratic allies and reinforced it with a public speech, but 39 still joined 176 of the chamber’s Republicans in opposition to the proposal.

One Republican broke ranks, nominally fulfilling, in the barest terms, Obama’s vow to secure bipartisan support.

“This is our moment to deliver. I urge members of congress to rise to this moment, answer the call of history and vote yes for health insurance reform for America,” Obama said in the White House’s Rose Garden hours before the vote.

The fight to remake health care in the world’s richest country shifted to the US Senate, where its fate remained unclear amid a intra-party dispute among Democrats anchored on what role the US government should play.

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, struggling to pull together the 60 votes needed to ensure passage, has hinted that the chamber may not act until next year.

That would put the issue front-and-center in the 2010 mid-term elections, when one third of the Senate, the entire House of Representatives, and many US governorships are up for grabs.

If, as expected, the two chambers pass rival versions of health care legislation, they will need to thrash out a compromise version and approve it in order to send it to Obama to sign into law.

Final House passage came after a flurry of votes, including a 240-194 vote to sharply tighten restrictions on government monies paying for abortions, seen as critical to cementing support from a group of anti-abortion Democrats.

The House then voted 176-258 to defeat the Republican alternative to the overall plan — with one lone Republican, Representative Timothy Johnson of Illinois, joining the Democrats in opposition.

The United States is the only industrialized democracy that does not ensure that all of its citizens have health care coverage, with an estimated 36 million Americans uninsured.

And Washington spends vastly more on health care — both per person and as a share of national income as measured by Gross Domestic Product — than other industrialized democracies, but with no meaningful edge in quality of care, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The bill would create a government-backed insurance plan, popularly known as a “public option,” to compete with private firms and would end denial of coverage based on preexisting medical problems.

Under the White House-backed bill, Americans would have to buy insurance and most employers would have to offer coverage to their workers — though some small businesses would be exempt and the government would offer subsidies.

WASHINGTON: Hamid Karzai is an Undeserving Partner: Pelosi, Afghan President Hamid Karzai is an “unworthy partner” who does not deserve a big boost either in US troops or civilian aid, US House of Representatives . Pelosi, a skeptic on sending more troops to Afghanistan, also said in an interview with National Public Radio aired that there was not strong support among her fellow Democrats in Congress for “any big ramp-up of troops” to oppose resurgent Taliban forces. She told in the interview that she had asked fellow Democrats to give President Barack Obama room to decide his Afghan strategy, which is expected to be announced in the coming weeks. Once Obama, also a Democrat, announces his decision, lawmakers would “not be shy” about responding, she said. “The president of Afghanistan has proven to be an unworthy partner. We can not fund a mission where we don’t have a reliable partner and where whatever civilian investments we want to make, which are so necessary, will be diverted for a corrupt purpose,” Pelosi told. Congress appropriates funding for military campaigns. But the controversial Iraq war has demonstrated that many lawmakers are reluctant to cut off money for US troops even for a conflict they dislike.

BERLIN: Fresh from an election victory, Angela Merkel got set for a new term as German chancellor on Monday, facing a stack of challenges topped by an ailing economy and an unpopular Afghanistan mission.

“I think we’ve really earned the right to celebrate tonight,” a beaming Merkel, Germany’s first female leader and the only chancellor from the former communist east, told jubilant supporters in Berlin late on Sunday.

“But I want to say to everyone in this country that I want to be the chancellor of all Germans, so that things improve for our country … We have a lot of work ahead of us.”

Europe’s biggest economy has been hit harder than most by the global recession, slamming demand for its all-important exports and sending the country into its steepest recession since World War II.

Unemployment, identified by Merkel as her “top priority” to tackle, stands at 8.3 percent but is forecast to shoot higher in the coming months, while fighting the slump has blown a massive hole in Germany’s public finances.

This time around, Forbes magazine’s most powerful woman on Earth will be in a different coalition, something she believes will help her implement the reforms that she says are vital for lifting the economy out of its malaise.

For the past four years, her conservative CDU/CSU bloc has been stuck in a loveless grand coalition with the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD). But now Merkel is set to govern with the pro-business Free Democrats (FDP).

“Our main objective has been achieved, namely a change of government, which for me is what really counts this evening,” Merkel, 55, said on public television on Sunday.

Although the wildly popular Merkel savoured her victory, the daily Tagesspiegel said her around 33-percent score, the right’s worst since 1949, marked a “black eye” for the chancellor.

FDP leader Guido Westerwelle, whose party’s strong 14.5-percent showing put Merkel over the top, aims to the country’s first openly gay foreign minister.

The SPD crashed to about 23 percent, its worst result since World War II and will be condemned to the opposition benches after 11 years in government — four with Merkel and seven in a coalition with the Greens under ex-chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.

The FDP, meanwhile, returns to government after 11 years watching proceedings from the sidelines, hoping to get the CDU to cut taxes and to reverse Schroeder’s decision to abandon nuclear power by 2020.

Even assuming the new partners see eye-to-eye on all issues — anything but a foregone conclusion — Merkel’s new centre-right cabinet will have its work cut out, however, even without Germany’s economic woes.

The head of European economics Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Holger Schmieding, said the dawn of a new-look cabinet was “not a revolution”.

“There will be no dramatic changes but there will be some tax reforms over the next four years, and there will probably be some move towards deregulation modestly in the labour market and probably some changes in the health-care system,” he told AFP.

The Financial Times Deutschland agreed: “Anyone who expected or feared the chancellor will make a radical change of course with her new government is mistaken.”

Germany is saddled with health care, education and social security systems all in dire need of reform, its population is ageing rapidly and Merkel faces an uphill task to meet the country’s goals on emissions cuts.

Poverty rates and unemployment in the former communist East Germany, where Merkel grew up, are much higher than in the west, 20 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall.

Abroad, Germany’s mission in Afghanistan is highly unpopular and could become a major domestic headache for Merkel in the coming years if an insurgency in the north where its 4,200 troops are based continues to escalate.

The presence of German soldiers in Afghanistan has also been followed by a string of threats by extremists, including from al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and German-born Muslims.

Written by the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked Americans to “speak with others, and not on display” as the health care debate moves forward.

I could not agree more. We will make arguments on the other side, and we Americans are allowing themselves to decide whether the Democrats’ health care proposals must be right.

Approximately 45 years ago, Ronald Reagan said “nobody in this country should be denied medical care due to a lack of funding.” Our commitment everyone knows we have to care for the elderly, young and sick. We are stronger with us when we are among the poorest.

We also know that our current health system loads too often individuals and businesses, especially small businesses-with crippling costs. And we know that the health of the government permit to continue spending at current prices will only add to our increasing deficit.

How can we ensure that those who need medical care they received while the cost of health care to reduce? The comments made by Democrats in Washington are all in the beginning: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I basically agree.

Common sense tells us that government efforts to solve the biggest problems often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that from top to bottom, one size fits all “plan will improve the functioning of a national health system of care that represents a sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us that We should be skeptical when President Obama has promised that the Democratic proposal “a greater stability and security will be provided to all Americans.”

With all due respect, Americans are accustomed to this kind of promise sweeping Washington. And we know from experience that it is a promise from Washington can not keep.

Let’s talk details. Times In his opinion, the president said that the Democrats’ proposal “the clouds will ultimately health costs under control will” by “cutting … Wastage and inefficiency in the federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies …. ”

First, ask yourself if the government that we as “waste and inefficiency” and “unwarranted subsidy” First, it is believed that if he says this time will make things right. Nonpartistan The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) does not do not think so: The director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that “in the legislation that was reported as the nature of the fundamental changes that would reduce the need for job the federal health spending by a significant amount. ”

See now in a way Obama would eliminate inefficiency and waste, it has asked Congress to create a Medicare Independent Advisory JEOPARDY unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts to contain Medicare costs. In an interview with The New York Times in April, the Chairman suggested that this group, who work outside “the normal channels of politics, the” decisions regarding the “major driver of costs … The Guide chronically ill and that by the end of their lives ….

Given such statements, it is not surprising that many of the sick and elderly people are worried that the Democrats proposal will ultimately lead to rationing of health care-I dare say that the panels of the dead? Establishing vote overturned that sentence, but it rang a lot of money for Americans. Working through “normal channels of politics,” says of him, and as a result is unlikely that the Congress a proposal to authorize the wrong end of his life in this cost-reduction counseling context rejected. But the fact is that Democrats have proposed non-elected bureaucrats are empowered to make decisions that make life or death health care issues. Excess government is that we have come to expect from the government.

Speaking of the government overreaching, what the Democrats proposed impact on the deficit? CBO estimates, not the current House proposal is not only a reduction of the deficit, but it will actually increase by 239 billion U.S. dollar in 10 years. Only in Washington could find a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit is to be hailed as a cost cutting measure.

The economic consequences are not confined to abstract deficit numbers, but they will reach into the pockets of Americans every day. If the Democrats’ proposals to expand health coverage while failing to contain health care inflation rates, smaller paychecks followed. A new study by Watson Wyatt Worldwide, by Steven Nyce and Schieber syl concluded that if the government extends the coverage of health care, while health care inflation continues to grow, rising costs lead to low wages available in most of the earnings spectrum Despite the declines would be more pronounced for low-income workers. “Wages are low, the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times.

Finally, President Obama argued in his editorial that the Democrats’ proposals “give every American with a few basic consumer protection, which eventually wear out the insurance companies responsible. “Naturally, consumer protection seems like a good idea. The institutions and it is true that insurance companies can be irresponsible and not respond, just as the federal government. This similarity makes the shift of focus seems nothing more than an attempt to attention to divert from the details of the proposed Democratic proposal to a larger deficit, lower our wages, and increasing the power of the government technocrats unaccountable.

In place of the poll-driven “solutions”, we talk about real reform of health care: market orientation, patient-centered and outcome-driven. As Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute and others have argued, this policy includes that all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who receive coverage through their employers, providing Medicare beneficiaries with vouchers that allow them to buy their own coverage, the reform of civil liability laws for possible save billions each year in unnecessary costs and changes in state regulations that people take security over state lines to buy. Instead of another plan up and down in the government, we will give Americans control over their own health.

The Democrats have never seriously considered these ideas, rather than walking through their own proposals for the dispute. After all, doing what they do not need Republicans to sign on: the Democrats control the House, Senate and Presidency. But if passed, the Democrats proposed to significantly change, a large sector of our economy. This will improve our health. It will not save money. And despite what the president says he will not “more stability and security to all Americans.”

Often we hear so exaggerated promises from Washington. With the first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, I say that this time we know not to buy.

Yemen: Four Yemenis carrying explosives and guns were arrested near the U.S. embassy in San’a, the Interior Ministry said Tuesday.

The Ministry’s statement didn’t say when they were arrested. But senior security officials told media last week they were on the look out for possible attacks against foreign interests in San’a.

The ministry said the four, aged between 20 and 33, had grenades, automatic weapons and ammunition in two separate vehicles. The men were residents of the northern town of Damag, home to one of the country’s largest radical Sunni Islam teaching institutions, frequented by Yemeni, Arab and foreign clerics.

Al-Qaida’s branch in Yemen has targeted the U.S. Embassy in the past. In September 2008, gunmen backed by suicide bombers assaulted the walled compound in an attack that left 19 dead, including six attackers. Months before that, militants fired mortars at the embassy but missed, hitting a nearby school and killing one Yemeni.

Washington has been pressuring Yemen to counter a rising al-Qaida threat more aggressively and improve intelligence sharing. U.S. officials said the government here has been preoccupied with fighting a Shiite rebellion in the north, at times at the expense of countering al-Qaida threats.

TOKYO: Japan’s new ruling Democratic Party was set to press ahead on Wednesday with coalition talks that stumbled the previous day over plans for U.S. Marine bases, an issue that could cloud ties with Washington.

Without the cooperation of the tiny Social Democrats and the conservative People’s New Party the Democrats lack a majority in the less powerful upper house of parliament.

Despite a landslide victory in the Aug. 30 poll for parliament’s powerful lower house, Yukio Hatoyama’s Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) needs their support to ensure legislation can be enacted smoothly, because the upper house can delay bills.

The parties failed on Tuesday to agree on how to word a call for changes to a planned redeployment of U.S. Marines on Japan’s southern island of Okinawa, Social Democratic Party executive Yasumasa Shigeno told reporters late on Tuesday.

But Democratic Party Secretary-General Katsuya Okada, set to be foreign minister in the new administration, was optimistic about the outcome of the talks.

“Since we had so much debate among the secretaries-general, it’s hard to imagine that we won’t reach an agreement,” he told reporters on Tuesday evening.

One analyst said the delay was likely a “performance” on the part of the Social Democrats to persuade their supporters that they would have a voice in government, and was therefore unlikely to prevent the formation of a coalition.

“They don’t really want the whole thing to break down,” said politics professor Yoshiaki Kobayashi of Tokyo University.”

“Decisions will be delayed and the Social Democrats will be critical. But once they have drawn attention to themselves, they will compromise on some deal or other.”

The Democrats have vowed to re-think the redeployment plan but may want to play down the issue ahead of Hatoyama’s first meeting with U.S. President Barack Obama later this month. U.S. officials have said they will not renegotiate the deal.

The new ruling party’s pledge to forge a more independent stance from key security ally Washington has raised concern about possible friction, although Hatoyama has said the alliance remains at the core of Japan’s diplomacy.

Hatoyama is set to be voted in as prime minister by parliament on Sept. 16, ending more than half a century of almost unbroken rule by the Liberal Democratic Party and ushering in a government pledged to putting more money in the hands of consumers, cutting waste and reducing bureaucrats’ control over policy-making.