Pleading for unity in a newly divided government, President Barack Obama implored Democratic and Republican lawmakers to rally behind his vision of economic revival for an anxious nation, declaring in his State of the Union address Tuesday night: "We will move forward together or not at all."
To a television audience in the millions, Obama addressed a Congress sobered by the assassination attempt against one if its own members, Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. Her seat sat empty, and many lawmakers of competing parties sat together in a show of support and civility. Yet differences were still evident, as when Democrats stood to applaud his comments on health care and tax cuts while Republicans next to them sat mute.
In his best chance of the year to connect with the country, Obama devoted most of his hour-long prime-time address to the economy, the issue that dominates concern in a nation still reeling from a monster recession — and the one that will shape his own political fortunes in the 2012 election.
The president unveiled an agenda of carefully balanced political goals: a burst of spending on education, research, technology and transportation to make the nation more competitive, alongside pledges, in the strongest terms of his presidency, to cut the deficit and smack down spending deemed wasteful to America.
Yet he never explained how he'd pull that off or what specifically would be cut.
Obama did pledge to veto any bill with earmarks, the term used for lawmakers' pet projects. Boehner and other Republicans applauded.
But Obama's promise drew a rebuke from his own party even before he spoke, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the president had "enough power already" and that plans to ban earmarks were "a lot of pretty talk."
Obama's proposals Tuesday night included cutting the corporate tax, providing wireless services for almost the whole nation, consolidating government agencies and freezing most discretionary federal spending for the next five years. In the overarching theme of his speech, the president told the lawmakers: "The future is ours to win."
Yet, Republicans have dismissed his "investment" proposals as merely new spending.
Republican Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, giving the GOP's response, said the nation was at a tipping point leading to a dire future if federal deficits aren't trimmed. Ryan was to promote budget cuts as essential to responsible governing, speaking from the hearing room of the House Budget Committee, which he now chairs.
Obama entered the House chamber to prolonged applause, and to the unusual sight of Republicans and Democrats seated next to one another rather than on different sides of the center aisle. And he began with a political grace note, taking a moment to congratulate Boehner, the new Republican speaker of the House.
Calling for a new day of cooperation, Obama said: "What comes of this moment will be determined not by whether we can sit together tonight but whether we can work together tomorrow." On a night typically known for its political theater, the lawmakers sometimes seemed subdued, as if still in the shadow of the Arizona shootings.
Many in both parties wore black-and-white lapel ribbons, signifying the deaths in Tucson and the hopes of the survivors. Giffords' husband was watching the speech from her bedside, as he held her hand. At times, Obama delivered lighter comments, seeming to surprise his audience with the way he lampooned what he suggested was the government's illogical regulation of salmon.
Halfway through his term, Obama stepped into this moment on the upswing, with a series of recent legislative wins in his pocket and praise from all corners for the way he responded to the shooting rampage in Arizona. But he confronts the political reality is that he must to lead a divided government for the first time, with more than half of all Americans disapproving of the way he is handling the economy.
Over his shoulder a reminder of the shift in power on Capitol Hill: Boehner, in the seat that had been held by Democratic Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
Obama conceded that everything he asked for would prompt more partisan disputes. "It will take time," he said. "And it will be harder because we will argue about everything. The cost. The details. The letter of every law."
Obama used the stories of some of the guests sitting with his wife, Michelle, to illustrate his points, including a small business owner who, in the tradition of American ingenuity, designed a drilling technology that helped rescue the Chilean miners.
The president cast the challenges facing the United States as bigger than either party. He said the nation was facing a new "Sputnik" moment, and he urged efforts to create a wave of innovation to create jobs and a vibrant economic future, just as the nation vigorously responded to the Soviets beating the U.S. into space a half century ago.
There was less of the see-saw applause typical of State of the Union speeches in years past, where Democrats stood to applaud certain lines and Republicans embraced others. Members of the two parties found plenty of lines worthy of bipartisan applause.
In a speech with little focus on national security, Obama appeared to close the door on keeping any significant U.S. military presence in Iraq beyond the end of the year. "This year, our civilians will forge a lasting partnership with the Iraqi people while we finish the job of bringing our troops out of Iraq," the president said.
The president reiterated his call for a comprehensive immigration bill, although there appears little appetite for it Congress. Another big Obama priority that stalled and died in the last Congress, a broad effort to address global climate change, did not get a mention in the State of the Union. Nor did gun control or the struggling effort to secure peace in the Middle East.
Diva's Nation
*Join The Conversation*
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Illinois high court will hear Rahm Emanuel appeal!
Illinois' highest court agreed Tuesday to take Rahm Emanuel's appeal of a decision that threw him off the ballot for Chicago mayor and ordered election officials not to print any mayoral ballots without Emanuel's name.
State Supreme Court justices agreed to expedite the case, but they gave no specific time frame. They planned to review legal briefs only and would not hold oral arguments.
The moves by the high court bought valuable time for Emanuel. The Chicago Board of Elections had said it would begin printing ballots without his name as early as Tuesday, with the election less than a month away. Absentee ballots were to be sent out within days.
Messages left for election officials were not immediately returned.
"I'm confident in the argument we're making about the fact that I never lost my residency," Emanuel said Tuesday at a campaign stop where he picked up an endorsement from the Teamsters Joint Council.
Emanuel said the order on the ballot printing was "an important first step in ensuring that voters are not disenfranchised and that they ultimately get to choose the next Mayor of Chicago."
In their appeal, Emanuel's attorneys called Monday's ruling "one of the most far-reaching election law rulings" ever issued in Illinois, not only because of its effect on the mayoral race but for "the unprecedented restriction" it puts on future candidates.
His lawyers raise several points, including that the appeals court applied a stricter definition of "residency" than the one used for voters. They say Illinois courts have never required candidates to be physically present in the state to seek office there.
By adopting this new requirement, the court rejected state law allowing people to keep their residence in Illinois even if they are away doing work for the state or federal government, the appeal said.
Emanuel, a former congressman who represented Chicago, was gone while he served as President Barack Obama's chief of staff for nearly two years.
The new standard also sets a "significant limitation on ballot access" that denies voters the right to choose certain candidates, the appeal said.
Just hours after Monday's ruling, the campaign to replace retiring Mayor Richard M. Daley began to look like an actual race.
For months, three of the main candidates struggled for attention while Emanuel outpolled and outraised them, blanketed the airwaves with television ads and gained the endorsement of former President Bill Clinton, who came to town to campaign for Emanuel.
Former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, city Clerk Miguel del Valle and former Chicago schools chief Gery Chico suddenly found themselves in the spotlight — and trying to win over Emanuel supporters who suddenly may be up for grabs.
Even as Emanuel vowed to fight the decision, Braun urged voters to join her campaign "with your time, your effort or your money."
Reporters surrounding Chico outside a restaurant asked him if he was a front-runner — something that seemed inconceivable last week when a Chicago Tribune/WGN poll showed him with the support of just 16 percent of voters surveyed compared with a whopping 44 percent for Emanuel. The same poll showed
Braun with 21 percent support, and del Valle with 7 percent.
"I'm trying to get every vote I can from everybody in this city," said Chico, who released records last week showing he had just over $2 million at his disposal, about one-fourth of the money available to Emanuel.
In their 2-1 ruling Monday, an appeals court said Emanuel met the requirements to vote in Chicago but not to run for mayor because he had been living in Washington.
Challengers to Emanuel's candidacy argued the Democrat did not qualify because he rented out his Chicago home and moved his family to Washington to work for President Barack Obama for nearly two years.
Emanuel — who quit his job and moved back to Chicago in October after Daley announced he would not to seek a seventh term — has said he always intended to return to Chicago and was living in Washington at the president's request.
If he doesn't win the appeal, the race takes on a whole new dynamic. In a city with huge blocs of black, white and Hispanic voters, the Chicago Tribune/WGN poll showed Emanuel leading among all of them, even though his three top rivals are minorities.
Laura Washington, a local political commentator who writes a column for the Chicago Sun-Times, said if Emanuel is out, Chico, who is Hispanic, could be the big winner in terms of fundraising.
"Rahm has the establishment support, the civic leaders, business community, the money class. And Chico is as close to that type of candidate as anyone," Washington said. "They'd take Chico as a second choice, easily."
Braun would be the big winner among black voters, she said. The recent poll showed Emanuel with the support of 40 percent of black voters compared with 39 percent for Braun, even though two other prominent black candidates dropped out of the race to try to unify the black vote.
Del Valle, another Hispanic candidate, said Emanuel's quandary bodes well for the other candidates, regardless of what the court does.
"Now voters see there's an opportunity to look at the field and give candidates either a second look or in some cases a first look," del Valle said. "People are going to pay more attention to the other candidates."
*Rahm Emanuel is determined to be Chicago's new Mayor. He is a mover and a shaker that no one can stop.*
Diva's Nation
*Join The Conversation*
State Supreme Court justices agreed to expedite the case, but they gave no specific time frame. They planned to review legal briefs only and would not hold oral arguments.
Emanuel has asked the court to overturn a lower ruling that pulled his name off the ballot because he had not lived in the city for a year. His attorneys called Monday's decision "squarely inconsistent" with previous rulings on the issue.
Messages left for election officials were not immediately returned.
"I'm confident in the argument we're making about the fact that I never lost my residency," Emanuel said Tuesday at a campaign stop where he picked up an endorsement from the Teamsters Joint Council.
Emanuel said the order on the ballot printing was "an important first step in ensuring that voters are not disenfranchised and that they ultimately get to choose the next Mayor of Chicago."
In their appeal, Emanuel's attorneys called Monday's ruling "one of the most far-reaching election law rulings" ever issued in Illinois, not only because of its effect on the mayoral race but for "the unprecedented restriction" it puts on future candidates.
His lawyers raise several points, including that the appeals court applied a stricter definition of "residency" than the one used for voters. They say Illinois courts have never required candidates to be physically present in the state to seek office there.
By adopting this new requirement, the court rejected state law allowing people to keep their residence in Illinois even if they are away doing work for the state or federal government, the appeal said.
Emanuel, a former congressman who represented Chicago, was gone while he served as President Barack Obama's chief of staff for nearly two years.
The new standard also sets a "significant limitation on ballot access" that denies voters the right to choose certain candidates, the appeal said.
Just hours after Monday's ruling, the campaign to replace retiring Mayor Richard M. Daley began to look like an actual race.
For months, three of the main candidates struggled for attention while Emanuel outpolled and outraised them, blanketed the airwaves with television ads and gained the endorsement of former President Bill Clinton, who came to town to campaign for Emanuel.
Former Sen. Carol Moseley Braun, city Clerk Miguel del Valle and former Chicago schools chief Gery Chico suddenly found themselves in the spotlight — and trying to win over Emanuel supporters who suddenly may be up for grabs.
Even as Emanuel vowed to fight the decision, Braun urged voters to join her campaign "with your time, your effort or your money."
Reporters surrounding Chico outside a restaurant asked him if he was a front-runner — something that seemed inconceivable last week when a Chicago Tribune/WGN poll showed him with the support of just 16 percent of voters surveyed compared with a whopping 44 percent for Emanuel. The same poll showed
Braun with 21 percent support, and del Valle with 7 percent.
"I'm trying to get every vote I can from everybody in this city," said Chico, who released records last week showing he had just over $2 million at his disposal, about one-fourth of the money available to Emanuel.
In their 2-1 ruling Monday, an appeals court said Emanuel met the requirements to vote in Chicago but not to run for mayor because he had been living in Washington.
Challengers to Emanuel's candidacy argued the Democrat did not qualify because he rented out his Chicago home and moved his family to Washington to work for President Barack Obama for nearly two years.
Emanuel — who quit his job and moved back to Chicago in October after Daley announced he would not to seek a seventh term — has said he always intended to return to Chicago and was living in Washington at the president's request.
If he doesn't win the appeal, the race takes on a whole new dynamic. In a city with huge blocs of black, white and Hispanic voters, the Chicago Tribune/WGN poll showed Emanuel leading among all of them, even though his three top rivals are minorities.
Laura Washington, a local political commentator who writes a column for the Chicago Sun-Times, said if Emanuel is out, Chico, who is Hispanic, could be the big winner in terms of fundraising.
"Rahm has the establishment support, the civic leaders, business community, the money class. And Chico is as close to that type of candidate as anyone," Washington said. "They'd take Chico as a second choice, easily."
Braun would be the big winner among black voters, she said. The recent poll showed Emanuel with the support of 40 percent of black voters compared with 39 percent for Braun, even though two other prominent black candidates dropped out of the race to try to unify the black vote.
Del Valle, another Hispanic candidate, said Emanuel's quandary bodes well for the other candidates, regardless of what the court does.
"Now voters see there's an opportunity to look at the field and give candidates either a second look or in some cases a first look," del Valle said. "People are going to pay more attention to the other candidates."
*Rahm Emanuel is determined to be Chicago's new Mayor. He is a mover and a shaker that no one can stop.*
Diva's Nation
*Join The Conversation*
Tax breaks for wealthy donors: Schools struggle, while the rich fund golf tourneys!
US generosity, and its network of charitable giving, comes with baffling inefficiencies. That’s no secret. But consider, too, that for every dollar donated and deducted by wealthy taxpayers paying taxes at a 35 percent marginal tax rate, the US loses 35 cents of potential income tax revenue. While the government struggles to provide essential health and education services, with tax breaks, wealthy Americans are funding both Planned Parenthood and the Pro-Life Action League, the American Petroleum Institute chapters and the Sierra Club, churches and mosques.
Charitable giving is a good and admirable part of the American spirit, but charities can also serve as tax havens for the wealthiest citizens. Tax deductions for charitable giving effectively put the public good in the hands of wealthy donors and their pet causes – at the expense of government revenue for the fair and reliable provision of services.
Charity is a growth industry. More than 1.5 million tax-exempt organizations are registered in the United States. According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics, more than 180,000 public charities were established before 1969, and more than 350,000 were founded during the past decade. But giving is down since reaching record highs in 2008. In 2009, households with more than $200,000 in income, or $1 million in net worth, reduced their giving by 35 percent since 2007, according to a report from Bank of America and the Center on Philanthropy. Charities’ budgets are strained, as the recession and a widening wage gap reduce giving but also increase demand for charitable services.
Excesses of entertainment charityTiger Woods’ divorce scandal last year exposed the excesses and waste of the entertainment charity industry. Sports stars, celebrities, and politicians create foundations and then arrange lavish fundraisers for wealthy friends. The catch is that celebrities can shift entertainment expenses for alcohol or party hosts to these foundations, which cuts into the foundations’ program budgets. Check out Charity Navigator to see its rating for charities on fundraising efficiency.
Wealthy sports figures aren’t the only ones who raise questions about charitable funding. Politicians have used foundations to funnel corporate donations into constituent handouts or even campaign contributions. The midterm elections last fall shed plenty of light on the loopholes exploited by political action committees and corporate giving.
Hard economic times call for targeted spending rather than a patchwork of organizations with overlapping goals and gaping holes. “Look to the Stars” is an online database of more than 2,400 celebrities and a list of their favorite causes and the charities they support. The list of more than 1,600 charities spans the spectrum of causes from AIDS to animals. From the charitable whims of these celebrities, it is hard to assess what America’s urgent national priorities really are, or should be. With 138 different charities on the list devoted to AIDS work, one has to wonder if a competing, disorganized network of institutions is an efficient, dependable structure for getting vital services out to those who need them.
Ending loophole for the richIn early 2009, the Obama administration tried limiting charitable tax deductions to pay for health-care reform, reducing the deduction from 35 cents to 28 cents per dollar for couples with more than $250,000 in income. Even though the measure would have raised billions in crucial revenue over the next 10 years, both Democrats and Republicans slammed it.
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, was among those who opposed President Obama’s proposal to reduce the deduction for wealthiest donors. “[C]omparatively small but abundant charitable institutions are providing services that some politicians feel rightfully belong to the federal government,” he wrote in 2009. “By diminishing churches and charities, the administration fulfills a self-preserving objective of consolidating federal power by creating more taxpayer-funded programs to provide the services churches and charities are currently providing.”
Yet government is still involved. Government grants are central to many charities’ funding. And about 65 percent of revenue for public charities comes from program-service revenues, which includes government fees, contracts, and earmarks. Program-service revenue in 2007 was three times the total revenue from contributions, gifts, and grants, reports the National Center for Charitable Statistics.
Let government ensure the public goodCongress dodges its duty to levy taxes in a uniform way to provide for the nation’s general welfare and make tough decisions on health and other public goods. Instead, it lets wealthy donors make the choices in how to fund the public good. So the billionaire founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, gives $100 million to Newark Public Schools, while other districts struggle. No matter how worthy a charitable cause is, the public good cannot be left to the preferences of wealthy donors whose charitable giving is encouraged by a tax deduction.
Bush tax cuts 101: Who will get what?
An open public process, prioritizing projects based on needs, would provide more efficient funding than relying on the whims of a few. Individuals passionate for a particular cause or innovation (or those thrilled to see their family names on a museum, clinic, or university hall) would still give – and should.
Two years from now, Congress will have the chance once again to decide on extending tax breaks for the wealthy. And maybe they’ll come to their senses – that the health of a democratic nation’s people is strengthened by services ensured by tax revenue, rather than the fashions of largesse. Congress must reclaim vital tax revenue by reducing the rate that the wealthy can deduct charitable giving from 35 to 28 percent.
This lets Congress prioritize our nation’s needs and fairly meet them. Until then, our society relies on a scatter-shot approach.
Diva's Nation
*Join The Conversation*
Charitable giving is a good and admirable part of the American spirit, but charities can also serve as tax havens for the wealthiest citizens. Tax deductions for charitable giving effectively put the public good in the hands of wealthy donors and their pet causes – at the expense of government revenue for the fair and reliable provision of services.
Charity is a growth industry. More than 1.5 million tax-exempt organizations are registered in the United States. According to the National Center for Charitable Statistics, more than 180,000 public charities were established before 1969, and more than 350,000 were founded during the past decade. But giving is down since reaching record highs in 2008. In 2009, households with more than $200,000 in income, or $1 million in net worth, reduced their giving by 35 percent since 2007, according to a report from Bank of America and the Center on Philanthropy. Charities’ budgets are strained, as the recession and a widening wage gap reduce giving but also increase demand for charitable services.
Excesses of entertainment charityTiger Woods’ divorce scandal last year exposed the excesses and waste of the entertainment charity industry. Sports stars, celebrities, and politicians create foundations and then arrange lavish fundraisers for wealthy friends. The catch is that celebrities can shift entertainment expenses for alcohol or party hosts to these foundations, which cuts into the foundations’ program budgets. Check out Charity Navigator to see its rating for charities on fundraising efficiency.
Wealthy sports figures aren’t the only ones who raise questions about charitable funding. Politicians have used foundations to funnel corporate donations into constituent handouts or even campaign contributions. The midterm elections last fall shed plenty of light on the loopholes exploited by political action committees and corporate giving.
Hard economic times call for targeted spending rather than a patchwork of organizations with overlapping goals and gaping holes. “Look to the Stars” is an online database of more than 2,400 celebrities and a list of their favorite causes and the charities they support. The list of more than 1,600 charities spans the spectrum of causes from AIDS to animals. From the charitable whims of these celebrities, it is hard to assess what America’s urgent national priorities really are, or should be. With 138 different charities on the list devoted to AIDS work, one has to wonder if a competing, disorganized network of institutions is an efficient, dependable structure for getting vital services out to those who need them.
Ending loophole for the richIn early 2009, the Obama administration tried limiting charitable tax deductions to pay for health-care reform, reducing the deduction from 35 cents to 28 cents per dollar for couples with more than $250,000 in income. Even though the measure would have raised billions in crucial revenue over the next 10 years, both Democrats and Republicans slammed it.
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the House, was among those who opposed President Obama’s proposal to reduce the deduction for wealthiest donors. “[C]omparatively small but abundant charitable institutions are providing services that some politicians feel rightfully belong to the federal government,” he wrote in 2009. “By diminishing churches and charities, the administration fulfills a self-preserving objective of consolidating federal power by creating more taxpayer-funded programs to provide the services churches and charities are currently providing.”
Yet government is still involved. Government grants are central to many charities’ funding. And about 65 percent of revenue for public charities comes from program-service revenues, which includes government fees, contracts, and earmarks. Program-service revenue in 2007 was three times the total revenue from contributions, gifts, and grants, reports the National Center for Charitable Statistics.
Let government ensure the public goodCongress dodges its duty to levy taxes in a uniform way to provide for the nation’s general welfare and make tough decisions on health and other public goods. Instead, it lets wealthy donors make the choices in how to fund the public good. So the billionaire founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, gives $100 million to Newark Public Schools, while other districts struggle. No matter how worthy a charitable cause is, the public good cannot be left to the preferences of wealthy donors whose charitable giving is encouraged by a tax deduction.
Bush tax cuts 101: Who will get what?
An open public process, prioritizing projects based on needs, would provide more efficient funding than relying on the whims of a few. Individuals passionate for a particular cause or innovation (or those thrilled to see their family names on a museum, clinic, or university hall) would still give – and should.
Two years from now, Congress will have the chance once again to decide on extending tax breaks for the wealthy. And maybe they’ll come to their senses – that the health of a democratic nation’s people is strengthened by services ensured by tax revenue, rather than the fashions of largesse. Congress must reclaim vital tax revenue by reducing the rate that the wealthy can deduct charitable giving from 35 to 28 percent.
This lets Congress prioritize our nation’s needs and fairly meet them. Until then, our society relies on a scatter-shot approach.
Diva's Nation
*Join The Conversation*
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)