Group items tagged

But for now, the top issue is whether to permanently extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, set to expire on Dec. 31. In fact, the two parties are not far apart. Both Republicans and Democrats back extending tax cuts for some 97 percent of taxpayers. The catch is the last 3 percent, representing individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and families earning more than $250,000.

But for now, the top issue is whether to permanently extend the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, set to expire on Dec. 31. In fact, the two parties are not far apart. Both Republicans and Democrats back extending tax cuts for some 97 percent of taxpayers. The catch is the last 3 percent, representing individuals earning more than $200,000 a year and families earning more than $250,000.The cost of extending tax cuts to this top income group would be $700 billion over the next 10 years.

House Republican leader John Boehner said on Sunday that he is open, if necessary, to renewing the Bush tax cuts for the 97 percent, even if it means not extending those cuts to the top 3 percent. But so far, no GOP leader has joined him.

The high court also upheld a more sweeping disclosure requirement. Any corporation spending more than $10,000 a year on electioneering efforts must publicly disclose the names of individual contributors.

The Supreme Court did not jettison all campaign finance restrictions. Corporations and unions are still prohibited from making direct contributions to federal candidates. Such contributions must be made either by individuals or through regulated political action committees.In addition, although corporations may now spend money to make a political point during election season, the high court has strongly endorsed – by an 8-to-1 vote – disclaimer and disclosure requirements within the federal campaign finance law.That means that when corporations place a political ad on television or radio within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, it must include the disclaimer: "______ is responsible for the content of this advertising."This disclaimer requirement may deter many corporations from engaging in the kind of vicious political attack ads that some analysts suggest will now become commonplace.

The result is a fundamental shift to the right – and toward an unprecedented degree of militarization – in Iran's government. While the Guard has long been the keeper of Iran's most important secrets, including its nuclear facilities and ballistic missile arsenal, it has now in many ways also become the kingmaker in Iranian politics.

The result is a fundamental shift to the right – and toward an unprecedented degree of militarization – in Iran's government. While the Guard has long been the keeper of Iran's most important secrets, including its nuclear facilities and ballistic missile arsenal, it has now in many ways also become the kingmaker in Iranian politics. Mr. Khamenei is "still the supreme authority in Iran, but in a lot of ways he has become beholden to the Revolutionary Guard to maintain his authority, because his position [as supreme leader] has lost so much credibility,

In recent weeks the Guard or affiliated companies have made new acquisitions that will deepen their influence over what people read and watch, and how they communicate in private. They announced the creation of a new media outlet called Atlas, to be rolled out next spring; bought a 50 percent, $7.8 billion stake in Iran's newly privatized telecommunications company; and added a $2.5 billion rail contract to the large portion of Iran's economy – from infrastructure to laser eye surgery – that the IRGC already controls.

Whether Democrats can keep control of the House in the 2010 election hinges on three things: the direction of job growth, Democrats' ability to convince independent voters that the country’s finances are not out of control, and the direction of Barack Obama’s approval ratings.

Podesta argued that no one unemployment figure will be a “magic number” for Democrats' political success. Instead, if by the summer of 2010 the number of jobs in the economy is growing consistently, then Democrats in Congress can hold the loss of seats “to a relative minimum,” he said. One question, he added, is “do people smell we are on the right path or do they feel still bogged down?”

For Democrats to demonstrate that control, Podesta argued in favor of a timetable to put the federal budget back in balance. “Once the economy is fully recovered, deficit reduction will be critical to growth and broadly shared prosperity,” he said. The Center for American Progress proposes establishing a mechanism to ensure that government income and spending for all items -- except debt service -- move into balance by 2014. The next goal would be to have all government spending – including debt service – be covered by income in 2020.

The Senate vote marks the beginning of the end for the long march of healthcare reform through the US legislative system. The Senate bill must now be merged with the House version of healthcare reform, approved in November. Substantial differences between the two approaches remain, particularly in regard to antiabortion language, methods of financing, and a governmnt-run public option insurance plan.A conference committee of members from both chambers will struggle over this harmonization. In its own way, that task could be almost as difficult as the Senate debate, as lawmakers struggle to keep intact the language passed on their side of Capitol Hill. The Senate bill, like its House counterpart, would prevent the insurance industry from denying benefits to people with pre-existing health conditions. It provides subsidies to help low- and middle-income residents purchase that insurance. And it establishes state marketplaces, called "exchanges," whereby individuals without employer-provided insurance, and some small businessess, could buy coverage.

The partisan divide is such that Democrats now own healthcare reform. If it succeeds in coming years, they may benefit politically. If it struggles, it may drag them down.Republicans, similarly, own the opposite side of this issue. If the debt skyrockets and the economy struggles, they could look prescient. If the programs succeed, then the Christmas Eve vote could become something analogous to the GOP's opposition to the creation of Medicare – something with which Democrats can assail them at every electoral opportunity.

And while most Americans understand this system to be badly broken already, the US Supreme Court this year ruled, in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, to permit unlimited spending by corporations and unions to influence elections. Indeed, early figures show that vastly more money is being spent to influence the outcome of our elections this fall – $4.2 billion in political ad spending alone compared with just $2.1 billion in 2008, according to Borrell Associates. Less than a third of organizations spending money on the fall elections thus far are disclosing their sources of funds, thereby denying citizens any knowledge of who is trying to influence the election.

As an important first step in reclaiming our elections and curbing the undue influence of special interests on our candidates, it is high time that Congress passed the Fair Elections Now Act, introduced in the House by my former colleagues Democrat John Larson of Connecticut and Republican Walter Jones of North Carolina. Modeled after successful Fair Elections programs in eight states, the proposed law would require that participating candidates turn down special interest money and accept only $100-or-less donations from their constituents. Candidates who reach a qualifying threshold of 1,500 in-state donations would then be eligible to receive sufficient matching funds to run a serious campaign. This would dramatically reduce the influence of special interests, including unions and corporations. And Fair Elections would open the election process to many more Americans who currently have no opportunity to seek public office for lack of funds.

Obama recently pledged that the United States would reduce emissions about 17 percent by 2020 as compared with 2005 levels (though the Wall Street Journal is reporting that he might soon announce steeper cuts for 2050); his current pledge reflects numbers in bills now under review by Congress. The president probably can't offer much more without risking that any final treaty would later be rejected by Congress, similar to what happened when the U.S. Senate failed to ratify the Kyoto climate treaty in 1997.

Rather than absolute carbon cuts, some developing countries, including China and India, have declared goals of reducing the "carbon intensity" of their economies. In other words, they will use less carbon per unit of GDP growth, but as their overall economies grow, so too will carbon emissions, at least for the short term. China has pledged to reduce the carbon intensity of its economy by 40 to 45 percent. India has a target of 20 to 25 percent. The targets have been applauded by some as a step forward and pilloried by others as far too low.

The upshot: Nothing will happen unless there's money behind it, and for some countries, the financial pledge may be as politically difficult as the carbon-reduction pledge. (Sen. John Kerry has proposed that the United States pony up $2.5 billion to $3 billion, roughly equivalent to the annual budget of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.) With many industrialized countries stuck in recessions and struggling with high unemployment, short-term generosity will be difficult.

Why does the WTO face such paralysis? The political impossibility of curbing farm subsidies in many countries is only part of the reason the Doha talks are stalled. Sheer numbers are an equally troublesome problem. The days when the United States and the European Union could write the rules for world trade are long gone. There are now 153 countries around the bargaining table, and emerging economies such as Brazil, China, India, and Argentina are eager to flex their muscles on the world stage, making consensus all but impossible to come by.

Why does the WTO face such paralysis? The political impossibility of curbing farm subsidies in many countries is only part of the reason the Doha talks are stalled. Sheer numbers are an equally troublesome problem. The days when the United States and the European Union could write the rules for world trade are long gone. There are now 153 countries around the bargaining table, and emerging economies such as Brazil, China, India, and Argentina are eager to flex their muscles on the world stage, making consensus all but impossible to come by.

With the WTO paralyzed, countries have increasingly taken matters into their own hands and struck trade agreements bilaterally or in small groups, diminishing the WTO's role still further. The United States started this trend, signing the controversial North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), pacts with Israel and Jordan, and several others. These deals, never popular, have become politically problematic in America, but they have become all the rage in Asia, the fastest-growing part of the world. As they proliferate, an increasing number of countries will give better treatment to exports from one another than to exports from the United States.

The continuing attacks in Baghdad highlight a partial failure to achieve political reconciliation. While some of the alliances competing in the forthcoming election are non-sectarian, the blame for the attacks follows a familiar pattern. Sunnis say that the Shia government is failing to protect Iraqi citizens. Some Shias accuse Sunni politicians of secretly allying with insurgents, while other Shias point fingers within their divided camp. Hadi al-Ameri, head of the security committee in parliament and a leading opponent of the prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, told al-Sharqiya TV that all the commanders of the security force in Baghdad, who are appointed by Mr Maliki, ought to be replaced. Such recriminations play into the hands of insurgents, thought to be Sunni extremists variously identified as Baathists, Saddamists or al-Qaeda in Iraq. A divided country is less likely to find the courage to turn up at polling stations. This could undermine the legitimacy of the next government and trigger further recriminations between the parties vying to form the next administration, especially if the bombings continue, as seems likely.

The bill must now go to a conference committee to resolve significant differences between the House and Senate versions. And history shows that agreement is far from guaranteed. In fact, just last year, a bill reforming the Indian Health Service died when the conference committee couldn't overcome its differences on abortion. Similarly, in 2007, bills dealing with issues as varied as campaign-finance reform, corporate pensions and closing tax loopholes passed both chambers but never became law. .author_pub2 a { float:right; margin: 10px 0 8px 8px; display:block; height: 142px; width: 110px; background: url(/people/pub_photos/tanner.jpg) no-repeat -110px 0; } .author_pub2a a { float:right; margin: 10px 0 8px 8px; display:block; height: 142px; width: 110px; background: url(/people/pub_photos/tanner.jpg) no-repeat 0 0; }

It's important to remember that the House bill passed with just three votes to spare and the Senate bill received exactly the 60 votes needed for passage. Democratic leaders have little room to maneuver as they try to resolve such issues as:

The Public Option: The Senate rejected the concept of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurance. Sens. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) made it clear that inclusion of the so-called public option would cause them to join a Republican filibuster. They are justifiably concerned that a taxpayer-subsidized government plan would drive private insurance out of the market and lead to a single-payer government-run system. But the House did include a public option -- and retaining it has become the top priority for the Dems' liberal wing. Public-option advocates seemed willing to go along with a proposed Medicare "buy-in" for those 55 to 64, but even that compromise was dropped from the final Senate bill. Now Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-Brooklyn), among others, has made it clear his vote is in doubt if the final bill does not include some form of public option. And such liberal activist groups as Moveon.org have promised to spend the holiday vacation pressuring their allies to fight for the public option.

The formation of a new government does not push back the specter of another war with Israel. In July 2006, Hezbollah abducted two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid, setting off a 34-day war that crippled Lebanon's infrastructure, displaced 1 million people, and killed more than 1,200 Lebanese – the majority of them civilians. Since that conflict ended, both sides have been preparing for a new round.Hezbollah leaders boast that the group now has an even larger and more potent cache of missiles than it did three years ago. Israeli officials, who are also escalating their war rhetoric, estimate Hezbollah's arsenal at between 40,000 and 80,000 rockets. On Nov. 3, the Israeli navy intercepted a ship in the Mediterranean Sea that was carrying 500 tons of rockets, mortars, and other weapons. Israeli officials claimed that it was an Iranian arms shipment intended to reach Hezbollah through Syria, which led to a new round of bellicose threats from both sides.The basic problem is that Hezbollah makes decisions that could lead to war – without consulting or involving the Lebanese state. And Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has threatened to hold the Lebanese government responsible for the militia's actions. This puts Hariri in a difficult position and it will make him reliant on the Obama administration to keep Israel at bay.

While Hezbollah has shown a willingness to adapt and evolve politically, it is unlikely that the movement would give up its weapons – or the idea of perpetual resistance – without a political settlement between the West and Hezbollah's main patron, Iran.The Obama administration can avert a new conflict by keeping its attention focused on Lebanon, continuing to support Hariri's government, and helping to strengthen state institutions like the Lebanese Army. But US officials must eventually reach out to Hezbollah, which is designated a terrorist organization by the State Department. Washington could begin indirect outreach through France and other Western countries that maintain contact with Hezbollah.

U.S. officials identify Balochistan as a critical center of Taliban and al-Qaeda activity.  Many observers believe that high-profile al-Qaeda figures and ranking Taliban members, including Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Muhammad Omar, have fled Afghanistan or Pakistan’s tribal areas for sanctuary in Balochistan.  The provincial capital of Quetta is believed to serve as a critical hub for financing and organizing Taliban and al-Qaeda operations

Islamabad worries that an escalation of the U.S.-led campaign in Helmand and other parts of Afghanistan will compel Afghan militants to use Balochistan as a temporary sanctuary to evade direct engagements with U.S. forces.  Afghan militants may also use Balochistan as a staging ground for attacks against NATO forces in Helmand and beyond.  In other words, Pakistan fears that Balochistan may go the way of FATA and the NWFP following the U.S. invasion and occupation of Afghanistan,

The problems affecting Balochistan are severe, considering that the region serves as one of the crucial logistical hubs sustaining the U.S.-led military campaign in Afghanistan.  Convoys ferrying fuel, vehicles, arms, food, and other crucial items to U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan travel through Balochistan.