Khoa học tổng hợp: Change

Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn Change. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Tư, 15 tháng 5, 2013

Five ways the IRS scandal will change Washington

Toss a pebble into a lake and the ripples spread far and wide. Lob a scandal, in which the anti-tax tea party is under attack by its nemesis, the Internal Revenue Service, into the shark-infested waters of Washington, and well, the political ramifications are huge.

Whatever comes of the investigations into the IRS’s inappropriate targeting of conservative groups in the 2012 election cycle, this much appears certain: the scandal will unite conservatives, invigorate the tea party, and potentially affect the 2014 midterm elections.

Here are five ways the IRS scandal will change Washington:

1) INVIGORATE THE TEA PARTY AND ITS SMALL-GOVERNMENT MOVEMENT

For thousands of tea party members across the nation, it’s an “I told you so” moment. You have to admit the scandal is perfectly scripted. Big government, and taxes in particular, are the movement’s central grievance. Heck, the group even takes its name from the Boston Tea Party, the iconic historical protest against unfair taxation.

How perfect, then, that the latest scandal to hit Washington confirms the tea party’s anti-big government, anti-tax, anti-IRS crusade. What’s more, it confirms countless complaints by tea party groups and allegations by right-leaning websites like The Blaze that the IRS was going after conservative groups.

In Washington, the tea party had been losing its luster almost ever since the shining glory of the 2010 midterms. The IRS scandal could be the rallying cry of a reinvigorated movement.

2) UNITE CONSERVATIVES

The GOP’s 2012 election square dance – two steps to the right in the primary, one step to the left in the general election – exposed a rift between the Republican Party and its conservative base, one that’s only widened as the party is forced to reconsider issues like gay marriage and immigration.

Yet, as every tactician knows, nothing unites like a common enemy. As such, the IRS scandal unleashed a golden opportunity for conservatives.

“The accusations of IRS abuse are sure to fuel an effort that appears to be uniting dispirited Republicans and their conservative political base: investigating Mr. Obama and his administration,” The New York Times reported Monday. “Republicans are pushing a portrayal of an administration overreaching its authority and punishing its enemies.”

Enemies that are sure to leverage the situation to their advantage.

3) IMPACT MIDTERM ELECTIONS

Yes, believe it or not, it’s true. If conservatives can sustain, even strengthen, that unity, and launch a big-government attack on Democrats, the IRS scandal could influence the 2014 midterm elections.

In a recent column, political polling guru Nate Silver predicts the IRS debacle “could have a substantial political impact,” and has “the potential to harm Democrats’ performance in next years’ midterm elections, partly by motivating a strong turnout from the Republican base.”

He uses a five-point test to argue that the scandal “has legs”: it can be described in one sentence, cuts to the core of a candidate or party’s brand, and reinforces a negative perception about a candidate, among other points.

Expect reverberations in 2014.

4) INVIGORATE THE TAX CODE REFORM MOVEMENT

For years advocacy groups and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle – from Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana to libertarian Rep. Ron Paul of Texas to Republican Gov. Rick Perry of Texas – have advocated for tax reform. It’s an uphill, if not vertiginous, climb and a goal that has remained elusive for decades.

If they’re smart, lawmakers and tax advocacy groups will use the IRS scandal – and its revelations about tax code loopholes (recall that 501(c)(4)s are often used by political groups to avoid paying taxes and to hide donors) – to invigorate their cause.

A case in point: For the first time in more than 25 years, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Baucus wants to launch the first full-scale rewrite of the 5,600-page US tax code.

Ambitious? Yes. But given the current climate in Washington, the timing couldn’t be better.

5) DERAIL BIPARTISAN COOPERATION

Alas, as if partisan bickering and congressional gridlock weren’t enough, the IRS fiasco throws another wrench into legislative wrangling on issues like gun control, immigration, and the debt ceiling debate.

President Obama’s chummy dinners and golf games with Republicans? All for naught, as Politico explains.

“The IRS developments couldn’t come at a worse time for the White House, which has spent months courting GOP support for everything from gun control to an overhaul of immigration laws,” it reported. “If the administration’s recent GOP charm offensive bought any goodwill, it seems to be on short supply now.”

Or, as the Washington Post said, “We aren’t likely to see Republicans and Democrats in Congress join hands and sing Kumbaya any time soon.”

Thứ Hai, 8 tháng 4, 2013

Hagel seeks change on conviction reversals

WASHINGTON (AP) — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is recommending that military commanders be largely stripped of their ability to reverse criminal convictions of service members, a move that comes in response to a congressional uproar over an Air Force officer's decision to overturn a guilty verdict in a sexual assault case, the Pentagon said Monday.

Hagel has asked his staff to draft legislation that would require that cases go through the U.S. Court of Military Appeals, and that senior officers no longer have the authority to set aside guilty findings, except in limited, minor offenses that ordinarily don't warrant a court martial. The commanders, however, would retain their ability to participate in plea bargains and to reduce sentences, but they would have to defend the lesser sentence in writing.

In a written statement Monday, Hagel said that, if enacted by Congress, the changes "would help ensure that our military justice system works fairly, ensures due process and is accountable. These changes would increase the confidence of service members and the public that the military justice system will do justice in every case."

The change requires congressional action, but lawmakers have already begun looking into the matter in response to a furor over a recent Air Force sexual assault case. Hagel said the new recommendations have the full support of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the service secretaries.

Lt. Gen. Craig Franklin, commander of the 3rd Air Force at Ramstein Air Base in Germany, overturned the conviction against Lt. Col. James Wilkerson, a former inspector general at Aviano Air Base in Italy. Wilkerson had been found guilty last Nov. 2 of charges of abusive sexual contact, aggravated sexual assault and three instances of conduct unbecoming of an officer and a gentleman. The incident had involved a civilian employee.

Wilkerson was sentenced to a year in prison and dismissal from the service, but after a review of the case Franklin overturned the conviction. His decision triggered outrage among senators and calls for a new look at the military justice system.

"This decision has turned the military on its ear," said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., during a hearing last month. She added that Franklin's decision sets the Air Force "all the way back to Tailhook." The 1991 Tailhook scandal rocked the military as Navy pilots were accused of sexually abusing female officers at a Las Vegas convention.

Hagel ordered a review of the issue, but he does not have the sole authority to either change the law or the reverse Franklin's ruling.

On Monday, senior defense officials explained the change, saying that once their review of the matter began it became quickly evident that no one was pushing back against the change. They said that the authority to set aside convictions was more suitable years ago, but the military justice system now has additional checks and balances to assure fairness.

The officials who were involved in the review spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the change publicly.

Senators heralded Hagel's move, with McCaskill calling it a "big win for survivors of sexual assault" in the military. And the House Armed Services Committee promised to give the change serious consideration.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, who heads the personnel panel on the Senate Armed Services Committee, said she and several colleagues are drafting a bill to address the problem and strengthen accountability in the military justice system.

Anu Bhagwati, executive director of Service Women's Action Network, said that she commended the change to the post-trial decision-making. She added, however, that similar attention must be placed on the authorities of commanders during pre-trial decisions affecting the investigation and prosecution of offenses so that the judicial process more closely mirrors the civilian system.

At the same time, Hagel acknowledged that the Pentagon is still struggling to address the problem of sexual assault in the military. He said he's reviewing other ways to strengthen the department's prevention and response efforts.

Air Force officials have argued that overturning the results of a military court martial and granting clemency is rare — amounting to roughly 1 1/2 percent of the caseload. In the past five years, senior commanders have overturned 40 guilty verdicts out of the 3,713 courts martial that were tried. Of those, the Air Force said that 327 involved sexual assaults and just five of those convictions were reversed.

Defense officials said that the other military services have reported similar percentages, but their exact numbers were not available.

Under the current law, if an accused service member is found guilty and sentenced, the findings are not final until they are approved or disproved by the convening authority. The convicted service member can request clemency and the general officer — usually a major general or lieutenant general — seeks legal advice, reviews the trial record and considers information submitted by the accused.

___

Follow Lolita C. Baldor on Twitter: https://twitter.com/lbaldor

View the original article here

Thứ Năm, 4 tháng 4, 2013

The Man Who Could Put Climate Change on the Agenda

Denis McDonough, the White House chief of staff, is best known for two things: his national security chops—he had key roles on the White House National Security Council—and the high regard in which he’s held by President Obama. McDonough has been part of Obama’s inner circle for nearly a decade, and the president has called his new chief of staff one of his “closest and most trusted advisers.”

Here’s what a lot of people don’t know about McDonough: He has a background on climate change, and he takes the issue very seriously. “Denis McDonough understands the threat posed by climate change to national security more than any White House chief of staff in the 21st century,” said Daniel J. Weiss, director of climate strategy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank where McDonough worked as senior fellow in 2006 and 2007; while there, he wrote and contributed to several papers on climate change.

Jason Bordoff, who served as the president’s special assistant for energy and climate change on the National Security Council, wrote in an e-mail to National Journal, “When Denis was deputy national security adviser … we worked together on several energy and climate-related issues. Denis recognizes that climate change is a serious problem, and that strong U.S. leadership and action is needed to address the challenge.”

Here’s why that’s important: If Obama wants to follow through on his 2013 Inaugural Address pledge to make climate change a cornerstone of his legacy, he’ll need to make a series of tough, highly controversial executive decisions. There is almost no chance Congress will pass climate-change legislation in his second term, which means that the White House will have to drive any meaningful policy action. That action will probably come in a series of aggressive Environmental Protection Agency regulations to slash pollution from coal-fired power plants, and in the president’s decision on the Keystone XL pipeline, the $7 billion project that would bring carbon-heavy tar-sands oil from Alberta, Canada, to U.S. Gulf Coast refineries. Obama will also need to act ahead of a United Nations summit in 2015, at which the world’s nations are expected to sign a binding treaty to tackle climate change.

The pushback—from industries such as oil, coal, and manufacturing, and from powerful business groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—will be strong, as will be the political and legal repercussions. Even some Democrats, particularly those from coal and Rust Belt states, aren’t enthusiastic about the White House moving forward with tough regulations that could hurt their economies. And some senior administration staffers think climate change is far from a top-tier issue and is a sure political loser.

People close to the White House say that’s where a chief of staff committed to the issue can have a big impact. Carol Browner, who was Obama’s top energy and climate-change adviser during his first term and headed EPA during the Clinton administration, said the chief of staff can help determine whether environmental policy gains traction. She cited John Podesta, President Clinton’s top staffer and a strong advocate for clean energy and environmental issues. “When I was in EPA, it made all the difference in the world when Podesta showed up and gave my issues a fair hearing,” she said.

During Obama’s first term, each of his three staff chiefs had areas of expertise, but none had much of a background in environmental issues. Former Rep. Rahm Emanuel brought congressional and political experience; William Daley a former chairman at JPMorgan Chase, was hired to win trust from the business community—and was slammed by the environmental community for advising the president to delay a key set of clean-air regulations until after the 2012 election; Jacob Lew, with his background on the federal budget, prioritized economic issues.

By comparison, Browner said, “Denis has spent a lot of time thinking about climate change in the context of national security and the military. He’s well informed and well versed on this.”

In a 2007 paper, “Balancing Our Climate Debt: The Group of Eight Have an Obligation,” McDonough and coauthor Rebecca Schultz called on the G-8 industrial nations to focus “on the devastating impact high energy costs and climate change have on the world’s most vulnerable populations.” They argued that the wealthiest economies should “offer the most vulnerable communities in the world the support they need to combat the impact of climate change and help them and the rest of the world transition to a low-carbon global economy.” The paper declared, “This is a climate debt the industrialized world owes to these poor nations.”

McDonough also contributed to a 2007 CAP report titled “Energy Security in the 21st Century,” which warned, “Climate change poses a significant and increasingly imminent security threat to the United States and the world, but the Bush administration continues to block domestic and international efforts to meet this challenge.”

In still another paper from the center, “Cleaning Up China: Opportunities Beckon for U.S. Businesses,” McDonough and coauthor Peter Ogden praised Bush Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson Jr. for acknowledging climate change as a problem, and they urged him to push for promotion of U.S. clean-energy technology in China. “Now is the time to invest in the development of a domestic clean-energy industry that can outperform its international competitors and capture a large share of this rapidly growing market,” McDonough and Ogden wrote. “This is how America can work toward getting its trade deficit back into the black, and how we can help China to get into the green—for the good of both nations and everyone else around the globe.”

Ultimately, of course, the U.S. agenda on climate change will be set by the president himself. But Obama’s selection of a key adviser with such a deep record on the issue suggests he intends to take it seriously.

View the original article here