agenda

What’s Expected on Trade in the State of the Union Address

by Fran Smith on January 25, 2011

in Agenda for Congress, International, Trade

In his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will finally set out his agenda and timetable on three pending free trade agreements — with South Korea, Colombia, and Panama, with few surprises. As expected and as announced earlier this month by U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk, the president will announce that he’ll send implementing legislation to Congress on the U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement by July 1 of this year.  That’s good news, since this FTA is expected to deliver significant economic and geopolitical benefits to both countries.

Disappointing though will be the president’s declaration that both the Colombia and Panama FTAs still have problems to be worked out before Congress can consider those agreements.  This, after the Colombia pact was signed in 2006, and the Panama FTA in 2007.  And, in 2007, the Democrat-controlled House also insisted that stringent new labor and environmental provisions be added to both FTAs and to all subsequent trade agreements.  What else does the administration — and union supporters — want to force on our close trading partners and allies before they can trade freely?

Given that the new House Ways and Means Committee chairman Dave Camp and major business leaders — at a hearing today — said that all three FTAs should be considered in the next six months, President Obama could announce a timetable for the Colombia and Panama trade pacts that gives the Administration wiggle room for trade union opponents. I expect he’ll move that timetable up a bit for the Korea FTA.

Also expected in the SOTU address will be the president’s heavy emphasis on the economic importance of increased exports, especially in creating jobs — and his National Export Initiative announced last year. Forgotten about, though, will be mention of the benefits of imports — in also providing jobs, but, more importantly, in providing consumers with greater choice in goods, including products that are inexpensive and lets them keep more of their hard-earned money, and in increasing competition so that better products emerge.

More Big Brother Tactics Against Charity

by Gary Howard on March 5, 2009 · 2 comments

in Odds & Ends, Personal Liberty, Politics as Usual

There are more  developments on the charity front-not exactly related to the budget issue I posted on previously–but interesting nonetheless.  Apparently, the National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy (do not miss this link!)-NCRP, wants to work with legislators to push this agenda.  At first glance, its goals laid out here seem harmless enough:

It attempts to answer the questions: What differentiates an exemplary foundation from the rest of its peers? What can foundations do to improve its relevance to nonprofits, the economically and socially underserved Americans and society as a whole?

Of course, all things are not always what they seem.  Here is a critique of the report in by Heather Higgins of Philanthropy Roundtable:

The full text of the report came out March 3, but NCRP has been circulating a 15-page summary that already makes clear that this paper is not only replete with flawed logic, poor economic understanding and selective data, but is most disingenuously an Orwellian world of deliberate redefinition, where benign and admirable words are used but have meanings very different from common understanding.

Why? Because this report is a tool to a larger end. The document says it’s to be used to “criticize those who do not measure up.” Moreover, “Policymakers may find the criteria valuable when considering regulations or legislation … and the media will find the resource helpful for reporting.”

Back up a minute. NCRP has been around for 30 years. Its Web site homepage features “Happy Birthday, Saul Alinsky,” for the radical-left union and community organizer. Though self-styled as an independent “watchdog” of foundations, the reality is that NCRP doesn’t care about charity broadly–indeed it’s quite contemptuous of large swaths of it. It only cares about encouraging ever-greater flows of funds to the groups it deems worthy and truly serving of the public good, chief among which would be “social justice” activists like ACORN, an NCRP member.

In another article by an affiliate group critical of the report:

However, despite its name, The Alliance for Charitable Reform believes these benchmarks have nothing to do with measuring effectiveness. In fact, the natural consequence of these benchmarks will be to reduce the scope and diversity of the foundation sector to one that serves a more narrow set of highly politicized interests…

…”On average, foundation assets have dropped 20-40% and The New York Times reports an unusual number of charities filing for bankruptcy. It is incomprehensible that the NCRP is proposing criteria that could further ravage the charitable sector,”…

Again, I leave with more questions: Is there an effort out there to ‘de-fund’ or seriously reduce the funding of certain private non-profit charities, and ensure only select ones remain well-funded?   If so, why? I have no idea, it may be just a misunderstanding of intentions, but it sure seems fishy.