The Tax Plans of Obama and McCain
The key dividing issue is value judgments
Alfredo Ascanio (askain)*
Published 2008-10-26 09:17 (KST)
Edited by Claire George
Editor's Note
Taxation may very well seem a blunt instrument wielded by modern governments for the sole propose of raising the enormous sums they require in order to finance their activities. However, taxation is really much more than that. It is, in its own right, a powerful instrument of economic policy.
The current presidencial candidates must bear in mind their revenue needs when designing their taxation systems and introducing new taxes or modifying the existing ones, because those decisions will affect the distribution of income within communities.
During this campaign, both Obama and McCain have submitted their tax proposals in summary form. Based on data from the Tax Policy Center, a comparison of their ideas is presented here.
New tax cuts
Obama
His income tax plan includes a refundable "Making Work Pay" tax credit of 6.2 percent on earnings up to $8,100 and a refundable Universal Mortgage Credit of 10 percent on mortgage interest for no itemizers, capped at $800 ($8,000 of interest), and would eliminate income tax for seniors making less than $50,000 per year.
He would grant first-time buyers, new farmers, small businesses and small entrepreneurs a tax credit of 20 percent on investments up to $50,000 in small-owner-operated businesses.
McCain
His corporate tax plan would allow a first-year deduction of 3- and 5-year equipment, without interest deduction. He offers to reduce maximum corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent, and increase the dependent exemption by 70 percent (phased in).
He would suspend the federal gas tax (18.4 cents per gallon from this Memorial Day until Labor Day.
Adjustments to existing credits
Obama
The tax credit on R&D and renewable energy production would become permanent.
He would extend the EITC phase-in range and increase the phase-out threshold for the childless, double the phase-in and phase-out rates for childless individuals paying child support; increase the EITC phase-in rate to 45 percent for families with three or more children, and increase the EITC phase-out threshold for married filers to $5,000. CDCTC would become refundable and low-income families would receive up to a 50 percent credit for childcare expenses. Saver's credit would be refundable and become a 50 percent match of the first $1,000 of savings, with phase-out beginning before $75,000.
He plans to increase the Hope credit 100% match rate to $4,000 for college education and make it refundable, renaming it "American Opportunity Tax Credit." Also, 401(k)s and IRAs would become automatic.
McCain
The credit on 10 percent of R&D wages would be made permanent.
Capital gains tax
Obama
Maximum capital gains rate would increase to 20 percent. This plan would demand reports on the basis for profits, eliminate capital gains taxation of start-up businesses, and provide a break for landowners selling to beginning family farmers.
Mc Cain
He plans to keep the current rates on dividends and capital gains.
Bush tax cuts
Obama
He offers to extend permanently marriage penalty relief, adoption credit expansions, 10, 15, 25 and 28 percent rates, and EITC simplification; restore 36 and 39.6 percent statutory income tax rates, restore the PEP and Pease phase-outs for households making more than $250,000, and increase the PEP and Pease thresholds.
McCain
All provisions other than estate tax repeal would become permanent.
Alternative minimum tax
Obama
He would extend and index the 2007 AMT patch.
McCain
He would extend and index the 2007 AMT patch, and further increase exemption by 5 percent in excess of inflation after 2013 (temporarily).
Estate tax
Obama
Estate tax would become permanent, with an exemption for properties worth less than $3.5 million and with a maximum rate of 45 percent.
McCain
Estate tax would become permanent, with an exemption for properties worth less than $5 million and with a maximum rate of 15 percent.
Simplification
Obama
Taxpayers would have the option of pre-filled tax forms to verify, sign and return to the IRS.
McCain
An alternative tax system with two rates and larger standard deductions and personal exemptions.
Revenue raisers and tax havens
Obama
Oil and gas loopholes would disappear, as would loopholes in the corporate tax deductibility of CEO payments. His plan would increase the highest bracket for capital gains and dividends, reallocate multinational tax deductions, codify economic substance doctrine and create an international watchlist of tax havens.
McCain
He would eliminate oil and gas loopholes, as well as earmarked projects from the budget, and freeze nonmilitary discretionary spending for one year.
Health
Obama
He offers an income-related federal tax subsidy for health insurance.
McCain
He plans to replace exclusion from income for employer-sponsored health insurance with a refundable credit of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families.
Other
Obama
In social security and payroll taxes, he would impose an additional tax of 2-4 percent (combined employer and employee) on workers who make above $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples).
McCain
He would require a 3/5-majority vote in Congress to raise taxes, and ban Internet and cell phone taxes. There would be higher premiums for Medicare prescription drug coverage for single people earning more than $82,000 and couples earning more than $164,000.
Analysis
Thus taxes may fall on personal or company income. It is conventional to make a distinction between direct taxation (income tax, corporate tax, levied on personal incomes or on profits) and indirect taxation (purchase tax and other selective taxes).
In order to reform a tax, the party on whom it is initially levied must be able, via changes in supply, to affect the market price of the commodity or factor being taxed. In the case of labor, which is subject to direct imposts in the form of income tax, there is less possibility of reform. This is a general tax, and wages can be affected only if they, as a share of national production, can be raised in order to offset the tax.
A fundamental point to appreciate here is that Obama has given more importance to income tax compared to McCain. Obama, unlike McCain, directs corporate tax to small business and research and development of alternative renewable energy (wind, solar).
A good tax is one which is economical to collect. This suggests, for example, that low-income earners may well be exempt from income taxes simply because their gains are small and administrative costs are heavy. Such individuals, as well as business with low returns, might present a problem for Obama's tax policy.
Another issue is payability. The fundamental question at issue concerns how the recipients of income, which is not evenly distributed, might be expected to contribute to government revenue. And there is the question on equity, or fairness of treatment.
Corporate taxation raises complex policy issues. We begin with equity, bearing in mind the distinction between distributed profits accruing to shareholders, and undistributed profits, which are ploughed back into the company. Then the company, as opposed to its shareholders, becomes the object of tax. In fact, under corporate tax, all profits, and not simply undistributed profits, are taxed at legal rates.
Economists and philosophers have debated all these points for generations and can hardly be said to have come up with a definitive conclusion. Here one is brought face to face with the borderline between economics and ethics.
*Alfredo Ascanio is a professor of economics at Simon Bolivar University in Caracas, Venezuela.
©2008 OhmyNews
sábado, octubre 25, 2008
viernes, octubre 24, 2008
The Dirty War Against Obama
The Dirty War Against Obama
[Opinion] Opponents undermine Barack with lies and distortions
Alfredo Ascanio (askain)
Published 2008-10-24 12:38 (KST)
Edited by Claire George
Psychological warfare makes use of morality and propaganda instead of bombs and guns. The ancient Macedonians were apparently the first to use it to spread rumors to unnerve their opponents. All these years later it is being deployed against US presidential candidate Barack Obama.
Political practitioners of psychological warfare aim to mislead voters and destroy their enemies. In the absence of weapons they employ all their mental cunning to spread shock, panic and disharmony.
Their purpose is to take votes away from the opposing candidate by turning him or her into a figure of fear. They work to associate the enemy with undesirable characteristics or acts in order to provoke feelings of insecurity, anxiety and frustration in voters, particularly those who have not yet decided who to vote for.
This can have serious consequences for any candidate who is demonized in this way. Often it is the candidate who appears to be gaining in the polls who becomes the main victim of this undeclared war with all its intangible weapons.
Practitioners aim to exploit stereotypes and moral values, such as racial and religious issues. When they succeed they can severely affect any political campaign with a gravity that equals a serious financial crisis.
The Republican campaign took a dangerous turn when John McCain adopted an aggressive strategy against Obama.
At rallies McCain often appeared to relate Obama posters with Bin Laden and terrorism.
Sarah Palin picked up a newspaper article to say that Obama was related to the violent and radical William Ayers. Palin repeated that issue in her speech in Florida and said emphatically that Obama was a danger to America and immediately some followers shouted, "kill him!"
This behavior, in a country which has seen the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy, is unacceptable because it is very dangerous.
It is worrying that others have already jumped on the dirty campaign wagon.
According to the Times, the man behind all this is Andy Martin, a lawyer and journalist who has placed a long series of insults on FreeRepublic.com. He said, for example, that Obama was a Muslim and that when he lived in Indonesia as a child he received lessons in Wahhabi Islam, the same form of Islam that spawned Osama bin Laden.
According to a report by journalist Chris Hayes for the Nation, Martin issued a press release shortly after Obama's keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention saying that he had evidence Obama had "lied to the American people" and had aimed to "misrepresent his own heritage." Martin claimed that Obama was really a Muslim, was possibly hiding this fact "to endanger Israel," and that "[Obama's] Muslim religion would obviously raise serious questions in many Jewish circles."
Martin has been identified as the primary source of the false rumors that Obama is secretly a Muslim. In fact Obama is an actively professing and practicing Christian.
Racism against Obama has also appeared in the form of a monkey puppet. This toy, which is being sold over the Internet by a Utah couple, is causing uproar among his supporters. It's a sock monkey that wears a suit with a lapel pin pledging support for Obama. Supporters of Obama have been filling online forums and blogs with angry words over what they see as the degrading depiction of a black man as a monkey.
America currently teeters between hope and despair. Politicians competing in this campaign should help to boost hopes of favorable change and rescue the country's historic legacy.
jueves, octubre 23, 2008
Esto es MBA TV
En un comentario donde aparecía la música brasileña se me dijo que también entrará en el espacio de MUBA-TV y ahora estamos aquí... vamos a ver que nos parece...
martes, octubre 21, 2008
McCain, Obama y el impuesto personal
McCain, Obama y el impuesto personal
20 de octubre de 2008, 04:00 AM
Estamos en ambiente de elecciones. Por más que uno quiera aislarse de la influencia electoral, el tema te vuelve a traer al epicentro. Vayas por donde vayas, leas lo que leas, sea en restaurantes, Internet, programas de radio o televisión, te envuelves con los argumentos de aquellos con orejas y rabo de burro (= demócrata) o con trompa y estómago de elefante (= republicano).
Entre esos debates uno de los temas que me ha fascinado en las elecciones es el impuesto al ingreso personal, que es una parte importante del plan económico de un candidato presidencial y de nuestro bolsillo.
Igual que muchos de ustedes intento leer y analizar más allá de los “bullet points” memorizados por los representantes de cada partido. Cuando veo los anuncios, los debates y las defensas de sus seguidores me doy cuenta que son tan buenos como los anuncios de “0% en tu tarjeta de crédito” sin explicar la letra pequeña.
“Obama va a cortar impuestos al 95% de las familias”, “McCain sólo beneficia a los ricos” dicen los burros. “McCain beneficia a los de menor ingreso”, “Obama sólo beneficia a aquellos que no pagan impuestos” dicen los elefantes. Pero, ¿será esto cierto? ¿Qué hay detrás de esos argumentos?
Primero pongamos todo esto en perspectiva. Para el 2007, de cada dólar que recibió el gobierno federal, $0.45 centavos provienen del ingreso personal de cada individuo que produce ingresos en el país. O sea, que el pago de impuestos por ingreso personal es clave para el mantenimiento del gobierno federal. Ok, ¿quienes son los que pagan esa cantidad? Según información del Departamento de Rentas Internas dice que para el 2006 cerca del 40% lo pagan aquellos con ingresos mayores a $388,806. El 60% lo pagan aquellos que generan más de $153,542; el 86% lo pagan aquellos con ingreso mayor a $65,000 dólares; el 97% de los impuestos por ingreso personal lo pagan aquellos que ganan más de $32,000. Aquellos con menos de $32,000 pagan el 3%.
De las cerca de 136 millones de planillas recibidas, cerca de la mitad pagan el 97% de todos los impuestos personales que recibe el gobierno federal. La otra mitad paga el 3% restante. El promedio de impuestos que pagaron los primeros que están en el 50% fue de $14,636 dólares. ¿La otra mitad? $450 dólares.
Esto es un claro ejemplo que en principio el sistema de impuestos al ingreso personal es progresivo. O sea, que entre más dinero haces, más impuestos pagas y viceversa.
Ahora, debido a la complejidad del sistema impositivo del país no necesariamente una persona con menos ingresos paga menos. Cuando analizas la “tasa marginal”* descubres que bajo un plan u otro una persona con menos ingresos puede terminar pagando más impuestos.
La pregunta del millón: ¿bajo quién se pagaría más? Me encontré un estudio muy interesante realizado por el The Tax Foundation, una organización no partidaria creada en 1936 que se dedica a investigar todo lo relacionado al tema de impuestos, el gobierno y nosotros. Este estudio provocativo, interesante y retador** muestra cómo ambos planes afectarían el ingreso personal.
Según el estudio, la pregunta que busca contestar es cómo se afectarían las personas dependiendo del ingreso que tengan. Usando un ejemplo de una pareja de casados con dos hijos comparan el plan de los dos candidatos en relación a las leyes actuales.
Después de quitar y poner las deducciones, créditos y exenciones que piensan dejar y retirar ambos candidatos***, saco las siguientes conclusiones del estudio:
* Aquellos con ingresos entre $10,000 y $30,000 dólares se beneficiarían con el plan de Obama haciendo que paguen menos o incluso reciban más beneficios del gobierno bajo el nuevo crédito “Making for Pay”.
* Entre $30,000 y $70,000 estaría mejor con el plan de McCain porque el Crédito por Ingreso al Trabajo que ofrece expandir el plan de Obama se va desapareciendo en la medida que incrementa el ingreso.
* Entre $70,000 y $100,000 se beneficiarían mejor con el plan de Obama porque el plan de McCain reemplaza la exclusión del crédito sobre el seguro de salud que hace a algunos incrementar el ingreso y por tanto entrar en una categoría mayor de impuestos.
* Entre $100,000 y $140,000 se beneficiarían mejor con el plan de McCain.
* Y ¿Más $140,000 a $250,000? Aunque el estudio no lo habla, infiero que ambos son similares a las leyes actuales.
* Aquellos con ingresos de $250,000 o más, se beneficiarían con el plan de McCain porque bajo el plan de Obama las exenciones personales (PEP) y las deducciones desaparecen (se conocen como las provisiones Peason). Además incrementaría el impuesto mínimo alternativo (AMT) y entraría el impuestos por seguro social que se estima es de un 4%.
Entonces:
¿El Plan de Obama va a cortar impuestos al 95% de las familias? No.
¿El plan de McCain sólo beneficia a los de mayor ingreso? No.
¿El plan de McCain beneficia a los de menor ingreso? No.
¿El Plan de Obama sólo beneficia a aquellos que no pagan impuestos? No.
No quiere decir que si ganas $75,000 te conviene votar por Obama. O que si ganas $110,00 te conviene votar por McCain. Hay muchos “qué pasa si” que obligan ver este análisis como una estimación.
Pero, de la misma forma que no podemos comprar algo porque dicen “0% de entrada” sin primero tener una idea de lo que dice letra pequeña, este estudio muestra que debemos aplicar el mismo principio de no votar sin primero ver más allá del anuncio pagado.
Al final, tú decides.
20 de octubre de 2008, 04:00 AM
Estamos en ambiente de elecciones. Por más que uno quiera aislarse de la influencia electoral, el tema te vuelve a traer al epicentro. Vayas por donde vayas, leas lo que leas, sea en restaurantes, Internet, programas de radio o televisión, te envuelves con los argumentos de aquellos con orejas y rabo de burro (= demócrata) o con trompa y estómago de elefante (= republicano).
Entre esos debates uno de los temas que me ha fascinado en las elecciones es el impuesto al ingreso personal, que es una parte importante del plan económico de un candidato presidencial y de nuestro bolsillo.
Igual que muchos de ustedes intento leer y analizar más allá de los “bullet points” memorizados por los representantes de cada partido. Cuando veo los anuncios, los debates y las defensas de sus seguidores me doy cuenta que son tan buenos como los anuncios de “0% en tu tarjeta de crédito” sin explicar la letra pequeña.
“Obama va a cortar impuestos al 95% de las familias”, “McCain sólo beneficia a los ricos” dicen los burros. “McCain beneficia a los de menor ingreso”, “Obama sólo beneficia a aquellos que no pagan impuestos” dicen los elefantes. Pero, ¿será esto cierto? ¿Qué hay detrás de esos argumentos?
Primero pongamos todo esto en perspectiva. Para el 2007, de cada dólar que recibió el gobierno federal, $0.45 centavos provienen del ingreso personal de cada individuo que produce ingresos en el país. O sea, que el pago de impuestos por ingreso personal es clave para el mantenimiento del gobierno federal. Ok, ¿quienes son los que pagan esa cantidad? Según información del Departamento de Rentas Internas dice que para el 2006 cerca del 40% lo pagan aquellos con ingresos mayores a $388,806. El 60% lo pagan aquellos que generan más de $153,542; el 86% lo pagan aquellos con ingreso mayor a $65,000 dólares; el 97% de los impuestos por ingreso personal lo pagan aquellos que ganan más de $32,000. Aquellos con menos de $32,000 pagan el 3%.
De las cerca de 136 millones de planillas recibidas, cerca de la mitad pagan el 97% de todos los impuestos personales que recibe el gobierno federal. La otra mitad paga el 3% restante. El promedio de impuestos que pagaron los primeros que están en el 50% fue de $14,636 dólares. ¿La otra mitad? $450 dólares.
Esto es un claro ejemplo que en principio el sistema de impuestos al ingreso personal es progresivo. O sea, que entre más dinero haces, más impuestos pagas y viceversa.
Ahora, debido a la complejidad del sistema impositivo del país no necesariamente una persona con menos ingresos paga menos. Cuando analizas la “tasa marginal”* descubres que bajo un plan u otro una persona con menos ingresos puede terminar pagando más impuestos.
La pregunta del millón: ¿bajo quién se pagaría más? Me encontré un estudio muy interesante realizado por el The Tax Foundation, una organización no partidaria creada en 1936 que se dedica a investigar todo lo relacionado al tema de impuestos, el gobierno y nosotros. Este estudio provocativo, interesante y retador** muestra cómo ambos planes afectarían el ingreso personal.
Según el estudio, la pregunta que busca contestar es cómo se afectarían las personas dependiendo del ingreso que tengan. Usando un ejemplo de una pareja de casados con dos hijos comparan el plan de los dos candidatos en relación a las leyes actuales.
Después de quitar y poner las deducciones, créditos y exenciones que piensan dejar y retirar ambos candidatos***, saco las siguientes conclusiones del estudio:
* Aquellos con ingresos entre $10,000 y $30,000 dólares se beneficiarían con el plan de Obama haciendo que paguen menos o incluso reciban más beneficios del gobierno bajo el nuevo crédito “Making for Pay”.
* Entre $30,000 y $70,000 estaría mejor con el plan de McCain porque el Crédito por Ingreso al Trabajo que ofrece expandir el plan de Obama se va desapareciendo en la medida que incrementa el ingreso.
* Entre $70,000 y $100,000 se beneficiarían mejor con el plan de Obama porque el plan de McCain reemplaza la exclusión del crédito sobre el seguro de salud que hace a algunos incrementar el ingreso y por tanto entrar en una categoría mayor de impuestos.
* Entre $100,000 y $140,000 se beneficiarían mejor con el plan de McCain.
* Y ¿Más $140,000 a $250,000? Aunque el estudio no lo habla, infiero que ambos son similares a las leyes actuales.
* Aquellos con ingresos de $250,000 o más, se beneficiarían con el plan de McCain porque bajo el plan de Obama las exenciones personales (PEP) y las deducciones desaparecen (se conocen como las provisiones Peason). Además incrementaría el impuesto mínimo alternativo (AMT) y entraría el impuestos por seguro social que se estima es de un 4%.
Entonces:
¿El Plan de Obama va a cortar impuestos al 95% de las familias? No.
¿El plan de McCain sólo beneficia a los de mayor ingreso? No.
¿El plan de McCain beneficia a los de menor ingreso? No.
¿El Plan de Obama sólo beneficia a aquellos que no pagan impuestos? No.
No quiere decir que si ganas $75,000 te conviene votar por Obama. O que si ganas $110,00 te conviene votar por McCain. Hay muchos “qué pasa si” que obligan ver este análisis como una estimación.
Pero, de la misma forma que no podemos comprar algo porque dicen “0% de entrada” sin primero tener una idea de lo que dice letra pequeña, este estudio muestra que debemos aplicar el mismo principio de no votar sin primero ver más allá del anuncio pagado.
Al final, tú decides.
Quién fue el Dr. Humberto Fernández Moran ?
HUMBERTO FERNÁNDEZ MORAN: Nació en Maracaibo en el año de 1924. A los 21 años se graduó de médico Summa Cum Laude y extiende sus conocimientos en el área de Microscopia Electrónica, Física, especializándose en Neurología y Neuropatología en los Estados Unidos. Fue el fundador de el IVIC y creador de la Cátedra de Biofísica de la UCV. Fue Ministro en el Gobierno de el General Marcos Pérez Jiménez y con la llegada de la Democracia es expulsado del país.
'Inventó el bisturí de diamante',empleado mundialmente para cortes ultrafinos tanto de tejidos biológicos hasta de las muestras lunares traídas a la Tierra por los astronautas.
Inventó también el Ultramicrotomo para cortes delgados de tejidos convirtiéndose por ello en el primer venezolano y único Latinoamericano en recibir la medalla John Scott en Filadelfia. Fue también investigador principal del Proyecto Apolo de la NASA. Profesor en las más reconocidas Universidades como Harvard, Chicago,MIT, George Washington y a Universidad de Estocolmo.
En Estados Unidos se le propone ser nominado al Premio Nobel, el cual,él rechaza ya que para ser nominado tenía que aceptar también la ciudadanía Americana, a la cual se niega dado a su orgullo de ser Venezolano.
Fue galardonado con las mas altas condecoraciones! son: Orden y título de caballero de la estrella Polar conferida por el Rey de Suecia. Medalla Claude Bernard, de la Universidad de Montreal. Premio médico del año otorgado en Cambridge. Le fue otorgado reconocimiento especial por la NASA con motivo del décimo aniversario del Programa Apolo.
Como ven, el Doctor Fernández Morán carece de reconocimientos en su país Venezuela.
Cercana ya su muerte, se crea un movimiento el cual intento traer al Dr. Fernández a Venezuela ya que era su deseo morir en su patria, pero este intento fue fallido ya que el Gobierno del Presidente Chavez no estuvo de acuerdo por no ser de importancia para el momento. Así también se escribirá en la historia.
También es menester recordar e igualmente vergonzoso que el Dr. Fernández donó uno de sus mas preciados bienes, su biblioteca, notas, estudios, etcetera, a la Universidad del Zulia y si aún no se han tomado los correctivos necesarios, debe seguir en cajas,en algún mohoso depósito sirviendo de alimento a los hongos y bacterias. La ignorancia es general y el regionalismo zuliano como que sólo lo aplicamos para apreciar las arepas tumbarrancho y a las mandocas!
El Doctor Humberto Fernández Morán fue cremado y sus cenizas reposan hoy en su segunda patria, Estocolmo, Suecia.
Espero que como venezolanos sientan la misma vergüenza y asombro que estoy sintiendo yo. Nunca pensé que mi curiosidad por la vida de este gran hombre fuera también el descubrir al venezolano más honorable, honesto y destacado que hemos tenido en este siglo.
Por favor retransmitan esta información, ya que nunca es tarde para que entre todos logremos que al Dr. HUMBERTO FERNANDEZ MORAN, se le reconozca el sitial de honor que dignamente se ganó, en nuestra Historia contemporánea.
Ojala que alguno de ustedes, asiduos lectores de esta infinita RED, puedan reenviar esto a diversos medios de comunicación, así como a personeros del alto Gobierno, a fin de que sin meternos en politiquería innecesaria, logremos que este mensaje se difunda positivamente.
lunes, octubre 20, 2008
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Renewing U.S. Leadership in the Americas
Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Renewing U.S. Leadership in the Americas
Miami, FL | May 23, 2008
It is my privilege to join in this week's Independence Day celebration, and in honoring those who have stood up with courage and conviction for Cuban liberty. I'm going to take this opportunity to speak about Cuba, and also U.S. policy toward the Americas more broadly.
We meet here united in our unshakeable commitment to freedom. And it is fitting that we reaffirm that commitment here in Miami.
In many ways, Miami stands as a symbol of hope for what's possible in the Americas. Miami's promise of liberty and opportunity has drawn generations of immigrants to these shores, sometimes with nothing more than the clothes on their back. It was a similar hope that drew my own father across an ocean, in search of the same promise that our dreams need not be deferred because of who we are, what we look like, or where we come from.
Here, in Miami, that promise can join people together. We take common pride in a vibrant and diverse democracy, and a hard-earned prosperity. We find common pleasure in the crack of the bat, in the rhythms of our music, and the ease of voices shifting from Spanish or Creole or Portuguese to English.
These bonds are built on a foundation of shared history in our hemisphere. Colonized by empires, we share stories of liberation. Confronted by our own imperfections, we are joined in a desire to build a more perfect union. Rich in resources, we have yet to vanquish poverty.
What all of us strive for is freedom as FDR described it. Political freedom. Religious freedom. But also freedom from want, and freedom from fear. At our best, the United States has been a force for these four freedoms in the Americas. But if we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that at times we've failed to engage the people of the region with the respect owed to a partner.
When George Bush was elected, he held out the promise that this would change. He raised the hopes of the region that our engagement would be sustained instead of piecemeal. He called Mexico our most important bilateral relationship, and pledged to make Latin America a "fundamental commitment" of his presidency. It seemed that a new 21st century era had dawned.
Almost eight years later, those high hopes have been dashed.
Since the Bush Administration launched a misguided war in Iraq, its policy in the Americas has been negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in peoples' lives, and incapable of advancing our interests in the region.
No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum. His predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy offers the same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past. But the United States is so alienated from the rest of the Americas that this stale vision has gone unchallenged, and has even made inroads from Bolivia to Nicaragua. And Chavez and his allies are not the only ones filling the vacuum. While the United States fails to address the changing realities in the Americas, others from Europe and Asia – notably China – have stepped up their own engagement. Iran has drawn closer to Venezuela, and just the other day Tehran and Caracas launched a joint bank with their windfall oil profits.
That is the record – the Bush record in Latin America – that John McCain has chosen to embrace. Senator McCain doesn't talk about these trends in our hemisphere because he knows that it's part of the broader Bush-McCain failure to address priorities beyond Iraq. The situation has changed in the Americas, but we've failed to change with it. Instead of engaging the people of the region, we've acted as if we can still dictate terms unilaterally. We have not offered a clear and comprehensive vision, backed up with strong diplomacy. We are failing to join the battle for hearts and minds. For far too long, Washington has engaged in outdated debates and stuck to tired blueprints on drugs and trade, on democracy and development -- even though they won't meet the tests of the future.
The stakes could not be higher. It is time for us to recognize that the future security and prosperity of the United States is fundamentally tied to the future of the Americas. If we don't turn away from the policies of the past, then we won't be able to shape the future. The Bush Administration has offered no clear vision for this future, and neither has John McCain.
So we face a clear choice in this election. We can continue as a bystander, or we can lead the hemisphere into the 21st century. And when I am President of the United States, we will choose to lead.
It's time for a new alliance of the Americas. After eight years of the failed policies of the past, we need new leadership for the future. After decades pressing for top-down reform, we need an agenda that advances democracy, security, and opportunity from the bottom up. So my policy towards the Americas will be guided by the simple principle that what's good for the people of the Americas is good for the United States. That means measuring success not just through agreements among governments, but also through the hopes of the child in the favelas of Rio, the security for the policeman in Mexico City, and the answered cries of political prisoners heard from jails in Havana.
The first and most fundamental freedom that we must work for is political freedom. The United States must be a relentless advocate for democracy.
I grew up for a time in Indonesia. It was a society struggling to achieve meaningful democracy. Power could be undisguised and indiscriminate. Too often, power wore a uniform, and was unaccountable to the people. Some still had good reason to fear a knock on the door.
There is no place for this kind of tyranny in this hemisphere. There is no place for any darkness that would shut out the light of liberty. Here we must heed the words of Dr. King, written from his own jail cell: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Throughout my entire life, there has been injustice in Cuba. Never, in my lifetime, have the people of Cuba known freedom. Never, in the lives of two generations of Cubans, have the people of Cuba known democracy. This is the terrible and tragic status quo that we have known for half a century – of elections that are anything but free or fair; of dissidents locked away in dark prison cells for the crime of speaking the truth. I won't stand for this injustice, you won't stand for this injustice, and together we will stand up for freedom in Cuba.
Now I know what the easy thing is to do for American politicians. Every four years, they come down to Miami, they talk tough, they go back to Washington, and nothing changes in Cuba. That's what John McCain did the other day. He joined the parade of politicians who make the same empty promises year after year, decade after decade. Instead of offering a strategy for change, he chose to distort my position, embrace George Bush's, and continue a policy that's done nothing to advance freedom for the Cuban people. That's the political posture that John McCain has chosen, and all it shows is that you can't take his so-called straight talk seriously.
My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: Libertad. And the road to freedom for all Cubans must begin with justice for Cuba's political prisoners, the rights of free speech, a free press and freedom of assembly; and it must lead to elections that are free and fair.
Now let me be clear. John McCain's been going around the country talking about how much I want to meet with Raul Castro, as if I'm looking for a social gathering. That's never what I've said, and John McCain knows it. After eight years of the disastrous policies of George Bush, it is time to pursue direct diplomacy, with friend and foe alike, without preconditions. There will be careful preparation. We will set a clear agenda. And as President, I would be willing to lead that diplomacy at a time and place of my choosing, but only when we have an opportunity to advance the interests of the United States, and to advance the cause of freedom for the Cuban people.
I will never, ever, compromise the cause of liberty. And unlike John McCain, I would never, ever, rule out a course of action that could advance the cause of liberty. We've heard enough empty promises from politicians like George Bush and John McCain. I will turn the page.
It's time for more than tough talk that never yields results. It's time for a new strategy. There are no better ambassadors for freedom than Cuban Americans. That's why I will immediately allow unlimited family travel and remittances to the island. It's time to let Cuban Americans see their mothers and fathers, their sisters and brothers. It's time to let Cuban American money make their families less dependent upon the Castro regime.
I will maintain the embargo. It provides us with the leverage to present the regime with a clear choice: if you take significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the freeing of all political prisoners, we will take steps to begin normalizing relations. That's the way to bring about real change in Cuba – through strong, smart and principled diplomacy.
And we know that freedom across our hemisphere must go beyond elections. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez is a democratically elected leader. But we also know that he does not govern democratically. He talks of the people, but his actions just serve his own power. Yet the Bush Administration's blustery condemnations and clumsy attempts to undermine Chavez have only strengthened his hand.
We've heard plenty of talk about democracy from George Bush, but we need steady action. We must put forward a vision of democracy that goes beyond the ballot box. We should increase our support for strong legislatures, independent judiciaries, free press, vibrant civil society, honest police forces, religious freedom, and the rule of law. That is how we can support democracy that is strong and sustainable not just on an election day, but in the day to day lives of the people of the Americas.
That is what is so badly needed – not just in Cuba and Venezuela – but just to our southeast in Haiti as well. The Haitian people have suffered too long under governments that cared more about their own power than their peoples' progress and prosperity. It's time to press Haiti's leaders to bridge the divides between them. And it's time to invest in the economic development that must underpin the security that the Haitian people lack. And that is why the second part of my agenda will be advancing freedom from fear in the Americas.
For too many people in our hemisphere, security is absent from their daily lives. And for far too long, Washington has been trapped in a conventional thinking about Latin America and the Caribbean. From the right, we hear about violent insurgents. From the left, we hear about paramilitaries. This is the predictable debate that seems frozen in time from the 1980s. You're either soft on Communism or soft on death squads. And it has more to do with the politics of Washington than beating back the perils that so many people face in the Americas.
The person living in fear of violence doesn't care if they're threatened by a right-wing paramilitary or a left-wing terrorist; they don't care if they're being threatened by a drug cartel or a corrupt police force. They just care that they're being threatened, and that their families can't live and work in peace. That is why there will never be true security unless we focus our efforts on targeting every source of fear in the Americas. That's what I'll do as President of the United States.
For the people of Colombia – who have suffered at the hands of killers of every sort – that means battling all sources of violence. When I am President, we will continue the Andean Counter-Drug Program, and update it to meet evolving challenges. We will fully support Colombia's fight against the FARC. We'll work with the government to end the reign of terror from right wing paramilitaries. We will support Colombia's right to strike terrorists who seek safe-haven across its borders. And we will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments. This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and – if need be – strong sanctions. It must not stand.
We must also make clear our support for labor rights, and human rights, and that means meaningful support for Colombia's democratic institutions. We've neglected this support – especially for the rule of law – for far too long. In every country in our hemisphere – including our own – governments must develop the tools to protect their people.
Because if we've learned anything in our history in the Americas, it's that true security cannot come from force alone. Not as long as there are towns in Mexico where drug kingpins are more powerful than judges. Not as long as there are children who grow up afraid of the police. Not as long as drugs and gangs move north across our border, while guns and cash move south in return.
This nexus is a danger to every country in the region – including our own. Thousands of Central American gang members have been arrested across the United States, including here in south Florida. There are national emergencies facing Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. Mexican drug cartels are terrorizing cities and towns. President Calderon was right to say that enough is enough. We must support Mexico's effort to crack down. But we must stand for more than force – we must support the rule of law from the bottom up. That means more investments in prevention and prosecutors; in community policing and an independent judiciary.
I agree with my friend, Senator Dick Lugar – the Merida Initiative does not invest enough in Central America, where much of the trafficking and gang activity begins. And we must press further south as well. It's time to work together to find the best practices that work across the hemisphere, and to tailor approaches to fit each country. That's why I will direct my Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to sit down with all their counterparts in the Americas during my first year in office. We'll strive for unity of effort. We'll provide the resources, and ask that every country do the same. And we'll tie our support to clear benchmarks for drug seizures, corruption prosecutions, crime reduction, and kingpins busted.
We have to do our part. And that is why a core part of this effort will be a northbound-southbound strategy. We need tougher border security, and a renewed focus on busting up gangs and traffickers crossing our border. But we must address the material heading south as well. As President, I'll make it clear that we're coming after the guns, we're coming after the money laundering, and we're coming after the vehicles that enable this crime. And we'll crack down on the demand for drugs in our own communities, and restore funding for drug task forces and the COPS program. We must win the fights on our own streets if we're going to secure the region.
The third part of my agenda is advancing freedom from want, because there is much that we can do to advance opportunity for the people of the Americas.
That begins with understanding what's changed in Latin America, and what hasn't. Enormous wealth has been created, and financial markets are far stronger than a decade ago. Brazil's economy has grown by leaps and bounds, and perhaps the second richest person in the world is a Mexican. Yet while there has been great economic progress, there is still back-breaking inequality. Despite a growing middle class, 100 million people live on less than two dollars a day, and 40 percent of Latin Americans live in poverty. This feeds everything from drugs, to migration, to support for leaders that appeal to the poor without delivering on their promises.
That is why the United States must stand for growth in the Americas from the bottom up. That begins at home, with comprehensive immigration reform. That means securing our border and passing tough employer enforcement laws. It means bringing 12 million unauthorized immigrants out of the shadows. But it also means working with Mexico, Central America and others to support bottom up development to our south.
For two hundred years, the United States has made it clear that we won't stand for foreign intervention in our hemisphere. But every day, all across the Americas, there is a different kind of struggle – not against foreign armies, but against the deadly threat of hunger and thirst, disease and despair. That is not a future that we have to accept – not for the child in Port au Prince or the family in the highlands of Peru. We can do better. We must do better.
We cannot ignore suffering to our south, nor stand for the globalization of the empty stomach. Responsibility rests with governments in the region, but we must do our part. I will substantially increase our aid to the Americas, and embrace the Millennium Development Goals of halving global poverty by 2015. We'll target support to bottom-up growth through micro financing, vocational training, and small enterprise development. It's time for the United States to once again be a beacon of hope and a helping hand.
Trade must be part of this solution. But I strongly reject the Bush-McCain view that any trade deal is a good deal. We cannot accept trade that enriches those at the top of the ladder while cutting out the rungs at the bottom. It's time to understand that the goal of our trade policy must be trade that works for all people in all countries. Like Central America's bishops, I opposed CAFTA because the needs of workers were not adequately addressed. I supported the Peru Free Trade Agreement because there were binding labor and environmental provisions. That's the kind of trade we need – trade that lifts up workers, not just a corporate bottom line.
There's nothing protectionist about demanding that trade spreads the benefits of globalization, instead of steering them to special interests while we short-change workers at home and abroad. If John McCain believes – as he said the other day – that 80 percent of Americans think we're on the wrong track because we haven't passed free trade with Colombia, then he's totally out of touch with the American people. And if John McCain thinks that we can paper over our failure of leadership in the region by occasionally passing trade deals with friendly governments, then he's out of touch with the people of the Americas.
And we have to look for ways to grow our economies and deepen integration beyond trade deals. That's what China is doing right now, as they build bridges from Beijing to Brazil, and expand their investments across the region. If the United States does not step forward, we risk being left behind. And that is why we must seize a unique opportunity to lead the region toward a more secure and sustainable energy future.
All of us feel the impact of the global energy crisis. In the short-term, it means an ever-more expensive addiction to oil, which bankrolls petro-powered authoritarianism around the globe, and drives up the cost of everything from a tank of gas to dinner on the table. And in the long-term, few regions are more imperiled by the stronger storms, higher floodwaters, and devastating droughts that could come with global warming. Whole crops could disappear, putting the food supply at risk for hundreds of millions.
While we share this risk, we also share the resources to do something about it. That's why I'll bring together the countries of the region in a new Energy Partnership for the Americas. We need to go beyond bilateral agreements. We need a regional approach. Together, we can forge a path toward sustainable growth and clean energy.
Leadership must begin at home. That's why I've proposed a cap and trade system to limit our carbon emissions and to invest in alternative sources of energy. We'll allow industrial emitters to offset a portion of this cost by investing in low carbon energy projects in Latin America and the Caribbean. And we'll increase research and development across the Americas in clean coal technology, in the next generation of sustainable biofuels not taken from food crops, and in wind and solar energy.
We'll enlist the World Bank, the Organization of American States, and the Inter-American Development Bank to support these investments, and ensure that these projects enhance natural resources like land, wildlife, and rain forests. We'll finally enforce environmental standards in our trade deals. We'll establish a program for the Department of Energy and our laboratories to share technology with countries across the region. We'll assess the opportunities and risks of nuclear power in the hemisphere by sitting down with Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Chile. And we'll call on the American people to join this effort through an Energy Corps of engineers and scientists who will go abroad to help develop clean energy solutions.
This is the unique role that the United States can play. We can offer more than the tyranny of oil. We can learn from the progress made in a country like Brazil, while making the Americas a model for the world. We can offer leadership that serves the common prosperity and common security of the entire region.
This is the promise of FDR's Four Freedoms that we must realize. But only if we recognize that in the 21st century, we cannot treat Latin America and the Caribbean as a junior partner, just as our neighbors to the south should reject the bombast of authoritarian bullies. An alliance of the Americas will only succeed if it is founded on a bedrock of mutual respect. It's time to turn the page on the arrogance in Washington and the anti-Americanism across the region that stands in the way of progress. It's time to listen to one another and to learn from one another.
To fulfill this promise, my Administration won't wait six years to proclaim a "year of engagement." We will pursue aggressive, principled, and sustained diplomacy in the Americas from Day One. I will reinstate a Special Envoy for the Americas in my White House who will work with my full support. But we'll also expand the Foreign Service, and open more consulates in the neglected regions of the Americas. We'll expand the Peace Corps, and ask more young Americans to go abroad to deepen the trust and the ties among our people.
And we must tap the vast resource of our own immigrant population to advance each part of our agenda. One of the troubling aspects of our recent politics has been the anti-immigrant sentiment that has flared up, and been exploited by politicians come election time. We need to understand that immigration – when done legally – is a source of strength for this country. Our diversity is a source of strength for this country. When we join together – black, white, Hispanic, Asian, and native American – there is nothing that we can't accomplish. Todos somos Americanos!
Together, we can choose the future over the past.
At a time when our leadership has suffered, I have no doubts about whether we can succeed. If the United States makes its case; if we meet those who doubt us or deride us head-on; if we draw on our best tradition of standing up for those Four Freedoms – then we can shape our future instead of being shaped by it. We can renew our leadership in the hemisphere. We can win the support not just of governments, but of the people of the Americas. But only if we leave the bluster behind. Only if we are strong and steadfast; confident and consistent.
Jose Marti once wrote. "It is not enough to come to the defense of freedom with epic and intermittent efforts when it is threatened at moments that appear critical. Every moment is critical for the defense of freedom."
Every moment is critical. And this must be our moment. Freedom. Opportunity. Dignity. These are not just the values of the United States – they are the values of the Americas. They were the cause of Washington's infantry and Bolivar's cavalry; of Marti's pen and Hidalgo's church bells.
That legacy is our inheritance. That must be our cause. And now must be the time that we turn the page to a new chapter in the story of the Americas.
Miami, FL | May 23, 2008
It is my privilege to join in this week's Independence Day celebration, and in honoring those who have stood up with courage and conviction for Cuban liberty. I'm going to take this opportunity to speak about Cuba, and also U.S. policy toward the Americas more broadly.
We meet here united in our unshakeable commitment to freedom. And it is fitting that we reaffirm that commitment here in Miami.
In many ways, Miami stands as a symbol of hope for what's possible in the Americas. Miami's promise of liberty and opportunity has drawn generations of immigrants to these shores, sometimes with nothing more than the clothes on their back. It was a similar hope that drew my own father across an ocean, in search of the same promise that our dreams need not be deferred because of who we are, what we look like, or where we come from.
Here, in Miami, that promise can join people together. We take common pride in a vibrant and diverse democracy, and a hard-earned prosperity. We find common pleasure in the crack of the bat, in the rhythms of our music, and the ease of voices shifting from Spanish or Creole or Portuguese to English.
These bonds are built on a foundation of shared history in our hemisphere. Colonized by empires, we share stories of liberation. Confronted by our own imperfections, we are joined in a desire to build a more perfect union. Rich in resources, we have yet to vanquish poverty.
What all of us strive for is freedom as FDR described it. Political freedom. Religious freedom. But also freedom from want, and freedom from fear. At our best, the United States has been a force for these four freedoms in the Americas. But if we're honest with ourselves, we'll acknowledge that at times we've failed to engage the people of the region with the respect owed to a partner.
When George Bush was elected, he held out the promise that this would change. He raised the hopes of the region that our engagement would be sustained instead of piecemeal. He called Mexico our most important bilateral relationship, and pledged to make Latin America a "fundamental commitment" of his presidency. It seemed that a new 21st century era had dawned.
Almost eight years later, those high hopes have been dashed.
Since the Bush Administration launched a misguided war in Iraq, its policy in the Americas has been negligent toward our friends, ineffective with our adversaries, disinterested in the challenges that matter in peoples' lives, and incapable of advancing our interests in the region.
No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum. His predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy offers the same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past. But the United States is so alienated from the rest of the Americas that this stale vision has gone unchallenged, and has even made inroads from Bolivia to Nicaragua. And Chavez and his allies are not the only ones filling the vacuum. While the United States fails to address the changing realities in the Americas, others from Europe and Asia – notably China – have stepped up their own engagement. Iran has drawn closer to Venezuela, and just the other day Tehran and Caracas launched a joint bank with their windfall oil profits.
That is the record – the Bush record in Latin America – that John McCain has chosen to embrace. Senator McCain doesn't talk about these trends in our hemisphere because he knows that it's part of the broader Bush-McCain failure to address priorities beyond Iraq. The situation has changed in the Americas, but we've failed to change with it. Instead of engaging the people of the region, we've acted as if we can still dictate terms unilaterally. We have not offered a clear and comprehensive vision, backed up with strong diplomacy. We are failing to join the battle for hearts and minds. For far too long, Washington has engaged in outdated debates and stuck to tired blueprints on drugs and trade, on democracy and development -- even though they won't meet the tests of the future.
The stakes could not be higher. It is time for us to recognize that the future security and prosperity of the United States is fundamentally tied to the future of the Americas. If we don't turn away from the policies of the past, then we won't be able to shape the future. The Bush Administration has offered no clear vision for this future, and neither has John McCain.
So we face a clear choice in this election. We can continue as a bystander, or we can lead the hemisphere into the 21st century. And when I am President of the United States, we will choose to lead.
It's time for a new alliance of the Americas. After eight years of the failed policies of the past, we need new leadership for the future. After decades pressing for top-down reform, we need an agenda that advances democracy, security, and opportunity from the bottom up. So my policy towards the Americas will be guided by the simple principle that what's good for the people of the Americas is good for the United States. That means measuring success not just through agreements among governments, but also through the hopes of the child in the favelas of Rio, the security for the policeman in Mexico City, and the answered cries of political prisoners heard from jails in Havana.
The first and most fundamental freedom that we must work for is political freedom. The United States must be a relentless advocate for democracy.
I grew up for a time in Indonesia. It was a society struggling to achieve meaningful democracy. Power could be undisguised and indiscriminate. Too often, power wore a uniform, and was unaccountable to the people. Some still had good reason to fear a knock on the door.
There is no place for this kind of tyranny in this hemisphere. There is no place for any darkness that would shut out the light of liberty. Here we must heed the words of Dr. King, written from his own jail cell: "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."
Throughout my entire life, there has been injustice in Cuba. Never, in my lifetime, have the people of Cuba known freedom. Never, in the lives of two generations of Cubans, have the people of Cuba known democracy. This is the terrible and tragic status quo that we have known for half a century – of elections that are anything but free or fair; of dissidents locked away in dark prison cells for the crime of speaking the truth. I won't stand for this injustice, you won't stand for this injustice, and together we will stand up for freedom in Cuba.
Now I know what the easy thing is to do for American politicians. Every four years, they come down to Miami, they talk tough, they go back to Washington, and nothing changes in Cuba. That's what John McCain did the other day. He joined the parade of politicians who make the same empty promises year after year, decade after decade. Instead of offering a strategy for change, he chose to distort my position, embrace George Bush's, and continue a policy that's done nothing to advance freedom for the Cuban people. That's the political posture that John McCain has chosen, and all it shows is that you can't take his so-called straight talk seriously.
My policy toward Cuba will be guided by one word: Libertad. And the road to freedom for all Cubans must begin with justice for Cuba's political prisoners, the rights of free speech, a free press and freedom of assembly; and it must lead to elections that are free and fair.
Now let me be clear. John McCain's been going around the country talking about how much I want to meet with Raul Castro, as if I'm looking for a social gathering. That's never what I've said, and John McCain knows it. After eight years of the disastrous policies of George Bush, it is time to pursue direct diplomacy, with friend and foe alike, without preconditions. There will be careful preparation. We will set a clear agenda. And as President, I would be willing to lead that diplomacy at a time and place of my choosing, but only when we have an opportunity to advance the interests of the United States, and to advance the cause of freedom for the Cuban people.
I will never, ever, compromise the cause of liberty. And unlike John McCain, I would never, ever, rule out a course of action that could advance the cause of liberty. We've heard enough empty promises from politicians like George Bush and John McCain. I will turn the page.
It's time for more than tough talk that never yields results. It's time for a new strategy. There are no better ambassadors for freedom than Cuban Americans. That's why I will immediately allow unlimited family travel and remittances to the island. It's time to let Cuban Americans see their mothers and fathers, their sisters and brothers. It's time to let Cuban American money make their families less dependent upon the Castro regime.
I will maintain the embargo. It provides us with the leverage to present the regime with a clear choice: if you take significant steps toward democracy, beginning with the freeing of all political prisoners, we will take steps to begin normalizing relations. That's the way to bring about real change in Cuba – through strong, smart and principled diplomacy.
And we know that freedom across our hemisphere must go beyond elections. In Venezuela, Hugo Chavez is a democratically elected leader. But we also know that he does not govern democratically. He talks of the people, but his actions just serve his own power. Yet the Bush Administration's blustery condemnations and clumsy attempts to undermine Chavez have only strengthened his hand.
We've heard plenty of talk about democracy from George Bush, but we need steady action. We must put forward a vision of democracy that goes beyond the ballot box. We should increase our support for strong legislatures, independent judiciaries, free press, vibrant civil society, honest police forces, religious freedom, and the rule of law. That is how we can support democracy that is strong and sustainable not just on an election day, but in the day to day lives of the people of the Americas.
That is what is so badly needed – not just in Cuba and Venezuela – but just to our southeast in Haiti as well. The Haitian people have suffered too long under governments that cared more about their own power than their peoples' progress and prosperity. It's time to press Haiti's leaders to bridge the divides between them. And it's time to invest in the economic development that must underpin the security that the Haitian people lack. And that is why the second part of my agenda will be advancing freedom from fear in the Americas.
For too many people in our hemisphere, security is absent from their daily lives. And for far too long, Washington has been trapped in a conventional thinking about Latin America and the Caribbean. From the right, we hear about violent insurgents. From the left, we hear about paramilitaries. This is the predictable debate that seems frozen in time from the 1980s. You're either soft on Communism or soft on death squads. And it has more to do with the politics of Washington than beating back the perils that so many people face in the Americas.
The person living in fear of violence doesn't care if they're threatened by a right-wing paramilitary or a left-wing terrorist; they don't care if they're being threatened by a drug cartel or a corrupt police force. They just care that they're being threatened, and that their families can't live and work in peace. That is why there will never be true security unless we focus our efforts on targeting every source of fear in the Americas. That's what I'll do as President of the United States.
For the people of Colombia – who have suffered at the hands of killers of every sort – that means battling all sources of violence. When I am President, we will continue the Andean Counter-Drug Program, and update it to meet evolving challenges. We will fully support Colombia's fight against the FARC. We'll work with the government to end the reign of terror from right wing paramilitaries. We will support Colombia's right to strike terrorists who seek safe-haven across its borders. And we will shine a light on any support for the FARC that comes from neighboring governments. This behavior must be exposed to international condemnation, regional isolation, and – if need be – strong sanctions. It must not stand.
We must also make clear our support for labor rights, and human rights, and that means meaningful support for Colombia's democratic institutions. We've neglected this support – especially for the rule of law – for far too long. In every country in our hemisphere – including our own – governments must develop the tools to protect their people.
Because if we've learned anything in our history in the Americas, it's that true security cannot come from force alone. Not as long as there are towns in Mexico where drug kingpins are more powerful than judges. Not as long as there are children who grow up afraid of the police. Not as long as drugs and gangs move north across our border, while guns and cash move south in return.
This nexus is a danger to every country in the region – including our own. Thousands of Central American gang members have been arrested across the United States, including here in south Florida. There are national emergencies facing Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras. Mexican drug cartels are terrorizing cities and towns. President Calderon was right to say that enough is enough. We must support Mexico's effort to crack down. But we must stand for more than force – we must support the rule of law from the bottom up. That means more investments in prevention and prosecutors; in community policing and an independent judiciary.
I agree with my friend, Senator Dick Lugar – the Merida Initiative does not invest enough in Central America, where much of the trafficking and gang activity begins. And we must press further south as well. It's time to work together to find the best practices that work across the hemisphere, and to tailor approaches to fit each country. That's why I will direct my Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to sit down with all their counterparts in the Americas during my first year in office. We'll strive for unity of effort. We'll provide the resources, and ask that every country do the same. And we'll tie our support to clear benchmarks for drug seizures, corruption prosecutions, crime reduction, and kingpins busted.
We have to do our part. And that is why a core part of this effort will be a northbound-southbound strategy. We need tougher border security, and a renewed focus on busting up gangs and traffickers crossing our border. But we must address the material heading south as well. As President, I'll make it clear that we're coming after the guns, we're coming after the money laundering, and we're coming after the vehicles that enable this crime. And we'll crack down on the demand for drugs in our own communities, and restore funding for drug task forces and the COPS program. We must win the fights on our own streets if we're going to secure the region.
The third part of my agenda is advancing freedom from want, because there is much that we can do to advance opportunity for the people of the Americas.
That begins with understanding what's changed in Latin America, and what hasn't. Enormous wealth has been created, and financial markets are far stronger than a decade ago. Brazil's economy has grown by leaps and bounds, and perhaps the second richest person in the world is a Mexican. Yet while there has been great economic progress, there is still back-breaking inequality. Despite a growing middle class, 100 million people live on less than two dollars a day, and 40 percent of Latin Americans live in poverty. This feeds everything from drugs, to migration, to support for leaders that appeal to the poor without delivering on their promises.
That is why the United States must stand for growth in the Americas from the bottom up. That begins at home, with comprehensive immigration reform. That means securing our border and passing tough employer enforcement laws. It means bringing 12 million unauthorized immigrants out of the shadows. But it also means working with Mexico, Central America and others to support bottom up development to our south.
For two hundred years, the United States has made it clear that we won't stand for foreign intervention in our hemisphere. But every day, all across the Americas, there is a different kind of struggle – not against foreign armies, but against the deadly threat of hunger and thirst, disease and despair. That is not a future that we have to accept – not for the child in Port au Prince or the family in the highlands of Peru. We can do better. We must do better.
We cannot ignore suffering to our south, nor stand for the globalization of the empty stomach. Responsibility rests with governments in the region, but we must do our part. I will substantially increase our aid to the Americas, and embrace the Millennium Development Goals of halving global poverty by 2015. We'll target support to bottom-up growth through micro financing, vocational training, and small enterprise development. It's time for the United States to once again be a beacon of hope and a helping hand.
Trade must be part of this solution. But I strongly reject the Bush-McCain view that any trade deal is a good deal. We cannot accept trade that enriches those at the top of the ladder while cutting out the rungs at the bottom. It's time to understand that the goal of our trade policy must be trade that works for all people in all countries. Like Central America's bishops, I opposed CAFTA because the needs of workers were not adequately addressed. I supported the Peru Free Trade Agreement because there were binding labor and environmental provisions. That's the kind of trade we need – trade that lifts up workers, not just a corporate bottom line.
There's nothing protectionist about demanding that trade spreads the benefits of globalization, instead of steering them to special interests while we short-change workers at home and abroad. If John McCain believes – as he said the other day – that 80 percent of Americans think we're on the wrong track because we haven't passed free trade with Colombia, then he's totally out of touch with the American people. And if John McCain thinks that we can paper over our failure of leadership in the region by occasionally passing trade deals with friendly governments, then he's out of touch with the people of the Americas.
And we have to look for ways to grow our economies and deepen integration beyond trade deals. That's what China is doing right now, as they build bridges from Beijing to Brazil, and expand their investments across the region. If the United States does not step forward, we risk being left behind. And that is why we must seize a unique opportunity to lead the region toward a more secure and sustainable energy future.
All of us feel the impact of the global energy crisis. In the short-term, it means an ever-more expensive addiction to oil, which bankrolls petro-powered authoritarianism around the globe, and drives up the cost of everything from a tank of gas to dinner on the table. And in the long-term, few regions are more imperiled by the stronger storms, higher floodwaters, and devastating droughts that could come with global warming. Whole crops could disappear, putting the food supply at risk for hundreds of millions.
While we share this risk, we also share the resources to do something about it. That's why I'll bring together the countries of the region in a new Energy Partnership for the Americas. We need to go beyond bilateral agreements. We need a regional approach. Together, we can forge a path toward sustainable growth and clean energy.
Leadership must begin at home. That's why I've proposed a cap and trade system to limit our carbon emissions and to invest in alternative sources of energy. We'll allow industrial emitters to offset a portion of this cost by investing in low carbon energy projects in Latin America and the Caribbean. And we'll increase research and development across the Americas in clean coal technology, in the next generation of sustainable biofuels not taken from food crops, and in wind and solar energy.
We'll enlist the World Bank, the Organization of American States, and the Inter-American Development Bank to support these investments, and ensure that these projects enhance natural resources like land, wildlife, and rain forests. We'll finally enforce environmental standards in our trade deals. We'll establish a program for the Department of Energy and our laboratories to share technology with countries across the region. We'll assess the opportunities and risks of nuclear power in the hemisphere by sitting down with Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and Chile. And we'll call on the American people to join this effort through an Energy Corps of engineers and scientists who will go abroad to help develop clean energy solutions.
This is the unique role that the United States can play. We can offer more than the tyranny of oil. We can learn from the progress made in a country like Brazil, while making the Americas a model for the world. We can offer leadership that serves the common prosperity and common security of the entire region.
This is the promise of FDR's Four Freedoms that we must realize. But only if we recognize that in the 21st century, we cannot treat Latin America and the Caribbean as a junior partner, just as our neighbors to the south should reject the bombast of authoritarian bullies. An alliance of the Americas will only succeed if it is founded on a bedrock of mutual respect. It's time to turn the page on the arrogance in Washington and the anti-Americanism across the region that stands in the way of progress. It's time to listen to one another and to learn from one another.
To fulfill this promise, my Administration won't wait six years to proclaim a "year of engagement." We will pursue aggressive, principled, and sustained diplomacy in the Americas from Day One. I will reinstate a Special Envoy for the Americas in my White House who will work with my full support. But we'll also expand the Foreign Service, and open more consulates in the neglected regions of the Americas. We'll expand the Peace Corps, and ask more young Americans to go abroad to deepen the trust and the ties among our people.
And we must tap the vast resource of our own immigrant population to advance each part of our agenda. One of the troubling aspects of our recent politics has been the anti-immigrant sentiment that has flared up, and been exploited by politicians come election time. We need to understand that immigration – when done legally – is a source of strength for this country. Our diversity is a source of strength for this country. When we join together – black, white, Hispanic, Asian, and native American – there is nothing that we can't accomplish. Todos somos Americanos!
Together, we can choose the future over the past.
At a time when our leadership has suffered, I have no doubts about whether we can succeed. If the United States makes its case; if we meet those who doubt us or deride us head-on; if we draw on our best tradition of standing up for those Four Freedoms – then we can shape our future instead of being shaped by it. We can renew our leadership in the hemisphere. We can win the support not just of governments, but of the people of the Americas. But only if we leave the bluster behind. Only if we are strong and steadfast; confident and consistent.
Jose Marti once wrote. "It is not enough to come to the defense of freedom with epic and intermittent efforts when it is threatened at moments that appear critical. Every moment is critical for the defense of freedom."
Every moment is critical. And this must be our moment. Freedom. Opportunity. Dignity. These are not just the values of the United States – they are the values of the Americas. They were the cause of Washington's infantry and Bolivar's cavalry; of Marti's pen and Hidalgo's church bells.
That legacy is our inheritance. That must be our cause. And now must be the time that we turn the page to a new chapter in the story of the Americas.
Obama's Position on Latin America
Obama's Position on Latin America
Substantial change for new times
Alfredo Ascanio (askain)
Published 2008-10-21 09:04 (KST)
Daniel Restrepo is advisor on hemispheric affairs for Barack Obama's presidential campaign. In a phone conversation with reporter Armando Avellaneda from Venezuelan newspaper El Nacional, Restrepo said that Obama could promote a different political relationship with Latin America.
During aspeech given in Miami previously this year, Obama assured that he did not want to impose solutions to the countries of Latin America, but only to find some common ground. This would be reached via diplomatic contacts without preconditions, keeping respect for the principles of democracy, and only if those countries agreed to meeting.
Obama wants to reach consensus on equitable distribution of wealth, improved security for the people and strengthened democratic institutions. His strategy for Latin America is different from those of Republican candidate John McCain and current president George W. Bush, who have given more weight to free trade agreements.
During these years the United States has moved away from Latin America and left a vacuum that has been exploited by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez to promote an anti-US agenda.
Obama wants to be a partner of Latin America to help fight drug and weapon traffic and money laundering, while promoting micro-credits for small businesses and vocational education.
Advisor Restrepo reported that the US monthly expenditure in Iraq is $11 billion, yet its investments in Latin America are so small that they can be described as symbolic.
Oil consumption in the future will fall below current levels. This fact will affect its production in countries like Venezuela, Mexico and Ecuador. However, the promotion of alternative, renewable energy sources will benefit all in the region, including the current oil producers.
Another problem that Obama feels is very delicate is the external support received by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the presence of Russia and Iran in the Caribbean and South America.
All of the above are positive points, but many Hispanics in the US claim that the candidates have been unclear on the issue of immigration reform.
El Nacional published a long story by Juan Jesus Aznar, from Spanish newspaper El Pais. The report describes the many obstacles Senator Obama faces due to racial issues: for example, 17 percent of white Democrats would support John McCain. Obama's team is afraid of a Bradley effect , which refers to the time when a black mayor of Los Angeles lost the California gobernatorial elections in 1982 in spite of the success predicted by polls.
That story is an example of what is called in political science aspiral of silence ; it results in an unexpected twist in the votes cast in the ballot box, which do not correspond to the opinions expressed in public, because that a person is less likely to voice an opinion on a topic if one feels that one is in the minority for fear of reprisal or isolation from the majority.
Substantial change for new times
Alfredo Ascanio (askain)
Published 2008-10-21 09:04 (KST)
Daniel Restrepo is advisor on hemispheric affairs for Barack Obama's presidential campaign. In a phone conversation with reporter Armando Avellaneda from Venezuelan newspaper El Nacional, Restrepo said that Obama could promote a different political relationship with Latin America.
During a
Obama wants to reach consensus on equitable distribution of wealth, improved security for the people and strengthened democratic institutions. His strategy for Latin America is different from those of Republican candidate John McCain and current president George W. Bush, who have given more weight to free trade agreements.
During these years the United States has moved away from Latin America and left a vacuum that has been exploited by Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez to promote an anti-US agenda.
Obama wants to be a partner of Latin America to help fight drug and weapon traffic and money laundering, while promoting micro-credits for small businesses and vocational education.
Advisor Restrepo reported that the US monthly expenditure in Iraq is $11 billion, yet its investments in Latin America are so small that they can be described as symbolic.
Oil consumption in the future will fall below current levels. This fact will affect its production in countries like Venezuela, Mexico and Ecuador. However, the promotion of alternative, renewable energy sources will benefit all in the region, including the current oil producers.
Another problem that Obama feels is very delicate is the external support received by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) and the presence of Russia and Iran in the Caribbean and South America.
All of the above are positive points, but many Hispanics in the US claim that the candidates have been unclear on the issue of immigration reform.
El Nacional published a long story by Juan Jesus Aznar, from Spanish newspaper El Pais. The report describes the many obstacles Senator Obama faces due to racial issues: for example, 17 percent of white Democrats would support John McCain. Obama's team is afraid of a
That story is an example of what is called in political science a
O laboratório da democracia
O laboratório da democracia
Editor para a América Latina da prestigiosa revista "The Economist", Michael Reid lança livro sobre o continente
O jornalista Michael Reid estava com receio de lançar seu livro, "O Continente Esquecido - A Batalha pela Alma Latino-Americana" (ed. Campus, trad. Marcello Lino, 424 págs., R$ 85), no Brasil.
Tendo vivido em diferentes países do continente desde 1982 e sido o responsável por abrir o escritório da revista britânica "The Economist" em SP, em 1996, ele desconfiava do estranhamento que o título poderia causar por aqui.
"Muitos brasileiros não acham que seu país faz parte da América Latina. Estou preocupado com que pensem que o livro trata de um assunto totalmente diferente, que não lhes diz respeito, quando, em boa parte dele, o que tento é mostrar ao mundo que o Brasil é uma parte muito importante dessa região", disse à Folha. Na entrevista abaixo, afirma que o continente vive um momento único no que diz respeito à experiência democrática e que é um "laboratório" de política a que o planeta deveria prestar mais atenção. (SYLVIA COLOMBO)
FOLHA - Qual é a principal diferença entre a sua opinião sobre a América Latina e a da "Economist"?
MICHAEL REID - Antes de mais nada, é preciso dizer que a revista tem uma visão sobre a região muito diferente do resto da mídia britânica. Tem correspondentes no México e no Brasil e uma seção dedicada à América Latina. O resto [da mídia] ainda tem uma visão folclórica do continente e carrega os estereótipos criados durante a Guerra Fria. Contudo creio que minhas opiniões diferem das de meus colegas da revista, pois vejo com muito mais ceticismo o que se convencionou chamar de "neoliberalismo". Eu não gosto desse termo, não o considero útil. Não acredito que, no caso latino-americano, o livre mercado e o livre comércio, sozinhos, trarão desenvolvimento.
FOLHA - O que o sr. considera mais novo na discussão política atual sobre o continente?
REID - Na maioria desses países, nos últimos 30 anos, estamos vendo o estabelecimento inédito de democracias duráveis, baseadas no sufrágio universal e que dão oportunidade, na prática, para que qualquer um seja eleito. Golpes militares são algo do passado.
FOLHA - Ou seja, o sr. é um otimista quanto ao futuro do continente?
REID - Sim, mas com precauções. A emergência dessas democracias importa porque estamos falando de uma região com uma imensa desigualdade social e de distribuição de renda. O que os governos estão tentando fazer é usar a democracia para criar sociedades mais justas e prósperas. Esse processo é de relevância global. A América Latina está tendo uma experiência com a democracia que deveria ser mais bem observada internacionalmente. Ela se tornou um laboratório importante para avaliar a democracia capitalista, e o resultado dessa experiência tem significado global.
FOLHA - Como o sr. vê o Brasil?
REID - O que está ocorrendo no Brasil é o fenômeno de desenvolvimento mais considerável deste século no continente. EUA e Europa perceberam que o país mais importante é o Brasil e é com ele que as relações têm de ser fortalecidas, não com o Mercosul. Temo que o governo argentino, nos últimos anos, tenha contribuído para esvaziar a idéia de integração.
FOLHA - O sr. buscou autores do século 19 e do início do 20 para entender o continente. O que o impressionou mais entre aqueles que cita?
REID - Apesar de o objeto do livro ser a América Latina dos últimos 30 anos, pareceu-me importante voltar ao período logo após as independências, em 1810, para encontrar as principais linhas que compõem o quadro político atual.
Achei fascinante perceber tantos aspectos da modernidade naquele tempo, e que estão refletidos no pensamento e na produção desses intelectuais.
O curioso é que, mesmo com esses sinais, grande parte do século 20 foi de frustração e de desapontamento. Isso porque, por um lado, foi difícil sustentar o desenvolvimento econômico. Por outro, mostrou-se duríssimo transformar sistemas de governo oligárquico-civis em democracias de massa.
Sérgio Buarque de Holanda me ajudou a entender por que o Brasil é diferente do resto do continente.
Já Sarmiento foi interessante pelo modo como se empenhou em promover a educação pública. Alberdi foi um fantástico intelectual liberal que percebeu as dificuldades de implementar o liberalismo na América do Sul naquele momento.
Por fim, Mariátegui introduziu, ainda que de forma equivocada, a importância de pensar o elemento indígena na política.
Todos refletem elementos essenciais das sociedad
Editor para a América Latina da prestigiosa revista "The Economist", Michael Reid lança livro sobre o continente
O jornalista Michael Reid estava com receio de lançar seu livro, "O Continente Esquecido - A Batalha pela Alma Latino-Americana" (ed. Campus, trad. Marcello Lino, 424 págs., R$ 85), no Brasil.
Tendo vivido em diferentes países do continente desde 1982 e sido o responsável por abrir o escritório da revista britânica "The Economist" em SP, em 1996, ele desconfiava do estranhamento que o título poderia causar por aqui.
"Muitos brasileiros não acham que seu país faz parte da América Latina. Estou preocupado com que pensem que o livro trata de um assunto totalmente diferente, que não lhes diz respeito, quando, em boa parte dele, o que tento é mostrar ao mundo que o Brasil é uma parte muito importante dessa região", disse à Folha. Na entrevista abaixo, afirma que o continente vive um momento único no que diz respeito à experiência democrática e que é um "laboratório" de política a que o planeta deveria prestar mais atenção. (SYLVIA COLOMBO)
FOLHA - Qual é a principal diferença entre a sua opinião sobre a América Latina e a da "Economist"?
MICHAEL REID - Antes de mais nada, é preciso dizer que a revista tem uma visão sobre a região muito diferente do resto da mídia britânica. Tem correspondentes no México e no Brasil e uma seção dedicada à América Latina. O resto [da mídia] ainda tem uma visão folclórica do continente e carrega os estereótipos criados durante a Guerra Fria. Contudo creio que minhas opiniões diferem das de meus colegas da revista, pois vejo com muito mais ceticismo o que se convencionou chamar de "neoliberalismo". Eu não gosto desse termo, não o considero útil. Não acredito que, no caso latino-americano, o livre mercado e o livre comércio, sozinhos, trarão desenvolvimento.
FOLHA - O que o sr. considera mais novo na discussão política atual sobre o continente?
REID - Na maioria desses países, nos últimos 30 anos, estamos vendo o estabelecimento inédito de democracias duráveis, baseadas no sufrágio universal e que dão oportunidade, na prática, para que qualquer um seja eleito. Golpes militares são algo do passado.
FOLHA - Ou seja, o sr. é um otimista quanto ao futuro do continente?
REID - Sim, mas com precauções. A emergência dessas democracias importa porque estamos falando de uma região com uma imensa desigualdade social e de distribuição de renda. O que os governos estão tentando fazer é usar a democracia para criar sociedades mais justas e prósperas. Esse processo é de relevância global. A América Latina está tendo uma experiência com a democracia que deveria ser mais bem observada internacionalmente. Ela se tornou um laboratório importante para avaliar a democracia capitalista, e o resultado dessa experiência tem significado global.
FOLHA - Como o sr. vê o Brasil?
REID - O que está ocorrendo no Brasil é o fenômeno de desenvolvimento mais considerável deste século no continente. EUA e Europa perceberam que o país mais importante é o Brasil e é com ele que as relações têm de ser fortalecidas, não com o Mercosul. Temo que o governo argentino, nos últimos anos, tenha contribuído para esvaziar a idéia de integração.
FOLHA - O sr. buscou autores do século 19 e do início do 20 para entender o continente. O que o impressionou mais entre aqueles que cita?
REID - Apesar de o objeto do livro ser a América Latina dos últimos 30 anos, pareceu-me importante voltar ao período logo após as independências, em 1810, para encontrar as principais linhas que compõem o quadro político atual.
Achei fascinante perceber tantos aspectos da modernidade naquele tempo, e que estão refletidos no pensamento e na produção desses intelectuais.
O curioso é que, mesmo com esses sinais, grande parte do século 20 foi de frustração e de desapontamento. Isso porque, por um lado, foi difícil sustentar o desenvolvimento econômico. Por outro, mostrou-se duríssimo transformar sistemas de governo oligárquico-civis em democracias de massa.
Sérgio Buarque de Holanda me ajudou a entender por que o Brasil é diferente do resto do continente.
Já Sarmiento foi interessante pelo modo como se empenhou em promover a educação pública. Alberdi foi um fantástico intelectual liberal que percebeu as dificuldades de implementar o liberalismo na América do Sul naquele momento.
Por fim, Mariátegui introduziu, ainda que de forma equivocada, a importância de pensar o elemento indígena na política.
Todos refletem elementos essenciais das sociedad
el BLOG de los Expatriados
En el mundo existe mucha gente que tiene que trasladarse a otro país. Algunos son personas que se han auto-expatriado y otros han tenido que salir de su país por motivos de trabajo o por otros motivos. En el enlace de arriba pueden conocer los BLOG de algunas de esas familias y casi todos están en idioma español.
Political language : A glossary of the US election
What's the difference between a red and blue state? Ever heard of a battleground state, or swing state? What does "staying on message" really mean? Such terms and phrases are used repeatedly during political seasons in the United States. Here's a list of U.S. election "slang."
Battleground (swing) state: A state in which polls show that neither candidate has a comfortable majority of votes and the outcome of the election is uncertain. Presidential candidates target such states in order to boost their electoral vote count on Election Day.
Blue state: A state where people tend to vote for the Democratic Party.
Caucus: A closed meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same political party usually to select candidates or to decide on policy. In the United States, the Iowa caucus is the first state-wide test for presidential candidates and is the traditional beginning of the presidential election season.
Checks and Balances: The U.S. Constitution guarantees that no part of the government becomes too powerful by setting up a 3-branch system of government - Legislative, Executive and Judicial - in which each branch has certain powers that limit another branch's level of responsibility, so power is shared among the branches.
Donkey: The political symbol for the Democratic Party. According to the party, the symbolic use of the donkey began in 1828, when then presidential candidate Andrew Jackson decided to turn an insult around and use it to his advantage. Opponents called him a “jackass”, so he began using the donkey symbol in advertising. It became more permanently connected to the Democratic Party in the 1870's, when political cartoonist Thomas Nast adopted the donkey in his drawings.
Earmark: A provision written into Congressional legislation that directs federal funds to a specific project. Members of Congress will typically seek to insert earmarks that benefit particular projects, locations or organizations in the district or state they represent. (also see pork barrel)
Electoral College: The collective term for the 538 electors who officially elect the President and Vice President of the United States. The number of electors each state is allocated is equal to the combined total of its senators and representatives in Congress. Candidates must win 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.
Elephant: The traditional symbol for the Republican Party, dating back to 1874 when Thomas Nast began using it in his cartoons. Nast is also credited with establishing the donkey as the symbol for the Democratic Party.
Exit poll: A survey of voters taken immediately after they have cast their ballots and left the polling stations. An exit poll asks whom the voter actually voted for.
GOP (Grand Old Party): The traditional nickname for the Republican Party widely used in political reporting. The term, which may have evolved from the phrase "gallant old party" or "grand old man," dates back to the late 19th century when the abbreviation was cited newspaper reports.
Independent: Registered voters who do no declare a particular party affiliation are grouped under the term "independent."
Joe the Plumber: The name used by the presidential candidates in reference to Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber from Ohio whose on camera questions to Democratic nominee Barack Obama about how the candidate's tax plan would impact his business made its way into the third and final presidential debate.
National convention: A party assembly held every four years, at which state delegates from across the country gather to vote on the party's candidate for president and vice president. Conventions now serve mainly to formalize the will of the majority of voters, expressed during the earlier state primaries and caucuses.
Oval Office: The office traditionally occupied by the president in the West Wing of the White House. The room did not exist until the 1930s, when it was added on as part of expansion work to the building. The term is often used to describe the presidency itself.
Pork barrel: Spending that is primarily for the benefit of particular local interests in a Congressional member's district and not obviously in the interests of the nation as a whole.
Primary: A state-level election held before a general election to nominate a party's candidate for office. Primaries are held for both the presidential and congressional races, although the exact regulations governing them and the dates on which they are held vary from state to state. In some states voters are restricted to choosing candidates only from the party for which they have registered support.
Pundit: An expert who offers analysis on election and political developments, most often during appearances on television news and analysis programs.
Red state: A state where people tend to vote for the Republican Party.
Running Mate: Once a party has selected its presidential nominee, that candidate picks a political colleague, or "running-mate," who, if elected, will become vice president.
Soft money: Political contributions not regulated by U.S. campaign finance laws. It is money given directly to political parties for the purposes of "party building," such as grassroots organizing, advertising and voter drives. It is not to be used on or given directly to political candidates.
Stump speech: The standard speech delivered by a candidate during the campaign, outlining the candidate's central message to the voters. The phrase stems from the days when candidates would make speeches standing on tree stumps, so they could be easily seen at a gathering. Campaigning politicians were said to be "on the stump."
Staying on message: A candidate's "message" is the core concept they want to convey to the voters and one of the top rules for a successful campaign. Political candidates are often criticized by analysts and experts if they stray off topic and are repeatedly encouraged to "stay on message."
Swing (battleground) state: A state in which polls show that neither candidate has a comfortable majority of the votes and the outcome of the election is uncertain. Presidential candidates target such states in order to boost their electoral vote count on Election Day.
Talking points: A list of summaries of a candidate's ideas for a public speaking engagement, television appearance or other public event.
Third-party candidate: A candidate who does not belong to one of the two main political parties in the United States (Republicans or Democrats). Examples of third-party candidates running in 2008 are Independent Ralph Nader and Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate.
Toss one's hat in the ring: An action that shows one clearly wants to compete with other people to win an election for political office.
Wedge issue: An issue on which voters hold strongly divided opinions, which a politician might raise in order to drive a wedge between different groups within his opponent's supporter base.
Battleground (swing) state: A state in which polls show that neither candidate has a comfortable majority of votes and the outcome of the election is uncertain. Presidential candidates target such states in order to boost their electoral vote count on Election Day.
Blue state: A state where people tend to vote for the Democratic Party.
Caucus: A closed meeting of a group of persons belonging to the same political party usually to select candidates or to decide on policy. In the United States, the Iowa caucus is the first state-wide test for presidential candidates and is the traditional beginning of the presidential election season.
Checks and Balances: The U.S. Constitution guarantees that no part of the government becomes too powerful by setting up a 3-branch system of government - Legislative, Executive and Judicial - in which each branch has certain powers that limit another branch's level of responsibility, so power is shared among the branches.
Donkey: The political symbol for the Democratic Party. According to the party, the symbolic use of the donkey began in 1828, when then presidential candidate Andrew Jackson decided to turn an insult around and use it to his advantage. Opponents called him a “jackass”, so he began using the donkey symbol in advertising. It became more permanently connected to the Democratic Party in the 1870's, when political cartoonist Thomas Nast adopted the donkey in his drawings.
Earmark: A provision written into Congressional legislation that directs federal funds to a specific project. Members of Congress will typically seek to insert earmarks that benefit particular projects, locations or organizations in the district or state they represent. (also see pork barrel)
Electoral College: The collective term for the 538 electors who officially elect the President and Vice President of the United States. The number of electors each state is allocated is equal to the combined total of its senators and representatives in Congress. Candidates must win 270 electoral votes to win the presidency.
Elephant: The traditional symbol for the Republican Party, dating back to 1874 when Thomas Nast began using it in his cartoons. Nast is also credited with establishing the donkey as the symbol for the Democratic Party.
Exit poll: A survey of voters taken immediately after they have cast their ballots and left the polling stations. An exit poll asks whom the voter actually voted for.
GOP (Grand Old Party): The traditional nickname for the Republican Party widely used in political reporting. The term, which may have evolved from the phrase "gallant old party" or "grand old man," dates back to the late 19th century when the abbreviation was cited newspaper reports.
Independent: Registered voters who do no declare a particular party affiliation are grouped under the term "independent."
Joe the Plumber: The name used by the presidential candidates in reference to Joe Wurzelbacher, a plumber from Ohio whose on camera questions to Democratic nominee Barack Obama about how the candidate's tax plan would impact his business made its way into the third and final presidential debate.
National convention: A party assembly held every four years, at which state delegates from across the country gather to vote on the party's candidate for president and vice president. Conventions now serve mainly to formalize the will of the majority of voters, expressed during the earlier state primaries and caucuses.
Oval Office: The office traditionally occupied by the president in the West Wing of the White House. The room did not exist until the 1930s, when it was added on as part of expansion work to the building. The term is often used to describe the presidency itself.
Pork barrel: Spending that is primarily for the benefit of particular local interests in a Congressional member's district and not obviously in the interests of the nation as a whole.
Primary: A state-level election held before a general election to nominate a party's candidate for office. Primaries are held for both the presidential and congressional races, although the exact regulations governing them and the dates on which they are held vary from state to state. In some states voters are restricted to choosing candidates only from the party for which they have registered support.
Pundit: An expert who offers analysis on election and political developments, most often during appearances on television news and analysis programs.
Red state: A state where people tend to vote for the Republican Party.
Running Mate: Once a party has selected its presidential nominee, that candidate picks a political colleague, or "running-mate," who, if elected, will become vice president.
Soft money: Political contributions not regulated by U.S. campaign finance laws. It is money given directly to political parties for the purposes of "party building," such as grassroots organizing, advertising and voter drives. It is not to be used on or given directly to political candidates.
Stump speech: The standard speech delivered by a candidate during the campaign, outlining the candidate's central message to the voters. The phrase stems from the days when candidates would make speeches standing on tree stumps, so they could be easily seen at a gathering. Campaigning politicians were said to be "on the stump."
Staying on message: A candidate's "message" is the core concept they want to convey to the voters and one of the top rules for a successful campaign. Political candidates are often criticized by analysts and experts if they stray off topic and are repeatedly encouraged to "stay on message."
Swing (battleground) state: A state in which polls show that neither candidate has a comfortable majority of the votes and the outcome of the election is uncertain. Presidential candidates target such states in order to boost their electoral vote count on Election Day.
Talking points: A list of summaries of a candidate's ideas for a public speaking engagement, television appearance or other public event.
Third-party candidate: A candidate who does not belong to one of the two main political parties in the United States (Republicans or Democrats). Examples of third-party candidates running in 2008 are Independent Ralph Nader and Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate.
Toss one's hat in the ring: An action that shows one clearly wants to compete with other people to win an election for political office.
Wedge issue: An issue on which voters hold strongly divided opinions, which a politician might raise in order to drive a wedge between different groups within his opponent's supporter base.
domingo, octubre 19, 2008
New York Times: todo sobre Obama
En este enlaces existe un resumen completo de toda la actividad del Senador por Illinois electo en el 2004, Barack Hussein Obama Jr. Este político democrata nació el 24 de agosto de 1961 en Honolulu, Hawai (USA). En el año de 1992 se casó con Michelle Robinson, el 1999 nació su primera hija que se llama Malia y en el año 2001 nació su segunda hija de nombre Natasha. Su religión es :United Church of Christ. Actualmente reside en Chicago. Su formación académica es como sigue, lo gro su B.A. en la Universidad de Columbia en 1983 y luego su J.D en la Universidad de Harvard, Escuela de Leyes, en el año 1991.Al graduarse es un abogado del bufete Miner Barnhill & Galland (1993-2004). Ha escrito dos libros, en 1995 el primer libro se titula : Dreams from my Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance; y en el año 2006 : The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream.El escritor Steve Dougherty [2007] escribi un libro sobre Obama que se llama : Hopes and Dreams: The Story of Barack Obama. Su campaña para presidente de USA la realiza acompañado de : Joseph R. Biden Jr.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)