By Hamish Boland-Rudder
Source: The Center for Public Integrity
Could a pair of form templates be some of most revolutionary tax tools to emerge from decades of debate over global tax rules?
The OECD announced the first seven steps of a major overhaul of
international tax systems yesterday, ahead of a meeting of G20 finance
ministers in Australia this weekend. The Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) Action Plan is aimed at curbing aggressive tax schemes used by multinational companies to avoid paying taxes.
Endorsed by a total of 44 countries, including all OECD members and
the G20 nations, the recommendations include plans to eliminate double
non-taxation or “hybrid mismatching” (where a company uses treaty
arrangements to avoid paying tax in two jurisdictions), to establish
multilateral tax agreements to streamline international tax rules (as
opposed to the current system of more than 3000 bilateral agreements),
and create a standard for companies to report their activities and
profits in each jurisdiction where they operate.
It’s that last point where these potentially revolutionary new forms
comes into play. They can be found in the full 'Action 13' report, Guidance on Transfer Pricing Documentation and Country-by-Country Reporting.
The form is a template that shows the sort of information
multinational businesses will, if these rules are adopted, be forced to
collect and provide to tax authorities. It requires multple levels of
comprehensive information on incomes, earnings and taxes paid for every
jurisdiction in which the company operates.
According to some tax experts, it’s a huge step forward that will not
only bring transparency to complex cross-border intra-company
arrangements, but it will also arm tax authorities with data they
couldn’t previously access. British tax expert and activist Richard
Murphy puts it this way:
“There is no other way to get this data. Profit is, after all, a
residual measure after every other allocation has been made. So, we now
know that full country-by-country reporting accounts will be prepared in
the future.
“And that means something else, which is that no multinational
corporation can ever argue ever again that it does not have this data or
that it would be too costly to publish it. The time has come for that
sham to be dropped. We need country-by-country reporting data on public
record and we now know we can have it.”
Taxation law expert Anthony Ting from Sydney University in Australia said the added transparency would also allow tax authorities to quickly identify and red flag operations where rules were bent or abused:
“…the country-by-country reporting regime would have a deterrent
effect. As the tax benefits from an international tax avoidance
structure would be disclosed to tax authorities around the world, the
risk of a tax investigation would be much higher. Multinationals would
likely think twice before engaging in aggressive tax structures.”
Despite the optimism, there is still a way to go before this, and any
of the seven initiatives are enacted. Indeed this week’s reports are
only the halfway point of a two-year process which began in July 2013.
Only two of the seven reports are finalized; four are still in draft
stages, and one is an interim report. To add to this, reports on a
further eight initiatives are still 12 months away.
And at least one group, the Financial Transparency Coalition, has
expressed disappointment that the country-by-country reporting doesn’t
include making the information publicly available:
“Elements of the model template for country-by-country reporting are
robust, but there’s a huge value in making this information public and
they didn’t take that step,” said the group’s lead advocate in Europe,
Koen Roovers, in a statement.
“The new OECD recommendations offer a veil of confidentiality that could perpetuate the very secrecy it’s intended to address.”
There’s also another significant challenge for the BEPS action plan:
implementation in dozens of jurisdictions around the world. While the
OECD holds no real governing authority, member countries tend to heed
the organization’s recommendations and guidance.
And the sentiment so far from the 44 countries who have agreed to
take part in the tax system overhaul has been positive. They represent
more than 90 per cent of the world’s economy, and even if the uptake of
new rules is uneven from country to country, general implementation of
the overall themes of the BEPS action plan would likely create enough
collective global pressure on multinational corporations to force a
change in tax avoiding behaviors.
Speaking with the New York Times, KPMG’s head of international taxation Manal Corwin pointed towards Australia, France and Britain as likely early-adopters.
“The fact that they’ve reached consensus in such detail on two areas —
hybrid mismatches [double non-taxation] and country-by-country
reporting — suggests that we will see a pretty rapid adoption” by some
countries, Ms Corwin told the newspaper.
But some lobby groups believe that poorer countries face a
near-impossible task to implement the changes. International human
rights activists ActionAid have repeatedly criticized the OECD
for neglecting to properly negotiate with or plan around the needs of
the world’s poorer countries, which could struggle with the cost and
complexity of implementing the new tax plans.
On the other side of the fence, the OECD believes that the crackdown
has already started to have an impact on the way corporations think
about their tax structures. And the OECD official leading the overhaul,
Pascal Saint-Amans, believes the very fact that the first round of
initiatives have been delivered on time with broad agreement shows how
committed these countries are to closing tax loopholes.
"This is extremely ambitious," he told a news conference earlier this
week. "We are delivering. As soon as they are published, they will have
an impact. They reflect very strong agreement."
He said the initiatives were aimed at restoring nations' right to tax, and at stamping out the use of mailbox subsidiaries in tax havens like Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.
"You multinationals stand ready," he said. "It's over."
Monday
President Barack Obama Weekly Address September 20, 2014 (Video/Trascript )
President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
September 20, 2014
Weekly Address
The White House
September 20, 2014
Over the past week, the United States has continued to
lead our friends and allies in the strategy to degrade and ultimately
destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL. As I’ve said before, our
intelligence community has not yet detected specific plots from these
terrorists against America. Right now, they pose a threat to the people
of Iraq, Syria, and the broader Middle East. But its leaders have
threatened America and our allies. And if left unchecked, they could
pose a growing threat to the United States.
So, last month, I gave the order for our military to begin
taking targeted action against ISIL. Since then, American pilots have
flown more than 170 airstrikes against these terrorists in Iraq. And
France has now joined us in these airstrikes.
Going forward, we won’t hesitate to take action against
these terrorists in Iraq or in Syria. But this is not America’s fight
alone. I won’t commit our troops to fighting another ground war in
Iraq, or in Syria. It’s more effective to use our capabilities to help
partners on the ground secure their own country’s futures. We will use
our air power. We will train and equip our partners. We will advise and
we will assist. And we’ll lead a broad coalition of nations who have a
stake in this fight. This isn’t America vs. ISIL. This is the people
of that region vs. ISIL. It’s the world vs ISIL.
We’ve been working to secure bipartisan support for this
strategy here at home, because I believe that we are strongest as a
nation when the President and Congress work together. We’ve been
consulting closely with Congress. And last week, Secretary of State
Kerry, Secretary of Defense Hagel, and military leaders worked to gain
their support for our strategy.
A majority of Democrats and a majority of Republicans in
both the House and the Senate have now approved a first, key part of our
strategy by wide margins. They’ve given our troops the authority they
need to train Syrian opposition fighters so that they can fight ISIL in
Syria. Those votes sent a powerful signal to the world: Americans are
united in confronting this danger. And I hope Congress continues to
make sure our troops get what they need to get the job done.
Meanwhile, because we’re leading the right way, more
nations are joining our coalition. Over 40 countries have offered to
help the broad campaign against ISIL so far – from training and
equipment, to humanitarian relief, to flying combat missions. And this
week, at the United Nations, I’ll continue to rally the world against
this threat.
This is an effort that America has the unique ability to
lead. When the world is threatened; when the world needs help; it calls
on America. And we call on our troops. Whether it’s to degrade and
ultimately destroy a group of terrorists, or to contain and combat a
threat like the Ebola epidemic in Africa; we ask a lot of our troops.
But while our politics may be divided at times, the American people
stand united around supporting our troops and their families. This is a
moment of American leadership. Thanks to them, it is a moment we will
meet. Thank you.
Thursday
Airstrike Uncertainties: Obama's Dangerously Vague New War
By Markus Feldenkirchen, Christoph Reuter and Holger Stark
Source: Der Spiegel
Obama has spent much of his term withdrawing the US from quagmires abroad. But now, in the battle against Islamic State extremists, he has a war of his own. His plan of attack, though, is filled with uncertainties and America's ultimate goal remains unclear.
The City of Rabbits. That is the bucolic alias once attached to the Syrian town of Marea. But it is no longer in use. Now, one of the most important frontlines in the war in northern Syria runs through the town. Some 5,000 rebels have established themselves in the potato fields surrounding Marea in an effort to stop Islamic State jihadists from continuing their advance on Aleppo.
Thus far, they have been successful -- thanks largely to assistance from the US. In Marea, an American-supported rebel command center coordinates the rebels' defense. The entire front is divided into sectors, which are each under the control of a single group. They have names like "Defenders of the Faith," "Islamic Front" and "Nureddin Senki Brigade" and are fairly obscure. Even so, they now have satellite images, ammunition for Kalashnikovs and larger caliber weapons, night-vision devices and provisions. A few anti-tank rockets also arrived a few months ago.
All of the materiel was provided to the fighters by the US. The CIA has established a military operations center in the Turkish border town of Reyhanli which it uses to support Syrian rebels. Those given a green rating by the CIA receive both arms and a salary. Those coded yellow receive help but no weapons. Those marked red receive nothing. Nine groups with a total of around 10,000 fighters are now said to be operating north of Aleppo to stop the march of the Islamic State.
Witnesses who have visited the operations center and who work with the US. have described a curious alliance -- the cast of characters ranges from bearded Islamists to defected army officers. The fighters aren't radical. They aren't exactly secular either. Above all, they aren't corrupt; they are disciplined and capable.
Waiting for Air Strikes
"We are holding our lines, but we aren't going to attack," says one of the Syrian rebel commanders who just came to Turkey for two days. The fighters have plenty of arms and ammunition, he said, but also have a fear of the Islamic State and its extreme brutality. "To advance against the Islamic State, we need heavy weaponry, artillery and rocket launchers." He says that the Americans need to provide Syrian fighters with the kind of weapons that the Islamic State has been able to plunder from the Iraqi army. "We are now waiting for US airstrikes," the commander says. "Nothing will happen before that."
On the eve of the 13th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, US President Barack Obama announced that such airstrikes were on the way, in a speech that was designed to demonstrate America's power and determination. Standing in the White House, the president informed his fellow Americans of a war against the Islamic State that could take years to achieve its goals. The appearance marked a complete reversal for Obama. He is now no longer the president who only brings wars to an end; he has now become a war president himself. As Obama announced the operation's aim, he sounded eerily reminiscent of George W. Bush, his predecessor: "We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL," Obama said, using one of the many acronyms used to refer to the Islamic State.
For Obama, there is something almost tragic about this moment. A rapid withdrawal from Iraq was once one of his central campaign promises, and now he is in danger of leaving his successor a country deeply mired in an intransigent conflict not unlike the ones he inherited from Bush.
Unclear Goals
That speech marked the moment Obama gave up on his "lead from behind" doctrine, which imagined a superpower pulling the strings backstage rather leading the charge. The about-face became necessary in part because of the West's earlier hesitation to get involved in the Syrian civil war, a delay which allowed the jihadists to gain strength.
The risks associated with the new operation, which Obama has sought to sell as an anti-terrorism campaign, are immense. And important questions remain unanswered. What, for example, does Obama seek to achieve? Is the US only interested in the destruction of the terror group to prevent it from being able to carry out possible terror strikes in the US? Or is Washington also tempted by regime change in Syria?
The bombs, after all, won't be targeting the cause of the Islamic State's rise -- Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad is leading a destructive war in his effort to cling to power. Attacking the Islamic State helps Assad, but it also, more than anything, helps rebel groups in Syria.
"Nobody knows what our strategy really looks like in Syria," says former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution. "The strategy in Iraq is clearly a military one, with the Iraqi army as a partner. In Syria, it sounds like a counterterrorism mission like those in Yemen and Somalia." In those places, though, drone attacks have done little to weaken Islamist groups. On the contrary. And experts agree that airstrikes are not enough to destroy a well-organized pseudo-army like the one belonging to the Islamic State.
The Assad Question
It also remains unclear how the US intends to fly bombing raids in Syria without cooperating with Assad's regime. In Iraq, the government explicitly requested American assistance, but Obama has ruled out working together with the Syrian government. Assad maintains effective anti-aircraft systems, though Pollack believes that Assad would not fire at US fighters and drones. "The last thing that Assad wants is an additional fight with the US," he says. But it isn't a certainty.
Russia has been vociferous in its criticism of Obama's plans, with the Foreign Ministry in Moscow saying in a statement that airstrikes would be "an act of aggression" and that such a step, "in absence of a UN Security Council decision, would be ... a gross violation of international law" and would further increase tensions.
Should it come under attack, the US may then feel forced to destroy Syrian airports, fighter jets and anti-aircraft batteries, which would end Syrian control of airspace over large areas now under rebel control. Assad's Syria would shrink to a small strip from Damascus to the coast.
It is more likely that the Assad regime will silently tolerate US airstrikes. Indeed, Western diplomats and intelligence personnel in southern Turkey say that the US has been secretly negotiating with Damascus in recent weeks in the hopes of getting the green light for air raids.
Damascus is eager to win the US as an ally. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem has said that any airstrikes must be carefully coordinated -- though there are large differences between Washington and Damascus's notions of who exactly the enemy is.
Rebels Caught in the Middle
When Islamic State fighters began shelling rebel-controlled Marea from three sides in August, the Syrian air force flew several air raids. But their bombs didn't hit the Islamic State. They instead struck exactly the rebels that are receiving support from the US.
Yassir al-Haji, head of the political opposition in Marea, says two girls died in the town late last week, one after being struck by an Islamic State tank shell and the other as a result of a regime airstrike. "Both sides are shooting at us. Assad's air force is flying sorties against us every day. At the same time, more than 1,000 Islamic State fighters are just five kilometers away -- and are not being bombed," Haji says.
The Islamic State was long a useful enemy for the regime in Damascus, with the jihadist group's brutality making Assad look like the lesser of two evils. Indeed, the Syrian air force refrained from attacking Islamist State positions at all until mid-June. In return, the Islamists focused their fight on other opposition groups -- and financed themselves through oil deals with Damascus. Both Assad and the Islamic State were apparently trying to use each other.
Rise of the Islamic State
But suddenly, the Islamic State became much more powerful than expected. The CIA recently estimated that the group may have as many as 30,000 fighters. Since the jihadists began attacking regime positions in the east, the Syrian air force has been attacking them there. But only there.
The Islamic State is like a parasite and has taken advantage of the weaknesses displayed by its hosts, Syria and Iraq. The terror group is not only made up of fanatics, but also of strategists who prefer eye-catching brutalities to staging provocative attacks in the West. Indeed, this dearth of large-scale attacks abroad led many experts to believe until recently that the Islamic State didn't play in the terrorist big leagues. In January, even Barack Obama compared the group to a high-school's second-tier ("JV") basketball team. What they all missed was that the Islamic State had turned al-Qaeda's concept on its head: Instead of starting off with global terror, the Islamic State was first focusing on conquering territory from which to operate.
In early August, though, Islamic State leaders made a crucial mistake that set off a chain reaction: They attacked the Yazidi and Christian communities in northern Iraq. The fate of the minority groups was greeted with international outrage, and led the US to bomb Islamic State positions in Iraq -- a development the jihadists had seemingly not expected.
The terrorists then beheaded two American journalists in an effort to intimidate the United States. This, too, was not a clever move: Since mid-June, popular US approval for military operations against IS has skyrocketed, with almost three quarters of Americans now in favor. Suddenly, the Islamic State is confronted with a significant opponent.
The Islamic State is made vulnerable by the fact that it behaves like an army instead of a terror organization; captured Humvees, artillery pieces and tanks are clearly identifiable military targets. Many of them have been destroyed by the over 150 sorties thus far flown in Iraq by the US. The Islamic State is much more difficult to fight in urban areas and no cities controlled by the group have been retaken yet.
'Enemies of America'
It is still difficult to predict the effect the American air attacks will have in Syria. Much will depend on who exactly they will be targeting. If Washington adheres to its terror list, it will also have to attack the al-Nusra Front, whose leader once pledged his loyalty to al-Qaida. Nusra's fighters are almost all Syrians -- and most are embittered enemies of the Islamic State. "An attack on Nusra would be the biggest favor that Washington could do to the Islamic State," warns one of the most knowledgeable experts on the Syrian opposition. "It would turn many Sunnis into enemies of America."
More than anything, though, the US need local support, given that Obama is reluctant to send ground troops. But the Syrian opposition has been worn down by fighting a two-front war against Assad and the Islamic State and is disillusioned about the West due to its apathy. Thousands of rebels have died while others have fled from the country with their families. The Free Syrian Army has fallen apart, old brigades have been dissolved and new ones have been founded under different names. The rich Syrian exiles that have long financed the opposition are cash-strapped after years of war, leading many fighters to cross over to Nusra or the Islamic State.
If Obama wants to convince the Syrians that he is serious, he will also have to present a political strategy. This would mean abandoning the course it has followed thus far -- that of trying to force both sides to come to a negotiated solution. The secret negotiations in Switzerland earlier this year did succeed in bringing them closer together, but the talks fell apart over one crucial point: Assad's hold on power. A best-case scenario would see Washington's new strategy result in a decisive breakthrough.
'Explicit Pro-American'
But the operation's success will be especially dependent on the "Coalition of the Willing" that Obama is now currently assembling. France's President Francois Hollande declared himself ready this past Friday to attack targets in Iraq from the air. British Prime Minister David Cameron has not fundamentally ruled out military participation in Syria. Only the German government doesn't want to get directly involved in the fight against the Islamic State. "But the last thing that the US wants is a new crusade of the West in the Middle East," says Brookings expert Kenneth Pollack. "The coalition against the Islamic State needs to be regionally anchored."
It is precisely this alliance that Washington has formed in the past
weeks -- an alliance that, until recently, nobody would have thought
possible: between the Kurds, Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Egypt,
Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq. They are to block the Islamic State's flow of
money, allow the use of military bases, control borders and provide
humanitarian assistance. Even Iran supports the offensive against the
Islamic State -- even though it is simultaneously helping Assad. The
Saudis, meanwhile, want to topple Assad and destroy the Islamic State --
but doesn't want to support their Shiite archenemies in Iraq. And
crucially Turkey, the country through which most Jihadists make their
way to Syria and Iraq, is not on-board.
It will soon become clear the degree to which the world is prepared to follow the US. The war in the Middle East will be a central topic at the UN General Assembly in September. Obama will give another keynote address and lead the meeting of the Security Council. Should he receive Security Council backing, it would mark a significant foreign policy success.
His strategy could also help Democrats in seven weeks, when Congressional elections are held. Even Newt Gingrich, a Republican detractor of the president's, was impressed last week. "This speech," he said, "is the most explicit pro-American speech he ever made."
Source: Der Spiegel
Obama has spent much of his term withdrawing the US from quagmires abroad. But now, in the battle against Islamic State extremists, he has a war of his own. His plan of attack, though, is filled with uncertainties and America's ultimate goal remains unclear.
The City of Rabbits. That is the bucolic alias once attached to the Syrian town of Marea. But it is no longer in use. Now, one of the most important frontlines in the war in northern Syria runs through the town. Some 5,000 rebels have established themselves in the potato fields surrounding Marea in an effort to stop Islamic State jihadists from continuing their advance on Aleppo.
Thus far, they have been successful -- thanks largely to assistance from the US. In Marea, an American-supported rebel command center coordinates the rebels' defense. The entire front is divided into sectors, which are each under the control of a single group. They have names like "Defenders of the Faith," "Islamic Front" and "Nureddin Senki Brigade" and are fairly obscure. Even so, they now have satellite images, ammunition for Kalashnikovs and larger caliber weapons, night-vision devices and provisions. A few anti-tank rockets also arrived a few months ago.
All of the materiel was provided to the fighters by the US. The CIA has established a military operations center in the Turkish border town of Reyhanli which it uses to support Syrian rebels. Those given a green rating by the CIA receive both arms and a salary. Those coded yellow receive help but no weapons. Those marked red receive nothing. Nine groups with a total of around 10,000 fighters are now said to be operating north of Aleppo to stop the march of the Islamic State.
Witnesses who have visited the operations center and who work with the US. have described a curious alliance -- the cast of characters ranges from bearded Islamists to defected army officers. The fighters aren't radical. They aren't exactly secular either. Above all, they aren't corrupt; they are disciplined and capable.
Waiting for Air Strikes
"We are holding our lines, but we aren't going to attack," says one of the Syrian rebel commanders who just came to Turkey for two days. The fighters have plenty of arms and ammunition, he said, but also have a fear of the Islamic State and its extreme brutality. "To advance against the Islamic State, we need heavy weaponry, artillery and rocket launchers." He says that the Americans need to provide Syrian fighters with the kind of weapons that the Islamic State has been able to plunder from the Iraqi army. "We are now waiting for US airstrikes," the commander says. "Nothing will happen before that."
On the eve of the 13th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001 terror attacks, US President Barack Obama announced that such airstrikes were on the way, in a speech that was designed to demonstrate America's power and determination. Standing in the White House, the president informed his fellow Americans of a war against the Islamic State that could take years to achieve its goals. The appearance marked a complete reversal for Obama. He is now no longer the president who only brings wars to an end; he has now become a war president himself. As Obama announced the operation's aim, he sounded eerily reminiscent of George W. Bush, his predecessor: "We will degrade, and ultimately destroy, ISIL," Obama said, using one of the many acronyms used to refer to the Islamic State.
For Obama, there is something almost tragic about this moment. A rapid withdrawal from Iraq was once one of his central campaign promises, and now he is in danger of leaving his successor a country deeply mired in an intransigent conflict not unlike the ones he inherited from Bush.
Unclear Goals
That speech marked the moment Obama gave up on his "lead from behind" doctrine, which imagined a superpower pulling the strings backstage rather leading the charge. The about-face became necessary in part because of the West's earlier hesitation to get involved in the Syrian civil war, a delay which allowed the jihadists to gain strength.
The risks associated with the new operation, which Obama has sought to sell as an anti-terrorism campaign, are immense. And important questions remain unanswered. What, for example, does Obama seek to achieve? Is the US only interested in the destruction of the terror group to prevent it from being able to carry out possible terror strikes in the US? Or is Washington also tempted by regime change in Syria?
The bombs, after all, won't be targeting the cause of the Islamic State's rise -- Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad is leading a destructive war in his effort to cling to power. Attacking the Islamic State helps Assad, but it also, more than anything, helps rebel groups in Syria.
"Nobody knows what our strategy really looks like in Syria," says former CIA analyst Kenneth Pollack of the Brookings Institution. "The strategy in Iraq is clearly a military one, with the Iraqi army as a partner. In Syria, it sounds like a counterterrorism mission like those in Yemen and Somalia." In those places, though, drone attacks have done little to weaken Islamist groups. On the contrary. And experts agree that airstrikes are not enough to destroy a well-organized pseudo-army like the one belonging to the Islamic State.
The Assad Question
It also remains unclear how the US intends to fly bombing raids in Syria without cooperating with Assad's regime. In Iraq, the government explicitly requested American assistance, but Obama has ruled out working together with the Syrian government. Assad maintains effective anti-aircraft systems, though Pollack believes that Assad would not fire at US fighters and drones. "The last thing that Assad wants is an additional fight with the US," he says. But it isn't a certainty.
Russia has been vociferous in its criticism of Obama's plans, with the Foreign Ministry in Moscow saying in a statement that airstrikes would be "an act of aggression" and that such a step, "in absence of a UN Security Council decision, would be ... a gross violation of international law" and would further increase tensions.
Should it come under attack, the US may then feel forced to destroy Syrian airports, fighter jets and anti-aircraft batteries, which would end Syrian control of airspace over large areas now under rebel control. Assad's Syria would shrink to a small strip from Damascus to the coast.
It is more likely that the Assad regime will silently tolerate US airstrikes. Indeed, Western diplomats and intelligence personnel in southern Turkey say that the US has been secretly negotiating with Damascus in recent weeks in the hopes of getting the green light for air raids.
Damascus is eager to win the US as an ally. Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem has said that any airstrikes must be carefully coordinated -- though there are large differences between Washington and Damascus's notions of who exactly the enemy is.
Rebels Caught in the Middle
When Islamic State fighters began shelling rebel-controlled Marea from three sides in August, the Syrian air force flew several air raids. But their bombs didn't hit the Islamic State. They instead struck exactly the rebels that are receiving support from the US.
Yassir al-Haji, head of the political opposition in Marea, says two girls died in the town late last week, one after being struck by an Islamic State tank shell and the other as a result of a regime airstrike. "Both sides are shooting at us. Assad's air force is flying sorties against us every day. At the same time, more than 1,000 Islamic State fighters are just five kilometers away -- and are not being bombed," Haji says.
The Islamic State was long a useful enemy for the regime in Damascus, with the jihadist group's brutality making Assad look like the lesser of two evils. Indeed, the Syrian air force refrained from attacking Islamist State positions at all until mid-June. In return, the Islamists focused their fight on other opposition groups -- and financed themselves through oil deals with Damascus. Both Assad and the Islamic State were apparently trying to use each other.
Rise of the Islamic State
But suddenly, the Islamic State became much more powerful than expected. The CIA recently estimated that the group may have as many as 30,000 fighters. Since the jihadists began attacking regime positions in the east, the Syrian air force has been attacking them there. But only there.
The Islamic State is like a parasite and has taken advantage of the weaknesses displayed by its hosts, Syria and Iraq. The terror group is not only made up of fanatics, but also of strategists who prefer eye-catching brutalities to staging provocative attacks in the West. Indeed, this dearth of large-scale attacks abroad led many experts to believe until recently that the Islamic State didn't play in the terrorist big leagues. In January, even Barack Obama compared the group to a high-school's second-tier ("JV") basketball team. What they all missed was that the Islamic State had turned al-Qaeda's concept on its head: Instead of starting off with global terror, the Islamic State was first focusing on conquering territory from which to operate.
In early August, though, Islamic State leaders made a crucial mistake that set off a chain reaction: They attacked the Yazidi and Christian communities in northern Iraq. The fate of the minority groups was greeted with international outrage, and led the US to bomb Islamic State positions in Iraq -- a development the jihadists had seemingly not expected.
The terrorists then beheaded two American journalists in an effort to intimidate the United States. This, too, was not a clever move: Since mid-June, popular US approval for military operations against IS has skyrocketed, with almost three quarters of Americans now in favor. Suddenly, the Islamic State is confronted with a significant opponent.
The Islamic State is made vulnerable by the fact that it behaves like an army instead of a terror organization; captured Humvees, artillery pieces and tanks are clearly identifiable military targets. Many of them have been destroyed by the over 150 sorties thus far flown in Iraq by the US. The Islamic State is much more difficult to fight in urban areas and no cities controlled by the group have been retaken yet.
'Enemies of America'
It is still difficult to predict the effect the American air attacks will have in Syria. Much will depend on who exactly they will be targeting. If Washington adheres to its terror list, it will also have to attack the al-Nusra Front, whose leader once pledged his loyalty to al-Qaida. Nusra's fighters are almost all Syrians -- and most are embittered enemies of the Islamic State. "An attack on Nusra would be the biggest favor that Washington could do to the Islamic State," warns one of the most knowledgeable experts on the Syrian opposition. "It would turn many Sunnis into enemies of America."
More than anything, though, the US need local support, given that Obama is reluctant to send ground troops. But the Syrian opposition has been worn down by fighting a two-front war against Assad and the Islamic State and is disillusioned about the West due to its apathy. Thousands of rebels have died while others have fled from the country with their families. The Free Syrian Army has fallen apart, old brigades have been dissolved and new ones have been founded under different names. The rich Syrian exiles that have long financed the opposition are cash-strapped after years of war, leading many fighters to cross over to Nusra or the Islamic State.
If Obama wants to convince the Syrians that he is serious, he will also have to present a political strategy. This would mean abandoning the course it has followed thus far -- that of trying to force both sides to come to a negotiated solution. The secret negotiations in Switzerland earlier this year did succeed in bringing them closer together, but the talks fell apart over one crucial point: Assad's hold on power. A best-case scenario would see Washington's new strategy result in a decisive breakthrough.
'Explicit Pro-American'
But the operation's success will be especially dependent on the "Coalition of the Willing" that Obama is now currently assembling. France's President Francois Hollande declared himself ready this past Friday to attack targets in Iraq from the air. British Prime Minister David Cameron has not fundamentally ruled out military participation in Syria. Only the German government doesn't want to get directly involved in the fight against the Islamic State. "But the last thing that the US wants is a new crusade of the West in the Middle East," says Brookings expert Kenneth Pollack. "The coalition against the Islamic State needs to be regionally anchored."
It will soon become clear the degree to which the world is prepared to follow the US. The war in the Middle East will be a central topic at the UN General Assembly in September. Obama will give another keynote address and lead the meeting of the Security Council. Should he receive Security Council backing, it would mark a significant foreign policy success.
His strategy could also help Democrats in seven weeks, when Congressional elections are held. Even Newt Gingrich, a Republican detractor of the president's, was impressed last week. "This speech," he said, "is the most explicit pro-American speech he ever made."
Monday
President Barack Obama Weekly Address September 13, 2014 (Video/Trascript )
President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
The White House
September 13, 2014
As Commander in Chief, my highest priority is the security of the
American people. And I’ve made it clear that those who threaten the
United States will find no safe haven. Thanks to our military and
counterterrorism professionals, we took out Osama bin Laden, much of al
Qaeda’s leadership in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and leaders of al Qaeda
affiliates in Yemen and Somalia. We’ve prevented terrorist attacks,
saved American lives and made our homeland more secure.Weekly Address
The White House
September 13, 2014
Today, the terrorist threat is more diffuse, from al Qaeda affiliates and other extremists—like ISIL in Syria and Iraq. As I said this week, our intelligence community has not yet detected specific ISIL plots against our homeland. But its leaders have repeatedly threatened the United States. And, if left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a growing threat beyond the Middle East, including to the United States. So we’re staying vigilant. And we’re moving ahead with our strategy to degrade and ultimately destroy this terrorist organization.
To meet a threat like this, we have to be smart. We have to use our power wisely. And we have to avoid the mistakes of the past. American military power is unmatched, but this can’t be America’s fight alone. And the best way to defeat a group like ISIL isn’t by sending large numbers of American combat forces to wage a ground war in the heart of the Middle East. That wouldn’t serve our interests. In fact, it would only risk fueling extremism even more.
What’s needed now is a targeted, relentless counterterrorism campaign against ISIL that combines American air power, contributions from allies and partners, and more support to forces that are fighting these terrorists on the ground. And that’s exactly what we’re doing.
We’re moving ahead with our campaign of airstrikes against these terrorists, and we’re prepared to take action against ISIL in Syria as well. The additional American forces I’ve ordered to Iraq will help Iraqi and Kurdish forces with the training, intelligence and equipment they need to take the fight to these terrorists on the ground. We’re working with Congress to expand our efforts to train and equip the Syrian opposition. We’ll continue to strengthen our defenses here at home. And we’ll keep providing the humanitarian relief to help Iraqi civilians who have been driven from their homes and who remain in extreme danger.
Because we’re leading the right way, more nations are joining our coalition. This week, Arab nations agreed to strengthen their support for the new Iraqi government and to do their part in the fight against ISIL, including aspects of the military campaign. Saudi Arabia will join the effort to help train and equip moderate Syrian opposition forces. And retired Marine general John Allen—who during the Iraq war worked with Sunnis in Iraq as they fought to reclaim their communities from terrorists—will serve as our special envoy to help build and coordinate our growing coalition.
Today, every American can be proud of our men and women in uniform who are serving in this effort. When our airstrikes helped break the siege of the Iraqi town of Amerli [Ah-MER-lee], one Kurdish fighter on the ground said, “It would have been absolutely impossible without the American planes.” One resident of that city said—“thank you, America.”
Today we’re showing the world the best of American leadership. We will protect our people. We will stand with partners who defend their countries and rally other nations to meet a common threat. And here at home—thirteen years after our country was attacked—we continue to stand tall and proud. Because we’re Americans. We don’t give in to fear. We carry on. And we will never waver in the defense of the country we love.
Friday
President Barak Obama at 9/11 Memorial (Video/Transcript)
Secretary Hagel, General Dempsey, members of our Armed Forces, and, most of all, the survivors of that September day and the families of those we lost –- Michelle and I are humbled to be with you once again.
It has now been 13 years. Thirteen years since the peace of an American morning was broken. Thirteen years since nearly 3,000 beautiful lives were taken from us, including 125 men and women serving here at the Pentagon. Thirteen years of moments they would have shared with us. Thirteen years of memories they would have made.
Here, once more, we pray for the souls of those we remember, for you, their families, who love them forever, and for a nation that has been inspired by your example -- your determination to carry on, your resolve to live lives worthy of their memories.
As Americans, we draw strength from you. For your love is the ultimate rebuke to the hatred of those who attacked us that bright, blue morning. They sought to do more than bring down buildings or murder our people. They sought to break our spirit and to prove to the world that their power to destroy was greater than our power to persevere and to build. But you, and America, proved them wrong.
America endures in the strength of your families who, through your anguish, kept living. You have kept alive a love that no act of terror can ever extinguish. You, their sons and daughters, are growing into extraordinary young men and women they knew you could be. By your shining example, your families have turned this day into something that those who attacked us could never abide, and that is a tribute of hope over fear, and love over hate.
America endures in the tenacity of our survivors. After grievous wounds, you learned to walk again and stand again. After terrible burns, you smiled once more. For you, for our nation, these have been difficult years. But by your presence here today, in the lives of service that you have led, you embody the truth that no matter what comes our way, America will always come out stronger.
America endures in the dedication of those who keep us safe. The firefighter, the officer, the EMT who carries the memory of a fallen partner as they report to work each and every day, prepared to make the same sacrifice for us all. Because of these men and women, Americans now work in a gleaming Freedom Tower. We visit our great cities, we fill our stadiums and cheer for our teams. We carry on, because, as Americans, we do not give in to fear -- ever.
America endures in the courage of the men and women who serve under our flag. Over more than a decade of war, this 9/11 Generation has answered our country’s call, and three months from now, our combat mission in Afghanistan will come to an end. Today, we honor all who have made the ultimate sacrifice these 13 years, more than 6,800 American patriots. And we give thanks to those who serve in harm’s way to keep our country safe and meet the threats of our time.
America endures in that perennial optimism that defines us as a people. Beginning tomorrow, there will be teenagers –- young adults –- who were born after 9/11. It’s remarkable. And while these young Americans did not know the horrors of that day, their lives have been shaped by all the days since -- a time that has brought us pain, but also taught us endurance and strength; a time of rebuilding, of resilience, and of renewal. What gives us hope –- what gives me hope -– is that it is these young Americans who will shape all the days to come.
Thirteen years after small and hateful minds conspired to break us, America stands tall and America stands proud. And guided by the values that sustain us, we will only grow stronger. Generations from now, Americans will still fill our parks, our stadiums, our cities. Generations from now, Americans will still build towers that reach toward the heavens; still serve in embassies that stand for freedom around the world; still wear the uniform and give meaning to those words written two centuries ago: Land of the free. Home of the Brave.
Generations from now, no matter the trial, no matter the challenge, America will always be America.
“We count as blessed those who have persevered.”
May God bless your families, who continue to inspire us all. May God bless our Armed Forces and all who serve to keep us safe. And may God continue to bless the United States of America.
Statement by the President on ISIL (Video/Transcript)
My fellow Americans, tonight I want to speak to you about
what the United States will do with our friends and allies to degrade
and ultimately destroy the terrorist group known as ISIL.
As Commander-in-Chief, my highest priority is the security
of the American people. Over the last several years, we have
consistently taken the fight to terrorists who threaten our country. We
took out Osama bin Laden and much of al Qaeda’s leadership in
Afghanistan and Pakistan. We’ve targeted al Qaeda’s affiliate in Yemen,
and recently eliminated the top commander of its affiliate in Somalia.
We’ve done so while bringing more than 140,000 American troops home
from Iraq, and drawing down our forces in Afghanistan, where our combat
mission will end later this year. Thanks to our military and
counterterrorism professionals, America is safer.
Still, we continue to face a terrorist threat. We can’t
erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of killers
have the capacity to do great harm. That was the case before 9/11, and
that remains true today. And that’s why we must remain vigilant as
threats emerge. At this moment, the greatest threats come from the
Middle East and North Africa, where radical groups exploit grievances
for their own gain. And one of those groups is ISIL -- which calls
itself the “Islamic State.”
Now let’s make two things clear: ISIL is not “Islamic.”
No religion condones the killing of innocents. And the vast majority of
ISIL’s victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state.
It was formerly al Qaeda’s affiliate in Iraq, and has taken advantage of
sectarian strife and Syria’s civil war to gain territory on both sides
of the Iraq-Syrian border. It is recognized by no government, nor by
the people it subjugates. ISIL is a terrorist organization, pure and
simple. And it has no vision other than the slaughter of all who stand
in its way.
In a region that has known so much bloodshed, these
terrorists are unique in their brutality. They execute captured
prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and force women
into marriage. They threatened a religious minority with genocide. And
in acts of barbarism, they took the lives of two American journalists
-- Jim Foley and Steven Sotloff.
So ISIL poses a threat to the people of Iraq and Syria,
and the broader Middle East -- including American citizens, personnel
and facilities. If left unchecked, these terrorists could pose a
growing threat beyond that region, including to the United States.
While we have not yet detected specific plotting against our homeland,
ISIL leaders have threatened America and our allies. Our Intelligence
Community believes that thousands of foreigners -– including Europeans
and some Americans –- have joined them in Syria and Iraq. Trained and
battle-hardened, these fighters could try to return to their home
countries and carry out deadly attacks.
I know many Americans are concerned about these threats.
Tonight, I want you to know that the United States of America is meeting
them with strength and resolve. Last month, I ordered our military to
take targeted action against ISIL to stop its advances. Since then,
we’ve conducted more than 150 successful airstrikes in Iraq. These
strikes have protected American personnel and facilities, killed ISIL
fighters, destroyed weapons, and given space for Iraqi and Kurdish
forces to reclaim key territory. These strikes have also helped save
the lives of thousands of innocent men, women and children.
But this is not our fight alone. American power can make a
decisive difference, but we cannot do for Iraqis what they must do for
themselves, nor can we take the place of Arab partners in securing their
region. And that’s why I’ve insisted that additional U.S. action
depended upon Iraqis forming an inclusive government, which they have
now done in recent days. So tonight, with a new Iraqi government in
place, and following consultations with allies abroad and Congress at
home, I can announce that America will lead a broad coalition to roll
back this terrorist threat.
Our objective is clear: We will degrade, and ultimately
destroy, ISIL through a comprehensive and sustained counterterrorism
strategy.
First, we will conduct a systematic campaign of airstrikes
against these terrorists. Working with the Iraqi government, we will
expand our efforts beyond protecting our own people and humanitarian
missions, so that we’re hitting ISIL targets as Iraqi forces go on
offense. Moreover, I have made it clear that we will hunt down
terrorists who threaten our country, wherever they are. That means I
will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as
Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten
America, you will find no safe haven.
Second, we will increase our support to forces fighting
these terrorists on the ground. In June, I deployed several hundred
American servicemembers to Iraq to assess how we can best support Iraqi
security forces. Now that those teams have completed their work –- and
Iraq has formed a government –- we will send an additional 475
servicemembers to Iraq. As I have said before, these American forces
will not have a combat mission –- we will not get dragged into another
ground war in Iraq. But they are needed to support Iraqi and Kurdish
forces with training, intelligence and equipment. We’ll also support
Iraq’s efforts to stand up National Guard Units to help Sunni
communities secure their own freedom from ISIL’s control.
Across the border, in Syria, we have ramped up our
military assistance to the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I call on
Congress again to give us additional authorities and resources to train
and equip these fighters. In the fight against ISIL, we cannot rely on
an Assad regime that terrorizes its own people -- a regime that will
never regain the legitimacy it has lost. Instead, we must strengthen
the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while
pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria’s crisis once
and for all.
Third, we will continue to draw on our substantial
counterterrorism capabilities to prevent ISIL attacks. Working with our
partners, we will redouble our efforts to cut off its funding; improve
our intelligence; strengthen our defenses; counter its warped ideology;
and stem the flow of foreign fighters into and out of the Middle East.
And in two weeks, I will chair a meeting of the U.N. Security Council to
further mobilize the international community around this effort.
Fourth, we will continue to provide humanitarian
assistance to innocent civilians who have been displaced by this
terrorist organization. This includes Sunni and Shia Muslims who are at
grave risk, as well as tens of thousands of Christians and other
religious minorities. We cannot allow these communities to be driven
from their ancient homelands.
So this is our strategy. And in each of these four parts
of our strategy, America will be joined by a broad coalition of
partners. Already, allies are flying planes with us over Iraq; sending
arms and assistance to Iraqi security forces and the Syrian opposition;
sharing intelligence; and providing billions of dollars in humanitarian
aid. Secretary Kerry was in Iraq today meeting with the new government
and supporting their efforts to promote unity. And in the coming days
he will travel across the Middle East and Europe to enlist more partners
in this fight, especially Arab nations who can help mobilize Sunni
communities in Iraq and Syria, to drive these terrorists from their
lands. This is American leadership at its best: We stand with people
who fight for their own freedom, and we rally other nations on behalf of
our common security and common humanity.
My administration has also secured bipartisan support for
this approach here at home. I have the authority to address the threat
from ISIL, but I believe we are strongest as a nation when the President
and Congress work together. So I welcome congressional support for
this effort in order to show the world that Americans are united in
confronting this danger.
Now, it will take time to eradicate a cancer like ISIL.
And any time we take military action, there are risks involved –-
especially to the servicemen and women who carry out these missions.
But I want the American people to understand how this effort will be
different from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It will not involve
American combat troops fighting on foreign soil.
This counterterrorism
campaign will be waged through a steady, relentless effort to take out
ISIL wherever they exist, using our air power and our support for
partner forces on the ground. This strategy of taking out terrorists
who threaten us, while supporting partners on the front lines, is one
that we have successfully pursued in Yemen and Somalia for years. And
it is consistent with the approach I outlined earlier this year: to use
force against anyone who threatens America’s core interests, but to
mobilize partners wherever possible to address broader challenges to
international order.
My fellow Americans, we live in a time of great change.
Tomorrow marks 13 years since our country was attacked. Next week marks
six years since our economy suffered its worst setback since the Great
Depression. Yet despite these shocks, through the pain we have felt and
the grueling work required to bounce back, America is better positioned
today to seize the future than any other nation on Earth.
Our technology companies and universities are unmatched.
Our manufacturing and auto industries are thriving. Energy independence
is closer than it’s been in decades. For all the work that remains,
our businesses are in the longest uninterrupted stretch of job creation
in our history. Despite all the divisions and discord within our
democracy, I see the grit and determination and common goodness of the
American people every single day –- and that makes me more confident
than ever about our country’s future.
Abroad, American leadership is the one constant in an
uncertain world. It is America that has the capacity and the will to
mobilize the world against terrorists. It is America that has rallied
the world against Russian aggression, and in support of the Ukrainian
peoples’ right to determine their own destiny. It is America –- our
scientists, our doctors, our know-how –- that can help contain and cure
the outbreak of Ebola. It is America that helped remove and destroy
Syria’s declared chemical weapons so that they can’t pose a threat to
the Syrian people or the world again. And it is America that is helping
Muslim communities around the world not just in the fight against
terrorism, but in the fight for opportunity, and tolerance, and a more
hopeful future.
America, our endless blessings bestow an enduring burden.
But as Americans, we welcome our responsibility to lead. From Europe
to Asia, from the far reaches of Africa to war-torn capitals of the
Middle East, we stand for freedom, for justice, for dignity. These are
values that have guided our nation since its founding.
Tonight, I ask for your support in carrying that
leadership forward. I do so as a Commander-in-Chief who could not be
prouder of our men and women in uniform –- pilots who bravely fly in the
face of danger above the Middle East, and servicemembers who support
our partners on the ground.
When we helped prevent the massacre of civilians trapped
on a distant mountain, here’s what one of them said: “We owe our
American friends our lives. Our children will always remember that
there was someone who felt our struggle and made a long journey to
protect innocent people.”
That is the difference we make in the world. And our own
safety, our own security, depends upon our willingness to do what it
takes to defend this nation and uphold the values that we stand for –-
timeless ideals that will endure long after those who offer only hate
and destruction have been vanquished from the Earth.
May God bless our troops, and may God bless the United States of America.
Sunday
President Obama at NATO Summit Press Conference (Video/Transcrit)
Celtic Manor Resort
Newport, Wales
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Good afternoon. Let me begin by thanking my great friend, Prime Minister Cameron -- and his entire team -- for hosting this NATO Summit and making it such a success. And I want to thank the people of Newport and Cardiff and the people of Wales for welcoming me and my delegation so warmly. It’s a great honor to be the first sitting U.S. President to visit Wales.
We’ve met at a time of transition and a time of testing. After more than a decade, NATO’s combat mission in Afghanistan is coming to an end. Russia’s aggression against Ukraine threatens our vision of a Europe that is whole, free and at peace. In the Middle East, the terrorist threat from ISIL poses a growing danger. Here at this summit, our Alliance has summoned the will, the resources and the capabilities to meet all of these challenges.
First and foremost, we have reaffirmed the central mission of the Alliance. Article 5 enshrines our solemn duty to each other -- “an armed attack against one…shall be considered an attack against them all.” This is a binding, treaty obligation. It is non-negotiable. And here in Wales, we’ve left absolutely no doubt -- we will defend every Ally.
Second, we agreed to be resolute in reassuring our Allies in Eastern Europe. Increased NATO air patrols over the Baltics will continue. Rotations of additional forces throughout Eastern Europe for training and exercises will continue. Naval patrols in the Black Sea will continue. And all 28 NATO nations agreed to contribute to all of these measures -- for as long as necessary.
Third, to ensure that NATO remains prepared for any contingency, we agreed to a new Readiness Action Plan. The Alliance will update its defense planning. We will create a new highly ready Rapid Response Force that can be deployed on very short notice. We’ll increase NATO’s presence in Central and Eastern Europe with additional equipment, training, exercises and troop rotations. And the $1 billion initiative that I announced in Warsaw will be a strong and ongoing U.S. contribution to this plan.
Fourth, all 28 NATO nations have pledged to increase their investments in defense and to move toward investing 2 percent of their GDP in our collective security. These resources will help NATO invest in critical capabilities, including intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance and missile defense. And this commitment makes clear that NATO will not be complacent. Our Alliance will reverse the decline in defense spending and rise to meet the challenges that we face in the 21st century.
Fifth, our Alliance is fully united in support of Ukraine’s sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity and its right to defend itself. To back up this commitment, all 28 NATO Allies will now provide security assistance to Ukraine. This includes non-lethal support to the Ukrainian military -- like body armor, fuel and medical care for wounded Ukrainian troops -- as well as assistance to help modernize Ukrainian forces, including logistics and command and control.
Here in Wales, we also sent a strong message to Russia that actions have consequences. Today, the United States and Europe are finalizing measures to deepen and broaden our sanctions across Russia’s financial, energy and defense sectors. At the same time, we strongly support President Poroshenko’s efforts to pursue a peaceful resolution to the conflict in his country. The cease-fire announced today can advance that goal, but only if there is follow-through on the ground. Pro-Russian separatists must keep their commitments and Russia must stop its violations of Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Beyond Europe, we pay tribute to all those from our ISAF mission, including more than 2,200 Americans, who have given their lives for our security in Afghanistan. NATO’s combat mission ends in three months, and we are prepared to transition to a new mission focused on training, advising and assisting Afghan security forces. Both presidential candidates have pledged to sign the Bilateral Security Agreement that would be the foundation of our continued cooperation. But, as we all know, the outcome of the recent election must be resolved. And so we continue to urge the two presidential candidates to make the compromises that are necessary so Afghans can move forward together and form a sovereign, united and democratic nation.
Finally, we reaffirmed that the door to NATO membership remains open to nations that can meet our high standards. We agreed to expand the partnership that makes NATO the hub of global security. We’re launching a new effort with our closest partners -- including many that have served with us in Afghanistan -- to make sure our forces continue to operate together. And we’ll create a new initiative to help countries build their defense capabilities -- starting with Georgia, Moldova, Jordan and Libya.
I also leave here confident that NATO Allies and partners are prepared to join in a broad, international effort to combat the threat posed by ISIL. Already, Allies have joined us in Iraq, where we have stopped ISIL’s advances; we’ve equipped our Iraqi partners, and helped them go on offense. NATO has agreed to play a role in providing security and humanitarian assistance to those who are on the front lines. Key NATO Allies stand ready to confront this terrorist threat through military, intelligence and law enforcement, as well as diplomatic efforts. And Secretary Kerry will now travel to the region to continue building the broad-based coalition that will enable us to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL.
So, taken together, I think the progress we’ve achieved in Wales makes it clear that our Alliance will continue to do whatever is necessary to ensure our collective defense and to protect our citizens.
So with that, let me take a few questions. I’ll start with Julie Pace of the Associated Press.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. I wanted to go back to the situation in Ukraine. If this cease-fire does take effect and appears to be holding, would you and your European counterparts back away from these sanctions that you say you’ve prepared? Or do you feel that it’s important to levy these sanctions regardless of this cease-fire agreement? And if I could go back to the Rapid Response Force, can you say specifically what U.S. contributions will be in terms of troop numbers and equipment? Is it beyond the agreement that you announced -- or the proposal you announced in Warsaw?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: With respect to the cease-fire agreement, obviously we are hopeful, but based on past experience also skeptical that, in fact, the separatists will follow through and the Russians will stop violating Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. So it has to be tested.
And I know that the Europeans are discussing at this point the final shape of their sanctions measures. It’s my view that if you look at President Poroshenko’s plan, it is going to take some time to implement. And as a consequence, for us to move forward based on what is currently happening on the ground with sanctions -- while acknowledging that if, in fact, the elements of the plan that has been signed are implemented -- then those sanctions could be lifted is a more likely way for us to ensure that there’s follow-through. But that's something that obviously we’ll consult closely with our European partners to determine.
I do want to point out, though, that the only reason that we’re seeing this cease-fire at this moment is because of both the sanctions that have already been applied and the threat of further sanctions, which are having a real impact on the Russian economy and have isolated Russia in a way that we have not seen in a very long time.
The path for Russia to rejoin the community of nations that respects international law is still there, and we encourage President Putin to take it. But the unity and the firmness that we’ve seen in the Transatlantic Alliance in supporting Ukraine and applying sanctions has been I think a testimony to how seriously people take the basic principle that big countries can just stomp on little countries, or force them to change their policies and give up their sovereignty.
So I’m very pleased with the kind of work that's been done throughout this crisis in Ukraine, and I think U.S. leadership has been critical throughout that process.
With respect to the Rapid Response Force and the Readiness Action Plan that we’ve put forward, in Warsaw I announced $1 billion in our initiative. A sizeable portion of that will be devoted to implementing various aspects of this Readiness Action Plan.
We’ve already increased obviously rotations of personnel in the Baltic states, for example. We have the air policing. We have the activities that are taking place in the Baltic and the Black Sea. But this allows us to supplement it. It allows us to coordinate it and integrate it further with additional contributions from other partners. And what it signifies is NATO’s recognition that, in light of recent Russian actions as well as rhetoric, we want to make it crystal clear: We mean what we say when we’re talking about our Article 5 commitments. And an increased presence serves as the most effective deterrent to any additional Russian aggression that we might see.
Angela Keane, Bloomberg.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. What are your specific expectations for what regional actors like Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Jordan can legitimately provide to a coalition against Islamic State? Is there a role there for Iran, as well? As you know, Secretary Kerry today said that he expects the Allied countries to coalesce around a specific plan by the end of September. Do you agree with the timeline that he set out? And what concrete commitments, if any, are you leaving this summit with from the other nations that were here?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Let me start with a general point. There was unanimity over the last two days that ISIL poses a significant threat to NATO members. And there was a recognition that we have to take action. I did not get any resistance or pushback to the basic notion that we have a critical role to play in rolling back this savage organization that is causing so much chaos in the region and is harming so many people, and poses a long-term threat to the safety and security of NATO members. So there’s great conviction that we have to act as part of the international community to degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL. And that was extremely encouraging.
Beyond that, what we have already seen is significant support from a variety of member states for specific actions that we’ve been taking in Iraq. Keep in mind, we’ve taken already 100 strikes in Iraq that have had a significant impact on degrading their capabilities, and making sure that we’re protecting U.S. citizens, critical infrastructure, providing the space for the Iraqi government to form. Our hope is that the Iraqi government is actually formed and finalized next week. That, then, allows us to work with them on a broader strategy.
And some of the assistance has been in the form of airlift or humanitarian assistance. Much of it has been providing additional arms to the Peshmerga and the Iraqi Security Forces. There’s been logistical support, intelligence and surveillance and reconnaissance support. And so a variety of folks with different capabilities have already made a contribution. I’m confident that we’re going to be able to build on that strong foundation and the clear commitment, and have the kind of coalition that will be required for the sustained effort we need to push ISIL back.
Now, John Kerry is going to be traveling to the region to have further consultations with the regional actors and the regional players. And I think it is absolutely critical that we have Arab states, and specifically Sunni majority states, that are rejecting the kind of extremist nihilism that we’re seeing out of ISIL that say that is not what Islam is about, and are prepared to join us actively in the fight. And my expectation is, is that we will see friends and allies and partners of ours in the region prepared to take action, as well, as part of a coalition.
One of our tasks, though, is also going to be to build capability. What we’ve learned in Iraq is, yes, ISIL has significant capabilities, and they combine terrorist tactics with traditional military tactics to significant effect, but part of the problem also is, is that we haven’t seen as effective a fighting force on the part of the Iraqi Security Forces as we need. And we’re going to have to focus on the capable units that are already there, bolster them, bolster the work that the Peshmerga has done. We can support them from the air, but ultimately we’re going to need a strong ground game, and we’re also going to need the Sunni tribes in many of these areas to recognize that their future is not with the kind of fanaticism that ISIL represents so that they start taking the fight to ISIL, as well. And that's going to require the sort of regional partnerships that we’re talking about.
In terms of timetable, we are working deliberately. If you look at what we’ve done over the last several months, we’ve taken this in stages. The first stage is to make sure that we were encouraging Iraqi government formation. Second stage was making sure that, building on the intelligence assessments that we have done, that we were in a position to conduct limited airstrikes to protect our personnel, critical infrastructure and engage in humanitarian activities.
The third phase will allow us to take the fight to ISIL, broaden the effort. And our goal is to act with urgency, but also to make sure that we’re doing it right -- that we have the right targets; that there’s support on the ground if we take an airstrike; that we have a strong political coalition, diplomatic effort that is matching it; a strong strategic communications effort so that we are discouraging people from thinking somehow that ISIL represents a state, much less a caliphate. So all those things are going to have to be combined.
And as I said, it’s not going to happen overnight, but we are steadily moving in the right direction. And we are going to achieve our goal. We are going to degrade and ultimately defeat ISIL, the same way that we have gone after al Qaeda, and the same way that we have gone after the al Qaeda affiliate in Somalia where we released today the fact that we had killed the leader of al-Shabaab in Somalia, and have consistently worked to degrade their operations.
We have been very systematic and methodical in going after these kinds of organizations that may threaten U.S. personnel and the homeland. And that deliberation allows us to do it right. But have no doubt, we will continue and I will continue to do what is necessary to protect the American people. And ISIL poses a real threat, and I’m encouraged by the fact that our friends and allies recognize that same threat.
Julie Davis.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. I want to follow up on what you were saying about ISIL and ask, if you think that the objective here is to destroy and degrade them, are those the same thing in your mind? Is the goal to ultimately -- Secretary Kerry said that there’s no containing them, so is the goal to ultimately annihilate them? And also, you talked about the importance of expertise on the ground and building up capacity on the ground. Do you think since airstrikes are not going to do it here, if ultimately action is needed in Syria, can you realistically expect the Free Syrian Army to do what’s needed on the ground to really destroy, not just push back, ISIL?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: You can’t contain an organization that is running roughshod through that much territory, causing that much havoc, displacing that many people, killing that many innocents, enslaving that many women. The goal has to be to dismantle them.
And if you look at what happened with al Qaeda in the FATA, where their primary base was, you initially push them back. You systematically degrade their capabilities. You narrow their scope of action. You slowly shrink the space, the territory that they may control. You take out their leadership. And over time, they are not able to conduct the same kinds of terrorist attacks as they once could.
As I said I think in my last press conference, given the nature of these organizations, are there potentially remnants of an organization that are still running around and hiding and still potentially plotting? Absolutely. And we will continue to hunt them down the same way we’re doing with remnants of al Qaeda in the FATA or elements of al-Shabaab in Somalia, or terrorists who operate anywhere around the world.
But what we can accomplish is to dismantle this network, this force that has claimed to control this much territory, so that they can’t do us harm. And that’s going to be our objective. And as I said before, I’m pleased to see that there’s unanimity among our friends and allies that that is a worthy goal and they are prepared to work with us in accomplishing that goal.
With respect to the situation on the ground in Syria, we will not be placing U.S. ground troops to try to control the areas that are part of the conflict inside of Syria. I don’t think that’s necessary for us to accomplish our goal. We are going to have to find effective partners on the ground to push back against ISIL. And the moderate coalition there is one that we can work with. We have experience working with many of them. They have been, to some degree, outgunned and outmanned, and that’s why it’s important for us to work with our friends and allies to support them more effectively.
But keep in mind that when you have U.S. forces, other advanced nations going after ISIL and putting them on the defensive and putting them on the run, it’s pretty remarkable what then ground forces can do, even if initially they were on the defensive against ISIL.
So that is a developing strategy that we are going to be consulting with our friends, our allies, our regional partners. But the bottom line is, we will do what is necessary in order to make sure that ISIL does not threaten the United States or our friends and partners.
One last question. Colleen Nelson, Wall Street Journal.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. Some say that Democrats who are facing tough races in November have asked you to delay action on immigration. How have the concerns of other Democrats influenced your thinking? And do you see any downside at this point to delaying until after the election?
PRESIDENT OBAMA: I have to tell you that this week I’ve been pretty busy, focused on Ukraine and focused on ISIL and focused on making sure that NATO is boosting its commitments, and following through on what’s necessary to meet 21st century challenges.
Jeh Johnson and Eric Holder have begun to provide me some of their proposals and recommendations. I’ll be reviewing them. And my expectation is that fairly soon I’ll be considering what the next steps are.
What I’m unequivocal about is that we need immigration reform; that my overriding preference is to see Congress act. We had bipartisan action in the Senate. The House Republicans have sat on it for over a year. That has damaged the economy, it has held America back. It is a mistake. And in the absence of congressional action, I intend to take action to make sure that we’re putting more resources on the border, that we’re upgrading how we process these cases, and that we find a way to encourage legal immigration and give people some path so that they can start paying taxes and pay a fine and learn English and be able to not look over their shoulder but be legal, since they’ve been living here for quite some time.
So I suspect that on my flight back this will be part of my reading, taking a look at some of the specifics that we’ve looked at. And I’ll be making an announcement soon.
But I want to be very clear: My intention is, in the absence of action by Congress, I’m going to do what I can do within the legal constraints of my office -- because it’s the right thing to do for the country.
Thank you very much, people of Wales. I had a wonderful time.
Vice President Joe Biden Weekly Address September 6, 2014 (Video/Trascript )
Vice President Joe Biden
Weekly Address
The White House
September 6, 2014
Ladies and gentlemen, this is Joe Biden, I’m filling in for President Obama, while he addresses the NATO summit in Wales.
When the President and I took office in January of 2009, this nation was in the midst of the greatest economic crisis since the great depression. Our economy had plummeted at a rate of 8% in a single quarter – part of the fastest economic decline any time in the last half century. Millions of families were falling underwater on their homes and threatened with foreclosure. The iconic American automobile industry was under siege.
But yesterday’s jobs report was another reminder of how far we’ve come. We’ve had 54 straight months of job creation. And that’s the longest streak of uninterrupted job growth in the United States’ history.
We’ve gone from losing 9 million jobs during the financial crisis to creating 10 million jobs. We’ve reduced the unemployment rate from 10% in October of 2009 to 6.1% today. And for the first time since the 1990s, American manufacturing is steadily adding jobs – over 700,000 since 2010. And surveys of both American and foreign business leaders confirm that America once again is viewed as the best place in the world to build and invest.
That’s all good news. But an awful lot of middle class Americans are still not feeling the effects of this recovery. Since the year 2000, Gross Domestic Product – our GDP - has risen by 25%. And productivity in America is up by 30%. But middle class wages during that same time period have gone up by only fourteen cents.
Folks, it’s long past time to cut the middle class back into the deal, so they can benefit from the economic growth they helped create. Folks, there used to be a bargain in this country supported by Democrats and Republicans, business and labor. The bargain was simple. If an employee contributed to the growth and profitability of the company, they got to share in the profits and the benefits as well. That’s what built the middle class. It’s time to restore the bargain, to deal the middle class back in. Because, folks, when the middle class does well, everybody does well – the wealthy get wealthier and the poor have a way up.
You know, the middle class is not a number. It’s a value set. It means being able to own your home; raise your children in a safe neighborhood; send them to a good school where if they do well they can qualify to go to college and if they get accepted you’d be able to find a way to be able to send them to college. And in the meantime, if your parents need help, being able to take care of them, and hope to put aside enough money so that your children will not have to take care of you.
That’s the American dream. That’s what this country was built on. And that’s what we’re determined to restore.
In order to do that, it’s time to have a fair tax structure, one that values paychecks as much as unearned income and inherited wealth, to take some of the burden off of the middle class. It’s time to close tax loopholes so we can reduce the deficit, and invest in rebuilding America - our bridges, our ports, our highways, rails, providing good jobs.
With corporate profits at near record highs, we should encourage corporations to invest more in research and development and the salaries of their employees. It’s time for us to invest in educational opportunity to guarantee that we have the most highly skilled workforce in the world, for 6 out of every 10 jobs in the near term is going to require some education beyond high school. Folks, it’s long past due to increase the minimum wage that will lift millions of hardworking families out of poverty and in the process produce a ripple effect that boosts wages for the middle class and spurs economic growth for the United States of America.
Economists acknowledge that if we do these and other things, wages will go up and we’ll increase the Gross Domestic Product of the United States.
My fellow Americans, we know how to do this. We’ve done it before. It’s the way we used to do business and we can do it that way again. All the middle class in this country want is a chance. No guarantee, just a chance.
Americans want to work. And when given a fair shot, the American worker has never, ever, ever, let his country down. Folks, it’s never a good bet to bet against the American people.
Thanks for listening.
May God bless you, and may God protect our troops.
Thursday
Do higher wages hurt the competiveness?
How come that Switzerland leads the Global
Competitiveness Index,as a country with high wages [Switzerland with an
estimated GDP per capita of $86,145, the U.S.A. with an estimated GDP
per capita of $54,980, Germany with an estimated GDP per
capita of $47,893 and Taiwan with an estimated GDP per capita of
$22,002 ]?
Many other countries consistently claim that they have to keep the wages low (and with that poverty high) to stay competitive!
So what's wrong with this philosophy?
Many other countries consistently claim that they have to keep the wages low (and with that poverty high) to stay competitive!
So what's wrong with this philosophy?
Wednesday
Why Republican control of Congress hinges on nine big-money Senate races
GOP needs six seats to lock down both chambers — and sink Obama's agenda
By Michael Beckel
emailDave Levinthalemail
Whether Republicans control both
chambers of Congress during President Barack Obama’s final two years in
office squarely depends on a handful of U.S. Senate races now entering
their final phase.
So far in all Senate races, candidates, parties and other political power players have aired more than 428,000 television advertisements, including both primary and general election-focused ads, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of data provided by Kantar Media/CMAG, a media tracking service.
Together, the ads are worth an estimated $153 million — a figure that will only continue to balloon between now and the Nov. 4 election.
Candidates themselves are responsible for only about half of these ads. Nominally independent groups — such as super PACs and politically active nonprofits — are responsible for most of the rest.
While partisan primaries in part account for the messaging barrage, candidates and other political groups have aggressively pivoted toward the general election during summer months — traditionally a period of political calm before the post-Labor Day sprint toward Election Day.
To oust Democrats from power, the GOP must pick up six Senate seats in November.
Competitive races are under way in more than a dozen states, with the battlefield stretching from Alaska to Colorado to North Carolina.
Democratic candidates and their allies have aired more TV ads to date than their GOP rivals in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana and North Carolina, according to data provided by Kantar Media/CMAG.
Republican candidates and their allies, meanwhile, have bankrolled more ads in Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan and Montana.
Thanks to retirements of Democratic lawmakers in Montana, West Virginia and South Dakota, the GOP looks poised to pick up at least three seats.
Meanwhile, Democratic incumbents in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana and North Carolina are bracing themselves against strong Republican challengers.
And hotly contested open seat races are also underway in Iowa and Michigan, where long-serving Democratic senators have also announced plans to retire.
Republicans are mostly playing offense, except in a few states — most notably, Georgia and Kentucky — where Democratic candidates are mounting well-financed bids.
Both Democrats and Republicans have big-money allies on their sides.
Among the five most active non-candidate spenders so far this cycle, three lean Republican and two are aligned with the Democrats.
The top-spending groups to aid Republicans have been Americans for Prosperity, the politically active nonprofit backed by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch; Crossroads GPS, a nonprofit co-founded by GOP strategist Karl Rove; and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a nonprofit trade association.
On the left, the TV ad wars have been dominated by Senate Majority PAC, a super PAC, and Patriot Majority USA, a nonprofit led by a longtime ally of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
So-called “dark money” abounds: Of these five groups, only the Senate Majority PAC must regularly disclose its donors to the Federal Election Commission. The rest must only reveal information about their funders if money is received for a particular ad campaign — something that rarely happens.
Remarkably, about two-thirds of these 428,000-plus ads have aired in just nine battleground states that will likely determine which party will control the upper chamber of Congress during the final two years of Obama’s presidency.
So far in all Senate races, candidates, parties and other political power players have aired more than 428,000 television advertisements, including both primary and general election-focused ads, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of data provided by Kantar Media/CMAG, a media tracking service.
Together, the ads are worth an estimated $153 million — a figure that will only continue to balloon between now and the Nov. 4 election.
Candidates themselves are responsible for only about half of these ads. Nominally independent groups — such as super PACs and politically active nonprofits — are responsible for most of the rest.
While partisan primaries in part account for the messaging barrage, candidates and other political groups have aggressively pivoted toward the general election during summer months — traditionally a period of political calm before the post-Labor Day sprint toward Election Day.
To oust Democrats from power, the GOP must pick up six Senate seats in November.
Competitive races are under way in more than a dozen states, with the battlefield stretching from Alaska to Colorado to North Carolina.
Democratic candidates and their allies have aired more TV ads to date than their GOP rivals in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana and North Carolina, according to data provided by Kantar Media/CMAG.
Republican candidates and their allies, meanwhile, have bankrolled more ads in Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan and Montana.
Thanks to retirements of Democratic lawmakers in Montana, West Virginia and South Dakota, the GOP looks poised to pick up at least three seats.
Meanwhile, Democratic incumbents in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Louisiana and North Carolina are bracing themselves against strong Republican challengers.
And hotly contested open seat races are also underway in Iowa and Michigan, where long-serving Democratic senators have also announced plans to retire.
Republicans are mostly playing offense, except in a few states — most notably, Georgia and Kentucky — where Democratic candidates are mounting well-financed bids.
Both Democrats and Republicans have big-money allies on their sides.
Among the five most active non-candidate spenders so far this cycle, three lean Republican and two are aligned with the Democrats.
The top-spending groups to aid Republicans have been Americans for Prosperity, the politically active nonprofit backed by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch; Crossroads GPS, a nonprofit co-founded by GOP strategist Karl Rove; and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a nonprofit trade association.
On the left, the TV ad wars have been dominated by Senate Majority PAC, a super PAC, and Patriot Majority USA, a nonprofit led by a longtime ally of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev.
So-called “dark money” abounds: Of these five groups, only the Senate Majority PAC must regularly disclose its donors to the Federal Election Commission. The rest must only reveal information about their funders if money is received for a particular ad campaign — something that rarely happens.
Remarkably, about two-thirds of these 428,000-plus ads have aired in just nine battleground states that will likely determine which party will control the upper chamber of Congress during the final two years of Obama’s presidency.
1) North Carolina
Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan is running for re-election against Republican state House Speaker Thom Tillis in North Carolina, where voters have not re-elected a Democratic senator since the 1960s.
Super PACs and politically active nonprofits have dominated the airwaves in North Carolina, with all non-candidate, non-party groups responsible for about 80 percent of the more than 40,700 ads that have aired, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of data from Kantar Media/CMAG.
Hagan’s campaign has repeatedly blasted the Koch brothers, who support conservative nonprofit Americans for Prosperity, for their involvement in the race.
But the top sponsor of ads in this contest? It’s Senate Majority PAC, a Democratic super PAC, which has produced more than 9,500 ads in the race.
That’s about 63 percent more ads than Americans for Prosperity, which has pummeled Hagan for her ties to Obama and her vote for the president’s health care law. Americans for Prosperity’s ads don’t overtly call for Hagan’s defeat, thereby allowing the group to avoid telling federal election regulators how much money its pumping into its messaging machine.
Kantar Media/CMAG estimates that Americans for Prosperity has spent at least $1.8 million on TV ads in the Tar Heel State. Other sources, in attempting to calculate the cost of TV ad buys, have put this figure much higher.
To compete in this environment, both candidates’ campaigns have raised millions. Hagan had raised nearly $17 million for her re-election campaign as of June 30, versus Tillis’ $4.8 million. Hagan ended June with about $8.7 million in the bank, while Tillis reported $1.5 million cash on hand.
Candidates, parties and other politically active groups have, through late August, spent about $2.66 per eligible voter on TV ads.
Democratic Sen. Kay Hagan is running for re-election against Republican state House Speaker Thom Tillis in North Carolina, where voters have not re-elected a Democratic senator since the 1960s.
Super PACs and politically active nonprofits have dominated the airwaves in North Carolina, with all non-candidate, non-party groups responsible for about 80 percent of the more than 40,700 ads that have aired, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of data from Kantar Media/CMAG.
Hagan’s campaign has repeatedly blasted the Koch brothers, who support conservative nonprofit Americans for Prosperity, for their involvement in the race.
But the top sponsor of ads in this contest? It’s Senate Majority PAC, a Democratic super PAC, which has produced more than 9,500 ads in the race.
That’s about 63 percent more ads than Americans for Prosperity, which has pummeled Hagan for her ties to Obama and her vote for the president’s health care law. Americans for Prosperity’s ads don’t overtly call for Hagan’s defeat, thereby allowing the group to avoid telling federal election regulators how much money its pumping into its messaging machine.
Kantar Media/CMAG estimates that Americans for Prosperity has spent at least $1.8 million on TV ads in the Tar Heel State. Other sources, in attempting to calculate the cost of TV ad buys, have put this figure much higher.
To compete in this environment, both candidates’ campaigns have raised millions. Hagan had raised nearly $17 million for her re-election campaign as of June 30, versus Tillis’ $4.8 million. Hagan ended June with about $8.7 million in the bank, while Tillis reported $1.5 million cash on hand.
Candidates, parties and other politically active groups have, through late August, spent about $2.66 per eligible voter on TV ads.
2) Arkansas
Incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor is fighting for a third term in a state shaded red — Mitt Romney won 60 percent of the vote in 2012. Six years ago, Republicans didn’t even field a challenger to Pryor, whose family is an institution in Arkansas politics. This election cycle, Pryor is being challenged by freshman Rep. Tom Cotton, an attorney who’s a veteran of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Both Pryor and Cotton have been prolific fundraisers.
Pryor raised nearly $9 million as of June 30, and he ended the month with about $4.1 million cash on hand. Cotton, meanwhile, raised about $7.1 million. He ended June with about $2.8 million in the bank.
Notably, through late August, Pryor’s campaign had aired more ads than any other group or the Cotton campaign, at about 5,600. The Koch-supported Americans for Prosperity ranked as the second-most frequent ad sponsor, at about 4,000, according to Kantar Media/CMAG.
In all, non-candidate, non-party groups have accounted for about 62 percent of the more than 31,300 ads that have aired in Arkansas, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of data from Kantar Media/CMAG.
Incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor is fighting for a third term in a state shaded red — Mitt Romney won 60 percent of the vote in 2012. Six years ago, Republicans didn’t even field a challenger to Pryor, whose family is an institution in Arkansas politics. This election cycle, Pryor is being challenged by freshman Rep. Tom Cotton, an attorney who’s a veteran of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Both Pryor and Cotton have been prolific fundraisers.
Pryor raised nearly $9 million as of June 30, and he ended the month with about $4.1 million cash on hand. Cotton, meanwhile, raised about $7.1 million. He ended June with about $2.8 million in the bank.
Notably, through late August, Pryor’s campaign had aired more ads than any other group or the Cotton campaign, at about 5,600. The Koch-supported Americans for Prosperity ranked as the second-most frequent ad sponsor, at about 4,000, according to Kantar Media/CMAG.
In all, non-candidate, non-party groups have accounted for about 62 percent of the more than 31,300 ads that have aired in Arkansas, according to a Center for Public Integrity analysis of data from Kantar Media/CMAG.
3) Louisiana
Incumbent Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu is facing a tough race for a fourth term, but Louisiana’s election rules don’t pit her against just one Republican opponent. In November, all U.S. Senate candidates run in a “jungle primary,” and if no one candidate secures 50 percent of the vote, then the top two vote-getters will face each other in a December runoff.
Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy is widely viewed as Landrieu’s main challenger, although retired Air Force Col. Rob Maness, another Republican, is also drawing some support from conservative voters.
Landrieu’s campaign had aired more than 13,700 TV ads as of late August, according to Kantar Media/CMAG. That represented about 40 percent of all 34,200 ads in the Senate race.
Non-candidate, non-party groups account for nearly half of all ads aired in Louisiana, with Americans for Prosperity earning the No. 1 spot, at about 4,900 ads.
As of Aug. 2, Landrieu had far outraised Cassidy: $14 million to $8.6 million. However, the Republican challenger reported slightly more cash on hand: $5.6 million versus $5.5 million.
Incumbent Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu is facing a tough race for a fourth term, but Louisiana’s election rules don’t pit her against just one Republican opponent. In November, all U.S. Senate candidates run in a “jungle primary,” and if no one candidate secures 50 percent of the vote, then the top two vote-getters will face each other in a December runoff.
Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy is widely viewed as Landrieu’s main challenger, although retired Air Force Col. Rob Maness, another Republican, is also drawing some support from conservative voters.
Landrieu’s campaign had aired more than 13,700 TV ads as of late August, according to Kantar Media/CMAG. That represented about 40 percent of all 34,200 ads in the Senate race.
Non-candidate, non-party groups account for nearly half of all ads aired in Louisiana, with Americans for Prosperity earning the No. 1 spot, at about 4,900 ads.
As of Aug. 2, Landrieu had far outraised Cassidy: $14 million to $8.6 million. However, the Republican challenger reported slightly more cash on hand: $5.6 million versus $5.5 million.
4) Alaska
You wouldn’t necessarily know it by watching the TV ads, but Senate Majority PAC has been a major player in Alaska's U.S. Senate race. It has provided the bulk of the funds for another super PAC, called Put Alaska First, which supports incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Begich.
Put Alaska First has aired about 6,400 TV ads, as of late August, according to Kantar Media/CMAG. That amounts to roughly one out of every five aired in the race. In all, non-candidate, non-party groups account for about 52 percent of the more than 33,400 ads aired in Alaska.
Meanwhile, Begich’s own campaign has aired more than 10,100 ads — about 30 percent of all ads.
Begich has also maintained a fundraising advantage over his Republican rival, Dan Sullivan, the state’s former attorney general and commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources.
As of July 30, Begich had raised about $8.4 million compared to Sullivan’s $4.1 million. The Democratic incumbent reported about $2.1 million cash on hand, at that time, while Sullivan reported about $990,000.
Through late August, no other Senate race has a higher rate of TV ad spending per eligible voter — an estimated $6.
You wouldn’t necessarily know it by watching the TV ads, but Senate Majority PAC has been a major player in Alaska's U.S. Senate race. It has provided the bulk of the funds for another super PAC, called Put Alaska First, which supports incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Begich.
Put Alaska First has aired about 6,400 TV ads, as of late August, according to Kantar Media/CMAG. That amounts to roughly one out of every five aired in the race. In all, non-candidate, non-party groups account for about 52 percent of the more than 33,400 ads aired in Alaska.
Meanwhile, Begich’s own campaign has aired more than 10,100 ads — about 30 percent of all ads.
Begich has also maintained a fundraising advantage over his Republican rival, Dan Sullivan, the state’s former attorney general and commissioner of the Department of Natural Resources.
As of July 30, Begich had raised about $8.4 million compared to Sullivan’s $4.1 million. The Democratic incumbent reported about $2.1 million cash on hand, at that time, while Sullivan reported about $990,000.
Through late August, no other Senate race has a higher rate of TV ad spending per eligible voter — an estimated $6.
5) Kentucky
No matter that Kentucky is a fairly rural state with only a few sizable media markets. Through late August, candidates and outside groups have aired about 37,500 TV ads in this monster Senate battle — with 70 percent from Republican candidates and GOP-aligned groups, including ads run during Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s primary against tea party challenger Matt Bevin.
McConnell would almost certainly become Senate Majority Leader if Republicans gain six Senate seats after the midterm elections, but he’s under withering attacks from Democrats, particularly his Democratic opponent, Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes.
Grimes has already raised millions of dollars and received endorsements from the likes of Bill Clinton, though McConnell has an even bigger war chest — his $9.8 million in the bank as of late June compares to $6.2 million for Grimes.
Meanwhile, candidate-specific outside groups exist to support both McConnell and Grimes, and the pro-McConnell Kentucky Opportunity Coalition, a nonprofit, leads all others in total ads with more than 9,300. Other big groups — including the American Chemistry Council, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Senate Majority PAC and Patriot Majority USA — have also been active in the contest.
The estimated spending through late August on TV ads from all sources per eligible voter is $3.64.
No matter that Kentucky is a fairly rural state with only a few sizable media markets. Through late August, candidates and outside groups have aired about 37,500 TV ads in this monster Senate battle — with 70 percent from Republican candidates and GOP-aligned groups, including ads run during Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s primary against tea party challenger Matt Bevin.
McConnell would almost certainly become Senate Majority Leader if Republicans gain six Senate seats after the midterm elections, but he’s under withering attacks from Democrats, particularly his Democratic opponent, Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes.
Grimes has already raised millions of dollars and received endorsements from the likes of Bill Clinton, though McConnell has an even bigger war chest — his $9.8 million in the bank as of late June compares to $6.2 million for Grimes.
Meanwhile, candidate-specific outside groups exist to support both McConnell and Grimes, and the pro-McConnell Kentucky Opportunity Coalition, a nonprofit, leads all others in total ads with more than 9,300. Other big groups — including the American Chemistry Council, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Senate Majority PAC and Patriot Majority USA — have also been active in the contest.
The estimated spending through late August on TV ads from all sources per eligible voter is $3.64.
6) Michigan
The open seat Senate race in Michigan pits Democratic Rep. Gary Peters against former Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, who has already pumped millions of dollars of her own money into her campaign. The Democratic-leaning state has already seen a deluge of ads from Koch-connected groups, including Americans for Prosperity and the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce.
Team Peters has fought back under the auspices of the Senate Majority PAC, as well as labor unions such as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and Service Employees International Union. A super PAC supporting Land — founded by retired businessman Paul Mitchell — has also entered the fray, as has a nonprofit called the American Sustainable Business Council Action Fund, which has praised Peters in ads for supporting the auto industry bailout.
Through late August, Michiganders have already watched more than 23,500 TV ads about this Senate race.
As of mid-July, Land's campaign had raised $8.7 million, while Peters' campaign had raised about $7 million.
The open seat Senate race in Michigan pits Democratic Rep. Gary Peters against former Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land, who has already pumped millions of dollars of her own money into her campaign. The Democratic-leaning state has already seen a deluge of ads from Koch-connected groups, including Americans for Prosperity and the Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce.
Team Peters has fought back under the auspices of the Senate Majority PAC, as well as labor unions such as the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and Service Employees International Union. A super PAC supporting Land — founded by retired businessman Paul Mitchell — has also entered the fray, as has a nonprofit called the American Sustainable Business Council Action Fund, which has praised Peters in ads for supporting the auto industry bailout.
Through late August, Michiganders have already watched more than 23,500 TV ads about this Senate race.
As of mid-July, Land's campaign had raised $8.7 million, while Peters' campaign had raised about $7 million.
7) Colorado
This race went from quiet to animated when Republican Rep. Cory Gardner announced in March that he would challenge incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Udall, who was first elected in 2008. Recently, Colorado has leaned Democratic — Obama carried it in both 2008 and 2012. But Democratic state leaders have also recently faced ire from voters over a push for stricter gun control laws and education funding.
Already, conservative groups such as Americans for Prosperity and Crossroads GPS, a nonprofit co-founded by GOP strategist Karl Rove, have been working to lower Udall’s favorability rating, criticizing him for backing Obamacare, for instance. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, meanwhile, has spent more than $1 million brightening Gardner’s image, according to FEC filings. Udall has been boosted by groups such as Senate Majority PAC, which FEC records show has invested more than $2.6 million into the race through late August, and the League of Conservation Voters.
At the end of June, Udall’s campaign committee enjoyed a $5.7 million-to-$3.4 million cash-on-hand advantage over Gardner.
This race went from quiet to animated when Republican Rep. Cory Gardner announced in March that he would challenge incumbent Democratic Sen. Mark Udall, who was first elected in 2008. Recently, Colorado has leaned Democratic — Obama carried it in both 2008 and 2012. But Democratic state leaders have also recently faced ire from voters over a push for stricter gun control laws and education funding.
Already, conservative groups such as Americans for Prosperity and Crossroads GPS, a nonprofit co-founded by GOP strategist Karl Rove, have been working to lower Udall’s favorability rating, criticizing him for backing Obamacare, for instance. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, meanwhile, has spent more than $1 million brightening Gardner’s image, according to FEC filings. Udall has been boosted by groups such as Senate Majority PAC, which FEC records show has invested more than $2.6 million into the race through late August, and the League of Conservation Voters.
At the end of June, Udall’s campaign committee enjoyed a $5.7 million-to-$3.4 million cash-on-hand advantage over Gardner.
8) Georgia
This open seat Senate race — incumbent GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss is retiring — could be one of the nation’s closest, pitting two extremely well-funded candidates against one another.
The Democratic Party has rallied behind Michelle Nunn, CEO of the Points of Light Foundation and daughter of former Sen. Sam Nunn. Nunn has raised more than $9.2 million and still had $4.8 million in the bank as of late June.
Republicans, meanwhile, nominated self-funding businessman David Perdue over Rep. Jack Kingston in a July runoff vote. The primary is a major reason why more than 36,100 ads have already been aired in the race — Republican candidates and GOP-aligned groups account for about 78 percent of them.
Nunn’s own campaign, however, has aired more ads than Perdue’s campaign, which reported about $780,000 in the bank as of July 2.
Special note: if no candidate wins 50 percent of the vote in November — Libertarian Amanda Swafford could complicate matters if the vote is extremely close — the top two candidates have a runoff in January.
This open seat Senate race — incumbent GOP Sen. Saxby Chambliss is retiring — could be one of the nation’s closest, pitting two extremely well-funded candidates against one another.
The Democratic Party has rallied behind Michelle Nunn, CEO of the Points of Light Foundation and daughter of former Sen. Sam Nunn. Nunn has raised more than $9.2 million and still had $4.8 million in the bank as of late June.
Republicans, meanwhile, nominated self-funding businessman David Perdue over Rep. Jack Kingston in a July runoff vote. The primary is a major reason why more than 36,100 ads have already been aired in the race — Republican candidates and GOP-aligned groups account for about 78 percent of them.
Nunn’s own campaign, however, has aired more ads than Perdue’s campaign, which reported about $780,000 in the bank as of July 2.
Special note: if no candidate wins 50 percent of the vote in November — Libertarian Amanda Swafford could complicate matters if the vote is extremely close — the top two candidates have a runoff in January.
9) Iowa
Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley is running against Republican state Sen. Joni Ernst in this open seat race, where incumbent Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin is retiring. Ernst succeeded in uniting several factions of the GOP during the primary, and she gained nation attention for promising to make Washington “squeal” in one notable campaign ad that touted her background castrating hogs among her credentials for knowing how to “cut pork” in Congress.
About 31,500 ads from candidates, parties and other politically active groups have run so far in this Senate race, according to Kantar Media/CMAG, with conservatives accounting for 56 percent of them.
The top non-candidate spender in the race? The Concerned Veterans of America, a veterans-oriented group that is part of the Koch brothers’ political network, which has aired about 3,300 ads.
But as of late June, it was Braley’s campaign that had stockpiled more cash. The Democrat had raised $7.1 million and reported $2.7 million in the bank, while Ernst had raised $2.5 million, with $1.1 million cash on hand.
Democratic Rep. Bruce Braley is running against Republican state Sen. Joni Ernst in this open seat race, where incumbent Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin is retiring. Ernst succeeded in uniting several factions of the GOP during the primary, and she gained nation attention for promising to make Washington “squeal” in one notable campaign ad that touted her background castrating hogs among her credentials for knowing how to “cut pork” in Congress.
About 31,500 ads from candidates, parties and other politically active groups have run so far in this Senate race, according to Kantar Media/CMAG, with conservatives accounting for 56 percent of them.
The top non-candidate spender in the race? The Concerned Veterans of America, a veterans-oriented group that is part of the Koch brothers’ political network, which has aired about 3,300 ads.
But as of late June, it was Braley’s campaign that had stockpiled more cash. The Democrat had raised $7.1 million and reported $2.7 million in the bank, while Ernst had raised $2.5 million, with $1.1 million cash on hand.
Best of the rest:
New Hampshire
Freshman Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen will likely face former GOP Sen. Scott Brown, who briefly represented Massachusetts and has now gone north to the Granite State in a bid to reclaim his political fortune. He lost his office in 2012 to Democrat Elizabeth Warren.
Although Brown is expected to the Republican Party’s nominee next week, he nevertheless faces a pair of plucky challengers in one of the calendar’s latest primaries: New Hampshire’s former two-term U.S. Sen. Bob Smith and former state Sen. Jim Rubens, who’s so far received about $1.2 million in support from Mayday PAC, according to FEC filings. Mayday PAC is an anti-super PAC super PAC founded by Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig.
New Hampshire
Freshman Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen will likely face former GOP Sen. Scott Brown, who briefly represented Massachusetts and has now gone north to the Granite State in a bid to reclaim his political fortune. He lost his office in 2012 to Democrat Elizabeth Warren.
Although Brown is expected to the Republican Party’s nominee next week, he nevertheless faces a pair of plucky challengers in one of the calendar’s latest primaries: New Hampshire’s former two-term U.S. Sen. Bob Smith and former state Sen. Jim Rubens, who’s so far received about $1.2 million in support from Mayday PAC, according to FEC filings. Mayday PAC is an anti-super PAC super PAC founded by Harvard Law School professor Lawrence Lessig.
Montana
Among all the issues that could affect a Senate race — the economy, energy, military conflicts — plagiarism isn’t typically among them. Except, that is, in Montana, where interim Democratic Sen. John Walsh quit the race in August amid accusations he lifted other people’s work in writing his master’s degree thesis.
Now, Amanda Curtis — a high school math teacher and Montana state representative with meager political resources — stands as Democrats’ emergency replacement against Republican Steve Daines. The Republican congressman’s campaign has already aired more than 10,100 ads in his bid to be the Silver State’s next senator. That’s nearly half of the 21,100 ads in the entire race.
So far, Curtis has received little outside support for what’s now an implausible bid to keep this Senate seat blue.
Among all the issues that could affect a Senate race — the economy, energy, military conflicts — plagiarism isn’t typically among them. Except, that is, in Montana, where interim Democratic Sen. John Walsh quit the race in August amid accusations he lifted other people’s work in writing his master’s degree thesis.
Now, Amanda Curtis — a high school math teacher and Montana state representative with meager political resources — stands as Democrats’ emergency replacement against Republican Steve Daines. The Republican congressman’s campaign has already aired more than 10,100 ads in his bid to be the Silver State’s next senator. That’s nearly half of the 21,100 ads in the entire race.
So far, Curtis has received little outside support for what’s now an implausible bid to keep this Senate seat blue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)