News & Politics

Robert Devaney •

During Georgetown University’s May 17-20 commencement ceremonies, business leaders, scientists and human right activists will speak, including LivingSocial CEO and co-founder Tim O’Shaughnessy and creator of “The Wire” and “Treme,” David Simon.

Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services, will take part at a Public Policy Institute awards ceremony, not a graduation event. Nevertheless, her presence has sparked protests from the Cardinal Newman Society and other conservative Catholics because of the Obama Administration’s stance on abortion and other healthcare issues concerning religious institutions. The Archdiocese of Washington also criticized the university’s decision to include Sebelius, “whose actions as a public official present the most direct challenge to religious liberty.”

Georgetown University President John DeGioia issued a statement, defending the university’s decision: “In different contexts over the past three months, including a March 14 ‘Statement on Religious Freedom and HHS Mandate,’ the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops expressed strong opposition to the position put forward by the Obama Administration. Some have interpreted the invitation of Secretary Sebelius as a challenge to the USCCB. It was not. The invitation to Secretary Sebelius occurred prior to the Jan. 20 announcement by the Obama Administration of the modified healthcare regulations. The secretary’s presence on our campus should not be viewed as an endorsement of her views. As a Catholic and Jesuit university, Georgetown disassociates itself from any positions that are in conflict with traditional church teachings.”

Over at George Washington University, there are no such concerns. “NBC Nightly News” anchor, members of Congress and the District’s deputy mayor of education will be among the speakers addressing graduates at George Washington University Commencement ceremonies May 18-20.
Brian Williams, anchor and managing editor of “NBC Nightly News” and host of “Rock Center,” will deliver the keynote address to nearly 25,000 George Washington University graduates and guests and will receive an honorary doctorate degree, Sunday, May 20, on the National Mall. International businessman and philanthropic leader Carlos Slim and internationally renowned artist Clarice Smith also will receive honorary degrees from the university.

Jack Evans •

Beginning on May 9, the council members got together around one table to discuss our budget priorities and contrast those with the items included in the Mayor Gray’s budget. First, a note on the process: this type of discussion has historically been very helpful, as it is a rare opportunity for the full council to get together and speak more candidly than they often feel they are able to in a more formal meeting setting. In the interest of open government, we have now brought television cameras and microphones into the room. While it is great that members of the public can now witness these discussions, I have found unfortunately that the addition of the public eye leads to political posturing and grandstanding, which can reduce the quantity of productive dialogue.

One of the high points of Wednesday’s discussion was regarding the restoration of funding for the Housing Production Trust Fund, which is a program I created the legislative authority for with then-council member Adrian Fenty. I am a big supporter of this program because it actually works to create affordable housing for those who need it. When I created the program, I also instituted a dedicated funding source from the deed and recordation tax revenue so that it would always have the resources it needed. Unfortunately, my colleagues have raided this money repeatedly, using it instead for the Rent Supplement Program. This program is supposed to help working families make rent payments by supplementing the amount of rent they are able to pay. Its predecessor program was eventually done away with when it was discovered that landlords would simply raise rents by the amount of the government supplement payment, thus resulting in a windfall for landlords who could have afforded the lower rents they had in place prior to the supplement, while providing no additional benefit to the working families. If my colleagues want to fund the Rent Supplement Program, they should look for strategic cuts within the social services and education budgets, which have grown without accountability, rather than taking money from programs that work.

Another topic of discussion was the proliferation of traffic enforcement cameras contemplated in the mayor’s budget. I have been skeptical of the idea of attempting to balance the budget on the basis of increased fees charged to residents, and it sounds like we may consider lowering the fees associated with certain moving violations to compensate for the idea of the extra enforcement, under the principal that a lower ticket value is needed to deter traffic violations if the certainty of enforcement is higher. We also discussed the proper allocation of new revenues from parking pilot areas. I think these funds should remain within our local neighborhoods where they are generated, as the mayor proposed. Councilmember Cheh has subsequently recommended, in contrast, that the funds be taken and spent in other parts of the city.

I am not yet sure what the final budget proposal by the council chairman will look like, but I am hopeful that we will fund priorities of mine, such as libraries and parks, arts and humanities as well as the repeal of the confusing tax on out-of-state municipal bonds. I would appreciate your support and ask that you contact me and my colleagues over the next week with your views.

John Fenzel •

In a little-known Aesop’s fable, a number of flies are attracted to a jar of honey that is overturned in a housekeeper’s room. Placing their feet in the spilled honey, they eat greedily, happily gorging themselves. Their feet, however, become so smeared with the honey that they cannot use their wings, nor release themselves … and they slowly suffocate.

It was this fable that came to mind as I watched the garish coverage of the White House Correspondents’ dinner a few weeks ago pop up on entertainment shows, newspapers, blogs and social media sites. As an annual event, Hollywood celebrities flood to the nation’s capital for a three-day period of pre-dinner receptions and post-dinner parties at mansions in Georgetown, hotels or museums downtown and embassies around Massachusetts Avenue that are often more lavish than the dinner itself. Journalists, politicos and celebrities flock to each party and each reception … like flies to honey.

As star-struck reporters trip over themselves to gain often lop-sided, fuzzy iPhone photos with Kim Kardashian, George Clooney, Reese Witherspoon and Uggie the Dog to post on their Facebook pages, all journalistic pretense is gone for those three days or more, surrounding the last Saturday in April.
It’s become known, euphemistically, as the “Nerd Prom.” Begun in 1920, the ostensible purpose of the dinner is to “acknowledge award-winners, present scholarships and give the press and president an evening of friendly appreciation.” To outside observers (we, the uninvited masses), however, the White House Correspondents Association dinner is anything but. Instead, the event has become the most obvious symbol of a mainstream media that has abdicated its responsibility to the people, for a chance to preen and rub elbows with Hollywood and political elites.

The criticisms of the dinner as spectacle of sorts are not new. After the 2007 dinner, then-New York Times columnist Frank Rich characterized the event as “a crystallization of the press’s failures in the post-9/11 era…[because it] illustrates how easily a propaganda-driven White House can enlist the Washington news media in its shows.” A few Sundays ago, Tom Brokaw appeared on NBC’s “Meet the Press” and remarked, “Look, I think George Clooney is a great guy, I’d like to meet Charlize Theron, but I don’t think the big press event in Washington should be that kind of glittering event, where the whole talk is Cristal champagne … who had the best party, who got to meet the most people.” Brokaw went on to say, “That’s another separation between what we’re supposed to be doing and what the people expect us to be doing, and I think that the Washington press corps has to look at that … It’s gone beyond what it used to be.”

After the festivities, we’re expected to believe that the press and White House will go back to their business-as-usual adversarial relationship, like Ralph E. Wolfs and Sam Sheepdogs, punching their time clock in the famous Looney Tunes cartoon.

Don’t get me wrong: the same issue exists with the White House’s official state dinners, where Tom Hanks, Barbra Streisand and Steven Spielberg are provided open access to the White House’s compound along with media figures like Katie Couric, PBS’s Charlie Rose, Washington Post’s Jonathan Capehart. As the nation’s gentry gather, many members of the press have proven more than willing to assimilate themselves into exclusive affairs without regard to perceptions from the outside world.
During his tenure, WHCA President Steve Scully countered the critics by saying, “An evening of civility does not mean we are selling out … [and] if people want to criticize the dinner, then don’t come.” Scully, of course, had little to be concerned about. The rest of us—the uninvited “everyman”—never do.

So, Aesop’s story about the flies and the honey jar represents a cautionary tale for the press and for all of us. The fable itself concludes, as the flies are expiring from their foolish escapade, with their collective lament: “O, foolish creatures that we are, for the sake of a little pleasure we have destroyed ourselves.”

Gary Tischler •

President Barack Obama finally did it.

He maxed out on his evolution on the issue of gay marriage. He’s for it, without equivocation.

This came right as the president revved up his startup activities for his re-election campaign. The announcement–” I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married”–didn’t leave a whole lot of wriggle room.

Whatever the reason for the announcement and decision–Joe “Loose Lips” Biden’s rather casual statement of support for gay marriage on “Meet the Press,” no less, or supporter dissatisfaction with Obama’s slow evolution– it was a historic move, and one bound to affect the presidential campaign.

Presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney was quick to respond that he believed that marriage was defined as being between “one man and one woman,” and that’s probably not his last word on the subject, one way or another, or another.

Gay and lesbian rights activists–who cheered the president’s long anticipated and hoped-for announcement– hope that these are not the Obama’s last words on the subject and that words will lead to some sort of action.

What that might be is unclear. Will he provide actual leadership–moral, rhetorical, executive or whatever–on the issue? Obama has said that he prefers the process winds itself out on the state level, where the issue presents itself in confusing fashion. North Carolina, only days before, held
a vote in which voters banned not only gay marriage but civil unions as well. More than 30 states have passed laws banning gay marriage, while only a handful passed laws allowing gay marriage. On the other, national polls indicate that Americans are divided on the issue, on a 50-50 level.

The opposition to gay marriage tends to be conservative, evangelical, religious and skews older, while support for gay marriage skews younger.

It’s not difficult to understand why many otherwise reasonable people might not support gay marriage on theological grounds. The president’s support–the first by an American president ever–is important for its historical nature, but it does not clarify the conflict. Gay and lesbian rights represents a kind of last frontier on the issue of the role and identity of the other in American society, a last line in
the sand on opponents.

The president’s decision, arrived at perhaps sooner than he would have liked in terms of the election campaign, appears to have been based on experience and perception, with the opinion of his children weighing strongly in the decision. I suspect that’s the kind of thinking that also weighs strongly
in the opinions of most reasonable Americans. A majority of Americans, I suspect, do not oppose civil or partnership rights–inheritance, property, wills and other legal matters–but balk when it comes to marriage, and issues of family and children. I suspect that, beyond issues of religious beliefs, that
opposition is not entirely rational, that it’s grounded in fear of the other and a kind of primitive reaction when it comes to sexual matters.

The idea that family–a mother, a father, children–are the ideal and traditional social, cultural and moral norm in the United State is a belief that is clung to almost fanatically and is belied strongly by the statistical facts of an over 50-percent divorce rate, a high number of children raised by
single parents, and so on. I suspect, too, that the idea of gay people marrying and creating family units is a process that brings gays into the American mainstream as opposed to leaving them exiled on the fringes of societal norms. It’s an idea difficult to accept for large parts of American society which may have never encountered a gay person except on television or in movies.

I suspect until most Americans can expand the idea of what an American family may and can look like and accept it, the issue of gay marriage will remain volatile, intense and divisive.

One thing you can tell politically from President Obama’s tortured evolution to a decision point and to
the muted GOP reply–Romney called the issue “a very tender and sensitive topic”– is that the issue is like the fellow or the gal without a date at the prom. Everyone is reluctant to dance with them, but sooner or later, they’re going to be playing their song. President Obama, in his announcement,
appears to have heard the music.

Georgetowner •

Saturday evening we stood out at the terrace of the Kennedy Center and watched canoes and boats move serenely on the Potomac River, the spires of Georgetown University and the lights of Washington Harbor in the near distance.
It was a bucolic, beautiful scene, one which inspired admiration for the river if you were inclined to think about matters like that. One thing you weren’t thinking was that the Potomac–the “Nation’s River”–was in serious trouble.

But according to American Rivers, a non-profit organization that helps protect America’s rivers and which yearly lists and issues a report on the country’s ten most endangered rivers, the Potomac River is the Most Endangered River for 2012. The causes: urban and agricultural pollution.

It’s not that the river hasn’t been maintained properly or that the Potomac isn’t cleaner than it was before. It’s because it’s the 40th anniversary of the Clean Water Act this year, which may be in danger of having Congress roll back critical water safeguards. American Rivers is of course a group, as its president, Bob Irvin, said, that will try to “get decision-makers do the right thing”, which would be to preserve all possible safeguards.

We concur. The Potomac, our river here in Washington, and the nation’s river, will keep right on rolling. It needs to do that without being in danger of more pollution. Let’s get the Potomac off the Most Endangered List

David Post •

I am Joe the Plumber. It hit me, as I finished my tax return last week and wrote a check to Uncle Sam.
Joe (really Sam Wurzelbacher ) was the guy candidate Obama patted on the shoulder and suggested that taxes should be increased on the rich. Joe surprised Obama, said he owned his own business and would pay more taxes under the Obama plan.

Mine is the proverbial small business, one of those companies known as a partnership, sub-S corporation, or LLC which combines the business income with the owner’s income on the same tax return.

When my company income is added to my salary, I look rich, even by my own standards. Not rich like Warren Buffett or Mitt Romney. To them, my income isn’t pocket change. But to me, the income on my tax return shocks me.

The problem is that small businesses don’t get to keep or spend the income on their tax returns. Most of it stays in the company to buy new buildings (we built a new one last year), to buy more inventory (did that, too) and to support growth (that, too).

Small businesses are mythically – fired employees start most new small businesses – the job creators. For 30 years, Republicans have had a singular tax mantra: lower taxes create jobs. Our company has grown from one to almost 30 employees. Yet we’ve never thought: “We need to hire a new employee, but our federal income tax is too high. So, we can’t afford it.”

Like many small businesses, my company’s profit doesn’t feel like a profit. Last year, our inventory went up by more than our profit. We had to spend our entire profit, plus more, to replace goods on the shelf for tomorrow’s customers. As a drug store, most of our customers have insurance so that they take their drugs today and we get paid next month.

When the ink dried on my tax return last week, we reported a nice profit. Which landed on my tax return. But, because of our growth, we had no cash. So, I had to borrow money to pay my income taxes. In fact, combining my company’s profits and my salary put me in the Democrat’s “rich” tax bracket. My tax rate is higher than Warren Buffet’s secretary, and more than double Buffet’s and Mitt Romney’s tax rate.

For decades, Republicans have argued that lower tax rates encourage job creators (like me) to hire more employees, and that really low, or zero, capital gain taxes encourage the rich to invest more, thus creating even more jobs. President Bush did that, but no jobs were created during his eight-year presidency. Oh, well. Maybe it will work this time.

President Reagan is looking pretty good to me right now. He installed a 28-percent maximum tax rate on all income, regardless of source, by lowering normal rates from 50 percent and increasing capital gain rates from 15 percent.

Operating businesses that generate jobs, like mine, don’t have capital gains. They pay the full freight. Almost half the income in the economy is from finance, earned by investors who pay lower tax rates. The idea is lower rates reward the risk they take. Of course, investors like the Buffets and Romneys can sell their stock and get out any time.

My house is the collateral for my company’s loans. That’s real risk and normal for small businesses. We have to hang in there or lose our homes. Would one candidate explain how small businesses have less risk and pay twice the tax rate as super rich investors?

Both parties agree that the tax system needs to be reformed and made more “fair” by “broadening the base” and lowering tax rates. That means paying a lower rate on more income. Over the past 50 years, history has shown that when rates are lowered and the amount taxed is increased, normal people pay almost same amount while the rich pay less.

Apparently, my problem is that I’m not rich enough to pay less. Maybe President Obama will drop by my store, rest his hand on my shoulder, as he did to Joe the Plumber, and assure me that I should pay less tax. Maybe Mitt Romney will invest in my company and help it grow into a company with 90,000 employees as he did for Staples. Then, I’d be really rich, he’d be richer, and both of us would pay lower tax rates.

And what about the real Joe the Plumber? He’s running for Congress.