Mention the United Service Organizations -- almost universally known as the USO -- to most Americans, and the first thing you'll likely hear is "Bob Hope." The USO is eager to change that image. Not that organizing performances for the troops isn't an integral part of their mission, but the expansive programs and services they provide does so much more than entertain.

Through Independence Day, HuffPost Impact is running a series of stories called "Breaking the Roles," highlighting the servicemen and women of our armed forces who don't typically see the media spotlight, and the remarkable work of the USO, who are tireless in their efforts to support all who defend our country.

At 15 years old, Michael Deihl discovered his gift: food. Ever since, he has been using his talent to earn a living, to delight the taste buds of diners -- and to make a difference in his community. As a child, his mother instilled in him the importance of giving back. Deihl shares, "My mom always had a hand out to help others when we were growing up. We didn't have a lot, but we shared."

A nationally renowned chef, Deihl has worked as the Executive Chef at the East Lake Golf Club in Atlanta, Georgia, for almost ten years. East Lake is no ordinary golf club -- it's a philanthropic one. The proceeds from the club benefit the East Lake Foundation, an organization providing services like mentoring and college scholarships to revitalize the East Lake community.

Seven years ago, the USO reached out to the Atlanta Chapter of the American Culinary Federation and asked them to help feed troops passing through the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. Deihl quickly volunteered for duty and begun preparing sandwiches for soldiers every weekend. From small beginnings, Deihl and other local chefs have grown their efforts into Operation Chefs Unite (OCU). They continue to prepare sandwiches for soldiers at the Atlanta airport five days a week, and now prepare holiday buffets for the soldiers on 13 holidays each year. Deihl has served as president of OCU for two terms, and now sits as chairman of the organization.

The troops enjoying a hearty buffet on Christmas Day, 2009.
Deihl's favorite holiday to feed the troops is Christmas. Each December 25, Deihl rises at 4 a.m., "getting up when Santa's just putting his sleigh away," to prepare a lavish traditional feast for soldiers. Deihl says, "I never felt the spirit of Christmas. I thought I did, but I never felt it until I started getting up early to feed the soldiers."

For soldiers forced to be away from their families on holidays, like the young private who left home on Christmas Eve to ship out for a tour or duty, warm, homemade meals from Deihl and his crew are a godsend. Deihl still remembers the letter of thanks they received from that young soldier's mother, expressing her gratitude for feeding her son Christmas Eve dinner. He says, "Even though we might feed 300 soldiers on a busy holiday, you get to touch each one individually."

Deihl is endlessly impressed with the character of the men and women in uniform. When he thanked a 25-year-old sergeant from Texas for his service, the soldier humbly returned the thanks, reminding Deihl his cooking serves the military in a unique way: "Thank you sir, for coming in on your day off, for your service."

To date, the team behind Operation Chefs Unite has served over one million servicemen and women. Deihl believes "food is an incredible medium" to touch the soldiers' hearts. After all, he jokes, "a well-fed army always wins." He doesn't want credit -- he says, "I might be the figurehead but there are a lot of people behind [Operation Chefs Unite]." He's grateful to his fellow cooks, to local food suppliers for donating food, and, above all, to the warm staff at the USO.

Chef Michael Deihl (top, right) alongside fellow chefs, serving the troops on Labor Day, 2007.
The chef also carries his spirit of giving back into his work as a culinary arts professor. He believes it's important for his generation of chefs to teach the next generation to use their skills to make a difference in their community, like preparing food for charity fundraisers. He wonders how they would learn it, if not from him. "What...are they going to Twitter it?"

Deihl plans to keep up his efforts for the troops for as long as he is able. He and his fellow chefs also hope to expand Operation Chefs Unite across the nation. When Deihl first agreed to help the USO, he thought the wars abroad wouldn't last longer than six more months. Now, seven years later, the Atlanta airport continues to buzz with troops coming in and out.

Deihl wants to remind Americans to keep the soldiers on their minds. He explains, "As war drags on, people forget who's really fighting it." He encourages other Americans to get together with friends to prepare sandwiches and cook for the troops at their nearest USO center. He beams, "It gives me a good feeling as an American to be supporting the people who are giving me my freedom."

Make a donation to the USO today and support those who have sacrificed to protect the U.S.

Follow the USO on Facebook and Twitter.

More on Chefs

Vote is split along partisan lines, with just three Republicans voting in favor and 19 Democrats against. The Senate is expected to take up the bill in mid-July.

The House on Wednesday approved the most sweeping rewrite of financial rules since the Great Depression, and last-minute changes this week appeared to solidify support in the Senate and pave the way for the legislation to reach the White House later this month.

With the final seconds ticking down on the Congressional clock, President Obama and Senate Democrats emerged from a White House summit with Republican moderates Tuesday still lacking any plan to score a last minute win for clean energy.

Wasted opportunity

Establishing a price (any price) on carbon pollution through a(n increasingly weak) cap and trade system continues to be the the preferred climate and energy approach of environmental advocacy groups and Democratic leadership. This preference holds despite the fact that for at least three years, that plan has consistently failed to uncover any route to securing the sixty votes necessary for passage in the Senate (a similar bill narrowly passed the House last June).

Heading into the Tuesday morning White House summit, Republicans eyed as key swing votes for any clean energy or climate bill telegraphed clear intentions: cap and trade would be a practical non-starter, but they were ready to act with the President on measures to promote zero-carbon electricity, electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles, and greater energy technology innovation, clean up dirty coal plants, and improve energy efficiency.

The summit offered President Obama a prime opportunity to reset the Senate energy debate by calling a new play: take up the energy provisions Republicans have offered, counter with a more aggressive proposal on similar fronts, and begin earnest negotiations with GOP swing votes to ensure passage of a final bill that could move America towards a clean energy economy before the Congressional clock expires.

Unfortunately, President Obama let this chance to break from the failed and increasingly desperate cap and trade agenda slip by, using the meeting, instead, to reiterate to the assembled Senators - and greens watching from the sidelines - that "he still believes the best way for us to transition to a clean energy economy is ... by putting a price on [carbon] pollution."

In what seemed to be an effort to convince outside audiences that Obama had not given up on cap and trade, rather than a real display of leadership, the President failed to present any clear plan of action or convince new supporters to back the much-diminished ambitions of a utility-only cap and trade bill. Instead, the White House team emerged from the meeting simply noting that, "Not all of the Senators agreed with this [carbon pricing] approach, and the President welcomed other approaches and ideas..."

Senator John Kerry (D-MA), the dogged architect (with Sen. Joseph Lieberman of Connecticut) of the increasingly embattled Senate cap and trade strategy, boldly declared that Democrats were willing to make even more concessions in the quest for permanently elusive GOP cap and trade supporters.

"We believe we have compromised significantly, but we're prepared to compromise further," Sen. Kerry told reporters.

This after Democrats had already stacked their "comprehensive" climate and energy bill full of enough offsets and cost containment mechanisms to render the emissions "cap" non-binding on covered sectors--and after recent offers to scale back the cap to cover only electric utilities, a sector responsible for just about one-third of U.S. carbon emissions...

Running out the clock

Thus, it seems that Democrats are now poised to waste what little time remains this year on what could be described either as an increasingly desperate effort to appease Republicans firmly opposed to what they've dubbed "a nationwide energy tax," or as an increasingly transparent attempt to assure green supporters they are 'fighting hard' for cap and trade in preparation for pinning their inevitable failure on 'those dastardly Republican obstructionists.'

Regardless, this strategy is all but certain to leave America empty handed on clean energy reform.

As oil gushes into the Gulf and global temperatures continue to rise, coming away from this Congressional year with nothing would be the greatest tragedy of all. But if Democrats can put aside their insistence on a wholly-compromised, "comprehensive" cap and trade bill, there may yet be hope for a political and substantive victory.

Republicans signal opening

Last week, Republicans invited to the White House summit emerged from a quick planning huddle to tell reporters that they would press Obama to drop cap and trade and work with the GOP to promote several provisions to advance clean electricity, electrification of cars and trucks, and research and development of low-carbon energy technologies.

The GOP has several "clean energy proposals which we are for and he's for too," said Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN), who as Republican Conference Chair is at the center of GOP leadership.

After Tuesday's inconclusive meeting, key swing Republicans reiterated that there was still an opening to move forward on clean energy--if Democrats would drop cap and trade.

Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) stated:

"As I have long advocated, working toward energy independence is an imperative for our economic and national security. Which is why today I urged the President to seize control of our own energy destiny and, for the first time, establish clearly defined national timetables for clean energy production, benchmarks for oil consumption reduction, and goals for game-changing research - which no other president has ever done, to ensure we actually attain that independence.

The Maine moderate pointed to bi-partisan measures she had sponsored to promote energy efficiency, renewable electricity generation, and research, meanwhile stating that while she supported a limited carbon-pricing program in principle, "today we are in different and perilous economic times," stating that economy-wide cap and trade was something America "simply cannot afford."

Likewise, Senator George Voinovich (R-OH) characterized the White House meeting as "a clear signal to the president, Senator Kerry and Senator Lieberman that the chances of passing their cap and trade legislation are quite slim."

The senator went on to note:

"On the other hand, there seemed to be consensus that Senator Bingaman's energy bill may be a viable path forward in the Senate. While in need of improvement, it has bipartisan support and presents a variety of policy tools to expand domestic clean energy resources and reduce emissions.

Republicans have thus put a clean energy offer on the table constituting a clear path to bipartisan energy progress - focus on measures to boost clean electricity generation, oil reduction, energy innovation, and efficiency.

Scoring the last minute clean energy win

Herein lies the last opportunity for Democrats to score a win for energy reform. To date, Republicans have backed a number of key Senate proposals that collectively offer the foundations for a bipartisan clean energy bill that could achieve actual progress, despite the limited time to act in the crowded Congressional calendar [1 - see notes at end for more detail]:

Clean electricity generation: Republicans have backed both a (modest but first-ever) requirement that utilities nationwide purchase a portion of their electricity from renewable energy sources [2], as well as a more aggressive clean electricity requirement that would make nuclear power and carbon capture and storage at fossil fuels plants eligible alongside renewables [3]. Democrats have an opportunity to counter-offer with a slightly more expansive proposal, calling, say, for 25% of all U.S. electricity to come from new, zero-carbon electricity sources by 2020 and 35% by 2030, then negotiate from there. The end result would be a mandate to transform the U.S. electricity sector, putting American utilities on a path to a low-carbon future.

Similarly, Republicans have consistently championed financial incentives to deploy zero-carbon electricity sources. They, of course prefer nuclear power, but this offer still provides an opportunity for Democrats to counter. Instead of $10 billion to back loan guarantees for just nuclear power plants [4], Democrats could propose a similar (or even greater) amount of funding to capitalize a Clean Energy Deployment Administration capable of using a variety of flexible credit enhancement and financing mechanisms to spur the deployment of numerous innovative zero-carbon energy sources, including nuclear power, but also a suite of other cutting edge clean technologies [5].

Vehicle electrification and advanced biofuels: Senator Alexander has joined with Democrats Byron Dorgan (ND) and Jeff Merkley (OR) to propose a bill aiming to put the U.S. on track to electrify half of all vehicles on the road by 2030 [6]. A perfect bipartisan response to the unfolding Gulf oil crisis, the proposal represents a major multi-billion-dollar push to roll out charging infrastructure, incentivize the purchase of electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles and trucks, and invent and manufacture advanced batteries here in the United States that would do more to reduce U.S. oil consumption than any 10 or 20 cent increase in gasoline prices imposed by a cap and trade bill.

This electrification push could be coupled with financial incentives to spur advanced non-grain biofuels and escalating requirements to produce flexible-fuel vehicles that can run on gasoline biofuels (another Republican-backed proposal [7]). Combine these two measures to promote flexible-fuel, plug-in hybrids that can run on electricity as well and you've got essentially the very same plan proposed by the cogent David Sandalow (now an Assistant Secretary of Energy in the Obama Administration) to win America's "Freedom from Oil."

Clean energy research and innovation: Investment in energy technology innovation has consistently enjoyed bipartisan support, both from policymakers and the public, which routinely rank greater clean technology investment as their top policy response to energy and climate concerns. A doubling of DOE energy research [8], the scale-up of the newly established Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy (ARPA-E), and the creation of a new nationwide network of clean energy innovation centers [9] or clusters [10] would each be critical components of a robust U.S. energy innovation system capable of driving both the incremental and transformational innovation needed to make clean energy cheap and ensure the next generation of clean technologies are invented and commercialized in America.

Cleaning up the dirtiest coal plants: Financial incentives to accelerate the shut down of the oldest, dirtiest coal plants in America and new air pollution regulations to clean up remaining plants could deliver huge public health gains and probably even greater emissions reductions than any weakened, utility-only cap and trade bill. Both provisions have enjoyed bipartisan support [11].

A "cash for coal clunkers" program could provide such financial incentives to close the old high-polluting coal plants (many of them pre-dating, and thus exempt from, Clean Air Act regulations) and replace them with cleaner power plants (with one level of incentive to replace the coal plant with a state-of-the-art natural gas plant, and progressively larger incentives for zero-carbon alternatives like renewables and nuclear power). Old, dirty coal plants provide just a small share of U.S. electricity but make up a disproportionately large share of U.S. power-sector greenhouse gas emissions and pollutants (with associated health impacts and economic costs).

Similarly, updated requirements to clean up conventional air pollutants - including toxic mercury as well as the smog and acid rain-forming sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution - would both incentivize the worst culprits to shut down rather than install expensive new pollution controls, while requiring the remainder of the coal fleet to clean up its air pollution resulting in widespread public health benefits for everyone.

Enhanced efficiency: New efforts to boost the efficiency of American vehicles, buildings, appliances, lighting, and manufacturing have routinely enjoyed bipartisan support. Greater energy efficiency will help the U.S. economy get more economic bang out of our energy usage. Increasing economic productivity is a goal Republicans and Democrats can clearly come together to secure, and they have; wide-ranging efficiency measures have featured prominently in several bills currently backed by key Republicans [12].

Advancing the production of zero-carbon electricity, electrifying the American transportation fleet, catalyzing clean energy research and innovation, cleaning up the coal fleet, and boosting the efficiency and productivity of the U.S. energy system: these measures represent a nearly full list of the key levers needed to drive down emissions and U.S. dependence on coal and oil, all while building stronger domestic clean energy industries. What's more, these five areas are now ripe for bipartisanship and with Republican support, these clean energy measures presents a key opportunity for Democrats to drive America forward this year towards a clean energy economy.

What will the last play call be?

Obama and Senate Democrats now face a clear choice between two options...

They can waste precious time assuring green supporters they haven't abandoned cap and trade and meanwhile, come up empty handed by squandering the political opportunity presented by the oil catastrophe in the Gulf, appearing weak and inept before a public demanding energy reform, and handing another political victory to a GOP all too eager to enter the midterms having denied Obama and the Democrats one of their key policy priorities. More to the point, Americans will wind up without any substantive energy progress this year.

OR

Democrats can come out of the huddle prepared to build off of Republican proposals already on the table by offering more substantial counter-offers on each front: clean electricity, electrifying transportation, clean energy innovation, energy efficiency and even accelerated coal plant retirement. These energy-focused measures attached to a bill responding to the oil disaster in the Gulf would command strong public support, putting Democrats in a position to finally bargain from the high ground, secure stronger provisions, and score a real win on clean energy before the end of year.

Will it be a "comprehensive energy and climate bill?" No. And that's fine!

The inexorably-weakening "cap" and trade bills Senate Democrats seem willing to swallow are far from comprehensive already--and still unlikely to secure any passage this year.

Faced with ending up empty-handed and beaten, it is time for Democrats to bank these real wins now while making it abundantly clear to the public that this bill does not "check the box" on energy and climate for good.

If Democrats do that, they will have led America on the path to energy reform, and can tell the public that they will continue to lead a bipartisan effort to end America's dependence on dirty fossil fuels next year, if voters will back them in the November midterms.

If instead, Democrats insist on wasting these last few seconds on the obviously failing and increasingly desperate cap and trade agenda, Americans are likely to wind up without any substantive energy progress this year, and Democrats are likely to fare even worse at the polls. The ball is in their court.

Originally posted at the Breakthrough Institute

Notes:

[1] With just weeks remaining for floor votes in the Senate before the midterms hit, there's still a Supreme Court justice and a new Afghanistan commander to confirm, Financial Reform bills to conference, a budget to perhaps pass (prospects there don't look great), and on top of that, the White House just announced President Obama would give a big speech on Immigration Reform later this week, touching off yet another hot button domestic policy issue.

[2] The "American Clean Energy Leadership Act" (S.1462, or ACELA) passed the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee last June with bipartisan support from four Republican committee-members: Sens. Lisa Murkowski (AK), Sam Brownback (KS), Jeff Sessions (AL), and Bob Corker (TN). That bill would establish a (modest but first-of-its-kind) requirement that utilities nationwide purchase a portion of their electricity from renewable energy sources (15% by 2020). In addition to this requirement, known as a "Renewable Electricity Standard" (RES) or "Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS), the ENR Committee bill would: establish a new federal agency to provide low-cost financing to spur the deployment of new clean technologies (the Clean Energy Deployment Administration); ramp up funding for Department of Energy R&D; establish new efficiency standards for buildings, lighting, appliances, industry and manufacturing.

[3] This is consistent with the "Diverse Energy Standard" included in the "Practical Energy and Climate Plan" (S.3464). Introduced by Senator Richard "Dick" Lugar (R-IN) and co-sponsored by Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK and Ranking Member of the Energy Committee), and Lindsay Graham (R-SC, who backed the bill after walking away from the climate plan he drafted with Sens. Kerry and Lieberman in April), the bill has arguably surfaced as the GOP's preferred energy platform. In addition to the "diverse" clean energy standard that includes stronger requirements than the Energy Committee bill above (15% by 2015, 20% by 2020, 25% by 2025 ... 50% by 2050) but allows nuclear power and carbon capture and storage at coal plants to qualify for the utility requirement, the GOP-backed bill would: ramp up vehicle fuel efficiency standards and set the first ever standards for medium- and heavy-duty trucks; establish financial incentives for advanced biofuel production (from non-grain sources) and require new vehicles to be flexible fuel (capable of running on biofuels and gasoline); establish stronger building, appliance, and industrial efficiency standards; ; expand loan guarantees for zero-carbon nuclear power plants; and provide incentives for the retirement of the oldest and dirtiest coal plants in the country.

[4] The "Clean Energy Act" (S.2776) sponsored by Republicans Lamar Alexander (TN) and Mike Crapo (ID) and Democrats Jim Webb (VA) and Mark Warner (VA), would encourage the build-out of new nuclear plants with a major expansion of loan guarantees, providing $10 billion in appropriations to be leveraged into roughly $100 billion in loan guarantees. In addition, the bill would provide $750 million in funding to establish new "mini-Manhattan projects" to advance clean energy research.

[5] The Clean Energy Deployment Administration is included in the bipartisan ACELA bill, see note [2] above. A similar provision passed the House in the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act.

[6] The Electric Vehicle Deployment Act (S.3442), sponsored by Democrats Byron Dorgon (ND) and Jeff Merkley (OR) and Republican Lamar Alexander (TN), aims to put the US on track to electrify half of all vehicles on the road by 2030. The $7-10 billion bill would: launch pilot communities across country to spur adoption of electric and plug in hybrid vehicles (funded at $2 billion per year); subsidize the nationwide build-out of charging infrastructure and purchase of electric and plug-in vehicles, including new credits for medium- and heavy-duty hybrid purchases; provide $1.5 billion for advanced battery research and $250 million for related workforce development and education efforts.

[7] Incentives for advanced biofuels production and flexible fuel vehicles are included in the Lugar energy bill, see note [3] above.

[8] The Energy Committee bill, see note [2] above, would authorizing a doubling of applied research programs at DOE, and basic research programs at DOE and elsewhere are on track to double under the America COMPETES Act originally passed with bipartisan support and signed into law by President Bush in 2007.

[9] These innovation centers would be consistent to the "mini-Manhattan projects" proposed by the Webb-Alexander-Warner-Crapo bill, see note [5] above.

[10] Clean energy cluster programs would extend multi-sector, collaborative research efforts to enhance the strength of regional economic clusters and could be a natural and effective extension of the research programs supported by Republicans. See "Strengthening Clean Energy Competitiveness: Opportunities for America COMPETES Reauthorization"

[11] A "cash for coal clunkers" style program offering $11 billion in financial incentives to accelerate the closure of the oldest, dirtiest coal plants comprising 16% (49 GW) of the coal fleet but representing a disproportionate amount of U.S. pollution of both the carbon and conventional varieties appeared in draft legislation sponsored by Senator Dick Lugar (R-IN). The final version introduced as S.3464 (see note [3] above) included a narrower incentive program for coal plant retirement. Republicans Lamar Alexander (TN) and Susan Collins (ME) and Democrats Tom Carper (DE) and Amy Klobuchar (MT) have sponsored the "Clean Air Act Amendments of 2010" (S.2995) which would impose new 'three-pollutant' air pollution requirements on mercury, SO2 and NOx emissions at power plants.

[12] A wide range of efficiency programs are included in both the bipartisan Energy Committee bill, see note [2], and the Lugar bill, see note [3], as well as numerous other bills co-sponsored or introduced by Republican Senators.

More on Barack Obama

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama says House passage of a massive overhaul of financial regulations is a victory for everyone who was hurt by what he is calling Wall Street "recklessness and irresponsibility" that caused the financial meltdown and millions of job losses.

House lawmakers voted 237-192 Wednesday in favor of the bill, sending it to the Senate for a vote expected in mid-July.

Obama says the legislation provides a sensible framework of rules and regulations that will hold financial institutions accountable for their actions and help prevent another economic crisis like the one the U.S. is still recovering from.

PayScale's latest data showing the return on investment of attending various schools is getting a ton of press.

The Wall Street Journal has an item on the data, and so does The Chronicle of Higher Education. On the surface, it's quite interesting. Payscale looked at the costs of colleges and then compared it with the average earnings of the schools' graduates and calculated an annual return on investment over thirty years. Ivy League grads tend to earn a lot of money so, even though those schools have high sticker prices, they also tended to yield the highest returns on investment.

But there's just one problem (actually two: we'll get to the second one later): In order for Payscale's data on return on investment to be valuable, you have to assume that the only difference between at MIT grad (the college with the best ROI) and a Black Hills State University grad (the college with the lowest ROI) is that one went to MIT and the other went to Black Hills State.

With apologies to Black Hills State grads, that assumption is insane: MIT grads are a lot smarter, more ambitious, and more connected before they start college than the average Black Hills State grad. Saying "Go to MIT so you'll earn more money" is like saying "Sleep in a crib so you'll weigh less." I've done extensive research and found that people who sleep in cribs do in fact weigh, on average, a lot less than people who sleep in beds -- but that doesn't necessarily make it valuable weight loss advice.

Perhaps there is some financial benefit to be derived from attending an elite school; and perhaps there isn't. Payscale makes no effort to determine that. Incidentally, there was one study that did: Princeton economist Alan Krueger and Stacy Dale of the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation found that, on average, students who get into elite colleges but attend less elite colleges earn the same amount of money ten years in as students who attend elite colleges. As Krueger wrote, "Children smart enough to get into elite schools may not need to bother."

Payscale furthers the problem with its methodology by penalizing schools with low graduation rates. Here again, elite schools have high graduation rates at least in part (and maybe completely) because they only admit students with high GPAs, SAT scores, and strong extracurriculars; such students are unlikely to dropout regardless of where they enroll. By giving schools like Harvard and MIT higher ROI numbers because of their low dropout rates, Payscale is almost intentionally compounding the impact of selection bias on its study.

Dropping out of college is a decision, not a passive outcome; it's like saying it's unsafe to live in Mississippi because it's the fattest state in America. If you lay off the fatty foods, you'll be just fine. Similarly, you can live in Colorado, the thinnest state in the union, but if you eat 50 Twinkies for breakfast and don't exercise, the demographics will do nothing to help your life expectancy.

Even if the college you attend does have some impact on whether you'll drop out, Payscale's method of controlling for dropout rates assumes that the college you attend determines 100% whether you'll graduate. That's ludicrous.

The bottom line is this: Your earnings trajectory will be influenced by a multitude of factors, with the impact of the college from which you receive your bachelor's ranging anywhere from zero to very small. Parents: Relax! There are far more important things to worry about than where your kid goes to college. You could start by worrying about the impact excessive student loan debt will have on his life if you decide to overextend yourselves in pursuit of an elite diploma.

More on Education

Doug, a longtime science teacher in Alaska, makes this observation:

"It is really interesting to me that President Obama can let BP take the lead in cleaning up the disaster in the Gulf, and yet teachers have got hedge fund managers, mayors, think tank policy wonks, billionaire vulture capitalists, and no real education experts, calling the shots on public school "reform," with Arne Duncan as department head, whose teaching experience comes from volunteering at his mom's after school program (He actually says this, as if it means something!) mouthing a bunch of nonsense about educating our way to a better economy and making education the civil rights issue of our generation. Well, no. The economy tanked because of a monumental failure of government to regulate the financial industry, and manufacturing long ago moved out of the country. And before we can talk about civil rights, we need to straighten out some things with health care, endless war, mass incarceration, racism and immigration, and state-sponsored torture.

Borderland blog, June 16, 2010

When BP chief executive Tony Hayward appeared before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Chairman Henry Waxman said the Committee reviewed 30,000 documents related to the oil disaster and found "no evidence that you (Hayward) paid any attention to the tremendous risks BP was taking." Likewise no one at the National Governors Association, the Council of Chief State School Officers, or the House and Senate education committees etc. is paying any attention to the tremendous risks the U. S. Department of Education is taking with its money bribes to the states.

Why does Vermont allow the Feds to dictate who should work in ten Vermont schools? The answer is a one-time $8.5 million handout. We sell our children cheaply.

Prediction: In the long run, the money fountain at the U. S. Department of Education will do more harm to our national well-being than the BP oil gusher. The Obama/Duncan ramping up of the discredited Reading First, their co-opting of state education policy through the bribery of Race to the Top and the other initiatives that travel under the name of reform will put a generation of children's public school lives in shambles as national standards and tests are delivered by the truckload from corporate America, and test prep takes over any pretense of curriculum.

More on Barack Obama

Now that Scott Brown has managed to score the same backroom deals he opposed during his campaign run for Senator of Massachusetts he's threatening to vote against the financial reform bill he's said he was for. Sound confusing? It really isn't when you consider Brown is among the top five congressional recipients of "contributions" from the finance/insurance/real estate industry.

An impressive rank to have achieved compared to the other four who have spent years in the Senate.

The usual story of Scott Brown's election to the Senate in MA is that he was put there to kill health care reform. But all the money he's getting from the finance industry makes it clear that they may be hoping he will also be the 41st Republican to kill financial reform. According to his profile on OpenSecrets.org all of his top campaign contributors are financial companies.

In April of this this year, Brown was asked for his opinion on the financial regulatory reform bill. "I can't support it,'' he said.

When asked what areas he thought should be fixed, he replied: "Well, what areas do you think should be fixed? I mean, you know, tell me. And then I'll get a team and go fix it," he said, talking to a reporter who wanted to know what kind of changes he hoped to see.

Brown said one of his main concerns is that the legislation is "going to be an extra layer of regulation," which is true. That's the point of the legislation. The financial industry nearly destroyed the global economy as a result of lacking regulation. That's why this legislation is being argued: to bring oversight and accountability through regulation.

Brown went on to say that he finds the notion of a Consumer Financial Protection Agency problematic because "it's more government." He added, "Is that good? ... If it's an area we need to fix, then I'm certainly open to it. But I haven't heard that that's the biggest thing that's problematic with it."

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill), has been quoted repeatedly as saying, "And the banks -- hard to believe in a time when we're facing a banking crisis that many of the banks created -- are still the most powerful lobby on Capitol Hill. And they frankly own the place."

Brown, who has, by his own admission, carved out deals for Fidelity Investments, State Street, and MassMutual, among other Massachusetts based financial institutions can't make Durbin's point any clearer. In addition he's argued for major loopholes in the Volker Rule that would allow firms to continue to gamble with taxpayer-backed capital.

In the meantime, Brown recently blocked a bill extending unemployment. As a result of this vote 1.2 million people lost access to the extended unemployment benefits. Several hundred thousand are being added to that number every week. Fifty million Medicare claims from June are currently in process at the reduced rate, according to AARP.

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimates that dropping the $24 billion in aid to states will lead to cuts in services and thousands of layoffs, and that spending cuts to close states' aggregate budget shortfall in 2011 would lead to 900,000 public- and private-sector layoffs.

On a Tuesday morning WBUR interview with Deborah Becker, Barry Bluestone, dean of the School of Social Sciences, Urban Affairs and Public Policy at Northeastern University, speculated that over two million people will be without benefits once the program expires. According to Bluestone, 10,000 people will lose crucial funds every week in Massachusetts alone.

This decision sparked a rally on Monday in front of his Boston office by an estimated 500 protester representing dozens of activist, education, and labor organizations urging Brown to stop blocking a vote on the FMAP bill, containing $700 Million in federal relief.

"Let Senator McConnell, let Senator Collins, let Senator Brown and every other Republican explain why one of their own constituents doesn't deserve to keep their job, shouldn't be able to send their kid to college, can't put food on their table without maxing out their credit cards," said Lori Lodes an employment and labor activists with SEIU. "Rooting against America, Republicans are taking pride in keeping families out of work as their only strategy for winning elections."

Brown's latest argument and rhetoric when it comes to financial reform is that the fees and assessments that the bill requires banks to pay amount to a tax and that he has vowed never to vote for a tax increase.

Of course when Massachusetts residents voted for him they were assuming he meant their taxes, not those of Wall Street.

Statements like those make it apparent that Brown is no less confused by financial reform than he was in April during an interview with the Boston Globe or when I and other Bay-State activists met with his staffer Nat Hoopes in D.C. and were told the only things in the bill Brown was opposed to was the so called "slush fund" in respect to the resolution authority designed to ensure that the banks themselves - not the taxpayers will have to pay for future failings. Now, according to Brown, it's a "tax".

Brown and others in the GOP can call it a tax as much as they want. The truth, which they seem to conveniently avoid, is that it is a fee of $3-4 Billion per year (less than 10 percent of their yearly bonuses) to be collected until the sum reaches $20 Billion. After 25 years the fund would go towards the deficit. A small price to pay for an $800 billion tax-payer bailout and having almost brought the world economy to its knees.

Any time someone alludes to Brown having filled or taken Sen. Ted Kennedy's seat, Brown quickly responds coyly with, "it's the people's seat."

It's become apparent that the people's seat is for sale.

As our federal tax code gets more and more complex, it can be challenging to navigate through all of the ways you can save money by lowering your income taxes. Two of the more common methods people use to reduce their income taxes are tax credits and tax deductions. Although similar in intention, these two tax-reduction techniques have fundamental differences and are not interchangeable. Knowing the difference can have a big impact on your bottom line.

Basically, tax credits lower your tax amount, dollar for dollar, whereas tax deductions reduce your taxable income. The ultimate value of a tax deduction depends on your tax bracket. Simply put, if you're in the 25 percent tax bracket, $1,000 in deductions might lower your tax bill by $250 (25 percent X $1,000); but a $1,000 credit can lower your tax bill by the full $1,000, no matter which tax bracket you are in.

Read on for more differences between tax credits and tax deductions:

Tax Credits. There are two basic types of tax credits: refundable and non-refundable.

With refundable tax credits, if you owe less in income tax than your eligible tax credit(s), not only do you pay no tax, but you actually get a refund for the difference. So for example, if you owe $750 in income tax but have $1,000 in refundable credits, you will receive a $250 refund.

Common refundable credits include:

• Earned Income Tax Credit for low-income workers -- amounts vary based on family size and income (Click HERE to see if you are eligible)


• Additional Child Tax Credit for certain people who get less than the full amount of the regular child tax credit (See IRS Publication 972 for details)


• Excess Social Security Withheld Tax Credit -- for people who had more than one employer during the year and too much Social Security tax withheld. (Click HERE for details.)

Most tax credits are non-refundable, which means they can't reduce taxes owed to less than zero (i.e., they can't generate a refund when the credit amount is greater than taxes owed). Common non-refundable credits include:

• Standard Child Tax Credit -- up to1,000 per qualifying child
• Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
• Credit for elderly or disabled people
• American Opportunity Credit -- an enhanced version of Hope Scholarships. Note: This credit is up to 40 percent refundable for most people
• Lifetime Learning Credit
• Adoption Credit
• Residential energy efficiency credits
• Retirement savings contributions for low-income families

Tax Deductions. There are many different types of income tax deductions. For many people, it's more advantageous to take the standard deduction, which is subtracted from gross income to determine taxable income. Others, with large medical, state and local tax, charitable donation and/or other expenses are better off itemizing deductions.

Among the more common tax deductions are those for:

• Medical and dental expenses that exceed 7.5 percent of your adjusted gross income
  


• Deductible taxes you paid elsewhere (for example, state, local and foreign income tax, property tax, sales tax, etc.)
  


• Home mortgage points
  


• Charitable contributions
  


• Casualty and theft losses
  


• Certain education and work-related expenses. Some miscellaneous deductions, like unreimbursed employee expenses, professional dues, job search expenses and tax preparation fees, must exceed a combined 2 percent of your adjusted gross income to be claimed; others, like gambling losses up to the amount of winnings or casualty/theft losses from income-producing property, are not subject to that limit.
  


• Click HERE for a more complete list of deductions.

It's important to note that you cannot claim a credit and a deduction for the same expense. For example, you may be able to claim work-related tuition as a miscellaneous business expense deduction or as a Lifetime Learning Credit, but not as both.

Your eligibility for tax credits and deductions may change from year to year due to tax law modifications and changes in your income or family situation. For example, some tax credits phase out for people whose adjusted gross income (AGI) exceeds certain levels. With the American Opportunity Credit, for example, single filers whose AGI exceeds $80,000, will see their available credit amount gradually deecrease until at $90,000, the credit is no longer available (the range is $160,000 to $180,000 for couples filing jointly). It pays to check the IRS website for such details before filing your tax return.

This article is intended to provide general information and should not be considered tax or financial advice. It's always a good idea to consult a tax or financial advisor for specific information on how tax laws apply to you and about your individual financial situation.

Follow Jason Alderman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PracticalMoney

WASHINGTON — A former top executive of American International Group Inc. says he told the truth about the company's losses while defending its compensation plan.

Joseph Cassano, who led AIG's key Financial Products division, is expected to tell a special panel Wednesday that he did "my very best" to estimate the losses accurately ahead of the financial crisis, according to prepared testimony. AIG received $182 billion in bailout money.

Cassano and other executives of AIG and Goldman Sachs Group Inc. are appearing before the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, a bipartisan panel created by Congress to examine issues surrounding the crisis.

The hearing focuses on derivatives, the instruments at the heart of the meltdown. It will also examine the relationship between the two giant companies and the derivatives trades they made leading up to the crisis.

"I was truthful at all times about the unrealized accounting losses and did my very best to estimate them accurately," Cassano said in his prepared testimony.

It was Cassano's first public testimony since the financial crisis erupted that pushed AIG, one of the world's largest insurance companies, to the brink of collapse.

When AIG posted a loss for the fourth quarter of 2007, it pinned the blame on an $11 billion writedown related to the credit default swaps held by its Financial Products unit. If AIG couldn't make good on its promise to pay off the contracts, regulators feared the consequences would pose a threat to the whole U.S. financial system.

Cassano left AIG in 2008 shortly after the $11 billion loss was reported.

"He was at the center of this," panel chairman Phil Angelides said.

Derivatives may have been synthetic products, "but they destroyed real people's real life savings," Angelides said at the opening of Wednesday's hearing.

Derivatives have received close attention as many have blamed the complex financial products for causing the financial crisis. The value of derivatives hinges on an underlying investment or commodity – such as currency rates, oil futures or interest rates. The derivative is designed to reduce the risk of loss from the underlying asset.

After the subprime mortgage bubble burst in 2007, derivatives called credit default swaps, which insured against default of securities tied to the mortgages, collapsed. That brought the downfall of Lehman Brothers and nearly toppled AIG. New York-based AIG got an initial $85 billion infusion from the government in September 2008.

Goldman Sachs profited from its bets against the housing market before the crisis, and continued to ring up huge profits after accepting federal bailout money and other government subsidies. The firm's dealings in another type of derivative, known as collateralized debt obligations, have brought it harsh scrutiny by a Senate panel and in the case of one $2 billion CDO, civil fraud charges from the Securities and Exchange Commission. Goldman has denied any wrongdoing.

A CDO is a pool of securities, tied to mortgages or other types of debt that Wall Street firms packaged and sold to investors at the height of the housing boom. Buyers of CDOs, mostly banks, pension funds and other big investors, made money off the investments if the underlying debt was paid off. But as U.S. homeowners started falling behind on their mortgages and defaulted in droves in 2007, CDO buyers lost billions.

(This version CORRECTS Corrects Cassano's title to CEO of Financial Products unit)

More on AIG

Jimmy Kimmel took some shots at BP last night, as the oil company is desperately trying to change their image after filling the ocean with oil. Attempting to put a positive spin on a disaster, they announced that many Gulf residents are not upset with them, as the cleanup crews have boosted the local economy.

Ummmm...okay. Kimmel was right on top of this, with an amazing analogy: "BP taking credit for boosting the economy in the Gulf is like Al Qaeda taking credit for creating jobs in airport security."

Kimmel went on to unveil a fake commercial for BP, complete with a new slogan: Putting America Back To Work...Cleaning Up Our Sh-t."

WATCH:

More on Jimmy Kimmel