The concept is simple. A flat tax on carbon is levied on the initial sale of the fossil fuel at the point of sale to a refinery. The revenue generated is pooled and distributed equally to all Americans.  Assuming a tax of $37 per ton and 300 million Americans, the tax would generate an annual “green check” of approximately $183 per person, as indicated by the website carbontax.org.

With the money generated by the tax being redistributed to the people, the tax is revenue neutral. However, the tax would increase the price of fossil fuels at the pump, creating incentives for people to reduce energy consumption and to seek alternative fuels.

This may be the best solution for a partisan-driven Washington. While conservatives are unlikely to support any tax, a revenue neutral tax may be an anomaly because it does not target wealth.The website carbontax.org explains some of this information. Bill Gates could make off of the tax if he reduced his carbon footprint enough.

Liberals might recoil at first glance given the flat nature of the tax, but because the consumer costs are driven by how much carbon they consume, the effect of the tax is far more progressive than regressive. Both parties may favor a tax at the barrel since this system allows the consumer to decide the effects of taxation.

If they wish to buy three trucks and drive prolifically, they can. However, environmentally conscious citizens who buy hybrid cars and conserve energy will pay far less and may actually profit given their “green checks.”   The result is an effective, but far less controversial policy, as indicated by carbontax.org.

The revenue neutral carbon tax offers an expedient solution. There are no loopholes companies can exploit as they do with cap-and-trade options or our existing system.   There are no questions about businesses going over a “cap” on carbon dioxide emissions or companies creating fake businesses to “sell” their share of emissions to larger businesses.

The catastrophic effects of warming necessitate action. The simplicity, feasibility and neutrality of a carbon tax may be an effective yet less controversial approach to addressing climate change, according to carbontax.org. Nevertheless, it remains unclear how this would play out.

Information from carbontax.org was used in this report.

This statement came nearly two years after Obama declared that the only purpose of the United States nuclear weapons arsenal is to deter other countries from using them.

At the last NSS in 2010, Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ratified the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START).

START is an ongoing bilateral nuclear arms reduction treaty with Russia. That treaty is supposed to last until 2021. During the 2012 summit, Obama met with Medvedev to discuss START. Obama also spoke with Chinese President Hu Jintao and Medvedev to discuss the ongoing nuclear threats across the world, including Iran and nuclear terrorism.

The summit worked hard these past two years to secure all the plutonium reserves, and other sites that have nuclear materials. Yet there are still looming concerns. The summit’s location is next door to North Korea, a country who actively touts their nuclear capabilities.

But the summit was supposed to be more than just North Korea. “The point here is that the president is going to the Nuclear Security Summit. The Nuclear Security Summit is not about North Korea,” said Daniel Russel, Obama’s senior Asia adviser.

However, North Korea is what everyone seemed to have on their minds. North Korea’s recent announcement about launching another satellite in April raised a lot of international concerns. Obama first stopped at the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), a 2.5-mile stretch of land that separates North and South Korea. He referenced the border as “freedom’s frontier,” referencing North Korea as the totalitarian state. He then proceeded to physically look into North Korea with a pair of binoculars.

The U.S. currently has 285,000 troops at the South Korean border with their guns directly aimed at the North. The U.S. has had troops on that border since the Korean War in the 1950s. Obama also employed other tactics to try and get the North to comply with international protocol. Roughly 64.5 percent of North Korea’s imports come from China. Obama hoped that China’s influence could help calm North Korea.

But Obama’s meeting with the Chinese president did not appear to have much success. In fact, he voiced frustration towards China’s lack of pressure.

“What I’ve said to them consistently is, rewarding bad behavior, turning a blind eye to deliberate provocations, trying to paper over these not just provocative words but extraordinarily provocative acts that violate international norms, that that’s not obviously working,” said Obama.

Obama hopes that he will be able to break an aggressive pattern of the North. For years, the North has threatened to wage war whenever their demands have not been met. Most recently, the North threatened war if the NSS even discussed any plans on containing the North. But such threats have never been backed by serious military aggression. With Kim Jong Il passing away in December, Obama hopes that he can break this hostile trend before it even begins with the successor Kim Jong Un.

Obama has been directly working with the South Korean President Lee Myung-bak in finding ways to contain North Korea.

“There had been a pattern, I think for decades, in which North Korea thought that if they acted provocatively, then somehow they would be bribed into ceasing and desisting acting provocatively,” said Obama. “And President Lee and I have agreed from the start of our relationship that we’re going to break that pattern.

The Jackson-Vanik amendment precludes the United States establishing normal trade relations with a country that is ruled by a communist government. It was also placed on Russia because they restricted emigration of their citizens and having a poor human rights track record.

Russia has been subject to those restrictions since the bill passed in 1974. But over recent years, it has almost never been enforced.

“Every president, regardless of political party, has waived Jackson-Vanik’s requirements for Russia for the past 20 years,” said Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

Russia is expected to become a full World Trade Organization (WTO) member this year. But in order for U.S. businesses to take advantage of Russia’s WTO status this act must be repealed.

If the amendment is not waived and Russia becomes a member of the WTO the U.S. would technically be violating the WTO laws by sanctioning trade with Russia. Since all WTO members must grant each other normal trade relations. This would result in tariffs on American companies.

A group of 173 U.S. companies sent a letter to Congress to repeal Jackson-Vanik.

“This legislation is crucial in order for U.S. manufacturers, service providers, agricultural producers and their employees to take advantage of the many market opening and transparency commitments that form Russia’s accession package to WTO,” according to the letter.

President Obama has been supporting the repeal of the amendment.

It is an economic policy that seems to favor the United States. But not all are convinced it is worth it.

“While emigration may no longer be the issue, Russia’s blatant disregard for human rights and the rule of law is every bit as relevant today as it was decades ago,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.). “Human rights cannot be divorced from the discussion of our economic relationship with Russia, particularly since some of the most egregious cases of abuse involve citizens exercising their economic and commercial rights.”

In addition to those concerns, Russia’s recent election has also been criticized for corruption. Vladimir Putin controversially won his second term as president by a landslide.

Human Rights Watch further criticized Russia for detaining over 130 peaceful protesters. Russia is also frequently criticized for its support to other countries that facilitate human rights abuses. For example, Russia currently sells weapons to Bashar Assad’s regime in Syria. The death toll continues to grow to over 8,000. Some have claimed that Russia’s antics warrant stopping trade all together.

“If you are going to subsidize the killing of innocent people we can no longer afford to do business with you,” said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “I hope the Russians will understand, once and for all, that they can’t play both sides of the street, and we in the United States should draw the line.”

Economically, the bill appears to favor the United States, which is good for Obama during an election year.

The bill also seems to present the image of an American anti-Russian sentiment, which could further hinder relations.

Russia also does not have any major incentives to comply with U.S. human rights concerns since the U.S. is the primary beneficiary of the repeal.

Whether or not the U.S. decides that the economic incentives outweigh Russia’s human rights violations remain to be seen.

To answer these security concerns, the Senate is currently discussing the Cyber Security Act of 2012. The bill largely increases the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) role in preventing and detecting cyber crime.

Currently, most of the efforts to combat cyber crime are done at the state and local levels. This new bill authorizes a new sub-agency to be created within the DHS to oversee and act on these concerns.

“The threat posed by cyber attacks is greater than ever. It’s a threat not just to companies like Sony or Google but also to the nation’s infrastructure and the government itself,” said one of the three cosponsors of the bill, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.). “Today’s cyber criminals have the ability to interrupt life-sustaining services, cause catastrophic economic damage, or severely degrade the networks our defense and intelligence agencies rely on.”

There has been a strong push to get the bill passed quickly because of the potential impact an attack could have on the United States infrastructure.

“Ask any expert in the national security field and see what keeps them up at night. They would probably tell you, as they tell me, that it is the increased possibility of a devastating cyber attack,” said Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.).

The bill would allow the DHS to impose certain standards on businesses to ensure that they’re adequately protected. Furthermore, the DHS is allowed to assess businesses and evaluate if they’re at risk for an attack and potentially shut them down.

But with this new potential power there are many concerns. Skeptics worry about the DHS being allowed to look at businesses emails and place wiretaps, given the vagueness of what all is authorized under the countermeasures.

“We do have some serious concerns about this language,” said Amie Stepanovich, counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “The bill would, essentially, allow the government to flag any activity which may indicate a potential crime. The bill does not specify any type of crime, or even if it has to be a felony or a misdemeanor.”

There are also concerns about the effectiveness of giving all the oversight to one single agency. Currently, many different agencies and levels of government handle these concerns. “The proposal is seriously flawed,” said Sen. Chuck Grassley (R–Iowa). “It’s kind of heavy-handed on the part of the federal government and I think it’s unnecessarily costly.

“Ironically, it would likely slow down the ability of the United States to respond to these cyber threats.”

Grassley’s rationale is that this is just a massive expansion of the government bureaucracy, which is only going to increase the risks these attacks even occur. It could also slow down businesses because the time it takes to do these inspections. Furthermore, by placing more requirements on businesses it will hurt their ability to flourish.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wrote a letter to U.S. Chamber of Commerce President Thomas Donahue regarding these issues. “You are absolutely right that a regulatory framework creating bureaucratic redundancy, over-intrusive requirements, and unmanageable costs is counterproductive and contradictory to the spirit of public-private partnership that must drive our nation’s cybersecurity efforts,” he wrote.

Iran has admitted it has enriched uranium up to 20 percent which makes it much easier to turn that uranium into weapons-grade material. But it has refuted the accusation of pursuing nuclear weapons and has insisted it is peacefully proliferating.

The sanctions are timely because of the growing fear of Iran having nuclear weapons capability by the summer. While foreign intervention is frequently criticized, there seems to be less debate about economic suffocation.

“We appreciate the very crucial decision regarding the sanctions,” said Israel’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman. “We are awaiting that the Iranians will give up their nuclear ambitions.” 

Should Israel become threatened enough they may even be willing to make a preemptive strike on Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has often commented that all options are on the table in reference to containing Iran.

Europe is also working with the United States by banning Iranian oil imports. That mandate will go into effect in July. The U.S. has also refused to buy any oil from Iran.

“There has been a steady increase in our sanctions activity and this is part of that escalation,” said White House Press Secretary Jay Carney. “There is no question that the impact of the isolation on Iran and the economic sanctions on Iran have caused added turmoil within Iran.”

The sanctions work in different ways. First, they directly cut off Iran’s ability to pay for its nuclear program because the government is heavily funded by exported oil.

Second, because the economic sanctions hurt the people of Iran which can lead to rising opposition against the program internally. The CIA reported that their unemployment rate was 15.3 percent in 2011.

The U.S. also has been encouraging African and other Middle Eastern countries to increase their oil production in order to make up the difference. Saudi Arabia is one of the countries that might be able to do that.

But there is also great doubt about the effectiveness of the sanctions. The U.S. has been administering these sanctions for years and Iran has still managed to make progress.

“We are pleased to see increasing sanctions but so far they have not been deterred from their course,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz).

Iranian officials also claim these sanctions will have little effect. “Iran will make the sanctions ineffective as it did in the past, and it will continue selling oil,” said Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi.

“Many of these [U.S.] activities are in the sphere of psychological war and propaganda, and they cannot affect our work,” said, Ramin Mehmanparast, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesman.

Iran believes that they will simply start selling to other countries. However, in addition to the U.S. and European economic sanctions, countries and organizations like Canada, Australia, South Korea, Japan and the U.N. have all passed similar sanctions against Iran in the past.

“When they impose sanctions on our central bank even though we have no transactions with them, it shows [...] they think they are able to put pressure on our people, create concerns and social discontent,” said Mehmanparast.

“When you apply the highest level of your power to impose sanctions on a nation and that nation continues on its path decisively, it proves you do not have enough power to halt it.”

The tax takes 6.2 percent of a person’s income and uses it to pay for Social Security benefits. The proposed cut would drop this down 2 percentage points and would benefit over 160 million Americans. The cut will also not have any effect on a person’s future Social Security benefits.

Congress passed an extension of this tax cut right before they took their holiday break but that extension only lasts two months. It will expire on Feb. 29. If the policy is not renewed it would raise the taxes for those 160 million Americans. Four million Americans may even lose their unemployment insurance benefits.

House and Senate meetings began on Tuesday to figure out how to finance the 2 percent tax reduction.

“We should be able to get it done,” said Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz). “The Joint Select Committee identified a lot of good offsets and so the opportunity for us to get it done is there.”

Other Republicans are also optimistic about the extension. “There’s a broad agreement on doing the payroll tax holiday through the end of the year. Republicans and Democrats agree on that,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. “The problem is the paying for it.”

Republicans want to include job creation measures. Part of those measures is to create the Keystone pipeline, which would stretch  from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Republicans also want less environmental regulations for businesses.

The Democrats’ counterproposal is to place additional taxes on millionaires. The fear is that the ideological differences will lead to brinkmanship. But even Republicans leaders believe they will overcome these obstacles.

“We are in a formal conference with the Senate, and I’m confident that we’ll be able to resolve this fairly quickly,” said Speaker of the House John Boehner.

But Republican confidence rests on the assumption that Obama will agree to make the concession of the pipeline. No agreement has been made yet.

Obama may need to compromise considering the payroll tax cut is his “most pressing matter,” according to his spokesman Jay Carney. Obama plans to fully push for the extension in Congress in the upcoming weeks.

“This is a make-or-break moment for the middle class, and those who are struggling to get into the middle class,” said Chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers Alan Krueger. “While the continued expansion is encouraging, faster growth is needed to replace the jobs lost in the recent downturn and to reduce long-term unemployment.”

Expanding the payroll tax cut would be “key to avoiding recession,” according to Mark Zandi, the chief economist of Moody’s Analytics, a financial risk management firm.

The economy will be the biggest determining factor for the 2012 elections. If Obama and many Americans want to retain their current living situations, Washington must make the necessary compromises to get the economy rolling.

Obama has been pushing Congress to pass the bills arguing that it would be mutually beneficial. South Korean President Lee Myung-bak left his country to personally meet Obama on Thursday regarding passage of the South Korean FTA.

The agreement would remove 95 percent of the tariffs on U.S. exports which should significantly increase U.S. business confidence by allowing them to trade more freely with the 12th largest economy.

The South Korean FTA is expected to support 70,000 American jobs. It is also expected to produce $13 billion annually for the U.S. However, the U.S. will also be required to end tariffs on 87 percent of South Korea’s imports as well.

One of the sectors the FTA is supposed to benefit the U.S. is the auto industry. U.S. auto makers only exported 7,450 vehicles to South Korea in 2010.

To demonstrate the imbalance between the two economies, Korea exported 560,000 vehicles to the U.S.

But even if Korea no longer has tariffs on U.S. exports, there is no guarantee they will buy more U.S. cars.

According to a U.S. International Trade Commission (USITC) report, “The Korean market has long been perceived as preferring domestic over imported passenger vehicles, which could make Korean consumers less sensitive to changes in price and increased availability of imported passenger vehicles.”

Still, the House has been pushing to get the FTAs on the docket.

The House Ways and Means Committee approved all three agreements this week. David Camp, a Republican and chairman of that committee, said, “With zero jobs created last month and the unemployment rate hovering around nine percent, we must look at all opportunities to create American jobs.” 

Obama has also strongly supported the bill, saying, “These agreements will support tens of thousands of jobs across the country for workers making products stamped with three proud words: made in America.”

Even though the bill has a lot of support from Republicans and Obama, there is still a healthy opposition. The Democrats on the House Ways and Means committees had disagreements about the Colombian FTA.

The Senate may even spark a bigger debate.

“I want everyone within the sound of my voice to understand that I do not like the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, the Korea Free Trade Agreement or the Panama Free Trade Agreement,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. “I will vote against them.”

Trade interests groups have also rejected free trade agreements because they think they ultimately hurt U.S. economic interests.

“We don’t have a free trade agreement with Great Britain, which could actually buy American products,” said Auggie Tantillo, executive director of the American Manufacturing Trade Action Coalition.  “Instead we have this penchant for doing free trade agreements with countries that are low-cost manufacturing centers. Why? Because multinational companies aren’t looking at this and saying, ‘It will be great to make things in Ohio and send it to South Korea.’ No, they’re looking at this and saying, ‘It will be great to make things in South Korea and send it to Ohio.’”

Regardless of whether the Free Trade Agreements are good or bad for the economy, they are being debated in Congress this week, and hose debates will be heated.

This time it will be Obama and the Republicans versus the Democrats. How that plays out in the 2012 elections remains to be seen.

The nearly $450 billion proposal is designed to help jump start the economy. But it appears that with the divided Congress it will be impossible for Obama to gain the necessary support in either chamber.

President Barack Obama speaks about the American Jobs Act, Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2011, at Eastfield College in Mesquite, Texas. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh)

In the House, Majority Leader Eric Cantor believes the bill is dead. Cantor told reporters, “I think at this point Washington has become so dysfunctional that we’ve got to start focusing on the incremental progress we can make.”

The bill does not appear to be doing much better in the Senate. In fact, it’s not even at the top of the docket.

Instead, the Senate plans to focus on a Chinese currency manipulation bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he will introduce the jobs bill later in October but it is not expected to pass. Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin admitted that it is unlikely that Democrats have the 60 votes to avoid a filibuster. Reid voiced his disgust by saying he hoped Republicans would stop “rooting for our economy to fail for the sake of politics and help Democrats put this nation back to work.”

Meanwhile, Americans have been becoming increasingly frustrated with the 9.1 percent unemployment rate, and the partisanship that currently dominates Washington. The Wall Street protests that have spread across the state and the nation are rooted in economic concerns.

Still, Obama is ambitious about the bill. In addition to national commercials advocating the legislation, he is traveling the country trying to persuade Americans to convince Congress to pass the bill.

From Ohio to California, Obama has been visiting depressed economies and important swing states preaching his jobs bill.

The president visited House Republican Jeb Henslarling’s Texas district on Tuesday. Henslarling is the co-chairman of a House “supercommitte” dedicated to exploring ways to reduce the federal budget deficit. Those visits have been putting some pressure on Congress to support the bill.

Obama continued that pressure by calling out Republicans on Saturday in his weekly radio address. “Are they against giving tax cuts to virtually every American worker and small business in America?” In response, Cantor argued that Obama’s “all-or-nothing approach is just unacceptable.”

If Obama cannot convince Congress to pass the complete bill, he is prepared to work on piecemeal legislation.

Obama has called for Republicans to “tell us what it is they [Republicans] are not willing to go for, they should tell us what it is they are prepared to see move forward.”

Incremental legislation could still yield potential economic benefits. Mark Zandi, a prominent economist who estimated the bill would produce 1.9 million jobs, said that just passing the payroll tax cut could create 750,000 jobs.

Cantor was a little more optimistic about cooperation on that portion of the bill, claiming that “certainly it’s part of the discussion.” However, it is unclear exactly when and if that portion of the bill will be advanced as piecemeal legislation.

What’s most alarming for the Democratic Party is the disconnect between Obama and the Senate.

The economy is going to be the number one factor in determining Obama’s chances of re-election.

He has clearly made this jobs bill his primary focus. But if he is having difficulty with the side of Congress the Democrats control, it will be very difficult for the bill to pass.

They will have to wait until 2015. But that delay has not stifled the excitement.

“We’re so excited. We believe it’s the response to our demands, the first step in our long struggle to get our rights,” said Hatoon Al-Fassi, a professor in Ridyah, the capital of Saudi Arabia. Many are hopeful that this will lead to other reforms. For example, Saudi Arabia is still the only country in the world that prohibits women from driving. Less than 48 hours after King Abdullah’s speech, a woman name Shaima Ghassaniya was found guilty of driving. She will receive at least 10 lashings.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, right, arrives at the Saudi Shura Council, or advisory assembly, ahead of delivering a speech in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Sunday, Sept. 25, 2011. Saudi King Abdullah has given the kingdom's women the right to vote for first time in nationwide local elections, due in 2015. (AP Photo)

Saudi Arabia has often been criticized for lagging behind the rest of world in its treatment of women. For example, women were not allowed to attend school until the 1960s. Even now, women cannot make the decision to pursue an education on their own. Male family members must give a woman permission to go to school, or to travel, or even to receive health care.

Even if women tackle those obstacles and manage to acquire an education, it is a nightmare for them to find employment. Roughly 58 percent of the student population in Saudi Arabia is female, but only 16 percent of women are employed.

But it is important to not be ethnocentric. Saudi Arabia has a much different culture. It is dominated byWahhabism, an extremely conservative view. The Wahhabi movement was largely responsible for getting the Ottoman Empire out of Saudi Arabia and helped form the modern state. Consequently, the movement is very influential in Saudi Arabia.

Wahhabism is not mainstream Islam.

It is a very literal and conservative reading of Islam that has left some Islamic scholars puzzled. Zeki Saritoprak, of the John Carroll theology and religious studies department, said, “I don’t understand why they have waited so long … Because in Islam, woman has a very important place, the Prophet made it very clear that man and woman are equal.”

But even with that conservative view, the condition of woman in Saudi Arabia is “not as bad as it seems,” said Saritoprak. While women may not have much public power, they do have “a lot of influence in the household.” But Saritoprak insists that they do need more rights and believes that it may be possible.

But even with the king’s support, there is no guarantee of additional reform.

It will be difficult to have equal treatment of women as long as the conservative clerics have tremendous influence over the king’s policies. However, Saritoprak views that the power of Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia is fading.  Women’s suffrage is a testament to that.

External forces may also help influence the king towards equality. For example Turkey might have an influence. “Turkey shows how an Islamic country can be ruled democratically,” said Saritoprak, and Turkey has “very good relations with Saudi Arabia.”  That, combined with the pro-democratic Arab Spring, may have substantial influence on Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women.

Regardless of further reforms, this is certainly a step in the right direction.

Whether Saudi Arabia continues to promote equality cannot be determined, but as the world continues to respect these rights and the citizens’ of Saudi Arabia continue to see that, it will be harder for the religious conservatives to hold sway over the population.

Thousands have been gathering peacefully for months in protest of Ali Abudallah Saleh’s lengthy presidency.

Saleh has ruled Yemen since 1990, and was president of North Yemen for 12 years prior to the country’s unification.

The protests heated up this week in the capital, Sanaa, resulting in the injury of more than 200 people and the deaths of 60 more.

Four of those deaths were children.

It began as a peaceful protest on Sunday, with protesters marching in the streets of the capital when men on rooftops and on the backs of trucks started opened fire.

“I swear to God what happened today is a horrible massacre, and we are not able to even describe it, that the regime would use this violence against peaceful protesters,” said Bassem al-Sharjabi, a lawyer of one of the protesters.

However, an army general claimed “We used tear gas only and water cannon only.”

Fortunately, a cease fire was negotiated by Vice President Abed Rabbo Mansou on Tuesday.

But the cease fire may only delay further attacks.

President Saleh has been in the neighboring country of Saudi Arabia for medical treatment since suffering from an attack by protesters in June.

He put his sons and nephews in charge.

However, political change has been slow in coming and General Ali Mohsin, a top Yemeni general, has developed his own interest group.

A man protesting the rule of President Ali Abdullah Saleh holds up his blood-stained hands in Sanaa, Yemen, on Sunday, after security forces opened fire on thousands of protesters in the nation’s capital.

A third group, Hashid, is led by Sadiq al-Ahmar and he represents the country’s most powerful tribe.

Yemen has now become a “struggle between the elites,” according to Mona Debaz, a John Carroll University political science professor, noting that all of these groups are “striving for power.” This creates a very dangerous environment.

Many of this country’s problems stem from systematic issues like, “unemployment, illiteracy, and low standards of living,” said Debaz.

The World Bank estimates that Yemen’s unemployment rate is between 20 percent and 35 percent.

“Ordinary families are telling us they simply don’t have the money to buy even the basics,” said Ashley Clements from Oxfam International, an organization dedicated to solving world hunger.  “Many say they don’t know where their next meal is coming from.”

The numbers are astonishing. Estimates are that over 7.5 million Yemenis are starving. The World Food Program says that food prices have risen almost 50 percent since the turmoil began.

Eileen Donahoe, U.S. ambassador to the Human Rights Council said she was concerned about the “increasingly disturbing reports about violence.”

Furthermore, she said, “The United States believes that now is the time for an immediate, peaceful and orderly transition.”

That would be ideal because of the potential of escalation. “It could really become a civil war at this point,” said Debaz.

A peaceful transition would be exactly what the Yemenis want and would also serve the U.S. strategic interests as well.

John Brennan, a White House counter-terrorism advisor said, “The Yemenis have done a good job of finding and arresting and carrying out attacks against Al Qaeda types.”

A safer environment for the Yemenis to operate should help counter terrorism efforts.

But who will lead and when that transition will happen remains unclear. 

Image from Associated Press

With lingering concerns about the economy, President Obama made a blunt call to Congress to pass a $477 billion dollar job promotion plan last Thursday night.

There is a clear need for economic change.

Nationwide, unemployment stayed at 9.1 percent in August as employers did not create any new jobs.

With elections only 14 months away, there are both economic and political pressures involved.

The plan includes cutting payroll taxes in half for 98 percent of businesses.

It also provides tax credits of $5,600 to $9,600 to businesses that hire veterans and advocates measures designed to prevent up to 280,000 teacher layoffs.

The proposal also includes plans to modernize at least 35,000 public schools with new infrastructure and renovations, primarily in rural and urban areas.

Obama also proposes improving unemployment insurance by taking measures that might stop more than five million Americans from losing their benefits.

Obama wants to propose a $4,000 tax credit for businesses hiring previously long-term employed Americans. The plan also includes measures to cut payroll taxes in half for over 160 million workers.

Entitled The American Jobs Act,  Obama claimed that nothing should be “controversial about this piece of legislation. Everything in here is the kind of proposal that’s been supported by both Democrats and Republicans – including many who sit here tonight.  And everything in this bill will be paid for.”

Obama seemed optimistic about the bill’s prospect, an optimism shared by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), who said he “heard plenty in the president’s speech last night where I think that there is a lot of room for commonality, and we can get something done quickly.”

However, as House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) indicated, Republican support for some elements of the proposal will not necessarily translate into support for the total package.

Figure from The Wall Street Journal

Boehner and other Republican leaders sent a letter to Obama expressing concern about passing a single bill.

In the letter, Republicans said, “As we are certain your advisers have told you, not all your ideas should be packaged in a single legislative vehicle.”

One example comes from House Republican Mike Simpson (R- Idaho), who is concerned about the school modernization elements. He said, “All of the sudden the federal government takes over building schools? I don’t know if that’s a challenge we want to take on.”

Other congressmen are even less optimistic about the plan. “It simply doubles down on the same failed policies that he has pursued before. And, I don’t expect they will be any more successful than they were the first time around,” claimed Republican Senator Orrin Hatch (Utah).  “I fear what he’s putting forward owes more to political positioning than sound economics and tax policy.”

However, according to John Carroll professor Larry Schwab, “Some ideas are so politically popular that they will have to pass. Everyone wants returning veterans to find jobs.”

Schwab also said many Republicans will oppose parts of the bill because of the spending.

But if Obama wants any chance of re-election he will have to get the economy working again soon.

Unless there is some unforseen dramatic change in foreign affairs, the economy will be the whole ball game, said Schwab.

Despite some initial agreement, the success of the bill became more bleak after Obama released his payment plan for the bill on Monday.

In regards to the financing of the bill, $405 billion would come from repealing itemized deductions for the rich and $62 billion from cutting out tax cuts for investment fund managers, corporate–jet owners, and oil and gas companies.

These would go into effect in 2013, and would be active  over the next 10 years.

Upon hearing Obama’s funding proposal, Michael Steele, Boehner’s spokesman, told The Wall Street Journal, “It would be fair to say this tax increase on job creators is the kind of proposal both parties have opposed in the past.”

The proposal of The American Jobs Act is timely considering Obama’s approval rating is at 40 percent according to the most recent Gallup polls.

With the Republican primary debates heating up and the 2012 presidential campaigns underway, Obama’s chances for re-election may be tied to the success of this policy.