Why the Gap Between Rich & Poor Is WideningAn Inside Look at Why the Rich Get Richer & the Poor Stay PutBy Sarah Shemkus, Salary.com contributing writer.

Why the Rich Get Richer & the Poor Struggle Numbers released by the U.S. Census Bureau earlier this month confirm what many have known for a long time: The gap between the rich and the poor in this country is growing ever wider. And while we examined the numbers behind the income gap last week, we heard your requests for an actual explanation of why it exists loud and clear. So while the numbers don't tell us why income inequality continues to climb, the experts will.

Technology -- The Double-Edged Sword Just as technology has worked its way into our daily work lives, it has also had a significant big-picture effect on employment, according to a March 2012 report from the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service. 

On the bottom end of the income scale, technology now performs some of the functions that once went to low-skill workers. Furthermore, technological changes -- like improved computer and telecommunications systems -- have enabled more U.S. companies to send jobs to countries with lower labor costs. With more workers competing for fewer jobs, wages for low-skill occupations dropped.At the same time, technology has been a boon for some higher earners. In fields such as engineering and law, technology "serves as a complement to high-skilled workers, which has raised demand for and the relative wages of these workers," the report concludes. 

Current Tax Rates Favor the Rich Then there's the current tax rate structure, according to a separate, recently released analysis by the Congressional Research Service. The average federal income tax rate for the highest-income taxpayers has been falling steadily for the past 60 years, according to the report. Most recently, the so-called Bush tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003 lowered the top marginal tax rate from 36.9 percent to 35 percent. The natural effect of lower tax rates is that the wealthiest get to keep more of their income, which tends to widen the gap between rich and poor, according to the CRS analysis. Lower tax rates, the report suggests, may also act as an incentive for top earners to negotiate even higher compensation; the lower the tax rate, the more of each additional dollar the worker gets to keep. Indeed, the report concludes, "the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution."

Capital Gains The Bush tax cuts also lowered taxes on capital gains -- the profits realized when assets, such as stocks or real estate, are sold. At least until the end of 2012, the top capital gains rate is 15 percent, down from 20 percent in the 1990s (the rate was 28 percent before that).

At the same time, those at the very top of the scale are making a higher percentage of their income from capital gains; in 2006, the top 1 percent made 38 percent if their money from capital gains, up from 31 percent 10 years earlier. And when higher capital gains incomes combine with lower tax rates on that money, it makes mathematical sense that the richest household would increase their earnings faster than those lower down the scale. 

Shifting Social Norms Though harder to quantify than technology and tax policy, shifting social norms may also play a role in the growing income gap, say some economists. Society, as a whole, is simply less aghast at soaring salaries than it once was. 

Outlining this theory in a 2002 New York Times column, Paul Krugman explained that after the New Deal and World War II, the national mindset tended towards equality of pay and more humble, community-oriented executives. Somewhere around the 1970s, however, those norms simply began to unravel, creating greater social acceptance for the sky-high executive compensation we see today. 

But Why Do We Care? If these factors help explain how the income gap got where it is today, they do not answer a perhaps even more important question: Why does it matter?

Fed: Gap Between Rich, Poor Americans Widened During RecoveryConsumer Survey Finds Average Family Didn't Recover Wealth Lost From 2007-2010

By Ben Leubsdorf The Wall Street JournalSept. 4, 2014 2:00 p.m. ET

The gap between the richest and poorest Americans widened even as the U.S. economic recovery gained traction in the years after the recession, the Federal Reserve said.

Average, or mean, pretax income for the wealthiest 10% of U.S. families rose 10% in 2013 from 2010, but families in the bottom 40% saw their average inflation-adjusted income decline over that period, according to the Fed's Survey of Consumer Finances, which is conducted every three years.

The report showed little change in average take-home pay for middle- and upper-middle-class families, who "failed to recover the losses experienced between 2007 and 2010," it said.

Overall, average income rose 4% from the 2010 survey while median—the midpoint with half higher and half lower—income fell 5%, "consistent with increasing income concentration during this period," the report said. Median income fell for every income bracket except the top 10%.

The top 3% of families saw their share of total income rise to 30.5% in 2013 from 27.7% in 2010, while the bottom 90% saw their share fall. Fed economists said the data reflect a return to the economy's prerecession trend. During the recession, income distribution narrowed as top-earning families saw their incomes fall.

Widening income inequality has gained increasing attention over the past year from economists, policy makers and the wider public amid concerns over the uneven gains of the economic recovery. Thursday's Fed report described "substantial disparities in the evolution of income and net worth" since 2010, even as the unemployment rate fell and economic growth rebounded following the 2007-09 recession.

Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen, during her Senate confirmation hearing last November, called widening inequality "a very deep problem" but cautioned that "many of the underlying factors are things that are outside of the Federal Reserve's ability to address."

Average income fell for renters, nonwhite and Hispanic families and households headed by someone without a high-school diploma.

The median net worth of American families tumbled during the recession years. While the situation has stabilized, families haven't regained their lost ground, Thursday's report revealed. Median net worth fell 2% in 2013 from 2010, while average net worth was basically flat.

Wealth inequality has deepened over time. The top 3% held 54.4% of all wealth in 2013, up from 44.8% in 1989. The bottom 90% held 24.7% of wealth last year, down from 33.2% in 1989.

The vast majority of Americans own assets of some kind. But ownership rates for most types of assets—stocks and retirement accounts, cars and homes—fell between 2010 and 2013, indicating that "many more families now hold fewer different types of assets," the report said.

Some 65.2% of families owned their primary residence in 2013, the lowest homeownership rate since 1995. The share of families owning a business fell to 11.7%, the lowest level recorded in the survey's 25-year history.

The share of families that own stock continued to decline, though nearly all families in the top 10% owned shares. As a result, they may have benefited the most from the stock market's surge in recent years. "The narrower concentration of wealth gains may explain why wealth effects appear smaller in this cycle than in past cycles," J.P. Morgan Chase economist Michael Feroli said in a note to clients.

The report also found what it described as a "mixed picture" for recent experiences with credit markets. Fewer families reported applying for credit and being turned down, but more said they had not applied at all for fear of being turned down. Fewer families reported being late on their loan payments, but more reported taking out payday loans.

This cartoon by Andy Davey from The Sun relates to a report published yesterday by The National Equality Panel, an independent group of academics. The report, An Anatomy of Economic Inequality, concluded that, after 13 years of Labor rule, the divide between rich and poor is greater than at any time since the Second World War, despite Labur pumping billions of dollars into initiatives designed to narrow the gap.

April 06, 2015, 02:00 pm

Food not fear: Why GMOs deserve our trustBy Bob Stallman of thehill.com

The scientific consensus supporting GMO food production is overwhelming. It shows no signs of

flagging. So it’s more than a head scratcher when we read some people want to require special labels for

food that includes ingredients from GMO crops. With next to no scientific support to back them up,

critics suggest there is a real need for this scaremongering. We could not disagree more. GMO foods are

safe.

My association, the American Farm Bureau Federation, is the largest farming organization in North

America. Members include a large majority of the family farms in the United States. We are joined by

every other major farming organization in the U.S. – more than 25 in all – that oppose mandatory GMO

labeling. So, yes, the support for GMOs is nearly universal in farming.

The UN’s main body for food and agriculture, the Food and Agriculture Organization, fully supports

GMOs. So does the National Research Council of the National Academies of Science. So, too, do the

American Medical Association and American Dietetic Association, as well as their counterparts in the EU

and countries around the globe.

Labeling advocates tell us they want “full disclosure” on food labels, yet run from full disclosure of the

actual science that shows GMOs pose zero threat to your health or mine. No credible, objective scientific

body has found any hazard in consuming GMO food on the market. It would be wrong to allow anyone to

eat it if it were. The FDA wouldn’t permit it, and our farmers wouldn’t, either. So why require labels

suggesting the presence of GMOs was an important fact?

Essentially every food available to human beings today has been genetically modified through a variety of

technologies and methods over millennia. As a result, what we eat is more hardier, tastier and better for us

than what came before. Whether your food comes from Whole Foods, a farmer’s market, the mom-and-

pop organic store down the block or a big-chain supermarket, it all comes to you thanks to human

ingenuity and hard work. Direct DNA modification in GMOs is an extension of that ingenuity that will

bring the additional food needed to feed an estimated global population of 9 billion by 2050. We cannot

dismiss this technology without courting humanitarian disaster.

Mandatory GMO labeling is not about warning anyone of an actual hazard but, often, simply a strike back

at “bigness.” True, there are only a handful of companies that can commercialize agricultural

biotechnology today. But as technology spreads, we expect to see many more in the future.  

GMOs help make food safer, more abundant and more affordable, not less. Unlike previous techniques,

GMO technology lets us determine exactly which of 10s of thousands of genes we are modifying. Out of

those thousands of genes, only a handful at most is changed. And then – even after all the scientific

research and analysis has passed muster – seed producers must spend years with at least two if not three

federal agencies to win approval to sell the seeds. No other food has to jump through such hoops. No

other food has to be proven over and over. No food can say it has a better safety record than the GMO

foods on the market.

Farmers raise and eat GMO products the same as anyone else. We know they are safe. We also know that

GMOs offer protection against harmful pests that would otherwise have to be sprayed with pesticides.

GMOs use soil and water more efficiently, and that protects water quality. They disturb the soil less and

need fewer passes with farm machinery, each of which greatly reduces energy use and carbon emissions.

They are, as noted agricultural consultant Temple Grandin reminded us at our annual convention, an

environmental success story that others need to know about.

A common-sense legislative alternative is in the works to inform consumers who still seek out organic or

“non GMO” food. The bipartisan Safe and Accurate Food Labeling Act of 2015 would clarify the FDA as

the nation’s foremost authority on food safety and create a voluntary labeling program run by the USDA

Agricultural Marketing Service.

Consumers have a right to know what’s in their food, but they shouldn’t be misinformed about what’s

safe, or forced to pay higher prices unnecessarily. Farmers benefit from choice, and so should consumers.

It’s in no one’s interest to turn back the clock.   

Stallman is president of the American Farm Bureau Federation.

The Truth About GMOs

By Amy Paturel, Reviewed by Jennifer Robinson, MD on December 07, 2014

If you’ve eten today, chances are you’ve had a food that’s been touched by science as well as Mother Nature. Up to 80% of processed foods in the U.S. have something that's been changed by man from the way it would grow on its own. This happens at a very basic level -- in the plant's genes. We say these are genetically modified (GM). Their number is growing by leaps and bounds. Key crops include corn, soybeans, and cotton. (Yes, cotton products are in foods.)

Scientists tinker with plants for many reasons. They often take a gene that controls a desired trait in one plant -- less need for water, so it can survive a drought, for example -- and add it into a different plant. The end result: hardier crops, more colorful berries, even seedless watermelons and grapes.

“What that means is, like it or not, genetically modified foods are almost impossible to avoid,” says Sheldon Krimsky, PhD, an adjunct professor of public health and community medicine at Tufts Medical School in Boston.

The ProsThe World Health Organization, the National Academy of Sciences, and the American Medical Association all say these crops are at least as safe as, and often safer than, foods changed the old-fashioned way, such as when a new plant is bred from two different types.

In the U.S., three groups play a role in bringing GM products to grocery store shelves. The EPA rates GM plants for their effects on the environment and the USDA decides whether the plant is safe to grow -- it won't harm other plants or animals.  The FDA decides whether the plant will make anyone who eats it sick.

“They’re the most thoroughly tested food on the market,” says Dan Goldstein, MD, senior science fellow at Monsanto, an agriculture company responsible for a large share of genetically modified crops worldwide.

Those in favor of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) count these among their top selling points:

More food: These plants can help farmers boost their yield by making crops that can live through a drought or the cold and resist disease. Backers say GM products will help us feed the extra 2 billion people that will fill the planet by 2050. “Not using these tools would push us back 40 to 50 years in food production,” says Kent Bradford, PhD, distinguished professor of plant sciences and director of the Seed Biotechnology Center at the University of California, Davis.

Less stress on the environment: Supporters say using science to make the changes is better for the planet than older farming methods. Crops built to resist pests lower farmers’ need for toxic chemical pesticides, Goldstein says. They also require less soil to be tilled, reduce runoff, and keep the soil in place. 

Better products: Scientists can create crops that contain vital nutrients. Swiss researchers created a strain of “golden” rice with high amounts of beta-carotene. Monsanto produced soybeans with lots of heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids. Other crops, like papaya and cassava, can be made to withstand disease. “Naturally occurring molds (if we don’t prevent them by creating GM crops) present huge health hazards,” Bradford says. “Why reject a technology that has the potential to benefit so many people worldwide?” 

The ConsPeople concerned about the planet, public interest groups, and religious organizations hold that GM foods can cause allergies, make your body resist antibiotics, or even lead to cancer. Independent scientists without a stake on either side see pitfalls to these high-profit, high-tech products.

Top concerns about GMOs include:

• The rise of superweeds: Crops built to withstand herbicides could breed with each other and transfer their genes to weeds. These “superweeds” would also beat the herbicides. On the other hand, GM fans say this is nothing new. “Even nonchemical technologies create superweeds,” Bradford says.

• Health problems: The process often mixes or adds proteins that don’t exist in the original plant. GMO foes fear these will create new allergic reactions. They also worry that foods made to resist disease and viruses will linger in your system after you eat them, and that could make antibiotics less effective. But no studies confirm this claim.

• "Frankenfood" fears: The long-term effects of adding new genes to common crops are still unclear. While the industry and health leaders cite hundreds of studies to support its safety, not to mention 20 years of animal data, experts like Krimsky say studies that show bad effects on animals -- like harm to the kidneys, liver, heart, or other organs -- should carry more weight. “The prominent scientists who say the controversy surrounding GMOs has been resolved are dismissing at least 23 studies showing ill effects,” he says. “It has to be a balancing act that weighs the benefits of GMOs against the risks, and that is driven by science, not political pressure or profits.”

The FDA’s only litmus test for safety is based on a policy that says GM foods are close enough to natural foods that they don’t need regulation. “The question is, how can they make that determination?” Krimsky says.

The Right to KnowWhether they think of them as Frankenfoods or a way to feed the world, both sides agree consumers have a right to know what's on their plates. Countries that require labels for GM foods include China, Australia, and the European Union. But the U.S. doesn't make food companies mark products with GM ingredients. So it’s no surprise many Americans don’t realize they’re eating them.

The FDA says companies can label foods on their own to say they are or aren’t GM, provided they keep it truthful. But that puts an added burden on farmers to plant, harvest, and ship GM crops separately from non-GM crops. That creates extra cost, which is passed along to the consumer.

Food companies like Nature’s Path and Gerber baby food choose to use non-GM ingredients. The fast food chain Chipotle removed GM foods from its menu. Whole Foods Market promises to label all GM products at its U.S. and Canadian stores by 2018.

The bottom line: If you live (and eat) in the U.S., unless it’s otherwise stated -- or it’s certified organic -- it’s a safe bet that your food is GM. Makers who don’t use GM ingredients clearly say so on labels.

Copyright © 2012 Carole Bartolotto, MA, RD. I am a registered dietitian with a master’s degree in exercise physiology. I have worked in the field of diet and health for over 20 years. I like to stay on top of the latest research and translate it into actionable steps that can transform your health. I am available for speaking, writing, and consulting on diet and health.

Climate Change: Basic InformationEnvironmental Protection Agency Staff 2014

Climate change is happeningOur Earth is warming. Earth's average temperature has risen by 1.4°F over the past century, and is projected to rise another 2 to 11.5°F over the next hundred years. Small changes in the average temperature of the planet can translate to large and potentially dangerous shifts in climate and weather.

The evidence is clear. Rising global temperatures have been accompanied by changes in weather and climate. Many places have seen changes in rainfall, resulting in more floods, droughts, or intense rain, as well as more frequent and severe heat waves. The planet's oceans and glaciers have also experienced some big changes - oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, ice caps are melting, and sea levels are rising. As these and other changes become more pronounced in the coming decades, they will likely present challenges to our society and our environment.

Humans are largely responsible for recent climate changeOver the past century, human activities have released large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The majority of greenhouse gases come from burning fossil fuels to produce energy, although deforestation, industrial processes, and some agricultural practices also emit gases into the atmosphere.

Greenhouse gases act like a blanket around Earth, trapping energy in the atmosphere and causing it to warm. This phenomenon is called the greenhouse effect and is natural and necessary to support life on Earth. However, the buildup of greenhouse gases can change Earth's climate and result in dangerous effects to human health and welfare and to ecosystems.The choices we make today will affect the amount of greenhouse gases we put in the atmosphere in the near future and for years to come.

Climate change affects everyoneOur lives are connected to the climate. Human societies have adapted to the relatively stable climate we have enjoyed since the last ice age which ended several thousand years ago. A warming climate will bring changes that can affect our water supplies, agriculture, power and transportation systems, the natural environment, and even our own health and safety.

Some changes to the climate are unavoidable. Carbon dioxide can stay in the atmosphere for nearly a century, so Earth will continue to warm in the coming decades. The warmer it gets, the greater the risk for more severe changes to the climate and Earth's system. Although it's difficult to predict the exact impacts of climate change, what's clear is that the climate we are accustomed to is no longer a reliable guide for what to expect in the future.

We can reduce the risks we will face from climate change. By making choices that reduce greenhouse gas pollution, and preparing for the changes that are already underway, we can reduce risks from climate change. Our decisions today will shape the world our children and grandchildren will live in.

We can make a differenceYou can take action. You can take steps at home, on the road, and in your office to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the risks associated with climate change. Many of these steps can save you money; some, such as walking or biking to work can even improve your health! You can also get involved on a local or state level to support energy efficiency, clean energy programs, or other climate programs.

EPA and other federal agencies are taking action. EPA is working to protect the health and welfare of Americans through common sense measures to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and to help communities prepare for climate change.

Global Warming Effects on Biodiversity and Ecosystems Credit: epa.gov

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash

By Christopher Booker 6:10PM GMT 28 Nov 2009

A week after my colleague James Delingpole , on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.

The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.

Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.

Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.

Since 2003, however, when the statistical methods used to create the "hockey stick" were first exposed as fundamentally flawed by an expert Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre , an increasingly heated battle has been raging between Mann's supporters, calling themselves "the Hockey Team", and McIntyre and his own allies, as they have ever more devastatingly called into question the entire statistical basis on which the IPCC and CRU construct their case.

The senders and recipients of the leaked CRU emails constitute a cast list of the IPCC's scientific elite, including not just the "Hockey Team", such as Dr Mann himself, Dr Jones and his CRU colleague Keith Briffa, but Ben Santer, responsible for a highly controversial rewriting of key passages in the IPCC's 1995 report; Kevin Trenberth, who similarly controversially pushed the IPCC into scaremongering over hurricane activity; and Gavin Schmidt, right-hand man to Al Gore's ally Dr James Hansen, whose own GISS record of surface temperature data is second in importance only to that of the CRU itself.

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

This in itself has become a major scandal, not least Dr Jones's refusal to release the basic data from which the CRU derives its hugely influential temperature record, which culminated last summer in his startling claim that much of the data from all over the world had simply got "lost". Most incriminating of all are the emails in which scientists are advised to delete large chunks of data, which, when this is done after receipt of a freedom of information request, is a criminal offence.

But the question which inevitably arises from this systematic refusal to release their data is – what is it that these scientists seem so anxious to hide? The second and most shocking revelation of the leaked documents is how they show the scientists trying to manipulate data through their tortuous computer programmes, always to point in only the one desired direction – to lower past temperatures and to "adjust" recent temperatures upwards, in order to convey the impression of an accelerated warming. This comes up so often (not least in the documents relating to computer data in the Harry Read Me file) that it becomes the most disturbing single element of the entire story. This is what Mr McIntyre caught Dr Hansen doing with his GISS temperature record last year (after which Hansen was forced to revise his record), and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand.

In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU.

What is tragically evident from the Harry Read Me file is the picture it gives of the CRU scientists hopelessly at sea with the complex computer programmes they had devised to contort their data in the approved direction, more than once expressing their own desperation at how difficult it was to get the desired results.

The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.

The former Chancellor Lord (Nigel) Lawson, last week launching his new think tank, the Global Warming Policy Foundation , rightly called for a proper independent inquiry into the maze of skulduggery revealed by the CRU leaks. But the inquiry mooted on Friday, possibly to be chaired by Lord Rees, President of the Royal Society – itself long a shameless propagandist for the warmist cause – is far from being what Lord Lawson had in mind. Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with a whitewash of what has become the greatest scientific scandal of our age.

Christopher Booker's The Real Global Warming Disaster: Is the Obsession with 'Climate Change' Turning Out to be the Most Costly Scientific Blunder in History? (Continuum, £16.99) is available from Telegraph Books for £14.99 plus £1.25 p & p.

By Daniel KurtzmanPolitical Humor Expert

Top Five Foreign Policy Priorities for 2014 By Nile Gardiner, Ph.D., Theodore R. Bromund, Ph.D. and James Phillips

The United States faces mounting challenges abroad in 2014. With weak leadership from the White House over the past five years, the U.S. has been confronted and all too often sidelined by America’s adversaries and strategic competitors. The Obama Administration’s “leading from behind” strategy has been a spectacular failure that has led to confusion among traditional U.S. allies while emboldening the enemies of freedom.

In 2014, the U.S. should be willing to stand up to those who threaten its interests while it stands with those who share its values and goals. Foremost among those values are the principles of sovereignty and self-determination, which must be as central to U.S. foreign policy as they are sacred to its system of government. Here are the top five foreign policy priorities for the Administration and Congress in 2014.

1. Halt the Rise of a Nuclear-Armed IranIn 2014, Washington should strengthen, not weaken, sanctions against Tehran while deploying a comprehensive missile defense system to defend the U.S. and key allies from the growing Iranian threat. The U.S. should advance a long-term goal of regime change in Iran, coupled with forceful condemnation of human rights violations by the Islamist tyranny. The flawed deal between the P5+1 group of powers (the U.S., Great Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany) and Iran sends the wrong signal to Iran and has been rightly described by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as a “historic mistake.Tehran remains the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism and continues to build its nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. As a bipartisan group of Senators recently declared, a “nuclear weapons capable Iran presents a grave threat to the national security interest of the United States and its allies.”

2. Defend U.S. Sovereignty and Reform the Treaty ProcessThe Administration backs a series of treaties—such as the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty, and the Law of the Sea Treaty—that would do nothing to advance U.S. national interests but would be detrimental to U.S. sovereignty by subjecting the U.S. to the unprincipled and deeply political judgment of foreign sources of authority. The Senate has so far refused to give its consent to ratification for any of these treaties, and it should continue to show good judgment in 2014.More broadly, these treaties illustrate the defects of the entire U.S. treaty system. Some have been formally rejected by the Senate. Others have been in the Senate’s “inbox” for decades. Still others are opposed by a clear majority of Senators. Yet all of them, by virtue of the fact that they have been signed by the President, are held to bind the U.S. not to violate their “object and purpose.” The U.S. should reform its treaty system to make it clear that only treaties that have been signed by the President, received the advice and consent of the Senate, and been the subject of any necessary implementing legislation should be binding upon the U.S.

3. Bolster Allies and Economic Freedom in the Middle EastWhile the Obama Administration has rushed to engage adversaries such as Iran and Syria, longtime allies such as Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia have chafed at what they regard as Washington’s neglect of their core security interests. The U.S. should reassure its allies that it will not sacrifice their security interests for an illusory nuclear deal with Iran, press them to accept a diplomatic solution in Syria that preserves the Assad regime, or force them to accept half-baked deals with terrorists. It should also step up counterterrorism cooperation with allies and sub-state actors to defeat al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, and other terrorist groups.The bloody “Arab Spring” in Egypt, Libya, and Syria has shown that countries wracked by popular revolts are extremely difficult to transform into stable democracies. In the absence of strong and supportive civil societies, trustworthy institutions, and a large middle class, political parties are likely

to proclaim themselves to be democrats only to revert to authoritarian rule after “one man, one vote, one time.” Rather than rushing to midwife stillborn instant democracies, Washington should put a higher priority on supporting freedom, particularly economic freedom. Bolstering economic freedom can help fuel economic growth, create jobs for disillusioned youths who would otherwise be potential recruits for radical movements, and gradually build larger and more influential middle classes, which are building blocks for stable democracies. 

4. Weaken the European Project and Strengthen the Transatlantic AllianceA robust transatlantic alliance remains crucial to U.S. strategic interests, as the ongoing NATO-led operation in Afghanistan continues to demonstrate. At the heart of the NATO alliance, the Anglo–American Special Relationship—Washington’s most important bilateral partnership—is vital. In marked contrast, the European Project, or the process of “ever-closer union” in Europe, is weakening transatlantic ties while undermining economic freedom and prosperity in Europe. The U.S. needs to recognize that support for European integration is no longer in its interests or those of the nations of Europe.As public disillusionment mounts across the European Union, Washington should support the principles of self-determination and economic liberty in Europe while taking a strong stand against the development of a European Union defense identity. A Europe of independent nation-states would best advance U.S. interests in Europe, a strong and enduring transatlantic alliance, and democracy inside Europe.Washington should be cautious about the proposed Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which could well lead to increased regulation and the importation of the EU’s managed market into the U.S. A transatlantic agreement that does not empower consumers and open market opportunities for entrepreneurs would be a bad deal for everyone, especially the U.S.

5. Reprioritize Relations with Key Asian DemocraciesThe Administration’s rhetoric about a U.S. “pivot” to Asia has been the worst of all worlds. Widely accepted as reality abroad, it has disillusioned American allies, but since it has not been backed up by any policy changes, it is nothing more than words. China’s aggressive moves have led to nervousness in many Asian nations that are traditionally close to the U.S., but the U.S. has failed to demonstrate steadfast leadership in response. The U.S. should re-emphasize the value of its relationships with close allies such as Japan and South Korea. But what is equally disheartening is the way that U.S. relations with India have stagnated. The faults are not all on the U.S. side, but the U.S. has too much at stake in its relations with India not to continually, but quietly, make it clear that it prioritizes increasing pragmatic U.S.–Indian cooperation in economic, security, political, and cultural realms.

The World Needs Robust U.S. leadershipThe year 2013 was marked by declining U.S. leadership and a series of foreign policy follies, from the White House’s woeful handling of the Syria crisis and the illusory nuclear deal with Tehran to Washington’s ill-judged support for the short-lived Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt. The U.S. cannot afford to make similar mistakes in 2014. Washington should be willing to confront rogue regimes, protect U.S. sovereignty, strengthen its defenses at home and abroad, shore up traditional alliances, and actively side with those who are fighting for the right to shape their own destiny.

—Nile Gardiner, PhD, is Director of and Ted R. Bromund, PhD, is Senior Research Fellow in Anglo-American Relations in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, and James Phillips is Senior Research Fellow in Middle Eastern Affairs at The Heritage Foundation.

Foreign Policy Issues for Obama’s State of the Union AddressBy Brian Katulis from The Wall Street Journal

President Barack Obama’s penultimate State of the Union address will continue the domestic policy focus of his recent public appearances. But presidents typically have more leeway to define what they want to do in the realm of foreign policy, and Americans are increasingly focused on national security: Concerns about terrorism match economic concerns for the first time in five years, according to a January Pew Research Center poll.

To build some momentum for his foreign policy agenda, Mr. Obama needs to do two things. First, he needs to present an overarching argument for the foreign policy aspects of Tuesday’s State of the Union address, something he failed to do last year, when the speech’s foreign policy components sounded like a “to do” list. Second, he needs to follow up with a clear action plan to implement his agenda, working more closely with Congress and articulating more regularly to the public the rationale for his policies.

Five global engagement issues Mr. Obama is likely to address on Tuesday include:

* Trade deals with Asia and Europe.  Heading into his final two years, Mr. Obama has an ambitious trade agenda, including major deals being negotiated with Asia and Europe. The importance is not just economic; the deals are part of an effort to expand how the U.S. engages countries and people overseas. The deals have prompted some opposition among members of Mr. Obama’s party, and the president will need to work to persuade opponents that these deals would do more good than harm to Americans’ pocketbooks if this part of his global engagement agenda is to move forward.

* Nuclear negotiations with Iran. The Obama administration’s consistent top priority in the Middle East for the past six years has been securing a deal on Iran’s nuclear weapons. With those diplomatic efforts still incomplete, pressure is increasing from Congress, including from fellow Democrats.

* The battle against terrorist networks. Debate over the authorization for the use of force against Islamic State (ISIS) and the continued battles against al Qaeda and its various affiliates are among the issues at the core of this fight. Discussion is complicated by the mutations and shifts among these various terrorist networks, as seen recently in the terrorist attacks and threats in Europe. A key component is Mr. Obama’s goal to close the Guantanamo Bay prison, where terrorist suspects have been detained for years; another is the debate over intelligence reform and surveillance.

* Climate change. This has been a top priority for President Obama, who has moved forward in discussions and agreements with China and India on joint efforts to fight global warming in the past year. The administration is looking to the year-end international climate change summit in Paris for some concrete steps to bridge gaps between poor and rich nations on reducing emissions.

* Immigration reform. Immigration is not usually viewed as a national security issue, but how the United States deals with it has implications for our overall global engagement strategies and could affect how homeland security is funded. This heated debate is not likely to go away, and how the administration and Congress discuss it can impact global perceptions about the U.S.

The politics of national security have shifted substantially in recent years, and there are new fissures among Democrats and Republicans. As I argued last year, the administration has an opportunity to build coalitions with different blocs–allying with Republican internationalists on trade agreements and building support among Democrats for a possible deal with Iran.

To deliver on what remains of his foreign policy agenda, President Obama needs to outline a clear, forward-looking argument for U.S. global engagement. He can no longer rely on turning the page on the legacy of his predecessor and simply ending wars, and the argument won’t sell if it’s wrapped in an ill-defined concept of “leadership” and “engagement.”

President Obama should argue that U.S. global engagement and leadership can help expand the zones of inclusive prosperity and shared security in Asia, Europe, and other key regions and defend against emerging but manageable threats from the Middle East, Africa, and elsewhere. The tone he sets is important not only for making the case for what he wants to get done in the next two years but also what his successor can build upon in 2017.

Brian Katulis is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. He is on Twitter: @katulis.

Mr. Fish lives in Philadelphia, PA.  He never asked to be born. Occasionally, he laughs his head off.  His mother has no idea what he’s up to.  She cries very easily.  For more information, date him. Pick up a copy of Mr. Fish’s debut volume of political cartoons and essays, “Go Fish: How to Win Contempt and Influence People,” which the New York Journal of Books calls “a collection of extraordinary artistic work with pen and ink”. In both 2011 and 2010, the Society of Professional Journalists honored Mr. Fish with the Sigma Delta Chi Award for Editorial Cartooning. His work appeared on the cover of SPJ’s Quill Magazine.