Mediaboss Marketing

The billionaire co-founder of Twitter is among the new donors to the Obama Foundation, which on Thursday made public the names of almost two dozen major donors from the first three months of the year.

Evan Williams and his wife, Sara Morishige, gave between $750,000 and $1 million to the foundation. Forbes put Williams' net worth at $1.29 billion.

Michael Sacks and his wife, Cari, of Highland Park, were one of two couples who have given money in the past and whose overall gifts now exceed $1 million. Sacks is chairman and CEO of GCM Grosvenor Capital Management, was once a top fundraiser for former President Barack Obama and is a close ally of Mayor Rahm Emanuel.

Sacks is vice chairman of World Business Chicago, a group chaired by the mayor that seeks to foster economic growth in the city.

Silicon Valley venture capitalist John Doerr and his wife, Ann, have also now given more than $1 million, according to the foundation. He sits on the Obama Foundation's board, and Forbes put his net worth at $5.4 billion.

Another big giver: Joe Kiani and his wife, Sarah, whose overall giving is in the range of $500,000 to $750,000. He is founder and CEO of Masimo, an Irvine, Calif., company that makes medical monitoring devices.

Other Chicagoans who were previous donors also gave more. John Rogers Jr., a close friend to Obama, and his daughter, Victoria, are now in the range of $500,000 to $750,000 in overall gifts. He is the chairman and CEO of Ariel Investments. They previously were in the $250,000 to $500,000 range.

Gifts from Daniel Levin and his wife, Fay Hartog-Levin, now total $250,000 to $500,000. He is the founder of The Habitat Company, a major developer in Chicago. She was U.S. ambassador to the Netherlands from 2009-11 during Obama's first term.

The foundation's report for the first quarter of 2017 represents its first disclosure since Obama left office. Foundation officials had planned to ratchet up fundraising after he left.

Construction of the presidential center is expected to begin in 2018, and it is to open in 2021. The design of the prestigious project has not yet been revealed, but the center is to house Obama's archives, a museum and community gathering spaces to create a "center for citizenship." The cost is expected to be at least $500 million.

The foundation was created early in 2014 and had raised $7.35 million by the end of 2015. It has not yet released the amount raised during 2016, Obama's last full year in office.

The new donors were posted on the foundation's website. Every three months, the nonprofit group posts the names of contributors and their gift, which is listed in a range of dollars.

While Obama was in the White House, his foundation took no money from for-profit entities, federal lobbyists, or foreign nationals or agents. The restrictions no longer apply, but a foundation official said Thursday it will "continue to vet and publicly disclose all large contributions."

The posting Thursday reflects some changes. Top donors are in the $1 million-plus category, and there is also greater specificity for smaller donors, including some who gave in the range of $200 to $500.

Earlier, gifts of $200 or more were placed in a broad category: $200 to $100,000.

The foundation's quarterly postings lack the specificity of Federal Election Commission filings, which give the exact contribution to candidates for federal office. FEC reports also give information about donors, including their address, employer and occupation.

kskiba@chicagotribune.com

Twitter @KatherineSkiba

Read the original:
Twitter co-founder among latest major donors to Obama Foundation - Chicago Tribune

The Trump administration has hit the pause button on an Obama-era regulation aimed at limiting the dumping of toxic metals such as arsenic and mercury by the nations power plants into public waterways.

I have decided that it is appropriate and in the public interest to reconsider the rule, Scott Pruitt, head of the Environmental Protection Agency, wrote this week in a letter to groups that had petitioned the agency to revisit the rule, which was finalized in 2015.

Beginning in 2018, power plants would have had to begin showing that they were using the most up-to-date technology to remove heavy metals including lead, arsenic, mercury and other pollutants from their wastewater.Pruitt wrote that the EPA plans to postpone compliance deadlines for the regulation, which is also being challenged in a federal court. On Thursday, the EPA said the rule would cost the industry hundreds of millions of dollars a year to comply with.

This action is another example of EPA implementing President Trumps vision of being good stewards of our natural resources, while not developing regulations that hurt our economy and kill jobs, Pruitt said in a statement.Some of our nations largest job producers have objected to this rule, saying the requirements set by the Obama administration are not economically or technologically feasible within the prescribed time frame.

The move drew immediate condemnation from environmental groups, which called it a gift to the energy industry. They insisted that the Trump administration focused only on potential costs of the rule while ignoring its benefits, and that delays in compliance will endanger wildlife and pose health threats to families that live near coal plants, as exposure to heavy metals can cause problems with cognitive development in children, among other problems.

Trumps attempt to halt these clean water protections for mercury, lead and arsenic from coal power plants is dangerous and irresponsible, the Sierra Clubs Mary Anne Hitt said in a statement.

[Trump moves decisively to wipe out Obamas climate-change record]

That group and others noted that power plants represent the largest industrial source of toxic wastewater pollution in the country and that more than a third of coal plants discharge wastewater within five miles of a downstream communitys drinking water intake. They also argued that the Obama administrations rule was based on years of peer-reviewed studies, input from health experts anda mountain of public comments.

Despite all this, Trumps EPA administrator is trying to throw it all away to placate polluters, Hitt said. Trumps decision to attack our right to clean water on behalf of coal executives is just another indication of who this administration works for and it isnt American families.

In its push to finalize the rule in 2015, the Obama administration noted that federal standards to curb toxic dumping by coal-fired power plants had not been updated in several decades and that states had left the problem largely unregulated. But in the past month, industry representatives have urged the new administration to revisit the rule.

A coalition of energy companies known as the Utility Water Act Group argued in a petition that stretched more than 100 pages that the regulation, if left in place, will cause negative impacts on jobs dues to the excessive costs of compliance which were grossly underestimated by the EPA and regulatory burdens forcing plant closures. Those impacts are being, and will be, felt in communities around the country. That group, as well as the U.S. Small Business Administration, also argued that the rule represents precisely the type of regulation that Trump targeted in a recent executive order instructing the government to revise regulations whose costs outweigh their benefits.

Pruitt appears to agree. In a Federal Register notice filed this week, the EPA saidjustice requires it to stay the regulations current deadlines in light of the capital expenditures that facilities incurring costs under the Rule will need to undertake in order to meet the compliance deadlines for the new, more stringent limitations and standards in the rule.

[The Wests largest coal-fired power plant is closing. Not even Trump can save it.]

On Thursday, Pruittvisited a coal mine in southwestern Pennsylvania to launch what the EPA calleda back-to-basics agenda. That agenda includes rolling back a broad range of Obama-era regulations, most notably the Clean Power Plan, which sought to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from the nations power plants.

The coal industry was nearly devastated by years of regulatory overreach, Pruitt said in a statement touting his visit. But with new direction from President Trump, we are helping to turn things around for these miners and for many other hard working Americans.

Read more:
Trump administration halts Obama-era rule aimed at curbing toxic wastewater from coal plants - Washington Post

Barack Obama rose to prominence at an acutely unpleasant time. I remember a constant sense of worry in 2008. We were experiencing the worst economic recession that most of us could remember. I was 13. My step-dad had recently lost his job.Every conversation you had and every newspaper you read was saturated with bad news.

Living in Seattle, you could look at the gray winter skies and feel like you were looking right at our countrys collective psychebleak, dark, dreary. Then, out of nowhere, Barack Obama shot onto the scene and lit those skies up like a lightning bolt.

One could reasonably argue that the economic recovery started almost entirely because of this one mans personal charisma. Looking at Obama today it is easy to forget the youthful energy that spurred his 2008 campaign; it was an energy that you couldnt help but be excited by, no matter what your politics were. His commandingly deep voice, and the electric eloquence with which he deployed it rekindled our countrys drive.

During the next eight years I grew through the latter half of my adolescence and into early adulthood. This period of personal uncertainty was always propped up by an underlying confidence that my country was being run by a pair of strong, competent and ethical hands. As a somewhat gawky teenager, there was a lot that I needed to learnmy president could not have been a better teacher.

Barack Obama taught me what it means to be an American, and he made me proud to be one. He would never hesitate to highlight the things which made this country great. He celebrated the fact that the United States was the only country in history where a half-Kenyan, half-White child born into a middle class background could rise to be the leader of the free world. He espoused the great American values of freedom and equality for all.

However, he never shied away from the skeletons in this countrys closet. He would talk as openly as possible about police bias, the wage-gap, and our outsized foreign military presence. He taught me that being an American means clinging tightly to our shared values of freedom and equality, while also taking responsibility for the instances in our history when we ignored said values.

Barack Obama showed me what it means to be a man. He was dignified and strong. He exercised this strength with measure, always aware of the implications of doing so. He also was not afraid to be compassionate or kind. We saw this when he let a child rub his head in response to the question does your hair feel like mine?. We saw this when he openly shed tears on national television after the Sandy Hook Massacre.

He was eager to publicly show the admiration and respect he had for the women in his life. When asked about Michelle there was no limit to the amount of praise he was willing to give, or the amount of love he was willing to show. Today, the extramarital affairs of both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump have been dragged over and over again into the spotlight; Barack Obama continues to serve as a silent rebuke to their gluttonous behavior.

I consider myself tremendously lucky to have grown up during Barack Obamas presidency. Im talking less about his politics (although I do agree with them) and more about the example he set with his personal conduct. No one, Democrat or Republican, can deny that he was exceptional in this department. It worries me that someone turning 13 today will spend their formative years without such an example in the White House.

Politics in 2017 have become bizarre and depressing. However there is always reason to be hopeful. We can remind ourselves that not long ago this country overwhelmingly elected and reelected a true example of American exceptionalism: our first black president. That still means something.

Daniel Metz

English/Biology Major

Class of 2018

Read the original post:
Coming of Age During The Obama Presidency - Dailyuw

Lost in the debate over President Donald TrumpDonald TrumpTrump visits Mar-a-Lago resort for 23rd day as president Russia: Syrian chemical weapons attack could be 'staged' Glenn Beck: Trump another Republican who said stuff and didn't mean it MOREs decision last week to order a missile strike against the Al Shayrat airfield in Syria is the uncomfortable but obvious fact that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had not given up his chemical weapons.

Assad claimed he did so under the terms of a 2013 agreement brokered by the United States and Russia often touted by veterans of the Obama administration as one of their signal achievements, proof that diplomacy works, and evidence for the resilience of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. Assads mendacity should now lead scholars and policymakers to reassess such claims.

In 2012, then-President Barack ObamaBarack ObamaEx-Pentagon chief: Its not Trumps military Justice Department must act on Puerto Rico North Korean official warns of preemptive strike of its own MORE warned that the use of chemical weapons by Syrian President Bashar al-Assad against the rebels contesting his regime was a red line that would change my calculus, about U.S. policy towards the civil war there. A year later, faced with evidence that Assad had used sarin gas against his own people, Obama chose not to order military action. Instead, responding a Russian initiative, Assad agreed to join the Chemical Weapons Convention, declare his stockpile of poisons, and allow the United States and Russia to jointly monitor its destruction.

To conservative internationalists, who stress the importance of hard power and armed diplomacy, it was obvious that Assad would cheat. Obama and his partners in the United Kingdom had already telegraphed that he would not resort to military force. Indeed, his failure to enforce his red line became one of the signature moments of his presidency.

Assad faced some pressure from his Russian patrons not to embarrass them; but, after Obama backed away from his threat of force, Assad never faced a serious threat of military action by the West. He had no particular reason to give up one of his regimes most potent lines of survival.

U.S. intercepted chemical weapons communication in Syria: report https://t.co/lOfdDpu3Id pic.twitter.com/WupkveU0gW

The Obama administration (and its liberal internationalist cheerleaders) claimed the 2013 agreement was proof of diplomacys success. Obama claimed the agreement would lead to the elimination of Syrian chemical weapons in a transparent, expeditious, and verifiable manner. The agreement itself stated its goal was to eliminate the Syrian chemical weapons program (CW).

Obama embraced his decision not to use force in Syria. Im very proud of this moment, Obama told Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, The overwhelming weight of conventional wisdom and the machinery of our national-security apparatus had gone fairly far (towards military action) the fact that I was able to pull back from the immediate pressures and think through in my own mind what was in Americas interestwas as tough a decision as Ive made and I believe ultimately it was the right decision to make.

And Obama believed his policy succeeded. In 2014 he claimed an important achievement by eliminating Syrias declared chemical weapons stockpile. Derek Chollet, who served as assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs in the Obama administration, later argued that the United States achieved something through diplomacy with Russia that the use of force against Syria would not have accomplished: the removal of nearly all Syrias chemical weapons, which at that time constituted one of the worlds largest stockpiles.

Russia vetoes UN Security Council resolution to investigate Syrian chemical weapons attack https://t.co/icXCpCtUVq pic.twitter.com/JrLJ8sDz3l

Such claims, we now know, were false. Obama and his apologists try to evade this conclusion by stressing that their policy destroyed Syrias declared stockpile or removed nearly all its weapons. But such careful language was missing from Obamas first statements on the issue, and the 2013 agreement very clearly aimed at the complete elimination of Syrias chemical weapons capability. By any reasonable measure, Obamas policy failed.

The failure of Obamas policy should lead scholars and policymakers to revise their estimate of Obamas foreign policy legacy.

For example, Gideon Rose, editor of Foreign Affairs, wrote in late 2015 that Obama will likely pass on to his successor an overall foreign policy agenda and national power position in better shape than when he entered office. In the face of growing evidence that Russia and Syria took advantage of the Obama administrations naivet and passivity in the Middle East, and a growing awareness among careful observers of the weakness of the United States position in the world, a reappraisal seems due.

Trump signals major shift in views on Syria, Russia https://t.co/s7mtHijAry pic.twitter.com/RCKgWORpPT

It should also lead American officials to reassess the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. Like the deal with Syria, the Iran deal was not and is not backed by a credible threat of force. It contains too many loopholes in its enforcement and inspections provisions. Iran, like Syria, has few incentives to give up what it believes is one of the most important props of its own survival.

The Obama administration claimed the Iran nuclear deal was a major achievement but it said the same about thing about Syria. The Iran nuclear deal is little more than a face-saving piece of paper that allows Iran to keep its nuclear breakout capability including much of its nuclear infrastructure, expertise, and materials in place.

As conservative internationalists have long argued, just because a country signs a piece of paper does not mean a foreign policy has been accomplished. The United States can and should continue to invest in and support the liberal international order, but that does not mean it must be guileless in how it goes about upholding that order. Hard power is still a crucial sine qua non of international politics.

Dr. Paul D. Miller is the associate director of the Clements Center for National Security at The University of Texas at Austin. He served as Director for Afghanistan and Pakistan on the NSC staff in the Bush and Obama White Houses.

The views expressed by contributors are their own and are not the views of The Hill.

Follow this link:
With Syria chemical attack, another Obama foreign policy deal fails hard - The Hill (blog)

5591606

The Chicago Tribunes editorial board implored President Donald Trump Tuesday to clean up the nuclear waste storage debacle left by former President Barack Obama.

Obama helped former Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid to derail plans to store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Without Yucca, nuclear power plants dont have a permanent location to store spent fuel and left the federal government with $50 billion in legal liabilities.

Many people in Nevada didnt want the waste, no matter how safe or isolated the storage facility may be, the editorial board wrote. It was the ultimate NIMBY [Not In My Backyard] project. One of those opponents, alas, was Harry Reid, who for 10 years was Senate Democratic leader and in a position to get his way. As president, Barack Obama gave Reid exactly what he wanted, closing down the entire effort.

The Tribune editorial board argued nuclear waste is a huge problem for Illinois, which has more spent fuel than any other state stored outside of Chicago.

Obamas capitulation [to Reid] defied scientific evidence as well as common sense, the editorial board wrote, criticizing Obama for storing 79,000 tons of nuclear waste in facilities much less secure and permanent than Yucca Mountain is designed to be for purely political reasons. The editorial board argued Obamas policy made no sense from a security, safety, or environmental perspective. Instead one easily defensible facility in Nevada, Obama spread waste storage across 34 states.

Nuclear energy advocates have been pushing the federal government for years to open Yucca Mountain.

President Obamas kicking the can down the road on Yucca Mountain over two terms was irresponsible on multiple fronts including further mortgaging the US nuclear energy fleet and its future, David Blee, executive director of the U.S. Nuclear Infrastructure Council (NIC), told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The Department of Energy submitted its proposal to build Yucca Mountain in June of 2008, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) determined in 2014 that Yucca met safety standards.

After eight years of politics over science and paper over action, we are pleased that President Trump and Secretary Perry have taken early action including a funding request to reverse course, Blee said. Yucca Mountain is the cornerstone of any strategy to turn the corner on this unnecessary impasse. There is clearly light at the end of the tunnel especially given the longstanding bipartisan support in Congress for tangible progress on a repository

President Donald Trumps budget proposal provides $120 million to restart licensing activities for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository and initiate a robust interim storage program.

These investments would accelerate progress on fulfilling the Federal Governments obligations to address nuclear waste, enhance national security, and reduce future taxpayer burden, reads the White House budget outline.

Follow Andrew on Twitter

Send tips to andrew@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [emailprotected].

The rest is here:
Chicago Paper Implores Trump To Solve Yucca Mountain Mess Left By Obama - Daily Caller