Barrack Obama’s iconic campaign platform of “change” helped earn him the Presidency. Yet, while the President has worked hard to reform a broken healthcare system, few other sweeping reforms have materialized. Naturally, President Obama cannot be denounced for failing to implement all of his legislative agenda, as the Founding Fathers intentionally formed an American government that would disperse and dilute political power. Similarly, a government’s value does not lie solely in its ability to implement sweeping and comprehensive change. If this were the case, totalitarianism would be much more efficient and desirable than its democratic counterpart.

However, many have recently criticized President Obama on the grounds that his campaign promise to transform America into a greener nation remains unaddressed and unfulfilled more than 20 months after his inauguration.

Several high profile organizations, such as Rolling Stone magazine and Greenpeace, have published scathing remarks regarding Obama’s failure to address today’s most pressing environmental issue, global climate change. Indeed, the Waxman-Markey bill, which for some appeared to be a promising administrative step towards curbing carbon emissions, remains only a vague and distant memory. Most allegations pertain to what the President is not doing and claim that Obama is dodging pressing issues.

These frustrations stem not only from the complete failure of the Waxman-Markey bill, which some argue the Administration failed to adequately support, but from Obama’s lenient approach to the BP oil spill. As the Rolling Stone political correspondent points out in his article, “Climate Bill, R.I.P”, Obama failed to take advantage of the greatest environmental catastrophe in American history. Although the public’s disapproval of large oil conglomerates soared, the president failed to initiate any meaningful discourse on ecological issues let alone forge environmental policies.

In short, Obama has adopted a relatively passive political stance on many environmental topics. Some claim this lack of conviction is all too reminiscent of previous presidencies and diverges from his promise of political change. This passivity has allowed opponents of environmental  legislation to easily preserve the status-quo. The problem of course is that most climate scientists tells us maintaining the status-quo jeopardizes the globe’s social, environmental, and economic health.

While the political will may not exist at the moment to implement a top-down remedy for climate change, it seems that recent pro-environment trends remain strong within American society. Many entrepreneurs and small-businesses have taken the opportunity to capitalize on the green movement and the increasing demand for sustainable products. Such market movements demonstrate that social preferences, which equate to economic opportunities, can facilitate a healthy relationship between the economy and the environment. Accordingly, these entrepreneurs should be supported as they help direct America towards a more sustainable future.

The Thomson Reuters Foundation subscribes to a similar theory. The foundation is the recent developer of TrustLaw, an online service designed to provide non-profits and social entrepreneurs with free legal services. It its own words, “TrustLaw believes clients have the potential to address many of the world’s environmental, humanitarian and social problems, but their effectiveness may be impeded by lack of legal resources.” This pro bono site offers a valuable service to small businesses and NGOs working to improve their communities. Such cooperation and communication is essential to the promotion of eco-friendly lifestyles and the realization of pro-environmental change.

Posted by Derek on October 22, 2010 at 4:28pm.

Barack and Michelle Obama should be highly flattered…or annoyed.

In recent weeks, both the President and the First Lady have been featured in advertisements, without giving their consent or approval.  First, Michelle Obama was featured in PETA’s newest ‘Fur-Free and Fabulous’ ad, alongside Oprah Winfrey, Carrie Underwood and Tyra Banks.  PETA admits that they did not ask for the White House’s consent to use the First Lady in the ad.  However, since the First Lady swore off fur in a statement back in June, PETA felt this was enough leverage to use Mrs. Obama in their ad.  Really, PETA?

Then, Mr. Obama was featured on a billboard (in Times Square, no less) by Weatherproof Garment Company, shown wearing one of the company’s jackets during a recent visit to China.  Again, Weatherproof did not ask for consent from the White House to feature the President in their ads.  “Weatherproof did not seek permission from the White House, and does not believe it was necessary to do so as the billboard does not claim Mr. Obama endorses the product.”  (Um, sure.  Let’s not neglect the fact that the the billboard’s tagline is, ”A leader in style.“)

To address the Weatherproof situation, White House deputy press secretary, Bill Burton, reiterated that “the White House has a longstanding policy disapproving of the use of the President’s name and likeness for commercial purposes.”  Makes sense!

After hearing about these two stories, I wondered if it would be viable for the Right of Publicity to extend to the First Family.  The definition of the Right of Publicity is ” …the right to prevent unauthorized use of one’s name or likeness by a third person for commercial benefit.”  And, isn’t commercial benefit what PETA and Weatherproof were ultimately seeking? Both ads would more than likely lead the public to believe that the President and First Lady endorse the products/organizations, thus leading to increased sales, donations, interest, potentials clients, etc.   Given this, isn’t it fair to say that PETA and Weatherproof both infringed on the President’s and First Lady’s Right of Publicity?

Other celebrities would think so!  Rapper 50 Cent recently sued WorldStarHipHop.com for using his image on their website without his permission.  Last year, Jennifer Lopez and Marc Anthony sued a stroller company for using their image to help sell one of their products – unauthorized, of course.   And, even Michael Jordan took on the big Chicago-area grocery stores, claiming Jewel and Dominick’s used his image (and Bull’s number!) without his consent.

But let’s face it – even though ‘normal’ celebrities can seek to protect their Right of Publicity through these lawsuits, I don’t think that it applies in quite the same way for the Obamas.  Imagine if Michelle Obama suddenly decided to sue PETA.  Imagine the backlash/global controversy/PR nightmare that would ensue.  Disaster, indeed.  PETA and Weatherproof  have execs smart enough to know this, which is why it’s amusing to me that both companies have ‘graciously’ complied with the White House’s request to take down the ads.  (Word on the street – Weatherproof is now seeking  to replace the Obama ad with one with Sarah Palin.)  These ads are merely both company’s shameless attempt to generate a buzz and gain some publicity.

Judging by the amount of blogs and articles out there on this subject (including this one), I’d say it worked…wouldn’t you?

Posted by Melanie on January 29, 2009 at 3:42pm.

Back in June of 2008, CNN Money reported about a bipartisan coalition coming together at a small business summit to push for drastic healthcare reform. Fourteen senators, seven Democrats and seven Republicans, organized in hopes that healthcare reform would be a leading topic they would work on with the new president.

Over one year later in July of 2009, President Obama addressed concerns small business have with our current healthcare system. Small businesses, with less employees, are hit the hardest financially with employee health conditions in our current healthcare system as big enterprises can spread out cost incurred over hundreds of employees. In a radio address, Obama said “small businesses have dealt with the health care problem by cutting benefits, dropping coverage, shedding jobs or even closing [their businesses] altogether.”

CNN Money accounts for three concerns that small businesses may still have with the proposal on the table. With employers being mandated to provide health insurance, those with payrolls of $250,000 could be taxed 2% and 8% for $400,000 for not providing insurance, and there could be a $750 penalty for not providing insurance if you have more than 25 employees. Those penalties can be seen as encouraging employers to cover insurance, but they could also discourage the growth of a business. Secondly, some entrepreneurs would like taxes on providing more elaborate and deluxe insurance policies as big business can currently offer those plans tax-free. And finally, small businesses don’t have the bargaining power that large corporations do, which could be addressed by pooling small businesses together with the Small Businesses Health Options Program (SHOP).

Obama explained during his speech on Wednesday, that if insurance companies do not lower their premiums while apart of the marketplace exchange, the public option would exists as an choice for individuals and small businesses in need. The intention is for the public option to drive the insurance companies to be more competitive with their prices, which would in turn benefit the consumers.

Accordingly, insurance companies will be taxed on the most expensive policies to ensure greater value for the money. However, there’s concern that economic rules will ensue, and with insurance companies being charged for their expensive policies, they will in turn charge the consumer more to cover the difference. This could lead to employers to choose less generous plans, which will then lead to the employee paying more out of pocket.

Our country is the closest it has been to reforming healthcare in over 65 years. Many Americans and businesses have adapted to the current imbalanced healthcare system – from either dropping entirely dropping coverage to insuring themselves at the bare minimum. The current proposal on the table offers ways to solve the healthcare crisis, but there appears to be a small price that comes with change. Will small businesses be willing to make short-term sacrifices to beneficially restructure our insurance system for the long-term?

Posted by Adrienne on September 14, 2009 at 1:06 pm.

Last night millions of Americans tuned in to watch President Obama outline the key components to his health care proposal. Though I could spend this blog ranting about the disrespectful, and in some cases unpatriotic, behavior some Republicans showed, by shouting out that our president lies, holding “What Bill?” signs, and waving papers that outlined their concerns, I’m taking this opportunity to further flesh out the plan Obama proposed last night.

In many ways Obama’s speech was an opportunity for him to prove to the progressive population that helped place him in office that he had not abandoned the initiatives that fueled his campaign and that he would stand firm on his approach to be the last president to take up this cause. But, similar to the political pundits’ criticism of Obama during election season: he talks a good game, but can he provide specifics? Last night’s speech allowed him to specify what exactly he has in mind when it comes to health care reform. As Obama said, “The time for bickering is over…now is the time to deliver on health care.”

Obama’s plan is to meet three basic objectives: 1.) provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance, 2.) provide insurance for those who don’t, and 3.) slow the growth of health care costs for families, businesses, and government. Below are the details of his proposal.

Americans that currently have health insurance will have more stability and security because…

• Nothing in the plan requires Americans who already have health insurance through their job, Medicare, or Medicaid to change their coverage or the doctors they have
• It will be against the law for insurance companies to deny coverage because of a preexisting condition
• Insurance companies cannot place an arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage received in a given year or in a lifetime
• There will be a limit on how much can be charged for out-of-pocket expenses
• Insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care

Americans that currently do not have health insurance will have quality, affordable choices because…

• They will be able to get coverage if they lose or change their jobs
• An insurance exchange, or marketplace, will be created where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health insurance at competitive prices
• Insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange to compete for millions of new customers
• The individuals and small businesses who still can’t afford the lower-priced insurance available in the exchange, will be provided tax credits based upon their need
• Since the exchange will take effect in four years, Americans who can’t get insurance today can immediately receive low-cost coverage that will protect against financial ruin if they become seriously ill

Lastly, Obama’s plan requires that people who can afford insurance get insurance, similar to how most states require drivers to have auto insurance.

Obama also took the time to address some key concerns and misinformation that have been spread by his critics. He contests the ideas that under the proposed plan there will be “death panels” to kill senior citizens, that illegal immigrants will be insured, and that federal dollars will fund abortions. He also continued on to note that his health care proposal will not add to the deficit, but that reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will fund most of the plan.

Now that we have a clearer view of President Obama’s health care plan, what do you think about his proposal? Given that there was so much controversy and discussion leading up to his speech, what areas will still continue to strike an uncomfortable chord with the American public? Is this really our country’s opportunity to “not…fear the future, but to shape it”?

Posted by Adrienne on September 10, 2009 at 12:23 pm.