WASHINGTON—Why do Mitt Romney and other wealthy investors pay lower taxes on the income they make from investments than they would if they earned their millions from wages? Because Congress, through the tax code, has long treated investment more favorably than labor, seeing it as an engine for economic growth that benefits everyone.

President Barack Obama and the Occupy Wall Street movement are challenging that value system, raising volatile election-year issues of equity, fairness — and Romney’s tax returns.

Romney, who released his 2010 and 2011 tax returns this week, has been forced to defend the fact that he paid a tax rate of about 15 percent on an annual income of $21 million. His tax rate is comparable to the one paid by most middle-income families. His income, however, is 420 times higher than the typical U.S. household.

The Republican presidential candidate’s taxes were so low because the vast majority of his income came from investments. The U.S. has long had a progressive income tax, in which people who make more money pay taxes at a higher rate than those who make less. But for almost as long, the U.S. has taxed capital gains — the profit from selling an investment — at a lower rate than wages.

“There are two ways to look at: There is a moral argument and an economic growth argument, and they both point to lower taxes on capital gains,” said William McBride, an economist at the conservative Tax Foundation.

McBride says it is unfair to tax income more than once, and capital gains are taxed multiple times. If you got the original investment from wages, that money was taxed. If the stock you own gains value because the company you invested in makes a profit, those profits are taxed through the corporate tax. And if that company issues dividends, those are taxed as well.

Lots of people are double taxed, says Chuck Marr, director of federal tax policy for the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “Check out your last pay stub: There’s income tax and payroll tax, so you’re double taxed, too,” Marr said.

And, he noted, when you buy something, you probably pay a sales tax.

Under current law, the top tax rate is 15 percent on qualified dividend and long-term capital gains — the profits from selling assets that have been held for at least a year. The top income tax rate on wages is 35 percent, though that applies only to taxable income above $388,350.

Congress started taxing capital gains at a lower rate than wages following World War I. The concern then was that high taxes on capital gains actually reduced revenue because people would simply hold onto their investments and restrict the flow of capital, according to the Encyclopedia of Taxation and Tax Policy.

At the time, however, the top tax rate on wages was a whopping 73 percent. In 1922, Congress lowered the top capital gains rate to 12.5 percent, a rate that lasted until 1934.

For much of the next 70 years, the top tax rate on long-term capital gains hovered between 20 percent and 30 percent, going as high as 39.9 percent in the 1970s but never falling below 20 percent until 2003, when Congress passed a gradual reduction to the current rate.

The 2003 law also started taxing qualified dividends at the same rate as capital gains.

Liberals and some moderates argue that lower taxes on investments are a giveaway to the rich because they are the ones who get the most benefit. Last year, two-thirds of all capital gains went to people making more than $1 million, according to the nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, the official scorekeeper for Congress.

Only 5 percent of capital gains went to people making less than $100,000, and only 13 percent went to people making less than $200,000.

“I’m a liberal person and I believe strongly that the wealthy should pay more than the working poor,” Marr said, regardless of whether the income is from investments or labor.

Obama has taken up this argument, though his budget proposals have called for only small tax increases on capital gains and dividends, to a top rate of 20 percent.

Instead, Obama has developed the “Buffet Rule,” named after billionaire investor Warren Buffet, which says rich people shouldn’t pay taxes at a lower rate than their secretaries. To impose this rule, Obama said at his State of The Union address Tuesday that people making more than $1 million should pay at least 30 percent of their income in taxes.

“Now, you can call this class warfare all you want,” Obama said. “But asking a billionaire to pay at least as much as his secretary in taxes? Most Americans would call that common sense.”

The proposal has little chance of passing a divided Congress this year, and the Obama administration has released few details on how the tax would work.

Conservatives argue that increasing investment taxes would make it harder to for businesses to raise capital, restricting job growth and hurting financial markets, reducing income for people who rely on pension funds and 401(k) accounts as well as billionaires and millionaires.

“In my view the rationale for taxing capital gains and dividends at a lower rate has nothing to do with what an individual pays versus another individual,” said Jim McCrery, who was a senior Republican member of the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee when the 2003 tax cuts were enacted. “It has everything to do with the creation of jobs in this country.”

McCrery now works for the Alliance for Savings and Investment, a coalition of companies and business groups that want to keep the current tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

The First Lady attracts attention in the gorgeous cobalt blue design

Last night, viewers tuned in to watch President Obama deliver his State of the Union address but not all eyes were on him. In a room full of suits, Michelle Obama stole America’s attention with her bold cobalt blue Barbara Tfank dress.

Michelle looked exquisite and oh so elegant in the designer’s sheath. Us Weekly reported that the stylish frock, from Tfank’s resort collection, is likely to have a steep retail price of $2,400.

Best known for dabbling in a variety of designer’s collections, Obama is no stranger to Tfank. According to People, when visiting Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge last year, Michelle dressed to impress in a brocade dress and pink jacket made by the Los Angeles-based designer.

First Lady Michelle Obama applauds during President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress in the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. on January 24, 2012. UPI/Kevin Dietsch

Obama’s personal style exudes confidence because she knows how to successfully play with color and silhouettes. Her Tfank sheath was the perfect balance of sophistication and fun. The appropriate length, neckline, and fit made for a polished, look but the vibrant hue added a playful element.

Us Weekly referred back to the fashionista’s quote to Women’s Health in 2009. “For me fashion is fun, and it’s supposed to help you feel good about yourself,” she said. “I think that’s what all women should focus on: what makes them happy and feel comfortable and beautiful. I wear what I love. Sometimes people like it, sometimes they don’t. I’m fine with that.”

Just like the late Jackie Kennedy, the mother of two can do no wrong when it comes to her clothing ensembles. She is a style icon and is best known for mixing designer duds with affordable fashion.

Although she opted for high fashion this time around, Michelle has the ability to transform reasonably priced labels such as J.Crew and Target into White House worthy looks. When you look as good as this leading lady, who cares about the price tag?

One of the three people in this photograph responded to a tweet from Chad Ochocinco.

And now, presenting President Obama’s State of the Union address as seen through the eyes of New England Patriots wide receiver Chad Ochocinco.

A notoriously early riser who tweets about being the first customer each morning in the IHop parking lot in his Prius, Ochocinco (and the Patriots) had a day off before preparing for Super Bowl XLVI, which explains why he was up late and channel sufing.

Stephanie Slade has been a project director at The Winston Group since 2011. Prior to that, she worked as a freelance political speechwriter and was the author of a weekly column for The Washington Post called “The Federal Buzz.”

In his State of the Union address Tuesday night, President Barack Obama took China to task for giving its manufacturers a “leg up” through government subsidies. The implication was that such trade practices are unfair and should be discouraged, or even legally prevented through the use of trade cases against offenders.

A casual observer might conclude that the president is a proponent of truly free trade — the type that occurs between producers and consumers, regardless of location, without intervention or direction by government agencies. His claim that “if the playing field is level, I promise you, America will always win” created the impression that Obama actually favors a level playing field.

If that part of the speech were heard in a vacuum, one could be forgiven for assuming the president was committing the U.S. to a policy of holding its foreign trade partners to the same standard by which we play — one of allowing the markets to decide winners and losers and not tolerating governments that try to rig the system for their own gain.

But free-market advocates should pause before celebrating this apparent development. In fact, the rest of the address reveals a president with no intention of holding his own country to such a standard even as he whacks other countries for failing to do so themselves.

Obama bookends his chastising of Chinese trade practices with sections on the need for government help for American manufacturers and the need for government help for American workers. This decision belies the coherence of his stance. When other countries take steps to make their industries more competitive, it’s cause for indignation. Yet Obama proposes an array of policies that would give special treatment to favored sectors here at home without any sense of irony.

His proposals include a double-size tax deduction for high-tech manufacturers and public financing for the building of plants and the purchase of new equipment. He calls for federal funding for job-training programs and wants Congress to step in to keep student loan interest rates artificially low.

“Ask yourselves what you can do to bring jobs back to your country,” Obama implored American business at one point, “and your country will do everything we can to help you succeed.” So much for that level playing field.

If you’re tempted to argue that these measures are different in kind from China’s policy of subsidizing exporters to help bring prices down, I would remind you that Obama opened his speech trumpeting a bailout of the American automobile industry that amounted to a direct transfer of money from taxpayers to failing American corporations to keep them afloat.

At best, Obama’s policies diverge only in degree from China’s. Industry bailouts or government subsidies, tax breaks or tariffs, easy money through suppressing interest rates or easy money through an undervalued currency — they all amount to government interference, and they all damage the integrity of free trade.

The real difference is that Obama pays lip service to free-market ideals while undercutting them for political gain.

Thus far, the president has not been asked to explain why the policies he’s proposing are any fairer than the practices he condemns. There are inconsistencies in his agenda, and it will be up to the American voters to press him on them. Unfortunately for Democrats, I suspect that circle is one that can’t be squared.

Stephanie Slade has been a project director at The Winston Group since 2011. Prior to that, she worked as a freelance political speechwriter and was the author of a weekly column for The Washington Post called “The Federal Buzz.”

BRONX, N.Y — As President of Eugenio Maria de Hostos Community College of The City University of New York, I commend President Barack Obama for voicing his support for our nation’s community colleges and his commitment to workforce development programs.

In his State of the Union Address on Tuesday, President Obama stated his desire to “train two million Americans with skills that will lead directly to a job” and to see the creation of “community career centers – places that teach people skills that local businesses are looking for right now, from data management to high-tech manufacturing.”  Hostos Community College is in the forefront of this movement.  The College is committed to responding to President Obama’s call to provide educational opportunities that increase our workforce, as evidenced in our programs that equip students with 21st century skills and connect them with the business community.

While workforce development initiatives certainly play a vital role in ensuring the stability of our nation, they are particularly important for the constituents served by Hostos Community College in the South Bronx and neighboring communities.  The Hostos Community College Workforce Development Program provides accessible, transformative opportunities and resources to people who are in need, enabling them to build better lives for themselves and for families.  The Program has truly made a significant impact on the lives of thousands of people who have received its services the most.

In a 2008 “Meet the Press” interview, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi said, “I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels.” She may have slipped on a banana peel of the mind, or perhaps she really didn’t know that natural gas is a fossil fuel. Either way, it was clearly a harmless error not intended to confuse or deceive.

Apply that to President Obama’s State of the Union address, and his remarks on energy policy. Harmless error, or damaging duplicity?

Obama tried to take credit for the current employment and economic success of the natural gas boom. “We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly one hundred years,” he said, “and my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy.”

The duplicity lies in the weasel word, “safely.” Big Green’s minions insist there’s no safe way to develop fossil fuels. They make up a lobbying and regulatory roadblock sufficient to heap mountains of delayed and rejected drilling permits on sites properly leased by oil and gas companies. They have Obama’s ear — and apparently the keyboards of his speechwriters.

The oil and gas industry, furious with three years of Obama delay, obstruction and obfuscation, isn’t suffering in silence anymore. They have begun to discard the maxim, “Take care not to spit against the wind – or on your regulator.”

According to the Washington Post, Virginia Lazenby, chairman of the Independent Petroleum Association of America, offered this response to Obama’s hubris: “The truth behind the veil is that this tremendous broad-based economic and energy security success is largely in spite of this administration’s, at times, harshly anti-oil and natural gas policies, not because of them.”

Lazenby and everyone else in the industry was still smarting from last week’s outrageous Obama duplicity. On Tuesday, he agreed with his Jobs Council that America needs more fossil fuels. On Wednesday, he killed the Keystone XL Canada-to-Gulf of Mexico oil pipeline project.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. said, “In rejecting the job-creating Keystone XL pipeline, President Obama today chose to try and save his own job by pandering to his anti-pipeline environmental extremist voting bloc.”

Within the past month, scientists, trial lawyers and industry leaders have recognized the long-term role of formerly invisible foundations that back these extremists. Jon Entine, health and risk expert, wrote in the New York Post that New York-based Park Foundation “is the national funding center for anti-natural-gas research and campaigning.”

Two other New York funds are pouring millions into “anti-fossil fuel obsessives” – the Moore Charitable Foundation and the Rockefeller family’s American Conservation Association. They have previously stayed below the radar by splitting up their gifts into small grants to small groups, like Park’s $35,000 to the Bay Area activist group, As You Sow and Moore’s $5,000 to Catskill Mountainkeeper.

It is encouraging to see that more people are becoming aware of this money and where it is coming from, and of what’s really going on behind the political pep talks and bureaucratic bragging sessions.

The strong reaction to this extremism from those who live and work in the private sector has given unintended meaning to this year’s State of the Union message. The day Obama killed Keystone, his re-election campaign released a TV ad titled “Unprecedented,” defending his energy record with all-too-familiar “veils.” The 30-second ad is running in Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia and Wisconsin — all swing states, most of them mentioned by name in his speech. It may be a sign of where Obama is vulnerable.

Perhaps a politically significant slice of the electorate has responded with a new version of the usual “We heard you, and we don’t agree with you.” Perhaps some are saying, “We heard you, and we don’t believe you.”

Examiner Columnist Ron Arnold is executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise.

Fraud UnitNew York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is one of five co-chairs of the new Financial Crimes Unit.

The new Financial Crimes Unit announced by President Barack Obama during Tuesday’s State of the Union address will have the power to investigate mortgage fraud going back at least 10 years, according to senior officials at the Department of Justice.

The new unit, however, could jeopardize the negotiations now taking place between five of the country’s largest banks, the states’ attorneys general and the Obama administration over mortgage fraud and wrongful foreclosures, some observers say.

In a conference call with reporters on Thursday afternoon, senior officials at the Department of Justice fleshed out details of the new unit. The new unit will focus on both the origination and securitization (or packaging) of mortgage loans. The unit will also investigate loans that were sold to, and insured by, government agencies, said Justice Department officials.

The new unit “has a pretty good chance of derailing it,” JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon told CNBC on Thursday, referring to the settlement. JPMorgan is one of the five banks involved in those negotiations. It is likely that under the settlement investigators could pursue cases only from as early as January 2008, said a source close to the negotiations who is prohibited from speaking on the record.

The banks are interested in the settlement because it will protect them from future liability, according to one industry insider who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity. If they agree to spend $25 billion to guarantee such protection, then find themselves facing the exact same cases with the new investigative unit, they no longer have an incentive to bother with the settlement.

Senior officials at the Department of Justice were quick to emphasize that the fate of the settlement talks is unrelated to the new unit. “We have certainly heard criticisms that the settlement would give immunity for all [the mortgage-related misconduct], but that’s simply not true …This [unit] is addressing a very different problem than the servicing settlement,” said one official.

Some view the new unit as a response to the growing criticism that the Obama administration has yet to seriously pursue the big banks and high-level executives responsible for the housing crash that led to the worst financial crisis since the Depression. “This new unit will hold accountable those who broke the law, speed assistance to homeowners and help turn the page on an era of recklessness that hurt so many Americans,” Obama said on Tuesday.

The investigators will consider a variety of cases, including false statements, mail and wire fraud, and failure to comply with the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989, established in the wake of the savings and loan crisis. This law empowers investigators to examine wrongdoings going back a decade. Many other mortgage-related laws have statutes of limitations for less than half as long.

Already the new unit has 15 attorneys and 10 investigators, including FBI agents. Once fully staffed, it will employ roughly 55 people, in addition to the five co-chairs, and include a mix of new hires and existing personnel from participating agencies, including the Treasury Department, Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Internal Revenue Service, Department of Housing and Urban Development and Federal Housing Administration as well as the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A “significant portion” of the unit will be based in Washington, D.C., though officials anticipate expanding to “at least three or four U.S. attorney offices,” as the cases unfold, said a Justice Department official.

The new unit’s co-chairs had their first call Wednesday and included staff from the office of Delaware Attorney General Beau Biden, who has resisted signing on to a settlement deal. The unit is funded through “existing resources,” according to the Justice Department officials and is part of the larger Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force established in 2009 to investigate the roots of the 2008 financial crisis.

With representatives from more than 20 federal agencies and 94 U.S. attorneys offices, the 2009 task force has disappointed critics who argue that it has chosen to pursue relatively small fraudsters while leaving alone the major offenders, including the CEOs of banks that wrongfully foreclosed on struggling homeowners.

Eric Schneiderman, the New York attorney general, is one of the new unit’s five co-chairs. He gained prominence last year with his repeated assertions that the pending deal between the administration and the five banks would be too soft on the Wall Street behemoths, which are accused of falsifying mortgage documents and inappropriately denying loan modifications to needy homeowners. Specifically, Schneiderman has said he is worried that states would be required to drop potential legal battles against the banks in exchange for securing $25 billion in assistance for struggling homeowners.

Among the national priorities highlighted in President Obama’s State of the Union speech, few garnered as strong a positive reaction from voters as his plan to reform our energy system and build the nation’s rapidly growing clean energy economy. As dial testing of the speech with a group of swing voters showed, the President’s call to increase investments in and support for the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries, compete with countries like China and Germany on energy innovation, and end giveaways to oil companies prompted some of the strongest positive reactions of the night across party lines—second only to his mention of the death of Osama bin Laden.

There’s good reason for this broad public support.  Renewable energy and energy efficiency is creating jobs and economic growth and putting American ingenuity to work right now in states across the country, thanks to smart public-private investments and partnerships and energy standards.  Poll after poll, has shown that the public believes this and wants renewable energy and energy efficiency to become an even bigger part of our energy future.  They also want their leaders to do more to support these growing industries.  Nine in ten Americans—including 82 percent of Republicans and 91 percent of independents—say developing renewable energy should be a priority for the president and Congress.  

Even Republican leaders at the federal and state levels acknowledge these benefits and jobs when they’re not trying to score political points in Washington and their state houses.

Take, for example, Gov. Mitch Daniels’ home state of Indiana.  While Daniels and Congressional Republicans focused their remarks in DC on the Keystone pipeline and what he called, “the extremism that stifles the development of homegrown energy,” he neglected to mention the rapid growth of wind energy and other clean energy industries that are providing new economic opportunities and jobs at a much faster pace than the fossil fuel industry in his state.  One example is GBT USA, Inc., which announced in September 2011 that it would be locating a wind turbine manufacturing facility in Southern Indiana that could create as many as 400 new jobs by 2014.  Gov. Daniels joined the executives of the company for the announcement. 

Despite their attacks on clean energy programs and policies inside the beltway, other Republicans have taken the time to visit and advocate for prospering clean energy companies in their states and districts as well—even Rep. Stearns, who said that America couldn’t compete with China in making solar panels and wind turbines.  Rep. Stearns has visited and/or endorsed a number of renewable energy companies in his state, including Saft America, a company that makes lithium-ion battery cells for military hybrid vehicles and solar and wind energy storage in Jacksonville, FL.  The company was able to leverage financing for its plant with the help of a grant from the Department of Energy (DOE) and is expected to employ about 300 people when it reaches full-operating capacity.  Rep. Stearns endorsed the project.

The clean economy at large now counts 2.7 million workers in its ranks, according to the Brookings Institution—more than the entire fossil fuel industry.  Solar is one of the economy’s fastest-growing industries and our nation’s 5,000 solar companies now employ more than 100,000 workers, with more on the way.  The wind industry now employs 85,000 Americans, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and more than 150,000 Americans are manufacturing parts for and assembling cleaner cars.  There are also over 400,000 workers manufacturing and installing more energy-efficient technologies, such as more efficient lighting and heating and cooling systems, that save consumers money on their energy bills, provide better performance and reduce pollution. 

Since September 2011, NRDC’s partner Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) has counted all sorts of job announcements from 200 companies, large and small, that will be creating new jobs in the clean economy over the next few years.

As President Obama noted, smart federal investments designed to leverage private sector financing and partnerships between the government and American businesses have played a major role in this rapid growth—“In three years, our partnership with the private sector has already positioned America to be the world’s leading manufacturer of high-tech batteries.  Because of federal investments, renewable energy use has nearly doubled.  And thousands of Americans have jobs because of it.”

North Carolina, for example, has seen a wave of manufacturing job announcements as a result of financial support from the DOE and state incentives that has helped to leverage private sector funding.  Durham, NC-based Semprius is building a 50,000 square-foot plant in Henderson to produce concentrated photovoltaic (CPV) cells and modules.  The company expects to create 256 jobs at full build-out of the plant.  Seed funding from the Department of Energy and contributions from the State of North Carolina and local agencies helped to leverage private sector investment in the plant. And in China Grove, NC, Hitachi Metals announced that it will be investing $60 million over the next four years to expand its magnet-production facility to meet global demand, creating 65 new jobs.  The company’s magnets are used primarily in hybrid and electric vehicles.  An incentive grant from the state helped secure the company’s decision to locate in North Carolina.  These are just two examples of a growing trend we are seeing in community after community.

And we’re just getting started.  We can create even more jobs, lead in energy innovation and build a cleaner more prosperous future if we make the right choices and grow our current support and investments in renewable energy and energy efficiency.  As the President outlined, we are at a crossroads when it comes to meeting our energy challenges.  We can continue to produce more made-in America energy from renewable sources that won’t run out, won’t leave us hamstrung to foreign countries, and won’t hurt our health and environment.  We can reduce our energy consumption and put money back into consumers’ pocketbooks with more efficient appliances and cars.  And we can do what we do best—put our ingenuity to work to develop innovative new technologies that will make us a world leader in clean energy.

Or we can continue to listen to the same propaganda from the fossil fuel industry and its supporters in Congress who say that we need to increase our reliance on dirty and limited fossil fuels; that investments in clean energy are a bad idea; or that we can’t compete with China and other countries when it comes to wind, solar and other technologies.

The public is counting on its leaders to make the right choices when it comes to our energy future and support the continued expansion of our growing renewable energy and energy efficient industries which are bringing renewed hope and much-needed jobs to communities in every state.  Democrats, Independents and Republicans agree we need to shift to renewable energy that’s clean and reliable and use our energy more wisely for the sake of our economy, our security, and our health and environment.  Now it’s time for Congress to stop its partisan antics on energy and tune into the overwhelming support for clean energy policies and programs across the country.  Businesses and jobs are on the line.

Listening to the State of the Union last night, I couldn’t help but notice that energy has become a hot issue – it was mentioned far more times than most other issues. I checked later on and saw I wasn’t wrong – energy was mentioned 23 times, setting a new record (at least for this century) and coming third after jobs/employment (35 times) and taxes (34 times). This is pretty impressive, but still, when I turned off the radio in my car by the end of the speech, trying to digest what I’ve just heard, I was left with mixed feelings.

The reason was that while President Obama spoke about providing strong support for cleantech, he also includes support for dirtier energy resources like offshore oil and shale gas, as part of his vision of developing “every available source of American energy.” So he ended up providing both good news and bad news for those hoping he will lead America to a more sustainable future. You have to be naïve if you don’t understand that politics, especially on an election year, is the art of compromise, but at the same time when it comes to energy it seems like it’s almost impossible to have your cake and eat it too.

President Obama made his energy vision very clear, explaining that “this country needs an all-out, all-of-the-above strategy that develops every available source of American energy. A strategy that’s cleaner, cheaper, and full of new jobs.” Under the definition of American energy he included natural gas, offshore oil and clean energy sources like solar and wind, letting us to believe that for him these are all important parts of the energy future of the U.S.

Let’s look first at the good news that President Obama provided last night:

-  Clear commitment to continuing development and funding of cleantech projects – “I will not walk away from the promise of clean energy… I will not cede the wind or solar or battery industry to China or Germany because we refuse to make the same commitment here.”

-  Calling again to end the subsidies for oil companies – “we’ve subsidized oil companies for a century. That’s long enough.”

-  Asking Congress to set a clean energy standard that “creates a market for innovation.”

- Providing public land to allow the development of clean energy “to power 3 million homes.”

- The U.S. army will significantly increase its use of clean energy – “the Department of Defense, working with us, the world’s largest consumer of energy, will make one of the largest commitments to clean energy in history – with the Navy purchasing enough capacity to power a quarter of a million homes a year.”

- Adding energy efficiency to the clean energy mix – “Of course, the easiest way to save money is to waste less energy…Help manufacturers eliminate energy waste in their factories and give businesses incentives to upgrade their buildings.”

- Requiring all companies that drill for gas on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use “because America will develop this resource without putting the health and safety of our citizens at risk.”

- Last but not least, it’s also about what wasn’t mentioned. Unlike last year, clean coal and nuclear energy weren’t included this time.

And now for the bad news:

- More exploration of offshore oil and gas – “tonight, I’m directing my administration to open more than 75 percent of our potential offshore oil and gas resources.”

- Supporting further development of natural gas resources – “We have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years. And my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy.”

- Characterizing natural gas as a clean energy option – “The development of natural gas will create jobs and power trucks and factories that are cleaner and cheaper, proving that we don’t have to choose between our environment and our economy.”

- Giving a ‘kosher’ stamp to Hydraulic fracturing – “we have a supply of natural gas that can last America nearly 100 years. And my administration will take every possible action to safely develop this energy.”

As you can see there are more good news than bad news, but it’s not the number that counts. What matters is that President Obama addresses shale gas, offshore oil and clean energy all in a positive manner and suggests that what best for the economy and the environment is to support all three equally. This is unfortunately not true. We’re talking about competing energy resources and not about complementary goods.

This is certainly disturbing when it comes to shale gas, not only because of the environmental risks of fracking, but also because of its impact on renewable energy sources. A study of MIT researches that was published last month, ‘The Influence of Shale Gas on U.S. Energy and Environmental Policy’ provides interesting projections of the impact of shale gas on GHG emissions and the development of renewable energy. It shows that while the biggest effect of shale gas is that it would push out coal, which is a positive climate impact, the expansion of shale gas would also put limits on the expansion of other clean energy sources, because natural gas power plants would tend to be cheaper than wind or solar. In other words, more cheap shale gas means less solar and wind power.

There is no doubt that President Obama is committed to the environment. Nevertheless, if he really wants ‘An America built to last’ he should take into consideration that his vision of American energy might be a good fit for meeting some of America’s short-term challenges, but not necessarily the long-term ones. An America built to last is actually a sustainable America, one that can only be established on clean energy and not dirty energy, no matter if it’s local or not.

Photograph by The Washington Post/Getty Images

Osama bin Laden shouldn’t be the only man capable of getting Democrats and Republicans to work together. In so many words, that was the message of President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address.

Obama’s 65-minute speech began and ended with references to the U.S. military’s killing of bin Laden. In between was a grab bag of programs and proposals that would require Congress and the President to “work together”—a phrase or variation thereof that Obama used five times. At least he didn’t pretend this was likely, acknowledging that most Americans believe “nothing will get done in Washington this year, or next year, or maybe even the year after that, because Washington is broken.”

Obama’s ideas for fixing Washington aren’t necessarily bad, but they raise a chicken-egg problem. Congressional reform is necessary to eliminate congressional gridlock, but congressional gridlock is what prevents congressional reform. And congressional gridlock is a function of partisanship as much as process.

This being an election year, partisanship isn’t likely to diminish as November approaches, making Obama’s agenda even less relevant than usual. All the same, it has some items to recommend it. His proposal to allow foreign-born entrepreneurs and students to stay in the U.S. would help the economy. And Obama has a strong case that people who make more than $1 million a year should pay a higher tax rate (whether 30 percent, as the President proposed, or something else).

Other proposals were disappointing, misguided, or nonsensical. There was precious little about deficit reduction. While calling for tax reform, the President also proposed complicating the tax code with credits and incentives for clean energy, tuition, veterans, and various manufacturers. His rhetoric about China—he bragged about stopping “a surge in Chinese tires,” as if it were part of the North Pacific Drift—is simplistic and has the whiff of protectionism. After declaiming the need to rescue the U.S. auto industry, he declared that the federal government should offer “no bailouts, no handouts.”

Maybe it’s too much to expect a speech like this, especially in an election year, to be logically coherent or ideologically consistent. In that case, what such speeches have to offer is a sense of possibility and, not to put too fine a point on it, partisanship: The President, it is usually noted at this point, is both head of state and leader of the party. Obama is a talented speaker and skillfully alternated between pointed warnings about class warfare and gauzy calls for shared responsibility.

Which brings us back to the killing of bin Laden. In the speech, Obama used the raid to show what U.S. troops could achieve when they “worked as a team.” Speaking to 535 members of Congress, he didn’t need to elaborate.

Singapore’s Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong, isn’t often taken publicly to task. But when you make S$3.1 million ($2.4 million) annually to run a country, people expect results. When they don’t get them, the aggrieved masses turn to that lowest-of-common-denominator gripes: Hey, how much are we paying this guy?

Lots, compared with Barack Obama, who makes $400,000 a year. So Lee’s compensation will fall 36 percent, to S$2.2 million, and that of Singapore’s President will drop 51 percent, to S$1.54 million. The cuts were based on the recommendations of an advisory committee formed three weeks after last May’s elections, when opposition party candidates made hay with the pay issue—and the ruling People’s Action Party won by the narrowest margin since independence in 1965.

Such still-fat paychecks may give pause. Yet let’s applaud Singapore for what it’s trying to achieve by paying top salaries to leaders and ministers: attracting the best and brightest to public service and reducing the temptation to engage in graft. Done properly, such initiatives can make government more efficient and economies more vibrant. Transparency International has ranked Singapore among the world’s top five least-corrupt governments since 2001, and, according to Worldwide Governance Indicators, it has also been among the best governed.