Mediaboss Marketing

The ICNL(International Center for Not-for-Profit Law) received $1 million from the MacArthur Foundation to advance its mission of creating a legal framework for the right of assembly and association in countries around the world.

What the work boils down to is this: promoting freedom of association and assembly. How it's done: by helping groups design laws that protect these freedoms.

Skip to next paragraph

"In too many countries we find that the legal framework actually restricts the ability of individuals to gather together to try to improve their societies," says Douglas Rutzen, president of The International Center for Not-for-Profit Law (ICNL) in Washington D.C. "We see in country after country the rights that we might take for granted in the United States are restricted."

The ICNL now works in more than 100 countries helping to establish the legal framework for enhancing individual rights. Last week the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation named the ICNL as one of 15 organizations in six countries that are receiving the MacArthur Award for Creative and Effective Institutions. The ICNL will be awarded $1 million. (A list of all the winners is here.)

Among the ICNL's accomplishments:

• Helping to organize a coalition of more than 7,000 organizations in Iraq to pass a law that supports freedom of association and assembly.

• Creating the idea for and helping to establish the first United Nations Special Rapporteur on the freedoms of assembly and association. A UN resolution was adopted in September 2010 and the UN Special Rapporteur now works to defend freedom of association and assembly around the world.

• Maintaining a database of 2,300 laws from more than 160 countries in 37 languages that can be used as source material to create new laws regarding civil freedoms.

The ICNL is currently working in Libya, in concert with the UN and other partners to expand the rights of citizens there. "In Qaddafi's Libya the death penalty could be imposed for someone who sought to set up an independent human rights group," Mr. Rutzen says.

In Mexico, the ICNL is helping local partners work to allow human rights organizations to receive tax deductible donations. In China, it's partnering with the Chinese government to create a legal framework for disaster response and clarify the role charities play in it.

"The magic of INCL is that we're really international," Rutzen says. "About 70 percent of our staff comes from the countries and regions in which they work. [For example] when you look at our Russian office, everybody is Russian."

The center is also active in Egypt, where nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) are under intense scrutiny from the new government. "It's really about Egyptian groups and their rights to receive foreign funding," he says.

But the situation in Egypt has broader implications, Rutzen adds.

"Our concern is that this is just the beginning of what may be a prelude to a broader crackdown on Egyptian civil society organizations," he says. "We've also noticed the contagion effect – that when one country does this and gets away with it other countries become emboldened and start to pass restrictive laws as well.

"Just within the last couple of weeks we're seen crackdowns in places like Zimbabwe. There's a draft law in Bangladesh that just emerged. There's been a media campaign against civil society organizations in Venezuela. And the list goes on and on.

"So we think that there is now a broad movement among a number of countries to restrict civic space."

That "civic space" represents a whole host of associations that are not family or business relationships but are based on common interests – from a soccer club to a parent-teacher organization to human rights groups.

"It's that whole collection of nonprofit organizations that enrich our lives," he says.

• For more information about the work of the ICNL, including a video, click here.

• Sign up to receive a weekly selection of practical and inspiring Change Agent articles by clicking here.

Originally posted here:
ICNL wins $1 million MacArthur Award to promote freedom of assembly around the world

22 February 2012 Last updated at 17:42 ET

Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.

David Cameron produces Labour briefing on NHS bill during PMQs

Labour leader Ed Miliband has told David Cameron he risks making NHS reform "his poll tax" - in noisy Commons clashes over the health bill.

Mr Miliband repeatedly accused the PM of refusing to listen to medics' concerns about the controversial bill.

But the government defeated, by a majority of 53 votes, a Labour bid to make it release an internal register of risks linked to the bill.

Mr Cameron said Labour refused to publish a register when in power.

The two leaders clashed at Prime Minister's Questions, ahead of the Labour-led debate calling for the publication of the government's risk assessment of the impact of the NHS shake-up in England.

Some 246 MPs voted for Labour's motion, compared with 299 who voted against following the Commons debate.

Four Lib Dem MPs - Andrew George, Mike Hancock, Greg Mulholland and John Pugh - voted with Labour and against the government.

'Not fit'

The controversial Health and Social Care Bill has passed through its Commons stages but has been amended several times by the House of Lords.

Crossbencher Lord Owen is expected to put down an amendment to the bill which would delay its passage through Parliament until after a Freedom of Information ruling on the "transition risk register" on 5 and 6 March.

Continue reading the main story “Start Quote

This will become his poll tax. He should listen to the public and he should drop this bill”

End Quote Ed Miliband Labour leader

In the Commons, Mr Cameron said Labour frontbencher Andy Burnham had blocked the publication of a risk register in September 2009 - when he was health secretary.

Mr Cameron said it showed Labour "absolutely revealed as a bunch of rank opportunists, not fit to run opposition and not fit for government".

But Mr Miliband accused the PM of having excluded the "vast majority" of health workers from a "ridiculous summit" on the Health and Social Care Bill on Monday.

Having previously said he wanted to listen to NHS workers "now he can't even be in the same room as the doctors and nurses" - suggesting he had "lost the confidence of those who work in the NHS".

He told the PM "nobody believes him and nobody trusts him on the health service" and claimed the bill had become a "symbol of his arrogance".

Referring to the hugely controversial policy seen as helping hasten the end of Margaret Thatcher's leadership of the Conservative Party, Mr Miliband added: "This will become his poll tax. He should listen to the public and he should drop this bill."

Lib Dem rebels

The government is appealing against a Freedom of Information ruling that it should be published in the public interest.

Continue reading the main story “Start Quote

You don't save the NHS by opposing reform, you save the NHS by delivering reform”

End Quote David Cameron

Labour chose to use its opposition day debate to demand that the government "respect" the information commissioner's ruling and publish the report.

The vote is not binding but does increase pressure on the government.

An early day motion on the same issue has been signed by 15 Lib Dem MPs, including Duncan Hames - an aide to Energy Secretary Ed Davey. However, only four of the signatories chose to vote against the government.

Shadow health secretary Mr Burnham told MPs there had been "crucial differences" between the document whose publication he had blocked in 2009 - the strategic risk register - and the one Labour was now pressing the government to publish.

He said he had not initiated what he described as the biggest ever top-down re-organisation of the NHS at a time of its biggest ever financial challenge - and the information commissioner had not ruled in 2009 that the paper should be published.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley has said it would be "completely misleading" to publish the register, which was put together before changes were made to the bill and had been intended as an "internal mechanism".

Past requests

In the Commons he quoted back Mr Burnham's own words from 2007, when he was a health minister, following a similar request for a risk register to be published - when Mr Burnham said that it would "be likely to reduce the detail and utility of its contents" which would "inhibit the free and frank exchange of views about significant risks".

Mr Burnham repeated that it was not a "comparable situation" as it had referred to a different document.

He claimed regional and local risk registers, which have been published, were "appalling and shocking".

Among them was a warning by South Central Strategic Health Authority, which said "the pace and scale of reform, coupled with savings achieved through cost reduction rather than real service redesign could adversely impact on safety and quality".

One of the Lib Dem rebels, Andrew George, said he acknowledged that if the register was published it was "unlikely to change a single mind on the issue".

But he said it was better not to take on the biggest reorganisation ever of the NHS "in the dark".

The bill has also been criticised by various bodies representing healthcare professionals.

'Delivering reform'

Lib Dem activists are preparing an emergency motion for their party's spring conference next month, urging the party to work towards defeating the bill, amid reports that grass roots discontent on the issue is now greater than that over student tuition fees in 2010.

But Mr Cameron said on Wednesday the bill would "abolish the bureaucracy that has been holding the NHS back".

He argues reform is needed to deal with the challenges of an ageing population and the rising costs of medical treatments and long-term conditions.

Accusing Labour of opposing changes it had once backed, he said: "You don't save the NHS by opposing reform, you save the NHS by delivering reform."

The BBC's political editor Nick Robinson said that while both coalition partners were insisting the bill would continue, there were clear differences in tone from the two sides about the possibility of further concessions.

View original post here:
NHS 'will be Cameron's poll tax'

(MENAFN - Arab News) The Labor Ministry announced Wednesday that it would continue to allow expatriates working in premium and green category companies to change their professions and that there would not be any deadline for them to complete the procedure.

"The process of changing profession is still open for workers in premium and green categories," said Hattab Al-Anazi, spokesman of the ministry. "This is one of the incentives given to the two categories and it will not be restricted by any date," he said.

However, he pointed out that Feb. 22, 2012 was the last date for changing profession for those expatriates in the red and yellow categories. "We'll not give them any extension to change their professions," he added.

The ministry had allowed all private companies and establishments the provision to amend professions on the work permits of their foreign workers electronically without visiting the ministry.

Engineering and medical professions, which require special licenses, are excluded from the provision.

Foreigners might amend their professions to any other one with the exception of director of labor and laborers, personnel manager, personnel specialist, personnel clerk, employment official, HR clerk, timekeeper, receptionist at hotels and hospitals, complaint writer, cashier, special security guard, pursuer, and senior HR official.

The ministry warned private companies and establishments that if they were caught giving incorrect data about their foreign workers, it would suspend their operating licenses for five years and prevent them from foreign recruitment in future.

There are about 8 million foreigners in Saudi Arabia, representing about 30 percent of the country's population. Nearly 6 million expatriate workers are employed by the private sector.

See the article here:
Saudi- No deadline to regularize profession for 'green' expats

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Wednesday proposed a plan to revamp the U.S. corporate tax system, slashing the top tax rate to 28 percent, while eliminating many loopholes that companies rely on to cut their taxes.

Although the statutory top corporate tax rate is 35 percent, many companies pay nowhere near that much, with effective tax rates varying wildly because of the use of loopholes.

The administration's plan has little chance of becoming law with elections approaching in November and Congress deeply divided over fiscal issues. Still, the plan opens debate on overhauling the tax code, perhaps in 2013 and beyond.

Among the tax breaks Obama aims to cull are those specific to oil and gas companies, and also broader breaks including accelerated write-offs for business investments.

Below are potential winners and losers under Obama's plan:

LIKELY WINNERS

Likely "winners" under the Obama plan would be retailers such as Wal-Mart Stores Inc and healthcare service groups like Aetna Inc which now pay close to the top 35 percent rate.

Electronics and electrical equipment companies also pay high effective tax rates, according to Citizens for Tax Justice, a left-leaning tax think tank and activist group.

Other companies already paying close to the 35 percent statutory tax rate, include health insurer UnitedHealth Group, motorcycle giant Harley-Davidson and Emerson Electric Co, according to Citizens for Tax Justice.

LIKELY LOSERS

"Losers" might be big multinational companies such as General Electric Co and Boeing Co, which can now pare their effective tax rates using myriad tax breaks.

Other major companies paying a low effective or even negative rate, according to analysis by the group, include Baxter International Inc, Wells Fargo & Co and Honeywell International Inc.

According to CTJ, information technology, oil and gas, and utilities are among those paying far below the 35 percent rate.

Oil and gas companies in particular are likely to be losers, since the Obama administration wants to cut a major tax deduction now used by the industry.

Companies with major international components, specifically valuable intellectual property and other intangible assets, are likely to lose under the plan. Current tax rules let companies shift these assets abroad to trim taxes paid.

Many well-known corporations like Google Inc and Eli Lilly & Co take advantage of tax havens like the Netherlands and Puerto Rico to locate divisions and assets, which suggests they could be hit by the proposed minimum tax on foreign profits.

MANUFACTURING WILD CARD

The administration plan seeks a special 25 percent rate for manufacturing. It would do this by expanding a current tax break for manufacturing to 10.6 percent, from the current 9 percent, and focusing it more narrowly.

Obama also wants to double the credit for what he calls "high-tech" manufacturing, though which sectors would qualify is unclear.

Companies with big research and development costs could also benefit, given the plan's bid to expand that popular credit.

(Reporting By Kim Dixon; Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh and Matthew Lewis)

Read the original here:
Factbox: Winners, losers in Obama corporate tax plan

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Cutting corporate tax rates and deleting loopholes is just what most economists prescribe for the tangled U.S. tax code.

So why isn't everyone cheering the plan President Barack Obama unveiled Tuesday to slash the top corporate tax rate and end breaks that let some companies pay little or nothing in taxes?

Economists note that Obama's plan would upturn the very playing field the administration says it wants to level. It would give manufacturers preferential treatment: Tax breaks would effectively cap their rate at 25 percent. Other companies would pay up to 28 percent.

The current top corporate tax rate is 35 percent.

Some say such varying rates can distort the economy by diverting investment into some industries and away from others that might pack a bigger economic punch.

"The administration is not making sense," says Martin Sullivan, contributing editor at publisher Tax Analysts. "The whole idea of corporate tax reform is to get rid of loopholes, and this plan is adding loopholes back in."

Other economists oppose a separate plank of the Obama plan: a minimum tax on foreign earnings of U.S. multinational companies. No other country imposes such a tax on its companies, they note. U.S. businesses would face a competitive disadvantage.

Facing resistance from Republicans and many businesses, Obama's plan is in any case a longshot proposal so close to Election Day.

"For anything that Obama recommends during an election year and with a divided Congress, the best one can say is, 'Good luck,'" says Henry Aaron, senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution. "Those who stand to lose are really upset and will work hard to defeat it."

Just about everybody agrees something has to change. When Japan enacts a corporate tax cut in April, the United States will be left with the highest tax rate in the developed world.

That puts the U.S. companies that actually pay the official corporate tax rate at a disadvantage against their foreign competitors. (Many U.S. companies effectively pay lower rates because of tax breaks.)

The loophole-riddled U.S. tax code now benefits numerous industries over others. One tax break, for example, lets oil companies write off drilling costs immediately instead of over time, as most businesses must.

In the end, different industries can pay far different effective rates. The Treasury Department says U.S. utility companies pay an average effective tax rate of 14 percent. By contrast, retailers pay an average 31 percent.

The administration says the point of its tax plan is to make the system fairer and more efficient — not to squeeze more overall tax revenue from corporations. Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner calls the current tax code "fundamentally unfair." But the administration also needs to end some loopholes to help pay for a lower corporate tax rate.

The White House argues that tax breaks for manufacturers could ultimately pay off for the economy. When factories expand, for example, the benefits tend to spill into other businesses: Shipping companies and warehouses must add jobs, too, to transport and store the goods that manufacturers are producing.

Economists also note that manufacturers account for a disproportionate amount of the research and development that create innovative products and new ways of doing business. The National Science Foundation has found that manufacturing companies are nearly three times likelier to introduce a new or significantly improved product than other companies are.

"Does manufacturing deserve special treatment? This is a hot debate," says Elisabeth Reynolds, executive director of the Industrial Performance Center at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. "A case can be made that there's a reason to encourage more manufacturing in the United States because of its links to innovation."

Other economists say that argument is overstated. Among the skeptics is Obama's own former economic adviser, Christina Romer, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley. In a column this month in The New York Times, Romer argued that there was no economic justification for the government to favor manufacturers over service-oriented companies.

"Our earnings from exporting architectural plans for a building in Shanghai are as real as those from exporting cars to Canada," Romer wrote.

Analysts are also divided over Obama's plans to impose a minimum tax on companies' foreign earnings.

Sullivan of Tax Analysts says the current system allows some companies — especially technology and pharmaceutical firms — to avoid U.S. taxes by shifting their earnings to tax havens such as Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. Other multinationals can indefinitely avoid paying U.S. taxes by keeping their earnings overseas.

Lacking such tax breaks, companies that do all their business in the United States suffer a competitive disadvantage.

The minimum tax proposal, Sullivan says, "would level the playing field."

But big U.S. companies complain that they already pay taxes to foreign governments on the income they earn in those countries. A U.S. tax on that income, they argue, would amount to double taxation.

That would raise costs for U.S. companies operating overseas, making them less competitive. Instead, the United States should move toward a "territorial" tax system, business groups argue. Tax would apply only to income earned within the United States.

"No other developed country imposes such a 'minimum tax' on the foreign earnings of their corporations," said the Business Roundtable, a trade group of chief executives of large U.S. companies.

Some economists agree.

The minimum tax proposal for international earnings "is totally misguided both from a competitive standpoint and a jobs standpoint," said Gary Hufbauer, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics. "Obama's plan, if enacted, will shrink the U.S. footprint in world markets and lose jobs."

Link:
To close tax loopholes, Obama would open new ones