Omni Shoreham Hotel Washington, D.C.

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Thank you for that wonderful warm welcome. Thank you to my friend Ralph. All the distinguished guests who are here, members of Congress, our honorees, it is great to be back at the Faith and Freedom Coalition, the greatest pro-family, pro-freedom grassroots organization in the United States of America. (Applause.)

And I am very honored to have the opportunity to help wrap up what I hear has been a great, great week in Washington, D.C. and be able to speak at this 2017 Road to Majority Policy Conference. You know, normally its my job to bring greetings from my boss, but I know you already heard from him on Thursday. (Applause.) And let me tell you, what you saw two days ago is what I see every single day: a leader with broad shoulders and a big heart, a believer, and an unapologetic champion of the God-given liberties enshrined in the Constitution of the United States, the 45th President of the United States of America, President Donald Trump. (Applause.) Thanks to the support of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, last November President Trump won a historic victory. More counties than any President since Ronald Reagan -- 30 of 50 states, states no Republican had carried in a generation. President Donald Trump turned the blue wall red, and we thank you for the support that made that possible. (Applause.) As the Good Book says: If you owe debts, pay debts. If honor, then honor. If respect, then respect. And Im really here just to pay a debt of gratitude to all of you who helped elect a President who is fighting every day to restore freedom in the country and to make this country great and strong once again. The President said it on Thursday, but its worth repeating -- the Faith and Freedom Coalition knocked on 1.2 million doors, made 10 million phone calls, sent out 22 million pieces of mail, distributed 30 million voter guides, and most importantly you elected one President who will never stop fighting for the values and ideals that make this nation great. (Applause.) And as we look out across this room, we see more friends than we can count; people that Ive known for years; people Ive stood together with in my days in the Congress, my days as a governor. Weve fought the good fight in this movement together. And so before I go on let me just take a moment to say how humbling it is for me to stand before my friends of so many years as the 48th Vice President of the United States of America. Thank you, thank you for giving my little family the opportunity to serve. (Applause.) And speaking of my family, on Thursday night, we celebrated the 32nd anniversary of my marriage to the most wonderful woman in the world. (Applause.) Faith and grace and immense patience. Would you all welcome my wonderful wife, Karen Pence, the Second Lady of the United States of America? (Applause.) It really is remarkable to think about everything the Faith and Freedom Coalition has achieved since your founding in 2009. In just eight years youve built chapters in all 50 states, brought together more than 1.7 million members and grassroots activists. And theres a lot of reason for your success. Because while this group may be young, the values you stand for are timeless. But let me express a special thanks to a man who made tonight possible, a leader Ive known for many years who literally has devoted his life to defending his extraordinary talents and his entire life to defending faith and freedom in America, ladies and gentlemen, would you just give a rousing round of appreciative applause to Ralph Reed. (Applause.) This whole room is filled with patrons and patriots, all people -- each of one of you that has made an extraordinary difference in the life of this country, and I know youll continue. But its a particular joy for me tonight to be a part of a celebration of someone who deserves that description more than maybe anyone else Ive ever met in this movement, the recipient of the Winston Churchill Lifetime Achievement Award, my mentor and my friend, Dr. James Dobson. (Applause.) I have long held the view that I dont think less of people who think more highly of me than I think of myself. (Laughter.) And throughout my public career, as hes been in the lives of so many men and women in public life, and in ministry, and in business, Dr. James Dobson has been a source of counsel and encouragement to me and my family all along the way. Dr. Dobson, the truth is this award doesnt actually do you justice. Youve done more for faith and freedom in your lifetime than, as Ralph just said, any one person could do in 10 lifetimes. Although I do think that its probably mostly due to the fact that you married way up. (Laughter.) Would you all give Shirley Dobson another big round of applause? She is an amazing woman, and amazing lady. (Applause.) From the heart I have to tell you, Dr. Dobson, your faith, your matchless voice on the airwaves, the enormous body of written work that you've created in a lifetime has inspired millions. And not only is your country grateful, but I say with confidence: Great is your reward. Youve made an eternal difference in the lives of millions. (Applause.) Ladies and gentlemen, one more time for Dr. James Dobson. Would you mind? This truly is a gathering of consequence, of conviction, and courage. Let me echo what the President said to you just two days ago. He acknowledged that all of you fought hard -- and you fought hard for him and now rest assured, I see it every day, he is fighting hard for all of you. (Applause.) Even before he took his oath of office, President Trump has been keeping his promise to the men and women gathered here and all those you represent across this country. For starters, our President I believe has assembled one of the strongest conservative Cabinets in the history of the United States of America. (Applause.) How about U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley? (Applause.) How about Secretary of Defense Jim Mad Dog Mattis? (Applause.) And how about the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Dr. Ben Carson? (Applause.) That's the A-Team. And since day one, this President has taken decisive action to make this country great again. President Trump told you on Thursday and I can tell you its true that he will in his words battle for every American who has lost a job, for every family who has lost a loved one, for every American of faith who has lost their rights and lost their freedom. That's exactly what hes done. Our President has been busy since the first day of this administration, rolling back big government, slashing through red tape. In fact, this President has signed more bills into law rolling back federal regulations and red tape than any President in American history. (Applause.) Hes unleashing American energy and unburdening American businesses. Hes putting America back to work, and hes fighting every day to put America First, which was on full display just last week, when President Donald Trump pulled the United States of America out of the Paris climate accord. (Applause.) Its amazing to think that international deal the last administration entered into would have cost 6.5 million jobs in this country in the next 25 years, imposed incredible burdens on the American people while at the same time allowing countries like China and India to get off virtually scot-free. In his decision, the President put American workers first. He put Americas future first. And I promise you that President Donald Trump will always put America First! (Applause.) This President also knows that security is the foundation of our prosperity. That's why President Trump has been standing without apology for the men and women of law enforcement and those who protect our borders. (Applause.) Hes rebuilding our military and restoring Americas place in the world. Hes been standing with our allies and standing up to our enemies. And if the world knows nothing else, the world will know this, under President Donald Trump, America stands with Israel. (Applause.) And this President has been keeping faith with the Constitution of the United States and the God-given liberties enshrined there. Just last month, I had the great privilege to stand beside President Trump as he signed an executive order to help strengthen and restore that most fundamental right from the First Amendment of the Constitution, the freedom of religion. (Applause.) Speaking from the Rose Garden, President Trump declared in his words that the federal government will never, ever penalize any person for their protected religious beliefs. (Applause.) And he directed our Department of Justice to ensure the freedom of religion of every American is protected. And our President began to ensure that the pulpits of America would be free, as well, to start the process to roll back the Johnson Amendment because free speech shouldnt stop at the doors of our churches, synagogues, and places of worship. (Applause.) Just rest assured, President Trump is going to continue to fight to ensure that every American has the freedom to follow the dictates of their conscience, and to add their voices and their values to the beautiful tapestry of our American life. And this President has also stood strongly on the world stage with those who are persecuted for faith around the globe. Under President Donald Trump, America has made it clear: This nation condemns persecution of any faith in any place at any time, and we will confront it with all of our abilities in the world. (Applause.) Protecting and promoting religious freedom is a foreign policy priority of this administration. And President Trump will fight every day for this fundamental right, at home and abroad. You know, its the greatest privilege of my life to serve as Vice President, as well, to a President who is so committed to protecting our most cherished freedoms. But honestly, I couldnt be more proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with a President who stands without apology for the sanctity of human life. (Applause.) And its not just been words, its been deeds. In one of the very first acts in office, President Trump reinstated the Mexico City Policy banning public funding of abortion providers abroad, and last month our President expanded that policy to cover nearly $9 billion in American foreign aid. (Applause.) And it was my great honor with my wife at my side to have the President personally send me to be the first Vice President ever to speak at the annual March for Life. (Applause.) He signed also into law legislation that will empower states to withhold federal funding from abortion providers, and Im humbled to say that at the Presidents direction, I had the opportunity to cast the tie-breaking vote in the United States Senate. (Applause.) And when President Donald Trump signs the bill to repeal and replace Obamacare, we will defund Planned Parenthood once and for all. (Applause.) And when it comes to those God-given liberties, theres one more thing this President has done. As a candidate for President, this President made a commitment to appoint strong conservatives to our federal courts and to the highest court in the land. He made a pledge, particularly when it came to Supreme Court, that he would nominate a jurist in the mold of the late and great Justice Antonin Scalia. And he did just that when he nominated and we confirmed Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court on the United States of America. (Applause.) So weve been busy, folks. But as the President likes to say, thats just what we call a good start. (Laughter.) Truth is, we got a lot of work to do, make no mistake about it. Before this summer, job one is were going to work with this Congress -- the men and women in Republican majorities -- and we will repeal and replace Obamacare. (Applause.) I bet I dont have to tell the Faith and Freedom Coalition members and supporters why this failed law has got to go. Just last month, our administration released a new study proving that Obamacare has made health insurance unaffordable for millions of Americans. In just four years -- get this -- Obamacare as more than doubled the average health insurance premiums on the individual markets. In some states, theyre up nearly 200 percent. President Obama promised that Americans would save up to $2,500 on their premiums, but the average premium cost today is nearly $3,000 a year more for Americans than it was in 2013. And its only going to get worse because premiums are spiking by double digits next year and the choices are plummeting. Obamacare is in a death spiral and more and more insurance companies are bailing on this failed law every single day. States across America lost 83 insurers in 2017 alone. In fact, at this very moment, a third of American counties and five whole states only have one choice of insurance company under Obamacare, meaning they essentially have no choice. And come next year, tens of thousands of Americans or more wont have any insurance coverage at all. Just this week, more than 13,000 people in Ohio learned that theyll have no Obamacare coverage next year. In Missouri, 25 counties may be without Obamacare plans. And in Iowa, where I was just about a week ago, it looks like, very soon, 94 of the 99 counties could have no Obamacare to choose from, leaving tens of thousands of working families, small businesses, and family farmers without access to healthcare coverage they need. And folks, remember, its not just the statistics. Were talking about real people in the midst of a real healthcare crisis. Good people, like Julie Champine, who I met with today in Wisconsin. I had the privilege to chat with her on my visit to Milwaukee. Julies been buying health insurance for her family on the individual market since 2004. Shes really a great lady to talk to -- great family, has worked hard in business, she and her husband together. But Julie confided in me, she has some health issues. And health insurance is vitally important to her. Now Julie said she wanted to believe that when President Obama promised her that she could keep her plan, she could keep her doctor that it was true. But it just wasnt. Julie lost her familys health plan. She told me she lost her doctor. And ever since Julies been forced to buy health insurance on the Obamacare exchange, and the simple truth is, as she told me today with emotion in her voice, she just -- she cant afford it. In 2016 alone, Julies Obamacare plan cost more than $9,000 in premiums with a deductible of $13,000. Late last year, she found out her premiums were going to go up by another $2,600 this year. Folks, Julies Obamacare plan cost more than her mortgage and she cant even afford to use it. In fact, because of Obamacare, Julie told me that she actually chose, last Christmas, to stop paying for health insurance for three months just so she could afford Christmas presents for her kids and grandkids. Folks, thats just plain wrong. No American should ever have to choose between paying for their health insurance and providing for their families. Its heartbreaking. (Applause.) She basically said, under Obamacare, we have no hope. But I looked her in the eye, put my hand on her shoulder, and I said, Julie, help is on the way. (Applause.) You know, the truth is, Julie is the face of Obamacares failures but she is the face of tens of millions of Americans who are living proof that Obamacare is collapsing and taking the American people down with it. You know, youd have to be blinded by partisanship to believe otherwise. And unfortunately, theres a lot of people who are blinded by partisanship. And you can find all of them in the Democrat minority in the House and Senate here in Washington, D.C. (Applause.) I mean, look, theyre the ones who gave us Obamacare, and now they wont lift a finger to help us rescue the American people from the mess they made. Thats why we need this road to majority -- to keep the pressure on the Congress and help President Trump and Congress finish what we started. And I promise you, President Trump will not rest, will not relent until we rescue the American people from the disaster of Obamacare and give our country the world-class healthcare the American people deserve. (Applause.) Thats a promise. And after we repeal and replace Obamacare, were going to keep right on going. Were going to roll our sleeves up working with this Congress. Before the end of this year, were going to pass the biggest tax cut since the days of Ronald Reagan. (Applause.) Were going to cut taxes across the board for working families, small businesses, and family farms. This President is going to make the American tax code simpler, flatter, and fairer for everyone. You know, theres an old joke about the tax code. They say its 10 times the size of the Bible with none of the good news. (Laughter and applause.) Well, heres some real good news: Were going to put more money in taxpayers pockets and give American families and American business the relief they need to grow. (Applause.) And were not going to stop there. Under the Presidents leadership, were going to continue to rein in wasteful government spending, restore fiscal responsibility to Washington, D.C., and with Betsy DeVos as Secretary of Education, were going to expand educational choices so every child in America has access to a world-class education regardless of their income, regardless of their area code. (Applause.) Most important of all, this President will continue to stand up for and stand with the brave men and women who protect our freedom and our way of life every day. (Applause.) Now, Karen and I are the proud parents of a lieutenant in the United States Marine Corps. (Applause.) And as a parents of a member of our armed forces, I tell you what, I couldnt be more proud to serve with a President who is so committed to the men and women of the Armed Forces of the United States of America. President Trump is the best friend the Armed Forces of the United States will ever have. (Applause.) You know, today, we received a heartbreaking reminder of the risks that our service men and women face in the defense of freedom. As I traveled to Wisconsin this afternoon, I was informed that three American soldiers were killed and one wounded in a terrible attack in Afghanistan. The Bible tells us that no greater love has a man than this, than he should lay down his life for his friends. Let me say from the heart, when heroes fall, Americans grieve. And tonight, our thoughts and prayers are with the families of these American heroes. We honor their service, their sacrifice, and we always will. (Applause.) We honor them by remembering, but we also honor them by ensuring that those that they left behind in uniform have the resources and training to accomplish their mission. And I want to promise you, President Donald Trump will not rest and will not relent until we rebuild our military, restore the arsenal of democracy, and once again give our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guard the resources and the training they need to accomplish their mission and come home safe. (Applause.) The supplemental budget that Congress just put on the Presidents desk had the largest increase in military spending in the last 10 years. And the budget that the President submitted to the Congress for next year has the largest increase in defense spending since the administration of President Ronald Reagan. Were going to rebuild our military. (Applause.) And with that strong support, I would report to you our armed forces are in the fight. Theyre taking the fight to terrorists on our terms, on their soil. And ISIS is on the run. And under this Commander-in-Chief, we will hunt down and destroy ISIS at its source so that it can no longer threaten our people, our allies, or our very way of life. As the President said, this bloodshed must end -- this bloodshed will end. (Applause.) Men and women of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, President Donald Trump is a man of his word. And hes a man of action. And I promise you, whatever the national media is spending its time talking about on any given day -- (laughter) -- President Donald Trump will never stop fighting to make America safe again, to make America prosperous again. He will stay in the fight, and I know you will too. You know, all of you have helped our President get this far, and I really just came tonight to say thanks, and to be here when you honored my friend. I want to thank you for everything youve done. But make no mistake about it, the harder work -- maybe the most important work -- is in front of us, not behind us. (Applause.) From this day forward, President Trump needs every ounce of your energy, your enthusiasm, your conviction, your time, your talent, and your treasure. But we also need, maybe, one other thing in these divided times. In these times of widening challenges at home and abroad, seemingly unknowable threats, and also a time of uncharacteristic division in America, I know youre the right people for me to encourage to do one more thing. And that is pray for America. (Applause.) And Im not -- you know, on this one, Im not so much talking about praying for a cause or praying for an issue. Im always very moved by what President Abraham Lincoln said in his time when he was asked whether he believed that God was on the side of the Union Army. President Lincoln responded memorably. He said, rather than considering whether God is on our side, I think its better for us to consider whether we are on Gods side. So why dont we just pray for America, for all the people of America, and for the future of this great land. (Applause.) And when you pray, pray with confidence. Because I truly do believe that those ancient words, spoke millennia ago and enshrined in the hearts of every American. Words that have seen the people of this country through trials much greater than those that we face today. That if His people, who are called by His name, will humble themselves and pray, Hell do like Hes always done in the long and storied history of this land. Hell hear from heaven, and Hell heal this land. This one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. (Applause.) Thank you. God bless you and God bless the United States of America. END

Visit link:

Remarks by the Vice President to the Faith and Freedom Coalition - The White House (blog)

RALEIGH I am a teetotaler who believes that my fellow North Carolinians should be free to buy and consume the alcoholic beverages of their choice from the vendors of their choice.

They dont currently possess that freedom. Our state places significant limits on the sale of beer, wine and spirits. Above a low statutory cap, breweries are not allowed to market their wares directly to retailers. Distilleries are even more encumbered, both in how much liquor they can sell directly to consumers and in the range of retailers they can use namely, only the government monopoly of ABC stores.

North Carolina actually fares relatively well in assessments of personal freedom, according to analysts at the Cato Institute. Their Freedom in the 50 States report uses three categories of variables: fiscal, regulatory and personal. North Carolinas overall freedom ranking is 19th, but we do best in the personal freedom category, where we rank 13th.

By this broad measure, North Carolina is the freest state in the Southeast. Still, wed be even higher on the list if our alcohol laws werent so restrictive, ranking us 35th in the country in this area.

There are two movements underway in North Carolina that, if successful, would improve the situation. One of them began at the General Assembly this year as House Bill 500. As originally written, it would have allowed craft breweries to distribute up to 200,000 barrels of beer directly to retailers, rather than having to use a state-sanctioned cartel of wholesalers. The current cap is 25,000 barrels.

The wholesalers prevailed in the initial legislative battle, so the version of the bill that ultimately passed the House in late April would only modestly expand the ability of some breweries and wineries to sell their products as they wish. In response, some craft breweries have filed a lawsuit to strike down the states distribution cap and franchise laws as a violation of the state constitution.

The other measure, Senate Bill 155, would allow distilleries to sell up to five bottles directly to visiting consumers, up from the current annual limit of one bottle. It would also loosen limits on the sale of spirits at festivals and conventions, while allowing restaurants and retailers to sell alcohol after 10 a.m. on Sundays, two hours earlier than the current limit (which is why the legislation is known as the brunch bill). It has already passed the Senate and is now awaiting action in the House.

Some opposition to alcohol deregulation comes from interest groups, public and private, that benefit from the current system. No one should be surprised by their special pleading, which is always skillfully delivered.

But others inside and outside the General Assembly argue that North Carolinas regulatory scheme is designed to curb alcohol abuse, which they tie to such social ills as drunk driving and domestic abuse. I think their concerns deserve more respect, although I dont ultimately agree with their conclusions.

As I said, Im a teetotaler. One reason is that my family has often suffered the ravages of alcoholism. As the family historian, Ive chronicled numerous cases. The great-uncle for whom I was named, for example, was struck and killed on the railroad track behind our house either because he had fallen down drunk or because hed first been beaten to unconsciousness by fellow drunks. His uncle, in turn, had been murdered decades before during an alcohol-fueled gunfight. Other close relatives have had less deadly but still debilitating experiences with alcohol.

But if your conception of freedom is that it ought only to extend to behavior with which you personally agree, youve conceived it out of existence. The state should certainly punish actions that violate the rights of others, such as drunk driving or violent crimes committed while inebriated. The adult consumption and sale of alcohol, however, are not the proper concern of the state.

Most drinkers arent drunks, most drunks arent dangerous, and most governmental attempts to save people from themselves create more problems than they solve.

The John Locke Foundation

Go here to read the rest:

John Hood: Teetotaler says alcohol laws too restrictive - Winston-Salem Journal

A Terrible Argument For Economic Nationalism In The National Review Forbes In more detail, how many people are employed inside the US economy depends upon the monetary policy (from the Fed) and the fiscal policy (when we have one, from Congress) in place in the US economy. ... Then there's this about freedom and liberty:.

The rest is here:

A Terrible Argument For Economic Nationalism In The National Review - Forbes

If taxes had to be paid up front, Fraser Insititute calculates it would take until June 8

Today is the first day of the year our income is entirely our own.

Thats according to Fraser Institutes annual calculation that June 9 is this years Tax Freedom Day.

Each year, the Vancouver-based think-tank adds up the total yearly tax burden for Canadian families by federal, provincial and municipal government.

The idea is that if taxes had to be paid up front, Tax Freedom Day marks the first day of the year families can start keeping their entire income, instead of being used to pay their taxes.

In 2017, the average Canadian family will pay about $47,000 in total taxes. Thats 43.4 per cent of their annual income going to income taxes, payroll taxes, health taxes, sales taxes and more.

Its difficult for average Canadians to add up all the taxes they pay in a year because the different levels of government levy such a wide range of taxes, and thats why we do these calculationsto give Canadians a better understanding of exactly how much they pay to government, said Charles Lammam, director of fiscal studies at the institute.

@ashwadhwani ashley.wadhwani@bpdigital.ca Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Link:

VIDEO: June 9 is Tax Freedom Day - Surrey Now-Leader

Leaders of the House Freedom Caucus are urging House GOP leaders to drop the contentious border-adjusted tax proposal in the tax reform bill, and consider canceling August recess to hasten passage of legislation.

The conservative group is also weighing a demand for welfare reform as part of the bill.

HFC members laid out their priorities at the conservative Heritage Foundation as the Trump administration and congressional Republican leadership continue to negotiate a unified tax plan.

The caucus, which includes several dozen members, proved its ability to shape major legislation in last month's passage of an Obamacare replacement. The group's leader, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., helped negotiate the final healthcare bill.

One demand Meadows made Friday was for the House to move forward without a key provision favored by Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., namely the border-adjusted tax.

"The political facts are: There is not consensus to have support for the border adjustment tax," said Meadows. Even though the Freedom Caucus doesn't have a position on the idea, which has met harsh opposition from retailers and other import-intensive industries, Meadows argued that the controversy over it is slowing tax reform.

Ditching the border-adjusted tax would leave a major hole in the tax reform math. It would raise around $1 trillion over 10 years.

Under the proposal, companies would no longer be allowed to deduct the cost of imported goods and services, but would no longer pay any taxes on revenues from exports. In today's system, U.S. companies are taxed on all profits, whether they are earned in the U.S. or abroad.

Freedom Caucus members, however, favor tax reform legislation that cuts federal revenues. Leaders favor reform that doesn't add to the deficit, in part to ease the path for tax reform through the legislative process.

Meadows stated that House Republicans could quickly come to agreement on a tax plan that cut tax rates for businesses, permanently extended "bonus" depreciation that allows companies to immediately write off half of the value of some new investments, allowing companies to return foreign earnings at a lower rate, and doubling the standard deduction for families.

In order to pass tax reform legislation, Republicans aim to use the budget process known as reconciliation, which allows bills to pass with a simple majority in the Senate, bypassing a Democratic filibuster.

Using that procedure, however, requires them to first write a budget for fiscal year 2018. Doing so would be difficult given conservative demands to balance the budget, cut spending, and reform entitlements.

Jim Jordan of Ohio, a member of the Freedom Caucus, said Friday that the group would be willing to entertain higher spending in exchange for including welfare reform measures in the ensuing tax bill.

Those reforms should include work requirements and time limits on benefits, Jordan said, explaining that "it's good policy to encourage work."

See the original post:

Freedom Caucus wants to take border adjustment out of tax plan, add welfare reform - Washington Examiner

BNP Paribas SA economist Jeffrey Schultz has revised his growth estimate to 0.7% in 2017, rising to 1.3% and 1.5% in the subsequent years.

"The prospect of sustained low growth over the medium term remains the greatest risk to our fiscal policy objectives and limits governments ability to generate more revenue. Further consolidation measures may be required to ensure fiscal sustainability," Gigaba told MPs.

The first-quarter contraction, he said, "introduces significant downward bias in the GDP growth estimates" contained in the 2017 Budget Review, which forecast growth of 1.3%.

If sustained, this growth rate "will lead to further decline in GDP per capita and revenue, threatening the affordability of our planned expenditure. This puts more pressure on us as government to intensify our growth programme and improve confidence as a matter of urgency," Gigaba said.

He said the Cabinet had committed to provide clarity and certainty on key policy issues with the aim of unlocking growth in the economy in the next few weeks. Timelines for the finalisation of these policies would be announced soon.

Gigaba said the government was also committed to a "speedy response" to the issues raised by credit ratings agencies.

He reiterated the governments commitment to reduce the budget deficit over the next three years to 3.3% and to stabilise debt as a percentage of GDP. It was also committed to achieving greater efficiency and to stabilising the share of the public sector wage bill of total government expenditure. Personnel trends in all departments were being closely monitored. Measures were under consideration to generate more taxes over the medium term.

The DA, EFF, Congress of the People, the African Christian Democratic Party and the Freedom Front Plus objected to the passage of the bill.

Read more:

Fiscal targets at risk, says Gigaba - BusinessLIVE - Business Day (registration)

Advertisement

George Cahlink, E&E News reporter

Congressional leaders are worried about a time crunch for tackling spending, the debt ceiling and the rest of their agenda. Wikipedia (bill); Ed Uthman/Flickr (Capitol)

With momentum building toward an omnibus fiscal 2018 spending package in the House before the August recess, energy and environmental agencies stand a greater chance to get fresh dollars than in recent years.

House lawmakers are considering marking up all 12 annual appropriations bills in quick succession over the next several weeks and then combining them into one package that would hit the floor by the end of July, before Congress leaves for a five-week summer recess.

Those bills could also potentially move in tandem with a fiscal 2018 budget resolution and a measure to raise the debt ceiling.

Lawmakers are eager to make headway on fiscal issues rather than bump up against the new fiscal year on Oct. 1 and a looming deadline for raising the nation's borrowing authority. It would allow Republicans to use the fall to focus on another top legislative priority, a tax overhaul, and diminish the prospects of shutting down the government.

"We always knew we were going to have an abbreviated budgeting process in this first year, like we do with every new administration," Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told reporters yesterday. "So we're trying to figure out what's the best way to deal with our appropriations process, our budget process, given the ambition for tax reform" and the need to address other fiscal issues.

Additionally, an omnibus would likely allow for sidestepping the floor fights over partisan policy riders that have bogged down work on the energy-water and EPA-Interior spending bills in recent years. Broad spending packages, like the one Congress passed last month for funding the remainder of fiscal 2017, usually get bipartisan support because of their wide reach.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) was quick to chide Republicans this week for ignoring regular order by considering an omnibus without first considering any individual spending bills. But, he added, Democrats view a broad funding package as a "step up" from relying on emergency spending bills.

"It's just hard to see the time to do all 12 spending bills," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a senior appropriator, who said the idea is "attractive" to many House members who see the omnibus as a way to get a floor vote on every bill ahead of final spending negotiations with the Senate.

Any House package would change in the Senate, where Democrats still have the ability to filibuster spending bills. Still, a House-passed package would give the chamber a stronger negotiating hand than relying on spending bills that have only been voted out of committee.

Cole said there still likely would be some room for amendments even on a broad deal but said they could be "harder" to get attached if the underlying omnibus has bipartisan support.

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, at a hearing yesterday alluded to the tight calendar given that the White House budget request came about three months later than usual this year.

"This budget season is going to be a challenge," said Calvert. "We have a short time, a short window here we have to solve this, so we're going to be working hard on this committee."

Staunch House conservatives, who in the past have held up the spending bills to try to force deeper cuts, seem willing to pass up those fights this time with an eye toward focusing on longer-term budgeting goals and tax reform.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the chairman of the hard-right Freedom Caucus, said the group would be open to an omnibus provided there is room to at least offer some policy riders. He said an omnibus would be better than a fall dominated by fights over stopgap measures as has been the case in recent years.

"We want to get it done," said Meadows.

It's not year clear when, or even if, the House will take up its annual budget resolution this year that would offer a nonbinding funding blueprint for appropriators.

If one is not adopted, the chamber could choose to deem an overall spending discretionary spending level that appropriators would then divide among the 12 bills.

House Budget Chairwoman Diane Black (R-Tenn.) would not commit this week to moving a budget before the July 4 recess, telling reporters she was working to find "consensus."

Black and other GOP leaders are especially eager to move a budget this year with provisions calling for a tax overhaul, which under obscure budgeting rules would make it far easier to get tax legislation written and passed through the Senate later in the year.

Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin recently asked Congress to approve an increase in the nation's borrowing limit before leaving for summer recess.

The debt ceiling had not been expected to be hit until the fall, but as tax revenues have lagged, the administration has called for earlier action to avoid the chance at defaulting on federal debt.

GOP lawmakers have signaled an openness to a clean extension with most unwilling to risk an unprecedented federal default. It remains to be seen, though, whether other provisions could be woven into the debt deal, which in the past has been used as a vehicle to move both tax breaks and spending cuts.

The Freedom Caucus has said it would only back a debt limit increase if it were coupled with calls for other long-term, structural budget reforms that could force reductions in discretionary accounts and federal entitlements.

Meadows, however, conceded the right's view might not carry if Democrats joined with other more moderate Republicans to back a clean increase in the debt ceiling.

Hoyer said this week Democrats would be willing to support a clean debt ceiling increase but stressed it could not be tied to moving a tax package.

Reporter Kellie Lunney contributed.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The essential news for energy & environment professionals

1996-2017 Environment & Energy Publishing, LLCPrivacy PolicySite Map

Read the original:

House eyes omnibus deal by August recess - E&E News

I was Googling The Free State of Jones, a 2016 movie about an interesting episode of Civil War history, when I stumbled across a couple of interesting studies on freedom in the 50 states.

Both studies were produced by conservative think tanks. The first came in 2015 from the John Locke Foundation of North Carolina.

(Locke, by the way, was a 17th century British doctor and philosopher often called the father of classic liberalism, and an early advocate of the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that appear in the U.S. Declaration of Independence.)

According to the Locke Foundations First in Freedom Index, The freest state is Florida, followed byArizona, Indiana, South Dakota and Georgia.

The least free state is New York, followed by New Jersey, California, West Virginia and Kentucky.

Wisconsin ranked 34th for fiscal policy, 11th for educational freedom, seventh for regulatory freedom and 11th for health care freedom.

Why is freedom important? Because in general, freedom correlates with a more robust and resilient economy.

The foundation noted: Overall, there have been 37 studies of economic freedom and state economic growth published in scholarly journals since 1990 of which 29 found a positive, statistically significant relationship and eight found no link.

Not a single study found that ranking high in economic freedom was associated with lower economic performance.

A far more comprehensive study on freedom in the states was conducted in 2015-16 by the Mercatus Institute at George Mason University. (You can find the whole thing at freedominthe50states.org.)

We score all 50 states on over 200 policies encompassing fiscal policy, regulatory policy and personal freedom. We weight public policies according to the estimated costs that government restrictions on freedom impose on their victims, the authors wrote.

The Mercatus study identified the most free states as New Hampshire, Colorado, South Dakota, Idaho and Texas. (Only South Dakota also made the Locke list.)

The least free were New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, California and Maryland. (New York, New Jersey and California made both lists.)

The Mercatus study put Wisconsin squarely in the middle of the pack at 27th.

For all the talk about Scott Walkers radical reforms, the authors wrote, we find that economic freedom has been more or less constant since 2011 whereas personal freedom has grown substantially.

The Badger State has relatively high taxes, which have fallen only marginally since 2012. State taxes are projected to be 5.8 percent of personal income in 2015, while local taxes have risen since 2000 and now stand at 4.4 percent of income, above the national average

State and local debt has fallen somewhat since 2007, and government employment and subsidies are below average. Overall, Wisconsin has seen definite improvement on fiscal policy since 2010, but it hasnt yet reached the national average.

On regulatory policy, we see little change in recent years, although our index does not yet take account of the 2015 right-to-work law. Land-use freedom is a bit better than average; local zoning has not gotten out of hand, though it has grown some...

Occupational licensing increased dramatically between 2000 and 2006; still, the state is about average overall on extent of licensure

The state has a price-gouging law, as well as controversial, strictly enforced minimum-markup laws for gasoline and general retailers. The civil liability system is above average and improved significantly since 2010, due to a punitive damages cap.

Wisconsin is below average on criminal justice policies, but it has improved substantially since 2010 because of local policing strategies. The incarceration rate has fallen, as have nondrug victimless crime arrest rates. The states asset forfeiture law is one of the stricter ones in the country

Tobacco freedom is extremely low, due to airtight smoking bans and high taxes.

Educational freedom grew significantly in 201314 with the expansion of vouchers. However, private schools are relatively tightly regulated.

Here is something I dont understand: There is almost no legal gambling, even for social purposes. Has Mercatus never heard of Indian casinos? The state lottery?

The authors go on to state: Cannabis law is unreformed. Wisconsin is the best state for alcohol freedom, with no state role in distribution, no keg registration, low taxes (especially on beer imagine that), no blue laws, legal happy hours, legal direct wine shipment, and both wine and spirits in grocery stores.

The state is now about average on gun rights after the Legislature passed a shall-issue concealed-carry license, one of the last states in the country to legalize concealed carry

The Institutes policy recommendations for Wisconsin: Reduce the income tax burden while continuing to cut spending on employee retirement and government employment. Abolish price controls. Eliminate teacher licensing and mandatory state approval for private schools.

Hmm

Speaking of freedom, I am now free of the need for wearing glasses or contacts for the first time in almost 60 years.

Cataract surgery is a miracle, at least for me -- although, every single morning when I wake up and look out the window, I think, Oh darn! I forgot to take my contacts out last night. Im just not used to being able to see.

I would have preferred to be unconscious during the procedures (theres nothing like people using a pen to draw on your eyeball to make you wonder how much worse water-boarding could possibly be) but the doctors explained that I needed to be conscious to cooperate with them: OK, look to your left No, your other left.

But the discomfort was fleeting and the result is miraculous.

Got something Sunny Schubert should know? Call her at 222-1604 or email sunschu16@gmail.com.

See the article here:

View From the Pier: Just how free are we in Wisconsin? - hngnews.com

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Today we spend the hour with longtime Puerto Rican independence activist Oscar Lpez Rivera, who was in prison for more than 35 years, much of the time in solitary confinement, before President Obama commuted his sentence in January. On May 17th, 2017, less than a month ago, Lpez Rivera was released. Today he joins us in our New York studio.

Oscar Lpez Rivera was born in San Sebastin, Puerto Rico, and moved with his family to Chicago when he was a boy. He was drafted into the Army at age 18 and served in Vietnam, for which he was awarded the Bronze Star. Upon his return in 1967, he became a community organizer who fought for bilingual education, jobs and better housing.

During the 1970s and 1980s, he was a leader of the pro-independence group FALN, the armed liberationthe Forces of Armed National Liberation. Its members set more than a hundred bombs, including one attack on Fraunces Tavern in New York City that killed four people. He was never charged, however, with setting those bombs. Instead, in 1981, Lpez Rivera was convicted on federal charges that included seditious conspiracyconspiring to oppose U.S. authority over Puerto Rico by force. In fact, seditious conspiracy is the same charge Nelson Mandela faced. Lpez Rivera described his charges in a rare prison interview in 2006.

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: I think that the fact that I was charged with seditious conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States speaks for itself. But the charge in reference to Puerto Ricans has always been used for political purposes. It goes back to 1936. The first time that a group of Puerto Ricans was put in prison was by using the seditious conspiracy charge. And this ishas always been a strictly political charge used against Puerto Ricans.

JUAN GONZLEZ: In 1999, President Bill Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of the FALN, but Lpez Rivera refused at that time to accept the deal because it did not include two fellow activists, who have since been released.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Oscar Lpez Riveras first visit to New York City since his release last month, and it coincides with New Yorks long-standing Puerto Rican Day Parade, which always takes place on the second Sunday of June. This years organizers chose to honor Lpez Rivera as the parades first "National Freedom Hero." This prompted the citys police chief and a number of corporate sponsors to boycott the event, including Goya Foods, Coca-Cola, Univision and Telemundo. As Juan reported in his column for the New York Daily News, a boycott campaign to condemn Lpez Rivera as a terrorist "was quietly organized by a right-wing conservative group in Washington, D.C., the Media Research Center, that receives major funding from donors close to both President Trump and to Breitbart News," unquote. Well, Oscar Lpez Rivera says he will still march, but not as an official honoree, simply as a humble Puerto Rican and grandfather.

Over the years, one of Oscar Lpez Riveras strongest supporters has been Archbishop Desmond Tutu. On Wednesday, Tutu issued a statement in support of his participation in the parade, noting, quote, "Had South Africans and people of the African diaspora allowed others to determine who we would embrace, Mandela would still be in prison and have been stripped of the stature we gave him and that he deserved," unquote.

All of this comes as Puerto Rico is in the midst of a bankruptcy process and is preparing to hold a referendum on its political future on Sundaythe same day as the parade.

For more, were joined in studio by Oscar Lpez Rivera. While in prison, he wrote two books, Between Torture and Resistance and Letters to Karina. Were also joined by Juan Cartagena, president and general counsel of LatinoJustice.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Oscar Lpez Rivera, how does it feel to be free?

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: It feels wonderful. It feels completely, completely different than being in prison. For the first time, I can hear the roosters sing early in the morning. I can seeI can see my family. I can see my friends. I can see my granddaughter. I recently went to California just to spend a few days with her. I can move around Puerto Rico. So it feels wonderful. It feels a world completely, completely different than the world of prisons.

JUAN GONZLEZ: And all of these years that you were not only in prison, but in solitary for a good portion of that time, Im wondering: Did you have an expectation that you would eventually be freed? And was it a surprise when, in earlyearly this year, you finally got the word that President Obama had commuted your sentence?

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: Well, one of the things that I never allowed myself to do was to fall into what I call illusory optimism. You know, so I tried my best to keep my hope that I will come out of prison, but at the same time prepare for the worst. So, on Mayon January 17th, when President Obama commuted my sentence and I was told that my sentence had been commuted, my reaction was not one that was expected, because I was prepared for the worst. And it took me about four days to really, really realize that I was on my way out of prison. But it was not a very, very exciting moment when I was told that President Obama had commuted my sentence.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, this wasnt the first commutation. I mean, Bill Clinton also did this, along with a number of your compatriotsright?16 Puerto Rican independence activists. But you chose not to leave at that time. You could have left more than a decade ago, two decades ago.

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: Well, I believe in principles, and I have never left anyone behind, whether it was in Vietnam, whether it was in the city of Chicago, whether it was in Puerto Rico. And for me, it was important to stay in prison while two of my co-defendants were in prison. Both of them came out by 2010. Both of them were out of prison. And finally, on May 17th, I was finally, finally out of prison. The sentence was commuted the 17th of January, but I had to be under home confinement until May 17th. So, it was May 17th when I started to walk on the streets of Puerto Rico and to enjoy Puerto Rico.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Juan Cartagena, I wanted to ask you about the campaign to free Oscar Lpez Rivera, because it really included thea cross-section of all political persuasions, religious groups in Puerto Rico, and it lasted for a long time. I remember when we were covering the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, there was a very strong contingent from Chicago and other cities that had come to demonstrate at the Democratic convention about the issue of finally freeing him. Your sense of the importance of that campaign?

JUAN CARTAGENA: Oh, critically important. Many of us thought that one last hope would have been the Obama administration. Like we were hoping for a long time that the president, Obama, would actually commute his sentence. We wereI was following how President Obama was eulogizing Nelson Mandela when he went to the wake in South Africa, talking about how, by freeing Mandela, the system also freed itself. And in many ways, we keptI kept using that, and others kept using that kind of quote.

We also recognized that thisthis incredible unity that happened in Puerto Rico is hardly ever seen that many times, right? In my own lifetime, Ive seen it around Vieques. But rarely have we seen so many political parties, so many faith, union members and activists of all persuasions, of all types, really line up to make sure that Oscar Lpez Rivera was freed, and, you know, have the happiness, the joy and the pride that we have that we finally we were able to achieve that, because, as he said, hes a man of principle, and to work on behalf of a man of principle has always been an honor.

AMY GOODMAN: Were going to break and then come back to our discussion with Juan Cartagena, whos president and general counsel of LatinoJustice, and with Oscar Lpez Rivera, Puerto Rican independence activist, freed last month after serving 35 years in prison. This is Democracy Now! Well be back in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: "From a Bird the Two Wings" by Pablo Milans, here on Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. Im Amy Goodman, with Juan Gonzlez. Our guest is Oscar Lpez Rivera, Puerto Rican independence activist, freed last month after serving 35 years in prison. Were also joined by Juan Cartagena, president and general counsel of LatinoJustice. This is the time here in New York City that the Puerto Rican Day Parade is taking place on Sunday. It is also the day, Sunday, that the Puerto Rican referendum will take place in Puerto Rico. Juan?

JUAN GONZLEZ: Well, Oscar, Id like to ask you about how you see Puerto Rico now, having come out of prison. The last time you were there was over 35 years ago, and now youre seeing a situation with total economic collapse and bankruptcy, an imposed control board by Congress. What do you see as the situation on the island right now and how it could possibly get out of its enormous crisis?

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: Puerto Rico is suffering an enormous crisis. Puerto Rico, as I see it, has been set up in a way that there is no way for Puerto Rico to lift itself up economically. First of all, the junta de fiscal control, fiscal control board, has already spent a lot of money without offering Puerto Rico anyany remedy to resolve its economic problem. What it has done thus far is extract money from programs such as the University of Puerto Rico, such as the public education system and otherpensions from workers, that will definitely, definitely make Puerto Ricos economy worse, much worse than it was last year or the year before. And Puerto Rico cannotcannot pay that debt. Its impossible for Puerto Rico to pay a debt, except if every dollar, every last dollar, that the Puerto Rican worker has in his pocket is taken out of his pocket. That is the reality from the economic point of view.

Besides that, we have a government in Puerto Rico, a colonial government in Puerto Rico, that has no wayoffer any incentives to the Puerto Rican people. On the contrary, it offers incentives to foreigners to invest in Puerto Rico. Whoeverwhoever invests in Puerto Rico is not a Puerto Rican. What happens is that the money that is made in Puerto Rico is taken out of Puerto Rico. That money does not stay in Puerto Rico. It does not help the economy of Puerto Rico. So, my way of looking at it is, Puerto Rico is in trouble economically, and the junta de control fiscal, the control board, that is imposed or has been imposed on Puerto Rico, is really a detrimentalI will dare say, a criminalact on the Puerto Rican people.

Now, there other things in Puerto Rico that I see being positive. For example, I see the students at the university struggling. I see the universitythe students at the university trying to do something to preserve or at least protect the university. That is positive. The youth, the Puerto Rican youth, represent the future of Puerto Rico. And as long as they are struggling and doing something for the economy, doing something for themselves, doing something for Puerto Rico, there is hope.

There is also oneanother element that I see. Puerto Rico, as has been mentioned, is going into or is celebrating a plebiscite, anotheranother colonial act. And to justify what? Puerto Rico is not going to become a state, definitely not. And only one political party in Puerto Rico is going on this plebiscite, is participating in this plebiscite. The rest of Puerto Rico is boycotting the plebiscite. That money, $10 million that will be spent on the plebiscite, could go into at least the education system. We could preserve some of those schools that are being closed. A hundred and sixty-nine public schools are going to be closed. Why not use that money to help those schools? That will be one of the questions that I will ask the governor of Puerto Rico right now. He has been asked. He has no answers.

AMY GOODMAN: I was wondering if we can go back in time to your history, what politicized you, where you were born, how you came to head up the FALN, and then your 35 years in prison, how you survived there?

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: Well, I was born in a very small farm in Puerto Rico. At age 14, I was sent to Chicago to live with my sister. I entered high school. Im going to make a little story here, so you will probably see my politics.

When I was in high school in Chicago, the teacher asked the students to define a hero and why that person was a hero. So, I had beenwhen I entered elementary school in Puerto Rico at age 5, every day we would sing a song that would say George Washington was to be celebrated because he never, never said a lie. OK, so on that particular day, I said that George Washington was my hero, because he had never, never said a lie. And the students started laughing. I thought it was because of my English accent. When I steppedwhen the class was over, a fellow student pulled me to the side, and he said, "Dont you know that George Washington was a liar? You shouldnt have said that." So, indoctrination was taking place in Puerto Rico in a very sophisticated, subtle way. I was deeply and profoundly, profoundly indoctrinated into believing that Puerto Rico could never be an independent country, that Puerto Rico could not be self-sufficient, that we will starve to death if the United States will walk out of Puerto Rico. Thats how I was influenced for the first 14 years in my life.

Then, in Chicago, I found myself facing things that I had never thought I would facefor example, discrimination for the first time, finding racism for the first time, a real, real blatant racism, and discrimination when I was trying to find a job. In the military, I also found the same, same practice. Yeah, there was racism. There was discrimination. So, when I came back home from Vietnamand for some reason, Vietnam changed my way of life, my way of thinking. I came back from Vietnam, and I found myself obligated to find out what was the reason for being for the war in Vietnam. I found myself more sympathetic with the Vietnamese people than I thought that I would ever be. And little by little, I was starting to discover what Vietnam had done. For example, I discovered Dien Bien Phu, how the Vietnamese fought against the French, how they decolonized themselves. I came back to Chicago, and I found a community of Puerto

AMY GOODMAN: You got a Bronze Star when you were there.

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: I got a Bronze Star for that.

AMY GOODMAN: What was your brother doing during this time?

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: Who?

AMY GOODMAN: Your brother.

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: My brother? My brother was studying. But when I came back from Vietnam, I found a community, a Puerto Rican community, that was beginning to wake up, to demand to be seen, to be heard, to transcend its marginalization. And I started organizing in the community. At that time, the Young Lords were coming up out of Chicago. It was a street gang that became political. A lot of things were happening in 1967. For example, it was 1967 when Dr. Martin Luther King pronounced himself against the war in Vietnam and called it a criminal war. 1967 was when Muhammad Ali refused to be drafted. And he paid a big price.

And 1967 was the first time that I was invited by a nationalist, a Puerto Rican nationalist, to go to his house and listen to some tapes of the nationalists. And one of the tapesone of the tapes was Lolita Lebrn, who had gone to Washington the 1st of March, 1954. And she said in that interview that she came to Washington not to kill anyone, but to give her life for Puerto Rico. And when I heard that woman say that, I was amazed. I was amazed. And from that moment on, we started working on the campaign to free the five. There were five Puerto Rican political prisoners. And from 1967 on, in Chicago, we started to organize a campaign for their release. By that time, Lolita Lebrn, Irvin Flores, Andres Figueroa Cordero, Rafael Cancel Miranda had been in prison for 13 years, and and Oscar Collazo Lpez had been in prison for 17 years. And we believed that we should do something to win their release. And finally, in 1979, they were released from prison.

JUAN GONZLEZ: I wanted to ask you, when you were in Chicago, you helped to start a school, didnt you, in Chicago, that diddo I have it right? Luis Gutirrez was a student at that school?

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: No, Luis Gutirrez was a tutor at the school.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Oh, tutor.

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: The now congressman.

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: Yes, yes. In 1972, we started an alternative high school for high school dropouts. I have been involved in the issue of education since 1967. We fought to get schools built in the community. We fought to bring bilingual education into the schools. We fought to open up the doors at the universities, especially University of Illinois Chicago Circle and Northeastern, universities where programs were implemented to allow Latino students, because it was not only Puerto Ricans, we were also involved in helping the Latino population in general. So, those programs still exist, the programs at University of Illinois, the program at Northeastern University and our high school. Our high school is a really, really, really interesting project. It was based on Paulo Freires Pedagogy of the Oppressed. And we were hoping that we would get dropouts, put them through a very rigorous educational system, and do it without any funds. What we did, we asked college professors to give us three hours for a class. And wethe students that were at the university, that we had helped to get into the university, we asked them to be tutors. And thats how Congressman Gutirrez got to be a tutor at the high school.

AMY GOODMAN: So talk about going to prison and what it meant for you in prison. You were in solitary confinement for over 12 years?

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: I was in solitary confinement for 12 years, four months. And first, from 1986, June 1986, in Marion, USP Marion in Illinois, up til 1994, and then, from 1994 to November 1996 in ADX. In ADX, for the first 58 days, I was awakened every half-hour, 58 days straight. So that will give you an idea what it is to be in prison, to be under those conditions.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Well, I wanted to ask you, in terms of the reasons for your being in prison, I mean, clearly, the big narrative that youre seeing in the commercial media is this was a terrorist, this is a person whos unrepentant, this is a person who never should be allowed to be out free again, is certainly not celebrated as a hero. The issue of the FALNs campaign of bombings that occurred in that period of of time, your retrospectively looking back at that, how you view that campaign and how you feel about it now, and also the criticisms that some people have that youthat the organization participated in the killing of many innocent people?

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: First of all, yeah, I want to make this point clear. I have neverfor me, human life is precious. I was in Vietnam. I hope and I pray that I neverI never killed anyone. Now, we know. We know. But if youre a soldier, you know when you have shot somebody, because there is a field of range that youre covering. And on my path, I never saw anyone being wounded or killed. So, I can say that I came home from Vietnam without blood on my hands. I hope so. For me, the issue of human life, human life is precious. Now, Ive been asked over and over about the bombings. Ive been asked over and over what took place. I can guarantee one thing: that I have never participated in an act where a human lifewhere we knew that a human life was going to be put in jeopardy. OK?

Now, one thing that I want to make a very, very clear: Puerto RicoPuerto Rico, as a colony, has every rightevery rightto its independence. To its independence, it has every right. And by international law, Puerto RicoPuerto Rico can usePuerto Ricans who want to decolonize Puerto Rico can use all the means at their disposal, including the use of force. Im not advocating for that. Lets make that clear. By 1992, by 1992, all of us who were in prison had taken a position that we will notwe will not promote violence, that we will notwe were not going to be active in violence. In 1999, mostly all my co-defendants were released. Up to this time, up to this time, almost 20 years later, there has not been a minute, not a single act, a criminal or any kind of violation committed by my co-defendants. That really should be the measuring point for anything. That should be the way that we should be seen. We left prison. We committed ourselves not to act violently. And thus far, no one can accuse us of doing so.

Now, had there been any evidence against any of usany of usI guarantee you that I wouldnt be here today, because the federal judge, the federal judge we faced, he told us that if the law would allow it, he would sentence all of us to death, if the law would allow it. And that sometimesthat narrative is never talked about. But theres a narrative. Theres a narrative. Colonialism is a crime against humanity. We have to be clear on that. And Puerto RicansPuerto Ricans, to tolerate colonialism, we are tolerating a crime. So, I think that its important to understand that we love Puerto Rico. I love my homeland. Thats my homeland. Thats my promised land. And the way I see it is that we have to decolonize Puerto Rico. Now, the issue of violence is no longer one that we will ever entertain or that well ever promote. And lets be clear on that, because I think that its important for people to know who we are, who we are as people, as human beings, because we lovewe love our homeland. We alsowe also love justice and freedom for the whole world.

Continued here:

After 35 Years in Prison, Puerto Rican Activist Oscar Lpez Rivera on Freedom & Decolonization - Democracy Now!

John Hood

Contributing Columnist

They dont currently possess that freedom. Our state places significant limits on the sale of beer, wine and spirits. Above a low statutory cap, breweries are not allowed to market their wares directly to retailers. Distilleries are even more encumbered, both in how much liquor they can sell directly to consumers and in the range of retailers they can use namely, only the government monopoly of ABC stores.

North Carolina actually fares relatively well in assessments of personal freedom, according to analysts at the Cato Institute. Its Freedom in the 50 States report uses three categories of variables: fiscal, regulatory and personal. North Carolinas overall freedom ranking is 19th, but we do best in the personal freedom category, where we rank 13th.

By this broad measure, North Carolina is the freest state in the Southeast. Still, wed be even higher on the list if our alcohol laws werent so restrictive, ranking us 35th in the country in this area.

There are two movements underway in North Carolina that, if successful, would improve the situation. One of them began at the General Assembly this year as House Bill 500. As originally written, it would have allowed craft breweries to distribute up to 200,000 barrels of beer directly to retailers, rather than having to use a state-sanctioned cartel of wholesalers. The current cap is 25,000 barrels.

Wholesalers prevailed in the initial legislative battle, so the version of the bill that ultimately passed the House in late April would only modestly expand the ability of some breweries and wineries to sell their products as they wish. In response, some craft breweries have filed a lawsuit to strike down the states distribution cap and franchise laws as a violation of the state constitution.

The other measure, Senate Bill 155, would allow distilleries to sell up to five bottles directly to visiting consumers. It would also loosen limits on the sale of spirits at festivals and conventions, while allowing restaurants and retailers to sell alcohol after 10 a.m. on Sundays, two hours earlier than the current limit. It has already passed the Senate and is now awaiting action in the House.

Some opposition to alcohol deregulation comes from interest groups, public and private, that benefit from the current system. No one should be surprised by their special pleading, which is always skillfully delivered.

But others inside and outside the General Assembly argue that North Carolinas regulatory scheme is designed to curb alcohol abuse, which they tie to such social ills as drunken driving and domestic abuse. I think their concerns deserve respect, although I dont ultimately agree with their conclusions.

As I said, Im a teetotaler. One reason is that my family has often suffered the ravages of alcoholism. The great-uncle for whom I was named, for example, was struck and killed on the railroad track behind our house either because he had fallen down drunk or because hed first been beaten to unconsciousness by fellow drunks. His uncle, in turn, had been murdered decades before during an alcohol-fueled gunfight. Other close relatives have had less deadly but still debilitating experiences with alcohol.

But if your conception of freedom is that it ought only to extend to behavior with which you personally agree, youve conceived it out of existence. The state should certainly punish actions that violate the rights of others, such as drunken driving or violent crimes committed while inebriated. The adult consumption and sale of alcohol, however, are not the proper concern of the state.

Most drinkers arent drunks, most drunks arent dangerous and most governmental attempts to save people from themselves create more problems than they solve.

John Hood is chairman of the John Locke Foundation and appears on the talk show N.C. Spin. Follow him on Twitter @JohnHoodNC.

Go here to see the original:

State should not control alcohol - The Wilson Times (subscription)

Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David L. Goldfein testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Capitol Hill June 6.

At the forefront were the efforts to restore readiness and increase the lethality of the force. Wilson said any objective evaluation of todays Air Force reaches two conclusions:

The Air Force is too small for the missions demanded of it, she said in advance of the hearing. And adversaries are modernizing and innovating faster than we are, putting Americas technological advantage in air and space at risk.

Air Force in demand

Looking forward, Wilson and Goldfein do not envision the demand for air and space power diminishing in the coming decade.

Today, the Air Force is manned with 660,000 active, guard, reserve and civilian Airmen, a 30 percent decline since Operation Desert Storm 26 years ago.

We have the same level of taskings today as we did during Desert Storm, Wilson said. But we have 55 squadrons rather than 134.

The Air Force leaders said while the fiscal 18 budget request focuses on restoring readiness and increasing lethality, future budgets must focus on modernization and continued readiness recovery.

Restoring readiness

The two testified that maintaining superiority starts with people.

For an Airman, its nothing short of a moral obligation to gain and maintain air superiority, Goldfein said. This budget request begins to set the table for recovering and rebuilding our force.

The fiscal 18 budget will bring the active duty force to 325,100 while also adding 800 reservists, 600guardsman, and 3,000 civilians, bringing the total force to approximately 669,000. The increased manpower will focus primarily on increasing remotely piloted aircraft crews, maintainers, and pilot training capacity by adding two additional F-16 training squadrons and maximizing flying hours to the highest executable levels.

Wilson said next to people, the most obvious readiness need is munitions. In the fight against ISIS, the Air Force has delivered approximately 56,000 direct-attack munitions, more than it used in all of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The fiscal 18 budget funds maximum factory production of the most critical munitions.

Modernization

The fiscal 18 budget focuses on the Air Forces top three modernization programs:

Purchasing 46 F-35A fighters and modernizing other fighters; Buying 15 KC-46 tankers; Funding the B-21 bomber development.

The proposed budget also supports the continuation and modernization of the nuclear triad with funds dedicated to both air- and ground-based capabilities.

Our nuclear enterprise is getting old and we must begin modernizing now to ensure a credible deterrent, Wilson said.

Side-by-side with the United States Navy, we are responsible for two of the three legs of the nuclear Triad, Goldfein said. On our worst day as a nation, our responsibility is to ensure the president is where he needs tobe,when he needs to be there, and he stays connected through command and control to the nuclear enterprise and for an Airman, that remains jobs one.

Space

The Air Force has been the leading military service responsible for space for 54 years. Over the last several years, the service has been developing concepts for space control, changing the way it trains its space force and integrating space operations into the joint fight.

Weve provided GPS for the world. Weve transformed not only the way we fight but the way all of you probably navigate around the city, Wilson said. We must expect that war, of any kind, will extend into space in any future conflict and we have to change the way we think and prepare for that eventuality.

The proposed budget increases space funding by 20 percent, including a 27 percent increase in research, development,testingand evaluation for space systems, and a 12 percent increase for space procurement.

Innovation for the future

Research, development,testingand evaluation are critically important for the Air Force, Wilson and Goldfein said.

To prevail against rapidly innovating adversaries, the Air Force must accelerate procurement. The service will take advantage of authorities like the FY17 Defense Authorization Act to help get capabilities operational faster than ever before, Wilson said.

The request for funding for long-term research in air dominance increased significantly in the fiscal 18 budget. The Air Force will seek to increase basic and applied research in areas where it must maintain the competitive advantage over adversaries. This includes hypersonic vehicles,directed-energy, unmanned and autonomous systems, and nanotechnology.

Its going to take us approximately eight years to be able to get to full spectrum readiness with stable budgets, Goldfein said. We will be unable to execute the defense strategic guidance undersequester.

If the Budget Control Act limit isnt fixed and we have to go throughsequester, that will be equivalent to a $15 billion cut, Wilson said. Were too small for what the nation expects of us now, sequestration would make the situation worse.

According to Wilson and Goldfein, by supporting the budget request, Congress can provide fiscal predictability to the Air Force so it can continue to own the high ground, defend the homeland, and project power in conjunction with allies.

More here:

Air Force Leaders Discuss The Future Of Air And Space Power - ECNmag.com

As Congress continues its work on replacing the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Ohio leaders like Governor John Kasich and Senator Robert Portman are rightly concerned about the impact these changes will have on Medicaid recipients, especially those who received Medicaid through the ACA expansion. However, two critical facts are missing from the current debate.

First, Medicaid is a substandard health care system and we have to find a way to transition people into insurance that offers them better care. Second, Medicaid is not fiscally sustainable at either the state or federal level. No one, on either side of the political divide, wants people to be uninsured, but glossing over these two critical facts wont help solve the real problems Medicaid faces and it wont provide people with quality healthcare.

There are numerous reasons for this. One problem is, Medicaid reimburses doctors and hospitals at a lower rate than private coverage, so recipients have trouble finding doctors who take Medicaid. Doctors who do take Medicaid often have less autonomy in deciding how to treat their patients. Medicaid recipients are more likely to visit emergency rooms rather than seeking more effect care with a primary care physician.

Given the poor quality of care, why would we want to put more people on Medicaid? The focus shouldnt be on protecting a system that has a mixed record of providing healthcare, but instead on finding solutions that offer better care to enrollees. We need to change Medicaid overall and think of how to deliver the best care, to the most patients for the best price.

Here in Ohio, the Ohio Department of Medicaid recognizes the need to offer quality healthcare and is actively piloting programs to deliver better care to Medicaid recipients. The problem is, there is only so much improvement that can be made without Washington lifting some of its burdensome regulations.

Fortunately, federal officials want to make it easier to grant Medicaid waivers that would allow states more flexibility to innovate in their Medicaid programs. Current proposals from the Ohio House would have Ohio seek a waiver to help Medicaid recipients save more for healthcare and transition to real health insurance. This Healthy Ohio plan is based on Healthy Indiana, which is working well for our westerly neighbor.

Now back to the sustainability of Medicaid. As with all taxpayer funded programs, government officials must ensure that money is being spent wisely and efficiently, and that the program achieves its goals. Medicaid fails in all three of these.

In Ohio, we spend a quarter of our state budget on Medicaid, and it is only growing. That means less money for education, roads, prisons, and a host of other government services. The good news is, the reforms I have mentioned will go a long way to improving healthcare delivery and will help reign in the unsustainable costs of Medicaid.

Modern day presidents from Ronald Reagan to Barack ObamaBarack ObamaOvernight Energy: Trump seeks Dems' help on infrastructure Comey's dramatic account rocks Washington Overnight Regulation: Labor chief defends handling of financial adviser rule | EPA ozone rule delayed | Panel approves bill on FDA user fees MORE have proposed budgets that reduce federal funding to Medicaid and increase the states share. Medicaid costs are only growing, and the federal government has made clear they will pay less in the future. If Medicaid is not reformed, the only other option is spiraling tax increases on Ohioans. That isnt good for Ohios families and wont improve the quality of care people get through Medicaid.

Ignoring the problems in the current Medicaid system will only continue to relegate people to poor quality healthcare at unsustainable costs. But we have a real opportunity to actively create a new Medicaid program. In doing so, Ohio can balance fiscal responsibility and offer better care to those most in need.

Rea S. Hederman Jr. is executive vice president and chief operating officer of The Buckeye Institute, a think tank promoting free market principles, and is an expert in healthcare policy.

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

See original here:

States needs freedom to improve health for Medicaid recipients ... - The Hill (blog)

According to a report that's out, President Donald Trump's executive order that eliminates two regulations for every new rule imposed could result in zero net regulatory costs this fiscal year.

On Tuesday, the American Action Forum released a report titled "Getting to $0" demonstrating how Executive Order 13771, using 2006 as a model, could result in zero net regulatory costs for the current fiscal year.

The report, written by Sam Batkins,director of regulatory policy at the American Action Forum, claims that EO's on regulation and the Congressional Review Act could bring regulatory costs to $0 by October 1, 2017. Contrast that with Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah's $164 billion in costs from his final regulations alone.

With the landmark signature of Executive Order (EO) 13,771, the Trump administration has made a bold move to limit regulatory costs, Batkins writes. But is the EOs goal of achieving $0 in regulatory costs for the remainder of the fiscal year (through October 1) possible?

According to American Action Forum (AAF) research, the administration need only be as restrained as the Bush Administration was in 2006 to accomplish the goal of no net costs, he continues. With the regulatory freeze still mostly in effect, the days of $164 billion in regulatory costs could come quickly to an end.

Batkins report also states that there have been "virtually no new regulatory burdens" since Trump's January 30th executive order.

The report points to way in which achieving the $0 regulatory costs can be achieved.

...there are already $305 million in regulatory recessions it could use, along with more than 40 million hours of reduced paperwork. These gains occurred before the EO, but since they are so recent, the administration does have some control over their future. Its not clear if these savings, largely stemming from a 'Food Stamps' revision, would count toward the one-in, two-out process or the $0 goal, but if they did, at least the Department of Agriculture would start with a negative regulatory balance.

In addition, the administration can use CRA resolutions of disapproval toward the goal of EO 13,771. The administrations guidance makes clear, We will consider Acts of Congress that overturn final regulatory actions, such as disapprovals of rules under the Congressional Review Act, to operate in a similar manner as agency deregulatory actions.

Currently, Congress has introduced roughly 30 resolutions of disapproval. If they were to pass everything on their agenda, they could generate more than $2.4 billion in annual regulatory savings for EO 13,771, with 7.6 million fewer paperwork hours as a byproduct. Although no resolution has been introduced, nullifying new greenhouse gas standards for trucks would save another $2.6 billion in burdens. These savings could be achieved without first performing the laborious task of identifying two prior regulations for repeal, arguably the most challenging aspect of the order.

The Congressional Review Act has already been used to roll back a coal mining rule imposed by Obama and there have been approximately 30 resolutions to repeal some of Obama's major regulations.

Among the complications and challenges that are faced is the fact that the central government has become a monstrosity by creating new unconstitutional agencies, which have more delegated authority. The report also says there is a question of how the executive order treats "repeal" versus an "amend" approach.

Batkins believes that the executive order will result in "a robust retrospective review of the current stock of federal rules to identify cost savings within existing programs."

"EO 13,771 has ushered in a new era for regulatory policy. Now, regulators must balance the imposition of new rules against removing some of the past burden of old regulations," the report concludes. "Regulators across the globe already engage in some form of this regulatory budgeting, but achieving $0 in net costs by October will be a challenge. However, a regulatory freeze, a robust retrospective effort, and a measured pace of regulation for next few months could make getting to $0 by the end of the fiscal year a reality."

The rest is here:

Trump's Executive Order Could Result in ... - Freedom Outpost

Instead of presenting a unified front ahead of a coming debt ceiling fight, Trump's Cabinet remains crossways. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin wants a "clean" increase, OMB Director Mulvaney favors spending reforms, and Sean Spicer is caught in the middle.

The already beleaguered press secretary had the unenviable task of trying to convince the press that Republicans were negotiating while they're clearly fighting behind closed doors.

"I would put it more like this," Spicer said during Tuesday's press conference, "there's a conversation that is going to go on with Congress about how to proceed and it's not, at this timeI'm not going to get in front of that discussion."

But as Mnuchin, Mulvaney, and congressional leaders talk, talk, and talk, Spicer probably wishes they'd just knock it off. The White House should just admit that they don't have a plan. No amount of spin can hide that fact.

The only clarity has come from White House legislative affairs director Marc Short, who told reporters Monday that Congress should raise the limit "before they adjourn for August." A simple enough task, lawmakers periodically increase the debt ceiling in order to authorize increases in the federal government's borrowing authority.

Other than that, there's no agreement.

Mnuchin first indicated to the House Ways and Committee in May that he preferred a "clean," vote on the debt ceiling without any accompanying spending cuts or reforms. Mulvaney seemed to balk at that possibility during a sit-down interview with the Washington Examiner's editorial board.

Describing it as a sort of "smoke alarm," Mulvaney said the debt ceiling warns the federal government "that we've now, once again, spent more than we have." And now that alarm is blaring, he's prepared to borrow more in exchange for "certain spending reforms and debt reforms in the future."

Complicating the debate further, factions inside the Republican House conference are already drawing battle lines. Mulvaney's old colleagues in the Freedom Crisis, a flock of roughly 40 fiscal hawks, have made their opposition to raising the limit known. That means that Democrat support would be needed to keep the federal government from defaulting on its obligations.

And the longer the fiscal battle rages inside the administration, the harder Spicer's job gets. For once the White House should do the press secretary a solid and get on the same page.

Philip Wegmann is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

More here:

Stuck in the middle of a fiscal fight, Sean Spicer admits White House doesn't have debt ceiling strategy - Washington Examiner

Congress' next few months are likely to be filled with drama, as lawmakers face tackling the debt ceiling, negotiating a new budget deal to lift limits on government spending and trying to head off a government shutdown this fall.

Lawmakers return to Capitol Hill this week from their Memorial Day recess facing two solid months of legislative hurdles before their scheduled five-week recess in August.

"There is so much to do, and there's so much uncertainty out there, that we are heading into a very intense two-month work period, and if we're going to do anything this year, we have to do it now," warned Jim Dyer, principal at the Podesta Group who previously served as the House Appropriations Committee's staff director.

Budget experts, including Dyer, and lawmakers are expecting a negotiation for a major fiscal deal with the timing for that likely to be determined by the deadline to address the debt ceiling. That is, lawmakers might have to reach a deal before Congress moves on to approving government funding for 2018.

If Congress fails to complete these tasks, the U.S. could default on its debt; all discretionary spending -- including both defense and non-defense -- would be slashed with cuts; and the government would shut down.

Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin has called on Congress to raise the debt limit before lawmakers leave for the summer and has specified that it should be a "clean" increase -- a demand that the conservative Freedom Caucus quickly rejected. The group said in a statement that any debt ceiling increase should be coupled with spending cuts in exchange. For context, Democrats have only ever agreed to a "clean" lifting of the debt limit.

Play Video

The House speaker discusses how Congress and the Trump administration plan to deal with the debt ceiling

For the last debt ceiling deadline in 2015, Congress was able to wait until October to address it. As it usually does, the Treasury Department has been relying on so-called "extraordinary measures" since mid-March of this year to buy more time but time may be running out sooner than previous years. When the threat of a default becomes more pronounced, that could spur a much larger fiscal deal.

"If there is to be a budget deal, and I believe there has to be a budget deal, I think the action-enforcing event will be the debt ceiling," Dyer said. "It's like the bitter medicine that no one wants to take, but they know they have to take it anyway if they're going to survive."

Since 2013, Congress has twice passed two-year bipartisan budget agreements to lift spending limits that were put in place by a 2011 law.

The first was negotiated by then-House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wisconsin, and his Senate counterpart, Patty Murray, D-Washington. The last one, in 2015, was reached by then-Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky and his Democratic counterpart, Harry Reid of Nevada. The 2015 deal will expire at the end of September, and if Congress doesn't pass a new one, spending limits from the 2011 law will take effect.

In his budget blueprint for 2018, President Trump proposed raising defense spending levels by $54 billion and cutting the same amount, $54 billion, for non-defense domestic programs, which cover the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Health and Human Services, among others. If his plan were to become law, domestic programs not related to defense would face $57 billion in cuts below their current level of funding.

While Congress, including Republicans, declared the president's budget "dead on arrival," most Republicans agree the military needs more funding. Many also agree that non-defense domestic programs don't require spending hikes. Under President Obama, Democrats only accepted equal increases between both sides of the budget. But now with a unified Republican government, this debate over what to increase, and by how much, is expected to be the biggest sticking point in these negotiations.

"I don't believe all dollars are the same. I think defense dollars are the absolute priority right now," said Rep. Kay Granger, R-Texas, following a closed-door GOP conference meeting about the budget agenda. Granger chairs a subcommittee that oversees Pentagon funding.

Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, signaled that he'd support a bipartisan budget deal that also raises the debt ceiling, saying he would be "agreeable to anything that increases defense spending." But asked if he'd also be in favor of domestic spending increases, he wasn't as adamant.

"No, no, no, no," McCain said. "Although there are some that I would increase: the CIA, the FBI, Homeland Security and those, but I don't think that some of our domestic programs are in the same level of urgency as defense is. This is the same strategy that gave us sequestration: treat them all the same. That's crazy."

Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Kentucky, ranking member on the House Budget Committee, said that a budget deal that only raises spending limits on defense is out of the question.

"Absolutely not," he told CBS News. "That would be a non-starter. I don't think there would be any Democratic votes for that."

A leader of the moderate Tuesday Group, Rep. Charlie Dent, R-Pennsylvania, is urging his colleagues to craft a bipartisan budget deal that raises the debt limit and lifts both spending levels for defense and non-defense, satisfying Democratic demands.

"It's unrealistic to think that we're going to be able to increase defense entirely at the expense of non-defense," Dent said.

Neither Ryan's office nor McConnell's office responded to requests for comment.

While a budget deal would increase spending caps, Congress would still need to pass an appropriations package that complies with those new limits. And despite GOP control of the White House and Congress, Democratic votes will be needed to advance a budget agreement that in turn would determine spending levels for an appropriations package. Both pieces of legislation require 60 votes in the Senate in order to reach a final vote.

"If you're going to prevent a government shutdown in September, you have got to have renegotiated budget caps," Dyer said.

Experts suspect Congress will, as they've done each year in recent memory, pass a continuing resolution (CR) by Sept. 30 to prevent a government shutdown to buy more time for the larger negotiation that would eventually determine the substance of a 2018 government spending package in December.

A budget deal that raises spending limits and debt ceiling won't be a "grand bargain," said Bill Hoagland, senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center, who spent 25 years on Capitol Hill working on budget issues and appropriations. But he said it might encompass "modest modifications to the tax code," rather than a comprehensive tax reform package.

"The debt limit, the funding of the government, health care and maybe a little bit on the tax side will all be front and center come this fall and this is the opportunity for some tradeoffs," he said. "[As for] the man who wrote the book "The Art of the Deal," this is when we'll have to see whether or not he can really pull off a deal and pull all these pieces together."

Read this article:

Will the government fall off the fiscal cliff? - CBS News - CBS News

I am a teetotaler who believes that my fellow North Carolinians should be free to buy and consume the alcoholic beverages of their choice from the vendors of their choice.

They dont currently possess that freedom. Our state places significant limits on the sale of beer, wine, and spirits. Above a low statutory cap, breweries are not allowed to market their wares directly to retailers. Distilleries are even more encumbered, both in how much liquor they can sell directly to consumers and in the range of retailers they can use namely, only the government monopoly of ABC stores.

North Carolina actually fares relatively well in assessments of personal freedom, according to analysts at the Cato Institute. Their Freedom in the 50 States report uses three categories of variables: fiscal, regulatory, and personal. North Carolinas overall freedom ranking is 19th, but we do best in the personal freedom category, where we rank 13th.

By this broad measure, North Carolina is the freest state in the Southeast. Still, wed be even higher on the list if our alcohol laws werent so restrictive, ranking us 35th in the country in this area.

There are two movements underway in North Carolina that, if successful, would improve the situation. One of them began at the General Assembly this year as House Bill 500. As originally written, it would have allowed craft breweries to distribute up to 200,000 barrels of beer directly to retailers, rather than having to use a state-sanctioned cartel of wholesalers. The current cap is 25,000 barrels.

The wholesalers prevailed in the initial legislative battle, so the version of the bill that ultimately passed the House in late April would only modestly expand the ability of some breweries and wineries to sell their products as they wish. In response, some craft breweries have filed a lawsuit to strike down the states distribution cap and franchise laws as a violation of the state constitution.

The other measure, Senate Bill 155, would allow distilleries to sell up to five bottles directly to visiting consumers, up from the current annual limit of one bottle. It would also loosen limits on the sale of spirits at festivals and conventions, while allowing restaurants and retailers to sell alcohol after 10 a.m. on Sundays, two hours earlier than the current limit (which is why the legislation is known as the brunch bill). It has already passed the Senate and is now awaiting action in the House.

Some opposition to alcohol deregulation comes from interest groups, public and private, that benefit from the current system. No one should be surprised by their special pleading, which is always skillfully delivered.

But others inside and outside the General Assembly argue that North Carolinas regulatory scheme is designed to curb alcohol abuse, which they tie to such social ills as drunk driving and domestic abuse. I think their concerns deserve more respect, although I dont ultimately agree with their conclusions.

As I said, Im a teetotaler. One reason is that my family has often suffered the ravages of alcoholism. As the family historian, Ive chronicled numerous cases. The great uncle for whom I was named, for example, was struck and killed on the railroad track behind our house either because he had fallen down drunk or because hed first been beaten to unconsciousness by fellow drunks. His uncle, in turn, had been murdered decades before during an alcohol-fueled gunfight. Other close relatives have had less deadly but still debilitating experiences with alcohol.

But if your conception of freedom is that it ought only to extend to behavior with which you personally agree, youve conceived it out of existence. The state should certainly punish actions that violate the rights of others, such as drunk driving or violent crimes committed while inebriated. The adult consumption and sale of alcohol, however, are not the proper concern of the state.

Most drinkers arent drunks, most drunks arent dangerous, and most governmental attempts to save people from themselves create more problems than they solve.

John Hood is chairman of the John Locke Foundation and appears on the talk show NC SPIN. You can follow him @JohnHoodNC.

See the rest here:

JOHN HOOD COLUMN: State should not control alcohol - Statesville Record & Landmark

Economic Freedom Index is not a sacrosanct scorecard neither is it a predictor of investors confidence

The writer is an honorary Fellow of the Consortium for Development Policy Research

Pakistan has achieved a growth rate of 5.3 per cent, the highest in nine years. Now what can be done to sustain this growth? Economists believe that governments should pursue policies advancing economic freedom to stimulate growth and the rest can be taken care of by private enterprises and individuals.

In 2017, Pakistans economic freedom score hit the lowest-ever mark, bringing down the countrys ranking to 141 amongst 186 countries, all the way from 126 in 2016 and 121 in 2015. While there could be endless debates on whether this is an accurate reflection of future growth potential, it is hard to ignore the clear correlation between economic freedom and prosperity.

The recently released Economic Freedom Index 2017 revealed that countries lying in the top 25 per cent of economic freedom scores are six times as prosperous as those in the bottom quartile. Moreover, the top countries GDP per capita has been growing at more than double the rate of growth for bottom countries. In laymans terms, this means the difference in prosperity of these two groups with varying economic freedom will widen over time and one cannot have one without the other. In Pakistan, on the one hand, the federal and provincial governments are trying to lure in foreign direct investments through incentives, one-window facilitation and investment roadshows, while on the other, the lack of economic freedom is constraining existing businesses. It, therefore, calls for some introspection on where exactly are we going wrong. Economic freedom means that individuals and businesses are free to own and control their labour, capital and goods with minimal intervention by the state institutions. The Economic Freedom Index, created by Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, is based on four pillars: rule of law, government size, regulatory efficiency and open markets. These pillars in turn depend on 12 indicators ranging from property rights to fiscal health and from business freedom to financial freedom.

A closer look at these indicators reveals that Pakistan has scored extremely low on six counts: property rights, judicial effectiveness, government integrity, fiscal health, labour freedom and financial freedom. Three of these indicators constitute the rule of law pillar, making it the weakest area for the country.

It will be unfair to attribute this low score to any recent development, as since 1996, Pakistan has been categorised as a mostly unfree country. If at all, since 2013 Pakistan has shown steady improvements in government integrity as well as in monetary, trade and investment freedom. Judicial effectiveness and fiscal health have recently been added to the index so there is no historical trend available. But there has been little improvement in property rights, no improvement at all in financial freedom and a steady decline in labour freedom.

Looking at property rights, while the government does allow private ownership, it is quite difficult to protect personal property in case of disputes due to prolonged litigation, deterring entrepreneurial activity. It must be noted that property rights here pertain to both real and intellectual properties as well as to investor protection and quality of land administration.

Labour freedom, on the other hand, refers to excessive labour regulations in the country, limiting businesses ability to deal with redundancies. The low labour force participation rate of 15 per cent, much below the world average of 62 per cent, manifests poor labour opportunities in Pakistan and negatively affects their freedom. Lastly, financial freedom depends on factors like government influence on allocation of credit and capital market development, both of which are weak spots for Pakistan. Domestic credit to private sector for instance, is merely 15 per cent of Pakistans GDP, as opposed to 44 per cent in Bangladesh and 52 per cent in India. Claims on the central government, on the other hand, stand at 29 per cent of the GDP.

The Economic Freedom Index is not a sacrosanct scorecard neither is it a predictor of investors confidence. However, it does provide a lens through which many investors look at investment prospects and also presents a menu of options to governments where targeted reforms can be undertaken.

Published in The Express Tribune, June 2nd, 2017.

Like Opinion & Editorial on Facebook, follow @ETOpEd on Twitter to receive all updates on all our daily pieces.

Read more:

Do we have economic freedom? - The Express Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Government most move quickly to restore trust in its fiscal credibility, a governance reformer urged yesterday, pointing to the vast, wild differences between the new administrations forecasts and those of its predecessor.

Robert Myers, a principal with the Organisation for Responsible Governance (ORG), told Tribune Business that the nine-figure gap between the Minnis administrations projections and those of the prior government threatened to undermine business, investor and consumer confidence - not to mention that of the credit rating agencies - unless the differences were properly explained.

He was speaking after the Government, in unveiling the 2017-2018 Budget, revealed that the upcoming years deficit is projected to be $323 million - an almost $300 million increase from the $28 million in red ink that was forecast by the Christie administration just 12 months ago.

Raising further questions about the former governments fiscal forecasting, K P Turnquest, the minister of finance, said the deficit for the current 2016-2017 fiscal year was now estimated to be $500 million - a five-fold increase upon the $100 million that was forecast last May, and $150 million more than the mid-year Budget estimate.

While Hurricane Matthews role in the deficit growing 400 per cent beyond projections, Mr Turnquest said the former government had exacerbated the storms impact by entering into unfunded spending commitments that had created a $300 million government payables backlog.

As a result, the Government yesterday tabled two resolutions seeking Parliamentary authority to borrow a collective $722 million, some $400 million of which is emergency funding to cover 2016-2017s fiscal holes. The balance is to fill the 2017-2018 deficit.

Mr Myers said the persistent overshooting of key fiscal targets by such massive amounts threatened to undermine the publics faith in the Governments financial management, and negatively impact economic growth by deterring local and foreign investment.

He added that consumers and the private sector were being pushed towards a trust but verify approach when it came to the annual fiscal forecasts, with yesterdays developments further highlighting the need for a Fiscal Responsibility Act and Freedom of Information Act.

Based on the previous governments lack of control we, civil society and the public, dont know what to trust any more, Mr Myers told Tribune Business. The previous government was saying they could get the deficit down to $28 million [for 2017-2018], and were now back up to $323 million.

How could you go from one administration to the next and be so wildly wrong? Whos cooking the books? Isnt it the same public servants doing this Budget? Where are the public servants providing this Budget and the numbers? Why dont they speak up? If the Christie administration was that wildly wrong, isnt the Government reflecting what the public servants are doing?

Mr Myers also pointed to the different GFS deficit elimination projections given earlier this year by Simon Wilson, the Ministry of Finances acting financial secretary, and former prime minister, Perry Christie.

Mr Wilson, addressing a Chamber of Commerce conference in mid-February, said a fiscal balance could be achieved within the next four years, pushing this out to 2020-2021. Yet Mr Christie, in the mid-year Budget presentation in late March, stated that the Government was forecasting a break even GFS deficit by 2018-2019 - some two years earlier.

Warning that this only served to sow confusion and uncertainty among the private sector, Mr Myers added: If you have two people in the same government saying something so abundantly different, who is the public supposed to trust?

Weve got to make this whole process transparent, so we can understand things. Foreign investors can understand things, businesses can understand things, and consumers can understand things. If this is not done, consumer and investor confidence will be harmed.

He argued that there should be complete cohesion between government ministers and officials when it came to critical fiscal issues, otherwise the Bahamas was in deep trouble. Mr Myers also urged top Ministry of Finance officials to publicly stand behind the Budget, so we really do trust theyre going to be able to reduce the deficit in the time they suggest.

Its prudent for the Bahamian people to trust but verify, the ORG principal told Tribune Business.

The new governments projections show that achieving fiscal consolidation, and the GFS deficits elimination, will be much harder - and take a lot longer - than the prior administration was forecasting.

The Christie administration was forecasting that the Government would eliminate the annual deficit by 2018-2019, and actually be running a $68 million surplus. However, the Minnis administration yesterday predicted it will still be incurring $228 million worth of red ink for that fiscal year - a $296 million difference.

That is 54.4 per cent less than the $500 million deficit projected for the current fiscal year, and the Government forecast that the red ink would halve again to $106 million in 2019-2020.

The latter figure, though, is higher than the Christie administrations initial projected deficit for 2016-2017, and indicates that Mr Wilsons timeline for its elimination is more accurate.

Its unfortunate for the current administration that the previous administration was so irresponsible, as it puts a bad light on - and causes distrust - in whichever administration follows, Mr Myers told Tribune Business.

It doesnt help that we have had these wild swings in what the Government is projecting.

More:

$500m deficit 'threat to fiscal credibility' | The Tribune - Bahamas Tribune

By RICARDO WELLS

Tribune Staff Reporter

rwells@tribunemedia.net

FREE National Movement (FNM) Free Town candidate Dionisio DAguilar has committed his party to several day one initiatives should his party triumph in the general election, contending that the ousting of Prime Minister Perry Christie and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government would again give way to good governance spearheaded by the FNM.

On stage at the FNMs regional candidates launch at Christie Park on Thursday, Mr DAguilar questioned the Christie administrations handling of Value-Added Tax (VAT) revenue collected over the past three years.

To that end, the Free Town candidate said the FNM would institute both a Freedom of Information Act and a Fiscal Responsibility Act on day one of its administration.

Emperor Christie and his band of bandits have plundered this country over the past five years, the well known businessman told supporters. (Some of them) made their bank accounts fat signing contracts and making deals that benefits them and their families, leaving the poor Bahamian people to pick up the tab for his out-of-control spending.

Everything they touch smells stink. They have spent $400m of taxpayer money, your VAT money, bailing out loans for their cronies from the Bank of The Bahamas. They have spent tens of millions. Some say $50m, some say $100m - the exact figure we will never know - awarding contracts to their friends and families to build buildings at BAMSI, sometimes twice.

Then there is the tens of millions that went missing at the Road Traffic Department and the Passport Office. And let us not forget the hundreds of millions that have been allocated and spent on housing projects, new schools, garbage collection and the dump and we have nothing, I mean nothing, to show for it.

Emperor Christie and his fat cat Cabinet are corrupt. They are thiefing, thiefing our VAT money and they need to go. The only people who seem to get anything from Emperor Christie are his corrupt Cabinet and the Chinese government.

FNMs, if we give Emperor Christie another five years, he will drive our economy over the edge.When the PLP came to office in 2012, our National Debt was $5 billion. Now the National Debt is $7 billion. And that is even after they collected $1.4 billion in VAT, Mr DAguilar said.

He said the Prime Ministers unrelenting push for re-election should stun voters, as it comes despite the evidence that Mr Christies lengthy political career had done nothing but improve the lives of his friends, family and colleagues as everyday Bahamians struggled to survive.

He said his party would also look to guard against the potential of any other leader pursuing legacy terms in office by implementing fixed election dates, term limits and an independent Boundaries Commission.

FNMs do you believe that Christie is a god? Do you want Christie to remain the Emperor? Emperor Christie has been in Parliament for the past 43 years. Let that sink in, 43 years. That is a lot longer that half of you have been alive. I was eight years old when he went into Parliament, and I am now 52.

And we know why he doesnt want to leave. He loves the pomp, he loves the pageantry, the nice Mercedes, the beautiful Lexus, the bodyguards, the outriders, the private jet for him and his family. What other job can Christie find where he can get away with the slackness he does now? Please, please my fellow Bahamians, in the name of Jesus, on election day let us send Emperor Christie home.

Mr DAguilar went on to mention the Prime Ministers propensity to fall asleep while at public functions. He alleged that during a meeting in which he and Mr Christie represented Bahamian interests, the Prime Minister feel asleep during negotiations. Emperor Christie did close his eyes and bam, he was asleep, Mr DAguilar said.

I had to bang my hand on the table to wake him up. Unbelievable. Embarrassing. FNMs, Emperor Christie is tired. He is exhausted. Let us retire him on election day, he added.

Addressing his Free Town candidacy, Mr DAguilar said he would put his 25 years of business experience to use improving the lives of prospective constituents. He said the constituents of Free Town are in need of jobs. He insisted that unlike attorney Wayne Munroe, the PLPs Free Town candidate, he was suited to meet the needs of these residents.

FNMs, I have had to use my ingenuity, my passion, my creativity to grow my business to create job opportunities for Bahamians and I pledge tonight that I will do the same for the people of Freetown.I am certainly better qualified to deliver on this promise that my PLP opponent, lawyer Wayne Munroe. We need to make it easier, not harder to start a business.

We need to make it easier, not harder to operate a business. Do that and the jobs will come and the crime will go down. In addition, I want to use my many years of running a business to empower the people of Free Town to start and run their own businesses.

I will provide seminars. I will teach them myself on the dos and donts of how to make a business successful. The FNM will also create a tax-free zone in the inner city for small and mid-sized businesses, making it easier and cheaper to start a business in these economically depressed areas.

Free Town, I hear you and I will do my best to create employment opportunities for you.

In addition to Mr DAguilar and Mr Munroe, the DNA have ratified Karen Davis as the partys standard-bearer in Free Town, while the Bahamas National Constitutional Party has ratified Andrew Stewart.

Read more:

An FNM govt 'would institute Freedom of Information, Fiscal ... - Bahamas Tribune

House conservatives say they want to see money for President Trumps border wall, a crack down on sanctuary cities and more cash for the Pentagon all tucked into an emergency spending bill Congress must pass later this month.

But they are downplaying the chance that those fights result in a government shutdown, saying even if they dont win all the battles, there are enough other must-pass bills later this year to stick them on.

Rep. Mark Meadows, the head of the House Freedom Caucus, said he and his colleagues will try to make big dents in service of Mr. Trumps priorities, but they have less faith that the Senate will back them up.

I think you will see funding in it for the wall, Mr. Meadows said Thursday at an event sponsored by Politico. I think you will see funding in there for better enforcement on sanctuary cities and I think you will see a plus-up on military. So specifically I think that is what you will see. I think most people will vote for that. It will go the Senate, it will be stripped out and then we will have a hard decision to be made in four days.

The debate will kick off the last week this month, when Congress returns from a two-week spring break. Theyll have just five days to pass a new set of spending bills before an April 28 deadline, when existing government funding runs out.

They hope to pass a bill that will fill out funding for the remainder of the fiscal year, which runs through Sept. 30, or at the very least pass another short-term spending bill, known as a continuing resolution, to keep the government running at current funding levels.

But that could be a heavy lift thanks to ideological divisions within the GOP over spending priorities and tactics.

Mr. Trump wants to see an additional $30 billion in military spending and $3 billion for immigration enforcement, including $1 billion to get his border wall under way.

Senate Republicans have said the wall funding will have to wait until after the April 28 deadline, while House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, said it is premature to speculate.

For their part Senate Democrats have vowed to filibuster any bill that includes funding for the wall, raising the threat of a government shutdown.

But that leaves the Senate on a collision course with House conservatives, who just last month flexed their muscles by sinking the health care bill that Mr. Trump and Mr. Ryan tried to push through Congress.

Rep. Jim Jordan, a co-founder of the Freedom Caucus, said their 30-plus members dont want a shutdown, but they do want to deliver on their promises to do away with Obamacare, secure the border and overhaul the tax code.

He said this months fight over spending offers a chance to focus on those priorities.

All those things are coming and we need to make sure we deliver on every single one of them, Mr. Jordan said. Strategically and tactically how that plays out, we will see, but I think the [spending debate] is a good place to focus on securing the border.

Mr. Meadows, though, said even if conservatives dont win those fights now, there are other chances looming, including during debates over next years spending bills, an expected debate over Mr. Trumps plans for infrastructure, and a debt limit battle due near the end of the year.

The reason I dont believe there will be a shutdown is because of the other leverage points, Mr. Meadows said. I think those other leverage points allows the shutdown talk to be minimized here in a couple of weeks.

Presidents change and lawmakers come and go, but The Washington Times is always here, and FREE online. Please support our efforts.

Read this article:

House conservatives prepare for upcoming fiscal fights - Washington Times