While Americans fixate on the new Republican majority in Washington DC, they may have overlooked the partys gains in their own state capitals. It wasnt just Donald Trump who won big-league in 2016. Republicans also picked up dozens of seats in statehouses. All told, the GOP now controls the legislatures of 32 states (compared to 14 for Democrats), an all-time high for the party.

My home state of West Virginia is no exception. Two years ago, we saw our first Republican majority since the Great Depression, with the GOP gaining even more ground in 2016. One of those gains was in my district, where my friend and fellow homeschooling mother Patricia Rucker recently became my state senator. Although Im admittedly biased, Rucker is both a good model for anyone looking to get more involved in local politics, and a reminder of the value that freedom-seeking immigrants bring to America.

I first got to know Patricia through local politics, where she seemed to be an almost omnipresent force. Dark-haired and slender, shes one of those people who radiates energy. At every phone bank, fundraiser, lit drop, and Tea Party rally, Patricia was therealways with several kids in tow. A devout Catholic, she and her husband Jimmy have five children.

As the legislative session began February 8, Patricia packed her bags, left the homeschooling in Jimmys hands, and made the five-hour trek to Charleston as a freshman senator. For a woman who was born a continent away and became a U.S. citizen just 12 years ago, its the culmination of a remarkable journey.

She was born Patricia Elena Puertas in Caracas, Venezuela. Her parents, Jos and Hayde, had both grown up as the eldest children of large, working-class families. They each became the first in their families to attend college, working hard to support themselves as journalism students. They used their first paychecks to help Haydes parents leave the slums for a two-bedroom apartment in Caracas, with their eight younger children.

Family interdependence was such an important part of Venezuelan culture back then, Patricia remembers. Its one of those things that socialism is trying to destroy.

The Venezuela of Patricias childhood was a very different place than it is today. At the time, Venezuelans enjoyed the highest standard of living in Latin America. Patricia remembers an easy-going, family-oriented culture, loosely organized and far from centrally planned.

There was certainly quite a bit of petty corruption, a quid-pro-quo system, she says. But in general, the government required very little from you. You didnt have to get a license and a permit for every little thing. You lived how you wanted. People didnt have a lot of material things, but they also didnt see those things as important. Everyone had their little plot of land, their garden. We relied on our families. We took care of each other.

As his family grew, Jos was climbing the career ladder as a journalist with the Paris-based Agence France-Press. Eventually, AFP asked the young Venezuelan to move to its Washington DC, bureau. It was a prestigious job that involved covering politicians and world leadersincluding the U.S. presidentas a member of the international press corps.

It was hard for Jos and Hayde to leave their extended family in Venezuela, but they didnt sell their Venezuelan home, confident they and their five children would return. We arrived in DC on January 3, 1981, just before Reagan was inaugurated, Patricia remembers. To this day, its the only presidential inauguration Ive ever seen in person. Of course, I didnt really understand any of it. She was six years old.

The family settled in the DC suburb of Montgomery County, Maryland, where the children went to school. I had speech delays and had a hard time communicating, even in Spanish, Patricia says, so between that and learning English, my first years in school were hard. I was an outcast. The experience, though difficult, was formative. It made me sympathetic toward other people. After that, I was always the one befriending my fellow nerds and outcasts, she remembers. It became a part of my personality: I defend the little guy and I stand up for them.

By sixth grade, Patricia had finished speech therapy and mastered English. After that, she quickly advanced to her schools gifted and talented class. There she had another formative experience.

Even though there werent many Hispanics in Montgomery County back then, I never thought of myself as different. In my mind, I was like everyone else. But her fellow students were more familiar with the ways of the world. As soon as I got into the gifted and talented program, several of the other students assumed that I was only there because I was the token Hispanic. They thought I hadnt gotten there on my own merits.

The experience rankled. It was then that I decided I hated the labeling. I hated the affirmative action. Youre trying to do me a favor, but youre actually making it worse for me! I dont want you to do me a favor. I want to succeed through my own achievements. She laughs a little at the memory. And I think thats when I first became a Republican. The Democratic Party has become a party of favors and putting people into pigeonholes. I dont want to be labeled; I dont want to be limited. I wanted to be limitless. I dont want you giving me anything. I want you to get out of my way and let me live my life.

Sixth grade also marked the beginning of her political career: she ran for class president and won. She remained active in student government throughout her middle and high school years. While still a senior in high school, Patricia met Maryland native Jimmy Rucker at a church Bible study. Jimmy was a nursing student at Catholic University, and asked her out on a date.

I knew pretty quickly that this was the man I was going to marry, Patricia says. They dated for four years, until Patricia graduated from Trinity College with a major in U.S. history. She and Jimmy married the same year, and Patricia took a teaching job with Montgomery County public schools. After having their second child, they moved to Jefferson County, West Virginiarefugees from socialist Montgomery County, Patricia laughs. Its true. We came here for freedom.

All this time, Patricia was slowly working her way through the process of becoming a U.S. citizen. Before I even met my husband, I already felt more American than Venezuelan, she says. For Patricia, U.S. citizenship was the fulfilment of a dream. I had majored in history, and the more I learned, the more I fell in love with the Constitution. I fell in love with the American founding and the American dreamit was not just a clich for me.

After an eight-year process, Patricia was finally granted citizenship in 2004. By then, she was already the mother of four young Americans, the smallest just four months old. Patricia was given the option to be sworn in at a DC ceremony with President Bush in 2005, but she opted for an earlier local ceremony instead. I chose to do it early because I was so eager to vote in the fall election, she explains. I just couldnt wait.

Patricia cast her first vote in November 2004. When she looked at her ballot, the names on national races were familiar, but the names on local races werent. It really shook me that I didnt even know who some of those people were, she said. That day, I promised myself never to let that happen again.

While Patricia was busy putting down roots in America, her native country was remaking itself. Hugo Chvez, a self-declared Marxist, had come to power in 1998, bringing with him a new socialist vision. The Puertas family, who continued traveling back to Venezuela every two years, watched the transformation unfold before their eyes.

I was in Venezuela when Chvez was campaigning in 1998, Patricia remembers. He preached a gospel of envy, both internationally and locally. If the United States was wealthy, it was because they had stolen and cheated from other countries. And if your neighbor was better off than you, it was also because they had stolen and cheated. Therefore, you should be allowed to take what was theirs.

If your neighbor was better off than you, it was also because they had stolen and cheated. Therefore, you should be allowed to take what was theirs.

Besides nationalizing industry and rewriting the constitution to grant himself vast powers, Chvez unleashed the envy hed been fomenting in a government-sanctioned wave of lawlessness. He made it known that the government would not prosecute squatters who took over unproductive or unoccupied buildings and land. A spree of private property thefts ensued.

It got so bad that women had to quit their jobs and stay home all day, just to make sure their homes wouldnt be broken into by squatters, Patricia says. You can only imagine the violence. In a place where we never had violent crime when I was a little girl, people were terrified to go out at night.

Yet Chvezs welfare state policies, funded for a time by Venezuelas vast oil revenues, continued to make him popular with the majority. Its only in the past few years that most Venezuelans have realized what an incredible mistake they made, says Patricia. As oil prices have fallen and Venezuelas war on private industry has reached its natural end, the country is in an economic tailspin. For the past four years, Venezuela has been ranked as the most miserable nation on earth, according to economist Steve Hankes Misery Index. Last year, the Venezuelan currency officially reached hyperinflation, with average people unable to buy food or basic necessities.

Despite living abroad, Jos and Hayde were not immune from the chaos. Not only were they driven to sell their Venezuelan home at a fraction of its value, but they also lost the apartment they had bought for Haydes parents all those years ago, when it was claimed in a break-in. Sadly, they realized that there would be no returning home. The old Venezuela was gone. They too applied for U.S. citizenship, finally becoming Americans just last year.

Back in West Virginia, the Ruckers were busy raising their growing family, now with five children. Despite her full life as a stay-at-home mom and homeschool teacher, Patricia began getting involved in grassroots activism. When I heard Obama campaigning in 2008, I was shocked to hear how much he sounded like Hugo Chvez on the campaign trail, she says. All the stoking of class envyit really concerned me. After seeing what happened in Venezuela, I was not going to let my adopted country go that direction without a fight.

Her worries extended beyond Obama and the Democrats. In 2008 I was feeling deceived and disillusioned by both parties, she remembers. I felt the need to fight back, with education as the primary tool. She founded a local Tea Party chapter, kicking things off with a tax-day rally at the county courthouse in April 2009.

We forget that the Tea Party started because people were furious about the stimulus, the Wall Street bailouts, the fiscal insanity.

About 200 people showed up on a rainy day, she remembers. That was so encouraging. We forget that the Tea Party started because people were furious about the stimulus, the Wall Street bailouts, the fiscal insanity. I had felt very lonely, but now I saw I wasnt alone.

Patricia sent out invitations for meetings, and the group slowly grew. We were committed to two things: First, defending the Constitution. Second, educating ourselves and others. We really tried to remain non-partisan and not get caught up in social issues. After several years, the group restructured as a political action committee and began recruiting liberty-minded candidates for local office. Every year, we did a little bit more. We started having some successes.

In 2014, the Tea Party couldnt find a candidate for one race, a House of Delegates seat in the countys most liberal districtPatricias district. I just could not stand the thought of the Democrat being unchallenged, she recalls. I tried hard. No one was willing to run against him.

As moms everywhere know, if you want something done right, sometimes you have to do it yourself. After prayer and discussion with her family, Patricia reluctantly stepped aside from the Tea Party PAC and filed as a Republican candidate for the seat.

Her opponent was incumbent Delegate Stephen Skinner, a private attorney and the first openly gay lawmaker in West Virginia. As founder of the LGBT advocacy group Fairness WV, he was one of the most liberal legislators in Charleston, with progressive social issues at the center of his agenda.

The odds against Patricia were steep, but she worked hard, going door to door throughout the district. On Election Day, she came just 133 votes away from unseating Skinner. The narrow loss in a tough district whetted her political appetite: It gave me a taste for the fact that I could do it.

In 2015, Patricia filed as a candidate againthis time for the West Virginia Senate, where Republicans held a narrow one-seat majority. She badly wanted to see this seat flip to the GOP, but we needed a candidate who was really going to work hard for it. Patricia thought shed be challenging the incumbent, Sen. Herb Snyder, but in June she got some surprising news: Snyder was stepping down, and Skinner would run for the seat. The stage had been set for a rematch.

I was excited when I heard I was going up against Skinner again, Patricia says. Hes my political polar opposite. Its much easier to run against someone who disagrees with you on almost every point.

So many people believe the same things we domore than youd think. But theyre busy. They dont have time to go out and investigate all the issues.

It became one of the most hotly contested races in the state, making headlines for the amount of money spent. The vast majority of that moneyfour out of every five dollarswas spent on Skinners side. One PAC in particular, calling itself West Virginia Family Values but funded by unions and trial lawyers, poured money into massive ad buys against Rucker. The Skinner campaign also went on the attack. Patricia was painted as a radical with the incongruous goals of legalizing all drugs, taking away womens birth control, and defunding public education.

I think [these allegations] created more support for me than they did me harm, Patricia says.

While Skinner and his allies took to the airwaves, Rucker took to the streets, again pursuing her door-to-door strategy. This time, instead of a small House district, she had a massive Senate district to tackle. I created a daily schedule for myself, she says. I would start with six hours of homeschooling. Then I would go out for two to four hours of door-knocking. Id come home and make dinner, and every night I would finish by writing personal letters to the people Id met that day. She kept up this grueling pace from October 2015 until Election Day 2016eventually knocking on over 16,000 doors.

While many would consider this a form of torture, meeting voters energized Rucker. Talking to people inspired me, she says. So many people believe the same things we domore than youd think. But theyre busy. They dont have time to go out and investigate all the issues. My biggest strength in politics isnt that Im rich or creative or entrepreneurialits that Im a teacher. Its just in me to educate. If I can help someone understand something they didnt before, thats where I get my reward. She also got her reward at the polls on Election Day, defeating Skinner 53 to 47 percent.

While the Senate is now solidly in GOP control, Patricia nonetheless anticipates a tension-filled freshman session: Down there, they think they know it all.

The state government makes too many decisions for its people. At the same time, its failing in its core responsibilities.

Asked what her goals as a senator are, Patricia says, I want to make West Virginia a state that supports and respects its citizens. That sounds basic, but its not. The state government makes too many decisions for its people. At the same time, its failing in its core responsibilities of education, infrastructure, and protecting citizens rights. I want to make the state more responsive and accountable, while empowering local governments and citizens to reclaim our freedom. Follow what the Founding Fathers expected: that we would manage our own affairs.

Part of the states role should be protecting its citizens from federal overreach, she continues. We need more representatives who have the courage to do that. It means making decisions that arent popular, but I didnt run because I wanted to be popular. I ran because I wanted someone in office whos going to stand up and not be afraid.

To the grassroots activist who aspires to political office, Patricia advises: Dont give up. Know clearly what youre fighting for. If you dont have principles to ground you, you can easily get used and bought off.

Rucker doesnt seem to be in any doubt about what her principles are. As someone who has both studied Americas founding and witnessed socialism firsthand, she knows the stakes. At a January swearing-in ceremony held locally for friends and supporters, a crowd of us watched her take an oath to defend the Constitution, with confidence that she really meant it.

As we filed out of the room that night, I overheard one man in a ball cap make a passing remark in his thick local drawl. If every native-born American loved this country as much as she does, he said, wed be a whole lot better off.

Jayme Metzgar is a Senior Contributor at The Federalist.

View post:

Meet The Venezuelan-Born Mom Who Ran For State Senate To Stop Socialism - The Federalist

Weve heard that Brexit could cost Britain billions in the form of a divorce bill from Brussels. But what is the price of staying in? That question is answered by the Daily Mail this morning which reveals Treasury estimates slipped out last week that the UKs contribution to the EU will jump to 10.2bn in 2019 up from 7.9bn this year. The numbers also show that if Britain is still in the EU by 2021-22, taxpayers will have to pay out 10.9bn to Brussels. For the Daily Mail this is proof that Brexit is the best course of action. Doesnt this revelation, slipped out by the Treasury, show precisely why were leaving in the nick of time?, the paper asks. It says this soaring bill shows that Brussels is spending well beyond its means and suggests the money were sending to Brussels could easily be put to better use if it was spent at home. For one, the Mail says, that sum of money could solve our elderly care crisis at a stroke and still leave a few billion to spare.

In the Times, its the euro which comes in for criticism, as the paper suggests the dismal state of the Greek economy shows exactly why the single currency is such a dreadful idea. The ratio of debt to Greeces GDP now sits at 169 per cent, the paper says meaning that, soon enough, something will have to give. But what can be done? Some say that leaving the euro is the only way ahead for Greece an option which the Times pours cold water on, saying the damage would be so immense that is simply isnt plausible. Instead, the only path now despite the reluctance of Germany to agree to it is further debt restructuring along with closer fiscal integration. What is most clear from this mess is that the euro is a misconceived project. And the miserable news is that without financial collapse theres no going back, says the Times.

Meanwhile, the Sun warns that were living through torrid times for the British press. The paper warns that the freedom enjoyed by newspapers has never been in greater peril than it is today. After the looming threat of a state-backed regulator, the proposals put forward by the Law Commission that journalists who obtain secret information could be sent to prison are the latest worry to emerge. These recommendations place too much power in the hands of officials who would rather the public was always kept in the dark, says the Sun, which calls on Downing Street to show it values a free press and ditch the idea.

Ken Loach grabbed the headlines yesterday after accusing the Tories of callous brutality in his acceptance speech at the Baftas. The film director even went as far as saying the Government would have to be removed before claimingthat he and other film directors are with the people on this. This is laughable, suggests the Telegraph, which says the truth is that most people think Loach and his friends are living in la-la land.. Despite the doom-mongering of his speech, in which he talked of dark times and the bleak visions of Britain presented in his films, most people dont recognise this view of modern Britain. The Telegraph says that theres no doubt Loach is a fine director. Yet his skill behind the camera doesnt mean that his view that the welfare state has been dismantled and the poor left to starve and rot is accurate. Instead, the naked truth is that his films are nothing to do with delving into the human condition; theyre simply an exercise in Left-wing propaganda, concludes the Telegraph.

Link:

What the papers say: Britain's soaring EU budget bill shows Brexit can't happen soon enough - Spectator.co.uk (blog)

The British pound coin (flickr)

By Daniel J. Mitchell

When I debate one of my leftist friends about deficits, its often a strange experience because none of us actually care that much about red ink.

Restraint v. Tax Increases

Im motivated instead by a desire to shrink the burden of government spending, so I argue forspending restraintrather than tax hikes that would feed the beast.

And folks on the left want bigger government, so they arguefor tax hikes toenable more spending and redistribution.

I feel that I have an advantage in these debates, though, because I sharemy tableof nations that have achieved great results when nominal spending grows by less than 2 percent per year.

The table shows that nations practicing spending restraint for multi-year periods reduce the problem of excessive government and also address thesymptom of red ink.

I then ask my leftist buddies to please share their table showing nations that got good results from tax increases. And the response is awkward silence, followed by attempts to change the subject. I often think you can even hear crickets chirping in the background.

I point this out because I now have another nation to add to my collection.

From the start of the last decade up through the 2009-2010 fiscal year, government spending in the United Kingdomgrew by 7.1 percent annually, far faster than the growth of the economys productive sector. As a result, an ever-greater share of the private economy was being diverted to politicians and bureaucrats.

Beginning with the 2010-2011 fiscal year, however, officials started complying with myGolden Ruleand outlays since then have grown by an average of 1.6 percent per year.

And as you can see fromthis chartprepared by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, this modest level of fiscal restraint has paid big dividends. The burden of government spending has significantly declined, falling from 45 percent of national income to 40 percent of national income.

This means more resources in private hands, which meansbetter economic performance.

But Thats Not Enough

Though allow me to now share some caveats. Fiscal policy is only a small piece of what determines good policy, just20 percent of a nations gradeaccording toEconomic Freedom of the World.

So spending restraint should be accompanied by free trade, sound money, a sensible regulatory structure, and good governance. Moreover, aswe see from the tragedy of Greece, spending restraint doesnt even lead to good fiscal policy if its accompanied by huge tax increases.

Fortunately, the United Kingdom is reasonably sensible, which explains whythe country is ranked #10byEFW. Though its worth noting that it gets its lowest score for size of government, so the recent bit of good news about spending restraint needs to be the start of a long journey.

P.S. The United Statesgot great resultsthanks to spending restraint between 2009-2014. It will be interesting to see whether Republicans get better results with Trump in the White House.

Daniel J. Mitchell is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute who specializes in fiscal policy, particularly tax reform, international tax competition, and the economic burden of government spending. He also serves on the editorial board of the Cayman Financial Review. This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

EspaolBolivia's President Evo Morales has a new museum, and a new nickname to go with. The opposition has dubbed him "Ego" Morales following the US $7.1 million museum he built to glorify his life story and legacy. He led the inauguration of his museum, calledthe Museum of the Democratic and Cultural Revolution, in the remote village ofOrinoca, where he grew up. In anopinion column on Friday, February 10 published in Nuevo Herald,Andrs Oppenheimerdescribed Morales as an authoritarian populist. Read More: Mexican President Denies Approaching Trump to Renegotiate NAFTA Read More: Business Leaders to Trump: Canning NAFTA Could Kill 6 Million US Jobs The building was reportedly built with government funds, and features a life-size statue andseveral portraits of world leaders and Morales' honorary degrees fromseveral universities. He also displayed t-shirts from his soccer collection and childhood memories, such as a trumpet. Minister of Culture Vilma Alanocasaid it is "the largest and most modern museum" in Bolivia, proclaiming with tears in her eyes that its opening marks an important date in history. "This museum is the heritage of those who fought for the liberation of our people," she said. Orinoca is located in a remote area and has only 900 inhabitants, 90 percent of whom live in poverty, according to an Associated Press report on February 3rd. This is not the first time Morales has spent public funds on his own legacy.In 2015, the Ministry of Communications published a book containing poems written by Morales, titled"The Process of Change Turned Into Verse." googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1459522593195-0'); }); This bookwas published shortly after a scandal surroundinga military anthem written by army officers praising Evo Morales, which many at first thought was the country's new official song. In 2014, the government distributed part of another book, this time for children, titledThe Adventures of little Evo,aboutthe President's childhood, and which included illustrations calledLittle Evo Plays Soccer and Little Evo Goes to School. Morales has also tried hard to changeBolivia's constitution to remain in power, but he lost the referendum in February of last year. Source: El Nuevo Herlad

Follow this link:

Why Liberty Advocates Should Focus on Spending Restraint over Tax Hikes - PanAm Post

The Fiscal Times

The GOP's Big Tax Dilemma: Repealing Obamacare Taxes The Fiscal Times Jim Jordan (R-OH), the former chair of the conservative House Freedom Caucus, said last week that Congress and the administration must abandon any thoughts of repairing Obamacare and move ahead to fully repeal the program -- including the taxes that ... and more »

More here:

The GOP's Big Tax Dilemma: Repealing Obamacare Taxes - The Fiscal Times

Although the question of bringing about financial reforms has been hanging fire in previous regimes also yet no reforms worth the name were brought in so far. When we get used to a system, we are loath to change it even if the change is positive and more beneficial at the end of the day. Financial system in our State administration is essentially based on the system that prevailed even before freedom dawned in our country. A few reforms have been brought in no doubt, but the fast changing times in which we live, and the obvious constraints imposed by democratic form of Government, call for radical change in the financial system if the State has to keep pace with other States in the country in march towards all round development.The administration has to move fast to keep pace with the rising aspirations of the people and requirements of a democratic governance. The Government has taken a bold step and announced a slew of reforms to strengthen and streamline fiscal discipline. The conventional practice of dragging the budget to the last quarter and then to the last month of the financial year has been a source of big corruption and delay in delivery. According to new policy of the Government, not more than 30 per cent of the total budget has to be spent during the last quarter of the financial year. So far the practice has been of dragging procurement and tendering process to the last month meaning March of the financial year and then hurrying up and rushing through the tenders, allocations, payments and clearance of balances. The net result was that there used to be great rush and mismanagement all giving rise to corruption. This practice has been discarded now. Fiscal discipline will be prioritized with the announcement of release of 50 per cent revenue and capital expenditure budget provision for upcoming financial year of 2017-18, at least four to five months ahead of schedule and May 15 is fixed as deadline for procurement and tendering process for all kinds of work to give ample time to their execution in view of limited working season in some of the areas. Actually, most of the inhabited areas of the State being winter zone, normal life is disrupted by the harsh elements imposing serious restrictions on work culture. This imposes so many restrictions on administrative and financial aspects of the State. There are clear cut instructions from the Finance Department to the Heads of Departments and other executing agencies to immediately set in motion the procurement and tendering process for the works to complete them latest by May 15, 2017, which means that all budgeted works must be allotted and supply orders issued or procurements made by the specified timeline. The fixing of time line under new directions to the Departmental Heads is a significant change in the stereotype practices observed so far. This is naturally bound to bring fiscal discipline on a new pattern. Essentially, this drastic measure has been taken by the Government keeping a number of situations in mind. Firstly, now a new dimension is given to Center-State relations in which the Centre categorically asserts that in case of non completion of schemes in time and non submission of utilization certificate the Centre will stop further installments on the project. This condition is not only on paper but has been taken recourse to. Secondly, the routine excuse for non completion of projects is that funds are not released in time. According to new pattern this issue remains tackled and there will be no more complaint because funds will be released much ahead of time and in advance in certain cases. Fiscal discipline will put an end to malpractices which afflicted the Finance and other departments invariably.

Share With

Read the original here:

Promoting fiscal discipline - Daily Excelsior

BOGOTA, Colombia (AP) - Venezuelans for the first time led asylum requests to the United States as the country's middle class fled the crashing, oil-dependent economy.

Data from the U.S. government's Citizenship and Immigration Services show that 18,155 Venezuelans submitted asylum requests last year, a 150 percent increase over 2015 and six times the level seen in 2014. China was second place, with 17,745 requests coming from citizens of that country.

Venezuela first cracked the top 10 asylum-seeking nations following months of sometimes bloody street protests in early 2014 seeking to oust President Nicolas Maduro.

But back then, amid the widespread jailing and harassment of opponents of the socialist administration, fewer than 100 Venezuelans per month sought asylum. That compares with 2,334 requests in December, 2016, the last month for which data is available.

The number of applicants has skyrocketed since December 2015, when the opposition took control of congress in a landslide election, giving hope to many that it could disrupt 17 years of socialist rule. Instead of reaching out to his opponents, Maduro retrenched and more and more Venezuelans began to uproot as triple-digit inflation pulverized salaries and widespread food and medicine shortages made life unbearable for many.

The vast majority leaving are middle-class Venezuelans who don't qualify for refugee status reserved for those seeking to escape political persecution, according to Julio Henriquez, director of the Boston-based nonprofit Refugee Freedom Program, which has been drawing attention to the trend.

"The pace at which requests are increasing is alarming," said Henriquez, whose group obtained the still-unpublished data in a Feb. 8 meeting between U.S. officials and immigration lawyers. "It's not just worrisome that so many people are escaping the terrible situation in Venezuela but also that the practice of sending asylum-seekers with poor advice and false proof is proliferating."

Still, given mounting hardships at home, increasing numbers of Venezuelans are willing to take advantage of a more-than-two-year delay for their applications to be processed to obtain work authorization and seek short-term employment even if it means being eventually deported.

In the 2015 fiscal year, Venezuela was among the top 10 countries whose citizens had overstayed their visas in the United States, according to an estimate of visa overstays by the Department of Homeland Security.

Venezuelans seeking U.S. asylum represent a small share of the overall Venezuelan immigrant population, some of whom have made their home in the U.S. for decades.

Published: February 12, 2017 12:01 AM EST

More here:

Venezuela now leads US asylum requests as crisis deepens - Philly.com

InterAksyon.com The online news portal of TV5

Atty. Mel Sta. Maria is the Dean of the Far Eastern University Institute of Law and Professor at the Ateneo de Manila School of Law.

On February 2, 1987, the Filipino people ratified the 1987 Freedom Constitution. Its significance can be appreciated by studying the Constitution which preceded it the 1973 Martial law Constitution of former dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos.

Ferdinand E. Marcos, a cum laude law graduate from the University of the Philippines and number one topnotcher of the bar examinations, was brilliant and ruthless as a dictator. When his official term as President was ending, he declared martial law, unceremoniously closed Congress, jailed many of its prominent members especially those in the opposition, locked up journalists and media-people critical to him, suppressed the freedom of the press, speech and association, and arrogated all powers of government unto himself.

To further perpetuate his power, Marcos knew where to start the Constitution. And so, to replace the 1935 Constitution and using his martial law might and influence, the dictator had a new Constitution spuriously ratified by the raising of hands of the so-called "citizens' assemblies". That Martial Law 1973 Constitution had all the hallmarks of despotism.

It contained "Amendment Numbers 5 and 6" which made the Batasang Pambansa a rubber stamp a useless legislative branch of government ignored and/or disregarded at a whim by President Marcos. Amendment No. 5 authorized the President to "continue to exercise legislative powers until Martial Law shall have been lifted." And had Martial Law been truly lifted, the President still would have had legislative powers via Amendment Number 6 which provided that "whenever in the judgment of the President, there exists a grave emergency or a threat or imminence thereof, or whenever the interim Batasang Pambansa or the regular National Assembly fails or is unable to act adequately on any matter for any reason that in his judgment requires immediate action, he may, in order to meet the exigency, issue the necessary decrees, orders, or letters of instructions, which shall form part of the law of the land."

If the dictator Marcos did not like a law or a bill being discussed at the Batasang Pambansa, he simply issued a Presidential Decree on the same subject using his own judgment and even relying merely on his gut-feel. There were no standards for the President's exercise of legislative power except his own self-serving determination of what they were. So, if in his personal judgment "for any reason" the legislature was "unable to act adequately" in one, two, three or more months or even in just one, two or three days, he can just legislate on his own and by-pass the legislature. This also rendered nugatory the legislative oversight and fiscal powers.

During his dictatorship, President Marcos literally issued more Presidential decrees, Executive Orders and Letters of Instructions than laws passed by the Batasang Pambansa. The President churned up laws and repealed them as frequent as he desired. And many of them were made without publication and proper dissemination of information. People were incarcerated via Presidential Decrees that would suddenly exist depending on the Presidents caprice.

To firm up his hold over the impotent Batasang Pambansa, the Presidential veto of any legislation was absolute and final under the Marcos Constitution. This is unlike the 1987 Freedom Constitution where a presidential-veto can be overridden by Congress as a check on possible abuses of such presidential prerogative.

Also, unlike the 1987 Freedom Constitution where judges and justices are appointed only after determination and written recommendation to the President by an independent body, the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC), the 1973 Marcos Constitution gave the President the sole and exclusive prerogative to select, determine and finally appoint judges and justices. Consequently, many of those who aspired to be appointed to or promoted in the judiciary kowtowed to the dictator. Judges and Justices were beholden to the President who did not hesitate to wield his undue influence over them. Judicial independence was an illusion.

All these went against the grain of democracy. The reason behind the effectivity of three separate great branches of government (namely: the executive, the legislative and the judiciary) is precisely to disperse governmental powers. The configuration is designed so that each branch can check any abuse committed, being committed or may potentially be committed by the other branches. Concentrating power or almost all the powers of government only in one branch (directly or vicariously) leads to a monarchial kind of authority that is absolute and unconditional.

And to further assure President Marcos' "fear factor" over the citizenry, the 1973 Marcos Constitution did not limit the power to issue a warrant of arrest to the courts unlike in the 1987 Freedom Constitution. The power was also granted to any "responsible officer authorized by law." The President, exercising his legislative powers, can authorize the Secretary of Defense or even a mere bureau chief to issue a warrant. In fact, this power was much abused such that the proliferation of Arrest Search and Seizure Orders (ASSO) happened. People were just arrested even without probable cause determined by the courts.

Also, the 1973 Constitution allowed the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus where people can be detained without charge or trial and the imposition of Martial Law for a limitless period as determined by the President without any check from the legislature. Worse, the basis of the imposition can be highly subjective as when the President believed that invasion or rebellion was "imminent". How imminent was imminent? The 1973 Constitution did not define it. It all depended on the President.

Under the 1987 Freedom Constitution, suspension of the writ of habeas corpus and declaration of Martial Law can only be made when there is actual invasion or rebellion when public safety requires an objective basis. The President's belief of the imminence of such situations happening which is very subjective and prone to abuse is not a ground. And even in case Martial Law is imposed, Congress can rescind it. Should Congress and the President agree to its imposition, the Supreme Court can void their decisions upon a meritorious petition from a taxpayer. And under the 1987 Constitution, the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus can be questioned in court which can grant bail for the provisional release of the detained.

Then, under Section 17 Article 15 of the 1973 Marcos Constitution, the dictator Marcos made himself immune from suit for all acts he did for as long as they were "official". And Marcos cannot be sued even after his term. Considering that he can enact laws by himself, Marcos can make a crime "official". For example, any technical malversation of government funds can be legitimized as "official" by a Presidential Decree which "forms part of the law of the land" issued by no other than the person guilty of malversation, the President himself. Also, billions of money diverted from the national treasury to private foundations can be validated as "official" and therefore cannot be subject of a suit, whether administrative, civil or criminal. This gave the dictator Marcos the power to make himself legally God-like incapable of doing anything wrong, much more criminal a clear badge of despotism. Simply put, there was total impunity.

For the dictator, there was only rule of law for the citizens but not for him, He was above the law as he was the law who can make, change and repeal the law anytime he wished. The consequence was the unprecedented grave and horrible abuse of power and authority, resulting to accumulation of ill-gotten wealth amounting to billions of dollars and "summary execution, torture, enforced or involuntary disappearance and other gross human rights violations committed during the regime of former President Ferdinand E. Marcos covering the period from September 21, 1972 to February 25, 1986" as recognized by Republic Act Number 10368, otherwise known as the "Human Rights Victims Reparation and Recognition Act of 2013".

According to Fr. Joaquin Bernas S.J., President Corazon Aquino, after the February 1986 revolution, could have decided just to use the 1973 Marcos Constitution during her term as President. But she did not. She knew its autocratic nature. So she decided that a new constitution should be presented to the people and ratified.

President Cory Aquino selected brilliant minds such as, among others, constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas SJ, former Supreme Court Justices Roberto Concepcion and Hilarion Davide, former Justices Cecilia Munoz Palma and Florenz Regalado, former Senator Ambrosio Padilla, former Secretary of Labor Blas Ople, and labor leader Jaime Tadeo, to draft a new constitution . The outcome was the 1987 Freedom Constitution a legal and political document affirming the people's revulsion to any form of autocratic rule. It likewise ensured the freedom of the press, speech and association, among others, and put importance to accountability and human rights.

Now, President Duterte intends to amend the 1987 Freedom Constitution and for this he has opted for a constitutional assembly, made up of politicians in Congress, to do it. If this pushes through, let us hope that they know what they will be doing. Likewise, Duterte's strong-arm character, his fondness of Martial Law, his friendship with Ferdinand "Bongbong" Marcos, Jr. and most of all, his admiration of the dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos whom he publicly said was "the brightest among the past Presidents", are also serious concerns.

Let us all be vigilant. The present 1987 Constitution does not need amendments when it comes to our civil liberties, limitation of governmental powers, public accountability, and the advocacy of human rights. It is not the present Freedom Constitution which is the problem. It is the people, particularly government officials, who pervert, ignore, or disregard the Constitution who are the problem.

We must remember that the 1987 Freedom Constitution was not just a document simply to forget a by-gone-Marcos-era. It is about lessons from the dark side of that history, learning from them and not standing idly-by to let others, especially those in government today, repeat them.

Visit link:

MEL STA. MARIA | The 1987 Freedom Constitution should not be changed - InterAksyon

Theresa May, the next UK prime minister following the resignation of David Cameron. (REUTERS/Peter Nicholls)

When I debate one of my leftist friends about deficits, its often a strange experience because none of us actually care that much about red ink. Im motivated instead by a desire to shrink the burden of government spending, so I argue for spending restraint rather than tax hikes that would feed the beast.

And folks on the left want bigger government, so they argue for tax hikes to enable more spending and redistribution.

I feel that I have an advantage in these debates, though, because I share my table of nations that have achieved great results when nominal spending grows by less than 2 percent per year.

The table shows that nations practicing spending restraint for multi-year periods reduce the problem of excessive government and also address the symptom of red ink.

I then ask my leftist buddies to please share their table showing nations that got good results from tax increases. And the response isawkward silence, followed by attempts to change the subject. I often think you can even hear crickets chirping in the background.

I point this out because I now have another nation to add to my collection.

From the start of last decade up through the 2009-2010 fiscal year, government spending in the United Kingdom grew by 7.1 percent annually, far faster than the growth of the economys productive sector. As a result, an ever-greater share of the private economy was being diverted to politicians and bureaucrats.

Beginning with the 2010-2011 fiscal year, however, officials started complying with my Golden Rule and outlays since then have grown by an average of 1.6 percent per year.

And as you can see from this chart prepared by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, this modest level of fiscal restraint has paid big dividends. The burden of government spending has significantly declined, falling from 45 percent of national income to 40 percent of national income.

This means more resources in private hands, which means better economic performance.

Though allow me to now share some caveats. Fiscal policy is only a small piece of what determines good policy, just 20 percent of a nations grade according to Economic Freedom of the World.

So spending restraint should be accompanied by free trade, sound money, a sensible regulatory structure, and good governance. Moreover, as we see from the tragedy of Greece, spending restraint doesnt even lead to good fiscal policy if its accompanied by huge tax increases.

Fortunately, the United Kingdom is reasonably sensible, which explains why the country is ranked #10 by EFW. Though its worth noting that it gets its lowest score for size of government, so the recent bit of good news about spending restraint needs to be the start of a long journey.

See the article here:

The United Kingdom and the Benefits of Spending Restraint - People's Pundit Daily

Read on to find out what you should, or should not, do with your own money

Most of us look to the Budget for new tax breaks to make our life a little easier in the coming year. But the way the government manages its finances can also tell you a lot about what you should, or should not, do with your own money. Here are the key lessons from the 2017 Budget.

Ever wondered why there is so much hand-wringing about the fiscal deficit? Well, its because the fiscal deficit captures the excess of government spending over what it earns. In FY-17, the Government spent 20.14 lakh crore, while it earned only 14.8 lakh crore from taxes and other sources.

The gap of 36 per cent (5.3 lakh crore) was met by borrowings. But FY17 wasnt an unusual year. Government expenses have overshot its income by a third for the last many years.

This constant over-spending has led to the government adding to its debt pile each year, leading to a situation where it stood at 59.6 lakh crore in FY17. The Centre now spends 24 out of every 100 it earns in paying off interest alone. To put it another way, it uses up over 90 per cent of its yearly borrowings towards interest payments on old loans.

We often miss this because fiscal deficit and borrowings are usually measured as a percentage of the countrys GDP and not as a percentage of the governments own income. A fiscal deficit expressed as 3.5 per cent of GDP and public debt at 40 per cent, dont appear panic-inducing.

But as a householder, if youre spending more than you earn, the first thing you must do is to quantify your monthly expenses and debt. Sweeping the problem under the carpet will land you in a debt trap.

Between FY12 and FY17, the Indian governments total debt expanded by 75 per cent from 36 lakh crore to 60 lakh crore. But with the GDP racing rapidly too, the debt-to-GDP ratio showed a declining trend. As this metric is much lower for India than some of the nearly broke European and emerging economies, India isnt seen as a nation in crisis.

The government need not worry about its rising debt and can keep borrowing because its income (tax collections) tend to rise with the GDP. Plus, it has the capacity to hike tax rates at will to increase its income. As the sovereign, it also gets to borrow money at the cheapest rate, no matter how indebted it is.

As householders though, we cant be so sanguine. Salary increments often do not keep up with inflation. For us, a higher indebtedness definitely means paying higher interest rates to borrow. Therefore, if you are in debt, prioritise debt repayment over any fresh spending.

As it follows cash accounting, Government accounts dont make much distinction between capital items and revenue items. The Budget counts one-off proceeds from borrowings and sale of assets (such as equity stakes in PSUs or telecom spectrum) as part of its annual income.

The bulk of this income is then splurged on consumption expenditure, with very little re-invested in new assets.

In FY-17, for instance, the exchequer earned 71 per cent of its total income from regular sources such as direct and indirect taxes, interest and dividends. It supplemented this with one-off capital receipts from disinvestment and borrowings to make up 100 per cent. But it spent nearly 86 per cent of this kitty on revenue items such as interest, salaries, defence and subsidy, leaving just 14 per cent for capital spending.

In short, the government routinely kills the golden goose to make omelettes. Asset sales dent its income too. The steady dilution of government equity in cash-rich PSUs reduces its future income by way of dividends from these firms.

This is a lesson to you, to always separate your capital items from revenue. If youve sold a plot of land, or redeemed a bond, make sure you keep the proceeds separate and reinvest it into other assets or investments. Dont go splurging it on a family vacation or groceries! Thats a sure way to destroy wealth.

One reason why the Indian government is always strapped for cash is that it has signed up for one too many fixed commitments.

Out of every 100 it earned in FY-17, it spent 24 on interest, 13 on food and fertiliser subsidies, 6 on pension payouts and 12 on defence.

With 15 to be shared with the States, this leaves very little room for the Centre to rejig its budget.

Increases in support prices of crops lead to rising yearly outlays on food subsidy. Pay Commission awards lead to a regular escalation in the wage bill.

These fixed obligations completely take away the governments flexibility to tighten its belt or repay its debt, even during tough times.

While the government may have little choice but to keep its constituents happy by committing to such splurges, you have much more leeway with your personal money.

Think twice about signing up for any regular payout which ties up your income for a multi-year period be it an EMI (equated monthly instalment), endowment plan or equity SIP. It will take away your flexibility to embrace risky career moves like entrepreneurship.

Inflexible spending will also make it hard for you to weather bad times.

Should it allocate more to rural projects or urban ones? Should it hike outlays on defence or welfare schemes? Should it increase staff salaries or invest in new projects?

The government has myriad demands on its limited resources. And if it makes wrong choices, it can get booted out at the next election.

So, in each budget, the Finance Minister often ends up spreading himself thin across hundreds of schemes, making very little progress on any of them in the long run.

As an investor, you dont have to pander to such populism. Sit down with your family and set out three or four clear financial goals that all of you would like to achieve. Create separate portfolios for each of them. Thats the best way to financial freedom in the long run.

(This article was published on February 11, 2017)

Please enter your email. Thank You.

Newsletter has been successfully subscribed.

Visit link:

Personal finance lessons from the Budget - Hindu Business Line

A fiscal year (or financial year, or sometimes budget year) is a period used for calculating annual (yearly) financial statements in businesses and other organizations all over the world. In many jurisdictions, regulatory laws regarding accounting and taxation require such reports once per twelve months, but do not require that the period reported on constitutes a calendar year (that is, 1 January to 31 December). Fiscal years vary between businesses and countries. The fiscal year may also refer to the year used for income tax reporting.

The fiscal year end (FYE) is the date that marks the end of the fiscal year. Some companies choose to end their fiscal year such that it ends on the same day of the week each year, e.g. the day that is closest to a particular date (for example, the Friday closest to 31 December). Under such a system, some fiscal years will have 52 weeks and others 53 weeks. A major corporation that has adopted this approach is Cisco Systems.[1]

Nevertheless, the fiscal year is identical to the calendar year for about 65% of publicly traded companies in the United States and for a majority of large corporations in the UK[2] and elsewhere (with notable exceptions Australia, New Zealand and Japan).[3]

Many universities have a fiscal year which ends during the summer, both to align the fiscal year with the academic year (and, in some cases involving public universities, with the state governments fiscal year), and because the school is normally less busy during the summer months. In the northern hemisphere this is July in one year to June in the next year. In the southern hemisphere this is January to December of a single calendar year.

Some media/communication based organizations use a broadcast calendar as the basis for their fiscal year.

The fiscal year is usually denoted by the year in which it ends, so United States of America federal government spending incurred on 14 November 2016 would belong to fiscal year 2017, operating on a fiscal calendar of OctoberSeptember.[4]

The NFL uses the term league year, which in effect forms the leagues fiscal year. By rule, the fiscal year begins at 4 PM EDT on 10 March of each calendar year. All financial reports are based on each fiscal year. However, the fiscal year is denoted in the NFL by the year where it starts, not where it ends, unlike most designations.

In some jurisdictions, particularly those that permit tax consolidation, companies that are part of a group of businesses must use nearly the same fiscal year (differences of up to three months are permitted in some jurisdictions, such as the U.S. and Japan), with consolidating entries to adjust for transactions between units with different fiscal years, so the same resources will not be counted more than once or not at all.[citation needed]

In Afghanistan, the fiscal year was recently changed from 1 Hamal 29 Hoot (21 March 20 March) to 1 Jadi 30 Qaus (21 December 20 December). The fiscal year runs with the Afghan calendar, thus resulting in difference of the Gregorian dates once in a four-year span.[citation needed]

In Australia, the fiscal year or, more commonly, financial year, starts on 1 July and ends on 30 June. For personal income tax after the financial year ends, individuals have until 31 October to lodge their return (unless they use a tax agent).[5] This fiscal year definition is used both for official purposes and by the overwhelming majority of private enterprises, but this is not legally mandated.[6] A company may, for example, opt for a financial year that always ends at the end of a week (and therefore is not exactly one calendar year in length), or opt for each financial year to end on a different date to match the reporting cycles of its foreign parent.

In Austria the fiscal year is the calendar year, January 1st December 31st.

In Bangladesh, the fiscal year starts on 1 July and ends on 30 June.

In Belarus, the fiscal year starts on 1 January and ends on 31 December.

In Brazil, the fiscal year starts on 1 January and ends on 31 December. Citizens pay income tax (when needed) starting in May, but the form filling goes from March to April. All tax declarations must be done on-line using government written free software.[citation needed]

In Bulgaria, the fiscal year matches the calendar year both for personal income tax [7] and for corporate taxes.[8]

In Canada,[9] the governments financial year runs from 1 April to 31 March (Example 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 for the current financial year).

For individuals in Canada, the fiscal year runs from 1 January to 31 December.

The fiscal year for all entities starts on 1 January and ends 31 December, consistent with the calendar year, to match the tax year, statutory year, and planning year.[citation needed]

In Colombia, the fiscal year starts 1 January ending on 31 December. Yearly taxes are due in the middle of March/April for corporations while citizens pay income tax (when needed) starting in August, ending in September, according to the last 2 digits of the national ID.[citation needed]

The fiscal year in Costa Rica spans from 1 October until 30 September. Taxpayers are required to pay the tributes before 15 December of each year.[citation needed]

In the Arab Republic of Egypt, the fiscal year starts on 1 July and concludes on 30 June.[citation needed]

The fiscal year matches the calendar year, and has since at least 1911.[10]

In the Hellenic Republic, the fiscal year starts on 1 January and concludes on 31 December.

In Hong Kong,[11] the governments financial year runs from 1 April to 31 March (Example 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 for the current financial year).

In India, the governments financial year runs from 1 April to 31 March midnight. Example: 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 for the financial year 20162017. It is also abbreviated as FY17.[12][13]

Companies following the Indian Depositary Receipt (IDR) are given freedom to choose their financial year. For example, Standard Chartereds IDR follows the UK calendar despite being listed in India. Companies following Indian fiscal year get to know their economical health on 31 March of every Indian financial or fiscal year.

There was discussions by the newly formed NITI Aayog, in the month of July 2016,in a meeting organised by the PM Modi, that the next fiscal year may start from 1 January to 31 December after the end of the current five-year plan.[14]

In Iran, the fiscal year starts usually on March 21 (1st of Farvardin) and concludes on next years March 20 (29th of Esfand) in Solar Hijri calendar [15]

Ireland used the year ending 5 April until 2001 when it was changed, at the request of Finance Minister Charlie McCreevy, to match the calendar year (the 2001 tax year was nine months, from April to December)[citation needed]

Since 2002, it is aligned with the calendar year: 1 January to 31 December.[16]

In Israel the fiscal year is from 1 January until 31 December.[17]

In Italy the fiscal year was from 1 July to 30 June until 1965; now it is from 1 January until 31 December.[citation needed]

In Japan,[18] the governments financial year runs from 1 April to 31 March. The fiscal year is represented by the calendar year in which the period begins, followed by the word nendo (); for example the fiscal year from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 is called 2016nendo.

Japans income tax year runs from 1 January to 31 December, but corporate tax is charged according to the corporations own annual period.[citation needed]

In Macau, the governments financial year runs from 1 January to 31 December (Example 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016 for the current financial year).

In Mexico the fiscal year starts on January 1 and ends on December 31.

In Myanmar,[19] the fiscal year goes from 1 April to 31 March.

The fiscal year in Nepal starts from Shrawan 1 (4th month of Bikram calendar) and ends on Ashad 31 (3rd month of Bikram calendar). Shrawan 1 roughly falls on mid July.[20]

The New Zealand Governments fiscal[21] and financial reporting[22] year begins on 1 July and concludes on 30 June[23] of the following year and applies to the budget. The company and personal financial year[24] begins on 1 April and finishes on 31 March and applies to company and personal income tax.

The Pakistan Governments fiscal year starts on 1 July of the previous calendar year and concludes on 30 June. Private companies are free to observe their own accounting year, which may not be the same as Government of Pakistans fiscal year.[citation needed]

In Portugal the fiscal year starts on January 1 and ends on December 31.

The fiscal year matches the calendar year, and has since at least 1911.[10]

The fiscal year for the calculation of personal income taxes runs from 1 January to 31 December.[citation needed]

The fiscal year for the Government of Singapore and many government-linked corporations runs from 1 April to 31 March.[citation needed]

Corporations and organisations are permitted to select any date to mark the end of each fiscal year, as long as this date remains constant.[citation needed]

In South Africa the fiscal year for the Government of South Africa starts on 1 April and ends 31 March.[citation needed]

The year of assessment for individuals covers twelve months, beginning on 1 March and ending on the final day of February the following year. The Act also provides for certain classes of taxpayers to have a year of assessment ending on a day other than the last day of February. Companies are permitted to have a tax year ending on a date that coincides with their financial year. Many older companies still use a tax year that runs from 1 July to 30 June, inherited from the British system. A common practice for newer companies is to run their tax year from 1 March to the final day of February following, to synchronize with the tax year for individuals.[citation needed]

In South Korea(Republic of Korea) the fiscal year starts on 1 January and ends 31 December.[citation needed]

In Spain the fiscal year starts on 1 January and ends 31 December.[25]

The fiscal year for individuals runs from 1 January to 31 December.[26]

The fiscal year for an organisation is typically one of the following (cf. Swedish Wikipedia):

However, all calendar months are allowed. If an organisation wishes to change into a non-calendar year, permission from the Tax Authority is required.[27][28]

Under the Income Tax Act of Taiwan, the fiscal year commences on 1 January and ends on 31 December of each calendar year. However, an enterprise may elect to adopt a special fiscal year at the time it is established and can request approval from the tax authorities to change its fiscal year.[29]

The Thai governments fiscal year (FY) begins on 1 October and ends on 30 September of the following year.[30] FY2015 dates from 1 October 2014 30 September 2015. The Thai governments year for individual income tax is the calendar year (1 January 31 December)

In Ukraine, the fiscal year matches with the calendar year which starts on 1 January and ends 31 December.

In the United Arab Emirates, the fiscal year starts on 1 January and ends 31 December.[citation needed]

In the United Kingdom,[31] the financial year runs from 1 April to 31 March for the purposes of corporation tax[32] and government financial statements.[33] For the self-employed and others who pay personal tax the fiscal year starts on 6 April and ends on 5 April of the next calendar year.[34]

Although United Kingdom corporation tax is charged by reference to the governments financial year, companies can adopt any year as their accounting year: if there is a change in tax rate, the taxable profit is apportioned to financial years on a time basis.[citation needed]

A number of major corporations that were once government-owned, such as BT Group and the National Grid, continue to use the governments financial year, which ends on the last day of March, as they have found no reason to change since privatisation.[citation needed]

The 5 April year end for personal tax and benefits reflects the old ecclesiastical calendar, with New Year falling on 25 March (Lady Day), the difference being accounted for by the eleven days missed out when Great Britain converted from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian Calendar in 1752 (the British tax authorities, and landlords were unwilling to lose 11 days of tax and rent revenue, so under provision 6 (Times of Payment of Rents, Annuities, &c.) of the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750, the 17523 tax year was extended by 11 days). From 1753 until 1799, the tax year in Great Britain began on 5 April, which was the old style new year of 25 March. A 12th skipped Gregorian leap day in 1800 changed its start to 6 April. It was not changed when a 13th Julian leap day was skipped in 1900, so the start of the personal tax year in the United Kingdom is still 6 April.[35][36][37]

The United States federal governments fiscal year is the 12-month period ending on 30 September of that year, having begun on 1 October of the previous calendar year. In particular, the identification of a fiscal year is the calendar year in which it ends; thus, the current fiscal year is 2017, often written as FY2017 or FY17, which began on 1 October 2016 and which will end on 30 September 2017.

Prior to 1976, the fiscal year began on 1 July and ended on 30 June. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 made the change to allow Congress more time to arrive at a budget each year, and provided for what is known as the transitional quarter from 1 July 1976 to 30 September 1976. An earlier shift in the federal governments fiscal year was made in 1843, shifting the fiscal year from a calendar year to one starting on 1 July.[38]

For example, the United States government fiscal year for 2017 is:

State governments set their own fiscal year. It may or may not align with the federal calendar. For example, in California, the states fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30 each year.[39]

The tax year for a business is governed by the fiscal year it chooses. A business may choose any consistent fiscal year that it wants; however, for seasonal businesses such as farming and retail, a good account practice is to end the fiscal year shortly after the highest revenue time of year. Consequently, most large agriculture companies end their fiscal years after the harvest season, and most retailers end their fiscal years shortly after the Christmas shopping season.

The fiscal year for individuals and entities to report and pay income taxes is often known as the taxpayers tax year or taxable year. Taxpayers in many jurisdictions may choose their tax year.[40] In federal countries (e.g., United States, Canada, Switzerland), state/provincial/cantonal tax years must be the same as the federal year. Nearly all jurisdictions require that the tax year be 12 months or 52/53 weeks.[41] However, short years are permitted as the first year or when changing tax years.[42]

Most countries require all individuals to pay income tax based on the calendar year. Significant exceptions include:

Many jurisdictions require that the tax year conform to the taxpayers fiscal year for financial reporting. The United States is a notable exception: taxpayers may choose any tax year, but must keep books and records for such year.[41]

Here is the original post:

Fiscal year Wikipedia

See the original post:

Fiscal Freedom | Prometheism.net - Part 2

The endorsement of President Donald Trump by Philadelphias Fraternal Order of Police last September has proven fruitful in at least one way for the unions members: Fatter paychecks.

The many protests and demonstrations on the streets of Philadelphia in January translated into nearly $3 million in overtime for city cops, according to figures provided by the city.

The civil unrest, a spokesman for Mayor Jim Kenney said, was the direct result of rushed White House policy announcements.

The OT total does not include what the city police department spent overall for extra-hours work by its officers. The department doles out tens of millions each year in overtime for court appearances and investigative work.

The large amount last month related only to demonstration details will likely boost OT spending that has annually outpaced what the city anticipates, quarterly budget reports show. The police department had already spent $3.5 million more through the end of September than budget officials expected for the first three months of the current fiscal year, which began July 1.

And the city police department not only overspends on OT, it experienced a considerable rise each of the last three years: from $49 million in fiscal year 2014 to $53 million in 2015 to $64 million in 2016.

A spokesman for the police department did not respond to questions about the increases in annual overtime spending or how much the department spent in January on OT in addition to the $2.85 million for demonstrations.

The city has hosted large-scale events in recent years that some of the overtime increases could be attributed to: Pope Francis visit in 2015 and the Democratic National Convention in 2016.

As for January, which saw thousands turn out for the Womens March on Jan. 21 and the Republican Congressional Caucus Retreat Jan. 25-27, Kenney spokesman Mike Dunn pointed to the new White House administrations actions.

The increased number of demonstrations we've seen over these past few weeks are the direct result of rushed White House policy announcements and implementation, spokesman Mike Dunn said. They highlight how important it is for the White House to fully vet policies before they are imposed, for Congress to insist on its legislative oversight as well, and for our federal representatives to open their doors to their constituents.

Thousands Gather at PHL to Protest Travel Ban

The city budget office releases quarterly reports on spending, providing a look at both year-to-date totals and how much above or below each departments spending is compared to the budget adopted each June. The initial spending plan includes anticipated expenditures for costs like overtime.

Dunn did not provide insight into how, if at all, the city compensates for quarterly overspending.

A City Council committee holds a hearing each quarter on changes to city spending, but its oversight powers are limited to the equivalent of a rubber stamp, one Councilwoman previously admitted.

In addition to the police overtime, city workers in other departments also received additional pay related to the January uptick in demonstrations: $35,700 for the fire department, $22,000 for the public property department, $15,400 for Streets and $7,000 for Fleet.

In total, the city paid out more than $2.9 million.

As you can see, the cost to the City of these demonstrations is significant, and places an increased burden on our police force, Dunn said. We are proud of the PPD who have worked long hours to ensure public safety and freedom of expression go hand in hand.

Published 5 hours ago | Updated 4 hours ago

See original here:

For Philly Cops Already Awash in Overtime Pay, Another Boost -- Thanks to Trump - NBC 10 Philadelphia

Protests turned violent at UC Berkley, which sparked the tweet by Trump (ABC 7).

By Brittany Hunter

Milo Yiannopoulos, the controversial and polarizing poster boy of the alt-right, was scheduled to speak at the University of California at Berkeley last week. However, thanks to destructive riots that resulted in almost $100,000 in damages, the event was canceled just hours before it was due to begin.

As expected, President Trump had strong opinions about the incident, which he made publicly known on his Twitter account.

Threatening to cut almost $500 million in federal funding, Trump chastised the historic California university for canceling the event and accused its administration of obstructing the First Amendment right to free speech.

But notice: this suggestion comes as a threat, as punishment for failing to control protesters, the withdrawal of a subsidy as a punitive measure. This is not the way to achieve what we desperately need: cutting off all federal funds for universities as a matter of fiscal soundness and the principle of freedom itself.

Cut them Off!

Whether he realizes it or notand it is almost certain that he does notPresident Trumps statement provided a compelling case for ending federal funding to all institutions of higher education.

One of the many problematic issues with federal funding is the tendency of politicians to use it as a bargaining chip against the opposition.

Partisan politics can turn ugly rather quickly, which is why budget cuts are often perceived as punishments rather than sensible economic decisions. As the saying goes, he who holds the purse strings holds the power.

Unfortunately, federal funding is almost always used as a means to force compliance from those receiving the financial aid. Institutions that choose to accept this money are soon likely to discover that they are required to adhere to certain stipulations that might not otherwise have been agreed to.

The Common Core standards, for example, were pushed onto the states through a federal stimulus package. Once this federal money was accepted, the states were required to adopt a curriculum that met certain standards.

The only way to really stay autonomous is to simply stop accepting federal funding.

Conveniently enough, the government was waiting in the wings with a ready-made plan that accomplished this goal. If states refused to comply, the federal money was retracted.

Luckily, private institutions are not subject to the same rules as the public sector. For those organizations that operate solely on private funds, it is much more difficult for the federal government to interfere, although not impossible.

If, for example, the student body was opposed to the idea of hosting a speaker they strongly disagreed with, a private university would have every right to deny that speaker access to campus facilities.

However, so long as federal funding is given and received by institutions of higher education, campuses have little to no recourse when it comes to censoring certain individuals on campus.

While President Trump does not actually have the authority to cut federal funding from U.C. Berkeley, every threat, substantial or not, comes with a hurricane of hysteria and fear over what the new president may do.

The only way to really stay autonomous without binding yourself to federal conditions is to simply stop accepting and stop offering this money altogether.

Brittany Hunter is an associate editor at FEE. This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Espaol On Thursday, February 9th, Reuters revealed that the Venezuelan state-run oil company PDVSA has not sent oil and fuel that it owes to China and Russia for months. "Delayed shipments to these crucial political allies and trade partners, which have given Venezuela at least US $55 billion in credit, provide a new vision of PDVSA's operational failures and its impact on the country's socialist economy," Reuters reports. Read More: Venezuelan Oil Ships Stranded at Sea Because PDVSA Can't Pay Port Fees Read More: US to Confiscate Assets of Venezuelans Involved in PDVSA Corruption Scandal This media outlet also pointed out, "oil represents nearly all of Venezuela's export earnings." Therefore, "the PDVSA crisis" strongly affects "a nation suffering from three-digit inflation and a food shortage that reminds us of the Soviet Union." In fact, the latest estimates suggest that 87% of the country's income comes from selling oil. "The total value of the past due shipments to China and Russia's state-owned companies is about US $750 million," according to the Reuters agency's analysis of PDVSA's documents. googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1459522593195-0'); }); Meanwhile, by the end of January of this year, PDVSA owed these companies at least 10 million barrels of oil. This amounts to a 10 month delay, according to the British agency's information. The statement said, "Shipments to China and Russia are critical forPDVSA's financial health because companies in both countries buy around a third of PDVSA's total oil and fuel exports." For years, the credit that both nations provided has been indispensable for Nicols Maduro. In fact, infrastructure and social investment in Venezuela has been financed mainly by China. Maduro is facing a domestic firestorm over economic collapse, threats to ban opposition political parties, and major social unrest that has gripped the nation in the wake of a collapse in global petroleum prices. Source: Reuters

Read more from the original source:

Trump Threatens to Cut Off Government Funds to Universities, and Why Not? - PanAm Post

When I debate one of my leftist friends about deficits, its often a strange experience because none of us actually care that much about red ink.

Im motivated instead by a desire to shrink the burden of government spending, so I argue for spending restraint rather than tax hikes that would feed the beast.

And folks on the left want bigger government, so they argue for tax hikes to enable more spending and redistribution.

I feel that I have an advantage in these debates, though, because I share my table of nations that have achieved great results when nominal spending grows by less than 2 percent per year.

The table shows that nations practicing spending restraint for multi-year periods reduce the problem of excessive government and also address the symptom of red ink.

I then ask my leftist buddies to please share their table showing nations that got good results from tax increases. And the response isawkward silence, followed by attempts to change the subject. I often think you can even hear crickets chirping in the background.

I point this out because I now have another nation to add to my collection.

From the start of last decade up through the 2009-2010 fiscal year, government spending in the United Kingdom grew by 7.1 percent annually, far faster than the growth of the economys productive sector. As a result, an ever-greater share of the private economy was being diverted to politicians and bureaucrats.

Beginning with the 2010-2011 fiscal year, however, officials started complying with my Golden Rule and outlays since then have grown by an average of 1.6 percent per year.

And as you can see from this chart prepared by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, this modest level of fiscal restraint has paid big dividends. The burden of government spending has significantly declined, falling from 45 percent of national income to 40 percent of national income.

This means more resources in private hands, which means better economic performance.

Though allow me to now share some caveats. Fiscal policy is only a small piece of what determines good policy, just 20 percent of a nations grade according to Economic Freedom of the World.

So spending restraint should be accompanied by free trade, sound money, a sensible regulatory structure, and good governance. Moreover, as we see from the tragedy of Greece, spending restraint doesnt even lead to good fiscal policy if its accompanied by huge tax increases.

Fortunately, the United Kingdom is reasonably sensible, which explains why the country is ranked #10 by EFW. Though its worth noting that it gets its lowest score for size of government, so the recent bit of good news about spending restraint needs to be the start of a long journey.

P.S. The United States got great results thanks to spending restraint between 2009-2014. It will be interesting to see whether Republicans get better results with Trump in the White House.

See more here:

The United Kingdom and the Benefits of Spending Restraint - Cato Institute (blog)

By Ken Dixon, Connecticut Post

Photo: Brian A. Pounds / Brian A. Pounds

Joseph F. Brennan, president and CEO of the Connecticut Business and Industry Association

Joseph F. Brennan, president and CEO of the Connecticut Business and Industry Association

State Sen. L. Scott Frantz, R-Greenwich, opposes a proposed local option real estate tax on hospitals.

State Sen. L. Scott Frantz, R-Greenwich, opposes a proposed local option real estate tax on hospitals.

State Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey, D-Fairfield, opposes Gov. Malloys proposed shift of state aid away from wealthier towns like hers, to troubled inner cities.

State Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey, D-Fairfield, opposes Gov. Malloys proposed shift of state aid away from wealthier towns like hers, to troubled inner cities.

Stamford Hospital would pay about $8.3 million a year in local real estate taxes under a proposal by Gov. Malloy.

Stamford Hospital would pay about $8.3 million a year in local real estate taxes under a proposal by Gov. Malloy.

Stamford Hospital

Stamford Hospital

The town of New Milford would collect about $757,000 a year from New Milford Hospital, under a budget proposal by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy.

The town of New Milford would collect about $757,000 a year from New Milford Hospital, under a budget proposal by Gov. Dannel P. Malloy.

Danbury Hospital would pay $7.2 million a year in local real estate taxes under a budget proposal pending in the state Capitol.

Danbury Hospital would pay $7.2 million a year in local real estate taxes under a budget proposal pending in the state Capitol.

Griffin Hospital would pay the city of Derby about $2.9 million a year in local real estate taxes under a proposal by the governor.

Griffin Hospital would pay the city of Derby about $2.9 million a year in local real estate taxes under a proposal by the governor.

Bridgeport Hospital. Under a plan by Gov. Malloy, Bridgeport would collect about $20 million a year in local real estate taxes for hosting Bridgeport Hospital and St. Vincents Medical Center.

Bridgeport Hospital. Under a plan by Gov. Malloy, Bridgeport would collect about $20 million a year in local real estate taxes for hosting Bridgeport Hospital and St. Vincents Medical Center.

Exterior of St. Vincent's Medical Center, in Bridgeport, Conn. Dec. 12, 2016.

Exterior of St. Vincent's Medical Center, in Bridgeport, Conn. Dec. 12, 2016.

Business divided on Malloy budget

The business community is divided over Gov. Dannel P. Malloys proposed two-year, $40.5 billion budget proposal, with Connecticut hospitals opposed to a plan that would end their freedom from local real estate taxes.

But the states largest business organization says that Malloys attempt to create regional relief for troubled inner-city schools could mean greater economic growth in the long run.

Joe Brennan, president and CEO of the Connecticut Business & Industry Association, said that given the projected $1.7 billion deficit for the fiscal year starting July 1, corporate leaders had been concerned that Malloys budget plan might include higher taxes.

We understand there are some tax increases in the budget, but were not seeing this huge, broad-based tax increase that weve seen in the past, which the governor has said ... was not his desire, Brennan said. I think its a good thing that hes begun, maybe, a new dialogue with municipalities on how were going to fund both state and local obligations going forward.

Taxes on the way?

Gov. Dannel P. Malloy has proposed that towns and cities levy local real estate taxes on hospitals. This is that could mean in extra municipal revenue:

Greenwich: $2.87 million per year

Stamford: $8.3 million per year

Norwalk: $9.9 million per year

Danbury: $7.2 million per year

Bridgeport: $20 million per year

Derby: $2.9 million per year

Milford: $1.47 million per year

New Milford: $757,000 per year

For the first time, under Malloys plan, hospitals would lose their exemption from local real estate taxes, which for cities such as Bridgeport home of St. Vincents Medical Center and Bridgeport Hospital could result in added tax revenue of $20 million annually.

Jennifer Jackson, CEO of the 98-year-old Connecticut Hospital Association, called Malloys plan a direct attack on the fabric of our communities. She warned of previous plans that have resulted in more than $2 billion in taxes and cuts to local hospitals.

The hospital tax has increased costs for patients, caused the loss of thousands of health care jobs, extended wait times and reduced access to care for those who need it most, Jackson said in a statement.

State Sen. L. Scott Frantz, R-Greenwich, supported Jackson. The question is, how much more money is the state going to try to extricate from our hospitals? Frantz said in a statement. This is nothing but a shell game.

Malloys budget staff estimates that if cities that support hospitals tax their real estate, hospitals would be exposed for about $212 million. The governor has budgeted $250 million, including federal Medicare support, to reimburse hospitals for their losses.

Overall, we are pleased with the net-positive budget number for Bridgeport and we deeply appreciate the governors commitment to Connecticuts cities as hubs of regional growth, said Av Harris, director of legislative affairs and public policy for Bridgeport Mayor Joe Ganim. We know this is not an easy budget, and there are many who are disappointed.

Second-term state Rep. Cristin McCarthy Vahey, D-Fairfield, said Thursday that she is concerned about net cuts totaling more than $7.6 million that Malloy plans for her town.

This would create a tremendous strain on Fairfields budget, Vahey said in a statement. Simply shifting such a large share of the cost burden to municipalities is not a comprehensive solution to our budget challenges.

Malloys budget includes $1.36 billion in spending reductions and $205 million in new taxes, including higher tobacco taxes to add $60 million in revenue, and the elimination of the $200 property tax exemption to bring in $105 million annually. The governors proposal would also reduce taxes on the insurance industry, lowering the rate that premium are taxed from the current 1.75 percent, to 1.5 percent.

While officially presented on Wednesday, the budget will reach the legislative process on Friday morning when Ben Barnes, Malloys budget director, presents it to the legislative Appropriations Committee for questions. Public hearings will follow as the General Assembly heads toward its statutory deadline of 12:01 a.m. on June 8.

kdixon@ctpost.com; Twitter: @KenDixonCT

See the original post:

Business divided on Malloy budget - CT Post

By Lise Alves, Senior Contributing Reporter

SO PAULO, BRAZIL As tension continues in the streets of Vitria, the licensed governor of the state of Espirito Santo said on Wednesday that the actions taken by the military police and their family members could be construed as a blackmail and that the state would not give in to the ransom demands.

What is happening in Espirito Santo is clear blackmail, governor Paulo Hartung, on medical license since December, told reporters on Wednesday.

It is the same thing as hijacking the freedom of the Capixaba [Vitria] citizen and [demand] paying of ransom. We can not pay [the] ransom due to ethical reasons and [falling into] non-compliance with the Fiscal Responsibility Law.

The situation in the state capital, Vitoria, did not improve on Wednesday, despite federal troops on the streets to guarantee pubic safety. Defense Minister Raul Jungmann announced on Wednesday that federal action in Vitoria, dubbed Operation Capixaba, would receive an additional reinforcement of 550 military personnel from the Armed Forces.

In addition, said the minister, another one hundred members of the National Public Security Force would join the 1,200 army troops who are already patrolling the metropolitan area streets.

Since Friday when family members of military police officers blocked off the entrance to the battalions, the city of Vitria has faced a wave of looting and violence. Shops were forced to close, leaving the population without food supplies. The local government ordered schools and health clinics to close until the situation is cleared up.

Bus companies, which had halted all public transportation on Wednesday, said that they would partially resume routes on Thursday, but G1 media reports that by 9AM on Thursday morning all busses were back in the patios and the city was once again without public transportation service.

Wednesday night state officials met with protest representatives to start negotiation talks. The population is frightened, people are dying in the streets. This is serious. The police are fully aware of the gravity of the moment we are living. I am very confident that we will be able to restore sanity, because what we are living here is a state of total insanity, the states Secretary for Human Rights, Julio Pompeu, said after leaving the first day of negotiations with demonstrators.

According to local media the leaders of the movement presented two demands: general amnesty for all police, and a one hundred percent increase in wages for all military police officers. Protesters say that the officers have not had wage increases in seven years, and with inflation and the current economic crisis facing the country, many families had to resort to financial help from friends to survive.

Although Pompeu said government officials would discuss the demands, earlier in the day, acting governor Cesar Colnago told reporters that wage increases were out of the question. Since the protests began local media reports that there have been at least one hundred violent deaths in the metropolitan area of Vitoria.

See original here:

Police Criticized as Violence Continues in Brazil's City of Vitria - The Rio Times

Fiscal freedom is a measure of the tax burden imposed by government. It includes direct taxes, in terms of the top marginal tax rates on individual and corporate incomes, and overall taxes, including all forms of direct and indirect taxation at all levels of government, as a percentage of GDP. Thus, the fiscal freedom component is composed of three quantitative factors:

Fiscal freedom scores are calculated with a quadratic cost function to reflect the diminishing revenue returns from very high rates of taxation. The data for each factor are converted to a 100-point scale using the following equation:

Fiscal Freedomij= 100 (Factorij)2

where Fiscal Freedomij represents the fiscal freedom in country i for factor j; Factorij represents the value (based on a scale of 0 to 100) in country i for factor j; and is a coefficient set equal to 0.03. The minimum score for each factor is zero, which is not represented in the printed equation but was utilized because it means that no single high tax burden will make the other two factors irrelevant.

As an example, in the 2013 Index, Mauritius has a flat rate of 15 percent for both individual and corporate tax rates, which yields a score of 93.3 for each of the two factors. Mauritiuss overall tax burden as a portion of GDP is 18.5 percent, yielding a tax burden factor score of 89.7. When the three factors are averaged together, Mauritiuss overall fiscal freedom score becomes 92.1.

Sources. Unless otherwise noted, the Index relies on the following sources for information on taxation, in order of priority: Deloitte, International Tax and Business Guide Highlights; International Monetary Fund, Staff Country Report, Selected Issues and Statistical Appendix, and Staff Country Report, Article IV Consultation, 20092012; PricewaterhouseCoopers, Worldwide Tax Summaries, 20092012; countries investment agencies; other government authorities (embassy confirmations and/or the countrys treasury or tax authority); and Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Commerce and Country Finance, 20092012.

For information on tax burden as a percentage of GDP, the primary sources (in order of priority) were Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development data; Eurostat, Government Finance Statistics data; African Development Bank and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, African Economic Outlook 2012; International Monetary Fund, Staff Country Report, Selected Issues, and Staff Country Report, Article IV Consultation, 20092012; Asian Development Bank, Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific, 20092012; and individual contacts from government agencies and multinational organizations such as the IMF and World Bank.

Read more here:

Fiscal Freedom: How Tax Burden Affects Economic Freedom

The chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus said Wednesday he would be open to funding insurance companies during a transition away fromObamaCare.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said during a meeting with reporters that he would be willing to continue cost-sharing subsidies and reinsurance payments during the transition if there's a long-term plan in place.

"I would be more flexible and could swallow some short-term heartburn for longer-term fiscal responsibility," Meadows said.

He added that while the payments are "significant" in terms of costs, it is a "minor component" when it comes to a smoother transition.

The insurance market could collapse without the continued payments, which compensate insurers for offering discounts to low-income enrollees and for taking on sick, costly patients.

Republican Sen. Lamar AlexanderLamar AlexanderKey conservative open to insurer payments during ObamaCare transition Donald Trumps details man Report: Four GOP senators mum on Trumps Labor pick MORE (Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee, indicated earlier this month that Congress may need to continue the payments to stabilize the insurance market.

What were told is if we dont act by March or April, is that in many states there wont be an insurance company there to sell you insurance, Alexander said.

Its also an area where Republicans are going to have to do some things we may not normally do, like cost sharing or reinsurance. We may not like those things, but we may have to do those things for the next two to three years to make sure people can buy insurance.

Read more:

Key conservative open to insurer payments during ObamaCare transition - The Hill

On Dec. 22, 2016, President Duterte signed the General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 2017 with a special provision calling on Congress oversight committee on overseas development assistance to conduct a debt audit to determine the legitimacy of 20 government-contracted foreign loans. The audit is to be completed within the 2017 fiscal year.

Earlier, on Dec. 13, 2016, a more far-reaching Senate Resolution (SR) No. 253 was filed jointly by Sen. Risa Hontiveros and Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III directing the appropriate Senate committee to inquire, in aid of legislation, into the foreign loans contracted by the Philippine government within the last 15 years through the conduct of a debt audit.

These two initiatives are historically significant as previous attempts by civil society groups, notably the Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC), to compel the government to critically examine foreign-funded projects have all come to naught. In 2008, then President Gloria Arroyo vetoed a GAA special provision that would have suspended the debt service of 13 foreign loans that the FDC called fraudulent, wasteful, and/or useless.

The 2017 debt audit provision covers 20 loans from the Asian Development Bank, IBRD-World Bank, Japan International Cooperation Agency, Japan Bank for International Cooperation, Japan Eximbank, Opec Fund for International Development, French Protocol, and Raiffeisen Zentralbank Austria. But as SR 253 implies, these are but the tip of the iceberg with 481 outstanding foreign loans up for scrutiny under the Hontiveros-Pimentel initiative.

International debt campaigners regard a debt as illegitimate if it violates common principles of human rights and sustainable human development, justice and fairness, accountability and responsibility, sovereignty of peoples and nations, and democratic rights. SR 253 also invokes the Unctad (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) principles on promoting responsible sovereign lending and borrowing.

The reasons for declaring a particular debt illegitimate are: violation of procedures mandated by law such as bribery, fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation; onerous provisions such as public guarantees of private profits; negative impact on the environment, communities and peoples wellbeing, and on basic social services, human welfare, and safety; waste of funds through corruption, mismanagement, and project failures; conversion of private loans into public debts due to sovereign guarantees; subjecting the economy to shocks, unreasonable creditor demands, and financial market instabilities; and imposing conditionalities that violate national sovereignty and democratic principles.

Thus, a debt audit is both a political tool and a process to disentangle the web of debt so as to reconstruct the series of events that cause many nations to fall into economic and fiscal quagmires. The FDC outlines what a debt audit should look into: the context and circumstances surrounding the transactions; the process of finalizing debt contracts; the content of the contracts; the purpose of the debts; how the funds were actually used; the impacts of debt-funded policies and projects; and the impacts of the conditionalities accompanying the debts and the debt contracts.

The projected audit of 20 illegitimate loans is a preliminary but significant step toward the cancellation of all fraudulent loans and the repeal of the law on automatic appropriations for debt servicing imposed by the dictator Ferdinand Marcos in 1977 through Presidential Decree No. 1177 and reiterated by then President Corazon Aquino through the 1987 Revised Administrative Code. As it stands, debt servicing is prioritized over any other government expenditure. The Philippines is reportedly the only country in the world with such an onerous law.

Our foreign debt now stands at P2.144 trillion. In the 2017 budget the automatic allocation for debt servicing of P335 billion (up from the 2016 total of P214.5 billion) is the second highest among all categories. The debt service for the 20 questionable loans amounts to P7.6 billion.

Such huge outlays of public funds are better used for projects that directly benefit the Filipino people, not those tainted by odious practices that bleed the countrys meager resources dry.

Eduardo C. Tadem, PhD., is president of the Freedom from Debt Coalition and professorial lecturer in Asian studies at the University of the Philippines Diliman.

Read the original here:

Historic audit of illegitimate debts - Inquirer.net

U.S. President Barack Obama meets with Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras at Maximos Palace in Athens, Greece November 15, 2016. (PHOTO: REUTERS)

Ive put forth lots of arguments against tax increases, mostly focusing on why higher tax rates will depress growth and encourage more government spending.

Today, lets look at a practical, real-world example.

I wrote a column for The Hill looking at why Greece is a fiscal and economic train wreck. I have lots of interesting background and history in the article, including the fact that Greece got into the mess by overspending and also explaining that politicians like Merkel only got involved because they wanted to bail out their domestic banks that foolishly lent lots of money to the Greek government.

But the most newsworthy part of my column was to expose the fact that austerity hasnt worked in Greece because the private sector has been suffocated by giant tax hikes.

the troikaimposed the wrong kind of fiscal reforms. what mostly happened is that Greek politicians dramatically increased the nations already punitive tax burden. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Developments fiscal database tells a very ugly story. on the eve of the crisis, the tax burden in Greece totaled 38.9 percent of GDP. This year, taxes are projected to reach 52.0 percent of economic output. Every major tax in Greece has been dramatically increased, including personal income taxes, corporate income taxes, value-added taxes, and property taxes. Its been a taxpalooza Whats happened on the spending side of the fiscal ledger? Have there been savage and draconian budget cuts? there have been some cuts, but the burden of government spending is still a heavy weight on the Greek economy. Outlays totaled 54.1 percent of GDP in 2009 and now government is consuming 52.2 percent of economic output.

For what its worth, the spending numbers would look better if the economy was stronger. In other words, Greeces performance wouldnt be so dismal if GDP was growing rather than shrinking.

And thats why tax increases are so misguided. They give politicians an excuse to avoid much-needed spending cuts while also hindering growth, investment and job creation.

Lets close by reviewing Greeces performance according to Economic Freedom of the World. The overall score for Greece has dropped slightly since 2009, but the real story is that the nations fiscal score has dramatically worsened, falling from 5.61 to 4.66 on a 0-10 scale. In other words, during a period of time in which Greece was supposed to sober up and become more fiscally responsible, the politicians engaged in an orgy of tax hikes and Greece went from a failing grade for fiscal policy to a miserably failing grade.

Heres a the relevant graph from the EFW website. As you can see, the score has been dropping for a decade, not just since 2009.

This is remarkable result. Greek politicians should have been pushing the nations fiscal score to at least 7 out of 10, if not 8 out of 10. Instead, the score has gone in the wrong direction because of tax increases.

Though I dont expect Hillary and Bernie to learn the right lesson.

P.S. For more information, heres my five-picture explanation of the Greek mess.

P.P.S. And if you want to know why Im so dour about Greeces future, how can you expect good policy from a nation that subsidizes pedophiles and requires stool samples to set up online companies?

P.P.P.S. Lets close by recycling my collection of Greek-related humor.

This cartoon is quite good, but thisthis one is my favorite. And thefinal cartoon in this postalso has a Greek theme.

We also have a couple of videos. The first one features avideo aboutwell, Im not sure, but well call ita European romantic comedyand the second one features a Greek comicpontificating about Germany.

Last but not least, here are somevery un-PC maps of how various peoples including the Greeks view different European nations.

Here is the original post:

Greece and the Folly of Trying to Solve an Overspending Problem with Tax Increases - People's Pundit Daily

President Donald Trump wants to rebuild the nations roads and bridges, boost military spending, slash taxes and build a great wall. But Republicans on Capitol Hill have one question for him: How the heck will we pay for all of this?

GOP lawmakers are fretting that Trumps spending requests, due out in a month or so, will blow a gaping hole in the federal budget ballooning the debt and undermining the partys doctrine of fiscal discipline.

Story Continued Below

Trump has signaled hes serious about a $1 trillion infrastructure plan, as he promised on the campaign trail. He also wants Republicans to approve extra spending this spring to build a wall along the U.S. southern border and beef up the military the combined price tag of which could reach $50 billion, insiders say. And thats to say nothing of tax cuts, which the presidents team has suggested need not necessarily be paid for.

Trump, meanwhile, has made clear he has little interest in tackling the biggest drivers of the national debt: entitlements. Republicans have been yearning to overhaul Medicare and Social Security for decades.

Even without Trumps pricey wish list, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the $19.9 trillion debt will grow by a further $9.4 trillion over the next decade if nothing changes.

I dont think you can do infrastructure, raise defense spending, do a tax cut, keep Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security just as they are, and balance the budget. Its just not possible, said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a senior member of the House Budget Committee. Sooner or later, theyre going to come to grips with it because the numbers force you to.

Trumps staunchest allies in Congress counter that the president deserves some leeway to get something tangible done on jobs.

If there is a temporary increase in the deficit to get our economy growing, I think my fellow Republican members are willing to look at the long game, said Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), a Trump loyalist. A growing economy and growing our way to success and financial stability is what we want to see.

The contrasting views foreshadow a clash between adherents to Trumps big-spending populism and classic small-government conservatives. Republican lawmakers have to choose between embracing Trumps expensive agenda or pushing back and risking his wrath.

Hill GOP insiders on both sides of the Capitol told Politico the fiscal 2018 budget will easily be one of the toughest votes Congress takes this year. Thats especially true in the House, where the conference for years has rallied around budgets that balance in 10 years the gold standard for whether a fiscal blueprint is conservative enough. Now, many Republicans worry they wont get there because of Trumps unorthodox views on spending.

It was already going to be a herculean task in making the numbers work over a 10-year time frame; when you begin to add in transportation, walls, tax cuts, it becomes an impossible task, said Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.). Were at the cusp of moving in the wrong direction. Its a problem.

Meanwhile, some Republicans on the House Budget Committee are floating the idea of changing the standard of success for a budget. Budget vice chairman Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) has been speaking to members about ditching the 10-year-balance metric for one that focuses on a debt-to-GDP ratio. Supporters of the idea say it would paint a more accurate measure of the nations long-term fiscal situation anyway, as savings from entitlement reforms arent often realized until the second decade and beyond not in the 10-year budget window.

The challenge to balance is going to be more difficult than ever. Thats all I have to say, Rokita said outside the House floor last week when asked about his proposed standard.

Spokesman William Allison said in a statement that Budget Chairwoman Diane Black (R-Tenn.) is committed to working towards a balanced budget.

The White House in the next two months will send Congress two major requests for money: a military spending bill that would take effect immediately upon passage, and a budget for next fiscal year. The latter will be a particularly tough lift because it traditionally includes a projection of government spending and debt over the next few decades.

Republicans are crossing their fingers that any requests for new spending will be offset with cuts. If not, the House Budget Committee will have to craft legislation to raise spending caps that have been in place for years. That could face stiff opposition from conservatives.

We would have several people opposed to lifting the caps, said Freedom Caucus Member Ral Labrador (R-Idaho). I am a fiscal conservative, and the biggest issue were facing in America right now is our debt. As Republicans, we better be consistent on this or were going to lose our base.

Outside conservative groups would also revolt if Republicans did away with the spending limits. Tim Phillips, who leads the Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity, said discretionary spending has grown far too rapidly. We have to put a hard cap on growth, and if Republicans are going to be true to their rhetoric, they will agree to a hard cap on spending.

Trump also wants to slash taxes, which could reduce the amount of annual cash flowing to the Treasury. Republicans are concerned because they have few specifics on what kind of tax plan Trump wants and some administration officials have floated the idea of not paying for tax reductions. House Speaker Paul Ryans tax plan would be revenue-neutral, or not add to the deficit, but no one knows for sure what the final deal negotiated by Trump and congressional Republicans will look like.

Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, a lobbyist who worked closely with Trumps transition team, said many of his corporate clients are lining up to oppose one of the biggest pay-fors put forward by Ryan: a new tax on imports, which the speaker estimates would generate $1 trillion.

The border adjustment tax is giving my clients serious heartburn. A lot of American companies, the poultry industry, the automobile industry, many others are worried about that, Lott said.

Republicans expect their leaders to argue that any spending, whether through appropriations or tax cuts, would ultimately pay for themselves by growing the economy by record amounts. Still, theyre not sure if that will get them to a balanced budget.

Rep. Charlie Dent: I certainly hope that we dont try to reconcile these increase expenditures on the backs of the discretionary programs." | AP Photo

Its possible some Republicans will seek to offset new spending with cuts to discretionary spending programs like the National Endowment for the Arts or agriculture programs something that worries many House Appropriations members like Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) .

I certainly hope that we dont try to reconcile these increase expenditures on the backs of the discretionary programs, he said.

Appropriators generally believe there is not enough fat to cut from discretionary programs to finance the level of new spending Trump is talking about. Most Republicans would rather turn to entitlement programs to find savings, but Trump has made clear he has no interest in going there.

Republicans are banking on outgoing Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), a fiscal hard-liner tapped by Trump to lead the Office of Management and Budget, to sell the president on the merits of entitlement reform.

I do know Mick Mulvaney knows the reality behind the numbers, Cole said. But Mick doesnt get to make the final call, thats the president. Its going to be fascinating.

Excerpt from:

Hill Republicans quake at Trump's budget-busting wish list - Politico