Daily Archives: March 21, 2017

What good is a liberal arts degree? – MarketWatch

Posted: March 21, 2017 at 12:21 pm

Im a liberal-arts major, and it feels like theres no clear line of work for me to pursue. How can I use my degree to get a job when I graduate?

The older I get, the more fiercely I defend unduly maligned liberal arts majors. Im the proud recipient of an English degree. Some people thought that studying literature was an endearing quirk, not a career path, but it led me to a fulfilling career in journalism.

Now that Im out in the real world, Ive seen how desperate companies are for good writers, communicators and researchers. According to a National Association of Colleges and Employers spring 2016 survey, employers rated critical thinking, professionalism and teamwork as the most important career-readiness traits of college graduates all achievable through liberal arts studies.

Its true that PayScales list of bachelor degrees with high income potential is dominated by science and engineering. But a humanities background can give you the foundation to solve problems, lead and collaborate with others, which can help you rise through the ranks in any industry. You never know where your liberal arts background may take you. Late-night talk show host Conan OBrien majored in history and literature. Howard Schultz, chairman and chief executive of Starbucks, majored in communications.

Follow these steps to gain confidence in your formidable knowledge, relay it to employers and land a job you love.

Liberal arts students often feel overwhelmed by all the career directions they can go, says Karyn McCoy, assistant vice president of DePaul Universitys Career Center in Chicago. If youre a political science major, for instance, you could pursue law, journalism, business, international relations, academia the list goes on.

Before you graduate, home in on what excites you by volunteering, working part time, joining extracurricular clubs and taking on internships. Youll build additional skills that can make you more marketable with employers. My experiences as an intern at nonprofit legal organizations helped me get my first job as a paralegal.

In many cases in job interviews, its those other applied experiences that students have had that help them stand out, says Paul Timmins, director of career services for the College of Liberal Arts at the University of Minnesota in Minneapolis.

Use tools such as the O*NET Interest Profiler, sponsored by the Labor Department, to explore potential occupations based on the types of tasks and job-related activities that most interest you. You also can ask your colleges alumni relations director to put you in touch with alumni with your degree. Set up a phone call or brief coffee meeting to discuss how they translated their liberal arts background into a successful career.

It takes practice to assess exactly how your major has prepared you for the workplace.

Students dont necessarily know how to identify the skills that theyre gaining or to talk about them in a way that sells them to an employer, McCoy says.

Brainstorm with your colleges career services department, a trusted professor or an internship supervisor about the transferable skills you can bring to the workplace. McCoy also recommends scrutinizing a few job descriptions that interest you, then writing down an experience showing how you meet each qualification.

If the employer wants someone who can take initiative, for instance, youd share in a cover letter or during an interview your experience at forming an anthropology study group. It would be even better if you could report a measurable positive result, such as a classwide increase in test scores. Is the company looking for a strong collaborator? Your work on a team that curated the new on-campus museum exhibit would be relevant.

Remember, too, that your first job is a single rung on your career ladder, McCoy says. You can prepare incessantly and still find youd rather work in a different company or industry that better fits your passions or lifestyle.

Each step is going to give you something, whether its a specific skill or an insight that says, OK, this definitely isnt it.

More from NerdWallet:

Continued here:

What good is a liberal arts degree? - MarketWatch

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on What good is a liberal arts degree? – MarketWatch

Liberal budget unlikely to include airport sales or major tax hikes – The Globe and Mail

Posted: at 12:21 pm

CANADIAN NEWS YOU SHOULD KNOW

Theres only one more sleep until the federal budget (can you tell were excited?) and sources tell The Globe that two controversial, much-talked-about measures will not appear in this weeks fiscal plan: a sell-off of Canadas airports and an increase in the capital-gains tax -- even if Charles Sousa wants it.

Who is the man behind the budget? Gregarious finance ministers like Paul Martin and Jim Flaherty have loomed over Parliament Hill in recent decades, but so far Bill Morneaus technocratic persona has been outshined by his bosss charisma.

Citing a Globe investigation, MPs on the Status of Women committee say Statistics Canada needs to resume tracking police dismissals of sexual-assault cases.

Senator Don Meredith is hiring a new lawyer.

The inquiry into missing and murdered indigenous women says they have few cases on file because the information they were given by the government wasnt particularly helpful.

The government will stop producing cardboard cutouts of Justin Trudeau.

The Liberals are in no rush to fix Access to Information laws after all.

The Anglican Church of Canada has blasted Senator Lynn Beyak for talking about the good in residential schools.

And The Globe and Mail has received 19 nominations for National Newspaper Awards, including two of the three finalists in Politics: Steven Chase in Ottawa for his coverage of Canadas controversial arms sales to Saudi Arabia (which already received an award from Amnesty International) and a team of Globe reporters for their coverage of cash for access political fundraisers in Ottawa, British Columbia and Ontario.

This is the daily Politics Briefing newsletter. If you're reading this on the web or someone forwarded this email newsletter to you, you can sign up for Politics Briefing and all Globe newsletters here. Let us know what you think.

U.S. NEWS YOU SHOULD KNOW

FBI Director James Comey confirmed that an investigation is looking into whether U.S. President Donald Trump and the Kremlin colluded during the election campaign and has been since July of 2016. Mr. Comey also mentioned that both parties were hacked during the campaign but that only information about Democrats was released because Russia wanted to hurt her, help him. NSA Director Mike Rogers noted that the level of hacking conducted by Russia was unprecedented.

The White House worked to contain the fallout from the explosive hearings. In the daily press briefing Press Secretary Sean Spicer said former campaign manager Paul Manafort was part of the Trump team for a very limited time in a very limited role. He also said that former national security adviser and adviser to the campaign Michael Flynn was a volunteer. Both had repeated contacts with the Russian government throughout the campaign.

Nomination hearings continue for Mr. Trumps Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch today in Washington. Democrats are facing grassroots pressure to oppose Mr. Gorsuch at all costs, much in the way that Republicans stonewalled Merrick Garland in a breach of longstanding precedent.

There are cabinet secretaries, and then there are the Trump-picked political aides inside their departments whose responsibility it is to monitor cabinet members loyalty to the White House.

And Ivanka Trump will be getting an office in the West Wing, security clearance and official communications devices. She will also continue to advise the president and broaden her portfolio. Despite this, the Trump team is insisting that shell play no official role and have no official title as anti-nepotism laws prevent the hiring of family members as White House employees.

LUNCHTIME LONG READ

More than 90 per cent of sexual assault victims never report the incident to police. Of those who do, many are not taken seriously. The Globe and Mail interviewed dozens of women who reported the crimes, and they explain some troubling experiences dealing with the justice system.

WHAT EVERYONES TALKING ABOUT

Campbell Clark (The Globe and Mail): Mr. Morneaus task is to deliver a budget for economically uncertain times. His problem is that the Liberal government is facing a big lump of insecurity, too, and had promised not to borrow much more, so it doesnt have a ton of new money to throw at Canadians worries. But reassurance seems to be what Prime Minister Justin Trudeaus government wants this budget to be about.

Munir Sheikh (The Globe and Mail): Suppose a budget told you that increased spending on a particular objective would raise GDP a lot more than any economic cost of deficit financing. Should you undertake that spending regardless of the debt-to-GDP ratio? I would assume the answer is yes (ignoring the rearranging of the budget items). Alternatively, assume that this spending was bad for the economy, but we have a low debt-to-GDP ratio. Should we proceed with it? I assume the answer is no. Then what is the value of a debt-to-GDP ratio?

Gordon Harris (Vancouver Sun): But selling ports and airports wouldnt recover value from facilities we no longer need. It would privatize assets that are still essential, and will remain so.

Stephen Gordon (National Post): If the pre-budget messaging is anything to go by, the focus of the 2017 budget will be innovation and economic growth, with a generous dollop of verbiage about the middle class. But, to the extent that these measures involve new spending, the middle class isnt likely to see much of it. The people who will benefit directly from new spending on innovation are likely to be well-educated and probably already making a decent living the sort of people who might have done pretty well from the tax cut on upper-middle-class incomes.

Andrew MacDougall (The Globe and Mail): The poor-but-not-decimating 2015 election result [for the Conservatives] gave way to a vibrant 2016 policy convention. Rona Ambrose has done an excellent job of holding Justin Trudeaus government to account in the House of Commons. This week the Liberals are widely expected to table a second budget full of monster deficits. It should be open season for Conservative leadership hopefuls, not open season on them.

Ezra Klein (Vox): Republican leaders have moved this bill as fast as possible, with as little information as possible, and with no evident plan for what will happen if the bill actually becomes law and wreaks havoc in peoples lives. This is not the health reform package Donald Trump promised his voters, its not the health reform package conservative policy experts recommended to House Republicans, and its not the health reform package that polling shows people want.

Written by Chris Hannay and Mayaz Alam.

Follow us on Twitter: @GlobePolitics

See original here:

Liberal budget unlikely to include airport sales or major tax hikes - The Globe and Mail

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Liberal budget unlikely to include airport sales or major tax hikes – The Globe and Mail

The Pope, Panhandlers and Liberal Compassion – Townhall

Posted: at 12:21 pm

|

Posted: Mar 21, 2017 12:01 AM

I was prepared to just keep walking, but my friend, a Catholic who took his religion seriously, stopped to give the guy some money -- a dollar or two as I recall.

You know there's a very good chance he's just going to spend it on booze or drugs, I told my friend. Yes, he told me, he knew, but he felt it was the right thing to do.

But you're not helping him, I said. And I added, politely, I think you gave him the money to feel better about yourself. He acknowledged that was part of it.

I thought about that encounter the other day when I heard what Pope Francis said about helping panhandlers.

Giving to the needy "is always right," he said, and he challenged those who make excuses for not giving money to people on the street.

Questioning my CBS News friend is one thing, but questioning the wisdom of the pope, especially when I'm not a member of his flock, is something else. But here goes anyway: Giving money to a wino is not always right. In fact, it may always be wrong.

My reaction wouldn't surprise Pope Francis. Because in his interview that was published in a Milan magazine, the pope acknowledged what I, and many of you, I suspect, are thinking: "I give money and then he spends it on drinking a glass of wine," the pope said. But if "a glass of wine is the only happiness he has in life, that's OK."

Really? How does that work? The guy on the street is an alcoholic, we give him money, he buys some garbage that will rot his insides, and "that's OK" because "a glass of wine is his only happiness in life"?

"Instead," the pope continued, "ask yourself what do you do on the sly? What 'happiness' do you seek in secret?" And we should realize that we "are luckier, with a house, a wife, children."

Well, one of the reasons we are "luckier" than the alcoholic or drug addict begging for money is precisely because we're (SET ITAL) not (END ITAL) alcoholics or drug addicts. I realize that it's not the thing to say in polite company but we made one set of choices and the addict made another.

That doesn't mean the panhandler doesn't deserve help or compassion. But is it really compassionate to help some poor soul continue down a path that leads to still more destruction?

Let's get the obvious out of the way: The pope is a good man. His heart is in the right place. He cares about the less fortunate among us. And so should we all.

But isn't this the same old paternalism liberals are famous for? Isn't this the same kind of thinking that created and perpetuated the welfare state here in America -- the same kind of compassion that in too many cases left generation after generation no better off than when the supposed compassion started?

Liberals may genuinely think they're helping, but they're not the ones paying the price for their compassion.

And it's no surprise that the pope got a big thumbs up from the bible of liberal American journalism, the editorial page of The New York Times.

"New Yorkers, if not city dwellers everywhere, might acknowledge a debt to Pope Francis this week. He has offered a concrete, permanently useful prescription for dealing with panhandlers.

"It's this: Give them the money, and don't worry about it."

How liberal of The New York Times to instruct us not to "worry about it." Why should we? Even if our generosity doesn't make the wino feel better -- we'll feel better about ourselves. And that's really important, too, isn't it?

The Times editorial also tells us that, "You don't know what that guy will do with your dollar. Maybe you'd disapprove of what he does. Maybe compassion is the right call."

Or maybe buying the poor guy a tuna fish sandwich and handing that to him instead of a dollar bill is the right call. Maybe buying a bunch of cheap blankets then handing them out to people on the street in the dead of winter would be the right call, and more compassionate that simply tossing him a few coins or a few dollars and continuing on our way.

In Proverbs 14:21 we're told that, "blessed is the one who is kind to the needy."

Yes, but it's not kind to contribute to the ruin of a human being already tottering on the edge -- even if our compassion makes us feel better about ourselves.

Watch LIVE: Senators Question Gorsuch at Confirmation Hearing

More here:

The Pope, Panhandlers and Liberal Compassion - Townhall

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on The Pope, Panhandlers and Liberal Compassion – Townhall

WA Liberal leadership: Mike Nahan says party learned lessons of election decimation – ABC Online

Posted: at 12:21 pm

Updated March 21, 2017 21:29:43

Former WA treasurer Mike Nahan says the Liberals have learned the lessons from their landslide election loss, after officially taking on the party leadership.

Dr Nahan was appointed Liberal leader unopposed this morning, with Liza Harvey maintaining the deputy role she also held before the election.

The former treasurer's appointment for the Liberals came after Colin Barnett's resignation as leader, which followed his party's heavy election loss 10 days ago.

In the aftermath of that defeat, Dr Nahan said he was the person to rebuild the Liberals and hold the new Labor Government to account.

"We are a small, but very experienced and unified team; you will see an aggressive, unified Liberal Party going forward," he said.

"We were sent a message by the public, a very big one, we have learned it."

The partyroom meeting marked Mr Barnett's first official address to MPs since the election and brought to an end his eight-and-a-half years as party leader.

The former premier left without speaking to waiting media but made brief comments on the way in.

"I will simply, as I have said, return quietly to the backbench as the Member for Cottesloe," Mr Barnett said.

Ahead of the meeting, Dr Nahan made clear his desire for Mr Barnett to resign from Parliament and spark a by-election in the near future.

But the new leader would not be drawn on Mr Barnett's future following the meeting.

"He is an elder statesman, I seek his advice and ideas and he will, no doubt, depart from Cottesloe on his own time," he said.

Labor holds a huge parliamentary majority after the election landslide, having possession of 41 of 59 Lower House seats, but Dr Nahan insisted he could lead the Liberals to victory in 2021.

"We were at the mountain, we are in a gully but the gully is not as deep as the mountain was high," Dr Nahan said.

"We can come back and that is my task I am not here for the short term."

He said the allocation of shadow portfolios would be completed in the coming days, saying every MP staying for the long-term would be given a role.

Dr Nahan was non-committal about whether a partial sale of Western Power would remain part of the Liberal platform, saying he would talk to his colleagues about policy matters.

Peter Collier was re-appointed the Upper House Liberal leader, despite a push by some within the party to replace him.

Topics: government-and-politics, liberals, wa

First posted March 21, 2017 13:56:56

Go here to see the original:

WA Liberal leadership: Mike Nahan says party learned lessons of election decimation - ABC Online

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on WA Liberal leadership: Mike Nahan says party learned lessons of election decimation – ABC Online

Trump’s Budgetary Blueprint Retains America’s Welfare State – Somewhat Reasonable – Heartland Institute (blog)

Posted: at 12:21 pm

Richard Ebeling

Richard Ebeling is a professor of economics at Northwood University in Midland, Michigan.

President Donald Trump has issued his preliminary federal budget proposal looking to the U.S. governments next 2018 fiscal year. What it shows very clearly is that there will likely be no attempt to reduce the size and cost of most of the American interventionist-welfare state.

On Thursday, March 16, 2017 the White House released, America First: A Budget Blueprint to Make America Great Again. Listening to the comments and commentaries by some on the political left, you would think that the world was going to come to an end. For many on the political right, the programs placed on the chopping block for reduction or near elimination seemed like a dream come true if the budgetary proposals were to be implemented.

Furthermore, the blueprint claims to offer an insight into the mind of Donald Trump about the role of government in society. When the budget was released, Michael Mulvaney, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said that this was Donald Trumps fiscal vision for America. If he said it on the campaign, its in the budget, Mulvaney declared. We wrote it using the presidents own words.

An Unchanged Entitlement State, Only More Money for Defense

In fact, a cursory or a detailed look at President Trumps budgetary proposals reveals that he plans to leave the entitlement programs Social Security, Medicare and related spending untouched while merely reallocating the approximately 30 percent of the federal budgets discretionary expenditures from one set of activities to another. Neither the total amount of government spending nor the likely budget deficit is threatened with meaningful reduction.

In the current 2017 federal fiscal year, Social Security and Medicare and related spending make up almost 64 percent of Uncle Sams expenditures. The net interest on the near $20 trillion national debt comes to another 7 percent of federal spending. Out of the remaining around 30 percent of the budget, defense spending currently absorbs 15 percent of federal outflows.

The budget proposal makes it clear that President Trump is devoted to expanding the military capability for continuing foreign intervention. A foreign policy focused on America First is losing none of its global reach or its capacity to have the military hardware to back it up. Donald Trump reiterated in comments during his brief press conference on Friday, March 17, 2017, with visiting German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, that he was not a foreign policy isolationist. Indeed, he emphasized his allegiance to NATO and its role in Europe, at the same time that his Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, was at the demilitarized zone between North Korea and South Korea declaring that nothing was off the table, including a preemptive military attack on North Koreas nuclear capability.

For those conservatives and classical liberals who hoped for a change to a foreign policy placing the United States less in the harms way of regional and related problems and conflicts in other parts of the planet, President Trump and his cabinet members are making it clear that the shift in emphasis remains only on an insistence that Americas political and military allies pick up more of the financial tab for their joint policing of different parts of the world.

Reflecting this, the presidents blueprint proposes to increase Defense Department spending by $54 billion dollars, which would put military expenditures for 2018 to a total of $603 billion. The Department of Homeland Security would gain an additional $2.8 billion dollars for a total in 2018 of around $70 billion.

The eyes and ears of the surveillance state will, also, remain intact and grow. The only wiretapping that President Trump seems to mind was a presumed eavesdropping into his own conversations before he took office. As for the rest of us, well, Big Brother is watching and listening for our own good. After all, its all part of making America great and safe again.

Cuts in Discretionary Spending Make Progressives Whine

To pay for increases in the warfare state, President Trumps budgetary axe has fallen on a variety of discretionary welfare and redistributive programs. To cover the $54 billion increase in defense spending, $54 is to be cut from the other 50 percent of the 30 percent of that discretionary spending. But its worth keeping in mind that the gnashing of teeth by the lefties is about a decrease of less than 1.5 percent of the projected more than $4 trillion Uncle Sam will spend in 2018.

It must be admitted, however, that virtually every cut in this part of the budget can only warm the hearts of most conservatives and classical liberals. Department of Agriculture spending will be reduced by 20.7 percent. But it is worth observing that not set for the chopping block are subsidies paid to farmers, including for not growing crops. Trump does not want to antagonize a crucial part of rural Republican America that lives at the trough of government spending.

On the other hand, the State Department and related foreign aid programs would be slashed by almost 29 percent. Not many tears need be shed here, given that State Department programs and personal are at the heart of Americas misguided global social engineering schemes; and foreign aid is merely a slush fund for foreign political power lusters that, in addition, undermines real market-oriented economic development in other parts of the world.

This list goes on: Housing and Urban Development, down 12 percent; Health and Human Services, cut 16 percent; Commerce Department, reduced 16 percent; Education Department, decreased over 13 percent, but with a shift of some funds to increased funding for falsely named school choice programs; the Interior Department down almost 12 percent; the Labor Department cut nearly 21 percent.

Oh, the Horror! Cuts in the EPA and NPR

The Environmental Protection Agency would be cut by over 31 percent. The climate and land-use social engineers are being driven berserk by this one. That the swarm of regulatory locusts will be reined in or even stopped in some instances who plague the country with their wetland rules, their land-use restrictions, their market-hampering prohibitions and abridgements of private property rights, is being forecasted as meaning the end to an environmental-friendly planet Earth. The heavens will darken, the seas will rise, and the land will be barren. How can humanity survive without environmental central planning by the self-righteous regulatory elite meant to lead mankind into socially sensitive green pastures?

And, oh, no, the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Institute for Museum and Library Services, and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting are targeted for a virtual 100 percent cut.

Oh, the horror! Those concerned with arts and the humanities may have to put more of their own private charitable money where their culturally sensitive mouths are. The thought that those who enjoy driving to and from work listening to those mushy, moralizing collectivist voices on National Socialist Radio I mean, National Public Radio may have to pay for it completely out of their own pockets with donations or subscriptions, or from interruptions of their leftie listening pleasure from capitalist commercials (please, please, not that!) is just too, too much for their delicate group-think souls to bear.

At the same time, pocket-picking political plunderers are warning that the poor and aged are threatened with starvation due to the planned cut in spending for Meals on Wheels. In fact, 65 percent of the programs funding comes from private donations or local and state governments, with only 35 percent funded by federal dollars. The day after the release of the America First budget blueprint, the media reported that a more than 50 percent increase in the regular rate of private donations had come flooding into Meals on Wheels around the country following the report of the planned cut in the program. Private benevolence amazingly! materialized almost instantaneously to replace the coerced dollars with voluntary dollars for a charity that many, clearly, consider worthwhile to support.

Trumps Vision Leaves the Entitlement State Intact

All of this could warm the heart of the usually despondent and despairing opponent of the overreaching and grasping interventionist and regulatory state. But Donald Trumps budgetary blueprint for American greatness needs to be put into the wider context of where this still leaves the size and scope of government in the United States.

And, alas, it leaves it seemingly untouched. What is feeding the insatiable growth of Americas domestic system of political paternalism are the entitlement programs: the governmental spending surrounding Social Security and Medicare redistribution.

Under current legislation, their cost and intrusiveness will only get worse. The Congressional Budget Office, in its January 2017 long-term federal government budgetary forecast looking to the next ten years, estimates that if legislatively nothing changes the entitlement programs will end up consuming nearly 80 percent of all the taxes collected by the United States government.

Since the remaining 20 percent of projected federal tax revenues will not be sufficient to cover all projected defense and other discretionary spending plus interest on the national debt between 2018 and 2027; the United States government will continue to run large annual budget deficits between now and then, adding $10 trillion more to the total national debt over next decade.

Donald Trump made it clear during the primary and general presidential election campaigns in 2016 that he considers Social Security and Medicare sacrosanct, not subject to the budget cutters chopping block. In addition, ObamaCare may be repealed, but the reform that he and the Republicans leadership in Congress have in mind to replace it will still leave a heavy federal government fiscal footprint. This, too, will maintain and entrench Uncle Sams intrusive presence in the healthcare and medical insurance business, and will, inescapably, cost a lot of government dollars, though the full estimates remain to be made.

Many of the Proposed Cuts Likely Will Not Happen

It also needs to be kept in mind that Trumps budgetary blueprint is merely his administrations recommendation to the Congress, and especially to the House of Representatives where spending legislation is constitutionally supposed to originate. Already the grumbling has begun to be heard not only from the Democratic Party minority in Congress against the proposed discretionary spending cuts, but from members of the Republican Party majority, as well.

Spending cuts in the abstract almost always serve as good campaign rhetoric, especially for Republicans running for elected office. But like their Democratic Party counter-parts, Republicans soon find themselves pressured and dependent upon the financial support of their own special interest groups, each one of which feeds off government spending dollars in the concrete. The resulting resistance to fiscal repeal and retrenchment turns out to be no different than with the groups surrounding the Democrats. Plus, the Republican foreign policy hawks have all the big-spending military contractors to serve in the name of warding off foreign threats to American greatness.

At the end of the day, when the actual 2018 federal fiscal budget gets passed by Congress and signed by the president, it will no doubt contain fewer of the discretionary spending cuts than proposed in Trumps blueprint. And the entitlement portion of the federal governments budget will remain untouched, other than adding to it whatever repeal and reform emerges out of the contest between ObamaCare versus TrumpCare (or RyanCare).

The Premises of the Entitlement State Must be Challenged

The fact is America is continuing to move in the long-run direction of fiscal unsustainability. The supposed untouchability of the entitlement segment of the federal budget will have to be made touchable. Nearly 90 years ago, in 1930, the famous Austrian economist, Ludwig von Mises, said to an audience of Viennese industrialists during an earlier economic crisis:

Whenever there is talk about decreasing public expenditures, the advocates of this fiscal spending policy voice their objection, saying that most of the existing expenditures, as well as the increasing expenditures, are inevitable . . . What exactly does inevitable mean in this context? That the expenditures are based on various laws that have been passed in the past is not an objection if the argument for eliminating these laws is based on their damaging effects on the economy. The metaphorical use of the term inevitable is nothing but a haven in which to hide in the face of an inability to comprehend the seriousness of our situation. People do not want to accept that fact that the public budget has to be radically reduced.

If there is any chance of stopping, reversing and repealing the welfare state, the entitlement language in political discourse has to be challenged. Entitlement presumes a right to something by some in the society, which in the modern redistributive mindset equally presumes a compulsory obligation by others to provide the means of having it.

The dollars and cents of the fiscal unsustainability of the entitlement society are essential to emphasize and explain. And there are certainly a sufficient number of historical examples to point to for demonstration that the welfare state can go down a road to societal ruin.

But, in addition, the entitlement mindset must be confronted with an articulate and reasoned defense of individual liberty, on the basis of a philosophy of individual rights to life, liberty and honestly acquired property. Plus, the ethics of liberty must be shown to be inseparable from the idea of peaceful and voluntary association among people in all facets of life. And that governments role is to secure and protect such liberty and individual rights, not to abridge and violate them.

If this is not done, and done successfully, the road to fiscal failure and paternalistic serfdom may be impossible from which to exit.

[Originally Published at the Future of Freedom Foundation]

Trumps Budgetary Blueprint Retains Americas Welfare State was last modified: March 20th, 2017 by Richard Ebeling

Read this article:

Trump's Budgetary Blueprint Retains America's Welfare State - Somewhat Reasonable - Heartland Institute (blog)

Posted in Fiscal Freedom | Comments Off on Trump’s Budgetary Blueprint Retains America’s Welfare State – Somewhat Reasonable – Heartland Institute (blog)

The Debt Ceiling Will Come Back to Bite Trump – RealClearWorld

Posted: at 12:21 pm

This piece was created in collaboration with Chatham House.Marianne Schneider-Petsinger is the U.S. geoeconomics fellow at Chatham House's U.S. and the Americas Programme. The views expressed are the author's own.

Raising the federal governments borrowing limit will not cause much drama this time around. But the next battles are already brewing.

The debt ceiling is back. As of March 16, the U.S. Treasury has reached its legal borrowing limit; the most recent suspension of the debt ceiling has expired. Less than two months into Trumps presidency, addressing the debt limit is an early test of his ability to get a fiscal deal with the Republican-controlled Congress. However, unlike in 2011 and 2013, when political brinkmanship between Democrats and Republicans led to fears of default, reaching a debt ceiling agreement will be easier -- at least for now.

Initial signs from the Trump administration show that they are not willing to play with fire on the debt ceiling. Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin stressed during his confirmation hearing and in a recent letter to Congress that honoring the U.S. debt is a critical commitment and urged lawmakers to raise the debt limit at the first opportunity. Mick Mulvaney, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, holds a different philosophy but has sounded less dogmatic since joining the Trump administration. Though he is considered a fiscal hawk and never voted to raise the debt ceiling when he served in Congress, Mulvaney said during his recent confirmation hearing that he would not recommend President Trump negotiate or govern by crisis.

In addition, although Republicans wont abandon fiscal conservatism, they will be reluctant to prompt a showdown in the first year of Trumps presidency. While in the past Republicans have often only agreed to raise the debt ceiling in return for spending cuts, this time around they might not insist on this. Many trust that Trumps economic policies will lead to economic growth of 3-4 percent, and they see this as the best chance of balancing the budget and bringing the debt trajectory under control.

Extraordinary measures that the treasury secretary can take, such as temporarily suspending payments to federal retirement funds, should buy enough time for policymakers to agree to raise the ceiling before fall -- when default becomes imminent according to the Congressional Budget Office.

But that doesnt mean this issue is going away for Trump -- a battle is looming for the next time the debt ceiling comes around. By then, it will be clear that Trumps unrealistic growth expectations, coupled with plans for tax cuts and more infrastructure and defense spending, will actually balloon the deficit and debt. In that scenario, the fiscal hawks in the Republican Party will not stand by silently. The House Freedom Caucus, a group of about 30-40 fiscally conservative representatives, has enough voting strength to deny a House majority based on party lines for raising the debt limit.

This internal fight might force Trump to cut back on some of his spending initiatives. Also, while he has so far insisted that he does not want to cut Social Security and Medicare, he might have to reform them down the road in order to stave off an intraparty clash. Without addressing the two biggest sources of government spending, another debt ceiling standoff is brewing -- with all the attendant consequences for the U.S. and global economies.

View original post here:

The Debt Ceiling Will Come Back to Bite Trump - RealClearWorld

Posted in Fiscal Freedom | Comments Off on The Debt Ceiling Will Come Back to Bite Trump – RealClearWorld

500 years after Sir Thomas More’s Utopia, what have we learned? – The Sydney Morning Herald

Posted: at 12:19 pm

Hans Holbein the Younger's oil painting of Sir Thomas More, 1527.

In 1516, Thomas More was at the top of his game. He was widely recognised as one of the great intellectuals of Europe; a key adviser to princes and prelates, and an esteemed colleague of the greatest thinkers of the age. That summer, while he was pondering the implications of taking on heavier responsibilities at the court of Henry VIII a decision that eventually cost him his life he visited his old friend Erasmus, and he wrote a little book.

This book coined a word that changed the world: Utopia, or, to give it its full title, The New Island of Utopia. It was an arch little Latin pun: u-topos meant "no place", but sounded the same as eu-topos, a "beautiful place".

Why a new island? Because More's world had just been shaken to its foundations by the discovery of "the New World", a term which had itself only come into use a decade or so before. And the New World suggested the possibility of human societies living in utterly novel ways. People with eyes in the middle of their forehead, perhaps, or with strange rituals and beliefs, or as More supposed people who did not know the gospel of Christ, yet behaved better than the Christians who did.

More's Utopia was not paradise or heaven. It was constructed and built by humans, yet so designed as to bring out the best in us and prevent the worst. It was this combination of wild fantasy, on the one hand, and what we would now call "regulatory design", on the other, that distinguished More's inventive text. The fantasy of a new island from a new world gave him the freedom to think through conventional wisdom, and excoriate the society, values, and customs of the world he lived in where religion corrupts faith, money corrupts politics, self-interest rules everywhere and justice is not to be found.

Sound familiar? Are we condemned to this one narrow and unforgiving path through life, More asked? Or should we re-imagine what our world could be like, if only we could start afresh?

That was Utopia's bold challenge. It might be thought to be the very first science-fiction novel every written, and many that followed in its wake owe Utopia an enormous debt. More's book had effects not just in literature but in the real world, where thousands of communities from that day to this have sought not just to dream utopia but to build it, on some new island of their own: from New Australia in Paraguay, to Utopia in the Northern Territory.

Yet after 500 years, utopia seems further away than ever. Indeed, the whole language of political vision, ambition, and dreaming has become a byword for pointlessness; even for fanaticism. The victims of Pol Pot's utopia can be counted in the millions; that of Karl Marx, some would say, in the tens of millions.

But here in the "new island" of Australia, what is striking is the lack of vision. We seem to be faced by the most crucial and far-reaching of problems: climate change, global inequality, terrorism and authoritarianism as far as the eye can see. Yet our political discourse does not seem up to the task. Politics appears nothing but the pursuit of the narrowest of middle grounds. The 24-hour media cycles encourage the same narrow discussions, the same refusal to think ambitiously or imagine more far-reaching questions. Our country, like the ostrich, has its head in the sand paralysed by fear and consumed by denial.

So what have we lost by refusing to look to the horizon? by refusing to re-imagine our world and, in the process, cast a seriously critical eye on what now counts as received wisdom? This critical imagination seems to have wholly deserted us. The funny thing is scientists now think there is not one universe but an infinite number, constantly popping up like bubbles of gas on the surface of a marsh. But just as scientists are finding the truth in a universe of infinite possibility, our politics seems determined to shut our options down, insisting there is no choice but the world, the society, the economy good grief, even the housing market we happen to have now.

On the 500th anniversary of More's little book, the time has surely come to take some risks. The goal will not be to find a utopia that everyone can agree on. On the contrary,More's imaginary world was designed to place in stark relief the failures and the betrayals of the world as it actually existed. Utopia is u-toposno place. Rather, it is a thought experiment against which to test our beliefs, to challenge the order of things, and to measure our world against our needs and desires. Without it, Australia eu-topos is slipping away, leaving us victims of the future, rather than its architects.

Professor Desmond Manderson is director of the ANU's Centre for Law, Arts and the Humanities. The centre, with the National Library and Radio National's Big Ideas, will host a roundtable at 6pm on March 28 to commemorate the 500th anniversary of Utopia's publication. The roundtable will feature Peter Singer, Alexis Wright, Russell Jacoby and Jacqueline Dutton. For tickets, see the National Library's website.

More:

500 years after Sir Thomas More's Utopia, what have we learned? - The Sydney Morning Herald

Posted in New Utopia | Comments Off on 500 years after Sir Thomas More’s Utopia, what have we learned? – The Sydney Morning Herald

A Well-Ventilated Utopia – The New York Review of Books

Posted: at 12:19 pm

Berlinische Galerie/Kai-Annett Becker Paul Scheerbart: Nusi-Pusi, 1912

Walter Benjamin contrasted the well-ventilated utopias of the distinctive German writer and illustrator Paul Scheerbart (1863-1915) with the overheated fantasies of the Surrealists. To bring our culture to a higher level, Scheerbart argued in Glass Architecture (1914), his marvelous utopian novel in the form of an aesthetic manifesto, the heavy Wilhelmine buildings of brick and stone needed to be replaced with glass, which lets in the light of the sun, the moon, and the stars, not merely through a few windows, but through every possible wall, which will be made entirely of glassof colored glass. One of his rhyming aphorisms might be translated: Without a palace of glass/ Life is a pain in the ass.

Scheerbart lived mainly in Berlin, in bohemian chaos and near starvation, according to one biographer. He drank, heavily, with August Strindberg and Edvard Munch, pored over Huysmanss novels with their Symbolist illustrations by Odilon Redon, and wrote copiously, first art criticism and then fiction, poetry, and plays, with little popular success. Often characterized as a fantasy writer prone to hallucinatory visions of inner and outer spacewith early stories set in heavily exoticized Arab landsScheerbart could also bring an odd, Borgesian precision to novels like his 1910 Perpetual Motion: The Story of an Invention, or to the high-tech schemes of a Chicago-based, glass-obsessed architect in his 1914 novel The Gray Cloth with Ten Percent White: A Ladies Novel (both of which are available in English). Disappointment with how his visionary stories were illustratedby some of the best illustrators of his age, such as Alfred Kubin and Flix Vallottoninspired Scheerbart to take up drawing himself.

In a recent exhibition and accompanying catalog, the Berlinische Galerie has brought some of Scheerbarts most indelible images together with the graphic work of two artists he inspired: the modernist architect Bruno Taut (who built a pineapple-shaped glass dome building in Cologne in Scheerbarts honor) and the little-known outsider artist Paul Goesch (killed by the Nazis in 1940, in their murderous purge of the mentally disabled), whose miniature and colorful architectural visions owe something to Scheerbart.

Scheerbarts drawings, airy nothings composed of dotted ink, are as well-ventilated as his utopian novels. To illustrate his asteroid fantasies, based on early photographs of outer space, Scheerbart perfected a distinctive style of vanishing pointillism. Beyond Neptune, on the other asteroid ring discovered there, he confidently informed Kubin, there are stars that consist solely of masses of air in which the new beings hover about as if in a dream. ScheerbartsJenseits-Galerie(Gallery of the Beyond), a folio of ten masterly lithographs published in Berlin in 1907, purported to depict such new beings, always equipped with a human face. One, evidently distant from the Sun, bristles with frozen stalactites.

Another has a volcano sprouting, like inspiration, from its head.Ein Luft-Bonaparte(An Air-Bonaparte) would seem to be another airy nothing encounteredout there, though its snail-like body and tentacles might suggest a submarine origin instead. Its S-shape and the absence on the sheet of his customary signature S raise the possibility that Scheerbart was modestly depicting himself as a conquering Napoleon of the Beyond.

In his futuristic writings, Scheerbart presciently predicted the rise of China, the formation of the European Union (which he hoped would reduce international conflict), and the nightmare of aerial bombardment, which he thought, mistakenly, would be so terrible that it would put an end to war. (He is rumored to have starved himself to death in protest of World War I.) In Transportable Cities (1909), more hopefully, he imagined lightweight urban clusters that could be packed up and moved, by car, from place to place. At the beginning of culture, man was a nomad, and in the end he will be a nomad once more. Walter Benjamin saw in Paul Klees little sketch of an Angelus Novus the sorrowing Angel of History, facing the horrors of the past, with outstretched wings, and helpless to do anything about them. It is tempting to see Scheerbarts Ein Zukunftskind (A Child of the Future) as an equally alarming vision of the future. With its lobster claws jutting directly from its temples, this hovering creature looks perfectly capable of surviving us all. Scheerbarts signature S looks like its larval form, patiently waiting its own turn on our blighted planet Earth.

Modern Visionaries: Paul Scheerbart, Bruno Taut, Paul Goesch is published by Scheidegger & Spiess and distributed by the University of Chicago Press.

Original post:

A Well-Ventilated Utopia - The New York Review of Books

Posted in New Utopia | Comments Off on A Well-Ventilated Utopia – The New York Review of Books

Utopia Creations travels to Florida – Journalism.co.uk

Posted: at 12:18 pm

Press Release

Rebecca Haigh of sales and marketing firm Utopia Creations has been on an exciting business trip to Florida where she connected with fellow industry leaders in a fun-filled coaching trip

The American retreat organised for business owners in the sales and marketing industry was an exciting travel opportunity for Miss Haigh of Utopia Creations as a business owner. She was able to connect with some of the most successful CEOs around the world. What's more, the trip provided a chance to meet new professionals with a range of skills. It became a vital networking opportunity for Utopia Creations. Miss Haigh was able to establish new contacts in previously unchartered areas, an essential for any expanding business.

About Utopia Creations: http://www.weareutopia.co.uk

Beyond a good chance to network, business retreats demonstrate why business owners need to keep business moving forward. As Miss Haigh explains, "Going away can be the best remedy for popping the entrepreneurial bubble immersing oneself in the busy-ness of the day to day running of a business can lead to stagnation and a lack of fresh ideas. Sitting and contemplating things can be invaluable. Utopia Creations values any chance to learn and absorb new information, while realising it is crucial to take the time to process new information and integrate it into the business initiative.

Outings can prove a valuable investment in any business. The most obvious things can go amiss if a company's directive is too caught up in its immediate surroundings. Miss Haigh was grateful for the chance to relax and refresh after a busy first quarter in business, as well as to meet people with a different manner of doing things, Variety is the most sure-fire survival tactic in the business world, she noted.

Going abroad can be an exciting learning experience for all professionals in the sales and marketing industry. Utopia Creations feels that many skills can be learned through travel such as time-management, networking and people skills.

Utopia Creations offers regular travel opportunities to their contractors. Even their branding is based on Miss Haigh's own love of travel. Having moved from Brazil, she launched Utopia Creations in Leeds last year. Rebecca Haigh has always believed happy people perform better and for this reason, the company regularly runs fun activities for its employees. Though today's business world is making it increasingly difficult to find a balance between work and life, marketing consultancy Utopia Creations is the exception. From team building activities to nights out and road trips, the company is always looking for new ways to inspire and energise their workers.

###

Utopia Creations are passionate about face to face marketing and believe great results are born from personalisation and positivity. Follow them on Twitter @utopiacreation_ and Facebook.

See more here:

Utopia Creations travels to Florida - Journalism.co.uk

Posted in New Utopia | Comments Off on Utopia Creations travels to Florida – Journalism.co.uk

Liberal America Has A Sweden Fetish – GOOD Magazine

Posted: at 12:18 pm

Swedish Fetishism may include coveting idyllic countrysides, lively urban centers, and universal healthcare. Also: great ski gear.

When New York City shut down lastweek for a blizzard that never came to be, a particularly quirkyhashtag poppedup on Instagram and Twitter feeds across the Eastern seaboard: #hygge, the Danish lifestyle movement fetishizingall things cozy. Yet, according to The Cut and Vogue, #lagom is the Scandinavian trend we need in 2017.

Named after a Swedish concept (roughly translatedas not too much, not too little),the phenomenon is just the latest instance of Americas longstanding fascination with Sweden, known for its attractive, leggy populace, austere design aesthetic, and unusually cheerymusic.

For left-leaning Americans, however, the nations primary appeal stems from its reputation as aprogressive utopia, arguably Scandinavias most successful example ofmixing socialist politics and a capitalist economy.Offeringfree college, universal health care, and a robust social safety net, Swedens egalitarian reputation became anespeciallypoignant fantasyafter the 2016 election. Then, on February 18,Trump opted to defendhis controversial travel ban byvaguely invokinga phantom Swedish terrorist incident, bafflinghis constituents and renewingour fervor for the apparent liberalwonderland.

That night, Leif Pagrotsky, Swedens consul general in New York City and one of the nations top diplomats, was watching the Saturday evening news. The attack was news to Pagrotsky, news to everybody in Sweden. So hespent the rest of his weekend researching whether there was anything to Trumps claims. By Monday, the official Swedish response had been determined: a polite, quizzical note sent to the White House, along the lines of Pardon?

Pagrotskys own response wasmore sardonic. After a Twitter user discovered that the biggest incident of Sweden last night was a horse called Biscuit being rescued from a well, he tweeted,tongue firmly in cheek, Thanks to your prayers #MakeBiscuitDryAgain.

Pagrotsky, adapper 65-year-old, is aNordophilesdream.He hasexceedingly fine manners and exactly the minimalist chic office decor onemight expect from a man whos been called the ambassador of IKEA meatballs.Grinningslyly over a demitasse of strong Swedish coffee, he recalls, I wanted to circulate the news that Biscuit had been rescued, so everyone could sleep well at night.

Though he was amused, Pagrotsky doesnt think Trumpwas firing randomly. The seasoned politician has seen his wee country of 10 million garneran outsized share of U.S. attention, used as a political ball in your ping-pong matchfor decades. Thesame perks that delightprogressive Americans have turned Swedeninto a useful bogeyman for conservatives who fear the creep of socialism.

Back in the 1960s, Eisenhower called Swedens social welfare system a breeding ground for sin, nudity, drunkenness, and suicide. In 2009, when the U.S. government was bailing out major corporations from failure, Bill OReilly wrung his hands over the idea thatwe might morph into Sweden. And Marco Rubio fired shots at Bernie Sanders last year, suggesting hed make a great Swedish president. (Pagrotsky is quick to pointout that Sweden has a king, not a presidentand that The New Yorker is very good at cartoons.)

Despite the toxicity of Trumps Sweden claims, Pagrotsky says hes gratefulthat so many Americans are eager to learn more about his homeland. He fondly recalls that after OReilly insulted Sweden, Jon Stewart sent a crew to the country to uncover its faux horrors. Pagrotsky was interviewed for The Daily Showsegment; hes still recognized by strangers.

Still, Pagrotsky believes our view of Sweden can be rather two-dimensional. We revel in its perennialranking as one of the top 10 nations onthe World Happinessreport, its low unemployment and crime rates, and even its charmingleaders like Pagrotsky himself, who gladly participatein gay pride marchesandkick off their shoes for summervacations.

Yet Sweden isno Shangri-la, and Pagrotsky believes its unwise to focus only on the positive.Days after Trumps impetuous comment, a small riot broke out in one of Stockholms suburbs, which Pagrotsky attributesto general discontent among a poor and disenfranchised immigrant community. A few cars were burned, no one was seriously hurt, but we are not such a dramatic country, he says. These things are upsetting to us.

Eventually, it was revealed that Trumps initial comments were inspired by a largely discredited documentary calledStockholm Syndrome, which had recently been featured on a Fox News segment. It presented a Sweden being torn asunder by open bordersMuslim immigrants robbing, raping, and killing the native population, while draining the countrys finite resources. As incendiary as the film was, Pagrotsky admits that his country struggles with immigration, as well.

In response to a global migration crisis in 2015 (specifically the news of thousands drowning in the Mediterranean), Sweden opened its borders to refugees from some of the worlds most desperate nationsAfghanistan, Syria, and Somalia. But when no other European countries besides Germany followed suit, Sweden was quickly overwhelmed. The borders closed up again, and tiny Sweden experienced a tough reckoning.

It was a very hard decision, says Pagrotsky. You see, our immigration policy is based on compassion, an attempt to alleviate suffering. We do not accept immigrants because we need more workers, or because people need more servants in their homes.

Pagrotsky will not condemn or criticize Trump, at least not to a reporter. He says you can guess his views based on past political alignments (he leans left), but it would be foolish to close doors by spouting off his personal views. Though he likes to promote Swedish values like workplace equality, and sometimes these values can run afoul of U.S. policy, Pagrotsky says hiscountry is far fromperfect; its dangerous to assume that anywhere on Earth is.

My job is to make people understand what we do, and why we do it, he says. Its not to say the rest of the world who does not do it is bad or inferior or stupid. That's not my thing.

When I ask him about a Swede I recently met who claimed that approximately 99.999 percent ofSwedes hate Donald Trump, Pagrotsky grows circumspect. I think, perhaps this is an exaggeration, he says, a light twinkle in the eye. I would guess its more like 90 percent. Then he laughsit turns out histossed-off figure is verifiable.Actually, I read a poll.

Portraits of Leif Pagrotsky by Martin Adolfsson courtesy the Consulate General of Sweden. Top images via Getty (left to right: by Ivan Dmitri/Michael Ochs Archives and Michel Setboun) and Pixabay.

Go here to see the original:

Liberal America Has A Sweden Fetish - GOOD Magazine

Posted in New Utopia | Comments Off on Liberal America Has A Sweden Fetish – GOOD Magazine