Category Archives: Federalism

In his Aug. 11 ruling about the Milton CN Logistics Hub Project, Ontario Supreme Court Justice Myers stated that in co-operative federalism, all governments need to bring to bear the best of their applicable local authority that will acknowledge the powers of the federal government.

That is, meeting at the same table to discuss the Milton CN Logistics Hub project rather than meeting in court.

Under co-operative federalism, managing information about evolving governmental decision-making requires timely and clear communication. Managers of governmental and non-governmental organizations and political leaders need to provide clear and consistent messages and access to the collection of factual knowledge regarding projects.

Managers should quickly engage in communication course corrections if original messages are missing the intended mark, and clearly explain the shift. Care and effort are needed in these communication engagements to minimize inconsistencies, uncertainty, and politicization.

One bridge to connect the municipalities to CN is the CN Milton Logistics Hub Community Consultation Committee, comprising of members from governmental and non-governmental organizations as well as three community members.

Even though the committee is not a specific requirement of the conditions for the project as specified by the federal government, CN chose to meet the 325 federal government conditions that require continued community engagement and a third-party facilitator by creating the committee.

Until now, Halton or Milton Councillors have not joined the Committee and they have not instructed their staff to do so.

Which fall election municipal council candidates will support co-operation with CN?

Larry W. Chambers

Milton

Excerpt from:

Opinion | Will election candidates co-operate with CN over intermodal hub? - Toronto Star

B-334544

August 31, 2022

The Honorable Thomas R. CarperChairmanThe Honorable Shelley Moore CapitoRanking MemberCommittee on Environment and Public WorksUnited States Senate

The Honorable Ral M. GrijalvaChairmanThe Honorable Bruce WestermanRanking MemberCommittee on Natural ResourcesHouse of Representatives

Subject: Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service: Migratory Bird Hunting; Final 202223 Frameworks for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations

Pursuant to section 801(a)(2)(A) of title 5, United States Code, this is our report on a major rule promulgated by the Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) titled Migratory Bird Hunting; Final 202223 Frameworks for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations (RIN: 1018-BF07). We received the rule on August 16, 2022. It was published in the Federal Register as a final rule on July 15, 2022. 87 Fed. Reg. 42598. The effective date is July 15, 2022.

According to FWS, it is establishing the 20222023 final frameworks from which states may select season dates, limits, and other options for the 20222023 migratory game bird hunting season for certain migratory game birds. FWS stated that it prescribes, on an annual basis, outside limits (which it calls frameworks) within which states may select hunting seasons. According to FWS, frameworks specify the outside dates, season lengths, shooting hours, bag and possession limits, and areas where migratory game bird hunting may occur. FWS stated that these frameworks are necessary to allow state selections of seasons and limits and to allow harvest at levels compatible with migratory game bird population status and habitat conditions. FWS also stated that migratory game bird hunting seasons provide opportunities for recreation and sustenance, and aid federal, state, and tribal governments in the management of migratory game birds.

The Congressional Review Act (CRA) requires a 60-day delay in the effective date of a major rule from the date of publication in the Federal Register or receipt of the rule by Congress, whichever is later. 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(3)(A). The 60-day delay in effective date can be waived, however, for any rule that establishes, modifies, opens, closes, or conducts a regulatory program for a commercial, recreational, or subsistence activity related to hunting, fishing, or camping. 5 U.S.C. 808(1). In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 808(1), FWS stated that it did not defer the effective date of this final rule because the rule establishes regulations for hunting.

Enclosed is our assessment of FWSs compliance with the procedural steps required by section 801(a)(1)(B)(i) through (iv) of title 5 with respect to the rule. If you have any questions about this report or wish to contact GAO officials responsible for the evaluation work relating to the subject matter of the rule, please contact Shari Brewster, Assistant General Counsel, at (202) 512-6398.

Shirley A. JonesManaging Associate General Counsel

Enclosure

cc: Gregory W. FlemingWildlife BiologistFish and Wildlife Service

ENCLOSURE

REPORT UNDER 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(2)(A) ON A MAJOR RULEISSUED BY THEDEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICETITLEDMIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING; FINAL 202223 FRAMEWORKSFOR MIGRATORY BIRD HUNTING REGULATIONS(RIN: 1018-BF07)

(i) Cost-benefit analysis

The Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) prepared an economic analysis for the 20222023 migratory bird hunting season. FWS estimated the consumer surplus of three alternatives for duck hunting regulations. According to FWS, the Office of Management and Budgets (OMB) Circular A-4, states that consumer surplus is the difference between what a consumer pays for a unit of a good or service and the maximum amount the consumer would be willing to pay for that unit. FWS noted that the duck hunting regulatory alternatives are (1) issue restrictive regulations allowing fewer days than those issued during the 20212022 season, (2) issue moderate regulations allowing more days than those in Alternative 1, and (3) issue liberal regulations similar to the regulations in the 20212022 season. FWS stated that for the 20212022 season, it chose Alternative 3, with an estimated consumer surplus across all flyways of $270$358 million with a mid-point estimate of $314 million.

(ii) Agency actions relevant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 603605, 607, and 609

According to FWS, this rule will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under RFA. FWS estimated that migratory bird hunters would spend approximately $2.2 billion at small businesses in 2022.

(iii) Agency actions relevant to sections 202205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 15321535

FWS certified that this rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any given year on local or state government, or private entities. Therefore, FWS stated, this rule is not a significant regulatory action under the Act.

(iv) Other relevant information or requirements under acts and executive orders

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.

FWS stated that the process for promulgating annual regulations for the hunting of migratory game birds involves the publication of a series of proposed and final rulemaking documents. Accordingly, on August 31, 2021, FWS published a proposed rule titled, Migratory Bird Hunting; Proposed 202223 Migratory Game Bird Hunting Regulations (Preliminary) With Requests for Indian Tribal Proposals; Notification of Meetings. 86 Fed. Reg. 48649. Additionally, FWSs Service Regulation Committee (SRC) conducted an open meeting with the Flyway Council on April 6, 2021, and on September 2829, 2021, to discuss preliminary issues concerning 20222023 proposed regulations. See 86 Fed. Reg. 15957 (Mar. 25, 2021) (announcing the April 6, 2021, meeting). On February 2, 2022, FWS published a proposed rule titled, Migratory Bird Hunting; 202223 Frameworks for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations. 87 Fed. Reg. 5946. FWS stated that it considered all pertinent comments received, which includes comments submitted in response to both proposed rules and the September SRC meeting. FWS also stated that this final rule establishes final regulatory frameworks for migratory game bird hunting regulations for the 20222023 season and includes no substantive changes from theFebruary 2, 2022, proposed rule except a minor correction.

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), 44 U.S.C. 35013520

According to FWS, this rule does not contain any new collection of information that requires approval by OMB under PRA. FWS stated that OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements associated with migratory bird surveys and the procedures for establishing annual migratory bird hunting seasons under the following OMB Control Numbers: 1018-0019, North American Woodcock Singing Ground Survey (expires Feb. 29, 2024); 10180023, Migratory Bird Surveys, 50 CFR 20.20 (expires Apr. 30, 2023); and 1018-0171, Establishment of Annual Migratory Bird Hunting Seasons, 50 C.F.R. Part 20 (expires Oct. 31, 2023).

Statutory authorization for the rule

FWS promulgated this final rule pursuant to chapter 128 of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, codified at sections 703711 of title 16, United States Code.

Executive Order No. 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review)

According to FWS, OMBs Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this final rule is economically significant under the Order.

Executive Order No. 13132 (Federalism)

FWS stated that this final rule will not impose significant federalism effects and will not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.

Read more from the original source:

Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service: Migratory Bird Hunting; Final 202223 Frameworks for Migratory Bird Hunting Regulations -...

It was the Planning Commission earlier and now the NITI Aayog that presides over Indias economic federalism. While political federalism has been a resounding success, the Centre-state fiscal relations have always been strained, posing a great challenge to the Constitutional guarantees of democracy based on federalism. The recent meeting of the Governing Council of NITI Aayog witnessed boycott and mounting criticism from non-BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) states. On the issue of extending Goods and Services Tax compensation mechanism demand, even the BJP-ruled states joined the opposition chorus.

There are a number of reasons why states are unhappy with the Centre on revenue sharing. In its efforts to provide economic relief and meet GST shortfall, in 2020, the Centre announced two options of borrowing to be repaid via an extension of the compensation cess beyond the June 2022 deadline. While some BJP-ruled states agreed to consider the proposals, non-BJP states were unwilling to bite the borrow from market at a higher interest bullet. Interestingly, while states do not have to share political power with the Centre, every rupee they earn goes to the central kitty, which is rerouted by the Finance Commission to the states based on certain parameters. This fiscal relationship has never been a happy one.

Also Read:Dont just keep a watch on Chinas spy ship at Sri Lankan port. Emulate the enemy

In the era of transition from a centralised planned economy to a market economy, it has become necessary to identify the challenges before the policy makers both at the Centre and in the states under a federal political structure. Economic federalism and coordinated reform process at all levels of the government are the prime tools to accelerate growth, reduce poverty, remove disparity, and guarantee human development. Such an effort will help offset the disabilities and the disadvantages of new and smaller states.

Smaller states have some unique features large tribal and marginalised population, mountainous terrain that ensure a level-playing field in terms of sharing resources, compensation for providing raw material, and access to market. Failure to comprehend these concerns is germane to issues relating not only to economic woes and political bickering but also to serious national security threats. The economic disparity and faulty benefit-sharing mechanism result in social non-equilibrium, thus posing challenges such as political destabilisation and secessionist and insurgency menace. The solutions to these challenges are, besides political, economic in nature and have to emanate from the political framework through calibrated changes.

Also Read:In Bihar, both BJP and Nitish Kumar camp happy. But Sushashan Babu has invited trouble

The Seventh Schedule of the Constitution specifies the powers and functions of the Centre and the states in the Union and State lists, and those falling under the joint jurisdiction are mentioned in the Concurrent list. There is a clear division of fiscal powers between the Centre and the state governments. The fiscal arrangements have evolved in a quasi-federal system to meet the requirements of centralised planning in a mixed economy structure. Sources of revenue for both the Centre and states were clearly demarcated with regard to the financial relationship and the responsibilities between them.

Two main challenges in the fiscal transfer system pertain to tackling the vertical and horizontal imbalances. So far, the share of the states emanating from the combined revenues has remained more or less stable, thus taking care of the vertical balance. As far as horizontal balance is concerned, some Finance Commissions have addressed the issue of equalisation. With the introduction of the GST, revenue collection and sharing have been further streamlined. Yet, there are concerns relating to the revenue sharing criteria used by the Finance Commission where the relative weights assigned to different criteria remain, by and large, ad hoc. There is an urgent need to develop a more objective framework for determining suitable weights for the alternative revenue sharing criteria, preferably in consultation with the states.

State governments, especially those in South India, feel that criteria like population, forest coverage, poverty and unemployment index are not ideal barometers to decide financial allocation. Tamil Nadu has successfully implemented family planning programmes. But the decline in population will now result in lesser allocation compared to, say, a state like Bihar or West Bengal. Prime Minister Narendra Modi has intervened and suggested that the efforts of southern states in successfully implementing social welfare schemes should be given due weightage.

But the larger question is finding a viable solution by making fundamental changes in the resource allocation process. The constitution of the Finance Commission also can be reworked to include more members and consultative bodies. Alternatively, the mandate of the GST Council could be expanded to include discussions on resource allocation and make suggestions, though such recommendations are not binding.

Also Read:India has moved away from One China policy. Now it must develop independent ties with Taiwan

Given the political advantages of a strong and stable central government, it is possible that the Union government is, at times, tempted to bypass some of the state governments by centralising expenditure on items earmarked in the Concurrent List. While the states can do little to correct this anomaly, the onus of course correction rests on the central government. Successive governments in New Delhi have felt that decentralisation will directly limit their control over the economy. Experiences of different economies, be it controlled, laissez-faire or mixed, suggest that the contrary is true. In the case of China and Indonesia, a politically strong Centre was good for everything except the economy in the last two decades. China had to decentralise its economy and recalibrate its fiscal relationship with states. When it comes to handling economic issues vis--vis states, New Delhi too can take a leaf out of decentralised economic architecture under a politically strong Union government.

It is time to reset Centre-state relations lest we should prove B.R. Ambedkar right when he said, In politics, we will have equality, and in social and economic life, we will have inequality.

The author is the former editor of Organiser. He tweets @seshadrichari. Views are personal.

(Edited by Humra Laeeq)

Read the rest here:

Its time to reset Centre-state relations. Onus rests on the central government - ThePrint

Tacking the word denier onto an issue as in climate denier or election denier is one of the dumbest rhetorical devices in modern politics. The purpose, of course, is to insinuate that the underlying position is insidious, beyond the pale, on par with Holocaust denial. One might debate a conservative on the issues, but a denier; well, thats someone who cant be reasoned with.

For starters, the logical and grammatical problem with the denier formulation is that nobody actually denies the existence of elections or climate. A climate denier is often a person who believes in economic tradeoffs and rejects eco-scaremongering. And an election denier is typically someone who believes that a political contest has been stolen, or corrupted, or unfairly implemented. This is the position of Donald Trump and Joe Biden, Doug Mastriano and Stacey Abrams, and Dinesh DSouza and Jonathan Chait.

Certainly, not all election denialism is identical. There are those who maintain Donald Trump was a Russian asset since the 1980s and others who believe that the Electoral College is an antiquated institution. Both positions are wrong, but one is a critique of federalism while the other is bonkers. But the left likes to lump together nuts who believe child-porn rings are operating out of DC pizzerias and the millions who have concerns about the prevalence of low-integrity, mail-in ballot systems or executive actions that allow late, undated ballots to be counted after Election Day.

If these latter concerns make one a denier, then surely someone who believes that asking a citizen to show an ID before voting is tantamount to Jim Crow is also one. Because, if its not dark money stealing democracy, its confusing ballots, or voter suppression, or gerrymandering, or the Ruskies or the Supreme Court, or the Constitution. It has long been the case that Democrats do not accept the legitimacy of elections.

This weekend, Dem operative Jon Karl interviewed the recently deposed Liz Cheney, who promised to work against election deniers, people who do not respect the outcome of the election. Among the people Cheney will reject are Ron DeSantis and Ted Cruzneither of whom, as far as I can tell, deny that Biden is the legitimate president of the United States. Apparently, that isnt enough anymore.

Who won the 2020 election? CNNs Jim Acosta asked Donald Trumps acting Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf this weekend.

Obviously Joe Biden is president, Wolf responded.

No, no, Acosta said. Do you believe he won that election fair and square?

Joe Biden is president, Wolf again said before bringing up the possibility of fraud.

Do Democrats believe Trump won 2016 squarely and fairly? Do they believe that Georgia or Texas run fair and square elections? Doubtful. Yet, it is only conservatives who are asked to treat every election law passed by Democrats as a sacrosanct pillar of democracy or risk being smeared as a traitor.

CNNs preening Jake Tapper also loves to throw around the phrase election denier, which he defines as anyone who lies about American democracy in the 2020 election. Why doesnt this go for the 2016 election or 2024 election or 2000? Well, because Tapper spent years spreading the Russia collusion fraud, a concerted effort to delegitimize American democracy. If we accept Tappers parameters for any other election year, not only does he meet the definition of a denialist, but virtually every Democrat qualifies.

It goes for Hillary Clinton, who repeatedly declared Trump an illegitimate president, and claimed that 2016 was not on the level and stolen, is by the definition Democrats embrace an election denier. As are Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, John Kerry, Al Gore, the late John Lewis, the late Harry Reid, Paul Krugman, Jerrold Nadler, virtually the entire Washington Post editorial page, Time magazine, every other major media outlet, the White House Press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, former DNC chairs, and scores of others.

When asked this weekend why 74 percent of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, NBCs Washington Correspondent Yamiche Alcindor responded that people are very worried about former President Trump coming back into power, or former President Trump or another Republican stealing the election in 2022 or 2024.

Not only is this astoundingly silly, but its also an example of the kind of preemptive election denialism that was employed by Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff, and many others, during the run-up to 2020. Let the election decide, was a dangerous idea according to Pelosi during Trumps first impeachment because the legitimacy of 2020 had already been undermined. The Presidents misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won, Schiff said.

When the Washington Post warns us that Election deniers march toward power in key 2024 battlegrounds it isnt talking about Stacey Abrams or Josh Shapiro, it is laying the groundwork for challenging the legitimacy of the next election.

And voters should be able to question the legitimacy of elections if they believe laws have been unjust or cheating has occurred. Even if you contend, as I do, that most election fraud claims are overstated or partisan wish-casting, it is a function of democracy to bring your grievances to the political arena. But, it seems, the only ones tagged as deniersand all the big outlets liberally use the term noware Republicans. Which is just another reason half the country distrusts journalists a vacuum in trust that doesnt only propel skepticism, but gives space for more conspiracies to flourish.

Unlock commenting by joining the Federalist Community.

Follow this link:

'Election Denier' Is The Dumbest Rhetorical Device In Modern Politics - The Federalist

Nepal is ruled by a coalition of parties that espouse social-democratism, Maoism, Marxism-Leninism. But all three adhere to just one ideology: extractivism.

Nepals history of the past 60 years has been a struggle between and , the need to balance development and destruction. The songs of the early Panchayat period glorified the destruction of mountains and forests for the country to forge ahead. Nature had to be tamed and sacrificed on the path to development.

Growth would allow South Asias oldest nation state to catch up with the outside world. Along the way, we forgot that growth can also mean malignancy. The pursuit of developmentmutilated mountains and denuded forests, the greed that drives growth has corrupted society, amplifying social inequities.

Whether monarchy or republic, Nepal has been a kleptocracy in which the politics of patronage sets the rules. King Mahendras trans-migration policy to move entire villages from the mountains to the Tarai led to the loss of vast jungles in the plains. King Birendras referendum to safeguard the absolute monarchy bought time, but came at the cost of further destruction of forests.

Read more: The business of politics undermines Nepals democracy, Ramesh Kumar

Federalism was supposed to devolve power to local governments and make them more accountable, but it just decentralised patronage and corruption. In the absence of other resources and a manufacturing base, extraction of nature is the easiest path to enrichment for politicians and businessmen.

After 2017, many contractors became mayors who allocated budgets to rent their excavators to maul mountains. The destruction from quarrying has ravaged the fragile Chure range. Rivers across Nepal have been ransacked by sand and boulder contractors who have paid rural municipalities a pittance in royalty.

Those who stand up against the devastation are threatened, or even killed like Om Prakash Mahato Dilip, who was crushed by a tipper truck nearly three years ago in Dhanusa district for daring to protest against illegal sand-mining. The perpetrators were let off.

Local, provincial and the central government are infiltrated by patronage. The prime minister and leaders of the coalition are forging ahead with building a new international airport in Nijgad, even though numerous studies have shown that it spells economic and ecological disaster to one of the last expanses of native forests in the eastern Tarai.

Read more: The business of politics in Nepal, Shekhar Kharel

There is also an uncontrolled hydropower building spree on rivers across Nepal, and the real destruction will start with proposed new reservoir projects. Elsewhere, quarries supplying limestone to cement factories have disfigured the landscape.

In state and community forests, even national parks, there is rampant encroachment by powerful businesses with political connections to build resorts, ashrams and cable cars. The deals are opaque, and no heed is paid to the environment.

The kindest explanation for this groundswell of destructive development is ignorance or incompetence of those in power. But the more likely reason is the nexus between politics and business that is now so deep that it is impossible to tell apart a contractor and a politician.

This is a well-oiled machinery that is lubricated at election time by pre-paid campaign financing. Natural resources are converted into party war chests that make the nouveau riche richer, and the perpetually poor poorer.

Read also: Crushers of justice, Editorial

B P Koirala was a Gandhian social democrat who wrote 70 years ago that large production centres and industries breed two types of crimes: machines first displace humans, and then business monopolies engender tyrants. B P was far ahead of his time in understanding that nature does not just have intrinsic value, but is inextricably linked to human wellbeing and survival. And that genuine democracy would be inclusive, and deliver social and environmental justice.

Todays Nepali Congress is a far cry from B P Thought. Their Marxist-Leninist and Maoist coalition partners do not even have that ideological underpinning about the need to nurture nature. Forests, mountains, rivers, water, are all there to be harnessed ostensibly for development and economic growth, but those are hollow euphemisms for personal greed and partisan gain.

The ongoing loot by Nepals extractivist politicians is now peaking. Soon, there will be few forests left to log, rivers that have not been mined to death, or mountains not ruined by redundant roads.

The interests of communities completely dependent on natural resources need to be protected, citizens most impacted by the degradation of nature need to rise up against state-sponsored destruction. When essential infrastructure is necessary, it needs to be constructed with minimal impact on the ecology.

Gandhi said earth provides enough to satisfy every mans needs, but not every mans greed. We have to stop what is left before it is too late.

Read also: Purchasing power, Ramesh Kumar

The rest is here:

Need and greed - Nepali times

BISMARCK, N.D. U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND), member of the Senate Banking Committee, joined Fox Business Kudlow to compare and contrast the philosophies surrounding the Trump economy, which focused on tax reform and deregulation, and the Biden economy, which focuses on socialist policies and unchecked government spending. Excerpts and full video are below.

On Democrats Socialist Agenda:

[Socialism] hasnt worked in any country where its been tried. It has failed everywhere, so why we want to try it is beyond me.

[The Biden Administration believes] there are too many people making too much money and that all we need to do is take more of their money away from them, redistribute to people that have less, and somehow thats good for the economy all the way around. Of course, thats failed everywhere its been tried, but theyre trying it again.

On President Trumps Economy and Deregulation Efforts:

In my mind, the thing Donald Trump had going for him in his 2016 election was he clearly understood that the federal government was the problem and he articulated thatthe size of the deep state, the size of the bureaucracy. What he underestimated was just how strong that bureaucracy really is. So while he was reducing regulations through the rulemaking process, legislating, as well as guidance, people from the bureaucracy were working against him at every turn. Even at that he was able to accomplish a lot. What we saw was that private sector investment follows lower taxes, fewer regulations, and frankly, even a better environment that manifests itself just in attitude. And now you have exactly the opposite. This changes the investment mind and it changes the relationship with states. I wrote a 22-page essay for the Harvard [Journal of Law and Public Policy] that just came out in June. [It] talks about the heavy hand of the bureaucracy and cooperative federalism. Donald Trump understood the value of states and state regulation and state oversight. That was a game changer in terms of unleashing ingenuity, innovation, and our economy.

On Student Loan Forgiveness:

This crazy idea of forgiving student loan debts at $10,000. Larry, if they took all of that money and just forced every student to take an Economics 101 class or supply-side economics class or study Milton Friedman or Art Laffer, we would do so much more for the economy than what [the Biden Administration is] trying to do. The problem is their constituency is that very government that theyre growing. They love that government, they love the power of it, they love the dependency of it, they love the organization of it, and thats a fundamental difference between us and them.

I think everybody ought to buy Dick Armeys memoirs and read that as well. Youd find out what works best. But we do have an economic illiteracy problem right in our own government. I mean, Jennifer Granholm the Secretary of Energy, every time she talks I swear to God theres a professor somewhere in an economics department going What did I do wrong? Its unbelievable.

On Governments Role in the Marketplace:

As Ive said many times, if you give somebody a $7,500 Tesla tax credit, the price of a Tesla goes up $7,500. Its basic [economics] 101. In fact, Ford just announced that theyre going to do exactly that, and why wouldnt they? Its the most natural incentive in the marketplace. This is why the government should stay out of the marketplace. What happens with all of these ideas is they compound. You end up having a tax credit for one thing, so what theyre competing against has to have a tax credit. You just pile tax credits on top of tax credits. This is why corporate America gets bigger and richer and the government gets bigger and poorer and the middle income wage earner is scratching [their] head going, My paycheck is not going as far as it used to.

Click Here to Watch

See the original post:

Sen. Cramer, Larry Kudlow Compare and Contrast the Trump Economy and the Biden Economy - Kevin Cramer

One may call it much ado about a candy that half the country hasnt even heard about, but the acrimony about revdi culture has only helped rev up the debate on the existential crisis looming over the cooperative federalism envisaged by our founding fathers. The Supreme Court should, in all its earnestness, turn its attention to the plaque of opaqueness that has accumulated over Centre-state relations instead of so-called freebies. Its time the country and its opinion makers understood the Centres stranglehold over states on almost all fronts, which is leading to a breakdown of trust between the two partners.

The framers of our Constitution were aware of the apprehensions raised when India embraced a federal structure with strong unitary features. But they would have never dreamt of a situation where trumpeting unilateralism is hailed as some kind of a good governance model.

Its interesting to recall how Jawaharlal Nehru defended the unitary slant of our polity. It would be injurious to the interests of the country to provide for a weak central authority which would be incapable of ensuring peace, of coordinating vital matters of common concern and of speaking effectively for the whole country in the international sphere. But B R Ambedkar assured the Constituent Assembly: The Constitution is a federal ConstitutionThe Union is not a league of statesnor are the states the agencies of the Union, deriving powers from it. Both the Union and the states are created by the Constitution, both derive their respective authority from the Constitution.

I will restrict this article to fiscal federalism since revdi culture is the focal point of the debate although the process of centralisation is now all-pervasive. Over the years, the very nature of fiscal transfer has become thoroughly centralised. For a long time, the Planning Commission and Finance Commission were the cardinal pillars of Centre-state relations on the fiscal front. But the ushering in of the Goods and Services Tax (GST), the scrapping of the Planning Commission and non-adherence to Finance Commission recommendations have led to an asymmetrical framework.

The GST that was once hailed as a milestone for cooperative federalism is now touted as a manifestation of the growing dependence of the states on the Centre. When the Planning Commission was disbanded to make way for the Niti Aayog, all the powers of allocation of resources to states were passed on to the Ministry of Finance. Consequently, even the pretence of an objective allocation of resources to states has disappeared, and all decisions were rendered ad-hoc. Under the Planning Commission, the Gadgil formula was used to allocate funds to states. However, after 2015, transfers to states are determined based not on any formula but purely political exigencies.

Consequently, the federal foundations of the Indian polity were also enormously weakened. The National Development Council (NDC), where the prime minister used to regularly meet the chief ministers, has long been abolished. Instead, CMs were made members of the governing council of the Niti Aayog. This was neither a substitute for the discussions between the planning bodies of state governments and the Planning Commission, nor the discussions in the NDC. Even the occasional visits of Niti Aayog members to states have been reduced to a formality: No serious policy discussion, leave alone decision-making, takes place during these visits.

The concerns of CMs over the dwindling state revenues raised in the recently held Niti Aayog meeting presided over by the PM needs to be taken in its right perspective. Its the states that deal with the broad range of aspirations of the people on the ground. As per the 15th Finance Commission, states bear more than 62 per cent of expenditure responsibilities but are given only 37 per cent of revenue raising power, while the Union government owns 63 per cent of revenue raising power to spend on 38 per cent of its expenditure responsibilities.

The share of cesses and surcharges, as percentage of gross tax revenue, has more than doubled: From 6.26 per cent in 2010-11 to almost 20 per cent in 2021-22. Moreover, the Comptroller and Auditor General ( CAG) has pulled up the Centre as it failed to transfer a substantial portion of the money collected from cesses and surcharges to the designated funds which ensures that they are used for the intended purpose. The very idea of a cess is being turned on its head.

Interestingly, whenever confronted with this stark reality Union Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman goes on the offensive saying that the Centre distributes these to states via central schemes. She doesnt realise the fact that states are not merely implementing agencies of central schemes. The Constitution empowers the states to conceive schemes to provide sustenance and relief to people. And every study proves that state government schemes are more innovative and appropriate to the targeted groups.

Non-adherence to the recommendations of its own finance commissions is the tipping point in the chaotic Centre-state relations. Despite the last two successive Finance Commissions pegging the share of states in gross taxes to over 40 per cent, the actual transfer never reached this prescribed level. The peak was 36.6 per cent in FY19 and it fell to a meagre 29 per cent subsequently. In effect, the actual share of states has only shrunk.

The Centre invited rebuke when it turned a recent all-party meeting convened to discuss the Sri Lankan issue into a podium to discipline states on the fiscal front. Ironically, the Centres debt burden has shot up from Rs 53 lakh crore to Rs 136 lakh crore since 2015 but it considers states imprudent in fiscal management. The Centres record is even worse on the fiscal deficit front and off-budget borrowing, but the propensity to find faults with states has become a permanent feature.

India is at a crossroads today and the need of the hour is cohesion and not confusion. We need unity and not uniformity, assimilation not extinction. The Narendra Modi government has to find a new narrative instead of usurping the powers of the states and crying foul at the same time.

John Brittas is a Rajya Sabha Member from CPI(M)

Go here to see the original:

Debate on revdi culture highlights bitterness between Centre and states - The Indian Express

Subduing and punishing liberal "sanctuary cities" and states that refused to help enforce federal immigration restrictions was a principal focus of the Trump Administration, one backed by most conservatives. Ironically, that effort largely failed in part because sanctuary jurisdictions won a series of lawsuits in which they relied on constitutional federalism arguments previously pioneered by conservatives and libertarians, such as claims that the Tenth Amendment bans federal "commandeering" of state governments. In an insightful recent article, University of Texas and Hoover Institution political scientist David Leal argues that conservatives should rethink their opposition to sanctuary jurisdictions:

Donald Trump fought "sanctuary cities" from the very start of his presidency, but these efforts came to an unsuccessful end in 2020 for two reasons. The first was that sanctuaries beat the administration at the Supreme Court in June of that year; technically, the justices declined to hear United States v. California, thereby letting stand an appeals court ruling that upheld the bulk of California's sanctuary laws. The second was that Joe Biden won the presidential election. The federal government is no longer opposed to state and local sanctuary policies. This raises a question: when a Republican returns to the White House, should that person carry on the Trump administration's fight against sanctuaries or choose other battles?

This is a consequential matter. Sanctuary jurisdictions impede the ability of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to identity and remove unauthorized immigrants

Because the political debate about these local and state laws can generate more heat than light, this essay addresses the following questions: what is an immigration sanctuary; must states and localities follow the immigration enforcement priorities of the federal government; and what are the implications of the sanctuary controversy for policies beyond immigration?

A successful federal attack on sanctuary legislation could lead to spillover effects in many policy areas, and in ways that go against core conservative values. Many conservatives would be unwilling to pay such a price, so it is crucial for the sanctuary debate to consider this larger context.

To change this status quo would require a dramatic weakening of federalism, which would be contrary to core conservative values and could come back to haunt conservatives.

For example, consider the policy implications of a more "unitary" federal government with Democrats in power in Washington. Such a government could potentially deny funding to conservative locales unless they changed their laws and policies, thereby pressuring "red" states and locales into directly carrying out and enforcing "blue" federal policies. This could allow Washington to override state and local decisions about the best way to promote safety, health, growth, and education.

Leal summarizes a range of both policy and constitutional reasons for conservatives to back sanctuary jurisdictions, even if in some cases the latter use their autonomy for purposes the political right opposes.

As Leal points out, conservatives themselves have long relied on sanctuary-style policies to resist enforcement of federal gun control laws. In recent year, several conservative states - in a trend begun by Montana - have adopted "gun sanctuary" laws modeled on immigration sanctuary policies. While the Biden administration initially did little to counter this trend, more recently they have filed a dubious lawsuit against Missouri's gun sanctuary law - one in many ways modeled on Trump-era arguments against immigration sanctuaries.

Leal isn't the first analyst to highlight the conservative elements of the case for sanctuary cities. I have previously written about several of the issues raised by Leal, myself, in a 2019 Texas Law Review article on Trump-era sanctuary city litigation, and a piece for the Washington Post (see also here and here). But Leal's article is notable for bringing together the major right-leaning policy and legal rationales for sanctuary jurisdictions all in one readily accessible place.

He also points out how the anti-immigration policies underpinning Trump's attack on sanctuary cities are themselves inimical to traditional conservative values, even aside from federalism concerns and fears about the consequences for other policy areas:

In addition, principled conservatives must ask whether attacks on sanctuary cities, and the more general impulse toward immigration restriction and enforcement, are consistent with prosperity, freedom, and family values. In his "Farewell Address to the Nation," President Reagan said the following:

"I've spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don't know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still."

Sanctuary jurisdictions make the case that such policies reduce crime, while some police chiefs have argued that local enforcement of immigration laws actually encourages criminality. The reasoning is that immigrants grow fearful of contacting the police, which gives criminals greater latitude. Such criminality may also spread out beyond immigrant communities. Blanket bans on sanctuary policies may therefore increase the very lawbreaking that sanctuary critics decry.

As Matthew Feeney of the Cato Institute has argued, "Although some might like to portray sanctuary cities as lawless holdouts run by politicians who consider political correctness their North Star, the fact is sanctuary policies can help improve policecommunity relationships." He observes that "such trust is crucial to policing" and that "it's not hard to see why officers in some communities prefer sanctuary policies to being perceived as deputized federal agents..,.."

Recent research finds no support for the claim that sanctuary cities increase crime.

President Reagan saw immigration as key to America and its success. He would be appalled to see the disparaging of immigrants and the disrespecting of federalism, and he would be shrewd enough to know that decisions made today in the name of fighting sanctuary cities might come back to haunt conservatives when party fortunes change, as they always do.

In my own writings, I have made the case that immigration restrictions are at odds with other traditional conservative values, such as color-blindness in government policy and economic liberty - including that of native-born citizens.

Of course, what counts as "conservative" is very much in flux. Much of the American political right today has more in common with European "big-government conservative" ethnonationalist movements than with the ideology espoused by Ronald Reagan. If your main priority is restricting immigration, then you are unlikely to find Leal's arguments persuasive. You may be willing to pay the price of restricting state and local authority, strengthening federal restrictions on gun rights, and impeding law-enforcement efforts to combat violent and property crime. Many "national conservatives" might even view the resulting increase in federal power as a feature, not a bug.

But if you view federal power with suspicion, and hope to maintain and strengthen constitutional constraints on it, then you have reason to applaud sanctuary jurisdictions. In a deeply divided society, decentralization of power could help ease conflict and tensions in a variety of ways, including by empowering people to "vote with their feet" for the policies they prefer. Sanctuary jurisdictions of both the left and right-wing varieties can play a vital role in achieving that goal.

Link:

The Conservative Case for Sanctuary Cities and States - Reason

The issue of doling out freebies has resulted in competitive federalism of the worst kind as political parties and state governments are leaving no stone unturned to lure voters during elections that are held frequently, said Mythili Bhusnurmath in an interview with ET Now.

The growing contribution of non-merit subsidiaries, not beneficial for a large section of society, in the GDP is increasing. This means the states are taking these measures at the cost of increasing the fiscal stress.

In a situation where the finances of states are already tumbling owing to Covid-19 pandemic, the freebie subsidiaries are just adding more burden to the deteriorating economy.

Unfortunately in India we have not made much use of this, which is a right body where all political parties, all state governments come together to sit down at the common table like in the case of GST Council and arrive at an understanding that we all need to be more responsible, she added.

However, this process is not one-way. The citizens also play a critical role in freebie politics. The Indian population needs to understand their responsibility and not fall victim to this freebie culture.

So ultimately until we mature as a democracy and all of us voters whether it is identity politics or the freebie politics I think there is a duty cost and every citizen of India also not to fall victim to this kind of freebie culture. Unfortunately political parties fail so do we as voters, said Bhusnurmath.

Read the original:

Doling out freebies by states is competitive federalism of the worst kind: Mythili Bhusnurmath - Economic Times

The Lebanese are waiting for many things these days: they are waiting in line at bakeries to receive their share of bread. They are waiting for a war against Israel to erupt, a scenario that a man on a screen promises will save them from the catastrophic situation they find themselves in.

They are waiting for expats to return, bringing with them money they desperately need to invigorate what remains of our economy and touristic institutions. They are waiting for public sector employees to end their open-ended strike so they can get their paperwork done. They are waiting for the passports they have been denied for some incomprehensible reason.

They are waiting for their share of electricity, no more than an hour and a half daily. They are waiting for medicine for the ill they are looking after.

Every Lebanese citizen is waiting for hope, whose manifestation differs depending on their needs.

There are those waiting for a visa to help them escape the hell that has become their lives. Others are waiting to retrieve even a fraction of the deposits they had put in the bank and had been depending on, back in the day, to ensure they could live out their old age with dignity. A third group is waiting for their children to graduate from university and emigrate - the only reasonable option for the youths of Lebanon.

Often, one Lebanese has two or three things they are waiting for at the same time. One could be standing in a queue, as do thousands of others hoping to get their bundle of subsidized bread, and be thinking about smart missiles striking Israeli oil and gas fields in the sea as the best solution for his or her suffering.

Another may have voted for the Zaim (leader) of his sect and pinned his hopes on the few dollars sent by a close relative residing abroad to relieve him of some of the disasters facing him on a daily basis. It never crossed the mind of our friend expecting the best from a war with Israel as he stands in line at a bakery that his crisis is the fault of his own flesh and blood, who are hiding the subsidized flour and smuggling it across the border to share the profits from selling it at its actual price with Syrian security agencies.

Nor does it cross his mind that a new war would be at the roll of the dice, even if the man with smart missiles tells him that dying a martyr in battle (or, more likely, from an airstrike) with Israel is better than dying in brawl next to a bakery of a petrol station.

Logical contradictions are not important to the Lebanese doing the waiting; if they had been, we would have seen fundamental changes to what political means. We would have seen politics turn from a tool for perpetuating sectarian divisions and the domination of communities that share nothing but fear of one another and contempt for those who differ from them into a means for furthering the interests of the majority who continue to wait for their delusions to come true.

Investing in this mutual fear and contempt is nothing new in Lebanon. It seems that every stage has its own slogans and justifications.

Dividing the country was the slogan raised to save the Christians from being dominated by the Palestinian Liberation Organization and its leftist and Muslim allies early on during the civil war. In the 1980s, Christian liberated areas were contrasted with the Muslim areas occupied by the Syrians.

Today, ideas like that of dividing the Beirut Municipality and federalism have resurfaced after all hopes in the country coming out united of this void it continues to sink deeper into had been dashed.

It should be mentioned here that those calling for federalism, claiming to want to save what they can in Lebanon, given that saving the entire country has become impossible, will soon clash with the traditional representatives of the Christina community. That is because federalism aims to liberate the Christians from the burden of living alongside a Muslim majority whose Shiite wing is dominated by a party armed to the teeth as the Free Patriotic Movement, for example, claims that the safety of Christians is owed to this arsenal.

Disputes will soon emerge between the federalists aspiring to live in peace in their areas and the traditionalists, who see fear of the other or exploiting the others strength as the reason they can dominate their community.

The project to split the Beirut Municipality is built on stirring panic of the chaos and destruction surrounding the Western, Muslim half of Beirut, spreading to the Christian, Eastern half, which is better administered and more prosperous. Keeping the community in this state of fear is kryptonite to any movement of national integration or even (as the proponents of federalism will soon find out) a peaceful separation. But that is another matter.

As for those standing in line to get their bread, they are ready to kill and be killed, not only if someone cuts in line, but also if someone tells them, as they are standing under the July sun, that a war with Israel is not a good idea and that it would cost them more suffering and make their current predicament seem like a walk in the park.

It is perhaps an age-old lesson that rulers have always applied: creating external conflicts usually papers over internal despondency. This tactic is virtually foolproof in a country where the people have been unable to solve even one of their crushing problems and will be faced with, in the coming months, presidential elections that will most likely turn into another chance to put our total bankruptcy on display.

Link:

Between Bread and War, the Lebanese Wait - Asharq Al-awsat - English