Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

Mobility is freedom, but just as the slaveholders who founded this country never believed in liberty for all, today too one need only look at a map of Richmonds bus system to see the limits of many folks freedom. Routes that end at the county line and buses that only run once an hour are two of the most visible boundaries that fence in Richmonders freedom. The most ubiquitous and all-too-often unquestioned limitation on our freedom, however, is the farebox. If we want to liberate ourselves from car-dependency, save the planet, and right the wrongs of the past, the bus should be free.

Public good, private payment

The bus doesnt care if you cant afford a car, if your disability disallows driving, or if youve just had one too many drinks. As long as youre waiting at a stop, the bus will pick you up and carry you homeno questions asked. The bus epitomizes a public good: its available to all, and society is better off the more people use it. The problem is that we treat the bus like a private company (and in Richmond it actually is). Unlike other public services such as libraries and schools, we expect the bus to pay for itself, largely on the backs of the working poor who take it.

Most Richmonders dont ride the bus regularly. Many residents of the surrounding suburbs never have. But whether you even know what GRTC stands for or not, you and your lifestyle are transit-reliant. The nurses in your hospital, the clerks at your local supermarket, and the custodians at your office or university represent just a fraction of the folks that rely upon the bus every day to get to work, to pick up their kids from school, and to shop or to seek out healthcare. Without access to fast, frequent, and reliable public transit, much of our economy and our society would come to a screeching halt.

The crucial role high-quality transit plays in our daily lives is easily overlooked by those who dont regularly ride the bus. When youre passing a Pulse on Broad Street or waiting behind a bus stopped to let folks on and off, public transit feels like little more than another vehicle in your wayan inconvenience to your personal commute. From the outside, you can only vaguely make out the bodies of those on board. You know nothing of their lives and their stories. Take a trip with the Greater Richmond Transit Company (GRTC) and you begin to see, understand, and empathize with your fellow passengers.

A dollar and fifty cents to ride may not seem like a lot, but for Tarrance Bryanta new GRTC riderthat amount is the difference between a reliable route to work and walking. It can take up to three weeks to get your first paycheck at a new job, and many people just starting their careers or rejoining the workforce dont have money on hand to finance their commute in the meantime. Thats why Tarrence supports zero-fare transit: I like that its free because at this time I just started working, and if it wasnt for it being free I wouldnt really have a ride to work. I would probably have to walk.

No respect for riders

Politicians can always find funding to address the needs of the wealthy and well-connected. Issues important to those who take transit are often just as ignored as those who tend to ride the bus most: the working poor, the disabled, the elderly, teenagers, and people of color.

Twenty-seven percent of bus riders in Richmond have a combined household income of less than $10,000 per year. Over half earn less than the federal poverty rate for Virginia of $26,500 for a family of four, and a full 89 percent of GRTCs riders have household incomes below the state median. If bus riders lacking affluence werent already enough of a reason for the powers that be to ignore their plight, nearly three quarters of those who take transit are people of color.

In America, we all agree that talk is cheap. For all the verbal praise heaped upon our essential workers throughout the course of the pandemic, we didnt do enough to keep folks on the frontline safe. Instead of introducing substantive policy changes in response to the racial reckoning that was the murder of George Floyd, our society settled on BLM book clubs and empty promises of equity.

The complexities of race, class, and poverty in the United Statesmuch less in the former capital of the Confederacyseldom allow for simple solutions. If our goal is to expand the freedom of our friends, family, coworkers, and neighbors, then eliminating bus fares is one of the most straightforward and equitable actions we can take.

Fund our future

The cost of a years worth of access to GRTC adds up to $720. Scraping together the $60 needed for a monthly pass often proves so impossible for many poor riders that they end up spending roughly $1,000 a year on fares, paying $1.50 each time they ride. If the bus were free like many other public services we all rely upon, Central Virginias poorest would get to keep that cash to pay for other essential expenses like housing, food, and healthcare. Going fare free functions as a backdoor boost to wages by allowing those who take transit to work to keep more of their money.

Eliminating fares may sound like an expensive endeavor, but in actuality the cost is minor. In fiscal year 2019, GRTC collected $4.5 million in revenue from local routes in the City of Richmond, the same routes which are primarily frequented by low-income people of color. That means for roughly five million dollars a year, we could all ride the bus for free whenever we want, as much as we want. Going fare free would also allow GRTC to end fare enforcement, protecting passengers from over-policing and empowering bus operators to avoid conflict with riders who cant afford their fare.

Five million dollars is a lot of money. However, compared to the $33 million the City of Richmond plans to spend on road repaving this year, the $170 million raised annually by the Central Virginia Transportation Authority, or the seven billion dollar budget the commonwealth gives VDOT each year, five million dollars is practically a rounding error. Any or all of these sources could easily eliminate bus fares in Greater Richmond, but we must demand it of our local leaders and state representatives.

The New York Times estimates that 100 cities around the world offer free public transit, with many of them in Europe. But recently, cities in the United States, Kansas City, Mo and Olympia, Washington have begun to implement fare free transit as well. Why cant Richmond be the next city to embrace free public transit? Its easy to tout an equity agenda or hire a diversity and inclusion officer, its much more meaningful to put your money where your mouth is. If we want to honor essential workers and invest in eliminating racial inequities, then we must prioritize the needs of our neediest neighbors and make the bus free permanently.

This essay is part of the Richmond Racial Equity Essays series exploring what racial equity looks like in Virginias capital, but we think the ideas here have implications for cities all over the country. It is reprinted here with permission. Check out the full project, the accompanying videos and the podcast.

Wyatt Gordon is a born-and-raised Richmonder with a masters in urban planning from the University of Hawaii at Mnoa and a bachelors in international political economy from the American University in Washington, D.C. He currently covers transportation, housing, and land use for the Virginia Mercury. He also works as a policy and campaigns manager for land use and transportation at the Virginia Conservation Network. Wyatt is a proud Northsider you can find walking, biking, and taking the bus all over town.

Faith Walker grew up in Richmonds East End and still calls the area home. She currently serves as the Director of Community Engagement for RVA Rapid TransitVirginias only public transportation non-profit, which represents transit riders. Faith has a long track record for using creative solutions to address systemic issues, community engagement and commitment to cultivating long-lasting partnerships.

Read the rest here:

The Bus Should Be Free - Next City

Partisan disputes in Congress kept lawmakers from reaching a solution earlier. Leaders of both parties said they wanted to avoid a government shutdown, but disagreed on how to do so. Democrats tried to pass a measure earlier this week that both funded the government and suspended the debt ceiling, but Senate Republicans blocked the effort.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said if Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling, they'll have to do it on their own. By forcing the issue to a party-line vote, Republicans hope to use the higher debt ceiling as evidence of out-of-control Democratic spending during the midterm elections even though a significant portion of the debt accrued came from spending and tax breaks approved by the GOP during the Trump administration.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Thursday's vote on a stopgap spending bill will provide interim funding for the government and keep critical services running during the Covid-19 pandemic. Before it spending expires Dec. 3, lawmakers will need to either approve another short-term solution, known as a continuing resolution, or approve appropriations to fund the government through the end of 2022.

Close calls like this and actual government shutdowns have become increasingly common over the years. In the last decade, there have been three government shutdowns, including a 34-day closure in 2019, the longest one in American history. Since the current budget process was introduced in the 1970s, there have been 20 funding gaps four of which have resulted in shutdowns lasting more than one business day.

The last time Congress approved federal appropriations before the fiscal year ended, with no need for continuing resolutions, was 1997, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Because Congress is so polarized, it's tough for legislation to garner the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. This hurdle is especially difficult "when you're talking about things in the budget process where Congress first has to agree on big, top-line numbers for how much they want to spend across the board and then they actually have to proceed to the hard work of dividing up the pie," said Molly Reynolds, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution.

Appropriations measures also become popular targets for other, unrelated issues because of their "must pass" status, which can ramp up the drama. These combined challenges are why Congress finds itself flirting with shutdowns so often, Reynolds said.

To make the federal budget process more functional, Reynolds said, Congress should develop the appropriations bills individually in their respective subcommittees and bring them to the floor in "minibus," or smaller, packages rather than omnibus packages that put all the appropriations bills together.

"In 2018, we had both the start of a record-long government shutdown and also, earlier in 2018, we had Congress's most productive appropriations year in several decades. Part of what made that happen was this minibus strategy," Reynolds said.

The minibus strategy allowed some of the appropriations bills to pass that year, keeping significant parts of the government funded, even though other parts shut down.

"We don't live in the political world that we lived in when Congress wrote the Congressional Budget Act of 1974," Reynolds said, adding that lawmakers should try to figure out "what are the things about the 1974 process that we think are valuable and that we can keep, and then how do we adapt other parts of the process to recognize the [current] political realities."

While Congress has skirted another government shutdown for now, the debt ceiling deadline still looms. If the debt limit isn't raised or suspended by Oct. 18, according to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, the U.S. won't be able to pay its bills and the country could default for the first time ever. Because so many countries rely on the U.S. economy, such an outcome would have dire and unpredictable repercussions around the globe.

Democrats could raise the debt ceiling on their own through a process called reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority to pass in the Senate, rather than the usual 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. However, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has refused to resort to reconciliation, calling it "risky" and "uncharted waters."

The reconciliation process can only be used once per fiscal year and Democrats are already considering using it to pass their $3.5 trillion domestic policy package. However, the fate of that legislation and the $1 trillion infrastructure bill remains uncertain as the Democratic party is divided over how much money to spend on what programs.

And amid the drama over the federal budget and infrastructure package, two landmark election reform bills have taken a backseat, despite voting rights advocates' urgent calls for passage. The Freedom to Vote Act was introduced earlier this month as a compromise version of the For the People Act. Both the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act face long odds in the Senate if the filibuster remains intact.

See the article here:

Our Constitution gave us the tools to move forward - The Fulcrum

Breadcrumb Trail Links

Why immigrants are key to the future of the Conservative Party of Canada

Author of the article:

Publishing date:

In the aftermath of Canadas 44th federal election, the Conservative party is at a crossroads. Under two successive leaders, Andrew Scheer and Erin OToole, it has attempted to rebuild its fabled big tent, and failed.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

That tent has taken different forms over the years. From 1984 to 1993, with party leader Brian Mulroney in the Prime Ministers Office, it was composed of an amalgam of Quebec nationalists, Ontario Red Tories and Western fiscal hawks. From 2006 to 2015, with Stephen Harper at the helm and in power, it comprised a microtargeted mix of suburban and exurban Ontario families, bleu Qubcois, and the Western remains of the Reform Party.

In both cases, however, the tent wasnt the only factor for Conservative success. Other elements included fatigue with previous Liberal administrations, and weak Liberal leaders. In 1988, Canadians rallied to the grand cause of free trade; in 2011, a split in the progressive vote allowed the Conservatives to conquer the 905 area surrounding Toronto. And in both cases, the party was headed by two strong leaders, one who excelled at cultivating caucus loyalty, the other a master tactician and strategist.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The tent wasnt the only factor for Conservative success

It is fair to say that neither Scheer nor OToole is cast in either mould. But the failings of the Tories cannot be laid solely at the feet of the messenger; the message is also the problem. As in 1993, the party is divided and struggling to define itself. Is it in favour of carbon pricing, or does it not believe climate change is real? Is it going to ban assault-style weapons, or keep them around? Is it a party of fiscal prudence, or post-pandemic largesse?

A political party is not an all-you-can-eat buffet. The more choices on offer, the greater the likelihood they will be bland and unappetizing, since it is impossible to cook every dish equally well, or appeal to every type of palate. The party needs a signature dish, a recognizable menu, and most importantly, an authentic atmosphere. A French bistro that suddenly offers takeout sushi is not what patrons or voters want. They dont trust the chef to make what he does not know.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Thus, when OToole morphed from right-wing leadership candidate to centrist party leader, he was doomed to fail. Things looked bright for a while, but voters caught on. OToole flip-flopped on the gun issue, could not explain his carbon savings account policy in fewer than 1,000 words, and tried to out-nationalize Quebec nationalists. Voters were left wondering what the party really stood for, and who he really was. And now the party is left wondering what to try next, after its latest attempt at reinvention has failed.

The answer lies in the future of Canada itself. In the wake of this election, Canada is a nation divided, torn between new and old, East and West, urban and rural, rich and poor, right and left. If the Conservatives cannot offer a path forward to heal these divisions, they will be consumed by them. If they are successful, however, they can create not a big tent of convenience, but a grand coalition that will endure.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

There are a number of areas where the party needs to do better. Since the election, commentators have addressed many of these: the need to appeal to younger voters and to women; the need to be unequivocal on such issues as abortion and same-sex rights; the need for fulsome policies on climate change and Indigenous reconciliation; the need to focus on prosperity and affordability; the need for bilingualism and an understanding of Quebec.

To date, few have addressed one critical issue: demography. Canadian women have one of the lowest replacement fertility rates in the Western world: 1.5 children as of 2018. (By comparison, U.S. women have 1.7; Mexico, 2.1). With labour shortages even worse than in pre-pandemic times, someones got to fill in the gap if the economy is to keep growing, and that someone is immigrants and their children. Canada is a country not only built on immigration, but beholden to it.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

For those of us who are first- or second-generation Canadian, the experience of Canada is different than for Canadians whose families have been here for generations. We are the third solitude, and increasingly, a visible one. By 2036, if current trends continue, Canada will be a nation as brown as it is white, with 30 per cent of its citizens born outside the country, in Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, South America and Africa. The division is not about racial difference, however; it is about lived experiences and political expectations. Many of these new Canadians political experiences will bear little resemblance to those of native-born, mostly white, Canadians of European origin. Many newcomers will not have lived under a liberal democracy; for some, right-of-centre parties are more likely to be associated with military juntas than the ideas of Edmund Burke.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Add to this the fact that Conservative heroes of yore like John A. Macdonald are now vilified as Indigenous peoples seek an end to colonialist policies, and it becomes apparent that the Conservative party has more than an image problem: it has an identification problem. For a new Canadian, it is the Liberal party that has staked the claim as the party of immigration ironic when you consider that the first leader of the federal Conservatives (yes, Macdonald) was an immigrant, and the first prime minister not of English or French descent was a Tory (John Diefenbaker, of German heritage).

There are a number of areas where the party needs to do better

The Liberals, in contrast, have been consistently led by native-born members of the Laurentian elite. However, thanks to their initiatives over the years, including the multiculturalism policies of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, and the Charter of Rights, the Liberals benefit from an advantage denied to Conservatives: they cannot be tagged as intolerant. In contrast, the Conservatives routinely fall prey to this label, thus potentially deterring new Canadians from identifying with them and supporting their cause.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

It also does not help that right-of-centre parties are also identified, not only in Canada but around the world, with anti-immigration policies. Here at home, it is not the Conservatives, but the Peoples Party of Canada that claims that dubious status but the tag sticks to the Tories anyway. People do not know that Harpers Tories admitted more immigrants annually to Canada than Jean Chrtiens Liberals had; what they remember is the proposed barbaric cultural practices snitch line and Harpers foot dragging on the admission of Syrian refugees.

But those were not the issues that directly affected immigrants. The big change the Conservatives made was to prioritize economics over compassion, notably by reducing family class immigration. That had a personal, immediate and negative impact on millions of new Canadians who could no longer have their extended families join them. Unsurprisingly, this policy was reversed by their Liberal successors.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Ironically, at the same time the Tories curbed family reunification, they aggressively sought to capture the votes of so-called cultural communities, notably in the suburbs of Vancouver and Toronto. However, then-immigration minister Jason Kenneys infamous curry in a hurry strategy produced little more than indigestion. The lesson here is that opportunism will not build connection. There has to be more on offer than the promise of a say in government, or the implicit benefits of siding with the winning party.

That something is making conservatism the worldview, the philosophy, the vision relevant to new Canadians. It is allowing them to identify with and see themselves in its future. To do this, the party has to both talk the talk, and walk the walk.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

First, the walking. Todays Conservative party is not diverse. Its elected membership is more akin to a 1950s golf club: male, older, and white. Only seven of the 119 Conservatives elected in 119 ridings are Black, Indigenous or a person of colour (BIPOC) six per cent. That is down from nine per cent in the past election. In contrast, the newly elected Liberal caucus is 30 per cent BIPOC. And despite the negative experiences of such former BIPOC Liberal MPs as Jody Wilson-Raybould and Celina Caesar-Chavannes, the Liberals can still legitimately claim to more accurately represent the diversity that is our country.

That must change. The golf clubs that have survived and even thrived have expanded their membership, attracting women and non-white players to their ranks. But why would an immigrant join the Conservative party? What would its appeal be? Its a vicious circle: unless there is something that attracts new Canadians, the party will remain that of Harpers old stock Canadians; unless new Canadians see themselves in the party, they will be less likely to join.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

That something is the talking. If it is done right, it will not only attract new Canadians, but will also reinvigorate the partys base. It will create a common bond between new and old, as opposed to emphasizing or even exploiting division.

The party has to both talk the talk, and walk the walk

The key is to reconcile Conservative values with the solutions to peoples problems. For new Canadians, the problems to be solved are those of establishing themselves in a country often very different from the one they left. Finding work, building a home, raising their children and as any child of immigrants will tell you, possibly the most important thing enabling those children to do better than their parents. Education, opportunity and intergenerational advancement are the Holy Grail.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

How do the values of conservatism, and the Conservative party, relate to the immigrant experience? Freedom is a pre-eminent value for Conservatives, and the ability to pursue ones dreams depends on it. For immigrants who come from countries that are manifestly unfree, such as China, or Iran, freedom can be immensely appealing. Conservatives need to realize, however, that the gulf between our government and those of such nations is so wide that even the Liberals will appear to offer sufficient freedom for their purposes. The Conservatives do thus not have a monopoly on the term.

Furthermore, in the mouths of some organizations, such as the Peoples Party of Canada, freedom has become synonymous with hate. Hatred of vaccine mandates and hatred of government masqueraded as calls for freedom in the recent election. The rise of the PPC is a problem for the Conservatives, not simply in terms of votes lost, but in terms of perverting one of the core tenets of conservative thought. It is similar to what Donald Trump did to the Republican brand in the United States.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The discourse of freedom alone will thus not win the day. Enter the role of society yes, Lady Thatcher, there is a society which is also a cornerstone of conservative philosophy. For conservatives, society is built of little platoons, the often hyper-local organizations to which conservatives devote their energy, whether volunteering, donating, or meeting, and from which they draw strength, community and support. In the words of Burke, To love the little platoon we belong to in society is the first principle of public affections.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

The platoon can be village, town, church, mosque, Rotary Club, boys or girls club, or an immigrant womens organization. The first platoon, however, is the family. This is why family reunification, far from being a drain on resources, needs to be embraced by Conservatives. It is consistent with the view that the family is the basis for society and that organizations exist to strengthen its bonds. Individuals should be free to make choices but be supported by the community in their realization.

Key to keeping faith with both its base and new voters, is to emphasize that for conservatives, community does not equal government. Conservatives do not believe in big government, but in necessary government. The states sphere of action must be limited to the things individuals and the community cannot achieve on their own, or things that provide greatest economy of scale at the government level. Roads, bridges, borders, hospitals, schools, public security all are legitimate domain for the state, to ensure that all citizens have access to adequate infrastructure and services.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

That does not mean, however, that the state should have a monopoly on them either. When OToole was accused of supporting two-tier health care early on in the election, it backfired, in part because Twitter called out the Liberal party for stripping his words of their context. But when pressed on the issue in subsequent debates, OToole did not defend the position he had taken, which is that he was in favour of more private health care while maintaining the public system. He watered down his discourse to supporting more innovation by the provinces and repeating his assertion that he would increase transfers to the public system. He passed up an opportunity to move Canada towards a system that strikes a better balance between individual choice and state support one that exists in every OECD country save the United States.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Conservatives do not believe in big government, but in necessary government

Ironically, balancing individualism, communitarianism and state engagement lies at the heart of conservatism. As the pandemic has shown us, we are not meant to be islands. Nor are curbs on freedoms during times of crisis a permanent state of affairs, or un-conservative. Winston Churchill did not impose wartime rations in Britain because he was a Bolshevik. He pursued a manifestly un-conservative policy because it was necessary to help win the war. Similarly, a compulsory vaccination policy for your candidates is a means of winning the war on COVID-19. Yet OToole could not bring himself to take this stand, over fear of driving votes to the PPC or offending his base in Western and rural Canada where there has been greater opposition to vaccine mandates.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This is another issue that the Conservatives must address. The Conservative vote is heavily concentrated in rural and Western Canada. Despite garnering 33.7 per cent of the national popular vote, greater than the 32.6 per cent achieved by the Liberals, it was not reflected in the partys seat count. This produces two outcomes: first, the impression that the Conservatives are the party of Western and rural alienation, and second, actual Western and rural alienation.

Western alienation is nothing new. It has waxed and waned over the decades. It flared in the 1970s due to Trudeau seniors infamous National Energy Policy, which birthed a bumper sticker that read, Let the Eastern Bastards Freeze in the Dark. It found its political home in the 1990s in the Reform Party, whose slogan was The West Wants In. Today, for some, that slogan is The West Wants Out,,as embodied by the Wexit party and the Free Alberta Strategy, which would exempt Alberta from the application of federal laws.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Central and Eastern Canada may scoff at these sentiments, but they are no laughing matter. The terrible situation in Alberta today, with its health system failing in the name of freedom, is a direct result of alienation. Jason Kenney acted the way he did not merely because he thought it was the right call, but because he thought his electorate would, too. This has important ramifications for the federal Conservative party, as it saw during the final days of the past election. Because the Conservatives draw an important part of their base from Alberta, they are identified with its sentiments. Voters in the rest of the country will not want to be associated with the Conservatives if they are seen as the angry party of the West. New Canadians will not either. And neither will Quebec.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

One cannot discuss the Conservatives future without discussing Quebec, for its success there is intimately tied to its success in the rest of the country. Quebec voters are notorious for voting en bloc, and for voting for the federal party that is likely to do well in Ontario. But instead of playing to this reality, the Conservatives sought to satisfy Quebec demands directly, by means of a contract with the province, executed in the first 100 days of its mandate. The contract included giving Quebec full powers over immigration powers it pretty much has already thanks to a long-standing memorandum of understanding with Ottawa. But even Premier Franois Legaults blessing wasnt enough to win the day. Instead, a debate question that decried Quebecs Bills 21 and 96 as discriminatory legislation enraged the provinces political class, boosted the Bloc Qubcoiss fortunes, and upended the Tory campaign.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

In other words, promising more powers to Quebec did not work; this was not 1984, OToole was not Mulroney, and there was no sense of honour and enthusiasm about the Tories plans. They were pure electoral calculus. Strategically, the Conservatives would have been better to appeal to Quebecers on the basis of their pan-Canadian strength, and by focusing their efforts on the 905 belt and yes, the immigrant vote and delivering a strong showing there.

For Conservatives, earning the support of new Canadians is the key to unlocking the Grand Coalition. Unless the party can find a path to bridge East and West, new and old, and rural and urban Canada, it will not form government. It risks becoming a Western rump party instead of the national government. But this exercise isnt just about saving the Conservative party, or finding the flavour of the month for the next election. It is also about preserving Canadian democracy. A democracy needs viable alternatives, real choices for voters to weigh. Conservatives owe it not just to themselves, but to all Canadians, to provide one.

National Post

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Sign up to receive the daily top stories from the National Post, a division of Postmedia Network Inc.

A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.

The next issue of NP Posted will soon be in your inbox.

We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try again

Postmedia is committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion and encourage all readers to share their views on our articles. Comments may take up to an hour for moderation before appearing on the site. We ask you to keep your comments relevant and respectful. We have enabled email notificationsyou will now receive an email if you receive a reply to your comment, there is an update to a comment thread you follow or if a user you follow comments. Visit our Community Guidelines for more information and details on how to adjust your email settings.

Read the original here:

Tasha Kheiriddin: Rebuilding the Tories' 'big tent' starts with new Canadians - National Post

This weekend, a political leader will descend on Manchester preaching the old religion, tax cuts and deregulation. Only it wont be Boris Johnson kicking off the first in-person Conservative Party conference since he won with a majority of 80. Instead, it will be the leader of the Reform party, Richard Tice, whose event in the city overlaps with the Tories.

Sitting at 4 per cent in the polls, Reform doesnt currently pose a threat to Johnsons Tories, who continue to lead comfortably over Labour despite a fuel crisis. But the fact that Tice and his team spy an opportunity in Manchester in the first place points to discontent building among the grassroots. Can todays Conservative party still call itselfConservative?

Since entering No 10, Mr Johnson has moved the party to the left on economics, pledging higher spending and distancing himself from the austerity years under David Cameron. He has just committed to a rise in national insurance for both workers and employers, to pay for more spending on health and social care.

His love of spending and big infrastructure projects has caused alarm to his Chancellor, with Rishi Sunak worried over inflation warnings, the cost of living and servicing the national debt.

Meanwhile, the one-time freedom-loving politician who railed against the nanny state has transformed into a more cautious figure.

While some of this can be put down to leading the country through a pandemic and ending up in intensive care himself it means that, while the first conference since the Prime Ministers election victory (the 2020 event was a virtual affair because of the virus) ought to be a celebratory affair, many Tory activists will arrive wondering what the point of the partys majority is.

While this shift to the centre has played out well in the polls, his core base tend to take a different view. Its not a coincidence that some of the harshest criticism of the Johnson Government these days comes from those on the right whether its his former paper, The Telegraph, or MPs in his own party.

It is why this years event could still hold plenty of awkward moments for the Prime Minister and his Chancellor.

Many activists and MPs are still smarting at the fact that this is a tax-raisingGovernment. There are increasing concerns on the Tory right over the partys fiscal reputation. With a cost of living crisis looming as a result of staff shortages, gas price rises, the universal credit uplift suspension and possible inflation, the Government will come under pressure to spend more.

While some MPs are pushing for it, others are concerned. When a new 500m hardship fund was announced to soften the ending of the 20-a-week boost to universal credit, it divided opinion. MPs on the right suggested on Tory WhatsApp that it would add to borrowing and national debt.

Warnings this week from Bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey point to turbulence ahead. Mr Sunak can expect to face such questions this week at the conference, while fringes including Boom or Bust: The Economy in a Post-Pandemic World look set to stir up divides. Fiscal Conservatives such as Steve Baker will be sharing their thoughts outside the conference hall throughout the week.

Mr Sunak will use his speech to focus on jobs and the recovery. But the Chancellor will also face a grilling from his own side on the fringes when he appears for an in conversation on Tuesday with the director of the Institute of Economic Affairs and the chief executive of the TaxPayers Alliance. Both think tanks panned the national insurance rise.

The other area that risks a grassroots backlash is net zero. The phrase dominates the titles for the various fringe events and is seen by the Prime Minister as a good news story. Ahead of the COP26 summit in November, Mr Johnson wants to flex his greencredentials.

Yet there is already a storm growing. Several Tory MPs have formed a caucus with which to push to find the real cost of these policies. Expect some kickback from the grassroots in the fringe discussions on the issue. Even MPs on panels could struggle to stick to the script. The recent gas price rise is seen as tricky timing for a push on going green, given the rising costs people are feeling.

Mr Johnson wants to use the conference to return to his domestic agenda and focus on the recovery. The Prime Minister likes to make speeches and he will want announcements to go in them. Just look at Johnsons widely panned lacklustre levelling-up speech earlier this year as a warning of what happens when there is little of substance.

When Mr Johnson addresses his party, his supporters will want more than good news and optimism. They will want to know who is paying for what and what exactly is it for?

Katy Balls is deputy political editor of The Spectator

See the original post here:

Boris Johnson wants a feel-good Conservative Party conference, but a grassroots storm is brewing in Manchester - iNews

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) As conservative political groups mobilize to ban in schools what they call critical race theory, one prominent backer of Republican causes and candidates is notably absent.

Leaders in the network built by the billionaire Koch family say they oppose government bans and efforts to recall school board members over teaching about race and history in schools. While they note they dont agree with the ideas at the center of the fight, they argue the government bans, now enacted in 11 states, stifle debate essential to democracy.

The Wisconsin state Assembly, on Tuesday, said public schools would be prohibited from teaching students and training employees about concepts such as systemic racism and implicit bias under a Republican bill that passed on a party line vote.

Using government to ban ideas, even those we disagree with, is also counter to core American principles the principles that help drive social progress, said Evan Feinberg, executive director of the Koch-affiliated Stand Together Foundation.

That position is in line with the networks long-held libertarian streak. But it has sparked fresh charges of hypocrisy from the megadonors critics. After spending years pouring money into conservative groups, the Koch groups cannot distance themselves from the movement it helped build, they argue.

They have this nice position they want to tout from a P.R. standpoint. But their money has gone to these groups that have the opposite effect on that agenda, said Lisa Graves, board president for the liberal watchdog group Center for Media and Democracy.

The Koch organization first went public with its position last spring, as state lawmakers and conservative groups began passing legislation that bans from classrooms specific concepts, including the idea that racism is systemic in society and the U.S. legal system.

The efforts were prompted in part by backlash to The 1619 Project, a New York Times Magazine initiative aimed at rethinking the role of slavery in the nations history and development.

In a letter published in The Chronicle of Higher Education in May, Charlie Ruger, the Charles Koch Foundations vice president of philanthropy, described Republicans push to ban these concepts from schools as a gag on free expression.

Both learning and research require openness to new ideas and the ability to argue productively, Ruger wrote. That requires standing against censorship.

The Koch political behemoth a multibillion-dollar umbrella of foundations and a political action committee was built by brothers Charles and David Koch out of the familys Kansas-based business empire during the 1980s and 1990s. Though David Koch died in 2018, the network has continued to pour hundreds of millions of dollars into organizations and politics that push for small government, lower taxes, deregulation, free speech, academic freedom and a conservative judiciary.

The organizations opposition to the race and education bans has not kept the groups it has long supported out of the fight. In Wisconsin, parents seeking to recall school board members have received help this year from the Koch-supported Wisconsin Institute for Liberty and Law. The Milwaukee law firm received $310,000 from the Charles Koch Foundation for five years through 2019, the last year with public records available and before critical race theory flared as a GOP rallying point. The money was in the form of grants that were aimed at protecting free speech on college campuses, a Koch spokesman said.

The foundation and the Charles Koch Institute also contributed over the same period about $75,000 to State Policy Network, a conservative think tank that has promoted the bans. However, the grants, also before the 2021 wave of legislation, helped sponsor an annual meeting, an internship and a panel discussion on business, the Koch spokesman said.

Among the most prominent drivers behind the legislative bans was another Koch-backed group, the American Legislative Exchange Council. The Chicago-based conservative policymaking group provides model legislation for conservative lawmakers and has promoted measures to ban critical race theory in schools this year.

The Stand Together Foundation and its related groups contributed $2.7 million to ALEC between 2015 and 2019.

None of it was targeted for limiting schools curriculum on history and race, and was awarded before the issue became a Republican priority, Stand Together spokesman Bill Riggs said.

In 2020, ALEC continued to receive money from two Koch foundations, donations that were earmarked for trade, regulatory and fiscal policy, as well as advocating free speech and providing scholarships, Riggs said.

Riggs did not disclose the 2020 total given. Only contributions through 2019 are searchable through publicly available tax documents. Contributions for 2020 wont be available to the public until mid-November.

Riggs accused Koch critics of a misinformation game that suggests the network is secretly supporting a policy it does not. He noted Koch groups give to a broad spectrum of organizations that align with some of its founders values, if not all of their views.

The Charles Koch Foundation contributed to the Democratic-leaning Brookings Institution in 2018 and 2019 on issues related to foreign policy, Riggs said. Last year, the Koch network helped create Heal America, a faith-based program aimed at fighting racial injustice with love and redemption, according to its website. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban and television commentator Van Jones, a Democrat, have both participated in events.

Riggs declined to say whether the Koch network would refuse to contribute to groups supporting bans on teaching critical race theory, such as ALEC, noting it prescribes in grant agreements the purpose of the money. He also declined to say whether they would rethink support for political candidates who also back the policy.

The Koch-backed political action committee Americans for Prosperity Action spent at least $9.7 million backing North Carolina Republican Thom Tillis in his tough campaign for reelection to the Senate last year, according to Federal Election Commission reports.

Tillis was prominent sponsor of a measure this year to prohibit using of federal money to teach the 1619 Project in elementary, middle and high school. The bill has not advanced in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

Endorsements by Americans for Prosperity Action are based on several factors including voting records, statements, how they lead on lead on key issues, as well as how they distinguish themselves as leaders capable of bringing people together to drive solutions, Riggs said.

But there is no single litmus test issue. We recognize no one is going to agree on everything, he said.

Continue reading here:

Conservative Koch network disavows critical race theory bans - WIZM NEWS

Partisan disputes in Congress kept lawmakers from reaching a solution earlier. Leaders of both parties said they wanted to avoid a government shutdown, but disagreed on how to do so. Democrats tried to pass a measure earlier this week that both funded the government and suspended the debt ceiling, but Senate Republicans blocked the effort.

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said if Democrats want to raise the debt ceiling, they'll have to do it on their own. By forcing the issue to a party-line vote, Republicans hope to use the higher debt ceiling as evidence of out-of-control Democratic spending during the midterm elections even though a significant portion of the debt accrued came from spending and tax breaks approved by the GOP during the Trump administration.

Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter

Thursday's vote on a stopgap spending bill will provide interim funding for the government and keep critical services running during the Covid-19 pandemic. Before it spending expires Dec. 3, lawmakers will need to either approve another short-term solution, known as a continuing resolution, or approve appropriations to fund the government through the end of 2022.

Close calls like this and actual government shutdowns have become increasingly common over the years. In the last decade, there have been three government shutdowns, including a 34-day closure in 2019, the longest one in American history. Since the current budget process was introduced in the 1970s, there have been 20 funding gaps four of which have resulted in shutdowns lasting more than one business day.

The last time Congress approved federal appropriations before the fiscal year ended, with no need for continuing resolutions, was 1997, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.

Because Congress is so polarized, it's tough for legislation to garner the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. This hurdle is especially difficult "when you're talking about things in the budget process where Congress first has to agree on big, top-line numbers for how much they want to spend across the board and then they actually have to proceed to the hard work of dividing up the pie," said Molly Reynolds, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution.

Appropriations measures also become popular targets for other, unrelated issues because of their "must pass" status, which can ramp up the drama. These combined challenges are why Congress finds itself flirting with shutdowns so often, Reynolds said.

To make the federal budget process more functional, Reynolds said, Congress should develop the appropriations bills individually in their respective subcommittees and bring them to the floor in "minibus," or smaller, packages rather than omnibus packages that put all the appropriations bills together.

"In 2018, we had both the start of a record-long government shutdown and also, earlier in 2018, we had Congress's most productive appropriations year in several decades. Part of what made that happen was this minibus strategy," Reynolds said.

The minibus strategy allowed some of the appropriations bills to pass that year, keeping significant parts of the government funded, even though other parts shut down.

"We don't live in the political world that we lived in when Congress wrote the Congressional Budget Act of 1974," Reynolds said, adding that lawmakers should try to figure out "what are the things about the 1974 process that we think are valuable and that we can keep, and then how do we adapt other parts of the process to recognize the [current] political realities."

While Congress has skirted another government shutdown for now, the debt ceiling deadline still looms. If the debt limit isn't raised or suspended by Oct. 18, according to Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, the U.S. won't be able to pay its bills and the country could default for the first time ever. Because so many countries rely on the U.S. economy, such an outcome would have dire and unpredictable repercussions around the globe.

Democrats could raise the debt ceiling on their own through a process called reconciliation, which only requires a simple majority to pass in the Senate, rather than the usual 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. However, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer has refused to resort to reconciliation, calling it "risky" and "uncharted waters."

The reconciliation process can only be used once per fiscal year and Democrats are already considering using it to pass their $3.5 trillion domestic policy package. However, the fate of that legislation and the $1 trillion infrastructure bill remains uncertain as the Democratic party is divided over how much money to spend on what programs.

And amid the drama over the federal budget and infrastructure package, two landmark election reform bills have taken a backseat, despite voting rights advocates' urgent calls for passage. The Freedom to Vote Act was introduced earlier this month as a compromise version of the For the People Act. Both the Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act face long odds in the Senate if the filibuster remains intact.

Continued here:

Voter registration volunteers are crucial for democracy. They shouldn't be threatened with fines or felonies. - The Fulcrum

By RICK BRUNDRETT

Out of this fiscal years $32.5 billion state budget, more than a third of it nearly $12.3 billion is made up of other funds.

Other funds include such things as fees and fines, college tuition, lottery proceeds, state gasoline taxes, and part of the state sales tax earmarked for K-12 education. Many state agencies dont spend all of their other funds in a fiscal year, with some of them amassing huge year-end surpluses.

The state ended last fiscal year on June 30 with at least $5.6 billion in total other-fund surpluses, which covered 102 state agencies or divisions, plus two major state accounts, The Nerve found in a review of records provided by the S.C. Department of Administration under the state Freedom of Information Act.

To put the $5.6 billion in some context, it works out to be about $1,106 for every man, woman and child in South Carolina.

The overall windfall as of June 30 was $1.3 billion, or 31%, more than the total other-fund surplus at the end of the previous fiscal year, The Nerves review found. And those funds arent the only reserves that are available to state agencies for this fiscal year.

Last month, The Nerve reported that state agencies started this fiscal year with collective general-fund reserves of about $640 million on top of a more than $1 billion undesignated general-fund balance, according to an annual report by S.C. comptroller general Richard Eckstrom.

General funds are largely made up of individual and corporate income taxes, and state sales taxes. Together, general and other fund surpluses, including two constitutional rainy day reserve accounts, totaled nearly $8 billion at the start of this fiscal year, which represents almost a quarter of the entire fiscal 2021-22 state budget.

But lawmakers likely wont return any of the surplus to taxpayers. For now, they are considering how to allocate $2.5 billion in federal coronavirus-relief funding, according to other media reports.

The S.C. Department of Transportation had the largest other-fund surplus $1.35 billion among state agencies as of June 30, The Nerves review found. The state Department of Administrations records didnt specify whether that amount included the cash balance of a special fund created with the 2017 gas-tax-hike law, which raised the states gasoline tax by 12 cents per gallon over six years, and increased other vehicle taxes and fees.

As of June 30, the gas-tax-hike fund had a cash balance of $896.1 million a 50% increase compared to the end of fiscal 2020, as The Nerve revealed last month.

Following is a list of the 10 state agencies with the largest other-fund surpluses as of June 30, according to Department of Administration records:

Whether certain state agencies need large reserves is a matter of debate. The state House and Senate chambers, for example, started this fiscal year with other fund surpluses of $306,489 and $280,002, respectively, plus, as The Nerve reported last month, had general fund surpluses of $22.7 million and $3.4 million, respectively.

The Nerve earlier this year revealed that legislators designated tens of millions of surplus tax dollars in this fiscal years state budget for their pet projects. Lawmakers later overrode nearly all of Gov. Henry McMasters vetoes of the total $152.5 million in legislative earmarks.

Brundrett is the news editor of The Nerve (www.thenerve.org). Contact him at 803-254-4411 or rick@thenerve.org. Follow him on Twitter @RickBrundrett. Follow The Nerve on Facebook and Twitter @thenervesc.

Nervestories are free to reprint and repost with permission by and credit to The Nerve.

Visit link:

The $5 billion surplus officials don't talk about - The Nerve

The term sustainability has been used with different connotations under different circumstances in multilateral policy discussions. The fiscal sustainability of state governments is different from that of the central government, due to the differential allocation of powers in the Constitution of India. These legal restrictions leave subnational governments unable to adjust their primary fiscal balances. Yet, state governments, in order to maintain economic stability and achieve economic growth, can manipulate fiscal policy alone as the monetary policy is uniform for all states, in that it is centrally determined. As far as state government finances in India are concerned, subnational financial sustainability can be understood as the capacity to generate adequate resources to afford their expenses on a sustained basis. This involves two main dimensions: (i) fiscal sustainability, and (ii) debt sustainability. This article focuses on fiscal sustainability.

Fiscal sustainability analysis is an approach linked to intertemporal budget constraints, subject to the condition that current deficits need to be outweighed in the future by surplus (Quintanilla 2009). The borrowing operations of the government should not muddle the objectives of maintaining stability in the economy. In the case of the Indian economy, there is a paucity of resources necessary for development. Revenues, generated by way of taxes, are mostly used for the normal expenditure of the government, resulting in the governments heavy reliance on borrowed funds to finance development of the economy (Mallick 2005). If the cost or burden of borrowings is offset by the gains received, then the debt would be less burdensome. If the rise in public borrowings is accompanied by a simultaneous increase in productive capacity, investment, asset creation, and national income in the economy, then the debt will not hinder the stability of the economy. Thus, the income-generating effect of public debt makes the rising debt less troublesome (Bhatia 1994).

The actual point to be considered here then is whether the rate of growth of the economy is satisfactory or not. A lower growth rate along with higher rate of public debt is oppressive. The analysis of the net economic burden of public debt would depend on the extent to which the resources generated are used efficiently in order to enable the economy to achieve self-sustained growth. But due to inherent difficulties engaged in isolating the contribution of borrowings to economic growth and segregating the benefits, one can only analyse the purpose for which borrowed funds have been spent. Therefore, to assess the performance of public debt, one of the important factors to be considered is the utilisation pattern of government funds.

In light of the above discussion, this article shall attempt to analyse the pattern of state government finances and borrowed funds.

Database and Methodology

The data for this research has been primarily collected from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) bulletins and annual reports on State Government Finances: A Study of State Budgets. Seventeen major Indian states have been considered for the present analysis. These include Andhra Pradesh (ANP), Assam (ASM), Bihar (BHR), Gujarat (GUJ), Haryana (HAR), Himachal Pradesh (HMP), Jammu and Kashmir (JNK), Kerala (KRL), Karnataka (KTK), Madhya Pradesh (MDP), Maharashtra (MHR), Odisha (ODS), Punjab (PNB), Rajasthan (RAJ), Tamil Nadu (TND), Uttar Pradesh (UTP), and West Bengal (WSB).

The data analysis includes a study of the following variables for the states under study: revenue deficits, fiscal deficits, loans and advances by state governments (LASG), debt receipts of state governments (DRSG), internal debt, loans and advances from central government (LACG), ways and means advances (WMA) and overdraft, small savings and provident fund (SS&PF), reserve fund, deposits and advances, and contingency fund. TheDRSGfor individual states has been calculated from 198081 to 201415. The calculations have been made by following the revised coverage used by theRBI(from 200506 onwards) for the calculation of the total budgetary liabilities of state governments, which comprises of (i) public debt, including internal debt andLACG, (ii)WMAand overdraft, (iii) public account, includingSS&PF, reserve fund, and deposits and advances, and (iv) contingency fund. All of these four components have been added up to calculateDRSG.

The data and information pertaining to various components have been statistically analysed by using percentages, ratios, averages, standard deviation, andanalysis of variance (ANOVA). An assessment of the significance of differentials in the gross fiscal deficit, as a percentage of gross state domestic product, has been made through a two-wayANOVA. Six indexes of instability were estimated for the measurement of temporal fluctuations in the utilisation pattern of total debt receipts for each of the 17 states. These indices are outlined as below:

Index1,as proposed by Sethi (2010), is based on the coefficient of variation among moving averages (as first suggested by Mahendradev [1987]).

Index2, due to Ray (1983), is estimated as the standard deviation of natural log of the ratios of successive values.

Index2= Standard Deviation (ln {Xt+1/Xt})

whereXtis the value of the variable in the current time period.

Xt+1is the value in the subsequent year.

Index3,given by Coppock (1962), uses log-variance approach, by assuming the percentage change in the values at constant rate and thereby correcting the annual changes for this as:

Index3= Antilog [(Xlog)1/2]

heren= number of observations, andm= measure of constant percentage change.

Index4,due to Glezakos (1973), basically, is the exports instability index based on absolute difference between successive values and simple linear trend value, expressed as a percentage of the mean:

.

here^1is the slope of the linear trend.

Index5,due to Glezakos (1984), is also an exports instability index based on absolute difference between successive values adjusted for exponential trend value, expressed as a percentage of mean:

.

herer= rate of growth of the variable obtained from exponential trend as:Y^t= A(1+r)t

Index6is the mean of the export instability index. It was given by Xin and Liu (2008) as

The different methodology and formulation of the indexes of instability are not bound to provide a unique picture; therefore, an intercorrelation matrix has been used to establish compatibility among these indexes as:

In order to test the compatibility among the ranks assigned to the 17 states with respect to the extent of instability in the utilisation ratio, Kendalls Coefficient of Concordance was computed by following Seigel (1988), as

wherek= set of ranks, andn= number of components.

is the sum ofTjfor all sets of rankings.

Sis the corrected sum of squares of deviations from the mean ofRj(aggregated rank overksets).

That is,

In the case of tied observations,Tjwas computed as a correction factor.

heregj= number of group of ties injthset of ranks andti= number of tied ranks inithgroup of ties.

Results and Discussion

The utilisation pattern of domestic debt is an important aspect related to the management and burden of public debt and to the development of an economy. But it is difficult to measure the real burden entailed by the growth of debt. The outstanding liabilities on account of borrowings can be analysed through the purpose for which the borrowed funds have been used towards creation of productive assets. A careful analysis of the utilisation pattern of debt receipts throws light on an important issue, whether the increasing proportion of public debt is being used for productive uses (that is, on capital outlay and loans advanced) or for unproductive or consumption expenditure. However, in the budget documents of the government, expenditure on the basis of productivity is not classified. It is rather difficult to analyse how the debt receipts received at some point of time are used for what purpose at some other point of time. Yet, it can be analysed by comparing the expenditure and receipts (both on capital and revenue accounts) of the government, which indicates the fiscal management of the government.

The higher the proportion of government expenditure on consumption, current, and administrative expenditure, the lesser resources left for productive expenditure (that is, on social, economic, and some components of general services). A higher proportion of current expenditure in total government expenditure signifies inadequacy of the government to generate adequate resources. The decline in capital outlay as a percentage of capital receipts implies that there is a relative expansion of current expenditure, at the cost of capital outlay. Also, the decline in capital expenditure, as a proportion of net capital receipts, signifies that the capital receipts are being diverted towards current expenditure, which were otherwise required to be spent on capital formation in the economy. While not all current expenditure is unproductive in nature, a major share is allocated towards defence, subsidies, and interest payments on past debt. Further, a large portion of capital receipts comprises of debt capital receipts bearing interest charges, which is further used for the meeting of current expenditure, ultimately resulting in a higher interest burden on the economy. This implies that capital receipts, which otherwise would have been used for capital expenditure, are absorbed in current expenditure.

The total revenue earned by state governments has been persistently falling short of its total expenditure for the last three decades, as they have failed to cover up its revenue expenditure from revenue receipts (Bhargava 2011). State governments try to fill their budgetary gap from capital receipts and it is evident that the major source of capital receipts is borrowings. Capital disbursements are mainly financed through the mobilisation of public debt receipts. Further, they are financed through surplus from the revenue account, deposits and advances, reserve fund, contingency fund, and recovery ofLASG.

The effective utilisation of borrowed funds can be made clear on the basis of assets and liabilities of state governments. Liabilities are required to be adequately covered by assets. However, in the case of state governments, capital outlays were observed to be less than the liabilities. Nevertheless, the whole amount of liabilities not covered by assets cannot be considered unproductive, so long as large amounts of the borrowings are for productive and developmental purposes. Therefore, what matters is not the actual size of public debt but its management in order to achieve the objectives of economic development with stability. The government mainly raises funds for three basic reasons, namely capital outlay, loans advanced, and consumption expenditure. Capital outlay is that part of the expenditure, which is mainly developmental but may also be used for the acquisition of income-yielding assets. The capital outlay portion is further categorised as general services, economic services, and social services.

Loans advanced include all kinds of loans given by state governments, public sector enterprises, government servants, etc. These loans are utilised not only for the purpose of capital formation and asset creation but also to meet the consumption or current needs of state governments (Bhatia 1994). The loans given to public sector undertakings do not give good returns, due to their inefficiency or low productivity. Therefore, most part of the debt raised has been used unproductively. So these components have not resulted in any addition to income-yielding assets. Therefore, it does not lead to any increase in the productive potential of the economy.

The assets comprise of capital outlay and loans advanced. The excess of these two components over the total liabilities of the government implies that surplus on revenue account has been used for capital expenditure. But the excess of total liabilities over capital outlay and loans advanced implies that current expenditure of the government has been financed out of the borrowings, that is, the funds have been going into the consumption expenditure of the government. Capital expenditure either results in the creation of physical financial assets or in the reduction of liabilities, whereas capital receipts, which may be debt receipts or non-debt receipts, generally implies the creation of liability.

Table 1 depicts huge variations among states in the relative shares of loans and advances plus capital outlay in total debt receipts. Utilisation (LASG+ capital outlay), as a percentage of debt receipts, was found to be the highest for Bihar, Uttar Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Assam, and Madhya Pradesh respectively. For Gujarat, Odisha, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Himachal Pradesh, it lies between 21% and 50%. Utilisation is seen to be very less (that is, less than 20%) in Kerala, Rajasthan, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, and Haryana. Further, the table reveals that Kerala, Punjab, and West Bengal have shown continuous decline in the utilisation of debt receipts since 200001. Whereas Andhra Pradesh, Haryana, and Rajasthan (also having utilisation ratio less than 20%) have shown fluctuating trends with respect to the same.

Differentials in Utilisation Pattern

Wide fluctuations have been observed to exist in the utilisation of borrowings among states and within the states, over a fairly long period of 35 years. In order to provide a comparative picture of states with regard to utilisation patterns, some basic computations have been done to examine the differentials in utilisation ratio among states as shown in Tables 2 and 3. On an average (over the years), the utilisation ratio is found to be minimum for West Bengal (31.60) and maximum for Jammu and Kashmir (134.57). However, the pattern of variability depicted by standard variation was maximum in Punjab (135.68) and minimum in Odisha (24.05). West Bengal, Kerala, and Punjab, which have a utilisation ratio of less than 20% for 201415, also have the lowest mean values among 17 states. For Punjab, the mean utilisation ratio is found to be 71.52, while the ratio is expectedly in the range of 8.95 and 134.1, associated with a confidence coefficient of 0.99. The same interval, for adjoining Haryana, ranges between 49.91 and 88.13, thus implying that position of Punjab has been relatively poor.

Table 3 reveals that the fiscal year 198283 witnessed the highest utilisation ratio in the entire 35 year-long time span, while the lowest was observed during 200304 for the states. Some improvement was seen in 200506, but it was too little and could not be sustained either, for since 201011, the mean utilisation ratio was found to be declining. The lowest levels of mean utilisation ratio have been found in the later years, starting from 200304. As basic computations of the utilisation ratio could not provide us with a unique picture, the indexes of instability have been worked out to gauge the fluctuations in utilisation ratio over time and to have a clear position of states with respect to the same.

Table 4 (p 34) exhibits the computations of various indexes of instability with regard to the utilisation ratio of states. As many as six indexes of instability were worked out. But due to the criteria of uniformity among indexes, only four indexes, namely Index2, Index3, Index4, and Index5, have been reported. The differences in the formulation of the indexes of instability were not bound to provide a unique picture. For instance, minimum instability was found in the case of Tamil Nadu as computed through Index2and Index3, in Uttar Pradesh through Index4,and Kerala as per Index5. As gauged through Index2, Index3, Index4, and Index5, the state with maximum instability was Punjab, followed by Assam and Maharashtra. The indexes could not provide us with a harmonious picture with regard to minimum instability in the utilisation pattern among states. Therefore, the nature and extent of association among different indexes have been gauged through the intercorrelation matrix.

Table 5 depicts the intercorrelation analysis performed on different values of indexes. The analysis of the table reveals a strong association between Index4and Index5(0.998), followed by Index2and Index3(0.996). Since the different indexes of instability failed to provide a concrete picture regarding the extent of instability in states with respect to utilisation pattern, we have performed ranking analysis for states on the basis of different indexes. In Table 4, rankings (given in parentheses) were assigned to different states for a given index. Then, in order to examine whether there existed any compatibility or agreement among different indexes on the basis of assigned ranks, Kendalls concordance analysis was performed on different ranks of indexes. The findings of the test provided Kendalls W coefficient (= 0.925). The testing of Kendalls coefficient turned out to be significant at 0.01% level, when tested through Chi square test. The computed value of X2at 16 degrees of freedom was 59.176, which was more than the critical value of X2at corresponding number of degrees of freedom. Significantly, Kendalls coefficient implies a high degree of concordance among the ranking of states regarding relative instability (with respect to utilisation pattern).

As evident from Table 4, on the basis of mean ranking (justified due to strong concordance therein), Punjab has witnessed high temporal fluctuations with regard to its utilisation ratio, whereas minimum instability was experienced by Uttar Pradesh. Thus, after having performed Kendalls concordance analysis, the states with minimum and maximum instability have been determined. Therefore, it is imperative to analyse the significance of the differentials existing in states, on account of the utilisation of borrowed funds. For the testing of differentials in mean utilisation ratio among 17 states, the two-wayANOVAapproach is used.

The ratios calculated in Table 2 were subjected to a two-wayANOVAapproach in order to examine the comparative performance related to the utilisation of borrowings of states. The results of the test are shown in Table 6, which reveal that significant differences exist among the 17 states in utilisation ratios over a period of 35 years. The value of theF-statistic (= 7.540) for time indicates the differentials among states in utilisation ratios at different points of time, whereas theF-statistic(= 6.926) for states signifies the differentials in the specific ratio among states for a period of 35 years. It is worth mentioning that over this period, states have shown a declining trend (Table 3), which may not be seen as a conducive sign.

The two-wayANOVAtechnique was duly coupled with Tuckeys post hoc comparisons in order to test the paired comparisons of states. Table 7 reveals a pairwise comparison among states witnessing significant mean differences in utilisation ratios. Out of 136 possible comparisons among 17 states, 24 paired comparisons turned out to be statistically significant.

As per the findings, Jammu and Kashmir witnessed the highest mean utilisation ratio in comparison to the remaining 16 states of Andhra Pradesh (by 75.23%), Assam (by 78.67%), Bihar (by 73.62%), Gujarat (by 60.22%), Haryana (by 65.54%), Himachal Pradesh (58.33%), Kerala (by 97.87%), Karnataka (by 62.01%), Madhya Pradesh (by 55.71%), Maharashtra (by 41.13%), Odisha (by 78%), Punjab (by 63.04%), Rajasthan (by 84.22%), Tamil Nadu (by 71.16%), Uttar Pradesh (by 72.12%), and West Bengal by 102.96%). The maximum gap (of 102.96% with very large P value) in utilisation ratio was found between West Bengal and Jammu and Kashmir.

As per Table 7, the mean utilisation ratio was higher for Maharashtra than that of Kerala, Rajasthan, and West Bengal. Madhya Pradesh had a significantly higher mean utilisation than Kerala (by 42.15%) and West Bengal (by 47.24%). It is worth mentioning that West Bengal has a significantly lower utilisation ratio than as many as six states, Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra. This clearly indicates the relatively poor position of West Bengal on account of its deteriorating finances coupled with poor debt management. On the other hand, Jammu and Kashmir has witnessed a relatively better position, expectedly due to the status of special category state along with better management of debt servicing.

Policy Implications

This article aims at examining the pattern of utilisation of borrowings among 17 major Indian states during 198081 to 201415 by analysing broad indicators of the utilisation pattern. An attempt has also been made to examine the differentials in utilisation patterns among states during the same 35-year period by employing two-wayANOVAtechnique duly coupled with Tuckeys post hoc comparisons to establish paired comparisons among states. In order to gauge the extent of instability in the utilisation ratio for states, as many as four indexes were worked out. Due to different units of measurements in instability indexes, states were assigned ranks accordingly and an intercorrelation analysis was performed on indexes to squeeze out a unique picture regarding the agreement among indexes. The indexes were then subjected to Kendalls concordance testing to examine concordance among the rankings of states.

The analysis of indicators reveals that there has been a disproportionate rise in interest payments and current expenditure of the government, as indicated by high levels of interest payments to revenue expenditure and capital receipts, and high revenue deficits in relation to fiscal deficits. The finances of Kerala, Punjab, and West Bengal, depict that a large proportion of capital receipts is absorbed in the revenue expenditure of these states, which implies poor and unproductive utilisation of debt receipts. Basic computations of mean and standard deviation reveal that West Bengal has witnessed the lowest mean utilisation ratio and Punjab has depicted a high degree of variability as indicated by standard deviation. The position of Punjab in respect to utilisation pattern of borrowings is observed to be poorer in comparison to its adjoining state, Haryana. Similarly, the utilisation ratio is observed to be less than 20% in Kerala, Rajasthan, Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, West Bengal, and Haryana. The lowest levels of mean utilisation ratio have been found in the later years starting from 200304.

As regards the results of differentials among states in respect of utilisation are concerned, a two-wayANOVAreveals that significant differences in mean utilisation ratio exist among 17 states over a period of 35 years and as many as 24 pairs of states display significant mean difference among 136 possible comparisons. As regards the major findings, West Bengal has displayed minimum utilisation ratio and Punjab has depicted highest instability among states as gauged through different indexes of instability.

The deteriorating fiscal health of states has affected their financial strength. The above analysis shows that state government finances need the generation of additional resources in order to maintain the sustainability of their finances. State-level fiscal reforms can play a significant role, if fiscal discipline is followed by the states. Strict adherence to policy reforms and effective implementation can make a way for the same. But the policy or programmes should take into consideration the comparative situation of states. The reforms or policies need to maintain balance and harmony in the present federal set-up. Kerala, Punjab and West Bengal, facing serious fiscal deterioration, need to strictly follow fiscal rules in order to come out of the crisis. There is an urgent need to create a political will on the part of state governments to provide efficient governance and concerted efforts to ensure fiscal sustainability.

References

Bhatia, H L (1994):Indias Domestic Public Debt,Birla Economic Research Foundation, New Delhi: Bookwell Publications.

Bhargava, P K (2011):Aspects of State Finances in India,Jaipur: RBSA Publishers.

Coppock, J D (1962):International Economic Instability:The Experiences of World War II,New York: McGrawHill.

Glezakos, C (1973): Export Instability and Economic Growth: A Statistical Verification,Economic Development and Cultural Change,Vol 21, No 4, pp 67078.

(1984): Export Instability and Economic Growth: Reply,Economic Development and Cultural Change,Vol 32, No 3, April, pp 61523.

Quintanilla, J C (2009):Public Finance Sustainability in Subnational Governments, Publication No 12, United Kingdom: Debt Relief International Limited, ISBN: 978-1-903971-52-9.

Mahendradev, S (1987): Growth and Instability Foodgrains Production: An Interstate Analysis,Economic & Political Weekly,Vol 22, No 39, pp A82a92.

Mallick, H (2005): An Economic Analysis of Domestic Debt of the Central Government in India,unpublished PhD thesis,Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bangalore.

Ray, S K (1983):Growth and Instability in Indian Agriculture,Delhi: Institute of Economic Growth.

RBI (2014):State Finances: A Study of Budgets of 201314, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai.

Seigel, S (1988):Non-Parametric Statistics for the Behavioural Sciences, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Sen, T K (2012): Recent Developments in Kerala State Finances, CDS Working Papers No 449, Trivadrum: Centre for Institute of Development Studies,https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/handle/123456789/3187.

Sethi, A S (2010): Some Further Aspects of Rates of Growth Computations,Journal of International Economics,Vol 2, pp 5770.

Xin, X and J Liu (2008): Geographic Concentration and Chinas Agricultural Eport Instability,World Economy,Vol 31, No 2, pp 27585.

Originally posted here:

Utilisation of Government Borrowings in Major Indian States - Economic and Political Weekly

Martin Fey| For The Bulletin

There is a prevailing view on the left that American school children have traditionally been fed a sanitized version of their countrys history, and that the deficiency needs to be corrected via immersion in Critical Race Theory. The problem with this approach is that it veers too far in the opposite direction, indoctrinating children with the notion that theirs is a nation founded by corrupt White men. With the legitimacy of the Founders disparaged, it becomes easier to tear down the legitimacy of the nation those men designed. That, of course, is the goal of the left.

Leftists worship government, believing its power will eventually provide our collective salvation. Karl Marx went to that belief and beyond, asserting that government would eventually fade away as the dictatorship of the proletariat cleansed the world of economic injustices and animosity between peoples. Conservatives, and some Republicans, cling to the Founders belief that salvation is achieved by the individual, not the collective, and that only free people can improve themselves and their societies.

The 2016 election began a realignment of the American political system, with big business and Wall Street now solidly arrayed behind the Democrat Party and working-class voters, traditionally the base of the Democrat Party, shifting rapidly right. The Democrats admixture of government stimulus spending and the intertwinement of the interests of a powerful central government and big business is the essence of the fascist economic model. With an added emphasis on central planning it amounts to communism lite.

The Democrat Partys allies are more ambitious. Black Lives Matter, with a zeal for defunding the police in favor of people patrols, and the Antifa arsonists, who like Hitlers Brown Shirts act as terror troops for leftist causes, are full-on Marxist cabals that believe they can achieve the ultimate paradise -- communist anarchy by whatever force and intimidation is necessary.

The Biden administrations $3.5 trillion plan to allegedly rebuild the nations infrastructure (leftists like to redefine words, and that one is the latest) is an unprecedented all-out roulette bet on government wisdom and efficacy. If the bet fails, the chips will be gone. Fearing retribution at the polls in 2022, Democrats are trying to cram as much congressional pork down Americas throat as they can before then. We can also expect an effort soon to entrench their threatened power by packing new members onto the US Supreme Court and adding D.C as a state.

Democrats lament the recent transformation of their Republican opposition from traditional fiscal conservatism to nationalist populism under Trump, mostly because they know traditional Republicans were getting increasingly easy to beat. American voters will no longer support a party that cares more about free enterprise than people. To their credit, Republicans recognized their impending extinction and changed course with Trump. The party will not go back.

Now both parties express populist sentiments, but the nation is locked in an existential battle between those who believe America is a magnificent work in progress and those who believe it was irredeemably flawed by the existence of slavery until 1865. Christianity allows humanity a simple route to salvation from the original sin committed in the Garden of Eden, but the left makes no such allowance for the nation. Critical Race Theory, which is overt and covert in our schools today, is not intended to revise the history curriculum. It is intended to undermine the constitutional foundation and best traditions of the United States, so the nation will crumble and be rebuilt in the lefts own image.

History must be taught in context. Speaking from my public school and university experience, American history was never sanitized in Connecticut, although the emphasis was positive. We learned that Washington and Jefferson, despite their avowed belief that all men are created equal, owned and profited from large numbers of black slaves, and that references to slavery contaminated the original Constitution. We learned that Lincoln considered the idea of the federal government buying slaves from plantation owners and shipping them to Africa to eliminate the race issue. We dwelled long on how slavery was the real cause of the Civil War, and how the Democrat Party retaliated for the Confederacys defeat by instituting almost a century of Jim Crow laws. We read about the failure of the free market at the onset of the Great Depression and the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II. We learned about the horror of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the hard-won victories of the Civil Rights Movement.

But unlike the absolutes taught in Critical Race Theory, that history was taught in context nations around the globe in the 18th and early 19th centuries engaged in slavery and, just as bad, colonialism. Few gave their average citizens true liberty. By lifting so many from serfdom and slavery to freedom, Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln were visionaries in their times, what Democrats would call progressives today. They should be celebrated for their vision, and forgiven flaws that were morally acceptable by the standards of the times.

Martin Fey is a member of the Quiet Corner Tea Party Patriots.

Visit link:

View from the right: Critical Race Theory seeks to tear down legitimacy of the nation - Norwich Bulletin

Editors note: This story is part of a collaboration between the Aspen Daily News and KDNK radio. For the audio story, visit tinyurl.com/KDNKSandWashRoundup.

Standing on a hillside in the Sand Wash Basin Herd Management Area, the breeze carries a thunderous boom from miles away, but there are no storm clouds in sight. Its the sound of about a hundred horses hoofing the ground as theyre loaded into trailers, 40 at a time.

The horses in the trailers are as wild as the sagebrush that grows in northwestern Colorado. They will be taken to a facility in Caon City, where the Bureau of Land Management will hold them until they can be deemed fit for sale, adoption or long-term holding.

Meg Fredrick, a photographer for the California-based wild horse and burro advocacy organization Return to Freedom, has spent the past seven years visiting the Sand Wash Basin and documenting the herds that roam the area. To see the horses that shes come to love throughout their lives loaded into trailers and shipped far away is like having a broken leg, she said. Over time, she and the other advocates have gotten used to the pain.

We are numbed, she said. The energy from this land is gone. We hate it when we hear the cattle trucks in the morning because we know theyre taking away our babies.

The BLM announced on Aug. 27 that an emergency gather was necessary in the Sand Wash Basin due to drought conditions. In the first nine days of September, 631 horses were gathered. In its environmental assessment from Aug. 17 which declared the situation an emergency the BLM said it intended to gather 733 horses total, out of the 896 it found living inside the basin in July. Only 728 of those were found to be residing inside the herd management area, or HMA, and another 100 were found just outside. According to the BLM, an appropriate management level for horses inside the Sand Wash HMA is 163 to 362 wild horses, and removing 733 horses would get the population total to 163.

The BLM announced that the Sand Wash gather had concluded Wednesday; however, the bureau announced the same day that it would begin gathering the wild horses outside the HMA. Also on Wednesday, the Sand Wash Advocacy Team, which assists the BLM with controlling herd populations within the HMA, identified 50 horses 25 mares and 25 studs to release back into the management area after treating the mares with fertility control, a common population management tool used to ensure that wild horse populations do not grow beyond the appropriate level. The horses were to be released on Saturday.

Advocates like Fredrick believe that the BLM should not allow livestock to graze on wild horse HMAs. In Sand Wash, four livestock grazing allotments overlap the HMA, allowing cows and sheep onto the land. The BLM allocates a certain amount of forage to livestock and wild horses, known as an animal unit month. One AUM is equivalent to one horses forage, one cow-calf pair or five sheep, and according to the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, BLM rangeland data shows that livestock has degraded the forage inside those overlapping allotments to the point where there should have been reductions in the number of livestock on the range.

Brian Clopp, a photographer with the American Wild Horse Campaign, said hes seen livestock numbers grow dramatically after wild horse roundups.

For every hundred cows, you have one wild horse at a minimum, he said. That would eliminate a lot of the excuses theyre doing for these gathers, where they take out a couple hundred horses and leave thousands of livestock and then bring in more livestock once the horses are gone.

Advocates are not the only ones alarmed by the inconsistencies in the BLMs data and decisions. Gov. Jared Polis and First Gentleman Marlon Reis wrote a letter to Interior Secretary Deb Haaland and BLM Deputy Director of Policy and Programs Nada Wolff Culver on Aug. 30 to encourage a six-month moratorium on wild horse roundups. Despite the request, the Sand Wash gather continued as planned.

There remain legitimate concerns about the fate of gathered horses, and I believe that better collaboration with the state and advocates could improve assurances about their long-term well-being and the avoidance of any potential slaughter, Polis wrote. There have been concerns raised about how truly accurate the estimates are with respect to ecosystem herd carrying capacity, particularly with a nearly two-fold variability in the Sand Wash Basin appropriate management level estimate.

Furthermore, the large scale of this roundup, and tactics employed, almost certainly creates the opportunity for unintended injuries and in particular for the separation of foals from mares, the letter continued.

Polis office denied a request for an interview with the Aspen Daily News via email on Sept. 3. On Thursday, his office released a statement following the announced end of the Sand Wash gather.

While I wish this roundup hadnt even started, Im encouraged by the opportunity to chart a more humane course for our states beloved wild horses, Polis said. The outpouring we heard shows how much people care for the well-being of these iconic Colorado animals, and our administration can play a key role in engaging people who can work together to ensure the health and well-being of Colorados wild horses for generations to come.

Prior to Sept. 4, those observing the Sand Wash gather were allowed one hour to visit the corrals where the horses were held after the roundup. But due to conflicts between observers, that time was shortened to 30 minutes. Black fencing surrounding the corrals made it difficult to view or photograph the horses, but advocates familiar with the herds were able to recognize specific horses.

BLM contractors used two helicopters to gather the horses in Sand Wash. Once they neared the corrals, the helicopters would hover low over the ground to blow dust behind the herd, encouraging the horses to run uphill into a fenced-in alley that leads to the corrals. Fredrick said the trap site used at Sand Wash was placed in a particularly dangerous area a hillside covered in sharp rocks, unforgiving shale and steep gullies.

This is what the little foals are being run through, she said. These are leg-breakers. Theyre coming through here, and theyre running top speed through these little valleys and holes and washes, and each wash has these huge rock croppings. Not only are they scared, but then you turn around and this is the path theyre taking.

The Wild Horse and Burro Comprehensive Animal Welfare Program is the policy the BLM follows when conducting gathers, and it states that the rate and distance at which the horses travel during a roundup shall not exceed limitations set by the contracting officers representative and the project inspector. Gathers are usually limited at a distance of 10 miles, but BLM Colorado spokesperson Chris Maestas said that a 10-mile radius is a loose limitation and the program does not set a hard number of miles that horses can run.

On Tuesday, horses were gathered primarily from the north and northeast ends of the HMA near Lookout Mountain, which was approximately 10-15 miles away from the trap site. Temperatures that day reached 92 degrees.

During a gather, horses can become separated from herds or become injured. In some cases, a veterinarian determines that an injury is too severe for the horse to survive and the animals can be euthanized. On Monday, for example, a foal was separated from its mother and fell behind the group. It was later seen approaching the trap site with a stallion, and observers did not know what had become of the pair until the following day.

The stallion got free, but the foal was able to go in, and we have a vet on site and so that vet was able to take a look, Maestas said Tuesday. There was concern from the vet that we should probably send [her] into the Craig Animal Hospital and so [she] was taken over there, and we followed up last night and they said that she was drinking water but she hadnt started eating yet. I havent called in this morning yet.

Situations like these can be avoided, but they are not uncommon in roundups. As outlined in the Aug. 17 environmental assessment, the BLM considers alternative solutions to roundups, such as increased fertility control, gathering fewer horses or taking no action at all. Clopp said they could be considering additional solutions like a wild horse sanctuary, something that he said he would love to see.

These are herd management areas these arent livestock grazing lands, but theyre being treated as such, he said. So have it so that its a horse sanctuary. Have areas where there can be horses but no livestock, cause we already have so many places in this country where theres livestock but no wildlife.

After a day of gather activities, the captured horses are counted, sorted by sex, marked with spray paint, watered and fed. They stay in the corrals overnight until trucks come in the morning to take them to the Caon City holding facility.

Fredrick said only 1% of the horses taken to Caon City will be adopted. Data on the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program website shows that this August, there were 1,183 horses in holding in Caon City and in the 2020 fiscal year, 138 horses were adopted in Colorado. Adoption data is not yet available for the 2021 fiscal year.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic, adoption events were held twice a month and potential adopters could visit the facility and adopt horses, wild horse advocate Carol Walker said. Things are different now.

They normally have adoptions starting in February, and I think it was just they didnt want to deal with it, Walker said. I adopted a horse from there before, and there were usually 13 or 14 people per event. It was small, but people would go. And in the past, I had been allowed to go in there and photograph, and then people would say, Oh, I want that horse, and they would go to an adoption. Except this time they wouldnt even let us take pictures at all.

When the horses arrive in Caon City, they are prepped for adoption. Caon City facility manager Steve Leonard said this means they are given shots and immunizations, gelded, freeze marked and tested for diseases. Then the horses will be put up for adoption via satellite images, which Leonard said is common with groups of popular horses like the Sand Wash herd.

Adoption numbers are challenging, Leonard said. Its dependent on what is wanted. I think we nationally did a 60% adoption rate of horses removed last year. This year, I cant tell you. I would just say, I expect this to be well over the national average because there is lots of interest in these horses.

In 2020, 9,181 horses were rounded up across the country and 3,311 were adopted, according to BLM data. Thats about a 36% adoption rate.

In March 2019, the BLM launched its Adoption Incentive Program, which provides $1,000 to qualified adopters who adopt an untrained wild horse or burro. More than 8,250 horses and burros have been adopted through this program, according to the BLM website. Adopters do not receive the title to the horse or burro they adopt for 12 months, and they are required to certify under penalty of prosecution that they will not knowingly sell or transfer the animal for slaughter or processing of commercial products. The BLM is required to investigate any possible violations of prohibited acts when they are notified of an animal being offered for sale. Options include returning the animal to BLM care, barring the adopter from participating in future adoptions or referring the case to an attorney.

Outright, they have to sign a contract saying they will not take those horses for commercial use meaning slaughter or anything like that, Leonard said. In fact, Im working with sanctuaries to try to say, lets place these older horses, they may not be ideal for training or a normal adoption, but they could fit well for the sanctuaries. And I have been in contact with multiple [sanctuaries].

Despite the BLMs assurance that the majority of the horses go to good homes, advocates and legislators say the adoption program only creates an increase in horses illegally sold for slaughter because of the promised cash. U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, called for greater protections against the resale of wild horses on Aug. 17 and urged the BLM to conduct a full investigation into the adoption program in a letter to Haaland.

I believe more must be done in light of the disturbing allegations that some adopters have mistreated or illegally sold wild horses and burros, and respectfully urge BLM to conduct a full investigation of the matter and prevent such adopters from adopting again, she wrote. Additionally, I urge BLM to re-evaluate its cash incentive for the adoption of untrained wild horses and consider prioritizing such federal payments to subsidize training for adopted wild horses to increase the likelihood that they stay in loving homes instead of ending up at slaughter.

Organizations like the American Wild Horse Campaign and the Sierra Club also have spoken out against gather activities, including writing letters to Haaland, in the case of the Sierra Club, and suing the BLM for protection of wild mares in Utah, in the case of the wild horse campaign. After operations conclude in Sand Wash, the BLM will conduct another roundup later this month at four HMAs in the area known as the Wyoming Checkerboard.

Numbers and statistics from the Sand Wash gather can be found at blm.gov/whb, as well as information on roundups at other locations.

Follow this link:

BLM gathers horses in Sand Wash Basin despite objections - Aspen Daily News