Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

The race is on for Democrats to replace Ben Ray Lujan in the CD3, which takes in all of northern New Mexico and Quay and Curry Counties in eastern New Mexico. The Democrat Primary has fielded eight candidates who have raised a record total of $4,707,002 as per currently published figures from the Federal Election Commission.

The Republicans have fielded five candidates who raised a total of $108,235.

Why is this House District so valuable to Democrats? It has been held by them since 1982, with the exception of one special election when Republican Bill Redmond won the district when then Representative Bill Richardson was appointed our Ambassador to the United Nations. It is also the district that holds New Mexicos capital city, Santa Fe.

The campaign funds raised by the Democrat candidates have come largely from outside the state. Valerie Plame has raised the most among the field with receipts of over $2 Million and disbursements of $1.7 Million, with most of her donations coming from outside New Mexico.

Conversely, the Republican candidates have much smaller war chests, but their funding comes mostly from New Mexicans.

Traditionally, northern New Mexicans have voted Democrats into office, but this last election we saw a split in the Democrat Party between the centrist and the progressives, with progressives winning the governorship, two congressional seats and several state legislative seats. Democrat Senator John Arthur Smith of Deming and Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee is a primary target of his party. He has traditionally called for fiscal responsibility which progressives cant understand and they are attempting to defeat him.

All of the Democrat candidates in the CD3 race are progressives and the pre-Primary Convention choice, Teresa Leger Fernandez has been accused by her competitors as bringing dark money in the race from groups attacking them. They had agreed not to encourage dark money, but thats politics.

Harry Montoya is the Republican pre-Primary choice in the race who campaigns on his record and has disbursements of $14,881. Yet, Montoya expects to win the primary and is determined to defeat his Democrat opponent with his experience and local support. He has been married to his wife Doris for 40 years and has made a life of community service through his fraternal organization, the Knights of Columbus as well as serving as an elected member of the Santa Fe County Commission and the Espaola Public School District.

Being well known in the district, he has been endorsed over the other Republican candidates in the primary election by the Santa Fe New Mexican, Albuquerque Journal and Taos News, as well as former Congressman Bill Redmond (CD3) and a host of pastors and politicians.

Harry describes himself as a pro-life, pro-Second Amendment, and pro-religious freedom conservative Republican who left the Democrat party last year because he said it had radically changed. It is because of the new, radical direction Democrats have taken that he feels he best represents the traditional values of all of northern New Mexico and not those who have brought outside money and influence into Santa Fes politics.

He has dedicated his entire life to helping those who suffer from substance abuse and he

founded Hands Across Cultures with a mission to educate our youth on substance abuse prevention. He is an internationally recognized expert on addiction and has served in Argentina and Mexico on assignments from the U.S. State and Commerce Departments to help them organize substance abuse programs. He took a leave to run for Congress from CYFD where he worked as the Constituent/Legislative Affairs Director.

Read and share your thoughts on this story

More:

Opinion:Buying the Third Congressional District | LAMonitor.com - Los Alamos Monitor

Alan Wm. Wolff 01 June 2020

First posted on:

Remarks at a webinar hosted by the Korean International Trade Association, 27 May 2020 (published on the WTO website here)

The pandemic is an unprecedented challenge in our time not just to world health but to the global economy.

National governments, pressed for a response, enacted both trade restrictions and import liberalizing measures with respect to medical supplies.

Fortunately, in terms of numbers, the liberalizing trade measures have exceeded those restricting it.

The WTO Secretariat has obtained notifications of measures from its Members and published information on its website.This provides essential transparency for planning both by national policy makers and for businesses.

The WTO has also alerted members to the effects of the pandemic and the responses to it, by issuing a Trade Forecast.Due to the direct effects of the pandemic, depressing both supply and demand, as well as to a much lesser extent trade measures, the WTO has projected that global trade will decline by 13% to 32% this year.

Keeping trade open in the face of the pandemic has been the subject of trade initiatives led by Singapore, New Zealand, Canada and Switzerland.These initiatives have been circulated to the 164 Members of the WTO and have gained additional adherents.

The evolving shape of world trade, including global supply chains, will be shaped primarily by a how businesses view future economic conditions.There will be some limited on-shoring to the extent that government policies will be available to support this reflow from an era of globalization.But government budgets will already have been strained by fiscal measures to fight the pandemic.The availability of funds to support on-shoring is likely to be limited to targeted efforts, primarily perhaps for medical supplies.And even there, government stockpiles (with domestic sources preferred) may be preferred to direct industrial support.The products effected and duration of the support may be limited.On-shoring is likely also to be affected by tax measures designed to restore government finances.

Supply chains will also be affected by some likely diversification among foreign suppliers.But again, this will be limited by economic viability.Businesses can plan for contingencies but in the end must preserve revenues and profits.

The leanest of just-in-time supply chains may be a level of efficiency that can no longer be afforded.So, inventories will rise, but again be constrained by the economics of running a business.

Outside of supporting the production and stockpiling of medical supplies and vaccines, technology and market forces will be much greater factors determining trading patterns than government policies, including the use of regional trade agreements.In an extreme emergency, even membership in a customs union did not prevent some individual national actions which were at odds with the ideal of a single market.

Regional trading arrangements can be useful for exploring paths forward for rule-making where progress would be more complicated to achieve on a global basis.In addition, regional integration can be productive and should be fostered.Nevertheless, in terms of total trade flows, sub-multilateral agreements are not determinative.Businesses still have to serve markets wherever they are located and will continue to need to reach out beyond the regions in which they are located.

As a WTO official, my primary concern is with how well-prepared the multilateral trading system is for the challenges that it now faces and that it will face.For the World Trade Organization, there are three classes of challenges:

Epidemiologist predict that there will likely be a series of second waves of the coronavirus.There is the potential for additional national restrictions being placed on the availability of vaccines and pharmaceutical remedies outside of the country of their invention and/or production.The values of the multilateral trading system will be needed more than ever in order to minimize disruptions of the necessary means to meet upcoming health and economic challenges.

Collective actions are now essential.

Suggestions that have been made include that WTO Members:

Suggestions that WTO Members could consider include:

In addition, the WTO Secretariat could engage in heightened coordination with international financial institutions and private sector actors to restore trade finance.

In the current upsurge in criticism of the inadequacies of the collective responses to the pandemic, the WTO is receiving heightened scrutiny.

Were the WTO Members to join together to meet the trade challenges of the coronavirus and the desperately needed economic recovery, most public criticisms of the WTO would likely disappear.But the problems preceded the pandemic and will, absent reforms, persist after the pandemic is over and its after-effects have been addressed.

It is necessary to understand what values the multilateral trading system is designed to promote before it can be reformed.

A serious inquiry into this subject would serve three purposes:

1. to know the value of what we have in the current system,

2. to determine if the values of the current system enjoy the support of all WTO Members, and

3. to address the degree to which the WTO is of sufficient continuing relevance as it is at present or whether it needs fundamental change.

My list of the underlying values of the WTO has 16 entries.They include a number of basic principles.

The first two, not obvious to all of us today, are supporting peace and stability. This was the key concern of the founders of the multilateral trading system in 1948 and the central objective of conflict-affected and fragile acceding members today,

Other values, such as nondiscrimination, transparency, reciprocity,international cooperation and the rule of law are more obvious.

Still others are more nuanced, less obvious perhaps, and emerge only upon reflection. They include well-being, equality, sovereignty, universality, development, market forces, convergence and morality.

A recent addition to the list is sustainability.

A serious discussion of WTO reform is long overdue.The pandemic simply adds to the urgency of it taking place.

The seriousness with which reform efforts are undertaken will be key in determining whether the WTO reasserts the historic centrality of its global role in managing international trade relations in the years ahead.1

The impact of COVID-19 has been profound on the health of the worlds populations as well as on the global economy.It is the functional equivalent of a neutron bomb having been released that sickens humans but not animals or equipment.As a result, factories were idled, restaurants were empty, and countless lives ceased being productive.And there has not been full recovery yet.This is not the first pandemic and it can be predicted with near certainty that it will not be the last.

It is highly likely that the world that emerges from this pandemic will be very different from the one that preceded it.That is the view articulated by Martin Wolf of the Financial Times in a brilliant five-minute podcast released on 13 May 2020.It is hard to argue with his conclusions.Global supply chains will be re-thought.The digital economy will be more imbedded in every situation in which it can be applied, not least for working remotely instead of in centralized locations.Employment may be depressed for a very long time to come.The worlds finances will have been transformed from surpluses to deficits.

In this context of unprecedented challenges, serious questions are emerging as to the value of the World Trade Organization at present and for the future.The Ambassador to the WTO of the worlds largest exporting nation stated on 12 May, in an interview with a seasoned former U.S. trade negotiator, that the WTO had failed to respond adequately to the COVID-19 crisis.This refers of necessity to the fact that, driven by expediency, nation-states mostly responded individually, not collectively, to the crisis, in many cases without reference to the impact on the interests of others.The Ambassador attributed the reason for the WTOs poor performance to lack of leadership and diminishing trust.

The unavoidable question presented is whether the WTO is fit for purpose, now in the midst of this crisis and for years to come.The crisis heightens the need for an examination of the underlying principles and values of the WTO and addressing the degree to which the WTO is of sufficient continuing relevance as it is or needs change.This last question has been answered before it is asked, as the G20 leaders called for WTO reform well before there was the slightest thought that a pandemic was in the offing.

The institution is and has been under obvious stress -- due to the rise of populism, due to trade wars, due to a failure to demonstrate that the worlds trade negotiating forum could still produce negotiated results, and due to its failure to maintain the WTOs much-touted dispute settlement structure.

There is now a need for immediate action to control the harm that can be caused by trade restrictions in response to the current global health and economic crises and to aid in the economic recovery that must ensue. This is also a time when it is necessary to consider the future of the multilateral trading system.A fresh appraisal is required despite the fact that the system has been highly successful by most measures during its 70-plus year history.The most telling measure of past performance is that the world economy has grown by multiples and much (but not all) of world poverty has been eliminated.World trade played an important part in delivering this vitally important result. This said, a strong positive track record is no longer sufficient.Resting on laurels at this juncture can only lead to decline.2

All WTO Members profess that they are fully committed to multilateralism and thus to the maintenance of the multilateral trading system.Although the degree of adherence varies, it is necessary to at least identify and assess the extent to which consensus exists on the fundamental precepts underlying the organization as a first step toward understanding what a WTO 2.0 can and should consist of.The WTO would be an empty shell if all it consisted of was an agora, an open space devoid of principles in which, were there a consensus, agreements could be negotiated.

This exercise should not be undertaken to the exclusion of making incremental improvements in the trading system.Nor should progress in this regard result in an unduly extended exercise.Achieving the ideal construct among nations is a bridge too far.Pragmatism is needed.Purely philosophical discussions tend to be of very long duration and do not yield immediate results.The councils of the early Christian Church spanned centuries, from 325 to 787 AD, and established a consensus only by condemning or anathematizing a series of those who engaged in what was deemed to be excessive experimental thinking.3 Our modern time frame must be infinitely shorter, as current challenges require near-term responses, and if possible, more inclusive.

Despite an extensive history of an attempt to manage commercial relations among nations, there is no clear single source listing the principles which shape the multilateral trading system.Nor is there a constitution to foster organic growth.Accretions have to be just that, added to over time by consensus of the full Membership.Expansion through adjudicatory interpretation has encountered limits.

The document that gave rise to the multilateral trading system was a contract, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (the GATT).It served for nearly a half century as an ad hoc arrangement necessitated by the fact that the International Trade Organization (ITO) failed to come into being.The GATT contract has none of the trappings of a founding document.It is not a constitution.It has no preamble containing precepts nor even a statement of objectives.The Marrakech Agreement creating the World Trade Organization (the WTO) does contain objectives.4It is usually not cited by Members for the full range of the WTOs purposes, but selectively, to advance particular causes.In addition to looking to these founding documents, there are some principles which can be gleaned from practice.They remain unenunciated but are nevertheless very real.

The following is an attempt to discern and identifythe principles and values that govern or may be expected to govern the multilateral trading system and the World Trade Organization in which it is embodied.

At the most fundamental level, the system, like the European Union (ne European Communities and European Economic Community), was founded to promote peace.It seems rather quaint to cite peace in the current context.Surely it is an anachronism of remote historical interest at best.Something to be left to academic inquiries.How relevant is it today?

The quest for peace has strong philosophical roots

The idea of perpetual peace was first suggested in the 18th century, when Charles-Irne Castel de Saint-Pierre published his essay Project for Perpetual Peace while working as the negotiator on the Treaty of Utrecht. However, the idea did not become well known until the late 18th century. The term perpetual peace became acknowledged when German philosopher Immanuel Kant published his 1795 essay Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch.5

In this essay, Kant states:

There must be a league of a particular kind, which can be called a league of peace (foedus pacificum), and which would be distinguished from a treaty of peace (pactum pacis) by the fact that the latter terminates only one war, while the former seeks to make an end of all wars forever. This league does not tend to any dominion over the power of the state but only to the maintenance and security of the freedom of the state itself and of other states in league with it, without there being any need for them to submit to civil laws and their compulsion, as men in a state of nature must submit.

Kant was setting out a fundamental purpose of humanity, to create a state of perpetual peace.In order to serve this end, the liberal international order was constructed based onfour pillars the multilateral trading system (ITO and GATT, and the successor WTO), the United Nations, the IMF and the World Bank.All of these institutions were intended to help build a better world after two world wars.They were each part of an effort to underwrite the hope for perpetual peace.In this context, the WTO and the GATT are not simply contracts, but are a purposed construct for achieving a much more basic human aspiration.

That said, you will not hear Immanuel Kant being quoted in recent interventions by WTO Members.The idea of promoting peace seems very remote in most respects from subjects that daily engage the minds of the commercial diplomats who represent the Members in the corridors and conference rooms of the WTO in Geneva.Yet sustaining peace was very much on the minds of the founders of the multilateral trading system.This is evidenced by the very first paragraph of the Havana Charter6for the International Trade Organization, the intellectual forebear for the WTO, which states:

RECOGNIZING the determination of the United Nations to create conditions of stability and well-being which are necessary for peaceful and friendly relations among nations,. . .

. . . they hereby establish the INTERNATIONAL TRADE ORGANIZATION through which they shall co-operate a[s] Members to achieve the purpose and the objectives set forth in this Article.

I have set out in prior remarks a short history of the role of peace in trading arrangements which led to that moment of creation of the multilateral trading system and of the disappearance of peace from our WTO lexicon -- until its resurrection by the conflict-affected countries which are in the process of acceding to the WTO.These fragile economies are unexpectedly numerous.The list includes Afghanistan and Liberia, both of whichjoined five years ago, and now Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Timor-Leste and Iraq among others.For these countries, and those who seek to help them accede to the WTO, the promotion of peace is a very real principle and cause espoused as being a fundamental motive for becoming and being a Member of the WTO.Their hopes for peace find a distant echo, what U.S. President Abraham Lincoln called the mystic chords of memory,7 in this case a first founding principle of the multilateral trading systems striving for peace.For these fragile economies, the link of expanding their trade through integration into the world economy to their own economic growth, to increasing stability and thereby improving the possibility of sustaining peace is not a quaint theoretical notion, it is a pragmatic policy at the core of their survival as nations.

Economic growth through trade does not guarantee peace.It did not for the nations that entered into the First World War, all of whom enjoyed robust trading relationships with each other before they began engaging in one of the bloodiest of human conflicts.Trade does, however, help increase the chances for peace to be achieved and maintained.There is no peace where there is complete uncertainty in trade relations.Moreover, throughout history, cutting off trade has been a method of warfare.In its current manifestation this can take the form of imposing export restrictions or engaging in cyber-attacks that disrupt the economies and commerce of others.It cannot be said that the WTO overregulates with regard to such measures.

And the earth was without form, and void;

and darkness was upon the face of the deep8

Homo Sapiens for hundreds of thousands of years apparently invented nothing.There was no clear physiological reason for this, no limits imposed, insofar as anthropologists know, due to human brain size.One answer to this paradox may be that inventiveness requires at least a modicum of a stable environment.

This is also true of entrepreneurial activity.It is an axiom of business that it needs a degree of certainty, of predictability, in order to plan, to take risks.The word stability also figures in the opening line of the ITO Charter quoted above:

RECOGNIZING the determination of the United Nations to create conditions of stability.

The entirety of the GATT and the WTO rule book, including the accompanying procedures, are designed to impose a degree of order for the conduct of global commerce.Tariffs are not to exceed contractually committed levels other than in certain limited and usually temporary circumstances.This obligation is contained in one of the cornerstone commitments of the GATT Articles, set forth in Article II.In addition, under WTO rules, proposed standards are to be notified in draft for comment by other WTO Members.Transparency is required throughout the two dozen agreements that constitute the WTOs rulebook.The grand design of the entire sweep of WTO rules and procedures is to provide greater certainty for world commerce, to create a degree of stability that enables trade to take place and entrepreneurs to plan.

None of this is perfection.What exists at present was the result of a common effort spanning just over seven decades to provide order.The result, the WTO, provides conditions governing almost all of world trade.Even with whatever shortcomings in coverage or compliance that are identified, this is a remarkable achievement providing greater harmony for the governments and the peoples of the planet.

There can be no stability without the rule of law.In its absence is anarchy or despotism.There is little reason to have international agreements if they are not going to be adhered to.In history there are many examples of treaties not being lived up to.That does not mean that international agreements are not useful.They improve the conditions for international commerce.

The WTO functions not in the first instance on dispute settlement, which is more often than not lengthy, cumbersome and expensive.It functions on self-restraint.The legal maxim pacta sunt servanda, agreements are to be obeyed, largely works, from the time of the 17th century Dutch legal scholar Hugo Grotius to the present.It is the idea that a countrys word, once given, is to be relied upon provides support for achieving the goals of post WWII liberal internationalism.

Trust must be built by conduct over time that induces a willingness of others to rely on a countrys promises about its future behavior.In nuclear arms limitation negotiations, this conduct consists of confidence building measures.This is a description of how sufficient trust could be created between adversary nuclear powers that they could find common ground to avoid destroying each other and the planet.That WTO Members will in general live up to their obligations is the basis for trust, the central factor underlying the success of any system of international relations that does not rely on coercion.Every social system depends on trust.The alternative is chaos.

Returning to the opening words of the Havana Charter for the ITO:

RECOGNIZING the determination of the United Nations to create conditions of stability and well-being

Stability by itself does not produce well-being.Stability can as readily promote stagnation as economic growth.It is a pre-condition not a guarantee of improvement in the economic lot of trading nations and their peoples.Nor does trade guarantee economic growth.It is a multiplier, an accelerant of possibilities.As theorized by Adam Smith and elaborated upon by David Riccardo, specialization within an economy and then internationally allows for a higher level of income on average.It does not address distribution of benefits, just that there are far more economic benefits to share with trade than without.The major determinants of trade flows are macroeconomic forces, but liberalized trade taking place within a context of agreed rules has a positive effect, while trade restrictions have a negative effect.

That there have been major benefits from trade since in the post-WWII period should be beyond dispute.As noted, trade is a large multiple of what it was in 1947, and from what it was when the WTO was founded in 1995, and so are the levels of national and global income.In addition, the reduction in the levels of global poverty has been dramatic.

Well-being is more than economic efficiency.The WTO charter (the Marrakech Agreement) sets out as a purpose:

full employment and a large and steadily growing volume of real income and effective demand, and expanding the production of and trade in goods and services

It is to have broad societal benefits.The mosaic on the wall of the main entrance to the Centre William Rappard in which the WTO makes its home was inherited from the International Labor Organization.It reminds any visitors who pause to read it that a concern of the house must be to provide social justice.

Whereas universal and lasting peace can be established only if it is based upon social justice; .

The mosaic also refers to:

the protection of the worker against sickness, disease and injury arising out of his employment . . ..

The plain meaning of the term well-being must also be read to include health.Aside from national security, which is the province of the United Nations and nation-states, well-being rests on both global health and economic circumstances.The hard lesson of the pandemic is that a global health crisis gives rise unavoidably to a global economic crisis.Both inevitably involve trade policy.How countries react matters.

A fundamental measure of the value of the WTO, and the multilateral trading system it embodies, is how well it serves the well-being of the worlds peoples.While the WTO Members might be excused by the suddenness of the arrival of COVID-19 for not having thus far formulated a collective response, this justification would have lost any force when and if the coronavirus returns as predicted in the fall for a second wave.And there will be no excuse at all for a lack of preparedness for future pandemics.

In the relatively near future, the current concerns over export restrictions will be remembered as being relatively minor occurrences as compared with any differentiation among nations in the availability of an effective vaccine.

In the Atlantic Charter,9 the document that Franklin Roosevelt and Winston Churchillissued to state their aims for the world that they envisaged as emerging following the Second World War, they stated that they would:

endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all states, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;

The ideal of equality has a distinguished, if relatively modern, pedigree.The founding first principle of the United States, enshrined in the most famous of its documents of origination, the Declaration of Independence, is that All men are created equal.This is a statement that has echoed across the ensuing centuries and around the world.Similarly, equality is a founding principle of France, adopted by Maximillien Robespierre,10 stated as one of three central objectives of the French republic -- libert, egalit, fraternit.It is a powerful organizing mandate.

Equality is an unstated principle of the WTO.All WTO Members have an equal right to speak, vote (although operating by consensus has eliminated voting, and instead gives each the unspecified right to join, abstain, or block a consensus) and table proposals.All countries regardless of size have a right to demand support from the Secretariat for such activities that they wish to pursue at the WTO.Moreover, the principle of equality conveys with it the concept of inclusiveness, often cited as one of the hallmarks of the organization.11

Of course, equality is an aim, not an instant result.Within a domestic economy and among nations, there is little equality.In the WTO, as often elsewhere, the levels of capacity of Members differ.In physical terms, for example, some delegations to the WTO are nonresident, not being able to afford maintaining a permanent mission in Geneva.Moreover, many country representatives have multiple responsibilities within Geneva, covering not just the WTO but also a number of other international organizations.And some have responsibilities to represent their country in Bern or in more than one capital.Capacity is one limit on enjoying equality.

How well the principle of equality works depends on whether those WTO Members with greater capacity take on proportionally greater responsibilities for the success of the common endeavor -- the functioning of the organization, its maintenance and growth.Fortunately, a number of the small and medium-sized members do take on a higher than average level of responsibilities.

Equality of treatment is imbedded in the GATT 1947 and WTO/GATT 1995 in the principle of nondiscrimination.It is sufficiently basic to the DNA of the GATT that it occupies pride of place in its first provision, Article I.Nondiscrimination is the rock upon which the church of multilateralism is built.A close relative of nondiscrimination is national treatment, which is a requirement of nondiscrimination as between domestic and foreign products for certain internal purposes, such as internal taxes.National treatment is installed as the third of the first three GATT articles.

Nondiscrimination (also called MFN, or most-favored-nation treatment) is a rule by which most of world trade takes place.It still dominates despite the proliferation of preferential trade agreements.These sub-multilateral arrangements, many bilateral and some regional, are designed to offer better treatment to subject imports than products from other countries receive.This occurs because it is often impractical for businesses to meet requirements of rules of origin (content originating from parties to these agreements).Apparently, businesses determine that it is just not worth the effort to qualify their products to meet all of the requirements of preferential trading arrangements.The administrative overhead of tracing sources of components, especially where tariffs are low, which in most instances they are in the case of industrialized countries, and in many instances, for a number of products imported into developing countries as well.

The second major departure from nondiscrimination after preferential arrangements is the advent of modern trade wars and national security-related sanctions, which may now exceed in prominence antidumping duties which are more firm-specific.These measures are selective in application.

Sovereignty is not a subject discussed at the WTO, but it is very much present.For some it is articulated openly as the desire for policy space.For others, it occurs by asserting that a given rule was inapplicable to a given measure a Member wishes to, or has, put into place.

Sovereignty is respected.That which is not regulated or prohibited by the WTO rules is, by inference, permitted. This unconstrained freedom of action has often been advanced as a positive for participants in the trading system.There are a plethora of examples of unregulated conduct.These range from most domestic industrial subsidies to measures taken to preserve an endangered species or preserve domestic stocks of products deemed to be in short supply.This use of policy space can at times result in the actions of one country having adverse consequences for the interests of others.It is also not a positive if policy space means an absence of collective action where collective action is needed.Policy space can result in too many instances of uncoordinated national actions having an adverse impact on others.This has been the case in the current global health crisis.It should be obvious, but policy space invoked by large trading countries has more of an impact globally than it being claimed by smaller countries.

Every international agreement that includes obligations requires a participant to give up to a limited degree, some element of sovereignty.This occurs because not all actions that it will might like to take would be consistent with the agreement.While under WTO rules, it may still be completely free to act in a manner not in conformity with the agreement, it may pay a price for doing so.International agreements are entered into because the participating country determines that any narrowing of complete freedom for national action is more than offset by the gains to the nation from the restraints imposed on the actions of others. There is a willing trade-off of some flexibilities inherent in full sovereignty for reciprocal benefits.

Sovereignty in the evolution of the trading system is also preserved through how the WTO operates.The WTO operates in practice exclusively by consensus.No multilateral agreement can be put into place without support of a substantial number of Members and at least acquiescence from the rest.A limit on making progress in fully multilateral negotiations or other fully multilateral efforts is the fact that any Member can call a halt. Consensus has come close to being defined as unanimity.Operationally, consensus may be seen as travel on a train.As on a train, there is an emergency brake handle on each car.This brake, the ability of any member to prevent a consensus being reached, is a guarantee of not only sovereignty but a form of super sovereignty.For example, one Member can block a meeting agenda from being adopted.In effect, one Member is delegated the sovereignty of all 164 Members to stop an action. Forward motion depends functions only to the extent that no Member exercises its option to reach for the emergency brake except in the case of an emergency that threatens all.Again, as with any society or organization, self-restraint is fundamental, it is a precondition for the any social interaction, any collaboration to operate successfully.

A negative consensus, a concept that is applicable to adoption of panel and Appellate Body reports is the complete absence of individual Member sovereignty.All have donated their sovereignty into a pool from which no withdrawals are permitted.The irony of the two extremes of super sovereignty and none is that the rule of positive consensus rule has allowed one Member to end the operation of the negative consensus rule with respect to operations of the Appellate Body.

Clearly there are issues with respect to the application of either a rule of positive or negative consensus, absent some guidelines as to their limits.Limits would exist to the negative consensus rule having the last word in dispute settlement determining the scope of the rules of the WTOwere the WTOs rule-making function not moribund.The result of not facing this question, which no Member has suggested be faced, is that the multilateral trading system has ceased to function fully, neither for rule-making nor for dispute settlement.

It is worth noting that the degree of sovereignty given up by any WTO Member is in fact very limited.In dispute settlement, national compliance cannot be compelled by an adverse ruling.Compliance can be incentivized by the opprobrium for a Members failing to live up to its obligations and perhaps by the threat of offsetting action.The offset occurs because countries winning a case may have the right to restrike the balance of concessions of benefit to the losing party if the value of what they bargained for is diminished by actions found by WTO dispute settlement to be inconsistent with the obligations of the WTO agreements.

A value of the WTO with respect to the exercise by Members of their national sovereignty is the ample space the WTO agreements leave for pursuing national objectives, such as actions taken to preserve public health.There is a right to do so.When there is harm to others, there may be consequences in the form of national actions of others who may also act to serve their own interests.This state of affairs would exist absent a WTO, but there would be less transparency, less of a right to be consulted, and a lesser possibility for collective action.With no WTO, there might be the illusion of greater sovereignty, that is, no constraints whatsoever on a countrys actions.But given that all other countries would be likewise totally free of agreed constraints, the individual nations sovereignty would in reality be seriously limited.

A corollary of multilateralism is that by definition it must be all inclusive, bringing in all countries which are willing to assume the obligations of the system.

In a liberal international trading order that has as precepts equality and universality, development, that is, bringing all members to a level at which they can enjoy the full benefits and undertake the full obligations of memberships of necessity must be a primary objective of the system.

It is an article of faith on the part of some and perhaps many representatives of developing country Members of the WTO that a primary purpose of the WTO is development. This is articulated in numerous statements made in WTO General Council meetings.This is also translated into a belief that special and differential treatment is a right.This position has been elicited statements from some developed countries stating that there must be differentiation among self-designated developing countries depending on the capacity of each. This apparent clash of views has given rise to a spirited verbal exchanges with no resolution in sight.

It has been said by some that the WTO is not a development institution.This argument goes beyond the parameters of the differentiation debate.It clearly is a development institution in some respects.A basic purpose of the WTO is to facilitate economic growth, that is economic development for all.Clearly countries have differing capacities to take advantage of what is offered by the WTO agreements and the degree to which they can fulfill WTO obligations.It is in the interests of all WTO Members that continuing progress be made by each and every Member to fulfill these twin objectives receiving benefits and living up to obligations.For this reason, technical assistance is made available to all developing countries, including internships for their future officials.There are on-site and in country training sessions on a wide variety of subjects, from the requirements of the Government Procurement Agreement to those of intellectual property protection.

See original here:

COVID-19 and the future of world trade | VOX, CEPR Policy Portal - voxeu.org

Safe to assume Citowicki isnt popular with the Morrison office at present, given his actions presumably helped put the PMO at the centre of the investigation. For his part, Grant isnt prepared to comment, except to say there have been more settlements since mid-May and there are more coming.

Australias minted tech duo Mike Cannon-Brookes and Scott Farquhar are sitting pretty on the Australian Financial Reviews pandemic rich list with fortunes totalling $18.7 billion and $18.5 billion respectively.

But the thing about a multibillion-dollar paper fortune generated from their software business, Atlassian, is that its not going to pay the upkeep on their matching Double Bay harbourfront estates - let alone Cannon-Brookes green energy crusade.

Those pursuits require cash, which probably explains why Atlassian slipped out a modest two-page announcement early Saturday morning to explain how the Farquhar-Cannon-Brookes brains trust will be keeping themselves adequately supplied with jeans and hoodies over the next year.

The release to the US Nasdaq contained their trading plans for the coming year, detailing how many of their shares they expect to part with to pay the bills. It also said they each planned to sell up to 2.34 million Class B Atlassian shares, which convert to Class A shares before sale.

Whats the difference? As the release tells us Each Class B ordinary share is entitled to ten votes and each Class A ordinary share is entitled to one vote. Unsurprisingly, the Farquhar-Cannon-Brookes control most of the Class B shares.

As of Fridays close, Class A shares were fetching $US185.30. That would net the duo $US433 million each if they each sell all their 2.34 million share allowance, working out about $1.3 billion between them.

And its not like they need to choose between cash and control. Even if they sell up the full allocation, the duo would still hold more than 114 million Atlassian Class B shares. That works out about just under half of all the shares on issue and will still leave them with 88.79 per cent of all voting rights for the company. Not bad at all.

Southern Cross Media Group caught the attention of the media industry this week when its share price jumped 27 per cent on Wednesday. It was a surprising turn of events in a sector better known at the moment for job cuts and pay freezes.

So its little wonder the Australian Security Exchangess listing compliance adviser Dean Litis issued the company with a please explain.

And while it still isnt clear what exactly drove the spike, a change of directors note on Friday did pique our interest: it appears chief executive Grant Blackleys daughters, Olivia and Emily, are quite savvy investors. The pair, both long-term holders of the stock and each had 75,051 shares in their fathers business, both disposed of almost 50,000. Thats about $7000 each. Not a bad result, but it also raises the question - whats there to splash cash on during a pandemic? Presumably, not backpacking.

Given the vice-like grip Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews has on the wowser-in-chief title, its hard to remember the days when his government actually kicked up heels.

But new documents released under a Freedom of Information request remind us that once upon a time the Andrews government knew how to party and knew how to spend vast amounts of cash, all in the aid of having a good time.

Government records tallying the amount of cash the government has spent on catering and hospitality - make that, good times - show Andrews Department of Cabinet spent $1.2 million in fiscal 2017. This figure rose to $1.3 million in 2018.

And they were good times. Just ask US Presidential candidate Joe Biden, whose state-sponsored bash in 2016 to coincide with his trip to meet Malcolm Turnbull, cost Victoria $87,000 out of the 2017 total.

Samantha is the The Age's CBD columnist. She recently covered Victorian and NSW politics and business for News Corp, and previously worked for the Australian Financial Review.

Follow this link:

CBD Sydney: Traces of loyalty in hunt for Turnbull superspreaders - Sydney Morning Herald

The three Republicans running for the 106th House District seat in the June 2 primary have spent nearly $250,000 combined in the race, according to campaign finance reports submitted to the state May 22.

All but about $5,000 of that has been spent by two of the candidates, Rep. Tom Mehaffie of Lower Swatara Township, and Mimi Legro, who is chairwoman of the board of supervisors of Conewago Township.

The majority of contributions to the campaigns of both Mehaffie and Legro are from political action committees, according to their respective campaign expense reports.

Mehaffie, first elected in 2016 and seeking his third two-year term representing the 106th, reported spending $120,559.57 in the race so far this year. Legro has spent $117,234.85, according to two reports filed by her campaign.

Legro is also known as Mimi Brodeur, the name she uses for the food column Added Spice that she has written for 26 years for The Patriot-News/PennLive.com.

The third Republican candidate in the race, Middletown Area School Board member Christopher Lupp of Lower Swatara Township, has sought to separate himself from Legro and Mehaffie by saying he is the only one of the three who is not accepting contributions from PACs.

The winner of Tuesdays Republican primary will face the unopposed Democratic candidate, Lindsay Drew, in November. Drew is a self-employed business owner, community leader and vice president of the Derry Township School Board.

The 106th District includes Hummelstown, Middletown and Royalton; Conewago, Derry and Lower Swatara townships; and part of Swatara Township.

Lupps spending

Lupp in his campaign committee filing reports receiving $7,578 in contributions from March 10 through May 15, all from individuals.

Lupp said his not accepting or soliciting contributions from PACs allows me to remain independent and make independent decisions, and not be loyal or beholden to any particular organization.

I think people are tired of that, candidates loyal to a cause or an organization because they get a lot of money from that organization, Lupp said.

He said he has run his campaign the old-fashioned way, going door to door and meeting and talking to people in their neighborhoods, despite the limitations of the coronavirus.

Big money from PACs

Simply put, a political action committee is a private group set up to elect candidates or to advance a political issue or legislation. Critics say the PACs can curry favor with the candidates because of the donations, which often can be substantial.

Of $101,270 in contributions and receipts reported by Mehaffies committee, Friends of Tom Mehaffie, for the time period Jan. 1 through May 18, $84,800 is from PACs.

Legros campaign committee, Friends of Mimi, reported receiving $121,814.84 during the same time period.

Of that, $105,000 is from one PAC, the one representing Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania. It came in three amounts $40,000, $10,000 and $55,000. Legro also received $1,000 from the Pennsylvania Manufacturers PAC.

Her committee also listed $60,134.27 in in-kind contributions from the CAP PAC, all for campaign mailings.

Lemoyne-based CAP has put out mailers during the campaign attacking whom they call Tom Wolf Mehaffie, saying while Mehaffie bills himself as a conservative Republican, most of his money comes from Democrat-supporting interest groups pushing a socialist agenda according to one of the most recent mailers sent to 106th Republican voters.

CAP describes itself on its website as an independent, nonprofit organization founded to raise the standard of living of all Pennsylvanians by restoring the constitutional principles of limited government, economic freedom, and personal responsibility.

On Oct. 3, 2019, CAP CEO Leo Knepper wrote an article posted online with the headline Tom Mehaffie is best Republican Dems have in Harrisburg. The CAP website gives Mehaffies voting record a grade of F minus.

Legro in announcing her campaign in January labeled Mehaffie the General Assemblys most liberal Republican, often siding with Democrats and [Gov. Tom] Wolf on taxes, spending and bailouts.

Mehaffie donations

Mehaffies report lists contributions from 59 PACs, with all but five of the groups giving $250 or more. The others gave from $50.01 to $250.

At least 21 of the PACs represent labor unions. The largest single contribution, $10,000, is from the PAC representing the Pennsylvania State Education Association.

However, the list also reflects a diverse and broad range of interests. There are PACs representing law firms and lobbyists, energy companies such as FirstEnergy whose subsidiaries currently own Unit 2 of Three Mile Island, the reactor crippled in the 1979 accident and Exelon, which owns the Unit 1 reactor of TMI which Exelon shut down last September.

Mehaffie in 2019 introduced legislation aimed at preserving TMI and other nuclear plants in Pennsylvania by creating a subsidy for them similar to that enjoyed by renewable sources of energy in the state such as wind and solar. The legislation never got out of committee.

Mehaffies committee according to the report also received PAC money from media such as Comcast, housing and real estate concerns, the horse racing industry, banking and finance, the association representing malt beverage distributors in Pennsylvania Mehaffie owns Breski Beverage and is past president of the statewide association health care professionals, law enforcement, and Hershey Entertainment and Resorts, among others.

Mehaffie said the broad range of PACs he receives money from reflects that Im willing to listen to anybody and meet with anybody. He contrasted his diverse list of PACS with Legro receiving nearly all of her PAC money from just one organization.

I would rather be supported by numerous amounts of groups and people than by one. Who is she going to listen to, that group or her constituents? I can guarantee who she will listen to that group. If someone spends that kind of money for your campaign, you are bought and paid for.

Legro critical of Mehaffie

Legro would not consent to a phone interview, but in an emailed response said she is not concerned over how voters may perceive her getting most of her campaign funds from just one organization.

Citizens Alliance of Pennsylvania is perfectly legitimate, she said. Im proudly supported by this group of Pennsylvania-based conservatives and entrepreneurials.

Mehaffie is upset because my campaign exposed his close link to Gov. Tom Wolf and Democrat interest groups. He is out of the mainstream of Republican voters in this area.

Mehaffie defended his voting record against the attacks from Legro and CAP, saying he votes with Republicans 98 percent of the time.

While all of the last three state budgets Mehaffie voted for were initially proposed by Wolf, they were all Republican budgets by the time they came to a vote, Mehaffie said.

They have all been compromised budgets between the House, Senate and the governor, because if not, the budget doesnt pass, he said.

By the same token, Mehaffie said he is willing to vote with Democrats if its a good bill and one that is good for the (106th) District.

You represent 65,000 people in the district, he said. I have never turned anyone away. You have to meet with people, you have to understand both sides and be able to compromise and find a way to pass a good bill. That is what I do, what I have always done. I am not willing to compromise my principles but I am willing to compromise, and thats the difference between the two.

Legro said she will strive for bipartisanship, especially when working together to solve major issues; reforming liquor laws, eliminating wasteful spending and curbing debt. Mehaffie sides with Democrats and their interest groups even when it comes to important votes that matter like the $9 billion massive debt plan (House Bill 1585) or to kill a Republican-crafted budget (House Bill 543). He is a partisan Democrat.

Mehaffie defends record

Mehaffie is among 99 co-sponsors of HB 1585, also known as the Restore Pennsylvania legislation introduced in June and supported by Wolf. The bill remains in a House committee.

Mehaffie said the bill would not increase taxes on residents but would be funded through a fee imposed on developers of natural gas in the Marcellus Shale. Eighty-percent of the natural gas extracted from the shale goes outside of Pennsylvania, Mehaffie said.

The funding would help address recurring flooding issues, which Mehaffie said is a major concern in the 106th District.

Municipalities in the district cant afford to fix these flooding issues on their own but need help from the state, which Restore Pennsylvania would provide, Mehaffie said.

Regarding House Bill 543, Mehaffie said he doesn't know what Legro is referring to. He said the only HB 543 he knows of was not a budget bill but a bill introduced in 2017 concerning the gas industry. Mehaffie said he was not a co-sponsor of the bill and never voted on it. The bill never got out of committee, Mehaffie said.

Mehaffie in a list of legislation accomplishments referred to his work toward passing fiscally responsible budgets that did not increase taxes on our hard-working families and seniors on fixed incomes; working with law enforcement, providers and victims to combat the opioid crisis; and working toward passing Tobacco 21 legislation that prevents anyone younger than age 21 from purchasing vaping and other nicotine-related products.

Legro on her campaign website says if elected she will support Republican efforts to enact balanced budgets and stop runaway debt. She says she will work to clean up Harrisburg by eliminating the lavish perks only afforded to politicians and will support legislation to make government more transparent.

Legro said she supports term limits, pledged to avoid the special interest entanglements that come with legislative careerism, will oppose Wolfs massive tax increases and big-government spending schemes, will work to limit the size and scope of government, and will support strong fiscal discipline measures to ensure Harrisburg puts taxpayers first.

Lupp on his website touts his experience as a small business owner for 20 years and his involvement in service organizations in addition to being on the school board.

He said his values are those of a fiscal conservative and one who is pro-life, pro-2nd Amendment and pro-business.

Read the original:

More than $250000 spent in race for Mehaffie's 106th House District seat; money mostly coming from PACs - Middletown Press and Journal

Bengaluru: More than 120 million jobs have been lost in April 2020 due to the lockdown, and the unemployment rate for April 2020 was pegged at 23.5%, nearly thrice the level in March 2020. More than 4.4 million stranded people, many of them migrant workers, have returned home in special trains as Indias economic growth is expected to be in the negative territory this year, according to the Reserve Bank of India.

Millions of migrant workers have had to walk across states and cities to reach their homes, showing that policy makers ignore them, says Ravi Srivastava, director of the Centre for Employment Studies at the Institute for Human Development. They have few rights and entitlements and are treated as irritants or nowhere citizens.

Despite the announcement of a Rs 20-lakh-crore ($266 billion) fiscal stimulus by the Centre as part of the Atma Nirbhar Bharat package, the stimulus in 2020-21 is no more than 0.7-0.8% of GDP [gross domestic product], which is tiny, he adds. The government has claimed it was 10% of GDP, but much of it was already injected. Virtually nothing has been provided against the jobs lost by the informal workers and circular migrants, said Srivastava. He and other economists have advocated an emergency income transfer of Rs 6,000 per month to each household.

Srivastava is a former professor of economics and chairperson of the Centre for the Study of Regional Development at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, and a full-time member of the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS). He has been member and chairperson of committees of the University Grants Commission, Ministry of Human Resource Development and the erstwhile Planning Commission. He has also offered consultancy and advisory role with the International Labour Organisation (ILO), United Nations Development Programme, Asian Development Bank, UNICEF, among others.

In this interview, he talks about the lack of policy focus on migration, challenges to the economy due to the COVID-19 lockdown, and the impact on workers and states economies.

Edited excerpts:

India is witnessing unprecedented reverse migration and a situation where workers are not able to find transport back home. Why has internal migration not been an important policy issue?

There are several reasons for this. There is a prevailing orthodoxy which believes that labour mobility is low in India. The Census provides data on population mobility and till 2001, migration rates did not seem to go up, but they have gone up substantially between 2001 and 2011.

Labour mobility has been an underrated and under-studied subject. However, it has been quite clear that labour circulation has been going up and has had close links with informality [in jobs]. But NSS [National Sample Survey] that attempts to measure short duration outmigration has also yielded significant underestimates.

However, I think the most important reason is that circular migrants work at the bottom of the economy. They have few rights and entitlements and are treated as irritants or nowhere citizens. So policy makers ignore them.

NCEUS has devoted a lot of space in its [August 2007] report focusing on their problems. More recently [in January 2017], a Working Group on Migration set up by the Ministry of Urban Housing and Poverty Alleviation gave a detailed report but its recommendations were also not implemented.

Some of the source states of migration are agriculture-dependent. Funding for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) has been increased by Rs 40,000 crore in the fiscal stimulus and wages increased 11% to Rs 212 per day. The government has also announced a slew of measures such as Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY) and increased borrowing limit for states. What is your assessment?

The direct fiscal stimulus provided by the government under the PMGKY and the larger package, which is mainly addressed to rural households, is very small, in relation to the magnitude of the crisis. It is now known that a large proportion of households have not received or not been able to access the benefits so far.

While the MGNREGA allocation has been increased, and this is a good thing, the rules of the schemes have not been relaxed and the ceiling of only 100 days of work for a household are still operative. The wage increase is extremely modest and was in the pipeline for a long time.

The allocation for states is yet another issue. Yes, their borrowing limits have been increased but with conditions attached and the states are still concerned about dues to be met by the Centre. I also feel that the Centre has been passing on the burden of financing and implementation to states even where it had a responsibility. For example, inter-state migration and inter-state quarantine is a central subject, but the states have been asked to shoulder the burden.

The government seems to be encouraging people to move out of farming by trying to create more non-farm jobs. But the pandemic will force more people back into agriculture and related activities. What is your assessment and what role will the agriculture sector play during this crisis in rural areas, especially considering that migrants may be agricultural labourers and landless farmers?

I dont think that the government has been encouraging people to move out of agriculture, but yes, structural issues and policy neglect have been making it less possible for both labourers and farmers to subsist on agriculture, and the gap between value-added per worker in agriculture and non-agriculture [sectors] has been increasing. This has now led to workers moving out and a decreasing workforce in agriculture.

As far as the present crisis is concerned, segments of agriculture have been affected seriously by the crisis, and price and marketing issues are still very important. However, agriculture, which altogether is about 13% of GDP, has been able to weather the storm somewhat better than other sectors.

Now the government has announced a package of reform measures in marketing and credit [among others]. Most of these have been suggested, and also implemented for decades. They are unlikely to lead to a dramatic change in the short run and will not lead to an additional absorption of the labour force that may be added to rural areas.

For that to happen, greater attention will have to be paid to irrigation and the cropping pattern so that there is some additional scope for absorbing labour. But the major scope will come from public works, which can be used to rejuvenate rural areas, agro-processing, and non-farm enterprise growth. Migrant workers who may decide to stay back have a pool of skills and the government should provide focused credit to help them set up micro enterprises. MUDRA is a good vehicle for doing this.

The government's fiscal stimulus is lower than that provided after the economic crisis of 2008 and is around 2%-2.5% of GDP. How beneficial are the announcements for migrants when more than 120 million jobs have been lost?

My own estimate is that the stimulus in 2020-21 is no more than 0.7-0.8% of GDP, which is tiny. As far as the migrants are concerned, the urban informal economy in general and the migrants in particular were very poorly targeted in the package, though a proportion of their families in rural areas may have been able to receive the meagre support that was provided. Virtually nothing has been provided by the Centre against the jobs lost by the informal workers and the circular migrants.

Indias economic growth is expected to be in the negative territory, according to the RBI. With the workforce wanting to go home or already back, what options does India have to revive economic activity? Is dilution of labour laws and rights inevitable to recover lost growth?

Yes, the economy will be in the negative territory in 2021 and will take time to revive. This means that demand for workers will also pick up slowly and large numbers will remain unemployed. There could, however, be a temporary mismatch between demand and supply of workers in some industries and destinations, which rely heavily on circular migrants.

It is important that industry builds up confidence in workers and offers them a better deal to attract them back as soon as possible. Dilution of labour laws will send the opposite signal and will harm the economy. Moreover, labour laws are being suspended in the hope of bringing in fresh investments in the next one year. This is a facile hope.

Existing businesses, not only in India, but all over the world, will be confronting issues of survival and revival and will not be buoyed by the idea of making fresh investments except in key sectors with high demand and profitability. Even when they do that, the suspension of labour laws for a finite period, breaking Indias international commitments to the ILO and obligations under UN Conventions, is not likely to be a high selling point for them.

At this juncture, industry has to work to restore the confidence of labour, which feels badly let down by employers and the governance system. It should do that by offering them a better deal, and working with the government on a set of changes in which formality and the health and safety of workers and their families can be promoted.

The majority of the workforce in India is informal without labour contracts. The government expected the employer to compensate for wages at a time when there was no industrial or employment activity. What should the government have done immediately during the lockdown that began on March 25, 2020, and what are the top three things that can be done now to improve demand?

The government issued a directive to employers to provide wages to the informal wage workers who had lost jobs. This showed a lack of understanding of the labour markets. Informal wage workers do not have contracts with their employers, often work with a nebulous group of contractors, or with more than one employer.

In any case, the crisis impacted everyone--self-employed, casual workers, as well as informal but regular wage workers. Data from Centre for Monitoring Indian Economys consumer pyramids household survey showed that consumption levels of about 80% of households shrank. Even now, it will take a long time before employment and incomes revive.

The three urgent requirements were an emergency income support to all but the well-to-do; free food or rations for six months; and well-coordinated and free arrangements by the Centre to transport migrants to their homes. These measures, if taken timely, would have also stemmed the outflow of migrant workers from cities.

There has been debate over minimum income support before the present crisis. What are your views on it?

We, as part of a large team of economists associated with the Indian Society of Labour Economics, have advocated an emergency income transfer of Rs 6,000 per month. This is roughly the present level of the administrative national floor wage. The proposal is similar to a short-term universal basic income.

For the long run, I have personally advocated the institution of a universal social protection floor to consist of a minimum level of income on a life-cycle basis, and essential services, including health. It will also incorporate some of our well instituted social protection measures such as MGNREGA and the Integrated Child Development Services. This is a more promising approach than a universal basic income, which is also fiscally unsustainable.

I must also add that the social security code envisaged by the government sets back even the existing social security architecture in many ways and needs to be urgently reconsidered. This is because the code bill does not provide an integrated framework for universal social security. Instead, it segments the framework into three compartments - establishments with ten or more workers, construction workers, and unorganised sector workers. There is no tangible proposal made for the last, who constitute the overwhelming proportion of workers. One of the clear lessons of the pandemic is the need to institute a universal system of social security covering all workers.

Would it be appropriate to initiate an urban employment programme considering the urban unemployment rate is on average higher than the rural?

The unemployment rate is directly related to education level and is very high for the highly educated. The pandemic has thrown up the challenge of unemployment among the informal workers, including the less skilled and less educated. An urban employment programme will be useful in this context but its contours will be quite different from the rural programmes, which also has changed direction since its inception. Needs associated with pandemic control and management, for example, can be identified, and large-scale programmes created around it. But more thought will have to be given to the content of such a programme.

The majority of the Shramik trains carrying mostly migrant workers are going to Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. What will be the consequence for these states economies? How much do you foresee migration patterns changing, and for how long?

Bihar and Uttar Pradesh account for about half the circular migrants. They, and the other major source states, have a weak resource base and their record of creating employment and managing public programmes is unenviable.

They have made some bold announcements of providing social security and employment to the migrant returnees. But translating this into concrete action in the middle of the pandemic and the deep economic crisis is not easy.

Migration patterns are determined by underlying patterns of development, migration circuits and demographic regimes, among other things. In the medium term, migrant workers may like to find better jobs elsewhere. But the short term is also crucial for them and businesses, and economic activity in the urban areas, which may slowly revive. That is why businesses need to go all out and rebuild confidence among these workers. And of course, the precarity of these workers must be addressed.

The Uttar Pradesh government has now announced that permission will be needed to hire workers from the state. How do you view this policy measure when restricting movement based on permission may infringe on fundamental rights to travel for work?

This announcement has been made with good intentions but Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees freedom to people to take up employment anywhere. The governments of UP and Bihar have made a number of announcements but they need to be diligently thought through and their implementation mechanisms carefully considered. Mobility of migrants requires a carefully considered framework under arrangements that should be overseen by the national government.

States such as UP, Bihar and West Bengal also send blue-collar workers abroad, especially to the Gulf and West Asia. What is the impact of returning migrants from outside the country compared to internal migrants? Are there areas that may be more vulnerable to economic shocks?

The focus of labour emigration over the last several years has shifted from states such as Kerala and Andhra to UP, Bihar and West Bengal, which are now sending workers to the Gulf Cooperation Council countries in much larger numbers. So far, there are very few accounts of workers returning to these regions from abroad.

However, as contracts end and are not renewed, which is the likely scenario, these workers will start returning to their parent states. Like the internal migrants, this will have both a health dimension and an economic dimension, and will exacerbate the problems faced by the source states, and of course the migrant workers and their families.

(Paliath is an analyst with IndiaSpend.)

We welcome feedback. Please write to respond@indiaspend.org. We reserve the right to edit responses for language and grammar.

Bengaluru: More than 120 million jobs have been lost in April 2020 due to the lockdown, and the unemployment rate for April 2020 was pegged at 23.5%, nearly thrice the level in March 2020. More than 4.4 million stranded people, many of them migrant workers, have returned home in special trains as Indias economic growth is expected to be in the negative territory this year, according to the Reserve Bank of India.

Millions of migrant workers have had to walk across states and cities to reach their homes, showing that policy makers ignore them, says Ravi Srivastava, director of the Centre for Employment Studies at the Institute for Human Development. They have few rights and entitlements and are treated as irritants or nowhere citizens.

Despite the announcement of a Rs 20-lakh-crore ($266 billion) fiscal stimulus by the Centre as part of the Atma Nirbhar Bharat package, the stimulus in 2020-21 is no more than 0.7-0.8% of GDP [gross domestic product], which is tiny, he adds. The government has claimed it was 10% of GDP, but much of it was already injected. Virtually nothing has been provided against the jobs lost by the informal workers and circular migrants, said Srivastava. He and other economists have advocated an emergency income transfer of Rs 6,000 per month to each household.

Srivastava is a former professor of economics and chairperson of the Centre for the Study of Regional Development at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi, and a full-time member of the National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised Sector (NCEUS). He has been member and chairperson of committees of the University Grants Commission, Ministry of Human Resource Development and the erstwhile Planning Commission. He has also offered consultancy and advisory role with the International Labour Organisation (ILO), United Nations Development Programme, Asian Development Bank, UNICEF, among others.

In this interview, he talks about the lack of policy focus on migration, challenges to the economy due to the COVID-19 lockdown, and the impact on workers and states economies.

Edited excerpts:

India is witnessing unprecedented reverse migration and a situation where workers are not able to find transport back home. Why has internal migration not been an important policy issue?

There are several reasons for this. There is a prevailing orthodoxy which believes that labour mobility is low in India. The Census provides data on population mobility and till 2001, migration rates did not seem to go up, but they have gone up substantially between 2001 and 2011.

Labour mobility has been an underrated and under-studied subject. However, it has been quite clear that labour circulation has been going up and has had close links with informality [in jobs]. But NSS [National Sample Survey] that attempts to measure short duration outmigration has also yielded significant underestimates.

However, I think the most important reason is that circular migrants work at the bottom of the economy. They have few rights and entitlements and are treated as irritants or nowhere citizens. So policy makers ignore them.

NCEUS has devoted a lot of space in its [August 2007] report focusing on their problems. More recently [in January 2017], a Working Group on Migration set up by the Ministry of Urban Housing and Poverty Alleviation gave a detailed report but its recommendations were also not implemented.

Some of the source states of migration are agriculture-dependent. Funding for the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) has been increased by Rs 40,000 crore in the fiscal stimulus and wages increased 11% to Rs 212 per day. The government has also announced a slew of measures such as Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY) and increased borrowing limit for states. What is your assessment?

The direct fiscal stimulus provided by the government under the PMGKY and the larger package, which is mainly addressed to rural households, is very small, in relation to the magnitude of the crisis. It is now known that a large proportion of households have not received or not been able to access the benefits so far.

While the MGNREGA allocation has been increased, and this is a good thing, the rules of the schemes have not been relaxed and the ceiling of only 100 days of work for a household are still operative. The wage increase is extremely modest and was in the pipeline for a long time.

The allocation for states is yet another issue. Yes, their borrowing limits have been increased but with conditions attached and the states are still concerned about dues to be met by the Centre. I also feel that the Centre has been passing on the burden of financing and implementation to states even where it had a responsibility. For example, inter-state migration and inter-state quarantine is a central subject, but the states have been asked to shoulder the burden.

The government seems to be encouraging people to move out of farming by trying to create more non-farm jobs. But the pandemic will force more people back into agriculture and related activities. What is your assessment and what role will the agriculture sector play during this crisis in rural areas, especially considering that migrants may be agricultural labourers and landless farmers?

I dont think that the government has been encouraging people to move out of agriculture, but yes, structural issues and policy neglect have been making it less possible for both labourers and farmers to subsist on agriculture, and the gap between value-added per worker in agriculture and non-agriculture [sectors] has been increasing. This has now led to workers moving out and a decreasing workforce in agriculture.

As far as the present crisis is concerned, segments of agriculture have been affected seriously by the crisis, and price and marketing issues are still very important. However, agriculture, which altogether is about 13% of GDP, has been able to weather the storm somewhat better than other sectors.

Now the government has announced a package of reform measures in marketing and credit [among others]. Most of these have been suggested, and also implemented for decades. They are unlikely to lead to a dramatic change in the short run and will not lead to an additional absorption of the labour force that may be added to rural areas.

For that to happen, greater attention will have to be paid to irrigation and the cropping pattern so that there is some additional scope for absorbing labour. But the major scope will come from public works, which can be used to rejuvenate rural areas, agro-processing, and non-farm enterprise growth. Migrant workers who may decide to stay back have a pool of skills and the government should provide focused credit to help them set up micro enterprises. MUDRA is a good vehicle for doing this.

The government's fiscal stimulus is lower than that provided after the economic crisis of 2008 and is around 2%-2.5% of GDP. How beneficial are the announcements for migrants when more than 120 million jobs have been lost?

My own estimate is that the stimulus in 2020-21 is no more than 0.7-0.8% of GDP, which is tiny. As far as the migrants are concerned, the urban informal economy in general and the migrants in particular were very poorly targeted in the package, though a proportion of their families in rural areas may have been able to receive the meagre support that was provided. Virtually nothing has been provided by the Centre against the jobs lost by the informal workers and the circular migrants.

Indias economic growth is expected to be in the negative territory, according to the RBI. With the workforce wanting to go home or already back, what options does India have to revive economic activity? Is dilution of labour laws and rights inevitable to recover lost growth?

Yes, the economy will be in the negative territory in 2021 and will take time to revive. This means that demand for workers will also pick up slowly and large numbers will remain unemployed. There could, however, be a temporary mismatch between demand and supply of workers in some industries and destinations, which rely heavily on circular migrants.

It is important that industry builds up confidence in workers and offers them a better deal to attract them back as soon as possible. Dilution of labour laws will send the opposite signal and will harm the economy. Moreover, labour laws are being suspended in the hope of bringing in fresh investments in the next one year. This is a facile hope.

Existing businesses, not only in India, but all over the world, will be confronting issues of survival and revival and will not be buoyed by the idea of making fresh investments except in key sectors with high demand and profitability. Even when they do that, the suspension of labour laws for a finite period, breaking Indias international commitments to the ILO and obligations under UN Conventions, is not likely to be a high selling point for them.

At this juncture, industry has to work to restore the confidence of labour, which feels badly let down by employers and the governance system. It should do that by offering them a better deal, and working with the government on a set of changes in which formality and the health and safety of workers and their families can be promoted.

The majority of the workforce in India is informal without labour contracts. The government expected the employer to compensate for wages at a time when there was no industrial or employment activity. What should the government have done immediately during the lockdown that began on March 25, 2020, and what are the top three things that can be done now to improve demand?

The government issued a directive to employers to provide wages to the informal wage workers who had lost jobs. This showed a lack of understanding of the labour markets. Informal wage workers do not have contracts with their employers, often work with a nebulous group of contractors, or with more than one employer.

In any case, the crisis impacted everyone--self-employed, casual workers, as well as informal but regular wage workers. Data from Centre for Monitoring Indian Economys consumer pyramids household survey showed that consumption levels of about 80% of households shrank. Even now, it will take a long time before employment and incomes revive.

The three urgent requirements were an emergency income support to all but the well-to-do; free food or rations for six months; and well-coordinated and free arrangements by the Centre to transport migrants to their homes. These measures, if taken timely, would have also stemmed the outflow of migrant workers from cities.

There has been debate over minimum income support before the present crisis. What are your views on it?

We, as part of a large team of economists associated with the Indian Society of Labour Economics, have advocated an emergency income transfer of Rs 6,000 per month. This is roughly the present level of the administrative national floor wage. The proposal is similar to a short-term universal basic income.

For the long run, I have personally advocated the institution of a universal social protection floor to consist of a minimum level of income on a life-cycle basis, and essential services, including health. It will also incorporate some of our well instituted social protection measures such as MGNREGA and the Integrated Child Development Services. This is a more promising approach than a universal basic income, which is also fiscally unsustainable.

I must also add that the social security code envisaged by the government sets back even the existing social security architecture in many ways and needs to be urgently reconsidered. This is because the code bill does not provide an integrated framework for universal social security. Instead, it segments the framework into three compartments - establishments with ten or more workers, construction workers, and unorganised sector workers. There is no tangible proposal made for the last, who constitute the overwhelming proportion of workers. One of the clear lessons of the pandemic is the need to institute a universal system of social security covering all workers.

Would it be appropriate to initiate an urban employment programme considering the urban unemployment rate is on average higher than the rural?

The unemployment rate is directly related to education level and is very high for the highly educated. The pandemic has thrown up the challenge of unemployment among the informal workers, including the less skilled and less educated. An urban employment programme will be useful in this context but its contours will be quite different from the rural programmes, which also has changed direction since its inception. Needs associated with pandemic control and management, for example, can be identified, and large-scale programmes created around it. But more thought will have to be given to the content of such a programme.

The majority of the Shramik trains carrying mostly migrant workers are going to Uttar Pradesh and Bihar. What will be the consequence for these states economies? How much do you foresee migration patterns changing, and for how long?

Bihar and Uttar Pradesh account for about half the circular migrants. They, and the other major source states, have a weak resource base and their record of creating employment and managing public programmes is unenviable.

They have made some bold announcements of providing social security and employment to the migrant returnees. But translating this into concrete action in the middle of the pandemic and the deep economic crisis is not easy.

Migration patterns are determined by underlying patterns of development, migration circuits and demographic regimes, among other things. In the medium term, migrant workers may like to find better jobs elsewhere. But the short term is also crucial for them and businesses, and economic activity in the urban areas, which may slowly revive. That is why businesses need to go all out and rebuild confidence among these workers. And of course, the precarity of these workers must be addressed.

The Uttar Pradesh government has now announced that permission will be needed to hire workers from the state. How do you view this policy measure when restricting movement based on permission may infringe on fundamental rights to travel for work?

This announcement has been made with good intentions but Article 19 of the Constitution guarantees freedom to people to take up employment anywhere. The governments of UP and Bihar have made a number of announcements but they need to be diligently thought through and their implementation mechanisms carefully considered. Mobility of migrants requires a carefully considered framework under arrangements that should be overseen by the national government.

States such as UP, Bihar and West Bengal also send blue-collar workers abroad, especially to the Gulf and West Asia. What is the impact of returning migrants from outside the country compared to internal migrants? Are there areas that may be more vulnerable to economic shocks?

The focus of labour emigration over the last several years has shifted from states such as Kerala and Andhra to UP, Bihar and West Bengal, which are now sending workers to the Gulf Cooperation Council countries in much larger numbers. So far, there are very few accounts of workers returning to these regions from abroad.

However, as contracts end and are not renewed, which is the likely scenario, these workers will start returning to their parent states. Like the internal migrants, this will have both a health dimension and an economic dimension, and will exacerbate the problems faced by the source states, and of course the migrant workers and their families.

(Paliath is an analyst with IndiaSpend.)

We welcome feedback. Please write to respond@indiaspend.org. We reserve the right to edit responses for language and grammar.

Originally posted here:

'Centre Has Offered Nothing Against Jobs Lost By Informal Workers, Circular Migrants' | - IndiaSpend

Advances and new conquests rival restrictions and steps back

Seventy-two years after the United Nations approved theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights [10 de diciembre de 1948],more than 100 states and territories worldwide violate these rights in some way. Conflicts of all kinds, austerity measures, the effects of climate change, natural disasters, growing inequality, insecurity, discrimination, cuts in freedoms, among other issues, make the fight for individual fundamental rights and collectives remain fully active.

As if this were not enough,the outbreak of coronavirus diseasehas come to aggravate the situation to the point thatAntnio Guterres, Secretary General of the United Nations, considers that the pandemic is turning into a human rights crisis despite the fact that the threat is the virus, not people. The global picture is pretty bleak, he says.Philip Alston, UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights. There are always countries going in the wrong direction, he warns. Moving towards greater equal opportunities and more responsive governance without leaving anyone behind was the leitmotif of the summit held in New York in September 2015 in which more than 170 countries approved the 2030 Agenda. The multilateral agreement included the deployment toglobal scale of 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)with practical and feasible strategies and solutions based on human rights regulations.

However,good intentions are thrown face to face with reality. Different NGOs have detected increasing hostility and relaxation in the defense of basic rights. According to Manos Unidas, some 1.2 billion people live in extreme poverty (less than 1.15 euros a day income) and 2.6 billion in relative poverty (less than 1.84 euros a day). Oxfam Intermn indicates that 2,153 billionaires have more wealth than 4.6 billion people in the world and that the great fortunes elude up to 30% of their fiscal obligations.Human Rights Watch alerts of harassmentand the overcrowding suffered by migrants and refugees in different parts of the globe. Alianza por la Solidaridad exposes the persecution suffered by human and environmental rights defenders, especially women, in Latin America. Save the Children recalls that 700 million minors suffer violence, abuse and exploitation. Amnesty International denounces the misogynistic, xenophobic and homophobic policies of many countries. And so it goes on.

How did we get here? The2020 World Social Report: inequality in a rapidly changing world, produced byMarta Roig, Head of Trends and Emerging Affairs of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, reveals that the main cause of the trend towards inequality is the policies of governments. In his study, Roig points out that certain population groups are being excluded from social, economic, political and cultural life. This reality is unfair and a source of conflict, he adds.

Esteban Beltrn, director of Amnesty International (AI) Spain, believes that the world lives on a pendulum. On the one hand, he explains, some governments exert strong repression regarding civil and political rights and freedom of expression. On the other, this repression meets greater resistance among the population to defend their rights and freedoms. This occurs in a context of growing economic inequality between the rich and the poor that has increased since the 2008 crisis and threatens to increase even more after the pandemic, he stresses.

Reviewing the world map of the most significant inequalities and injustices that occur today, we can see how some governments use hate policies towards certain groups, says Beltrn. In Asia, the focus is mainly on China, where the Iugur ethnic group is persecuted and more than a million people are held in re-education camps; in India, where several Muslim minorities are attacked with impunity; and in the Philippines, where there are massive extrajudicial executions against drug users.

In America highlights the violence unleashed on the streetsagainst protesters who last year caused 210 deaths in countries like Venezuela, Honduras, Puerto Rico, Ecuador, Bolivia, Haiti, Chile and Colombia. The hate policy is also manifested in Brazil against indigenous people and opponents of the Bolsonaro government. Furthermore, the Brazilian Amazon rainforest suffered 89,178 fires in 2019, 30% more than in 2018, and 30% of the American population lives in extreme poverty.

In the Middle East, repressive actions are commonin Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. Up to 12 countries have prisoners of conscience and there are 367 human rights defenders in prison. Iran and Saudi Arabia segregate half of its population women with coercive measures towards them.

Africa, despite the overthrow of Omar al Bashir in Sudan and the reforms promoted in Ethiopia in favor of human rights, continues to host the majority of armed conflicts.

And Europe? The director of AI Spain observes advances and setbacks. A positive trend is thatten countries are changing their gender violence lawsso that it is accepted that it is not no and that any refusal on the part of the women supposes the crime of sexual violence. The negative note must be found inthe treatment of migrants and refugees. The resources are not given for rescue operations at sea, thousands of people remain in unfortunate situations on the Greek islands and the EU reaches agreements with countries such as Libya and Turkey, which violate human rights, warns Beltrn.

Hungary and Poland also apply hate policies towards immigrants. In Poland, moreover, legal and safe abortion has been restricted and attempts have been made to undermine judicial independence.

In Asia: China: More than a million people held in reeducation camps. India: Several Muslim minorities are attacked with impunity. Philippines Massive extrajudicial executions against drug users.

In America:-Honduras, Puerto Rico, Ecuador, Bolivia, Haiti, Chile, Colombia: Violence in the streets against protesters that have caused deaths. Violation of civil rights.-Venezuela: Violence against protesters. Violation of civil rights. It is the country with the highest number of deaths by firearm (60 per 100,000 inhabitants). Brazil: Repression against indigenous people and opponents of the Bolsonaro government. 89,178 fires in 2019 in the Brazilian Amazon jungle. Mexico: Almost 35,000 deaths by firearm in 2019.

In the middle east: Saudi Arabia and Iran; Repressive policies for various causes are common. Half of the population (women) suffers segregation. Large number of executions. Iraq: Political repressions for different causes against the population. Large number of executions

In Europe: Turkey: Violation of civil rights. Hate policy against certain groups. Hungary: Violation of civil rights. Hate policy against immigrants. Poland: Violation of civil rights. Hate policy against immigrants. Restricted legal and safe abortion

Following the pendulum theory, the dark side includes those democracies that enact hate policies towards some group. This is the case of the USA, India, the Philippines, Brazil, Turkey, Hungary and Poland. This is very dangerous, says Beltrn, because it may lead one to think that human beings are not born free and equal, but depend on the attitude of their governments.

The positive pole includes those countries that have made substantial progress in defense of humanity. A significant fact is that today there are 145 states that have abolished the death penalty[en 1948, cuando se aprob la Declaracin Universal de los Derechos Humanos solo eran 16]. In this sad chapter, China, Iraq, Iran and Saudi Arabia have the highest number of executions worldwide.

More green shoots: In Europe, the UK, Ireland, Sweden, Iceland, Germany, Cyprus, Greece and Luxembourg, progress is being made on gender violence. In Africa, Ethiopia has passed important laws in favor of human rights. Its Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed won the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize for signing reconciliation with Eritrea after two decades of confrontation. And in Asia, Taiwan has passed a same-sex marriage law.

Although Beltrn assures thatthere is no whitelist of pristine countriesIt does name Canada as an ambassador for the least corrupt nations in the world, despite maintaining certain tensions with its indigenous populations.

Given the panorama, what can be done to live in a better, fairer and more supportive world? First, stop discrimination and inequality, which are the breeding ground for the violation of human rights, responds the director of AI Spain.If we talk about discrimination, 40% of women of childbearing age live in countries where access to legal and safe abortion is restricted. Regarding inequality, the countries where there is greater stability and more respect for human rights are those in which the middle class is broader than the number of rich and poor, he argues.

Another essential requirement, says Beltrn, is to maintain international law: The Sustainable Development Goals are important to mark the long-term solidarity roadmap, but they cannot replace international law. The main problem with the SDGs is that they do not there is accountability, in international law yes: a case of torture, for example, can be brought to court.

For sample, a button. According to the director of AI Spain,Mexico registered almost 35,000 deaths by firearm in 2019, the most violent year in its historyto recent. The drama there is that 97% of crimes go unpunished and impunity is incompatible with human rights since it does not allow coexistence. The worst example is given by Venezuela, which is distinguished for being the country with the highest number of deaths caused by weapons of fire[60 por cada 100.000 habitantes].

Protecting human rights means not letting your guard down. It never reaches Ithaca, says Beltrn. There are always dangers to face. Climate change is the greatest intergenerational threat in human history, warns the expert. The good news is that tomorrow is not written. In his opinion, the resistance of civil society to not see their rights and freedoms trampled is a hopeful sign that the future may be different.

Image of demonstrations in defense of the fight against gender violence.

Human rights in Spain present a mixed reality, defines Esteban Beltrn. In some respects much progress has been made, but in others we still have serious problems. Among the first, he cites the approval of laws and practical policies and the improvements promoted in terms of citizen awareness. Among the latter, he points out gender violence as the main Achilles heel. Within this area it includes victims of sexual violence, a lack that monopolizes 40 daily complaints in our country.

The director of AI Spain also calls for progress in social rights. For example, on the subject of housing. In the period 2013-2019, in Spain there have been more than 400,000 evictions, he denounces. Despite some important improvements in the eviction policy in the context of the pandemic, it remains a serious structural problem, he said.

Another deficit is in the weakened Spanish health system, which has been progressively deteriorating from 2008 to 2015. The cuts in this field have been noticed and now we are seeing the consequences, criticizes Beltrn. We need to invest in protecting peoples access to health, he suggests.

In Spain there is freedom of expression and opinion. However, the director of AI Spain appreciates certain threats. Specifically, he regrets the anti-terrorism law, in force since the ill-fated ETA era. The exaltation of terrorism poses a risk to freedom of expression because opinions that do not represent any crime cannot be criminally condemned, he explains. It also sees obstacles in the so-called gag law, whose application during the pandemic has caused a certain police arbitrariness when it comes to sanctioning.

Beltrn does not hesitate to weigh the significant progress made by Spain in the defense of human rights, but warns that there are still pending issues. In his opinion, the alarm lights hover over two issues: the situation of poverty in which 27% of Spanish households live and the possibility that the pandemic will reduce the middle class and widen the inequality between rich and poor. We are warned.

.

Originally posted here:

The world in front of the mirror - Explica

Vivek Katju

Ex-Secretary, Ministry of External Affairs

On April 23, the general secretary of the Indian Revenue Service association forwarded a paper entitled FORCE (fiscal options & response to Covid-19 epidemic) to the chairman and members of the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The paper was prepared by a group of 50 income tax officers, the general secretary wrote in his covering letter, who had used their knowledge, experiences and commitment to suggest measures to counteract the economic and fiscal effects of the pandemic. He also noted that it reflected their young energy and idealism; indeed, that was correct, for the officers had spent only between one and five years in service; their mentors were of their own seniority, but of their two guides, one was a very senior officer and the other a middle-level one.

The paper found its way into social media and the mainstream media reported some of its suggestions on taxation. These included the raising of the tax rate to 40% for those earning over Rs 1 crore per year and the reintroduction of wealth tax for those having a corpus of over Rs 5 crore. It also mentioned that the imposition of inheritance tax should be considered. At a time when the economy is in trouble and there is concern on how the government would manage the situation, media reports about these suggestions caused confusion and consternation.

The government decisively sought to quell this speculation. It not only denied media reports but also took disciplinary action against the two guides and another very senior income tax officer. They were divested of their assignments, and, according to press reports, formally asked to explain why they had unauthorisedly made the 50 officers to work on the paper and thereafter made it public.

It is likely that the governments main ire was on the tax suggestions becoming public. There can be quarrel with the view that the government has a right to expect that its employees, irrespective of their seniority, act according to rules, orders and norms, and refrain from making sensitive information public. The question, though, it must ask itself after this episode is if it is allowing the continuance of a permissive culture, where officials at all levels are taking recourse to the media to air their personal views on policy matters, both within their domain of work and outside it? This culture has developed over the past few decades, but is becoming more common.

To illustrate: A secretary to the Government of India, who heads the empowered group on supply chain and logistics management of essential goods, recently wrote an article in a leading national daily. He assured that the movement of food, pharmaceuticals and other commodities was going along very well. This is welcome news and is useful for the public. The question though is, why did he not make it public through the normal means of an official press note or a media briefing that would have had wider and more effective circulation, instead of choosing to write an article giving his personal views? This can only be attributed to the growing and unhealthy tendency of serving officers writing in the media.

Another senior bureaucrat wrote on a subject that is in the forefront of the national economic debate, the expected stimulus package. Again, it is not the merits of the arguments made in the article, some of which make good sense, which require focus, but the fact that they were conveyed in the media. If the public could draw inferences through the income tax officers paper, they could also do so through the expression of the bureaucrats views, even if not to the same extent.

It is obvious that the government does not really take officials to task who violate the conduct rules that prescribe that officials can undertake, without its previous sanction, occasional work of a literary, artistic or scientific character. Much of the writing by serving officials transcends is not limited to them, but goes into government policy areas. Of course, officials can submit papers on policy matters and the government can clear them for publication with the stipulation that these reflect the personal views of the officials, but would it be wise to follow such a course? Besides, how many senior officials seek such permissions? There was much merit in the old practice that required officials to focus only on their mandate, and if they felt strongly on some issue in which they had expertise, but were not handling it within the course of their current remit, to convey their views only to those handling it in the government.

There is a view that government servants, or for that matter those who occupy official positions in commissions and tribunals, do not relinquish their right to freedom of expression unless specifically constrained by law. The Official Secrets Act is there, but beyond it lie propriety and convention which should bind allserving, re-employed and retired. They demand that the sanctity of official papers and discussions be maintained by participants, but there is lax approach even when discussions in the highest security national forums are publicly revealed. Are these not breaches of trust that may inhibit free exchanges of views through making participants wary? Should such practices be acceptable? Obviously not.

If it is felt that times have changed and that new conventions and new rules relating to the conduct of serving government officials writing in the press, and of retired officials penning their memoirs are required, they should be spelt out and uniformly applied. In any event, it would not be proper to continue with the confusion and permissiveness that prevails on these issues today.

See the original post:

Violation of service code - The Tribune India

Pannebecker bias shows through

After reading yet another of Brian Pannebeckers ridiculously pro-Trump slanted columns (Trump has led country to greatest economy by keeping promises, April 28 Macomb Daily) I decided I can no longer keep quiet! To begin with, it is well known that Pannebecker is a far right extremist who champions right wing candidates, causes and office holders. I laughed at his opening remarks when he characterized Trump as a genius. That statement alone underscores that Pannebecker cant be taken seriously.

Furthermore, he is now subscribing to unproven conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 virus being created in a laboratory. That theory has been debunked by scientific evidence that proves the virus is of natural origins in the wet markets of Wuhan, China. A study of the virus genome provides the evidence of that.

In addition, Pannebeckers insistence that Trump single handedly turned around the nation's economy is equally absurd as his statements about Trumps genius and the origin of the COVID-19 virus. Most credible economists will tell you that the economic recovery from the Bush era recession of 2008 started under the Obama administration and was slowly gaining traction throughout his eight years in office. Just as it took eight years for the economy to tank under Bushs watch, it took eight years for it to recover under Obamas. Trump happened to be in the right place at the right time when he took office.

Pannebecker also credits Trump with handling the COVID-19 crisis brilliantly. Nothing could be further from the truth, especially at the start when Trump stated it was a Democratic hoax. It should need no reminding too that Trump maintained that the virus would disappear like a miracle. Of course neither was true and to date it has claimed nearly 80,000 American lives.

Lastly, Pannebecker maintains that its time to re-open the nation's economy without regard to the dangers still presented by COVID-19. All medical experts recommend a slow and measured reopening rather than a hasty one so as to not risk a resurgence of the virus.

I urge your paper to stop giving Pannebecker a platform to espouse his far right extreme viewpoints that are out of step with the mainstream.

Eugene F. Groesbeck

Shelby Township

Brian Pannebecker's fawning praise of Donald Trump (Trump has led country to greatest economy by keeping promises, April 28 Macomb Daily) knows no bounds. He sees Trump's policies over 3 years as nothing short of a miracle of genius of the man's "gut instincts" all the while battling the opposition party and it's allies, the main stream press. Nothing new here. He believe his tax cuts to be the driver that spurred the economic growth regardless of propelling the national debt to an all time high with no plan to pay for it but the hope that in the next 30 years higher tax revenues would cover it. Remember the "old days" when fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets was the bedrock of Republican values?

Throw in tweaking NAFTA, abandoning the trans Pacific economy to the Chinese despite our total dependence on China for our prescription drugs and cheap consumer products from that region, closing the borders to immigrants and you have Donald Trump's vision of "America First." The answer to that risk? Pump trillions into the military and replenish our nuclear stockpile to cold war levels and bring the world to heel. And, of course, build the wall. The worldwide pandemic, which is now blamed on the Chinese, has exposed the risk to our consumer driven economy as it quickly ground to a halt. No worries,we will be sending a bill to China for damages right after Mexico pays for the wall.

As the Trump administration faced its first real crisis, the initial response was to downplay it and blame the usual suspects, the Democrats and the main stream media, for exaggerating it. Pannebecker optimistically believes Donald Trump will now listen to the experts in handling the crisis. If history is a guide, he will be sorely disappointed. The president prides himself on ignoring expert advice or even scientific facts that conflict with his "gut." If Dr. 's Anthony Fauci and Debra Bird can walk that very fine line of speaking the truth while disagreeing with our thin-skinned president they both deserve the medal of freedom. I know of no other presidential appointee that has been able to navigate that mine field.

Robert L. Peltier

Clinton Township

Link:

Letters to the Editor 5-10-2020: Pannebecker rebuttals - The Macomb Daily

By Scott Benjamin

Bob Godfrey says Washington is a nice place to visit, but he wouldn't want to serve there.

Why not?

The Washington-Arlington metro area has the highest median income of any place in the United States. . . Stephen Strasburg reportedly whizzes around town in the red Chevy Corvette that he won as the World Series MVP. .. . and it is the city where the "Sweethearts of Soul" - Peaches & Herb - got their start.

Through the years, Godfrey has said, "Congress can't agree on the time of day."

However, the state representative (D-110), who serves much of Danbury's downtown, has been making the nearly 120-mile round-trip commute for 32 years to Hartford, which was just rated as only 47th best among the 50 state capitol cites by Far & Wide.

But, then again, it is where Mark Twain once wrote, Horace Bushnell preached and Morgan Bulkeley governed.

Godfrey said he is passionate about representing roughly 23,000 people in one of the few cities in Connecticut where the population is growing.

He is the deputy speaker pro-tempore of the state House and has served under seven speakers and six governors. Only three current members of the House have served longer.

Now, in a time of pandemic crisis, Washington has become bipartisan.

Not only did Republican President Donald Trump, the Republican U.S. Senate and the Democratic U.S. House agree on the time of day, but they got nearly $3 trillion in stimulus approved since March 27.

But U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) wants to hit the pause button for at least a while.

So does Larry Kudlow of Redding, who is Trump's director of the National Economic Council.

Reuters reported that Kudlow cautioned, "Well, we just had another big infusion."

He said on ABC News' "This Week" on May 10 that he was part of a conference call with 50 members of the U.S. House, both Republicans and Democrats, on May 8 and was scheduled to have a similar session with a group of senators on May 11.

Kudlow said that the Trump Administration is "collecting ideas" for possible future action to address the economic fallout from the pandemic. Reuters reported that Kudlow told reporters he didn't want to have more stimulus before the end of May.

He said on "This Week" that data from the Congressional Budget Office and private companies indicate that the American economy could have "a very strong second half" in 2020 and there could be "a tremendous snapback of the economy in 2021."

However, Reuters stated that U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said there needs to be a "big bold approach now" after the country lost 20.5 million jobs in April and the unemployment rate of 14.7 percent is the highest since the Great Depression of the 1930s.

Godfrey declared, "It is needed and it is needed now. If the house is on fire you don't delay sending the fire department to start spraying water."

He said that, among other things, Congress should halt the remainder of the president's 2017 tax cut and use that money to assist the states.

He said too much of the tax reduction was directed at the upper income.

CT Mirror has reported Connecticut's state budget faces a projected $7 billion revenue shortfall combined over the next three years.

Said Godfrey, "July is when the revenue information will be available, Right now anyone is guessing on what the gaps might be."

He said that he is pleased that the state's rainy day fund was near $2.5 billion at the onset of the pandemic.

Godfrey, who has been spending considerable time at home addressing constituent concerns by phone and the Internet, said the Department of Labor's performance has improved as it is processing an unprecedented number of jobless claims.

"They've gotten the equivalent of three years of claims in two months," he exclaimed. "They were unprepared for the extreme. There are claims from March that they are still processing."

Additionally, Godfrey said there have been delays processing claims for people living in Connecticut but working in New York state and those living in New York state and working in Connecticut.

CT Mirror reported in early May that Gov. Ned Lamont (D-Greenwich) had hinted at the possibility of increases in fuel taxes to fund transportation improvements.

CT Mirror added that the special transportation is projected to be depleted by 2022-2023 - three years earlier than had been anticipated before the pandemic.

In late December Godfrey told Patch.com that perhaps the state should consider a gasoline tax increase since it had been at 25 cents a gallon for the better part of two decades. At the time, there were serious

"I raised the issue as possibly the only way to help out the transportation program." Godfrey said in a May phone interview with Patch.com.

"I don't think we should lead with that," he said. "We need to hash out ideas."

He said in December that the Office of Fiscal Analysis, the General Assembly's budget arm, has indicated that the gasoline tax, which was reduced twice in the late 1990s and early 2000s bringing it down from 39 cents a gallon to 25 cents a gallon adjusted for inflation would have increased from 25 cents a gallon to 37 cents a gallon between 2003 and 2017. He said some "red states" have increased their gasoline taxes.

He said last winter that a boost in the gasoline tax coupled with a fee for hybrid and electric cars, which have become more popular and use less fuel, and a fee for cars costing $50,000 or more could be considered.

Godfrey praised Lamont's performance during the pandemic.

"He listens, he tosses around ideas and considers the consequences," the state representative said. "He's making sure that people are safe. He's promoted social distancing and masks."

Godfrey, who has received awards for his Freedom of Information initiatives, said his only qualm is the Reopen The State Task Force should be more public in its deliberations.

"The reopening is going to come step by step in gradual fashion," he explained. "The restaurant business will probably come back slowly since you you want to go out, you can't wear a mask while your are eating, It is going to be a while before the theaters and the sports events will be going again. Life is going to be different than it was before mid-March."

"The return to normal is going to depend on the confidence of the people who have been sheltered mostly in their homes," said Godfrey. "I have no idea on how quickly they will respond. But right now there are people out there that are afraid to return to work."

Read more here:

Godfrey calls on Washington to immediately approve more stimulus - Patch.com

Ive always found the left-wing/right-wing distinction overly reductive. It seems absurd to me to map out an outstandingly wide-ranging set of policies across a one-dimensional axis. How can my views on education, health, foreign policy, ontology and ethics be captured in one category?

The corona crisis has made this all the more evident. The unprecedented volumes of stimulus and debt-issuance by Republican, Tory and Eurocratic governments has turned monetary and fiscal policy inside out. Suddenly, parties that defended a minimum state for decades are deploying $3 trillion, 1 trillion, or 330 billion packages depending on where you look.

That being said, there is an undeniable sense that the left-right distinction captures some kind of fundamental difference between political orientations. This article is my idiosyncratic attempt to capture what this left-right divide refers to today, as of 2020.

The left-right distinction is a useful heuristic which enables conversations to unfold across large populations. It creates a common ground, without which meaningful debates would be borderline impossible.

As I see it, there are four dimensions to todays left-right distinction. Each dimension is expressed in current policy debates. And each dimension raises questions which I encourage the reader to answer. I hope to show that there is nothing contradictory in being leftist in one domain and rightist in another.

Before I explore the four, let me add two disclaimers. First, obviously left-right is a continuum and people are distributed across the two ends of the spectrum, these are not discrete boxes.

Second, what it means to be in the Left or Right changes across space and time. The left-right dichotomy in the US is radically different from the one in China. Identity politics is a prominent issue in the former but not the latter, for instance. Not to mention that the spectra in the two countries are so different that a right-leaning Chinese person would be considered a socialist, if not a Commie, in the US.

Equally, what made you a leftist in 1750s France is different from what we associate with the Left nowadays. Whereas Left originally meant being in favour of the Republic, nowadays to be left-wing can mean four distinct things.

Coronavirus has reinforced the salience of the nation-state as the ultimate unit.

The first dimension relates to the presence of the state. The Left is pro-state intervention. The Right supports a laissez-faire approach. Debates about universal basic income, taxing multinational corporations (MNCs), education funding, healthcare, and privacy are manifestations of this dimension. The corona crisis has put laissez-faire into question but it is too early to tell how much it will change in the long run.

The questions that spark debate in the first dimension are multiple. Can the state be trusted to regulate peoples lives? Is the states responsibility to level the playing field or to maximise freedoms? What domains of life primarily belong to the individual, what domains belong to the community? Is there a trade-off between security and freedom how should the state deal with it? Anti-lockdown protests in the US and UK, for instance, map onto this dimension where one key organizer has cried for more liberty to get back to work.

The second dimension relates to the reference point from which political interests and priorities are formulated. The Left thinks from a cosmopolitan view of internationalism. The Right sets the domestic state as its epicentre.

This second dimension is most evident in migration debates. Does a states responsibility lie with its own citizens or humanity as a whole? It can also be found in discussions about foreign policy, globalisation and the environment. Do states have a responsibility to protect other states? How should a post-colonial global system be structured? Coronavirus has reinforced the salience of the nation-state as the ultimate unit. Even in the EU, the response was uncoordinated and primarily national as captured by Germany and Frances initial refusal to export masks to other member states.

The third dimension is ontological. The Left is post-positivist it views the world in terms of relational and uneven power relations. The Right subscribes to positivist views of ontological units as discrete entities.

Can the state be trusted to regulate peoples lives? Is the states responsibility to level the playing field or to maximise freedoms?

This third dimension mainly unfolds in the world of identity politics. Does politics unfold through class, race, and gender? Should present members of historically underprivileged classes be compensated today? Is the nation-state a legitimate construct? What are Western or Enlightenment values, and should the state uphold them? Is there such a thing as truth? Singapores unequal treatment of migrant workers during the COVID-19 outbreak reveals underlying assumptions about who the states primary responsibility lies with.

The fourth dimension concerns moral values. The Left is progressive. The Right favours tradition.

This fourth dimension maps neatly onto various ethical issues. What is the role of history for citizens? What is the role of religion in modern-day society? How should a state deal with its colonial legacy? Debates about abortion, genetics often unfold along this dimension too. In corona times, the heated debates about church closures in Brazil illustrate these very questions.

So, where are you? Maybe pro-state intervention and cosmopolitan, yet deeply convinced of tradition and atomistic ontology? Maybe you have total coherence?

Obviously, these dimensions can coexist. As such, a preference in one influences your position in the other. For instance, your view of the past will influence how much you value tradition and, by extension, your position on affirmative action. This means that there is a general tendency for people to have an overarching coherent position across all four dimensions.

Nevertheless, I dont see any inherent contradiction in being both in the Left and in the Right. It ultimately hinges on what question and issue you are dealing with. If anything, to hold contradictory views is often a sign that you are not being ideological.

The left-right distinction is a useful heuristic which enables conversations to unfold across large populations. It creates a common ground, without which meaningful debates would be borderline impossible.

However, left-right must be seen as only that: a heuristic. As much as it enables debate, it also blinds us. We assume instead of listening, simply because the other is an emotional social justice warrior, or a bigoted nationalist. As university students, we ought to think beyond those boxes.

Liked reading this article? Sign up to our weekly mailing list to receive a summary of our best articles each week click here to register

Want to contribute? Join our contributors grouphereor email us clickherefor contact details

Post Views: 65

More here:

Are you left-wing or right-wing? Probably both. The Oxford Student - Oxford Student