Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

A group seekingCalexit believes secession is possible as it pushes for a new ballot initiative and a plan to unite Californians to take back those tax dollars from the U.S.

The California Freedom Coalition is attempting to raise funds for the initiative, and its members are aiming to collect the required 585,407 signatures from Californians to move ahead with the planat the ballot box.

We feel like this current initiative is more feasible and will hold up more to scrutiny and legal challenges, a member of the group, Steve Gonzales, told The Sacramento Bee of the push for Calexit.

Daily Emails and Alerts - Get the best of Newsweek delivered to your inbox

A previous attempt at California nationhood was dumped in April after failing to find enough support, but the CFC believes things could be different with a new ballot initiative.

The initiative would seek to repeal a provision in the California Constitution stating California is an inseparable part of the United States, it says, adding that there would be an agreement to establish California as a fully independent country.

But secession would come at a cost, includingat least $1.25 million in state funding for an independent commission to research the ballot initiative, the Office of the Attorney General of Californiasaid,as well as unknown, potentially major, fiscal effects if California voters approved changes to the states relationship with the United States at a future election after the approval of this measure.

However, the group and other supporters of Calexit believe such financial risk would be worth it, particularly given that Californias political leanings are so at odds with the current administration and that California sends more tax dollars to the federal government than any other state.

We feel that California has been neglected and left out of the political process for many, many decades, Gonzales told the Bee.

With current politics the way they are, clearly theres a recognition that many in the United States have disdain for Californians. They call us out of control. So this is a time for us to take back those tax dollars and really unleash the potential California has, he added.

Following Trumps election victory, it appeared that support for Calexit was increasing, with a January poll from Reuters showing 32 percentof Californians would back a break from the U.S.

However, secession is ultimately unlikely, given that the majority of Americans do not support the proposal and that a Calexit would also face major legal hurdles regardless of public opinion.

See more here:

Calexit Group Says It's Time for Californians to 'Take Back Those Tax Dollars' From the US - Newsweek

Robert Kennedy Jr. teamkennedy2017.org

With just two weeks to go before the August 15 primary, some Democrats worry Kennedy could win the nomination on a fluke, thanks to his name, recalling Alvin Greenes

"Theres suspicion that hes here to bust up the vote and help secure the race for the Republicans," said Beckerle.

The poll showed Kennedy with 49 percent of the vote, outpacing his closest competitor nearly two-to-one in a race that has been entirely overshadowed by

"Really all this shows is youve got a guy with a famous name," said Doug Jones, Kennedy's closest competitor.

Jones is a former U.S. attorney appointed by Bill Clinton who has been involved in Alabama politics since he was president of the Young Democrats chapter in law school.

Alabama papers have dubbed Kennedy a "

But Kennedy his full name is Robert Kennedy Jr. in case you were wondering if his middle initial were "F" would like to clear a few things up.

First of all, hes named after his father, Robert Kennedy Sr., who was born before the other Kennedy family rose to prominence. Second, Alabama Democrats dont know him because he left his Mobile-area home at 18 to join the Navy and then worked for big multinational companies. Third, the Naval Academy graduate with an MBA from Duke University may be a political novice, but hes no dummy.

And, no, hes not a Republican plant. Yes, hes a gun-owning fiscal conservative who emphasizes "faith," "family," and "freedom" as the three key tenets of his campaign. But as an African-American whose parents were raised in the Jim Crow South, he wants an activist federal government to help even the playing field.

"I understand that my name will give me some points," he said. "But to suggest that my name in that particular poll gave me 49 points is disrespectful to the voters."

Anthony Terrell contributed reporting.

Read the original:

Robert Kennedy Jr. Is Leading in Polls. No, Not That One - NBCNews.com

Republicans have a huge choice to make, an unusually binding decision on the next steps for their legislative agenda. It will determine the campaign promises they will be able to keep, and more importantly, the lived experience of millions of Americans. And it all comes down to one simple bill.

That bill is the Congressional budget resolution for 2018. It doesnt make specific policy, just sets the course for the federal budget for the next year. But because of the unusual procedures Republicans have used to cut Democrats out of governing and avoid the Senate filibuster, they can either pass the budget resolution, and give up on repealing the Affordable Care Act until at least 2019, or put this bill aside, and commit to a far more moderate tax cut policy than currently envisioned.

Related: How Trump Could Still Win the Health Care Fight

Republicans used the 2017 budget resolution to set instructions for a health care overhaul through reconciliation, which requires only a majority vote in each chamber of Congress. The idea was to use the 2017 reconciliation bill for health care, and the 2018 bill for taxes (and potentially infrastructure investment).

But last weeks failure of the health care reconciliation bill in the Senate creates a dilemma. If theres no 2018 budget resolution, Republicans can return to the health care reconciliation bill at any time before the end of next year. Circumstances could change, votes could flip and, not to be ghoulish, but John McCain could no longer be a U.S. senator. Republicans can wait out that process. But if they pass a 2018 budget resolution with reconciliation instructions, it would nullify the 2017 resolution. That would mean the health care bill is dead.

Now, the GOP could simply write health care instructions into the 2018 resolution, keeping the process alive. But they really want to move to cutting taxes, the one thing practically every elected Republican agrees on. And conservatives want the option of passing those tax cuts with a majority vote, without requiring Democratic input in the Senate.

Related: The Health Care Fight Isn't Over, Despite Democratic Cheering

The party leadership wants to move on from health cares wreckage and show they can get things done efficiently. And the big money behind the scenes is pouring millions of dollars into advertising and public events supporting tax cuts, air cover that didnt exist on health care.

But theres a huge split among the Republican faithful. While polling shows the general public wants Congress to move on from health care, conservatives dont. They are threatening retribution in next years primaries for members of Congress who fail to finish the job on health care. And Republicans generally fear their conservative base tossing them out as much as, if not more than, losing gerrymandered, safe seats to Democrats.

The Trump administration has sent mixed messages. Trump has tweeted that senators shouldnt be total quitters on the health care bill; hes even threatened to revoke subsidies for members of Congress and their staffs if theres no action. Over the weekend, White House budget director Mick Mulvaney restated Trumps position: The Senate shouldnt vote on anything else until it moves on health care. And Sen. Lindsey Graham has entered discussions with the White House over a new bill, which would simply deliver all health care funding to the states and let them figure it out. Graham believes it can garner 50 votes in the Senate and advance the process.

Related: What Do Democrats Stand For? The Party Finally Has the Right Answer

At the same time, Trump has events planned this week promoting a tax overhaul, and a proposed schedule of speeches across the Rust Belt in August. And the business community, which has only tepidly sold the Trump agenda, stands ready to spend massive resources to get their tax cuts.

So that would appear to be the choice: health care or taxes. But theres a third option: If Republicans could strike a tax deal with broad bipartisan support, they wouldnt need a budget resolution to enable a 50-vote threshold in the Senate. They could build a big-tent tax policy while keeping the 2017 reconciliation bill on ice and waiting for the winds to shift on health care.

What would a bipartisan tax deal look like? There are plenty of pieces floating around that Congressional Democrats have supported in the past, even if I dont. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer co-authored a repatriation tax proposal with Republican Rob Portman in 2015, which would tax one-time revenues from a small tax on overseas profits and put the money toward infrastructure investment. In that deal, Republicans would get a permanent tax rate cut on overseas earnings. A middle-class tax cut would probably sway some Democrats, and if Steve Bannons desire for a 44 percent tax bracket for multi-millionaires is legitimate, that would attract liberals, too.

Related: Democrats Have One Big Idea in Their Better Deal That Should Worry the GOP

Billionaires funding ads on tax reform are not interested in higher tax rates on the rich, and ideologues in the House Freedom Caucus balk at increases in any part of the tax code. But a bipartisan bill might be the only path to deficit-neutral tax reform, which House GOP leaders claim to want. Last week, Republicans issued a joint statement on tax reform in which they killed the main revenue-raiser in their proposal, a so-called border adjustment tax that would have favored exports over imports. Without anywhere else to turn, raising money by taxing the super-wealthy could serve as the price for big business tax cuts, as Jeff Spross argued on Monday.

This kind of compromise would keep health care in the mix. Plus, the joint statement on taxes was surprisingly weak on details, revealing how ideological constraints could paralyze the effort and further expose the GOP as unable to govern. Republicans might need a bipartisan deal to succeed at getting anything passed.

This kind of deal would cut against the totality of Republican actions since the Trump inauguration: scornful of compromise, neglectful of Democratic input, determined to go it alone. There are bipartisan solutions staring Republicans in the face on several issues and they havent taken the plunge, whether out of stubbornness or fear of reprisal from their base.

That has put them in this quandary. If they want a Republican-only tax bill, theyll have to give up on seven years of dreams to repeal Obamacare. If they want to keep repeal on the back burner, theyll have to work with Democrats on taxes. Because Republicans dont want to do either of these things, they may end up with nothing.

P.S. This is my last column for The Fiscal Times before I head off to other opportunities. I want to thank everyone at the operation for great encouragement and support the past three years.

View original post here:

The Entire Republican Agenda Now Hinges on This One Decision - The Fiscal Times

House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) believes Congress will adopt a continuing resolution (CR) instead of passing spending bills for 2018 by October and that a clean debt ceiling hikewill pass with Democratic support, contrary to the wishes of conservative Republicans.

September is going to be a very difficult month. I mean, obviously all of this is coming into play right away, all the fiscal issues and deadlines are going to make it extremely difficult to get everything done in a piece-by-piece basis, Meadows saidFridaymorning.

Were almost anticipating a bigger bill with a whole bunch of things put together that would maybe bring a whole lot of Democrats on board and pass with less than a majority of the majority.

That omnibus policy package or a similar piece of legislation, he predicted, would include a clean debt ceiling lift with mostly Democratic support.

I think they end up passing it with some reauthorization to get Democrats on board and 40 or 50 Republicans and get it done, he said.

On appropriations, Meadows said that the timeline was simply too short to reach a deal by the end of September, when funding will run out.

I think that there is no way to work quick enough to do a normal appropriations process, so a CR will be the result, because of inactivity in the Senate, Meadows saidFriday.

A CR would keep current spending levels in place while averting a government shutdown. But administration officials have spoken unfavorably of a CR, as it would put off increases to military spending and impose a series of restrictions on government functioning.

Just dont have the next showdown in late December, Meadows pleaded.

What I dont believe it needs to be is one that comes due right before Christmas. Either we do a 30-day or a 45-day or we do something that gets us on the other side of Christmas, because Christmas decisions are not good decisions when theyre fiscal, he said. Lets face it, it makes everybody make bad decisions.

President Trump and members of his White House have in recent months floated the idea of a good shutdown, in which funding would lapse for government operations absent a new spending deal or a CR.

Meadows said it seemed unlikely.

I dont see government shutdown as a real risk, he said.

On Wednesday, Republican Study Committee Executive Director Scott Parkinson also said he expects a CR in the autumn. The RSC is another conservative caucusand includes more thanhalf of House Republicans.

View original post here:

Freedom Caucus chairman predicts October CR, clean debt ceiling hike - The Hill

Read the full text of the Senate health care bill. | Detroit News via AP

By POLITICO STAFF

07/27/2017 11:18 PM EDT

The full text of the Senate "skinny" Obamacare repeal bill:

AMENDMENT NO.llll Calendar No.lll

Story Continued Below

Purpose: In the nature of a substitute.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES115th Cong., 1st Sess.

H. R. 1628

To provide for reconciliation pursuant to title II of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2017.

Referred to the Committee on llllllllll and ordered to be printed

Ordered to lie on the table and to be printed

AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE intended to be proposed by lllllll

Viz:

Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the Health Care Freedom Act.

TITLE I

SEC. 101. INDIVIDUAL MANDATE.

(a) IN GENERAL.Section 5000A(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended(1) in paragraph (2)(B)(iii), by striking 2.5 percent and inserting Zero percent, and (2) in paragraph (3) MCG17700 S.L.C. (A) by striking $695 in subparagraph (A) and inserting $0, and (B) by striking subparagraph (D). (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2015.

SEC. 102. EMPLOYER MANDATE.

(a) IN GENERAL. (1) Paragraph (1) of section 4980H(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ($0 in the case of months beginning after December 31, 2015, and before January 1, 2025) after $2,000. (2) Paragraph (1) of section 4980H(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting ($0 in the case of months beginning after December 31, 2015, and before January 1, 2025) after $3,000. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE. The amendments made by this section shall apply to months beginning after December 31, 2015.

MCG17700 S.L.C.

SEC. 103. EXTENSION OF MORATORIUM ON MEDICAL DEVICE EXCISE TAX.

(a) IN GENERAL.Section 4191(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by striking December 31, 2017 and inserting December 31, 2020. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.The amendment made by this section shall apply to sales after December 31, 2017.

SEC. 104. MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTION LIMIT TO HEALTH SAVINGS ACCOUNT INCREASED TO AMOUNT OF DEDUCTIBLE AND OUT-OF-POCKET LIMITATION.

(a) IN GENERAL.Subsection (b) of section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph: (9) INCREASED LIMITATION.In the case of any month beginning after December 31, 2017, and before January 1, 2021(A) paragraph (2)(A) shall be applied by substituting the amount in effect under sub-section (c)(2)(A)(ii)(I) for $2,250, and (B) paragraph (2)(B) shall be applied by substituting the amount in effect under sub-section (c)(2)(A)(ii)(II) for $4,500.. (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.The amendment made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017.

MCG17700 S.L.C.

SEC. 105. FEDERAL PAYMENTS TO STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL.Notwithstanding section 504(a), 1902(a)(23), 1903(a), 2002, 2005(a)(4), 2102(a)(7), or 2105(a)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 704(a), 1396a(a)(23), 1396b(a), 1397a, 1397d(a)(4), 1397bb(a)(7), 1397ee(a)(1)), or the terms of any Medicaid waiver in effect on the date of enactment of this Act that is approved under section 1115 or 1915 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1315, 1396n), for the 1-year period beginning on the date of enactment of this Act, no Federal funds provided from a program referred to in this subsection that is considered direct spending for any year may be made available to a State for payments to a prohibited entity, whether made directly to the prohibited entity or through a managed care organization under contract with the State. b) DEFINITIONS.In this section: (1) PROHIBITED ENTITY. The term prohibited entity means an entity, including its affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, and clinics (A) that, as of the date of enactment of this Act (i) is an organization described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and exempt from tax under section 501(a) of such Code; MCG17700 S.L.C. (ii) is an essential community provider described in section 156.235 of title 45,Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect on the date of enactment of this Act), that is primarily engaged in family planning services, reproductive health, and related medical care; and (iii) provides for abortions, other than an abortion (I) if the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest; or (II) in the case where a woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would, as certified by a physician, place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself; and (B) for which the total amount of Federal and State expenditures under the Medicaid program under title XIX of the Social Security Act in fiscal year 2014 made directly to the entity and to any affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or MCG17700 S.L.C. clinics of the entity, or made to the entity and to any affiliates, subsidiaries, successors, or clinics of the entity as part of a nationwide health care provider network, exceeded $1,000,000. (2) DIRECT SPENDING.The term direct spending has the meaning given that term under section 250(c) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 900(c)).

TITLE II

SEC. 201. THE PREVENTION AND PUBLIC HEALTH FUND.

Subsection (b) of section 4002 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 300u11) is amended(1) in paragraph (3), by striking each of fiscal years 2018 and 2019 and inserting fiscal year 2018; and (2) by striking paragraphs (4) through (8).

SEC. 202. COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER PROGRAM.

Effective as if included in the enactment of the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act of 2015 (Public Law 11410, 129 Stat. 87), paragraph (1) of section 221(a) of such Act is amended by inserting , and an additional $422,000,000 for fiscal year 2017 after 2017.

MCG17700 S.L.C.

SEC. 203. WAIVERS FOR STATE INNOVATION.

Section 1332 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (42 U.S.C. 18052) is amended(1) in subsection (a)(3) (A) in the first sentence, by inserting or would qualify for a reduction in after would not qualify for; (B) by adding after the second sentence the following: A State may request that all of, or any portion of, such aggregate amount of such credits or reductions be paid to the State as described in the first sentence.; (C) in the paragraph heading, by striking PASS THROUGH OF FUNDING and inserting FUNDING; (D) by striking With respect and inserting the following: (A) PASS THROUGH OF FUNDING.With respect; and (E) by adding at the end the following: (B) ADDITIONAL FUNDING.There is authorized to be appropriated, and is appropriated, to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, out of monies in the Treasury not otherwise obligated, $2,000,000,000, to remain available until the end of fiscal year 2019. Such MCG17700 S.L.C. amounts shall be used to provide grants to States that request financial assistance for the purpose of (i) submitting an application for a waiver granted under this section; or (ii) implementing the State plan under such waiver.; (2) in subsection (b)(1), in the matter preceding subparagraph (A) (A) by striking may and inserting shall; and (B) by striking only; (3) in subsection (d)(1), by striking 180 and inserting 45; and (4) in subsection (e), by striking No waiver and all that follows through the period at the end and inserting the following: A waiver under this section(1) shall be in effect for a period of 8 years unless the State requests a shorter duration; (2) may be renewed for unlimited additional 8-year periods upon application by the State; and (3) may not be cancelled by the Secretary before the expiration of the 8-year period (including any renewal period under paragraph (2))..

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

See the original post here:

Full text: Senate 'skinny' Obamacare repeal bill - Politico

Richard Ebeling

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

The corruption of government officials seems to be as old as recorded history. For example, the ancient Roman senate passed laws against such political corruption in the first century, B.C. They defined a corrupt act as whenever money is taken and a publicly-conferred duty is violated.

Local magistrates in the Roman Empire were permitted to legally receive cash gifts of up to 100 gold pieces a year, but anything beyond this amount was considered filth. There was also a separate criminal category against what was calledconcussio, or the shakedown and extortion. A Roman official might claim to have a legal order against someone, and demand a bribe not to enforce it against the individuals person or property.

Emperor Constantine issued one of the strongest decrees against corruption during this time in A.D. 331. Those found guilty of such crimes might be exiled to an isolated island or a far-off rural area, while others might even be condemned to death. A judge, for example, might be executed if he had acquitted someone guilty of murder for the right price.

Corruption Today in Europe and North America

High levels of political corruption remain today one of the major problems confronting people around the world. While most of us think of such corruption as primarily impacting the hundreds of millions who live in the underdeveloped and developing parts of the globe, it touches those of us fortunate enough to live in the industrially developed Western democracies.

The Berlin-based non-profit organization, Transparency International (TI), annually surveys various forms of corruption around the world by various measures and types. A score of 100 in their 2016 Corruption Perception Index means the absence of any political corruption. A score approaching zero suggests a society in which little happens or gets done without layers of governmentally corrupt processes for people to get through in their daily lives. TI points out that No country gets close to a perfect score on the index.

However, according to Transparency International many of the least corrupt nations around the world are in the European Union and North America. In fact, Denmark ranks the least corrupt worldwide, followed by New Zealand. Among the remaining top ten of least corrupt countries area: Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Norway, Singapore, the Netherlands, Canada and Germany. All of them have scores of 80 or better on TIs scale of 100 having zero corruption.

The United States, however, is only ranked 18 with a score of 74. That placed America just below Belgium, Hong Kong and Austria. But the U.S. did rank above Ireland, Japan and Uruguay. And, happy to report, America is above France, which had a score of only 69.

The most corrupt nations of the EU, perhaps not surprisingly, are in Eastern Europe, in those countries that had been part of the former Soviet bloc. Poland only scored 62, followed by Slovenia (61), Lithuania (59), Latvia (57), Czech Republic (55), Slovakia ((51), and Hungary and Romania (58). On the other hand, Greece, a longtime member of the EU, only earned a score of 44.

Former Soviet republics further to the east are far worse. The Russian Federation and Ukraine only scored 29, with the former Soviet republics in central Asia Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, for instance barely making it above the low 20s range on the scale.

Corruption and Bribery in Africa, Asia and Latin America

The lowest TI scores are generally earned in Africa and parts of the Middle East and Asia, with some other very corrupt countries in Latin America. The most corrupt countries on the planet, according to TI, are Somalia (10), South Sudan (11), North Korea (12), Syria (13), Yemen (14), Sudan (14), Libya (14), and Afghanistan (15). But in corruption depravity, Venezuela, Iraq, and Haiti are not far behind them.

In fact, on the Transparency International scale there are hardly any countries in Asia, the Middle East, Africa or Latin America that make it even to the 40s mark on their political corruption scale. The vast majority of the countries in these parts of the world are in the 30s and 20s, or less levels under TIs scale.

As part of their annual survey on global corruption a few years ago, TI also asked people the frequency with which they had to pay bribes to government officials of one type or another in attempts to get by in their daily lives. In North America, one percent of Canadians surveyed said they bribed someone in government. In the United States that reply was given by two percent of the people asked.

But even in countries that have long been members of the EU bribery was reported. The worst occurred in Greece, where 27 percent of the people said they paid bribes during the preceding year. In most of Western Europe the bribery level was around 2-3 percent of the population, though the number was 6 percent in Luxembourg. (The bribery question was not asked in Germany and Italy.)

Bribery is far more endemic in the rest of the world. Africa suffers from political bribery the most, with 42 percent of all those in the countries surveyed saying they had paid bribes. The most extreme case was found by TI in Cameroon, where 79 percentalmost four out of every five peopleadmitted paying bribes, with the number being 40 percent of the people in neighboring Nigeria.

In Asia, the overall rate of bribe giving was reported to be 22 percent of the population. The highest rates were found in Cambodia (72 percent), Pakistan (44 percent), the Philippines (32 percent), Indonesia (31 percent), India (25 per- cent), and Vietnam (14 percent).

Finally, in Latin America, the average bribery rate was recorded at 13 percent of the people. But as in the rest of the world, it varies from country to country. Among the handful of Latin American countries surveyed, the highest rate was in the Dominican Republic with 28 percent. Bolivia followed with 27 percent.

Around the globe, the most bribes are paid to the police. In Africa, 47 percent of the respondents said they bribed the police; in Asia, 33 percent; in Latin America, 23 percent; and in Eastern Europe, almost 20 percent. Worldwide, about 17 percent of the people in the survey paid bribes to the members of law enforcement.

Bribing people in the judicial system came next, with the global response being about 8 percent of all those surveyed. About the same percentage around the world said they bribed government agents for business licenses and permits, though again the highest rates were in Africa (23 percent) and Asia (17 percent). But even in the United States and Canada around 3 percent admitted paying such bribes.

Medical care is also a major area for such corruption. In Africa, 24 percent of the respondents said they paid bribes for access to medical services; in Asia, the response was 10 percent; in Russia and Ukraine, 13 percent; in Eastern Europe, 8 percent; in the EU, almost 5 percent; and in North America, 2 percent.

Corruption and Government Intervention in the Marketplace

Political corruption, clearly, is found everywhere around the world and people, regardless of where they live, do not expect it to go away anytime soon. Yet, in spite of its global dimension, corruption pervades some parts of the world more than others, and permeates certain corners of society to a greater degree. Why?

Part of the answer certainly relates to issues surrounding ethics and culture. The higher the degree of personal honesty and allegiance to ethical codes of conduct, the more we might expect people to resist the temptations of offering or taking bribes. However, economic and business analyst, Ian Senior, in his,Corruptionthe Worlds Big C: Cases, Causes, Consequences, Cures(2006), concluded that there were no significant correlations between high degrees of personal honesty and religious practice and less bribe-taking around the world.

A far stronger explanation can be found in the relationship between the level of corruption in society and the degree of government intervention in the marketplace. In a generally free market society, government is limited to the protection of the citizenrys life, liberty, and honestly acquired property. The rule of law is transparent and assures impartial justice for all. Any other functions taken on by the government are few in number, such as a variety of public works projects.

Under these circumstances, government officials have few regulatory or redistributive responsibilities, and therefore they have few special favors, privileges, benefits, or dispensations to sell to some in the private sector at the expense of others in society. The smaller the range of government activities, therefore, the less politicians or bureaucrats have to sell to voters and special interest groups. And the smaller the incentive or need for citizens to have to bribe government officials to allow them to peacefully go about their private business and personal affairs.

On the other hand, the very nature of the regulated economy in the interventionist state is to short-circuit the free market. The interventionist state goes beyond protecting peoples lives and property. Those in power in the interventionist state intervene by using government authority to influence the outcomes of the market through the application of political force.

The government taxes the public and has huge sums of money to disburse to various programs and projects. It imposes licensing and regulatory restrictions on free and open competition. It transfers great amounts of income and wealth to different groups through sundry redistributive schemes. It controls how and for what purpose people may use and dispose of their own property. It paternalistically imposes legal standards influencing the ways we may live, learn, associate, and interact with others around us.

Those in the government who wield these powers hold the fate of virtually everyone in their decision-making hands. It is inevitable that those drawn to employment in the political arena often will see the potential for personal gain in how and for whose benefit or harm they apply their vast life-determining decrees and decisions. Some will be attracted to such public service because they are motivated by ideological visions they dream of imposing for the good of humanity.

Some will see that bribing those holding this political power is the only means to attain their ends. This may be to restrict or prohibit competition in their own corner of the market or to acquire other peoples money through coercive redistribution. For others, however, bribing those who hold the regulatory reins may be the only way to get around restrictions that prevent them from competing on the market and earning a living.

The business of the interventionist state, therefore, is the buying and selling of favors and privileges. It must lead to corruption, because by necessity it uses political power to harm some for the benefit of others, and those expecting to be either harmed or benefited will inevitably try to influence what those holding power do with it.

The Correlation between Economic Freedom and Freedom from Corruption

For 23 years the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., have sponsored an annualIndex of Economic Freedom(IEF). The IEF tracks a series of 10 measured indicators that include the following: (1) business freedom; (2) trade freedom; (3) level of fiscal burden; (4) size of government; (5) degree of monetary stability; (6) investment freedom; (7) financial freedom; (8) protected private property rights and the general rule of law; (9) flexible labor markets; and (10) freedom from corruption.

The premise is that the greater the degree of individual freedom, the more secure property rights, the smaller the size and intrusiveness of government in the marketplace, and the greater the open competitive market environment at home and in foreign trade, then the more likely a society will experience rising prosperity and higher standards of living over time.

No country in the world is free from some degree of government intervention and regulation. The nineteenth century era of relativelylaissez-faire, unfortunately, has been long gone. But the extent to which governments intrude into the economic, social, and personal activities of their citizens does vary significantly around the globe. This includes the extent to which citizens are protected by an impartial enforcement of the rule of law, have the freedoms of association, the press, and religion, and the right to democratically participate in the selection of those who hold political office.

TheIndex of Economic Freedom,in its 2017 edition, estimates that based on composite scores of all ten indicators, the greatest amount of economic freedom can be found in the following parts of the world: Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, Australia, Estonia, Canada, the United Arab Emirates, Ireland, and Chile. The United States ranks only 17 in the world by theIndex of Economic Freedombenchmarks. Ten years ago, before the Barack Obama presidency, America ranked fourth in the world.

Regionally, North America, Western Europe, and Australia/New Zealand are estimated by Transparency International to be the areas of the world in which the lowest rates of corruption are to be found. TheIndex of Economic Freedomalso ranks these parts of the globe as generally having the greatest amount of economic freedom, or the least intrusion of government intervention (broadly defined) within the marketplace.

On the other hand, Africa, Asia, and Latin America are the parts of the globe with the highest reported amounts of bribery, and are also the areas that IEF estimates as far lower in the global rankings for degrees of economic freedom. Among the 180 countries included in theIndex of Economic Freedom, many (though certainly not all) of the ones that Transparency International estimates as having particularly high levels of corruption are ranked at the bottom one-third in terms of economic freedom from government intrusion.

The correlation between a global low ranking in terms of economic freedom and a high reported rate of political corruption is certainly not one-to-one. There are many variables at work, including the extent to which different types of freedom used in the IEF surveys are restricted in the respective countries. Thus, domestic property rights might be legally more secure in one country compared to others, but that country may have a higher rate of price inflation and more restricted labor markets, resulting in it having a lower economic freedom ranking in the index compared to other nations.

But the assertion can be safely made that the wider and more intrusive the degree of government intervention, the greater the likelihood of a higher level of experienced and perceived corruption. The more the government regulates, controls, and interferes with transactions in the marketplace (e.g., through price and production controls, or import and export restrictions and quotas, or business licensing and permit rules, or high, complex, and arbitrary taxation), the more need and incentive for people to bribe those in political power to free or reduce the heavy hand of government over their lives.

Ending global political corruption in its various petty and grand forms, therefore, will only come with the removal of government from social and economic life. When government is limited to protecting our lives and property, there will be little left to buy and sell politically. Corruption then will be an infrequent annoyance and occasional scandal, rather than an inescapable aspect of todays social and economic life around the world.

[Originally Published at the Future for Freedom Foundation]

Global Corruption and the Role of Government was last modified: July 26th, 2017 by Richard Ebeling

Go here to see the original:

Global Corruption and the Role of Government - Somewhat Reasonable - Heartland Institute (blog)

The Fiscal Times

Raise the Debt Ceiling Now, or Face Another Post-Summer Crisis: Meadows The Fiscal Times Meadows, chair of the far-right House Freedom Caucus, said in an interview it would be a mistake to postpone action on authorizing increased borrowing authority for the Treasury. He argued that the White House and Republican congressional leaders have ... House Conservatives Target Jobs at Congressional Budget OfficeDaily Signal House Could Vote on CBO Amendments This WeekBloomberg BNA all 19 news articles »

Read the original post:

Raise the Debt Ceiling Now, or Face Another Post-Summer Crisis: Meadows - The Fiscal Times

Its shocking to see the budget horror stories coming out of two of the nations leading states. Illinois and Connecticut are in fiscal freefall, and their leaders are taking the exact wrong approach in their misguided efforts to turn things around. If they were smart, they would look to the example of states like Florida to discover how to weather fiscal storms.

Illinois faces a staggering budget gap of close to $10 billion, a crisis worsened by a state pension program funded at just 37 percent and credit downgrades that leave the once-proud state just one step above junk status. Saddled with their blue-state mentality, Illinois lawmakers are doing what they do best, trying to solve the problem by raising taxes somehow thinking they can dig their way out of the hole theyve created.

Connecticut, meanwhile, must cope with a roughly $2 billion budget hole and the departure of key employers like General Electric and Aetna. Applying the same erroneous approach as their brethren in the Land of Lincoln, politicians in Connecticut are considering bringing back toll roads in hopes of raising enough revenue to get their budget in balance. They seem to think that if only they extract a little more from their taxpayers, they can make their financial problems magically disappear. They clearly are forgetting the well-known definition of insanity: Doing the same things over and over, but expecting different results.

Largely overlooked amid the medias unrelenting focus on the Trump White House was the publication this month of an invaluable comprehensive research study by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University. Mercatus annual Ranking of the States by Fiscal Condition points directly to a conclusion that Illinois, Connecticut, and so many other struggling states should begin to embrace that conservative fiscal principles lead to prosperity.

As the President and CEO of Floridas oldest and largest policy think tank, this reality is no surprise to me. For 30 years, The James Madison Institute has worked alongside our policymakers, elected leaders, and citizens to embrace the principles of limited government, free markets, rule of law, and the protection of private property. This approach unmistakably is working. The Mercatus research team, among the most comprehensive and professional in the nation, spent several months dissecting the finances of each state in five separate categories and across dozens of specific financial indicators, and ranked Floridas fiscal condition Number 1 in the nation.

To be sure, this type of success does not happen overnight. Florida has been blessed with tremendous, conservative leadership over the past 20 years, championed by the likes of Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Rick Scott, among others. Over those two decades, we have seen Florida succeed and thrive despite unrelenting challenges. The housing crisis and the Great Recession hit Florida harder than just about every other state, and it was the conservative free-market principles embraced by the states leaders that helped us rebound faster than anyone.

Moreover, from 1994 to 2014, more than $125 billion in annual adjusted gross income migrated to Florida from high-tax states like Illinois and Connecticut. That economic benefit is coming here not in spite of the policies of the states government, but because of them. In just the seven years under Governor Rick Scott, Florida has added well more than 1 million private sector jobs. State legislators have enacted sound and practical tax policies designed to keep government overreach at a minimum and prosperity at a maximum.

The numbers tell a compelling story. Floridas annual state budget of roughly $83 billion pales in comparison to that of New Yorks $150 billion. So what has the Empire State gotten for all those billions? A ride swerving around the potholes of the New York Turnpike suggests the answer is: not much.

Mercatus new report should hit politicians in Illinois, Connecticut, New York, and other liberal states like a punch in the gut. Whether they pay heed is yet to be seen, but I would be surprised if they do. However, no one should be surprised by the rankings from the report and Floridas premier standing. Freedom works every time its tried.

View original post here:

Free-Market Thinking Is Key for States to Avoid Financial Disaster - InsideSources

By Ndubuisi Francis in Abuja

A civil society organisation (CSO)Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) has advised the federal government to apply annual budgets in addressing the problem of inequality, noting that inequality is a pre-condition for economic stagnation.

It also observed that in spite of extant sunshine laws, including the Fiscal Responsibility, Public Procurement and Freedom of Information Acts, the nations fiscal environment is still not transparent, culminating in reduced accountability and value for money for federal spending. CSJ, which has in recent years championed fiscal responsibility practices in governance, stated that the combination of cloudy acts and unequal economic protection lead to reduced opportunities for women and youths in education, employment and other sectors of social and economic life.

The Lead Director, CSJ, Mr. Eze Onyekpere, who delivered a lecture on Budgeting for Development at the Faculty of Administration, Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria, noted that budgets affect men and women, youth and different segments of society differently because of their respective roles, contributions, absorptive capacities and societal expectations. Coming against the background of the decline in oil price and reduced revenue for government, it is imperative that strategic steps be taken in accordance with Nigerias obligations under international human rights law to secure minimum core subsistence rights for vulnerable groups. In these times of severe resource constraints, special measures need to be taken to protect women, youth and vulnerable groups. The federal government needs to be engaged to ensure that this obligation is met. Nigeria is at a fork in the road and needs to take effective decisions on its next fiscal and economic steps. The petro dollar boom is over as commodity prices have collapsed. Hard choices need to be made on how to expend the little available resources and new sources of generating revenue. These choices are betweenacceleration and stagnation,stability and fragilityand the quest forsocial solidarity, he said. He pointed out that budgets are instruments for the reduction of inequality, adding that inequality is a pre-condition for economic stagnation. Economic, fiscal and monetary policies are not neutral.Inequality is not a given; it does not just happen. It is a product of the economic, social and political policy decisions and choices made by the state and citizens. Reducing inequality is not only a moral imperative; it is good economics as well. Budgets are essential instruments for the reduction of inequality, he said. Onyekpere also stated that for development to occur, the public finance management (PFM) system must be evidence-led and positioned to adjust to changing societal realities. It is a fundamental aphorism that the state of development in any society is directly related to the progress in its PFM. However, the society must have an agreement on the direction of the development or transformation.Answers to be provided to critical questions such as: where are we?And where do we want to be? He queried. The lecture, which attracted mass participation by students and academic staff of all the departments of the faculty was organised to provide students with knowledge on budgeting. The arrow-head of the event, Dr. Hamisu Suleiman said the CSJ boss was invited to deliver the lecture because of the antecedents of the CSO over the years.

See the article here:

Use Annual Budgets to Address Inequality, CSO Tells FG - THISDAY Newspapers

Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., and Donald Trump (Photo: Twitter)

Senate Republicans appear unable to pass a straight repeal of Obamacare or a more comprehensive plan, and one of the most fiscally conservative members of Congress says the GOP either needs to do what it promised or prepare to watch the rest of the Trump agenda wither away.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says he still plans to hold a vote on repeal, identical to the one that passed Congress in 2015. However, four Republicans are already opposed, including three who voted for the 2015 plan thatwas vetoed by President Obama.

Sens. Rob Portman, R-Ohio; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; and Shelley Moore Capito, R-West Virginia, are now opposing the plan they backed two years ago. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is also opposed, but she also rejected the 2015 bill.

For those pounding the table for repeal, the Senates failure is stunning.

I thought there would be some movement toward the 2015 plan, but then the three senators who previously voted for the 2015 bill came out and said they were going to vote against the 2015 bill. That is fairly shocking, said Rep. Dave Brat, R-Va., a member of the House Freedom Caucus and the House Budget Committee.

When you vote 50 times to repeal and you say youre going to repeal, then its fairly simple. You ought to do what you told the American people you were going to do. So now these folks are really, really hurting the Republican brand, said Brat.

What do YOU think?Do Republicans need new leadership in House and Senate? Sound off in todays WND poll!

He says the GOP needs some serious soul-searching.

What do we stand for? Do we stand for small federal government? Do we stand for free markets? Do we stand for fiscal responsibility, or are we just going down the Democrat path and bankrupting the country? asked Brat.

The rest is just pure politics, and I dont care for that realm. The first principles are what made us the greatest country on earth. You put Adam Smith and James Madison together and you get some great outcomes. Were departing from those first principles every day, said Brat.

Hear the interview:

He says what many Republicans are focused on in Washington is a far cry from what voters want from them.

I just dont understand how you can be that far off the reservation politically and that tone deaf to what the American people want. Everybody back home is just yelling to get it done. Were once again tone deaf up in the bubble, said Brat.

Brat is also frustrated by how Republicans have tortured a simple policy approach into something far more complicated.

Once you change the definition of repeal to a health care thing run by the federal government with all sorts of subsidies and billions of dollars for other programs attached, youre getting too far away from Republican first principles. The messaging hasnt been good because we keep twisting the meaning of common sense words, said Brat.

Brat is also concerned about how the failure to pass health care legislation will impact other major priorities in this Congress, especially major tax reform. He says that between not eliminating Obamacare taxes and the expected scuttling of the border adjustability tax, Congress is already starting with a $2 trillion disadvantage.

As a result, the Trump administration is now adjusting its push to lower the corporate tax rate. Instead of dropping it to 15 percent, Brat says the presidents team is now gunning for the 20-25 percent range.

He says the GOP simply cannot screw up tax reform.

The worst thing we can do is to goof up tax reform and not get this economy rolling again. Everything hinges on that, he said.

Brat still holds out hope for a health-care bill since President Trump is still energized to get something done, although Brat suggests the president has been more transactional in his approach and needs to be more specific about what he wants.

He is not enthused about bringing Democrats into the talks since that would lead to government in health care.

I think hes starting to recognize that when you move toward the Democrat side, the policy end up utterly complex and fails, said Brat.

The congressman also laughs off the assertion of Democrats that Republican opposition to Obamacare and not the law itself is responsible for uncertainty that drives up the cost of premiums and deductibles for many Americans.

Whats a central planner going to say about the monopoly. Its never their fault because they own it, said Brat. They have to give that kind of response because they dont have a free market system that is sustainable over the long run.

Here is the original post:

Freedom Caucus member: Senators' betrayal 'shocking' - WND.com - WND.com