Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

The Trump administration may be about to tick off the world over steel.

President Trump will reportedly soon decide whether to slap tariffs of up to 20 percent on U.S. imports of steel from other countries. Tariffs on other imports like semiconductors, paper, washing machines, and aluminum could also be in the works.

A majority of White House officials apparently oppose the plan just not Trump himself. And it set off plenty of grumbles among the world's other major economies at the international G-20 summit last week. If Trump goes through with it, officials in the European Union are looking into retaliatory tariffs on American exports in orange juice, whiskey, dairy, and other agricultural products.

Broadly speaking, there are two dimensions to this plan and its consequences: the legal and political complexities, and then any possible economic fallout.

Let's take them in that order.

If he imposes the tariffs, Trump would actually be using an odd corner of American trade law that dates back to the Cold War. It allows the U.S. to impose protectionist measures if they're deemed critical to national security. In this case, the ostensible justification would be that the military needs steel for equipment and vehicles and such, so the U.S. must have a robust domestic steel industry in case of war.

This is also where the problems start.

Trusted allies, not just the domestic industry, have historically been considered reliable sources of steel. Furthermore, the process for deciding when to use tariffs under this law usually requires months of committee hearings and knowledge gathering. That Trump is rushing the process suggests that national security is just a pretext. Instead, it is really an effort to protect U.S. steel, and everyone totally knows it. Which is why other Western countries are getting ready to retaliate.

Another justification the White House is throwing around is that China specifically needs to be punished for subsidizing its own steel exports to lower their price, and then dumping them on the international markets.

China is definitely guilty of this. Previous administrations, including Obama's, have slapped plenty of restrictions and temporary tariffs on Chinese steel as a result. But for that very reason, China's steel exports to the U.S. are already low it's not even among America's top 10 foreign suppliers. A more accurate characterization of the problem is that China's exports drive down the price of other countries' steel exports to America.

That's why Trump may well target other countries think Brazil, Mexico, Japan, Canada, and the European Union as well or just impose the tariffs on everyone across the board. Which brings us back to the problem of pissing off the international community.

Now, Vox's Zeesham Aleem pointed out that Trump could have yet another strategy in mind here: using the threat of tariffs on everyone to force other Western countries to get tougher on China together. But the White House has a big self-created problem there, too: "Trump's constant reversals, ambiguity, mixed signals, and outright hostility to following through on U.S. commitments on everything from trade deals to military alliances have destroyed trust in the U.S.'s ability to actually fulfill its pledges."

Basically, Trump is trying to game the rules of international trade agreements in a way that American allies will find particularly obvious and insulting. And they don't find him credible enough to trust U.S. commitments anymore.

But what of the economic merits of those agreements? Even if it's sure to piss off our trade partners, is this still a good idea for American jobs?

Well, as I mentioned, the more targeted a tariff is, the less likely it is to do anything for U.S. jobs. Just go after Chinese steel, and domestic producers will still be undercut by cheap imports from other countries. Meanwhile, tariffs on all steel imports only apply to steel. You may create jobs in the U.S. steel industry, but by definition, you're also raising the price of steel for American consumers. So you gain jobs in steel, but maybe lose them in industries that use steel, like car manufacturing.

So Trump's jobs goal would be better served by more comprehensive tariffs on all imports. But the closer he gets to that, the more likely he is to blow up international trade agreements entirely and spark a full-blown trade war. Now, American exports to the rest of the world make up just 12.5 percent of our economy, while the portion is much higher for most other Western countries. So they'd have far more to lose from a trade war than we do. But it still wouldn't be pleasant.

Even many left-wing economists who agree with Trump on the effects of trade think tariffs work best as shots across the bow: temporary and targeted measures to punish specific countries for bad behavior. They're not well-suited to forcing systemic changes in trade relationships.

If systemic change is Trump's ultimate goal (and it should be) he could use countervailing currency interventions to fix systemic imbalances between the U.S. dollar and other currencies. Or he could negotiate directly with other governments as previous administrations have successfully done to get them to adjust the value of their currencies relative to ours. Both movies would shrink the trade deficit, and thus increase the amount of American demand going to fuel domestic job creation.

Alternatively, Trump could accept that large trade deficits give the federal government enormous room to borrow without consequence. The stimulative effects of bigger federal budget deficits are actually a natural corrective to the job-sucking effects of trade deficits. Trump could use that fiscal freedom to create jobs and bulk up domestic industries like steel with domestic industrial policy.

Many centrist analysts have fallen into the habit of treating even the whiff of protectionism as a terrible idea with inevitably apocalyptic consequences. But while Trump may be wrong about many things, he's right that America's trade relationships harm American workers.

Unfortunately, precisely because Trump is wrong about many other things, his solutions tend to be terrible.

Follow this link:

Trump's looming steel war, explained - The Week Magazine

Emergency Response to Consolidate Stability in The Gambia

$56 million of budget support to improve social sector

WASHINGTON, June 30, 2017 The World Bank approved today $56 million International Development Association (IDA) credit (55%) and grant (45%) to support strengthening the Government of The Gambias fiscal position while restoring the provision of essential public services.

This development policy financing (DPF)s focus on fiscal stabilization, public expenditure efficiency, and reform of the state-owned enterprises (SOEs) sector will help establish an enabling environment for sustainable economic growth and improved service delivery over time. The policies supported by the proposed operation are expected to have a significant positive impact on restoring macro stability, while supporting poverty and social indicators in the short and longer run.

This budget support is a direct result of the commitment we expressed immediately after the political transition and during the visit of the World Bank Vice President of the Africa region Makhtar Diop to The Gambia in February. We believe that to help the government face the huge challenges that could jeopardize the new democratic era it is vital for all The Gambias development partners to rapidly deploy technical and financial support, said Louise Cord, World Bank Country Director.

A poor 2016 agricultural season, combined with the negative impact of the political crisis on the tourism sector, exacerbated the already difficult challenges facing the country, said Christine Richaud and Patricia Geli, the World Bank Task Team Leaders. Immediate efforts to re-establish and maintain a sound fiscal policy stance, drastically reduce domestic financing of the deficit, and lay the groundwork for improving public sector management and boosting economic recovery will be critical to safeguard political stability.

The operation is structured around three intertwined pillars, including rapid-response fiscal stabilization measures with due protection of social sectors. The operation starts addressing fiscal risks stemming from state-owned enterprises (SOEs), by limiting contingent liabilities and promoting enhanced transparency and financial viability of SOEs. Finally, it also supports fiscal efficiency in the procurement of essential medicines and seeks to avoid shortages critical drugs at health centers.

* The World Banks International Development Association (IDA), established in 1960, helps the worlds poorest countries by providing grants and low to zero-interest loans for projects and programs that boost economic growth, reduce poverty, and improve poor peoples lives. IDA is one of the largest sources of assistance for the worlds 77 poorest countries, 39 of which are in Africa. Resources from IDA bring positive change to the 1.3 billion people who live in IDA countries. Since 1960, IDA has supported development work in 112 countries. Annual commitments have averaged about $19 billion over the last three years, with about 50 percent going to Africa.

Contacts:

In Washington: Ekaterina Svirina, (202) 458-1042, esvirina@worldbank.org

In Banjul: Mademba Ndiaye, 221-33-859-4140, mademba@worldbank.org

For more information, please visit: http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/gambia

Visit us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/worldbank

Be updated via Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/worldbank

For our YouTube channel: http://www.youtube.com/worldbank

News Release

2017/164/AFR

Views: 2

Excerpt from:

Gambia: Emergency Response to Consolidate Stability in The Gambia - Freedom Newspaper

The Gambia Emergency Development Policy Financing

Signing Ceremony

Banjul, July 11, 2017

Statement by Mrs. Louise J. Cord

World Bank Country Director

Honorable Minister of Finance and Economic Affairs

Distinguish Guests

Since the trip of the Vice-President of the World Bank for the Africa region and his meeting with President Barrow and the new government, last February, I have to say that there has been a very positive tension within our team. We had to keep the promise made to the Gambian people to support the government reform efforts proactively, in this time of formidable economic challenges and opportunities.

I think the promise has been fulfilled since our Board of Executive directors has approved on June 30 this $56 million Emergency Development Policy Financing we are pleased to sign today.

This DPF was prepared at a defining moment in The Gambias history. Since January, the government has been striving to address the political, social, and economic turbulence generated by a momentous political transition, and a legacy of macroeconomic imbalances and challenging public sector situation. We are all aware that The Gambia is a fragile country, and the current economic crisis may threaten the success of the political transition. In this fragile situation with high risks involved, the World Bank has leaned forward to support the government and help build the conditions for a turnaround. The Bank has also demonstrated agility by preparing this operation in a very short time, and this would not have been possible without a strong commitment to reforms on the part of the government.

Through this Emergency DPF, we aim to provide a rapid response to the countrys urgent financing needs, but also to lay the groundwork for future, deeper structural reforms. The goal is to help put the country back on a stable macro-economic path. The three pillars of the programsupporting fiscal stabilization measures, addressing critical fiscal risks stemming from state-owned enterprises, and mitigating the social impact of the economic crisis in health centersare key elements to address the causes of fragility and support the transition back to economic stability and growth.

And progress is already being made. You have shown your commitment to improve fiscal and debt discipline, by revising the budget for 2017 to better align expenditures with available resources. You have also successfully carried out an audit of the civil service and Security forces to address irregularities in the public payroll, and limit waste of scarce public resources.

I am also confident that the special audits of state-owned enterprises that you have undertaken with the support of this DPF and our investment operations will provide your government with key information for future reforms which are critical for improved delivery of public services, because we know how committed you are to address the longstanding issue of loss-making state-owned enterprises, which drain the budget. You have also shown your commitment to transparency by making the financial statements of all state-owned enterprises available to the public on the website of the Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs.

Obviously, energy is a key priority for your government and a central element in the support we bring to your country. Households and businesses, and particularly very small enterprises, suffer a lot from the lack of affordable, reliable electricity supply, and this is a major handicap for the country. With the support of this DPF, your government has liberalized the fuel market, which will generate savings of about $1.5 million this calendar year for the utility company NAWEC. This is an important step forward in the reform of the sector.

Honorable Ministers,

Distinguish guests,

I recognize that The Gambia still has a long road to travel in terms of reforms. The government is finalizing its Second Program for Accelerated Growth and Employment, and the Bank is preparing a Country Engagement Note to support these priorities. This Emergency DPF is an important first step, which sets the stage for more and deeper policy and institutional reforms. Indeed, more will need to be done in the coming months to maintain sound fiscal management, bring the public debt down to manageable levels, reform state-owned enterprises, restore adequate energy and telecommunications services, and address longstanding constraints on growth. This will be vital to expanding economic opportunities for the population. This is a broad undertaking, and this is why I am very delighted by the presence of the civil society organizations and the private sector, because generally, signing Financial agreements is done between the Bank and the Government.

Before concluding, allow me to thank the Government team for a very fruitful and constructive collaboration, and let me also thank the Bank team. The two teams have worked very hard together during these last months to design and implement this program. I wish all the best to the Government in carrying out its reforms, and would like to reiterate the strong commitment of the World Bank Group to support these efforts in the future.

Thank you

Views: 149

More:

Gambia: The Gambia Emergency Development Policy Financing - Freedom Newspaper

A person walks near a section of the border wall that separates the U.S. and Mexico in Tijuana, Mexico.

House Republicans unveiled a spending bill Tuesday that includes funding for President Donald Trumps proposed border wall with Mexico, setting up a clash with Democrats that risks a government shutdown later this year.

The House Appropriations Committee is proposing to add $1.6 billion for the wall to the Homeland Security spending bill, raising its total to $44.3 billion, even as other domestic agencies face cuts in the coming fiscal year.

This funding bill provides the resources to begin building a wall along our southern border, enhance our existing border security infrastructure, hire more border patrol agents, and fund detention operations, Representative John Carter of Texas, chairman of the Homeland Security Appropriations subcommittee, said in a statement.

The bill would also provide an extra $620 million increase for interior immigration enforcement actions, including a 10 percent increase in the number of detention beds used to house undocumented immigrants.

In May, congressional Republicans provided none of the $3 billion in extra physical border wall and deportation funding sought by Trump for the fiscal 2017 omnibus spending bill.

On the campaign trail, Trump vowed to have Mexico pay for the border wall. Mexico refused and in his fiscal 2018 budget request, Trump asked Congress to pay the bill.

Including border funding could help House Speaker Paul Ryan head off an uprising among conservative Republicans. House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows of North Carolina has demanded funding for the border wall in the bill, arguing that Republicans would revolt on the bill if it were not included.

"Im glad to see that the border wall remains an important priority for the House and the president," Meadows said in a statement that also suggests the amount may need to be increased.

Congress is heading to a showdown over spending that could lead to a government shutdown when the next fiscal year begins Oct. 1. Democrats have said they are unwilling to vote for a bill that funds Trumps border wall or a "deportation force." At least eight Democratic votes will be needed in the Senate for any funding bill to be enacted.

"Democrats will again draw a hard line against wasting taxpayer money to fulfill the presidents campaign applause line," said Matthew Dennis, a spokesman for Democrats on the Appropriations Committee. "The purpose of the Homeland Security bill is to make communities more safe and secure, and this pointless wall does nothing to accomplish that."

After signing the fiscal 2017 spending bill, Trump expressed his unhappiness with the lack of border wall funding. Trump took to Twitter to suggest that a "good" shutdown may be needed to achieve his spending priorities such as the border wall.

With Republican leaders wary of a shutdown, the clash over the border wall is more likely to lead to a stopgap spending bill in September that may end up putting the government on autopilot for a year.

An alternative could be another bipartisan deal with Democrats where the wall funds become a bargaining chit. Republicans in the appropriations process are attempting to boost the defense spending cap by $72 billion, which would require Democratic votes.

Democrats will be looking for an increase to domestic spending, commitments to tax-code changes that dont add to the deficit and an increase in the debt ceiling without any conditions.

Continue reading here:

House GOP's $1.6 Billion Border Wall Plan Sets Up Fight - Bloomberg - Bloomberg

Hans Koepsell, Deseret News

FILE - Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, meets with reporters and members of the editorial board at the Deseret News and KSL in Salt Lake City, Monday, Aug. 29, 2016. Lee called on the Senate to work through its traditional August break, while continuing to voice his opposition to the current GOP health care reform plan.

SALT LAKE CITY Sen. Mike Lee joined seven Republican senators at a news conference Tuesday calling on Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., to keep the Senate in session through its traditional August break.

The Utah Republican also continued to voice opposition to the current GOP health care reform plan.

"The last iteration of the bill is one that I cannot support," Lee said.

Shortly after the news conference, McConnell announced a two-week delay in the August recess. He told reporters in Washington that the Senate on Thursday would lay out a revised version of the plan to repeal and replace Obamacare and consider the bill next week.

Lee is among several conservative senators pushing for fewer coverage requirements. He said he pointed out to his colleagues that there are some changes that would "bring me along," including the consumer freedom option and allowing people to use pretax dollars to pay their premiums using a health savings account.

"That's one way to get me to say yes on the bill," Lee said.

The consumer freedom option lets insurers sell health plans that don't comply with Affordable Care Act regulations, such as pre-existing conditions protections or essential health benefits, as long as they also sell plans that meet the rules. Both Republican and Democratic critics say that could make it harder for people with pre-existing conditions to get insurance.

In addition to health care, the Senate needs to pass a budget, raise the debt limit and come up with a spending plan before the fiscal year ends Sept. 30. Then it could turn to tax reform, growing the economy, repairing roads and bridges, and rebuilding the military, according to a letter 10 GOP senators sent to McConnell last week.

"We have an enormous amount of work to do," Lee said. "At this time, it just doesnt make any sense for us to take the month of August off."

McConnell blamed the recess delay on an "unprecedented level of obstruction" and said Democrats have "mindlessly stalled" confirmation of President Donald Trump's appointees.

"In order to provide more time to complete action on important legislative items and process nominees that have been stalled by a lack of cooperation from our friends across the aisle, the Senate will delay the start of the August recess until the third week of August," he said in a statement.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., later told reporters the problem Republicans are having with health care isn't time but the substance of the bill.

"Two weeks isn't going to solve their problem," Schumer said. "The way they can solve their problem is very simple: Get rid of all the tax cuts to the rich, get rid of cuts to Medicaid, and work with us to improve the existing system."

Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, also weighed in on Democrats holding up Trump administration nominees, noting that only 46 of 178 had been confirmed as of June 28.

"This level of obstruction is not normal," Hatch said in a statement.

"Rather than working with Republicans in the spirit of bipartisanship, Democrats have sought to stall the presidents agenda by blocking the nominations of key administration officials, all in an effort to satisfy the demands of an extreme political base," he said.

Read the rest here:

Lee spurs Senate to work on health care bill through August recess - Deseret News

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Government must urgently move to an accrual-based accounting system to regain "credibility and trust" in its Budget projections, a governance reformer said yesterday.

Robert Myers, a principal with the Organisation for Responsible Governance (ORG), told Tribune Business that it will be impossible to get a true grip on the Government's financial position if it continues to operate a cash-based accounting system.

Speaking after Moody's threatened to downgrade the Bahamas' creditworthiness to 'junk' status, Mr Myers said this nation needed to properly execute on a fiscal consolidation plan rather than simply keep talking about it.

And he warned that it would be "downright irresponsible" for the Minnis administration to launch more social programmes, such as National Health Insurance (NHI), until the Government resolved its deepening fiscal crisis.

"We've got to restore the credibility of the Government and public service," Mr Myers told Tribune Business. "Again, that goes to the continuing position I have: A trustworthy Budget and a trustworthy accrual-based accounting system that better allows the Government and the public to understand what the fiscal situation is.

"That's what's wrong with cash-based accounting. No responsible accountant would ever tell you that you should run off a cash-based accounting system. Not in a modern world, with credit and complex lending structures. You can't do it."

The Government currently operates a cash-based accounting system, which only recognises revenues when they come in and expenditures when they become due for payment.

It fails to capture spending commitments that the Government may have entered into, but which have yet to fall due, meaning that the current public sector accounting system does not reveal the full extent of its liabilities.

Chief among these liabilities are unfunded civil service pensions, which are currently funded via a 'pay-as-you-go' type of arrangement in the annual Budget. The KPMG accounting firm previously disclosed that these liabilities, which it currently estimates at around $1.5 billion, are set to increase to $2.5 billion by 2022, and $4.1 billion by 2032, unless essential reforms are enacted.

These liabilities would push the national debt towards $8.5 billion if included in the calculation, a figure almost equivalent to total annual Bahamian economic output or a 100 per cent debt-to-GDP ratio.

Mr Myers, meanwhile, said the need for accrual-based accounting had also been reinforced by revelations that the former Christie administration had engaged in $234 million worth of deficit spending during the May 10 general election quarter.

Tribune Business derived this figure from the Minnis administration's $500 million 2016-2017 full-year deficit estimate, and by the Central Bank pegging the deficit for the first nine months at $266 million.

Mr Myers said some of that $234 million figure "could have been accrued and come due", meaning spending commitments that had been entered into by the Government months before, but which required payment prior to the general election.

"It seems to me that what happened is that they [the Christie administration] added a major increase in spending in that last quarter," he said of the $234 million figure.

"It does emphasise the necessity, the ongoing necessity, for an accrual-based form of accounting, a Fiscal Responsibility Act, a Freedom of Information Act and a Whistleblowers Act.

"It's high time all of this stuff changes, and we get accountability and responsibility put in place. If we can't get them [the political elite] to understand that, and do it, and do it immediately, and with the utmost vigour, we are doomed."

Mr Myers described the $234 million deficit seemingly incurred in the three months to end-June 2017 as "a disgusting, obscene number", and he questioned the "deafening silence" from senior civil servants over the former government's pre-election spending binge.

Suggesting that they "have a fiduciary responsibility" to the Bahamian people as managers of government ministries, departments and agencies, the ORG principal said he was "infuriated" that top officials appeared to simply have gone along with the pre-election spending.

"We've got to create credibility and accountability in the public service or we will fail," Mr Myers told Tribune Business. "The writing on the wall has just got larger, and if we don't get it we will deserve what we get."

Turning to the Moody's review, he added: "What we've got to start doing is looking at the Bahamas as if it is a business, and one in need of reform.

"It's like going into a bad business. You've got to start running cash flow analyses, start making projections and be realistic about how to deal with these things; cutting costs and increasing revenue. I don't see any kind of dynamic modelling to get us out of our current situation."

Mr Myers again reiterated that the Government should place social programmes, such as NHI, on hold until either the fiscal situation improved or it showed that the country could still afford them within the context of a consolidation plan.

"You can't start putting on more social benefits when the country is going under," he argued. "It's irresponsible. I understand that there's a lot of people who do not want to hear that, but all these benefits don't work unless you get your house in order.

"If you're a business or family, you can't buy health insurance if you can't buy groceries. We've got to become more practical and sensible about our approach, and more business-like.

"Until we've worked our way out of this crisis, don't lick you finger, stick it in the air and say we need NHI. If you haven't done the modelling, that's downright irresponsible."

Mr Myers said the Government also needed to include its plans for addressing loss-making corporations, such as Bank of the Bahamas, ZNS and Bahamasair, in its fiscal modelling.

"What we know in business, and as businessmen, is that talk is cheap," he added. "When the rating agencies start to see we're getting serious, we're likely to see a more favourable rating.

"We can't talk about it; we've got to do it. That's what they're looking for. They've heard the talk, but are looking for the walk.

"It [the Moody's review] emphasises the fact that we have serious work to do, and other people are taking it very seriously, as we should. Reality is not pleasant, and we have to get on with it, roll up our sleeves and get our heads down."

Read more:

Accounting Reform Key To Restore Govt 'Credibility And Trust' - Bahamas Tribune

When the Republican-controlled Congress returns to Washington thisweek, it will face a political and procedural gordian knot to advance its agenda, the heart of which centers around the budget.

Congress has just three legislative weeks before the August recess and one month after that before an impending government shutdown and debt ceilingbreach notto mention the small matters of healthcare and tax reform, which are all tied in some way to the budget.

There are a lot of moving parts, said Brookings Institution budget expert Molly Reynolds.

The problem is division within the Republican caucus, which is being pulled in opposing directions by defense hawks, deficit hawks and moderates.

The House Budget Committee, which has twice delayed marking up its resolution, had agreed on spending $621 billion on defense and $511 billion onother areas. Bothtotalswere higher than Trumps proposed caps of $603 billion for defense and $462 billion for nondefense.

To pay for some of those higher spending levels, the committee would cut $150 billion in mandatory spending over the next decade.But even as moderate Republicans balk at those cuts, the conservative House Freedom Caucus says they dont go far enough. The Freedom Caucus wants $200 billion in cuts mostly from welfare and anti-poverty programs.

The Republicans just dont quite agree on what they want to do, said Reynolds. They dont agree on how much they want to spend, and they dont agree on what they want the reconciliation instructions to look like, so until they resolves some of those issues they wont get to the part where they start negotiating with the Democrats.

Republicans dont need Democratic support to pass a budget resolution, which can be approved on a majority vote and cannot be filibustered.

But they will need eight Democratic senators to overcome a filibuster when it comes to passing spending bills or a continuing resolution necessary to keep the government from shutting down in October.

Because appropriators dont have a budget, the best they can do right now is to guess at what the spending authority will be for government agencies.

The situation is further complicated by GOP plans to repeal and replace ObamaCare and pass tax reform through special budget reconciliation rules that would allow major legislation to avoid a Senate filibuster.

Republicans are using the 2017 budget reconciliation for ObamaCare repeal, and plan on using the 2018 reconciliation to pass tax reform.

That means that the healthcare debate has to end before the House and Senate finalize their coordinated budget resolutions, which has to happen before the tax reform process can kick off.

I think from the beginning it seemed optimistic that we were going to see regular order pursued this year given the tight schedule and how much of the legislative scheduleisbeing consumed by healthcare and tax reform, said Romina Boccia, a budget expert at the Heritage Foundation.

The Senates continuing struggle to complete work on healthcare threatens to push everything back.

The calendar is the most precious resource Congress has, said Reynolds. The longer they continue to work on healthcare reform, the less time they have to spend on those other things.

IfGOP lawmakers failto pass a healthcare bill and the tax cuts associated with it, they may want to try to pass some of those cuts in tax reform. That would require them to rewrite the reconciliation instructions for 2018.

Adding pressure to the situation are two big, looming deadlines: the potential government shutdown when spending authority runs out at the end of September, and the debt ceiling.

Though the debt ceiling is not technically part of the budget process it is simply a legal limit on how much Congress can borrow to pay the bills it has already authorized voting to raise it is a politically unpopular move in both parties. Failure to do so, however, could result in a catastrophic U.S. debt default.

There, too, conservatives are determined to use the must-pass debt-ceiling vote to institute some sort of spending or regulatory reforms. Democrats have demanded a clean lift, but may use the vote to extract their own concessions from Republicans.

In previous years, the debt ceiling vote was folded into wider, last-minute spending deals. The mid-October estimate for when the debt limit will hit this year seems to augur a similar approach this time around.

The debt limit in particular is a highly unpopular thing when it has to get raised, and lawmakers are aware of that, so the extent to which lawmakers can bury it in some other bill helps when they put out their press releases about why they did what they did, said Boccia.

I predict that were going to see a big budget deal in September as the deadline for a potential government shutdown is looming and the Treasury is screaming bloody murder that the debt ceiling needs to be raised, she added.

Until that point comes and Republicans turn to Democrats to negotiate a bipartisan deal, as they did in May for the 2017 fiscal year, Democrats seem delighted at the GOP infighting.

More than six months into the Congress, Republicans still have no infrastructure bill, no budget, no tax reform, and no jobs agenda of any kind, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) saidFriday.

--This report was updated at 6:55 a.m.

Visit link:

GOP faces critical month for budget - The Hill

Subscribe today for full access on your desktop, tablet, and mobile device.

8

Let friends in your social network know what you are reading about

Runestad announces candidacy for state Senate seat

Try Another

Audio CAPTCHA

Image CAPTCHA

Help

CancelSend

A link has been sent to your friend's email address.

A link has been posted to your Facebook feed.

Published 12:18 p.m. ET July 5, 2017 | Updated 12:18 p.m. ET July 5, 2017

Jim Runestad(Photo: File Photo)

State Rep. Jim Runestad, R-Milford, announced his candidacy for the Michigan Senate, surrounded by supporters in his home following a march in the Milford Fourth of July parade.

I ran for state representative to be a passionate advocate for freedom, justice and fiscal responsibility an as a representative and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I have worked very hard to live up to voters expectations and accomplish real reforms, Runestad said. I would like to continue to do so in a larger capacity and, if elected to serve my Oakland County community in the Senate, I intend to keep doing what Ive been doing and accomplish even more.

Runestad was first elected to the Michigan House in 2014. In a speech to supporters, he highlighted his various legislative accomplishments, including a recent law he authored to strip public officials convicted of corruption from their pensions, a bill to prohibit local governments from flouting immigration law and his role as Judiciary Committee chairman in advancing right-to-carry gun legislation.

My foremost priority is protecting and restoring the rights of citizens and ensuring that the force of government is never used to wrongfully separate people from their families, their livelihoods and their property, Runestad said.

The 15th District is presently represented by Sen. Mike Kowall, who cannot seek re-election due to term limits. The district includes Novi, South Lyon and Milford village and the townships of White Lake, Milford, Commerce, West Bloomfield, Lyon and Novi.

Read or Share this story: http://www.hometownlife.com/story/news/local/milford/2017/07/05/runestad-announces-candidacy-state-senate-seat/103440206/

0:50

0:23

4:40

6:20

1:22

1:10

0:46

2:13

0:34

2:14

1:20

1:06

2:25

0:46

1:16

1:53

0:37

0:32

0:48

1:01

18:46

2:30

2:21

1:19

2:00

0:52

0:55

1:01

3:30

0:21

0:44

1:06

0:46

2:06

0:24

0:11

1:13

1:29

0:25

2:45

2:03

0:56

0:28

1:29

1:19

0:47

0:28

0:42

0:39

1:30

1:12

1:12

5:53

1:49

1:26

1:00

0:49

1:19

1:55

1:51

1:01

2:28

1:46

2:06

1:46

0:56

1:56

0:47

11:52

11:00

7:59

19:45

9:27

7:59

0:42

0:57

1:01

1:04

0:36

1:52

1:47

See the original post here:

Runestad announces candidacy for state Senate seat - Hometownlife.com

Wednesday, July 5, 2017 at 11:02 a.m.

California gets the short end of the stick when it comes both to federal representation and to the tax dollars it sends to Washington, D.C., according to a recent report by California Freedom Coalition (CFC),the "Calexit" movement to secede from the United States.

The coalition's organizers have embarked on a campaign,CFC Education Funds Taxation Without Representation project, to educate Golden State residents about their political and fiscal relationship to the rest of the nation. The latest salvo was unleashed last week when the campaign released an analysis of California's representational power in the United States Senate. It includes a map, below.

Population growth in the Golden State (home to an estimated 39,250,017 people) has stretched the base of California's two U.S. senators beyond what some experts believe is reasonable. Because it's the largest state, California's per-person Senate coverage is the smallest in America.

"The average Wyomingite gets 66 times as much representation as the average Californian," according to a statement from the California Freedom Coalition. "Voters in large states get an extremely raw deal."

The disparity is intentional, part of the Founders' Great Compromise, in which each state would get two senators but would see House of Representative districts apportioned according to population. The idea was to protect rural populations from the potential tyranny of big states and cities. Wyoming has two senators but only one House representative; California has two senators and 53 House representatives.

But the result, analysts say, is that states like California and Texas are often sold short when it comes to receiving government dollars and services. A 2014 analysis found that California got.94 cents back for every tax dollar sent to D.C. and that California ranked among the top 14 states least dependent on the federal government for funding.

Smaller states overrepresented in Congress tend to lean conservative and Republican and, as big blue states like California grow, the power of smaller counterparts actually increases in contrast because budget legislation is dependent on Senate approval. "It's something that got out of hand historically," saysDave Marin, director of research and policy at the California Freedom Coalition.

"Not only is the makeup of the Senate terrible for Californians, it doesnt even benefit the average American," he says. "The map shows that lots of states residents are overrepresented in the Senate, but those states compose less than 30 percent of the population."

The solution, at least for the Calexit crowd, is simple: Leave the United States and enjoy the fruits of a California that is the world's sixth largest economy. "Giving California more autonomy would make our representation in the Senate less of a problem," Marin says.

California Freedom Coalition CC-BY-4.0

The rest is here:

Backers of California Secession Say State's Senate Representation Is Dire - L.A. Weekly

ORLANDO, Florida Archbishop Joseph Kurtz of Louisville, a former president of the U.S. bishops conference, said that while he fully supports the bishops recent battles over religious freedom, they havent yet been fully effective at getting across one key point: Religious freedom isnt about special privileges, its about freedom to serve, especially the most vulnerable.

In the wake of the recent Trinity Lutheran decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, permitting a religious school to receive government funds for resurfacing a parking lot, Kurtz said, there are others saying this is giving special privileges, that were instituting a certain state religion.

They dont get it right, but whose fault is that? Kurtz asked. Id like to take some of the responsibility and say, How do we get the word out that religious freedom is a gift to the whole of America?

He then referenced the Little Sisters of the Poor, the womens order at the heart of a legal challenge to mandates for coverage of contraception and drugs regarded as abortion-inducing as part of health care reform under the Obama administration.

Take the Little Sisters of the Poor. I think most people understand theyre not looking to have special privileges, theyre simply trying to serve the poor, he said, adding that what has to be gotten across is that we dont want the sisters on their heels having to defend their freedom, we want them free to serve.

Kurtz spoke to Crux during the July 1-4 Convocation of Catholic Leaders, a gathering of almost 3,500 bishops, clergy, religious and laity from more than 80 percent of the dioceses in the United States.

On other fronts, Kurtz said:

Crux spoke to Kurtz on June 30. The following are excerpts from that conversation.

Crux: When you were president of the conference, conversations were already ongoing about this convocation. Youve invested a lot of time and resources. What are you hoping to accomplish?

Kurtz: The idea pre-dates my service, probably by about six or seven years. I remember that what prompted the convocation was a) how do we have a narrative in which we are united in proclaiming the gospel, in the midst of all the challenges or what we would call the landscape? We went through a number of presentations on right-brain thinking and left-brain thinking, and what the best way to engage people is.

How do we reach out? Thats a real challenge, especially with some of the alarming statistics of growing secularism and the number of people whove drifted away from the church. Lo and behold, along comes Pope Francis and Evangelii Gaudium, which of course people forget was the apostolic exhortation at the end of the Synod on New Evangelization.

So the impetus becomes now, since we have a language that we didnt have before, what does it mean to be missionary disciples, to be someone who continues to follow Christ, to deepen our knowledge and our experience of Christ, but to go out? The momentum has built.

Just thinking about the diocese of Louisville, we have 15 members of our staff here, as well as pastoral leaders, whove come together. We dont want to think in silos, something weve been trying to fight in the conference for really ten years since the restructuring. But its not about what we dont want to do, but what we want to do positively.

Theres a momentum here. I like to say, in parishes in Louisville, [in the Church] there are trains already running. Theyre running at different speeds, theyre at different stations, and all the rest. So in a sense, we join the Church in progress. For me, the biggest event here will be the last day when our staff comes back together again and says, Ok, were going back to Louisville to the local church. What is it that were taking with us home. Whats the fire?

And I think its most the knowledge, a sense of enthusiasm that I think will come from the presentation and the interaction. I think it will happen with every diocese. The local church will somehow be singing from the same songbook.

You spoke about Evangelii Gaudium. Is it fair to say that this is in a way an attempt to see how best to apply it to the American context in the here and now?

I think it is, so long as we recall that the momentum and impetus came before and we joined it in progress. I would say Pope Francis gave language to what we were already attempting to do, so it fit like a hand in a glove.

This event is also taking place at the end of the Fortnight for Freedom campaign. This particular one occurs immediately after we got the Trinity Lutheran decision, which a lot of people would see as a major victory for religious freedom in America. A case of a school operated by a Lutheran church, that applied for public funding to resurface a playground. And there was an issue. And the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 ruling, decided that it was appropriate. Are you excited about it?

I am. Im excited about a couple of things. I hope it gives us an opportunity to speak about religious freedom as a freedom to witness and serve, that its not a self-serving gift.

Ive been reading the blogs and what-not, and most people say that this gives a chance for the children who come into the playground a chance to recreate. There are others saying this is giving special privileges, that were instituting a certain state religion. They dont get it right. And whose fault is that? Id like to take some of the responsibility and say, How do we get the word out that religious freedom is a gift to the whole of America?

The whole basis on which our country is built is the pluralism of people who dont necessarily share the same values, but who come together with a shared conviction that freedom is allowing us all to thrive. And I think that to the extent that we can keep saying and living the fact that this is a freedom to witness and serve, and not to preserve our church institutions, and its not about us. We need to be able to convey that in the way that we go about doing our ministry.

I hope that this convocation will help the people of the United States see that the Church has always, and wants to continue to be, of service.

You want to make clear that this is not a parochial or confessional issue? Its about freeing up religious groups and individuals to serve the common good without having to sacrifice their most cherished beliefs?

Thats exactly right. Its the important value that we offer when we bring our convictions, especially if its a conviction that we are not trying to impose on someone but simply live and propose. The more we can do that, my hope is that these kinds of decisions wont have the church on its heels.

For instance, take the Little Sisters of the Poor. I think that most people understand theyre not looking to have special privileges, theyre simply trying to serve the poor. And we dont want the sisters on their heels having to defend their freedom, we want them free to serve.

Recently you put out a tweet saying, Please contact your elected representative to talk about the importance of religious freedom for adoption agencies and foster care. What are you concerned about there?

You might remember that I was the director of Catholic Charities when I was in Allentown [Pennsylvania], so its dear to my heart. One of the first areas I was involved in was helping families. The Church wants to be true to the convictions of our faith, without losing our ability to serve.

You might also remember the trip I made to the Philippines. I like to connect these together, because they are of one fabric. Our ability with Catholic Relief Services to reach out to every corner of the world is of the same fabric as our ability to walk with a family of, perhaps, a woman whos made the decision that shes not able to parent a child and so decides for adoption. We want to be able to walk with that person, and place the child with a loving family.

And you see that at risk today?

I think that there have been situations in different parts of the country where certain restrictions do not allow a Catholic agency [to operate]. There are a couple of examples, where some of the regulations that came forward prohibited us from being able to place the children in a family setting.

And what was the reason for that?

I think the desire on our part to emphasize the need for a child to have a father and a mother.

Was it because you wouldnt serve same-sex couples?

Not so much refusing service, but giving preference to traditional families.

You also tweeted about the importance of religious freedom for Catholic schools, which is also part of that fabric. What would you see as the primary religious freedom problem areas in schools today. Hiring and firing?

No, I think the biggest issue with Catholic schools right now is to ensure that a person has the chance to enroll despite their economic challenges. I think the biggest issue with religious freedom at schools is the fact that people should have a right to choose, but right now it only applies to those who can afford it.

In Kentucky, were working on a scholarship tax credit. Especially with the cost of education rising and our need to be fair with teachers, we have to be creative. Our parents have been unbelievably willing to make sacrifices, but some of the laws are penalizing those parents, such as the Blaine Amendment, and that has a chilling effect. Every state surrounding us except West Virginia, I believe, has some opportunity for tuition tax credits.

We dont want a narrow view of religious freedom [that excludes support for faith based schools], which penalizes a family that thinks that their child can survive best and thrive best within a Catholic school.

And I think that, probably, is the biggest issue that were facing.

You also sent out another tweet, and many of your brother bishops have been doing this for quite some time, calling for prayer and solidarity with our suffering brothers and sisters in the Middle East, where the threat to religious freedom is far more lethal.

Life and death, yes.

Should the U.S. government be distributing some share of its relief budget for genocide victims in Iraq and Syria through the local churches, to make sure it reaches the Christians who need it but who wont go to the large refugee camps because theyre afraid of jihadist infiltration?

Let me say two things. First of all, we as the United States bishops, need to listen to the local churches, to the bishops in Syria and Iraq, to see what are their concerns, what can be of help. Thats the first thing.

In terms of governmental funds, the USCCB has long said that we want to serve all refugees, so were always reluctant when we start to say, Were going to serve this person, were going to exclude that other. I think that in a special way we would be looking for ways to partner with the local church.

Historically this may go down as one of the great rescue missions of the Catholic Church, because were it not for the Knights of Columbus, Aid to the Church in Need, CRS, CNEWA, most of the Christians in the Middle East would have been adrift a long time ago. But those resources arent infinite. Obviously, its desirable that public money that is being set aside for genocide victims actually reaches them, yes?

Absolutely. Sean Callahan of CRS came to Louisville some months ago and we met with majority representative Mitch McConnell precisely to talk about foreign aid. I think, in many ways, one of the things we talked about, is that you have to go upstream. Sometimes, were dealing with refugees after theyve already fled, but its also important to try to prevent refugee status in the first place.

In accompanying the suffering Church, we need to find ways to continue to assist, and government money is the only way. But by all means, help that local church survive in a sense, we have to create a safe environment where people can live in their own countries. That is always going to be the primary aim.

Theres sometimes a conflict with bishops from the local church who say, We dont want our people to leave the area. And I said: Well, we want to respect that, but if somebody is accepted within the United States, were going to serve them.

On the one hand, when you have a person desperately trying to flee for completely understandable reasons, you want to try to assist them in any way you can, but you also dont want to eviscerate the local church from which theyre coming. Sometimes its hard to know what to do.

If you talk to the local church, sometimes those who are displaced, are uprooted not only from their possessions, but their heritage. Its not like the United States, where people have had the land maybe for some hundreds of years. These are people whove had their land for generations and generations.

One way is to help them in every way possible when they come, but also when the situation in their countries stabilizes, if they want to go back, we should also do everything possible to help them return.

I would love that. I remember that in the 80s, I went to Israel. I remember talking with some of the Palestinian families, and their problem was the drain of talent. Some of the brightest would leave to become educated, but they wouldnt return. So, I think that any way in which we can be involved and help the local church, we want to do that.

Something were trying to do in Louisville, when a priest comes to serve from another locale, the first thing we try to do is look at the principle of mutuality. What are we doing in that local church from where that priest has come?

You came to this interview from being with the National Leadership Roundtable meeting, where you were presented with an award. Tell us about it.

We were honored. We were given a best practices award. That is always something to receive. I work very closely with our chancellor Brian Reynolds. One thing we were able to do is to get a $1 million grant from the Lilly Foundation, in order for us to deal with fiscal literacy. We did some studies, not only about our priests but also our laity, about their ability to care for themselves, to provide for their future.

One of the things we need to do is to assist our people in the way in which they provide for the future, including how they save, and in some cases deal with the debts that come from education.

The second thing, and this is especially important for me, the diet of a priest working in collaboration with lay leadership. So, were doing a lot to be able to find good models in which, as I say to my priests, we dont so much work harder, but we work smarter. Thats something that Im feeling pretty good about.

The big picture here is careful stewardship of resources?

I would say the big picture is collaboration, models of collaboration. Financial management is one aspect.

The Vatican too is trying to develop good practices for business management, though that effort seems to have hit some roadblocks lately. Are you all praying that the Vatican eventually will also be in a position to be a role model?

Absolutely. One of the best things we can do, I believe, is to continue in our local churches to be transparent and to have good practices. We always look at our neighbors to see how we can be of help to others, just as were hoping to benefit from other peoples approaches. I hope that for the Vatican as well.

Read the rest here:

Kurtz: Religious freedom not about privilege, but freedom to serve - Crux: Covering all things Catholic