Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

A Terrible Argument For Economic Nationalism In The National Review Forbes In more detail, how many people are employed inside the US economy depends upon the monetary policy (from the Fed) and the fiscal policy (when we have one, from Congress) in place in the US economy. ... Then there's this about freedom and liberty:.

Read the rest here:

A Terrible Argument For Economic Nationalism In The National Review - Forbes

If taxes had to be paid up front, Fraser Insititute calculates it would take until June 8

Today is the first day of the year our income is entirely our own.

Thats according to Fraser Institutes annual calculation that June 9 is this years Tax Freedom Day.

Each year, the Vancouver-based think-tank adds up the total yearly tax burden for Canadian families by federal, provincial and municipal government.

The idea is that if taxes had to be paid up front, Tax Freedom Day marks the first day of the year families can start keeping their entire income, instead of being used to pay their taxes.

In 2017, the average Canadian family will pay about $47,000 in total taxes. Thats 43.4 per cent of their annual income going to income taxes, payroll taxes, health taxes, sales taxes and more.

Its difficult for average Canadians to add up all the taxes they pay in a year because the different levels of government levy such a wide range of taxes, and thats why we do these calculationsto give Canadians a better understanding of exactly how much they pay to government, said Charles Lammam, director of fiscal studies at the institute.

@ashwadhwani ashley.wadhwani@bpdigital.ca Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

Read the rest here:

VIDEO: June 9 is Tax Freedom Day - Surrey Now-Leader

I am a teetotaler who believes that my fellow North Carolinians should be free to buy and consume the alcoholic beverages of their choice from the vendors of their choice. They dont currently possess that freedom.

Our state places significant limits on the sale of beer, wine and spirits. Above a low statutory cap, breweries are not allowed to market their wares directly to retailers. Distilleries are even more encumbered, both in how much liquor they can sell directly to consumers and in the range of retailers they can use namely, only the government monopoly of ABC stores.

North Carolina actually fares relatively well in assessments of personal freedom, according to analysts at the Cato Institute. Their Freedom in the 50 States report uses three categories of variables: fiscal, regulatory and personal. North Carolinas overall freedom ranking is 19th, but we do best in the personal freedom category, where we rank 13th.

By this broad measure, North Carolina is the freest state in the Southeast. Still, wed be even higher on the list if our alcohol laws werent so restrictive, ranking us 35th in the country in this area.

There are two movements underway in North Carolina that, if successful, would improve the situation. One of them began at the General Assembly this year as House Bill 500. As originally written, it would have allowed craft breweries to distribute up to 200,000 barrels of beer directly to retailers rather than having to use a state-sanctioned cartel of wholesalers. The current cap is 25,000 barrels.

The wholesalers prevailed in the initial legislative battle, so the version of the bill that ultimately passed the House in late April would only modestly expand the ability of some breweries and wineries to sell their products as they wish. In response, some craft breweries have filed a lawsuit to strike down the states distribution cap and franchise laws as a violation of the state constitution.

The other measure, Senate Bill 155, would allow North Carolina distilleries to sell up to five bottles directly to visiting consumers, which is up from the current annual limit of one bottle. It would also loosen limits on the sale of spirits at festivals and conventions, while allowing restaurants and retailers to sell alcohol after 10 a.m. on Sundays, two hours earlier than the current limit (which is why the legislation is known as the brunch bill). It has already passed the Senate and is now awaiting action in the House.

Some opposition to alcohol deregulation comes from interest groups, public and private, that benefit from the current system. No one should be surprised by their special pleading, which is always skillfully delivered.

But others inside and outside the General Assembly argue that North Carolinas regulatory scheme is designed to curb alcohol abuse, which they tie to such social ills as drunken driving and domestic abuse. I think their concerns deserve more respect, although I dont ultimately agree with their conclusions.

As I said, Im a teetotaler. One reason is that my family has often suffered the ravages of alcoholism. As the family historian, Ive chronicled numerous cases.

The great uncle for whom I was named, for example, was struck and killed on the railroad track behind our house either because he had fallen down drunk or because hed first been beaten to unconsciousness by fellow drunks. His uncle, in turn, had been murdered decades before during an alcohol-fueled gunfight. Other close relatives have had less deadly but still debilitating experiences with alcohol.

But if your conception of freedom is that it only should extend to behavior with which you personally agree, youve conceived it out of existence. The state should certainly punish actions that violate the rights of others, such as drunken driving or violent crimes committed while inebriated. The adult consumption and sale of alcohol, however, are not the proper concerns of the state.

Most drinkers arent drunks, most drunks arent dangerous, and most governmental attempts to save people from themselves create more problems than they solve.

John Hood is chairman of the John Locke Foundation and appears on the talk show NC SPIN. On Twitter, you can follow him at @JohnHoodNC.

View original post here:

State should not have its thumb on sale of alcohol - BlueRidgeNow.com

The leaders of two educational systems are the highest paid government officials in Burke County.

The News Herald periodically takes a look at how taxpayer money is used when it comes to local government salaries. We recently requested salaries of employees making at least $25,000 a year from Burke County, Burke County Public Schools, Western Piedmont Community College, the city of Morganton and the town of Valdese.

Of the five entities, it is Burke County Public Schools Superintendent Larry Putnam who has the highest salary at $199,053.21 a year. His salary includes a base salary, longevity pay and a state bonus, according to information obtained through a public records request. In addition, h e gets $12,000 a year travel stipend, according to his contract.

Putnam was hired as superintendent of the school system in 2012 and had a salary of $125,986. In the 2012 - 13 year he received approximately a 17 percent increase to his pay but his salary was prorated in 2011-12 because he was not in the position for the entire fiscal year, said Keith Lawson, finance director for the school system.

Putnam didnt receive a pay increase in 2013-14 but got a 7.1 percent increase the following fiscal year. In the 2015-16 year, Putnam received a 10.6 percent increase and a 13.1 percent increase this year, which brought his salary up to $199,053.21, according to information from the school system.

Lawson said the 7.1 percent increase in 2014-15 was the average certified salary increase legislated by the state. He said the maximum allowable increase was 18.5 percent but Putnam declined the maximum to alleviate any excessive financial burden on the school system.

Putnam works under a four-year contract, which says he should receive the same percentage statewide increase as any other educator.

Of the 18 western North Carolina school superintendent salaries, Putnams is second only to Buncombe County Superintendent Tony Baldwin, whose yearly salary is $208,716, according to Carolina Public Press, which did a story on regional education salaries in February.

Burke County Board of Education Chairman Randy Burns said Putnam is worth what he makes.

The guy has done a tremendous job, Burns said. My hats off to him.

Burns said Putnam was recognized as the 2017 Northwest Regional Education Service Alliance Superintendent of the Year in November and also finished his doctoral degree. Burns said Putnam has worked hard to get a welding program at Freedom High School and firefighter academies at Patton and Draughn high schools.

In addition, he was instrumental in bringing back an agricultural program to East Burke and Freedom high schools, Burns said.

The board is very appreciative of everything hes done, Burns said.

Burke County Public Schools Assistant Superintendent David Fonseca was hired in 2015-16 and makes around $100,000 less than Putnam. Fonsecas yearly salary is $96,420, according to the school system. However, Carolina Public Press reported his salary in February as $99,071.

Five other school system administrators have salaries in the $90,000s.

The other top salary in Burke County education is Michael Helmick, president of Western Piedmont Community College, who currently makes $178,116, according to information obtained through a public records request. Helmick was hired in August 2014.

Helmicks latest contract, dated June 14, 2016, says his current salary is $175,488 but can include additions to his salary through legislative action, which this past year was a 1.5 percent salary increase. That took his salary for the 2017-18 to $178,116, said Amy Elliott, director of marketing and development for WPCC.

In addition, Helmick gets an $800 travel allowance, a $100 monthly cellphone allowance and his monthly dues and other college-related expenses with a dining/social membership at Mimosa Hills Golf and Country Club.

Helmicks contract also gives him the usual benefits package of health insurance, retirement and days off.

Of the local government managers, Burke County Manager Bryan Steen is the highest paid with a yearly salary of $163,633.50. In addition to his salary, Steen also gets an in-county travel allowance and is reimbursed for travel outside of the county, as well as vacation, sick pay, health and retirement benefits, according to his contract.

His contract says after a yearly performance review he is entitled to any cost-of-living, longevity and/or merit pay increases as any other employee of Burke County.

Steen was hired at the end of 2010 and started the job in January 2011 at a salary of $110,000. His contract expires at the end of 2018.

Morganton City Manager Sally Sandy makes a yearly salary of $132,999.44, while Valdese Town Manager Seth Eckards salary is $84,000, according to their respective list of salaries.

To see an updated list of government salaries, visit http://www.morganton.com.

Sharon McBrayer is a staff writer and can be reached at smcbrayer@morganton.com or at 828-432-8946.

Continued here:

Top salaries in Burke County - Morganton News Herald

Leaders of the House Freedom Caucus are urging House GOP leaders to drop the contentious border-adjusted tax proposal in the tax reform bill, and consider canceling August recess to hasten passage of legislation.

The conservative group is also weighing a demand for welfare reform as part of the bill.

HFC members laid out their priorities at the conservative Heritage Foundation as the Trump administration and congressional Republican leadership continue to negotiate a unified tax plan.

The caucus, which includes several dozen members, proved its ability to shape major legislation in last month's passage of an Obamacare replacement. The group's leader, Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., helped negotiate the final healthcare bill.

One demand Meadows made Friday was for the House to move forward without a key provision favored by Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., namely the border-adjusted tax.

"The political facts are: There is not consensus to have support for the border adjustment tax," said Meadows. Even though the Freedom Caucus doesn't have a position on the idea, which has met harsh opposition from retailers and other import-intensive industries, Meadows argued that the controversy over it is slowing tax reform.

Ditching the border-adjusted tax would leave a major hole in the tax reform math. It would raise around $1 trillion over 10 years.

Under the proposal, companies would no longer be allowed to deduct the cost of imported goods and services, but would no longer pay any taxes on revenues from exports. In today's system, U.S. companies are taxed on all profits, whether they are earned in the U.S. or abroad.

Freedom Caucus members, however, favor tax reform legislation that cuts federal revenues. Leaders favor reform that doesn't add to the deficit, in part to ease the path for tax reform through the legislative process.

Meadows stated that House Republicans could quickly come to agreement on a tax plan that cut tax rates for businesses, permanently extended "bonus" depreciation that allows companies to immediately write off half of the value of some new investments, allowing companies to return foreign earnings at a lower rate, and doubling the standard deduction for families.

In order to pass tax reform legislation, Republicans aim to use the budget process known as reconciliation, which allows bills to pass with a simple majority in the Senate, bypassing a Democratic filibuster.

Using that procedure, however, requires them to first write a budget for fiscal year 2018. Doing so would be difficult given conservative demands to balance the budget, cut spending, and reform entitlements.

Jim Jordan of Ohio, a member of the Freedom Caucus, said Friday that the group would be willing to entertain higher spending in exchange for including welfare reform measures in the ensuing tax bill.

Those reforms should include work requirements and time limits on benefits, Jordan said, explaining that "it's good policy to encourage work."

See the rest here:

Freedom Caucus wants to take border adjustment out of tax plan, add welfare reform - Washington Examiner

BNP Paribas SA economist Jeffrey Schultz has revised his growth estimate to 0.7% in 2017, rising to 1.3% and 1.5% in the subsequent years.

"The prospect of sustained low growth over the medium term remains the greatest risk to our fiscal policy objectives and limits governments ability to generate more revenue. Further consolidation measures may be required to ensure fiscal sustainability," Gigaba told MPs.

The first-quarter contraction, he said, "introduces significant downward bias in the GDP growth estimates" contained in the 2017 Budget Review, which forecast growth of 1.3%.

If sustained, this growth rate "will lead to further decline in GDP per capita and revenue, threatening the affordability of our planned expenditure. This puts more pressure on us as government to intensify our growth programme and improve confidence as a matter of urgency," Gigaba said.

He said the Cabinet had committed to provide clarity and certainty on key policy issues with the aim of unlocking growth in the economy in the next few weeks. Timelines for the finalisation of these policies would be announced soon.

Gigaba said the government was also committed to a "speedy response" to the issues raised by credit ratings agencies.

He reiterated the governments commitment to reduce the budget deficit over the next three years to 3.3% and to stabilise debt as a percentage of GDP. It was also committed to achieving greater efficiency and to stabilising the share of the public sector wage bill of total government expenditure. Personnel trends in all departments were being closely monitored. Measures were under consideration to generate more taxes over the medium term.

The DA, EFF, Congress of the People, the African Christian Democratic Party and the Freedom Front Plus objected to the passage of the bill.

See more here:

Fiscal targets at risk, says Gigaba - BusinessLIVE - Business Day (registration)

Advertisement

George Cahlink, E&E News reporter

Congressional leaders are worried about a time crunch for tackling spending, the debt ceiling and the rest of their agenda. Wikipedia (bill); Ed Uthman/Flickr (Capitol)

With momentum building toward an omnibus fiscal 2018 spending package in the House before the August recess, energy and environmental agencies stand a greater chance to get fresh dollars than in recent years.

House lawmakers are considering marking up all 12 annual appropriations bills in quick succession over the next several weeks and then combining them into one package that would hit the floor by the end of July, before Congress leaves for a five-week summer recess.

Those bills could also potentially move in tandem with a fiscal 2018 budget resolution and a measure to raise the debt ceiling.

Lawmakers are eager to make headway on fiscal issues rather than bump up against the new fiscal year on Oct. 1 and a looming deadline for raising the nation's borrowing authority. It would allow Republicans to use the fall to focus on another top legislative priority, a tax overhaul, and diminish the prospects of shutting down the government.

"We always knew we were going to have an abbreviated budgeting process in this first year, like we do with every new administration," Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) told reporters yesterday. "So we're trying to figure out what's the best way to deal with our appropriations process, our budget process, given the ambition for tax reform" and the need to address other fiscal issues.

Advertisement

Additionally, an omnibus would likely allow for sidestepping the floor fights over partisan policy riders that have bogged down work on the energy-water and EPA-Interior spending bills in recent years. Broad spending packages, like the one Congress passed last month for funding the remainder of fiscal 2017, usually get bipartisan support because of their wide reach.

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) was quick to chide Republicans this week for ignoring regular order by considering an omnibus without first considering any individual spending bills. But, he added, Democrats view a broad funding package as a "step up" from relying on emergency spending bills.

"It's just hard to see the time to do all 12 spending bills," said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a senior appropriator, who said the idea is "attractive" to many House members who see the omnibus as a way to get a floor vote on every bill ahead of final spending negotiations with the Senate.

Any House package would change in the Senate, where Democrats still have the ability to filibuster spending bills. Still, a House-passed package would give the chamber a stronger negotiating hand than relying on spending bills that have only been voted out of committee.

Cole said there still likely would be some room for amendments even on a broad deal but said they could be "harder" to get attached if the underlying omnibus has bipartisan support.

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), the chairman of the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, at a hearing yesterday alluded to the tight calendar given that the White House budget request came about three months later than usual this year.

"This budget season is going to be a challenge," said Calvert. "We have a short time, a short window here we have to solve this, so we're going to be working hard on this committee."

Staunch House conservatives, who in the past have held up the spending bills to try to force deeper cuts, seem willing to pass up those fights this time with an eye toward focusing on longer-term budgeting goals and tax reform.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.), the chairman of the hard-right Freedom Caucus, said the group would be open to an omnibus provided there is room to at least offer some policy riders. He said an omnibus would be better than a fall dominated by fights over stopgap measures as has been the case in recent years.

"We want to get it done," said Meadows.

It's not year clear when, or even if, the House will take up its annual budget resolution this year that would offer a nonbinding funding blueprint for appropriators.

If one is not adopted, the chamber could choose to deem an overall spending discretionary spending level that appropriators would then divide among the 12 bills.

House Budget Chairwoman Diane Black (R-Tenn.) would not commit this week to moving a budget before the July 4 recess, telling reporters she was working to find "consensus."

Black and other GOP leaders are especially eager to move a budget this year with provisions calling for a tax overhaul, which under obscure budgeting rules would make it far easier to get tax legislation written and passed through the Senate later in the year.

Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin recently asked Congress to approve an increase in the nation's borrowing limit before leaving for summer recess.

The debt ceiling had not been expected to be hit until the fall, but as tax revenues have lagged, the administration has called for earlier action to avoid the chance at defaulting on federal debt.

GOP lawmakers have signaled an openness to a clean extension with most unwilling to risk an unprecedented federal default. It remains to be seen, though, whether other provisions could be woven into the debt deal, which in the past has been used as a vehicle to move both tax breaks and spending cuts.

The Freedom Caucus has said it would only back a debt limit increase if it were coupled with calls for other long-term, structural budget reforms that could force reductions in discretionary accounts and federal entitlements.

Meadows, however, conceded the right's view might not carry if Democrats joined with other more moderate Republicans to back a clean increase in the debt ceiling.

Hoyer said this week Democrats would be willing to support a clean debt ceiling increase but stressed it could not be tied to moving a tax package.

Reporter Kellie Lunney contributed.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The essential news for energy & environment professionals

1996-2017 Environment & Energy Publishing, LLCPrivacy PolicySite Map

Original post:

House eyes omnibus deal by August recess - E&E News

I was Googling The Free State of Jones, a 2016 movie about an interesting episode of Civil War history, when I stumbled across a couple of interesting studies on freedom in the 50 states.

Both studies were produced by conservative think tanks. The first came in 2015 from the John Locke Foundation of North Carolina.

(Locke, by the way, was a 17th century British doctor and philosopher often called the father of classic liberalism, and an early advocate of the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness that appear in the U.S. Declaration of Independence.)

According to the Locke Foundations First in Freedom Index, The freest state is Florida, followed byArizona, Indiana, South Dakota and Georgia.

The least free state is New York, followed by New Jersey, California, West Virginia and Kentucky.

Wisconsin ranked 34th for fiscal policy, 11th for educational freedom, seventh for regulatory freedom and 11th for health care freedom.

Why is freedom important? Because in general, freedom correlates with a more robust and resilient economy.

The foundation noted: Overall, there have been 37 studies of economic freedom and state economic growth published in scholarly journals since 1990 of which 29 found a positive, statistically significant relationship and eight found no link.

Not a single study found that ranking high in economic freedom was associated with lower economic performance.

A far more comprehensive study on freedom in the states was conducted in 2015-16 by the Mercatus Institute at George Mason University. (You can find the whole thing at freedominthe50states.org.)

We score all 50 states on over 200 policies encompassing fiscal policy, regulatory policy and personal freedom. We weight public policies according to the estimated costs that government restrictions on freedom impose on their victims, the authors wrote.

The Mercatus study identified the most free states as New Hampshire, Colorado, South Dakota, Idaho and Texas. (Only South Dakota also made the Locke list.)

The least free were New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island, California and Maryland. (New York, New Jersey and California made both lists.)

The Mercatus study put Wisconsin squarely in the middle of the pack at 27th.

For all the talk about Scott Walkers radical reforms, the authors wrote, we find that economic freedom has been more or less constant since 2011 whereas personal freedom has grown substantially.

The Badger State has relatively high taxes, which have fallen only marginally since 2012. State taxes are projected to be 5.8 percent of personal income in 2015, while local taxes have risen since 2000 and now stand at 4.4 percent of income, above the national average

State and local debt has fallen somewhat since 2007, and government employment and subsidies are below average. Overall, Wisconsin has seen definite improvement on fiscal policy since 2010, but it hasnt yet reached the national average.

On regulatory policy, we see little change in recent years, although our index does not yet take account of the 2015 right-to-work law. Land-use freedom is a bit better than average; local zoning has not gotten out of hand, though it has grown some...

Occupational licensing increased dramatically between 2000 and 2006; still, the state is about average overall on extent of licensure

The state has a price-gouging law, as well as controversial, strictly enforced minimum-markup laws for gasoline and general retailers. The civil liability system is above average and improved significantly since 2010, due to a punitive damages cap.

Wisconsin is below average on criminal justice policies, but it has improved substantially since 2010 because of local policing strategies. The incarceration rate has fallen, as have nondrug victimless crime arrest rates. The states asset forfeiture law is one of the stricter ones in the country

Tobacco freedom is extremely low, due to airtight smoking bans and high taxes.

Educational freedom grew significantly in 201314 with the expansion of vouchers. However, private schools are relatively tightly regulated.

Here is something I dont understand: There is almost no legal gambling, even for social purposes. Has Mercatus never heard of Indian casinos? The state lottery?

The authors go on to state: Cannabis law is unreformed. Wisconsin is the best state for alcohol freedom, with no state role in distribution, no keg registration, low taxes (especially on beer imagine that), no blue laws, legal happy hours, legal direct wine shipment, and both wine and spirits in grocery stores.

The state is now about average on gun rights after the Legislature passed a shall-issue concealed-carry license, one of the last states in the country to legalize concealed carry

The Institutes policy recommendations for Wisconsin: Reduce the income tax burden while continuing to cut spending on employee retirement and government employment. Abolish price controls. Eliminate teacher licensing and mandatory state approval for private schools.

Hmm

Speaking of freedom, I am now free of the need for wearing glasses or contacts for the first time in almost 60 years.

Cataract surgery is a miracle, at least for me -- although, every single morning when I wake up and look out the window, I think, Oh darn! I forgot to take my contacts out last night. Im just not used to being able to see.

I would have preferred to be unconscious during the procedures (theres nothing like people using a pen to draw on your eyeball to make you wonder how much worse water-boarding could possibly be) but the doctors explained that I needed to be conscious to cooperate with them: OK, look to your left No, your other left.

But the discomfort was fleeting and the result is miraculous.

Got something Sunny Schubert should know? Call her at 222-1604 or email sunschu16@gmail.com.

Read more here:

View From the Pier: Just how free are we in Wisconsin? - hngnews.com

Instead of presenting a unified front ahead of a coming debt ceiling fight, Trump's Cabinet remains crossways. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin wants a "clean" increase, OMB Director Mulvaney favors spending reforms, and Sean Spicer is caught in the middle.

The already beleaguered press secretary had the unenviable task of trying to convince the press that Republicans were negotiating while they're clearly fighting behind closed doors.

"I would put it more like this," Spicer said during Tuesday's press conference, "there's a conversation that is going to go on with Congress about how to proceed and it's not, at this timeI'm not going to get in front of that discussion."

But as Mnuchin, Mulvaney, and congressional leaders talk, talk, and talk, Spicer probably wishes they'd just knock it off. The White House should just admit that they don't have a plan. No amount of spin can hide that fact.

The only clarity has come from White House legislative affairs director Marc Short, who told reporters Monday that Congress should raise the limit "before they adjourn for August." A simple enough task, lawmakers periodically increase the debt ceiling in order to authorize increases in the federal government's borrowing authority.

Other than that, there's no agreement.

Mnuchin first indicated to the House Ways and Committee in May that he preferred a "clean," vote on the debt ceiling without any accompanying spending cuts or reforms. Mulvaney seemed to balk at that possibility during a sit-down interview with the Washington Examiner's editorial board.

Describing it as a sort of "smoke alarm," Mulvaney said the debt ceiling warns the federal government "that we've now, once again, spent more than we have." And now that alarm is blaring, he's prepared to borrow more in exchange for "certain spending reforms and debt reforms in the future."

Complicating the debate further, factions inside the Republican House conference are already drawing battle lines. Mulvaney's old colleagues in the Freedom Crisis, a flock of roughly 40 fiscal hawks, have made their opposition to raising the limit known. That means that Democrat support would be needed to keep the federal government from defaulting on its obligations.

And the longer the fiscal battle rages inside the administration, the harder Spicer's job gets. For once the White House should do the press secretary a solid and get on the same page.

Philip Wegmann is a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

Read this article:

Stuck in the middle of a fiscal fight, Sean Spicer admits White House ... - Washington Examiner

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Today we spend the hour with longtime Puerto Rican independence activist Oscar Lpez Rivera, who was in prison for more than 35 years, much of the time in solitary confinement, before President Obama commuted his sentence in January. On May 17th, 2017, less than a month ago, Lpez Rivera was released. Today he joins us in our New York studio.

Oscar Lpez Rivera was born in San Sebastin, Puerto Rico, and moved with his family to Chicago when he was a boy. He was drafted into the Army at age 18 and served in Vietnam, for which he was awarded the Bronze Star. Upon his return in 1967, he became a community organizer who fought for bilingual education, jobs and better housing.

During the 1970s and 1980s, he was a leader of the pro-independence group FALN, the armed liberationthe Forces of Armed National Liberation. Its members set more than a hundred bombs, including one attack on Fraunces Tavern in New York City that killed four people. He was never charged, however, with setting those bombs. Instead, in 1981, Lpez Rivera was convicted on federal charges that included seditious conspiracyconspiring to oppose U.S. authority over Puerto Rico by force. In fact, seditious conspiracy is the same charge Nelson Mandela faced. Lpez Rivera described his charges in a rare prison interview in 2006.

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: I think that the fact that I was charged with seditious conspiracy to overthrow the government of the United States speaks for itself. But the charge in reference to Puerto Ricans has always been used for political purposes. It goes back to 1936. The first time that a group of Puerto Ricans was put in prison was by using the seditious conspiracy charge. And this ishas always been a strictly political charge used against Puerto Ricans.

JUAN GONZLEZ: In 1999, President Bill Clinton commuted the sentences of 16 members of the FALN, but Lpez Rivera refused at that time to accept the deal because it did not include two fellow activists, who have since been released.

AMY GOODMAN: This is Oscar Lpez Riveras first visit to New York City since his release last month, and it coincides with New Yorks long-standing Puerto Rican Day Parade, which always takes place on the second Sunday of June. This years organizers chose to honor Lpez Rivera as the parades first "National Freedom Hero." This prompted the citys police chief and a number of corporate sponsors to boycott the event, including Goya Foods, Coca-Cola, Univision and Telemundo. As Juan reported in his column for the New York Daily News, a boycott campaign to condemn Lpez Rivera as a terrorist "was quietly organized by a right-wing conservative group in Washington, D.C., the Media Research Center, that receives major funding from donors close to both President Trump and to Breitbart News," unquote. Well, Oscar Lpez Rivera says he will still march, but not as an official honoree, simply as a humble Puerto Rican and grandfather.

Over the years, one of Oscar Lpez Riveras strongest supporters has been Archbishop Desmond Tutu. On Wednesday, Tutu issued a statement in support of his participation in the parade, noting, quote, "Had South Africans and people of the African diaspora allowed others to determine who we would embrace, Mandela would still be in prison and have been stripped of the stature we gave him and that he deserved," unquote.

All of this comes as Puerto Rico is in the midst of a bankruptcy process and is preparing to hold a referendum on its political future on Sundaythe same day as the parade.

For more, were joined in studio by Oscar Lpez Rivera. While in prison, he wrote two books, Between Torture and Resistance and Letters to Karina. Were also joined by Juan Cartagena, president and general counsel of LatinoJustice.

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Oscar Lpez Rivera, how does it feel to be free?

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: It feels wonderful. It feels completely, completely different than being in prison. For the first time, I can hear the roosters sing early in the morning. I can seeI can see my family. I can see my friends. I can see my granddaughter. I recently went to California just to spend a few days with her. I can move around Puerto Rico. So it feels wonderful. It feels a world completely, completely different than the world of prisons.

JUAN GONZLEZ: And all of these years that you were not only in prison, but in solitary for a good portion of that time, Im wondering: Did you have an expectation that you would eventually be freed? And was it a surprise when, in earlyearly this year, you finally got the word that President Obama had commuted your sentence?

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: Well, one of the things that I never allowed myself to do was to fall into what I call illusory optimism. You know, so I tried my best to keep my hope that I will come out of prison, but at the same time prepare for the worst. So, on Mayon January 17th, when President Obama commuted my sentence and I was told that my sentence had been commuted, my reaction was not one that was expected, because I was prepared for the worst. And it took me about four days to really, really realize that I was on my way out of prison. But it was not a very, very exciting moment when I was told that President Obama had commuted my sentence.

AMY GOODMAN: Now, this wasnt the first commutation. I mean, Bill Clinton also did this, along with a number of your compatriotsright?16 Puerto Rican independence activists. But you chose not to leave at that time. You could have left more than a decade ago, two decades ago.

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: Well, I believe in principles, and I have never left anyone behind, whether it was in Vietnam, whether it was in the city of Chicago, whether it was in Puerto Rico. And for me, it was important to stay in prison while two of my co-defendants were in prison. Both of them came out by 2010. Both of them were out of prison. And finally, on May 17th, I was finally, finally out of prison. The sentence was commuted the 17th of January, but I had to be under home confinement until May 17th. So, it was May 17th when I started to walk on the streets of Puerto Rico and to enjoy Puerto Rico.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Juan Cartagena, I wanted to ask you about the campaign to free Oscar Lpez Rivera, because it really included thea cross-section of all political persuasions, religious groups in Puerto Rico, and it lasted for a long time. I remember when we were covering the Democratic convention in Philadelphia, there was a very strong contingent from Chicago and other cities that had come to demonstrate at the Democratic convention about the issue of finally freeing him. Your sense of the importance of that campaign?

JUAN CARTAGENA: Oh, critically important. Many of us thought that one last hope would have been the Obama administration. Like we were hoping for a long time that the president, Obama, would actually commute his sentence. We wereI was following how President Obama was eulogizing Nelson Mandela when he went to the wake in South Africa, talking about how, by freeing Mandela, the system also freed itself. And in many ways, we keptI kept using that, and others kept using that kind of quote.

We also recognized that thisthis incredible unity that happened in Puerto Rico is hardly ever seen that many times, right? In my own lifetime, Ive seen it around Vieques. But rarely have we seen so many political parties, so many faith, union members and activists of all persuasions, of all types, really line up to make sure that Oscar Lpez Rivera was freed, and, you know, have the happiness, the joy and the pride that we have that we finally we were able to achieve that, because, as he said, hes a man of principle, and to work on behalf of a man of principle has always been an honor.

AMY GOODMAN: Were going to break and then come back to our discussion with Juan Cartagena, whos president and general counsel of LatinoJustice, and with Oscar Lpez Rivera, Puerto Rican independence activist, freed last month after serving 35 years in prison. This is Democracy Now! Well be back in a minute.

[break]

AMY GOODMAN: "From a Bird the Two Wings" by Pablo Milans, here on Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. Im Amy Goodman, with Juan Gonzlez. Our guest is Oscar Lpez Rivera, Puerto Rican independence activist, freed last month after serving 35 years in prison. Were also joined by Juan Cartagena, president and general counsel of LatinoJustice. This is the time here in New York City that the Puerto Rican Day Parade is taking place on Sunday. It is also the day, Sunday, that the Puerto Rican referendum will take place in Puerto Rico. Juan?

JUAN GONZLEZ: Well, Oscar, Id like to ask you about how you see Puerto Rico now, having come out of prison. The last time you were there was over 35 years ago, and now youre seeing a situation with total economic collapse and bankruptcy, an imposed control board by Congress. What do you see as the situation on the island right now and how it could possibly get out of its enormous crisis?

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: Puerto Rico is suffering an enormous crisis. Puerto Rico, as I see it, has been set up in a way that there is no way for Puerto Rico to lift itself up economically. First of all, the junta de fiscal control, fiscal control board, has already spent a lot of money without offering Puerto Rico anyany remedy to resolve its economic problem. What it has done thus far is extract money from programs such as the University of Puerto Rico, such as the public education system and otherpensions from workers, that will definitely, definitely make Puerto Ricos economy worse, much worse than it was last year or the year before. And Puerto Rico cannotcannot pay that debt. Its impossible for Puerto Rico to pay a debt, except if every dollar, every last dollar, that the Puerto Rican worker has in his pocket is taken out of his pocket. That is the reality from the economic point of view.

Besides that, we have a government in Puerto Rico, a colonial government in Puerto Rico, that has no wayoffer any incentives to the Puerto Rican people. On the contrary, it offers incentives to foreigners to invest in Puerto Rico. Whoeverwhoever invests in Puerto Rico is not a Puerto Rican. What happens is that the money that is made in Puerto Rico is taken out of Puerto Rico. That money does not stay in Puerto Rico. It does not help the economy of Puerto Rico. So, my way of looking at it is, Puerto Rico is in trouble economically, and the junta de control fiscal, the control board, that is imposed or has been imposed on Puerto Rico, is really a detrimentalI will dare say, a criminalact on the Puerto Rican people.

Now, there other things in Puerto Rico that I see being positive. For example, I see the students at the university struggling. I see the universitythe students at the university trying to do something to preserve or at least protect the university. That is positive. The youth, the Puerto Rican youth, represent the future of Puerto Rico. And as long as they are struggling and doing something for the economy, doing something for themselves, doing something for Puerto Rico, there is hope.

There is also oneanother element that I see. Puerto Rico, as has been mentioned, is going into or is celebrating a plebiscite, anotheranother colonial act. And to justify what? Puerto Rico is not going to become a state, definitely not. And only one political party in Puerto Rico is going on this plebiscite, is participating in this plebiscite. The rest of Puerto Rico is boycotting the plebiscite. That money, $10 million that will be spent on the plebiscite, could go into at least the education system. We could preserve some of those schools that are being closed. A hundred and sixty-nine public schools are going to be closed. Why not use that money to help those schools? That will be one of the questions that I will ask the governor of Puerto Rico right now. He has been asked. He has no answers.

AMY GOODMAN: I was wondering if we can go back in time to your history, what politicized you, where you were born, how you came to head up the FALN, and then your 35 years in prison, how you survived there?

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: Well, I was born in a very small farm in Puerto Rico. At age 14, I was sent to Chicago to live with my sister. I entered high school. Im going to make a little story here, so you will probably see my politics.

When I was in high school in Chicago, the teacher asked the students to define a hero and why that person was a hero. So, I had beenwhen I entered elementary school in Puerto Rico at age 5, every day we would sing a song that would say George Washington was to be celebrated because he never, never said a lie. OK, so on that particular day, I said that George Washington was my hero, because he had never, never said a lie. And the students started laughing. I thought it was because of my English accent. When I steppedwhen the class was over, a fellow student pulled me to the side, and he said, "Dont you know that George Washington was a liar? You shouldnt have said that." So, indoctrination was taking place in Puerto Rico in a very sophisticated, subtle way. I was deeply and profoundly, profoundly indoctrinated into believing that Puerto Rico could never be an independent country, that Puerto Rico could not be self-sufficient, that we will starve to death if the United States will walk out of Puerto Rico. Thats how I was influenced for the first 14 years in my life.

Then, in Chicago, I found myself facing things that I had never thought I would facefor example, discrimination for the first time, finding racism for the first time, a real, real blatant racism, and discrimination when I was trying to find a job. In the military, I also found the same, same practice. Yeah, there was racism. There was discrimination. So, when I came back home from Vietnamand for some reason, Vietnam changed my way of life, my way of thinking. I came back from Vietnam, and I found myself obligated to find out what was the reason for being for the war in Vietnam. I found myself more sympathetic with the Vietnamese people than I thought that I would ever be. And little by little, I was starting to discover what Vietnam had done. For example, I discovered Dien Bien Phu, how the Vietnamese fought against the French, how they decolonized themselves. I came back to Chicago, and I found a community of Puerto

AMY GOODMAN: You got a Bronze Star when you were there.

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: I got a Bronze Star for that.

AMY GOODMAN: What was your brother doing during this time?

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: Who?

AMY GOODMAN: Your brother.

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: My brother? My brother was studying. But when I came back from Vietnam, I found a community, a Puerto Rican community, that was beginning to wake up, to demand to be seen, to be heard, to transcend its marginalization. And I started organizing in the community. At that time, the Young Lords were coming up out of Chicago. It was a street gang that became political. A lot of things were happening in 1967. For example, it was 1967 when Dr. Martin Luther King pronounced himself against the war in Vietnam and called it a criminal war. 1967 was when Muhammad Ali refused to be drafted. And he paid a big price.

And 1967 was the first time that I was invited by a nationalist, a Puerto Rican nationalist, to go to his house and listen to some tapes of the nationalists. And one of the tapesone of the tapes was Lolita Lebrn, who had gone to Washington the 1st of March, 1954. And she said in that interview that she came to Washington not to kill anyone, but to give her life for Puerto Rico. And when I heard that woman say that, I was amazed. I was amazed. And from that moment on, we started working on the campaign to free the five. There were five Puerto Rican political prisoners. And from 1967 on, in Chicago, we started to organize a campaign for their release. By that time, Lolita Lebrn, Irvin Flores, Andres Figueroa Cordero, Rafael Cancel Miranda had been in prison for 13 years, and and Oscar Collazo Lpez had been in prison for 17 years. And we believed that we should do something to win their release. And finally, in 1979, they were released from prison.

JUAN GONZLEZ: I wanted to ask you, when you were in Chicago, you helped to start a school, didnt you, in Chicago, that diddo I have it right? Luis Gutirrez was a student at that school?

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: No, Luis Gutirrez was a tutor at the school.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Oh, tutor.

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: Yeah.

AMY GOODMAN: The now congressman.

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: Yes, yes. In 1972, we started an alternative high school for high school dropouts. I have been involved in the issue of education since 1967. We fought to get schools built in the community. We fought to bring bilingual education into the schools. We fought to open up the doors at the universities, especially University of Illinois Chicago Circle and Northeastern, universities where programs were implemented to allow Latino students, because it was not only Puerto Ricans, we were also involved in helping the Latino population in general. So, those programs still exist, the programs at University of Illinois, the program at Northeastern University and our high school. Our high school is a really, really, really interesting project. It was based on Paulo Freires Pedagogy of the Oppressed. And we were hoping that we would get dropouts, put them through a very rigorous educational system, and do it without any funds. What we did, we asked college professors to give us three hours for a class. And wethe students that were at the university, that we had helped to get into the university, we asked them to be tutors. And thats how Congressman Gutirrez got to be a tutor at the high school.

AMY GOODMAN: So talk about going to prison and what it meant for you in prison. You were in solitary confinement for over 12 years?

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: I was in solitary confinement for 12 years, four months. And first, from 1986, June 1986, in Marion, USP Marion in Illinois, up til 1994, and then, from 1994 to November 1996 in ADX. In ADX, for the first 58 days, I was awakened every half-hour, 58 days straight. So that will give you an idea what it is to be in prison, to be under those conditions.

JUAN GONZLEZ: Well, I wanted to ask you, in terms of the reasons for your being in prison, I mean, clearly, the big narrative that youre seeing in the commercial media is this was a terrorist, this is a person whos unrepentant, this is a person who never should be allowed to be out free again, is certainly not celebrated as a hero. The issue of the FALNs campaign of bombings that occurred in that period of of time, your retrospectively looking back at that, how you view that campaign and how you feel about it now, and also the criticisms that some people have that youthat the organization participated in the killing of many innocent people?

OSCAR LPEZ RIVERA: First of all, yeah, I want to make this point clear. I have neverfor me, human life is precious. I was in Vietnam. I hope and I pray that I neverI never killed anyone. Now, we know. We know. But if youre a soldier, you know when you have shot somebody, because there is a field of range that youre covering. And on my path, I never saw anyone being wounded or killed. So, I can say that I came home from Vietnam without blood on my hands. I hope so. For me, the issue of human life, human life is precious. Now, Ive been asked over and over about the bombings. Ive been asked over and over what took place. I can guarantee one thing: that I have never participated in an act where a human lifewhere we knew that a human life was going to be put in jeopardy. OK?

Now, one thing that I want to make a very, very clear: Puerto RicoPuerto Rico, as a colony, has every rightevery rightto its independence. To its independence, it has every right. And by international law, Puerto RicoPuerto Rico can usePuerto Ricans who want to decolonize Puerto Rico can use all the means at their disposal, including the use of force. Im not advocating for that. Lets make that clear. By 1992, by 1992, all of us who were in prison had taken a position that we will notwe will not promote violence, that we will notwe were not going to be active in violence. In 1999, mostly all my co-defendants were released. Up to this time, up to this time, almost 20 years later, there has not been a minute, not a single act, a criminal or any kind of violation committed by my co-defendants. That really should be the measuring point for anything. That should be the way that we should be seen. We left prison. We committed ourselves not to act violently. And thus far, no one can accuse us of doing so.

Now, had there been any evidence against any of usany of usI guarantee you that I wouldnt be here today, because the federal judge, the federal judge we faced, he told us that if the law would allow it, he would sentence all of us to death, if the law would allow it. And that sometimesthat narrative is never talked about. But theres a narrative. Theres a narrative. Colonialism is a crime against humanity. We have to be clear on that. And Puerto RicansPuerto Ricans, to tolerate colonialism, we are tolerating a crime. So, I think that its important to understand that we love Puerto Rico. I love my homeland. Thats my homeland. Thats my promised land. And the way I see it is that we have to decolonize Puerto Rico. Now, the issue of violence is no longer one that we will ever entertain or that well ever promote. And lets be clear on that, because I think that its important for people to know who we are, who we are as people, as human beings, because we lovewe love our homeland. We alsowe also love justice and freedom for the whole world.

Read the original post:

After 35 Years in Prison, Puerto Rican Activist Oscar Lpez Rivera on Freedom & Decolonization - Democracy Now!