Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

Fiscal conservatives live in strange times. We have a Republican President who regularly pledges to protect enormous budgetary sacred cows, and wants a trillion or so in infrastructure spending on top. But while the first part of the Trump presidency has seen spending issues all but disappear, budget debates are back with a vengeance just days to go before a possible government shutdown.

Republicans are divided on everything from healthcare to tax policy to the infamous wall. But while the often-chaotic big tent produces headaches for leadership, party division may actually be better than the alternative.

New data from SpendingTracker.org offers a note of caution for Republicans tempted to be angry at their renegade fiscal wing.

RELATED:Without the House Freedom Caucus, Trumps Republican Party would be worthless

When looking at what every member of Congress has voted to spend, one of the clearest takeaways is how united the Democratic Party is on fiscal issues. Despite an unexpectedly turbulent Democratic presidential primary and DNC chair selection last year, there is very little variety among Democrats on budget issues especially in comparison to bitter GOP fights that characterized much of the last Congress and continue into this one.

To be clear, politicians in both parties tend to vote for higher spending. For instance, of the roughly $2 trillion in new spending that President Obama signed into law over the last two years, the median House Democrat voted for $1.86 trillion and the median Republican for $1.95.

Republicans, though, have somehow maintained a diversity no longer seen in Democratic ranks. In the 114th Congress, the lowest and highest-spending members were Republicans. Thats partially thanks to the unruly caucus in the Republican Party that pulls it in the other direction.

For the Democrats, the idea of a fiscally conservative wing is increasingly one of the past. While the biggest Republican fiscal hawk in the House, Rep. Justin Amash, voted for just over $8 billion in the last Congress, his Democratic counterpart, Illinois Jan Schakowsky, voted to spend almost $450 billion. The Senate shows similar division although Democratic-leaning Independent Bernie Sanders many missed votes and tendency to reject NDAA bills counterintuitively earns him the top saver title.

Looking at all spending votes (not just votes for legislation that passed) shows more predictable party-line division in both houses of Congress. Now, a vast majority of the lowest-spending members are Republicans, and the gap between the most frugal Republican and the most frugal Democrat widens to more than $1 trillion.

Much of this change is due to the 2015 Price bill to repeal Obamacare, but the gap between Republicans and Democrats grows even when excluding that vote.

These observations can be viewed with varying levels of cynicism. Do these totals represent what Republicans would vote for if they had united government? Or what theyre comfortable supporting with little chance of it ever becoming reality? The coming session should shed a little light on what take is more accurate.

But one theme is apparent regardless. While some Democrats still vote for less spending, the gap between the parties is wide and growing, as the fiscal hawks increasingly become a vilified minority of just one party.

Ultimately, much bigger changes will need to happen before meaningful spending restraint can be achieved. Its been 22 years since Congress managed to complete the budget process on time, and when most spending happens in the form of massive, last-minute packages that members see just before a looming government shutdown, its hard to imagine anyone but the strictest Freedom Caucus hardliners taking responsible votes on a regular basis.

RELATED:The White House wants us to vote to eliminate federal agencies. But is it a trick?

Over time, partisanship in general has increased dramatically. Research shows that party-line votes have become the overwhelming norm and are increasing at about 5 percent every year. Its uncommon for any member of Congress to vote against his or her party.

But on budgetary votes, a small group of Republicans still is willing to defy that norm and fiscal conservatives should be glad. Without a wing of the party pushing for responsibility, the cause risks being diminished indefinitely. Republican leaders should appreciate that their party still has a budgetary conscience even if it causes some growing pains along the way.

Regardless of how one identifies in partisan politics, theres no question that mainstream politics and fiscal conservatism grow farther apart by the day. Small government advocates would be well-served to take a hard look at the experiences of the Democratic Party and realize the importance of having at least one major party that keeps its fiscal conservative wing alive.

See the original post:

Talk is cheap: Who walks the walk on spending? - Rare.us

'); //-->

WATERTOWN The ongoing legal battle between the city and the firefighters union has cost the city at least $315,000 in attorney fees, according to documents obtained by the Watertown Daily Times.

The citys legal bills hit $315,225.60 as of Jan. 1, according to invoices and bills obtained through the Freedom of Information Act by the Times. Attorney bills for the first three months of this year were not provided.

However, City Councilman Cody J. Horbacz said Wednesday afternoon that he expects the bills to be much more than that.

He brought up the issue of the skyrocketing legal expenses during the first budget session on Tuesday night, expressing concern about whether enough money is appropriated in the 2017-18 budget.

In my opinion, its under-budgeted for law bills, he said Wednesday.

City Manager Sharon A. Addison appropriated $319,500 for legal expenses for the next fiscal year. That amount would pay for Terry ONeil, the Long Island attorney hired to represent the city in the nearly three-year legal dispute with the firefighters union, for fees from City Attorney Robert J. Slye and other legal expenses associated with the negotiations.

But Councilman Horbacz said City Comptroller James E. Mills told him that the city has already spent about $360,000 in legal expenses with two months remaining in the fiscal year.

That $360,000 is already about $75,000 over the amount budgeted for 2016-17, he pointed out.

He expects that amount to continue to go up. And hes worried about what happens with legal bills next year.

Daniel Daugherty, president of the Watertown Professional Fire Fighters Association Local 191, said Wednesday that the citys legal fees could reach $500,000 by the time the legal battles are resolved and the contract dispute has been settled.

Right now, it wouldnt surprise me if the city spends $500,000, he said, stressing that the city and the union will be in court several times during the month of May, so the bills are expected to continue to increase.

The main sticking point remains the issue involving the minimal manning stipulation that 15 firefighters must be on duty at all times. The city contends that the stipulation causes the department to be overstaffed, while the union maintains that changing it would be unsafe.

The Times sifted through 280 pages of bills and invoices that the city provided in the FOIL request.

Out of the $319,000, only $150,000 of the legal fees pertains to labor negotiations, Ms. Addison said. The remainder is attributed to counter actions initiated by the firefighters union involving grievances, improper labor practices and other legal maneuvers, she said.

The union continues to have about 10 grievances in the works against the city alone. Two arbitration cases also have not been resolved. Mr. ONeil is paid $350 an hour. Every time theres a court date it costs the city about $3,500, Mr. Daugherty said.

Ms. Addison expects a number of those legal proceedings will be resolved in the next several weeks, so she expects that the city will be paying about $50,000 in attorney fees between now and the end of the fiscal year.

She also appropriated about $100,000 in the proposed budget for Bond, Schoeneck & King, the law firm that employs Mr. ONeil. She believes that amount will be enough to get through next year, Ms. Addison said.

The union probably has already spent $100,000 for legal fees with its attorneys, Mr. Daugherty said. The union could end up spending between $200,000 and $300,000 for attorneys before the contract is settled.

As soon it is, the union and the city will have to start negotiating for the next contract, he said.

Both sides claim they can work out their differences by going back to the negotiating table. Ms. Addison claimed the city made two requests to go back to the table, but the union didnt take up either offer.

Mr. Daugherty said the union was willing to have an off-the-record meeting with the city, as long as the arbitrator is present. But Ms. Addison said the city declined that offer because it doesnt trust that arbitrator and would be willing to sit down with the union as long as the mediator wasnt involved.

The city has been insistent that minimal manning be eliminated from the firefighters working model. Ms. Addison said that fire departments in similar sized communities have between nine and 12 firefighters on duty at all times.

This minimal manning is a job security clause to the fire union, as well as individual firefighters, she said.

While the city could end up spending $500,000, the long-term impact could be an annual savings of $1 million forever, she said. But Mr. Daugherty countered that he believes the union, in the end, will win its arbitration case involving the contract.

I think its a pretty good long shot shes risking with taxpayer money, he said.

He also reiterated that the minimal manning stance is needed. In other comparable communities of Watertowns size, firefighters have higher salaries and the departments are in close proximity of other professional departments.

The issue has both state and national implications, so the union has received assistance from outside firefighter organizations, Ms. Addison said.

The 70-member union has been without a contract since July 2014. The contract talks became increasingly bitter after eight captains were demoted to firefighters last July. The eight lost about 20 percent of their annual salaries when they were demoted, while the city made the change to save about $100,000 a year.

Read the original:

Watertown Daily Times | Watertown's legal bills mounting for ... - WatertownDailyTimes.com

Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton has threatened to veto a pair of abortion-related measures passed by the Republican-controlled House Monday. One bill would set new licensing and inspection requirements for abortion clinics and the other would prohibit the funding of abortions under state-sponsored health care programs.

Legislators voted 77-54 on the prohibition bill, HF809, sponsored by Rep. Mary Franson, R-Alexandria, which would apply to the Medical Assistance program. That bill now moves to the Senate.

The Hyde Amendment bans federal funds from paying for abortions except in the case of rape, incest or preserving the life of the mother. A 1995 Minnesota Supreme Court decision struck down a 1978 law similar to HF809 as unconstitutional.

Prior to the debate on the House floor, Rep. Erin Murphy, DFL-St. Paul, charged Republicans of playing politics on abortion and wasting time that could be used to resolve the state budget.

My Republican colleagues are inserting themselves into a decision about the health care of women, that should be the decision for a women, her family and her health care provider, Murphy said.

Franson said her bill would apply the same restriction to the Medical Assistance program, noting My constituents and I do not believe we should pay for elective abortions, according to Session Daily. She said some organizations offer financial assistance to help women pay for the procedure.

I believe that women deserve better than abortion, Franson said. Providing free abortion does nothing to help women.

Rep. Abigail Whelan, R-Ramsey, said using taxpayer dollars for abortions is a violation of the religious freedom of Minnesotans who are being forced to fund a practice that goes against their sincerely-held religious beliefs.

Rep. Laurie Halverson, DFL-Eagen, disagreed, arguing the entire range of health care should be available to women in the state regardless of whether they are wealthy or poor.

Rep. Peggy Flanagan, DFL-St. Louis Park, said, Were developing a habit of not listening to low-income women and not listening to women of color within the Legislature.

The bill includes a severability clause, which would state the Legislatures intent as being that if a court were to find part of the bill unconstitutional, the rest would remain in effect, Session Daily reported.

The licensing measure, HF812, sponsored by Rep. Debra Kiel, R-Crooskston, includes inspections every two years, a $365 biennial license fee and a system for suspension or revocation. The House passed the bill 79-53 and it now moves on to the Senate.

The bill proposes as of July 1, 2018 the commissioner of health would be responsible for issuing licenses to facilities where 10 or more elective abortions are performed monthly, not including separately licensed hospitals and outpatient surgical centers.

We are not looking to shut down abortion facilities, Kiel said. We are working to make sure that women are our priority.

To be eligible, a facility would need accreditation or to belong to a membership organization; losing either could lead to loss of a license.

The House adopted an amendment offered by Kiel, as amended, raising the license fee from $345 to $365 and adjusting the appropriation to $55,000 in Fiscal Year 2018 and $8,000 in Fiscal Year 2019.

Gov. Dayton vetoed a similar bill in 2012.

Several DFLers said the state already regulates abortion facilities by licensing doctors and other medical professionals, and noted that other medical procedures arent covered under the bill.

See original here:

MN House passes a pair of abortion bills - Wahpeton Daily News

Utahns constantly hear how well the states economy is doing. Pick a category of economic success and Utah is at or near the top. Being recognized for the results of hard work is nice. And make no mistake it takes hard work to become the fastest growing economy with the best place for jobs in the nation. But one thing is often overlooked in all the accolades, all the speeches, all the back-slapping, and that is how Utah achieved this success.

I have written the past few months about Utah's "secret sauce. Based on a decade of working in various economic development positions, I have concluded the states success is based on tried and true principles of fiscal prudence, global leadership and free enterprise. I have argued by employing these same principles, other states and our nation can achieve similar results.

This column focuses on the principle of free enterprise. This principle, inextricably linked to individual liberty, is the engine of our economy. The freedom of movement. The freedom of commerce. The freedom of choice. And the responsibility that comes with those freedoms.

In Utah, we venerate the entrepreneur, the job creator and the small-business owner. We recognize that free enterprise has created the most opportunity, the most freedom, the most choices and the best quality of life for more people than any other time in history.

During the Great Recession, some pundits gleefully proclaimed that free enterprise had failed, that capitalism was dead. But not in Utah. This state held true to the principle of free enterprise and the idea that limited government that empowers the private sector was the answer to accelerating job creation.

One example of this principle in action is the regulatory reform led by the governors office. Each member of the governors cabinet was assigned the task of asking two questions: What regulations does your government agency oversee that impact business? What public purpose do those regulations serve? Based on the answers to these simple questions, the state modified or eliminated nearly 400 regulations.

Imagine how the power of the private sector could be unleashed across the nation if this effort was done at the federal level. Imagine how we could jump-start our national economy if federal regulatory reform sought input from the actual people impacted and hindered by over-regulation. The concept may be simple, but implementation takes more sustained focus and effort than we have seen to date.

Our constitutional republic is marvelous, genius and inspired because it was designed by the Founders to empower individuals to overcome their unique challenges. Sadly, the federal government has strayed far from that ideal, with a judiciary that legislates from the bench, an executive branch that too often chooses which laws it will enforce and which it will ignore, and a Congress that has abdicated its lawmaking authority to a sprawling federal bureaucracy.

People around the country and the world see the fruits of Utahs economy and wonder how a place with 3 million people, located somewhere in the middle of the Rocky Mountains, became the fastest growing state economy in the largest national economy in the world. Well, if you want to understand the fruits, you have to look at the roots. Utahs roots are strong and planted in the soil of tried and true principles of economic prosperity. Our countrys roots can be nurtured again by employing these same strengthening principles. Utah has the message the nation wants. Utah is the example the nation needs.

Link:

Utah hasn't forgotten the power of free enterprise - Deseret News

According to a report that's out, President Donald Trump's executive order that eliminates two regulations for every new rule imposed could result in zero net regulatory costs this fiscal year.

On Tuesday, the American Action Forum released a report titled "Getting to $0" demonstrating how Executive Order 13771, using 2006 as a model, could result in zero net regulatory costs for the current fiscal year.

The report, written by Sam Batkins,director of regulatory policy at the American Action Forum, claims that EO's on regulation and the Congressional Review Act could bring regulatory costs to $0 by October 1, 2017. Contrast that with Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Sobarkah's $164 billion in costs from his final regulations alone.

With the landmark signature of Executive Order (EO) 13,771, the Trump administration has made a bold move to limit regulatory costs, Batkins writes. But is the EOs goal of achieving $0 in regulatory costs for the remainder of the fiscal year (through October 1) possible?

According to American Action Forum (AAF) research, the administration need only be as restrained as the Bush Administration was in 2006 to accomplish the goal of no net costs, he continues. With the regulatory freeze still mostly in effect, the days of $164 billion in regulatory costs could come quickly to an end.

Batkins report also states that there have been "virtually no new regulatory burdens" since Trump's January 30th executive order.

The report points to way in which achieving the $0 regulatory costs can be achieved.

...there are already $305 million in regulatory recessions it could use, along with more than 40 million hours of reduced paperwork. These gains occurred before the EO, but since they are so recent, the administration does have some control over their future. Its not clear if these savings, largely stemming from a 'Food Stamps' revision, would count toward the one-in, two-out process or the $0 goal, but if they did, at least the Department of Agriculture would start with a negative regulatory balance.

In addition, the administration can use CRA resolutions of disapproval toward the goal of EO 13,771. The administrations guidance makes clear, We will consider Acts of Congress that overturn final regulatory actions, such as disapprovals of rules under the Congressional Review Act, to operate in a similar manner as agency deregulatory actions.

Currently, Congress has introduced roughly 30 resolutions of disapproval. If they were to pass everything on their agenda, they could generate more than $2.4 billion in annual regulatory savings for EO 13,771, with 7.6 million fewer paperwork hours as a byproduct. Although no resolution has been introduced, nullifying new greenhouse gas standards for trucks would save another $2.6 billion in burdens. These savings could be achieved without first performing the laborious task of identifying two prior regulations for repeal, arguably the most challenging aspect of the order.

The Congressional Review Act has already been used to roll back a coal mining rule imposed by Obama and there have been approximately 30 resolutions to repeal some of Obama's major regulations.

Among the complications and challenges that are faced is the fact that the central government has become a monstrosity by creating new unconstitutional agencies, which have more delegated authority. The report also says there is a question of how the executive order treats "repeal" versus an "amend" approach.

Batkins believes that the executive order will result in "a robust retrospective review of the current stock of federal rules to identify cost savings within existing programs."

"EO 13,771 has ushered in a new era for regulatory policy. Now, regulators must balance the imposition of new rules against removing some of the past burden of old regulations," the report concludes. "Regulators across the globe already engage in some form of this regulatory budgeting, but achieving $0 in net costs by October will be a challenge. However, a regulatory freeze, a robust retrospective effort, and a measured pace of regulation for next few months could make getting to $0 by the end of the fiscal year a reality."

Read the original:

Trump's Executive Order Could Result in ... - Freedom Outpost

President Donald Trump signaled he may be willing to wait a little longer to secure federal funding for his controversial border wall, a shift that could make it possible for Congress to finish work on spending legislation in time to avoid a government shutdown.

Trump told a group of conservative journalists gathered at the White House Monday that he could put off until September asking Congress to include the money in the federal budget. That could remove, at least for now, one of the biggest deal-breakers hes inserted into talks to pass a bill this week that would finance the government through September, the end of the fiscal year.

QuickTake U.S. Budget Battles

"On funding the border wall, Trump said he could get it this week or the administration could come back to it in September,"Trey Yingst, a White House correspondent for One America News, reported in a tweet. A White House official who asked for anonymity confirmed what Trump said during the private meeting.

Democrats, whose votes will be needed to help pass the spending plan, hope hell blink to avoid an embarrassing milestone for a new president trying to prove he can govern. A partial shutdown would start on Saturday, Trumps 100th day in office.

"The Presidents comments this evening are welcome news given the bipartisan opposition to the wall, and the obstacle it has been to the continuing bipartisan negotiations in the appropriations committees," House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement. "Its time for Congress to act to make it clear that government will remain open for the American people."

Heres What You Missed From President Trump Today

Earlier in the day Monday, Trump was still touting the long-promised wall that hes said Mexico will pay for in the end, according to a White House official.

"The Wall is a very important tool in stopping drugs from pouring into our country and poisoning our youth (and many others)! Trump wrote Monday on Twitter.

There is another way for both sides to avert a shutdown -- a short-term spending plan that would provide another week or so for negotiations after the deadline early Saturday.

"We feel very confident the governments not going to shut down," White House press secretary Sean Spicer said Monday, although he said he wouldnt guarantee it. The spokesman wouldnt say whether the president was willing to shut the government down over funding for the border wall.

Right now, each side is dug in. And, as budget talks intensify, Trump also is pushing House Republicans to restart work on an Obamacare repeal-and-replace bill after the last one collapsed in March when conservatives walked away.

Trump is also planning to announce at least the broad parameters of a tax overhaul on Wednesday that has elements already drawing the opposition of Democrats, including likely tax cuts for corporations and high-earners.

On top of that, Trump insists he wont go quietly even if Republicans and Democrats cut a deal. His budget director tried to sweeten the pot on Friday by offeringDemocrats help on their pet cause, Obamacare subsidies.

The question is, how much of our stuff do we have to get? How much of their stuff are they willing to take? budget director Mick Mulvaney said on Bloomberg Television. Wed offer them one dollar of Obamacare payments, he added, for one dollar of wall payments right now.

Democrats called Mulvaneys Obamacare offer a non-starter, saying they refuse to include any funds for a wall in the spending bill.

Its a rare moment when the Democrats have leverage in the Republican-controlled House, because its likely that Republican leaders would need at least some Democratic votes to offset Republican defections on the budget -- as has been the case for a series of budget fights in recent years.

Republicans may not be willing to allow the government to shut down over the wall.

Paul Ryan Needs Pelosi's Help to Avert a Gov't Shutdown

I wouldnt risk a trillion-dollar funding bill for a $3 billion wall, Representative Tom Cole, the Oklahoma Republican who sits on the House appropriations and budget committees, told MSNBC Monday. Theres another way, another time to get this.

Through it all, Trump has sounded upbeat, saying he thinks negotiations are in good shape to avert a shutdown.

We dont know yet whether Trump would sign a spending bill that doesnt include money for the border wall, Mulvaney, a former House member from South Carolina and a founding member of the conservative Freedom Caucus, said on Fox News Sunday.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumers spokesman, Matt House, complained that the White House in recent days brought a heavy hand into what he said were smooth-going talks between congressional Republicans and Democrats.

If the administration would drop their 11th-hour demand for a wall that Democrats, and a good number of Republicans, oppose, congressional leaders could quickly reach a deal, House said in a statement Friday.

Schumer told MSNBC on Monday that Republican and Democratic leaders were on their way to a resolution when Trump intervened and he throws a monkey wrench in it.

One thing is certain: Any spending deal must be a bipartisan one. Even though Republicans control both houses of Congress and the White House, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and House Speaker Paul Ryan know theyll both need Democratic votes to pass a government funding measure.

The Senate needs 60 votes to advance legislation, meaning the 52 Republicans will need help from at least eight Democrats. In the House, conservatives led by the Freedom Caucus and other fiscal hawks have regularly bolted on spending bills, and Democrats have provided enough votes for passage.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions said Monday that Democrats should be blamed if the funding legislation doesnt pass in time to avoid a shutdown.

Well have a bill moving forward with some money in there for the wall, he said on Fox News. If the Democrats filibuster that and block it, theyre the ones shutting the whole government down.

Mulvaney has acknowledged that Democrats have a certain amount of leverage.

But giving in to Democrats demands to get a bipartisan deal would not only threaten Trumps wall funding, it also would require dropping Republican priorities such as language to block funding for such womens health clinics as Planned Parenthood, and to defund so-called sanctuary cities that decline to enforce some immigration laws.

Congressional negotiators have been quietly working for weeks on possible compromises, including an increase in defense spending that would be less than the $30 billion Trump has sought but larger than the $5 billion requested earlier by former President Barack Obama.

Democrats insisted during the Obama administration that any defense increases be matched by higher domestic spending, though they may show some flexibility now.

One trade-off could pair $9 billion in subsidies for insurance companies under Obamacare -- a domestic spending increase -- with an equal increase for regular defense operations. Another $5 billion to $10 billion in war funding could be added to that, and Democrats could justify going along with the idea given heightened tensions with Syria and North Korea.

On the border wall, appropriations lobbyist Jim Dyer of the Podesta Group suggested the issue could be solved by having wall money depend on the Homeland Security Department issuing a detailed plan later in the year, subject to bipartisan approval.

Republican appropriators, meanwhile, havent emphasized the issue of stopping funding for sanctuary cities. The Justice Department already can restrict some local law enforcement grants to cities and states that dont provide immigration status updates to the federal government.

Theres also been little talk lately of the White Houses call for $18 billion in immediate domestic agency cuts as part of the package. This shows bipartisan promise in Congress, but also leaves Trumps views largely unknown.

Democratic leaders in both chambers have complained of a lack of communication with the president until recent days.

I dont think there is a relationship between Trump and congressional Democrats yet, said Stan Collender, a budget analyst and executive vice president of Qorvis MSLGroup in Washington. I dont see them doing anything to help him at all.

Still, if McConnell and Ryan decide they need to pass a short-term funding plan to provide time for more talks, Democrats will have a strategic decision to make -- oppose it to keep pressure on Trump, or go along amid concern about being the party blamed for a shutdown.

Collender said Trump may decide to declare a win by making compromises to avoid a shutdown similar to the 16-day partial closing in 2013 under Obama. Yet, he said, the president also might surprise people by pushing hard for his proposals. His supporters might like to see him fight for the border wall and other priorities, Collender said.

Ross Baker, a political scientist at Rutgers University in New Jersey, said, Government shutdowns seem to have fallen out of fashion even with conservative Republicans who forced the 2013 shutdown in an unsuccessful attempt to repeal Obamacare.

The only hitch I see is if Trump gets dogmatic over the wall and passes the word to Ryan that they shouldnt let the Democrats off the hook with their alternative to a brick-and-mortar wall, he said.

The rest is here:

Trump Signals Shift on Wall Funding to Avert Government Shutdown - Bloomberg

New Delhi, Apr 25:With the aim of preparing budgets as soon as the agricultural income is received, Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the governing council meeting of the NITI Aayog asked the states to consider the advancing of the fiscal year from April-March to January-December. PM Modi stated that in a country where agricultural income is exceedingly important, the budget must be prepared immediately after the receipts of the year are received.

A committee to examine the shifting of the financial year was set up earlier by PM Modi. The government also advanced the presentation of union budget from February end to 1st February. Pitching for January-December fiscal year,PM Modi said that because of poor time management, many good initiatives and schemes had failed to deliver the anticipated results.

He also reiterated the idea of holding simultaneous parliamentary and state assembly elections, saying that the country had suffered from economic and political mismanagement for long now, and that a constructive discussion had already begun on the subject.

The Prime Minister said if the elections are held simultaneously, then political parties could just focus on them once in five years and then use the rest of the period to do serious work, NITI Vice Chairman Arvind Panagariya told reporters after the meet.

Modi also called upon the state governments to work with the Centre as to build the India of the dreams of our freedom fighters by 2022, the 75th anniversary of Independence.

He urged states, local governments and all government and non-government organisations to decide goals for 2022, and work in mission mode towards achieving them.

He called upon the states to use the GeM (Government e-Marketplace) platform to reduce corruption and increase transparency in government procurement, adding that the use of technologies such as BHIM and Aadhaar would result in significant savings for the states.

(With inputs from IANS)

7th Pay Commission: Committee on Allowances to submit report on April 27 upon arrival of Arun Jaitley from Russia?

Sachin Tendulkar birthday: Sushant Singh Rajput, Virender Sehwag and fans wish theMaster Blaster a happy birthday!

Sukma encounter LIVE Updates: 25 CRPF Jawans killed, CRPF revises death toll

Sonakshi Sinhas secret plan for Justin Biebers concert might further upset Armaan Malik, Kailash Kher EXCLUSIVE

Sachin Tendulkars 44th birthday: Watch videos of top five moments from his career

Read more here:

Prime Minister Narendra Modi urges states to consider January-December fiscal year - India.com

When an individual is blacklisted for jobs, harassed by taxes, subjected to illegal surveillance and threatened by thugs his countrys freedom is arrested by politicism

Repression can be defined as an act of using force in order to control someone or something. Enchanted by the simplicity of this description, many political alchemists hoped for a gold- bearing mixture: coercion + thralldom= control. But did they find the elixir of eternal power, or just a false equation placing them a pseudo- philosophical stones throw away from wrath of the pawns? It is impossible to describe the vast variety of strategies of political repression in a few paragraphs; a short article can only give a hint of Arcanum.

Isolation can simply mean imprisonment, so judicial harassment and legal abuse become typical implements in a regimes tool-box. In the case of individuals, solitary confinement can be also imposed by intimidation of the targets friends and employers. Stripped from emotional support and blacklisted for jobs, the maltreated dissident feels the impact of harassment and surveillance even harder.

Groups considered potentially reactive are impoverished and marginalized in order to prevent them from taking part in political life and to suppress their freedom of expression. The rule of political repression is simple: Show me the vulnerable population, I will tell you who the pet-hates are. And by the way, in 2011, a survey https://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2011-02-10-1Ahomelessvets10_ST_N.htm determined that: Military veterans are much more likely to be homeless than other Americans. . .

While facing a kangaroo court, a member of the http://www.l10freedomride.com/ rel=nofollow>Leavenworth 10 , Master Sergeant John E. Hatley observed: What I do take issue with is being used as a pawn on a political chessboard or sacrificing my men or myself to provide assurances to a foreign country that we are at war with. Mr. Hatley is still in prison.

While subjecting dissidents to discriminatory measures such as denial of opportunity or unfair treatment career-wise, the coercive manipulator prepares a favorable environment for fiscal harassment. The victims are now guilty of being impoverished, gas-lighted and confused by false interpretation of arbitrary laws on tax exempt.

Fiscal harassment doesnt happen only when tax-collectors are so hyperactive in your workplace that it costs you your job. The main difference between collecting back payments and harassment is the final objective: a solution allowing you to pay your debts versus permanent fiscal prison. The real goal is to condemn the opponent for perpetuity of debts through the interest rates and to permanently reside on his bank account denying him financial freedom.

A whistleblower could have his e-mails passed through the sieve of Sec Divert , or his computer mouse would be dragged by an invisible rat. Political repression is a weapon of cowards so threats made by passers-by have traditionally been reserved for women.

When an individual is blacklisted for jobs, harassed by taxes, subjected to illegal surveillance and threatened by thugs his countrys freedom is arrested by politicism.

If Ronald Reagan and John Paul the 2nd are permanently viewed as emblematic figures in the struggle for democracy , its because they understood that an individual is sacred, and if God himself respects human liberty so too must the state.

Some alchemists still expect that President Trump does not get this message. Their targets hope that he does, and that he will responsibly rid the country of attack dogs which as he himself says: have nothing but hate and anger in their hearts and spew it whenever possible.

Read more here:

Alchemy of Political Repression - Canada Free Press

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The social entitlement programmes promised by all the political parties are worthless unless we get our fiscal house in order, a leading governance reformer urging: Grow the economy, shrink the Government.

Robert Myers, a principal with the Organisation for Responsible Governance (ORG), told Tribune Business that the Bahamas needed to set targets and timeline for reducing the size of Government.

Calling for privatisation, semi-privatisations and public-private partnerships (PPPs) to tackle the Governments biggest loss-making entities, Mr Myers said this - rather than increased social spending - was the answer to the growing $7 billion national debt.

We can talk about National Health Insurance (NHI) and all these entitlement programmes; it doesnt matter, he argued. If the country goes bankrupt and does not have the money to pay for these programmes, its all mute.

Its a waste of time to talk about social programmes or entitlements until we get the fiscal house in order. Its laughable and irresponsible for any responsible MP or leader to suggest otherwise.

Unless that order happens, we will go under. Its not a question of if; its a question of when if we carry on like we are. The statistics show that. We have low GDP, and increasing crime and increasing unemployment.

Despite a net $756 million increase in revenues over 2015-2016 due to Value-Added Taxs (VAT) implementation, the Government has continued to run $300 million-plus annual deficits and overshoot its fiscal targets by huge nine-figure sums.

The Government has blamed the deficits for the current and 2015-2016 fiscal years on Hurricanes Matthew and Joaquin, which is part of the story, yet Central Bank of the Bahamas reports continue to note increased spending on NHI and the likes of the Public Parks and Beaches Authority.

And, despite blasting the Ingraham administration for adding $1.5 billion to the national debt between 2007-2012, the Christie government has exceeded this with $2 billion worth of red ink, despite its VAT revenue advantage.

The PLPs 2017 election action plan makes no mention of the fiscal deficit and national debt, and how it plans to tackle these, and Mr Myers said: Any party that does not have that as the number one issue on its agenda is not worth voting for.

If its not at the top of their agenda, then theyre pulling the wool over the Bahamian peoples eyes. They can talk about all these programmes they want to implement, but theyre worthless if we dont get the fiscal house in order through accountability and transparency, a Freedom of Information Act, a Fiscal Responsibility Act and a State Sectors Act.

The latter piece of legislation was introduced by New Zealand, a country widely seen as a fiscal reform model to emulate, in a bid to improve public sector management, governance and efficiency/service delivery.

Mr Myers warned that the Governments ever-increasing hiring and expansion was only digging a deeper and deeper hole.

It shows a complete lack of understanding and accountability, he told Tribune Business. With all that hiring, our position is not getting any better.

Its absolutely reckless and irresponsible to do that. We need to get more productive without people. We have to shrink Government and grow the economy. Its growing the economy, not how you grow the Government.

If they [the political parties] dont get that, they have no business being in power, being in Government. Anyone that says different doesnt understand the reality of the situation. They just dont.

Tribune Business previously revealed how the Christie administration has increased the civil service by a net 4,500 persons since taking office in 2012, a development that explains where a sizeable chunk of VATs net $756 million revenue rise is going on an annual basis.

And, in recent interviews, constituents of Prime Minister Perry Christie and Jerome Fitzgerald, minister of education, science and technology, have both revealed how the two men have secured jobs for themselves and their family members within the public sector.

Mr Myers said the Bahamian economys anemic growth since the 2008-2009 recession, with GDP expanding by less than 1 per cent per annum, and even contracting in 2014 and 2015, was the root cause of much of the countrys problems.

The problem is the economy is shrinking, he told Tribune Business. Youve got to grow your economy and reduce the size of Govt, so we can be more competitive.

Lets shrink the size of Government over a defined period of time, and PPP, privatise or semi-privatise these things that are causing the Government massive losses, like Bank of the Bahamas, ZNS and Bahamasair. Get rid of these things and the inefficiencies in government.

Read the original:

Social Entitlements 'Worthless' Without Govt Fiscal Order - Bahamas Tribune

Share on Facebook

Share via Email

Turning Point USA, a national conservative activist organization, received approval to form a Tulane chapter at theUndergraduate Student Government meeting on Tuesday. Ultimately, this affirmationof free speech was the correct decision while highlighting a drastic need for the university to address hate speech more seriously.

Many Tulane students, especially those that are more progressive, view this decision as a failure of the administration and student government to ensure the safety of their students. Freedom of speech, however, must never be limited. The only way to combat ideas that are viewed as outrageous is to discuss and defeat them through logic.

There is a crucial distinction between hate speech and free speech. Aside from national and state laws, the Tulane University Code of Student Conduct takes a clear stance on this issue: The University encourages the free exchange of ideas and opinions, but insists that the free expression of views must be made with respect for the human dignity and freedom of others.

Despite several instances of racist and discriminatory behavior from Turning Point chapters at other universities, Tulanes branch has not expressedhateful speech. The group claims to be focused on freedom, limited government and fiscal mattersand those claims should be respected. It is unfair to assume that the members of a conservative organization at Tulane will demonstrate the same white supremacist beliefs as other members of this organization at other universities.

An organization like Students for Justice in Palestine provides a relevant analogy. Though members of SJP at other universities have committed violent acts against Jewish people and brought explicitly anti-Semitic speakers to campus, if someone wanted to start a Tulane branch, they must be allowed to express their views. Some Jewish students, knowing the organizations capacity for anti-Semitism across the country, might feel unsafe with the groups presence on campus. But unless SJP were to crossthat line, the group shouldbe allowed to exist at Tulane.

Similar logic can be applied to anti-abortion rights groups that peacefully protest, even though it might feel like an attack to individuals who have had abortions. Unless the protesters are harming others, they must be allowed to voice their concerns.

This being said, the debate raises critical points about how we treat marginalized students on campus. The administration must treathate speech with the utmost seriousness. If it doesnt,these concerns over safety can never be assuaged.

An additional measureis creating concrete safe spaces oncampus for anyone who needsto escape hurtful words and enjoy the unityof other marginalized individuals, to protect students feelingsbut without limiting intellectual freedom. The expansion of places like the Office of Multicultural Affairs and the creation of a Muslim prayer space are important steps toward ensuring students have access to safe spaces.

Furthermore, students must join the fight against discrimination and work together to end a hostile on-campus climate toward marginalized groups.If weband together as a student body to monitor and hold organizations accountable, we are engaging in proactive and not reactive protection.

This issue may sting for students on campus who feel attacked by the expression of certain views and ideologies. Progress cannot be made in this country, or anywhere for that matter, until we create open forums to hear the opinions of others while continuing to draw an unwavering line between what is hard to hear and what is hateful to hear.

This is an opinion article and does not reflect the views of The Tulane Hullabaloo. Josh is a freshman at Newcomb-Tulane College. He can be reached at [emailprotected]

More here:

Turning Point's Tulane chapter rightfully approved - Tulane Hullabaloo