Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

The tenth edition of the Rich States, Poor States: ALEC-Laffer State Economic Competitiveness Index has just been released, and once again, Utah was found to have the best economic outlook of any state in the nation. The rankings are based on 15 equally-weighted economic policy variables, including tax rates, labor policy, and regulatory climate. They continue to show that states valuing economic freedom and competitiveness outperform states adhering to the tax-and-spend model, with state economic policies having a substantial effect on where businesses and individuals choose to set up shop.

Taxes matter for economic competitiveness. People and businesses often seek out lower tax burdens across state lines. Rich States, Poor States data shows states that keep taxes low, avoid job-killing over-regulation, and follow prudent budget practices consistently and significantly outperform their highly taxed, over-regulated counterparts. Shown below are the top- and bottom-ten states in terms of economic outlook for 2017. Over the past decade, two states have made the top ten in the rankings every single year: Utah and Wyoming. In fact, after enacting tax cuts, a flat tax, and pension reforms, Utah has earned the top spot in all ten editions of Rich States, Poor States a truly impressive accomplishment. On the other side of the spectrum, New York and Vermont have managed to land in the bottom ten each of the past ten years.

This year, several states earned their best all time rankings in Rich States, Poor States. After enacting right-to-work legislation and aggressively cutting tax rates, Indiana, which sat at 24th as recently as 2012, claimed the second-best economic outlook in the nation this year. Texas and New Hampshire both also saw significant improvement in the 2017 rankings, earning their best marks to date.

By examining state-by-state migration trends, it is easy to see which states are enacting pro-growth policies. After all, Americans have shown that they are willing to vote with their feet for better economic opportunities even if it means leaving their home state. The top-ten states in the 2017 rankings have gained more than 3.75 million residents in the past decade. The bottom-ten states, meanwhile, have lost more than 3.78 million residents over the same period. In addition to experiencing a mass exodus of residents, states with oppressively high tax rates such as New York, Illinois, and California have lost vast economic opportunities and vast amounts of wealth. Job growth over the last ten years was nearly three times higher in the top ten states than it was in the bottom ten.

When state governments enact bad policy, individuals and corporations react rationally, working less, investing less, or moving to a more business-friendly state altogether. Growth-oriented states routinely prioritize core services in their budgets while minimizing the tax burden on residents. Poorly ranked states in the Index consistently stifle growth with higher taxes and increased regulation.

Of course, tax and fiscal policies are not the only predictors of economic growth. Demographics, climate, natural resources, and other geographic amenities remain important factors in state economic growth as well. But even adjusting for these other factors, states that embrace sound economic policies vastly outperform those that dont. Coastal California may enjoy a better climate in its ten-day forecast than Texas for much of the year, but economic growth and migration patterns strongly suggest that the Lone Star State has a brighter future than the Golden State.

While free markets and low taxes enable resources to flow in a productive manner to meet the demands of consumers, markets distorted by government through cronyism, taxes, and regulation create lower output and stifle investment. In Rich States, Poor States, the 50 laboratories of democracy give us clear examples of this every year. Freedom works, and the Index proves it.

Jonathan Williams is the chief economist and vice president of the American Legislative Exchange Councils Center for State Fiscal Reform.

See the rest here:

Free-Market Policies & Economic Competitiveness: Business ... - National Review

Kirriemuir and Dean sees one of the more intriguing and competitive battles for council seats.

Council leader Iain Gaul has decided not to stand for re-election after 14 years as a councillor and rivals to the SNP party are sensing an opportunity to gain his seat.

Six people will compete for three council seats, compared to just four contenders in 2012.

It is the only council ward in which the Conservatives are fielding two candidates, with incumbent Ronnie Proctor joined by Angus Macmillan Douglas.

Current SNP councillor Jeanette Gaul is joined by Julie Bell. The Liberal Democrat candidate is Liz Petrie and Labour is fielding Gordon Watson.

Kirriemuir has benefited from major investment through the Conservation Area Regeneration Scheme which has improved the appearance of buildings in the town.

The town has also focused on becoming dementia friendly, with the development of a community hub and opening of a sensory garden as part of the 250,000 initiative.

The closure of the recycling centre in Kirriemuir has been a hot topic in the town, with a replacement centre to serve people in Kirrie and Forfar likely to be sited in Padanaram.

There have also been concerns about loss of other local amenities in the town, with a community asset transfer plan currently being put together for the former Failrie House council complex.

In recent years Kirrie has also seen the closure of its Royal Bank of Scotland branch, with the TSB also warning customers that it will be closing its branch in the town in June.

With the ward taking in many remote homes, it also has a number of people who have been affected by the councils decision to stop some food waste collection services.

The Courier invited each candidate to submit a short introduction to themselves and, if they wished, a video explaining why they deserve your vote.

I want to change how we deliver local democracy and we need to engage more women in politics to properly reflect society and to achieve that. Women make up 52% of the population, after all. So I decided to get involved and the SNP was a natural home Ive been a voter all my life.

Working with people and partnerships are my strengths, I think, from years of working in broadcasting, the health service and local government. Ive campaigned on mental health and wellbeing for years too, and I have my own small therapy practice.

Local elections are absolutely critical to our day-to-day lives. We need to work harder to connect people with councils and our local services schools and learning, housing, health and social care, for example. We need to listen and learn, to be inclusive and co-operative. Ive already been having those conversations locally, about doing politics differently.

I was first elected to Angus Council in 2012. Since then I have worked with many community and business groups, listening to their views, putting successful strategies into action and helping to deliver the best possible services to the people of Kirriemuir and Dean in the face of unprecedented financial challenges.

I have represented Kirriemuir and Dean through Angus Council on the Cairngorms National Park. I am a member of the Dementia Friendly Steering Group and Kirriemuir Area Partnership.

When first elected my only promise to the residents of Kirriemuir and Dean was to work hard for them.

My promise for this election is to work hard for the residents of Kirriemuir and Dean again.

Since December, I have visited some 2,500 residents throughout our ward from the Glens to Newtyle to Kirriemuir.

People raise issues of great concern: the proposed closure of the Kirriemuir Recycling Centre; cuts to social services, which frighten the elderly and vulnerable; council tax increases at a time of service cuts; and substantial increases in business rates, which threaten jobs.

This at a time when Kirriemuir has lost the RBS and businesses are at risk.

I wish you to elect me, so I can try my utmost to stop this decline.

I was raised locally at Douglastown and fortunate to become a divisional director of BP, director of the Scottish Blood Service and finance chair of Abertay University.

I have a record of success. I shall be accessible to residentsand use my business experience to help Angus Council run our essential services effectively and treat council employees with respect.

I knew from an early age that what I really wanted to do was paint. I got my diploma at Duncan of Jordanstone College and Ive been a professional artist ever since.

Along the way Ive had other jobs too raising children was the hardest but Im proud of the results! Plants are great too, I love gardening.

For many years I did interviews for a national market research company. Whatever topic I was asking about, people gave me the added benefit of their views on politics.

I realised we all want the same things from our council proper health and social care, good schools, safe roads, recycling centres, reliable bin collections, and enough homes for everyone at rents we can afford. Not a lot to ask.

As a Liberal Democrat, I campaign for everyone to have these things because everyone deserves them.

I was born and brought up in Kirriemuir and attended Websters Seminary, joining the army aged 15.

I spent nearly 40 years in The Black Watch, working my way from junior private to major. I was awarded the MBE in 1992.

Since retiring from active service I have assisted serving soldiers and veterans with welfare issues. For five years I have been veterans champion for Angus Council, which I find worthwhile and rewarding.

Local concerns are paramount and I have supported many initiatives, assisted with housing, school and road safety issues and assisting those affected by flooding.

If re-elected I would strive for maximum value for money for council taxpayers and more fiscal freedom for local authorities; press for fair, affordable business rates to help local businesses survive; revisit recycling centre proposals; strive to improve rural broadband; and press for regulation of parking by council wardens once legislation becomes effective.

Originally from Sunderland, I have worked and raised my family in Angus for over 40 years.

I have had a long career in social work and childcare, therefore having a wide knowledge of the infrastructure of the local authority.

I was an active trade unionist in Unison and continue in this role by representing retired members.

This election is about making your voice heard at local level not about independence.

My priorities if I am elected as your councillor will be education (to ensure schools are fully staffed), NHS social care (to fight cuts to local health services and care of the elderly), housing (to ensure the building of more affordable homes in our area) and to hold the council to account.

Excerpt from:

Council Election 2017: Kirriemuir and Dean (Ward 1) - The Courier

Nebraska has the opportunity to become the next state to carry the torch of tax reform as the states legislature gears up to debate a bill this Friday that, if enacted, would provide needed relief to taxpayers and improvements to Nebraskas tax code.

LB 461, which recently passed out of committee, would lower the top personal and corporate income tax rates from 6.84% and 7.81%, respectively, to as low as 5.99% by 2029, so long as certain revenue triggers are met.

Across the country, recent years have proven to be a golden age for pro-growth tax reform. States like Texas, Tennessee, Arizona, Arkansas, Wisconsin, and especially North Carolina have all enacted policies that have resulted in lower taxes, allowing residents to keep more of their hard-earned income. States that fail to improve their codes and provide relief to taxpayers are being left behind in the competition for investment, employers, jobs, and people. By enacting LB 461, Nebraska legislators can ensure the Cornhusker State will not be left behind.

According to ALECs 2016 economic outlook index, Nebraska is dismally ranked 32nd in the nation. In fact, all of its neighboring states, from Wyoming (4) to Iowa (29), are ranked as more economically competitive. Passage of LB 461 will help Nebraska close this competitiveness gap. Today, Americans for Tax Reform sent the following letter Nebraska lawmakers calling on them to enact rate reducing tax reform by voting Yes on LB 461:

Dear Members of the Nebraska Legislature,

On behalf of Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) and our supporters across Nebraska, I urge you to support LB 461. Nebraska currently has a top personal income tax rate of 6.84% and 7.81%. LB 461, if enacted, would reduce those rates by 12.4% and 23.3%, respectively, taking both rates down to as low as 5.99 percent by 2028, so long as revenue triggers are met.

There is ample evidence that lower tax rates make states more competitive, and more conducive economic growth. John Hood, chairman of the John Locke Foundation, a non-partisan think tank, analyzed 681 peer-reviewed academic journal articles dating back to 1990. Most of the studies found that lower levels of taxation and spending correlate with stronger economic performance. When Tax Foundation chief economist William McBride reviewed academic literature going back three decades, he found the results consistently point to significant negative effects of taxes on economic growth, even after controlling for various other factors such as government spending, business cycle conditions and monetary policy.

As the Platte Institute has reported, Nebraskans face a higher burden than taxpayers in competing states:

On average, taxpayers in Nebraska pay 52 percent more personal income tax per person, and 36 percent more corporate income tax. Thats $1,125 per person per year in Nebraska versus $541 in the five rival states [Texas, Florida, Arizona, Colorado, and Iowa] for personal income taxes.

If that werent bad enough, your constituents have been hit with 20 federal Obamacare tax increases over the last eight years. As such, individuals, families, and employers across Nebraska are greatly in need of the sort of income tax relief that enactment of LB 461 would provide.

A reduction in the personal income tax would allow taxpayers to keep more of their hard-earned income, while increasing the job-creating capacity of small businesses that file under the individual income tax system.Meanwhile, a corporate rate reduction would make Nebraska more attractive to employers, job creation, and investment. Corporate tax relief will benefit the broader populace, as the burden of corporate taxation is borne by people in the form of lower wagers, fewer job opportunities, and reduced returns on savings and investment. Enactment of the type of rate-reducing tax reform found in LB 461 would helpNebraska compete with the likes of Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, North Carolina, Florida, Arizona and other competitor states that already boast lower tax burdens and more hospitable business tax climates than Nebraska.

North Carolina provides a great example of how much progress can be made in a short period of time, and should inspire those seeking to provide relief to Nebraska taxpayers while improving the state tax code. Just four years ago, North Carolina had the highest personal and corporate income tax rates in the Southeast. Thanks to tax reform measures enacted in 2013 and 2015, North Carolina now has a flat personal income tax rate that is the lowest in its region, with the exception of Florida and Tennessee, which do not levy an income tax. North Carolinas present corporate tax rate, at 3%, is now less than half of what it was just four years ago, and the personal income tax rate has been reduced by nearly 30%.

In addition to having the lowest personal income tax rate in the region, North Carolina now has the lowest corporate rate in the nation among states that levy such a tax. Going into 2013, North Carolina had the 44th ranked business tax climate in the country on the non-partisan Tax Foundation's business tax climate index. Thanks to the reforms enacted since 2013, North Carolina now has the nations11th best business tax climate.This remarkable improvement in North Carolinas tax code was achieved with the same sort of revenue triggers that LB 461 uses to provide tax relief for Nebraskans in a fiscally responsible fashion.

Americans for Tax Reform urges you to vote YES on LB 461. ATR will be educating your constituents and all Nebraskan taxpayers as to how lawmakers in Lincoln vote on LB 461 and other important fiscal and economic matters throughout the legislative session. Please look to ATR to as a resource on tax, budget, and other policy matters pending before you. If you have any questions, please contact Patrick Gleason, ATRs director of state affairs, at (202) 785-0266 or pgleason@atr.org.

Sincerely,

Grover G. Norquist

President

Americans for Tax Reform

See more here:

"The Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom ...

The Fiscal Times

Republicans Are Trying Again on Obamacare Repeal: Here's the New Plan The Fiscal Times On Thursday morning, Politico published a week-old summary of an amendment to the proposed American Health Care Act, negotiated between senior members of the hard right Freedom Caucus and the more moderate Tuesday Group, two important ... Many Americans haven't heard of Freedom Caucus | Pew Research ...Pew Research Center Updated NH Primary Source: Jasper presses battle with House Republican AllianceWMUR Manchester draft of the tentative deal - PoliticoPolitico all 40 news articles »

Read more from the original source:

Republicans Are Trying Again on Obamacare Repeal: Here's the New Plan - The Fiscal Times

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

An FNM candidate yesterday said it was mind boggling that the Progressive Liberal Partys (PLP) 2017 election action plan fails to mention how it will address the Bahamas fiscal crisis, adding: They dont want Fiscal Responsibility.

Dionisio DAguilar, the Opposition partys Freetown contender, told Tribune Business that the governing party was taking the easy way out by giving constituents and supporters public sector jobs.

He described the Christie administrations policy of constantly increasing the tax burden on productive industries to fund a bloated public sector as a recipe for disaster, with the civil service now too overwhelming for taxpayers to support.

The PLPs action plan makes no mention of the Governments continued $300 million-plus deficits, or the $7 billion national debt, let alone specific plans for how it will tackle a looming fiscal crisis that threatens to sink the Bahamian economy and society.

Its mind-boggling that they dont address the two major concerns of the country, Mr DAguilar told Tribune Business of the PLPs election campaign manifesto. They dont want Fiscal Responsibility.

If they are constrained by fiscal responsibility, and have to maintain caps on spending due to a Fiscal Responsibility Act, they cant pad contracts.

This is why the PLP is such a dangerous option. Here we are being told by S&P, Moodys and the IMF time and time again that we need to get our fiscal house in order, we have to stop spending this VAT money, and deal with the debt.

Both Opposition parties, the FNM and the Democratic National Alliance (DNA), have committed to introducing a Fiscal Responsibility Act as part of a strategy to bring greater accountability and transparency to the Governments financial management.

The PLP, though, has been silent on the issue ever since the current administration failed to deliver on Prime Minister Perry Christies February 2015 pledge to initiate public consultation on whether a Fiscal Responsibility Act was appropriate for the Bahamas.

The matter has come back to the fore after an Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) paper, published last week, warned that the Bahamas and other Caribbean nations need to impose discipline on their governments via so-called fiscal rules if growing debt is ever to be controlled.

The IDB paper suggested that spending rules, which adjusted the Governments expenditure to keep its fiscal ratios in line with a set debt-to-GDP target, would deliver greatest value for the Bahamas.

Mr DAguilar, backing the imposition of caps on government spending, said Royal Bank of Canadas (RBC) chief Caribbean economist, as well as multiple international agencies, were warning that the Government will never control its expenditure if left to its own devices.

He accused the Christie administration of busting the Budget in its efforts to secure re-election, adding: Theyre promoting people, hiring people without any thought for the country.

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 DAguilar accused the PLP of scare-mongering by suggesting an FNM government would dismiss such hires, but described the Christie administrations focus on growing the public sector rather than the economy as a formula for disaster.

The dumb approach is to increase the tax burden on your productive sectors to fund more public sector employment, he told Tribune Business.

Thats a disaster. The civil service will become overwhelming for the taxpayer. Unfortunately, its a dangerous course to be on. What the PLP fails to tell the people is that the Government cant give everyone a job.

Instead of using ingenuity and creativity to incentivise the private sector to grow jobs, theyre taking the easy way out of giving people jobs in the public sector. You cant do that forever, Mr DAguilar added.

Because theyve failed to grow the private sector and the economy, theyre providing jobs in the public sector. While that works for a while, you cant do it forever. You cant grow Government and not grow the economy. Thats a formula for disaster. If you grow the economy, only then will you grow public sector jobs.

The PLPs action plan includes some notable omissions, with no mention anywhere of Value-Added Tax (VAT) or the legalisation of web shop gaming - two issues that some sceptics will likely rank as the Christie administrations greatest achievements.

The party also appears to be promising a further expansion in the size of government through the creation of a Ministry of Communication & Information and Ministry of Culture and Tourism.

When it comes to accountability and transparency, the PLP is pledging that every government ministry will issue Annual Business Plans, which are to include performance targets and timelines about what they intend to accomplish.

These Business Plans will support better accountability for all parts of government on an annual basis and be supplemented by annual Business Reports from each Ministry, the partys action plan said.

These will clearly indicate progress against the previous years Business Plans to further enhance the accountability of Ministries.

The PLP also promised to implement the Freedom of Information Act, and improve efficiency and execution in government through a variety of measures.

Visit link:

PLP's 'mind boggling' omission of fiscal crisis | The Tribune - Bahamas Tribune

At first glance, conservatives might view the rise of Europe's far-right like a refreshing counterbalance to years of socialism run amok. In truth, these reactionary parties endorse eerily similar economic policies as the left-wing they so despise. Fiscal conservatives need to recognize that the European right doesn't reject the fundamentals of big government they embrace it, making them more "faux-right" than actual right.

This Sunday, France will vote in the first round of its presidential election, with National Front leader Marine Le Pen one of the leading candidates. With far-right parties like Le Pen's rising across the continent with recent or upcoming elections in the Netherlands, France, Germany, and Italy, Time magazine declared 2017 to be Europe's "Year of the Populist."

The Netherlands' recent general election provides a prime example of this faux-right phenomenon. Geert Wilders' Party of Freedom took second place, gaining five seats in the country's House of Representatives.

The Dutch provocateur has enjoyed extensive support in American conservative circles, with trips to the United States sponsored by organizations like the Gatestone Institute, International Freedom Alliance, and David Horwitz's Freedom Center to sum of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, controversially voiced his support for Wilders' tough stance on immigration in a tweet last month, claiming that "Wilders understands... We can't restore our civilization with somebody else's babies."

For all his popularity among American conservatives, Wilders' platform is embarrassingly scant on details. During the campaign, he promised to "lower rent" without providing any sort of explanation as to how this will be achieved. When reading further proposals, such as returning the "age of retirement back to 65," providing "pensions for everyone," and reversing "past budget cuts involving care," it's easy to see that his Freedom Party is very keen on government interventionism and increasing welfare spending.

Worse, Wilders justified his promised spending increases with dodgy math. His own leaflets promised that budgetary figures for his proposals would be "counted at a later stage." Outside of limiting immigration, his Freedom Party has not supported any policies that could curb spending.

In short, Wilders took many conservatives for a ride, taking advantage of their overzealous concern about Islamic immigration to bankroll his socialist policies.

Sadly, the same con game seems to be repeating in France, with National Front candidate Marine Le Pen a leading candidate in next week's presidential election with notable support from the American alt-right.

American alternative media outlets have been taken by Le Pen for months. Breitbart News has written about her at least 224 times. The site's editor-in-chief, Alex Marlow, even entertained the idea of establishing a Paris bureau for the website last November.

Yet, Le Pen's National Front embraces big-government policies that would make Andrew Breitbart roll in his grave: imposing tariffs, taxing foreign workers, bringing down the retirement age, raising wages in the public sector, banning ostentatious signs of religion in public, and infringing of freedom of assembly.

In fact, one of the reasons Le Pen never formed any sort of anti-European Union coalition with Brexit champion Nigel Farage is because her party rejects his Anglo-Saxon view of markets. While British eurosceptics called for leaving the European Union because it hampered business freedom, the National Front astoundingly claims that Brussels instead favors free markets too much, describing the union as "ultra-liberal." Once detached from the Maastricht Treaty, Le Pen's party would have it even easier to further increase spending, leading France into an inevitable disaster.

Wilders and Le Pen might be just as opposed to social democracy as American conservatives are, but they aren't planning the same limited government. Although President Trump may find common ground with the European far-right on trade and immigration, his administration has nevertheless pursued an agenda of deregulation and discretionary spending cuts much more in line with a conservative fiscal agenda than anything the European faux-right would ever dare to propose.

Let this be a lesson to fiscal conservatives: The enemy of your enemy is not always your friend. We should save our money and support for more principled movements.

Casey Given (@CaseyJGiven) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is the executive director of Young Voices. Bill Wirtz (@wirtzbill) is a Young Voices Advocate studying law at the Université de Lorraine in Nancy, France.

If you would like to write an op-ed for the Washington Examiner, please read ourguidelines on submissions here.

Read the original here:

European populists aren't conservative, they're faux-right - Washington Examiner

Winnipeg Sun

Two gov't reports remain under wraps despite Sun's freedom of info request Winnipeg Sun The province's Health Sustainability and Innovation Review is expected to cost up to $750,000, while its Fiscal Performance Review (also known as the value-for-money audit) will cost around $740,000. Last year, Premier Brian Pallister and his ministers ...

Follow this link:

Two gov't reports remain under wraps despite Sun's freedom of info request - Winnipeg Sun

Whatever differences there may be between the radical left and the far-right candidates, they mean nothing compared to their similarities. Jean-Luc Mlenchon campaigning in Paris. Photograph: Mesyasz/Sip/Rex/Shutterstock

Four days before the first round of the French presidential election, Europe is terrified by the prospect of a runoff between Marine Le Pen and Jean-Luc Mlenchon. Whoever wins, we are told, the wheat will grow thin, nuclear winter will fall over the continent, and frogs will rain down from the sky. Whatever differences there may be between the radical left and the far-right candidates, they mean nothing compared with their similarities: they are both Eurosceptic demagogues tapping into the base instincts of their compatriots.

I support Jean-Luc Mlenchon, and have done for years. I have co-authored a cartoon adaptation of his programme, spoken at meetings of his movement, La France Insoumise (France Defiant), and run a blog dedicated to explaining our policies and dispelling endless rumours and falsehoods. You can imagine how I feel when we are conflated with our worst enemy, and I would like to set the record straight. We are not out to destroy Europe: we are out to save it. And we might very well be the last opportunity to do so.

In 2005, Mlenchon campaigned against the European constitution on a leftwing platform because he had made the following diagnosis: ever since the Maastricht treaty (which he voted for), Europe was being turned into a space for competition, not cooperation. Fiscal dumping forced states into a race to the bottom; once impoverished, they were forced to downsize social programmes and disenfranchise large parts of their population. The noble principle of freedom of movement was perverted into forced economic migration, which undercut wages and stirred tension between peoples. Europe had to be fundamentally reoriented if it was to be saved. Through the years, this diagnosis was confirmed at every step, and the need to transform Europe has only become more pressing.

Contrary to what I often read, we dont plan to leave the EU: we aim to force the renegotiation of its treaties by means of unilateral disobedience. From the moment we come to power, we will implement a massive, environmentally focused Keynesian stimulus funded via a public bank, thus kickstarting the French economy and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.

We will not apply privatisation directives. We will opt out of the posted workers programme, but we will not reduce freedom of movement. We will implement a salary scale: the highest salary will never be more than 20 times the lowest. We will cap revenues at 400,000 a year. We will regularise the situation of all working illegal immigrants, and we will not implement quotas for refugees.

In the face of popular resentment against a political class that has shown nothing but scorn for voters decisions and love of corporate lobbies, we will call for a constituent assembly to write a new constitution for France.

We are proposing nothing less than a peaceful, ordered revolution towards a fair and truly democratic society. There is a reason why our programme, which is routinely caricatured with references to Vladimir Putin, Hugo Chvez, Fidel Castro or even Stalin, is the highest ranked of all candidates in a comparative study by Mediapart of the views of 20 NGOs and experts, and is reported favourably by Amnesty International, Greenpeace and Oxfam.

But I am waxing lyrical, and you do not believe me. Perhaps you are thinking that it cannot be done. If you are a French speaker, there is an easy way for you to snap out of depressive scepticism: you can watch the thousands of hours of footage of conferences, auditions and debates featuring economists, professionals, diplomats and civil servants that we have put online. You can also read the reasons why economists from 17 countries, including Ha-Joon Chang, support Mlenchons candidacy. If you do not speak French, you will have to take my word for it. But let me ask you: since when has Europhilia been infected by such scepticism? Since when has the defence of Europe been predicated on the belief that there is no alternative? What does that say about European ideals?

Over the past few years, I have been appalled by the readiness to accept, in the name of Europe, the wrecking of Portugal, Italy, Ireland and Spain, and the martyrdom of Greece the Piigs in the parlance of European technocrats. I have been terrified by the hardening of the cognitive dissonance between high-minded ideals and ruthless policies. During the showdown between Syriza and the troika, I helped organise rallies in support of Greece and despaired at the small number of attendees: I feared the European spirit was well and truly dead.

Imagine, then, how wonderful it felt when Mlenchon swore during a rally in Marseille that, should we come into power, France would come to Greeces rescue, and a huge crowd roared its approval. When did you last witness such a powerful feeling of solidarity between one European people and another? Was the European idea not always about solidarity between peoples? If you answer no, then let Europe be damned. If you answer yes, spare a wish for our victory on Sunday.

Continued here:

Jean-Luc Mlenchon should be French president. Here's why - The Guardian

When Republicans kicked the fiscal 2017 spending deadline into April last December, House Speaker Paul D. Ryan saidtheyd rather negotiate with incoming GOP President Donald Trump than the outgoing Democratic one.

But now, congressional Republicans are talking about largely ignoring requests from the White House as they negotiate with Democrats over a spending bill to take the government off autopilot for the remaining five months of the fiscal year.

This dynamic demonstratesthe state of the GOP in Washington: a partystruggling to figure out how to use their unified governmentto implement the policy ideas they pitched during the campaign.

Infighting has long plagued the party, particularly in the House where Republicans haveheld the majority since 2011. But that has amplified now that they find themselves in a governing position, with control of Congress and the White House.

The continuing resolution that has maintained government funding is set to expire April 28. Both chambers of Congress are currently out for the Easter recess, scheduled to return just days before the funding deadline April 24 for the Senate, April 25 for the House. That leaves little time for intraparty squabbles or across-the-aisle horse trading over whatever bill congressional leaders produce.

Political and policy differences between conservative and moderate factions that prevented House Republicans from moving forward with legislation to partially repeal and replace and the 2010 health care law one of their top campaign promises could also cause strife over the government funding bill.

Its a giant problem because anything Republicans in the House really want has to go through eight Democratic senators, said Joshua Huder, senior fellow at Georgetown Universitys Government Affairs Institute, referring to Democratic support needed to get over the Senates 60-vote procedural threshold.

Theres absolutely no way to get this across the finish line, short of a massive compromise, Huder said.

Compromise is exactly what Republicans avoided by kicking the can down the road in December. But the dynamic has not changed. As Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell noted on April 7, spending bills cannot be done by one party alone.

So the question remains whetherRepublicans will look to pick a fight on the spending bill to secure some of their policy priorities. If they keep the government open but dont secure any new big ticket items in the process, can they still claim victory?

Basedon the Republicans own vision of holding majorities in Congress and the White House, doing nothing would be abject failure, said David Lublin, a government professor at American University.

If you pass a budget that essentially extends the current situation, that would be a big win for Democrats because thats not what the Republicans wanted, he said.

Republicans could ask for a number of things to be included in the government fundingbill, but Democratsare unlikely to accept many of them.

Among the issues that could throw a wrench into bipartisan negotiations: increases in defense spending that arent offset by other cuts nor matched byincreases for domestic programs, funding for Trumps border wall proposal, and provisions prohibiting funds for so-called sanctuary cities or Planned Parenthood.

For the majority, decisions remainpending.

All items are under negotiation and are not finalized, said Jennifer Hing, spokeswoman for the House Appropriations majority. We expect [to] have legislation ready prior to the deadline.

Matthew Dennis, the panels minority spokesman, said Democrats are negotiating in good faith over a measure that can pass both the House and Senate.

It seems likely that, like previous years, Democratic votes will be needed to enact appropriations law, so we continue to draw a hard line against poison pill riders like border wall construction, sanctuary cities, and Planned Parenthood, he said.

Top congressional leaders seem to understand where the land mines lie.

For example, Ryansaidthe GOP would prefer to defund Planned Parenthood through the budget reconciliation process and said the majority of the funding for Trumps border wall wont be needed until after fiscal 2017.

But two wild cards are at play: Trump and the House Freedom Caucus, said Sarah Binder, a senior fellow at the liberal-leaning Brookings Institution.

Trump will need to decide whether he wants to use the spending bill as an opportunity to draw attention to his priorities, particularly on funding the border wall, she said.

The unknown here is not just his ability to propose, but will he get the idea that he could wield a veto? Binder said. While presidents rarely issue veto threats when their party controls Congress, Trump has not shown an understanding or appreciation for normal legislative practices, she said.

Mick Mulvaney, the Office of Management and Budget director, has signaled that the president plans to use his veto authority as leverage. Elections have consequences and the president needs to see his priorities funded if hes going to be signing off on spending bills,he told Charlotte radio station WBT on April 9.

The Freedom Caucus is the second wild card: Agroup of roughly three dozen hard-line conservatives thatsought and failed to use prior spending debates to extract policy concessions when President Barack Obama was in office.

Is this the stand they want to take or [do] they want to save their fire for other battles coming down the pipe? Binder said.

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows has said the group would likely show greater flexibility than they have in past government funding negotiations, but its unclear how far that flexibility will go.

If the caucus does not draw a hard line over issues such asPlanned Parenthood and sanctuary cities in the upcoming spending bill, that would not impact their leverage in future negotiations, Binder said.

If theyre worried about their reputation of caving, I think their standing up for [health care] repeal put that to rest, she said.

Democrats, too, may have some requests. Theyve already signaled an interest inappropriating money for the so-called cost sharing subsidies that are part of the 2010 health care law.

The subsidies, a government payment to helpinsurers meet the laws mandates for reducing out-of-pocket costs, had been paid for by the Obama administration. House Republicans sued the former administration over the constitutionality of the subsidies, arguing that they legally should be appropriated by Congress.

With control of the White House now, Republicans have to decide whether the administration or Congress should continue the payments, the absence of which could cause insurers to pull out of health insurance marketplaces.Trump told The Wall Street Journallast week that he hasnt decided whether to fund the subsidies.

Obamacare is dead next month if it doesnt get that money, the president said. I havent made my viewpoint clear yet. What I think should happen and will happen is the Democrats will start calling me and negotiating.

In response to Trumps threat,Democrats have suggested that Congress should appropriate money for the subsidies.

That would be a good way for them to use their influence with their votes, Binder said.

House Republicans could even tout thatas a win given the position they took in their lawsuit. A federal judge ruled in the GOPs favor last year, but the decision is under appeal.

As far as other potential wins in the spending bill, the GOP is unlikely to get anything big.

If they tried some very small things they might be able to do it, but Trump is not about small, said Lublin, of American University. ... Trump not getting everything he immediately wants doesnt make him a loser, except maybe in his own terms.

Republicans shouldnt need to extract policy wins from the spending bill, Georgetowns Huder said. They should be able to enact policy by advancing individual legislation, and any push for policy riders could speak to alack of confidence in using regular order, he said.

In all honesty its a little bit of a desperate move, Huder said. Because youre trying to do something that you really should be able to do by yourself.

Get breaking news alerts and more from Roll Call on your iPhone or your Android.

Visit link:

Funding Deadline Tests GOP Strategy - Roll Call

The Liberty Conservative

Freedom Caucus' Scott Garrett To Head Up Export-Import Bank The Liberty Conservative During his time in Congress, Garrett was well respected as a fiscal conservative, boasting a 95% lifetime score from the Club for Growth, despite serving in a fairly moderate district in the New York City metropolitan area. He was a member of the ... President Trump will nominate a critic of the Export-Import Bank after he flip-flopped on the credit agencySalon all 62 news articles »

Read the original here:

Freedom Caucus' Scott Garrett To Head Up Export-Import Bank - The Liberty Conservative