Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

Shaw Communications Inc. (SJR) announced that Alek Krstajic will be stepping down as CEO, Freedom Mobile. Paul McAleese will join as Chief Operating Officer, Freedom Mobile. Paul has more than two decades of experience in mobile communications in the U.S., U.K., and Canada.

Shaw confirmed there are no changes to its previously issued fiscal 2017 guidance. Operating income before restructuring costs and amortization is expected to range between C$2.125 and C$2.175 billion and free cash flow is expected to exceed C$400 million. Consolidated capital investment targets also remain unchanged from previously provided guidance at C$1.3 billion for the year.

For the second-quarter, consumer revenue generating units declined by just over 5,000, an improvement compared to approximately 41,000 RGU losses in the second quarter of fiscal 2016. The quarter's Consumer RGU result represents the division's best since the second quarter of fiscal 2012.

by RTT Staff Writer

For comments and feedback: editorial@rttnews.com

Business News

Unhappy Campers: The 10 Most Miserable Nations on Earth

Feeling Groovy: The 10 Countries With the Best Health Care

The Ten Largest Economies In Africa

Continued here:

Shaw Communications Reports Freedom Mobile Leadership Transition - Quick Facts - RTT News

ANALYSIS

If you'd woken up from a week-long slumber on Sunday morning and turned to eNCA online, where an ANC briefing was being streamed, you'd be forgiven for thinking the party's reaction to two ratings agency downgrades was concerned, reserved, and cautious.

The ruling African National Congress (ANC) also believes we could be staring down a recession in the near future, and has called on South Africans to pull together to avoid it.

But that briefing, and what ANC members have been saying in the week since the downgrades, and the ANC's official response are worlds apart.

On Sunday, the ANC's subcommittee on economic transformation briefed the media on the party's discussion document on economic transformation, due to be discussed at its policy conference in June.

The committee's chairperson, Godongwana suggested that the ANC did not have a clear grasp of the consequences of the ratings downgrades.

"People in South Africa have never known junk status. The only time we came close [to junk status] was in 1985. People don't have experience of junk status. We need to pull together, particularly if we want to help the minister of finance [Malusi Gigaba]. If we want to help him we need to sing from the same book," said.

Godongwana even said the country could face a recession as a result thereof.

"Are we anticipating a recession? That's a possibility," he said.

Also on Sunday, while this concern was being expressed, the Sunday Times revealed that high ranking ANC members, including ministers had essentially laughed off the ratings downgrades.

To add further confusion to the mix, on Friday, the day that ratings agency Fitch also downgraded South Africa, the ANC Youth League (ANCYL) said the party welcomed the ratings downgrades.

"We are welcoming the junk status. When the economy rises again, it will be held by us," said Collins Maine, ANCYL chairperson.

Ratings agency S&P downgraded South Africa's sovereign credit rating to junk status on April 3, and Fitch followed suit last week.

According to the Sunday Times, Zuma's son, Edward, said the ratings agencies "did us a favour, really", on a WhatsApp group belonging to several of the president's inner circle.

Water and Sanitation Minister Nomvula Mokonyane said: "It's actually better Western investors will pull back and we have an opportunity to bring them back in our own terms, after we have consolidated our relations with Africa and Brics. We must rearrange our foreign debt repayments."

And South African Airways chairperson, Dudu Myeni reportedly said: "I concur cdes. Let the rand fall and rise and emerge with the masses."

Treasury's own response to the downgrades has been conservative, too, and also in stark contrast of what Zuma's inner circle thinks.

After the first downgrade, new finance minister Malusi Gigaba said: "Government has been, and will remain, committed to a measured fiscal consolidation that stabilises the rise in public debt ... South Africa is committed to a predictable and consistent policy framework, which responds to changing circumstances in a measured and transparent fashion."

Political analyst Aubrey Matshiqi told The Huffington Post South Africa that a faction of the ANC had seen the downgrades coming, and had been ramping up the rhetoric against the agencies in anticipation of this for some time.

For example, in January, the ANCYL called on government to ban ratings agency Moody's from entering the country.

The strategy, mainly employed by pro-Zuma lobbyists in the tripartite alliance, was to paint any action taken against Zuma for removing Pravin Gordhan from the finance ministry as a conspiracy of the West.

While the spin appears to have taken hold with Zuma allies, the rest of the world disagrees.

The rand came close to R14 to the Dollar when Gordhan was axed. On Sunday, the rand traded at R13,76. About R80 billion was wiped off of banking stocks in less than a week, according to the Sunday Times.

This week, Zuma faces even more opposition as the Economic Freedom Fighters, Democratic Alliance, Congress of the People, Inkhatha Freedom Party ope, IPF, ACDP and the UDM will march in Pretoria calling on Zuma to step down. This follows the country-wide marches against him which took place on Friday.

He also faces a vote of no confidence debate against him in Parliament on April 18.

The ANC's mixed rhetoric on the economy are no doubt a symptom of its internal divisions. City Press reported on Sunday that across the country, anti-Zuma lobbying is taking place.

If the reports are anything to go by, the ANC's mixed messaging is far from over.

Read the original post:

The ANC Warns A Recession Could Be On The Way - Huffington Post South Africa (blog)

Dear Editor,

Last week, I wrote about how the independence of the Judiciary is being undermined by the coalition government. Apparently, I irked Mr Winston Jordan, the Minister of Finance. He responded. His response was carried in Stabroek News on April 5. The caption of his missive boldly asserted, Contrary to what Nandlall says the Supreme Court now has greater financial autonomy than at any period in its history.

It is instructive that I reiterate, that prior to May 2015, the fiscal, constitutional and procedural architecture under which the Judiciary was financed remained virtually unchanged since our Independence Constitution promulgated on May 26, 1966. That architecture was patterned after a model, conceived and designed by the constitutional experts at Westminster, which was promulgated in the newly created independent states throughout the Commonwealth. Fifty years later, this architecture still obtains virtually unchanged, in many of those 52 states, and from all accounts it has functioned satisfactorily.

Not unexpectedly, the system has not been without scrutiny over the years. For example, some years ago, a dispute arose between the then Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago and the sitting Chief Justice. It became public and very controversial. The gravamen of the Chief Justices complaint was that the Attorney General was attempting to erode the independence of the Judiciary. As a result of the controversy, the President of Trinidad and Tobago established a Commission of Inquiry headed by the former Lord Chancellor of England, Lord Mackay. The commissioners, inter alia, examined the constitutional, legal, parliamentary and procedural architecture by which the Judiciary was funded. They concluded that it contained sufficient checks and balances to assure and guarantee the financial independence of the Judiciary of Trinidad and Tobago. That constitutional construct of Trinidad and Tobago greatly resembled that which existed in Guyana, prior to May 2015.

Indeed, from 1966 to 2015, I am unaware of a single allegation ever made, emanating from the Judiciary, or elsewhere, which tended to suggest that the extant constitutional arrangement under which the Judiciary was financed in Guyana impaired its financial independence or its functional autonomy. It is against this backdrop and the foregoing notwithstanding, that the coalition government in 2015, chose to change a status quo that was proven, tested and against which no complaint had ever been made. To date, no rational reason has ever been proffered for the change.

According to the Minister, the change is captured in the Fiscal Management and Accountability (Amendment) Act 2015, No. 4 of 2015. This Act was assented to by President David Granger on the August 5, 2015. It is instructive to note that this Act was debated and passed in the National Assembly during the period that the PPP was absent from the House. From all indications, our presence and objections would not have mattered.

In answer to my contention that the Judiciary is financed by a direct charge on the Consolidated Fund, the Minister, with bold nescience asserts: this is both dangerously misleading and factually incorrect, since according to Act No. 4 of 2015 FMAA (Amendment, 2015), Section 3 (b) 80B (7), The annual budget of a Constitutional Agency approved by the National Assembly shall not be altered without the prior approval of the National Assembly. Hence parliamentary approval is required both initially and for any alteration.

This emphatic assertion by the Minister as well as Section of the FMAA (Amendment) Act 2015, upon which he relies, are in palpable contravention of the clear and express language of Article 122A (2) of the Constitution, which provides: all Courts shall be administratively autonomous and shall be funded by a direct charge upon the Consolidated Fund

What this means is that no parliamentary approval is required for financing for the judiciary. Therefore, Section 3 (b) of the FMAA Amendment Act 2015, is unconstitutional and void to the extent of its inconsistency with the Constitution by virtue of Article 8.

Article 8 provides: This Constitution is the supreme law of Guyana and, if any other law is inconsistent with it, that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

Mr Jordan next takes umbrage with my account of how the Judiciarys budget was presented prior to 2015. I recited that the said budget would have been prepared by the Judiciary, in consultation with the Ministry of Finance and the final product was included in the budget of the Ministry of Legal Affairs and submitted to the Ministry of Finance to be consolidated as part of the National Estimates of Expenditure. I pointed out that the practice was that the Minister of Legal Affairs never altered, or in any manner whatsoever, interfered with the budget of the Judiciary. As a counter, Mr Jordan argues that when the budget of the Judiciary was presented to the Ministry of Finance during that consultative process, it was reduced. He gave the years 2013 and 2014 as examples. That may be so, since it is impossible to conceive that any entity within the state apparatus would be endowed with the fiscal freedom to prepare a budget to be funded from public funds, without regard to the ability of the State to fund that budget. Obviously, the Minister of Finance, as the custodian of public funds, must have a say, having regard to the States financial ability. To address this dilemma, the practice has always been for the budget of the Judiciary to be agreed upon, having regard to the ability of the State, through a consultative process by the Judiciary and the Minister of Finance. Significantly, via this process, it is the Judiciary that would have been requested to adjust its budget to meet the recommendations of the Minister of Finance and not the Minister of Finance unilaterally and without consultation, cutting the Judiciarys budget. This practice allows the Judiciary the fiscal autonomy to determine what it will adjust, where the adjustments are going to be made and by what amounts. In short, this practice did not unduly restrict or interfere with the financial autonomy of the Judiciary.

These subtleties are lost upon Mr Jordan. Indeed, the new procedure promulgated by Mr Jordan, deprives the Judiciary of the very financial autonomy about which he boasts. By this new procedure, the budget of the Judiciary is presented to the Clerk of the National Assembly and the Minister of Finance, without any consultation whatsoever capriciously, arbitrarily and whimsically moves a motion and cuts the lump-sum budget proposals of the Judiciary without any regard to the impact such a reduction will have on the Judiciarys ability to discharge its functions. Significantly, this is done on the floor of the Parliament, for the nation to witness that the Judiciarys budget is subject to the whim and fancy of the Minister of Finance. This must appear to the public to be the very antithesis of financial autonomy. Sometimes, the appearance is as important as the reality.

The Minister attempts to upbraid me in the closing paragraph of his letter for peddling untruths about matters that are largely out of my remit. I wish to assure Mr Jordan, that as long as Guyana continues to be a fledgling democracy, the duty of every government shall be to govern in accordance with the Constitution and the law of this land and my remit will always be to ensure that duty is discharged in every sphere of government. My remit, therefore, is government itself.

Yours faithfully,

Mohabir Anil Nandlall, MP

See the rest here:

There is no consultation on the Judiciary's budget - Stabroek News

By RICARDO WELLS

Tribune Staff Reporter

rwells@tribunemedia.net

FREE National Movement (FNM) Free Town candidate Dionisio DAguilar has committed his party to several day one initiatives should his party triumph in the general election, contending that the ousting of Prime Minister Perry Christie and the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) government would again give way to good governance spearheaded by the FNM.

On stage at the FNMs regional candidates launch at Christie Park on Thursday, Mr DAguilar questioned the Christie administrations handling of Value-Added Tax (VAT) revenue collected over the past three years.

To that end, the Free Town candidate said the FNM would institute both a Freedom of Information Act and a Fiscal Responsibility Act on day one of its administration.

Emperor Christie and his band of bandits have plundered this country over the past five years, the well known businessman told supporters. (Some of them) made their bank accounts fat signing contracts and making deals that benefits them and their families, leaving the poor Bahamian people to pick up the tab for his out-of-control spending.

Everything they touch smells stink. They have spent $400m of taxpayer money, your VAT money, bailing out loans for their cronies from the Bank of The Bahamas. They have spent tens of millions. Some say $50m, some say $100m - the exact figure we will never know - awarding contracts to their friends and families to build buildings at BAMSI, sometimes twice.

Then there is the tens of millions that went missing at the Road Traffic Department and the Passport Office. And let us not forget the hundreds of millions that have been allocated and spent on housing projects, new schools, garbage collection and the dump and we have nothing, I mean nothing, to show for it.

Emperor Christie and his fat cat Cabinet are corrupt. They are thiefing, thiefing our VAT money and they need to go. The only people who seem to get anything from Emperor Christie are his corrupt Cabinet and the Chinese government.

FNMs, if we give Emperor Christie another five years, he will drive our economy over the edge.When the PLP came to office in 2012, our National Debt was $5 billion. Now the National Debt is $7 billion. And that is even after they collected $1.4 billion in VAT, Mr DAguilar said.

He said the Prime Ministers unrelenting push for re-election should stun voters, as it comes despite the evidence that Mr Christies lengthy political career had done nothing but improve the lives of his friends, family and colleagues as everyday Bahamians struggled to survive.

He said his party would also look to guard against the potential of any other leader pursuing legacy terms in office by implementing fixed election dates, term limits and an independent Boundaries Commission.

FNMs do you believe that Christie is a god? Do you want Christie to remain the Emperor? Emperor Christie has been in Parliament for the past 43 years. Let that sink in, 43 years. That is a lot longer that half of you have been alive. I was eight years old when he went into Parliament, and I am now 52.

And we know why he doesnt want to leave. He loves the pomp, he loves the pageantry, the nice Mercedes, the beautiful Lexus, the bodyguards, the outriders, the private jet for him and his family. What other job can Christie find where he can get away with the slackness he does now? Please, please my fellow Bahamians, in the name of Jesus, on election day let us send Emperor Christie home.

Mr DAguilar went on to mention the Prime Ministers propensity to fall asleep while at public functions. He alleged that during a meeting in which he and Mr Christie represented Bahamian interests, the Prime Minister feel asleep during negotiations. Emperor Christie did close his eyes and bam, he was asleep, Mr DAguilar said.

I had to bang my hand on the table to wake him up. Unbelievable. Embarrassing. FNMs, Emperor Christie is tired. He is exhausted. Let us retire him on election day, he added.

Addressing his Free Town candidacy, Mr DAguilar said he would put his 25 years of business experience to use improving the lives of prospective constituents. He said the constituents of Free Town are in need of jobs. He insisted that unlike attorney Wayne Munroe, the PLPs Free Town candidate, he was suited to meet the needs of these residents.

FNMs, I have had to use my ingenuity, my passion, my creativity to grow my business to create job opportunities for Bahamians and I pledge tonight that I will do the same for the people of Freetown.I am certainly better qualified to deliver on this promise that my PLP opponent, lawyer Wayne Munroe. We need to make it easier, not harder to start a business.

We need to make it easier, not harder to operate a business. Do that and the jobs will come and the crime will go down. In addition, I want to use my many years of running a business to empower the people of Free Town to start and run their own businesses.

I will provide seminars. I will teach them myself on the dos and donts of how to make a business successful. The FNM will also create a tax-free zone in the inner city for small and mid-sized businesses, making it easier and cheaper to start a business in these economically depressed areas.

Free Town, I hear you and I will do my best to create employment opportunities for you.

In addition to Mr DAguilar and Mr Munroe, the DNA have ratified Karen Davis as the partys standard-bearer in Free Town, while the Bahamas National Constitutional Party has ratified Andrew Stewart.

Read the rest here:

An Fnm Govt 'Would Institute Freedom Of Information, Fiscal Responsibility Acts On Day One' - Bahamas Tribune

House conservatives say they want to see money for President Trumps border wall, a crack down on sanctuary cities and more cash for the Pentagon all tucked into an emergency spending bill Congress must pass later this month.

But they are downplaying the chance that those fights result in a government shutdown, saying even if they dont win all the battles, there are enough other must-pass bills later this year to stick them on.

Rep. Mark Meadows, the head of the House Freedom Caucus, said he and his colleagues will try to make big dents in service of Mr. Trumps priorities, but they have less faith that the Senate will back them up.

I think you will see funding in it for the wall, Mr. Meadows said Thursday at an event sponsored by Politico. I think you will see funding in there for better enforcement on sanctuary cities and I think you will see a plus-up on military. So specifically I think that is what you will see. I think most people will vote for that. It will go the Senate, it will be stripped out and then we will have a hard decision to be made in four days.

The debate will kick off the last week this month, when Congress returns from a two-week spring break. Theyll have just five days to pass a new set of spending bills before an April 28 deadline, when existing government funding runs out.

They hope to pass a bill that will fill out funding for the remainder of the fiscal year, which runs through Sept. 30, or at the very least pass another short-term spending bill, known as a continuing resolution, to keep the government running at current funding levels.

But that could be a heavy lift thanks to ideological divisions within the GOP over spending priorities and tactics.

Mr. Trump wants to see an additional $30 billion in military spending and $3 billion for immigration enforcement, including $1 billion to get his border wall under way.

Senate Republicans have said the wall funding will have to wait until after the April 28 deadline, while House Speaker Paul D. Ryan, Wisconsin Republican, said it is premature to speculate.

For their part Senate Democrats have vowed to filibuster any bill that includes funding for the wall, raising the threat of a government shutdown.

But that leaves the Senate on a collision course with House conservatives, who just last month flexed their muscles by sinking the health care bill that Mr. Trump and Mr. Ryan tried to push through Congress.

Rep. Jim Jordan, a co-founder of the Freedom Caucus, said their 30-plus members dont want a shutdown, but they do want to deliver on their promises to do away with Obamacare, secure the border and overhaul the tax code.

He said this months fight over spending offers a chance to focus on those priorities.

All those things are coming and we need to make sure we deliver on every single one of them, Mr. Jordan said. Strategically and tactically how that plays out, we will see, but I think the [spending debate] is a good place to focus on securing the border.

Mr. Meadows, though, said even if conservatives dont win those fights now, there are other chances looming, including during debates over next years spending bills, an expected debate over Mr. Trumps plans for infrastructure, and a debt limit battle due near the end of the year.

The reason I dont believe there will be a shutdown is because of the other leverage points, Mr. Meadows said. I think those other leverage points allows the shutdown talk to be minimized here in a couple of weeks.

Presidents change and lawmakers come and go, but The Washington Times is always here, and FREE online. Please support our efforts.

Read the original:

House conservatives prepare for upcoming fiscal fights - Washington Times

By Daniel Corin and David Hamon, ACD's Economic Warfare Institute Tuesday, April 4th, 2017 @ 9:40PM

President Donald Trump will be meeting his Chinese counterpart on Thursday negotiate economic and security matters. But while Mr. Trump is confident he will make America great again, the country can barely afford both butter and guns.

The national security of the U.S. relies heavily on the robustness of economic growth. The faster the economy grows, the more revenue pours into state and federal government coffers, feeding greater security. More importantly, the President may fund additional defense and intelligence requirements without imposing politically sensitive cuts to domestic programs.

For instance, President Trump announced that he aims to increase defense spending by $54 billion in fiscal-year 2018. To do this without increasing the deficit, he proposes cutting an equal amount of spending from other federal programs. Higher economic growth would make it easier to do this. In fiscal-year 2016, defense spending came in at 2.8% of nominal GDP. Had GDP grown just one percentage point faster (3.9% instead of 2.9%), and assuming defense spending remained at 2.8% of GDP, the Pentagon would have an extra $5 billion to spend. If the economy grew three percentage points faster, the military would have $15 billion in additional money to spendmoney that would not have to come out of the budgets of any domestic programs.

The Heritage Foundations recent release of its annual Index of Economic Freedom is cause for concern. According to Heritage experts, only five countries were deemed economically free: Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland, and Australia. The United States (along with 28 other countries) fell into the category of mostly free. Overall, the United States ranked 17th in the world in economic freedom. Rounding out the list of countries ahead of the US: Estonia, Canada, United Arab Emirates, Ireland, Chile, Taiwan, The United Kingdom, Georgia, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Lithuania.

When compared with earlier years, Heritages index indicates a disturbing trend for the economy of the United States. The first graph shows the freedom index of the US since its inception in 1995. There was a somewhat steady upward movement for the first 11 years, leveling off in the two years before the onset of the Great Recession. Since 2009, the U.S. index has shown a steady decline, falling to its lowest level ever.

[It should be noted that Heritage incorporated some changes to its methodology this past year, adding two additional categories. Heritage didnt go back and update country indexes for previous years. Thus, one should be cautious when drawing conclusions based on the time-series as the indexes of the earlier years used a slightly different methodology.]

Regardless of methodology, the index shows an economy growing less free over the past nine years. Much of the decline reflects the implementation of various government programs and regulations designed to stem the tide of the 2008/2009 economic downturnargued by some economists as necessary to forestall another Great Depression. The point is debatable. What is true is the United States, compared with the rest of the world, ranked 4th in 2007, fell to 17th in 2017.

The Great Recession was a global eventimpacting most of the major economies. Manyif not allof these countries implemented the same government programs and regulations as the US. One would expect that the USdespite its falling indexto maintain its relative ranking in the freedom index as they too enacted anti-recessionary programs. Instead, thirteen countries passed the U.S. over the past ten years to be labeled more economically free. But the news is worse: also, there are 13 other countries that are within three points of the United States. Put bluntly: the US is nowhere near the economic leader perceived by many.

This embarrassment should give Congress a pause for concern. Three of the countries with a higher index in 2017 are former Soviet Socialist Republics (Estonia, Georgia, and Lithuania). Two others (Chile and Taiwan) were dictatorships a generation ago; a third is a Middle Eastern country ruled by emirs (UAE.)

Heritages Freedom Index is made up of twelve categories: Business Freedom; Trade Freedom; Fiscal Freedom; Government Spending; Monetary Freedom; Investment Freedom; Financial Freedom; Property Rights; Freedom from Corruption; Labor Freedom; Judicial Effectiveness; and Fiscal Health (the last two were added this year.) These categories revolve around the scope of central government intervention in the economy. This is not to say that government in unnecessary: it is essential for the protection of property rights, the rule of law, anti-corruption, and to regulate interstate commerce. The problem: regulations make it difficult to open a business (Business Freedom/Freedom of Corruption); high taxes and regulations on capital (Investment/Financial Freedom); and increasing debt to fund an expanding federal government (Fiscal Freedom/Fiscal Health).

The chief reason for the poor performance of the American economy is the federal government. Since the dawn of the Obama administration, Washington has greatly increased spending, racking up trillions of dollars in debt. The Federal Reserve made unprecedented interventions in monetary policy (quantitative easingQEI through QEIII); and Dodd-Frank and the Affordable Care Act (to name but two) placed many onerous rules and regulations on capital markets, burdening businesses both large and small. One reaction: the revival of anti-trade policies in official Washington.

The Heritage graph, which calculates each nations economic freedom index with their corresponding per capita GDP, shows a strong relationship between higher economic freedom and per capita output/income.

The defense and intelligence budgets are subject to growing pressure in the coming years as entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare continue to gnaw at and consume a greater portion of the federal budgetthe result of the aging Baby-Boomers.

The path of less economic freedom in this country is a troubling trend and must be reversed. Greater economic growth would give the federal government additional resources to buy both guns and butter.

Excerpt from:

Trump, Xi Jinping, and the US Economy - American Center for Democracy (registration) (blog)

President Trump is escalating his feud with the conservative House Freedom Caucus, with his $1 trillion infrastructure package hanging in the balance.

The conservative caucus is sure to play a role in the legislative fight over rebuilding the nations roads, bridges and highways, something Trump promised to deliver during his campaign.

Massive federal spending on transportation has long given fiscal conservatives heartburn.

And Freedom Caucus lawmakers who support Trump's infrastructure push may have to work extra hard now to convince fellow members to support the presidents proposal, especially after Trump stepped up his attacks on some lawmakers in the group this week.

Numerous members sit on the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, and some are even lead sponsors on infrastructure investment bills including one related to tax reform that appears to be gaining steam.

I have members of the Freedom Caucus on my committee. Theyve been very supportive, Rep. Bill Shuster (R-Pa.), chairman of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said during an event hosted by The Hill this week.

Its one of those things they embrace. They may not always agree on how we go about it, but I think we can get a coalition to get a big, bipartisan vote.

The Freedom Caucus members on the Transportation panel include Rep. Mark Meadows (N.C.), the groups chairman, and Reps. Brian Babin (Texas), Scott Perry (Pa.), Mark Sanford (S.C.) and Randy WeberRandy WeberFreedom Caucus poised for pivotal role in infrastructure fight The Hill's Whip List: 36 GOP no votes on ObamaCare repeal plan A guide to the committees: House MORE (Texas.)

Trump has called on Congress to move a $1 trillion infrastructure package later this year. The White House is still in the early stages of crafting a proposal, but Trump has signaled that it will streamline regulatory hurdles and target transportation projects where enough advanced planning has already been completed so work can start shortly. It is expected to be paid for with a mix of public and private financing.

There were questions over whether the House Freedom Caucus would torpedo the infrastructure package even before Trump slammed the group on Twitter this week for its role in the failure of the ObamaCare repeal effort.

Trumps transportation plan was always going to be a tough sell with fiscal conservatives.

The 2016 GOP platform calls for eliminating federal funding for mass transit, bike-share programs, sidewalks and rail-to-rail projects.

But transportation leaders are swatting down concerns that Trumps deteriorating relationship with conservatives will complicate their efforts.

After I talked about my proposal for user fees for aviation, harbor maintenance and surface infrastructure, I had a couple of members of the Freedom Caucus tell me that they liked those ideas, [because] they were user fee based and did not create debt, said Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), ranking member on the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

Meadows, chairman of the House Oversight subcommittee on government operations, has had a hand in overseeing Washingtons Metro system. He agreed at a hearing this week to help push for more federal funding for the agency if certain conditions are met.

Meadows has also sponsored a bill that would allow U.S. corporations to bring back their foreign earnings at a lower corporate tax rate and use that revenue to replenish the ailing Highway Trust Fund, among other things.

A robust and efficient infrastructure is critical to growing the economy, driving down unemployment, and putting our country on track towards a balanced budget, Meadows says on his website.

The Constitution makes it clear that one of the primary goals of the federal government is to establish roads and highways in order to facilitate commerce between the states.

Perrybelievesinfrastructure investment must be done responsibly but sayspublic-private partnerships could be one option to enhance transportation and boost economic development.

Freedom Caucus member Ted YohoTed YohoFreedom Caucus poised for pivotal role in infrastructure fight How this little known government agency helps put America first GOP rep: Nunes 'answers to the president' MORE (R-Fla.) is not on the Transportation Committee but is one of the lead sponsors on legislation to allow U.S. multinational corporations to repatriate earnings at a mandatory, one-time tax of 8.75 percent.

Those revenues would be used to improve the nations infrastructure, with an estimated $120 billion going to the Highway Trust Fund, $50 billion going to an infrastructure bank and $25 million going to a pilot program focused on rural infrastructure.

With reports that the White House may now move tax reform and infrastructure at the same time, momentum could be building for Yohos bill.

This is neither a Democratic or Republican issue, Yoho said during a recent meeting with reporters. Were looking at problems and were looking at solutions that are neither Democratic or Republican. Theyre American solutions. Thats what I love about this opportunity.

Other conservatives not in the Freedom Caucus could also support Trumps infrastructure push. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.),who often sides with the far-right group, teamed up with DeFazio on a bill that would lift the federal cap on passenger fees in order to help airports pay for facility upgrades.

Shuster points out that the conference has come together to move infrastructure bills in recent years, including a multi-year surface highway bill and a major waterways bill.

When you talk to some of these [Freedom Caucus] members, they believe as I do the government has a limited role. The first and foremost is national security, but second is the building of infrastructure. Its a core function, Shuster said.

If you look at where a lot of those ports are in need of investment, its Georgia, its South Carolina, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida. Thats where a lot of our Freedom Caucus friends live. So they know the importance of infrastructure.

Any transportation investment bill, however, cant add to the deficit in order to garner the support of fiscal conservatives. It will also have to place a heavy emphasis on leveraging private-sector dollars for public-private partnerships the preferred funding tool among Republicans, but one that could trip up support among Democrats if there is no direct federal spending along with it.

Conservatives could also take issue with funneling money toward projects that look like earmarks or government boondoggles. There could also be reluctance to back anything that looks like Obamas economic stimulus package, which was criticized for how long shovel-ready projects took to get off the ground.

But Trumps infrastructure proposal doesnt necessarily need the backing of the Freedom Caucus. He could negotiate a deal with Democrats, especially in the Senate, where Democratic senators have signaled they are open to working with the president on an infrastructure package.

The best path, if you were counseling the president, youd ask him to pick up the phone and call [Senate Democratic Leader Charles]Schumer[N.Y.] and see if you can have some kind of a framework for a deal there, said Rep. John Delaney (D-Md.).

And then youd go to [Senate Majority LeaderMitch McConnell(R-Ky.)] and see if you could get some buy-in and get something there, and then just go to the House.

More here:

Freedom Caucus poised for pivotal role in infrastructure fight - The Hill

Pressure mounted on President Jacob Zuma to resign on Monday night as political parties laid South Africas downgrade to junk status by Standard and Poors (S&P) squarely at his feet.

The countrys biggest opposition party, the Democratic Alliance (DA), described the downgrade as a vote of no confidence in Zuma.

In a statement, DA leader Mmusi Maimane said it was a direct result of Zuma firing respected Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan and his deputy Mcebisi Jonas in a sweeping cabinet reshuffle last week.

President Zuma should resign immediately to allow a new administration to stabilise our economy, and to stanch this growing crisis, said Maimane.

Standard & Poors decision comes just days after President Zuma reshuffled his cabinet sending shudders of uncertainty and volatility through our economy. International ratings agencies have long warned this government that our status is on a knife edge. Zuma has clearly learnt nothing from the market reaction to his firing of then Finance Minister Nhlanhla Nene in December 2015.

At the same time, National Treasury, under the leadership of Gordhans successor, Malusi Gigaba, went on the defence.

While the leadership of the finance portfolio has changed, governments overall policy orientation remains the same. As indicated by Minister Gigaba on 1 April 2017, government has been, and will remain, committed to a measured fiscal consolidation that stabilises the rise in public debt, a statement from Treasury said.

Reducing reliance on foreign savings to fund investment and relying less on debt to finance public expenditure will secure South Africas fiscal sovereignty and economic independence.

The Inkatha Freedom Party echoed the DAs sentiments, calling for Zumas head.

Mr Zuma has actively pursued a downgrade against all sound advice and warnings; and last week with his rogue cabinet reshuffle he put in the final nail into our economic coffin. On the back of this downgrade by Standard and Poors, Mr Zuma must resign, said IFP MP Mkhuleko Hlengwa.

The so-called reshuffle was nothing but a pure political purge with its sight set on capturing National Treasury to loot the public purse; and the consequences for South Africa is a hard hitting downgrade to junk status.

The Freedom Front Plus (FF+) said the downgrade was proof that Zuma continued to put his own private interests above those of the country.

It will be the consumers who will pay the price for this because there is a risk that interest rates could rise significantly in the future, the economic growth rate will be more limited and taxpayers will have to pay for increased interest on government debt, said FF+ leader Pieter Groenewald.

The financial suffering of the people of South Africa will only get worse as the financial pressure on the country mounts, and its all caused by pres. Jacob Zuma.

UDM President Bantu Holomisa meanwhile, said Zumas Cabinet reshuffle had caused radical economic transformation of a different kind.

We might as well use the term junk status to describe our government, Holomisa said in a statement.

The African National Congress has clearly lost control of President Zuma, and by default the country, jeopardising any hope of a prosperous economic future.

Additional reporting by African News Agency

Opposition parties: Removing President Zuma not about regime change

For more news your way, follow The Citizen on Facebook and Twitter.

Read more:

Opposition parties call for Zuma's head following S&P downgrade - Citizen

Bremen voters approved a change in the fiscal year 125-50, rejected a new land use ordinance 124-59, and elected Christa Thorpe to the Bremen School Committee at the polls the morning of Saturday, April 1.

Voters braved the spring snowfall to make their way to the town center.

With the passage of the change in the fiscal year, the town will switch from a calendar year to a fiscal year (July 1 to June 30) effective in 2018. The Bremen Board of Selectmen backed the change in order to align the town with state budgeting practices.

The proposed land use ordinance would have combined the existing building permit ordinance, industrial site plan review ordinance, and minimum lot size ordinance into one document.

The selectmen and the Bremen Planning Board backed the change, citing a need to adopt regulations better suiting the town, while removing inconsistencies, contradictions, and gaps in the existing ordinances.

But during the course of three public hearings, members of the public raised concerns about combining multiple ordinances into one and adopting the new ordinance before fully resolving potential issues with the new ordinance.

Addressing voters after the defeat of the new ordinance, Selectman Wendy Pieh thanked residents for casting their ballots on the matter and attending the public hearings.

I am so pleased people came out and voted. We got a lot of input in the three different meetings, Pieh said.

She said one point of input was to add a representative of the public to the towns ordinance review committee, which now consists of Pieh, planning board Chair Walter Voskian, and budget committee member Harold Schramm. Harbor Master Melanee Osier-Gilbert will be appointed to the committee as a representative of the public.

Pieh said that despite the election results, the town would continue working to streamline and clarify the towns ordinances.

We arent going to give up trying. We think there are real problems with these ordinances. For me, its not so much who comes out on top but that people feel they have the freedom and opportunity to represent their opinions, Pieh said.

The next meeting of the towns ordinance review committee will take place at the town center at 10 a.m., Thursday, April 6.

Elections

Election results were read at the start of the open town meeting at 2 p.m., Saturday, April 1.

According to moderator Don Means, a total of 185 ballots were cast.

The only contested election on this years ballot was between Thorpe and Diana Blair-Monkman for a seat on the school committee. The incumbent, Judith Mohr, did not seek Voters chose Thorpe with 98 votes to Blair-Monkmans 37.

In uncontested elections, Pieh was re-elected to the board of selectmen with 136 votes,

harbor committee member Bruce Poland was re-elected with 142 votes, and S. Blair Kauffman and David West were elected as alternates to the planning board with 95 votes and 125 votes, respectively.

Read the rest here:

Bremen Approves Change in Fiscal Year, Elects Thorpe, Rejects Land Use Ordinance - The Lincoln County News (subscription)

It took President Donald Trumpa few days to decide who to blame for the collapse of the Republicans Obamacare replacement bill.

But by Thursday, it was clear he had settled on the Houses ultraconservative Freedom Caucus. Whats more: House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), who once all but disowned Trump, has signaled that he approves of the presidents crusade.

Trump broadcast his decision on his favorite medium, tweetingwhat seemed like a threat of electoral retaliation against Freedom Caucus members.

The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they dont get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018! he wrote.

He followed up with slightlymilder tweets calling out several of the factions members.

If Reps. Mark Meadows (N.C.), Jim Jordan (Ohio) and Raul Labrador (Idaho) would get on board we would have both great healthcare and massive tax cuts & reform, Trump tweeted.

The presidentintermittently criticizedthe House Freedom Caucus in the days after he and Ryan withdrew the health care bill ahead of a House vote scheduled for last Friday.

But he had also publicly blamed congressional Democrats, despite never reaching out to them.And many people understood his tweet instructing people to watch a specific Fox News show to be tacit disapproval of Ryan, as the hostcalled on the speaker to resign.

Trumps steady volley of comments aimed at the Freedom Caucus suggest that he has finally homed in on the recalcitrant group of conservatives as the culprits for the health care debacle and decided to make them the focus of his persuasion efforts.

Carlos Barria / Reuters

New reporting has revealed that Trumps tweets about the Freedom Caucus were not a case of spontaneous venting. Senior aides, including chief strategist Steve Bannon, encouraged the president to target members of the group,according to The New York Times.

There has been a stricter imposition by aides to make sure there is a strategic imperative behind his posts ever since Trump used Twitter to accuse former President Barack Obama of wiretapping several weeks ago, the Times reported, citing conversations with two people briefed on the process.

These advisers apparently believe Trump must chasten the Freedom Caucus and re-establish credibility with it ahead of negotiations over the budget and other matters, the Times added.

The Times account is consistent with an earlier report that Bannon had advised the president to keep a shit listof the Republican lawmakers who had defied him. And when the White House was still trying to win hardliners, Bannon apparently believed he could dictate terms to the Freedom Caucus.

This is not a debate. You have no choice but to vote for this bill, he reportedly said.

What makes Trumps latest maneuver so interesting, however, is that Ryan who Bannon tried to oustwhile running the ultraconservative Breibart site appears to back it.

Asked to respond to Trumps Twitter barrage aimed at the Freedom Caucus, Ryan simply told reporters,I understand the presidents frustration.

I share frustration, he added.

That suggests the new strategy is not a showdown between the fiscally moderate nationalists embodied by Bannon and pro-immigration reform fiscal conservatives like Ryan. Rather, it seem to be a tactical alliance against the smaller group of hardline fiscal conservatives that populate the Freedom Caucus.

Whether the ad hoc anti-Freedom Caucus coalition will work is another question, of course. On paper, it looks like an uphill climb even with Trump and Ryan working together. The groups 30-odd members hail from deeply conservative, safe Republican districts and enjoy the backing of financially flush outside groups like Heritage Action.

Follow this link:

Donald Trump Settles On A Culprit In Health Care Fiasco - Huffington Post