Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

Theresa May, the next UK prime minister following the resignation of David Cameron. (REUTERS/Peter Nicholls)

When I debate one of my leftist friends about deficits, its often a strange experience because none of us actually care that much about red ink. Im motivated instead by a desire to shrink the burden of government spending, so I argue for spending restraint rather than tax hikes that would feed the beast.

And folks on the left want bigger government, so they argue for tax hikes to enable more spending and redistribution.

I feel that I have an advantage in these debates, though, because I share my table of nations that have achieved great results when nominal spending grows by less than 2 percent per year.

The table shows that nations practicing spending restraint for multi-year periods reduce the problem of excessive government and also address the symptom of red ink.

I then ask my leftist buddies to please share their table showing nations that got good results from tax increases. And the response isawkward silence, followed by attempts to change the subject. I often think you can even hear crickets chirping in the background.

I point this out because I now have another nation to add to my collection.

From the start of last decade up through the 2009-2010 fiscal year, government spending in the United Kingdom grew by 7.1 percent annually, far faster than the growth of the economys productive sector. As a result, an ever-greater share of the private economy was being diverted to politicians and bureaucrats.

Beginning with the 2010-2011 fiscal year, however, officials started complying with my Golden Rule and outlays since then have grown by an average of 1.6 percent per year.

And as you can see from this chart prepared by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, this modest level of fiscal restraint has paid big dividends. The burden of government spending has significantly declined, falling from 45 percent of national income to 40 percent of national income.

This means more resources in private hands, which means better economic performance.

Though allow me to now share some caveats. Fiscal policy is only a small piece of what determines good policy, just 20 percent of a nations grade according to Economic Freedom of the World.

So spending restraint should be accompanied by free trade, sound money, a sensible regulatory structure, and good governance. Moreover, as we see from the tragedy of Greece, spending restraint doesnt even lead to good fiscal policy if its accompanied by huge tax increases.

Fortunately, the United Kingdom is reasonably sensible, which explains why the country is ranked #10 by EFW. Though its worth noting that it gets its lowest score for size of government, so the recent bit of good news about spending restraint needs to be the start of a long journey.

Original post:

The United Kingdom and the Benefits of Spending Restraint - People's Pundit Daily

When I debate one of my leftist friends about deficits, its often a strange experience because none of us actually care that much about red ink.

Im motivated instead by a desire to shrink the burden of government spending, so I argue for spending restraint rather than tax hikes that would feed the beast.

And folks on the left want bigger government, so they argue for tax hikes to enable more spending and redistribution.

I feel that I have an advantage in these debates, though, because I share my table of nations that have achieved great results when nominal spending grows by less than 2 percent per year.

The table shows that nations practicing spending restraint for multi-year periods reduce the problem of excessive government and also address the symptom of red ink.

I then ask my leftist buddies to please share their table showing nations that got good results from tax increases. And the response isawkward silence, followed by attempts to change the subject. I often think you can even hear crickets chirping in the background.

I point this out because I now have another nation to add to my collection.

From the start of last decade up through the 2009-2010 fiscal year, government spending in the United Kingdom grew by 7.1 percent annually, far faster than the growth of the economys productive sector. As a result, an ever-greater share of the private economy was being diverted to politicians and bureaucrats.

Beginning with the 2010-2011 fiscal year, however, officials started complying with my Golden Rule and outlays since then have grown by an average of 1.6 percent per year.

And as you can see from this chart prepared by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, this modest level of fiscal restraint has paid big dividends. The burden of government spending has significantly declined, falling from 45 percent of national income to 40 percent of national income.

This means more resources in private hands, which means better economic performance.

Though allow me to now share some caveats. Fiscal policy is only a small piece of what determines good policy, just 20 percent of a nations grade according to Economic Freedom of the World.

So spending restraint should be accompanied by free trade, sound money, a sensible regulatory structure, and good governance. Moreover, as we see from the tragedy of Greece, spending restraint doesnt even lead to good fiscal policy if its accompanied by huge tax increases.

Fortunately, the United Kingdom is reasonably sensible, which explains why the country is ranked #10 by EFW. Though its worth noting that it gets its lowest score for size of government, so the recent bit of good news about spending restraint needs to be the start of a long journey.

P.S. The United States got great results thanks to spending restraint between 2009-2014. It will be interesting to see whether Republicans get better results with Trump in the White House.

Follow this link:

The United Kingdom and the Benefits of Spending Restraint - Cato Institute (blog)

The ruling, the first from an appeals court on the travel ban, is likely to be quickly appealed to the short-handed U.S. Supreme Court

WASHINGTON A federal appeals panel on Thursday unanimously rejected President Trumps bid to reinstate his ban on travel from seven largely Muslim nations, a sweeping rebuke of the administrations claim that the courts have no role to act as a check on the president.

The three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Seattle federal judges earlier restraining order on the new policy should remain in effect while the judge further examines its legality.

The panel, suggesting the ban did not advance national security, said that the administration had pointed to no evidence that anyone from the seven nations had committed terrorism in the United States.

New U.S. senator:Luther Strange, Alabamas attorney general, was sworn in Thursday to fill the Senate seat left empty by Jeff Sessions, tapped by President Trump to be the nations top law-enforcement officer. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, administered the oath to Strange, a Republican and former Washington lobbyist. Strange, 63, joins the Senate after Sessions confirmation as U.S. attorney general Wednesday night. Strange, sometimes referred to as Big Luther because of his 6-foot-9 frame, said last year that he intended to run for the Senate seat regardless of whether he got the interim appointment.

Abe visit: Trump is personally paying the tab for Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abes visit to the Trump-owned Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Fla. That is a gift that the president is extending to the prime minister, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said in response to questions about the ethical dilemma of having a world leader stay at one of the Trump hotels.

Only Abe no other member of the Japanese delegation will be staying at Mar-a-Lago, Spicer said. They will stay out in town with the rest of the staff, he said.

Seattle Times news services

The ruling also rejected the administrations claim that courts are powerless to review a presidents national-security determinations. Judges have a crucial role to play in a constitutional democracy, said the decision by the panel in San Francisco.

It is beyond question, the unsigned decision said, that the federal judiciary retains the authority to adjudicate constitutional challenges to executive action.

The court acknowledged that Trump was owed deference on his immigration and national-security policy determinations, but it said he was asking for something more.

The government has taken the position, the decision said, that the presidents decisions about immigration policy, particularly when motivated by national security concerns, are unreviewable, even if those actions potentially contravene constitutional rights and protections.

Within minutes of the ruling, Trump angrily vowed to reporters at the White House and in a Twitter message to appeal the decision to the Supreme Court.

SEE YOU IN COURT, THE SECURITY OF OUR NATION IS AT STAKE! Trump wrote on Twitter.

He said the ruling was a political decision and predicted his administration would win an appeal in my opinion, very easily. He said he had not conferred with his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, on the matter.

Washington state Gov. Jay Inslee, who has sharply criticized Trump and has been emphatic in his embrace of refugee resettlement in the U.S., called the ruling a reaffirmation of the checks-and-balances system that we hold dear.

I just saw a tweet from the president; he said, See you in court, Inslee said. Well, Mr. President, we just saw you in court, and we beat you, and you ought to think about this.

The Supreme Court remains short-handed and could deadlock. A 4-4 tie there would leave the appeals courts ruling in place.

Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, who brought the lawsuit, declared complete victory.

No one is above the law, not even the president, Ferguson, a Democrat, said at a news conference. The president should withdraw this flawed, rushed and dangerous executive order, which caused chaos across the country.

U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert, a Republican from Auburn, Wash., also seemed to indicate that Trump needed to adjust policy, in cooperation with the legislative branch.

The way the Executive Order was developed and implemented did not uphold our values and disrupted the lives of many individuals who legally deserve to be here, Reichert said in a statement. Congress and the Administration must work together to implement legislation that keeps Americans safe while respecting religious freedom and creating a way forward for those who wish to come here legally and contribute to our communities.

The travel ban, one of the first executive orders Trump issued after taking office, suspended worldwide refugee entry into the United States. It also barred visitors from seven Muslim-majority nations for up to 90 days to give federal security agencies time to impose stricter vetting processes.

Immediately after it was issued, the ban spurred chaos at airports nationwide as hundreds of foreign travelers found themselves stranded at immigration checkpoints, and protests erupted against a policy that critics derided as un-American. The State Department said up to 60,000 foreigners visas had been canceled in the days immediately after the ban was imposed Jan. 27.

Trial judges around the country have blocked aspects of Trumps executive order, but no other case has yet reached an appeals court.

Thursdays decision reviewed a ruling issued last Friday in Seattle by Judge James Robart. Robart blocked the key parts of the order, allowing immigrants and travelers who had been barred entry to come into the United States.

That case, filed by the states of Washington and Minnesota, is at an early stage, and the appeals court ruled on the narrow question of whether to stay the lower courts temporary restraining order blocking the travel ban.

In rejecting the administrations request for a stay, the court said, The government submitted no evidence to rebut the states argument that the district courts order merely returned the nation temporarily to the position it has occupied for many previous years.

The court said the government had not justified suspending travel from the seven countries. The government has pointed to no evidence, the decision said, that any alien from any of the countries named in the order has perpetrated a terrorist attack in the United States.

The three members of the panel were Judge Michelle Friedland, appointed by President Obama; Judge William Canby Jr., appointed by President Carter; and Judge Richard Clifton, appointed by President George W. Bush.

They said the states were likely to succeed in their case because Trumps order appeared to violate the due-process rights of lawful permanent residents, people holding visas and refugees.

The court said the administrations legal position in the case had been a moving target. It noted that Donald F. McGahn II, the White House counsel, had issued authoritative guidance several days after the executive order came out, saying it did not apply to lawful permanent residents. But the court said that we cannot rely on that statement.

The White House counsel is not the president, the decision said, and he is not known to be in the chain of command for any of the executive departments. Moreover, in light of the governments shifting interpretations of the executive order, we cannot say that the current interpretation by White House counsel, even if authoritative and binding, will persist past the immediate stage of these proceedings.

In its briefs and in the arguments before the panel Tuesday, the administrations position evolved. As the case progressed, the administration supplemented its request for categorical vindication with a backup plea for at least a partial victory.

At most, a Justice Department brief said, previously admitted aliens who are temporarily abroad now or who wish to travel and return to the United States in the future should be allowed to enter the country despite the ban.

The court rejected that request, saying that people in the United States without authorization have due-process rights, as do citizens with relatives who wish to travel to the United States.

The court discussed but did not decide whether the executive order violated the First Amendments ban on government establishment of religion by disfavoring Muslims.

It noted that the states challenging the executive order have offered evidence of numerous statements by the president about his intent to implement a Muslim ban. And it said, rejecting another administration argument, that it was free to consider evidence about the motivation behind laws that draw seemingly neutral distinctions.

The court said it would defer a decision on the question of religious discrimination. In light of the sensitive interests involved, the pace of the current emergency proceedings, and our conclusion that the government has not met its burden of showing likelihood of success on appeal on its arguments with respect to the due process claim, the decision said, we reserve consideration of these claims.

World Relief, one of the agencies that resettles refugees in the United States, is scheduled to receive 275 newcomers in the next week, many of whom will be reunited with relatives. The agency will arrange for housing and jobs for the refugees in cities including Seattle; Spokane, Wash.; and Sacramento, Calif.

We have families that have been separated for years by terror, war and persecution, said Scott Arbeiter, president of the organization. Some family members had already been vetted and cleared and were standing with tickets, and were then told they couldnt travel. So the hope of reunification was crushed, and now they will be admitted. Thats fabulous news for those families.

The court ruling did not affect one part of the executive order: the cap of 50,000 refugees to be admitted in the 2017 fiscal year. That is down from the 110,000 ceiling put in place under Obama. The order also directed the secretary of state and the secretary of homeland security to prioritize refugee claims made by persecuted members of religious minorities.

As of Thursday, that means the United States will be allowed to accept only about 16,000 more refugees this fiscal year. Since Oct. 1, the start of the fiscal year, 33,929 refugees have been admitted, 5,179 of them Syrians.

Read the original:

A closer look at the appeals-court panel's travel-ban ruling - The Seattle Times

The chairman of the conservative House Freedom Caucus said Wednesday he would be open to funding insurance companies during a transition away fromObamaCare.

Rep. Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said during a meeting with reporters that he would be willing to continue cost-sharing subsidies and reinsurance payments during the transition if there's a long-term plan in place.

"I would be more flexible and could swallow some short-term heartburn for longer-term fiscal responsibility," Meadows said.

He added that while the payments are "significant" in terms of costs, it is a "minor component" when it comes to a smoother transition.

The insurance market could collapse without the continued payments, which compensate insurers for offering discounts to low-income enrollees and for taking on sick, costly patients.

Republican Sen. Lamar AlexanderLamar AlexanderOvernight Finance: Trump attacks Nordstrom | Judge blocks Anthem-Cigna merger | Trump, Intel tout B investment | Labor pick gets hearing date | Feds grant easement for Dakota pipeline Trump's Labor secretary pick to get hearing on Feb. 16 Repeal without replacement: A bad strategy for kids MORE (Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee, indicated earlier this month that Congress may need to continue the payments to stabilize the insurance market.

What were told is if we dont act by March or April, is that in many states there wont be an insurance company there to sell you insurance, Alexander said.

Its also an area where Republicans are going to have to do some things we may not normally do, like cost sharing or reinsurance. We may not like those things, but we may have to do those things for the next two to three years to make sure people can buy insurance.

Read more:

Key conservative open to insurer payments during ObamaCare transition - The Hill

On Dec. 22, 2016, President Duterte signed the General Appropriations Act (GAA) of 2017 with a special provision calling on Congress oversight committee on overseas development assistance to conduct a debt audit to determine the legitimacy of 20 government-contracted foreign loans. The audit is to be completed within the 2017 fiscal year.

Earlier, on Dec. 13, 2016, a more far-reaching Senate Resolution (SR) No. 253 was filed jointly by Sen. Risa Hontiveros and Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III directing the appropriate Senate committee to inquire, in aid of legislation, into the foreign loans contracted by the Philippine government within the last 15 years through the conduct of a debt audit.

These two initiatives are historically significant as previous attempts by civil society groups, notably the Freedom from Debt Coalition (FDC), to compel the government to critically examine foreign-funded projects have all come to naught. In 2008, then President Gloria Arroyo vetoed a GAA special provision that would have suspended the debt service of 13 foreign loans that the FDC called fraudulent, wasteful, and/or useless.

The 2017 debt audit provision covers 20 loans from the Asian Development Bank, IBRD-World Bank, Japan International Cooperation Agency, Japan Bank for International Cooperation, Japan Eximbank, Opec Fund for International Development, French Protocol, and Raiffeisen Zentralbank Austria. But as SR 253 implies, these are but the tip of the iceberg with 481 outstanding foreign loans up for scrutiny under the Hontiveros-Pimentel initiative.

International debt campaigners regard a debt as illegitimate if it violates common principles of human rights and sustainable human development, justice and fairness, accountability and responsibility, sovereignty of peoples and nations, and democratic rights. SR 253 also invokes the Unctad (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development) principles on promoting responsible sovereign lending and borrowing.

The reasons for declaring a particular debt illegitimate are: violation of procedures mandated by law such as bribery, fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation; onerous provisions such as public guarantees of private profits; negative impact on the environment, communities and peoples wellbeing, and on basic social services, human welfare, and safety; waste of funds through corruption, mismanagement, and project failures; conversion of private loans into public debts due to sovereign guarantees; subjecting the economy to shocks, unreasonable creditor demands, and financial market instabilities; and imposing conditionalities that violate national sovereignty and democratic principles.

Thus, a debt audit is both a political tool and a process to disentangle the web of debt so as to reconstruct the series of events that cause many nations to fall into economic and fiscal quagmires. The FDC outlines what a debt audit should look into: the context and circumstances surrounding the transactions; the process of finalizing debt contracts; the content of the contracts; the purpose of the debts; how the funds were actually used; the impacts of debt-funded policies and projects; and the impacts of the conditionalities accompanying the debts and the debt contracts.

The projected audit of 20 illegitimate loans is a preliminary but significant step toward the cancellation of all fraudulent loans and the repeal of the law on automatic appropriations for debt servicing imposed by the dictator Ferdinand Marcos in 1977 through Presidential Decree No. 1177 and reiterated by then President Corazon Aquino through the 1987 Revised Administrative Code. As it stands, debt servicing is prioritized over any other government expenditure. The Philippines is reportedly the only country in the world with such an onerous law.

Our foreign debt now stands at P2.144 trillion. In the 2017 budget the automatic allocation for debt servicing of P335 billion (up from the 2016 total of P214.5 billion) is the second highest among all categories. The debt service for the 20 questionable loans amounts to P7.6 billion.

Such huge outlays of public funds are better used for projects that directly benefit the Filipino people, not those tainted by odious practices that bleed the countrys meager resources dry.

Eduardo C. Tadem, PhD., is president of the Freedom from Debt Coalition and professorial lecturer in Asian studies at the University of the Philippines Diliman.

See the rest here:

Historic audit of illegitimate debts - Inquirer.net

February 08, 2017 17:21 ET | Source: JUST ENERGY GROUP INC.

PRESS RELEASE

Just Energy Reports Third Quarter Fiscal 2017 Results

Reaffirms Fiscal 2017 Base EBITDA Guidance of $223 million to $233 million

TORONTO, ONTARIO - - February 8, 2017 - -

Just Energy Group, Inc. (TSX:JE; NYSE:JE), a leading retail energy provider specializing in electricity and natural gas commodities, energy efficiency solutions, and renewable energy options, announced results for its third quarter fiscal 2017.

Key Highlights:

1 Profit includes the impact of unrealized gains (losses), which represents the mark to market of future commodity supply acquired to cover future customer demand. The supply has been sold to customers at fixed prices, minimizing any realizable impact of mark to market gains and losses. 2 See "Non-IFRS financial measures" in unaudited interim condensed consolidated MD&A for the three and nine months ended December 31, 2016. 3 Not a meaningful figure.

"During the quarter, our gross margin per customer continued to increase and our attrition rate improved," commented Co-CEO Deb Merril. "Our gross margin per customer improvement initiative yielded desirable results once again this quarter in both our Consumer and Commercial businesses, and our attrition rate continues to improve. We believe the combination of these trends is a strong testament that our strategy to provide value to our customers is working and will support our future growth objectives. While we made significant progress along a number of important strategic, operational, and financial objectives that are enabling us to continue pursuing profitable growth, our total sales and customer addition goals were challenged during the third quarter. These challenges came as a result of lower than anticipated levels of customer switching activity due to relative price stability in gas and electricity markets, and the effect of increased competition that typically occurs in low-commodity-price environments. Fortunately, our business has delivered strong results year to date and remains healthy so that we remain well positioned to achieve our fiscal 2017 guidance while also delivering meaningful cash flow."

Co-CEO, James Lewis added, "We are coming through a very important period in our Company's recent history where we've been able to transform the profitability profile of the business while also repairing our balance sheet and overall financial position. The successful execution of these initiatives is allowing us to pivot from a period of internal repair to a period of what we believe will be prolonged growth. During the third quarter, we announced a very exciting and important entry into Germany, the largest energy market in continental Europe, through the acquisition of SWDirekt. Our future geographic expansion plans in Europe are on track, we are experiencing great customer acceptance of our growing product suite and long term loyalty programs, and our pipeline of value-additive products and opportunities for channel expansion are robust. Today, we are capable of delivering more value to customers than ever in our history and we are squarely on the path to future sustained growth."

Co-CEO, Deb Merril concluded, "We are in a very exciting period for Just Energy. We are aggressively pursuing a growth strategy centred on increasing the number of customer contracts, expanding our geographic presence, transforming our brand, enhancing our sales channels, pursuing strategic acquisitions, and providing new products and structures that meet the changing needs of today's consumers. Moving forward, we feel the successful execution of our strategy will continue to generate great interest in our offerings and result in significant net customer contract additions."

Third Quarter & YTD Operating Performance

To view the graphs associated with this release, please visit the following link: http://media3.marketwire.com/docs/1085324_graph.pdf

ANNUAL GROSS MARGIN PER RCE

Customer Aggregation

Margin per RCE improvements during the quarter demonstrated continued success of Just Energy's margin improvement initiatives. The Company remains focused on maintaining its profitable customers and ensuring that variable rate customers meet base profitability profiles, even if this results in higher attrition. This improved profitability per RCE will add to the Company's future margins over and above any growth in the customer base.

Balance Sheet & Liquidity

The Company continued to pursue aggressive debt reductions in the third quarter of fiscal 2017. As of December 31, 2016 Just Energy's book value net debt was 2.5x Base EBITDA, lower than both the 2.6x and 2.9x reported for March 31, 2016 and the prior comparable period, respectively.

Fiscal 2017 Outlook

Based on year to date performance, management believes that the Company will achieve its previously provided fiscal 2017 Base EBITDA guidance range of $223 million to $233 million, reflecting continued growth year over year. Fiscal 2017 guidance includes deductions to Base EBITDA of approximately $30.0 million to $35.0 million for prepaid commercial commissions, an increase of $12.0 million to $17.0 million over fiscal 2016, which would previously have been included as amortization within selling and marketing expenses. Just Energy expects to offset this headwind with continued strong gross margin performance.

The Company's balance sheet improvement initiatives have resulted in significantly improved debt ratios and management remains committed to further reducing and refinancing its debt in a shareholder-friendly manner. Management expects to achieve its net debt to EBITDA target ratio of 2.0x or less in the fiscal fourth quarter of 2017 and expects to maintain this relative level moving forward.

The repositioned business model has improved the Company's ability to drive profitability and cash generation, thus providing management with the confidence and freedom to commit to future dividend distributions at the current $0.50 per common share level.

Earnings Call

The Company will host a conference call and live webcast to review the third quarter results beginning at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on Thursday, February 9, 2017, followed by a question and answer period. Rebecca MacDonald, Executive Chair, President & Co-Chief Executive Officers James Lewis and Deb Merril, and Chief Financial Officer Pat McCullough will participate on the call.

Just Energy Conference Call and Webcast

Those who wish to participate in the conference call may do so by dialing 1-888-465-5079 and entering pass code 9284222#. The call will also be webcasted live over the internet at the following link:

http://event.onlineseminarsolutions.com/wcc/r/1357734-1/5C5D979A54FB072545293279884C0606

An audio tape rebroadcast will be available starting at 12:30 p.m. EST February 9th, 2017 until March 11th, 2017 at 11:59 p.m. EST. To access the rebroadcast please dial 1-888-843-7419 and enter the participant code 9284222#.

About Just Energy Group Inc.

Established in 1997, Just Energy (NYSE:JE, TSX:JE) is a leading retail energy provider specializing in electricity and natural gas commodities, energy efficiency solutions, and renewable energy options. With offices located across the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Germany, Just Energy serves approximately two million residential and commercial customers providing homes and businesses with a broad range of energy solutions that deliver comfort, convenience and control. Just Energy Group Inc. is the parent company of Amigo Energy, Commerce Energy, Green Star Energy, Hudson Energy, Just Energy Solar, Tara Energy and TerraPass.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This press release may contain forward-looking statements and information. Forward-looking statements and information in this press release include, but are not limited to, the redemption of the Debentures and the timing thereof. These statements are based on current expectations that involve a number of risks and uncertainties which could cause actual results to differ from those anticipated. These risks include, but are not limited to general economic and market conditions, levels of customer natural gas and electricity consumption, rates of customer additions and renewals, rates of customer attrition, fluctuations in natural gas and electricity prices, changes in regulatory regimes, results of litigation and decisions by regulatory authorities, competition and dependence on certain suppliers. Additional information on these and other factors that could affect Just Energy's operations, financial results or dividend levels are included in Just Energy's annual information form and other reports on file with Canadian securities regulatory authorities which can be accessed through the SEDAR website at http://www.sedar.com, on the SEC's website at http://www.sec.gov or through Just Energy's website at http://www.justenergygroup.com.

Neither the Toronto Stock Exchange nor the New York Stock Exchange has approved nor disapproved of the information contained herein.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:

Pat McCullough Chief Financial Officer Just Energy 713-933-0895 pmccullough@justenergy.com

Or

Michael Cummings Investor Relations Alpha IR Group 617-461-1101 michael.cummings@alpha-ir.com

Related Articles

See the original post:

Just Energy Reports Third Quarter Fiscal 2017 Results - GlobeNewswire (press release)

U.S. President Barack Obama meets with Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras at Maximos Palace in Athens, Greece November 15, 2016. (PHOTO: REUTERS)

Ive put forth lots of arguments against tax increases, mostly focusing on why higher tax rates will depress growth and encourage more government spending.

Today, lets look at a practical, real-world example.

I wrote a column for The Hill looking at why Greece is a fiscal and economic train wreck. I have lots of interesting background and history in the article, including the fact that Greece got into the mess by overspending and also explaining that politicians like Merkel only got involved because they wanted to bail out their domestic banks that foolishly lent lots of money to the Greek government.

But the most newsworthy part of my column was to expose the fact that austerity hasnt worked in Greece because the private sector has been suffocated by giant tax hikes.

the troikaimposed the wrong kind of fiscal reforms. what mostly happened is that Greek politicians dramatically increased the nations already punitive tax burden. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Developments fiscal database tells a very ugly story. on the eve of the crisis, the tax burden in Greece totaled 38.9 percent of GDP. This year, taxes are projected to reach 52.0 percent of economic output. Every major tax in Greece has been dramatically increased, including personal income taxes, corporate income taxes, value-added taxes, and property taxes. Its been a taxpalooza Whats happened on the spending side of the fiscal ledger? Have there been savage and draconian budget cuts? there have been some cuts, but the burden of government spending is still a heavy weight on the Greek economy. Outlays totaled 54.1 percent of GDP in 2009 and now government is consuming 52.2 percent of economic output.

For what its worth, the spending numbers would look better if the economy was stronger. In other words, Greeces performance wouldnt be so dismal if GDP was growing rather than shrinking.

And thats why tax increases are so misguided. They give politicians an excuse to avoid much-needed spending cuts while also hindering growth, investment and job creation.

Lets close by reviewing Greeces performance according to Economic Freedom of the World. The overall score for Greece has dropped slightly since 2009, but the real story is that the nations fiscal score has dramatically worsened, falling from 5.61 to 4.66 on a 0-10 scale. In other words, during a period of time in which Greece was supposed to sober up and become more fiscally responsible, the politicians engaged in an orgy of tax hikes and Greece went from a failing grade for fiscal policy to a miserably failing grade.

Heres a the relevant graph from the EFW website. As you can see, the score has been dropping for a decade, not just since 2009.

This is remarkable result. Greek politicians should have been pushing the nations fiscal score to at least 7 out of 10, if not 8 out of 10. Instead, the score has gone in the wrong direction because of tax increases.

Though I dont expect Hillary and Bernie to learn the right lesson.

P.S. For more information, heres my five-picture explanation of the Greek mess.

P.P.S. And if you want to know why Im so dour about Greeces future, how can you expect good policy from a nation that subsidizes pedophiles and requires stool samples to set up online companies?

P.P.P.S. Lets close by recycling my collection of Greek-related humor.

This cartoon is quite good, but thisthis one is my favorite. And thefinal cartoon in this postalso has a Greek theme.

We also have a couple of videos. The first one features avideo aboutwell, Im not sure, but well call ita European romantic comedyand the second one features a Greek comicpontificating about Germany.

Last but not least, here are somevery un-PC maps of how various peoples including the Greeks view different European nations.

View original post here:

Greece and the Folly of Trying to Solve an Overspending Problem with Tax Increases - People's Pundit Daily

Billy Aouste Billy Aouste is the new media specialist for The Heartland Institute. He is responsible for many projects at Heartland, including producing and managing social media outreach; pitching op-eds to print and digital publications; producing Heartland's weekly email; editing Heartlands blog, the Freedom Pub; and tracking Heartland experts media hits.

Aouste is a graduate from DePaul University with a BA in Political Science. While studying he participated in the Fund for American Studies program in Washington D.C. Prior to joining Heartland in 2015, he was a staff intern on Bruce Rauners successful Illinois gubernatorial campaign. Aouste resides in Hainseville, Illinois.

By: Barry Poulson

For a half-century, conservatives have watched Congress incur deficits and accumulate debt, making ours one of the most indebted countries in the world. There is little doubt this debt is unsustainable or that the federal government must enact reforms to constrain spending, especially entitlement spending, which is one of the major sources of U.S. debt today.

Republicans in Congress promised to address our fiscal crisis with fundamental reform of entitlements and other programs. They promised to constrain spending, balance the budget, and reduce debt over the next decade. So far, they have not been able to do this, at first because of gridlock with Democrats in the Senate and then because of President Barack Obamas promise to veto any legislation introducing real reform. But with the election of Donald Trump and control of both houses of Congress, Republicans can finally break through the budget gridlock.

The most recent salvo in this budget battle is a continuing resolution for fiscal year 2017. This resolution proposes to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA) with no change in other parts of the budget. The resolution exempts future health care legislation replacing the ACA from certain budget rules meant to impose fiscal discipline.

It also requires committees with jurisdiction over spending and revenue in the ACA to craft new legislation achieving $1 billion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years and to report that to Congress. The expectation is these committees will repeal parts of the ACA with budgetary effects, which will allow the repeal legislation to be considered under special reconciliation procedures in Congress. This tactic will allow Republicans to enact the legislation with a majority vote, rather than the 60 votes required to prevent a filibuster.

The resolution also provides for two reserve funds to accommodate new legislation repealing ACA. Replacement legislation could use all but $2 billion of the net savings from ACA repeal for new spending or tax breaks for health care coverage. This is quite a shift from previous Republican proposals promising more than $2 trillion in savings, which was promised to go toward deficit reduction, from an ACA repeal. An analysis by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) identifies a number of reforms in health care that could be enacted with significant cost savings. The savings proposed in this resolution to repeal ACA are a drop in the bucket compared to CBOs analysis of potential savings.

Replacement legislation that costs no more than the savings from ACA repeal, minus $2 billion, would be exempt from the Senate PAYGO rules and also from Senate point-of-order rules. The inclusion of these exemptions suggests the replacement legislation could exceed the savings from repeal by more than $10 billion in some years over the next decade and beyond.

With government expenditures for health care absorbing a larger share of the federal budget, this carve-out means less spending will be constrained by the statutory rules in place. Setting aside reserve funds to finance new health care legislation means more federal money will be off-budget and earmarked for specific spending programs. We should expect less congressional oversight for these funds, and if the new health care legislation is given special funding status, this will erode the opportunities for priority budgeting.

We will not know the full impact of policies to reform and replace ACA until Congress passes a resolution bill repealing ACA and additional legislation implementing replacement policies. But the first salvo in this budget battle is not promising, Republicans seem to have capitulated before the battle has begun. If there is any savings in an ACA repeal, most of those savings would be set aside in reserve funds to finance new spending or tax breaks for health care. The proposed budget reserves just $2 billion of the savings from an ACA repeal for deficit reduction.

Further, in the resolution, discretionary spending for fiscal year 2017 is set at the spending cap level for that year. All other spending and revenue is at baseline levels. Using baseline projections, total spending would increase from $3.2 trillion to $4.9 trillion over the next decade. This increase in spending would be accompanied by a doubling (roughly) of annual deficits to more than $1 trillion by the end of the decade.

Republicans can claim victory in this first budget battle in fiscal year 2017, without the Democrats firing a shot, but what a pyrrhic victory. Not only will this legislation fail to significantly reduce the growth in health care spending, it could lead to a higher trajectory of spending over the next decade and beyond. This legislation reveals Congress has no desire to fundamentally reform health care or other entitlements that would significantly reduce spending or debt linked to these programs.

Capitulation by Republicans in this budget battle reflects a more fundamental flaw in federal fiscal policies. Congress continues to pursue expansionary fiscal policies to stimulate output and employment in the short run, allowing deficits and debt to accumulate in the long run. For a half-century Congress has pursued Keynesian fiscal policies and abandoned the unwritten balanced budget rule that governed fiscal policy for two centuries.

With this most recent failure, conservatives must look to alternative solutions to the federal fiscal crisis. The most promising approach is to enact new fiscal rules, like those enacted in some other OECD countries, combining a balanced budget rule with expenditure limits.

We certainly cant sit back and watch the debt increase from $20 trillion to $29 trillion over the next decade the debt projected under this continuing resolution.

Barry W. Poulson (think@heartland.org) is a professor emeritus of economics at the University of Colorado-Boulder.

[Originally Published at American Thinker]

Guest Article: Capitulation before the First Shots Are Fired was last modified: February 6th, 2017 by Billy Aouste

See original here:

Guest Article: Capitulation before the First Shots Are Fired - Somewhat Reasonable - Heartland Institute (blog)

5466109

FBI officials are making it harder for Americans to request public records under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

Beginning March 1, the FBI will no longer accept FOIA requests via email, according to FBI notifications to requesters, forcing the public to use more archaic methods like snail mail and fax. The change copies other agencies, like the IRS and CIA.

Its hard to see this move by the FBI as anything other than an attempt to make it more difficult for the public to access information about the agency, as is our legal right under the Freedom of Information Act, Elizabeth Hempowicz, policy counsel for the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

The FBI will continue accepting requests through its online portal, but that method only allows users to submit one request per day, a limitation found nowhere in the text of the FOIA. Hempowicz said the change is curious because the FBI launched its web-based FOIA system in 2015 in the name of openness.

The agency points to it (the FOIA portal) as proof it cares about transparency and efficiency, but if the FBI were truly committed to improving public access to information, the last thing it would do is shut down email requests, Hempowicz added.

The FBI said the move will streamline its FOIA process. The FBI had 2,614 backlogged FOIA requests at the end of fiscal year 2015, according to the Department of Justices (DOJ) most recent annual report on agency FOIAs.

The FBIs eFOIA portal was designed and developed to be the FBIs primary means for receiving FOIA and Privacy Act requests, FBI spokeswoman Jillian Stickels told TheDCNF.

The portal provides the FBI with an automated process for the receipt and opening of requests, replacing the current manual process and substantially reducing the time it takes to receive and open each electronic request received. Given the FBIs high volume of requests, this will significantly increase efficiency.

Former President Barack Obama promised to have the most transparent administration in history, but his White House intercepted and vetted agency FOIA requestsand prompted a record number of FOIA lawsuits against a presidential administration.(RELATED: Agency Takes 5 Years To Respond To FOIA Request)

President Donald Trump has spoken little of government transparency and public access to records.

Congress passed, and then-President Lyndon Johnson signed, FOIA into law in 1966, making all government documents subject to public access except those covered by one or more of nine specific exemptions for considerations such as privacy, law enforcement and commercial secrets.

Follow Kathryn on Twitter

Send tips to katie@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Read the original here:

Making A FOIA Request Is About To Get Tougher At FBI - Daily Caller

A little over a third of the refugees who were admitted into the United States in fiscal 2016 (37%) were religious minorities in their home countries. Of those, 61% were Christians, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the State Departments Refugee Processing Center.

Muslims, the next largest group, made up 22% of the religious minority refugees who were admitted to the U.S. Other, smaller world religions and Hindus made up the bulk of the remaining religious minority refugees (9% and 6%, respectively).

The analysis comes as Donald Trumps administration has announced it will give priority to religious minorities who apply for refugee status in the U.S. Trump himself has said that Christians will be given preference.

The landscape is different when it comes to the two-thirds of refugees who entered the U.S. as religious majorities in fiscal 2016. Six-in-ten of these refugees (60%) were Muslim and 35% were Christian.Buddhists made up 6% of these refugees, coming mostly from Burma (Myanmar) and Bhutan.

The U.S. admitted 85,000 refugees in 2016. Almost all came from these 10 countries: the Democratic Republic of Congo (19%), Syria (15%), Burma (15%), Iraq (12%), Somalia (11%), Bhutan (7%), Iran (4%), Afghanistan (3%), Ukraine (3%) and Eritrea (2%).

Christians are a religious majority in three of these 10 countries. For example, the Democratic Republic of Congo from which the U.S. accepted the largest number of refugees (over 16,000) in 2016 is a predominantly Christian nation, split almost evenly between Roman Catholic and Protestant Christians. The vast majority (93%) of refugees accepted from that country were of these Christian denominations. Similarly, 61% of refugees coming to the U.S. from Eritrea in 2016 were Orthodox Christians, the majority religious group.

Christians are also not the only religious minority group in Muslim-majority countries. This is partly because many of the Muslim-majority countries from which the U.S.received the most refugees in 2016 Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Somalia are nations where various sects of Islam are considered religious minorities as well. In Syria, for example, non-Sunni Muslim groups (including Shia Muslims, Alawites and Ismailis) are religious minorities. In Somalia, Shia Muslims are estimated to be less than 1% of the population and thus are also considered minorities.

Note: Data for estimations of countries religious group sizes came from the State Departments Report to Congress on International Religious Freedom in 2015. For detailed methodology, see here(PDF).

Topics: Christians and Christianity, Immigration, Immigration Trends, Migration, Muslims and Islam, Religion and Society, Religious Affiliation, Wars and International Conflicts

View original post here:

Most refugees who enter the US as religious minorities are Christians - Pew Research Center