By CHARLES KERR

Lauren Boebert is, I suspect, the least qualified person in our lifetime to have the backing of a major political party to represent the people of Colorados 3rd Congressional District. For which committees in the House of Representatives is she best prepared to further her constituents interests? Agriculture? Veterans Affairs? Education and Labor? Natural Resources? Energy and Commerce? Transportation and Infrastructure?

Colorados 3rd Congressional District needs a representative with broad experience and good judgment, someone who understands the legislative process and is a knowledgeable negotiator. Is Lauren Boebert this person? What qualifies her to be our voice in Congress? That she said Hell, no to Beto ORourkes proposed government buyback of AR-15 and AK-47 semi-automatic weapons? Or her visit to Mount Rushmore to celebrate the Fourth of July with President Trump? Or her invitation to attend Trumps acceptance speech at the White House? Or that she has friends at Fox News? These events position her for reality TV celebrity status, as does wearing a Glock on her hip. But, clearly, these actions are not qualifications for being our representative in Congress.

She claims to be a voice for freedom: freedom from regulation, freedom from taxation, freedom from gun control, freedom from health department regulations, freedom from COVID-19 state restrictions. She walks her talk. At a rodeo in Rifle, without a food license and lacking food safety practices, her food vending service served pork sliders which poisoned people causing severe diarrhea. Failure to pay her taxes has led to eight tax liens against her restaurant. Disorderly conduct and failure to appear in court has led to her arrest and summonses at least four times. Opposing stay-at-home orders from Gov. Jared Polis, Boebert reopened her restaurant and when Garfield County obtained a restraining order to stop her from serving dine-in customers, she moved tables outside. This led to suspension of her restaurant license. Freedom without responsibility is anarchy, and anarchy, from the political right or left, is the antithesis of good government.

Dishonesty also undermines effective government. Lying Lauren was Tiptons response to her ads that asserted that he teamed up with AOC and the Squad to give Boulder a bailout, and that he joined Nancy Pelosi to give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants. To characterize Tiptons votes for H.R.6467 (the coronavirus relief fund for units of government with a population of 500,000 or less) and for the Farm Workforce Modernization Act as a Boulder bailout and amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants respectively is shameful, according to Republican state Sen. Don Coram. Lies and deception is how Sen. Coram characterizes Boeberts misrepresentation of Tiptons voting record. The Farm Workforce Modernization Act and H.R. 6467 were important, bipartisan legislation that would directly benefit West Slope farmers and communities. Boeberts attack ads, based on Tiptons support for this legislation, are more than shameful; they undermine the legislative process that is the basis of effective government which requires bipartisan cooperation, critical thinking, attention to facts, and compromise. Boeberts ads were essentially dishonest, and her willingness to stoop to slander for political gain disqualifies her from being a trustworthy representative in Congress.

In her July op-ed in the Sentinel, Boebert commits to failed fiscal policy. After stating that we need leaders who will promote the responsible and limited vision for government our founders gave their lives over, Boebert demonstrates her own limited vision by embracing the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act [which] has allowed Americans to keep an extra $100 a month in their paycheck. She promises to defend this tax cut against a possible Joe Biden presidency. On this basis she seeks our vote.

Unfortunately, the Tax Cut and Jobs Act is a fiscal Trojan Horse that increased the 2019 deficit to $984 billion and raised the federal national debt to $23 trillion. This 2017 tax cut fulfilled Trumps campaign promises to wealthy donors, but it added a trillion-dollar deficit to our economy during a time of prosperity and economic growth when we should have been saving money and lessening the federal debt. Moreover, 34% of the tax benefits went to the wealthiest 1% of Americans, according to the Tax Policy Center. Working families did benefit, but the tax cut to corporations marked a significant shift in wealth distribution to large corporations and rich Americans. JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, and Morgan Stanley received $18 billion of tax relief. The benefit to the Koch brothers is estimated at more than $1 billion a year, and companies including Pfizer, General Electric and Chevron will save billions in taxes. Little of this economic gain benefited wage-earning Americans as companies spent their extra cash on dividends and stock buybacks. Workers wages saw little change and are still below their 2008 level.

Either Lauren Boebert in 2020 does not understand the harmful fiscal results of the 2017 tax cut, in which case she is politically irresponsible and willfully ignorant, or she knowingly supports billions of dollars of tax relief for a banking industry and other major corporations awash with profits, adding a trillion dollars to the national deficit in 2019. In this case she is a glib political huckster, full of self-promotion, lacking good judgment.

Either way Lauren Boebert is not capable of being an independent voice, a wise judge of legislation, and an informed representative negotiating on our behalf with federal land managers and other government and private sector personnel.

Fortunately CD 3 does have someone with competence, integrity and legislative experience running for Congress. A mainstream, fiscally conservative Democrat, Diane Mitsch-Bush has long served Colorado well and deserves our November vote.

Charles Kerr is a retired Grand Junction High School and Colorado Mesa University teacher. He served on the BLM Northwestern Resource Advisory Council.

Read the rest here:

Boebert incapable of being an independent voice negotiating on our behalf - The Grand Junction Daily Sentinel

In June 2020, President Donald Trump signed the Executive Order on advancing international religious freedom, setting forward a vision for the U.S. Government to better address challenges faced by persecuted religious communities across the globe. The Executive Order mandates that the U.S. Secretary of State develop a plan to prioritize international religious freedom in the planning and implementation of United States foreign policy and the foreign assistance programs of the Department of State and USAID by December 2020. It also provides at least $50 million in funding per fiscal year to promote international religious freedom programs.

Thousands of Yezidis fleeing from Daesh in August 2014. (Photo credit: Emrah Yorulmaz/Anadolu ... [+] Agency/Getty Images)

In addition to an action plan and funding, the order empowers USAID and the U.S. State Department to further integrate freedom of religion or belief into the U.S. foreign policy. This is partially done through the Executive Orders calls for the development of recommendations to prioritize the appropriate use of economic tools to advance international religious freedom in countries of particular concern, countries on the Special Watch List, and any other countries that have engaged in or tolerated violations of religious freedom. The Executive Order was a powerful response to the deteriorating situation of religious minorities in many parts of the world.

However, what tangible steps is USAID taking to translate the Executive Order into action? USAIDs Chief Religious Freedom Advisor Samah Norquist and Senior Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Middle East Hal Ferguson confirm that the work is well underway.

One tangible change so far is how the Executive Order emboldens USAID to work with more small local organizations through its New Partnership Initiative (NPI), a program championed by the USAIDs Acting Administrator John Barsa. Traditionally, USAID has worked with larger organizations like the UNDP to provide assistance, but in recent years, has also worked to integrate smaller NGOs into its partnership portfolio that have strong local ties and can deliver assistance quickly. A key example is the USAID work in Northern Iraq, where Christians and Yazidis suffered genocide at the hands of Daesh. This adds to the work that USAID and the U.S. State Department have done in Northern Iraq over the last few years and since 2017, having provided over $400 million to rebuild Christian and Yazidi communities that were devastated by Daesh. Furthermore, since the emergence of Daesh in 2014, the U.S. has provided over $1.2 billion in humanitarian assistance, becoming the single largest donor to Iraq.

As Samah Norquist and Hal Ferguson say, responding to genocide differs from responding to, for example, a natural disaster. Responding to genocide requires a variety of activities that are needed to stitch traumatized communities back together. It requires more than just rebuilding infrastructure. For example, there remains a lot of trauma within the targeted by Daesh communities that still requires attention. In response, USAID and the State Department have focused on using different tools to try to help these communities in a holistic way, addressing both physical and mental health needs. This is also an important lesson for other countries who respond to cases of genocide. As such, it may be crucial for states to monitor and make their interim determination of genocide (as the US State Department has done in the case of the Daesh genocide) that will help them better deploy a proper response.

Understandably, the U.S. is not alone in assisting persecuted communities in Northern Iraq. Hungary, Poland, Germany, the UK and others also have contributed assistance to persecuted communities. For example, Hungry has worked directly with local communities and churches in Northern Iraq. Since the launch of its cross-governmental humanitarian aid framework program the Hungary Helps Program in 2017, the Hungarian Government is committed to exploring and implementing the most effective, efficient routes for aid delivery. The driving goal is to provide humanitarian relief and rehabilitation support to the communities in need in the most direct ways, rather than extending aid through indirect channels.

Among other milestones of progress USAID has made on the Executive Order, every USAID regional bureau now has a freedom of religion or belief primary point of contact which is making bureaus better equipped to incorporate freedom of religion or belief into their regional development efforts. This is incredibly important for the long-term success of ensuring freedom of religion or belief is a key component of USAID's assistance. The Executive Order is working to better educate USAID staff on freedom of religion or belief issues. In fact, going forward, all USAID Foreign Service Officers (FSO) whether posted domestically or overseas, will have to complete the Promoting Religious Freedom online course, which a significant number of FSOs have already completed. The USAIDs goal is to have a 95% compliance rate when the U.S. Secretary of State submits the implementation plan by December 2020.

The Executive Order has also already begun bearing fruit through further integration and coordination of USAID and State's efforts related to freedom of religion or beleif. This can already be seen in both the USAID and U.S. State Departments public diplomacy and public affairs efforts.

USAID deserves credit making progress and continuing to prioritize freedom of religion or belief internationally. The next months and years will only show the effects of this work to help the persecuted communities.

Read more from the original source:

How USAID Translates The Executive Order On Advancing International Religious Freedom Into Action - Forbes

This is part of Reason's November 2020 issue election cover package. Read the case against Joe Biden here.

We do not view Lyndon Johnson's presidency through the lens of the Texan's legendary vulgarity; the Great Society and Vietnam War loom much larger on his scorecard. Nor do we judge George Washington's generalship by the Continental Army's autumn 1776 squandering of New Yorkevery leader of consequence has bad days or weeks in the face of unprecedented challenge.

So before assessing Donald Trump's worthiness to receive a second term, let us set aside the two cudgels wielded most often by his media and Democratic tormentors: the 45th president's polarizing personality, and his administration's scattershot response to a once-in-a-century pandemic.

Focusing on Trump's deeds, instead of words, from Inauguration Day until just before the first reported U.S. death from COVID-19 on February 29, is a clarifying, even liberating, exercise. At a time when so much of American discourse is about symbolism instead of policy, adjectives instead of nouns, feelings instead of facts, this approach waves away the toxic political fog and drills down into the bedrock of this presidency. What has the Manhattan real estate developer actually built in Washington; how has that already impacted the lives of his constituents; and what lasting changes are likely if his job performance is ratified by the voting public in November?

Working through those questions will produce different answers for everyone, but here's a preview of mine: On the broad federal issues I care about mostlimiting the size and scope of government, protecting individual liberties, allowing for peaceable exchange between willing partners, and contributing to international peace and human flourishingTrump has been not just passively suboptimal but actively malign. Rewarding his record will cement bad policy and complete the Republican Party's transformation into a vehicle for big-government nationalism that's openly suspicious of free markets and perceived enemies.

"Keep your eye on one thing and one thing only: how much government is spending," economist Milton Friedman famously said during the Carter administration. "Because that's the true tax."

Under Trump's signature, even before the coronavirus, the sticker price on that annual levy was jacked up by almost $1 trillion.

The Constitution tasks Congress, not the president, with initiating all federal expenditures. The Budget Control Act of 1974 further instructs the legislature to pass a dozen specific appropriations each year by certain deadlines. The last time those deadlines were met was in 1994. This is a "broken system that Congress has created," Rep. Justin Amash (LMich.) says.

Instead of budget deliberations with debates and amendments and votes, there are closed-door negotiations between House and Senate leadership that typically produce either last-minute continuing resolutions to keep the federal apparatus functioning or must-pass omnibus bills that no member has enough time to read. But if the core blame for our budgetary dysfunction rests squarely on the shoulders of those choosing to fritter away the legislative branch's prerogatives, that should not let this or any president off the hook.

Congressional terror at making recorded votes on issues of potential controversy consciously offloads decision-making responsibility onto the executive. Which means that presidents have real power to shape legislative behavior. When asked in September 2019, for example, about taking up a gun bill that had been passed by the House of Representatives, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (RKy.) sounded more like a White House spokesman than the leader of a co-equal branch: "The administration is in the process of studying what they're prepared to support, if anything."

Republicans, of whom Trump is by far the country's most popular within the party, held a majority in both chambers on Capitol Hill during his first two years of office. In the waning days of that 114th Congress, McConnell's No. 2 in leadership, Sen. John Cornyn (RTexas), was queried by reporters about the Senate's approach to funding the federal government past a December 22, 2018, deadline. "I don't know of a specific plan yet," Cornyn said, just days before the lights went out. The legislative branch was waiting on appropriations instructions from the White House.

So what has Trump done with his considerable leverage to affect the level of federal expenditures? Sign a half-dozen continuing resolutions, plus a few longer-term omnibus deals, that together eliminated Obama-era spending caps, suspended the debt ceiling borrowing limit, and ratcheted up the size of government, all at the tail end of a historically long economic expansion and stock market bull run.

Federal spending under Barack Obama went from $2.98 trillion in George W. Bush's last full fiscal year of 2008 to $3.52 trillion in the stimulus-weighted fiscal year of 2009, an increase for which Obama and the Democratic-controlled 111th Congress deserve the lion's share of responsibility. Since the 44th president's last full fiscal year of 2016 saw expenditures of $3.85 trillion, we can say that during his two terms of officewhich included a major federal response to an economic crisisannual spending went up by around $900 billion.

Trump matched that increase in just one term,beforehis own crisis hit.

Fiscal 2017 featured spending of $3.98 trillion, with most of the $140 billion increase over the previous year coming under Trump's sharpie. Then things really took off$4.11 trillion in 2018, $4.45 trillion in 2019, and a whopping $4.79 trillion destination at the halfway point of fiscal 2020. And then came the pandemic.

Discretionary spendingmeaning that part of the budget (roughly one-third) requiring explicit congressional approval, as opposed to "mandatory" items such as Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaidnever topped $1.2 trillion during Obama's second term. Trump's wholly owned, pre-virus budgets saw the discretionary portions rise from $1.28 trillion to $1.36 trillion to $1.44 trillion.

Congressional Republicans, who had put the budgetary screws on Obama as soon as they won a House majority in January 2011, lost their appetite for hardball the moment the GOP regained control of the Senate four years later. Trump in 201516 then ran and won handily on the least fiscally conservative platform of a crowded presidential primary field, serially mocking the entitlement-reform mantras mouthed by a generation of fiscal conservatives. "We're going to save your Social Security without killing it, like so many people want to do," he vowed at a June 2016 rally. "And your Medicare."

The reason that Republicans and Democrats alike (if not quite in equal measures) spent decades before 2015 talking about the need to restructure the country's old-age transfer programs is that, as the historically large baby boom generation shifts from contributor to recipient, these programs are on an inexorable trajectory toward insolvency. In 1950 there were 16.5 workers paying into Social Security for every one retiree receiving benefits; in 2019 that ratio was just 2.9 to 1. In an annual report finished just prior to the pandemic, the Social Security Administration Trustees projected that the trust fund, if politicians continued doing nothing, would be forced to enact automatic, across-the-board cuts to recipients beginning in 2035.

Yet doing nothing has been Trump's intention all along. In March 2017, Robert Draper ofThe New York Times Magazinesuggested to the president that conservatives should not expect entitlement reform during his first term. "I think you're right," Trump accurately forecasted, before pivoting to the virtues of government spending: "We're also going to prime the pump. You know what I mean by 'prime the pump'? In order to get [the economy] going, and going big league, and having the jobs coming inwe're going to have to prime the pump to some extent. In other words: Spend money to make a lot more money in the future. And that'll happen." You can't say he didn't warn us.

The president did flex his muscles on two notable occasions during congressional budget negotiations, each leading to government shutdowns. But that wasn't because Congress was spending too muchit was because lawmakers were spending too little for his liking on immigration enforcement.

Conservatism during Obama's first term was all about blocking Obamacare, forcing conversations about entitlement solvency, and raising the alarm over trillion-dollar budget deficits. Republicans in Trump's first term have failed to reform Obamacare, sidestepped conversations about long-term fiscal sustainability, and brought trillion-dollar deficits roaring back.

In December 2018, when there were still at least some advisers inside the White House mouthing concerns about a future debt crisis, the president reportedly dismissed them by saying, "Yeah, but I won't be here." There is only one sure way to make that prediction come true.

Donald Trump in 2016 became the first GOP presidential candidate to successfully campaign on trade protectionism since Herbert Hoover. And though he doesn't have a Smoot-Hawley tariff on his ledger, the president has made consumer goods more expensive, export markets more difficult to access, and government subsidization of industrial sectors more likely, both here and abroad.

Republicans during the Obama presidency made great hay, and rightly so, over the $11.3 billion the federal government lost in its postfinancial crisis takeover and restructuring of General Motors. Trump's trade wars have topped that number three years running on agriculture bailouts alone$12 billion to compensate for the retaliatory clampdowns on export-market access in 2018, $16 billion in 2019, and $19 billion in 2020 pre-COVID.

"We now have a huge $20 billion-plus farm subsidy program that most experts are worried is never going to disappear," says trade lawyer and Cato Institute analyst Scott Lincicome. "There's nothing so permanent as a temporary government program. That old Milton Friedman line is certainly true in the case of farm subsidies."

The president has expanded the latitude for his successors and America's trade partners alike to use bogus justifications for erecting tariffs. In March 2018, Trump exercised the little-used Section 232 national security exemption to the 1962 Trade Expansion Act in order to enact a 25 percent tariff on imported steel and a 10 percent tariff on aluminum. This despite the fact that his own military rejected the security argument, that six of the top 10 foreign suppliers of steel are NATO allies, and that two months later the president himself tweeted that the tariffs were in response to a Canadian tariff on dairy products.

"For decades, presidents, and governments in general around the world, were extremely hesitant to invoke national security in order to achieve economic protectionism for really not national-security-related grounds," Lincicome says. "The Trump administration has really opened Pandora's Box with respect to Section 232."

The move "has provided future administrations a really easy way to unilaterally implement certain policies," Lincicome continues. "So, for example, you could quite easily see a Biden administration determining that climate change is a national security threat and thus imposing national security tariffs on imports from countries that don't sign under the Paris agreement." With courts generally deferential to the executive branch's national security claims (and with Congress dispositionally unwilling to take on the president), future trade wars now have a template.

As predicted by the vast majority of trade economists, Trump's tariffs have failed in their stated intent to prop up domestic producers and jobs, triggered reciprocal actions that have punished American exporters, and created a cottage industry of lobbying in Washington for exemptions.

Trump campaigned against the seven-decade Washington-led international system of mutual tariff reduction without ever having a coherent plan to replace it. His promised bilateral trade deals have mostly failed to materialize; other countries and blocs are now signing pacts that freeze out American producers; and the dispute-resolution body at the World Trade Organization (WTO), which has historically proven favorable to U.S. claims, has ground to a halt because of Trump's unwillingness to appoint representatives.

Sen. Josh Hawley (RMo.) and his allies like to say "we should get out of the WTO" and "replace it with something that doesn't kowtow to China," Lincicome says. "The problem is, [Trump has] done none of that. Instead, it's all just might-makes-right unilateralism."

The president's troubled negotiations with China, in addition to materially harming U.S. consumers and producers, have by his own admission discouraged him at several key moments from speaking out about the communist country's human rights atrocities against its Uighur population and its ongoing crackdown against Hong Kong. Now that talks have broken down in an election year, the administration is ratcheting up its aggressiveness, including through an August executive order to kick out the Chinese-owned social media video giant TikTok within 45 days.

The president's trade record and hands-on approach to industrial policy threaten to overrun one of the best aspects of his first termhis conscious, system-wide slowdown of the ever-expanding administrative state.

"Trump's regulatory streamlining," the Competitive Enterprise Institute stated in May in its annual regulations surveyThe Ten Thousand Commandments, "is being offset by his own favorable comments and explicit actions toward regulatory intervention in the following areas: Antitrust intervention, financial regulation, hospital and pharmaceutical price transparency mandates and price controls, speech and social media regulation, tech regulation, digital taxes, bipartisan large-scale infrastructure spending with regulatory effects, trade restrictions, farming and agriculture, subsidies with regulatory effect, telecommunications regulation, including for 5G infrastructure; personal liberties: health-tracking, vaping, supplements, and firearms; industrial policy or market socialist funding mechanisms (in scientific research, artificial intelligence, and a Space Force), [and] welfare and labor regulations."

Trump's shocking win in 2016, particularly in an industrial Midwest that Democrat Hillary Clinton barely visited, may have led political commentators to overcorrect for their previous blind spots by convincing themselves voters were against free trade. In fact, public approval of international trade has reached record polling highs during Trump's first term. The president is once again campaigning to the left of the Democratic nominee on tariffs; another victory would likely turn a decisive majority of the political class against the single greatest global anti-poverty measure ever invented.

On his eighth day in office, Trump signed an executive order asserting that "whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate."

First up for suspension were all travelersincluding, during the first 48 hours, a half-million legal U.S. permanent residentsfrom Syria, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Libya, Somalia, and Yemen, plus any refugee from anywhere on earth. College students, green-card holders, and people who had finally gained admission after years of waiting for permission boarded flights under one set of conditions, only to discover upon landing in an American city that the rulebook had changed and they had to turn back. The move caused chaos and anguish at airports and in immigrant communities all over the country.

The travel ban was challenged and rewritten several times, but in 2018's 54Trump v. Hawaiidecision, the Supreme Court codified the chief executive's power to select which foreigners can and cannot enter the country, including based on factors (such as religion or political beliefs) that if applied to legal U.S. residents would be deemed unconstitutional.

Though Trump emphasized cracking down on illegal immigration during the 2016 campaign, in fact his deportation numbers pale in comparison to Barack Obama's. Instead, his "biggest contribution" has been restricting the legalvariety, according to Cato Institute immigration policy analyst David Bier. "We're talking about just an incredible number of actions to reduce legal immigration," he says. Beginning, most ungenerously, with refugees.

Fueled by grisly wars in the Middle East and Africa, the global population of refugees doubled between 2012 and 2017, from 10 million to 20 million, a historically high level where it has remained ever since. The incoming president, having won on the most restrictionist platform since World War IIera Franklin Roosevelt, promptly slashed America's refugee intake to historic lows22,000 in fiscal year 2018, down from 85,000 in 2016.

The last time worldwide refugees doubled in so short a span, in the late 1970s and early 1980s, presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan took lead roles in organizing the global response, and America welcomed into the country roughly 1 out of every 70 refugeesfrom Vietnam, Cambodia, the Soviet Union, Iran, Cuba, and so forth. Under Trump, the U.S. has withdrawn from anything like leadership of the free-world response, and its refugee intake is more like 1 out of every 900.

Though the Trump administration had already reduced just about every category of legal immigration, some of the most significant restrictions went into effect only this year. The new "public charge" rule, wherein applicants for visas are required to prove that they'll never go on welfare, will precipitate massive reductions in by far the most common type of immigration: the family-sponsored visa, which traditionally has accounted for six out of every seven legal immigrants to the United States.

"This rule basically makes it impossible to get around it if you're poor and you don't have a college degree," Bier says. "We're forcibly separating U.S. citizens from their spouses, from their parents.It is something [that], if it was imposed on any other U.S. citizen, would be considered an affront to liberty and an imposition that we wouldn't tolerate for a second if the spouse was born in the United States or a parent was born in the United States."

Trump has changed asylum rules so that even those with ironclad cases of being persecuted back home will be automatically returned there if they enter America via a third country. Asylum seekers who arrive at ports of entry to make their cases are now routinely turned away instead of processed. The number of foreign college students has been chopped down. And most shockingly, in numbers never before seen, the White House made a conscious policy to separate minor children from their asylum-seeking parents.

"This was an intentional effort by the Trump administration to target parents with children," Bier says. "And not based on any kind of risk factor or criminal history or prior crossings or anything. It was, 'If you're a parent and you are crossing with a kid, we're going to target you for prosecution specifically.'The zero-tolerance justification was just a facade to justify what they wanted to do, which was terrify these asylum seekers into not coming, basically."

Even more than trade, immigration was a signature Trump campaign issue in 2016, and it's been a focus of his attention in the Oval Office. If you believe it humane for U.S. citizens to be able to import their foreign-born immediate family, or for children to not be separated from their parents, or for America to extend a helping hand to the world's wretched, or for deserving asylum seekers to be able to make their cases, then Donald Trump is anathema to your values. Like trade, immigration has on balance contributed to the wealth of America and lifted tens of millions of people out of poverty. The president's opposition to the free movement of people from countries he disfavors will, if he receives another term, be translated into policy that actively harms millions of U.S. citizens, for many years to come.

In considering Trump's presidency through February 2020, it is fair to ask what he did to prepare for a crisis such as the one now crippling the country. Because no matter what or when or how, the crisis always comes.

Here the president's erratic temperament comes into play. He has proven an alienating figure in the international arena, repeatedly insulting America's traditional allies while cultivating a more dodgy and less powerful band of cronies in places like Hungary and Saudi Arabia. Pandemics require urgent global cooperation; instead the president has spent precious time dubbing COVID-19 the "China virus" and doubling down on supply chaindamaging trade wars.

"Let's face itwe've pissed off almost every other country in the world at a time when global collaboration for a vaccine or a cure is most needed," Lincicome says. "And that type of action has consequences. If a vaccine is developed outside of the United States, and it's developed in a country with which we've had pretty hostile trade and economic relations, will Americans be disadvantaged in terms of access?"

Economic crises are like margin calls, exposing where governments have left themselves out of position and creating sharp new demands for government services even as the tax base dwindles. Trump inherited a growing economy, a bullish market, a massive debt burden, and a certain future implosion of the old-age entitlement programs. Instead of saving for the inevitable rainy day, the president primed the pump, ran deficits back over $1 trillion, and put the country in a historically vulnerable position to make the biggest economic policy gambleand commitmentsince the New Deal.

Meanwhile, his preexisting management styledemanding private loyalty and public flattery from his ever-revolving Cabinet, personalizing policy responses and entire federal departments, contradicting himself and the available facts on a daily basishas shown itself to be a tangible governing handicap. The first rule of pandemic crisis response is that public officials must be sane, sober, and truthful in communicating with the public. Trump did not build his remarkable career around these traits.

Republican voters will flatter themselves this fall by imagining that they're striking a blow against socialism and doddering old men. And it's true: The Democrat in this race looks a few cards short of a full deck while sitting atop a party desperate to fulfill generations' worth of big-government fantasies.

But we don't need to conjure up an erratic authoritarian to fight off. He's sitting right there in the Oval Office.

Go here to read the rest:

The Case Against Trump: Donald Trump Is an Enemy of Freedom - Reason

ARLINGTON, Texas--(BUSINESS WIRE)--D.R. Horton, Inc. (NYSE:DHI), Americas Builder, announced today that the Company will release financial results for its fourth quarter and fiscal year ended September 30, 2020 on Tuesday, November 10, 2020 before the market opens. The Company will host a conference call that morning at 8:30 a.m. Eastern Time (ET). The dial-in number is 877-407-8033. Participants are encouraged to call in five minutes before the call begins (8:25 a.m. ET). The call will also be webcast from the Companys website at investor.drhorton.com.

A replay of the call will be available after 12:30 p.m. ET on Tuesday, November 10, 2020 at 877-481-4010. When calling, please reference conference ID #37904. The teleconference replay will be available through November 17, 2020. The webcast replay will be available from the Companys website at investor.drhorton.com through January 31, 2021.

About D.R. Horton, Inc.

D.R. Horton, Inc., Americas Builder, has been the largest homebuilder by volume in the United States since 2002. Founded in 1978 in Fort Worth, Texas, D.R. Horton has operations in 88 markets in 29 states across the United States and closed 61,164 homes in the twelve-month period ended June 30, 2020. The Company is engaged in the construction and sale of high-quality homes through its diverse brand portfolio that includes D.R. Horton, Emerald Homes, Express Homes and Freedom Homes ranging from $100,000 to over $1,000,000. D.R. Horton also provides mortgage financing, title services and insurance agency services for homebuyers through its mortgage, title and insurance subsidiaries.

Read more:

D.R. Horton, Inc. to Release 2020 Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year-End Earnings on November 10, 2020 - Business Wire

Inslee, Culp spar over COVID-19 in only governor's debate

OLYMPIA, Wash (AP) Democratic Gov. Jay Inslee and Republican challenger Loren Culp met in their first and only debate Wednesday night, disagreeing immediately over the state's response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Because of COVID-19, the candidates participated in the televised debate from separate rooms at the Olympia headquarters of TVW, the states government affairs channel.

Inslee said his virus mandates that initially shut or restricted many businesses and required masks and social distancing have saved lives.

Our fundamental duty is saving those lives, Inslee said.

Culp, a small-town police chief in eastern Washington, has campaigned against Inslees coronavirus restrictions like mandatory masks, saying they infringe on peoples constitutional rights. Inslee says his measures have saved lives at a time when President Donald Trump, who recently contracted the virus, has been downplaying its seriousness.

Culp, who said he had wanted to debate in the same room as Inslee, said that if he were governor he would have put out the information and let people decide what's best for them regarding the virus.

I firmly believe in individual freedom and liberty, I believe in safety, Culp said. The problem is when we have one person sitting in the governors office telling everyone what theyre going to wear, whether theyre going to go to work or whether theyre not going to go to work, thats the problem that Ive had with this.

Inslee said that Culp hasnt modeled leadership on the seriousness of COVID-19 during his campaign, citing his large rallies of supporters without masks or social distancing.

Its too dangerous to have a mini-Trump right now in the middle of this pandemic, Inslee said. Our efforts against this pandemic are working. Its saving lives and we ought to keep doing it.

As of this week, there have been more than 91,000 confirmed cases in Washington since the pandemic began, and more than 2,100 people have died. For most, the coronavirus causes mild or moderate symptoms, such as fever and cough that clear up in two to three weeks, although long-term effects are unknown. But for some, especially older adults and people with existing health problems, it can cause more severe illness, including pneumonia and death.

Inslee, who is seeking to become the first incumbent elected to a third term in the state in more than 40 years, faced 35 challengers in the August primary. He received just over 50% of the vote, with Culp coming in second with more than 17%.

Governors in Washington state arent subject to term limits, though most havent served more than two terms. The last three-term governor in Washington was Republican Gov. Dan Evans, who served from 1965 until 1977.

Inslee is a former congressman and served as Democratic Governors Association chairman in 2018. His six-month run for president last year focused on climate change, an issue that has been central to his two terms as governor.

Culp criticized Inslees comments calling the recent wildfires in the state climate fires.

He said that while he doesnt deny that the climate is changing, these are not climate fires, these are the result of very poor management on the state level.

Inslee said that anyone running for governor needs to have a plan to address climate change.

We need someone who will not just follow science but will act on it, Inslee said.

Both candidates were asked about Boeings decision to consolidate production of its two-aisle 787 jetliner in South Carolina and shut down the original assembly line for the plane in Everett, and Inslees comments that remaining tax breaks for the aerospace giant will need to be revisited.

The citizens of this state should be treated fairly, Inslee said.

Culp said that Inslees mandates and regulations have harmed businesses and he said he would work to make the state more business friendly.

Businesses like Boeing will want to come here and stay here, he said

Inslee countered that the states rankings in reports on where to move or where to do business

If this is such a terrible business place, why do these businesses keep coming here and growing? he asked.

On a question about the frequent skirmishes between police and protesters during months of demonstrations against police brutality in the wake of the police killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis, Culp said he would have taken a harder stance.

We all have a right to peacefully assemble and speak our mind," he said. "When it turns violent ... thats no longer a First Amendment right, its a crime.

Inslee said that he sent in the National Guard once it was requested by Seattle.

You had tens of thousands of people peacefully protesting, tens of thousands marching without breaking windows, without starting fires and in their midst these folks came in and caused violence, he said. This violence is unacceptable to all of us, from any source, and it should stop.

On the state economy, which has seen revenues plummet during the pandemic, Culp said he would start with noew programs or pay raises for state workers and look at individual programs for cuts.

Inslee noted that earlier this year he vetoed hundreds of millions in spending, and said that they would need to look at some cuts, but defended his decision to not call a special session to address the budget before January, saying he didnt want rush to make cuts before knowing the full fiscal picture.

Ballots will be sent to the states more than 4.7 million voters next week, and elections officials are expecting record turnout.

__

AP reporter Lisa Baumann in Seattle contributed.

Here is the original post:

Inslee, Culp meet in first and only governor's debate - Thehour.com

U.S. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper has revealed new details about extremely ambitious plans to increase the size of the U.S. Navy's fleets to more than 500 ships and submarines, including unmanned types, within the next 25 years. He also offered some specifics about how the Pentagon hopes to pay for this dramatic increase in force structure, including a significant increase in the Navy's base budget starting as early as the next Fiscal Year.

Esper provided the new information on what is now being called Battle Force 2045 in a virtual talk he gave from the offices of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) think tank in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 6, 2020. Some details about the Navy's future force structure and shipbuilding plans had already emerged in September, which you can read about in more detail in this recent War Zone piece.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) has been working for months to help shape the plans for the Navy's force structure in the decades to come. OSD's Battle Force 2045 proposal incorporates recommendations from studies that the Pentagons Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE), the Office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Hudson Institute think tank conducted. A full look at the plan is expected to be publicly released next Spring as part of the formal 2022 Fiscal Year defense budget request.

As of early 2020, the Navy had around 293 ships. There is also a Congressionally mandated goal of a fleet with at least 355 ships. However, Esper has now said that the Battle Force 2045 structure will call for a total naval force with more than 500 ships, including between eight and 11 nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, 60 to 70 small surface combatants, 70 and 80 attack submarines, 50 to 60 amphibious warfare ships, and 70 to 90 logistics ships. This is broadly in line with draft proposals from CAPE and the Hudson Institute.

USN

Both of those studies described a Navy with nine aircraft carriers. The force structures CAPE and Hudson included 70 and 56 small surface combatants, respectively, and both called for an increase in the size of the service's submarine force, which presently has 55 boats, in total. Those proposals also called for between 15 and 19 traditional amphibious warfare ships, such as amphibious assault ships and dock landing ships, and 20 to 26 of a new class of Light Amphibious Warships (LAW) that the Navy and Marine Corps are already exploring. These studies included significant increases in logistics and other support vessels, as well.

The carrier figures are particularly interesting given that the Navy has 11 flattops right now the 10 Nimitz class ships and the first-in-class USS Gerald R. Ford and anything less would represent a cut in the total number of these vessels. Congress has also stipulated that the service always be working toward having at least 12 operational carriers.

USN

The Nimitz class aircraft carrier USS Harry S. Truman, at rear, sails with the first-in-class USS Gerald R. Ford, in the foreground.

Esper added that the Navy would "continue to examine options for light carriers that support short-takeoff or vertical landing aircraft" and that the service could ultimately up to six such ships, which could be based on the aviation-focused America class amphibious assault ship design. This is notable given that the Navy had publicly said that it had deferred a study of light carrier concepts indefinitely in May. This could also simply involve using the existing Americas, as well as other amphibious assault ships, as small "Lightning Carriers" with larger than average compliments of U.S. Marine Corps F-35B Joint Strike Fighters, a concept the Navy and Marines have already been exploring.

The Secretary of Defense did not offer details about what might be included in the "small surface combatant" category, but presently the Navy's only ships meeting this description are the Freedom and Independence classes of Littoral Combat Ships (LCS). The service is working to acquire a new class of guided-missile frigates, presently referred to as FFG(X), which will be based on from Italian shipbuilder Fincantieri's European Multi-Purpose Frigate design, also commonly referred to simply by the Franco-Italian acronym FREMM.

USN

The USS Freedom, at rear, and the USS Independence, the lead ships of the two LCS subclasses.

When it comes to submarines, Esper said that the increase in the total number of boats will come from extending the life of seven Los Angeles class attack submarines by refueling their nuclear reactors, as well as the development of a new type of advanced attack submarine, known presently as the SSN(X). The Navy has said that it is looking to acquiring something akin to the advanced Seawolf class design under this latter program.

In addition, the Secretary of Defense reiterated the service's previously established goal of increasing production of the more multi-mission-focused Virginia class attack submarine from two boats per year to three. If we do nothing else, the Navy must begin building three Virginia class submarines a year as soon as possible," Esper said.

USN

The Virginia class attack submarine USS Minnesota while under construction.

These increases in traditional vessels offer a "credible path" to the 355 ship goal, according to Esper. However, to get the total size of the Battle Force up to over 500 will require the inclusion of between 140 and 240 unmanned surface and undersea vehicles in that total, something the Navy does not presently do. The growing importance of unmanned platforms to the service's future plans, which you can read about in these previous War Zone pieces, has already prompted calls from the White House's Office of Management and Budget to add them to the official fleet totals for both current accounting and future planning purposes.

To make all this work, Esper said that the plan is to increase the percentage of the Navy's overall budget set aside for shipbuilding to 13 percent. In the 2020 Fiscal Year, the money for ships accounted for just over 11.5 percent of the service's approved budget from Congress. This dropped to less than 10 percent in the Navy's 2021 Fiscal Year budget request. Legislators have yet to pass a budget for this fiscal cycle, which began on Oct. 1.

USN

A summary of the Navy's approved budget for the 2020 Fiscal Year compared to its request for the 2021 Fiscal Year.

This 13 percent figure had first emerged last month in a print version of a speech Esper gave at the Rand think tank. However, the actual speech did not include this figure, raising questions about whether or not it was accurate. As Defense Newsreported at the time, even a two percent increase in shipbuilding funds over the 2021 Fiscal Year budget request would translate to more than $4 billion extra dollars to buy more ships.

In his latest remarks on this topic from CSBA's offices, Esper also called on Congress to approve getting rid of older ships and to grant the Pentagon authority to transfer unused funds straight to shipbuilding accounts without the need for specific authorization. He also issued an appeal to legislators to pass the 2021 Fiscal Year budget without delay and avoid relying on short-term spending bills, commonly known as Continuing Resolutions, which make long-term planning difficult.

As was the case after the initial details about the Navy's future plans for a fleet of more than 500 ships first emerged, it remains very much to be seen whether this proposal will become a reality. Congress has been notably reticent to the idea of including unmanned platforms in the Battle Force totals, or even just building them at all, and routinely resists proposals to retire existing warships, or otherwise trim back their expected service life, to free up funds to buy newer ones. With this in mind, extending the life of existing warships had been part of the Navy's plans to reach the existing 355-ship goal as recently as last year.

Available shipyard capacity to build new ships and submarines, as well as maintain a growing fleet, remains very much an issue, as well. The shift from building one Virginia class submarine each year to two notably caused strain on the yards where those boats are built, at least initially, raising questions about what might happen when production increases to three annually. Those are also the same yards that will also be needed to construct the Navy's future Columbia class ballistic missile submarines.

USN

An artist's conception of the future first-in-class USS Columbia.

If nothing else, there is also a basic cost question. Esper indicated that at least some of the increased shipbuilding funds could come from savings the Pentagon has found elsewhere in the budget, but again canceling or scaling back other projects or retiring older weapon systems across the U.S. military will require the consent of Congress.

In addition, there's no guarantee, especially in the midst of a major recession in the United States and global economic downturn due to the COVID-19 pandemic, that defense spending will continue to rise in a way that will support a major increase in the size of the Navy's Battle Force. In fact, there's evidence already that it could well be headed in the opposite direction.

Sustaining such a naval force will require major additional funding, as well. One estimate from the Congressional Budget Office regarding a plan the Navy released last year to reach a 355-ship fleet pegged the annual cost of just operating and maintaining all of those vessels at $40 billion. For context, the Navy's total "O&M" budget for the 2020 Fiscal Year was $68 billion and the portion set aside specifically for ship operations was $19.7 billion.

All told, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Navy seem to be intent on setting a goal of having a total fleet with more than 500 ships in the coming decades. However, from everything we know so far, there are serious hurdles they will need to overcome first in getting anywhere near to realizing their vision.

Contact the author: joe@thedrive.com

Original post:

Everything We Just Learned About The Navy's Dubious Path To A 500 Ship Fleet - The Drive

Civil society organisations (CSOs) are increasingly concerned that the IMF continues to include strict fiscal consolidation targets in its loan programmes, despite the deepening global health and economic crisis triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic.

In an October letter, more than 500 CSOs and academics, including the Brazilian Campaign for the Right to Education and prominent feminist economist Stephanie Seguino, questioned the Funds continued adherence to such targets, as the economic fallout of the pandemic continues to worsen. According to the letter, Time and time again, rigid and rapid fiscal consolidation conditioned in IMF programs has meant devastating cuts in health and education investments, losses of hard-earned pensions and social protections, public wage freezes, layoffs, and exacerbated unpaid care work burdens. In all cases, it is the most vulnerable people in societies who bear the brunt of these reforms, while the elite, large corporations and creditors enjoy the benefits.

Despite IMF Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva publicly calling for a greener, smarter and fairer recovery to the Covid-19 pandemic, a number of recent IMF loan programmes, as well as IMF language in emergency financing agreements and analysis, continue to call for a swift return to fiscal consolidation as soon as the peak of the crisis has passed. The governments of Egypt, Ukraine (see Observer Summer 2020), South Africa (see At Issue Summer 2020) and Ecuador have now agreed new programmes with the Fund that involve severe austerity measures. CSOs are also concerned that a forthcoming IMF programme for Lebanon is likely to include significant austerity measures (see Observer Autumn 2020). Bosnia and Herzegovina (BiH) and Costa Rica have both made new requests for non-emergency IMF programmes over the last two months, and news reports already indicate the latter will be committing to severe fiscal consolidation measures.

Commenting on the request by BiH, Nela Porobi Isakovi with the Womens International League for Peace and Freedom said, IMF loans have for a long time come with austerity measures targeting the public sector, and now new negotiations lack any transparency. It is a true source of worry for the Bosnia and Herzegovinian citizens where does the money go, how will the money be repaid, and how do we ensure that we do not return to business as usual? Because for 25 years that has gotten us nowhere. We need to start investing in what this country urgently needs: healthcare, education, and a clean environment.

After a year of anti-austerity IMF riots sweeping across the world, the Funds continued dedication to fiscal consolidation amid growing economic and debt crises across the Global South has put the potential negative social consequences of IMF loan conditions long a cardinal sin of the Fund in the eyes of its social justice activists back in the spotlight (see Observer Winter 2019). With the IMF slated to continue to play a central role in the Covid-19 response in many crisis-stricken countries, the CSO letter called on it to finally close the dark chapter on IMF-conditioned austerity for good. It went on to say that this means systematically assessing the impacts of fiscal policy reforms on gender and economic inequality and rejecting those that have negative social impacts, and recommended a number of other policy measures.

Visit link:

Civil society raises alarm about IMF's continued backing of austerity amidst pandemic - Bretton Woods Observer

By Shelley Shan / Staff reporter

National Communications Commission (NCC) Chairman Chen Yaw-shyang () yesterday said that the commission is seeking to invite expert witnesses with backgrounds in communications, finance and law to attend an administrative hearing for CTiTV News license renewal application.

However, it would not disclose the names of the witnesses in advance so that they would not be subjected to pressure before the hearing, he added.

Chen was scheduled to brief lawmakers on the NCCs performance in the past fiscal year.

Photo: Wang Yi-sung, Taipei Times

However, he faced questions from Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers about the commissions decision to hold an administrative hearing on Oct. 26 as part of its review of the news channels license renewal application.

KMT Legislator Hung Mong-kai () said that this would be the first time that the NCC held an administrative hearing for a TV news channels license renewal application since its establishment in 2006.

The commission lacks the standards to determine whether an administrative hearing should be held for a case, Hung said, adding that the decision to hold the hearing could create the impression that NCC commissioners have already decided on how they would rule.

KMT Legislator Lu Ming-che () also questioned the commissions decision.

The commission prides itself in being an open, fair and just government agency, but it has yet to disclose the list of expert witnesses scheduled to attend the hearing, he said.

Lu also asked whether the NCC would rule on the case fairly, given that it had approved the Taiwan Optical Platforms application to upgrade a variety show channel to a news channel only to overturn it within a week.

I hope you realize that you are not just handling a license renewal application. It is also a test to see if the nation can tolerate diverse opinions, he said, adding that he hopes the NCCs review would not turn into a comprehensive cleansing of news media.

Chen told lawmakers that the commission could have been accused of operating in a black box if it did not hold an administrative hearing.

However, it is still facing criticism, despite ruling unanimously to hold a hearing, he added.

People in Taiwan have freedom of speech and can access diverse public opinions. None of the news channels in the nation share the same views on issues, Chen said.

When we review CtiTV News license renewal application, we will look at its performance in the past six years. Holding an administrative hearing shows that we have thoroughly followed administrative procedures in reviewing the case, Chen added.

Comments will be moderated. Keep comments relevant to the article. Remarks containing abusive and obscene language, personal attacks of any kind or promotion will be removed and the user banned. Final decision will be at the discretion of the Taipei Times.

Read more:

NCC to invite experts to CtiTV News hearing -

Virginias 7th Congressional District is a long, skinny puzzle piece made up of suburban and rural enclaves to the west of Richmond and Fredericksburg. Its here that political analysts say were seeing one of the nations closest election races taking shape.

Six years ago, Dave Brat served up a shocking victory over then-House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in the 2014 Republican primary for the district. Riding a wave of tea party energy, Brat stunned the GOP establishment with the win. Four years later, Brat would experience an upset of his own when Democratic challenger Abigail Spanberger beat him by two points in a midterm rebuke of President Donald Trump in 2018.

But times are constantly changing, and Spanberger may have trouble winning reelection against Del. Nick Freitas, a Republican challenger from Culpeper, in a district that still leans red.

This may be one of the most closely contested races in the entire country, says Stephen Farnsworth, a political science professor at the University of Mary Washington. First-term incumbents are generally more vulnerable than people who serve for longer periods of time, so they have to work particularly aggressively to retain that seat in the first reelection. The Republicans have a stronger candidate [than Brat] this time around, and one who showed a great ability to raise money, which is a key challenge in congressional elections.

With Election Day only a month away, Spanberger and Freitas are working to connect with voters at a time when the pandemic has turned traditional campaigning on its head, and the race between President Trump and former Vice President Joe Biden and Trumps recent COVID-19 diagnosis is dominating the news cycle.

Democratic U.S. Rep. Abigail Spanberger, right, talks to a voter at the county registrars office last month. Photo by Ash Daniel

Standing outside Chesterfields Office of the General Registrar two weeks ago as dozens of voters lined the sidewalk in masks, U.S. Rep. Abigail Spanberger said running for office during the pandemic has brought many changes compared to 2018.

Everything about campaigning is different, said Spanberger, noting that her campaign has done literature drops and contactless canvassing in addition to social media and TV ads. Weve really worked to adapt to keep people safe.

Two years ago, Spanberger, who lives in Glen Allen, marshalled the forces of an extensive grassroots campaign to knock on doors, send mailers and tap into widespread anti-Trump sentiment to defeat a candidate who closely aligned himself with the president. On the heels of the #MeToo movement and Trumps election, which spurred a wave of female candidates to run for public office, Spanberger was propelled to victory by winning the suburbs of Chesterfield and Henrico by large margins.

It was almost a social movement. She generated thousands of volunteers, veteran political analyst Bob Holsworth says of Spanbergers 2018 campaign. Well have to see whether she can duplicate that same level of effort on social media, on television, that she was able to generate with a grassroots campaign in 2018.

Holsworth lauds Spanberger as a candidate, noting the amount of time shes spent in the district and her work to address issues of importance to the rural parts of the 7th, such as broadband internet and health care access. Still, Holsworth says it will be a competitive race.

By and large, its a tough district for Democrats, Holsworth says. One advantage that she does have is shes from the most populous part of the district. Shes now pretty well-known in Henrico and Chesterfield, whereas Freitas has had to introduce himself to voters in the most populous part of the district.

Farnsworth agrees that Spanbergers profile fit the district two years ago, as shes a moderate Democrat which helps in a district that still leans red with a national security background; Spanberger is a former CIA officer.

Spanberger was one of the few Democratic candidates who could have prevailed in that district as currently drawn, he says.

During her time in office, Spanberger said shes proudest of helping people in need through constituent services and legislation that addresses human and narco-trafficking, as well as 5G technology and infrastructure issues. Moving forward, she said she wants to continue working to lower prescription drug costs and protect health care. Both Spanberger and her campaign have stressed that she is bipartisan; two weeks ago, the nonprofit Common Ground Committee named her the highest-ranking Democrat among U.S. House Members, U.S. Senators and U.S. governors who seeks points of agreement and solutions on social and political issues through listening and productive conversation.

By all measures, shes a moderate Democrat. Shes not a card-carrying member of the progressive wing of the Democratic caucus in the House, says Christopher Newport University political science professor Quentin Kidd, mentioning her votes on the budget and fiscal issues. I think she fits the district really well for those reasons.

As an extension of that, Spanberger hasnt made Trump a focal point of her campaign in a district that he won four years ago with 51% of the vote.

Trump does relatively well in this district, and that is the problem that she faces, Holsworth says. Youre not seeing Spanberger link Freitas to Trump, where in other parts of Virginia that would be the campaign.

A U.S. Army veteran and former Green Beret, Freitas has served in the Virginia House of Delegates since 2015. After narrowly losing a bid to become the Republican nominee to run against U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine in 2018, Freitas announced his candidacy for Virginias 7th Congressional District last December.

Described by the Associated Press as having a conservative voting record and libertarian streak in the General Assembly, Freitas appears to have the backing of both wings of the Republican Party; both Brat and Cantor a mainstream Republican who served in Congress from 2001 to 2014 have announced their support for Freitas.

On paper hes a really good candidate, Kidd says. Nick Freitas is a much better candidate [than Brat] in the sense that hes able to fold easily into the enthusiasm thats there for Donald Trump among Republicans.

Where Brat found himself in the crosshairs of liberal protestors and had largely stopped attending open public events near the end of his 2018 campaign, Freitas has frequently held and attended political events, and his politics align more naturally with Trumps. For instance, though Brat supported Trumps 2016 bid, the former economics professor was also virulently anti-tariff, whereas Trump has imposed numerous tariffs on other countries as part of his America First economic policy.

At a breakfast meeting of the Henrico County Republican Committee in Glen Allen on Saturday morning, Freitas made little mention of Trump, painting this years elections both presidential and congressional as a fight for countrys founding political ideals. Speaking in broad, philosophical terms, he argued that Spanberger and the Democratic Party see government as the solution to what ails the country.

Del. Nick Freitas, left, speaks to attendees at a Henrico Republican Committee breakfast on Saturday morning. Photo by Ash Daniel

Her primary way to solve problems is more government power, Im going to take your money, Im going to regulate your life more, and then the government is going to do a better job of taking care of you, he told those in attendance. The biggest problem that I have with it is what it teaches people to believe about themselves. They are robbing people of the most beautiful thing that we have in this country, and that is the concept of freedom and self-determination.

He made a similar argument when reached by phone two weeks ago. In that interview, Freitas called himself a nonpartisan problem solver and said hes proudest of working on legislation in the General Assembly that expanded career technical education opportunities, apprenticeship programs and promoted government transparency. Freitas said he decided to run because he didnt like the direction Spanberger was taking in Congress.

Her voting record is incredibly partisan, and it turns out that her solution to almost every problem is more government power. Its more taxes, more regulation, he said.

If elected, Freitas said he wants to get rid of tax and regulatory burdens on businesses and enact transparency reforms. Asked about the Affordable Care Act also known as Obamacare he said he wants to repeal it and create a new system for health insurance while providing a stopgap measure to provide coverage for people with preexisting conditions. Though Freitas campaign hasnt elaborated on what he wants to see Obamacare replaced with, he tweeted on Sept. 4 that he wants a health care system that would decrease costs, increase accessibility, and cut the red tape.

Last month, PolitiFact rated the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee claim that Freitas supported a plan letting insurance companies deny coverage for preexisting conditions like asthma or diabetes as True, citing a 2014 Facebook post and his 2018 support of expanding health policies that dont comply with Obamacare and often dont cover preexisting conditions. In return, Freitas called the PolitiFact rating false and said his Facebook post was too vague to be interpreted that way.

As the weather gets cooler and coronavirus cases likely rise, Holsworth says health care will continue to be a critical issue in this campaign.

Spanberger is trying to put [Freitas] on the defensive by explaining certain votes that hes taken, Holsworth says.

Asked about Trump, Freitas said he endorses the presidents policies, including tax and criminal justice reforms enacted by his administration; on Sept. 25, Freitas spoke at Trumps campaign rally at the Newport News/Williamsburg International Airport.

Freitas has defended the Trump administrations response to a pandemic that has killed more than 209,000 people as of Monday. A day after Trump was hospitalized after testing positive for COVID-19, Freitas, who wore a mask while speaking to constituents one-on-one during the GOP breakfast in Henrico, said the deployment of medical resources and CDC guidance has largely been effective in keeping hospitals from being overwhelmed. While speaking at the breakfast meeting, however, he made no direct mention of the pandemic, or Trumps hospitalization.

Obviously, were praying for the president and the first lady just as we are the governor and the first lady here in Virginia, Freitas told a reporter afterward. (Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam and first lady Pamela Northam tested positive on Sept. 24.)

As for Trumps refusal to commit to leaving office if he loses the election, Freitas told the Observer, I think this president is always going to encourage and accept a peaceful transfer of power.

In early August, Freitas campaign became a subject of controversy for selling face masks that read COVID-19, MADE IN CHINA. The nonprofit National Korean American Service & Education Consortium issued an open letter demanding that the campaign no longer sell the masks, saying they stoke anti-Asian racism. Freitas called the group hyper partisan, and said he has no problem with the Chinese people.

I dont think there was anything racist going on, he said. Its interesting that it has become impossible to criticize a dictatorial, communist government in China without people assuming that youre engaging in racism against the Chinese people.

Despite both campaigns best efforts, the top of the ticket still appears to be hogging the spotlight.

I think the challenge for both campaigns will be how to be heard over the presidential election, Farnsworth says. The Biden versus Trump matchup will draw the bulk of the public and media attention between now and November.

Farnsworth says there arent a lot of persuadable voters in the 7th, and that the winner may ultimately come down to party affiliation.

[The] presidential election is going to ramp up turnout on both sides, but the big unknown of 2020 is what the impact of COVID is going to be when it comes to voter turnout, Farnsworth says. Early indications are there is going to be a huge increase in absentee mail-in voting because of COVID, but will the total turnout rates be higher than they were four years ago? Maybe, maybe not.

Overall, Farnsworth says this is a strange moment to run a political campaign.

This is a terrible time to run for office, he says. All of the old rules, knocking on doors, having big public rallies everything that candidates do to build their public exposure is a potential risk right now. That makes running for office unusually difficult in 2020.

The rest is here:

The Toss-up: Virginia's 7th Congressional District race may be one of the nation's closest - Chesterfield Observer

By CANDY NEALcneal@dcherald.com

Kendall

Lindauer

Two candidates are hoping that voters will choose them to represent District 63 in the Indiana House of Representatives.

Democrat Teresa Kendall is challenging Republican incumbent Shane Lindauer for the state representative seat. Early voting started Tuesday and Election Day is set for Nov. 3.

District 63 includes Bainbridge, Boone, Columbia, Hall, Harbison, Madison and Marion townships in Dubois County and parts of Pike, Daviess and Martin counties. State representatives are elected every two years.

To get some insight into each persons perspective, The Herald sent each candidate a questionnaire with a series of questions related to the representative position. Each candidate received the same questions.

The responses that follow are their answers in their own words.

Teresa Kendall

What qualities do you have (characteristics, education, experience...) that you feel would help you to be an effective representative?

I am an ISU graduate with a BS and MS in education, and a public-school teacher for 32 years. My experience in public schools has allowed me to see how state programs and policies from family and social services to education funding or building new roads, affect people in their everyday lives. I have seen firsthand what happens when a state program or a state law can change lives for the better and when some fall short. The responsibility of a state representative is to make our state government work for the people they represent and to assure that we are on a sound financial footing while using our state revenue wisely. I have taught thousands of students, worked full time while attending college, raised three kids, operated a small farm and managed a business, all valuable experience that would be an asset as the House District 63 state representative.

What two issues do you want to tackle as a representative? And what would you do, as state representative, to make change(s) in those issues?

Two issues I will pursue in the Statehouse are putting a stop to the Mid-States Corridor and fixing the education funding formula.

The Mid-States Corridor is a road that we do not need and at this time and is not a wise investment of tax dollars. Nineteen million dollars per mile, the estimated cost of the road could be used to improve the roads we have, in particular 231 that could be widened and have a passing lane added for a mere fraction of the cost and not force people to sacrifice their homes, businesses, farms and possibly destroy the Glendale Fish and Wildlife area or the Hoosier National Forest. The construction of I-69 is proof that these projects take decades to complete and do not bring the jobs and increased revenue promised. We need improved infrastructure, but it should be beneficial to all local businesses which include farms and small businesses located in the district.

The education funding formula will also be a priority for me as a state representative. Currently District 63 schools lose millions to fund private schools in other counties. In 2019 alone, $1.4 million was sent to Marion, Allen and Lake county private schools while local public-school districts had to raise taxes to cover that shortfall. Eliminating payments to private schools would support our schools without a tax increase. Public schools are one of the most important factors in the economic development of a community, and it is vital that the formula used to fund the operations of our schools is fair and equitable across the state. We need to fix that formula, so schools have the funds they need to operate, and teachers are compensated fairly. We should be investing in our children and communities, and I will make that my top priority.

What is the best indicator of economic health (stock market, unemployment rate, income)? Based on those indicators, what is your opinion of Indianas economic health?

Economic health has symptoms that can give us a picture of what is happening, and I believe that the unemployment rate is one indicator that tell us what is going on. We can also use data from home sales, tax revenue collection and even population growth. There are also economic health warnings such as large income disparity, and loss of small businesses. Currently House District 63 seems to be in better shape than most of the country, but we need to invest in things that bring people to our area to work and live, like health care, better access to broadband internet and affordable middle income housing. Those are the factors that will keep and attract people to live and work in our area and will improve our economy.

Should Indiana offer businesses tax incentives/breaks at this time? Why or why not?

Tax incentives could and should be used, but they must be applied carefully and only for the benefit of the most people, such as a company that will add jobs. These incentives should be used in a way that will allow local businesses to expand and add jobs or keep the jobs that currently exist.

Would you support cutting social services if it meant lower taxes? Or would you support higher taxes if it meant more services? Why?

Many social services are funded by federal programs, but local services such as Tri-Cap, township trustees and charities that would depend on grants or tax funded programs should not be decreased, and there are times when an increase is justified. They are literally a lifeline for many families that are caught in circumstances beyond their control. Whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me, Matthew 25:40.

Why do you want to be a member of the Indiana House of Representatives? Why should I vote for you?

I care deeply for public education, agriculture, the environment and providing support for communities in District 63. I know that as a member of the Legislature, I will be able to be a steward of our tax dollars and a part of making good decisions that benefit the people of the district. As a representative I will be accessible to everyone and listen to what constituents have to say. I will be transparent about political funds, my voting decisions and how money is spent for our district so that people feel there is someone in the Legislature that truly represents them.

Shane Lindauer

What qualities do you have (characteristics, education, experience...) that you feel would help you to be an effective representative?

I believe that first and foremost, our elected officials need to have a servants heart. In the end, we work for our constituents, and we need to be available to those we represent whether we agree on an issue or not. The promise I have made to many people since being in this office, and I make again now, is that while I am going to do things you may disagree with, I will always give you an honest hearing and sincerely try to understand your position. Sometimes, we may come to see eye to eye, sometimes not, but those of us in public office must be willing to listen, seek understanding and help when and if we can. This is what it means to me to have a servants heart. This is the number one characteristic, which I believe supersedes any education or experience, a public servant needs to possess.

What two issues do you want to tackle as a representative? And what would you do, as state representative, to make change(s) in those issues?

Limiting to just two issues would be difficult. Since being in the legislature, I have had a strong focus on legislation that looks to get government out of our lives. The government is a bureaucracy, and bureaucracies tend to always grow. I have tried to find ways, and plan on doing so again if re-elected, that will responsibly remove barriers from our lives. Government agencies continue to interject themselves into our everyday lives. Even in Indiana, it has become ubiquitous. I hope to find ways to scale back overburdensome regulations.

Certainly, the lives of the unborn are extremely important to me. I have, and will continue to advocate for the pro-life position. Indiana has been one of the states at the forefront of pro-life legislation. I plan to continue to find ways in which we can advance this cause.

Also, I am an advocate for protecting our constitutional rights, especially to speech, religious freedom and our right to keep and bear arms. These will always be issues about which I am particularly passionate.

What is the best indicator of economic health (stock market, unemployment rate, income)? Based on those indicators, what is your opinion of Indianas economic health?

I dont believe that we can, or should, look at any one indicator to determine economic health. To make effective public policy, we need to look at as many metrics as possible. With that said, I believe that Indianas economic health was in great shape prior to COVID. Obviously, COVID changed things drastically. But prior to COVID, Indiana consistently had a unemployment rate below the national average, one of the best states for entrepreneurs and overall business climate, and a low cost of living. Unlike some of our neighbors, Indianas pension fund was in good shape. We had a balanced budget with a robust rainy day fund. Now, after COVID, there are new challenges, but I am certainly glad that the Indiana General Assembly has practiced fiscally conservative policies the past decade or so. This fact will certainly allow for a smoother recovery.

Should Indiana offer businesses tax incentives/breaks at this time? Why or why not?

Tax incentives are tools that allow businesses, or people, to keep more of the money that they earn or create. Some believe that by allowing tax breaks, we are somehow taking government money. In reality, tax money is our money ceded to government. With that said, the question would come down to what type of incentive? They are not all equal. Also, are the incentives fairly applied and available to all businesses provided that they meet the performance metrics? These are all questions that would need to be answered.

Would you support cutting social services if it meant lower taxes? Or would you support higher taxes if it meant more services? Why?

As state representative, other than those social services prescribed in the Indiana Constitution, I believe that social services, when provided, should be done at the local level (i.e. city, county, township). Likewise, taxes for those services should be handled by local units as well. As for the raising or lowering of taxes for state level services, I dont believe we are in a position to know yet how Indianas financial situation will shake out. However, because of past fiscal responsibility, we are hopeful that we dont need to either cut services or raise taxes.

Why do you want to be a member of the Indiana House of Representatives? Why should I vote for you?

My desire to be a state representative stems from my belief that we should be good stewards of that which God has blessed us. Namely, a system of government that is of, by and for the people. In reality, we the people are the government. I am just a representative. It is important that we elect people who understand this fact. It has been a true honor to have been in this position the past three years. I would be honored to have your vote and continue that representation.

Link:

Candidates want to represent district in Statehouse - The Herald

by Joe Moses

The Waukon City Council met twice within a week this past week. A special session was held Tuesday, September 29 at the former JCPenney/Tierneys building in downtown Waukon and the councils regular session was held Monday, October 5 at Waukon City Hall. Coverage of both meetings is provided below.

SEPTEMBER 29 SPECIAL SESSIONThe council met in special session Tuesday, September 29 at the former JCPenney/Tierneys building in downtown Waukon, located at the stoplight intersection at 12 West Main Street, for a presentation by Arturo Barreda and Jose Velarde, both of Waukon, relating to a proposed restaurant at that location. Barreda and Velarde, owners of Fajitas Grill in Lansing and Fiesta Vallarta in Waukon, presented information and answered questions from the council relating to a proposed steakhouse restaurant at the former Tierneys location. Floor plan and concept drawings illustrated plans for the building with Barreda and Velarde providing an overview of the restaurant concept.

Director Ardie Kuhse of Waukon Economic Development Corporation (WEDC) provided feedback relating to a proposed grant application through Iowa Economic Developments Community Catalyst Building Remediation Program. Kuhse discussed the application process for this grant, which could potentially contribute up to $100,000 to the renovation of the former JCPenney/Tierneys building. Kuhse advised that the project meets seven of ten criteria requirements necessary for the grant application.

The proposal from Barreda and Velarde for the estimated $400,000 building remodel was divided into three funding sources, including the Catalyst Grant at $100,000, a contribution of $200,000 from the business owners and a $100,000 contribution from the City. From an economic development standpoint, the project was discussed as being advantageous to the City with the alternative of tearing down the building, dirt fill, concrete and repairs to the shared common wall with the adjacent building likely costing an estimated $150,000-$200,000 without the economic benefit of a destination restaurant at the location. The council was in agreement to further discuss and potentially take official action relating to the grant pre-application at the next council meeting, which was scheduled for Monday, October 5 and is covered below in this same article.

City Manager Gary Boden provided an update relating to the demolition contract for 105 First Street NW, the former McMillan property across the street from the Waukon Police Station, provided by Blake Excavating as low bidder. Boden suggested that the contract falls within his spending authority and discussed plans to proceed with Blake Excavating on this project.

Boden and the council also discussed options relating to the Waukon Wellness Centers heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) system. Boden advised that a short-term repair option may allow the current HVAC system to operate another five to seven years with a more extensive long-term HVAC replacement being an option at a much greater cost.

Boden recommended moving forward with the short-term repair option in the $80,000-$100,000 range as a five- to seven-year repair with the complete HVAC replacement estimate in the $500,000 range as a long-term option. Boden advised that a short-term repair expense would be funded 50% by the City, 25% by the Allamakee Community School District and 25% funded by the Waukon Wellness Center. The council and Boden discussed ongoing HVAC cleaning and maintenance with council member John Ellingson adding that a maintenance position should be considered for maintaining City Hall and other City facilities.

The council moved into the Resolution approving the Official Financial Report for City Streets and Parking for July 1, 2019 to June 30, 2020, with the council approving the matter.

Prior to adjournment, the council discussed several miscellaneous matters. Council member Arvid Hatlan suggested that ATV/UTV use within the city should be discussed with speed being a safety concern on residential streets. Boden advised that there may be some short-term staffing concerns with the Waukon Police Department through the end of the year with additional part-time officers being an option.

Kuhse said that she has received questions from the public relating to plans for Halloween within the city. Kuhse mentioned the Trunk or Treat event will be taking place but a decision and announcement relating to trick or treating in residential areas may be advisable.OCTOBER 5 REGULAR SESSIONAfter the Monday, October 5 regular meeting of the Waukon City Council was called to order, Mayor Pat Stone read aloud the Buddy Poppies Proclamation which encourages individuals, businesses and organizations to support this fundraising campaign benefiting disabled veterans and the families of deceased veterans while honoring all veterans who have risked their lives defending our freedom. The Proclamation indicated the distribution of Buddy Poppies by the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) will take place Friday, October 16 in Waukon.

There was no Public Comment and the council moved into Department Reports with Street Superintendent Keith Burrett providing an update, first noting that he will be seeking additional bids from a contractor relating to chip sealing of streets next year. Burrett also discussed a recent spill from Aveka Nutra Processing resulting in 8,000 gallons of water entering the storm sewer and eight hours of labor with City Manager Gary Boden determining the cost to be assessed to Aveka. Stone and Burrett also discussed tree trimming on Third Avenue SW.

Director Cate St. Clair of Robey Memorial Library provided an update indicating that two custodians from TASC will be returning to work at the library following a precautionary quarantine. St. Clair advised that library staff is receiving a lot of technology questions from children relating to Zoom web-conferencing and online matters with school resuming. St. Clair added that the library has wireless internet available 24/7 which can be of assistance to students. St. Clair said that there has been an influx of Decorah area residents with that citys library remaining closed. St. Clair said that traditional childrens programming for October has been canceled but as an alternative, activities like Chalk the Walk are being offered and encouraged. St. Clair discussed the recent book sale as being a successful event bringing in over $250 in just two days. St. Clair also recognized the efforts of Neal Daley as a volunteer helping with gardening upkeep.

Park, Rec and Wellness Director Jeremy Strub discussed heating system repairs taking place at the Waukon Wellness Center with work also being done by an engineer relating to the heating system in the long term. Strub indicated that use of the Wellness Center has increased and that fall activities are underway.

Waukon Police Chief Paul Wagner reported that an employment offer has been made and that he likely will be able to provide the name of the new officer hire at the next council meeting. Wagner mentioned that the housing of stray dogs is an issue that will need to be discussed. Wagner also said that he recently received a couple of speed complaints relating to Third Avenue NW, which he said is one of the more frequently patrolled residential streets in Waukon.

Water and Sewer Superintendent Jim Cooper provided an update relating to the fish kill resulting from the July 20 yeast spill at Aveka. Cooper said he received an email from the DNR indicating that no monetary fine has been issued but enforcement actions are still under consideration. Cooper also provided an update about the Hidden Creek Lift Station, which he indicated is up and running, has fencing installed and the generator is functioning well. Cooper also discussed some concerns with the noise level of the generators exhaust system with council member Arvid Hatlan advising against any changes to the exhaust or addition of a muffler which may void the generators warranty.

Cooper also discussed the benefits of having a contractor perform leak detection which allowed a few leaks to be repaired and resulted in a noticeable water use reduction. Cooper thanked the Park and Rec Department for its assistance in grass mowing when his department was recently short-handed. He also provided an update relating to the new wastewater treatment facility with cement work being completed and the project progressing well.

Boden provided the City Managers Report and discussed two City employees returning to work following quarantine. Boden provided an update relating to a dead or dying tree between two properties on Second Avenue NW, with both property owners to be notified about costs associated with the tree removal by the City. Boden indicated that a proposal for grant writing services has been received and that a contractor will be at City Hall within the next few weeks to begin the process of upgrading the council chambers audio and video capabilities.

Stone provided the Mayors Report and discussed recent communications with Avekas CEO Willie Hendrickson. Stone said that Hendrickson will be part of the next council meeting via Zoom web-conferencing and will be providing a plan in writing in the next week to address concerns relating to spills and discharges into the storm sewer.

Council member John Ellingson provided the City Council Report and discussed recent email from a resident relating to the possibility of vacating a portion of property on Fourth Street SW. Ellingson discussed feedback he has received relating to ATV/UTV use with one positive comment and three complaints. Ellingson said that he has noticed some instances of ATV/UTV speeding on the street near his home. Ellingson noted that the Police Department is monitoring this issue in town and enforcing the posted speed limit with this being a public safety concern.

The Public Hearing for the Amendment of Fiscal-Year (FY) 2020-2021 City Budget for the City of Waukon was opened and closed with Finance Director Lana Snitker indicating that no verbal or written comments have been received. Two resolutions were individually reviewed and approved including the Resolution Approving the Amendment #1 of the FY 2020-2021 City Budget for the City of Waukon and the Resolution Accepting work covering the Proposed Tennis Court Project.

The council moved into the consideration of modifying three ordinances to match State Code updates. Each ordinance was individually reviewed with the second and third readings waived with adoption including Senate File (SF)457 increasing the minimum fine for City Code violations, SF 2268 increasing the minimum age for possession or use of any tobacco product and House File (HF)760 providing additional exemptions from the hotel/motel tax.

The council reviewed and approved claims including the Tennis Court Project Pay Application #4 and the Police Station Renovation Project Change Order #1, Pay Application #1 and Change Order #2.

Wagner provided an update relating to the Waukon Police Station Renovation Project and discussed a recent walk-through with the contractor. Wagner discussed the south windows, which have been removed and are being filled in, and concrete flooring that has been removed. Wagner advised that the garage door will be replaced due to its poor condition and needing to be slightly reconfigured to allow more space for insulation.

The council discussed setting a date and time for Halloween trick or treating. Concerns relating to COVID-19 were discussed with guidelines from the Iowa Department of Health and CDC being mentioned which advise against traditional door-to-door trick-or-treating or trunk-or-treating. The council was in agreement that residents and parents should decide for themselves as to whether or not to accept this risk, to participate in giving out candy or to allow children to participate in trick-or-treating. Boden indicated that he will research what hours were used last year for trick-or-treating and make a decision and announcement administratively.

The council moved into the discussion of authorizing the pre-application for the Catalyst Grant for the former JCPenney/Tierneys building toured by the council last week. Council member Gayle Decker discussed concerns relating to the project with additional information being needed from the business owners including more information on renovation costs. Ellingson advised that the application should be approved to allow the pre-application to move forward in a timely manner with the council or business owners having the option to stop the application process at a later time. Ellingson said that with the building being vacant for quite some time, it would be a mistake for the City to not explore this opportunity. The council approved to move forward with the pre-application with Decker voting against the matter.

Boden addressed the next agenda item relating to Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) with the first matter involving the authorization for the owner-occupied rehabilitation program. Boden said that Upper Explorerland Regional Planning Commission (UERPC) will be administering these grants relating to the rehabilitation of several buildings. The council approved to have Boden proceed on this matter.

The second matter involved the authorization of an upper story redevelopment grant for properties at 504 and 506 West Main Street now owned by Daryl Hansmeier. The grant request relates to the upper story renovation of each building to create apartments. The council indicated that the structural integrity of the buildings should be determined prior to the City sponsoring this project. No action was taken.

The council moved into discussion of Fair Board related issues. The 28E agreement between the City and the Fair Board was addressed by the council. Allamakee County Fair Board President Tyler Plein discussed improvements that the Fair Board would like to make to the property including the sewer line from the Pavilion, which has had issues during the winter months. The Citys ownership of the fairgrounds was discussed with the Fair Board being responsible for the buildings. Plein and the council discussed the 28E agreement, which has expired, and will be reviewed and possibly adjusted to fit current needs. Plein also discussed the placement of signage that will promote the Allamakee County Fair and events to be held at the Pavilion.

Boden provided a status update on parking at the Good Samaritan Society in Waukon, noting that negotiations have stalled with their request to vacate some right of way, sidewalk and boulevard area to create additional parking. Good Samaritan Society-Waukon Administrator Cathy Taylor provided additional feedback and indicated that their request would be an improvement for the community, improve safety and create additional parking. Following discussion, the council agreed to have a committee comprised of a few council members view the proposed area with Taylor and provide a recommendation.

The council discussed ATV/UTV speed within city limits. Council member Arvid Hatlan indicated that he is not against ATV use but several speed complaints have been received with hard braking and tire squealing being issues at speeds above the posted 15 m.p.h. speed limit. Hatlan and Ellingson discussed enforcement of the speed limit for ATVs.

Prior to adjournment, Ellingson recommended that a maintenance position should be considered to aid in the upkeep and maintenance of all City facilities. Ellingson indicated that he was introducing this idea now for future budget-related discussions. Hatlan added that this proposed position could be part of several department budgets with the library and City Hall, among other City buildings, to benefit from a maintenance position.

Continued here:

Waukon City Council hears restaurant proposal for former JCPenney/Tierney's building, leaves trick-or-treat participation decision this year up to...

The future of transportation in the Fraser Valley and the NDP governments decision to call an election led to the most engaging moments of Tuesdays all-candidates debate for the Abbotsford West riding.

The meeting was held over Zoom, and jointly sponsored by the Abbotsford Chamber of Commerce, Fraser Valley Real Estate Board, and Fraser Valley Indo-Canadian Business Association.

To watch this or others all-candidate forums, voters can go to the Abbotsford Chamber of Commerces Facebook page. Videos of the Abbotsford West and Abbotsford-Mission meetings are expected to be posted Wednesday. A virtual all-candidates forum will be held Thursday. Residents can sign up on the chambers website to watch on Zoom, or can view a recording of the video afterwards on the chambers website.

Asked about plans to manage growth in the region, candidates pointed to the need to make it easier for people to get around.

RELATED: Final candidate list for Abbotsford ridings revealed

BC Liberal Michael de Jong took aim at the NDPs lack of action on widening Highway 1, calling it a parking lot, and saying plans were in place to widen it three years ago, when the NDP took office. Conservative Michael Henshall agreed, using the same description, but telling de Jong that he and his party are also to blame for the fiasco during their years in office.

Later in the meeting, Preet Rai, the NDPs candidate in the riding, said Highway 1 was one of his three top priorities for the region, along with seniors care and health care. But he never explained what, exactly, his party would do to address congestion on the main thoroughfare.

Only later, after the meeting had concluded, did the NDP amend its online platform to correct an error in which they had promised to widen Fraser Highway instead of, as intended, Highway 1 by 2026.

RELATED: BC NDP corrects platform & promises to widen Highway 1, not Fraser Highway

The NDP government has launched a study of transportation in the Fraser Valley, but again it was candidates from other parties who stressed the need to bring some form of light rail to Abbotsford.

De Jong and the Greens Kevin Eastwood each mentioned rail as one of the top priorities if they were to become MLA.

Weve got a very diverse country and there are a lot of newcomers to Canada, so I think projects like transit, rail for the valley, increased bus service are really effective ways to ensure that everyone in our community can enjoy the freedom to move around, to visit local businesses, Eastwood said.

De Jong said bringing SkyTrain to Abbotsford is unlikely to be affordable, but that a light-rail tie-in with SkyTrain should be prioritized.

The time has come to move beyond conceptual discussions and look at how we can get light rail and transportation on the south side of the river out to Abby and beyond, he said.

Henshall concurred, saying light rail needs to be done now.

Three of the four participants in the virtual debate Eastwood, de Jong and Rai were familiar with each other, having all run in the same riding three years ago. And while that meeting in 2017 saw de Jong speak about his partys successes and warn about the NDPs inability to manage an economy, the tables were turned for Tuesdays meeting.

Rai spent most of his available time stressing his partys record over the past three years in improving social services while keeping the economy running and the budget balanced until COVID-19 hit.

Fiscal and economic performance has been better under the NDP than the BC Liberals, Rai claimed.

Rai said the NDPs work to build thousands of new social housing units, cap rental increases and implement a speculation tax were helping those struggling with the cost of living.

De Jong, though, said more needs to be done to help expedite the building of new homes, including, if necessary, enacting legislation to require municipalities to speed up the approval process.

Henshall regularly hit out at the fiscal and social mismanagement of governments led by both major parties, while stressing the need for personal responsibility.

The amiable back-and-forth between candidates concluded with de Jong pointedly asking Rai to explain why the NDP felt the need to call an election.

The thing people have asked me the most in the past two weeks is: Why are we having an election in the middle of a global pandemic when we cant even gather? he said. He then asked Rai if he was embarrassed about his leaders decision to send voters to the polls.

Each candidate had been given four rebuttal cards to spar with one another. But Rai, who had three cards, declined to answer the question and defend the decision to call an election.

De Jong had also asked the Eastwood for his thoughts, and the second-time Green candidate took the baton and ran with it, saying the snap election significantly disadvantaged candidates without extensive political experience.

The cynical viewpoint would be that this election was called with the aim of securing a majority government, he said. But the popularity of this recent government has been working with a party in opposition and I think being more accountable to the people of B.C. than we ever had.

An election right now, for myself, was very difficult and there are these all-star candidates that are being called in but weve missed an opportunity as British Columbians to include those candidates who need more support or who are new to politics who come from different backgrounds to bring more diversity and new ideas to have younger candidates running. Calling a snap election in the middle of a pandemic when people are really struggling, I think, presents an unfair barrier to folks to whom getting involved in politics is a challenge at the best of times.

Do you have something to add to this story, or something else we should report on? Email:tolsen@abbynews.com

@ty_olsenLike us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter

View original post here:

Abbotsford West candidates spar on Highway 1, light rail, housing and snap election - Abbotsford News

South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem addressed a special special session of the state legislature this morning (Oct. 5, 2020) prior to legislators formulating a plan on how to spend around $600 million in federal Coronavirus Relief Fund dollars.

Below are her comments, as prepared:

Lieutenant Governor Rhoden, Mr. Speaker, members of the legislature, and to all those listening in at home good morning.

The last time I saw many of you, we didnt know what to expect with COVID-19.

Here we are nearly 7 months later. Though there is still much to learn, we have a better sense for the common enemy were fighting.

Before we turn to the business of the day, Id like to remind you of where weve been, where we are at today, and where we still need to go.

In South Dakota, the team at the Department of Health began to study this virus long before it ever reached our state. In January, my weekly briefings began, and the website weve all relied on for information for many months now, COVID.SD.GOV, was launched. On February 10th, we activated our Emergency Operations Center. And a month later, on March 10th, the state had its first known cases and reported death.

Our initial models showed a very troubling situation: we could expect as many as six hundred thousand people sick. And at our worst point, we could have up to 10,000 South Dakotans in the hospital.

In addition to these dire numbers, there were many unknowns. How was the virus spreading? Who was most likely to get it? How sick would they be? How would we manage the tens of thousands of illnesses all at once? Are there any treatments? And on and on.

Though we knew very little about the virus in those early days, heres what we did know.

We knew that Secretary Kim Malsam-Rysdon and her team at the Department of Health were among the very best in the country.

We knew we had some of the finest medical professionals in the country. And we knew that, together, we were going to find a way to get through this.

We turned to the science, the facts, and the data, to get a handle on what was happening on the ground in South Dakota.

We asked the chief executives and chief medical officers at Avera, Monument, and Sanford to help us understand this virus.

We asked South Dakotans to be extra diligent about their personal hygiene and to stay home if they were sick.

For two months, we held nearly daily press conferences to share all the information we had about this virus.

In other words, as a community, we got to work.

With the help of our medical professionals and the South Dakota National Guard, we ramped up our hospital capacity. We started finding ways to get supplies distributed.

Our schools moved to an online instruction model.

Our restaurants and cafes moved to curbside pickup.

Our people social distanced and in many cases stayed home.

I remind you of all of this because, while we were working together and preparing as a state, many of other states were taking a very different approach. Some ordered their citizens to shelter in place. Ordered businesses to lock down. And churches to close. Some even sent nursing home patients who had the virus back into their facilities.

The mainstream media told us that these steps had to be taken to slow the spread of the virus. Day after day, and night after night, they insisted that every decision I was making was wrong. That I was foolish to trust my people. And I was even sillier to respect the oaths I took. They told me I should shut my state down.

As you all might imagine, these last seven months have been quite lonely at times.

But earlier this week, one very prominent national reporter sent me a note that said: Governor, if you hadnt stood against lockdowns, wed have no proof of just how useless they really have been.

The work of what we were doing wasnt just me. It was the team at the Department of Health, the countless medical professionals across our state, it was teachers, law enforcement officers, grocers, small business owners, moms, dads, grandparents, you name it. It was every single one of your constituents the people of South Dakota that made our approach work.

We all know that the science tells us we cannot stop this virus. Our goal from day one was to slow the spread and free up hospital capacity for those who may need higher levels of care. We accomplished that.

Even with the recent uptick of cases across the Midwest, in South Dakota, only 10 percent of hospital capacity is taken up with COVID patients.

And, according to the senior leadership at Avera, Monument, and Sanford, they have greatly improved treatment. Today, most of the people who are hospitalized for COVID are not getting as sick, or staying as long, in the hospital. Which is outstanding news.

In addition to the health care side of this equation, were also closely monitoring the social and economic ramifications of the virus.

I recently had the chance to visit with a single mom with two little girls from another state. Her state is locked down. Those young girls have been doing 100% distance learning for months. This mom is working full-time from home. And she is struggling.

At first, she could balance her work with what she needed to do to help her kids with school. But now, it seems like this horrible situation will never end. I could hear the fatigue in her voice. I could see the anxiety on her face. She is fed up, angry, and in need of relief. My heart hurt listening to her story.

And its just one of many like it. From moms and dads to small business owners and their employees, Ive had a chance to visit with a lot of Americans across this country that are tired and in need of relief.

COVID-19 has posed challenges for South Dakota too. But we took a different path. We gave our people the freedom to avoid impossible situations like the single mom I visited with.

In South Dakota, we didnt take a one-size-fits-all approach. And the results have been incredible.

We had the fewest low-income job losses of any state in the region, and weve already recovered those losses. Our unemployment rate is the 4th lowest in America, already back down to 4.8%. When the virus first hit, every states economy shrunk. But our state had the 2nd smallest losses. We closed the 2020 budget year with a $19 million dollar surplus. And our general fund revenues are up 8.7% so far this fiscal year.

Because of the path we took, a surge of people want to move to South Dakota. They want to live, work, and play in a place that respects their rights and freedom.

This news is encouraging, but many South Dakotans have still faced serious challenges. Many have struggled financially. Some have had loved ones get sick. And some of us have lost friends and family.

This body knows loss just like so many other communities across South Dakota. Bob Glanzer was a man of true integrity and someone I greatly respected. He epitomized what it means to be a true statesman. He worked tirelessly for the people of Beadle and Kingsbury counties, as well as for our entire state. Bryon and I will miss him dearly, and we extend our deepest sympathies to Penny and his entire family. Id like to ask that we all please stand for a moment of silence to remember Bob and ALL the South Dakotans we have lost to this horrible virus.

Our new normal may be very different from the past, but dont ever forget this one fundamental truth the windshield is so much bigger than the rearview mirror for a reason. In South Dakota, we always confront adversity and emerge into even greater prosperity. The future our future is bright. Hope is in front of us. We will emerge stronger than ever before.

That brings us to todays task. The federal government sent South Dakota $1.25 billion dollars from the Coronavirus Relief Fund. Ive spent countless hours on the phone and out in D.C. asking for flexibility in how South Dakota can spend this money. But the Department of Treasury tells us that this money can only be used to cover costs very specific costs. If youve not read their guidance, I urge you to do so.

My team has spent many hours talking to you and South Dakotans about Treasurys guidance.

In order to comply with the law, these funds must be used in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes many costs incurred by the state, by cities and counties, and by education institutions. We can also use the funds to help private entities if they can show they were negatively impacted by COVID. These expenses, though, had to be incurred between March 1st and December 30th of this year. And all the money has to be spent by December 30th. Not just set aside. Not obligated in a contract. Actually spent.

Ill keep pushing Congress to provide greater flexibility, especially as it relates to this deadline. And they may come back and pass something before the upcoming election, or even in a lame duck session.

But thats why whatever you adopt should be flexible. It should account for whether Congress acts or doesnt act.

I think its important that we all recognize the tremendous work the interim appropriations committee and all the policy committees have done leading up to today. I dont know of another issue that has been discussed by so many different committees prior to the legislature acting. Would you please join me in acknowledging those efforts?

To date, weve allocated funding for state and local governments to respond to the virus.

Tourism, the number two industry in the state, has taken a tremendous hit. Treasury specifically says we can use this money on tourism efforts. I think many of you have seen our ads promoting the state. As a result, our state parks have been packed with visitors from across the country who want to escape their lockdowns and explore our wide-open spaces.

Treasury allows us to spend up to $500 dollars per student to help schools get back to normal, so we set aside $75 million dollars for schools.

Weve also suggested a framework for small business grants for those who can demonstrate a loss because of COVID. And community-based healthcare grants as well, for those taking care of some of our most vulnerable.

Originally posted here:

Noem urges legislators to carefully follow US Treasury guidelines while deciding how to spend a portion of the state's Coronavirus Relief Fund dollars...