House Republicans face the possibility of failing to pass a full budget resolution for the second year in a row, despite making progress on their goals for a fiscal 2018 budget resolution.

The stakes are much higher than last year as the budget, through the reconciliation process, has become a tool for Republicans to advance legislation without Democratic support, something they lack on nearly all of their top priorities.

Passing a budget resolution is key to the GOP goal to overhaul the tax system and helps kick-start the appropriations process because it sets topline budget numbers. Failure to adopt the fiscal blueprint would further illustrate how Republican divisions are stalling the legislative agenda in a year where GOP leaders have ambitious goals underunified government.

If we do not get a budget, most of what we want to accomplish as Republicans will take a major setback, House Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadowsof North Carolina said.

Rep. Tom Cole, who serves on the Budget and Appropriations committees, said finding agreement on the budget is always difficult given competing priorities among defense hawks, fiscal conservatives and appropriators, but its become more so after the House failed to get a deal last year.

Weve proven that Republicans can actually fail at [adopting] a budget when were in the majority, the Oklahoma Republican said. Weve never done that before. I thought it was a really bad thing then. I think youll see the consequences more [now].

The budget resolution, which will be among the topics discussed during a House Republican Conference meeting on fiscal issues on Wednesday (it was originally expected to be discussed at a meeting on Friday but was moved up), is where lawmakers typically unveil a topline spending number for the upcoming fiscal year. Last year, disagreement over the topline is what prevented House Republicans from passing a full budget; Senate Republicans never really tried.

The topline spending number is still a point of contention. The spending caps enacted as part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 set fiscal 2018 spending levels at $549 billion for defense and $516 billion for nondefense discretionary funds.

Any changes to those topline levels need to pass both chambers of Congress to be enforceable, requiring 60 votes in the Senate.

Most Republicans want to boost defense spending (although they do not agree on the amount), but Democrats would likely only agree to a defense increase if it includes hikes indomestic spending. Previously, Democrats have insisted on, and secured, a dollar-per-dollar increase, something that is a nonstarter for conservatives, Meadows said.

In a meeting Thursday, Republicans on the House Budget Committee discussed topline spending numbers of $620 billion for defense about halfway between President Donald Trumps proposed $603 billion and the $640 billion called for by defense hawks and $511 billion for nondefense discretionary spending. Such a split, which is not finalized, is unlikely to get Democratic votes, and its unclear if it could garner enough Republican votes.

GOP appropriators haveexpressed concern about moving forward with budget numbers that Democrats have not agreed to because it could create problems with getting the appropriations bills done.

Anybody that thinks youre just going to deal the Democrats out of the appropriations process is just being naive, Cole said.

Finding the sweet spot on spending is more complicated this year because its become wrapped up in Republican negotiations over what fiscal policies to include in the budgets reconciliation instructions. The plan the GOP had mapped out in January was to use the fiscal 2018 budget reconciliation process to overhaul the tax code, but some Republicans are pushing for more.

House Freedom Caucus leaders have said their hard-line conservative membership, which prefers a lower spending baseline, is open to an increase in the topline number in exchange for a specific dollar amount of mandatory spending cuts in the reconciliation instructions. While the Freedom Caucus has yet to take a position on a specific proposal to that end, theyve been discussing the idea of looking to welfare programs such as theSupplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families to achieve savings.

If the budget reconciliation [instructions] are definitive and preconditioned, then youll find great flexibility on spending numbers of those fiscal conservatives who believe that they can make some short-term adjustments in exchange for long-term mandatory reforms, Meadows said.

Leadership has been toying with the idea of including mandatory spending cut instructions but have yet to publicly back any specific proposal. Behind closed doors, theyve discussed tasking each committee with spending jurisdiction with finding $1 billion in savings, but Meadows said that would not be enough to appease conservatives.

Budget Committee Republicans discussed a target of $150 billion in mandatory savings during their Thursday meeting. That number may be too much for moderates to stomach.

Further complicating matters is a perception among some members that the Senate may not pass a budget.

Is the Senate interested in passing a budget? New York GOP Rep. Chris Collins said. Because were not so sure that they are. And if we dont have an indication that were on the same page as the Senate, why would we in the House work on something thats going to be very controversial and give our opponents lots of potential to distort, exaggerate or highlight things that would not be helpful?

Collins said theres an interest among moderate Republicans in a bipartisan tax overhaul, which would eliminate the need to use the budget reconciliation process.

If we try to do this on our own, its fraught with peril, he said.

A Senate GOP aide said the chamber does intend to pass a fiscal 2018 budget resolution but the timeline for that remains unclear. The Senate is currently busy trying to find the votes to pass a health care overhaul, which is moving through the fiscal 2017 budget reconciliation process.

House Budget Chairwoman Diane Black of Tennessee has met with the Freedom Caucus, the Tuesday Group and the Republican Study Committee in recent weeks to gather ideas across the conference. Despite the differing opinions on the topline, as well as what should be included in the reconciliation instructions, Black has expressed confidence that the House will pass a budget this year.

Well get something done, she said last week. Its just a matter of making sure we have all the pieces together.

Some more pessimistic members have raised the prospect of needing to pass another so-called shell budget, the bare minimum needed to set up the reconciliation process for a tax overhaul. Republicans passed a fiscal 2017 shell budget earlier this year to create the reconciliation instructions for a health care overhaul but billed that as a one-time solution.

GOP leadersmay struggle to find the votes for another shell budget, if it comes to that. But theyre hoping it wont.

Were going to put out a budget thats a real budget, Black said. No shells.

Paul M. Krawzakand Joe Williams contributed to this report.

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

Read more from the original source:

Prospect of Repeat Budget Failure Puts Pressure on Republicans - Roll Call

"I'd like to see that done earlier," said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas when asked about lifting the debt ceiling in September. | AP Photo

Senate Republicans are planning for a July vote to raise the debt ceiling, according to senators and aides.

But House Republicans aren't prepared to show their hand yet, although they also hope to resolve the issue before the August recess begins. Yet with a possible health care vote in July if the Senate passes a bill top House Republicans are worried that the two issues could become entangled politically, making two already difficult votes even tougher.

Story Continued Below

Though the Treasury Department has said Congress can likely wait until September to avoid default, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his lieutenants are increasingly disposed to clearing the Senates plate as much as possible before heading home for August recess. That would also likely mean decoupling the debt ceiling from a potential government shutdown fight in September.

Its not clear what exactly such a bill would look like, but members of both parties are interested in a broad spending deal that would avoid the blunt budget cuts of sequestration. A clean debt ceiling increase one with no policy strings or cuts attached might be a problem for a GOP majority filled with fiscal conservatives.

There is also an emerging consensus among Hill leaders that the debt ceiling currently $20 trillion should be raised by an amount large enough to preclude another vote for several years. This would make it politically dicey for fiscal conservatives, yet it would be easier for most rank-and-file lawmakers to just have one vote this Congress.

Id like to see that done earlier, said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn of Texas when asked about lifting the debt ceiling in September. Im hoping there will be a negotiation on spending caps. Maybe it will be part of that.

A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

On Monday, Republican Senate staffers were provided new schedule guidance laying out that the preferred debt deadline is before the August break.

In the House, GOP leaders have not formally settled on a plan to raise the debt ceiling, according to multiple sources. The topic, which is toxic for many in the more right-leaning chamber, is expected to be discussed Wednesday morning during a GOP Conference meeting on the budget and appropriations process.

Conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus have called for spending cuts to accompany any increase in the nations borrowing limit, and more than a few GOP leadership allies have bristled at the idea of doing a clean debt ceiling increase, as Democrats have demanded in previous years.

But GOP leaders in the House are eyeing whats feasible in the chamber across Capitol Hill. And since Senate Democrats will never go for spending cuts, the idea will likely remain a far-off hard-liner dream.

There may be some rank-and-file support among House Republicans to piece together a bipartisan budget deal to raise spending caps, as is being discussed in the Senate. More than 141 defense-minded House Republicans signed a letter in early May asking GOP leaders to raise the cap on the Pentagon budget.

Senate Democrats would be loath to support a military boost without increases for domestic programs as well. Some GOP defense hawks may be willing to negotiate to do both. Its unclear, however, whether they would want to link that to a debt ceiling vote.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

Original post:

Senate GOP plans July debt ceiling vote - Politico

CONCORD, N.H.

Its virtually impossible to predict the actions of the New Hampshire House on close call votes, but several key lawmakers said Tuesday it appears momentum is moving in the direction of passage of a fiscal 2018-2019 budget later this week.

The House and Senate will vote up-or-down Thursday on a conference committee compromise $11.7 billion spending plan for the next two fiscal years. Senate approval is virtually assured on a 14-9 party line vote, while the House is far less certain.

House Speaker Shawn Jasper, R-Hudson, told WMUR last Thursday there would be an all-out push to touch every member and try to convince opponents and undecided members to vote in favor.

Jasper said Tuesday the effort has moved into high gear. House Republicans held the first of three closed-door caucuses following a public budget briefing led by legislative budget staffers and the chairs of the House and Senate finance committees. House GOP caucuses are scheduled for both Wednesday and Thursday morning ahead of the vote.

Gov. Chris Sununu, investing some of his own political capital, has been speaking extensively to lawmakers, while state Republican Party Chairman Jeanie Forrester, a former state senator, has also been deeply involved.

Its going very well, Jasper told WMUR. Were still working hard. I dont want to be over-confident, but the movement is in our direction and its moving pretty rapidly.

The fate of the budget will depend on the votes of conservative House members who identify with the House Republican Alliance or the New Hampshire House Freedom Caucus. Some attend meetings of both groups.

After an HRA meeting Tuesday morning, Rep. Glenn Cordelli, R-Tuftonboro, a group co-chair, said that he expects to be a yes vote. He said that within the HRA opinion is split.

There are some parts of the budget that I greatly appreciate the work of the conferees in including, he said, citing business tax cuts and an increase in the rainy day fund.

Do I wish it was lower? Probably so, Cordelli said. Im still looking at it, but Im leaning toward voting for it, he said.

Reps. Jim McConnell, R-Swanzey, and JR Hoell, R-Dunbarton, key members of the Freedom Caucus, continue to oppose the plan because they said it simply includes too much state general fund spending. Hoell said the increase is 9.6 percent over general fund spending in the current fiscal 2016-2017 spending plan.

But McConnell acknowledged that momentum is moving in the direction of passage.

Over the past week, the leadership has done a great deal of work and managed to create the idea that knocking the budget down will generate something that will be absolutely horrendous, he said.

My sense of things, quite candidly, has changed because recently a number of people who had said there was no way they would ever support the budget have now decided that maybe it isnt so bad and will vote for it, McConnell said.

We are looking at a very close vote, he said. I remain opposed to it and will do what I can to defeat it.

According to a document distributed by the House and Senate leadership at Tuesdays briefing, the plan calls for state general fund and education trust funding spending of $4.9 billion, while total spending, including federal and other funds, totals $11.72 billion.

The budget contains business tax cuts and repeals the electricity consumption tax. It increases the states rainy day fund from $93 million to $100 million while boosting funding for substance abuse prevention and treatment by nearly 60 percent.

Vote breakdown

There are currently 393 members in the House 221 Republicans, 170 Democrats and two Libertarians -- with six vacancies and one recently elected member who has yet to be sworn in. If all members attend the Thursday session, which is unlikely, 197 votes will be required for passage.

House Democratic Leader Steve Shurtleff of Penacook on Tuesday reiterated his belief that his caucus will unanimously oppose the budget. If that occurs, only 27 additional votes - the two Libertarians and 25 Republicans, for example will be enough to kill it, which would lead to further conference committee negotiations.

House and Senate Democrats will hold a press conference Wednesday morning to discuss their opposition to the plan.

Shurtleff has cited the budgets provision to end the states Medicaid expansion plan if the federal government does not grant a waiver allowing the state to impose a work or job training requirement on new entrants into the system.

He cited the insertion of Hyde Amendment language prohibiting the state from funding health care facilities that provide abortions.

I think its going to be a very close vote, but I think it will fail, Shurtleff said. Theres something in there for everybody to dislike, and if it fails, it can be ironed out in a renewed committee of conference.

If a budget agreement is not reached by the June 30 end of the fiscal year, it is possible a continuing resolution, to keep spending at current levels, will be passed while further negotiations take place. But Jasper said Sununu has made it clear to legislative leaders he does not want to turn to a continuing resolution.

Key legislative leaders met with the Freedom Caucus Monday night in Manchester, while Forrester and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Gary Daniels attended the HRA meeting Tuesday morning.

The HRA takes its positions based on the (state) constitution and the Republican Party platform, Cordelli said. But other representatives might have other considerations as well, such as what theyve heard from constituents.

And, believe it or not, there might be a political factor.

State Rep. Al Baldasaro, R-Londonderry, an HRA member, said that like most lawmakers, he is not in agreement with all aspects of the budget, but he supports the business tax cuts. He also said there are no tax or fee increases that would affect his constituents.

So, Im going bite my tongue, hold my nose and vote for the budget, Baldasaro said.

I think other conservatives are going to come on board, he said. If we dont pass this budget, we could lose some things, like the tax cuts, and we dont want that.

I think its going to pass, Baldasaro said. If I was a betting man, Id say today we have the numbers. Were close.

Read more from the original source:

Momentum seen moving toward NH House passage of budget plan - WMUR Manchester

Advertisement

George Cahlink and Kellie Lunney, E&E News reporters

Energy Secretary Rick Perry (left) and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke are among the administration officials on Capitol Hill this week defending the president's budget. C-SPAN

Energy Secretary Rick Perry and Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke are due on Capitol Hill this week to defend their fiscal 2018 budget request as House Republicans scramble to set in motion a plan to pass a spending package before summer recess.

GOP leaders have been eyeing packaging all 12 annual spending bills in a single omnibus before the five-week break. That would allow the House to focus on tax reform in the fall and strengthen its hand in final spending talks with the Senate.

But lawmakers first will need to adopt a budget or a substitute deal to set domestic and defense discretionary spending levels. Without an accord, it would be much harder to move the omnibus.

"You can't have the cart get before the horse, you have to have the [budget] number," Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) said.

Negotiations have gone on for weeks in the House, but the Budget Committee has yet to schedule a markup something usually done in April or May. The administration's delay in delivering its spending plan affected the panel's planning.

Advertisement

Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, said last week the GOP is grappling with how to deal with strict budget caps set by the 2015 budget deal.

Calvert suggested there is broad support within the party for increasing defense spending, but he says doing so by cutting domestic accounts as some conservatives want would be "untenable."

If Congress does not raise the budget caps, overall discretionary spending would be cut by about $5 billion next year, according to the 2015 deal.

The House Appropriations Committee already signaled its interest in going beyond those caps by approving a fiscal 2018 military construction and veterans affairs spending bill that includes $6 billion more than last year's figure. That bipartisan bill is the first and so far only spending measure to surface this year.

House conservatives, particularly members of the hard-right Freedom Caucus, are among those pressing for deep cuts in mandatory spending programs, like welfare, in exchange for any domestic boost in 2018.

Those conservatives likely have the votes to block any fiscal 2018 spending bills if they do not win funding reductions.

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a member of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, said the House would need a budget or spending framework this month to make its plans work.

But Democrats in both the House and Senate are already worried about the impact of delays in adopting a budget.

"Until you have a budget resolution, until you know what the allocation of the overall discretionary dollars are, you have no idea frankly what the ramifications of $6 billion extra" for military construction and veterans affairs are, said House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) last week.

Hoyer warned that appropriators could slash programs in upcoming spending bills to make up the difference. "You give more to one, you've got to take more from another," he noted.

Democrats in the Senate have the same concerns.

"You bet I'm worried," Sen. Patty Murray told E&E News last week. The Washington Democrat sits on both the Budget and Appropriations committees.

"We are way late in this process, we are running fast into a September deadline, [and] putting ourselves in jeopardy with Trump already saying he wants to shut down government."

In early May, just after the government averted a shutdown, President Trump tweeted that the country could use a "good shutdown" in September, when the current fiscal year ends.

While there's talk of the House putting an omnibus spending bill on the floor before the August recess, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), ranking member of the Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee, said he hasn't yet heard of a similar plan for the Senate.

"I think our plan right now is to either have individual appropriations bills or small minibuses at this point," he said.

Zinke, who will be defending his agency's $11.7 billion fiscal 2018 budget request, will likely receive a friendly reception from lawmakers, despite expected pushback from Democrats and Republicans on proposed cuts to popular programs, including the Land and Water Conservation Fund and payments in lieu of taxes (E&E Daily, May 26).

Questions about the administration's preference for more energy development over new federal land acquisition are a safe bet.

Democrats, including Cantwell and Rep. Ral Grijalva of Arizona ranking members of the Natural Resources panels in the Senate and House will likely seize on Zinke's recent secretarial order directing a review of sage grouse policies, as well as his review of 27 national monuments.

Zinke, a former Montana congressman, released his interim report on Bears Ears last week, recommending a to-be-determined reduction of the Utah monument's 1.35-million-acre footprint (E&E News PM, June 12).

Another flashpoint: the Bureau of Land Management's announcement last week that oil and gas companies don't have to comply with the Obama-era rule on methane venting, flaring and leaking on public and tribal lands, pending judicial review (Greenwire, June 14).

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Chairwoman Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) will no doubt ask Zinke about the department's proposal to open up a portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to drilling, a route she has long championed.

On the other side of the Capitol, House Natural Resources Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) will likely seek answers on how Congress can work with the executive branch to reform the 1906 Antiquities Act and shrink Bears Ears.

The Alaska Wilderness League will hold a media conference today, ahead of the budget hearings, to oppose drilling in ANWR (E&E Daily, May 24).

Energy Secretary Perry, who will be defending his agency's $28 billion budget request, is facing questions over proposed cuts, like scrapping the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy and slashing the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by 70 percent, from $2.1 billion to $636 million.

Supporters of the president's plan say the Department of Energy has shifted too far away from its core mission and needs rebalance. In budget documents, the administration said, "The private sector is better positioned to finance disruptive energy research."

But critics say independent analyses, such as one this month from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine on ARPA-E, show DOE funding plays a unique and needed role.

Lawmakers also are likely to press Perry on how the administration's stated goals such as support for the national laboratories and coal technology mesh with the budget proposal.

Under the request, research and development at the Office of Fossil Energy which oversees carbon capture and storage research would see its budget cut by more than half, from $668 million to $280 million. Funding at the Office of Science, which oversees the majority of the labs, would fall by about 17 percent, to $4.5 billion.

Also likely to come up is the administration's plan to eliminate the mixed oxide fuel fabrication facility in South Carolina, a program with GOP backing (E&E Daily, May 24).

One of the project's most vocal supporters, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), sits on the Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee, which is hosting Perry this week.

The Energy chief might also face questions about nuclear waste, mainly the agency's proposed $120 million to work on resuming the licensing process for the controversial Yucca Mountain repository in Nevada.

Reporters Manuel Quiones, Christa Marshall and Sam Mintz contributed.

Schedule: The House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on the Energy budget is Tuesday, June 20, at 1 p.m. in 2359 Rayburn.

Witness: Energy Secretary Rick Perry.

Schedule: The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on the Interior budget is Tuesday, June 20, at 10 a.m. in 366 Dirksen.

Witness: Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke.

Schedule: The House Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on Office of Management and Budget spending is Wednesday, June 21, at 2 p.m. in 2359 Rayburn.

Witness: Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney.

Schedule: The Senate Interior and Environment Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on the Interior budget is Wednesday, June 21, at 9:30 a.m. in 124 Dirksen.

Witnesses: Zinke; Olivia Barton Ferriter, deputy assistant Interior secretary for budget, finance, performance and acquisition; Denise Flanagan, director of Interior's Office of Budget.

Schedule: The Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on the Air Force budget is Wednesday, June 21, at 10:30 a.m. in 192 Dirksen.

Witnesses: Air Force Secretary Heather Wilson, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David Goldfein.

Schedule: The Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on the Energy budget is Wednesday, June 21, at 2:30 p.m. in 138 Dirksen.

Witness: Perry.

Schedule: The House Natural Resources Committee hearing on the Interior budget is Thursday, June 22, at 9:30 a.m. in 1324 Longworth.

Witnesses: Zinke, Ferriter and Flanagan.

Schedule: The Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on the Energy budget is Thursday, June 22, at 10 a.m. in 366 Dirksen.

Witness: Perry.

Get access to our comprehensive, daily coverage of energy and environmental politics and policy.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The essential news for energy & environment professionals

1996-2017 Environment & Energy Publishing, LLCPrivacy PolicySite Map

Originally posted here:

BUDGET: Zinke, Perry on Hill this week as spending talks advance ... - E&E News

Peer-Reviewed Papers (published in academic journals):

1994|1996|1997|1998|1999|2000|2001|2002

2003|2004|2005|2006|2007 |2008 |2009 |2010 |2011

Other Papers Related to Economic Freedom: 1998-2007

If you know of any other papers current or forthcoming that should be included on this page, or have further information about any of these papers or authors, please write to freetheworld*at*fraserinstitute.org.

de Vanssay, X. and Z. A. Spindler (1994). Freedom and Growth: Do Constitutions Matter. Public Choice. 78, 3-4: 359-372.

This paper empirically investigates whether certain constitutional enumerations matter for economic growth. We find that negative (positive) rights tend to have a positive (negative) effect on economic growth, and that structural constraints have a more significant and larger effect than procedural constraints.

Uses the Scully and Slottje Index as an independent variable. (See: Scully, GW and Slottje, D, (1991) Ranking Economic Liberty Across Countries Public Choice 69, pp. 151-2). The model estimates the steady-state solution of an (institutionally) augmented Solow growth model. The dependent variable is the logarithm of per-capita income. This is a cross-section analysis covering 100 countries.

de Vanssay, X. and Z. A. Spindler (1996). Constitutions, Institutions and Economic Convergence: An International Comparison. Journal for Studies in Economics and Econometrics. 20, 3 (November): 1-19.

Abstract: This paper explores empirically whether constitutional enumerations and economic freedom indexes affect economic convergence. Some constitutional features and economic freedom do affect convergence, though economic freedom is by far the more influential.

Uses the Scully and Slottje Index as an independent variable. (See: Scully, GW and Slottje, D, (1991) Ranking Economic Liberty Across Countries Public Choice 69, pp. 151-2). The dependent variable is the average annual per capita growth rate. This is a cross-section analysis covering 109 countries.

Islam, Sadequil (1996). Economic Freedom, per Capita Income and Economic Growth. Applied Economics Letters 3: 595-97.

Examines the effect of economic freedom on income and growth in high-, middle-, and low-income country sets and finds that economic freedom is significant for a sample of all countries but only in some subsets.

Uses the precursor to Economic Freedom of the World, Measuring Economic Freedom, by James Gwartney, Walter Block and Robert Lawson, a chapter in Stephen Easton and Michael Walker (eds.), Rating Global Economic Freedom (Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 1992). Measuring Economic Freedom is the main data source for institutional variables.

Paul, C.W.; Souder, W.E.; Schoening, N.C. (November 1996). The influence of government policies on innovation and technological advance. Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research of India. 55 (11): 851-859.

Petersmann, E.U. (June 1996). International competition rules for governments and for private business The case for linking future WTO negotiations on investment, competition and environmental rules to reforms of anti-dumping laws. Journal of World Trade. 30 (3): 5-35.

Ali, Abdiweli M. (1997). Economic Freedom, Democracy and Growth. Journal of Private Enterprise 13 (Fall): 1-20.

This paper takes advantage of newly constructed measures of economic freedom to show the importance of economic freedom on growth. I find that economic freedom is a more robust determinant of growth than political freedom and civil liberty.

Uses summary ratings from Economic Freedom of the World: 1975-1995 as one variable in a comparison of a number of institutional variables.

Anwar, S.T. (1997). Economic freedom of the world: 1975-1995. Journal of International Business Studies. 28 (4): 872-878.

Dornbusch, R. (1997). Brazils incomplete stabilization and reform. Brookings Papers on Economic Accountability. (1): 367-404.

Easton, Steven T., and Michael A. Walker (1997). Income, Growth, and Economic Freedom. American Economic Review 87 (2) (May): 328-32.

Finds that economic freedom is an important explanatory variable for steady-state levels of income. The addition of a variable for economic freedom is also shown to increase the explanatory power of a neo-classical growth model.

Economic Freedom of the World: 1975-1995 is the main data source for institutional variables.

Goldsmith, Arthur A. (1997). Economic Rights and Government in Developing Countries: Cross-National Evidence on Growth and Development. Studies in Comparative International Development 32 (2) (summer): 29-44.

The paper finds that developing countries that score better in protecting economic rights also tend to grow faster and to score higher in human development. In addition [the paper finds that] economic rights are associated with democratic government and with higher levels of average national income.

Uses summary ratings from Economic Freedom of the World: 1975-1995 as one of a number of institutional variables.

Hakura, F.S. (April 1997). The Euro-Mediterranean policy: The implications of the Barcelona Declaration. Common Market Law Review. 34 (2): 337-366.

Hanke, Steve H., and Stephen J.K. Walters (1997). Economic Freedom, Prosperity, and Equality: A Survey. Cato Journal 17 (2) (Fall): 117-46.

The article compares several institutional indexes for content and explanatory power: Gerald Scullys studies, The Fraser Institutes Economic Freedom of the World, Freedom Houses Economic Freedom Indicators, The Heritage Foundations Indices of Economic Freedom, The International Institute for Management Developments World Competitiveness Yearbook 1996, The World Forums Global Competitiveness Report 1996. Compares liberty and prosperity, equality and foreign policy implications. They find that economic freedom is positively correlated with per-capita GNP.

Economic Freedom of the World: 1975-1995 is used as one variable in a comparison of a number of institutional variables.

Jordan, Jerry L. (1997). Jobs Creation and Government Policy. Cato Journal 16 (3) (Winter): 287-94.

Argues that employment-creating initiatives or job-creation policies hinder the creation of new technology and the process of creative destruction. Also argues that the role of government monetary intervention in the economy should be limited to creating stable monetary policy.

Makes reference to the general conclusions of Economic Freedom of the World: 1975-1995 regarding economic freedom and income and growth.

Download the paper. (PDF)

Mbaku, J.M. (December 1997). Africa in the post-Cold War era: Three strategies for survival. Journal of Asian and African Studies. 32 (3-4): 223-244.

Park, Walter G., and Juan Carlos Ginarte (1997). Intellectual Property Rights and Economic Growth. Contemporary Economic Policy 15 (July): 51-61.

The authors have compiled an index of intellectual property rights, and examine its effects on growth and the factors of production (investment, schooling, and R&D). The paper finds that IPRs affect economic growth indirectly by stimulating the accumulation of factor inputs like R&D and physical capital.

Uses summary ratings of Economic Freedom of the World: 1975-1995 as a control variable for market institutions in the analysis.

Trebilcock, Michael J. (1997). What Makes Poor Countries Poor?: The Role of Institutional Capital in Economic Development. Chapter in The Law and Economics of Development, edited by Edgardo Buscaglia, William Ratliff and Robert Cooter. Greenwich: JAI Press.

Discusses the general conclusions regarding economic freedom and growth found in Economic Freedom of the World: 1975-1995.

Ayal, Eliezer B., and Karras Georgios (1998). Components of Economic Freedom and Growth: An Empirical Study. Journal of Developing Areas 32 (Spring): 327-38.

The paper uses regression analysis to examine the effect of the components of economic freedom on growth, output and investment and finds that economic freedom enhances growth both via increasing total factor productivity and via enhancing capital accumulation. It also identifies components that have the highest statistical effects on these variables, with the aim of informing policy makers.

Uses component ratings from Economic Freedom of the World: 1975-1995 as the main data source for institutional variables.

Download the paper. (PDF)

Chafuen, Alejandro (1998). Estado y Corrupcion. In Alejandro Chafuen and Eugenio Guzmn, Corrupcin y Gobierno (Santiago, Chile: Fundacin Libertad y Desarrollo): 45-98.

Finds that corruption is negatively related to economic freedom.

Economic Freedom of the World: 1975-1995 and Transparency International are the main data-source for institutional variables.

Dawson, John W. (1998). Institutions, Investment, and Growth: New Cross-Country and Panel Data Evidence. Economic Inquiry 36 (October): 603-19.

This paper outlines the alternative channels through which institutions affect growth, and studies the empirical relationship between institutions, investment, and growth. The empirical results indicate that (i) free-market institutions have a positive effect on growth; (ii) economic freedom affects growth through both a direct effect on total factor productivity and an indirect effect on investment; (iii) political and civil liberties may stimulate investment; (iv) an important interaction exists between freedom and human capital investment; (v) Milton Friedmans conjectures on the relation between political and economic freedom are correct; (vi) promoting economic freedom is an effective policy toward facilitating growth and other types of freedom.

Uses Economic Freedom of the World: 1975-1995 as the main data source for institutional variables.

De Haan, Jakob, and Clemens L.J. Sierman (1998). Further Evidence on the Relationship between Economic Freedom and Economic Growth. Public Choice 95: 363-80.

Primarily investigates the robustness of the index of economic freedom devised by Gerald Scully and D.J. Slottje and determines that the robustness of results depends heavily on how freedom is measured. Finds that some specifications are robust predictors of the growth rate of real per-capita GDP (1980-1992) but few are robust for investment share of GDP.

Empirical analysis on Economic Freedom of the World: 1975-1995 is limited to correlation with the Scully and Slotjies index. Suggests further empirical work be done on Economic Freedom of the World.

Elbadawi, I. and Schmidt-Hebbel, K. (December 1998). Macroeconomic policies, instability and growth in the world. Journal of African Economy. 7: 116-168 Suppl. 2.

Farr, W. Ken, Richard A. Lord, and J. Larry Wolfenbarger (1998). Economic Freedom, Political Freedom and Economic Well-Being: A Causality Analysis. Cato Journal 18 (2) (Fall): 247-62.

The paper uses Granger causality analysis to demonstrate that economic freedom causes economic well-being and economic well-being causes economic freedom. Additionally, the authors argue that economic well-being causes political freedom but that there is no causation flowing from political freedom to economic well-being. The paper also finds no evidence of a casual relationship in either direction between economic freedom and political freedom. Indirectly economic freedom causes political freedom through its effect on economic well-being.

Economic Freedom of the World: 1975-1995 and the Freedom House index of political rights and civil liberties are the main data sources for institutional variables.

Download the paper. (PDF)

Ford, John B., Kiran W. Karande, and Bruce M. Seifert (1998). The Role of Economic Freedom in Explaining the Penetration of Consumer Durables. Journal of World Business 33 (1): 69-86.

The study examines the link between economic freedom (a measure of government intervention) and the penetration of three durable goods (televisions, radios and automobiles) across countries.

Cites conclusions of Economic Freedom of the World: 1975-1995; uses other indexes of economic freedom for empirical work.

Grubel, Herbert G. (1998). Economic Freedom and Human Welfare: Some Empirical Findings. Cato Journal 18 (2) (Fall): 287-304.

The paper compares economic freedom to income, growth, unemployment in the OECD, the UN Human Development Index, life expectancy, literacy, poverty, and income distribution. It finds that economic freedom does not have a cost in terms of income levels, income growth, unemployment rates, and human development.

Economic Freedom of the World: 1997 Annual Report is the main data source for institutional variables.

Download the paper. (PDF)

Gwartney, James, Randall Holcombe, and Robert Lawson (1998). The Scope of Government and the Wealth of Nations. Cato Journal 18 (2) (Fall): 163-90.

The paper examines the effect of the size of government in OECD countries upon economic growth. This paper draws on the authors Joint Economic Committee Study, The Size and Functions of Government and Economic Growth.

Makes reference to the general conclusions regarding economic freedom and income and growth as published in Economic Freedom of the World: 1975-1995 and Economic Freedom of the World: 1997 Annual Report.

Download the paper. (PDF)

Henderson, David (1998). The Changing Fortunes of Economic Liberalism. London: Institute of Economic Affairs.

A comprehensive review of the trends in economic liberalism in the last century. The book covers economic liberalism in thought and practice as well as discussing how the climate of political and popular opinion has both helped and constrained the development of liberal policy. One section uses the Economic Freedom of the World to discuss the progress made by countries engaging in economic reform and the appendix discusses the derivation, benefits, and limitations of the Economic Freedom of the World.

Economic Freedom of the World: 1975-1995 is the only quantitative source for institutional variables.

Johnson, James P., and Tomasz Lenartowicz (1998). Culture, Freedom and Economic Growth: Do Cultural Values Explain Economic Growth? Journal of World Business 33 (4): 332-56.

The paper discusses which cultural values are associated with economic freedom, drawing on two international quantitative cultural indexes.

Uses the summary ratings from Economic Freedom of the World: 1975-1995 as one of a number of institutional variables.

Johnson, Simon, Daniel Kaufmann, and Pablo Zoido-Lobaton (1998). Government in Transition: Regulatory Discretion and the Unofficial Economy. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings (May): 159-239.

Empirically studies the effect of institutional quality on the share of the unofficial economy in GDP.

Uses the component, Equality of Citizens under the Law and Access of Citizens to a Non-Discriminatory Judiciary, of Economic Freedom of the World: 1997 Annual Report as one of a number of institutional variables.

Kealey, T. (April 1998). Why science is endogenous: a debate with Paul David (and Ben Martin, Paul Romer, Chris Freeman, Luc Soete and Keith Pavitt). Research Policy. 26 (7-8): 897-923.

Lim, Linda Y.C. (1998). Whose Model Failed? Implications of the Asian Economic Crisis. Washington Quarterly 21 (3): 25-36.

The paper examines the conflicting interpretations of the role of governments and economic freedom in the success and subsequent crises in Asia.

Cites conclusions of Economic Freedom of the World: 1975-1995.

Mbaku, John Mukum, (1998). Constitutional Engineering and the Transition to Democracy in Post-Cold War Africa. The Independent Review 2 (4) (Spring): 501-17.

Discusses the constitutional guarantees necessary to secure economic freedom and why such guarantees are important. Focuses specifically on Africa.

Makes reference to the general conclusions of Economic Freedom of the World: 1975-1995 regarding economic freedom and income and growth.

Milhaupt, Curtis (1998). Property Rights in Firms. Virginia Law Review 84: 1145-94.

Discusses how differences in property rights and corporate governance systems arise within differing institutional frameworks.

Uses the Property Rights component of Economic Freedom of the World: 1975-1995 as one of a number of institutional variables in case-study analysis.

Nelson, Michael A., and Ram D. Singh, (1998). Democracy, Economic Freedom, Fiscal Policy and Growth in LDCs: A Fresh Look. Economic Development and Cultural Change 46 (4) (July): 677-96.

The study examines the effect of democracy on economic growth after controlling for a number of variables for the size of government and institutions. The study finds that it is not the redistributive policies of democratic governments that hinder development in developing countries but the lack of economic freedom.

Uses the precursor to Economic Freedom of the World, Measuring Economic Freedom, by James Gwartney, Walter Block and Robert Lawson, a chapter in Stephen Easton and Michael Walker (eds.), Rating Global Economic Freedom (Vancouver: The Fraser Institute, 1992). The summary ratings of Measuring Economic Freedom are used as one variable in a comparison of a number of variables for institutions and the size of government.

Norton, Seth W. (1998). Poverty, Property Rights, and Human Well-being: A Cross-national Study. Cato Journal 18 (2) (Fall): 233-45.

The paper compares property rights to indicators of development and determines that the well-being of the worlds poorest inhabitants [is] sensitive to the cross-national specification of property rights. The paper shows that well-specified property rights enhance the well-being of the worlds most impoverished.

Economic Freedom of the World: 1997 Annual Report and the Heritage Foundations Indices of Economic Freedom are the main data source for institutional variables.

Download the paper. (PDF)

Norton, Seth W. (1998). Property Rights, the Environment, and Economic Well-Being. In Peter J. Hill and Roger E. Meiners (eds.), Who Owns the Environment (Rowman & Littlefield): 37-54.

Investigates whether countries with better property rights have better performance on environmental measures.

Uses the summary ratings of Economic Freedom of the World: 1975-1995 as one of four measures used as proxies for property rights.

Porket, J.L. (1998). Is the state in retreat? Politicka Ekonomie. 46 (6): 805-815.

Link:

Fiscal Freedom | Prometheism.net - Part 28

Our religious liberties are slowly being eaten away by liberal non-believers. Its time to stand up to defend those sacred rights.

Aaron and Melissa Klein were penalized $135,000 for declining to create a custom cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding. They were defended in court by the Liberty Institute.

Today, we can help the Liberty Institute multiply a $100,000 Challenge Grant to reach their Fiscal Year-End $1.4 million goal.

High school football coach Joe Kennedy was fired for silent prayer. They are defending him in federal court this month!

Your gift will help win legal battles such as these.

Educator Toni Richardson was ordered to never tell coworkers Ill pray for you -- even if they attend her church!

Your gift will help their attorneys defeat dangerous attacks on religious liberty that could transform America into a nation stripped of our religious freedom.

Former nurse Mary Anne Sause was ordered to stop praying in her own home. And Chabad, of Irvine, was sued to stop traditional Orthodox Jewish religious ceremonies.

A Christian high school football team was banned from praying over a public address system even though their opponent was another Christian school who also wanted to pray.

Insight for Living Ministries (Pastor Chuck Swindoll) was ordered by the government to participate in health insurance that facilitates abortion -- or pay fines that would cripple their outreach.

Similar cases across America will determine the future of religious freedom for a generation. Read more at: libertyinstitute.org/2017_FYE_E?erid=76528411&trid=57a90555-53af-44af-8de1-6817c314b454

Mike Steffen,

Moline

See the original post:

Letter: Stop non-believers from eroding religious freedom - Quad-Cities Online

I am throwing water on this concept that the President of the United States, well intended as he may be, will not realize something called the defense rebuild, said Roger Zakheim, former deputy assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Defense.

If you are nostalgic about what President (Ronald) Reagan was able to accomplish back when he was rebuilding the military after the Carter years, dont hold your breath, Zakheim said. And we can get into the why and who is to blame, but it is not going to happen.

Speaking to members of the New Hampshire Aerospace and Defense Export Consortium on Thursday at the Manchester Country Club, Zakheim addressed President Donald Trumps military rebuild and its impact on the defense industrial complex.

Former President Barack Obamas defense budget was $585 billion, and Trumps proposal for defense spending is $603 billion, according to Zakheim, explaining former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates budget in 2012 was significantly higher at $661 billion, and the proposed $640 billion defense spending recommended now by Senate Armed Services Chairman John McCain (R-Ariz.) and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Mac Thornberry (R-Texas) is also significantly more.

With the Budget Control Act providing a $549 billion defense budget, Zakheim said Trumps proposal is basically keeping in pace with inflation. The debate right now in Congress is will we come at the Trump level, will we go up to the McCain/Thornberry level or will we have to just fund government at the Budget Control Act level, he said, adding it is quite possible that the freedom caucus and the fiscal hawks will demand spending at the BCA level or south of Trumps budget request.

Zakheim acknowledged that he was not a big fan of Trump as a candidate, but did favor his defense platform. During his candidacy, Trump said he would rebuild, modernize and increase the military, Zakheim said.

You will see in a few months now discussion of a shutdown or a continuing resolution because they cant come to agreement on spending levels, predicted Zakheim, a visiting fellow of the American Enterprise Institute and former deputy staff director of the U.S. House Armed Services Committee.

While defense spending has bottomed out, Zakheim said the debate now is how much it will grow. According to him, the military has been neglected for the past two decades so much that it cant fight todays challenges.

Zakheim said it does not have brigade combat teams ready to fight in a Russia scenario in Eastern Europe, nor does it have adequate munitions.

Where I look at these issues is from a national security standpoint, and the answer is, we are not OK, he told the group featuring trade representatives from Canada, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, India, Poland and Mexico.

This is the first time since World War II, according to Zakheim, that the nation is facing three distinct threats to its national security and national defense China challenging the United States in Asia for trade, low-end terrorism threats in the Middle East and hybrid warfare posed by adversaries like Russia.

In this environment, no one knows what safe is, he said, adding the only certainty in politics is that everything is uncertain. Zakheim described the political environment in Washington as toxic, adding no one really understands the Trump factor.

The United States is the beneficiary of its own investment, he said, saying what the country spends on defense allows the nation to be a global security leader and the most prosperous in the world with the largest economy.

Zenagui Brahim, chairman of the New Hampshire Aerospace and Defense Export Consortium, said there are more than 350 manufacturing and defense companies in New Hampshire, all of which need to fully understand the state of the defense funding that could impact their businesses.

We keep hearing there will be more money for defense, but you never know, Brahim said. This is critical.

Read the original:

Expert: 'Defense rebuild' not going to happen - The Union Leader

A fiscal year (or financial year, or sometimes budget year) is a period used for calculating annual (yearly) financial statements in businesses and other organizations all over the world. In many jurisdictions, regulatory laws regarding accounting and taxation require such reports once per twelve months, but do not require that the period reported on constitutes a calendar year (that is, 1 January to 31 December). Fiscal years vary between businesses and countries. The fiscal year may also refer to the year used for income tax reporting.

The fiscal year end (FYE) is the date that marks the end of the fiscal year. Some companies choose to end their fiscal year such that it ends on the same day of the week each year, e.g. the day that is closest to a particular date (for example, the Friday closest to 31 December). Under such a system, some fiscal years will have 52 weeks and others 53 weeks. A major corporation that has adopted this approach is Cisco Systems.[1]

Nevertheless, the fiscal year is identical to the calendar year for about 65% of publicly traded companies in the United States and for a majority of large corporations in the UK[2] and elsewhere (with notable exceptions Australia, New Zealand and Japan).[3]

Many universities have a fiscal year which ends during the summer, both to align the fiscal year with the academic year (and, in some cases involving public universities, with the state governments fiscal year), and because the school is normally less busy during the summer months. In the northern hemisphere this is July in one year to June in the next year. In the southern hemisphere this is January to December of a single calendar year.

Some media/communication based organizations use a broadcast calendar as the basis for their fiscal year.

The fiscal year is usually denoted by the year in which it ends, so United States of America federal government spending incurred on 14 November 2016 would belong to fiscal year 2017, operating on a fiscal calendar of OctoberSeptember.[4]

The NFL uses the term league year, which in effect forms the leagues fiscal year. By rule, the fiscal year begins at 4 PM EDT on 10 March of each calendar year. All financial reports are based on each fiscal year. However, the fiscal year is denoted in the NFL by the year where it starts, not where it ends, unlike most designations.

In some jurisdictions, particularly those that permit tax consolidation, companies that are part of a group of businesses must use nearly the same fiscal year (differences of up to three months are permitted in some jurisdictions, such as the U.S. and Japan), with consolidating entries to adjust for transactions between units with different fiscal years, so the same resources will not be counted more than once or not at all.[citation needed]

In Afghanistan, the fiscal year was recently changed from 1 Hamal 29 Hoot (21 March 20 March) to 1 Jadi 30 Qaus (21 December 20 December). The fiscal year runs with the Afghan calendar, thus resulting in difference of the Gregorian dates once in a four-year span.[citation needed]

In Australia, the fiscal year or, more commonly, financial year, starts on 1 July and ends on 30 June. For personal income tax after the financial year ends, individuals have until 31 October to lodge their return (unless they use a tax agent).[5] This fiscal year definition is used both for official purposes and by the overwhelming majority of private enterprises, but this is not legally mandated.[6] A company may, for example, opt for a financial year that always ends at the end of a week (and therefore is not exactly one calendar year in length), or opt for each financial year to end on a different date to match the reporting cycles of its foreign parent.

In Austria the fiscal year is the calendar year, January 1st December 31st.

In Bangladesh, the fiscal year starts on 1 July and ends on 30 June.

In Belarus, the fiscal year starts on 1 January and ends on 31 December.

In Brazil, the fiscal year starts on 1 January and ends on 31 December. Citizens pay income tax (when needed) starting in May, but the form filling goes from March to April. All tax declarations must be done on-line using government written free software.[citation needed]

In Bulgaria, the fiscal year matches the calendar year both for personal income tax [7] and for corporate taxes.[8]

In Canada,[9] the governments financial year runs from 1 April to 31 March (Example 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 for the current financial year).

For individuals in Canada, the fiscal year runs from 1 January to 31 December.

The fiscal year for all entities starts on 1 January and ends 31 December, consistent with the calendar year, to match the tax year, statutory year, and planning year.[citation needed]

In Colombia, the fiscal year starts 1 January ending on 31 December. Yearly taxes are due in the middle of March/April for corporations while citizens pay income tax (when needed) starting in August, ending in September, according to the last 2 digits of the national ID.[citation needed]

The fiscal year in Costa Rica spans from 1 October until 30 September. Taxpayers are required to pay the tributes before 15 December of each year.[citation needed]

In the Arab Republic of Egypt, the fiscal year starts on 1 July and concludes on 30 June.[citation needed]

The fiscal year matches the calendar year, and has since at least 1911.[10]

In the Hellenic Republic, the fiscal year starts on 1 January and concludes on 31 December.

In Hong Kong,[11] the governments financial year runs from 1 April to 31 March (Example 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 for the current financial year).

In India, the governments financial year runs from 1 April to 31 March midnight. Example: 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 for the financial year 20162017. It is also abbreviated as FY17.[12][13]

Companies following the Indian Depositary Receipt (IDR) are given freedom to choose their financial year. For example, Standard Chartereds IDR follows the UK calendar despite being listed in India. Companies following Indian fiscal year get to know their economical health on 31 March of every Indian financial or fiscal year.

There was discussions by the newly formed NITI Aayog, in the month of July 2016,in a meeting organised by the PM Modi, that the next fiscal year may start from 1 January to 31 December after the end of the current five-year plan.[14]

In Iran, the fiscal year starts usually on March 21 (1st of Farvardin) and concludes on next years March 20 (29th of Esfand) in Solar Hijri calendar [15]

Ireland used the year ending 5 April until 2001 when it was changed, at the request of Finance Minister Charlie McCreevy, to match the calendar year (the 2001 tax year was nine months, from April to December)[citation needed]

Since 2002, it is aligned with the calendar year: 1 January to 31 December.[16]

In Israel the fiscal year is from 1 January until 31 December.[17]

In Italy the fiscal year was from 1 July to 30 June until 1965; now it is from 1 January until 31 December.[citation needed]

In Japan,[18] the governments financial year runs from 1 April to 31 March. The fiscal year is represented by the calendar year in which the period begins, followed by the word nendo (); for example the fiscal year from 1 April 2016 to 31 March 2017 is called 2016nendo.

Japans income tax year runs from 1 January to 31 December, but corporate tax is charged according to the corporations own annual period.[citation needed]

In Macau, the governments financial year runs from 1 January to 31 December (Example 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2016 for the current financial year).

In Mexico the fiscal year starts on January 1 and ends on December 31.

In Myanmar,[19] the fiscal year goes from 1 April to 31 March.

The fiscal year in Nepal starts from Shrawan 1 (4th month of Bikram calendar) and ends on Ashad 31 (3rd month of Bikram calendar). Shrawan 1 roughly falls on mid July.[20]

The New Zealand Governments fiscal[21] and financial reporting[22] year begins on 1 July and concludes on 30 June[23] of the following year and applies to the budget. The company and personal financial year[24] begins on 1 April and finishes on 31 March and applies to company and personal income tax.

The Pakistan Governments fiscal year starts on 1 July of the previous calendar year and concludes on 30 June. Private companies are free to observe their own accounting year, which may not be the same as Government of Pakistans fiscal year.[citation needed]

In Portugal the fiscal year starts on January 1 and ends on December 31.

The fiscal year matches the calendar year, and has since at least 1911.[10]

The fiscal year for the calculation of personal income taxes runs from 1 January to 31 December.[citation needed]

The fiscal year for the Government of Singapore and many government-linked corporations runs from 1 April to 31 March.[citation needed]

Corporations and organisations are permitted to select any date to mark the end of each fiscal year, as long as this date remains constant.[citation needed]

In South Africa the fiscal year for the Government of South Africa starts on 1 April and ends 31 March.[citation needed]

The year of assessment for individuals covers twelve months, beginning on 1 March and ending on the final day of February the following year. The Act also provides for certain classes of taxpayers to have a year of assessment ending on a day other than the last day of February. Companies are permitted to have a tax year ending on a date that coincides with their financial year. Many older companies still use a tax year that runs from 1 July to 30 June, inherited from the British system. A common practice for newer companies is to run their tax year from 1 March to the final day of February following, to synchronize with the tax year for individuals.[citation needed]

In South Korea(Republic of Korea) the fiscal year starts on 1 January and ends 31 December.[citation needed]

In Spain the fiscal year starts on 1 January and ends 31 December.[25]

The fiscal year for individuals runs from 1 January to 31 December.[26]

The fiscal year for an organisation is typically one of the following (cf. Swedish Wikipedia):

However, all calendar months are allowed. If an organisation wishes to change into a non-calendar year, permission from the Tax Authority is required.[27][28]

Under the Income Tax Act of Taiwan, the fiscal year commences on 1 January and ends on 31 December of each calendar year. However, an enterprise may elect to adopt a special fiscal year at the time it is established and can request approval from the tax authorities to change its fiscal year.[29]

The Thai governments fiscal year (FY) begins on 1 October and ends on 30 September of the following year.[30] FY2015 dates from 1 October 2014 30 September 2015. The Thai governments year for individual income tax is the calendar year (1 January 31 December)

In Ukraine, the fiscal year matches with the calendar year which starts on 1 January and ends 31 December.

In the United Arab Emirates, the fiscal year starts on 1 January and ends 31 December.[citation needed]

In the United Kingdom,[31] the financial year runs from 1 April to 31 March for the purposes of corporation tax[32] and government financial statements.[33] For the self-employed and others who pay personal tax the fiscal year starts on 6 April and ends on 5 April of the next calendar year.[34]

Although United Kingdom corporation tax is charged by reference to the governments financial year, companies can adopt any year as their accounting year: if there is a change in tax rate, the taxable profit is apportioned to financial years on a time basis.[citation needed]

A number of major corporations that were once government-owned, such as BT Group and the National Grid, continue to use the governments financial year, which ends on the last day of March, as they have found no reason to change since privatisation.[citation needed]

The 5 April year end for personal tax and benefits reflects the old ecclesiastical calendar, with New Year falling on 25 March (Lady Day), the difference being accounted for by the eleven days missed out when Great Britain converted from the Julian Calendar to the Gregorian Calendar in 1752 (the British tax authorities, and landlords were unwilling to lose 11 days of tax and rent revenue, so under provision 6 (Times of Payment of Rents, Annuities, &c.) of the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750, the 17523 tax year was extended by 11 days). From 1753 until 1799, the tax year in Great Britain began on 5 April, which was the old style new year of 25 March. A 12th skipped Gregorian leap day in 1800 changed its start to 6 April. It was not changed when a 13th Julian leap day was skipped in 1900, so the start of the personal tax year in the United Kingdom is still 6 April.[35][36][37]

The United States federal governments fiscal year is the 12-month period ending on 30 September of that year, having begun on 1 October of the previous calendar year. In particular, the identification of a fiscal year is the calendar year in which it ends; thus, the current fiscal year is 2017, often written as FY2017 or FY17, which began on 1 October 2016 and which will end on 30 September 2017.

Prior to 1976, the fiscal year began on 1 July and ended on 30 June. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 made the change to allow Congress more time to arrive at a budget each year, and provided for what is known as the transitional quarter from 1 July 1976 to 30 September 1976. An earlier shift in the federal governments fiscal year was made in 1843, shifting the fiscal year from a calendar year to one starting on 1 July.[38]

For example, the United States government fiscal year for 2017 is:

State governments set their own fiscal year. It may or may not align with the federal calendar. For example, in California, the states fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30 each year.[39]

The tax year for a business is governed by the fiscal year it chooses. A business may choose any consistent fiscal year that it wants; however, for seasonal businesses such as farming and retail, a good account practice is to end the fiscal year shortly after the highest revenue time of year. Consequently, most large agriculture companies end their fiscal years after the harvest season, and most retailers end their fiscal years shortly after the Christmas shopping season.

The fiscal year for individuals and entities to report and pay income taxes is often known as the taxpayers tax year or taxable year. Taxpayers in many jurisdictions may choose their tax year.[40] In federal countries (e.g., United States, Canada, Switzerland), state/provincial/cantonal tax years must be the same as the federal year. Nearly all jurisdictions require that the tax year be 12 months or 52/53 weeks.[41] However, short years are permitted as the first year or when changing tax years.[42]

Most countries require all individuals to pay income tax based on the calendar year. Significant exceptions include:

Many jurisdictions require that the tax year conform to the taxpayers fiscal year for financial reporting. The United States is a notable exception: taxpayers may choose any tax year, but must keep books and records for such year.[41]

Here is the original post:

Fiscal year Wikipedia

Read more:

Fiscal Freedom | Prometheism.net - Part 27

Without getting into partisan politics, voters need to think twice about actions in one of our municipalities, Taneytown, that would enable removal of a duly elected official by censure.

If the majority can remove a minority by censure, it threatens the ability of any elected official to challenge the majority in any legislative debate.

I believe I can make my point most obvious with a series of questions that quickly highlight the ridiculousness of the situation:

Was the elected official charged or convicted of a felony? No.

Was he charged or convicted of an imprisonable misdemeanor? No.

Was he charged or convicted for filing to pay any town fines or taxes? No.

Was the official tried or convicted of a substantial ethical breach such as self-dealing or accepting gifts from lobbyists? No.

Was the official afforded due process in front of a neutral tribunal to defend himself against his accusers? No.

Was the official administratively charged with violating Roberts Rules of Order? No.

Article 1 Section 6 of the Constitution states, "[Legislators] shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place."

According to the Annenberg Classroom, Article 1 Section 6 was "to prevent prosecutors and others from using the courts to intimidate a legislator because they do not like his or her view ."

So, what's left (pun intended) in the charges against the councilman?

I understand a town clerk broke into tears during session while being questioned by the councilman. However, that is not particularly unusual, and it certainly is not a crime. I have seen employees cry under duress.

Second, there are allegations the councilman violated attorney-client privilege because he individually asked a question of the town attorney and individually released the response to his constituents. Here's the nuance: Because the individual councilman asked the question, he reasonably assumed the answer belonged to him as an individual councilman, and it was his to keep or divulge. There is no law that makes it a crime for a client to divulge information given to him by his own attorney. Besides, was the official afforded the opportunity to defend himself in front of a neutral jury of his peers? No.

The point? Once the majority of legislators learns they can expunge anyone that says things they do not like, our system of government deteriorates into raw majoritarian rule.

Another official whom I respect suggested the councilman's questions about the size of the town's surplus funds may have been inappropriate.

My response?

If awkward questioning or fiscal irresponsibility were grounds for impeachment, the majority of politicians in Washington should be in jail.

The alleged grounds to remove the councilman from office lack substance. There is no crime or misdemeanor. The real reasons appear to be more related to political retribution. He made the majority angry, and they have the votes to hit back.

If angering the majority is grounds for removal, hundreds of officials (from both parties) across America would have already been censured and removed.

It will be interesting to see the outcome if the councilman retaliates against his accusers for depriving him of his Article 1 Section 6 protections; and/or his First and Fifth Amendment protections.

Knowledgeable people believe the hastily crafted censure ordinance is the epitome of what our founding fathers feared raw majoritarian processes by the majority against the minority.

What is the proper solution? Simple voters can replace any official they do not like during the next regular scheduled election by voting for someone else.

In the meantime, going-along-to-get-along only serves to protect the majority and the status quo.

Within our Republic form of government, true freedom also means the freedom to be wrong even for annoying politicians that say abrasive things.

Ordinances that enable the removal of elected officials by "censure" pose dangerous risks to our Republic form of Government. They basically amount to nothing less than "censorship" (spelled with an "o").

Richard Rothschild is a Republican county commissioner representing District 4.

The rest is here:

Rothschild: Censure is nothing but Censorship - Carroll County Times

Hands over allotment letters of 10-marla plots to journalists

NOWSHERA: Chief Minister Pervez Khattak said on Saturday that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)-led Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government believed in the freedom of the press.

Chief Minister Pervez Khattak was speaking at a ceremony at the Nowshera Press Club, where he distributed among the journalists the allotment letters of 10-marla plots at the Media Colony in Nowshera.

Pervez Khattak said that media was the fourth pillar of the state and it played an important role in bridging the gap between the government and people.

The PTI government attaches great value to media for continuity of democracy and rule of law, he added.

He said his government supported the press clubs across the province.

The chief minister said it was the top priorities of the government to provide relief to the common man. We have taken several steps to make the province financially self-reliant, he maintained.

Pervez Khattak said that his government believed in carrying out uplift projects across the province.

He said the government was spending Rs15 billion on the construction of embankments in Peshawar, Charsadda and Nowshera districts.

He said that work on flood prevention projects in Malakand, Hazara and Abbottabad would be launched shortly.

We have launched various projects to protect the flood-prone areas from floods, he added.

He said the provincial government had recommended to the federal government to include in its Annual Development Programme (ADP) the construction of Peshawar-Attock-Khairabad bridge and reconstruction of Nowshera-Mardan Grand Trunk Road.

He said that PTI didnt compromise on the rights of the province and increased the net hydel profit from Rs6 billion to Rs18 billion. He said Rs18 billion loans had been paid back to the federal government borrowed by the previous governments.

He said the provincial government had earmarked Rs126 billion for its Annual Development Programme.

He said his government had presented a balanced budget of Rs603 billion for the fiscal 2017-18, adding it increased the education budget by 18 percent compared to the previous budget allocations for this sector and earmarked Rs27.91 billion for education.

He said that Rs49.27 billion were allocated for health, Rs4.35 billion for agriculture and Rs720 million were earmarked for sports, culture and tourism.

Chief Minister Pervez Khattak said that reasonable allocations had been made for environment, forest, information and communications, public housing schemes and allowances for employees of government departments.

Read this article:

PTI govt believes in press freedom: CM | Peshawar | thenews.com.pk - The News International

NOWSHERA: Chief Minister Pervez Khattak said on Saturday that the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI)-led Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government believed in the freedom of the press.

He was speaking at a ceremony at the Nowshera Press Club, where he distributed among the journalists the allotment letters of 10-marla plots at the Media Colony in Nowshera.

Pervez Khattak said that the media was the fourth pillar of the state and it played an important role in bridging the gap between the government and people.

The PTI government attaches great value to the media for continuity of democracy and rule of law, he added.

He said his government supported the press clubs across the province.

The chief minister said it was the top priorities of the government to provide relief to the common man. We have taken several steps to make the province financially self-reliant, he maintained.

Pervez Khattak said that his government believed in carrying out uplift projects across the province.

He said the government was spending Rs15 billion on the construction of embankments in Peshawar, Charsadda and Nowshera districts. He said that work on flood prevention projects in Malakand, Hazara and Abbottabad would be launched shortly.

We have launched various projects to protect the flood-prone areas from floods, he added.

He said the provincial government had recommended to the federal government to include in its Annual Development Programme (ADP) the construction of Peshawar-Attock-Khairabad bridge and reconstruction of Nowshera-Mardan Grand Trunk Road.

He said that PTI didnt compromise on the rights of the province and increased the net hydel profit from Rs6 billion to Rs18 billion. He said Rs18 billion loans had been paid back to the federal government borrowed by the previous governments.

He said the provincial government had earmarked Rs126 billion for its Annual Development Programme.

He said his government had presented a balanced budget of Rs603 billion for the fiscal 2017-18, adding it increased the education budget by 18 percent compared to the previous budget allocations for this sector and earmarked Rs27.91 billion for education.

He said that Rs49.27 billion were allocated for health, Rs4.35 billion for agriculture and Rs720 million were earmarked for sports, culture and tourism.

He said that reasonable allocations had been made for environment, forest, information and communications, public housing schemes and allowances for employees of government departments.

More here:

PTI govt believes in press freedom: KP CM - The News International

WASHINGTON House Republican leaders are negotiating a tax overhaul with their counterparts in the Senate and the White House, but another group of GOP lawmakers is signaling it too must be included in any deal.

House Freedom Caucus leaders are laying out their ideas for overhauling the tax code that, together with a related proposal for getting a budget deal, is likely to set them up for a fight with GOP leaders and tax writers.

Most of the four principles for a tax overhaul that Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows and three other caucus members unveiled at a Heritage Foundation event are not major deviations from the House GOP leaders framework though there are some notable differences.

But perhaps more striking were the ideas the Freedom Caucus members made clear they were not pushing a revenue neutral bill and the inclusion of the border adjustment tax, both linchpins of leaderships plan.

The caucus members also offered a wildcard idea of adding a welfare overhaul to the yet-unwritten reconciliation instructions for a tax rewrite, something they argue would perhaps convince them to accept a larger topline spending figure in the fiscal 2018 budget resolution.

Amid all of those ideas is an urgency to move quickly. We should have a real proposal that we start debating before we leave at the end of July, Meadows said. But if not, weve already taken a formal position: We believe that we need to stay in through August until we get it done.

Four principles

The North Carolina Republican suggested that lawmakers move the ball closer to that goal post by agreeing to four principles within the next four weeks.

The Freedom Caucuss four principles for a tax overhaul are:

Lower the tax rate for both corporations and small businesses to 20 percent

Accelerate the time frame under which businesses can write off certain expenses

Allow for a voluntary repatriation of offshore earnings over 20 months at a reduced tax rate of 8 percent

Double the standard deduction for individuals.

House Republican leaders A Better Way plan does call for lowering the current 35 percent corporate tax rate to 20 percent but proposes a 25 percent rate for small business organized as passthrough companies, which are taxed at individual rates that currently top out at 39.6 percent.

Leaderships plan would also allow businesses to write off the full cost of certain investments in the tax year that theyre incurred something the Freedom Caucus is open to with modifications to account for businesses that borrow money for investing rather than use cash and nearly double the standard deduction for individuals.

The biggest gap between the two proposals is on repatriation of offshore earnings.

GOP leaders plan would institute a mandatory tax on existing offshore earnings of 8.75 percent for cash assets and 3.5 percent for nonliquid assets. Unlike the Freedom Caucus proposal, which seeks to incentivize companies to bring offshore earnings back to the U.S. in exchange for a lower tax rate, leaderships plan would require U.S.-based companies to pay the repatriation tax regardless of whether they bring their offshore money home.

While the differences between the Freedom Caucuss four principles and leaderships framework are not minor, they could be worked through. But the red line the caucus has drawn against the border adjustment tax is more problematic for House leadership.

There is not consensus for the border adjustment tax, Meadows said. The sooner we acknowledge that and get on with a plan that actually works and actually can build consensus, the better off well be.

The border adjustment tax, or BAT, is a proposal to tax imports instead of exports, reversing the way the United States taxes goods crossing its borders. House GOP leaders, namely Speaker Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin and Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady of Texas, have pushed for the tax as a way to discourage U.S. companies from moving operations overseas and to raise roughly $1 trillion in revenue to partially offset an ambitious corporate tax rate cut. But the idea has faced steep opposition from within their own party Meadows and others have argued, that its politically unfeasible to pass.

I think its lost a lot of momentum, said Rep. Warren Davidson, a Freedom Caucus member. The Ohio Republican said he could actually live with the BAT as part of a larger tax overhaul but the problem is that leadership still has not offered a proposal on how to implement it.

Ryan and Brady have shown no interest in letting go of the BAT but say theyre open to better ideas for raising revenue and preventing tax base erosion, which could be triggered by a flood of U.S. taxpayers, primarily businesses, moving to lower tax jurisdictions.

Jim Jordans view

What is not in those principles is this concept of revenue neutrality, said Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan, a caucus member and former chairman of the group. Letting families keep more of their money is not a cost to government. It is a freedom.

Since Republicans are planning to use the budget reconciliation process to advance their tax bill, the measure must be deficit neutral for the tax overhaul to be considered permanent. GOP leaders say temporary tax cuts that would expire at the end of the 10-year budget window - like the George W. Bush tax cuts whose expiration led to the 2012-2013 fiscal cliff - is not an option, but the Freedom Caucus isnt ruling that out.

Some of the tax cuts could be temporary so you dont need to get full deficit neutral, but were hoping to get close to that, Jordan said.

An idea that Jordan proposed that could help achieve the needed savings is adding a welfare overhaul to the reconciliation instructions for the tax bill. The Freedom Caucus is looking at taking an official position, suggesting that as a possible trade-off to them supporting a budget deal with larger topline spending number for fiscal 2018, Jordan said.

Right now a budget cannot pass in the House of Representatives, he said.

Absent a budget deal along those lines, House Republicans will struggle - like they did last year - to pass a budget resolution, Jordan said. House Republicans need to pass and reconcile a budget resolution with the Senate to execute the GOPs procedural strategy for advancing a tax overhaul. An agreement on the topline spending number is also needed for appropriators to begin moving fiscal 2018 spending bills.

If someone can come up with a better idea than the one were putting forward . were all ears, Jordan said. But no one can. So we think thats the key in the short term to do all the things we promised the American people.

Meadows said Jordans welfare overhaul plan would result in roughly $400 billion in savings, and with that and the tax ideas the Freedom Caucus is discussing, a deficit neutral reconciliation bill is possible. It should get us there, he said, noting, though, that temporary tax cuts represent a fallback plan.

GOP problem

The divisions among House Republicans about how to approach a tax overhaul are complicated by the fact that GOP leaders are striving to come up with a single, unified plan that also has the support of the Senate and White House. The gaps among the Republican power structures are fairly wide.

Right now on tax reform theres disagreement in the House, theres disagreement in the Senate, theres disagreement between the House and the Senate and theres disagreement with the administration, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz said at a Faith and Freedom Coalition conference in Washington. Other than that, we are all on the same page.

Letting families keep more of their money is not a cost to government. It is a freedom. Jim Jordan AP Photo

http://limaohio.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/web1_Jordan-Jim-AtHearing-2.jpgLetting families keep more of their money is not a cost to government. It is a freedom. Jim Jordan AP Photo

Goup pushes 4 principles in tax overhaul

Visit link:

Freedom Caucus sets up battle with leadership over taxes - The ... - Lima Ohio

ByNEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

The Government is definitely on the right track with its promised Fiscal Responsibility legislation, a governance reform group said, while warning: The devil is in the details.

Matt Aubry, the Organisation for Responsible Governances (ORG) executive director, told Tribune Business that buy in from both the private sector and civil society was critical if a well-crafted Fiscal Responsibility Act is to work.

Emphasising that such legislation needed to be combined ina one-two punch with a Freedom of Information Act, Mr Aubry said the two reforms would improve economic development and decision-making, while also boosting consumer confidence and trust in government.

We feel this is definitely on the right track, and that theyre on the right lines, he told Tribune Business of the broad Fiscal Responsibility Act objectives outlined by KP Turnquest, minister of finance.

Were cautiously optimistic, but the devils in the detail and we need to see how this goes forward. Those were the critical words regarding a Fiscal Responsibility Act, but the particulars are very important. The nuances that make that happen are going to be important.

Mr Turnquest last week told the House of Assembly that the Fiscal Responsibility legislation proposed by the Minnis administration would target an annual GFS balanced Budget, meaning that the goal is to add no new debt to the existing $7-billion plus national debt.

The Governments other objective would be to maintain a desirable and sustainable debt-to-GDP ratio, Mr Turnquest said. To underpin this, the proposed law would require the Government to set out the assumptions underpinning its annual Budget, along with its longer-term fiscal targets.

Explanations would also have to be provided if Budget targets for prior years were missed, while short-term fiscal targets will have to be placed in the context of the Bahamas long-term objectives.

Mr Turnquest suggested that targets could also be set for some components of the Governments fixed-cost spending, such as the civil service wage bill, while plans and timelines for eliminating any deficits will also have to be laid out.

He also suggested that the Budget process could be opened to public consultation, in a bid to obtain a national consensus around the Governments fiscal targets, while Ministries and Departments eyeingnew initiatives maybe required to find the funding from their original allocations.

Mr Aubry told Tribune Business that Mr Turnquests comments sound like the basis of being fiscally responsible to me, and gave particular backing to the notion that non-budgeted government spending be justified through a cost/benefit analysis.

Were going to stress the importance of the private sector, he added, not just in holding the Governments feet to the fire, but in helping to craft strong and positive legislation.

Getting buy-in from the public is essential to help make this live. You can have great legislation, but if you dont have enforcement then the intent of great legislation doesnt happen.

Mr Aubry said the crux of Fiscal Responsibility legislation lay in the details, and he expressed concern that many recent laws gave latitude to the responsible Minister to override certain statutory provisions.

He added that having an open, accessible and structured process for the crafting of a Fiscal Responsibility Act was vital to obtaining public support, which was why ORG had itself recently issued recommendations forimproving consultation.

Public consultation is the critical part, as it creates a platform for the open sharing of data, Mr Aubry told Tribune Business. Making information publicly available is essential to open, modern governance. It facilitates better economic development.

He explained that by allowing the Bahamian public to play an active role in stemming government spending, they would be more understanding if social programmes had to be delayed or cancelled, and not respond in the reactionary manner many politicians fear.

If people have been part of that process, you will get their buy-in, acceptance and understanding, Mr Aubry reiterated, and if you can show a long-term plan, when it comes to times that will be more painful, people have a sense of when that will be alleviated.

That allows more consumer confidence, and greater trust in the Government and the democratic approach.

ORG has been among the numerous groupscampaigning for Fiscal Responsibility-type legislation, viewing it as a key tool in restraining government spending and forcing it to be more accountable and transparent over how it uses taxpayer monies.

The Government is currently seeking Parliamentary approval to borrow $722 million, which will be used to cover the estimated $500 million deficit for 2016-2017, and the $323 million forecast for 2017-2018.

With the Bahamas debt-to-GDP ratio now around 80 per cent when contingent liabilities are factored in, and the national debt climbing beyond $7 billion, the need for a Fiscal Responsibility Act has arguably never been greater.

Go here to read the rest:

'Devil Is In Details' On Fiscal Responsibility - Bahamas Tribune

Financial Post

'Millions and millions and millions of subscribers': Shaw's Freedom Mobile wants to grab quarter of wireless market Financial Post RBC analyst Drew McReynolds raised Shaw's price target to $31 from $30. Barclays analyst Phillip Huang called the deal a win-win for the companies, but would not assume Shaw will be able to transform Freedom into Videotron 2.0 in the next fiscal ... and more »

View original post here:

'Millions and millions and millions of subscribers': Shaw's Freedom Mobile wants to grab quarter of wireless market - Financial Post

"I think many things are being done to take care of the Freedom Caucus," said state Sen. Lou DAllesandro, D-Manchester, during a break in the budget negotiations on Tuesday.

Republican leaders from the House and Senate are close to a budget deal designed to attract Freedom Caucus votes through additional cuts in spending, lower revenue estimates than either the House, the Senate or the governor have proposed up to this point, and a new tax cut.

Budget conferees continued their grinding line-by-line review of the $11.8 billion spending plan, agreeing to a projection of $4.8 billion in state-generated revenue (not counting federal funds) over the two years of the budget.

Thats $29 million lower than estimates in the Senate-passed budget and $44 million less than the governors estimates, although the committee agreed to add $13 million to the Education Trust Fund over the two years through internet sales of lottery tickets.

Conferees also agreed to include in the budget the elimination of the electricity consumption tax. Billed at a rate of 0.00055 cents per kilowatt hour, it amounts to about 33 cents on a $120 electric bill, and generates about $6 million for the state budget each year.

The conservative revenue estimates were approved despite protests from Democrats on the committee, who endorsed the projections provided by Republican Gov. Chris Sununu. "The governor provided realistic estimates and these are artificially low," said Sen. Dan Feltes, D-Concord.

The lower revenue estimates set the stage for spending reductions demanded by members of the Freedom Caucus, whose 40 to 60 Republican votes will be essential to pass a budget without Democratic support.

Feltes said Republicans had an opportunity to win Democratic votes if they would agree to the revenue estimates submitted by Sununu, give up on a new round of business tax cuts and add about $45 million in spending, mostly to support health and human services programs.

That now seems out of the question, which means the budget that goes to the full House and Senate next week is likely to reflect additional cuts in spending.

Senate President Chuck Morse, R-Salem, set the stage for that outcome late Monday night, when he proposed a cut in General Fund spending by $28 million in each of the two years, for a total of $56 million.

As of early Tuesday night, the conference committee had agreed to a $5 million a year college scholarship program proposed by Sununu, and an increase of $500,000 per year for domestic violence programs.

Conferees also agreed to create the Office of Child Advocate to provide third-party oversight of the Department for Children, Youth and Families, at a cost of $140,000 a year, paid for out of general funds.

Other positions approved by the committee include one new attorney to prosecute election law violations, at a cost of $75,000 in the first year and $73,000 in the second.

House negotiators conceded to the Senate on judicial branch appropriations, eliminating a new Superior Court judge but adding a new Circuit Court judge in 2019.

A new pathologist position was added to the Medical Examiners Office to help ease the backlog of drug-related cases.

The House agreed to Senate changes in the states alcohol and drug rehabilitation fund, allocating 3.4 percent of liquor commission revenues to the fund and earmarking up to $4 million for construction and operation of a drug rehabilitation wing for juveniles at the Sununu Youth Services Center in Manchester.

State police got most of what was requested, including five more troopers for the Granite Hammer drug interdiction program in 2018. If the department can fill those positions, it can come back to the Legislative Fiscal Committee for five more in 2019.

Some of the most controversial issues, like funding for full-day kindergarten, a new round of business tax cuts and rate increases for nursing home services, remained unresolved as of early Tuesday evening, although negotiations continued into the night.

All decisions of conferees are tentative and subject to change before final approval of the compromise spending plan that will go before both chambers for a vote next week.

Union Leader Staff Writer Kevin Landrigan contributed to this report.

Read the original here:

Lawmakers move closer to state budget appealing to Freedom ... - The Union Leader

File video: Freshman Rep. Brad Wenstrup talks about his toughest vote, his partys future, and other issues with Enquirer Washington correspondent Deirdre Shesgreen. Deirdre Shesgreen

Some constituents complained to Ohio Rep. Brad Wenstrup that they did not want Obamacare heard from some constituents this weekend who do not want Obamacare repealed.(Photo: The Enquirer/Deirdre Shesgreen)Buy Photo

Cincinnati's Brad Wenstrup rushed to aid fellow congressman Steve Scalise after he had been shot on a baseball field near Washington, D.C., on Wednesday morning.

Wenstrup's act of heroism came as no surprise to those who know the 58-year-old podiatrist best.

Here are five things you should know about Wenstrup, now in his third term in Congress:

1. He's not forgotten where he's from.

Wenstrup grew up in the Cincinnati neighborhood of Hyde Park and comes from a long line of St. Xavier High School graduates in his family, including his father, Jack, and younger brother, Jay. Last year, Wenstrup hosted the St. Xavier rugby team on Capitol Hill. Wenstrup received his degree in psychology at the University of Cincinnati and went onto obtain his master's and medical degrees fromRosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science in North Chicago, Illinois. He then returned home to Cincinnati in the late 1980s and started his own podiatry practice in the Carew Tower Downtown. After 15 years there, Wenstrup joined Wellington Orthopaedicand Sports Medicine.He now lives in Columbia Tusculum, a Cincinnati neighborhood.

2. Wenstrup joined the military in 1998.

About a decade into his medical career, Wenstrup decided to join the U.S. Army Reserve. His sister had been diagnosed with leukemia, and Wenstrup was a match for a bone-morrow transplant. It saved her life. The experience prompted Wenstrup to do more to help people. "Time was ticking by, and I thought, 'I'm not getting any younger.' I wanted to serve, so one day I just called 1-800-USA-ARMY and joined," he once told UC's alumni magazine.

3. The Enquirer helped make him known.

In December 2006, hit medical drama "Grey's Anatomy" was in its third season on ABC and "Dr. McDreamy" (actor Patrick Dempsey) was one of television's leading men. It prompted former Enquirer TV reporter John Kiesewetter to ask readers to submit names of local doctors who they believed wasCincinnati's version of "Dr. McDreamy." A reader submitted Wenstrup's name, propelling the then-bachelor into the public's eye for the first time. Wenstrup, who some believe bears a resemblance to actor George Clooney, got married in 2012 during his first congressional campaign.

4. Cincinnati's streetcar helped Wenstrup build apolitical brand, name ID.

Wenstrup took his first crack at politics in 2009, when he ran for Cincinnati mayor against well-known incumbent Mark Mallory. Then 50, Wenstrup launched his campaign in full attack mode on Mallory's streetcar proposal. Wenstrup called the proposal "hugely irresponsible and poorly planned" during his campaign launch event. "I worry, about an unused streetcar named Debt," Wenstrup said. He made a surprisingly strong showing for an unknown candidate, losing by 9 percentage points. The race helped him build name recognition and earned him credibility with streetcar-loathing fiscal conservatives. Many of those same folks, including tea party members, backed Wenstrup in his congressional race against Jean Schmidt in 2012. By the way, the GOP hasn't had a candidate in a Cincinnati mayor's race since.

5. He worked in anotorious Iraqi prison.

Wenstrup was called to active duty in 2005, and served 14 months as the chief surgeon at Iraq's infamous Abu Ghraib prison hospital. He told The Enquirer in 2012 that witnessing the horrors of war and surviving them gave him a renewed sense of purpose. "I made it home while others didn't," Wenstrup said. "It gave me a greater appreciation of life and of freedom." He won the Bronze Star and remains an active reservist as a lieutenant colonel. The war influenced him to run for Congress. His close friend, 42-year-old U.S. Army Maj. John P. Pryor, was killed on Christmas Day 2008 inIraq. Pryor was a combat medic. "He was really an inspiration for me to do more with my life," Wenstrup said in 2012."I thought about him during the mayor's race, and I thought about him during this race."

The Enquirer archives contributed to this report.

Read or Share this story: http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/politics/2017/06/14/5-things-know-cincinnatis-brad-wenstrup-who-helped-treat-fellow-congressman-after-shooting/395709001/

Read more here:

5 things to know about Cincinnati's Brad Wenstrup, who helped treat fellow congressman after shooting - Cincinnati.com

As Abenomics approaches the five-year mark, expect the government to toss out loads of sunny figures and declare victory. But the two most important numbers 0.7 and 72 tell a gloomier story.

Japans potential growth rate 1,631 days into Prime Minister Shinzo Abes tenure is an unmuscular 0.7 percent and inflation is essentially flat. The three arrows of his economic policy monetary easing, fiscal loosening and deregulation flew wide of the target even though Abe is armed with rare majorities in both houses of the Diet and reasonably buoyant approval numbers. Good luck spinning that as victory.

Abes second number, 72, is Tokyos press-freedom ranking by Reporters Without Borders. When Abe took office in December 2012, he inherited a ranking of 22, ahead of the United Kingdom and Australia. Today, Japan stands 50 spots lower, neighbored by Malawi and Croatia, and only barely besting Hong Kong, where China is forging shackles to hobble media autonomy. A coincidence? Try spinning this one, too.

Its important to recognize how connected these two numbers really are.

Japans press-freedom shortcomings have been very much in the news thanks to reports from United Nations staffers. David Kaye, the U.N.s special rapporteur on press matters, discerns significant worrying signals that require attention lest they undermine Japans democratic foundations. Another U.N. staffer, Joseph Cannataci, worries about undue restrictions on the right to privacy and freedom of expression.

Now, Tokyo could just roll its eyes at non-binding remarks from officials living 11,000 km away and move on. Instead, Abes team threw an epic hissy fit, the fury of which smacked of a guilty conscience. Such defensiveness doesnt alter the fact the U.N.s concerns jibe with those of Reporters Without Borders.

Abes administration has taken two very public steps to muzzle reporters. His state secrets act a draconian 2014 law that could put journalists and whistleblowers in jail for 10 years sent Japans press-freedom grade plunging. The next blow is a chillingly broad conspiracy law. I use quotation marks because very few understand this ambiguously-worded effort to penalize plots even if theyre not carried out aspirations U.S. President Donald Trump shares. Not surprisingly, copies of George Orwells book Nineteen Eighty-Four are flying off the shelves in Japan.

Rather than pushing back at critics, Abes Cabinet should indulge in a moment of self-awareness. Its not that overseas rapporteurs and reporters dont get Japan or are trafficking in fake news. Japan really does have a media problem, and its holding back the economy and undermining Abes goal of raising Tokyos status among global leaders.

Even before Abes state secrets act, Japans media cared more about access, institutional loyalty, social harmony and coddling advertisers than policing the government or companies. Its kisha clubs are more about keeping the press in line than holding the powerful accountable, morphing all too many reporters into repeaters of the party line. A prime example: the 2011 Fukushima nuclear crisis, when local journalists deferred to government talking points and foreign reporters didnt.

This policy direction risk making a media system already predisposed to self-censorship downright subservient. In late 2013, Reports Without Borders admitted what Japanese scribes generally wont: Abes Liberal Democratic Party is making investigative journalism illegal, and is trampling on the fundamental principles of the confidentiality of journalists sources and public interest. New legal risks make major news organizations less inclined to report on true radiation risks in Fukushima. It discourages exposes on 2020 Olympic spending and graft. It encourages reporters to pull punches while writing about alleged scandals involving school operators Moritomo Gakuen and Kake Gakuen. It tamed scrutiny of efforts to revise the pacifist postwar Constitution that most Japanese revere.

The chill in the media air undermines Abenomics. For starters, policy priorities since 2012 have media outlets turning their tendency for self-censorship up to 11. One of the key planks of Abes upgrades, at least in theory, is strengthening corporate governance to boost competitiveness and wages. Yet most of the most aggressive reporting on Takatas deadly air bags, Toshibas accounting shenanigans, Mitsubishi Motors fuel-economy scandal, Sharps opacity, the Bank of Japan cornering the stock market and the dark sides of devaluating the yen came from foreign media outfits.

If were serious about taking on the bureaucracy, identifying wasteful spending, attacking public corruption or shaming wayward executives, a free and aggressive media is an ally. How can antiquated and clubby corporate and political systems change if theyre immune to scrutiny?

Japan doesnt have a monopoly on press-freedom concerns, but its a glaring outlier among Group of Seven nations. Reporters Without Borders ranks all six of Japans G-7 peers well within the top 50 countries. Observing the amazingly dogged journalism afoot in the U.S., where New York Times and Washington Post reporters take Trump to task daily with scoop after scoop, its hard not to lament the state of media affairs here and how it holds Japan back.

If Abes team had put one-tenth as much energy into modernizing taxes, encouraging entrepreneurship and empowering women as muzzling the press, the economy might be making global headlines. Sadly, Japans global edge is eroding on both scores. Bad news, indeed.

William Pesek is a Tokyo-based journalist.

Visit link:

Why Japan's poor media grade matters - The Japan Times

Both repelling and wallowing in a manufactured crisis are surefire ways for the Capitol to put itself in the headlines. Thats why some fresh drama fabrication is getting underway, even before the lawmakers have decided if their response will be crisply responsible or melodramatically craven.

This morality play will be about the federal debt, which is not going anywhere except up in the near term, no matter what anyone in Washington says or does to the contrary.

But that inevitability wont forestall an enormous amount of political jawboning. And given the Seinfeld nature of the season ahead its still shaping up to be a policymaking summer about nothing rhetoric about the debt ceiling will draw more notice than at any time in the past six years.

The Republican majorities in the House and Senate have two possible storylines to advance.

They can sound the alarm about the looming catastrophe of the United States defaulting on its loans from creditors across the globe, then take credit for pushing through broadly bipartisan legislation defusing that threat maybe even with plenty of time to spare.

Alternatively, they can impose all manner of blame on those previously in power, Barack Obama alone at the head of the list, asserting that they wont bail out the Democrats and their perpetual addiction to red ink unless they can secure some ironclad future fiscal discipline in return.

GOP leaders look to keep that second scenario on the table for as long as possible, because it appeals to a swath of the partys electoral base around the country; to many lawmakers who describe themselves as fiscal hawks on a theoretical level; and to that finite but intense group of confrontational conservatives propelled to power by the tea party wave.

But holding the governments checkbook hostage to a unachievable goal will likely be abandoned in the end, because that hostile action is as politically risky and economically dangerous as it is apples-to-oranges inappropriate.

Last week, President Donald Trump, the real estate wheeler-dealer who proclaimed himself the King of Debt during last years campaign, essentially endorsed the keep-it-clean scenario.

The declaration was especially unusual given his stated interest in defying establishment Washington thinking. And, to be sure, this is a president with a well-demonstrated interest in changing his position whenever he imagines the situation calls for it.

Still, his initial taking of sides was almost entirely overlooked by a public transfixed with the legal and ethical clouds quickly thickening over his presidency, and so it could well get ignored by Republicans on the Hill eager to go their own way while Trump remains preoccupied by the constellation of problems that have put his White House under siege.

This is the centennial year of an anachronistic statute requiring Congress to set a cap on how much the government can have in outstanding obligations the so-called debt ceiling. That means lawmakers are compelled to revise the law and increase the cap, or raise the debt ceiling, whenever borrowing reaches the limit.

Increasing the limit on borrowing has nothing whatsoever to do with deciding to spend more.

When Congress votes to raise the debt ceiling, its declaring its understanding that another wave of government bills are due then making a commitment to paying them all on time and in full. But those invoices are all for government services dictated, and entitlement benefits approved, by Congresses controlled by both parties and endorsed by presidents of both parties over the course of many years.

Thats because national debt, at a basic level, is the sum of all the borrowing necessary to cover the annual deficits the government has run in all but four of the previous 50 years, times when spending has exceeded tax revenue and the Treasury has had to sell interest-bearing bonds to bridge the difference.

So raising the debt limit is when todays politicians promise to make good on the commitments of their predecessors.

Viewed that way, its easy to understand the position that fighting over future fiscal priorities should never be permitted to violate the trust that lenders around the world have put in the United States for decades in the past. In the same way, when a couple cannot agree whether giving up movie night or letting the lawn go unmowed is necessary to pinch a few pennies from their expense base, it makes no sense for them to express their anger at the impasse by refusing to pay their mortgage or keep current on their student loans. They have to service their debts to the banks every month, no matter how long theyre at loggerheads over corralling their creature comforts.

Trump effectively sided with those who would decouple the bill-paying from the budget-setting when he told GOP leaders at the White House that Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin would be the administrations single point man on the debt. Mnuchin is pushing for a clean debt ceiling before investors start getting worried duty-bound as he is to prevent a repeat of six years ago, when a debt standoff between Obama and House Republicans was bridged hours before a potential default, but the United States was punished with a credit rating downgrade anyway.

One of the congressmen in the vanguard of holding the debt hostage to legislated spending reductions that year was Mick Mulvaney, whos now the White House budget director and has publicly advocated reprising that fight now.

Trumps statement to the Hill leadership essentially pushed Mulvaney out of the debate, and the next day, his Cabinet colleague who had been a House soul mate in the 2011 budget wars, Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, told Congress he was totally behind a straightforward debt boost.

Speaker Paul D. Ryan told reporters last week that he has not committed to either the quick-and-clean or the confrontational approaches.

Im not foreclosing any option at this time, he said, in part because GOP leaders have not concluded they can assemble a package of budget cuts that would secure support from 218 House Republicans.

As the health care debate showed, what the Freedom Caucus is demanding from the right is sometimes too much for the comparably-sized bloc of mostly suburban GOP lawmakers in the center.

And besides, whatever might get pushed through along party lines in the House would have even more trouble in the Senate. The debt ceiling can be increased by simple majorities in both the House and Senate as part of a budget resolution, but drafting a viable version of that document is proving highly problematic.

So its highly likely that a debt bill, with or without strings attached, would have to advance past a filibuster. That means support from eight Democrats, and theres no sign those votes exist.

Whatever draws the support of that many Democratic senators in the current climate would probably win over another 30 of them, too. And thats probably only one thing: a straightforward increase in the borrowing limit, one that also promised to draw a big bloc of GOP votes.

Almost every other country allows its debt to increase without any required affirmation from the government. And a persistent drumbeat from academics and some in Congress says the United States should join them, removing at last one balky piece from the already cumbersome budget machinery and one that, should it fail and spawn a default, could produce economic havoc and raise the governments cost of borrowing for generations.

But the countervailing argument has always won the day: If lawmakers are made to confront the consequences of past decision-making, they may get scared straight and adopt policies that start slowing the need for so much red ink.

The accumulated debt has steadily increased since 1969 and is now above $19.9 trillion. The Treasury is currently using some complex but legal accounting maneuvers to keep the government under the cap for several more months September at the earliest, according to Mnuchin. It might even be later except for an unusual kink in the governments cash flow: Tax revenue this year isat least $60 billion, or 2 percent, below projections a consequence, most likely, of the wealthiest Americans deferring their IRS payments in the hopes of a tax cut before their extensions run out.

Trump and the GOP now see their health care aspirations idling in the Senate, their tax overhaul proposals stuck in first gear, their infrastructure plan still in the garage and the routine appropriations process in shambles in the body shop. A bill raising the debt limit with much less drama than usual stands a chance of becoming the first meaningful, and bipartisan, legislative vehicle to cross the 2017 finish line.

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

Go here to see the original:

Will GOP Settle for a Clean Debt Limit Win? - Roll Call

Detroit police officer Danon Bell directs traffic at Comerica Park this month. Police work hours are capped at 17 hours in a 24-hour period.(Photo: Robin Buckson / The Detroit News)Buy Photo

The number of overtime hours worked by Detroit police officers has skyrocketed in recent years, costing taxpayers tens of millions of dollars but Detroits mayor and top cop say its worth it, insisting theres a price to sustaining double-digit crime reduction.

Union officials disagree, pointing to a steady loss in staffing over the years that has forced officers to work extra shifts. They say that puts overworked cops and citizens at risk, although Police Chief James Craig said theres a cap on how much overtime officers may work.

Detroit officers from the rank of lieutenant down who are eligible for overtime logged 765,881 overtime hours during fiscal year 2015-16, according to data obtained by The Detroit News under the Freedom of Information Act. Thats a 69 percent increase from 2012-13, when officers logged 454,136 hours of OT.

Detroit taxpayers annual cost for police overtime rose from $16.9 million in 2012-13 to $28.34 million last year. In 2012, overtime represented 5.2 percent of the $322 million police budget; in 2016, overtime was 8.9 percent of the $318 million budget.

The spike in overtime has been accompanied by a drop in crime: From 2013, when Craig became police chief and enacted policies he said have led to the increase, to 2016, violent crime dropped 11.8 percent, while property offenses plunged 27 percent, according to Detroit Police statistics.

Theres a cost of doing business, and when you talk about improving service and driving down crime, which weve done during this time period, I say its worth it, Craig said.

Craig said there is an ongoing internal affairs investigation into overtime abuse by Detroit cops. The probe was launched in November 2014 after a supervisor in the departments Homicide Section, Lt. Joseph Tiseo, reported officers were charging the city for time they hadnt worked.

Seven officers are under investigation for falsely reporting overtime, Craig said. I dont think its a widespread problem, he said. Seven cases is a drop in the bucket.

They ... need downtime

Union officials insist a staffing shortage is the main reason for the overtime spike. The police officer ranks fell from 1,986 in 2012 to 1,590 in 2016, a 20 percent drop. The force has about 1,700 officers, although only about 1,500 are on the street, with about 200 recruits still in the police academy, said Mark Diaz, president of the Detroit Police Officers Association.

The bulk of our overtime issue is due to the need for more officers, and to stop the bleeding from people leaving the department for better pay and benefits, Diaz said, adding the department loses about 20-25 officers per month in large part because Detroit pays its officers a starting annual salary of $36,000.

The overtime issue wont be remedied until we fix the pay and benefits issue, he said.

Mark Young, president of the Lieutenants and Sergeants Association union, said working too much overtime can pose a safety risk.

Some overtime is good, because it allows the officers to make extra money, and they need to with the salaries they make, Young said. But they also need downtime theyre human beings working a highly stressful job. When you have tired officers, thats a danger to them and the citizens.

Police Commissioner Willie Burton also expressed concern too much overtime might pose a danger. Working all that overtime is a temporary solution to the reduced manpower, and its working for now, but long-term, the officers wont be able to keep it up because theyll get burned out.

Craig said hes taken measures to ensure that doesnt happen. Most of the overtime is voluntary, he said. And weve put a cap on how many hours officers can work. Craig said officers may not work more than 17 hours in one 24-hour period.

Craig also noted if a shift needs to be filled, he relaxed the rules to allow officers from all precincts to volunteer for the extra time, meaning officers arent ordered to work overtime.

Setting staffing priorities

The departments overall staff, which includes all ranks, fell from 2,570 in 2012 to 2,255 in 2016.

Craig said as of June 2, the department was short 126 budgeted positions. Thats good news because were closing the gap, he said. Last year, we were down 300.

John Roach, spokesman for Mayor Mike Duggan, said in a statement: We agree with the chiefs approach on this and believe the increased overtime is necessary. DPD is adding about 30 officers a month to the force and has the budget to add a total of 300 more officers in the next year. As staffing levels increase, the department will continue to track overtime and manage it to an optimal level based on public safety needs.

Its also important to understand that despite the additional overtime, DPDs expenses this year are projected to fall within its budgeted amount and the city is projected to have an overall budget surplus for the third consecutive year when the fiscal year ends on June 30th.

Craig acknowledged the staff shortage is one element thats contributed to the overtime increase, but said a number of other factors are driving it.

A year after I got here (in 2013), we created a minimum staffing deployment, he said. We wanted to make sure we were meeting our response-time goals. In order to do that, we had to ensure that we met minimum staffing.

Staffing was dictated by priority calls handled, crimes, geographic footprint of a particular precinct; we came up with a formula for each precinct. When we created that which is the way policing is done theres a cost. If a command does not meet minimum staffing, theyre authorized to fill that car with overtime.

Minimum staffing requirements werent in place when I got here; thats why we had a one-hour response time.

The chief said response time has been whittled to 12 minutes, although the decrease is partially due to Craig changing the way response time is calculated.

A $75 million budget cut to the police department in the 2012-13 fiscal year which represented 18 percent of the total budget forced the department to shed 380 officers. In 2012, then-Mayor Dave Bing tried to offset the cuts by closing police precincts from 4 p.m.-8 a.m., creating virtual precincts and requiring officers to work 12-hour shifts.

When Craig assumed command of the police department the following year, he was given the power to make unilateral decisions by Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr. Among the new chiefs first moves was to restore police precincts to 24-hour service and put officers back on eight-hour shifts.

Craig also got rid of police districts, a model implemented in 2005 by former Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, in which multiple precincts were combined to cut costs. Craig restored the 12 individual precincts, which he said better serve the community.

I didnt think the district model facilitated neighborhood policing, so we went back to what I refer to as neighborhood precincts, Craig said. And the 12-hour days were killing morale among the officers.

Craig also created new ranks, including detective and corporal, which he said is a morale-booster because it gives cops a chance to advance.

Since I got here, Ive done 822 promotions, he said. Prior to his arrival, the department hadnt offered a promotional examination for eight years.

Police officers want advancement, but they werent getting the opportunity before, he said. Well, all that costs money.

Craig said officers on mandatory standby now are paid overtime, which he said wasnt being done when he took over.

Its the law: If you want someone on mandatory standby youve got to pay them one hour of overtime for every eight hours theyre on standby, Craig said. When I got here, the way it was done was, if you wanted to work in those specialty units like homicide, you didnt get that money, and if you wanted to stay in those units, you didnt complain.

Diaz said only a small number of officers are on standby duty. I dont think thats a big factor, he said.

Craig said restructuring the police department has resulted in officers working more overtime but he said its also helped lower crime, a trend he said continues.

We had a good year last year, and so far this year, were trending below that, Craig said. As of June 4, overall crime is down 9 percent. Thats phenomenal. But theres a cost to sustaining that downward trend. Its worth the tradeoff.

ghunter@detroitnews.com

(313) 222-2134

Twitter: @GeorgeHunter_DN

Read or Share this story: http://detne.ws/2shGcOs

Visit link:

Detroit police overtime hours, costs soar - The Detroit News

Last Friday (June 9) was Tax Freedom Day, marking the day the average Canadian family has made enough income to pay all its taxes for this year, according to the Fraser Institute.

If families had to pay its total tax bill up front, they would have worked until June 8 to pay the total tax bill imposed on them by all three levels of government. Its not until June 9 that families start working for themselves, not the government, according to the institute.

"Tax Freedom Day helps put the total tax burden into perspective and helps Canadians understand just how much of their money they pay in taxes every year," said Charles Lammam, director of fiscal studies at the Fraser Institute.

It comes a day later this year, as the average familys taxes are expected to increase at a faster rate this year (2.4%) compared with income growth (2.2%).

The institute used $108,674 as the average annual household income for its calculations and found that families will pay, on average $47,135, in total taxes. This is compared with respective figures of $105,236 and $45,167 reported last year.

That's 43.4% of its annual income going to income taxes, payroll taxes, health taxes, sales taxes, property taxes, fuel taxes, carbon taxes, and "sin" taxes like alcohol and tobacco.

"It's difficult for average Canadians to add up all the taxes they pay in a year because the different levels of government levy such a wide range of taxes, said Lammam.

That's why we do these calculations to give Canadians a better understanding of exactly how much they pay to government."

syoon@biv.com

Visit link:

Tax Freedom Day comes a day later this year due to inflation: Fraser Institute - Business in Vancouver