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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more from the original source:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Go here to read the rest:

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

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

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

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

About D.R. Horton, Inc.

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

Read more:

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

Inslee, Culp meet in first and only governor’s debate – Thehour.com

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

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

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

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

Our fundamental duty is saving those lives, Inslee said.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

__

AP reporter Lisa Baumann in Seattle contributed.

Here is the original post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

USN

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

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

USN

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

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

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

USN

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

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

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

USN

The Virginia class attack submarine USS Minnesota while under construction.

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

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

USN

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

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

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

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

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

USN

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

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

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

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

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

Contact the author: joe@thedrive.com

Original post:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Visit link:

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

NCC to invite experts to CtiTV News hearing –

By Shelley Shan / Staff reporter

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

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

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

Photo: Wang Yi-sung, Taipei Times

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read more:

NCC to invite experts to CtiTV News hearing -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The rest is here:

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

Candidates want to represent district in Statehouse – The Herald

By CANDY NEALcneal@dcherald.com

Kendall

Lindauer

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

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

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

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

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

Teresa Kendall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Shane Lindauer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link:

Candidates want to represent district in Statehouse - The Herald

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

by Joe Moses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

RELATED: Final candidate list for Abbotsford ridings revealed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@ty_olsenLike us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter

View original post here:

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

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

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

Below are her comments, as prepared:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Our schools moved to an online instruction model.

Our restaurants and cafes moved to curbside pickup.

Our people social distanced and in many cases stayed home.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Originally posted here:

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

The Social Cost Of COVID-19 – The ASEAN Post

In 1960, the Nobel laureate economist Ronald H Coase introduced the problem of social cost: human activities often have negative externalities, so individual rights cannot be absolute. Institutions must intervene. There is no better example of this dynamic than the COVID-19 crisis. While virtually every country has suffered as a result of the pandemic, some have done much better than others.

Whereas some have reduced COVID-19 cases to near zero, others have had steadily climbing infection and death rates for months. As McKinsey & Company has noted, economic activity associated with discretionary mobility has returned to normal for the former group. Among the latter, such activity remains about 40 percent below the pre-pandemic level.

Not everyone is suffering equally. Low-paid workers with inferior access to medical care and less opportunity to stay home say, because their jobs are classified as essential are bearing the clinical and economic brunt of the crisis.

This puts everyone at risk. After all, even if a country contains the first wave of COVID-19 infections, it will remain vulnerable, as the virus continues to be imported from worse-performing countries. In other words, the social costs of inadequate institutional arrangements in some countries are spilling over to those with well-functioning institutions.

The first step toward addressing this problem is to identify which institutional arrangements are most effective for reducing the social costs of the COVID-19 crisis. This is not, as one might assume, just a matter of having strong institutions. The United States (US) and the United Kingdom (UK) are institutionally robust, and both had weeks, if not months, to prepare before their outbreaks began, but both have had among the worlds highest infection and mortality rates.

By contrast, East Asian countries were the first to be infected, meaning they had little, if any, time to prepare. And yet many of them are among the countries that have reduced COVID-19 cases to near zero. The difference comes down to attitudes: what role and responsibilities each society attributes to government, and to what extent it expects the community to act as a collective agent of the common good.

In the US, there is a long-standing emphasis on personal freedom. Small government is a commonly heard refrain, with many arguing that individuals acting as self-interested participants in markets and in social and political processes will naturally produce positive outcomes. Government intervention even in the event of a pandemic infringes on individual rights and, indeed, on the very meaning of being an American. Protests over shelter-in-place orders and mask mandates reflect this view.

This is very different from the prevailing mindset in East Asia. For example, many Western observers have attributed Chinas success in containing COVID-19 to its authoritarian regime, which supposedly infringed on individual freedoms, privacy, and economic efficiency in a way no democratic government ever could.

Coases theory shows why that logic is flawed. As he explains, the market may be able to minimise social costs if all actors have full information and face near-zero transaction costs. But those conditions are unrealistic even in normal times.

During a pandemic, no individual can possibly receive comprehensive and current information on the virus. In fact, the very existence of asymptomatic carriers precludes the possibility of full information. And, because the transaction costs of mask wearing, quarantining, testing, and contact tracing are high, making compliance a matter of individual choice will never be enough to contain the virus.

But Soviet-style centralised intervention is not feasible: agents of the state cannot observe every move every person makes and enforce every precautionary behaviour at all times. And, contrary to popular belief, that is not what China has done. Instead, recognising that fully voluntary action was inadequate, the state provided comprehensive and mandatory rules to facilitate individual and communal compliance, as well as fiscal and logistical support for implementation.

To illustrate, upon arriving in Shenzhen from Hong Kong, one of us headed to a designated hotel equipped with medical staff conducting tests and monitoring temperatures for a 14-day mandatory quarantine. On the way to the hotel, both the landlord and a community contact person got in touch, having been informed by the authorities to prepare for a new arrival from abroad.

From the airport to the quarantine hotel to home, every single individual immigration officers, bus drivers, security screeners, medical personnel, and hotel staff wore full personal protective equipment (PPE). Common areas were regularly disinfected. The state provided all needed resources.

Of course, a traveller would prefer to go home, rather than stay in a quarantine hotel for two weeks. But ostensibly high compliance costs for individuals do not outweigh the overall social costs of partial interventions. So, with institutional support and clear guidance delivered via many channels, including social media people have taken the necessary precautions. Responsibility for implementation has also been clearly delineated across government agencies.

The results sharply reduced COVID-19 infections and deaths speak for themselves. Other East Asian countries such as Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Vietnam have achieved similar success, using very similar institutional approaches. In every case, the government intervened early, devised comprehensive rules and guidance, and provided the resources needed to apply relevant measures. And in every case, society was receptive to government intervention aimed at advancing the common good.

Crucially, these countries have very different cultures and political systems. Attempts to turn an effective institutional response to the pandemic into a political or ideological battleground are thus misguided, at best. The Coasian lesson is that, regardless of ideology or politics, each society must develop institutional arrangements that minimise social costs. After all, those suffering the consequences of others decisions are unlikely to revel in their freedom.

Related Articles:

COVID-19: Beware The Second Wave?

Vietnams Exemplary Response To COVID-19

Go here to see the original:

The Social Cost Of COVID-19 - The ASEAN Post

Stalwarts who founded and built the UNP must be turning in their graves – NewsIn.Asia

By Gitanjali Marcelline/newsin.asia

It all started on Friday, September 6, 1946 at 5.00 p.m in Palm Court, Albert Crescent, Colombo. A Tamil member of the State Council, S. Natesan, proposed that a new political party be formed and that it be named United National Party (UNP). A Muslim member of the State Council, T. B. Jayah, seconded the proposal, thus laying the foundation of a party which manifestly stood for national integration.

United thats what the UNP used to be in its heyday, when it was the ruling party from 1947 to 1956; from 1965 to 1970; from 1977 to 1994; from 2001 to 2004 and finally, from 2015 to 2020. In total, the UNP had governed Sri Lanka for 36 out of the 72 years since independence in 1948.The Party had control of the Executive Presidency (EP) for 16 years from EPs institution in 1978 to 1994.

What made the UNP such a powerful and durable party? The answer lay in its having sound leadership and people-centric policies. From the time of Prime Minister D. S. Senanayake up to President Ranasinghe Premadasa, apart from representing the business community, the UNPs leadership had adopted people-oriented policies on agriculture, power-generation and infrastructure development. It opened up the economy, thereby putting an end to excruciating and artificial shortages of articles of common use. It launched the Swarnabhoomi land grants program, and theMahapola educational scheme. It set up two universities (the Ruhuna and Eastern). It fulfilled the Million Houses Program, launched the Gam Udawa Janasaviya, and the 200 garments factories program. It also decentralized the administration, which appealed to the masses, especially at the grassroots level.

Getting on to the Ranil Wickremesinghe era, from 1994 2001, the UNP was in the opposition. Wickremesinghe was a relatively young politician with pro-West views and a penchant for neo-liberal economic policies. But what he sorely lacked was the common touch and an understanding of the needs of the hoi polloi. However, he had a rare political skill which enabled him to keep the UNP under his thumb even in adversity. He remains the leader of the UNP even when it has been reduced to a rump, as indeed it is now.

By 2001 Sri Lanka was facing the worst economic downturn since independence, brought about both by the badly going war against the LTTE and gross governmental mismanagement. The GDP had shrunk by 2.5% and the growth rate was negative. Not surprisingly, the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP)-led government fell in 2001 because of the defection of disgruntled people from its ranks. In the ensuing elections the UNP-led coalition won and Wickremesinghe became Prime Minister. The UNP fought on a platform of peace with the LTTE so that economic development could be pursued, a cause which had the peoples support.

Wickremasinghe became the Prime Minister for the second time (the first time being in 1993-94) and began a cohabitation arrangement with President Kumaratunga who belonged to the Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP). Two months into his Premiership, Wickremesinghe signed a controversial ceasefire agreement with the LTTE. The agreement was followed by intense peace negotiations to find a solution to the ethnic conflict. But President Chandrika Kumaratunga believed that there had been a sell out to the LTTE which resulted in her taking over some key ministries which in a way crippled the Wickremesinghe government. But more on that later.

With ceasefire in place, the UNP-led government maintained strict fiscal discipline and market-friendly policies, which led to a resurgence in the economy, large-scale investments, and rapid economic growth. The government created key economic institutions such as the Board of Investment, the Ministry of Small and Rural enterprise and the Information Communication Technology Agency. Economic growth continued to accelerate, reaching almost 6% at the end of 2003, while inflation was at less than 2%, an all-time low. Many local and foreign experts believed that Sri Lanka was poised to reach double-digit economic growth within a few years.

So, what went wrong for the UNP? Although peace reigned and the economy grew, the ceasefire agreement with the LTTE was not popular and more importantly did not have the support of President Kumaratunga who, took over some key ministries to cripple the UNP government. Given the nationalistic wave Kumaratunga created along with her alliance with the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna (JVP), her United Peoples Freedom Alliance(UPFA) won the 2004 elections, throwing the UNP again into the limbo.

In the Presidential election of 2005, the UPFAs new candidate, the then Prime Minister, Mahinda Rajapaksa, beat Wickremesinghe, though the latter performed reasonably well by bagging 48.43% of the vote. However, it is widely believed that if not for the boycott of the polls in the North and parts of the East, due to LTTEs intimidation, Wickramesinghe would have won. Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged, that Wickremesinghehad lost much support among the Sinhalese majority because of his dalliance with the dreaded LTTE.

The second reason for his downfall was his penchant for supporting friends even when these friendships were costing him public support. In 2001, a friend, Arjuna Mahendran, was appointed Chairman and Director-General of the Board of Investment, where his conduct was reportedly controversial. He was to come back as Central Bank Governor in 2015 only to indulge in the US$ 11 million bonds scam.

After winning the 30-year-old war against LTTE in 2009, President Rajapaksa called for an early Presidential Election in 2010. The UNP and JVP backedGen (Rtd).Sarath Fonseka. This was the first time UNP had backed a non-UNP member for President. Though Fonseka was a formidable challenger as a war hero, Rajapaksa won with 57.88% of the popular vote. In April, Rajapaksa called for parliamentary elections which the UPFA won, bagging 144 seats while UNP-led United National Front (UNF) bagged only 60. Rajapaksa was still seen as the war winner and his charisma was infectious.

Puffed up with pride, President Rajapaksa, called for an early election in 2015 to seek a third term, not knowing that his corruption and misrule had dented his image greatly. The UNP and several other parties backed the rebellious SLFP General Secretary Maithripala Sirisena. Sirisena emerged victorious with 51.28% of the popular vote, in an election which saw a record turnout of 81.52%. Immediately afterSirisena was sworn in, Wickremesinghe was sworn in as Prime Minister for the third time in his political career.

Being Sirisenas main prop, the UNP took 70% of the ministerial posts. Wickremesinghe felt free to pamper his buddies and cohorts with plum positions in the cabinet and other semi-government organizations.Charitha Ratwattes brother Suren Ratwatte was appointed CEO of Sri Lankan Airlines. Towards the end of Ratwattes 6 months probation, when the Board failed to unanimously agree to confirm him, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe pushed for his confirmation. The same year, Wickremesinghes other buddy, Malik Samarawickrama, was appointed to Parliament on the National List. Later he became the Minister of Development Strategies and International Trade and Chairman of the UNP.

In 2015, Arjuna Mahendran was appointed the Governor of the Central Bank of Sri Lanka without the consent of President Maithripala Sirisena. And as pointed out earlier, during Mahendrans tenure, a financial laundering scam took place in the CBSL which caused an estimated loss of more than US$11 million to the nation.

On 20 August 2015, the major political parties UNP and Sri Lanka Freedom Party (SLFP) signed an MOU to form a National Government for at least two years to resolve serious issues in the island. On 3 September 2015, Prime Minister Wickremesinghe presented a motion to exceed the limit imposed on the number of cabinet and non-cabinet ministers. According to the 19 th.Amendment, the cabinet cannot exceed 30 ministers. But in the event of the formation of a National Government,the number could go up. Parliament approved the increase of Cabinet Ministers to 48 and non-cabinet ministers to 45.

On 9 September 2015, President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe formed a National Government with a total of 46 Cabinet Ministers, 19 State Ministers and 22 Deputy Ministers.This was the first time in Sri Lankas post-independence history that two major parties had formed a National Unity Government.

However, partly because of personality differences between Sirisena and Wickremesinghe and partly due to the contradictory provisions of the 19 th.Amendment, the government became dysfunctional. This state was on public display when, despite the availability of accurate intelligence from India, the government could not prevent the multiple bombings carried out by Islamic terrorists on Easter Sunday in 2019.

Prior to that, in 2018, the UNP had suffered a crushing defeat in the 2018 local bodies elections. It was able to secure only 34 councils out of 340, while Mahinda Rajapaksas proxy the Sri Lanka Podujana Peramuna (SLPP) won 231 councils. The SLPP got 44.65% and the UNP 32.63% of the votes.

Because of its failure to address the concerns of the people and its failure to win elections, the party was in turmoil with many calling for Wickremesinghes ouster. Eventually, Wickremesinghe was forced to give up his ambition of standing for the Presidential election again. He agreed to support Sajith Premadasa, the partys Deputy Leader. But the SLPPs Gotabaya Rajapaksa won the election with 52.25% of the votes and Sajith got 41.99%.

The defeat led to a formal split in the UNP with the Samagi Jana Balawegaya (SJB) emerging as a separate outfit under Sajith Premadasa. The UNP and the SJB fought the August 2020 parliamentary elections separately. The split was one of the factors which helped the SLPP win 150 seats out of 225. The SJB got 54 and the UNP none.

The UNP had suffered its worst-ever defeat in its history, receiving only 249,435 votes, which was 2.15% of the valid votes cast. For the first time in its history, it had failed to win a single seat in parliament. It got a National List seat though thanks to the Proportional Representation System. Clearly, Wickremesinghe had made a grievous mistake by not giving the leadership to Sajith and cooperating with him at the appropriate time.

So what ailed the UNP?Leave alone disunity at national level, the party old guard did not want to give way to the young. The leadership was more intent on helping and safeguarding its friends and political cohorts interests than in meeting the needs of the people and the party cadres.

I am in no doubt that the founder members of the Grand Old Partymust be turning in their graves. It is amazing that even with the party in ruins, Wickremesinghe is refusing to vacate the leadership. The fact that the few leaders still left in the UNP have not been unable to oust him and elect a new leader shows that disunity still plagues the party. A party which was led by stalwarts like D.S. Senanayake, Dudley Senanayake and R.Premadasa is now nothing but a coterie of Lilliputians.

However, the UNP, as an ideology, cannot be written off as its voter base is not inconsiderable. In the 2018 local bodies elections, it got 32.63% while the SLPP got 44.65%. In the November 2019 Presidential election, it got 41.99%. And in the August 2020 parliamentary elections, the SJB, which is but an offshoot of the UNP, got nearly 24%. Therefore, what theUNP got was a drubbing and not annihilation. If the UNP/SJBs constituency is consolidated by the emergence of a suitable mass leader, it can be revived.

Alternatively, the SJB can be deemed to be an incarnation of the old UNP and built up as such, just as the SLPP has emerged as the new incarnation of the SLFP and is building itself up under the Rajapaksas. There is light at the end of the tunnel for UNP supporters.

(The featured image at the top shows Ranil Wickremesinghe and Sajith Premadasa when the UNP was united)

See original here:

Stalwarts who founded and built the UNP must be turning in their graves - NewsIn.Asia

2020 could be the year of ‘peak Democrat’ in Colorado. This is why. – Colorado Springs Gazette

Growing up in Alabama in the Southern Baptist church, Pamla May Sterner recalled being a Republican by default.

Thats what was preached from the pulpit, the values that supposedly the Republican platform entailed, she said. You really just didnt give it any second thought.

Sterner and her husband worked as evangelists, casting votes for local Democratic candidates here and there but always backing the Republican in the presidential election.

We would have never voted for a Democrat as president, because presidents do choose different judges they are going to appoint. Obviously, judges are the ones who would hear Roe v. Wade should it ever be overturned, said the 63-year-old resident of Pueblo, referring to the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional right to abortion. For that reason, we just werent going to deviate from the Republican Party at all.

Today, however, Sterner is a Democrat. She voted for Barack Obama in 2008. She went to work for Democratic former U.S. Rep. John Salazar as a Republican. After Salazar was unseated in 2010, she said she officially changed her voter registration. Sterner no longer votes for GOP candidates.

After the 2016 election, truthfully, I cried, she remembered. I kept trying to understand why this hit me so hard, and I think the reason why it did wasnt just that Donald Trump got elected. It told me the American people dont care about women. The American people dont care about people that are handicapped. The American people dont care about people that do others wrong.

Heading into the 2020 election, Colorados Democrats have put significant distance between themselves and the states minority party during the Trump years. Democrats hold four of the states seven U.S. House seats. Likewise for 60 of the 100 General Assembly seats. Democrats are also in all five statewide executive positions. That includes the Secretary of States Office, to which voters, by some quirk, had not elected a Democrat since 1958.

Not only is the party working to preserve its gains, it may have room still to grow: contesting a Republican-held state Senate seat in Adams County, a state House seat in Littleton, the U.S. Senate seat held by Cory Gardner, and even the 3rd Congressional District, which Salazar was the last Democrat to occupy 10 years ago.

Multiple people with a history of political involvement in Colorado tend to agree on the main factors for the states leftward shift. Colorado has grown in population, and the demographic change has benefited Democrats. Voters have soured on GOP officeholders while at the same time adopting more conservative stances on issues of taxation and revenue.

And the COVID-19 pandemic has underscored a desire for competent governance a feature that may again favor Democrats this year as more than 1,000 Americans per day die of the disease during a Republican presidential administration.

I think were going to be in a recovery for maybe 10 years, said Rosemary Rodriguez, a former Denver city councilwoman and state director for U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet. So I think whichever party has the best ideas about how to recover are going to be our future leaders.

Between 2010 and 2019, Colorado added approximately 730,000 residents. An analysis from Westword found that those over age 44 comprised a slightly larger chunk of the population in 2018 than at the last census, contrary to the perception that young people moving in are responsible for the increase.

The liberal shift is not because we have an army of Californians living and voting here, said David Flaherty, the CEO of the surveying firm Magellan Strategies. Flaherty used to work for the Republican National Committee, and said that unaffiliated voters have grown in importance as they have grown in proportion to other voters.

Unaffiliateds have said, Im not in love with the Democrats and I will consider the alternatives, but I dont like the (Republican) choices youve given me, he said.

In all but the 2nd and 3rd congressional districts, the number of active, unaffiliated voters has doubled between 2012 and 2020. In the 6th Congressional District, which U.S. Rep. Jason Crow flipped in 2018 after defeating the Republican incumbent, the number of active, registered Republicans barely increased over eight years relative to the growth of the district overall.

Even in the 5th Congressional District, which encompasses El Paso County, unaffiliateds grew at five times the rate of Republicans. Some people pointed to the conservative stronghold as a potential swing county someday one that can follow the statewide results in presidential or gubernatorial elections.

Although younger, unaffiliated voters and people of color may have their influence ticking upward, Sterner, the Pueblo voter, advised against discounting older party-switchers like herself.

As theyre seeing whats going on, I think youd be missing the boat if you didnt think there were quite a few older Republicans saying, I dont think this is for me, she said.

A difference on the issues

In the summer of 2019, conservative activists attempted to recall a string of Democratic lawmakers and Gov. Jared Polis. Among other reasons, they pointed to the majority partys passage of a red flag law. Officially known as extreme risk protection orders, 70% of Americans in a 2019 poll support the ability for courts to temporarily remove firearms from someone judged a danger to themselves or others.

John Straayer, a professor of political science at Colorado State University, pointed to the disconnect between the issues that conservatives publicize and the actual interests of voters.

The advertised agenda of the Republican Party, he said, is guns, vaccines, same-sex marriage. These are prominent and visible agenda items for a big chunk of the Republican Party. More so than funding education, straightening out our tangled up fiscal policy, making sure that our infrastructure is taken care of.

Flaherty said that half of the Republican primary electorate in the state is older than 65, meaning that candidates will need to appeal to a voting bloc whose priorities are slightly different than the state as a whole. Immigration, crime, safety, freedom and pro-life policies are among the common concerns.

Unaffiliated voters dont care about four out of five of those issues, whatsoever, he said.

Dorothy Gotlieb, the chairwoman of the Arapahoe County Republican Party, dismissed the notion that it was the states Republicans, and not its Democrats, who entrenched themselves in extreme positions.

Each party has its opinionated people who will not necessarily move away from their position, she said. If the issue is education funding, if the issue is transportation, most Republicans will look at a rational way to increase that funding.

Increases in tax rates require a vote of the people under the Taxpayer's Bill of Rights, a constraint that still enjoys considerable public support. However, even as the people have shown a preference for Democrats, they routinely reject statewide requests for more revenue.

The dichotomy between votes for candidates and votes for issues can extend beyond purely fiscal matters. In 2016, the same year voters sided with Hillary Clinton, they also rejected a proposal to create a Medicare for All-style program at the state level. To the inverse, the same year voters first elected Gardner to the Senate, they also shot down an anti-abortion constitutional amendment to give personhood to fetuses.

Nonetheless, Democrats are much more adept at meeting the voters where they are, said Laura Chapin, a Democratic consultant based in Denver, citing the prompt endorsement of the Black Lives Matter protests earlier this summer and the passage of corresponding police reform legislation.

She quoted a 15-year-old statement from then-Democratic House Speaker Andrew Romanoff: Were talking about the budget, and they are talking about bestiality.

Voters like competence

During the pandemic, while the federal government has dragged its feet and denied responsibility, it also shrugged off decisions to the states. Polis, like many of his counterparts, instituted dine-in closures and stay-at-home and mandatory mask orders, which drew opposition from conservatives.

Although the actions apparentlycontributed to a suppression of the virus, House Minority Leader Patrick Neville, R-Castle Rock, likened stay-at-home policies to the Gestapo, the secret Nazi police. On Aug. 26, he announced he planned to sue King Polis over the mask mandate. Prior to that, Lauren Boebert, the Republican nominee in the 3rd Congressional District, opened her restaurant in violation of health orders.

Yet a poll in early May found that two-thirds of Coloradans approved of the governors job performance. When asked whether Polis actions might endanger the Democrats four-term hold on the governors office, Chapin doubted that management in the face of chaos would be a pitfall.

All the polling Ive seen indicates that what Gov. Polis has done is extremely popular, she said. Our infection rates validate what hes done. Voters like competence.

Wearing a mask right now theyre on the wrong side of that because again, its their liberty and freedom and constitution principles, said Flaherty, the polling consultant. Voters see someone doesnt share their fears and concerns.

Straayer, the political scientist, agreed, adding, I think voters will see it in the rearview mirror as something that had to be done.

Understandably, blanket judgments of Republicans competence did not resonate with people inside the party.

Republican National Committee member Vera Ortegon, a former candidate for lieutenant governor, said the issue was simply that Democrats do better messaging than we do. Whereas, she believed the GOP had not changed, Democrats dont believe in God, they want open borders, they want it to be free whether its education or health care to illegal immigrants, the kind of message that Flaherty characterized as beating the same drum.

Republican Libby Szabo was the assistant minority leader in the state House before her appointment as a Jefferson County commissioner. (A Democrat now holds her old legislative seat.) One of a handful of GOP commissioners in metro Denver counties otherwise dominated by Democrats at the state and federal levels, she acknowledged her job in local government would not be too different if Republicans controlled state government instead of Democrats because of the different priorities of a local leader.

You speak to the issues your community is concerned about, she said. I want to talk about what my community wants. State government is much more political.

One thing that most people agreed upon: Colorado seems to be reaching peak Democrat.

I think if we take this U.S. Senate seat, said Rodriguez, the former Denver councilwoman, we are at a high-water mark.

Link:

2020 could be the year of 'peak Democrat' in Colorado. This is why. - Colorado Springs Gazette

Trump and the RNC should remind Cuban voters of Fidel Castro, not their political home – NBC News

As the daughter of Cuban refugees, I grew up so enamored with American freedom and what it meant for my community that I joined the CIA as an undercover officer and served my country proudly on three tours, including one to Afghanistan. During that time, I witnessed corrupt leaders destroy democracy around the world in many of the same ways that Fidel Castro had in Cuba, forcing my family to flee. Now Im seeing similar tactics employed by President Donald Trump here at home.

My fellow Cuban Americans must come to grips with the reality that the actions of the current Republican administration bear deep similarities to the Cuban government.

When I watched U.S. agents hustle protesters into unmarked vans in Portland, Oregon, in July, I recalled the frighteningly similar stories my grandparents told me about Cuba after the communist revolution of 1959, when speaking out could get you imprisoned or killed. When news broke in 2018 about family separations at the southern U.S. border, it reminded me of the years my mother spent rehearsing how she might handle Cuban border agents potentially refusing to let her parents accompany her on a Freedom Flight to resettle in the United States.

While its understandable that Cuban immigrants once felt an affinity for the GOP as the party that faced down communism and championed economic advancement, my fellow Cuban Americans must come to grips with the reality that the actions of the current Republican administration bear deep similarities to the Cuban government our families fled from. As the Republican National Convention kicks off its effort to re-elect President Donald Trump on Monday night, its time for Cuban voters to admit that the GOP is no longer their political home.

Get the think newsletter.

This political reckoning is imperative, and urgent, because of the key role Cuban voters play in deciding the fate of the nation. Cubans are one of the largest immigrant groups in the United States, with some one million living in the crucial swing state of Florida. And among Latino voters, they disproportionately support the Republican Party.

The Cuban vote was solidly red in 2016 and 2018, despite the trend of Latino voters being reliably blue. Exit polls from Cuban Americans in Florida indicated that 54 percent supported Trump in his first presidential election, compared with only 35 percent of Latinos nationwide. Floridas Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis won twice as many Cuban American votes as did his Democratic opponent, Andrew Gillum.

This seems perplexing until one dives into Cubas unique history. When the Castro regime took over in 1959, it confiscated wealth and land from thousands of Cubans, now worth roughly $7 billion. As a result, many Cubans who eventually fled to the U.S. now tend to equate the Democratic Party, particularly democratic socialists such as Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., with the communist ideology that led to their mass dispossession. Cubans also continue to blame Democratic President John F. Kennedy for abandoning the Cuban counterrevolutionaries during the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961, a failed U.S.-backed attempt to overthrow the Castro regime.

However, this thinking ignores some key points that should spur reflection. It was President Lyndon Johnson, also a Democrat, who passed the 1966 Cuban Adjustment Act that granted a special path to permanent residency for Cubans who were admitted into the U.S. and present in the country for at least one year.

More recently, the Republican positions that enamored many Cubans fashioning themselves as defenders of fiscal responsibility and hawkish national security have been discarded by Trump. Instead, Trump, and the Republican Party under him, have threatened enemies with imprisonment, attempted to corrupt elections, egregiously mismanaged economic headwinds and established a cabal of relatives and associates with outsize access to resources, investment opportunities and tax-funded programs meant for citizens of modest means.

Particularly disturbing has been the Trump administrations handling of immigrants. It has handled a flow of migrants at the Mexican border by locking them in cages, incarcerated the most immigrants in U.S. history, and separated children from their parents, many of whom have yet to be reunited.

Cuban Americans should be under no illusion that they are different, either because of their politics or the oppression they fled from during the Cold War. Trump has greatly increased their removal: During his first year in office, he deported 160 Cubans, a 150 percent increase from the previous year, while Immigration and Customs Enforcement detained over 1,600 undocumented Cubans. By 2018, that number had grown to over 8,500. In January, a Cuban man died in ICE custody, the sixth such death since October.

While many Hispanic and Latino voters in the United States support Democratic initiatives such as raising the minimum wage, enforcing stricter gun reform laws and providing universal health care, Cubans have often continued to oppose these measures out of fear that too much government involvement in their lives would result in another Castro-like regime. But Cuban Americans need to realize that Trumps purported support for our community is far outweighed by his actions.

Indeed, if Cuban allegiance to Republicans has been based on feeling welcomed and favored in this country of freedom, that loyalty is clearly no longer merited. Re-electing Trump would only embolden his mandate to enact even more draconian abuses of power, and his similarities with Latin American caudillos such as Castro are only likely to increase.

If Cuban allegiance to Republicans has been based on feeling welcomed and favored in this country of freedom, that loyalty is clearly no longer merited.

The recent news out of Portland has revealed what Trump will do to Americans he deems problematic. Cubans chose to come to the U.S. for freedom and opportunity, but as this weeks Republican convention is sure to highlight, the Republican Party is itself in a fight for its future; split between those offering unwavering support for Trumps policies, no matter how outrageous, and those committed to a conservative platform based on the principles of democracy.

Although the Cuban American community may remain conservative, it should recognize that its values do not align with the current administrations rhetoric and actions. In November, Cubans should once again choose freedom and opportunity, by voting for Joe Biden.

A.J. Fuentes Twombly is a former CIA officer and a fellow at the Truman National Security Project.

Here is the original post:

Trump and the RNC should remind Cuban voters of Fidel Castro, not their political home - NBC News

Analysis: Will Uzbekistan’s Champion of Reform Stay the Course? – Voice of America

The international community, human rights advocates, and Uzbeks themselves were agreeably surprised when, after a quarter century of then-Uzbek president Islam Karimov's iron-fisted rule, his successor launched the nation in 2016 on a series of often bold reforms.

Today, approaching the fourth anniversary of the new president's ascent to power, many of those same analysts are giving Shavkat Mirziyoyev a mixed report card and calling for him to follow through on the reforms he put in motion.

Many Uzbeks tell VOA that Mirziyoyev won his citizens' hearts and minds by saying what they had longed to hear that the system needed transformation. His plain-spoken acknowledgment of problems ushered in a new era of high hopes and higher expectations.

And he received solid support from the international community. Daniel Rosenblum, the U.S. ambassador to Uzbekistan, says Mirziyoyev is changing the framework of internal governance with a philosophy that the state exists for its citizens, not the other way around.

"This has not always been realized in practice," said Rosenblum, "but it establishes an expectation and a standard that should begin to change things for the better."

Heightened expectations

Still, with those reforms have come heightened expectations, and in too many areas, critics say, positive steps have been counterbalanced by inertia or steps backward.

In announcing his reforms, Mirziyoyev promised rule of law, transparency and greater engagement with the world. What he has delivered is a hybrid that combines reforms with elements of the old system, leaving many to question whether Uzbekistan has escaped its authoritarian past. Fears and doubts persist amid the steps forward.

Rosenblum sees Mirziyoyev's biggest achievement as opening Uzbekistan to trade and investment, allowing the free flow of people, ideas and technology.

"I credit President Mirziyoyev with dramatically changing the tenor of relations in the region from mutual suspicion to mutual cooperation," he said in an interview.

"There is resistance," he added, because "changing established habits and ways of thinking is hard and takes time; there are people and institutions with vested interests in old ways of doing business. The public believes their quality of life should improve if reforms are 'working'but how long will their patience last?"

Mirziyoyev's biggest test has been in dealing with a once-in-a-century pandemic.

Rosenblum says Tashkent acted decisively to adopt lock-down measures. A midsummer surge in infections created some chaos, but Rosenblum credits the leadership for collaborating with the international community and for welcoming assistance and advice.

'Stopping far short'

Steve Swerdlow, a human rights lawyer and associate professor at the University of Southern California, says that progress on the most systemic issues is faltering and requires a reboot.

"Whether on freedom of expression, political pluralism, the registration of NGOs, justice for past abuses, forced evictions, or the outsize influence of the security services, Tashkent is stopping far short of what it must do and, in some areas, backsliding on rights," he said.

"Early in his presidency, Mirziyoyev promised accountability and opened up the internet and media space. But he has largely stood by as security services use the old tactics of intimidation against critical and independent voices."

In recent months, he notes, some journalists who reported on corruption or the COVID-19 response have been harassed or detained. "Instead, they should be invited to press conferences where it is possible to pose direct questions to Mirziyoyev."

Swerdlow laments that no opposition party has been allowed to enter the political scene. And despite the release of dozens of political prisoners, authorities have taken no meaningful steps to investigate the human rights violations that led to their arrests.

Helena Fraser, the U.N. coordinator in Uzbekistan, values Tashkent's championing of multilateralism, increased transparency of data and statistics, and engagement with U.N. human rights mechanisms.

"The first big challenge is the long-term culture shift to enable sustained ambitious reform," said Fraser. But the second is to match rhetoric and the promise of clear dividends to society and economy with results for the most vulnerable.

"It's about doing so in a way that shores up reforms and ensures that progress to date whether on anti-corruption, women's empowerment, diversifying energy sources, fiscal policy, or child labor is not halted or reversed, but accelerated and deeply anchored."

Fraser says recovery from the pandemic requires a culture shift and bold policy choices, including tackling inequalities, supporting civil society, and creating an enabling environment for human rights.

How fast Uzbekistan emerges from this crisis will depend not only on solidarity within society, but also on solidarity and partnerships across government, academia, civil society, businesses, the media and, of course, parliament, Fraser told VOA.

Economic successes

Jennifer Murtazashvili, director of the Center for Governance and Markets at the University of Pittsburgh, agrees that Mirziyoyev's biggest successes have been economic "eliminating archaic restrictions on foreign currency and trade"and in foreign policy.

"For decades, Uzbekistan only saw Afghanistan as a threat. Seeing Afghanistan as a friendly neighbor opens many possibilities. If reforms continue, Uzbekistan can emerge as a very serious regional hub for economies in Central and South Asia."

Murtazashvili is disappointed with the lack of public sector reform.

"The challenges with this old system of public finance, budgeting, and service delivery were on display during the second lockdown when the state tried to deliver cash directly through the community-based 'mahalla' system," she said.

"Many people reported corruption and being treated unfairly. This undermines trust in the state, as citizens experience it the same way as the past."

Mirziyoyev has called for the election of governors and mayors to ensure greater accountability. But most of this accountability still emanates from his top-down imprimatur, rather than bottom up, says Murtazashvili.

"The president has been remarkably popular. He would do well to embark on more reforms sooner rather than later. Making changes is hard in any country and requires strong public buy-in."

Read the rest here:

Analysis: Will Uzbekistan's Champion of Reform Stay the Course? - Voice of America

It’s Never Been More Clear: Fare Hikes Won’t Save the MBTA – Boston magazine

Transportation

The MBTA says an increase is on the table as it seeks to solve its budget woes in the midst of a pandemic. It shouldn't be.

Fare gate photo via MediaNews Group/Boston Herald/Getty Images | Mask photo by Sebastian Condrea/Getty Images | Illustration by Spencer Buell

The MBTA has a serious budget issue on its hands. With so many would-be commuters working from their living rooms, ridership on public transit around Boston has plummeted. And since fares typically cover about a third of the Ts budget, the agency is preparing for a coronavirus-sized hole in its balance sheet, one that may require drastic action to repair.

Thus far, federal relief funds for transit to the tune of more than $800 million have helped the system get by, but as officials said this week, it wont be enough. At a meeting of its Fiscal and Management Control Board on Monday, the Ts overseers said theyre expecting a gap in the fiscal year 2022 budget of between $308 million and $577 million, and General Manager Steve Poftak said it was premature to take anything off the table when it comes to this problem, according to the State House News Service. And of course, everything being on the table means the MBTA may soon be looking at fare hikes again. But what if we just skipped that whole discussion this time through? What if the MBTA was free?

Talk of killing T fares once and for all reared its head in earnest early last year, when City Councilor Michelle Wu proposed it in response to another fare hike. She has also included it in a plan for sweeping environmental reform, a Boston Green New Deal, which she rolled out earlier this month.

This is really a moment where transit agencies across the country have to rethink financing. Weve seen during the pandemic that systems that were very fragile have collapsed. And similarly, the way that we have been thinking about who should pay for transit and what the purpose of that transit is hasnt been working, Wu tells me. We have to take this moment to realize just how much of a lifeline transit is, that we need to affirm that public transportation is a public good. And we have to start funding it that way.

The fact is, ridership is down, and is likely to stay that way, even after the worst of the pandemic passes. So why would we continue to tie the fate of the MBTA to the number of people who ride it?

Its easy to dismiss the idea as a pipe dream, and the T has pointed out that revenue from fare increases has helped the agency pay for needed infrastructure improvements that would be impossible without a huge pot of money materializing at the State House. But as transit advocates have long said, a fully functioning T is itself essential to the health of the states economy, and has an impact on the prosperity of every worker regardless of whether they actually use it. As the state tries to come back from the pandemic-related economic crisis, quality and equity on public transit could undergird that recovery.

When better days arrive, it would also help encourage people to get back on public transit again. The T has done its best to reassure people of the relatively low risk of taking buses and trains in an effort to encourage public transit use, and a free ride might dissuade transit-riding Bostonians from switching over to driving cars, and nudge those who bought cars back onto the T when this is all over. Eliminating fares is a proven way to get more people to ride public transitjust ask Lawrence, which saw ridership spike after the city offered free buses on three routes.

In the past year, transit activists have focused especially on eliminating fares for buses, a move that, in addition to saving riders money, would also speed up boarding and cut down on crowding, as well as face-to-face-interactions between fare-payers and drivers. The group Livable Streets Alliance has argued that the budgetary impact of doing so would be minimalabout $36 million a year to stop collecting fares on buses in Greater Boston, or $60 million to do it statewideonce the costs associated with collecting fares are taken into account.

Buses run faster when theyre not collecting fares, and its just not that much money, especially in a $400 million deficit, to just stop collecting fares on buses, the groups Executive Director Stacy Thompson says. Fare-free buses would mean we have an efficient, flexible system. It would mean that anyone, if theyve lost their job or not, can get on the system, get to essential services. And were literally talking about pennies.

By Livable Streets calculation, it would take about a two-cent addition to the states gas tax to cover fare-free buses statewide. History has shown that Massachusetts voters hate paying more at the pump than just about anything, and have consistently voted down measures that would do so. But its illustrative to show how relatively low the per-person cost of reforming the T is when spread out to everyone in the state, and not borne disproportionately by people loading up CharlieCards.

Boston wouldnt even be the first to consider such a dramatic change: The Los Angeles public transit system this week announced its forming an exploratory committee task force to weigh the possibility of ending bus and train fares in the city. Andassistance from the federal government could help get a fare-free T past the finish line. In June, Ayanna Pressley and Ed Markey introduced legislation, called the Freedom to Move Act, that would see $5 billion in federal funds used to help states transition to fare-free transit systems.

The bottom line is that fare increases are not a law of nature, even in a budget crunch. And neither are fares, period.

Read the rest here:

It's Never Been More Clear: Fare Hikes Won't Save the MBTA - Boston magazine

Libertarians Took Control of This Small Town. It Didn’t End Well. – Washington Monthly

From his books very title, its clear that Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling sees his story as one great big joke. As he describes it, A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear tells the strange-but-true story of Grafton, NH, a small town that became the nexus of a collision between bears, libertarians, guns, doughnuts, parasites, firecrackers, taxes and one angry llama. The bookhis firstis based on a lively article, published in 2018 in The Atavist Magazine, about an attempted political takeover of the small New Hampshire town by a motley crew of libertarians and survivalists from all across America. Their stated goal was to establish the boldest social experiment in modern American history: the Free Town Project.

A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear: The Utopian Plot to Liberate an American Town (and Some Bears) by Matthew Hongoltz-Hetling PublicAffairs, 288 pp.

Their effort was inspired by the Free State Project, a libertarian-adjacent organization founded in 2003 with the goal of taking over New Hampshire and transforming it into a tiny-government paradise. After more than a decade of persistence, the project persuaded 20,000 like-minded revolutionaries to sign its pledge to move to New Hampshire and finally force the state to live up to its Live Free or Die motto. (Despite their pledged support, only about 1,300 signers actually made the move. Another 3,000 were New Hampshire residents to begin with.) The projects political successes peaked in 2018, when 17 of the 400 members of the New Hampshire House of Representatives identified as Free Statersalthough all but two were registered Republicans.

The affiliated Free Town Project set its sights on Grafton in 2004 because of both its small sizeabout 1,200 residentsand its long history as a haven for tax protesters, eccentrics, and generalized curmudgeons. The Free Town Project leaders figured that they could engineer a libertarian tipping point by bringing in a few dozen new true believers and collaborating with the resident soreheads. Over the next decade or so, Free Towners managed to join forces with some of the towns most tightfisted taxpayers to pass a 30 percent cut in the towns $1 million budget over three years, slashing unnecessary spending on such municipal frills as streetlights, firefighting, road repairs, and bridge reconstruction. But eventually, the Free Town leadership splintered and the haphazard movement fizzled out. The municipal budget has since bounced back, to $1.55 million.

But even though the Free Towners full-scale libertarian takeover of Grafton never fully materialized, they fanned the flames of a community culture that prioritized individual freedom above all elsewhether the individual sought the freedom to smoke marijuana or feed daily boxes of donuts to the increasingly aggressive local bears. The libertarian battle cry of Nobody tells me what to do! drowned out all other political debate, at least temporarily, and the results of their blindly anti-government,anti-authority mind-set were both troubling and predictable.

Hongoltz-Hetling presents the Grafton experience as a rollicking tale of colorful rural characters and oddly clever ursines. The Free Towners wacky political views, like their eccentric clothes, their rusting pickup trucks, and their elaborate facial hair, present him with seemingly limitless opportunities to display his own cleverness.

Certainly, the author is not alone in finding cause for amusement in Graftons funny little basket of deplorables. For years now, reporters and pundits have chosen to focus on the style, rather than the policy substance, of the growing libertarian right. Again and again, we read stories of rural rubes clad head to toe in MAGA swag, hunched over chipped cutlery in dingy diners, wielding biscuits to wipe the last of the sausage gravy from their oversized plates while vociferously proclaiming that taxation is theft and inveighing against the nanny state. In choosing to shoot these red, white, and blue fish in a barrel, Hongoltz-Hetling is in very good company.

But had the author not chosen snark over substance, his book could have served as a peculiarly timely cautionary tale, because the conflicting philosophical principles that drive this story are central to understanding American politics today. The differences between the libertarian stumblebums who moved to Grafton and the staff of the Koch-funded Cato Institute are mostly sartorial. And the sad outcomes of Graftons wacky social experiment are now being repeated in American communities every single day.

If it seems unkind to slam a writer for indulging in a bit of a laugh as he slogs his way through a story that basically boils down to fundamentally divergent views of tax policy, consider the chapter in which Hongoltz-Hetling drags his reader into an ultimately unsatisfactory discursion into the political dynamics of French-occupied Tunisia. In the chapter, he references the work of the Oxford University professor Daniel Butt, a noted scholar of colonialism. In his discussion of Butts academic work, Hongoltz-Hetling brutally torques his sentences to produce the phrases Butt heads, Butt wipe, Butt cracks, and Butt (w)hole. Oh, how devilishly cheeky.

Look. I get it. Snark is to reporters what salmon is to bearsthey thrive on it, and many cant survive without a lot of it. But back in my crime-reporting days, our city editor routinely tossed back any sophomoric attempts to inject witticisms into odd little crime stories by asking, Would this be funny if it happened to you?

Hongoltz-Hetlings chronic prioritization of style over substance brings his reportorial judgment and diligence into question at multiple points throughout the book. He lightly glosses over one characters conviction on 129 counts of child pornography, and later compares Graftons troubling influx of sex offendersfrom eight to 22 in four yearswith an equally disconcerting drop in the tiny towns local recycling rates. Later, he chuckles about a man found in questionable circumstances with a preteen who was [asked to] leave in an impolite manner involving a very visibly wielded baseball bat. I raise this issue not solely because I am a midwestern mom who is absolutely unamused by child sex abuse, but also because Hongoltz-Hetling does not mention that pedophilia and child pornography are profoundly schismatic issues for the American libertarian community. Mary J. Ruwart, a leading candidate for the Libertarian Party presidential nomination in 2008, wrote,

Children who willingly participate in sexual acts have the right to make that decision as well, even if its distasteful to us personally. Some children will make poor choices just as some adults do in smoking and drinking to excess. When we outlaw child pornography, the prices paid for child performers rise, increasing the incentives for parents to use children against their will.

In 2008, the party refused to vote on a resolution asking states to strongly enforce existing child pornography laws.

The author takes a similarly lighthearted approach to his account of the Unification Churchs establishment of a summer retreat in Grafton in the early 1990sa lengthy episode that buttresses his portrayal of Grafton as a weirdo magnet of national proportions. In fact, there are numerous villages across this country where religious leaders have walked into town and proclaimed, This is the place, regardless of whether that place was already occupied by nonbelievers. The resulting conflicts between townspeople and the invading faithful can be deadly serious. When the Indian guru Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh founded a commune of 2,000 followers in Oregons rural Wasco County in the 1980s, for example, the groups resistance to land-use laws fueled a campaign of terror against local residents. Group members poisoned hundreds of people in the county by spraying salmonella bacteria on salad bars, and the communes leaders targeted state and county officials for assassination, sending one county commissioner to the hospital with a potentially deadly case of salmonella poisoning.

Againwould it be funny if it happened to you?

These shortcomings, and many others like it throughout the book, would diminish Hongoltz-Hetlings narrative even in normal times. But today more than ever, there is nothing remotely amusing about a group of wrongheaded extremists plotting to take over a government and impose its own dangerously eccentric views on an unwitting and unprepared majority. And it is this reality that makes A Libertarian Walks Into a Bear such a painful missed opportunity. With the story of Grafton, Hongoltz-Hetling was handed the American character in an ant farm. This New England hamlet twines together the most significant strands in our history: tax aversion, religious fervor, veneration of individual liberty, and a deep vein of cantankerousness, all counterbalanced by our equally powerful belief that we are on a God-given mission to establish on this continent a shining City on the Hill. In Grafton, we find a microcosm of the constant American tension between Dont Tread on Me and E Pluribus Unum.

Certainly, one cannot fault a writer for failing to anticipate the specific details of the present disaster. This time last year, none of us could have foreseen that a new, fast-moving virus would spark a global pandemic, claiming hundreds of thousands of lives, nor that wearing a mask to prevent infection would be viewed as a political statement. But the test of a great writer, or a great editor, is the ability to look deeply into a specific set of circumstances and to extrapolate from them, to assess the present and then take a leap of faith into a prophetic vision of the future. In the Grafton experience, we see clearly the chaos that can be created when a significant chunk of the community rejects the strictures of government, science, and the notion of community itself.

As I write this, more than 159,000 American lives have been sacrificed to failures of government at almost every level, and to the refusal of millions of Americans to curtailtheir sense of personal liberty and submit to relatively brief inconvenience to protect their neighbors and their communities. It is heartbreaking to think of how many more lives will be lost to COVID-19 by the time this magazine goesto print.

This is what happens when massively funded propaganda campaigns lead large numbers of Americans to lose faith in our system of government. This is what happens when that loss of faith leads to blind opposition to taxation. This is what happens when public services and public infrastructure are systematically starved of resources in the name of fiscal responsibility. And this is what happens, shamefully, when those who are best able to recognize the threat and sound the alarm choose instead to treat local politics like some sort of low-stakes sporting event for out-of-shapepeople.

Today, we are all living in Grafton. Armies of rabid bears are wandering through our streets, clawing at our window screens, and gnashing their teeth at our children while the phone rings unanswered at the state department of fish and game. The old village church is erupting in flames, but someone has slashed the tires on our towns lone fire truck, and the fire hydrantsunmaintained for adecadehave all run dry. Terrified, we beg our neighbors for help, only to be told that the Lord will protect us, or that the cataclysm in the streets is just punishment for our moral failures or our political misdeeds.

And all of this is happening because a large, disgruntled minority of Americans dutifully memorized the Declarations listing of our inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without perceiving that these rights can exist only within the context of the social contractan Enlightenment concept so deeply familiar to the Founding Fathers that, tragically, they didnt consider it necessary to mention.

Right now, I am sitting in self-imposed quarantine with my husband, in a small Michigan town far from our home. Our beloved daughtersboth adultsare thousands of miles away, in California. We havent seen them now for almost seven months, and in my darkest moments, I wonder whether we will ever be all together again in this lifetime. We are separated today, and likely will be for long weeks and months to come, because millions of my fellow Americans have been unwilling to sacrifice even a shred of their perceived personal liberty to the higher consideration of what we owe to each other.

And its not funny. None of it is funny. It isnt funny at all.

Read this article:

Libertarians Took Control of This Small Town. It Didn't End Well. - Washington Monthly

Moody’s: Coronavirus is accelerating shift to online education – Education Dive

Dive Brief:

The pandemic will hasten a transformation of higher education business models, according to a new Moody's Investors Service report.

The crisis will accelerate many colleges' plans to grow their online footprints, though not all schools have the resources to invest in digital infrastructure, the report notes. They will also likely expand nondegree and certificate programs.

Analysts predict that once the pandemic subsides, some colleges will struggle if they haven't established a strong online presence.

At least 1,400 colleges moved to mostly online or hybrid instruction this fall as confirmed coronavirus cases spiked in the U.S, according to data kept by the College Crisis Initiative at Davidson College. The pandemic accelerated a shift toward online learning that predates the health crisis, Moody's analysts say.

"Some universities previously resistant to change will have to take more expansive steps to adapt to this transformation,"Pranav Sharma, assistant vice president at Moody's, said in a statement. "Not all universities, however, have the resources or culture to move quickly and the coronavirus will expedite existential threats for some."

Several recent deals by public universities indicate they will continue investing in online education after the pandemic ends, the report states.

The University of Arizona announced earlier this month that it's setting up a nonprofit entity to acquire Ashford University, a for-profit online college that enrolls around 35,000 students.

As part of the arrangement, Ashford's parent company, Zovio, will provide the online college with a range of academic and educational services in exchange for 19.5% of its tuition and fee revenue.

The U of Arizona said it views the acquisition as a way to reach more nontraditional students, which will be key for schools that expect demographic declines in traditional-age students over the next decade. But faculty have pushed back against the deal, saying that it could damage the university's reputation and hurt Ashford's students.

The deal is similar to Purdue University's acquisition of for-profit Kaplan University in 2018 to create its online college, Purdue University Global. Although Purdue Global had nearly $400 million in operating revenue in fiscal year 2019, it posted an operating loss of $40 million during its first full year, Moody's analysts wrote. Moreover, Purdue is still working to integrate and manage the two entities' different brands and reputations, they note.

Likewise, the University of Massachusetts revealed plans in June to partner with the private, nonprofit Brandman University to grow its online presence in the state and nationwide. Details about the arrangement are sparse, though UMass officials said neither the state nor the university would make an upfront investment.

Moody's analysts wrote UMass' partnership differs from the Purdue-Kaplan and U of Arizona-Ashford deals because of Brandman's status as a well-established nonprofit and its stronger student outcomes.

The U.S. Department of Education's new regulations governing distance education could encourage more schools to grow their online presence, the analysts note.

For instance, the rules give some online vocational and training programs more freedom to use asynchronous education, such as prerecorded lectures. They also could make it easier for some schools to launch competency-based education programs, which are typically online and allow students to move through coursework as they demonstrate mastery of a concept or skills.

Read more:

Moody's: Coronavirus is accelerating shift to online education - Education Dive