Duterte targets Philippine children in bid to widen drug war – Reuters

MANILA Before Rodrigo Duterte's bloody war on drugs had even begun, allies of the Philippines president were quietly preparing for a wider offensive. On June 30, as Duterte was sworn in, they introduced a bill into the Philippine Congress that could allow children as young as nine to be targeted in a crackdown that has since claimed more than 7,600 lives.

The bill proposes to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 15 to 9 years old to prevent what it calls "the pampering of youthful offenders who commit crimes knowing they can get away with it."

"You can ask any policeman or anyone connected with the law enforcement: We produce a generation of criminals," Duterte said in a speech in Manila on December 12. Young children, he said, were becoming drug runners, thieves and rapists, and must be "taught to understand responsibility."

The move to target children signals Duterte's determination to intensify his drug war, which faces outrage abroad and growing unease at home. The president's allies say his support in Congress will ensure the bill passes the House of Representatives by June.

The House would approve the bill "within six months," said Fredenil Castro, who co-authored the legislation with the speaker of the House, Pantaleon Alvarez. It might face opposition in the Senate, but would prevail because of Duterte's allies there, added Castro.

National police chief Ronald Dela Rosa recently announced that he was suspending anti-narcotics operations, which have killed more than 2,500 people, while the force rids itself of corrupt cops. The announcement came after it emerged last month that drug squad officers had killed a South Korean businessman at national police headquarters.

The killing of drug suspects has continued, albeit at a slower pace, with most following the pattern of killings that police have blamed on vigilantes. Human rights monitors believe vigilantes have killed several thousand people and operate in league with the police a charge the police deny.

Duterte has signaled he intends to continue his drug war. In late January, he said the campaign would run until his presidency ends in 2022.

'IN CAHOOTS WITH DRUG USERS'

Lowering the age of criminality was justified, Castro told Reuters, because many children were "in cahoots with drug users, with drug pushers, and others who are related to the drug trade." He said he based his support for the bill on what he saw from his car and at churches children begging and pickpocketing. "For me, there isn't any evidence more convincing than what I see in every day of my life," he said.

A controversial bill to restore the death penalty, another presidential priority, is also expected to pass the House of Representatives by mid-year, according to Duterte allies in Congress.

Supporters of the bill to lower the age of criminality say holding young children liable will discourage drug traffickers from exploiting them. Opponents, including opposition lawmakers and human rights groups, are appalled at a move they say will harm children without evidence it will reduce crime.

There is also resistance inside Duterte's administration. A member of Duterte's cabinet who heads the Department of Social Welfare and Development opposes the move. And a branch of the police responsible for protecting women and children disputes the claim that children are heavily involved in the drug trade a claim not supported by official data.

Opponents warn that lowering the age of criminality would further strain a juvenile justice system that is struggling to cope. At worst, they say, with a drug war raging nationwide, the bill could legitimize the killing of minors.

"What will stop them from targeting children?" said Karina Teh, a local politician and child rights advocate in Manila. "They are using the war on drugs to criminalize children."

IN THE FIRING LINE

The drug-war death toll includes at least 29 minors who were either shot by unidentified gunmen or accidentally killed during police operations from July to November 2016, according to the Children's Legal Rights and Development Center (CLRDC) and the Network Against Killings in the Philippines, both Manila-based advocacy groups.

Dela Rosa said the Philippine National Police "fully supports" the new bill. It is "true and supported by data" that minors are used by drug traffickers because they can't be held criminally liable, the police chief said in a submission to the House of Representatives.

Some police officers working on the streets agree with Dela Rosa. In Manila's slums, children as young as six act as lookouts for dealers, shouting "The enemy is coming!" when police approach, said Cecilio Tomas, an anti-narcotics officer in the city. By their early teens, some become delivery boys and then dealers and users, said Tomas.

Salvador Panelo, Duterte's chief legal counsel, said the bill would protect children by stopping criminals from recruiting them. "They will not become targets simply because they will no longer be involved," he said.

Child rights experts say the legislation could put children in the firing line. They point to the deadly precedent set in the southern city of Davao, where Duterte pioneered his hard-line tactics as mayor. The Coalition Against Summary Execution, a Davao-based rights watchdog, documented 1,424 vigilante-style killings in the city between 1998 and 2015. Of those victims, 132 were 17 or younger.

For all but three years during that period, Duterte was either Davao's mayor or vice-mayor. He denied any involvement in the killings.

CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE

Althea Barbon was one of the children killed in the current nationwide drug war. The four year old was fatally wounded in August when police in an anti-narcotics operation shot at her father, the two Manila-based advocacy groups said.Unidentified gunmen shot dead Ericka Fernandez, 17, in a Manila alley on October 26, police said. Her bloody Barbie doll was collected as evidence.Andon December 28, three boys, aged 15 or 16, were killed in Manila by what police said were motorbike-riding gunmen.

If the bill passes, the Philippines won't be the only country where the age of criminality is low. In countries including England, Northern Ireland and Switzerland it is 10, according to the website of the Child Rights International Network, a research and advocacy group. In Scotland, children as young as eight can be held criminally responsible, but the government is in the process of raising the age limit to 12.

Critics of the Philippines' bill say lower age limits are largely found in countries where the legal systems, detention facilities and rehabilitation programs are more developed.

Statistics from the police and the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), the government's top anti-narcotics body, appear to contradict the Duterte camp's claim that there is a large number of young children deeply involved in the drug trade.

There were 24,000 minors among the 800,000 drug users and dealers who had registered with the authorities byNovember 30, according to police statistics. But less than two percent of those minors, or about 400 children, were delivering or selling drugs. Only 12 percent, or 2,815, were aged 15 or younger. Most of the 24,000 minors were listed as drug users.

The number of minors involved in the drug trade is "just a small portion," said Noel Sandoval, deputy head of the Women and Children's Protection Center (WCPC), the police department that compiled the data.

The WCPC is not pushing to lower the minimum age of criminal responsibility, said Sandoval, but if the age is to be lowered, his department recommends a minimum age of 12, not 9.

Between January 2011 and July 2016, 956 children aged six to 17 were "rescued nationwide from illegal drug activity," according to PDEA. They were mostly involved with marijuana and crystalmethamphetamine, a highly addictive drug also known as shabu, and were handed over to the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Of these, only 80 were under the age of 15.

MORE DETENTIONS

Asked for evidence that younger children are involved in the drug trade, Duterte's legal counsel Panelo said the president had data from "all intelligence agencies." Panelo declined todisclose those numbers.

Among the opponents of the bill is a member of Duterte's cabinet, Judy Taguiwalo, secretary of theDSWD.The legislation runs counter to scientific knowledge about child development and would result not in lower crime rates but in more children being detained, Taguiwalo wrote in a letter to the House of Representatives in October.

Hidden by a high wall topped with metal spikes, the Valenzuela youth detention center in northern Manila is already operating at twice its capacity. Its 89 boys eat meals in shifts the canteen can't hold them all at once and sleep on mats that spill out of the spartan dorms and into the hallways.

The government-run center, which currently houses boys aged 13 to 17 for up to a year, is considered a model facility in the Philippines. Even so, said Lourdes Gardoce, a social worker at the Valenzuela home, "It's a big adjustment on our part if we have to cater to kids as young as nine."

(Reporting by Clare Baldwin and Andrew R.C. Marshall. Edited by David Lague and Peter Hirschberg.)

SPRINGFIELD, Illinois As speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives, Michael Madigan has outlasted five governors and is now on his sixth. This year, the Chicago Democrat will become longest-serving state or federal House speaker in the United States since at least the early 1800s.

Chicago As Illinois House speaker for more than three decades, Michael Madigan has often worked to raise peoples taxes. As a private attorney, he works to lower them.

WASHINGTON Burning passions over Donald Trump's presidency are taking a personal toll on both sides of the political divide. For Gayle McCormick, it is particularly wrenching: she has separated from her husband of 22 years.

Visit link:

Duterte targets Philippine children in bid to widen drug war - Reuters

Massive felony gambling raid in Marietta | WAGA – FOX 5 Atlanta

MARIETTA, Ga. - Luxury cars, hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, and jewelry were all seized in an illegal gambling raid. Three people are in jail after what police are calling a substantial organized crime investigation.

Marietta police said this is a result of a two-year investigation. Detectives have been watching Gantts Food on Franklin Gateway and another convenience store on Windy Hill Road which police said is owned by the same man, Khubaib Hussain.

Detectives said the gaming machines in both stores were paying out cash, and thats illegal in Georgia.

What theyve been doing is paying people off in cash, anywhere from $5 to $5,000, said Marietta Police Officer Brittany Wallace.

Monday police obtained search warrants for the two stores and the owners home in Douglas County. Police said they seized five vehicles, $250,000 cash, jewelry, computers and a phone.

Hussain along with two employees were arrested and charged with felony commercial gambling. Tuesday night, they were in the Cobb County Jail, but the stores were open, minus the gaming machines. Those were seized by state authorities Tuesday afternoon.

VIDEO: Hear why police said they took down the operation and why

Nikki Tavares is a customer of Gantts Food. She said she often saw people playing the machines.

People come and sit at the machines and they smoke their cigarettes, but I didnt think they were doing anything wrong, said Tavares.

Marietta police said the investigation involved a number of agencies including the Cobb County Police Department, Douglas County Sheriffs Office, the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Revenue. Authorities said they are also looking into possible money laundering and tax evasion.

NEXT ARTICLE:Judge rules McIver will not get SUV back for now

Read this article:

Massive felony gambling raid in Marietta | WAGA - FOX 5 Atlanta

Wesfarmers considers pokies exit in bid to tackle problem gambling – ABC Online

Posted February 15, 2017 21:24:14

Retail group Wesfarmers has thrown its weight behind gambling reform by not ruling out dumping its gaming operations unless changes are introduced to limit the social damage caused by poker machines.

The company's chief executive, Richard Goyder, has told ABC's The Business it was pushing poker-machine manufacturers to make software changes that would allow it to introduce a $1 per spin limit to poker machines, which it could trial in its hotels.

"We had a conversation at board level about this and there's a really strong desire from both Wesfarmers and Coles to move this along and I'm hopeful this will happen," he said.

Wesfarmers began its push last year but it is being stonewalled by poker-machine manufacturers.

"I'm hoping we get a positive response because we'd like to trial it we think it is the right thing to do and we're a bit frustrated at the moment that we can't do it," Mr Goyder said.

Wesfarmers inherited a large gambling business when it bought Coles in 2007, including a swag of Queensland hotels bought in order to compete against rival Woolworths in the liquor business.

"The reason we're in pokies is that legislation in Queensland mandates that to retail liquor, you have to own hotels," he said.

When asked if the company would consider selling its poker machines, Mr Goyder said: "We need that legislation to change and it's fair to say we'll look at all options, but at the end of the day we are a good operator and an ethical operator of these businesses and we should be allowed to trial $1 spin limits in line with the Productivity Commission recommendations."

He added the limit would "reduce the harm that comes from one end of the pokie industry".

"But if we can't do that, we'll look at other options," he said.

When asked how quickly the Wesfarmers board wanted the issue resolved, Mr Goyder replied: "I'm serious about it and there's no doubt the board and John Durkin [managing director] at Coles is serious as well, so we would like it to move forward as quickly as we can."

Pokies reform is shaping up to be an issue that could be a legacy for Mr Goyder as he prepares to leave Wesfarmers at the end of the year.

The issue was put on Mr Goyder's agenda at a meeting with World Vision Australia's Tim Costello three years ago, when he made a promise to tackle problem gambling.

Coles has been in communication with long-time anti-gambling campaigners senator Nick Xenophon and MP Andrew Wilkie.

Mr Wilkie told the ABC Wesfarmers should be congratulated for continuing to push against the might of the gambling lobby.

"It's nothing short of scandalous that Australia's poker-machine manufacturers are refusing to make safer $1-maximum bet machines, and vitally important that Coles doesn't buckle to such unscrupulous behaviour," he said.

"We know that 40 per cent of money lost on poker machines is lost by gambling addicts and any corporation whose business model depends on this, or which supports the operators of poker machines, is patently unethical and to be condemned."

Wesfarmers rival Woolworths is the biggest poker-machine operator in the country and has not shown interest in pushing for $1 machines.

Topics: gambling, retail, community-and-society, australia

More:

Wesfarmers considers pokies exit in bid to tackle problem gambling - ABC Online

Levine: Rick Hahn, White Sox Gambling On Right Trades At Right Time – CBS Local


CBS Local
Levine: Rick Hahn, White Sox Gambling On Right Trades At Right Time
CBS Local
GLENDALE, Ariz. (CBS) Arizona once boasted some of the craftiest gamblers. So when you consider what Chicago White Sox general manager Rick Hahn has up his sleeve, it had better be the fifth ace in the deck. The poker table is weighted toward Hahn ...

and more »

Read this article:

Levine: Rick Hahn, White Sox Gambling On Right Trades At Right Time - CBS Local

Gambling operators are cashing in on teens’ addiction to online games – The Canberra Times

Problem gambling is a significant societal concern that is set to get bigger.

Game and gambling operators are chasing the proliferation of new technologies readily accessible via your phone or tablet. This is breaking through traditional barriers to advertising, leaving the switched-on generation in the firing line.

Gambling operators may feel they have hit the jackpot as a result of the computer revolution, which is enabling gambling literally anywhere, anytime.

Gaming has made gambling even bigger business, with the market for the social casino 'games' alone which are among the most popular - predicted to grow to be worth more than US$4.4 billion (AU $5.75b) this year.

There are more than 2500 online gambling sites, most of which operate outside Australian regulations. These sites allow Australians to gamble using an estimated 200+ different payment methods many do not require proof of age.

So rife is gambling already amongteenagers, we can expect about one in five Australian adolescents to gamble this is based on our recent study investigating the impact of the changing representation of gambling online. Our online survey of more than 500 adolescents from 12 to 18 years of age also found that 60 percent of those teen gamblers do so online.

Gambling has a growing presence on social networking sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. Even children are increasingly exposed to and interact with gambling themes, brands, and games because of the difficulties in age-gating social networking sites.

Our research has found that two in five adolescents have seen advertising or branding for gambling operators on social networking sites, including content shared by other users. The content appeals to teens in particular, by enabling gaming via social networking sites in real-time, for short or long sessions, on multiple devices, while alternatively enabling solo-play for a different audience.

Gambling operators are typically providing humorous and entertaining content, which is the most common motivation for adolescents connecting with gambling operators on social media; however, it is not just harmless fun, because more than one in 10 adolescents reported that their gambling had increased because of these promotions.

For technology natives on the lookout for fast entertainment, gambling sites masquerading as games are just a click away. Gambling-themes are promoted through online gambling games, including those that link directly to gambling and are used by offshore gambling sites to circumvent advertising restrictions on social networking sites.

The games are often accessed via free apps, and social casino games have proven among the most popular, and profitable, of this genre. Social casino games look just like online gambling. They may be free to play and do not offer real money rewards, but users can pay to further their play.

These readily available games incorporate social components such as leaderboards and competitions, linking to social media accounts. Users are encouraged to share updates and invite their online connections to play, increasing the promotion of gambling-themed games on social media.

Gambling-themed games increase the user's confidence in winning at gambling and alter perceptions of skill and risk-taking. Our research has shown that most social casino gamers reported game operators encourage them to try real-money gambling. More than one in four adolescent social casino gamers gambled as a result of using social casino games.

We have analysed how this happens and found a relatively high proportion of adolescents (40%) had spent money within social casino games, meaning they at least paid for the game, which is in itself a concern. Paying users were almost two-and-a-half times more likely to have gambled for real money than non-paying users and significantly more likely to experience problem gambling symptoms.

Youth often differentiate between games and gambling through the chance to win money. When players start paying real money, this may lead them to want to potentially have real money rewards, which has been reported by adult game players. The experience of spending money may normalise this and generalise to spending money on online gambling.

Many youths are able to resist marketing efforts, but the influence is also not always recognised because it can be implicit rather than explicit and may not occur immediately.

Research is needed to investigate newly emerging forms of gambling and gaming convergence.

It is imperative that policy makers tighten regulations and catch up with the new technology and interactive gamified-gambling activities.

The Internet will continue to expose young people to gambling themes, and the full impacts of today's exposure, which are only starting to be seen, will be felt years from now.

As such, regulators, policy makers, community groups, and consumers need to recognise that social media gambling games pose a huge risk for youth, and act to protect those most vulnerable before the problem matures.

Dr SallyGainsbury is thedeputy director of the Gambling Treatment Clinic in the University of Sydney's Brain and Mind Centre.

This is a modified version of an editorial published this week in BASIS, the Brief Addiction Science Information Source published by the Harvard Medical School's Cambridge Health Alliance.

Read the original post:

Gambling operators are cashing in on teens' addiction to online games - The Canberra Times

Americans Lost $116.9B Gambling In 2016: Report – CardPlayer.com

The amount of money people in America spent on gambling in 2016 was an estimated $116.9 billion, according to data from H2 Gambling Capital. Thats the amount won off of gamblers in areas including brick-and-mortar casinos, state lotteries and regulated online gaming sites.

The Economist first reported on the data, which showed that the U.S. is still by far the largest overall gambling market in the world. China was a distant second with an overall gambling market of $62.4 billion. About $30 billion of that comes from Macau.

The U.S. gambling sector has room for major growth. The American Gaming Association says that about $150 billion is wagered on sports (the handle) each year in the U.S., with nearly all of it coming through illegal channels. Traditional sports betting is only legal in Nevada, where bettors are now wagering about $4.5 billion each year.

Nevada casinos won about $220 million on those wagers last year.

There are efforts on Capitol Hill to legalize sports betting nationwide.

Silver State casinos won $11.26 billion from gamblers last year, a small uptick over 2015.

Online casino gaming is legal in just three U.S. states, but many more are still considering the activity. New York and Pennsylvania stand as the front runners to legalize internet casinos in 2017.

The size of the commercial casino market is worth about $40 billion annually, while tribal casinos win about $30 billion a year. The lottery is the next largest component of the U.S. gambling market, with annual sales in the tens of billions of dollars.

The popularity of the lottery has led to a handful of states bringing it to the internet.

Read more:

Americans Lost $116.9B Gambling In 2016: Report - CardPlayer.com

BitcoinCasino.us Ensures Instant Payouts and Responsible Gambling – newsBTC

A new Bitcoin gaming platform has been launched with a promise to deliver the most transparent and quick casino service.

A new Bitcoin gaming platform has been launched with a promise to deliver the most transparent and quick casino service.

Bitcoincasino.us, as the platform is titled, operates using only Bitcoin. Which implies that you wont have to wait long to receive your pay-outs; they are processed instantly. And if you win big, the pay-out will be processed within 5-15 minutes!

Bitcoincasino.us is a casino that cares about their players, which is rare in the world which is witnessing an increase in online frauds. Bitoincasino, however, has agoal of offering its visitors thebest time possible. Its their passion for casino games and entertainment that keeps them driven towards their goals.

Bitcoincasino.us provides its users with amazing high-quality games, secure transaction, quick pay-outs and excellent customer service. They offer an online gaming experience that compels the players to keep coming back for more.

All their casino games are handpicked by the team. This is to ensure that they offer only the best to their customers. The Bitcoincasino.us team is also confident in the stunning graphics and the sharp sound effects used in the games to attract more players and having them return for more.

Bitcoincasino.us has also set up a robust customer care where the players can contact them for any problems they face. They promise to address any problems faced by the players right away. Bitcoincasino.us strives to keep their customers happy and wants to assure them they wont have to worry about being left out in the cold when playing in their casino.

What further distinguishes the casino platform from its counterparts and further reiterates its message about caring for its visitors is their option to purposefully block the clients from their casino who feel that they are getting addicted to gambling.

In a gesture of care, they do not want their users to lose a healthy life balance. In order to do so, they offer a safeguard against gambling too much.

If you reach the point where you feel that you can no longer trust yourself with using bitcoins to gamble on Bitcoincasino.us, you can mail them. They will purposefully block you from their casino.

They also offer to help in case you suspect your spouse or relative might have a problem.

Bitcoincasino.us wants their casino to be a fun and friendly place, where everyone gambles responsibly.

Follow this link:

BitcoinCasino.us Ensures Instant Payouts and Responsible Gambling - newsBTC

Euthanasia’s march Down Under – Catholic Herald Online (blog)

Stories of suffering are the currency use to validate assisted suicide (Getty)

A coalition of academics, journalists and celebrities is trying to convince Australians that legalisation is overdue. But were fighting back

The internationally renowned psychiatrist and Holocaust survivor Viktor Frankl experienced first hand the utter depravity of Auschwitz and Dachau. He knew the immense physical torment, psychological torture and spiritual desolation of those most inhuman of places. They were not called death camps for figurative effect.

Suicide was not unknown among those sent there to suffer grievously and die. Yet, strikingly, Frankl writes in his autobiographical study, Mans Search for Meaning, of the obligation fellow inmates accepted to frustrate such occurrences: A very strict camp ruling forbade any efforts to save a man who attempted suicide Therefore, it was all-important to prevent these attempts from occurring.

In naming the reason for this paramount calling, Frankl said: When a man finds that it is his destiny to suffer, he will have to accept his suffering as his task; his single and unique task His unique opportunity lies in the way in which he bears his burden.

As words such as compassion and dignity and care become (mis)appropriated by advocates for legalising euthanasia and assisted suicide (EAS), I have often thought of Frankls enduring insight that human life is essentially a quest for meaning. Advocates of legalised EAS seem unable to grasp the deep meaning to be discovered by a person in that uniquely human project of embracing what Frankl called the wider cycles of life and death, of suffering and of dying.

It is realistic to acknowledge that some individuals, in the midst of their own mortal suffering, will seek out euthanasia, and that others will be willing to assist in that desperate act. God only knows and only God can judge the existential torment that might overwhelm a person, and their loved ones, as they suffer in dying. But when societies start to legislate for this, when they actively chose killing over living as the better way, then much will be lost of our common human project. Legalising EAS is a society giving up on its own people.

Unlike in Britain, where debate happens on a national level, the question of legalising EAS in Australia is a state-based issue. This is because healthcare is the responsibility of the eight states and territories, and not the single Commonwealth. Consequentially, there is a rolling debate on euthanasia across the country, depending on which parliament is considering legislative action at any particular time. The parliament of South Australia, for example, has recently defeated (by a single vote) the 13th attempt at legalising EAS. The State of Tasmania has had several goes at pushing through legalisation. A cross-party bill will be considered in the parliament of New South Wales this year, and parliamentary advocates in Queensland and Western Australia are testing the waters. This creates difficulties in rallying resources and people to counter such developments.

The major battleground, however, is Victoria. It is in this state that, for the first time, a government-sponsored bill will be tabled in the second half of this year, following a parliamentary inquirys recommendation to legalise EAS.

Who is supporting this move? There is a socially liberal disposition among many academics and the media, which is being encouraged by a handful of celebrity campaigners and supported by some professional bodies of medical practitioners.

EAS is spoken of by these advocates as a step forward, overdue and an idea whose time has come. It is presented as the morally decent thing to do, demanding of those who resist change the justification of their unenlightened position. Those who do not support EAS are quickly dismissed as either religiously motivated or doctrinaire.

It is telling that this most basic question of our common humanity is couched by EAS advocates in bygone sectarian images and language. Yet that is the nature of the debate in Australia: euthanasia is but one flank of a wider front in a battle for radical cultural change.

It is in the stories we tell that our humanity will be revealed. Personal stories of suffering are the currency used to validate the wielding of a blunt and crude legislative instrument over the lives of the dying. In telling only of ordeal and despair, advocates of EAS seek to privilege the reduction of a persons entire life to the end part only. The task is no longer how to support someone in the living of their life, but how to effectively bring about their death. In the legalising of EAS, dying is no longer viewed as a uniquely human dimension of living, but rather as a process to be brought about as proficiently as possible.

Might we not find a more truthful storytelling of our humanity in Viktor Frankl? And finally, he wrote, I spoke [to my comrades] of our sacrifice, which had meaning in every case. It was in the nature of this sacrifice that it should appear to be pointless in the normal world But in reality our sacrifice did have a meaning The purpose of my words was to find a full meaning in our life, then and there, in that hut and in that practically hopeless situation.

To legalise EAS is to give up on telling the story of the full meaning of our lives. This story is not always easily told, but it is a true story in need of listening ears.

The Most Rev Dr Peter Comensoli is Bishop of Broken Bay and the Australian Bishops Delegate on Euthanasia

The rest is here:

Euthanasia's march Down Under - Catholic Herald Online (blog)

Would Ayn Rand Have Cast President Trump As A Villain? | Zero …

Submitted by Steve Simpson via The Foundation for Economic Education,

After Donald Trump announced a number of cabinet picks who happen to be fans of Ayn Rand, a flurry of articles appeared claiming that Trump intended to create an Objectivist cabal within his administration.

Ayn Rand-acolyte Donald Trump stacks his cabinet with fellow Objectivists, proclaimed one article. Would that it were so. The novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand was a passionate champion of individual freedom and laissez-faire capitalism and a fierce opponent of authoritarianism. For her, government exists solely to protect our rights, not to meddle in the economy or to direct our private lives.

A president who truly understood Rands philosophy would not be cozying up to Putin, bullying companies to keep manufacturing plants in the United States, or promising insurance for everybody among many other things Trump has said and done.

And while its certainly welcome news that several of Trumps cabinet picks admire Rand, its not surprising. Her novel Atlas Shrugged depicts a world in decline as it slowly strangles its most productive members. The novel celebrates the intelligent and creative individuals who produce wealth, many of whom are businessmen. So it makes sense that businessmen like Rex Tillerson and Andy Puzder would be among the novels millions of fans.

But a handful of fans in the administration hardly signals that Trumps would be an Ayn Rand administration. The claims about Rands influence in the administration are vastly overblown.

Even so, there is at least one parallel we can draw between a Trump administration and Rands novels, although its not favorable to Trump. As a businessman and a politician, Trump epitomizes a phenomenon that Rand harshly criticized throughout her career, especially in Atlas Shrugged. Rand called it pull peddling. The popular term today is cronyism. But the phenomenon is the same: attempting to succeed, not through production and trade, but by trading influence and favors with politicians and bureaucrats.

Cronyism has been a big issue in recent years among many thinkers and politicians on the Right, who have criticized big government because it often favors some groups and individuals over others or picks winners and losers.

Commentators on the Left, too, often complain about influence peddling, money in politics, and special interests, all of which are offered as hallmarks of corruption in government. And by all indications, Trump was elected in part because he was somehow seen as a political outsider who will drain the swamp.

But as the vague phrase drain the swamp shows, theres a lot more concern over cronyism, corruption, and related issues than there is clarity about what the problem actually is and how to solve it.

Ayn Rand had unique and clarifying views on the subject. With Trump in office, the problem she identified is going to get worse. Rands birthday is a good time to review her unique explanation of, and cure for, the problem.

The first question we need to be clear about is: What, exactly, is the problem were trying to solve? Drain the swamp, throw the bums out, clean up Washington, outsiders vs. insiders these are all platitudes that can mean almost anything to anyone.

Are lobbyists the problem? Trump and his advisers seem to think so. Theyve vowed to keep lobbyists out of the administration, and Trump has signed an order forbidding all members of his administration from lobbying for 5 years.

Its not clear whether these plans will succeed, but why should we care? Lobbyists are individuals hired to represent others with business before government. We might lament the existence of this profession, but blaming lobbyists for lobbying is like blaming lawyers for lawsuits. Everyone seems to complain about them right up until the moment that they want one.

The same goes for complaints about the clients of lobbyists the hated special interests. Presidents since at least Teddy Roosevelt have vowed to run them out of Washington yet, today, interest groups abound. Some lobby for higher taxes, some for lower taxes. Some lobby for more entitlements, some for fewer or for more fiscal responsibility in entitlement programs. Some lobby for business, some for labor, some for more regulations on both. Some lobby for freer trade, some for trade restrictions. The list goes on and on. Are they all bad?

The question we should ask is, Why do people organize into interest groups and lobby government in the first place?

The popular answer among free-market advocates is that government has too much to offer, which creates an incentive for people to tap their cronies in government to ensure that government offers it to them. Shrink government, the argument goes, and we will solve the problem.

Veronique de Rugy, senior fellow at the Mercatus Center, describes cronyism in these terms:

This is how cronyism works: A company wants a special privilege from the government in exchange for political support in future elections. If the company is wealthy enough or is backed by powerful-enough interest groups, the company will get its way and politicians will get another private-sector ally. The few cronies win at the expense of everyone else.

(Another term for this is rent seeking, and many other people define it roughly the same way.)

Theres a lot of truth to this view. Our bloated government has vast power over our lives and trillions of dollars worth of favors to dole out, and a seemingly endless stream of people and groups clamor to win those favors. As a lawyer who opposes campaign finance laws, Ive often said that the problem is not that money controls politics, its that politics controls money and property, and business, and much of our private lives as well.

Still, we need to be more precise. Favors, benefits, and privileges are too vague a way to describe what government has to offer. Among other things, these terms just raise another question: Which benefits, favors, or privileges should government offer? Indeed, many people have asked that question of cronyisms critics. Heres how the Los Angeles Times put it in an editorial responding to the effort by some Republicans to shut down the Export-Import Bank:

Governments regularly intervene in markets in the name of public safety, economic growth or consumer protection, drawing squawks of protest whenever one interest is advanced at the expense of others. But a policy thats outrageous to one faction for example, the government subsidies for wind, solar and battery power that have drawn fire on the right may in fact be a welcome effort to achieve an important societal objective.

Its a valid point. Without a way to tell what government should and should not do, whose interests it should or should not serve, complaints about cronyism look like little more than partisan politics. When government favors the groups or policies you like, thats good government in action. When it doesnt, thats cronyism.

In Rands view, there is a serious problem to criticize, but few free-market advocates are clear about exactly what it is. Simply put, the problem is the misuse of the power that government possesses, which is force. Government is the institution that possesses a legal monopoly on the use of force.

The question we need to grapple with is, how should it use that power?

Using terms like favors, privileges, and benefits to describe what government is doing when cronyism occurs is not just too vague, its far too benign. These terms obscure the fact that what people are competing for when they engage in cronyism is the privilege of legally using force to take what others have earned or to prevent them from contracting or associating with others. When groups lobby for entitlements whether its more social security or Medicare or subsidies for businesses they are essentially asking government to take that money by force from taxpayers who earned it and to give it to someone else. Call it what you want, but it ultimately amounts to stealing.

When individuals in a given profession lobby for occupational licensing laws, they are asking government to grant a select group of people a kind of monopoly status that prevents others who dont meet their standards from competing with them that is, from contracting with willing customers to do business.

These are just two examples of how government takes money and property or prevents individuals from voluntarily dealing with one another. There are many, many more. Both Democrats and Republicans favor these sorts of laws and willingly participate in a system in which trading on this power has become commonplace.

Rent seeking doesnt capture what is really going on. Neither, really, does cronyism. Theyre both too tame.

A far better term is the one used by nineteenth-century French economist Frederic Bastiat: legal plunder. Rand uses the term political pull to describe those who succeed by convincing friends in government to use the law to plunder others or to prevent them from competing.

And she uses the phrase the Aristocracy of Pull, which is the title of a whole chapter in Atlas Shrugged, to describe a society in which political pull, rather than production and trade, has become the rule. Its a society that resembles feudalism, in which people compete to gain the favor of government officials in much the same way that people in feudal times competed for the favor of the king so they could use that power to rule over one another and plunder as they pleased.

The cause, for Rand, is not the size of government, but what we allow it to do. When we allow government to use the force it possesses to go beyond protecting our rights, we arm individuals to plunder one another and turn what would otherwise be limited instances of corruption or criminality into a systemic problem.

For example, when politicians promise to increase social security or to make education free, they are promising to take more of the incomes of taxpayers to pay for these welfare programs. When they promise to favor unions with more labor laws or to increase the minimum wage, they are promising to restrict businesses right to contract freely with willing workers. When they promise to keep jobs in America, they are promising to impose tariffs on companies that import foreign goods. The rule in such a system becomes: plunder or be plundered. What choice does anyone have but to organize themselves into pressure groups, hire lobbyists, and join the fray?

Rand memorably describes this process in the famous money speech in Atlas Shrugged:

But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims then money becomes its creators avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once theyve passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

Observe what kind of people thrive in such a society and who their victims are. Theres a big difference between the two, and Rand never failed to make a moral distinction between them.

In the early 1990s, Atlantic City resident Vera Coking found herself in the sights of a developer who wanted to turn the property on which she lived into a casino parking lot. The developer made what he thought was a good offer, but she refused. The developer became incensed, and instead of further trying to convince Coking to sell or finding other land, he did what a certain kind of businessman has increasingly been able to do in modern times. He pursued a political solution. He convinced a city redevelopment agency to use the power of eminent domain to force Coking to sell.

The developer was Donald Trump. His ensuing legal battle with Coking, which he lost, was the first of a number of controversies in recent decades over the use of eminent domain to take property from one private party and give it to another.

Most people can see that theres a profound moral distinction between the Trumps and their cronies in government on the one hand and people like Vera Coking on the other. One side is using law to force the other to give up what is rightfully theirs. To be blunt, one side is stealing from the other.

But the victims of the use of eminent domain often lobby government officials to save their property just as vigorously as others do to take it. Should we refer to all of them as special interests and damn them for seeking government favors? The answer should be obvious.

But if thats true, why do we fail to make that distinction when the two sides are businesses as many do when they criticize Wall Street, or the financial industry as a whole, or when they complain about crony capitalism as though capitalism as such is the problem? Not all businesses engage in pull-peddling, and many have no choice but to deal with government or to lobby in self-defense.

John Allison, the former CEO of BB&T bank (and a former board member of the Ayn Rand Institute, where I work), refused to finance transactions that involved the use of eminent domain after the Supreme Court issued its now-infamous decision in Kelo v. City of New London, which upheld the use of eminent domain to transfer property from one private party to another. Later, Allison lobbied against the TARP fund program after the financial crisis, only to be pressured by government regulators into accepting the funds. In an industry as heavily regulated as banking, theres little a particular bank can do to avoid a situation like that.

Another example came to light in 2015, when a number of news articles ran stories on United Airliness so-called Chairmans Flight. This was a flight from Newark to Columbia, South Carolina, that United continued to run long after it became clear it was a money-loser. Why do that? It turns out the chairman of the Port Authority, which controls access to all the ports in New York and New Jersey, had a vacation home near Columbia. During negotiations over airport fees, he made it clear that he wanted United to keep the flight, so United decided not to cancel it. Most of the news stories blamed United for influence-peddling. Only Holman Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal called it what it was: extortion by the Port Authority chairman.

The point is, theres a profound moral difference between trying to use government to plunder others and engaging with it essentially in self-defense. Its the same difference between a mobster running a protection racket and his victims. And theres an equally profound moral difference between people who survive through production and trade, and those who survive by political pull.

Rand spells out this latter difference in an essay called The Money Making Personality:

The Money-Maker is the discoverer who translates his discovery into material goods. In an industrial society with a complex division of labor, it may be one man or a partnership of two: the scientist who discovers new knowledge and the entrepreneur the businessman who discovers how to use that knowledge, how to organize material resources and human labor into an enterprise producing marketable goods.

The Money-Appropriator is an entirely different type of man. He is essentially noncreative and his basic goal is to acquire an unearned share of the wealth created by others. He seeks to get rich, not by conquering nature, but by manipulating men, not by intellectual effort, but by social maneuvering. He does not produce, he redistributes: he merely switches the wealth already in existence from the pockets of its owners to his own.

The Money-Appropriator may become a politician or a businessman who cuts corners or that destructive product of a mixed economy: the businessman who grows rich by means of government favors, such as special privileges, subsidies, franchises; that is, grows rich by means of legalized force.

In Atlas Shrugged, Rand shows these two types in action through characters like steel magnate Hank Rearden and railroad executive Dagny Taggart, two brilliant and productive business people who carry a crumbling world on their shoulders. On the opposite end of the spectrum are Orren Boyle, a competitor of Reardens, and Jim Taggart, Dagnys brother and CEO of the railroad where she works. Both constantly scheme to win special franchises and government contracts from their friends in Washington and to heap regulations on productive businesses like Reardens. Rearden is forced to hire a lobbyist in Washington to try to keep the bureaucrats off of his back.

When we damn special interests or businesses in general for cronyism, we end up grouping the Reardens in with the Orren Boyles, which only excuses the behavior of the latter and damns the former. This attitude treats the thug and his victim as morally equivalent. Indeed, this attitude makes it seem like success in business is as much a function of whom you know in Washington as it is how intelligent or productive you are.

It is unfortunately true that many businesses use political pull, and many are a mixture of money-makers and money-appropriators. So it can seem like success is a matter of government connections. But its not true in a fundamental sense. The wealth that makes our modern world amazing the iPhones, computers, cars, medical advances and much more can only be created through intelligence, ingenuity, creativity and hard work.

Government does not create wealth. It can use the force it possesses to protect the property and freedom of those who create wealth and who deal with each other civilly, through trade and persuasion; or it can use that force to plunder the innocent and productive, which is not sustainable over the long run. What principle defines the distinction between these two types of government?

As I noted earlier, the common view about cronyism is that it is a function of big government and that the solution is to shrink or limit government. But that just leads to the question: whats the limiting principle?

True, a government that does less has less opportunity to plunder the innocent and productive, but a small government can be as unjust to individuals as a large one. And we ought to consider how we got to the point that government is so large. If we dont limit governments power in principle, pressure group warfare will inevitably cause it to grow, as individuals and groups, seeing government use the force of law to redistribute wealth and restrict competition, ask it to do the same for them.

The common response is that government should act for the good of the public rather than for the narrow interests of private parties. The Los Angeles Times editorial quoted above expresses this view. Whats truly crony capitalism, says the Times, is when the government confuses private interests with public ones.

Most people who criticize cronyism today from across the political spectrum hold the same view. The idea that governments job is to serve the public interest has been embedded in political thought for well over a century.

Rand rejects the whole idea of the public interest as vague, at best, and destructive, at worst. As she says in an essay called The Pull Peddlers:

So long as a concept such as the public interest is regarded as a valid principle to guide legislation lobbies and pressure groups will necessarily continue to exist. Since there is no such entity as the public, since the public is merely a number of individuals, the idea that the public interest supersedes private interests and rights, can have but one meaning: that the interests and rights of some individuals takes precedence over the interests and rights of others.

If so, then all men and all private groups have to fight to the death for the privilege of being regarded as the public. The governments policy has to swing like an erratic pendulum from group to group, hitting some and favoring others, at the whim of any given moment and so grotesque a profession as lobbying (selling influence) becomes a full-time job. If parasitism, favoritism, corruption, and greed for the unearned did not exist, a mixed economy [a mixture of freedom and economic controls] would bring them into existence.

Its tempting to blame politicians for pull-peddling, and certainly there are many who willingly participate and advocate laws that plunder others. But, as Rand argues, politicians as such are not to blame, as even the most honest of government officials could not follow a standard like the public interest:

The worst aspect of it is not that such a power can be used dishonestly, but that it cannot be used honestly. The wisest man in the world, with the purest integrity cannot find a criterion for the just, equitable, rational application of an unjust, inequitable, irrational principle. The best that an honest official can do is to accept no material bribe for his arbitrary decision; but this does not make his decision and its consequences more just or less calamitous.

To make the point more concrete: which is in the public interest, the jobs and products produced by, say, logging and mining companies or preserving the land they use for public parks? For that matter, why are public parks supposedly in the public interest? As Peter Schwartz points out in his book In Defense of Selfishness, more people attend private amusement parks like Disneyland each year than national parks. Should government subsidize Disney?

To pick another example: why is raising the minimum wage in the public interest but not cheap goods or the rights of business owners and their employees to negotiate their wages freely? It seems easy to argue that a casino parking lot in Atlantic City is not in the public interest, but would most citizens of Atlantic City agree, especially when more casinos likely mean more jobs and economic growth in the city?

There are no rational answers to any of these questions, because the public interest is an inherently irrational standard to guide government action. The only approach when a standard like that governs is to put the question to the political process, which naturally leads people to pump millions into political campaigns and lobbying to ensure that their interests prevail.

Rands answer is to limit government strictly to protecting rights and nothing more. The principle of rights, for Rand, keeps government connected to its purpose of protecting our ability to live by protecting our freedom to think and produce, cooperate and trade with others, and pursue our own happiness. As Rand put it in Atlas Shrugged (through the words of protagonist John Galt):

Rights are conditions of existence required by mans nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate mans rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life.

A government that uses the force it possesses to do anything more than protect rights necessarily ends up violating them. The reason is that force is only effective at stopping people from functioning or taking what they have produced or own. Force can therefore be used either to stop criminals or to act like them.

The principle, then, is that only those who initiate force against others in short, those who act as criminals violate rights and are subject to retaliation by government. So long as individuals respect each others rights by refraining from initiating force against one another so long as they deal with each other on the basis of reason, persuasion, voluntary association, and trade government should have no authority to interfere in their affairs.

When it violates this principle of rights, cronyism, corruption, pressure group warfare and mutual plunder are the results.

Theres much more to say about Rands view of rights and government. Readers can find more in essays such as Mans Rights, The Nature of Government, and What Is Capitalism? and in Atlas Shrugged.

In 1962, Rand wrote the following in an essay called The Cold Civil War:

A man who is tied cannot run a race against men who are free: he must either demand that his bonds be removed or that the other contestants be tied as well. If men choose the second, the economic race slows down to a walk, then to a stagger, then to a crawl and then they all collapse at the goal posts of a Very Old Frontier: the totalitarian state. No one is the winner but the government.

The phrase Very Old Frontier was a play on the Kennedy administrations New Frontier, a program of economic subsidies, entitlements and other regulations that Rand saw as statist and which, like many other political programs and trends, she believed was leading America toward totalitarianism. Throughout Rands career, many people saw her warnings as overblown.

We have now inaugurated as 45th president of the United States a man who regularly threatens businesses with regulation and confiscatory taxation if they dont follow his preferred policies or run their businesses as he sees fit. A recent headline in USA Today captured the reaction among many businesses: Companies pile on job announcements to avoid Trumps wrath.

Are Rands warnings that our government increasingly resembles an authoritarian regime one that issues dictates and commands to individuals and businesses, who then have to pay homage to the government like courtiers in a kings court really overblown? Read Atlas Shrugged and her other writings and decide for yourself.

Follow this link:

Would Ayn Rand Have Cast President Trump As A Villain? | Zero ...

A Fool’s Golden Rule – Word and Way – Word and Way

During a trip to Colorado as a child, I found gold. I had previously devoured Jack Londons Call of the Wild, imagining myself out in the Canadian Yukon or the Alaskan Klondike finding gold. Unable to convince my parents to take me to Alaska I unsuccessfully suggested this family vacation every year as a child the Colorado Rockies at least fit the image in my gold-panning dreams better than Missouri. And then it all came true. I found gold.

During a trip to Colorado as a child, I found gold. I had previously devoured Jack Londons Call of the Wild, imagining myself out in the Canadian Yukon or the Alaskan Klondike finding gold. Unable to convince my parents to take me to Alaska I unsuccessfully suggested this family vacation every year as a child the Colorado Rockies at least fit the image in my gold-panning dreams better than Missouri. And then it all came true. I found gold.

Brian KaylorWell, I thought I did. It turned out I merely found a piece of pyrite, a mineral with only a superficial resemblance to gold. Pyrite, more popularly known as fools gold, looks fairly similar to gold but holds much less value. An expert wouldnt fall for it, but I didnt know any better.

We can often find ourselves fooled by cheap knock-offs from watches to designer handbags. Even the famed golden rule can be twisted.

During a recent U.S. Senate confirmation hearing for a potential cabinet member, a senator invoked the golden rule to justify his squashing of the other partys dissent. Well, he called it the golden rule, but it seems he needs to recheck his Bible. The senator explained this so-called golden rule to mean he would treat the other party the same way the other party treated his party in the past. Thats a fools golden rule. The senators teaching instead resembled the eye-for-an-eye philosophy. Jesus literally rejected that tit-for-tat code in the Sermon on the Mount before offering what we call the golden rule later in that sermon.

The golden rule isnt as the senator in the hearing suggested do unto others as they did unto you. Its treat others as you would have them treat you. Politicians in both parties routinely fall for this fools golden rule. They complain about the other partys actions until an election switches who is in power and then politicians in both parties do exactly what they used to complain about the others doing. Thispolarization and revenge-seeking spoils relationships and disrupts the tasks on which we should work. Giving into this fools golden rule is to allow party and power to trump principles.

Politicians are not alone. We follow this fools golden rule in many areas of our lives. We treat family members as they previously treated us. We hit back at coworkers to retaliate for their past actions. We respond in kind to people at church or down the street. We knock out an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth until we are all blind and toothless. Such a moral code uses past behavior as a ceiling for our own actions since we will not treat anyone any better than they previously treated us. That only allows for our behavior to spiral downward.

Jesus called us to something more difficult: to treat someone who wronged us better than how that person treated us. Pyrite remains more common than real gold. Living out the golden rule makes one unusual in a world of polarized politics, broken homes and split churches. Ultimately the teaching of Jesus leads us to follow his own example. Jesus did not treat us as we treated him. We mocked him, beat him, spat on him, killed him. And he responded with love.

When I travel to Colorado today, I try to remember the line from William Shakespeare that all that glisters [or glitters] is not gold. But as we consider how Jesus taught us to treat others, I prefer J. R. R. Tolkiens inversion of the poetry: all that is gold does not glitter.

Brian Kaylor is editor of Word&Way.

Read more:

A Fool's Golden Rule - Word and Way - Word and Way

The Golden Rule of Business – Times-Citizen Communications

Those who enter the three businesses started by the Campbell family in Iowa Falls - Campbell Supply, Cam-Spray and Iowa Power Products - will see on the wall a framed sign that says Years of Employment and below that a list of the years employees have worked there. Many have double digits next to their names. Thats one of the companies secrets of success.

Bob Campbell, corporate officer for Campbell Supply, said having great employees who stay for a long time helps them create better relationships with their customers. The salespeople at Campbell Supply can develop good relationships with their accounts.

Its a secret to our success, he said. A customer doesnt have to explain what they need because the person already knows them.

The company also focuses on its core values of integrity, following the Golden Rule (Do unto others as you would have them do unto you) and providing a financially secure and stable family environment.

Campbell said those values extend to the companys other locations in Waterloo, Sioux City and Cedar Rapids. The companys employees are expected to treat customers, vendors and fellow employees the way they would want to be treated as well.

One of those employees is Darla Smith. She is the assistant sales and marketing manager and has been with the company for about 33 years, after being hired in 1984. She came out of college and started with more of an accounting position with the company. That evolved to sales and marketing and she has stuck with that.

The atmosphere and people I work with has allowed me to grow, she said. Its exciting to be part of the company and watch it grow.

Smith said Campbell Supply does a good job adjusting to her needs, too. When she had twins, she said the company let her go to four days a week for a while and she appreciated that flexibility.

And I enjoy what I do. Thats a lot of it too, she said.

The company is all about family. Brothers John and Jim Campbell formed a partnership in 1959 and bought a business from Manning W. Howell in 1962 to establish Campbell Supply Company. They originally were on East Rocksylvania Avenue, but moved to their current South Oak Street location in 1968. That building has been expanded several times.

Second-generation family members Bob and Steve Campbell now operate the business. They keep the family atmosphere going.

We have those core values here, which may not be unusual (for other companies) but its kept people here, Bob said.

Campbell Supply is an industrial distribution company. Bob said a lot of people may not know what that is, but he said industries need someone to supply them with items like tools and other components that they need to run their businesses.

He said industries also rely on a business like Campbell Supply to be on top of new items available. Another advantage of having long-term employees is they get to know the products and can quickly learn about something new that their customers may be interested in.

A company like 3M has new items constantly, our customers want people to show them whats new, he said.

Part of being able to find employees that will grow with the company, is finding young people interested in the business. Campbell said that isnt always easy to do, with so many young people interested in technology instead of grinders and cutting discs. But on another note, the company does have a growing IT department to handle thousands of products on the website.

Finding people who want to live in small-town Iowa can also be a challenge, but the company does have opportunities for salespeople to live elsewhere.

Many companies have started out in smaller towns and then moved corporate headquarters to the states metropolitan areas. Campbell said this company has stayed where it was created because they grew up here. They also have people who have moved away, but want to come back home after starting to raise a family, so a company like Campbell Supply in Iowa Falls is a good option for them.

The other two companies operated by the Campbells in Iowa Falls also see longevity of staff at them. Bill Jensen is an example at Cam Spray. Jensen is the product manager there and has been with the company for 35 years.

Jensen said Cam Spray was his first job when he got out of school. It was just getting started in the early 1980s.

I saw the opportunity to get in on the ground floor of something, he said.

Jensen said he works with good people and the company gives employees the opportunity to try out new things.

If we have an idea for something we think we can sell, we get a lot of latitude to make that happen, he said.

He said the company has a family atmosphere. The people he works with get their work done, but also have fun at the same time.

Its pretty laid back, he said.

Jensen enjoys when new products come along. He said he gets input from coworkers on the project and watches what they can come up with. Items need to be adapted for various customers needs.

Jensen said he plans on staying with Cam Spray until his retirement. As the business brings in younger people, he looks to spend some more time with his grandchildren, and also working on his farm and wrenching on his classic car.

Another business is housed in the same location as Cam Spray. That is Iowa Power Products. That business distributes Honda engines and Hatz diesel engines to the OEM market and through the dealer network.

The first face someone sees when entering the business is often Sharon Ites. Shes been with the company for 30 years. She came to the business after working for a Yamaha dealership. Her sister was working at Campbell Supply and told her about the opportunity. She applied and got the job.

Ites handles office work like payables, receivables, setting up new accounts, keeping track of payroll and vacations and other items similar to that.

Ites said a lot has changed since she first set foot in Iowa Power Products.

When I started, we had one computer, she said. Ive seen a lot of change over the years.

As for her longevity at the company, she said the Campbells are a great family to work for.

I couldnt ask for a better employer, she said.

Ites describes the Campbells as a good Christian family that has done a lot to help different organizations in Iowa Falls, including being active in church, with hospital organizations and organizations that make Christmas better for kids.

Because of that, and her great coworkers, she has never wanted to work elsewhere.

They are my daytime family, she said. I spend as much time with them as I do my actual family.

Ites said its a place she wants to come to in the morning. She said of course there are stressful times, but overall, its a nice place to be and she, like Jensen, plans to retire from the business when the time comes.

Read more:

The Golden Rule of Business - Times-Citizen Communications

Liberal Activists Join Forces Against a Common Foe: Trump – New York Times


New York Times
Liberal Activists Join Forces Against a Common Foe: Trump
New York Times
Within days of the election, Mr. Boyan began volunteering for the Working Families Party, a liberal political organization focused on income inequality, and attended almost weekly protests to voice his dismay. He traveled to the Women's March on ...

Read the original here:

Liberal Activists Join Forces Against a Common Foe: Trump - New York Times

What’s a Liberal to Do When His Spouse Is a Trump Zealot? – New York Times

What's a Liberal to Do When His Spouse Is a Trump Zealot?
New York Times
She now says she hates all liberals, all Democrats and, particularly, Barack Obama. I am weary and frightened of her diatribes and no longer bring up any Trump-related topic. But she frequently does. Is it ethical for me to remain silent when ...

Read the rest here:

What's a Liberal to Do When His Spouse Is a Trump Zealot? - New York Times

I’m a bleeding-heart liberal cleric but the Church of England must not accept gay marriage – Telegraph.co.uk

This argument is caricatured by cutting-edge Radio 4 comedians as belonging to red-faced buffers from the shires blustering: Theyll be saying I can marry my labrador next! But thats plain silly. The point of the incest analogy is to demonstrate that loving commitment isnt a sufficiency for marriage. Unless gay campaigners are saying it should be confined to people who can legally have sex. But that would mean that marriage is only about sexual union, which it isnt (again, see above).

What were considering is what we start to unravel once we make marriage something it hasnt been before. This was not a thought that detained David Cameron, who as prime minister allowed gay marriage as a means of burnishing his socially liberal credentials. Cameron did this, he explained, because he was a Conservative. Thats a matter for the Tories and we shouldnt intrude on private grief. Butthe General Synod has to decide what to do about it.

Its a shame that the Church finds itself at such odds with what a secular state has decided marriage now is. Had we had a new liturgy for blessing civil partnerships in church as we should, if were in the business of blessing Gods love wherever we find it we might have avoided this.

That said, the Church, not for the first time, has an opportunity as well as a responsibility to clear up the mess left after the wedding party by lazy politicians.

George Pitcher is Rector of the parish of Waldron in East Sussex

Read this article:

I'm a bleeding-heart liberal cleric but the Church of England must not accept gay marriage - Telegraph.co.uk

Trump Says Liberal Media ‘Going Crazy With Blind Hatred’ – Daily Caller

5483218

President Donald Trump lashedout at his intelligence agencies for behaving like Russia and leaking conspiracy theories to biased liberal media outlets in a tweet storm Wednesday morning.

Trump suggested that the FBI or NSA might be behind the leaks and accused several mainstream media outlets of spreading fake news and going crazy with blind hatred. He also pointed out claims that his administration hasquestionable ties to Russia are complete nonsense.

Trumps latest tweets follow unconfirmed reports by CNN and other outlets that members of his team was in contact with Russia throughout the campaign.

Leaks are becoming a serious problem for the new administration.

Some White House leaks have been harmless, such as reports Trump enjoys watching television alone in his bathrobe, which turned out to be incorrect. Other leaks, like the presidents phone calls with the leaders of Australia, Mexico, and Russia, are more disconcerting. Some, such as those surrounding former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, have been career ending.

After Flynn steppeddown, Trumpsaid the real news story was not Flynns resignation but the leaks.

Flynns fall appears to be a concerted political effort to remove him from office.

There does appear to be a well orchestrated effort to attack Flynn and others in the administration, Republican Rep. Devin Nunes, who chairs the House select intelligence committee, told Bloomberg. From the leaking of phone calls between the president and foreign leaders to what appears to be high-level FISA Court information, to the leaking of American citizens being denied security clearances, it looks like a pattern.

Trump previously accused Obama people of leaking information, intentionally undermining his administration.

Its a disgrace that they leaked because its very much against our country, he told Fox News, Its a very dangerous thing for this country.

Follow Ryan on Twitter

Send tips to ryan@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

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

Continued here:

Trump Says Liberal Media 'Going Crazy With Blind Hatred' - Daily Caller

Conservatives: Walker’s budget plan is anything but ‘liberal’ – Watchdog.org

MADISON, Wis. Liberals and the mainstream media have called Republican Gov. Scott Walker a lot of things over his two and a half terms in office.

Now the Wisconsin lefts Public Enemy No. 1 is being described with a pejorative that no conservative could easily abide: Walker is suddenly a liberal.

Or at least his budget proposal is.

CONSERVATIVELY CONFIDENT: Of the many names the left has called Gov. Scott Walker, liberal isnt one of them. At least until now. Conservative budget watchers say an AP headline declaring Walkers budget surprisingly liberal is an odd descriptor for a budget replete with so many conservative initiatives.

How low can the left go?

An Associated Press story last week, headlined Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker proposes surprisingly liberal budget, noted the 2017-19 spending plan includes a huge boost in funding for schools, sizable cuts for college students and increased tax breaks for the working poor.

While budget hawks arent thrilled with some of the spending increases included in the $76.098 billion biennial budget, no one is about to confuse Walker with California left-winger Gov. Jerry Brown, or Walkers liberal colleague to the more immediate west, Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton.

Brett Healy, president of the MacIver Institute, a Madison-based free-market think tank, said theres a lot for conservatives to like in Walkers budget proposal. Not the least of which is nearly $600 million in tax and fee relief, including the elimination of the state portion of the property tax levy.

Think about it. When is the last time a politician proposed eliminating a tax? It just never happens, Healy told Wisconsin Watchdog on Monday on the Vicki McKenna Show, on NewsTalk 1130 WISN in Milwaukee.

The biggest concern when you are a conservative in the Legislature is, if you start a new tax or fee, its never going to go away, Healy added. Here we have a situation where Gov. Walker has actually stepped up and he proposes eliminating the forestry tax on everyones property tax bill. Thats huge.

To accomplish this tax exorcism, Walkers plan provides more than $180 million in fiscal years 2017-18 and 2018-19 to ensure continued state funding for forestry programs covered by local property taxpayers. The administration says the state forestry account in the conservation fund will be unaffected through this tax relief action.

This tax, which had gone up each time a propertys value increased, will no longer be imposed on Wisconsin property owners, states aDepartment of Administration budget analysis.

RELATED: Walker budget plan boasts tax cuts, reserve concerns

Eric Bott, Wisconsin state director of Americans for Prosperity and Americans for Prosperity Foundation, said Walkers latest budget plan again sets the pace in limiting the size and scope of government.

The proposal calls for phasing out the prevailing wage mandate for state-funded construction projects. Prevailing wage, a Great Depression-era relic that artificially fixes wages based on trade and geographical location of the state, can substantially increase costs for government construction projects. Bott calls it protectionism at its worst. Unions and their Democratic allies fought ferociouslyto keep prevailing wage reform at bay in the last session. They failed. Walker wants to go deeper this time.

The budget also includes some of the strongest welfare reform initiatives in the nation.

Bott is especially excited about the inclusion of a state version of the REINS Act in the Walker budget plan. The REINS (Regulations from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny) proposal would require state agencies to get legislative approval for any regulation with an economic impact at certain thresholds.

Rep.Adam Neylon, R-Pewaukee,and Sen.Devin Lemahieu, R-Oostburg,earlier this year reintroduced a similar bill that would hold the economic impact threshold at $10 million.

If there is a compliance estimate above $10 million, then Im very comfortable throwing a wrench into it, grinding it to a halt, and forcing the legislature to then approve it, Neylon told Wisconsin Watchdog. Because that is the best way to hold people accountable, to let their elected officials be the ones to decide on big spending items.

Bott said Wisconsin would be among the first states to adopt a REINS Act. There is similar legislation pending in Congress.

Healy said that behind the scenes MacIver is hearing from budget hawks concerned about the spending increases, particularly the nearly $650 million marked for K-12 public education.

I think going forward that will certainly be something the Legislature looks at, if they want to dial back spending in certain areas, he said. That certainly would make this strong budget even stronger.

To Walkers credit, Bott said, the governor isnt just throwing money at problems. Hes specifically delineating dollars for priorities. That includes approximately $55 million for rural schools districts, $25 million in local transportation aid, and funding for STEM education that works hand-in-hand with Walkers expectation that the University of Wisconsin System better-prepare students for the demands of the new economy.

If youre part of the government and you want to be part of the solution, great. Hes going to provide the resources, Bott said on the Vicki McKenna Show. Those that dont want to be part of the solution, such as the Madison Metropolitan School District and its open rebellion against implementing state collective bargaining reforms, will lose out on the increased spending.

Some of the biggest budget battles are coming from inside the GOP. Walker has made it clear that he is not interested in tax increases, or revenue enhancers as some like to call them. That means no to a gas tax increase and vehicle registration fee hikes. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, and his leadership lieutenants in the Assembly have pushed gas tax and fee increases as potential solutions to transportation budget shortfalls. It is, at least for now, a rhetorical line in the sand.

Healy said that line is subject to change, and he predicts Vos will end up on the other side of it.

Right now you have to bet that Gov. Walker is going to win that battle, he said. (Senate Majority Leader Scott) Fitzgerald is on his side. When you have two of the three players in the Capitol on one side of the argument, generally they win out.

The rhetoric so far has been pitched, with supporters of revenue enhancers attacking Walkers budget for transportation borrowing and for not offering sustainable funding to keep several Wisconsin highway projects moving forward.

Bott notes that Walker has proposed $6.1 billion for the Department of Transportation, with the highest level of transportation general aids ever. While he agrees that there is too much borrowing in the transportation budget, Bott noted that bonding for highway construction is down 41 percent, the lowest level since the 2001-03 budget.

And a recent audit found waste and incompetence in the Wisconsin Department of Transportation to be incredibly costly to taxpayers. A total of 363 DOT contracts between 2006 and 2015 about 16 percent of the total received only one bid each, according to the review. That accounts for $1.1 billion in projects.

And we know that when theres no competition, it drives up the price dramatically, Bott said.

Despite its spending increases, Bott said the Walker budget plan could be a model budget for the nation.

The governor has laid out a vision with conservative victories, Healy said. Hopefully the Legislature, instead of being bogged down in gas tax and registration fee increases, can make some improvements to the governors budget and we can have this thing done in June.

Read more here:

Conservatives: Walker's budget plan is anything but 'liberal' - Watchdog.org

Mason Fiscal give WVFD go-ahead – Ledger Independent

Much like their Maysville City counterparts, Mason County Commissioners gave the go-ahead for the Washington Volunteer Fire Department to become independent from the city.

The department currently operates under the MFD.

In doing so, the county agreed to provide support in the form of insurance on vehicles and, eventually, on buildings. That should total about $2,500 after the first three years, officials said.

The process of pulling city fire department support from the WVFD will be a three-year process, Maysville City Manager Matt Wallingford told county commissioners.

As an independent department, the WVFD will be eligible for federal grants and state aid, have control over its own budget and freedom to raise funds, Wallingford said. During the transition, the city will lease the current fire building to the volunteers for $1 annually for three years and pay utilities on the building, also for three years, he said.

Last fall, talks first began with plans to merge the WVFD with another county department. It was later decided the firefighters with WVFD would prefer to go it alone, Wallingford said.

Even though the department is located within the city limits, it is a county fire department, Wallingford said.

WVFD Chief Darrell Kalb said his department covers an area which serves 400-600 households and has mutual aid agreements with neighboring departments to share services and equipment and responds when requested. The department has recently added more firefighters to its roster and has started a junior firefighters program for teens ages 15-18, he said.

City officials are currently working to secure non profit status for the WVFD and acquire a tax ID number for the group. Before any official agreement is brought to a vote, the city needed a "green light" to continue the process and county officials gave the proposal a thumbs up.

Mason County Judge-Executive Joe Pfeffer said the WVFD is just another example of the city and county working together.

Also Tuesday, the county commissioners heard an update from Buffalo Trace Health Department Executive Director Allison Adams on the Community Health Needs Assessment and Health Improvement Plan.

"The staff of the Buffalo Trace District Health Department have a vision for a healthy community for everyone," Adams said in a letter opening a booklet outlining the assessment and community health improvement plan.

Adams said several things stood out in the assessment including smoking, diabetes, immunization, sexually transmitted diseases and teen pregnancy rates. rates. There is also a large incidence of single parent households and grandparents raising grandchildren in the area. Those all contribute to lower life expectancy, she said.

"We want everyone to have the opportunity to be healthy," Adams said.

While the goal is to get the community healthy, that isn't going to happen overnight -- just as becoming less than healthy was a long process so too will changing attitudes and outcomes be a long-term process, she said.

In other business, commissioners:

-- Heard from Barry Fryman with the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet District 9 office who outlined Rural Secondary Fund allotments for the county and recommendations for state road projects including Tuckahoe Road, Helena Road, Ewing Road and Salem Ridge Road.

-- Approved reports from the Road Department, Animal Shelter, Sheriff, Landfill and Recycling Center, Detention Center and Treasurer.

-- Approved the addition of Robert Scott and Larry Rice to the list of approved electrical inspectors.

-- Appointed Andrew Wood to an unexpired term on the Ethics Committee and reappointed John Larry Dodge to the same committee.

-- Learned Pfeffer named Barry Fields to fill the unexpired term of Juston Pate to the Maysville-Mason County Industrial Authority.

See the original post here:

Mason Fiscal give WVFD go-ahead - Ledger Independent

Study: US falls to 17th place in 2017 global economic freedom index – Economic Collapse News

The economic freedom in the United States has fallen once again, says a new report from the Heritage Foundation. For the ninth time in the last 10 years, Americas standing in economic freedom has dwindled, a revelation that shows the 44th president not leaving behind much of a legacy.

According to a new study by the conservative think tank, the U.S. comes in 17th place in the world when it comes to economic freedom. This means that the Land of the Free is mostly free. The U.S. is ahead of Denmark, Sweden and Latvia, while sitting behind Lithuania, The Netherlands and Luxembourg.

Researchers looked at a wide array of factors, such as property rights, tax burden, monetary freedom, trade freedom, fiscal health and much more.

These commitments have powerful effects: Countries achieving higher levels of economic freedom consistently and measurably outperform others in economic growth, long-term prosperity, and social progress. Those losing freedom, on the other hand, risk economic stagnation, high unemployment, and deteriorating social conditions, the report stated.

Americas standing in the index had dwindled steadily during the Obama years. This largely owed to increased government spending, regulations, and a failed stimulus program that enriched the well-connected while leaving average Americans behind. Registering its lowest economic freedom score ever, America continued its string of discouraging trends in the 2017 index. Obamas Washington-first, government-centric approach to policymaking has inflicted long-term damage to U.S. economic growth.

What countries topped the ranking system? Hong Kong, Singapore, New Zealand, Switzerland and Australia. All of these nations made gains, especially New Zealand.

So what exactly will be former U.S. President Barack Obamas legacy? Less economic freedom.

Read the rest here:

Study: US falls to 17th place in 2017 global economic freedom index - Economic Collapse News

Are Republicans Losing Momentum on Obamacare Repeal? – The Fiscal Times


The Fiscal Times
Are Republicans Losing Momentum on Obamacare Repeal?
The Fiscal Times
But 40 or so members of the House's far right Freedom Caucus blew up that political calculus Monday night after agreeing among themselves to refuse to support anything but the most extreme version of Obamacare legislation, comparable to the 2015 ...
GOP may boost Medicaid spending in order to slash the programPolitico
The ObamaCare Repeal Will Derail The Republican Agenda Unless Congress Gets SmartThe Federalist

all 382 news articles »

Read this article:

Are Republicans Losing Momentum on Obamacare Repeal? - The Fiscal Times

Floyd Bledsoe urges Kansas to compensate the wrongfully convicted: ‘I lost my freedom’ – The Garden City Telegram

TOPEKA Compensating Floyd Bledsoe for his wrongful murder conviction and nearly 16-year incarceration would cost the state of Kansas at least $1.4 million under a Senate bill considered Tuesday.

State budget director Shawn Sullivan wrote in a fiscal note to the Senate Judiciary Committee that the Attorney Generals Office anticipates Senate Bill 125 would result in $1,250,000 in compensation plus up to $200,000 in attorney fees to Bledsoe.

SB 125 would compensate exonerees $80,000 for each year they served in prison or $1 million if they were on death row, along with $5 million to the heirs of anyone wrongfully executed in Kansas. It would also compensate a wrongfully convicted person for attorney fees he or she incurred.

There are so many things that I lost because of my wrongful conviction, Bledsoe told the Senate Judiciary Committee in prepared remarks. I lost the opportunity to watch my sons grow up. I lost my property and career. I lost my freedom.

Senate Bill 125 would ensure that other Kansans like me receive the financial compensation they need to get back on their feet and recover from the nightmare of a wrongful conviction.

Bledsoe was wrongfully convicted of kidnapping and killing Camille Arfmann in Oskaloosa in 1999. He was sentenced to life in prison but released in December 2015 after DNA results and suicide notes from his brother showcased his innocence.

The day that I was released from prison, I had nothing but the clothing that the (University of Kansas) law school provided for me, he told the committee. I had no money and no place to live.

No one testified in opposition to the bill Tuesday. Bledsoe plans to move ahead with a civil lawsuit regardless of the Legislatures action or inaction on SB 125.

Sen. Mary Pilcher-Cook, R-Shawnee, asked whether it would be possible for con artists to use the bill as a scam by allowing themselves to be wrongfully convicted, serving time in prison, and then presenting evidence they had previously withheld proving their innocence to collect a payout.

With all due respect, no one in their right mind would do that, Bledsoe said.

Sen. Molly Baumgardner, R-Louisburg, said the bill doesnt address the issue of exonerees being released from prison with no money and few skills. She asked whether legislation has been put forth to remedy that problem. Those testifying said no such bill has been introduced.

Sen. David Haley, of Kansas City, is the bills sponsor and the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. He urged his fellow committee members to imagine losing their liberty because a public employee a bad cop, bumbling prosecutor or erring judge locked them up for a crime they didnt commit.

Other supporters include the Innocence Project, the Midwest Innocence Project and the Kansas Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Michelle Feldman, state policy advocate for the Innocence Project, urged the Senate Judiciary Committee to remove an exemption in SB 125. Under the bill, defendants who plead guilty and are later exonerated wouldnt be eligible for compensation.

Given the tremendous pressures that innocent people sometimes face to plead guilty, Feldman said, Kansans who can prove their innocence by the high standard of clear and convincing evidence should be eligible for compensation.

She also urged the committee to expand the timeline for filing a wrongful conviction compensation claim from two years after an inmates release to two years after charges are dismissed. If that change is made and SB 125 is signed into law, three Kansas exonerees will be eligible for compensation, according to Feldman.

Were talking about a very, very small number of people, she said.

A state budget crunch that makes any bill with a price tag suspect is an elephant in the room. Bill supporters, acknowledging Kansas budget reality, were cautiously optimistic about SB 125s chances Tuesday. The committee took no action on the bill.

View post:

Floyd Bledsoe urges Kansas to compensate the wrongfully convicted: 'I lost my freedom' - The Garden City Telegram