Dog food recalled after euthanasia drug found in can. One dog dead. – Washington Post

It was New Years Eve when Nikki Mael fed her four pugs Tito, Tank, Tinkerbell and Talula the single can of dog food, Evangers Hunk of Beef, as a treat. Within 15 minutes, the pugs were acting drunk and falling over Mael, ofWashougal, Wash., told KATU.

She quickly rushed them to the local emergency vet, where the four dogs were placed in the intensive care unit.

When they got there, they were just limp, she said. They werent moving or anything. Tito was still suffering from seizures days later, and Talula one of the pugs thatate the most canned beef died.

A toxicology report later revealed the cause ofher death. A drug called pentobarbital, a euthanasia agent,was found in both the dogs stomach and the Evangers dog food. If this sample came directly from a can, the toxicologist wrote, this is an urgent matter.

According to a U.S. Food and Drug Administration statement released Friday, Evangers, a family-owned-and-operated cat and dog food business,decided to voluntarily recall five lots of the product all of the Hunk of Beef products that were manufactured that same week. The products were distributed to retail locations and sold online in 15 states:Washington, California, Minnesota, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.

Hunk of Beef is Evangers best-selling food. Pets nationwide consume more than one million cans of the product each year, the company said in a statement. By the time Evangersheard about the New Years Eve incident, it believed that at least 200 dogs had already consumed the food from the same lot number, but no other household in the country aside from Maels reported an illness, the company said.

We feel that we have been let down by our supplier, and in reference to the possible presence of pentobarbital, we have let down our customers, the family-owned company, which has been in business for 82 years, said.

Despite having worked with the supplier of this specific beef for about 40 years, Evangers immediately decided to cut its ties with the supplier, which also serves a number of other companies.

Something like this seemed impossible, Evangers said in itsstatement. All of our raw materials are sourced from USDA-inspected facilities, and many of them are suppliers with whom we have had long-standing relationships.

[A veterinarians suicide by euthanasia drugs haunts debate over Taiwans stray animal problem]

The source of the contamination is still unknown. But since pentobarbital is routinely used to euthanize animals, the most likely way it could get into dog food would be in rendered animal products, according to a 2002 FDA report. Rendered products undergo a process that converts animal tissues to feed ingredients, the report stated, andpentobarbital seems to be able to survive thisprocess. If animals are euthanized with pentobarbital and subsequently rendered, pentobarbital could remainin the rendered feed ingredients.

But, Evangers said,research suggests pentobarbital is most pervasive in dry dog foods that source rendered ingredients, unlike Evangers, which primarilymanufactures canned foods that would notcontain any rendered materials.

The company said it was previously unaware of the problem of pentobarbital in the pet food industry. It said that after looking into it and speaking with several suppliers, it discovered a number of holes in regulations by theFood and Drug Administration and U.S. Department of Agriculture. Chelsea Sher, whose parents own the company, said in a video statement that the companys goal is now toclose that gap to ensure that no euthanized animal ever makes it into the pet food stream

What we learned was that pentobarbital is very highly controlled, and that, if an animal is euthanized, it is done so by a veterinarian, the company said. Once this process has concluded, there is no regulation requiring the veterinarian to place a marker on the animal indicatingit has been euthanized and guaranteeing that product from euthanized animals cannot enter the food chain, the company said in a statement on its website.

In addition to being used on animals, pentobarbital has been used in a cocktail of drugs to execute prisoners in at least 14 states, according to the Death Penalty Information Center. One convict executed with pentobarbital in Oklahoma in 2014, Michael Lee Wilson, cried out that he could feel his whole body burning after he was injected with the drug. Some civil rights groups at the timeclaimed the injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, since its manufacture isoften poorly regulated, and contaminated batches can cause excruciating pain before death.

Evangers donated the full $5,800 fundraising goal on the crowdfunding page Mael created to raise money for her pugs veterinary bills.

We at Evangers are deeply horrified about this, the company said in a message to Mael, adding we also feed our own dog, Lilly, this food.

Thecompany later said it would be making a donation to a local shelter in honor of Talula.

I lost my dog, Mael said in the days after Talulas death, wiping tears from her eyes. It shouldnt have to be this way.

Read more:

Dog food recalled after euthanasia drug found in can. One dog dead. - Washington Post

Euthanasia reform moves forward in the senate – Deseret News

SALT LAKE CITY It was standing room only for those with both two and four legs Tuesday as Utah lawmakers considered a bill that would ban the use of gas chambers as a method of euthanasia at animal shelters.

"I believe that how we care for animals and how we treat animals says a lot about us," said Sen. Peter Knudson, R-Brigham City.

Most of those who packed a Senate committee room to listen to the discussion and provide testimony about euthanasia of shelter animals supported Knudson's bill, SB56, calling the use of lethal injection much more humane than a carbon-monoxide gas chamber.

"This bill is to put euthanasia in a situation where animals receive less stress and a proper farewell, if you will," Knudson said.

Lethal injection, he said, is "relatively quick, animals don't suffer, and it's certainly a lot safer for the folks who have to put them down."

Utah is only one of four states that still allows the use of carbon monoxide gas chambers, he said.

Sen. David Hinkins, R-Orangeville, expressed concern about the cost of making the change to lethal injection.

"I have some counties and cities who are saying that this could be a hardship on them," said Hinkins, who voted against the bill.

Wendy Lavitt, vice president of the nonprofit pet rescue and adoption agency Nuzzles and Co., said the initial cost for shelters to make the change from euthanasia by gas chamber to lethal injection "is a factor."

"Certainly, in our organization, we are willing to help so that no county will be affected monetarily," Lavitt said.

In addition to Nuzzles and Co.'s willingness to help in the transition, the Humane Society has also offered up to $3,000 to any shelter that voluntarily transitions away from the use of gas chambers, she said.

"On behalf of my dogs of present and dogs of past, I would urge you to support the bill," Knudson said.

The Senate Government Operations and Political Subdivisions Committee voted 8-2 to send the bill to the full Senate for consideration.

Sen. Daniel Thatcher, R-West Valley City, cast the other dissenting vote.

Originally posted here:

Euthanasia reform moves forward in the senate - Deseret News

Taiwan bans euthanasia of stray animals – Yahoo – Yahoo News

A protester holds a picture of dead dogs during a demonstration in front of the Taiwan government's agriculture council, in Taipei, in 2013 (AFP Photo/SAM YEH)

Taipei (AFP) - Taiwan has banned euthanising animals in shelters, which follows the tragic suicide last year of a vet burdened with the task of putting down animals.

The law came into effect Saturday, two years after it was passed by parliament -- a period meant to prepare shelters for the ban.

But during the wait, animal lover Chien Chih-cheng took her own life with euthanasia drugs, reportedly upset at having to kill animals at the shelter she worked at.

Reports at the time said Chien was called a "butcher" by activists.

Her death sparked calls for authorities to improve conditions for animals and staff at shelters.

An animal welfare group, Life Conservationist Association, estimated more than 1.2 million animals not adopted from shelters have been put down since 1999.

"Animal protection in Taiwan has moved towards a new milestone," the association's executive director Ho Tsung-hsun said in a statement.

But Taiwan's Council of Agriculture warned the ban would lead to a deterioration in the quality of shelters through a surging intake or it may discourage the capture of strays.

"It's impossible for there to be no problems," said Wang Chung-shu, deputy chief of the animal husbandry department, according to The China Times.

He said Taiwan's ban was "quite idealised", adding that manpower was a problem because the vet's suicide had had a "chilling effect" on the sector, according to the report.

Even before the legislation, the number of animals being put down had been steadily declining.

Last year, 12.38 percent of the 64,276 animals in public shelters were euthanised, according to official statistics.

That compares with 94,741 animals in shelters in 2014, of which 26.45 percent were put down.

See the article here:

Taiwan bans euthanasia of stray animals - Yahoo - Yahoo News

Economic freedom – Wikipedia

Economic freedom or economic liberty is the ability of members of a society to undertake economic actions. This is a term used in economic and policy debates as well as in the philosophy of economics.[1][2] One approach to economic freedom comes from classical liberal and libertarian traditions emphasizing free markets, free trade, and private property under free enterprise. Another approach to economic freedom extends the welfare economics study of individual choice, with greater economic freedom coming from a "larger" (in some technical sense) set of possible choices.[3] Other conceptions of economic freedom include freedom from want[1][4] and the freedom to engage in collective bargaining.[5]

The free market viewpoint defines economic liberty as the freedom to produce, trade and consume any goods and services acquired without the use of force, fraud or theft. This is embodied in the rule of law, property rights and freedom of contract, and characterized by external and internal openness of the markets, the protection of property rights and freedom of economic initiative.[3][6][7] There are several indices of economic freedom that attempt to measure free market economic freedom. Empirical studies based on these rankings have found higher living standards, economic growth, income equality, less corruption and less political violence to be correlated with higher scores on the country rankings.[8][9][10][11][12] It has been argued that the economic freedom indices conflate together unrelated policies and policy outcomes to conceal negative correlations between economic growth and economic freedom in some subcomponents.[13]

According to the free market view, a secure system of private property rights is an essential part of economic freedom. Such systems include two main rights: the right to control and benefit from property and the right to transfer property by voluntary means. These rights offer people the possibility of autonomy and self-determination according to their personal values and goals.[15] Economist Milton Friedman sees property rights as "the most basic of human rights and an essential foundation for other human rights."[16] With property rights protected, people are free to choose the use of their property, earn on it, and transfer it to anyone else, as long as they do it on a voluntary basis and do not resort to force, fraud or theft. In such conditions most people can achieve much greater personal freedom and development than under a regime of government coercion. A secure system of property rights also reduces uncertainty and encourages investments, creating favorable conditions for an economy to be successful.[17]Empirical evidence suggests that countries with strong property rights systems have economic growth rates almost twice as high as those of countries with weak property rights systems, and that a market system with significant private property rights is an essential condition for democracy.[18] According to Hernando de Soto, much of the poverty in the Third World countries is caused by the lack of Western systems of laws and well-defined and universally recognized property rights. De Soto argues that because of the legal barriers poor people in those countries can not utilize their assets to produce more wealth.[19] One thinker to question private property was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a socialist and anarchist, who argued that property is both theft and freedom.[20]

Freedom of contract is the right to choose one's contracting parties and to trade with them on any terms and conditions one sees fit. Contracts permit individuals to create their own enforceable legal rules, adapted to their unique situations.[21] However, not all contracts need to be enforced by the state. For example, in the United States there is a large number of third-party arbitration tribunals which resolve disputes under private commercial law.[22] Negatively understood, freedom of contract is freedom from government interference and from imposed value judgments of fairness. The notion of "freedom of contract" was given one of its most famous legal expressions in 1875 by Sir George Jessel MR:[23]

[I]f there is one thing more than another public policy requires it is that men of full age and competent understanding shall have the utmost liberty of contracting, and that their contracts when entered into freely and voluntarily shall be held sacred and shall be enforced by courts of justice. Therefore, you have this paramount public policy to consider that you are not lightly to interfere with this freedom of contract.

The doctrine of freedom of contract received one of its strongest expressions in the US Supreme Court case of Lochner v New York which struck down legal restrictions on the working hours of bakers. [3]

Critics of the classical view of freedom of contract argue that this freedom is illusory when the bargaining power of the parties is highly unequal, most notably in the case of contracts between employers and workers. As in the case of restrictions on working hours, workers as a group may benefit from legal protections that prevent individuals agreeing to contracts that require long working hours. In its West Coast Hotel Co. v. Parrish decision in 1937, overturning Lochner, the Supreme Court cited an earlier decisions

From this point on, the Lochner view of freedom of contract has been rejected by US courts.[25]

Some free market advocates argue that political and civil liberties have simultaneously expanded with market-based economies, and present empirical evidence to support the claim that economic and political freedoms are linked.[26][27]

In Capitalism and Freedom (1962), Friedman further developed Friedrich Hayek's argument that economic freedom, while itself an extremely important component of total freedom, is also a necessary condition for political freedom. He commented that centralized control of economic activities was always accompanied with political repression. In his view, voluntary character of all transactions in a free market economy and wide diversity that it permits are fundamental threats to repressive political leaders and greatly diminish power to coerce. Through elimination of centralized control of economic activities, economic power is separated from political power, and the one can serve as counterbalance to the other. Friedman feels that competitive capitalism is especially important to minority groups, since impersonal market forces protect people from discrimination in their economic activities for reasons unrelated to their productivity.[28]

Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises argued that economic and political freedom were mutually dependent: "The idea that political freedom can be preserved in the absence of economic freedom, and vice versa, is an illusion. Political freedom is the corollary of economic freedom. It is no accident that the age of capitalism became also the age of government by the people."[29]

In The Road to Serfdom, Hayek argued that "Economic control is not merely control of a sector of human life which can be separated from the rest; it is the control of the means for all our ends."[30] Hayek criticized socialist policies as the slippery slope that can lead to totalitarianism.[31]

Gordon Tullock has argued that "the Hayek-Friedman argument" predicted totalitarian governments in much of Western Europe in the late 20th century which did not occur. He uses the example of Sweden, in which the government at that time controlled 63 percent of GNP, as an example to support his argument that the basic problem with The Road to Serfdom is "that it offered predictions which turned out to be false. The steady advance of government in places such as Sweden has not led to any loss of non-economic freedoms." While criticizing Hayek, Tullock still praises the classical liberal notion of economic freedom, saying, "Arguments for political freedom are strong, as are the arguments for economic freedom. We neednt make one set of arguments depend on the other."[32]

The annual surveys Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) and Index of Economic Freedom (IEF) are two indices which attempt to measure the degree of economic freedom in the world's nations. The EFW index, originally developed by Gwartney, Lawson and Block at the Fraser Institute[33] was likely the most used in empirical studies as of 2000.[34] The other major index, which was developed by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal appears superior for data work, although as it only goes back to 1995, it is less useful for historical comparisons.[34]

According to the creators of the indices, these rankings correlate strongly with higher average income per person, higher income of the poorest 10%, higher life expectancy, higher literacy, lower infant mortality, higher access to water sources and less corruption.[35][36] The people living in the top one-fifth of countries enjoy an average income of $23,450 and a growth rate in the 1990s of 2.56 percent per year; in contrast, the bottom one-fifth in the rankings had an average income of just $2,556 and a -0.85 percent growth rate in the 1990s. The poorest 10 percent of the population have an average income of just $728 in the lowest ranked countries compared with over $7,000 in the highest ranked countries. The life expectancy of people living in the highest ranked nations is 20 years longer than for people in the lowest ranked countries.[37]

Higher economic freedom, as measured by both the Heritage and the Fraser indices, correlates strongly with higher self-reported happiness.[38]

Erik Gartzke of the Fraser Institute estimates that countries with a high EFW are significantly less likely to be involved in wars, while his measure of democracy had little or no impact.[39]

The Economic Freedom of the World score for the entire world has grown considerably in recent decades. The average score has increased from 5.17 in 1985 to 6.4 in 2005. Of the nations in 1985, 95 nations increased their score, seven saw a decline, and six were unchanged.[40] Using the 2008 Index of Economic Freedom methodology world economic freedom has increased 2.6 points since 1995.[41]

Members of the World Bank Group also use Index of Economic Freedom as the indicator of investment climate, because it covers more aspects relevant to the private sector in wide number of countries.[42]

The nature of economic freedom is often in dispute. Robert Lawson, the co-author of EFW, even acknowledges the potential shortcomings of freedom indices: "The purpose of the EFW index is to measure, no doubt imprecisely, the degree of economic freedom that exists."[43] He likens the recent attempts of economists to measure economic freedom to the initial attempts of economists to measure GDP: "They [macroeconomists] were scientists who sat down to design, as best they could with the tools at hand, a measure of the current economic activity of the nation. Economic activity exists and their job was to measure it. Likewise economic freedom exists. It is a thing. We can define and measure it." Thus, it follows that some economists, socialists and anarchists contend that the existing indicators of economic freedom are too narrowly defined and should take into account a broader conception of economic freedoms.

Critics of the indices (e.g. Thom Hartmann) also oppose the inclusion of business-related measures like corporate charters and intellectual property protection.[44] John Miller in Dollars & Sense has stated that the indices are "a poor barometer of either freedom more broadly construed or of prosperity." He argues that the high correlation between living standards and economic freedom as measured by IEF is the result of choices made in the construction of the index that guarantee this result. For example, the treatment of a large informal sector (common in poor countries) as an indicator of restrictive government policy, and the use of the change in the ratio of government spending to national income, rather than the level of this ratio. Hartmann argues that these choices cause the social democratic European countries to rank higher than countries where the government share of the economy is small but growing.[45]

Economists Dani Rodrik and Jeffrey Sachs have separately noted that there appears to be little correlation between measured economic freedom and economic growth when the least free countries are disregarded, as indicated by the strong growth of the Chinese economy in recent years.[46][47] Morris Altman found that there is a relatively large correlation between economic freedom and both per capita income and per capita growth. He argues that this is especially true when it comes to sub-indices relating to property rights and sound money, while he calls into question the importance of sub-indices relating to labor regulation and government size once certain threshold values are passed.[48] John Miller further observes that Hong Kong and Singapore, both only "partially free" according to Freedom House, are leading countries on both economic freedom indices and casts doubt on the claim that measured economic freedom is associated with political freedom.[45] However, according to the Freedom House, "there is a high and statistically significant correlation between the level of political freedom as measured by Freedom House and economic freedom as measured by the Wall Street Journal/Heritage Foundation survey."[49]

Amartya Sen and other economists consider economic freedom to be measured in terms of the set of economic choices available to individuals. Economic freedom is greater when individuals have more economic choices available when, in some technical sense, the choice set of individuals expands.

The differences between alternative views of economic freedom have been expressed in terms of Isaiah Berlin's distinction between positive freedom and negative freedom. Classical liberals favour a focus on negative freedom as did Berlin himself. By contrast Amartya Sen argues for an understanding of freedom in terms of capabilities to pursue a range of goals.[50] One measure which attempts to assess freedom in the positive sense is Goodin, Rice, Parpo, and Eriksson's measure of discretionary time, which is an estimate of how much time people have at their disposal during which they are free to choose the activities in which they participate, after taking into account the time they need to spend acquiring the necessities of life.[51] In his book, Capitalism and Freedom, Milton Friedman explains [52]the preservation of freedom is the reason for limited and decentralized governments. It creates positive freedom within the society allowing for freedom of choice for an individual in a free society.

Franklin D. Roosevelt included freedom from want in his Four freedoms speech. Roosevelt stated that freedom from want "translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world". In terms of US policy, Roosevelt's New Deal included economic freedoms such as freedom of trade union organisation, as well as a wide range of policies of government intervention and redistributive taxation aimed at promoting freedom from want. Internationally, Roosevelt favored the policies associated with the Bretton Woods Agreement which fixed exchange rates and established international economic institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund.

Herbert Hoover saw economic freedom as a fifth freedom, which secures survival of Roosevelt's Four freedoms. He described economic freedom as freedom "for men to choose their own calling, to accumulate property in protection of their children and old age, [and] freedom of enterprise that does not injure others."[53]

The Philadelphia Declaration (enshrined in the constitution of the International Labour Organization[54]) states that "all human beings, irrespective of race, creed or sex, have the right to pursue both their material well-being and their spiritual development in conditions of freedom and dignity, of economic security and equal opportunity." The ILO further states that "The right of workers and employers to form and join organizations of their own choosing is an integral part of a free and open society."[55]

The socialist view of economic freedom conceives of freedom as a concrete situation as opposed to an abstract or moral concept. This view of freedom is closely related to the socialist view of human creativity and the importance ascribed to creative freedom. Socialists view creativity as an essential aspect of human nature, thus defining freedom as a situation or state of being where individuals are able to express their creativity unhindered by constraints of both material scarcity and coercive social institutions.[56]Marxists stress the importance of freeing the individual from what they view as coercive, exploitative and alienating social relationships of production they are compelled to partake in, as well as the importance of economic development as providing the material basis for the existence of a state of society where there are enough resources to allow for each individual to pursue his or her genuine creative interests.[57]

One of the ways to measure economic competitiveness is by comparing an extent of economic freedom that countries have, which as surveys show can also largely explain differences in economic well-being across the world. Generally, countries with higher economic freedom have higher gross domestic product per capita and its growth rates, as well as better health care, education quality, environment protection, income equality, and happiness results. These trends of increasing prosperity are confirmed even when we compare these indicators within territories of countries. Nevertheless, despite these benefits societies have to be aware that with increasing economic freedom they will have to face going through a phase of increasing inequality, which basically is a result of decreased redistribution, as well as other negative effects from economic liberalization, i.e., running of local enterprises out of business, takeover of competitive firms, enforcing of interests of foreign companies, dependence on foreign capital, deteriorating work rights, harmful manufacturing for the environment, introducing of commercial practices that are not favorable for consumers, as well as endangerment for survival of national cultures. However, on the bright side, these negative effects from economic freedom tend to be felt in a shorter term, and if countries use the opportunities of economic freedom in our increasingly globalized economy in a right way, as research shows their socioeconomic conditions will be significantly better than in a case of less economic freedom.[58]

Follow this link:

Economic freedom - Wikipedia

Fiscal Freedom: How Tax Burden Affects Economic Freedom

Fiscal freedom is a measure of the tax burden imposed by government. It includes direct taxes, in terms of the top marginal tax rates on individual and corporate incomes, and overall taxes, including all forms of direct and indirect taxation at all levels of government, as a percentage of GDP. Thus, the fiscal freedom component is composed of three quantitative factors:

Fiscal freedom scores are calculated with a quadratic cost function to reflect the diminishing revenue returns from very high rates of taxation. The data for each factor are converted to a 100-point scale using the following equation:

Fiscal Freedomij= 100 (Factorij)2

where Fiscal Freedomij represents the fiscal freedom in country i for factor j; Factorij represents the value (based on a scale of 0 to 100) in country i for factor j; and is a coefficient set equal to 0.03. The minimum score for each factor is zero, which is not represented in the printed equation but was utilized because it means that no single high tax burden will make the other two factors irrelevant.

As an example, in the 2013 Index, Mauritius has a flat rate of 15 percent for both individual and corporate tax rates, which yields a score of 93.3 for each of the two factors. Mauritiuss overall tax burden as a portion of GDP is 18.5 percent, yielding a tax burden factor score of 89.7. When the three factors are averaged together, Mauritiuss overall fiscal freedom score becomes 92.1.

Sources. Unless otherwise noted, the Index relies on the following sources for information on taxation, in order of priority: Deloitte, International Tax and Business Guide Highlights; International Monetary Fund, Staff Country Report, Selected Issues and Statistical Appendix, and Staff Country Report, Article IV Consultation, 20092012; PricewaterhouseCoopers, Worldwide Tax Summaries, 20092012; countries investment agencies; other government authorities (embassy confirmations and/or the countrys treasury or tax authority); and Economist Intelligence Unit, Country Commerce and Country Finance, 20092012.

For information on tax burden as a percentage of GDP, the primary sources (in order of priority) were Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development data; Eurostat, Government Finance Statistics data; African Development Bank and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, African Economic Outlook 2012; International Monetary Fund, Staff Country Report, Selected Issues, and Staff Country Report, Article IV Consultation, 20092012; Asian Development Bank, Key Indicators for Asia and the Pacific, 20092012; and individual contacts from government agencies and multinational organizations such as the IMF and World Bank.

Read more here:

Fiscal Freedom: How Tax Burden Affects Economic Freedom

Historic audit of illegitimate debts – Inquirer.net

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the original here:

Historic audit of illegitimate debts - Inquirer.net

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republican Sen. Lamar AlexanderLamar AlexanderKey conservative open to insurer payments during ObamaCare transition Donald Trumps details man Report: Four GOP senators mum on Trumps Labor pick MORE (Tenn.), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee, indicated earlier this month that Congress may need to continue the payments to stabilize the insurance market.

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

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

Read more:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is the original post:

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

Hill Republicans quake at Trump’s budget-busting wish list – Politico

President Donald Trump wants to rebuild the nations roads and bridges, boost military spending, slash taxes and build a great wall. But Republicans on Capitol Hill have one question for him: How the heck will we pay for all of this?

GOP lawmakers are fretting that Trumps spending requests, due out in a month or so, will blow a gaping hole in the federal budget ballooning the debt and undermining the partys doctrine of fiscal discipline.

Story Continued Below

Trump has signaled hes serious about a $1 trillion infrastructure plan, as he promised on the campaign trail. He also wants Republicans to approve extra spending this spring to build a wall along the U.S. southern border and beef up the military the combined price tag of which could reach $50 billion, insiders say. And thats to say nothing of tax cuts, which the presidents team has suggested need not necessarily be paid for.

Trump, meanwhile, has made clear he has little interest in tackling the biggest drivers of the national debt: entitlements. Republicans have been yearning to overhaul Medicare and Social Security for decades.

Even without Trumps pricey wish list, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the $19.9 trillion debt will grow by a further $9.4 trillion over the next decade if nothing changes.

I dont think you can do infrastructure, raise defense spending, do a tax cut, keep Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security just as they are, and balance the budget. Its just not possible, said Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), a senior member of the House Budget Committee. Sooner or later, theyre going to come to grips with it because the numbers force you to.

Trumps staunchest allies in Congress counter that the president deserves some leeway to get something tangible done on jobs.

If there is a temporary increase in the deficit to get our economy growing, I think my fellow Republican members are willing to look at the long game, said Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), a Trump loyalist. A growing economy and growing our way to success and financial stability is what we want to see.

The contrasting views foreshadow a clash between adherents to Trumps big-spending populism and classic small-government conservatives. Republican lawmakers have to choose between embracing Trumps expensive agenda or pushing back and risking his wrath.

Hill GOP insiders on both sides of the Capitol told Politico the fiscal 2018 budget will easily be one of the toughest votes Congress takes this year. Thats especially true in the House, where the conference for years has rallied around budgets that balance in 10 years the gold standard for whether a fiscal blueprint is conservative enough. Now, many Republicans worry they wont get there because of Trumps unorthodox views on spending.

It was already going to be a herculean task in making the numbers work over a 10-year time frame; when you begin to add in transportation, walls, tax cuts, it becomes an impossible task, said Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.). Were at the cusp of moving in the wrong direction. Its a problem.

Meanwhile, some Republicans on the House Budget Committee are floating the idea of changing the standard of success for a budget. Budget vice chairman Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) has been speaking to members about ditching the 10-year-balance metric for one that focuses on a debt-to-GDP ratio. Supporters of the idea say it would paint a more accurate measure of the nations long-term fiscal situation anyway, as savings from entitlement reforms arent often realized until the second decade and beyond not in the 10-year budget window.

The challenge to balance is going to be more difficult than ever. Thats all I have to say, Rokita said outside the House floor last week when asked about his proposed standard.

Spokesman William Allison said in a statement that Budget Chairwoman Diane Black (R-Tenn.) is committed to working towards a balanced budget.

The White House in the next two months will send Congress two major requests for money: a military spending bill that would take effect immediately upon passage, and a budget for next fiscal year. The latter will be a particularly tough lift because it traditionally includes a projection of government spending and debt over the next few decades.

Republicans are crossing their fingers that any requests for new spending will be offset with cuts. If not, the House Budget Committee will have to craft legislation to raise spending caps that have been in place for years. That could face stiff opposition from conservatives.

We would have several people opposed to lifting the caps, said Freedom Caucus Member Ral Labrador (R-Idaho). I am a fiscal conservative, and the biggest issue were facing in America right now is our debt. As Republicans, we better be consistent on this or were going to lose our base.

Outside conservative groups would also revolt if Republicans did away with the spending limits. Tim Phillips, who leads the Koch brothers-backed Americans for Prosperity, said discretionary spending has grown far too rapidly. We have to put a hard cap on growth, and if Republicans are going to be true to their rhetoric, they will agree to a hard cap on spending.

Trump also wants to slash taxes, which could reduce the amount of annual cash flowing to the Treasury. Republicans are concerned because they have few specifics on what kind of tax plan Trump wants and some administration officials have floated the idea of not paying for tax reductions. House Speaker Paul Ryans tax plan would be revenue-neutral, or not add to the deficit, but no one knows for sure what the final deal negotiated by Trump and congressional Republicans will look like.

Former Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, a lobbyist who worked closely with Trumps transition team, said many of his corporate clients are lining up to oppose one of the biggest pay-fors put forward by Ryan: a new tax on imports, which the speaker estimates would generate $1 trillion.

The border adjustment tax is giving my clients serious heartburn. A lot of American companies, the poultry industry, the automobile industry, many others are worried about that, Lott said.

Republicans expect their leaders to argue that any spending, whether through appropriations or tax cuts, would ultimately pay for themselves by growing the economy by record amounts. Still, theyre not sure if that will get them to a balanced budget.

Rep. Charlie Dent: I certainly hope that we dont try to reconcile these increase expenditures on the backs of the discretionary programs." | AP Photo

Its possible some Republicans will seek to offset new spending with cuts to discretionary spending programs like the National Endowment for the Arts or agriculture programs something that worries many House Appropriations members like Rep. Charlie Dent (R-Pa.) .

I certainly hope that we dont try to reconcile these increase expenditures on the backs of the discretionary programs, he said.

Appropriators generally believe there is not enough fat to cut from discretionary programs to finance the level of new spending Trump is talking about. Most Republicans would rather turn to entitlement programs to find savings, but Trump has made clear he has no interest in going there.

Republicans are banking on outgoing Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-S.C.), a fiscal hard-liner tapped by Trump to lead the Office of Management and Budget, to sell the president on the merits of entitlement reform.

I do know Mick Mulvaney knows the reality behind the numbers, Cole said. But Mick doesnt get to make the final call, thats the president. Its going to be fascinating.

Excerpt from:

Hill Republicans quake at Trump's budget-busting wish list - Politico

U.S. Air Force extended some 800 million yen in funds to 128 … – The Mainichi

February 8, 2017 (Mainichi Japan)

The United States Air Force provided funds totaling at least 800 million yen to a total of 128 university researchers and others in Japan over six years from fiscal 2010, a Mainichi Shimbun investigation has found.

Furthermore, 11 professors from Kyoto University and Osaka University and others had received a combined total of about 200 million yen as research funds from the U.S. Air Force and Navy from fiscal 2010 to fiscal 2016, the Mainichi learned through filing freedom-of-information requests with the universities.

Receiving funds from the U.S. military constitutes no legal problem. But in 1967, the Science Council of Japan (SCJ), an organization representing scientists, issued a statement banning military research after revelations that some researchers and academic societies had received funds from the U.S. military. Those professors and others who are found to have received funds from the U.S. military have explained that their research was conducted for peaceful purposes and that it was not military research. But there is a possibility of the U.S. military using their research results for military purposes.

According to documents the U.S. Air Force released to the Mainichi, the force provided about 750 million yen as research funds to a total of 128 researchers in Japan between fiscal 2010 and 2015 (U.S. accounting year). In addition, the U.S. Air Force extended a total of at least 50 million yen in financial aid in a total of 125 instances to cover expenses for international conferences and researchers' trips to the United States. The U.S. military did not disclose the names of the researchers and universities as well as the nature of individual research. A U.S. Air Force spokesperson said the force had provided the funds in order to obtain precious knowledge that could not be secured by the U.S. alone.

Meanwhile, the 11 researchers who were found to have received funds include one male professor at Kyoto University's Graduate School of Informatics, one male professor at Osaka University's Graduate School of Engineering, as well as nine researchers (including those who have since moved to other universities) at these universities. They received about 1.5 million to 45 million yen each after filling applications through the U.S. Air Force's Asian Office of Aerospace Research and Development (AOARD) and the U.S. Navy's Office of Naval Research (ONR).

The fields of research conducted by the professors and other researchers included artificial intelligence (AI) and laser technology. In its technological strategy released in 2014, the U.S. Department of Defense said it would attach importance to autonomous systems that would lead to unmanned weapons equipped with AI. The laser technology on which the Japanese researchers conducted research overlaps with the fields to which the U.S. military attaches importance as technology for weapons of the future as it leads to the development of new weapons to replace bombshells and missiles, among other uses.

Both Kyoto University and Osaka University said that they had approved of their receipts of the funds from the U.S. military after going through proper internal procedures.

Read this article:

U.S. Air Force extended some 800 million yen in funds to 128 ... - The Mainichi

How to Prioritize Financial Goals When You Can’t Do It All – Inside Higher Ed (blog)


Inside Higher Ed (blog)
How to Prioritize Financial Goals When You Can't Do It All
Inside Higher Ed (blog)
The one caveat I'll make to allowing your personal disposition to hold sway over the math is for a very risk-averse person: you will have to start investing eventually, even conservatively, if you want to reach financial independence. You will ...

Excerpt from:

How to Prioritize Financial Goals When You Can't Do It All - Inside Higher Ed (blog)

Millennial Parents Still Like to Tap the Bank of Mom & Dad – WealthManagement.com

(The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters.)

By Bobbi Rebell

NEW YORK, Feb 6 (Reuters) - The Bank of Mom & Dad is busy these days.

Millennials with kids of their own say they received $11,011 in financial support or unpaid labor, on average, from their parents in the past year, according to a recent study by TD Ameritrade.

All told, that adds up to $253 billion worth of financial assistance.

David Lynch, managing director and head of branches for TD Ameritrade, says the generation of young adults aged 18 to 34 faces a different set of financial challenges - most notably, sizeable student loans and stagnant wages.

In other words, these are hardly slackers with their hands out looking for a free ride. In fact, millennial parents tend to view parental support as a tool toward their financial independence - and not a way to delay adult financial responsibilities.

In fact, 56 percent of millennial parents are grateful for the financial help, according to TD Ameritrade's research, although a quarter say they feel embarrassed for the handout.

Chelsea and Kirk Johnson of Lehi, Utah, consider themselves financially independent, yet they borrowed $5,000 from Kirk's parents for a down payment for a new home.

Chelsea, 26, estimates that they are subsidized by about $7,000 annually from their parents, including babysitting, various family meals and a trip to Disneyland.

But they have also drawn up a contract to re-pay the money for the down payment, so that it can be used for Kirk's five siblings, as needed.

John Tarnoff, author of "Boomer Re-invention: How to Create Your Dream Career After 50," is not surprised that millennials are leaning on their parents to get "launched."

As long as grandparents are in sound financial shape for their own retirement, Tarnoff noted they can be in a great position to support millennial offspring.

His advice is to take unexpected occurrences into account, including losing a job early or a debilitating health-related event. The older generation may be in a bit of denial about their own needs, Tarnoff added.

In addition, be sure to be using the money you gift or lend as a teaching tool so that the younger generation stays on a path to independence.

That opinion is shared by Kirk's mom, April Johnson, who sees any financial support she gives her children as an investment in their future.

"Sometimes it just takes another year or two to get over the hump," April said. "We talk to them about it as we go." (Editing by Lauren Young and G Crosse)

View Original Article

Originally posted here:

Millennial Parents Still Like to Tap the Bank of Mom & Dad - WealthManagement.com

Work-life concerns drive Oceania leaders’ departures – Nikkei Asian Review

SYDNEY -- Two of Oceania's top political leaders have stepped down to spend more time with their families, but there may also be another reason for them to retire in the prime of their lives.

On Jan. 19, Mike Baird,48, announced he was resigning as premier of New South Wales, Australia's most populous state.

"There is a strong personal cost that comes in public life," Baird said, adding that his parents and sister were going through serious health challenges. "I have been in pain, not being able to spend the time that I should" with family members, Baird said in tears.

Baird's retirement came as a shock, as he was considered a promising young politician and a possible future Australian prime minister.

Last December, New Zealand's Prime MinisterJohn Key also announced his retirement, at the age of 55, citing family reasons.He had beenone of the country's mostpopular politicians, known for solid fiscal management, since he took office in 2008. "I've gotnothing left in the tank," Key said.

Local media have speculated that both Baird and Key simply gave up on politics, as neither has been the subject of scandals. Both have signaled their intention to move into the private sector, where it will be easier for them to achieve a positive work-life balance.

Headhunters are said to be after Baird and Key, both of whom implemented successful economic policies capitalizing on the business acumen they accumulated as bankers. State premiers are said to earn money equivalent to $170,000 to $260,000 a year, while Australia's prime minister earns about $380,000. Heads of Australian companies can earn 10 times as much.

Key, known as one of New Zealand's wealthiest men, also said he wants to hand overpower to a newgenerationof politicians. He may have thought it is better to make way for new blood amid the global uncertainty that has followed the inauguration of U.S. President Donald Trump and the U.K.'s decision to leave the European Union.

Upon hearing about Key's announcement, Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull sent him a text: "Say itain't so, bro." Amid lackluster policy achievements by Turnbull, the ruling party's approval rating is now 46%, compared with the opposition's 54%.Turnbull may have had mixed feelings about his peers' departures.

Read more:

Work-life concerns drive Oceania leaders' departures - Nikkei Asian Review

Classics Gather in Caribbean – Sailing World

The RORC Caribbean 600 attracts the world's fastest racing yachts, magnificent superyachts and corinthian production cruisers. Gathered in Antigua for the start of the 600-mile blast around 11 Caribbean islands, the fleet is a phenomenal sight.

Among the spectacular entries this year are two colossal schooners; Eleonora and Adela, with at least 12 classic-designed yachts joining them on the race course.

Adela dates back to 1903 and at 182ft (55 metres), she is the largest yacht competing in the race. Displacing 250 tons and capable of 17 knots of boat speed, the forces on board are off the charts; the mainsail alone can generate 50 tons of load. Adela has an extraordinary record in the race; coming in the top ten overall under IRC in all four races she has competed in, including third overall in 2013. Adela is unbeaten in the Spirit of Tradition Class and is likely to have 35 crew for this year's race. Since she last competed in 2015, the schooner has undergone major modifications to her rudder and keel. Changing a headsail on Adela requires crew out on her mighty bowsprit, a position for agile, strong and trustworthy crew.

"We are really starting from scratch in terms of how to sail Adela after the refit," commented crew boss Guy Salter. "There have also been a few changes to the crew, so we will be working on boat handling in the run up to the race. We still have Kym 'Shag' Morton on the helm and that is a good thing. Experienced guys from the Maxi era are the closest thing to experts on driving these sort of boats and when you have crew on the bowsprit, which is really just an extension of the foredeck, you need someone on the helm who knows how to drive a displacement yacht. He won't come up at a mark until it is safe to do so. Protecting the crew is the most important part of the race."

Displacing 213 tons with an overall length of 162ft (49.5 metres), Eleonora is an exact replica of the famous 1910 Herreshoff schooner Westward. Since her launch in 2000 she has followed Westward's heritage of racing, however, this will be Eleonora's first RORC Caribbean 600.

"It is an event that the crew have been looking forward to ever since it was decided to enter," explains Brendan McCoy, Captain of Eleonora. "Adela has shown formidable speed in the Caribbean 600 and she has an advantage over us in waterline length and sail area, so it will be against the odds to beat her over the water. On IRC rating, we just don't know how we will fair and the conditions will play a big part. However, it will be an achievement to sail Eleonora well around the course. There are so many manoeuvres; it will be a real challenge for the crew and that is what we are looking forward to. For the race, we will have members from the Royal Yacht Squadron and the Royal Ocean Racing Club on board and we are keen to ensure they all have a memorable race."

Classic yachts have always been a part of the RORC Caribbean 600. Competing this year is the 78ft Maxi Kialoa III, best remembered for victory in the 1975 Sydney Hobart Yacht Race, with the race record lasting for 21 years. The 70ft mahogany ketch, El Oro was originally owned by Baron Marcel Bich, the founder of Bic pens and built as a cruising version of his 1973 Whitbread racer, Kriter. Australian yachting enthusiast and owner, Tim Wilson rescued El Oro in 2008 and following a full restoration, has raced the classic yacht for the past five years. Many of the crew will be flying in from Australia to compete in the race. Mat Barker's 65ft sloop, The Blue Peter has unfinished business after retiring from last year's race. The Blue Peter is a true classic, almost unchanged since being launched in 1930.

Nine majestic yachts, built by Nautor's Swan will also be competing this year, including three classics designed by Sparkman & Stephens; Swan 48s, Isbjorn and Sleeper, a Swan 44 Freebird. Other classic designed sloops in the RORC Caribbean 600 include the 88ft Dutch Frers, Tulip, Irish C.N.B Briand 76ft, Lilla and Hound, a 60ft Nielsen Custom from the United States.

The 9th edition of the RORC Caribbean 600 will start from Antigua on February 20th 2017 and in excess of 70 yachts are expected, with over 900 sailors from 24 different countries taking part.

For more information visit: http://www.caribbean600.rorc.org

See the original post:

Classics Gather in Caribbean - Sailing World

Crime Costing Caribbean Billions | Caribbean360 – Caribbean360.com (subscription)

WASHINGTON, United States, Tuesday February 7, 2017 A study by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) estimates the direct annual cost of crime and violence in Latin America and the Caribbean at US$261 billion or 3.55 per cent of GDP roughly what the region invests on infrastructure.

The Costs of Crime and Violence: New Evidence, New Revelations in Latin America and the Caribbean provides comparable crime costs numbers for 17 countries in the region including the CARICOM nations of Barbados, Jamaica and Trinidad and Tobago benchmarking them against six developed countries.

Crime and violence are at near crisis levels in Latin America and the Caribbean. The region accounts for nine per cent of the worlds population but contributes nearly one-third of its homicide victims, making it the most violent region outside of war zones.

Six out of ten robberies in the region involve violence and 90 per cent of murders go unsolved. Its prisons are the most overcrowded in the world, the report adds.

Crime has reached alarming levels in many countries, said Ana Mara Rodrguez, the manager of the IDBs Institutions for Development Department.By providing estimates of the costs of violence at the regional, sub-regional, and national levels, the study will help governments and international cooperation agencies better allocate resources, as well as design better policies to control and prevent crime.

Crime-related costs are, on average, 3.55 percent of GDP in Latin America, compared with 2.75 percent in the US, 2.55 per cent in the UK and 1.34 percent in Germany.

The IDB said if the region brings its crime costs down to the level of developed nations, it could increase its infrastructure investment by 50 per cent.

Costs of violence against women in Latin America and the Caribbean double the world average, and the study points to future avenues for more research on gender violence.

Click hereto receive news via email from Caribbean360. (View sample)

Go here to read the rest:

Crime Costing Caribbean Billions | Caribbean360 - Caribbean360.com (subscription)

Trump’s Plan to Tap Offshore Profit for Infrastructure Gains an Ally – Bloomberg

President Donald Trumps plan to use corporate profits returned from overseas to help finance nationwide improvements to roads, bridges, airports and other public works picked up an important supporter in the U.S. House: Representative Bill Shuster.

The dollars are out there, so we get a piece of that, Shuster, a Pennsylvania Republican who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, said in an interview. The process of returning corporate profit to the U.S., known as repatriation, can be one of the sources that helps generate funding for repairs and new construction, he said.

Photographer: Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg

Trump has proposed spending $1 trillion during the next decade on U.S. infrastructure and wants to leverage more private-sector dollars. Gary Cohn, Trumps chief economic adviser, said on Fox Business on Feb. 3 that the president wants to use proceeds from repatriation to help fund the improvements.

U.S. companies have an estimated $2.6 trillion in profits that theyve earned overseas and are keeping there. Under federal tax law, offshore earnings arent taxable in the U.S. until companies decide to return the income to America. Trump and House Republicans have called for establishing a lower tax rate on those profits, easing their return to the U.S.

But theres been less agreement about how to use the resulting tax revenue. Shuster said he expects a lot of it would be used to offset broader tax-rate cuts, as House Republican leaders have proposed. What exactly is the funding, thats what were going to try to figure out and debate and move, Shuster said. Everythings going to be on the table.

Democrats have said theyre willing to work with Trump on infrastructure, including in the Senate, where lawmakers have proposed spending $1 trillion during the next 10 years. Republican congressional leaders, however, are pushing for private investment to play a bigger role. Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan has said he would like to see $40 in private spending for every additional federal dollar.

Asked whether Ryan supports using repatriation for infrastructure, spokeswoman AshLee Strong said only that congressional leaders will work with the Trump administration to craft a fiscally responsible infrastructure plan.

Witnesses at the first hearing of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee last week, including FedEx Corp. Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Frederick Smith, said they dont think additional private-sector funding will be enough to meet the nationwide need. They said additional federal spending, from a gas tax that hasnt been increased since 1993 or other sources, must be included.

Shuster said a combination of additional federal spending and increased private investment will be needed but said he couldnt provide the precise mix. Asked whether hed support increasing the gas tax, Shuster didnt rule it out as part of negotiations to get a final package.

That is certainly a difficult thing to do, he said. Its something we should look at and consider.

One thing he cant support: creating a federal infrastructure bank to provide funding for projects, Shuster said. Senate Democrats and Steve Mnuchin, Trumps choice to be Treasury secretary, have floated that concept, but Shuster said he feared it would become a boondoggle in Washington.

Its also important that whatever infrastructure package emerges be done in cooperation with U.S. states, Shuster said.

You have to have the states buy-in to this infrastructure bill and what they want to do, he said.

Keep up with the best of Bloomberg Politics.

Get our newsletter daily.

Its also likely that infrastructure could help get Democrats to accept changes they may not want on taxes and health care, Shuster said.

As we go through Obamacare and tax reform, for the Democrats, theres some bitter pills that they may have to swallow, Shuster said. And the sweet chaser is infrastructure dollars.

Visit link:

Trump's Plan to Tap Offshore Profit for Infrastructure Gains an Ally - Bloomberg

Offshore Wind Moves Into Energy’s Mainstream – New York Times


New York Times
Offshore Wind Moves Into Energy's Mainstream
New York Times
And offshore wind, once a fringe investment, with limited scope and reliant on government subsidies, is moving into the mainstream. Europe, too, looks all the more attractive, as the United States under President Trump rethinks its stance on renewables.

and more »

Read the rest here:

Offshore Wind Moves Into Energy's Mainstream - New York Times

Dems: Don’t repeal offshore tax rules – The Hill

Democrats on the House Ways and Means Committee are urging their colleagues to oppose a resolution that would repeal Obama administration rules aimed at curbing offshore tax deals.

"These regulations are intended to combat aggressive corporate tax planning techniques that, rather than serving an economic purpose, are used by some corporations to avoid taxes," the Democratic tax-writers wrote in a letter Wednesday to their colleagues.

The letter comes after Rep. Todd Rokita (R-Ind.) introduced a resolution last week to use the Congressional Review Act to disapprove of the rules, which the Treasury Department finalized in October. A vote on Rokita's resolution has not yet been announced, but in recent weeks, the House has approved several resolutions to undo recent Obama-era regulations.

When Treasury initially proposed the rules in the spring, both Republican and Democratic lawmakers had concerns that they would hurt business transactions that had nothing to do with inversions. But the Democratic lawmakers said that "Treasury made extensive revisions to its original draft in order to address these concerns."

If the rules are repealed, "Republicans in Congress will open the door to more companies renouncing their U.S. citizenship for tax purposes, while still reaping the benefits of doing business in America a tax practice President Trump railed against on the campaign trail," the Democrats said.

Rokita said in a statement Wednesday that his resolution "will reduce the tax burden on Indiana firms and all American companies so they can grow our economy and create jobs."

The National Association of Manufacturers supports Rokita's resolution. The group said that Treasury's rules, even with revisions, would impose documentation, compliance and cost burdens on many manufacturers.

Read the original here:

Dems: Don't repeal offshore tax rules - The Hill

Diamond Offshore Surprises Everyone With a Fourth Quarter Earnings Gain – Madison.com

You have to give Diamond Offshore (NYSE: DO) credit. Despite an absolutely brutal market for offshore rigs, the company was able to not only soundly beat estimates for the quarter, but it was able to actually increase earnings. That's something that almost no other rig owner has been able to say for the past several years.

Here's a look at how Diamond was able to pull off this rather remarkable feat, and how management thinks the position it is in today will help to make it an even more competitive company in the coming years.

Image source: Getty Images.

*in millions, except per-share data. Source: Diamond Offshore earnings release.

Based on the dynamics of the oil and gas industry today, the last group of companies you might expect to see an uptick in earnings is with offshore rig companies. Yet that is exactly what happened with Diamond this past quarter. That net income gain is a little larger because of an early termination fee that added $0.28 per share to the bottom line, but even after we pull out that gain it was still an impressive gain over the two comparable quarters.

There are some gains that are sustainable, and some that aren't. One of the most notable gains was in its Mid-water floater segment. However, this is the segmenet where it netted that one time contract termination gain. The one that is truly impressive, though, is the gains for its ultra deepwater fleet. Two rigs -- the Ocean GreatWhite and Ocean BlackLion -- both started 3 year contract terms.

The Ocean GreatWhite is in a unique position because the job it was hired to do was drill in Austrailia's Bight Basin for BP (NYSE: BP). BP has since suspended operations there, however, so the two have worked out a hybrid standby contract that will remain in place until BP can find a place to put this ship to work.

Source: Diamond Offshore earnings release. Author's chart.

The increase in revenues and the declines in operating costs have also freed up cash flow for the company, which is enabling it to pay down some debt. This past quarter alone Diamond was able to pay back $188 million in short term borrowings. With little in terms of capital spending in the coming quarters, the company should be able to throw off quite a bit of cash for either paying down debt or even returning that cash to shareholders. Considering the depressed share price, it wouldn't be shocking to see Diamond buy back some stock.

For the most part, CEO Marc Edwards' comments were on all of the action items that have happened as of late, notably the contracting of several rigs. While that does give the company a decent boost to the income statement now, Edwards also explained how there are some other advantages to being in this position for the future.

Although the next few years will be challenging for offshore drillers, we have uniquely positioned Diamond Offshore to take best advantage of a recovery either in '19 or 2020.

For example, our sixth-generation fleet is contracted through 2019. Our clients have a strong preference for rigs that have recently completed other work. In other words, rigs that are hot. They do not want to take the financial or time risk of qualifying a rig which has been stacked for a lengthy period. We are already seeing some tenders illustrate a strong preference for rigs that are hot. As the market recovers, our rigs will be finishing up their contracts and will therefore be the most attractive to our clients.

Diamond Offshore has done a great job of transforming itself over the past several years. It has gone from a company with an old fleet of rigs with little to differentiate itself from the pack to a young, capable fleet that is working on some innovative ideas like its partnership with General Electric for its pay for performance blow out preventors and its new generation design for ultra deepwater rigs.

With a decent chunk of its fleet contracted out over the next several years, it looks as though Diamond will be in a much better position than its peers to handle the ups and downs of the market. With shares trading at very cheap prices today, it may be a long term investment worth putting on your radar.

10 stocks we like better than Diamond Offshore Drilling

When investing geniuses David and Tom Gardner have a stock tip, it can pay to listen. After all, the newsletter they have run for over a decade, Motley Fool Stock Advisor, has tripled the market.*

David and Tom just revealed what they believe are the 10 best stocks for investors to buy right now... and Diamond Offshore Drilling wasn't one of them! That's right -- they think these 10 stocks are even better buys.

*Stock Advisor returns as of February 6, 2017

Read more:

Diamond Offshore Surprises Everyone With a Fourth Quarter Earnings Gain - Madison.com

Offshore Profits and US Exports – Council on Foreign Relations (blog)

8064 3

by Brad Setser February 6, 2017

One important result of my theory about the sources of dark matter in the U.S. balance of payments is a concern that border adjustment might not generate the expected revenues. American multinationals would have a strong incentive to shift their offshore income on intellectual property rights that are now located in subsidiaries offshore back to the U.S..

A lot depends on the details of any proposed tax reform, but I think a firm with U.S. expenses and export revenues would generate a tax loss on its exports (export revenues are excluded from calculation of revenues for the purpose of the tax, and domestic expenses can be deducted). If that tax loss is refundable, exporters essentially get a check back from the government for a sum equal to their domestic labor costs (see Chad Bown on the subsidy component of a border tax adjustment).* Profits that now show up in subsidiaries in Ireland, Puerto Rico, Singapore, and the like** based on intellectual property that is held in the Caribbean, thanks to the low price headquarters charges for the global rights on their intellectual property, might show up back in the U.S.and I suspect the royalties their offshore subsidiaries pay headquarters for research and design and engineering (e.g. exports) would soar.

I havent started to figure out how European companies that now report very little income on their direct investment in the U.S. might try to game the system. I suspect that they have an incentive to try to lower their reported intra-firm importse.g. reduce the transfer prices they charge their U.S. subsidiaries to lower their border adjustment. Auerbach, Devereux, Keen and Vella have emphasized that introducing a destination based cash flow tax in one country would have quite different effects than introducing a destination based cash flow tax in all countries.

But I also wanted to draw out the implications of the rapid growth in the offshore profits of American companies for the broader debate on globalization.

Consider the following chart: normalized versus GDP, the reinvested (tax-deferred, or less politely, largely untaxed as of now) profits of U.S. multinationals have more than doubled over the past twenty years, while U.S. exports of capital goods, consumer goods, and autos (my measure for core manufacturing exports) have stayed constant as a share of GDP. Imports of that set of goods have increased by roughly 25 percent on this measure.

Obviously, setting the initial level at 100 exaggerates a bit to make a pointnamely, that U.S. export and income growth from globalization shows up offshore, not in onshore export jobs.

As a share of GDP, reinvested earnings (a proxy for tax-deferred offshore earnings) have gone from 0.5 percent of GDP to around 1.6 percent of GDP over the past twenty years (they reached a peak of 2 percent of GDP when the dollar was weak).***

Core manufactured goods (autos, capital goods, and consumer goodsI am leaving out manufactured industrial supplies such as chemicalslargely for simplicity) exports have stayed constant at about 5 percent of GDP.

They were a bit higher for a while, but, well, something happened in the last couple of years. I tend to think that something was mostly the impact of the dollars rise but the global fall in demand for oil and mining equipment also played a role.

With rising productivity, a constant (and low) level of exports to GDP meant the export sector was shedding jobs.

And with imports rising relative to GDPcore imports have gone from about 6.5 percent of GDP in 1995 to about 8.5 percent of GDP in 2015 (they will fall a bit in 2016)of course import-competing sectors were shedding jobs.

I suspect the politics around trade would be a bit different in the U.S. if the goods-exporting sector had grown in parallel with imports.

That is one key difference between the U.S. and Germany. Manufacturing jobs fell during reunificationand Germany went through a difficult adjustment in the early 2000s. But over the last ten years the number of jobs in Germanys export sector grew, keeping the number of people employed in manufacturing roughly constant over the last ten years even with rising productivity. Part of the trade adjustment was a shift from import-competing to exporting sectors, not just a shift out of the goods producing tradables sector. Of course, not everyone can run a German sized surplus in manufacturesbut it seems likely the low U.S. share of manufacturing employment (relative to Germany and Japan) is in part a function of the size and persistence of the U.S. trade deficit in manufactures. (It is also in part a function of the fact that the U.S. no longer needs to trade manufactures for imported energy on any significant scale; the U.S. has more jobs in oil and gas production, for example, than Germany or Japan).

Of course, the sectors that have seen their offshore income grow rapidly are growing, and they do employ more peoplethough successful tech companies employ comparatively few people relative to their profits.

But the shift from an economy that pays for its imports by exporting goods to one that increasingly relies on the income its multinationals generate in offshore tax centers likely has had some significant distributional consequences.

And as I have argued before, I suspect that one of the problems the U.S. faces is that a significant share of the gains from globalization arent actually taxed, and thus arent directly available to fund the kind of programs that my colleague Ted Alden has suggested are needed to allow the workforce to adopt to various shocks more effectively. And I am not convinced a border adjustmentwhich I think solves the transfer price problem by exempting export revenue from any calculation of taxsolves this particular problem. I suspect effectively untaxed (permanently tax-deferred) profits offshore become untaxed export profits onshore.

* If the border adjustment leads to an adjustment in the exchange rate, such a rebate is needed to offset the exchange rate drag. ** Puerto Rico is outside the United States for corporate tax purposes, thanks to its unique status. For details on Microsofts tax structure, see the Senate Investigative Committee report. *** Foreign multinationals do not have big cash hoards in the U.S., so their reinvested U.S. profits have stayed roughly constant as a share of GDP, pushing the U.S. surplus on reinvested earnings up.

CFR seeks to foster civil and informed discussion of foreign policy issues. Opinions expressed on CFR blogs are solely those of the author or commenter, not of CFR, which takes no institutional positions. All comments must abide by CFR's guidelines and will be moderated prior to posting.

A blog on the global economy, paying particular attention to the U.S. current account deficit, China, central bank reserves and the global flow of funds.

In The Hacked World Order, CFR Senior Fellow Adam Segal shows how governments use the web to wage war and spy on, coerce, and damage each other. More

Red Team provides an in-depth investigation into the work of red teams, revealing the best practices, most common pitfalls, and most effective applications of these modern-day devil's advocates. More

Through insightful analysis and engaging graphics, How America Stacks Up explores how the United States can keep pace with global economic competition. More

View Complete List

Williams argues that the status quo for peace operations in untenable and that greater U.S. involvement is necessary to enhance the quality and success of peacekeeping missions.

The authors argue that the United States has responded inadequately to the rise of Chinese power and recommend placing less strategic emphasis on the goal of integrating China into the international system and more on balancing China's rise.

Campbell evaluates the implications of the Boko Haram insurgency and recommends that the United States support Nigerian efforts to address the drivers of Boko Haram, such as poverty and corruption, and to foster stronger ties with Nigerian civil society.

Complete list of Council Special Reports

See the original post here:

Offshore Profits and US Exports - Council on Foreign Relations (blog)