Monthly Archives: March 2017

Conservative and libertarian health care experts pan GOP’s Obamacare lite plan – Washington Post

Posted: March 9, 2017 at 3:45 am

Speaker of the House Paul Ryan speaks on the proposed American Health Care Act.

On Monday, congressional Republicans rolled out their new health care plan, which is supposed to repeal and replace Obamacare. Donald Trump hailed our wonderful new Healthcare Bill. But his enthusiasm for the proposed American Health Care Act is not widely shared. In addition to the expected critiques from the left, the bill has been forcefully condemned by a wide range of conservative and libertarian health care experts. These leading critics of Obamacare argue that the GOP proposal is just as bad, and possibly even worse.

Michael Cannon, well-known health care analyst for the libertarian Cato Institute, offered a particularly harsh appraisal, denouncing the new bill as Obamacare lite or worse:

This bill is a train wreck waiting to happen The Obamacare regulations it retains are already causing insurance markets to collapse. It would allow that collapse to continue, and even accelerate the collapse.

Republicans dont seem to have any concept of the quagmire they are about to enter with this bill.

If this is the choice, it would be better if Congress simply did nothing.

As Cannon explains,the new GOP plan has a similar structure to Obamacare, fails to address most of its flaws, and may well make some of them worse. Republicans should take note: If one of Obamacares leading critics concludes that your repeal and replace bill is even worse than Obamacare, and worse than doing nothing, thats a pretty damning indictment.

Other right of center economists and health care experts have offered similarly damning assessments, including Megan McArdle, Peter Suderman, Scott Sumner, and Avik Roy. Roy argues that the proposal includes some valuable reforms for Medicaid, but concludes that this benefit is outweighed by the many harmful aspects of the plan. Sudermans bottom line is even more negative: In general, its not clear what problems this particular bill would actually solve.

I am no fan of Obamacare myself, and was involved in helping develop the constitutional case against it that led to the Supreme Courts controversial ruling in NFIB v. Sebelius. But I find it sobering that even many of the ACAs toughest critics fear that the GOP alternative is likely to be worse.

A crucial point emphasized by many of these critics is that the GOP plan does little or nothing to constrain health care costs or open up the insurance industry to wider market competition. As Cannon puts it, Congress needs to enact reforms that make health care more affordable, rather than just subsidize unaffordable care. The GOP plan, he explains, does mostly the latter, often even more inefficiently and coercively than Obamacare.

McArdle points out that the new plan is as much a gigantic Rube Goldberg contraption as Obamacare is. She also notes that the GOP hopes to use many of the same procedural tricks to disguise its flaws as Democrats did with those of the ACA. It is far from clear they will manage to get away with it.

Because the plan is so enormously complicated and has so many moving parts, it could easily unravel in a wide range of unexpected ways, as the different components fail to interact as expected. For reasons F.A. Hayek famously explained, even the wisest of bureaucratic central planners lack the knowledge to foresee and offset such problems. And todays Republican Party is not exactly overflowing with wisdom and competence.

If the GOP plan falters like Obamacare has, its flaws will be exacerbated by another feature the two policies have in common: lack of bipartisan support. If it gets through Congress at all, the AHCA is likely to pass on a strict party-line vote or close to it, just like the ACA. From the standpoint of the opposition party, the optimal political strategy will be sit back, watch the trainwreck happen, and saddle the party that passed the plan with the blame.

Just as Republicans had no incentive to help Obama fix the flaws in the ACA, so Democrats will have no incentive to help fix problems with the new GOP plan. Partisan bias is a powerful and increasingly pernicious force, and it could potentially undermine the GOPs health care policy. Admittedly, Democratic opposition may not matter much if the Republicans expand their congressional majorities in 2018 and 2020. But recent history suggests that neither party can count on controlling Congress for long. And in the Senate, many bills are subject to filibuster, effectively requiring 60 votes to pass.

This entire sorry state of affairs is even more the fault of congressional Republicans than Donald nobody knew health care could be so complicated Trump. These had seven years to come up with an alternative to Obamacare, and so far their work product is far from impressive. Sad! Nonetheless, Trumps ignorance, reckless statements, and disdain for free market ideas have also contributed to the problem.

Despite GOP control of both houses of Congress, there is a very real chance that the new bill will not pass. It has already come under fire from both conservative and moderate wings of the party. Given the narrowness of the 52-48 Republican majority in the Senate and the unyielding opposition of Democrats, the plan will be defeated if even as few as three Republicans defect.

In fairness, given the divisions within the party, it is not an easy task to cobble together a bill that is both an improvement over Obamacare and acceptable to all the key factions within the GOP. Whether Republicans can overcome these problems and come up with something better than this initial effort remains to be seen. At this point, it is hard to be optimistic.

Here is the original post:

Conservative and libertarian health care experts pan GOP's Obamacare lite plan - Washington Post

Posted in Libertarian | Comments Off on Conservative and libertarian health care experts pan GOP’s Obamacare lite plan – Washington Post

A libertarian explains why Trump’s new travel ban is still legally … – MarketWatch

Posted: at 3:45 am

President Trump issued a new executive order this week that revises, rescinds, and replaces his prior order banning immigration from several majority-Muslim countries. The new order, which is scheduled to taked effect on March 16, is supposed to bolster the White Houses case in court, resolving legal defects that prevented the ban from prevailing the first time around.

In some ways, it accomplishes its goal, but in other ways, the new order undermines several legal arguments that the administration has been making.

While defending the president against a lawsuit brought by the state of Washington, the administrations attorneys justified his list of seven majority-Muslim countries by stating that they were previously identified as posing a heightened risk of terrorism by Congress or the Executive Branch. In fact, they said, Congress itself identified Iraq and Syria as countries of concern.

This argument was always weak because, although Congress did single out these countries for additional vetting, it still specifically provided for the ability of Iraqi and Syrian nationals to come to America so long as they had a visa. But now the president has excluded Iraq from the list, which means its justification that this list was something Congress put together is gone.

The whole point of the ban, as the administration put it, was to establish adequate standards to prevent infiltration by foreign terrorists. In other words, because the vetting process is inadequate, and these nationalities are (in the eyes of the administration) inherently dangerous, people from the selected countries cannot be allowed in.

The new order exempts current visa holders from these countries. But this change totally undermines the argument that these nationals are dangerous even if they are screened. By fixing one problem, the administration creates another one for itself. If these nationals are dangerous, why would it concede to allow any of them in?

Heres a more immediate concern for the administration. When the original order was challenged, the administration argued in court that any delay in implementation immediately harms the public by thwarting enforcement of an Executive Order issued by the President, based on his national security judgment. It is likely that they will argue the same when this one is challenged.

President Trump signed a new executive order on immigration Monday that revised his first one halted by the courts. Here's a look at what is different about this new order and whether it will face the same legal issues. Photo: Getty

Yet the new order delays the effective date for more than a week. It does so to resolve a potential legal concern tied to banning people without notice. But the delay effectively eviscerates the argument from the presidents legal team that a judges decision to suspend enforcement of it would impose irreparable harm. A judge could respond, If thats true, did the presidents delay also harm the United States?

The administration also claimed that this was not a ban intended to reduce admissions of immigrants from these majority Muslim countries. Instead, it was just a temporary 90-day pause on entries from these places to allow the government to review vetting procedures. But now the new order restarts this timeline.

Why would the clock on reviewing procedures stop ticking just because the old order wasnt blocking entries? This provides evidence that these timelines were in fact arbitrary and that the goal wasnt about giving the administration time to review, but rather about cutting legal immigration of peoplemainly Muslim immigrantsthat the administration simply does not like.

Despite all of the changes, the fundamental problems persist. The order still references 1952 law providing that the president can exclude any class of alien if he finds them detrimental. But this justification ignores a later-enacted 1965 law that bans discrimination against immigrant visa applicants based on nationality. While the 1965 law provides a list of exceptions, the 1952 law was specifically not included among them.

Congress did not want to allow the president this authority. In fact, it specifically debated the question of whether difficult-to-screen countries should be included under the 1965 non-discrimination rule and decided that they should be.

This means that the executive order re-boot is still legally suspect. Indeed, in some ways, because it undermines so many of the governments arguments, the order has become even more suspect than it was before, and the courts should tell the president to go back to the drawing board once again.

David J. Bier is an immigration policy analyst at the libertarian Cato Institutes Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity.

Read more from the original source:

A libertarian explains why Trump's new travel ban is still legally ... - MarketWatch

Posted in Libertarian | Comments Off on A libertarian explains why Trump’s new travel ban is still legally … – MarketWatch

I’m with the Band(wagon) – Being Libertarian

Posted: at 3:45 am

Now that we have a new regime in place (at the top of our political atmosphere), and the turmoil between angered voters has been put on a soft mute (for now), you cant help but take in the freshness of it all. Or can you?

Weve seen an about-face trend in the stock market from what was predicted but where is all this money? People are still living in a constant state of financial alertness, for good reason. We have seen this playout too many times in the past generation. Regime change equals economic redirection. Which side of the fence you are on depends how you are projected to fare over the next few years, if you follow trends.

Lets turn back the clock to 2000. Bush is in, and the conservatives are celebrating their national championship. Liberals are cringing at the prospect of reigning in the expansion of government entitlements and the influx of a new idea of tolerance. The glut of big money investment is about to roll out into corporate take-overs and incessant greed of the, soon to be feared, one percent.

We all know how the Bush administration went; ugh, debt, debt and some more debt. That deficit rose quicker than the technology of those futuristic new smart phones that were coming out. We wanted change we needed change. But, all we did was change the side of the celebration.

We pumped more and more into government expansion and entitlements for those street-destroying celebrators of change. The held-out hand seemed not to drop a thing, as the ones that were used to holding on to their investments and portfolios found new interests in storm shelters and 30-round magazines. Those same people probably thought at the time, that the Arkansas dress destroyer was a saint compared to what was coming out of Kenya.

The eight year reign of the liberal agenda helped the hopeless aspire to receive far more than they contributed: citing free phones, healthcare and questionable bathroom preferences. Our national debt continues to climb, right along with a manifested racial divide and sprinkled in terrorist attacks , as well as those killer cops.

Still, the winners of 08 claimed that progress was the right track for the equality of all. You were deemed a racist, intolerant, or a bigot if you thought otherwise.

2016: The year of what just happened? Well, it happened again. The swing back to conservative-ism or, as the newly found losers called it, not my America.

Here we are, primed for the run. As I alluded to previously, the so-far surprise market is a base moniker of how we are doing, right? First quarter projections are now rolling in and American manufacturing as a whole is taking a woodshed beating. We are seeing it in non-technical manufacturing very hard, reminding those who have been around long enough to boast those comments, remember 01, or 09? We took a beating those years. Head scratcher, huh?

If you were to make a prediction of the outlook for 2017, it looks like a safe bet for the status quo. The only thing different is that the winners gloated a little more, and the losers well, are they done yet? It is merely a continuation of the same things we have dealt with our entire adult lives. So, it might be a good idea to keep conserving your money, play wisely with retirements, and for heavens sake get on that highway of progress; that fabled economic growth that every politician ever has spouted about.

We are all meant to be winners in this game of big ol gubmint, or so they say. The nation may veer to the left or to the right and back again, but we continue in the same basic direction, paying our forced tithes to the downward spiral. To be happy about it you simply need to jump onto a different bandwagon every four or eight years. My hope is for the bandwagon of Enough Already. But dont look to jump on it anytime soon.

* Wes Fischer self supporting libertarian focused on shrinking our government one action at a time.

Like Loading...

See the original post here:

I'm with the Band(wagon) - Being Libertarian

Posted in Libertarian | Comments Off on I’m with the Band(wagon) – Being Libertarian

Liberal groups host Trump ‘resistance training’ for change – Washington Times

Posted: at 3:44 am

Hoping to convert liberals despair at President Trump into action, progressive groups are beginning to host resistance training seminars, saying the anger the presidents opponents feel can be channeled into a concrete movement.

Spurred by the massive showing at Januarys womens marches in Washington and around the country, the groups say theyre looking to arm activists to go beyond demonstrations and to be prepared to defend those snared by Mr. Trumps immigration plans, affected by the travel ban or in danger of losing health coverage under his Obamacare agenda.

Wednesdays Day Without a Woman protest was the latest example, with feminist organizers hoping to demonstrate the political and economic power of women opposed to Mr. Trump.

Meanwhile, the American Civil Liberties Union is hosting its first resistance training on Saturday in Miami, with webcasts across the country to enlist activists desperate for some direction.

Right after the election the ACLU started receiving tons of money and email addresses from people who were asking us how they could get involved. What can I do? How can I do it with others? Faiz Shakir, national political director of the ACLU, told The Washington Times. The public has engaged in a game of Tag, youre it, and it has told us, the ACLU, that you are the leader of the resistance.

He said the ACLU, which has already taken to the courts to try to stop some Trump moves, figured it needed to go broader to say See you in the streets.

While its a new role for the venerable organization, its ground well trod by other liberal groups that are also ramping up their resistance efforts.

Progressive groups including MoveOn.org, Indivisible, the Working Families Party and the Center for Popular Democracy have held five Ready to Resist emergency telephone calls giving activists a chance to share stories of their anti-Trump protests and offer training tips on how to organize, recruit and gain the interest of media outlets.

Victoria Kaplan, the organizing director for MoveOn, set the tone in the first call, telling the thousands that listened in that the purpose of this emergency call is to prepare to stop Trump by stiffening Democrats spines and weakening pro-Trump Republican resolve.

In another call, Jennifer Epps-Addison, president of the Center for Popular Democracy, said the resistance was making an impact and highlighted how former House Speaker John A. Boehner predicted GOP lawmakers will probably not repeal Obamacare.

I think we have to make sure, and I know you all are, that our message to Democrats is that we cannot give an inch, Ms. Epps-Addison said. We have to resist this agenda at every place and point we can.

Others, meanwhile, have held educational forums in churches on the rights on immigrants, and groups like Showing up for Racial Justice have training sessions for White folks on showing up with accountability and commitment to actions organized and led by people of color, with a focus on immigrant-led actions.

Indivisible, which was launched by former Capitol Hill staffers, held a phone call Tuesday night urging members to rise up against the GOPs efforts to repeal and replace Obamacare, which includes the defunding of Planned Parenthood. The group said the fight will help set the tone for the Trump administration, offering the chance to take some wind out of its sails early on.

The group also authored a guide for resisting the Trump agenda that says progressives disagree with the principles and positions of the tea party, but that there are lessons to be taken from its focus on grass-roots advocacy and refusing to give any wiggle room when it came to pressuring members of Congress to block the Obama agenda.

If a small minority in the Tea Party could stop President Obama, then we the majority can stop a petty tyrant named Trump, the guide says.

But Taylor Budowich, executive director of Tea Party Express, said progressives and the media have misread the success of the tea party movement.

They think it has to be about the tactics the tea party used because they think we couldnt have won on the issues, Mr. Budowich said, arguing the movements message of fiscal responsibility, limited government and economic growth appeared to a broad swath of voters. It shows how out of touch they are.

He said the tea party was more than an opposition force and rallied around candidates that shared its vision. I struggle to understand what this [resistance] movement stands for other than not liking this president. But that is a hashtag not a movement, Mr. Budowich said.

Mark J. Rozell, dean of the School of Policy and Government at George Mason University, said progressive groups believe they are building a sustainable political movement that will keep activists engaged and help avoid another election cycle of Republican gains.

But the question is whether hounding Republican lawmakers in public will translate into broader support and more votes for progressive causes and candidates, or will it fuel a stronger countermobilization of Trump supporters and others who dont like these tactics. Its politically very risky and could backfire ultimately, he said.

As an early success, groups pointed to the airport rallies that occurred in late January in the hours after Mr. Trumps initial extreme vetting executive order left hundreds of immigrants and visitors struggling to gain admission to the U.S.

Homeland Security Secretary John F. Kelly has said the rallies were more disruptive to the airports than the travel ban itself.

Activists have also disrupted Republican lawmakers town halls, drawing intense coverage from the press, which ran some of the confrontational clips on repeat loops last month.

Ms. Epps-Addison said one of her personal favorites came out of Arkansas when a 7-year-old boy challenged Sen. Tom Cotton on why President Trump wanted to slash funding for PBS and erect a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border.

You are onto something when even a child knows that you should not try to cut PBS to try to build a xenophobic and hateful wall, she said.

On the resistance calls, activists have touted the importance of interfaith marches and urged participation in cacerolazo protests in which people make noise banging pots and pans.

Julia Gallagher, of Michigans Peoples Campaign, got a glowing review for the creativity her group has shown. Activists were threatened with trespassing after a group including someone sporting a chicken suit showed up at Rep. David A. Trotts local office to demand a meeting.

But we got it on video, posted it on Facebook, and it has gone viral, Ms. Gallagher said.

In an upcoming call, Mark Anthony Johnson, director of Health and Wellness at Dignity and Power Now in Los Angeles, is slated to lead a virtual workshop in strategies and actions to build our personal and collective resilience for the resistance.

Originally posted here:

Liberal groups host Trump 'resistance training' for change - Washington Times

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Liberal groups host Trump ‘resistance training’ for change – Washington Times

Pauline Hanson ‘just a Liberal puppet’, One Nation candidate says – ABC Online

Posted: at 3:44 am

Updated March 09, 2017 18:24:36

A high-profile One Nation candidate who has spoken out against Pauline Hanson's preference deal with the WA Liberal Party has confirmed she will boycott the party's how-to-vote directive.

Margaret Dodd, who is running in the seat of Scarborough, told 7.30 that when she joined the party four weeks ago, she was assured that she would be able to decide her own preferences.

Now she has a message for Ms Hanson going into the final days of the campaign.

"Pauline, you are supposed to be listening to the people. If you can't listen to your own candidates, what chance have the people got?" she said.

Ms Dodd has unveiled her own banner for Saturday's election instructing voters to put the Liberals last.

Ms Dodd, whose daughter Hayley was murdered in 1999, is running to push for "no body, no parole" laws which Labor has supported.

Her daughter's body has never been found.

Ms Dodd said her own leader was not being straight with the voters or the candidates.

"Don't be so dishonest, don't pretend that you are about something and then go and do deals with the Liberals unless you are going to be upfront and tell your candidates before they join that you are just a Liberal puppet," she said.

"It makes me feel as though I have been lied to.

"[It] makes me feel that the party I have joined is dishonest and their only answer to any criticism is, you are disendorsed, suck it up or leave and you are not working as team.

"It's very hard to work as a team when you are working in a dictatorship."

Ms Dodd's stance adds to the growing dissent in the party over the preference deal with the Liberal Party.

The party's candidate for Kalamunda resigned over the deal last week and another candidate was disendorsed after speaking out publicly against it.

It is not just candidates who are angry.

The preference deal has forced market stallholder Vivian Davies to reconsider how she will vote in the Liberal-held seat of Wanneroo.

Inspired by Donald Trump's rise to power, Ms Davies was determined to vote for Ms Hanson when 7.30 caught up with her at the beginning of the West Australian election campaign.

"He [Trump] is following through with his promises," Ms Davies said.

"A lot of Australians are saying that we need that here and, yes, I do believe a lot of people will vote for Pauline.

"Her policies stand for what most Australians would like to see happen to the country rather than it be over-run by things that are politically correct all the time."

Traditionally a Labor voter, Ms Davies said she was turning to One Nation because of its policies on housing, immigration and helping "the ordinary Australian".

But, when 7.30 revisited her stall going into the final week of the campaign, the 62-year-old was having second thoughts and now does not know who she will vote for.

She said Senator Hanson had misread her supporters by striking a preference deal with the WA Liberals.

"I really believed that Pauline Hanson would have romped it in but there's a lot of people that don't want Barnett back and I can't understand why she's gone that way," Ms Davies said.

"I don't want Barnett to get back in. I was shocked, absolutely shocked."

Senator Hanson has been touring the state this week, trying to reassure her supporters that she is not running candidates in WA to "shore up support" for either the Labor or Liberal parties.

She has repeatedly stressed that voters themselves should take control of their preferences.

However, election analyst William Bowe believes the preference deal has received more attention than One Nation had predicted.

"Even people who are not exactly sure what a preference deal is, they've picked up loud and clear that One Nation has picked a side," he said.

"And once they have done that, they lose that fabulous advantage of being the anti-politics party, of being removed from the whole establishment, of being the kind of Donald Trump-style option that is just going to go in there and tear everything apart.

"If they have a disappointing performance here, I think the important thing is that they are going to think twice about entering a preference deal with the Liberal-National Party in Queensland."

One Nation's pitch to voters does not appeal to 19-year-old first-time Wanneroo voter Shannon Beckett-Smith.

"I think the One Nation party is just a very strong, opinionated group that are trying to force things onto other people," she said.

"Banning Muslims, taking off the burqa, that type of thing.

"We're in Australia, I get that but we've got to respect other peoples' cultures."

Ms Beckett-Smith said she would be voting for Labor because she had been unable to find full-time work and she believes the party has got the best plan for curbing unemployment.

Post the mining construction boom, the state has the highest jobless rate in the nation.

At a pre-polling booth for the seat of Wanneroo and other key northern suburbs electorates, Colin Barnett still appeared to have significant support after more than eight years in office.

Despite the state's record debt, Chris and Jeannie Clarke said they would be voting to give Mr Barnett a third term.

"He's run up a bit of a bill," Mr Clarke said.

"But we ran up a bill about 40 years ago when we bought a house and it is paid off now.

"Everybody forgets what the Barnett Government has done in the last couple of terms.

"He's built that magnificent stadium we've got.

"People have got to look at the big picture, not just what is happening today."

Topics: government-and-politics, elections, state-parliament, one-nation, perth-6000

First posted March 09, 2017 16:06:42

Excerpt from:

Pauline Hanson 'just a Liberal puppet', One Nation candidate says - ABC Online

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Pauline Hanson ‘just a Liberal puppet’, One Nation candidate says – ABC Online

Liberal backbenchers defy cabinet wishes and vote to enact genetic discrimination law – CBC.ca

Posted: at 3:44 am

Liberal backbench MPs joined forces with opposition partiesWednesday evening to reject attempts by the government to gut agenetic discrimination bill, overwhelmingly passing the legislation and defying the wishes of cabinet.

Recently retired Liberal senator Jim Cowan watched from the viewing gallery as 222 MPs voted in favour of his legislation, something he has long fought for through successive parliamentary sessions.

All cabinet ministers and most parliamentary secretaries in attendance voted against the bill. Only four Liberal backbenchers sided with the government, a rare displayof disunity within the Grit ranks.

Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybouldwas opposed to the bill andsaid she believes the legislation is unconstitutional as it could infringe on the provinces' right to regulate the insurance industry.

Bill S-201 will add genetic characteristics as a protected ground under the Canadian Human Rights Act, introducepenalties for discrimination, and forbid employers from subjecting job applicants to a genetic test.

The legislation will also allow people to refuse to disclose the results of a genetic test to anybody. Medical experts have said the legislation is necessary to counter the fears associated with potentially life-saving genetic testing, which could produce resultsthat would help doctors better tailor health treatments.

A breach of the law could result in a fine of up to $1 million, or five years behind bars.

Aspreviously reported by CBC NewsTuesday, AnnaGainey, president of thefederal Liberals, penned a letter during the last election promising protections against genetic discrimination if elected.

Some have suggested the Liberal flip-flop was the result ofaggressivelobbying tactics by the insurance industry.

Theindustryhas not hidden its opposition to Cowan's private member'sbill, a piece of legislation that easily passed the Senate last April and the House of Commons justice committee inDecember.

"The life and health insurance industry is extremely disappointed that Bill S-201 was passed today in the House of Commons without significant amendment.

"The industry agrees with the federal government's position as expressed by the prime minister and the minister of justice, as well as a number of provinces, that an important element of the bill is unconstitutional," Wendy Hope, a spokesperson for theCanadian Life and Health Insurance Association, said in an emailed statement to CBC News after the vote.

The federal government has to consider multiple factors when making decisions, Trudeau said Wednesday ahead of the vote, noting it needs to ensure it is defending the rights of Canadians and upholding their freedom from discrimination.

It also has to defend the Constitution and the balance between federal and provincial jurisdictions, he added.

"The government has taken a position that one of the elements in the proposed bill is unconstitutional," Trudeau told a news conference.

"That is the recommendation we had and the government position is to vote against that particular ... element in the bill."

The Liberal government hadproposed stripping the bill of everything except the power to make genetic characteristics a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, but those amendments were rejected Wednesday evening.

The bill has now cleared both the House of Commons and the Senate but will only become law when it receives royal assent, which could take place in the next few days.

The rest is here:

Liberal backbenchers defy cabinet wishes and vote to enact genetic discrimination law - CBC.ca

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Liberal backbenchers defy cabinet wishes and vote to enact genetic discrimination law – CBC.ca

Why I’ve left my liberal comfort zone and found conservative friends – Christian Science Monitor

Posted: at 3:44 am

March 8, 2017 In November I had a conservative friend tell me about being berated by a co-worker who thought she voted for Donald Trump. She didnt actually say whether she had or had not voted for President Trump, but her co-worker blamed her for the election of Trump nonetheless.

In progressive areas like San Francisco and my hometown Berkeley, conservatives tend to keep a low profile. It grieves me that so many people feel that revealing their political leanings would be dangerous and that their fears are reasonable.

As the cofounder ofMoveon.org, I am steeped in the progressive culture. I often hear the argument that we must win by overwhelming the conservatives with greater numbers. I admit that Id be much more comfortable in a world where the voices of my progressive friends blaze our path forward, solving our shared challenges with or without the support of Trump voters.

However, true progress requires stretching myself beyond comfort. There is anotherapproach that I ask my progressive friends and everyone to consider "love thy neighbor."

Last week Nicholas Kristof wrote a New York Times op-ed about why we shouldnt otherize Trump voters.

Go ahead and denounce Trumps lies and bigotry. Stand firm against his disastrous policies. But please dont practice his trick of otherizing people into stick-figure caricatures, slurring vast groups as hopeless bigots. Were all complicated, and stereotypes are not helpful including when theyre of Trump supporters.

Mr. Kristof described the political cost of dismissing 63 million Americans, but there is a deeper cost. When we fail to recognize our common humanity we lose valued relationships. We also make our lives smaller, divide our communities, and fail to benefit from everyone's best ideas.

As the founding partner ofLivingRoomConversations.org, I have intentionally sought out friends with very different political beliefs. WithAllSides for Schools, I work to bring this practice to the next generation. I strive to better understand the political opportunities and challenges we face together. Despite the discomfort of challenging the progressive ideas that I hold close to my heart, I have found treasured friends who might seem like my polar opposite.

By connecting around our shared human experience we are discovering that there are opportunities to improve citizen representation in government that satisfy conservative and progressive values. Left and right efforts on criminal justice work has already begun to reduced prison populations.

Even in the area of climate change, meaningful opportunities are multiplying. Efficiency, energy independence through renewable energy, clean tax cuts all show promise for moving us toward shared goals.

When we care about each other and want to meet each others basic needs, much becomes possible. Even though I have not persuaded my good friend Jacob that climate is a critical concern, he cares more now in part because he cares about me. Also because I did not insist that he accept my view of climate science.

Instead I noted that I dont need proof that climate change is happening. Even if there is only a 10 percent chance that we are destroying the planets capacity to support future generations, I find that unconscionable. I dont allow my children to play Russian roulette.

This gave Jacob the space to consider the possibility that climate change is an unacceptable risk rather than react to a demand. And Jacob has caused me to see that climate change is the progressive end times story.

This is not a one-way exchange. I care about Jacobs concern that as religious conservatives he and his community are becoming marginalized. We have remarkably different beliefs, but we are learning to hold the tension of our differences and listen to each other with humility.

More and more of us are working to spark a movement of respect, using simple listening practices that open our hearts. I hope that honoring each others humanity will lead to more compassionate political discourse and elected leaders that we can all respect, even if they werent our first choice.

More here:

Why I've left my liberal comfort zone and found conservative friends - Christian Science Monitor

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Why I’ve left my liberal comfort zone and found conservative friends – Christian Science Monitor

Liberals to pick candidate for Saint-Laurent tonight – CBC.ca

Posted: at 3:44 am

A 26-year-old high school teacher has defeatedformer provincial cabinet minister Yolande James for the Liberal nomination in the riding of Saint-Laurent.

Emmanuella Lambropoulos beat James and law professor Marwah Rizqy Wednesday night to secure the nomination.

She credited her win with a lot of work in the riding.

"I really went every day, door-to-door, with one or two other people. We worked really hard,"Lambropoulostold Radio-Canada.

She said that leading up to the party vote the media didn't pay much attention to her candidacy and that often, people didn't even know there was a third candidate running.

Lambropoulos, 26, is a high school teacher in Montreal's Rosemont neighbourhood. (Radio-Canada)

Lambropoulos and her team couldn't hold back their surprise at beating James, the woman considered to be the Liberal party favourite.

James was reportedly approached by the party to run and served as provincial immigration minister between 2007-2010 under former Quebec premier Jean Charest.

Lambropoulos is a high school teacher in Montreal's Rosemont neighbourhood and has worked for the Saint-Laurent riding association.

The Saint-Laurent riding has been Liberal for decades and is considered a safe seat for the party in the April 3 byelection.

The seat was left empty whenStphane Dionaccepted the role ofambassador to the EU and Germany.

The race has stirred upcontroversy, as long-serving St-Laurent borough mayorAlan DeSousawas blocked from seeking the nomination by the party without explanation. His appeal of the decision was unsuccessful.

A Liberal member at Wednesday's votewho has lived in the riding for 13 years,Bilal Hamideh, told CBC it was unfortunate DeSousa was not allowed to run.

"In general, I think it's discouraging to participate in the [nomination]system," Hamidehsaid.

"It does weaken the system in a way if it is not clearly explained why he wasn'tallowed."

Go here to see the original:

Liberals to pick candidate for Saint-Laurent tonight - CBC.ca

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on Liberals to pick candidate for Saint-Laurent tonight – CBC.ca

WA election: Liberal-National alliance hits breaking point – The Australian Financial Review

Posted: at 3:44 am

WA Nationals leader Brendon Grylls is livid over planned cuts to regional spending.

WA Nationals leader Brendon Grylls would rather send West Australians back to the polls than form a minority government with the Liberals if his alliance partner does not drop plans to redirect funding from his signature Royalties for Regions policy.

Less than 48 hours before West Australians go to the polls, Mr Grylls attacked Mr Barnett for plans to "realign" $800 million from the Royalties for Regions to underpina return to surplus in 2018-19.

Premier Colin Barnett defended the decision and warned Mr Grylls that as the major party, the Liberals set the agenda.

"If we are elected we will form government," he said. "We will form government and will invite the National party to be part of that but we are the major party and we will set the agenda."

If the Liberals are able to withstand an expected massive swing to Labor it is likely to only be able to form government with the support of the Nationals.

"While they are bigger than us, if you don't have the votes to form government then it means nothing," Mr Grylls said.

"I will not be part of any government that plans to take $800 million from Royalties for Regions." Mr Grylls said the move represented a 40 per cent cut to the overall program.

Asked if he could form government with Labor, Mr Grylls said Labor's cuts to Royalties for Regions would be worse.

He said both major parties were preferring to hurt regional residents rather than tap a new revenue source from BHP Billiton and Rio Tinto, referring to his $3 billion a year plan to lift a royalty charge for the two miners.

Royalties for Regions aimed to quarantine 25 per cent of the state's mining royalties for regional spending above and beyond general government expenditure.

The fund has been raided before in 2013 more than $500 million was redirected to general expenses. But this was done by agreement with the Nationals.

In a press conference twice interrupted by costumed protesters, Mr Barnett denied the Liberals' relationship with the Nationals had been damaged beyond repair. The Liberals infuriated the Nationals by cutting a preference deal with Pauline Hanson's One Nation. The Liberals will preference One Nation ahead of the Nationals in upper house seats.

"It is the middle of an election, people say all sorts of things," Mr Barnett said.

"Let's wait and see what the results are. Brendon and I get on fine, we always have."

It came as Labor released an independent assessment of its costings, which forecasta surplus of $205 million in fiscal 2020.

The Liberals' plan, costed by Treasury, would return the state to a$417 million surplus in 2019.

Shadow treasurer Ben Wyatt said Labor's forecast spendingof $2.78 billion over four years would be covered by $2.98 billionof funding.

The Liberals have attacked Labor for not sending its costings to Treasury.

Follow this link:

WA election: Liberal-National alliance hits breaking point - The Australian Financial Review

Posted in Liberal | Comments Off on WA election: Liberal-National alliance hits breaking point – The Australian Financial Review

Trump’s anti-immigrant policies causing severe pain in Detroit – Michronicleonline

Posted: at 3:44 am


Michronicleonline
Trump's anti-immigrant policies causing severe pain in Detroit
Michronicleonline
Over the past fiscal year, Freedom House has helped 136 people from 26 different countries, 85 percent of whom were from Africa. The average length of stay was 217 days. Additionally, there were 7 percent from the Middle East, 3 percent from Asia, and ...

and more »

Read the rest here:

Trump's anti-immigrant policies causing severe pain in Detroit - Michronicleonline

Posted in Fiscal Freedom | Comments Off on Trump’s anti-immigrant policies causing severe pain in Detroit – Michronicleonline