Monthly Archives: May 2017

U.S. President Donald Trump congratulates House Speaker Paul Ryan (L) as he gathers with Congressional Republicans in the Rose Garden of the White House after the House of Representatives approved the American Health Care Act, to repeal major parts of Obamacare and replace it with the Republican healthcare plan, in Washington, D.C., on May 4, 2017. Photo by Carlos Barria/Reuters

DUNWOODY, Ga. House Republicans pitched their health care vote as a victory for freedom: States could do away with expensive Obamacare mandates and liberate insurers to sell much cheaper plans, which would cover far fewer medical needs.

No longer would men have to pay for maternity benefits. No longer would healthy 20-year-olds have to buy prescription drug coverage.

That all sounded very good to 72-year-old Mike Lowey, who was walking laps at a mall here in the hours after Republicans muscled the GOP plan through the House on Thursday afternoon.

I dont like the government being involved in everyones lives, Lowey said. They want to control everything. A retiree who voted for Trump, hes a fan of the American Health Care Act. And he can explain why in one stirring phrase: This is supposed to be the land of the free.

But that definition of freedom is proving divisive.

READ NEXT: Think youre not affected by the GOP health bill? Think again

STAT reporters talked to more than a dozen voters in the suburbs of Atlanta and Cleveland after the AHCA vote on Thursday. Many said they found the Republican vision of freedom of choice on health care seductive. It makes intuitive sense.

Yet when they thought about what it might mean for their own lives, they worried.

I wouldnt write it off immediately, said Madison Massey, 20, a student at Kent State University in Ohio. It sounds reasonable.

But Massey, a Democrat, said she would be anxious about buying a plan with skimpy benefits. I dont know many people who dont get sick, she said. If its not the same things being covered, that sounds a little sketchy.

Aaron George, a 34-year-old cook from Akron, Ohio, agreed: I see the logic in it, he said. But he knows the risks of not having good insurance; he still has medical debts he racked up pre-Obamacare. So when he thinks hard about the Republicans vision, he concludes: I dont think its a legitimate argument to make.

READ NEXT: As health care bill heads to Senate, 7 winners and losers

Trump voter Mike Sustar, a retired firefighter from Independence, Ohio, expressed similar qualms. He is all for shaking up the health care system. He wants more competition and fewer mandates. And because he has always been fairly healthy, Sustar might save money with a cheaper plan that offers fewer benefits. Pondering the idea, though, he paused.

Ive never really had to utilize health care, he said. But its that one time you have to go use it

The AHCA, which now heads to the Senate, has many components beyond giving states more flexibility. Among them:

But Republicans have focused most of their sales pitch on the idea of freedom.

The bill lets states redefine the essential benefits that must be covered by insurance. The Affordable Care Act required those benefits to be comprehensive, including mental health care, addiction counseling, hospital care, and pediatric care. Under the AHCA, states could allow insurers to craft far narrower plans.

Health economists say that flexibility should drive down premiums, but warn that people could face huge out-of-pocket costs in the long run, if an accident or illness saddles them with bills their insurance does not cover.

To Georgia political consultant Joash Thomas, 23, thats a risk worth taking.

Im all about the freedom to make the decision best for myself, he said. One size fits all is a horrible idea, always.

Thomas, who has worked for several Republican campaigns, is a first-generation immigrant from India. He said hes studied international affairs and believes the AHCA reflects uniquely American values. In a free country, youre free to make good and bad decisions, but youre still free to make your own choices, he said. Ive seen this. It makes America great.

While he says hes no expert on health care policy. Thomas said he has complete faith in President Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan to craft a good plan.

Laura Wozniak, a freelance writer in Alpharetta, Ga., isnt so confident.

She sees the GOP talk of freedom as a smokescreen that undermines the entire concept of insurance as a pool that spreads risk and cost and provides a safety net that healthy 20-somethings might not think they need now, but could be grateful for in the future.

Its shortsighted to assume that because you have good health now, or a specific condition doesnt apply to you, that its never going to happen to you. I feel like were being sold a bill of goods, said Wozniak, who described herself as wildly liberal.

As for the idea that freedom means not paying for benefits only your neighbors will use? Wozniak recoiled.

Whats the point of society, she said, if we dont help others out?

This article is reproduced with permission from STAT. It was first published on May 5, 2017. Find the original story here.

Excerpt from:

Republicans sold their health plan as a win for freedom. Voters are wary - PBS NewsHour

President Trump signed a controversial executive order on May 4 that the White House says "promotes free speech and religious liberty." (Claritza Jimenez/The Washington Post)

NEW YORK President Trumps new executive order was the talk of thenight at a gala Thursday for religious freedom advocates at the Pierre Hotel, located just blocks from Trump Tower. Sipping cocktails and eating crab cake and salmon hors doeuvres, guests appeared divided over whether Trumps order should be viewed as a clear win or a steep disappointment.

Seated under dimmed chandeliers, many advocates said their expectations were high, sinceTrump has repeatedly promised he would champion Christians religious freedom. Instead, several people at a dinner hosted by the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty said the text of the order doesnt accomplish very much at all.

Earlier this week, many advocates believed that the order would contain language included in an early draft leaked in February. The early draft included grant exemptions for religious believers, schools and corporations to federal laws they disagree with, including LGBT and abortion rights laws. Instead, Trump said he would target the Johnson Amendment, a law that effectively bars politicking from the pulpit. The move was praised by several evangelical pastors who have been supportive of him, but Trumps decision frustrated many people at the gala.

Its irrelevant, its offensive, its ignored by churches anyway, said Robert P. George, a Princeton University professor who is well respected in this crowd.He got enthusiasm in return for getting nothing.

This annual event of more than 500 people draws some of the whos who in religious freedom advocacy, especially Catholics and evangelicals but also some Muslims, Sikhs, Mormons and Jews. The Becket Fund was behind the high-profile Supreme Court case involving Hobby Lobby, which fought the Obama administration on an Obamacare mandate to cover contraceptives.

The firm has also defended Little Sisters of the Poor on the same contraception issue, and a Becket Fund lawyer who has worked on the case said she was pleased with Thursdays order. During a reception Thursday at the Rose Garden, Trump told the nuns, Your long ordeal will soon be over, okay?

A spokeswoman for the nuns said they were nervous when it appeared last week that the Justice Department didnt seem to bechanging direction on the mandate yet, but she said they were pleased with Trumps words and the executive order.

Were taking him at his word until we cant, spokeswoman Constance Veit said. We have to be happy with every step forward.

But others at the gala were not thrilled with the order. One of the guests, Ryan Anderson, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, was planning to attend the Rose Garden ceremony in which Trump signed the order, but he decided against it once he learned what the text would be.

For the people in this room, the Johnson Amendment is not a priority, he said. We should say thank you, but [what the executive order does]should have been totally expected.

Several religious freedom experts and observers said Thursday they dont expect the executive order to change anything.

The Johnson Amendment is so rarely enforced that the language in the executive order about free speech is practically meaningless, said John Inazu, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis.

For a stark contrast, think about the immediate consequences to real people of Trumps immigration order, Inazu said in an email. The provision that could affect the Little Sisters of the Poor instructs agencies to consider issuing amended regulations, something Trump didnt need an executive order to do.

The executive order doesnt hint that pastors should be allowed to endorse from the pulpit, said Douglas Laycock, a professor at University of Virginia Law and an expert on religious freedom. It suggests churches should not be found guilty of implied endorsements where secular organizations would not be, but Laycock says he doesnt hear of stories where that has happened.

But the IRS does jawbone churches in a way that it does not appear to jawbone secular nonprofits. Maybe thats what its supposed to be about, he wrote in an email. The three agencies will likely do something for the Little Sisters, but no one knows what, and this order in itself does nothing.

In his Rose Garden remarks, said Charles Haynes, a religious freedom expert at the Newseum, Trump appeared to misunderstand the current IRS regulations to mean that religious leaders are kept from speaking about political or public policy issues. Religious leaders can endorse candidates or parties, but they cant do it from the pulpit or in the name of the church.

The executive order tells various Cabinet secretaries to come up with regulations protecting religious liberty consistent with current law but it doesnt necessarily change the status quo, which Haynes described as all talk and no action.

President Trump may think theatrics in the Rose Garden will satisfy his base, but somehow I doubt it, Haynes said.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which many might expect would oppose the executive order, said Thursday that it had no plans to file a lawsuit. The ACLUs executive director, Anthony Romero, said in a statement that the order was an elaborate photo-op with no discernible policy outcome.

At Thursdays gala, evangelical author and radio host Eric Metaxas, who endorsed Trump, threw up his hands and said he didnt know what to think about the executive order. The order had pleased many evangelical pastors who had dinner with the president and key members of his staff on Wednesday night where he first announced his plans.

The order shows how Trump delivers on his campaign promises, said Franklin Graham, president of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and Samaritans Purse. Grahams ministries were audited by the IRS four years ago after they took out ads urging people to support political candidates who believe marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. Speaking by telephone Thursday, Graham said he wont change the way he runs his ministries, but he sees that as protection from the IRS.

We should not be muzzled for speaking out on political issues just because were people of faith, he said. Like other religious conservatives, Graham said that while he would like to see more protections for business owners, he was pleased with Thursdays outcome.

Could more be done? Yes. I think well take what we can take when we can get it, Graham said. Eighty percent is better than nothing.

Graham called African American churches smart because they just ignored that amendment all together. Theyve been having politicians in their pulpits for years, he said. White pastors shouldve just ignored it but they didnt.

According a 2016 survey the Pew Research Center, just 14 percent of Americans heard their clergy speak for or against a candidate last spring or summer, compared with 29 percent of black Protestants who had heard their clergy speak out directly about specific political candidates.

Eugene F.Rivers III, a black Pentecostal minister in Boston who was attending Thursdays gala, said the Johnson Amendment has not been on the list of pastors concerns. Defending religious freedoms of the black church, which serves the poor in many communities across the country, should be a priority, said Rivers, who is director of the Seymour Institute for Black Church and Policy Studies. Rivers said religious groups were treated like useful idiots duringthe Obama administration, but he wasnt thrilled with this particular executive order either.

While we understand the political motivation of our white evangelical brothers, theres probably a more sophisticated approach to religious freedom, Rivers said.

This piece has been updated.

Read the original here:

Many religious freedom advocates are actually disappointed with Trump's executive order - Washington Post

ROB STOCK

Last updated14:44, May 8 2017

STAPLES RODWAY

Tax Freedom Day has fallen six days later than it did last year, according to the accountants who calculate it.

Each year Staples Rodway works out the day when New Zealanders have "collectively paid off theirtaxbill for the year and can keep the rest of their income for themselves".

It does itby analysing GDP,taxrevenue and currenttax brackets, and concluded that people were effectively paying moretaxthan they did in 2016.

"The total amount Kiwis paid intaxeshas increased by 9.5 per cent year-on-year, more than double the increase of last year, alongside a 5.1 per cent increase in nominal GDP," said Staples Rodway's Mike Rudd.

READ MORE: *KiwiSavers 'harshly' taxed compared to property investors, book claims *Tax freedom day falls again

While things like council rates have been rising in many areas, the increase in the tax take was largely explained byrising corporate profits, and hence the tax companies paid.

STAPLES RODWAY

Mike Rudd, tax expert from Staples Rodway, says the country is paying more tax this year than last.

"Our methodology shows the true impact of the government on your back pocket each year," said Rudd.

"Most of the growth in governmenttaxrevenue has come from the corporate sector.

"By the end of February this year, corporatetaxcollected was already 25 per cent higher than in the year to March 2016. In the absence of any majortaxchanges in the last year, this can only be a sign of a well performing New Zealand economy in spite of uncertainty on the global horizon."

123rf

Let's talk about tax, baby! It's the word on everyone's lips with Tax Freedom Day, and the launch of a popular book on tax fairness falling on the same day.

"Bracket creep" was also having an impact as rising wages resultedin people moving into higher tax brackets.

A person earning the average national wage was paying nearly 3per cent more intaxthan they did in 2011, said Rudd.

"Had the marginaltaxbrackets moved in line with wage growth, the average wage earner would have an extra $33 in their pocket per week."

Tax Freedom Day can shift a great deal, depending on who occupies the Beehive. In 2008, Staples Rodway declared May 21 was Tax Freedom Day.

In 2012, it fell onApril 27.

SUPPLIED

Deborah Russell is one of the co-authors of Tax and Fairness published by BWB Texts.

ACT leader David Seymour the taxpayer was "persecuted" under the current government.

"I thought getting rid of the socialists in 2008 meant happy days for taxpayers, but today's setback leaves us in a crappy haze," he said.

"In just one year, New Zealanders have lost an extra week to the government."

Tax Freedom Day falls on the same day that a new book on tax fairness was published by BWB Texts authored by tax experts Terry Baucher and Deborah Russell.

In Tax and Fairness they call for a system that taxes income and wealth gains more consistently, as currently wealthy people can earn a lot of their annual increases in wealth from capital gains, which are often not taxed at all.

Baucher and Russelloppose the demonisation of tax.

"We need to understand taxation as the price we pay for a civilised society. It is not an unjustified impost from a tyrannical government, as libertarians argue; it is the contribution we choose to make through our democratic institutions ensuring that each of us is enabled to flourish, and live a good life," Russell and Bauchersaid.

"Proudly paying our taxes is a sign that we believe in our own capacity to create a flourishing society that gives all New Zealanders fair opportunities. We should smile when we pay our taxes."

Rudd said tax freedom days were calculated in many countries around the world, and the New Zealand date sat around the middle of the pack.

Everyone's individual tax freedom day would vary. For property investors, for example, it "probably would be a lot earlier," Rudd said.

"We are hearing that the government is considering providing some relief to the taxpayer in this year's Budget to be delivered on May 25," Rudd said. "Our hope is that this will include adjustingtaxbrackets to account for inflation over the past nine years since the last adjustment."

-Stuff

Read the rest here:

NZ's Tax Freedom Day has arrived 6 days later this year - but is paying tax so bad? - Stuff.co.nz

Last week Lib Dem leader Tim Farron was hauled over the coals for his beliefs about homosexuality. Apparently Farron once suggested that homosexual sex is a sin which led to five days of intense pressure from the media, politicians and celebrities, to clarify his stance on the issue. "The true sinner is Farron himself" said David Walliams: "You are definitely a sinner for your continued intolerance and prejudice." Meanwhile David Baddiel branded Farron "a fundamentalist Christian homophobe" which is surely as bad as anything Tim Farron asserted in the first place. Labour's shadow chancellor John McDonnell said it's "appalling" if Farron thinks homosexual sex is sinful.

Eventually the Lib Dem leader declared to the BBC that homosexual sex is not a sin. But should it really matter if Farron does hold a private view that is contrary to what is mainstream in 21st century Britain? This is a personal conviction that is clearly not impacting on his policies - he has voted in favour of LGBT rights and freedoms on a regular basis.

Even if Farron announced in public that in his mind homosexual sex is a sin he should have the freedom to continue to say it, not to be silenced, humiliated publically and hounded out of office. Yes, many people will find such views distasteful and deeply offensive perhaps but the answer to this is open debate and a robust exchange of ideas not censorship. As the great philosopher JS Miller said if we silence the expression of an opinion we "rob the human race" either by depriving the opportunity of exchanging error for truth or, if the opinion is wrong, losing the clearer perception of truth.

Freedom of thought and freedom of speech, if it is any freedom at all, must encompass the freedom to disagree and to challenge received wisdom. As part of this it must accommodate for the dissenting opinion and what many perceive to be the unpleasant belief.

Lord Justice Sedley, in his landmark ruling in the case of Richmond-Bate, put it better than anybody. He said that free thought and flowing from this free speech includes "not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having." True liberalism and an enlightened and progressive approach to politics must recognise and embrace this.

Read more:

Freedom Of Thought And Speech Must Include The Offensive, The Irritating, The Contentious And The Heretical - HuffPost UK

From left: femLINK Pacific executive director Sharon Bhagwan-Rolls, Fiji Sun managing editor training Nemani Delaibatiki, US Ambassador to Fiji Judith Cefkin, Fiji Times deputy editor in chief Elenoa Baselala, Senior Lecturer and Co-ordinator USP journalism programme Shailendra Singh during the World Press Freedom Day panel discussion at the University of the South Pacific in Suva on May 3, 2017.

This is an edited version of Nemani Delaibatikis My Say on last nights FBCs 4 The Record programme.

There has been a lot said about Media Freedom in this country coinciding with World Press Freedom Day celebrated on May 3. Media Freedom is all our freedom. When people attack media freedom they attack all our freedom because Media Freedom is an important pillar of democracy.

Journalists must be allowed to freely do their work. Last year three of our female journalists from FBC, Fiji TV and Fiji Sun were attacked outside the Suva Court by members of the public. As far as the Fiji Sun case is concerned, we have not heard what had happened to the suspect, after a complaint was lodged with the Police.

Journalists have a legitimate and lawful role to play in our democracy. Anyone who tries to stop a journalist from carrying out his or her work is breaking the law.

Journalists must be allowed to work in an environment that is free and without fear or intimidation.

We should condemn all acts of violence, threats and intimidation against journalists.

Journalists have responsibilities that come with Media Freedom. There is no such a thing as absolute freedom. Its the same in many democracies around the world. There are laws that are there to protect people. The Defamation Law is a classic example. It gives people the right to sue a journalist if they feel they have been defamed. Journalists here are required to adhere to a code of ethics that is incorporated in the Media Decree. There is nothing new in the code because it was adopted from the practices of the past.

I want to say categorically that we enjoy media freedom in Fiji, that journalists are free to do their job. There seems to be a perception that there is no media freedom or that the media is restricted. That is not true. If it was true we would not have a robust media today that includes two daily newspapers and a number of magazines, a host of radio stations and three television stations operating in a very competitive media environment.

The fear is a hangover from the days of the censors in the newsroom. Those days are long gone and Id like to encourage all journalists to go out and do their job. Parliament has also repealed the penalty provision for journalists in the decree. If journalists follow the basic rules of journalism that their stories are accurate, fair and balanced and in the pubic interest there is nothing to worry about.

We all need to be grateful and build on what we have today. Its a far cry from those dark days when journalists worked under immense pressure during the height of the political upheaval.

Media Freedom should not be viewed purely by whats happening now. But it should be taken into context with what has happened since 1987.

We should all do whatever we can within our power that we do not go back to 1987. We know what happened in 1987. A lot of people were hurt and the economy went into a tailspin. Racial and religious division and disharmony plunged the country into a serious political crisis. Only a minority benefitted from the turmoil that ensued. The first and subsequent coups just prolonged the agony. The barriers that divided us and bred prejudices and racism have now gone. We now have a Constitution that for the first time eliminates racial segregation. We now have equal citizenry and common identity. This provision outlaws discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, religion, colour of skin, physical conditions, gender and sexual orientation. These are universal principles that are strongly rooted in many religious beliefs including Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. Everyone is equal before civil law and Gods law.

But the events of 1987 clearly breached the law on both fronts.

One of the responsibilities of the media today is to report and articulate issues to help people make responsible decisions so that there is no repeat of 1987 and the subsequent coups.

The media cannot operate in isolation and say thats not our responsibility. Anything that incites racial and religious tension is obviously not good for us.

Again I reiterate that while the media enjoys this freedom it also has an important responsibility to protect and defend democracy and all the principles enshrined in our Constitution.

The media is an essential stakeholder in our quest for peace, tolerance, stability and prosperity.

Edited by Naisa Koroi

Feedback: jyotip@fijisun.com.fj

See the rest here:

Media Freedom Is Our Freedom - Fiji Sun Online