Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

The other shoe has dropped for Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ).

His campaign committee has agreed to pay a $125,000 federal fine for misusing donor money and associated reporting violations, according to new Federal Election Commission disclosures.

The investigation, which found reason to believe that the violations were knowing and willful, was the FEC twin of a separate congressional ethics probe that fined the Arizona Republican $50,000 in 2020 for nearly a dozen violations. The inquiries centered around Schweikerts dealings with his former chief of staff, political consultant Oliver Schwab, specifically payments to Schwabs personal credit card and firm.

The agreement was signed on Jan. 12, and the FEC released the documents almost a month later on Friday. As part of the agreement, the Schweikert campaign admitted to breaking three federal lawsall related to expenses.

The violations occurred sporadically between 2014 and 2018. In that time, the campaign misreported about $50,000 worth of expenses as going straight to Schwab, without disclosing the sub-vendors Schwab then paid.

Those reports also did not correctly describe another approximately $78,000 in payments, applying generic consulting labels instead of the true categories, which included web services, food and beverage, and gifts.

Finally, the campaign converted about $1,500 to personal use, including by reimbursing staffers who covered Schweikerts personal costs out of pocketincluding dry cleaning and flight upgrades.

As part of the agreement, the campaign has also filed a series of corrected reports from the time of the violations, clarifying the expenses. The reports came in on Thursday night and acknowledge that the campaign has directly repaid the vendors, which include the Capitol Hill Club, an art store, and the Scottsdale Plaza Resort.

Schweikert, who touts his commitment to defending fiscal responsibility, first entered Congress on the initial Tea Party wave in 2010. He belongs to the ultraconservative Freedom Caucus, serves on the Ways and Means and Joint Economic Committees, and was among the 138 House Republicans who objected to Donald Trumps defeat in the 2020 electionhowever, he only objected to ballots from Pennsylvania, not his own state, where he had won re-election with about 55 percent of the vote.

The $125,000 FEC fine for the 2020 Fiscal Hero is more than double the penalty he incurred from the House ethics probe, which, in addition to the financial wrongdoing, also found that Schweikert impeded congressional investigators.

But those fines pale in comparison to Schweikerts legal costs associated with the investigation. Since 2018, the firm handling the matter, Holtzman Vogel Josefiak & Torchinsky PLLC, has collected more than $1 million in legal fees from the Schweikert campaign, according to FEC data.

Still, the investigations differ in two other key ways.

First, the congressional investigation was public knowledge at the time, but the FEC investigation has been a secret for three and a half yearsuntil today.

The congressional probe stemmed from a 2017 Washington Examiner report detailing large payments to Schwab, in an apparent violation of rules limiting outside income for senior congressional staff. Following the report, the Office of Congressional Ethics opened an inquiry, which led them to recommend the House open a full-blown ethics investigation. The Ethics Committee announced that investigation on June 28, 2018.

At the time, Schweikert downplayed the allegations, describing them to reporters as purely clerical.

We buy coffee, its on [Schwabs] credit card and we reimburse him. And when they did the reimbursements, they marked it as income instead of reimbursements. So now we have to unwind all of those, Schweikert said.

Its annoying, he added, but its just the way it works. I think everyone is going to be happy with how weve unwound the clerical mistakes.

The other key difference is how the investigations started.

The OCE opened its inquiry after the Washington Examiner report, but the FEC did not. It was actually the Schweikert campaign who asked the FEC to open the investigation, filing a sua sponte complaint with the commissionof his own accord in Latinand identifying its own violations of campaign finance law.

The campaign filed the secret complaint on June 29, 2018, the day after Schweikert shrugged off the House ethics probe. Ten days later, Schwab was out of work.

See the original post here:

GOP Congressman David Schweikert Fined $125,000 For Financial Violations - The Daily Beast

The House completed work on SB 4 on January 31st. The bill repeals a nuclear power ban that has been in effect in the state for 26 years. This move makes it possible for nuclear production in the Mountain State. Our action sends strong message to the global economy that we arere moving forward with our economy. The bill now awaits action by the Governor.

Technology is moving quickly, and West Virginia has to keep up to compete on a global scale, which also means meeting the global economys demands. We dont think the fossil industry is going away any time soon, nor do we want it to. Our fossil industry will continue powering the country for the foreseeable future, but we want to be sure West Virginia is providing options and signaling to the rest of the world that were a great place to consider doing business of all kinds. Speak of the House, Roger Hanshaw

A newly created committee, the Select Committee on Coalfield Communities, whose design is to focus on ways to solve the problems facing coalfield communities, reported out its first piece of legislation tis week. HB 4497. This bill creates the Coalfield Grant Facilitation Act of 2022 is designed to create matching funds in order to secure federal, private or nonprofit grants targeted specifically for coalfield communities. This commission would work with higher education in the state to get help in applying for the funding.

A lot of effort has been going on both openly and behind the scenes with our Coalfield Communities group ever since the end of last years session, and were so pleased to already have a bill created and passed out of our brand-new committee. I know it can be discouraging when it feels like nothing is being done or things arent moving quick enough, but were excited to have regular, weekly meetings now and really work through a lot of the recommendations were ready to see implemented. Delegate Ed Evans, D-McDowell.

House Bill 4479, the Coalfield Grant Facilitation Act of 2022, would create a commission to administer the necessary matching funds to secure federal, private or nonprofit grants for coalfield community organizations or entities to fund development projects. The new commission also would coordinate with higher education institutions throughout the state to help in applying for those grants.

HB 4007 was introduced on February 3rd and will reduce personal income tax rates. It also creates a fund where half of each Fiscal years general revenue surplus would be deposited. Presently surplus is deposited into the Rainy-Day Fund.

Tax Freedom Day is the date when, theoretically, taxpayers on average have worked enough days to earn exactly whats needed to pay their total tax bills for the entire year. Right now, its mid-April for West Virginia, and I want us to be able to keep more money in our pockets to get to Tax Freedom Day sooner. Eric Householder, Chair of Finance

The newly formed Select Committee on Jails and Prisons, which I am honored to chair, was created at the beginning of the session charged with the task of seeking long term solutions regarding our jails and prisons.

The committee toured the Western Regional Jail this week. Western is currently one of only two jails in the state that has a G.O.A.L.S. unit (Getting Over Addictive Lifestyles Successfully) and the only one of its kind that has a unit for females to participate in the program.

G.O.A.L.S., is a 6-9-month drug rehabilitation program where participating inmate are sectioned off from the main population of the jail. The purpose if to focus on their recovery. I believe this is one pf the best programs around that tackles the problems that accompany addiction.

Go here to read the rest:

In the House: Week 4 | News, Sports, Jobs - Tyler Star News

NORFOLK In the nearly two decades since the New Markets Tax Credits program began, Norfolk lawyer Delphine G. Carnes has marketed her expertise putting together the often-complicated deals that entice investors to projects in low-income areas.

While those ventures can serve as a catalyst for private investment in often-neglected neighborhoods and rural regions, they also yield millions in administrative and other fees for community development entities that broker the deals.

Carnes, who is the lawyer for the Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority, highlighted that in an April 2017 website post featuring a primer on administering new markets tax credits. For every $39 million in credits, the report said, a community development entity earns $3 million in administrative fees. There could be additional opportunities for profit, according to the post, including collecting an asset management fee for the seven-year duration of the investment, a loan origination fee, and an exit or success fee.

The Carnes primer suggests that Hampton Roads Ventures, the for-profit NRHA community development subsidiary, should have earned tens of millions in administration fees for the $360 million in new markets tax credits it has won since 2003. NRHA officials cited the lure of those fees when HRV shifted from investing in Norfolk to backing projects as far away as Texas and Nebraska.

But Hampton Roads Ventures hasnt come close to producing what they promised. As of September, only $1.3 million has been transferred from HRV to NRHA over the years, all since 2016, according to documents obtained through the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.

How much has HRV earned in fees brokering tax credits deals? Its not clear.

Housing authority officials have refused to release HRVs complete financial records, refused interview requests and refused to explain the documents they have surrendered. HRVs executives also refused interview requests.

The skeletal documents obtained through records requests raise a number of questions.

Why would NRHA with a lawyer expert in tax credits deals not maximize the fees earned by HRV?

Why for years did NRHA employees, including the executive director, get paid separately to work for HRV while also drawing housing authority paychecks?

One-page summaries of Hampton Roads Ventures finances filed with NRHAs budgets, show that HRV has paid nearly twice as much in the last decade $2.5 million for labor/administration than it has funneled to NRHA. Thats a departure from other community development entities created by public agencies that are staffed and paid by those authorities.

The records also raise questions about how much oversight NRHAs Board of Commissioners, who are also the board of managers of Hampton Roads Venture, have exercised over the years.

NRHA has twice refused requests under the Freedom of Information Act to release the complete financial records of Hampton Roads Ventures, claiming it receives no public funds. Other public housing agencies, including the Portsmouth Redevelopment and Housing Authority, which also created a for-profit community development entity, released their records upon request.

Donald Musacchio, the chair of NRHAs board of commissioners, and Alphonso Albert, the vice chair, refused requests for interviews, through Carnes (who is also HRVs longtime lawyer). So did NRHAs executive director, Ronald Jackson.

Why is a Norfolk community development entity investing everywhere but Norfolk?

While NRHA refused to release HRVs annual financial statements, authority budgets for the past decade have included a one-page, unaudited summary of Hampton Roads Ventures financial status. Those summaries show that the for-profit subsidiary of NRHA hasnt come close to generating even the average fees reported by independent studies of the new markets tax credits program.

A 2017 study by Summit Consulting, commissioned by the Treasury Department, found community development entities earned an average of 8.7 percent of eachallocation in fees with the typical range between 4 and 16 percent.

In 2013, John Kownack, then the head of HRV, but also an NRHA executive, told Inside Business that by administering $45 million in allocations, HRV could net $1.2 million, money that would benefit NRHA. We had nine projects that we identified in our application and with every transaction HRV will make money, he said.

Once projects are funded, they take seven years to fully mature while throwing off fees annually. HRVs tax allocations by 2014 totaled $260 million (they now total $360 million). If the corporation earned average fees, the payout could have been more than $20 million by this year although those fees would also be used to cover expenses for lawyers, auditors and consultants.

New markets tax credits deals vary widely and often require significant legal and auditing expenditures. If there are reasons for HRVs financial results, NRHA and HRV officials arent explaining.

One answer to how much HRV has earned came in an October 2016 letter from then-Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority chair Barbara Hamm Lee, obtained through a records request. In the letter, Hamm Lee noted that HRV had $2.3 million available for distribution to NRHA representing the cumulative outcome of HRVs operations since its inception.

That year, by contrast, a one-page sheet in NRHAs budget showed HRV had $7.2 million in reserve. Its not clear from the letter why only $2.3 million was available to the authority.

An email, also obtained through a records request, revealed that HRV made an initial payment to NRHA of $100,000 in 2017. With subsequent payments, the total transferred to NRHA has been $1.3 million, a million dollars less than Hamm Lee was told was available five years ago and nearly $6 million less than the reserves.

The $1.3 million HRV transferred to NRHA was used for a variety of programs including adult workforce development, community improvements (repairs to buildings), community engagement and youth services like summer enrichment programs.This summer, the housing authority requested another $700,000.

While those expenditures filled gaps in NRHA programs, they did not invest in projects that brought housing or businesses that would increase employment and spur private development in distressed areas of Norfolk, a goal of the New Markets Tax Credits program.

How much oversight the housing authority exercises over HRV remains unclear because the one-page HRV summaries in the annual NRHA budget can be inconsistent. They list revenue and expense figures for the three most recent years as well as the proposed budget for the upcoming year. But some pages report different figures for the same year without explanation. The fiscal year 2021 budget, for example, shows HRV with a deficit of $599,665 for calendar year 2018. But the fiscal year 2022 budget shows a deficit of only $123,383 for 2018. Why was there an adjustment of more than $400,000?

Neither NRHA nor HRV officials are explaining.

HRVs profits over 10 years, according to those summaries, amounted to more than $6.7 million. Expenses listed under salaries and benefits alone were $2.48 million during that time, nearly double what it transferred to NRHA. Legal fees over those 10 years totaled $1.69 million.

HRVs costs for salaries and benefits have been rising from $288,567 in 2018 to $532,000 budgeted for 2021. The corporations website showed a staff of four for most of this year, including a CEO, an executive assistant, a portfolio manager and Kownack, NRHAs former executive director who was listed as director of business development until he departed on Nov. 1.

The corporations reserves were $8.5 million in 2020, according to an audit NRHA supplied in response to a records request. Thats a rise from $4.4 million reported for the calendar year 2011. Profits in 2018 and 2019 were $496,001 and $551,233, respectively. In their annual reports, NRHAs auditors say they receive statements from Hampton Roads, but do not audit the company.

NRHA created Hampton Roads Ventures as a for-profit corporation in 2003 with the housing authoritys commissioners as the governing body.

But the first year that summaries of HRVs finances appear is in a June 2012 document. NRHA reported that it could not find a similar page for the 2011 budget. Copies of NRHA budgets for 2010, 2009 and 2008 reviewed in an online archive make no mention of HRV. (NRHA removed all but recent budgets from its website during a redesign this summer).

Hampton Roads Ventures, through Carnes, its attorney, refused to voluntarily release its financial records. Public records requests about Hampton Roads Ventures to the U.S. Treasury Department are pending. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, in response to a records request, said it did not have any audits for any years that Hampton Roads Ventures has been active.

Michael Gerber, the interim chief executive officer of the National Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials and the CEO of the Housing Authority of Austin, Texas, said housing authorities are looking for ways to do more with less and trying to tap the profit power of community development entities might be one.

Are there other housing authorities using for-profit community development entities in an attempt to create new funding streams? Gerber wasnt sure. His authority in Austin is not, although it has created nonprofit subsidiaries like the Austin Affordable Housing Corporation to create and manage affordable housing in the city. In Texas, he added, state law dictates that housing authorities can only create nonprofit subsidiaries whose finances are public.

My guess is that its (Hampton Roads Ventures) a little more unusual, but I havent surveyed the different projects that have used new markets tax credits, he said.

Housing authorities that have created community development entities (CDEs) like HRV typically overlap staff. But HRV appears to be unusual because in years past it has paid NRHA staff separately for their work.

The community development entities for the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Authority, the city of Chicago and the Virginia Community Development Corporation, for instance, are staffers for their parent organizations (although the VCDC subsidiary recently hired an employee to handle paperwork). They are not paid separately or extra for that work. The Chicago Development Fund shows salaries paid as zero on its most recent tax return.

At NRHA, thats not been the case. In a letter responding to a public records request, Carnes said NRHA employees working for HRV were paid separately. No public funds, she added, were used to pay to anyone who worked for HRV. Any NRHA employee who provided services to HRV was compensated for those services by HRV, not by NRHA, she wrote.

Carnes herself works for both entities. NRHAs current contract with her, obtained through a records request, is for $750,000 over two years, including a monthly retainer of $9,975 and an hourly partners rate of $335. An amendment to the contract signed this year provides for an additional $1.5 million to cover additional outside counsel handling the lawsuit seeking a new relocation plan for the St. Pauls area, where NRHA is moving residents to create a mixed-use development. Carnes has also worked for housing authorities in Chesapeake, Suffolk and Franklin. How much she has earned from HRV over the years is not known.

The overlap between NRHA and HRV began at the outset. Robert Jenkins, HRVs first head, was also an NRHA employee from 2000 until he left in 2008. Jenkins earned $131,000 his last full year at NRHA. He left Hampton Roads Ventures in 2011. When he departed, NRHA issued a press release praising his work for HRV.

Jenkins, a lawyer, had been fired in 1994 from his first job in public housing after one year as director of Washington D.C.s Department of Public and Assisted Housing over his performance.

A 2003 Norfolk Redevelopment and Housing Authority article on the first new markets tax allocation said Stephen Blair, NRHAs programs planning manager at the time, was also operations manager of HRV and now spends most of his hours handling the myriad details that go into NMTC administration.

When Jenkins left, John Kownack, then NRHAs chief housing reinvention officer, took over as head of Hampton Roads Ventures, working both jobs. Kownack remained on staff when Jennifer Donohue became HRVs CEO. He retired from NRHA in 2020, but stayed as an employee of HRV. Carnes, answering a request for an interview with him, said he left the company on Nov. 1.

In October 2019, the HRV website listed three staffers Donohue, Kownack, who was still NRHAs executive director earning more than $150,000, and an executive assistant (there was also a five-member advisory board). The NRHA budget sheets show costs for salaries and benefits for 2019 were $337,661.

How much did Kownack and Jenkins get paid by HRV in addition to their NRHA salaries?

Theres no way to know. NRHA, in response to a records request, said it does not require employees to file conflict of interest statements, which would have revealed the payments.

In response to a records request for transfers of funds from the housing authority to Hampton Roads Ventures, NRHA issued a page showing payments from HRV for Hampton Roads Ventures Management ranging from $1,666 to $360,157 annually from 2006 to 2020. They total $1.35 million. The sheet also listed transfers for HRV Management Fee paid to NRHA for $30,000 annually from 2008 through 2019 totaling $360,000.

Why would HRV be paying a management fee to NRHA if the housing authority has no control? NRHA offered no answers. When an NRHA spokesperson was asked for details about those transfers, Carnes replied by email, saying the Freedom of Information Act does not cover explanations. NRHA is not required to address your request for an explanation or clarification regarding the data provided, she wrote.

See the rest here:

The mystery of the management fees - Virginia Mercury

Kim KardashianKimberly (Kim) Noel Kardashian WestKim Kardashian says she's 'a mix of both' parties Kim Kardashian says she's passed 'baby bar exam' Phantom justice and the death penalty MORE says she's a blend of both political parties because she believes in the "rights" that Democrats want, but considers herself a fiscal conservative.

"I believe in the rights that the Democrats want, but I believe in the taxes that the Republicans want," the reality TV fixture said in an interview published Thursday on former New York Times columnist Bari Weiss's "Common Sense" Substack. "Im a mix of both," Kardashian said, when asked her political affiliation.

The 41-year-old criminal justice reform activist, who is studying to earn a law degree, weighed in on politics and cancel culture in the wide-ranging chat.

Asked if she would ever run for public office, Kardashian replied, "As of right now, no. I understand the responsibility, and its an extremely hard job, and I don't know if Id ever want that."

Kardashian also told Weiss that she was "very nervous" before her now-estranged husband, rapper Kanye WestKanye Omari WestKim Kardashian says she's 'a mix of both' parties Kim Kardashian says she's passed 'baby bar exam' Publicist 'not associated' with Kanye West at time of election incident: spokesperson MORE, went onstage while guest-hosting "Saturday Night Live" in 2018 sporting a pro-Trump "Make America Great Again" hat.

"I didnt want him to wear the red hat. Im not really a rule breaker, so my personality would be like, 'OK, you guys dont like the red hat? Ill take it off,'" Kardashian said.

"Im very neutral, but that night I was very forceful with him, and argued with him like, 'You have to take that hat off.' And now looking back, I think, why should he take that off if thats what he believes in? Why cant he wear that on TV? Half of the country voted for [Trump], so clearly other people like him," Kardashian said.

The SKIMS founder said the episode with West who launched an unsuccessful White House bid last year taught her to "be a little bit more empathetic" towards people who "just want to do what they want to do: freedom of speech!"

The "Keeping up With the Kardashians" star also brushed off critics of her 2018 Oval Office meeting with then-President TrumpDonald TrumpBill O'Reilly says Trump will run again Iran's Revolutionary Guard stages massive exercise amid heightened tensions DC police officer beaten during Jan. 6 attack resigns MORE, during which she urged him to commute the sentence of Alice Marie Johnson. Trump granted clemency to Johnson, who was serving a life sentence on a nonviolent drug offense and money laundering charges, days later.

"I really dont care about the criticism. I mean, my reputation over someones life? Destroy me then. I really dont care. It was not even an option. And he did the right thing," Kardashian said of Trump.

"Im just about doing the right thing; Im really not about politics at all," the mom of four continued. "Its really about the people inside and if I can do anything no matter if its Obama, Biden, Trump, Im willing to work with anybody. Its not really about being liked. If I could change someone's life, thats what its about for me."

Kardashian also addressed cancel culture and past accusations against her of cultural appropriation. The original name for her SKIMS shapewear line was Kimono, but it was changed in 2019 after critics condemned her for using the name of the Japanese traditional dress.

"When it comes to something as serious as cultural appropriation, even if I know my intentions are good, I never want to take anything lightly," Kardashian said.

"Still, if I worried about every last thing that someone said and I had to try to change it, then I would never be me. Anyone wouldnt be them!" she said. "Thats why I think cancel culture is the most ridiculous thing, because I really do believe and you and I have been at several dinners together where people are discussing their thoughts on it in rehabilitation and freedom of speech. Ive never really been into cancel culture."

Read the rest here:

Kim Kardashian says she's 'a mix of both' parties | TheHill - The Hill

Conservatives have a shrinking tent problem. Rather than growing their movement with addition, or even multiplication, they seem determined to shrink it by division and subtraction. If they want to be relevant, they will need to relearn important lessons from William F. Buckley in the 1960s and President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s and figure out how to build a bigger tent.

The foundational premise for growing a tent is to recognize how many different kinds of conservatives might, if welcomed, choose to camp there. In fact, the number of adjectives that go with the noun "conservative" is almost mind-boggling. There are national security conservatives, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, Christian conservatives, crunchy conservatives, neocons, paleocons, libertarians, traditionalists, and on we could go. If conservatism is about conserving something, these are all things that one conservative or another would like to protect.

The problem is that todays conservatives would rather be part of a smaller group with which they agree entirely than a larger extended family that is related but not identical. If you dont believe in limiting abortion, for example, then some Christian and social conservatives will reject you. If you believe the 2020 election was stolen, or not, that puts up more barriers. Are masks an appropriate requirement in a public health crisis or an unacceptable limitation on individual freedom? Be careful, conservatives, your answer to that question could also put you outside the tent.

The failure of conservatives to accommodate a bigger tent affects the Republican Party and risks its future electoral success. While Republicanism and conservatism are not identical twins, they are at least cousins, and what one does often affects the other. In February, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy said the Republican Party should be a very big tent, one with room for both anti-Trump Rep. Liz Cheney and pro-Trump Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene. But later McCarthy moved away from his support of Cheney. If the Republican Party will still be fully devoted to former President Donald Trump, and leave no room for other conservatives, it may face further losses such as it suffered at the polls in 2020.

Conservatives should revisit two times in their history when they built and occupied a big tent. Buckley built the first big tent with his National Review journal, making space for the varieties of conservatism. In fact, his editor Frank Meyer called the approach fusionism, a philosophy holding that liberty and virtue, or free markets and traditional values, were not in conflict and should live comfortably together. This is precisely the kind of conversation conservatives should be having instead of debating the 2020 election results.

Reagan is the second conservative who managed a big tent. But as the late Bob Dole pointed out, many of the Nixon-era and Reagan-era conservatives would not be welcome in the tent (or in the Republican Party) now. In those days, some conservatives accepted abortion and some did not, a tolerant range of views that would be widely rejected by many conservatives today. Reagan was a pragmatist who accepted tax and debt increases as necessary from time to time. He even managed to reach a large number of working-class Reagan Democrats.

Conservatives need a big tent revival. Rather than purging their movement of people with whom they disagree, they need to relearn the lessons of Buckley and Reagan and build a bigger tent. The alternative is irrelevance.

David Davenport is a research fellow at the Hoover Institution and a senior fellow at the Ashbrook Center.

See the rest here:

Conservatives must grow their tent - Washington Examiner

By William Wolfe, Op-ed contributor | Tuesday, December 21, 2021

In the nascent moments of Wednesday morning, just shortly after the clock struck midnight, the House of Representatives voted 221 to 209 to raise the national debt ceiling by another $2.5 trillion. The resolution providing the increase in our federal borrowing limit had passed the Senate on Tuesday afternoon, by a vote of 50-49. It will now sail on to President Bidens desk as swiftly as the best built and flung paper airplane, where it will promptly be signed into law.

And just like that, the U.S. government grants itself a credit line increase of staggering proportions. One unavoidable yet long-term effect of this choice will be to drive the worth of our currency closer and closer to the value of the piece of paper that the bill was printed on and President Biden signed.

As it stands, the national debt is over$29 trillion. After the full extent of this increase is spent and it will be the national debt will exceed $30 trillion, a truly astronomical number. I used to work in Congress, and I can remember when it was a big deal that the debtpassed $15 trillion.

That was 10 years ago. Since then, the national debt has doubled. This is an incredibly serious economic and financial issue facing our nation. It is also a moral issue. So, here are three things that Christians should keep in mind when considering the issue of the United States national debt.

First, these blank-check debt ceiling increases reveal that our government is failing in its basic, God-given duty to care for its citizens and promote the good.

While often lauded as avoiding a disastrous default on our nations debt, the reality is that Congress and the president have failed, yet again, to deal with a problem that demands their attention. God instituted human government to serve as earthly representatives of His ultimate authority. Romans 13:4 teaches us that the one in authority is Gods servant for your good. Now, the good is a fairly general term, but it, of course, entails that the government take responsibility for the welfare of the people it is responsible for, doing justice and governing in wisdom and righteousness.

Kicking the can down the road on dealing with our runaway debt is none of those things.

Bear in mind, the U.S. federal government doesnt make money. It takes it, from us, via taxes. Im not opposed to taxes, per se, because there are legitimate purposes for which the government should collect revenue, like the national defense. But implied in being a good steward of the God-given authority held by our government is beingfiscally responsible. The most basic measure of fiscal responsibility isnotspending more than you have to spend, unless in dire circumstances. Expenses should match income. This is budgeting 101. Apparently, our government needs to take a remedial course.

For those unfamiliar with how we rack up debt, increases in our national debt occur when annual federal deficits are incurred. That is, when Congress authorizes annual spending that exceeds what they collect in revenue for said year. For example, due to the wild spending spree related to COVID mitigation measures (which arguably did more harm than good to our national economy), thefederal deficit in 2020was over $3 trillion. Thus, because nothing else was done to offset the spending, that result was $3 trillion more added to the debt.

This is, fundamentally, an irresponsible way to govern a free-market economy. Piling up trillions and trillions in debt is not taking responsibility for solving the fiscal problems at hand such as our out-of-control entitlement spending or using authority for the good of us, the citizens.

What can be done about this? In general, Christians should demand that their congressional representatives support structural reforms that will decrease federal spending over the short and long term. If there is another need to raise the debt ceiling, which there will be again in 2023 unless real changes are made, Congress and the president should couple any increase with real spending cuts that allow the federal government to begin repaying its almost unimaginable debt. Taking responsibility for problems that need to be solved is a key feature of godly and good government. Sadly, that was not the outcome of this weeks legislation.

Second, for every trillion we borrow, America loses more of its freedom and national sovereignty.

There is no way around it: Holding massive debt is a form of financial slavery. Consider the parable of the unforgiving debtor in Matthew. Jesus begins the parable (which is about forgiveness) by reminding His listeners of the reality of debt entrapment. He says, Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished to settle accounts with his servants. When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. And since he could not pay, his master ordered him to be sold, with his wife and children and all that he had, and payment to be made (Matthew 18:23-25).

If you are incurring debts that you cannot repay, you are living life under the Damocles Sword of your creditors calling for you to settle accounts at a moments notice. If you cant, it wont go well for you. Now, thats a simplified form of what is happening with our national debt, but the principle still applies: Indebted nations are not truly free nations.

The first turn of the parable in Matthew has a happy ending: So the servant fell on his knees, imploring him, Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything. And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and forgave him the debt (Matthew 18:26-27).

But the reality we face is that no one is going to forgive Americas debt. And we absolutely cannot count on pleading our way out of a $30 trillion tab. This debt, and its obligations, hamstrings our economy, contributes to the devaluing of the dollar, and accelerates inflation. Even worse, servicing the debt making interest payments becomes a larger and larger portion of our federal spending in and of itself. According to theCongressional Budget Office, in 2020, the governments net outlays for interest totaled $345 billion accounting for 5.3% of total spending.

If America wants to remain a free and prosperous nation, avoiding the slavery that accompanies massive unpaid debts, we must get our fiscal house in order. This begins by freeing ourselves through budget reductions and implementing an aggressive strategy to pay down the debt.

Third, and finally, it is unjust and immoral to threaten the financial freedom and prosperity of future generations by burdening our countrys children with unsustainable debt today.

This is arguably the most important consideration for Christians. The reality is that this level of debt is immoral because it comes at the expense of our children and their future. In 1 Timothy 5:8, Paul writes that anyone who does not provide for their relatives, and especially for their own household, has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. Or, in Romans 13:7, Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue.

But perhaps most poignantly, in Proverbs 13:2, we learn, A good man leaves an inheritance to his childrens children. The opposite of that is that wicked men rob their children by saddling them with unpayable debt.

While I was no big fan of his overall tenure as Speaker of the House, John Boehner hadstrong wordsabout the immorality of our national debt when he assumed the Speakership, riding the Tea Party wave, in 2011. He said:

Here we must speak the truth. Yes, this level of debt is unsustainable. It is also immoral. Yes, this debt is a mortal threat to our country. It is also a moral threat. It is immoral to bind our children to as leeching and destructive a force as debt. It is immoral to rob our childrens future and make them beholden to China.

No society is worthy that treats its children so shabbily. A good man leaves an inheritance for his childrens children, Proverbs reminds us. For too long, Washington has been ignoring this time-honored principle.

As part of the designs of unrestrained government, Washington uses our people, our most plentiful resource, as its prime revenue source. Through more taxes and more regulations, money and freedom are drained from the people and transferred to Washington, which then redistributes these resources.

Former Speaker Boehner was right on the money here. (Pun intended? You decide). This approach to spending and debt is immoral because it is a burden placed on the back of future generations. It is an intergenerational injustice, a crime committed by the living against the yet-to-be-born.

For the sake of our children and the sake of our country, we must begin to balance the checkbook. Our future their future depends on it.

Originally published at the Standing for Freedom Center.

William Wolfe served as a senior official in the Trump administration, both as a deputy assistant secretary of defense at the Pentagon and a director of legislative affairs at the State Department. Prior to his service in the administration, Wolfe worked for Heritage Action for America, and as a congressional staffer for three different members of Congress, including the former Rep. Dave Brat. He has a B.A. in history from Covenant College, and is finishing his Masters of Divinity at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.Follow William on Twitter at @William_E_Wolfe

The rest is here:

$30 trillion and counting: How should Christians think about the national debt? - The Christian Post

The United Kingdom is not the fiscal monolith it once was. Until the devolution settlements of the New Labour era, tax and spending policy for all the constituent nations was set in Westminster. Today, the Northern Irish Assembly, the Welsh Senedd and the Scottish parliament have almost complete control over spending on public services. They can choose how to allocate their budgets between health, education, economic development and so on in ways that can, and increasingly do, differ from decisions made in Westminster and that affect only England.

However, the budgets they have to spend are largely set from Westminster. They are still based on the venerable Barnett formula, a supposedly temporary fix put in place in the dying days of the Callaghan government. It allocates funding to the other nations via a complex mechanism that broadly means the grants they receive from the Treasury change in proportion to changes in funding in England.

Even here, there has been some change. The Scottish and Welsh governments have some control over income tax, as well as over a handful of smaller taxes, and so have some ability to increase revenues or alter taxes to promote growth. After a long period of stasis, the Scots have made use of their powers over income tax, increasing the rates on higher earners and reducing them, slightly, on lower earners. The changes have been real and substantial, increasing revenues by about 4 per cent, or 500 million. Given that Scotlands population is less than one tenth that of the UK, thats equivalent to more than 5 billion in UK terms.

So good for them. Theyve used their powers to raise more money to spend on public services. Exactly the point of devolution. Except they havent ended up with any more money at all. That was the conclusion of a report by the Scottish Fiscal Commission published this month.

How can that be? Well, the devolution deal means that the amount of money the Scottish government receives depends on income tax revenues raised in Scotland. And because incomes have grown less quickly in Scotland than they have in the rest of the UK, revenues have grown less quickly. This is not a Laffer curve effect. Revenues didnt fall because taxes were raised. Its just that the Scots have been unlucky. Incomes north of the border have grown less quickly than elsewhere.

But thats devolution for you. It brings responsibilities, accountability, potential reward and risks. In this case, the risks have crystallised. The Scots could have had the same amount of revenue with lower tax rates if devolution had not happened. On the other hand, if their economy had grown faster, then devolution would have provided a fiscal dividend.

Another commission issued its interim report last week the Independent Fiscal Commission for Northern Ireland, which I was asked to chair by Conor Murphy, the finance minister. We were given the task of looking at options for devolving taxes to Northern Ireland. At present, like Wales and Scotland, the Northern Ireland Assembly controls most public spending. Unlike the other two parliaments, and setting aside business and domestic rates, it has no power over tax. Nine months of work on the commission has persuaded me that there is plenty of scope for devolving taxes. We know from the experience of Scotland and Wales that income tax can be at least partially devolved, as can stamp duty on property transactions. There is no reason in principle why a slew of other taxes shouldnt eventually be devolved to all three nations.

In the Northern Ireland context, there is a particular case for devolving corporation tax, given the much lower rate charged in the Republic and the urgent need to increase investment, and hence productivity and wages, in the low-wage, low-productivity Northern Irish economy. That will be possible only with co-operation and flexibility from the UK government. Any cut to match the Republics tax rate would significantly reduce Northern Ireland Executive revenues for at least a number of years. Previous negotiations over this have foundered partly on the issue of how to manage that revenue loss.

Excise duties on petrol, alcohol and tobacco might also be devolved. Given its land border with the Republic, optimal rates in Northern Ireland may well be different from those in the rest of the UK. Furthermore, the devolved governments have responsibility for public health but cannot alter duties on alcohol. Thats one reason Scotland was forced down the route of a minimum unit price for alcohol, increasing the profits of those selling alcohol rather than increasing tax revenues.

Of course there are challenges. Northern Ireland is small. Its population is almost precisely that of Kent and only a third that of Scotland. Its very size means that economic growth and tax revenues could be volatile. The administrative costs of devolving some taxes could also be high relative to revenues. As the Scottish experience illustrates, devolution is a double-edged sword. With potential reward comes risk. And devolution can work only on the basis of a productive and trusting relationship between, in this case, Westminster and Stormont.

Yet for all devolved nations, the real prize for them and for Westminster is the possibility of a more mature relationship, with each other and their electorates. Without substantive tax-raising powers. they will remain supplicants, asking for handouts. Or, as we see so often from the Scottish government, blaming Westminster for all manner of ills. More devolution of tax powers may be the best way to put the relationships on a more adult footing. Like a parent cutting the apron strings, the UK government perhaps should be willing to allow the devolved nations more freedom to make their own decisions. And their own mistakes.

This article was first published inThe Times and is reproduced here with kind permission.

Go here to see the original:

More devolution of tax powers is a risk worth taking on all sides - - ifs.org.uk

Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida (Mainichi)

TOKYO (Kyodo) -- Japan will extend the current strict border control measures "for the time being" past early January as the nation remains vigilant amid uncertainty over the Omicron variant of the novel coronavirus, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said Tuesday.

Even with the number of daily confirmed coronavirus cases staying at low levels and a community spread of Omicron not unfolding, Kishida said Japan needs to strengthen its preparedness by accelerating booster shot rollouts and promoting orally administered COVID-19 drugs.

The government launched the current border control measures in late November for about a month, barring new entries by foreigners from abroad and requiring returning Japanese nationals and foreign residents to quarantine in government-designated facilities. Kishida said recently that the measures would be extended until early January.

As part of ramped-up anti-virus steps, all people found to be infected with COVID-19 will be tested for Omicron in Japan. Those who have had close contact with people infected with the new variant will be asked to stay at designated facilities for two weeks, rather than at home.

"Scientific evaluations have yet to be established regarding how transmissible Omicron is and how serious (the disease caused by it) will get," Kishida told a press conference held after a 16-day extraordinary Diet session ended on the day.

"We have decided to extend the current border control measures for the time being," Kishida said.

Following the lifting of a protracted COVID-19 state of emergency in October, Japan has not seen a surge in coronavirus cases and over 77 percent of the population has been vaccinated twice against the novel coronavirus.

The government is now seeking to accelerate the rollout of third shots of COVID-19 vaccines, with health care workers and senior citizens receiving priority. U.S. vaccine suppliers Pfizer Inc. and Moderna Inc. have said third shots will boost antibodies and offer protection against Omicron. The health minister approved the two companies' vaccines to be used for a booster shot.

In the meantime, the government aims to make U.S. pharmaceutical firm Merck & Co.'s orally administered COVID-19 treatment drug available in Japan before the year-end and its competitor Pfizer's in early 2022.

Kishida, who became prime minister in October, has focused on antivirus measures after his predecessor Yoshihide Suga saw public support dwindle over his government's response to the pandemic.

During the extraordinary Diet session, parliament passed a record 36.0 trillion yen ($316 billion) supplementary budget for fiscal 2021 to support the pandemic-hit economy. The prime minister faced criticism for his flip-flop over a cash handout program as the government decided to allow 100,000 yen to be distributed entirely in cash to child-rearing households, rather than its earlier plan for half of the amount in vouchers.

"I accept various criticisms that our change to the original policy has caused confusion," the premier said.

On wage growth, a requisite for his push for wealth redistribution, Kishida said "all possible tools" should be used to realize pay hikes, adding that he will make sure small and midsize companies can raise wages.

Since the COVID-19 pandemic has made in-person meetings with global leaders difficult, Kishida told the press conference he wants to step up diplomacy next year.

"I'd like to hold talks with U.S. President (Joe) Biden at an early date," he said, adding that arrangements are still being made for him to visit the United States.

"Meeting him in person and sharing views on common challenges and building a personal relationship of trust is extremely important," the premier added.

Asked about the diplomatic boycott of the 2022 Beijing Winter Olympics, Kishida said he needs more time to weigh various factors before making a decision based on national interests.

The United States, Japan's closest ally, has already announced plans not to send its officials to the games, followed by nations such as Australia and Britain.

At home, Kishida has faced calls within some conservative lawmakers from his ruling Liberal Democratic Party to join the diplomatic boycott.

China is a major trading partner for Japan but its assertive moves in the East China Sea where the Japanese-controlled, Chinese-claimed Senkaku Islands are located, has raised alarms.

"We need to say what should be said to China based on the universal values of freedom, democracy, the rule of law and human rights," Kishida said, adding that no summit talks have been planned with President Xi Jinping.

As a Japanese leader who was elected from Hiroshima, which experienced a U.S. atomic bombing in 1945, Kishida is vocal about the realization of a nuclear-free world.

Japan will do its utmost for the success of a U.N. review conference on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in January, he said, after the previous meeting in 2015 failed to produce a final document due to disagreements.

Read the rest here:

Japan to keep strict border controls for the time being: PM Kishida - The Mainichi - The Mainichi

The Cato Institute released its sixth-annual "Freedom in the 50 States" report this week. The index provides an "updated ranking of the American states on the basis of how their policies promote freedom in the fiscal, regulatory, and personal realms." The index of freedoms in all 50 states shows that red states dominate the list in the states with the most freedoms, while the blue states with Democratic governors were often at the bottom of the list.

The authors of the study define "freedom" as:

To formulate the "Freedom in the 50 States" index, the Cato Institute looked at three main categories: personal freedoms, fiscal policies, and regulatory policies. There are 230 policy variables, and 25 subcategories such as incarceration, guns, education, marijuana, state taxation, land use freedom, and labor-market freedom.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the draconian measures implemented by governors forced the Cato Institute to "add a new section analyzing how state COVID-19 responses have affected freedom since the pandemic began." The libertarian think tank noted that the new pandemic section "discusses significant policy changes and trends since the data cutoff, ensuring that readers have a strong sense of the state of freedom in the states today."

In the "Freedom in the 50 States" index, states with Republican governors notched eight of the 10 most free states. Meanwhile, eight of the states with the worst freedom ratings were led by Democratic governors.

In overall freedom, the top 10 states are:

The worst 10 states for freedom:

Read this article:

Red states dominate index of fiscal, regulatory, and ...

(The Center Square) Ohioans are not as free as much of the rest of the nation, according to a new report released by the Cato Institute. And things are getting worse.

Thereportcalls Ohio thoroughly mediocre when it comes to freedom, ranking the Buckeye State above average in fiscal policy but poorly on both regulatory and personal freedom issues. Overall, the report ranked the state 31st in the nation in terms of freedom, a spot lower than last year and two below its peak in 2016.

It should trouble Buckeyes that their states policy regime is significantly worse than that of other Great Lakes states that have been reforming, such as Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin, the report reads.

Its in personal freedom where the report says the state fails the most. In 2016, the group placed Ohio above average at 23rd after a steep dip to 44th in 2014 and a rapid incline. Now, Ohio comes in at 40th, continuing a consistent fall since the high-water mark.

The report criticized a higher-than-average crime incarceration rate, limited legalized marijuana, continued smoking bans, strongly regulated private and home schools and a lack of sports betting.

Legislation currently sits in the General Assembly to legalize the recreational use of marijuana and allow sports betting throughout the state.

The report did call the states gun rights better-than-average.

To improve, the report suggested Ohio abolish mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent offenses, with an eye toward reducing the incarceration rate to a level more consistent with its crime rate, to increase the personal freedom ranking.

On the fiscal side, the group noted state and local debt, government consumption and public employment are all lower than average and in long-term decline.

For business, the CATO Institute calls land-use and environmental freedom the most important regulatory policy category, and Ohio does well, though it has slowly declined.

Zoning has a light touch, but the trend is in the wrong direction according to at least one of our sources, and renewable portfolio standards exist but are very low. Labor-market freedom is a problem area for Ohio. Eminent domain reform could have gone further. The state has a minimum wage that is getting worse, no right-to-work law, and strict workers compensation coverage and funding rules, the report reads.

CATO recommended cutting property taxes, along with trimming government spending on housing, community development, education and employee retirement each area, according to the report, where the state spends above the national average.

The report uses data from 2019, the most recent data available.

Read more here:

Ohio ranks poorly in terms of freedom, report says - The Center Square