Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

On the sparse flatlands between Fort Worth and Abilene lies Cisco, home to a billionaire family of staunch conservatives that has thrown its weight around in Texas Republican politics for years.

From this small Texas town, the Wilkses brothers Farris and Dan and their extensive families have doled out millions supporting candidates and causes that reflect their hardline political ideology anchored in faith, freedom and guns.

This year there is a new wrinkle: One of the familys own is running for office.

Jon Francis, 51, son-in-law of Farris and JoAnn Wilks, is one of four Republicans jockeying for the Texas House District 60 seat being vacated by state Rep. Mike Lang, a past beneficiary of the Wilks' funding who opted not to run for reelection and has not endorsed a preferred successor.

The largely rural seat is solidly Republican, and the battle lines emerging are not unusual. Francis and Glenn Rogers are seen as front-runners in the four-way race. The former brands himself as the staunch conservative choice; the latter casts himself as the less hardline candidate.

Francis married JoAnn and Farris Wilks daughter roughly 25 years ago and works at Wilks Development, a real estate development and investment company. Although Francis has never held office, he has worked behind the scenes in the familys political efforts. Rogers, 64, a rancher and veterinarian, has served as president of the Palo Pinto County Farm Bureau and as a school board member.

Rogers entered the race in September after Lang initially announced his retirement to run for county commissioner. Lang reversed course days later only to decide in December he would not run for reelection to the House after all. Langs 11th-hour decision triggered a candidate filing extension, and Francis jumped into the race.

I want to make sure that our district has an actual solid conservative that's willing to go and fight for our values," Francis said at a candidate forum at the end of January. "That is the reason I decided to make this run. ... Our values are worth fighting for."

The race has not gone without its dramatic moments. And the question looming over it all is whether Rogers can overcome the Wilks familys network and checkbook.

Farris Wilks, a pastor in Eastland County, and his younger brother, Dan, who have 17 children between them, hit it big in the 2000s during the states fracking boom. Overnight, it seemed, the families went from living in double-wide trailers to having billions.

They started cutting checks, pumping millions into certain Texas Republican circles, and backing various hardline conservative candidates and causes that fit their political ideology. The family, along with fellow conservative mega-donor Tim Dunn of Midland, has given generously to groups like Empower Texans and Texas Right to Life, organizations that issue scorecards ranking elected officials on their fiscal responsibility or pro-life records. The groups also often wade into GOP primaries to support candidates they deem sufficiently conservative.

This year, the Wilkses and Dunn are focusing heavily on contributing directly to their favored candidates. Farris Wilks, for example, has spent big in the race to replace retiring state Rep. Jonathan Stickland, a Bedford Republican closely linked to the family. He has also contributed tens of thousands of dollars to a primary challenger to state Rep. Dan Flynn, a Canton Republican who has often received flack from his right for being too moderate.

One House member, state Rep. Charlie Geren, R-Fort Worth, has fended off challenges from candidates with Wilks and Empower Texans funding before and thinks the family is determined to buy a seat at the Legislature.

I guess they dont have a better way to spend that money, Geren told The Texas Tribune. If I were that wealthy, Id sure be finding something better to do with my money.

Since joining the race in mid-December, Francis has raised more than $600,000, mostly from JoAnn and Farris Wilks, who each contributed $250,000. A sizable chunk of his other contributions came from donors with the last name Wilks, donors who work at a company named Wilks or both, according to a Texas Tribune analysis of campaign finance reports.

The generosity of the Wilks political machine has drawn criticism, particularly from Rogers, who calls it troubling that there is a lack of transparency to the average voter of the source of Francis money.

Francis and the Wilks [family] are willing to spend and say anything to win, even though they may not say it directly, Rogers told the Tribune last week, referring to the Wilkses connections with groups like Empower Texans. I entered this campaign with no illusions of the financial capabilities of the Wilks [family]. Votes are not for sale in this district.

But Francis, in interviews and at candidate forums, has waved away suggestions that his family is attempting to buy an election, casting himself as the outsider who has received more than 500 individual contributions.

I made a decision early on at the very beginning of the campaign that Im not accepting a penny from [political action committees], professional interests and lobbyists I refuse to have my hands tied, Francis told the Tribune in an interview last week. Unfortunately, the Austin lobby has made their choice, and it is not me.

Rogers, for his part, has raised more than $160,000 since entering the race. His largest contribution to date was a fraction of the Wilks half-million $30,000 from the Texas Farm Bureau Friends of Agriculture Fund.

The other two candidates in the race Christopher Perricone, who was ousted as Mineral Wells mayor last week, and Granbury attorney Kellye SoRelle have raised considerably smaller amounts; SoRelle told the Tribune that, money aside, she is the candidate with experience, who is merely trying to serve the people. And Perricone said he thinks voters should cast a ballot for the "candidate that shares your ideals and ... that can best persuade others in Austin to join them in the fight to keep our freedoms!"

While both Francis and Rogers say they are running as conservatives, a healthy amount of daylight exists between the two. Francis has dubbed himself as an unwavering, uncompromising conservative who wants to represent voters in the district and fight for their values. Rogers has suggested he would be willing to give a little to get a little if it would help rural Texans.

At a recent candidate forum, Francis dismissed the idea that lawmakers need merely have a seat at the table to impact the legislative process by negotiating and compromising.

I have a strong belief that one man can make a huge difference, he said. I want to let you know that I dont have a white flag, I dont own a white flag and I wont raise a white flag.

Rogers countered that "incremental, positive change is much better than no change" at all.

Weve seen issues where extremists have a position that is so far to the right or to the left that there is no chance that it is going to get passed, Rogers said. You hold to your values no question about that but you also have to govern.

The different approaches have elicited backing from different crowds. Francis touts endorsements from figures like U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz who has benefited heavily from the Wilks familys wallet while Rogers has announced support from Republicans like former Texas Gov. Rick Perry. (Rogers path first crossed with Perrys, the candidate said, in 1984 when Perry was running for state representative in the district. Weve kept up with one another over the years, Rogers told the Tribune, and we share that Aggie bond.)

The race has not been without theatrics. At the end of January, Rogers stumbled on a conservative hardline when he declared he was against a ban on taxpayer-funded lobbying.

The practice of local entities like cities and counties using taxpayer funds to send lobbyists to the Legislature to plead their cases on legislation is a target of Republicans, who tried unsuccessfully to ban it in 2019 and will all but certainly try again in 2021 when state lawmakers reconvene at the Capitol.

An edited video of Rogers stating his position I want you to know that I am against the ban on taxpayer-funded lobbying. You heard that right made the rounds and ruffled feathers among the Empower Texans crowd.

A few days later, Rogers issued a statement saying he had spent a lot of time listening to people talk about the issue and seemed to shift his position slightly, noting that strict parameters and limitations on tax dollars being used for lobbying should be in place.

In an interview last week, Rogers acknowledged that his position has come full circle, and he now would support a ban on taxpayer-funded lobbying.

Everything that I look at will be put under the lens of: How does it affect the small, rural communities in my district? Rogers said. If I get additional information after talking to people like Rick Perry who explain their concerns, then Im OK modifying my position if I think thats what my district wants.

Rogers has also faced criticism from SoRelle, another candidate in the race, over what she describes as his disrespect for the process, as well as his lack of decency to show up at the forums to answer to the citizens, [which] truly makes me question his integrity.

One forum caused a larger than usual dust-up after Rogers dropped out just hours before it was set to start, arguing that the moderators ties to the Wilks crowd appeared biased and were unfair to his candidacy.

A couple of hours before the event began, Rogers called Robin Hayes, the chair of the Eastland County GOP, which organized the forum. Hayes told the Tribune that Rogers raised his voice at her during that phone call and eventually calmed down after she explained that questions had been collected from voters via email, text and Facebook not written by the moderator.

Hayes said the tense exchange that day crystallized her decision on whom she plans to vote for, though she declined to say. Asked about the phone call, Rogers told the Tribune his interaction with Hayes was stern but cordial before questioning whether Hayes was loyal to Francis all along since she attends a church pastored by a member of the Wilks family.

But Rogers' decision to drop out of an event he felt was rigged against him underscored how just the perception of the Wilks familys political reach has influenced the race.

SoRelle said she has little sympathy for Rogers complaints about the Wilks influence.

I knew entering this race that the Wilks family money would be in play, she said. Anyone complaining about that at this point either didnt do their homework or is merely posturing.

Carla Astudillo contributed to this report.

Disclosure: The Texas Farm Bureau has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Continue reading here:

Billionaire Wilks family bankrolls one of its own in run for Texas house - The Texas Tribune

PHOTO U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. Jessica, from China, lives in the Fort Collins. She took the Oath of Allegiance on February 12th with 150 others.

History Colorado has been home to naturalization ceremonies for more than a decade as a warm, welcoming place that highlights some of Colorados immigrant history.

February 12, 151 people from 50 countries took the Oath of Allegiance.

It was the largest ceremony ever hosted at History Colorado.

Jessica lives in Fort Collins with her two sons and her husband. She is from China.

She came here in 2008 to work as a business analyst. Jessica attended high school and college in New Zealand. Shes an entrepreneur who owns her own private investment company.

She says she is excited to vote, have a voice, and she wants to make this country even better.

Jessica says the U.S. is very welcoming to ideas and energy. She likes her freedom of speech, and she feels respected by people.

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Acting Deputy District Director Kristi Goldinger administered theOath of Allegiance. Magistrate Judge Kristen L. Mix presided over the ceremony.

Graland Country Day School third grade students sang to the new U.S. Citizens as part of the ceremony.

Marissa Volpe, History Colorado Centers community outreach director, was the guest speaker.

Ivan Taylor, the spouse of a citizen who naturalized, sang the national anthem.

During the fiscal year 2019, USCIS naturalized 834,000 people at ceremonies throughout the country and around the world, an 11-year high.

People originally from Afghanistan, Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brazil, Burma, Burundi, China, Colombia, Congo (Kinshasa), Denmark, Dominica, El Salvador, Ethiopia, Ghana, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Liberia, Mexico, Nepal, Nigeria, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Korea, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Sweden, Taiwan, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Ukraine, Venezuela, and Vietnam were naturalized at the ceremony.

They live in Arvada, Aurora, Avon, Boulder, Brighton, Buena Vista, Castle Rock, Cenntennial, Colorado Springs, Commerce City, Dacono, Denver, Dillon, Englewood, Erie, Federal Heights, Fort Collins, Fort Lupton, Fort Morgan, Golden, Greeley, Henderson, Highlands Ranch, Lakewood, Lafayette, Littleton, Longmont, Louisville, Northglenn, Parker, Peyton, Pueblo, Superior, Thorton, Westminster, and Woodland Park.

USCIS invites families and friends to share their experiences and photos from the ceremonies on social media using the hashtags #NewUSCitizen.

Continue reading here:

History Colorado Center Hosts Their Largest Naturalization Ceremony Ever with 151 People - North Forty News

STAAR Surgical Company (NASDAQ: STAA), a leading developer, manufacturer and marketer of implantable lenses and companion delivery systems for the eye, today announced that it will release financial results for the fourth quarter and fiscal year ended January 3, 2020 on Wednesday, February 26, 2020 after the market close.

STAAR will host a conference call and webcast on Wednesday, February 26 at 4:30 p.m. Eastern / 1:30 p.m. Pacific to discuss its financial results and operational progress. To access the conference call (Conference ID 5411518), please dial 866-209-9722 for domestic participants and 825-312-2235 for international participants. The live webcast can be accessed from the investor relations section of the STAAR website at http://www.staar.com.

A taped replay of the conference call (Conference ID 5411518) will be available beginning approximately one hour after the calls conclusion for seven days. This replay can be accessed by dialing 800-585-8367 for domestic callers and 416-621-4642 for international callers. An archived webcast will also be available at http://www.staar.com.

About STAAR Surgical

STAAR, which has been dedicated solely to ophthalmic surgery for over 30 years, designs, develops, manufactures and markets implantable lenses for the eye with companion delivery systems. These lenses are intended to provide visual freedom for patients, lessening or eliminating the reliance on glasses or contact lenses. All of these lenses are foldable, which permits the surgeon to insert them through a small incision. STAARs lens used in refractive surgery is called an Implantable Collamer Lens or ICL, which includes the EVO Visian ICL product line. More than 1,000,000 Visian ICLs have been implanted to date and STAAR markets these lenses in over 75 countries. To learn more about the ICL go to: http://www.discovericl.com. Headquartered in Lake Forest, CA, the company operates manufacturing and packaging facilities in Aliso Viejo, CA, Monrovia, CA and Nidau, Switzerland. For more information, please visit the Companys website at http://www.staar.com.

View source version on businesswire.com: https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200205005138/en/

Read more from the original source:

STAAR Surgical to Report Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year Results on February 26, 2020 - Financialbuzz.com

As Iowa Democrats prepare to pick their partys first winner in the presidential primary, the candidates approach to health care remains one of the most substantial and potentially divisive issues voters will have to face. Heres a brief review of where the candidates stand on Medicare for All, the proposed sweeping overhaul of the U.S. health-care system that has served as a point of contention during the campaign:

Bernie Sanders: The Vermont senator is the most vocal supporter of Medicare for All, which he says would end up saving money for the country overall, despite its enormous price tag. Sanders wants to ban private insurance and eliminate out-of-pocket spending for patients, while covering a wider array of services than the current Medicare system. The ambitious proposal would cost more than $30 trillion over 10 years, according to independent analyses, Reuters Joseph Ax writes.

Elizabeth Warren: The Massachusetts senator also supports Medicare for All and has released a detailed plan for financing it. Facing pushback on her proposal, Warren released a transition plan for moving to a single-payer system more gradually over several years. That proposal drew some criticism from the left, with Sanders supporters claiming she had backed down from her Medicare for All stance, Ax says. Warren has said she remains committed to Medicare for All and that her plan would provide more coverage to more Americans in a shorter time frame.

Joe Biden: The former vice president says he wants to expand the Affordable Care Act by offering a public option for insurance. His healthcare plan, estimated to cost $750 billion over 10 years and paid for partly by higher taxes on the wealthy, would let people enroll in a paid government healthcare plan as an alternative to private insurance, Ax writes.

Michael Bloomberg: The former mayor of New York City says Medicare for All is unaffordable and proposes to offer a public option for insurance that exists alongside the current employment-based system. His plan would cost $1 trillion over 10 years.

Pete Buttigieg: The former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, has proposed a public option he describes as Medicare for all who want it. Buttigieg says that over time, that option would result in a single-payer system as more Americans sign up for cheaper and more efficient Medicare. His plan would cost $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

Amy Klobuchar: The centrist Minnesota senator says that Medicare for All is a pipe dream, and would instead offer a public option through either Medicare or Medicaid, paid for in part by raising taxes on the wealthy.

Andrew Yang: The tech entrepreneur says he supports the spirit of Medicare for All and wants to provide a public option to give people the freedom to leave their jobs. However, he does not want to ban private insurers.

Tom Steyer: The finance billionaire has proposed a public option that would cost $1.5 trillion over 10 years.

Read more:

Where the Democratic Candidates Stand on Medicare for All - The Fiscal Times

Treasure Coast Newspapers Published 4:00 a.m. ET Feb. 5, 2020

After many complaints, the city of Port St. Lucie will do nothing about the roaming coyotes in Eastport. Why can't they be sedated and relocated? They howl all night and prowl looking for any small animal. No action is taken by Animal Control. Coyotes were not native to Florida. Are city officials going to wait until a child is attacked?

Anne OHear, Port St. Lucie

President Donald Trump waves as he and first lady Melania Trump walk to Marine One before departing from the South Lawn of the White House in Washington, Jan. 31, 2020.(Photo: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds, AFP via Getty Images)

As a lifelong Republican, I feel like a Republican in the wilderness. As long as I have been an adult, with my first vote for Ronald Reagan in 1980, the Republicans have publicly stood for conservative values and fiscal restraint. Whether they lived up to this is another matter. Republicans have nearly always received my vote.

With our current president and Congress, Republican leadership seems to have lost its moral and fiscal compass. Following our current divisive president and our Republican members of Congress into the abyss has been head-spinning. While I have many Democrat friends, I have never related to the Democratic Party. I now find so much of the Republican electorate blindly following our Republican leadership toward political disaster. Few, if any, of our Republicans in Congress or the electorate hold this president to task for his reprehensible behavior as President and I dont see many Republican voters holding the Republicans in Congress to task either.

In 2020, I will find it difficult to vote for a Democrat. It will be equally difficult to vote for a Republican. One thing is for sure: I cant vote for this president again.

Randy Green, Port St. Lucie

The /cartoonist's homepage,https://www.courier-journal.com(Photo: Marc Murphy, (Louisville, Ky.) Courier Journal)

I received a mailer from the American Action Network recently. They state on their website: The American Action Network is a 501(c)(4) action tank that will create, encourage and promote center-right policies based on the principles of freedom, limited government, American exceptionalism, and strong national security.

The front of the mailer states: Congressman Brian Mast Supports H.R. 19, The Lower Costs, More Cures Act, calling it A Bipartisan, Commonsense Solution.

With a little help from the congress.gov website, I learned there are 145 co-sponsors for this bill. The bipartisan makeup is 145 Republican co-sponsors and 0, none, zippo, Democrats.

The mailer goes on to say I should Call Congressman Mast and Thank him for his bipartisan plan to lower prescription drug costs.

His bipartisan plan?

Brian Mast isnt even one of the 145 Republicans who did sign on as a co-sponsor. He didnt put his name on the bill.

ButMast isnt the main character in this letter, the mailer is.

Theyre soon to descend on us. How many of us are going to take the time and make the effort to find the truth? How many of us have been taking that time and making that effort lately?

Never tell the truth to people who are not worthy of it.

Mark Twain

Harvey Glatt, Port St. Lucie

I am astonished that the Republican senators are so terrified of their president that they are willing to sell their souls to the devil rather than do their job and live up to the oaths they took. They are willing to kneel, kiss his ring and call him master.

That is the reason we left and started the United States of America, so one man would not have the ultimate power. That is why our forefathers looked out for us, so we could be free of a dictator.

What is the difference in what Biden did and what Trump is doing by having his family profit off his being president? Now is the time for term limits for those who make a living off government jobs. Have you ever wondered why a millionaire would want to spend so much money to get a job and get constant vacations, wonderful retirements, and great health care? Its amazing to me. Its sickening to me that the people are willing to close their eyes to presidents unlawfulness, yet guns kill our schoolchildren without qualms about it. Pray for our country and hope that we regain respect again in this world.

Helen Leone, Port St. Lucie

I hope the voters remember Jan. 31 when they vote in November. How could 51 Republican senators not vote their conscience? What has President Trump done to this country that he has gotten most Republican legislators so scared? He is acting like Putin or the other dictators he espouses as great men. What is happening to this country that in a trial, no witnesses are called?

When, in the future, books will be written showing that Trump did most of the impeachable things the Democrats have claimed he did, it will be too late I fear. I love this country, and I'm heartsick that our president is a dictator, and not an American who believes in the Constitution. All Trump seems to do is go to rallies where he speaks to his base, only. What does he do with his time in the White House (besides tweeting)? America deserves better than Trump and the present Republican senators.

Rita Wolper, Palm City

Read or Share this story: https://www.tcpalm.com/story/opinion/2020/02/05/letters-editor-feb-5-2020/4639643002/

View original post here:

Letters to the Editor: Feb. 5, 2020 - TCPalm

New Delhi: How does one rate Budget 2020, the second season of the Nirmala Sitharaman show in just seven months?

In the past, every budget was judged both for its form, influenced solely by the FM, and its substance. However, over the past few decades, commensurate with the rise of the private sector, the budget has ceased to be the only force multiplier, diminishing the substance the annual exercise can offer.

Yet, it did not prevent the build-up of hype, especially with Prime Minister Narendra Modi publicly investing his social capital in the effort. In short, Sitharaman was expected to, like a magician, conjure a rabbit out of the hat as it were. Measured against these rather unfair expectations, the budget, at least going by the initial response of the stock markets, seems to have disappointed. Indeed, while this may be a justified first impression, it would be a mistake to dismiss it thus. Here are four reasons why:

To begin with the first budget of this decade was an honest effort from Sitharaman in extremely inclement economic circumstances. She had the unenviable task of stretching the cloth to accommodate interests all aroundin this case, as she pointed out in the post-budget interview to Mint, it included both Bharat and India. She could have, like previous incumbents, buried the bad news and window dressed the fiscal numbers.

Instead, the FM chose to come clean. She has now made it the norm to disclose off balance sheet debta bone of contention with analysts and rating agencies; and projected a fiscal slippage in 2020-21.

Second, the budget makes a very formal play for market forces. To its credit, the Bharatiya Janata Party, which leads the coalition government, is probably the most pro-business political regime ever; to avoid being dubbed a suit-boot Sarkar", they have tagged pro-poor to their pro-business credentials. This is most evident in the fiscal choices by Sitharaman. She has not used the fiscal space to undertake more directed spending; instead, the money has been deployed in tax giveaways. The income tax sops transfer money to individuals who, in turn, can spend it on their discretion. The freedom to choose is a fundamental of market economics.

Third, flowing from the above, with this budget, the NDA has reiterated that the public sector is no longer sacred to the national economic mantra. Just days after Air India was again put on the block, the FM has more than tripled the disinvestment target to 2.1 trillion; and included even Life Insurance Corporation of India, the most iconic symbol of security for the common man. Reformwallahs will presumably take succour from this ideological commitment to privatization.

Fourth, this Union budget has signalled that the government has reached the limits of its fiscal abilities. Accordingly in future, states will have to be fiscal stakeholders in development projects being undertaken jointly. How fiscally strapped states will generate the resources is another matter, though. This is exactly why states and the Union governmentif they share the vision of India First"will have to walk the talk on cooperative federalism.

Finally, where this budget falls short is not simply that projections of some of the budget targets are up in the air. Instead, it has missed the opportunity to genuinely seek to streamline direct taxes. A flawed model, with myriad slabs and rates, has all but buried the singular tax reform: goods and services tax.

A similar slip-up seems to have afflicted the rejig of income tax rates undertaken in the budget. While the move to a low tax rate regime shorn of deductions is most welcome, the budget lost the script by actually creating more tax slabsclassic overkill by zealous bureaucrats, who like Cold War warriors, believe everyone should be distrusted. A similar overreach has brought NRIs into the tax net, opening a potential political front against the government.

In the final analysis, it is clear that the budget is long in vision. The attempt to be all- encompassing may have buried them, though. Worryingly though, the budget risks being overwhelmed by avoidable self-goals. As the old adage goes, for the want of a nail, the kingdom was lost.

Continue reading here:

Budget 2020: Long on vision, but the devil is in the details - Livemint

The day after the annual budget speech is disconcerting for an Indian economist. After being generally ignored for most of the year, suddenly friends and strangers seek opinions and ask for clarifications, explanations, etc. This is perhaps one of the occupational hazards of being an economist.

Requests to decode the budget reminded me of this lovely exchange Sherlock Holmes has with inspector Gregory in the The Adventure OfSilver Blaze, which chronicles the disappearance of racehorse Silver Blaze and the murder of its trainer:

Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"

To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

The dog did nothing in the night-time."

That was the curious incident," remarked Sherlock Holmes.

That the dog didnt bark helps Holmes solve the case.

The key to decoding this years budget is similar to the curious incident of the dog that didnt bark. Listening to this years speech was a surreal experience because it seemed like the finance ministers generally upbeat and buoyant attitude was referring to some other economy. In the longest budget speech ever, not once did she mention the word slowdown" or reference slowing growth rates, or a growth slumpphrases now recurring in the nightmares of economists and investors focused on India.

Instead, the finance ministers mood was oddly self-congratulatory. She said: We have moved on from a growth rate of just over 4% in 1950s to 6% in 1980s and 1990s. However, during 2014-19 we clocked growth of 7.4% on average with inflation, averaging around 4.5%. It is worthwhile to note that inflation was close to 9% in the last two decades of the last millennium and ranged 10.5% during 2009-14." She seemed pleased about a 4.5% growth rate, and completely skipped the high-growth period of 2001-2011, perhaps to avoid even the slightest comparison.

This lack of recognition by the government of any kind of slowdown is the key to understanding the 2020 budget. The rest, as they say, is just numbers. The missing acknowledgement of the current state of Indias economy suggests that the government is asleep at the wheel. Either because there is a genuine lack of understanding of the working of the economy, or because, despite some understanding of the slump, controlling the narrative takes priority, which is also a signal to the market.

So far, the former seems more likely, though markets will react similarly to both. A number of blunders have accompanied the most recent silence on the slump. Key government members have bragged that Indian growth rates are higher than Chinas and the USseconomies at a completely different stage of development. They have blamed sectoral slowdowns on millennials spending patterns. And, who can forget the chaos caused by misleading gross domestic product (GDP) and growth rate numbers with virtually no explanation from the government?

Aside from blunders, the government has done little to reveal its understanding of the economy and its plans for the future. Few are aware of its views on the reasons for the slump. The banking sector and its non-performing asset crisis sat like an elephant in the room as Indian poetry was cited. Nothing in the budget speech mirrored the warning signs in the Economic Survey tabled in Parliament. Major themes of the surveyexpanding economic freedom in India and increasing the faith placed in the private sectorwere left unaddressed. Not a single major sector of the economy has been liberalized or reformed towards greater economic freedom. This makes one wonder if the government is listening even to economists on its own payroll.

In a scenario where the government is fiscally constrained and cannot unleash a fiscal stimulus, the burden of any such stimulus, if there is to be one, falls on the states. Similarly, if the government cannot kick-start investment, there is a heightened reliance on private investment. A budget that does not explicitly address the growth slowdown and does not call upon the states and the private sector to work with the Union government on arresting downtrends is telling.

The big move to unleash some spending, especially in infrastructure, is to woo foreign sovereign funds to invest in India by giving tax exemptions and abolishing the dividend distribution tax. But these sovereign funds have teams of macroeconomists studying India and, like Sherlock Holmes, will notice the dog that did not bark. In the absence of a coherent narrative by the government on its fiscal policy over the next few years, and its plans to use other tools to address economic growth, investors usually assume the worst.

The Sensex and Nifty saw their biggest single-day fall in five years. Contrary to popular opinion, this was not because the government was fiscally conservative, for markets would have also reacted badly if it had been fiscally profligate. The reason for the fall is twofold. The government did not acknowledge that the situation is dire and that it cannot spend its way out of the current slowdown. The second cause was its lack of communication on a responsible way forward in these circumstances.

The finance minister spent much time speaking of aspirational India, economic development and a caring society". But the house is on fire, and the lack of urgency or acknowledgement only makes it seem like naive daydreaming.

Shruti Rajagopalan is a senior research fellow with the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, US

Read the original:

Opinion | Like the curious incident of the dog that did not bark - Livemint

APP

8:50 PM | January 28, 2020

Pakistans score on the Economic Freedom Index 2019 improved by a nominal point as judicial effectiveness and property rights outpaced modest performance in monetary freedom and fiscal health.

According to a report compiled by Washington-based Heritage Foundation, Pakistans economic freedom score improved by 0.6 point to an overall score of 55, ranking the economy 131st freest in the 2019 index.

However, Pakistan is ranked 32nd among 43 countries in the Asia-Pacific region, and its overall score is below the regional and world averages, the report added.

At a global level, Hong Kong, Singapore and New Zealand are the top three ranked countries on the World Economic Freedom Index.

The report further said that although some aspects of economic freedom had advanced modestly in Pakistan in recent years, decades of internal political disputes and low levels of foreign investment had led to an erratic growth and underdevelopment.

Excessive state involvement in the economy and omnipresent regulatory agencies has inhibited private business formation, it added.

Moreover, lack of access to bank credit undermines entrepreneurship, and the financial sectors isolation from the outside world slows down innovation.

According to the report, about 25% of adult Pakistanis have access to an account with a formal banking institution.

The report highlighted that in economically-free societies, governments allow labour, capital, and goods to move freely, and refrain from coercion or constraint of liberty beyond the extent necessary to protect and maintain liberty itself.

The report further states that in an economically-free society, Individuals are free to work, produce, consume, and invest in any way they please.

The international foundation measures economic freedom by assessing the rule of law, government size, regulatory efficiency and access to open market. The data is also shared with investors, business and finance leaders, policymakers, academics, journalists, students, and teachers.

The report emphasised that the tax system of Pakistan is complex despite reforms to cut rates and broaden the tax base.

Over the past three years, government spending has amounted to 20.3% of the countrys output (GDP), and budget deficits have averaged 5.1% of GDP.

Progress in improving the entrepreneurial environment has been adequate. The governments 2018-2019 budgets increased spending on subsidies for the construction sector and for items such as food (especially sugar), power, water, and textiles by 36%.

The combined value of exports and imports is equal to 25.8% of GDP. The average applied tariff rate is 10.1%. As of June 30, 2018, according to the WTO, Pakistan had 66 non-tariff measures in force.

See the article here:

Pakistan improves score on Economic Freedom Index - The Nation

For most migrants fleeing violence or persecution, getting asylum protections in the U.S. has never been easy.

Since President Donald Trump took office, his administration has repeatedly tightened the rules, and narrowed who qualifies for asylum. Today, its practically impossible.

Immigration attorneys are turning away from the gold standard asylum and putting more effort into the two major legal alternatives: withholding of removal and the U.N.s Convention Against Torture.

Whether or not someone qualifies for asylum in the U.S. partly depends on timing. Those who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border before July 16 can still pursue asylum here. But people who arrived later, and traveled through another country to get here, are subject to a new rule: they must apply for asylum in a country they passed through first or theyre ineligible.

Two women from Honduras just missed the cutoff.

Last August, 24-year-old Dania, swam across the Rio Grande into the U.S. after being raped by police. Her lawyers have asked that her last name not be included in the story, they fear it could affect the outcome of her case.

Gang members were trying to convince me to work for them, Dania said in Spanish. They wanted me to be a prostitute.

Dania said she refused the gang members and went to the police to report the incident. Thats when police officers came to her house and raped her for not complying with the gang members.

The gangs and police would kill her if she stayed, she said.

Multiple incidents led a 20-year-old were calling Luisa to leave Honduras. Her lawyer asked that we not use her real name, since her case is still pending in immigration court.

Luisa is a lesbian, and said she was persecuted and mistreated because of that. A gang killed her brother, then pressured her to join.

I ended up just having to flee, Luisa said in Spanish.

She traveled through Guatemala, then Mexico, arriving at the U.S. border on July 29 less than two weeks after the transit ban went into effect.

Until recently, both Dania and Luisa would have had cases for asylum in the U.S. but not under new Trump-administration policy. Both were deemed ineligible for asylum because they both failed to apply in another country on the way here.

So their attorneys are forced to take another route.

Heidi Cerneka is an immigration attorney with Las Americas Immigration Advocacy Center, an El Paso nonprofit. She took on Luisas case.

Our...goal is to make sure we guarantee that people who are in danger if they return to their countries can actually be safe from returning to their countries, she said.

Outside of asylum, there are two main legal options.

For Danias case, her pro bono lawyer Fariha Chowdry is counting on Convention Against Torture for relief.

Chowdry, who works for the Houston-based Alcozer & Associates said this woman has been terrorized, shes been raped, which is a protected ground and considered past persecution.

Protection under the Convention Against Torture comes from a U.N. treaty the U.S. ratified in 1994, designed to protect people from being returned to countries where they would likely face torture.

Withholding of removal serves a similar purpose. This form of relief protects people from being returned to countries where their life or freedom would be threatened because of their race, religion, nationality, political opinion or membership in a particular social group.

If the immigration judge really recognizes that the person would be in danger going back home then the judge can order that person removed, say they dont qualify for asylum, and then basically put a pause on that and say but Im not going to remove you and you can stay in the United States, Heidi Cerneka said.

She thinks Luisa is a good candidate for this protection.

Immigration attorney Ruby Powers said both Convention Against Torture and withholding of removal are the backups to aslyum.

Now we are seeing people are barred from asylum because of whatever reasons and so withholding of removal and Convention Against Torture are becoming more of a focus, not just an afterthought, Powers said.

Theres a reason these legal alternatives are usually the backups. These forms of relief are harder to win, and come with fewer benefits.

In order to receive protection under the Convention Against Torture, migrants would have to prove theres more than a 50% chance that theyll be tortured if they return to their home country.

For withholding of removal, the standard of proof is just as high more than 50% and they have proof they would be persecuted because of a specific, protected identity.

To get asylum, migrants have to prove theres a 1 in 10 chance of persecution or torture.

That lowered standard of proof can be the life-changing difference between a grant and a denial.

I like to say that we dont really have a persecution-o-meter, but its much harder to prove 50% than 10%, Cerneka said.

Both Convention Against Torture and withholding of removal are granted at rates lower than asylum.

In the 2018 fiscal year, 1,334 people were granted relief under Convention Against Torture, 25,802 were denied, according to the Executive Office for Immigration Review.

That same year, 1,746 people were granted withholding of removal, while nearly 26,906 were denied a decrease of about 38% from fiscal year 2014.

And now, due to a recent Board of Immigration Appeals decision last December called Matter of O-F-A-S-, Convention Against Torture is more difficult to prove.

Under the decision, its even harder to convince a judge that police, for example, tortured in their official capacity. Wearing a police uniform, for example, isnt enough.

Attorney Dree Collopy, based in Washington, D.C., said judges will use this case as a basis to deny other immigrants.

Its decisions like this that basically give judges who are less inclined to provide due process and less inclined to interpret the law favorably for a respondent, it gives them the tools to easily just grasp on that and say no, Collopy said.

Besides the tougher odds, theres another downside to these other legal protections.

Convention Against Torture and withholding of removal arent as robust as asylum. These protections dont provide a path to citizenship or extend to other family members. People can lose their protected status by simply traveling outside of the U.S. or if the government decides that conditions have changed in their home country.

Heidi Cerneka refers to this as a state of permanent temporariness.

If asylum is the gold standard, I think of withholding of removal as the aluminum standard, Cerneka said, though she noted that many of her clients who received withholding of removal are mostly just relieved that theyre able to stay in the U.S.

Dania and Luisa technically have another option. They could apply for asylum in one of the countries they traveled through on their way to the U.S. The Department of Homeland Security has said the new asylum rule will lead to fewer individuals transiting through Mexico on a dangerous journeyand will encourage migrants to apply for asylum closer to home.

But Luisa said pursuing asylum in one of the countries she passed through doesnt feel like a legitimate option. She said Guatemala is just as dangerous as her home country and she doesnt have any family there she can rely on.

No one who could help me. No one who could open their door to me and say yes, you can stay in my house. Youll have everything you need, Luisa said.

The U.S. Department of State has deemed six of Guatemalas states as places where, violent crime, such as armed robbery and murder, is common. They advise to reconsider travel to those areas.

As for Mexico, Luisa said she was kidnapped and sexually assaulted there, just before her 20th birthday. Mexico was the place where I went through my worst experience, she said not a place to seek protection.

Both Luisa and Dania said they would likely be killed if they return to Honduras. Their fates in the U.S. are ultimately up to a judge to decide.

While she waits for her case to play out in court, Luisa is living with a friend in Michigan. Her lawyer, Heidi Cerneka, helped get her released from detention.

Everything has changed, she said. I dont have to be hiding from anyone. I know I can walk freely. No ones gonna be judging me.

She hopes this freedom isnt temporary, and she can ultimately stay in the country.

Dania will wait for her case in an immigration detention center outside Houston. Shes worried she wont get a psychologist to testify at her hearing.

Her father, Melvin, is also in Houston, where he works in construction.

It would be very painful if we didnt win this case so she can be here with us here, he said.

Melvin hasnt seen his daughter in 14 years, since he left Honduras. Hes raised her from afar. Hes sent money and called three times a week, hoping she would join him one day.

Now thats she so close, hes worried theyll never be reunited.

See the original post here:

As Access To Asylum Narrows, These Alternatives Are Some Immigrants' Only Hope - HPPR

On November 25, 2010, this newspaper threw down the gauntlet to the Westminster elite sending shockwaves along the corridors of power by declaring on our front page that it was time for the United Kingdom to quit the EU and that we would, from that day on, devote our campaigning energies to securing just such an outcome.

At first it was just a tiny band of independent-minded, patriotic backbench MPs who offered us support. As one of them, Wellingborough Tory MP Peter Bone, noted: I remember walking up Downing Street to deliver the Daily Express petition to the Prime Minister. It has carried on campaigning, set the standard and the other papers followed.

Former Labour MP Kate Hoey, another who helped us deliver an enormous petition from Daily Express readers to David Cameron in 10 Downing Street early in 2011, added: The Express has been the only paper that has consistently stood up as the voice of the people.

The rapid progress our campaign made was demonstrated in October 2011, when 111 MPs including 81 Tories who rebelled against Mr Camerons three-line whip voted in favour of a motion calling for an In-Out EU referendum.

And at the end of January 2013 by which time well over half a million Daily Express readers had signed campaign coupons and online petitions as our movement spread like wildfire Cameron was forced to eat his words by promising an In-Out referendum would indeed be held were he to be returned as prime minister at the 2015 election.

What had been initially depicted as an aim of cranks and gadflies turned out to be so popular that it helped Cameron win a majority at that election, leaving him with no option but to deliver the referendum he had initially been so reluctant to embrace. And we all know what happened next. The establishment weighted the scales in its own favour by means of a taxpayer-funded Remain propaganda leaflet delivered to every door and by co-opting senior public servants into its Project Fear effort to scare the public into staying under the control of Brussels. And still the British people voted to leave.

Far from being a cause believed in only by a Right-wing fringe, Brexit was shown to be the overall wish of the British people, with 17.4 million adults voting for it the most ever to vote for any single proposition in the entire history of our country.

The desire to control our own immigration system was undoubtedly a major factor and so were public qualms at the growing cost of EU membership. But the most fundamental reason was never in doubt the desire of a proud country to become a sovereign, nation state democracy once again.

Since the original referendum on the Common Market in 1975, the true aim of elites across Europe to create a superstate via a gradual salami-slicing away of national sovereignty had become harder and harder to conceal.

A succession of EU treaties that took more and more power away from member states and transferred it to Brussels were passed without the British people being asked for permission in a further referendum; the treaties of Maastricht, Nice, Amsterdam and finally Lisbon.

The Lisbon Treaty of 2008 was key because it gave the EU the legal personality of a state and awarded the bloc the power to abolish further national vetoes. While ministers in the then Labour government tried to dismiss it as a mere tidying-up exercise, the British people clocked that it marked an irreversible step towards full political integration under the rule of the unelected European Commission.

Mr Cameron pledged, no ifs, or buts, that he would hold a referendum on it, should he make it to Downing Street. But in November 2009, he reneged on that promise.

Because, he said, the treaty had been already ratified by the Labour government, a future Tory administration would not put it to the people.

It was in the ensuing public uproar that the seeds for our campaign were planted. Enough was enough. Someone had to stand up and be counted and fight for the freedom and independence of Britain.

Accommodations with Brussels that involved specific British opt-outs on things like the single currency and the Schengen borderless zone were no longer sufficient.

With plans for an EU army already being pushed and the eurozone countries planning a full fiscal union that would have a controlling majority in all the key EU institutions, it was obvious that the ambition for ever closer union set out in the founding Treaty of Rome was no longer a federalist pipe dream, but the inevitable destination of this project.

Well, not any longer. Not for the United Kingdom at least. Because our proud thousand-year history of taking our own decisions about life on our islands, our independent spirit and our wish to connect with other countries, not merely in Europe, but also via the Anglosphere and the Commonwealth, proved too strong.

It may very well be in the years ahead that the example set by Britain of affinity and fidelity to the nation state over the superstate is taken up elsewhere in Europe and that other countries follow our lead. That will be made more likely if we make a success of Brexit.

For the rest of the year we will, of course, be stuck in a transition phase and effectively still bossed about by Brussels in many aspects of life while Britain and the EU hammer out the details of a future relationship.

But the Prime Minister is clear on the trajectory the country is set on. And a political misadventure instigated by the pro-Brussels fanatic Edward Heath 47 years ago is finally coming to an end.

As yet another Tory prime minister might have put it: Just rejoice at that news.

Read more:

Brexit at last rejoice, finally we have our freedom, says PATRICK OFLYNN - Express