Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

Gen. Jay Raymond, Commander, Space Command and Air Force Space CommandWASHINGTON: Some 16,000 people civilians and airmen will be shifted from Air Force Space Command to the Space Force upon its stand-up sometime early next year.

Its a lot of people, said Kaitlyn Johnson, who has been tracking the Space Force concept at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, although about the number DoD has been projecting. She noted that AFSPC currently numbers 26,000 personnel from military to administrative staff, although the Congressional Budget Office estimates there are 23,000 full time personnel in all of the Defense Department, excluding the intelligence agencies. But not all of those folks are actually well-versed in the space mission, given the Air Forces practice of rapid rotation and its past emphasis on general, rather than specialized, training.

One of the issues from the start has been how the Air Force can dig out the space people who may or may not be working in AFSPC or a space-related job, she said. Can people volunteer?

Todd Harrison, who heads CSISs Aerospace Project, concurred that finding the right people will be a big headache for the service, and the fact that they have a hard number already means they must have been doing some serious pre-planning.

That said, Harrison stressed that the big question is actually the other 10,000 billets that are not being transferred to Space Force. What happens to the other 10,000 billets, and what are they being withheld? You dont want the Air Force to withhold support personnel, so the Space Force then has to go back and hire new people to do those functions and you end up with bloat.

Indeed, bureaucratic bloat is what both sides of Capitol Hill have been extremely worried about, and the reason that both the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) setting policy and the appropriations bill put solid bumpers around DoDs freedom of action.

For every single person that doesnt get transferred, the Air Force has to be able to explain why not, Harrison said.

The NDAA, expected to be signed by President Donald Trump tomorrow night, prevents Air Force Secretary Barbara Barrett from creating any new Space Force billets. Shes not allowed to create any new ones either, stopping the service from getting around the restrictions. The spending bill chops the services budget request of $72.4 million for launching the headquarters to only $40 million, although in all fairness that could simply reflect a pro-rating for the short fiscal year given the lateness of the appropriation.

Johnson has a new analysis out that compares the 2020 NDAA to the presidents request, the Senate version, and the House version that tracks specific changes.

CSIS last November published a study of possible Space Force structures and the attendant costs of running each, with one of the options being a Space Corps similar to the structure Congress has approved, where the Space Force is a separate Title 10 military service but underneath the Department of the Air Force. In that study, Harrison calculated that such a structure would have an annual budget of about $11 billion.

So we have a baseline estimate to compare to whatever the Air Force comes up with, at least.

Meanwhile, we are hearing rumblings about a turf war between planning cells at Air Force headquarters here and at AFSPC in Colorado Springs.

Maj. Gen. Clint Crosier is in charge of Barretts war roomhere for planning process for the Space Force. He told me earlier this month at the West Coast Aerospace Forum in Santa Monica that his group of senior officers had put together pre-plans based on possible outcomes from the NDAA in order to move out from day one.

Meanwhile, however, Gen. Jay Raymond whom the NDAA specifically allows to become the head of the Space Force for the first year has his own planning task force that has been seeking to shape the new force. Raymond, as Breaking D readers know well, currently wears two hats: head of AFSPC and head of the new combatant command for space, Space Command, stood up in August.

Harrison noted that filling up billets in Space Command while simultaneously shifting people to the Space Force could be another problem for the Air Force, given the relatively small pool of space professionals. For example, there are also rumors that a number of Air Force personnel now on loan to the National Reconnaissance Office which comprises both Air Force and CIA personnel are being shifted over to Space Command.

Read more:

16000 AFSPC Head To Space Force; What About The Rest? - Breaking Defense

The Age has sympathy with these arguments and we are certainly not among those who reject using fiscal policy to manage the economic cycle. For instance, the cash splash by the ALP in late 2008 helped Australia avoid recession during the global financial crisis. The question is whether such an approach is necessary now.

From a political point of view, abandoning or even delaying a surplus would be an embarrassment to the Coalition after it spent so long complaining about Labors debt and deficit disaster.

Loading

But the case for trying to post the first budget surplus in a decade is not only about political one-upmanship. It would also send a positive signal to global financial markets and foreign investors. Fiscal stimulus can have bad consequences. Spending measures can be wasteful and, politically, they can be a substitute for harder reforms to boost competitiveness and productivity. These are two areas in which Australia lags behind many of its global peers.

The biggest argument against stimulus, however, is that, for now, the economy is simply not that bad. This is not the GFC. Australia is still growing and in coming years there is hope for an improvement.

Treasury is forecasting that growth will increase in 2020-21 to 2.75 per cent. Consumers, who have been on strike this year, can be expected to gradually start to spend more because low interest rates and rising house prices in Melbourne and Sydney should help.

Loading

Australia should also benefit from a better global economy amid relief that the US and China are stepping back from the brink of a trade war. As long as that forecast is accurate, Mr Frydenberg is justified in maintaining the current economic settings.

However, that is not an excuse for doing nothing. The government is happy to devote time to sideshow issues such as its religious freedom bill or mouth platitudes about cutting red tape. Instead, it should seriously re-prosecute some of the important policy debates discarded during this lost decade starting with tax, workplace relations and energy reform.

The Treasurer needs to develop a genuine economic reform plan to boost growth rates. Without one, surplus or not, he deserves to be punished at the next election.

Originally posted here:

Frydenberg needs to focus on genuine reform plan to boost growth - The Age

The Bill of Rights Day, December 15, 2019, celebrates the 228th birthday of the first Ten Amendments to the United States Constitution.

The Bill of Rights not only confirms individual and inherent rights but also amounts to the first tweaks to the limits and controls of the federal government. Quarrels abound about interpreting this quill-penned document but its genius remains unchallenged. It continues to play an integral role in the everyday lives of Americans including right here in Milwaukee County in 2019.

The Bill of Rights as Part of the Every Day Lives in Milwaukee The Sixth and Seventh Amendments.

Invoking the Bill of Rights keeps the documents promises fit and muscular, and keeps its application personal. The operations of the Milwaukee County Courthouse advance and accommodate important Constitutional protections. Each relevant clause of the Constitution is a throttle controlling court operations. The first clause of the Sixth Amendment ensures that a person charged with a crime gets a fair, speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, a notice of the accusation, and the confrontation of witnesses.[i] The Seventh Amendment protects the right to a trial by jury in civil court cases.[ii]

In 2018 over 124,000 cases were filed in the Milwaukee County Clerk of Courts Office. These thousands of civil and criminal cases are filed publicly and heard by forty-seven elected circuit court judges (and a host of court commissioners). In 2018, thousands of court hearings and proceedings abided by Constitutional due process rights such as those included in the 5th and 14th Amendments. Excepting certain cases afforded privacy protections, all cases are electronically visible on the state courts website, commonly referred to as CCAP.

Honoring the public trial provisions of the 6th and 7th Amendments, proceedings do not occur or continue when the Courthouses doors are locked at 5:00 PM, or on weekends. In 2018, public jury trials were held in 614 cases 523 in the Criminal Division, 66 in the Civil Division and 25 in the Juvenile Division. In addition, 73 other juries were empaneled but not sworn to hear a case. Thousands of citizens honored their jury duty.

Of the 614 jury trials, 470 were resolved by jury verdict, 29 ended in mistrial, 13 resulted in hung juries, and 33 were either dismissed, settled or pled before verdict. Milwaukee Countys longest empaneled jury in 2018 spent twelve days hearing a felony trial.

The jury trial statistics do not include the number of court trials or bench trials held by judges. Nor do they include the thousands of plea hearings or bail hearings held in Milwaukee Countys criminal courts, during which defendants rights under the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th Amendments are reaffirmed.

The Sixth Amendments Second Clause: the right to counsel.

Milwaukee County and Wisconsin generally have longstanding, demonstrated commitments to the 6th Amendment Right to Counsel. The 1848 Wisconsin Constitution restated the federal amendment, and the 1859 Wisconsin Supreme Court established that the payment of costs of counsel for criminally charged indigents be borne by the government. In 1957 the Milwaukee Bar Association launched The Voluntary Defenders Program the first of its kind in the nation. This project became a model for public defender programs all over the nation when the U.S. Supreme Court decided the right to counsel, at government expense, in criminal matters of all sorts in the 1963 Gideon v. Wainright case.

In fiscal 2018, the Wisconsin State Public Defender appointed counsel throughout the state in 137,385 trial court cases and in 3,135 appellate level cases. For defendants who are ineligible for State Public Defender appointment but also who are unable to hire an attorney, the court may appoint counsel and order payment from the County coffers; the order includes the Countys reimbursement by the defendant after conclusion of the proceedings.

Despite decades of petitions to the legislature and the Supreme Court for increased compensation, Wisconsins state-appointed lawyers have ranked the lowest paid in the nation at $40.00 per hour, while court-appointed lawyers are limited to $40 to $70.00 per hour depending on the case type. These amounts remained unchanged since 1995 when the rate was lowered from $50.00.

Especially during the most recent few years and in particular in the northern and rural parts of the state, private lawyers declined appointments; they were unable both to afford the costs of the cases and to obligations of overhead as well as serve retained clients. A true constitutional crisis ensued. Detainees languished, waiting weeks and even months for an attorney. Eventually, lawsuits were filed, with the plaintiffs arguing their constitutional rights to a lawyer and to a speedy trial were violated.

However, good news in on the 2020 horizon: the pay rate is about to change. Effective January 1, 2020, court-appointed attorneys will be paid $100.00 per hour (up from $70.00) via Supreme Court order; and State Public Defender-appointed private attorneys will be paid $70.00 per hour (up from $40.00) via the biennial state budget. Other concerns remain unresolved, however the new rates anticipate curtailment of Wisconsins 6th Amendment crisis.

Why December 15th?

Bill of Rights Day commemorates the Congressional certification of the First through Tenth Amendments on December 15, 1791. After the Constitution was ratified James Madison proposed twelve amendments that Congress adopted and sent to the states for ratification. The Constitution would not have been ratified by most states without the promise and contingency of the incorporation of a future Bill of Rights.

The thirteen original states were self-governed under state Constitutions which prominently included Bills of Rights. The states wanted assurances of greater protection of individual liberties by detailing prohibitions on governmental power. Indeed, James Madison attended state ratification conventions to calm the contentiousness over the lack of individual rights. He collected, consolidated, and condensed the rights into twelve amendments from the over 230 rights incorporated among and between the states thirteen Constitutions.

After two years of states consideration, ten amendments were ratified by the necessary three-fourths of states (nine, in 1791). Fourteen original versions were made- one for each state and one for the National Archives. Upon the 150th Anniversary of the adoption of the Bill of Rights, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt proclaimed December 15th Bill of Rights Day, and called upon officials of the Government to display the flag of the United States on all Government buildings on that day, and inviting the people of the United States to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and prayer. In his message President Roosevelt referred to the document as the great American charter of personal liberty and human dignity.

Read the original here:

Appraising the value of freedom, personal liberty, and human dignity on Bill of Rights Day - Milwaukee Independent

As Serbia heads into an election year, the rhetoric of political parties rises. In an exclusive op-ed for EURACTIV.com, Serbian Prime Minister Ana Brnabi writes that a fair election requires all parties to participate and present their vision in order to give people a real choice.

Ana Brnabi has been the prime minister of Serbia since June 2017.

Serbia is a nation in transition. In recent years, the country has passed several sound fiscal decisions, which have stabilised the economy, ensured reduced debt levels and allowed us to invest in a better future.

This has translated into better jobs, better education and healthcare, better salaries, pensions and standards of living. The work continues, but we are on the right track.

EU Membership is our strategic goal. Under my government, there is an unwavering determination to implement the comprehensive reforms necessary for EU Membership. Every year, we are making further progress across the spectrum of accession chapters and to date have opened 18 chapters.

There is more to be done, but we have accomplished a lot over the last couple of years. The reforms implemented with the support of the EU and the IMF are already giving results, even though we continue to tackle issues that were left behind by previous governments. Serbia was one step from bankruptcy.

Hundreds of thousands of people had lost their jobs. According to Verica Barac, president of the Anti-Corruption Council of Serbia, the media was robbed by Dragan Djilas and other people in power. This is the description of the old Serbia, when Dragan Djilas and other members of the Alliance of Serbia left power.

Serbia is no longer that country. Salaries are higher, the unemployment rate has fallen to single digits and is now on a historical minimum compared to over 25% back in 2012. According to the Financial Times, Serbia topped the 2019 Greenfield FDI Performance Index.

We ranked as the number one country in the annual study by fDi Intelligence a Financial Times data division. Back in 2012, Serbia was ranked 92nd on a Doing business list of the World Bank. Today, we are 44th and aim to be in TOP 10 countries in the next couple of years.

Media freedoms are part of this discussion. We want to have free and fair media in Serbia. In fact, we need one. The government does not shy away from the tough questions, we are accountable and transparent. I know this is an essential part of our democracy and when we are challenged by the media to be better, I want us to keep rising to that challenge.

Our commitment to a free media environment is also shown through negations with Euronews to open an office in Serbia. I would urge those who do not see the strength of our domestic media and the role they play, to keep partisan point-scoring out of this discourse.

The latest front page of weekly magazine NIN with the sniper aiming at the president VuI is just another clear example of the media atmosphere perceived towards the government.

The attack on Milan Jovanovi has been prosecuted and the trial has started. I have personally met with Milan Jovanovi to send a clear message that media freedom and freedom of speech are values that are undisputable.

The balance of media and journalistic rigour is important for us all. It is simply untrue to say the government is not open and regularly held to account by our national media, in all its forms.

I stand beside any journalist who is attacked for doing their job, as I stood by our state broadcaster, RTS, when their headquarters were raided earlier this year by threatening opposition protest groups carrying a chainsaw and gallows.

In my view, this process of reform and the preparations across all aspects of Serbian society are more valued than the eventual date of our membership. We will not rush to join until we are truly ready and capable of joining from a position of strength. I want both the EU and our citizens to have confidence in a future inside the EU club.

We are heading into an election year in 2020, so its normal to see the rhetoric of the political parties rise. Any claims to the contrary are misleading and seek to undermine that process. There are those who do not agree with Serbias ambition to become an EU member, and they should be honest about their intentions.

The annual EU Progress Report on Serbias accession preparations was well received in Belgrade. The partnership we have with the Commission is based on mutual respect and honesty. We need them to offer this guidance and support for us to keep moving forward and to make the depth of progress necessary.

In an election period, tensions can be high. On behalf of the government and our citizens, I ask that we all conduct ourselves with the respect and behaviour that a democratic process deserves. We must not increase those tensions, but instead explain what holds us all together.

That is why a fair election requires all parties to participate and to present their vision and give people a real choice. Those who claim to be excluded from this process are trying to mislead once again.

The truth is that they have excluded themselves, despite our best efforts to accommodate the wishes of opposition parties. The progress Serbia has made will not be undermined in the political debate ahead, it will be strengthened by it.

View post:

Serbia will not rush to join the EU until it is truly ready - EURACTIV

However, had the two assailants who attacked the Jersey City, New Jersey, kosher market survived, federal prosecutors wouldn't have been able to charge them with federal domestic terrorism charges. That's because domestic terrorism is still not a federal offense.

The theory on why domestic terrorism doesn't need to be a federal crime is that the conduct associated with such an act -- homicide, for instance -- is already illegal under federal or state laws. The argument is there is no need for the additional label.

The other, less abstract, hurdle is a political one -- so far, there has not been broad enough bipartisan support to pass a bill making domestic terrorism a federal offense.

Some lawmakers are working to change that. Three bills that would designate domestic terrorism a federal crime remain stalled in congressional committees.

"We think it's important as a statement to say 'this was an act of terror,'" McCaul said. "The El Paso case will no doubt be a state death penalty case. He's charged with capital murder. But it's also important to identify to the American people that this is domestic terrorism in the United States. We're simply giving another tool in the toolbox to law enforcement and prosecutors."

Since a person can't be charged with domestic terrorism, law enforcement officials like the FBI have to find related crimes like murder, illegal weapons possession and hate crimes in order to arrest and charge suspects.

In July 2019, before the El Paso shooting, FBI Director Christopher Wray told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the agency made approximately 100 domestic terrorism-related arrests during fiscal year 2018, which ran from October 1, 2017, to September 30, 2018.

"I will say that a majority of the domestic terrorism cases that we've investigated are motivated by some version of what you might call white supremacist violence, but it does include other things as well," Wray said.

Wray added that the agency has limitations when it comes to domestic terrorism that don't exist for international terrorism.

"Our focus is on the violence. We, the FBI, don't investigate ideology, no matter how repugnant. When it turns to violence, we're all over it," said Wray.

The tools that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies want to use to combat domestic terrorism are available for investigating international terrorism through the USA PATRIOT Act, passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

"Interestingly, the domestic terrorism definition was included in the 9-11 legislation with international terrorism, but there are no charges or penalties associated with it," McCaul said. "So, the FBI will open up a case under domestic terrorism, but they don't have the ability to be able to charge a domestic terrorism case. We simply added charges to domestic terrorism to give the FBI a tool in addition to their crimes that they can charge whether it be capital murder to assault."

FBI Agents Association President and current FBI Agent Brian O'Hare said the bipartisan bill will give the FBI more tools to track, and arrest domestic terrorists, and have those cases end up in domestic terrorism charges.

"When we investigate domestic terrorism at the end of the day, we're trying to find other related conduct which can be charged because there is no penalty for domestic terrorism," O'Hare said.

But there are concerns among civil liberties groups that expanding the PATRIOT Act's tools to fight terrorism to domestic cases could end up being harmful to Americans.

"The government has over 50 federal crimes related to domestic terrorism. They have an entire framework of hate crimes and they have expansive authority to investigate crimes before they're even committed," said Waheed.

Waheed said the new law would mean more surveillance and infringing upon First Amendment rights. The existing framework should be more than enough to fight domestic terrorism, especially white supremacist violence, she said.

Waheed alleged that the FBI is instead abusing its powers against marginalized communities instead of focusing on white supremacist violence.

"They have so many federal crimes they can charge with. They have expansive powers to conduct investigation long before a crime is committed, so why aren't they using those powers to address white supremacist violence?" Waheed said, adding that she's skeptical that the FBI can be trusted to label domestic terrorism groups and not just groups who are critical of the government.

McCaul said that he believes his bill can win over support from skeptical stakeholders, despite these worries

"I share (the ACLU's) concern but that's not what this legislation does. In the international terrorism space, we do delineate foreign terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda, like ISIS. In this bill, we don't do that. We're not into controlling freedom of thought, freedom of expression," said McCaul.

O'Hare argues there are checks and balances to ensure the FBI doesn't abuse its powers.

"All charges are public. All charges are taken to courts. There's a federal judge and jury who reviews all of our work and decide if the charge is appropriate," the FBI agent said.

O'Hare worries that since none of the three domestic terrorism bills addressing the issue have made it out of congressional committees so far, it's unlikely that any will pass the full Congress this legislative session.

"I pray that we do not wait until there is another incident. We have seen enough examples of domestic terrorism and the damage it can cause in different communities. It's unacceptable. The time to act is now," O'Hare said to CNN in an interview that took place before the Jersey City attack.

Read more:

The FBI labeled the Jersey City shooting as domestic terrorism. Why that's not a federal crime -- and how it may change - CNN

Tonights Evening Brief is brought to you by iPoliticsLIVE Events. We bring together experts and leaders from various backgrounds and perspectives to advance innovative solutions to major challenges and facilitate dialogue. Join the Conversation!Click here for more information.

Good evening, readers.

The Lead

Mexico will not allow U.S. labour attaches in the country, said Gomez Camacho, Mexicos ambassador to Canada.

The ambassadors comments come in response to legislation introduced in the U.S. Congress that would send five U.S. labour attaches to Mexico to ensure labour provisions under the United-Stated-Mexico-Canada-Agreement (USMCA) are being properly enforced. In an exclusive interview with iPolitics, Camacho said embassy personal must be approved by the host country and Mexican authorities would not allow labour attaches even if the U.S. Congress approved them.

If the intention was for these labour attaches to do any function of inspection, we absolutely disagree and we do not accept that he said.

Camacho said the proposal was put forward by U.S. lawmakers due to internal negotiations with trade unions who he said were concerned that U.S. jobs might go to Mexico if standards around wages were not set and enforced.

But, the ambassador said the three countries should follow the process currently laid out in USMCA. He said any of the three countries can make a labour complaint if they believe private businesses in another country is not following the provisions under USMCA.

Rachel Emmanuel reports.

In Canada

Ottawa is projected to run a $26.6 billion deficit in the current fiscal year, according to government economic and fiscal update released on Monday.

In the first presentation of federal finances since the October election, Finance Canada figures show Ottawa is expected to run annual deficits in the tens of billions of dollars for the immediate future.

The deficit total is expected to increase to a high of $28.1 billion next fiscal year, 2020-21, before gradually declining into 2024-25, when the estimated annual amount is projected to be $11.6 billion. The federal fiscal year begins on April 1 and ends on March 31.

Jolson Lim has the breakdown.

New Brunswicks premier says the prime minister told him his provinces plan to limit the greenhouse gas emissions of large emitters could be accepted as early as January, just days after the federal government announced it accepted the provinces plan that directly applies to consumers.

New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs was in Ottawa on Monday where he andPrime Minster Justin Trudeaumet and discussed the provinces proposed output-based pricing system for large industrial carbon emitters. Higgs said that Trudeau told him he would seek cabinets approval for New Brunswicks planned replacement for the federal governments own system sometime next month.

iPolitics reporter Charlie Pinkerton has the details.

A new Statistics Canada study shows the share of gig economy workers in Canada is increasing a trend that one economist says is worrisome.

The report from the federal agency released on Monday found about 1.7 million workers, 8.2 per cent of the Canadian labour force aged 15 and older, did some form of gig work in 2016. That marks an increase from about 1 million workers in 2005, 5.5 per cent.

Gig economy work is defined in the study as unincorporated self-employed workers who enter into various contracts with firms or individuals to complete a specific task or to work for a specific period of time. It includes freelancers and on-demand workers hired by online platforms such as Uber and Fiverr.

Lim has this one as well.

In Ontario, the provincial Alcohol and Gaming Commission was aware of at least one law enforcement matter, as well as ongoing investigative work, in the days following its last cannabis lottery, a document obtained by iPolitics shows just days after Ontario announced its impending move away from the lottery system.

A briefing note on the last retail lotterys results, acquired through a freedom of information request, contains multiple sections redacted due to information that could reasonably be expected to interfere with a law enforcement matter, or an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding. Information was also redacted that was seen to possibly reveal investigative techniques in use or likely to be used. Much of the redacted information was contained under a section detailing the AGCOs next steps following the provincial draw.

Victoria Gibson reports from Toronto.

Lobby Wrap: Three consultants register for Large Urban Mayors Caucus of Ontario

The Sprout: Mexico says no to U.S. labour inspectors, says ambassador

The Drilldown: Jason Kenney headed to London to talk energy

In Other Headlines

Morneau open to Alberta Premier Kenneys request for a boost to fiscal stabilization program (CBC News)

Conservative leadership gets committed candidate as political heavyweights mull options (CBC News)

Former Harper-era minister Michael Fortier looking very seriously at run for Conservative leadership (The Hill Times)

NDP wants more transparency, regular reviews of new North American trade deal (The Canadian Press)

Internationally

Chinese President Xi Jinping reiterated his support for Hong Kongs embattled leader on Monday. Xi praised Hong Kong Chief Executive Carrie Lam for holding fast to the principle of one country, two systems, and for courage and commitment during an extraordinary period for Hong Kong, where Lam has faced harsh criticism for how she has handled months of fiery anti-government protests. (The Associated Press)

U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham said Monday that President Donald Trump will announce an American troop drawdown from Afghanistan this week, potentially reducing the troops from 12,000 to 8,600. The senator said he supports the expected drawdown, saying the fewer U.S. troops would still be sufficient to guarantee that Afghanistan doesnt become a launching pad for another attack on U.S. soil. The withdrawal will likely begin next year. (The Associated Press)

The Kicker

How old do you think the worlds oldest couple is? Well, John and Charlotte Henderson recently celebrated their 80th wedding anniversary at 106 and 105-years-old respectively. I guess true love does exist.

More from iPolitics

Original post:

Evening Brief: Another hitch in USMCA negotiations - iPolitics.ca

This December 17 marks five years since the announcement of the thaw of diplomatic relations between the governments of Cuba and the United States by the then presidents Ral Castro and Barack Obama.

The five-year period, which began with the historic announcement of the reestablishment of diplomatic relations and the visit of President Obama to the island, ends with a 180-degree turn in U.S. policy towards Cuba, new presidents in both countries and relations at a critical point.

This has been, broadly speaking, the chronology of a path that promised a new stage in relations between the two countries and that distorted the intentions of normalization after the arrival of the Trump administration.

2014

December 17: Ral Castro and Barack Obama announce the reestablishment of bilateral relations. The prisoners accused of espionage are released, in Cuba the American Alan Gross and in the United States the Cubans Gerardo Hernndez, Antonio Guerrero and Ramn Labaino. Measures are announced, among others, to facilitate travel and remittances to Cuba.

2015

January 17: The measures announced by President Barack Obama on December 17, 2014, which remove some restrictions on trade and certain categories of travel to Cuba for Americans, come into force.

January 21-22: The first round of Cuba/United States negotiations is held in Havana after the announcement of the reestablishment of relations. The delegations were headed by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Roberta Jacobson, and by Josefina Vidal Ferreiro, Director General for the United States at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Cuba.

April 11: First official meeting between presidents Barack Obama and Ral Castro. They talked for an hour and 20 minutes in the framework of the 7th Summit of the Americas held in Panama.

May 29: Cuba is excluded from the State Departments list of countries sponsoring terrorism.

July 1: Barack Obama and Ral Castro exchange letters for the reestablishment of diplomatic relations and for the opening of their respective embassies on July 20.

July 20: In a ceremony headed by Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodrguez, the Cuban Embassy in Washington is inaugurated, officially reestablishing bilateral diplomatic relations.

August 14: Secretary of State John Kerry presides over the ceremony of raising the flag at the U.S. embassy in Havana, in front of the Malecn seawall.

September 11: The first Cuba-U.S. bilateral commission meets in Havana.

September 25-29: Ral Castro travels to the United States to speak for the first time at the UN General Assembly. On September 29 he meets with Obama.

October 6: Visit to Cuba by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker.

December 8: High representatives of the governments of both countries hold in Havana the first informational meeting on the subject of mutual economic compensation: those that have to do with the nationalizations made by the Cuban government after the triumph of the Revolution, and those derived from the embargo on the island.

December 11: Cuba and the United States agree to restore direct postal service.

2016

January 12: During the State of the Union speech at Congress, President Obama asks for the embargo on Cuba to be lifted.

February 16: The governments of Cuba and the United States sign a memorandum of understanding on civil aviation in Havana that includes direct regular routes.

March 16: Cuba and the United States restore direct postal service. Regulations come into force by which the U.S. government allows the use of dollars to Cubans and the islands financial institutions for certain transactions in the United States and authorizes individual trips to Cuba for educational purposes.

March 20: President Barack Obama arrives in Havana, accompanied by his family. Secretary of State John Kerry also travels in the delegation. It is the first and, so far, the only visit of an active American president to the island during the revolutionary government on the island (1959-present).

March 21: Obama and Ral Castro meet at the Palace of the Revolution. Later, the U.S. president participates in a forum with Cuban entrepreneurs.

March 22: Obama gives a speech at the Alicia Alonso Grand Theater of Havana, attended by Ral Castro, members of the government and civil society. He later meets with some opponents of the Cuban government and attends a baseball game before continuing his trip to Argentina.

May 2: The Adonia cruise ship of the American company Carnival Cruises arrives in Havana. This is the first commercial passenger trip from the United States to Cuba in half a century.

June 13: A Memorandum of Understanding on medical and health issues is signed in Washington between the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Cuban Ministry of Public Health.

August 31: With a flight to Santa Clara, the JetBlue airline opens regular flights from the United States to Cuba, after more than half a century.

October 7-9: Official visit to Cuba of Jill Biden, wife of U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, with an agenda on educational and cultural issues.

October 14: Barack Obama approves a presidential directive with new measures for an irreversible opening to Cuba.

October 26: The United States abstains for the first time in the vote of a UN General Assembly resolution that since 1992 condemns the U.S. embargo on Cuba and calls for its end. The resolution is supported by 191 states.

November 28: President-elect Donald Trump announces that he will end the agreement with Cuba if the islands government does not open up to improvement.

December: About 285,000 Americans visited Cuba since January of that year.

2017

January 12: A new migration agreement is signed in Havana, ending the wet foot/dry foot policy.

January 19: Cuba sends two containers with 40 tons of charcoal to the United States, the first export of a product from the Caribbean island to that country in more than half a century.

February 3: White House spokesman Sean Spicer announces that President Donald Trump has ordered a full review of the policy towards Cuba.

March 2: A State Department report includes Cuba on its list of main places for money laundering and asks the Cuban government to increase the transparency of its financial system.

May 9: President Trumps policy toward Cuba will have important differences with respect to Obamas, especially through a greater emphasis on human rights, says Assistant Secretary of State for Latin America Francisco Palmieri.

May: Until the end of the month almost as many Americans had visited Cuba as in the whole of 2016.

June 13: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announces in the Senate the changes that the U.S. government plans to make to its policy towards Cuba.

June 16: President Trump announces in Miami changes in policy towards Cuba, with restrictions on travel and business with Cuban entities.

June 20: Minnesota Lieutenant Governor Tina Smith is the first high-ranking U.S. government figure to visit Cuba since President Donald Trumps announcements.

June 29: The U.S. Treasury Department imposes four fines on U.S. and foreign companies for violations of the embargo. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) was involved in 29 apparent violations in providing insurance coverage to several shipments of goods to, from or related to the island.

August: Alleged acoustic attacks on U.S. diplomats in Havana come to light. The Cuban government denies any responsibility in the incidents. Bilateral tensions increase.

September 20: The sixth meeting of the United States-Cuba Bilateral Commission is held, the first in 2017. The Cuban side protests President Trumps speech at the UN, in which he severely conditioned relations with the island.

September 29: The U.S. government orders the withdrawal of more than half of the staff from its embassy in Havana because of the alleged acoustic attacks on its diplomats and indefinitely suspends the issuing of visas.

October 3: The U.S. government decides that 15 officials from the Cuban embassy in Washington leave the country arguing that the United States had reduced its diplomatic personnel in Havana, and that the Cuban government had not taken the necessary steps to prevent attacks against them.

November 8: The Departments of State, Treasury and Commerce make public the measures announced by Trump in Miami. A State Department list is published with 179 Cuban agencies with which U.S. entities and citizens are prohibited from making direct financial transactions. The list includes the Ministries of the Armed Forces and Interior, the National Revolutionary Police, enterprises, corporations, the Mariel Special Development Zone, the Mariel and Havana container terminals, dozens of hotels, travel agencies and stores.

November 18: The Treasury Department announces that the American Express Company (Amex) will pay a fine of 204,277 dollars for violation of the embargo. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) announces that this sanction is related to the possible responsibility of the Belgian company BCC Corporate S.A. (BCCC) in apparent violations of existing regulations.

December 23: The Office of Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announces that it would temporarily suspend operations at its embassy in Havana due to the reduction of personnel. The agencys office in Mexico will assume these procedures.

2018

January 10: The United States recommends that its citizens reconsider possible trips to Cuba. The State Department changes its alert system based on a ranking that places nations on four levels. The first only involves taking normal precautions and the fourth is a warning not to travel. They placed Cuba on level three, with the suggestion of reconsidering visits because there are supposed risks to their security and protection.

March 26: The budget approved by the U.S. Congress that allowed government financing until mid-2018 included 20 million dollars to support the dissidence.

March 30: It is announced that the United States will begin processing immigrant visas for Cubans through its embassy in Georgetown, Guyana. The consular section in Havana is virtually paralyzed. Since September 2017, it only offers emergency services.

September 10: President Donald Trump renews the Trading with the Enemy Act for another year, a 1917 statute that supports the economic embargo/blockade imposed on Cuba. Since John F. Kennedy (1962) all the following presidents have done so.

September 18: Trump appoints Mauricio Claver-Carone, former executive director of the Cuba-United States Democracy Political Action Committee and known for being a hardliner, as the new director of the Western Hemisphere Affairs of the National Security Council.

December 18: According to the annual report of the Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the United States deported a total of 256,085 immigrants in fiscal year 2018. Of that figure, 463 are Cuban, an increase of 189% in relation to fiscal year 2017, when 160 nationals were returned to the island.

2019

April 17: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announces that President Trump would not suspend Title III of the Cuban Freedom and Democratic Solidarity Act, better known as the Helms-Burton Act, for no additional period of time. This title allows U.S. citizens whose properties were nationalized in the 1960s to sue in court any person, regardless of their nationality, who knowingly and intentionally traffic with those properties, and includes those interested Cuban citizens who were nationalized Americans after the expropriations of the 1960s.

May 2: The Trump administrations national security adviser, John Bolton, declares that Cuba has 20,000 soldiers in Venezuela and was intervening in its internal affairs.

May 3: The Trump administration activates Title III of the Helms Burton Act. As of 1996, when it was signed by Bill Clinton, the successive administrations had postponed its application every six months after an agreement with several trade partners with investments on the island, in particular the European Union and Canada.

May 12: Senators Marco Rubio and Bob Menndez present a bill to prohibit the official recognition of Cuban trademark rights in the United States.

June 5: The Treasury Department announces the policy of not allowing people-to-people cultural and educational trips to Cuba, and other measures related to travel and transportation services, remittances, banking, commerce and telecommunications businesses. These actions will help keep U.S. dollars out of the reach of Cuban military and intelligence and security services, said Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

June 5: The last U.S. cruise ship departs from Havana, thus putting an end to a brief boom. Seventeen companies and 27 ships had gotten to operate. According to John Kavulich, president of the U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council, the cruises contributed between 63 million to 107 million dollars to the Cuban government, a tiny part of the 2.5 billion dollars in revenue reported by the Ministry of Tourism that year.

September 6: The Treasury Department modifies the Cuban Assets Control Regulations to impose new sanctions on Cuba. Through these regulatory amendments, the Treasury is denying Cubas access to foreign currencies and we are curbing the bad behavior of the Cuban government while continuing to support the people of Cuba who suffer so much, said Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin.

The new sanctions increase the restrictions for sending remittances and bank transactions. The United States imposes a limit of 1,000 dollars per quarter for the sending of family remittances. It also prohibits sending remittances to close relatives of Cuban officials and members of the Communist Party.

It also imposes restrictions on U-turn transactions, which consist of transfers of funds carried out through a U.S. bank, but which do not originate or have as destination that country, and in which neither the issuer nor the recipient are subject to U.S. jurisdiction. With the new regulation, the White House puts an end to a prior permit authorizing these movements.

October 25: The U.S. government announces that it will suspend commercial airline flights to the interior of the island. As of December 10, they will only be allowed to land in Havana. This means the suspension of flights to another 10 airports throughout the island. The ban on flights to other cities in Cuba does not apply to charter flights.

November 15: Coinciding with the celebration of Havanas 500th anniversary, the U.S. government adds five hotels to its list of enterprises with which Americans are prohibited from negotiating. In a press release issued the day before that anniversary, the State Department reports that these changes will take effect on November 19.

November 27: The new restrictions on travel to Cuba imposed by the United States had a negative impact on the tourism sector of the Caribbean country. In September 2018, 51,776 Americans traveled to Cuba, in the same month in 2019 only 13,094 did so, for a decrease of 74.7%.

From January to September of this year, U.S. visitors decreased by 5.2%, from 460,288 to 436,453.

December 10: The measure on commercial flights announced on October 25 takes effect.

December 16: Carlos Fernndez de Cosso, director of the United States Department of the Cuban Foreign Ministry, said in Havana that: Cuba wants normal relations with the U.S., but Havana wont lose any sleep if the administration of President Donald Trump breaks official ties between the two countries.

See the original post here:

Cuba-US relations: A five-year chronology of the thaw - OnCubaNews

Even more interesting was newly minted Liberal Senator Sarah Henderson who has revealed shes paid back a loan she received from a vehicle linked to Geelongs wealthy Costa family. Frank Costa, the Geelong-based grocer, has been one of Hendersons most enduring supporters. And so it came as little surprise to learn in October via her inaugural statement of interests that Henderson had received a personal loan from Ajax Capital after Mays federal election.

Ajax counts former Costa executive Gary Meadows and current Costa executive Liza Whitmore as its only shareholders. It is also run out of the same Moorabool Street, Geelong address as Costa Asset Management, which is chaired by Franks brother, Robert Costa.

But its a delicate subject, apparently. When asked about the loan on Wednesday, Henderson declined to comment.

Outgoing Westpac chairman Lindsay Maxsted felt the wrath of the banks shareholders at its annual general meeting last Thursday. As the man in charge when it was revealed the bank had breached anti-money-laundering regulations 23 million times, and potentially handled payments that facilitated child abuse, the criticism was expected.

Shareholders took aim at the banks inability to quantify just how much it will have to pay out in fines to AUSTRAC, the governments financial intelligence agency, as a result of the foreign payments scandal.

As it stands, the bank knows it's in line to cough up a motza, but doesnt know how much. So, it has accounted for the fine in financial statements as an unquantifiable but significant contingent liability.

Credit:Matt Golding

Shareholders werent happy about it on Thursday. But new accounts to emerge from Treasury this week show Maxsted might have a point.

A flick through Josh Frydenbergs release of the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook indicates the government is just as stuck trying to gauge the size of the fine as Westpac.

The accounts statement of risks shows Treasury has also booked the fine which will be a windfall for the government as a contingent asset that cant be quantified.

Of course, the MYEFO accounts this week were dominated by news a budget surplus projected for this financial year will come in about $2 billion below expectations. Presumably Westpacs payment will help trim that margin.

It was a takes-all-types affair on Tuesday for Christmas drinks at the Institute of Public Affairs John Roskams right-of-centre thinktank.

IPA chair Janet Albrechtsen was front centre at the event held in its Collins Street headquarters, which also doubled as a book launch for the former Australian Ambassador to Poland, John Burgess, who has written about his years in Europe in The Solidarity Challenge: Poland 1980-81, An Australian Diary.

The book, which charts the rise of Polands trade union movement and the beginning of the end of communism in the country, carries a foreword by historian Geoffrey Blainey. It was launched on the night by former Trades Hall assistant secretary and long-time Australian Workers' Union organiser David Cragg.

The common thread? Were happy to work with anyone who believes in freedom and freedom of speech, Albrechtsen said. That includes the unions, Getup, the Greens if they want to get on the right side of freedom, were here with open arms.

We thought JP Morgans Annabelle Mooney would finish the year as the US firms most high-profile investment banker, after shopping around town an organisational chart alleging she has a direct (dotted) line to JP Morgans global chairman Jamie Dimon.

JP Morgan has more than 200,000 staff so we are not sure a mid-tier Australian banker would get much phone time with the big boss.

Anyway, Mooney has competition in the form or her former PwC colleague Katie Tabb who is now a vice-president at JP Morgan. Tabb made a splash on reality television on a recent episode of Love It Or List It, which features homeowners unsure about keeping or selling their homes.

The episode with Tabb and her Macquarie banker partner Tom Colebatch was so entertaining that it featured on another program Gogglebox Australia.

Tom and Katie always dreamed of living among other white short wearers, we are told. Tragically, two years ago, they had to swap the white pants for a fedora, when they bought a house in [Surry Hills] Or, as Tabb puts it, Ugh, Surry Hills.

Life can be tough in a $2.24 million two-storey terrace in inner-city Sydney, after all.

Samantha is the The Age's CBD columnist. She recently covered Victorian and NSW politics and business for News Corp, and previously worked for the Australian Financial Review.

Kylar Loussikian is The Sydney Morning Herald's CBD columnist.

Read the original here:

CBD Melbourne - The Age

Canadas telecoms are some of the most stable and intriguing investments available on the market. Apart from offering appetizing dividends, telecoms provide increasingly necessary services to consumers. Arguably, some consumers now place the need for a wireless or internet connection on par with their utility service.

In other words, there is an incredible opportunity for investors to realize by investing in telecoms. Today, lets take a look at both Rogers Communications (TSX:RCI.B)(NYSE:RCI) and Shaw Communications (TSX:SJR.B)(NYSE:SJR) and determine which is better for your portfolio.

Shaw is the undisputed underdog of Canadas telecoms. Due to Shaws recent entry into the wireless space, it lacks the nationwide coverage that Rogers and its peers enjoy, but in the markets where Shaw does compete, it is doing exceptionally well. In the most recent quarter, wireless revenue saw an impressive 12% year-over-year gain, while EBITDA from the wireless segment saw an equally impressive 30% jump in 2019.

In terms of subscribers, the fourth quarter of fiscal 2019 saw Shaw post record net subscriber additions of 90,700, bringing the total number of net new subscribers in fiscal 2019 to 266,000.

As Shaw continues to roll out the aptly named Freedom Mobile to more markets in 2020, investors can expect both the subscriber and revenue number numbers to continue growing. That growth will also continue to feed Shaws appetizing dividend, which remains a key reason why investors continue to turn to the stock. The current monthly distribution carries an attractive yield of 4.44%.

Shaw currently trades just over $26 with a P/E 18.90.

If Shaw was the underdog trying to punch above its weight, Rogers would be the incumbent that other telecoms want to be. Rogers offers the standard subscription services with impressive coverage that blankets the country. Rogers also has a large media arm that offers everything from professional sports teams and venues to TV and radio stations, all of which contribute to the companys balance sheet.

That impressive portfolio makes Rogers a hard investment to ignore. In the most recent quarter, the company saw revenues come in near flat over the prior year, with revenues coming in at $3,754 million compared with $3,769 reported in the same period last year.

In terms of earnings, Rogers earned $622 million, or $1.14 per diluted share in the quarter, compared with $625 million, or $1.15 per diluted share in the prior year.Those flat year-over-year numbers contributed to the stock shedding over 8% in 2019 so far, which is incredible considering the defensive nature of the stock.

Rogers offers investors a quarterly dividend, which currently provides a respectable 3.16% yield. While that yield is significantly lower than Shaw and its other telecom peers, Rogers does still hold appeal to longer-term investors who are looking for both income and growth prospects.

Both Rogers and Shaw provide investors with promising long-term prospects. Shaws growing mobile segment and handsome monthly dividend remain attractive factors for investors, while Rogerss emphasis on reducing its debt and improving its already attractive coverage area could become game-changing factors in the future.

While they both offer investors opportunities for growth, Shaws long-term prospects through Freedom Mobile and that monthly dividend are proving too hard to ignore at the moment.

See the article here:

Which Is the Better Telecom to Buy in 2020? - The Motley Fool Canada

AMERICA'S OPENNESS TOrefugees has been a distinct feature of our country from its foundation. Our nation was established by communities facing discrimination elsewhere for their religious practices. In the periods when the country was not open to refugees and asylum seekers, such as during the Holocaust, it later became clear that we were on the wrong side of history.

The Trump administration announced this fall an annual admissions ceiling of 18,000 refugees for the next fiscal year, its third straight year of drastic reductions and a historic low. By comparison, almost 85,000 refugees were admitted in President Obamas last year in office. Trumps actions come at a time when the number of people fleeing conflict around the world is the highest since World War II.

Faith-based organizations in the United States have been at the forefront of refugee resettlement. The Trump administration decision threatens the already precarious structures around resettlement, which are largely religiously based. For many, the scriptural obligation to care for the stranger is a core religious belief. By having this capacity for service undercut, in many ways the faithfulacross the spectrum from conservative to progressiveare unable to fulfill their religious obligations for care. The administrations refusal to engage the many faith-based leaders and organizations who called for more, not less, openness to welcoming refugees decries its alleged commitment to religious freedom.

See the rest here:

The Hypocrisy of Religious Freedom and Refugee Limits - Sojourners