Category Archives: Fiscal Freedom

Gage SkidmoreSo how did the libertarian Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) end up justifying his controversial vote for the American Health Care Act (AHCA), which, as noted (and sniffily disregarded) by The Week's Damon Linker, has been roundly slammed by libertarians? By writing, as he always does, a Facebook post (duly characterized by the Washington Post's Amber Phillips as "tortured"). The cheery opening sentence: "This is not the bill we promised the American people."

Amash then goes on to explain his thought process more fully:

When deciding whether to support a bill, I ask myself whether the bill improves upon existing law, not whether I would advocate for the policy or program if I were starting with a blank slate. In other words, the proper analysis is not whether it makes the law good but rather whether it makes the law better. In this case, I felt comfortable advancing the bill to the Senate as a marginal improvement to the ACA.

Read the whole thing for more in that vein. But for the purposes of this post I'm actually more interested in Amash's smack-talk. Because one of the more striking things about this historic 217-213 vote is how many of its all-Republican supporters have been willing to acknowledge that it really ain't all that. First up, more Amash:

The AHCA repeals fewer than 10 percent of the provisions in the Affordable Care Act. It is an amendment to the ACA that deliberately maintains Obamacare's framework. []

Many have questioned the process that led up to the vote on May 4. I have publicly expressed my disgust with it. The House again operated in top-down fashion rather than as a deliberative body that respects the diversity of its membership. []

[T]he ACA will continue to drive up the cost of health insurancewhile bolstering the largest insurance companiesand the modifications contained in the AHCA cannot save it. Many of the AHCA's provisions are poorly conceived or improperly implemented. At best, it will make Obamacare less bad.

Below, some other Trumpcare critiques from yes-voting members of the House Freedom Caucus. As with Amash, click on the links for the whole context, which invariably includes more positive sentiments.

* Steve Pearce (New Mexico): "It still has deep flaws you could find a dozen reasons to vote against it."

* Rod Blum (Iowa): "I have always said the process was bad.It was rushed. There should have been hearings."

* Mark Sanford (South Carolina):

[U]ltimately the vote came down to one simple question: do we kill the bill and stop the debate from advancing to the Senate or not?

In its original form back in March, my vote was indeed to kill the bill. It was rushed and not ready. With the three amendments that came after my and others' efforts to shut down the bill, it's my belief that it was at least worth letting the Senate debate it. []

In short, this week's vote means simply that you and I will be talking about this issue for months to come, and I earnestly look forward to those conversations and the learning that will come with them.

* Trent Franks (Arizona):

The congressman said the bill "fell far short of what I wanted" but saw it as a necessary evil of sorts.

"I just came to the conclusion that, given the circumstances that we're in, that it would hurt us far worse not to see it pass than it will to pass it[.]"

* Jim Jordan (Ohio): "This is the best bill we can get out of the HouseBut frankly, we should be clear this is not repeal of ObamaCare. If it was repeal, you wouldn't need the option for a waiver option for states to seek. So, we have to be clear with the voters about that, and continue to work on it."

* Scott Perry (Pennsylvania): "While it's important to recognize the American Health Care Act does not repeal the Affordable Care Act in full, it is a first step, albeit an imperfect one."

* Evan Jenkins (West Virginia): "This was a tough call.Is it a perfect solution? No.It goes to the Senate. Work will continue. Doing nothing wasn't an option."

There are, to be sure, more upbeat reactions from other Freedom Caucus members.

My strong hunch, now more than ever, is that the Freedom Caucus largely wilted in the glare of attention from President Donald Trumpwhich was at first very negative (especially toward intellectual ringleader/rebel Amash), and then bluff-callingly positive, in a YOU-write-the-damn-bill kinda way. As Caucus Chair Mark Meadows recently and tellingly said, "When you get a phone call from the president and that's followed up by a phone call from the president, followed up by a phone call from the vice president it needs to get done." (And as Libertarian Party National Chair Nicholas Sarwark snarked, "Passage of the AHCA is an example of the broken Washington culture that says, 'We have to do something. This is something. We have to do this.'")

There were three basic assumptions required for Freedom Caucusites to get to "yes": 1) It will make the health care system incrementally better (Peter Suderman disagrees, FWIW). 2) Seven years of political grandstanding to the contrary, there is no hope of Congress actually replacing Obamacare. (As Amash put it, "it is increasingly clear that a bill to repeal Obamacare will not come to the floor in this Congress or in the foreseeable future.") Furthermore, 3) getting Freedom Caucus fingerprints on the thing is the only bulwark preventing whatever comes next from lurching significantly to the left.

On that last point in particular, the Freedom Caucus can certainly crow that its leader, Mark Meadows, has become the House's point man in AHCA discussions with the Senate. Better that than some squish from the Tuesday Group, members plausibly argue. What's more, they may have stumbled on a new blueprint for big legislative heaves in the Trump era: Go to the Freedom Caucus first.

But in that victory lies the seeds of defeat. If all it takes for a group of notorious "hardliners" to abandon many of their long-held principles is a little carrot-stick action from a president famous for his negotiating acumen, they may have effectively handed Trump a get-out-of-obstruction-free card. In the process they risk not just alienating their own hardcore base of fiscal and constitutional conservatives, but corroding the philosophical glue that has until now held a small unit together and allowed it punch far above its collective weight.

If the AHCA somehow manages to survive through Senate deliberations and the resulting negotiating process with the House, you may see many of the people quoted above voting against the very deal they made possible. Would the electorate then let them off the hook? Would members stay the course even if theirs was the swing vote and President Trump got super mean on Twitter? And could the Freedom Caucus survive in the face of such tumult? These are just a few of the questions.

Continue reading here:

Freedom Caucus Republicans Criticize the Obamacare Revamp They Voted for - Reason (blog)

On Monday, County Manager Ashley Wooten gave the McDowell County Commission a proposed $40.5 million budget for fiscal year 2017-2018.

And for the 14th year in row, the proposed county budget doesnt call for a property tax rate hike. The countys property tax rate will stay at 55 cents per $100 valuation, the same rate that it has been since fiscal year 2004-2005.

Wooten formally presented the commissioners with the 2017-2018 budget an hour prior to the start of the regular meeting for May. State law requires that recommended budgets be presented to the local governments in North Carolina and that the recommendation must be balanced. Counties like McDowell operate on a fiscal year that begins on July 1 and ends on June 30.

The recommended 2017-2018 budget of $40,562,169 represents a decrease of $286,345 from the current budget of $40,848,514. Wooten said the reason for the decrease is the day care subsidy expenditure (and its corresponding revenue) in the county Department of Social Services will no longer pass through the countys books.

Therefore, the total budget for the next budget year is a decrease from the current budget, he said. Were not laying off people. Were not closing buildings or anything like that.

County officials said McDowells taxes and fees will continue to remain low. McDowells property tax rate is 14 cents below the average. Likewise, the county employs 41 fewer workers than the average for counties in North Carolina. The property tax revenues are $9,508,713 below the average.

The proposed county budget for next fiscal year contains more money for the school system (including an increase in teacher supplements) and McDowell Technical Community College. The proposed budget includes a pay increase for the 341 county employees.

Human services (DSS) takes up 28 percent of the overall county budget. Education (the school system and McDowell Tech) comprise 25 percent while public safety (the Sheriffs Office, EMS and fire departments) also comprise 25 percent. General county government covers 12 percent while environmental protection takes up 5 percent of the county budget. The rest is devoted to cultural and recreation (3 percent), debt service (2 percent) and economic and industrial development (3 percent).

In his presentation to the board, Wooten talked about what the countys budget will accomplish.

Under the proposed budget, several county positions will be upgraded from part-time to full-time. The county will continue to budget money for the third phase of the Joseph McDowell Historical Catawba Greenway. There is also $80,290 for overtime pay for EMS workers and $11,812 in overtime for communications workers.

I think we provide good service for the people, said Wooten. We work really hard.

The school system is recommended to get $8,558,298 in county money, which is an increase of $105,658, or 1.25 percent, from the current fiscal year. That includes both the current expense, which are the day-to-day operating needs, and capital outlay, which are building and equipment needs. There is also $84,000 for the teacher supplements.

McDowell Tech is recommended to get $1,131,890 in county money, which is an increase of $13,974, or 1.25 percent, from the current fiscal year. That includes both current expense and capital outlay.

The county also provides money to a wide array of other agencies. These include the Clerk of Courts office, the volunteer fire departments, New HOPE of McDowell, the N.C. Forest Service, the Health Coalition, Vaya Health, the McDowell Chamber of Commerce, the Old Fort Chamber of Commerce, the medical examiner, Historic Carson House, the TDA, the Rescue Squad, MACA, the Watershed Commission, Freedom Life Ministries, the National Guard, Relay for Life and others.

More information should be available for public inspection at the County Administration Building. The commissioners can make any changes to the proposed budget before adopting it by July 1.

Its now your budget, said Wooten to the commissioners. You can change whatever you want.

The commissioners will likely hold a series of meetings as they work out the budgets details. They plan to meet with the McDowell Fire Commission on Thursday. They may talk with other department heads about the budget for next fiscal year. A public hearing will be held at the regular June meeting.

Go here to read the rest:

McDowell Commissioners get proposed budget; property tax rate stays the same - McDowell News

A little over a year ago, Mozilla started pondering the future of Thunderbird. And this week, it's decided the troubled open-source email client must sleep in the spare room.

Once upon a time, a unified code base for Mozilla's Firefox and Thunderbird sounded great, but interest in the idea waned, and working on an email client soaked up precious engineering time from browser development. So in 2015, Mozilla Foundation supremo Mitchell Baker suggested a gentle separation.

What's happened now is a divorce-of-convenience: as foreshadowed in April 2016, Thunderbird will remain under the foundation's roof, but there will be changes. While Moz will provide a "legal, fiscal and cultural home" for the free software, the Thunderbird Council, which oversees the project, will have to manage its operations, infrastructure, developers, funding, and community, all by itself.

As a result, the Firefox and Thunderbird source code will diverge. It's over between the two not with a bang, but a whimper.

In an announcement on Tuesday, Mozilla's Philipp Kewisch said: The Mozilla Foundation has agreed to serve as the legal and fiscal home for the Thunderbird project, but Thunderbird will migrate off Mozilla Corporation infrastructure, separating the operational aspects of the project.

Kewisch added:

From an operational perspective, Thunderbird needs to act independently. The council will be managing all operations and infrastructure required to serve over 25 million users and the community surrounding it. This will require a certain amount of working capital and the ability to make strong decisions. The Mozilla Foundation will work with the Thunderbird Council to ensure that operational decisions can be made without substantial barriers.

This means that the other options canvassed in 2016 by former OSI president Simon Phipps, to send Thunderbird off to the Software Freedom Conservancy or The Document Foundation, won't proceed.

Kewisch declined to confirm any details of future funding. "Id like to avoid any speculations about financial aid until there are concrete plans, as it just causes confusion and misunderstandings," he said.

"The council will be looking into different ways to increase funds in order to secure the future of Thunderbird. We welcome contributions of any size from both individuals and organizations."

From what we can tell, Thunderbird team has been raising money through donations, and it's hinted that Mozilla may kick in some cash later. So far, the donations, which are handled by Moz, have given the council the confidence to begin moving away from Mozilla-hosted infrastructure, and to hire a staff to support this process. Our infrastructure is moving to thunderbird.net and were already running some Thunderbird-only services, like the ISPDB (used for auto configuring users email accounts), on our own.

He adds that there are several remaining pain points, highlighting build/release, localisation, and divergent plans with respect to add-ons, to name a few.

In the immediate future, we're told, the Thunderbird Council will focus on increasing its distance from the Mozilla mothership. If that happens, and if the Thunderbird Council and Mozilla Foundation maintain a good working relationship and make decisions in a timely manner, then it's all plain sailing; if not, there's a provision for either side to terminate Mozilla's role in Thunderbird at six months' notice.

The next stage will be to modernize Thunderbird, if it can find the cash and engineers, of course.

"The Thunderbird Council is optimistic about the future. With the organizational question settled, we can focus on the technical challenges ahead," said Kewisch.

"Thunderbird will remain a Gecko-based application at least in the midterm, but many of the technologies Thunderbird relies upon in that platform will one day no longer be supported. The long term plan is to migrate our code to web technologies, but this will take time, staff, and planning.

"We are looking for highly skilled volunteer developers who can help us with this endeavor, to make sure the world continues to have a high-performance open-source secure email client it can rely upon."

For Thunderbird, it's not a case of use it or lose it. It's donate and develop, or lose it.

Originally posted here:

Mozilla to Thunderbird: You can stay here and we may give you cash, but as a couple, it's over - The Register

If President Donald Trump and the Republican Congress think theyve been under pressure to produce lately, just wait a few months.

Over the next several months, Republicans will have to figure out how to cut deals with Democrats to avoid a default on the national debt and avert a government shutdown, among several other must-pass items. But the negotiations will unfold against the acrimony of the GOPs Obamacare repeal effort and a bruising fight over tax reform, none of which are likely to inspire trust between the two sides.

Story Continued Below

Though Congress avoided a government closure this month a major bipartisan legislative accomplishment for an institution otherwise devoid of any this year a quintet of critical deadlines in the early fall will force either a furious round of deal-making or brinkmanship that could have dire effects on the economy. It will be a major test of Trump and the all-GOP Congress ability to govern, and the Republicans are bound to be blamed for any problems, given their dominant political position.

By most accounts, Congress is not ready for the impending crunch; Trump even seemed to welcome a crisis with his tweet last week that the country needs a good shutdown in September.

A new government funding bill is due by the end of September, and Republicans are behind schedule on producing a budget that lays out their spending plans. The debt ceiling will likely need to be raised around that time, a vital exercise that an all-GOP Washington hasnt executed for more than a decade. Democrats are eager to extract leverage at every opportunity given their minority status. At least eight Democratic votes in the Senate will be needed to pass a funding bill and, most likely, increase the debt ceiling.

If I were in charge, I would be worried, warned Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

As if avoiding a government shutdown and debt default werent enough, Congress will have to tackle three important programs set to expire at the end of September: Federal Aviation Administration law, federal flood insurance and a childrens health insurance initiative. Congress may have to adopt short-term fixes to keep all three running. A number of smaller provisions are set to expire, too, including Coast Guard laws and some Medicare and Food and Drug Administration programs.

The early prognosis from senior Republicans is that the debt ceiling and government funding will have to be combined in some way to get a deal, possibly with some of the other expiring measures.

Not many orphans get very far, do they? said Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.), a senior member of the Appropriations Committee.

Republicans are anxious about the nightmarish calendar ahead. Congress has 12 weeks left before all 12 appropriations bills are due, and not a single one is close to the starting let alone the finish line.

Work on the spending bills is on track to start much later than expected, according to long-time appropriators and observers. Some lawmakers, like Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), are already warning that a stopgap funding bill might be needed to avoid a shutdown after Sept. 30.

Our budget process is totally broken, said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.).

Republicans are now considering a longer delay to the official kickoff of the 2018 spending cycle. GOP budget-writers may not release their budget blueprint until after the Memorial Day recess, according to a GOP aide familiar with the process. The document sets the amount of money Congress will spend that year.

The initial goal was around May 15, the same week the Trump administration was expected to unveil its full budget blueprint. The White House has since told lawmakers to expect its budget the week of May 22, sources said. New administrations typically release their budgets in February.

Republicans cant officially pass a budget until finishing, or ditching, their health care effort. Thats because their current power to use reconciliation the majority-vote budget tool that allows the Senate to bypass the filibuster will expire when a new budget is approved. Republicans intend to use the next budget to write reconciliation instructions for tax reform; Senate rules preclude using the next budget resolution for health care reform as well.

Still, some lawmakers say they can get around approving an official budget, and start drafting appropriations bills, if GOP leaders can informally agree to spending levels for next year.

However, Trump injects a new dose of uncertainty into the annual fall fiscal fights. The president nearly went all-out this spring to secure funding for his proposed U.S.-Mexico border wall before relenting at the last minute; the White House could come to see Septembers convergence of deadlines as a chance to exert more leverage over Congress.

I dont know where the president is on these matters. If hes willing to go to the [mat], I think it will help Republicans, said Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). [Democrats] will do their very best to get whatever they can.

Conservatives in the House Freedom Caucus, who mostly opposed a $1.1 trillion spending bill that Trump signed Friday, averting a government shutdown, say theyll also be digging in much more next year. And they expect Trump to do the same.

Its one thing to compromise and have a bipartisan bill, but when you have [Sen. Chuck] Schumer grinning from ear to ear, its like, come on, said Rep. Dave Brat (R-Va.), referring to the perception that Democrats one-upped Republicans in the recent budget showdown. Now its like, OK, lets get it right. Lets start putting the Trump agenda into effect.

The focus on avoiding economic catastrophe could cause Congress to put off attempts to revamp expiring laws. Historically, Congress has had little problem punting on the FAA bill, while the flood insurance program is a source of Republican infighting, with lawmakers from low-lying areas fighting for lower premiums and fiscal conservatives blasting any rates viewed as too generous.

Democratic senators say they have not decided how to exert their leverage. They could insist on additional spending on domestic programs as a condition for voting to raise the debt ceiling. Democrats will also want an extension of the Childrens Health Insurance Program.

I am concerned because we dont see any long-term planning, said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the No. 3 Democratic leader. There are some things you have to do. And [childrens health insurance] is certainly part of that, in my mind.

Republicans are skeptical that Democrats will provide votes without major concessions. And that means the GOP may be forced to come up with the bulk of the votes for lifting the debt ceiling, after providing minimal support over the past eight years.

Historically, the party in the majority has to raise the debt ceiling. So were going to have to, I assume, combine that with other measures that will make that palatable, said Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn (R-Texas).

Budget leaders are already scheming to get conservatives to swallow a tough vote after years of opposing increases to the debt limit. White House budget chief Mick Mulvaney is suggesting that Republicans impose more fiscal discipline in future fiscal deals, while House conservatives have similarly hinted that they want some kind of deficit-slashing package to be included with a debt ceiling vote.

Sign up for POLITICO Huddle. A daily play-by-play of congressional news in your inbox.

By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time.

They could get their wish: Earlier this month, the GOP-led House Budget Committee privately floated cutting some entitlement programs later this year.

The crush of deadline-driven items on top of big-ticket efforts on health care and taxes is sowing doubts that Republicans can pull it all off. The party has also promised to raise Obama-era caps on defense spending.

From the beginning, I thought the agenda was too big to be realistic, said Doug Holtz-Eakin, president of American Action Forum and a former budget official in the George W. Bush administration. Its just too much.

Missing out on the latest scoops? Sign up for POLITICO Playbook and get the latest news, every morning in your inbox.

See the article here:

Coming soon: The fiscal cliff to end all fiscal cliffs - Politico

Yesterday, we marked National Military Appreciation Month by welcoming Honor Flight veterans, who fought on the front lines of freedom in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam, to the White House.

Our service members served their country in a way and at a time that challenged each one of them to step up the perseveration of our way of life. With Americas armed forces in the vanguard, the United States was able to stand as a beacon for freedom. Our nation marshaled every ounce of our strength to save freedom across the Atlantic, across the Pacific, and across the very world. The sons and daughters of America, and, indeed, all who call themselves free will remember their service for eternity, until the world stops turning.

The old book says, if you owe debts, pay debts. If honor, then honor. If respect, then respect. These men and women are among the best of us. And on behalf of their Commander-in-Chief, we say thanks and salute their service.

But our service members know that they have more than just our thanks. Under President Donald Trump, Americas armed forces have a leader a tireless defender of our American military and our veterans. The President is fighting every single day to keep America safe and keep our promises to those who have served in the uniform of the United States.

The President has said that our veterans deserve the finest care America can provide. Just over a week ago, President Trump signed an executive order to ensure that the Department of Veterans Affairs is as efficient, effective, and accountable as any great healthcare provider in America. And last month, President Trump signed into law the Veterans Choice Act to give our heroes the choices they deserve for world-class healthcare.

He also signed into law legislation that, in the balance of this fiscal year, will increase defense spending by $21 billion the biggest investment in military readiness in nearly a decade.

Thanks to President Trumps strong leadership, national defense is now coming first. And, we were able to increase defense spending with the largest investment in years without requiring an additional increase in domestic spending, putting an additional burden on taxpayers. That's real progress for taxpayers and our military.

As the proud father of an American service member, its the greatest privilege of my life to serve as Vice President to a President who is committed to the men and women of our armed forces, to their families, and to our veterans.

In this administration, we will not rest and will not relent until we give our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, and Coast Guard the resources they need to accomplish their mission, defend our nation, and come home safe.

We're going to see our veterans to make sure that the promises that they earned in uniform are kept by the American people.

And we're never going to hesitate to honor those whove served, and to pay a debt of honor and gratitude to all who in their moment, in their time said, yes, to America. And because they said, yes, freedom prevails to this day.

Read more:

Honoring our Veterans this National Military Appreciation Month - The White House (blog)

Like so much that is served up in the White House mess, the Executive Order on religious liberty signed by the President last week is all sizzle and no ribeye.

Its purported purpose was to allow churches and pastors to endorse political candidates from the pulpit without worrying about the IRS threatening their tax-exempt status. But the order was so wimpy that, as The New York Times said, it angered many Trump supporters and perplexed innocent religious bystanders, while opponents just said: meh!

Related: Trump Vows to End Prohibition on Church Political Activity

Religious conservatives looking for the liberty not to hire or serve members of the LBGTQ community went away disappointed. Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage, told The Times, In failing to deliver for people of faith, President Trump risks alienating the single constituency most responsible for his election.

Clerical organizations like the 45,000-church National Association of Evangelicals shook their heads: Its president, Leith Anderson, said, I dont actually know anybody who has endorsed or who wants to endorse a politician from the pulpit.

And the American Civil Liberties Union was so not threatened that it declined to sue over what it called an elaborate photo op on National Prayer Day.

The atheists did file suit, arguing that the EO gives religious nonprofits rights not afforded to other groups that are tax-exempt. In a statement, the Freedom from Religion Foundation said in part, Trumps order and statements signal to the Internal Revenue Service that it should not enforce the electioneering restrictions of the tax code against churches and religious organizations while permitting these restrictions to be enforced against secular nonprofits.

Those restrictions were set in 1954 by Johnson Amendment, which encourages the IRS to threaten the tax-exempt status of houses of worship that endorse a political candidate or party. But it has rarely been invoked.

Related: Trump's Religious Freedom Order May Give Opponents an Unintended Boost

Now the IRS, always wary of the amendment, will have even less of an incentive to call out a church for playing politics.

And thats O.K.

If priests, rabbis, imans, pastors, nuns, monks and their religious institutions want to use their use their bully pulpits to bully congregants into voting a certain way, they should be free to do so. After all, no one is forcing folks to sit on a hard bench and listen to them.

However, like every other tax-paying American, those with God on their side should pay to play politics. Liberty isnt a free lunch.

Of course, it is a pipe dream to imagine that deity-hugging politicians might ever remove the tax exemption granted to religious entities: In many parts of the country, that would be tantamount to burning the flag on the Fourth of July or kicking a three-legged puppy.

But there was a reason that tax exemptions for religious groups were blessed by the Founders. In the 1970 case Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the U.S. Supreme Court, citing the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, upheld the tax exemptions because it said they reinforced the desired separation of church and state.

In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote: [W]e will not tolerate either governmentally established religion or governmental interference with religion.

What about religious interference with the government?

Once religions become full-metal-jacket political combatants, it is they who cross the line between God and Caesar.

Related: If Trump's Tax Plan Passes, Here Are the Deductions and Breaks You Could Lose

At a signing in the Rose Garden, Trump said, We are giving churches their voices back.

Fine. Now pay for the megaphone.

Either tax all religious organizations, period. Or tax those that want a full-throated engagement in the political process by endorsing candidates and parties, setting up political-action committees and shuttling the faithful to the polls. And let those that want to retain their exemptions opt out.

By not taxing religious institutions, the government is in effect subsidizing them. A 2012 study figured that federal subsidies amounted to about $71 billion or $75 billion in current dollars.

That would cover about one-third of the interest payments on the national debt.

Read the rest here:

If Pastors Want to Play Politics, Churches Should Pay Taxes - The Fiscal Times

Chalk up another victory for the elephants and one more defeat for the donkeys. Yep, the Republicans have finally managed to get a healthcare bill through the House, and depending upon who you listen to, the bill is anything from a complete Republican sellout to a major move in the direction of freedom and fiscal responsibility.

That said, lets take a deep breath and set aside all the B.S. and talking points coming from politicians and the media and look at the healthcare puzzle like rational, grown-up folks. The fact is that weve had government-controlled healthcare from the time progressives first convinced a significant percentage of the population that the government had an obligation to provide medical services to all citizens. Today, of course, that belief has evolved to mean all people living in the United States, citizens or otherwise.

It sounds nice, but as every halfway intelligent, honest adult understands, healthcare is not a right. Every human being is born with only one natural right: the right to freedom. Specifically, that means the right to do whatever he pleases, so long as his actions do not violate the freedom of any other human being.

The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness contains two redundancies. First, technically speaking, you dont have a right to life. If you did, you could choose to live forever. Good luck to you on your choice, but the reality is that a higher power decides the outcome of that one for you. You do, however, have a right to do anything you please to try to improve your life, which comes under the heading of freedom (or liberty, which is the word used by the Founding Fathers).

Second, the right to happiness is simply one aspect of freedom. You do not have a right to be happy, but you do have a right to pursue happiness (as in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness). The problems start when people come to believe the perverse notion that government (read, taxpayers) has an obligation to do whatever it takes to make them happy. Once a society crosses that line, it begins its death spiral, though it can still survive, in the words of Margaret Thatcher, until you run out of other peoples money.

Now, back to healthcare. In this day and age of ever-increasing lifespans, healthcare is an issue of life-and-death importance. But its important to understand that it has nothing to do with rights. It has to do with compassion.

This may surprise you, but, in theory, I believe in universal, or single-payer, healthcare. Thats right, if I had supernatural powers, Id see to it that everyone, young and old alike, had access to the best healthcare possible, without having to wait weeks, or even months, to see a doctor or have an operation.

The reason I qualified my statement with in theory is because even though I dont want to see any human being suffer unnecessarily or die from a lack of medical care, I also dont want the government to be involved in any way, shape, or form in anything as serious as healthcare.

It baffles me why so many people blind themselves to the truth about government. A government is nothing more than a collection of avaricious, power- and money-hungry men and women whom we refer to as politicians, and we already know, through firsthand experience, that they not only are untrustworthy, theyre incompetent.

The theoretical single-payer system I envision would be run by experienced, private-industry executives and overseen by a board of directors that would consist of the most prominent accomplished, civic-minded people among us, men and women whose reputations would be beyond reproach. They would get no compensation other than reimbursement for travel and other direct expenses, so you would never need to worry about them basing their decisions on their financial well-being.

Now, back to reality: Do I believe this will ever happen? No, I dont. Its just a theoretical fantasy, because, for starters, who could be trusted to pick the perfect people needed to run such a system?

The sad reality is that the United States will get single-payer healthcare in the not-too-distant future, but, unfortunately, it will be run by the same avaricious politicians who have been stealing from us since the inception of our nation. Based on experience, we already know that everything the government touches costs more and delivers less value. Amtrak has always operated in the red. The Post Office has always operated in the red. And politicians dont even make a pretense of wanting to adopt a breakeven budget for the United States.

Isnt it ironic that Medicare and Medicaid are going broke (not to mention the transfer-of-wealth program known as Obamacare), yet the government arrogantly believes it can run healthcare for everyone successfully? Absurd, of course, but nevertheless government-run healthcare is on the horizon.

Obama and the rest of the Dirty Dems were well aware that the only way Obamacare could be pushed through was by telling massive lies to the public. Their strategy was that when the system collapsed, they would then make the case that the only way to save people from suffering and death would be to implement a full-blown, single-payer system run by the government. A deceitful plan, to be sure, but a very clever one.

And it was all moving along right on schedule toward its ultimate goal when Chappaquas most famous liar found a way to blow the presidential election and Obamas third term against an opponent whom her supporters looked upon as nothing more than a bad joke. Whereupon the guy pulling her strings hightailed it out of town to Tahiti and began cashing in on the eight-year scam he had so successfully pulled off.

Id like to be wrong and see the Republicans come up with a miracle and find a way to make healthcare work, but my guess is that Horrible Hillarys gift to Republicans will only prolong the inevitable: government-run, single payer healthcare.

The irony is that the most famous government-run healthcare debacle, the VA, has been such a disaster that theres serious talk of turning it over to the free market. I guess the message is that you have to suffer through years of government incompetency before youre given the freedom to try and better your situation.

P.S. Allow me to close on an obvious note: Given the insoluble healthcare problems in the United States, I believe immigration (not just illegal, but legal) should be cut as close to zero as possible for at least five years.

The fact is that there are simply too many people in this country, which puts a strain on all kinds of services. If we cant afford healthcare for those already living here, why in the world should we add to the problem by bringing in even more people?

All answers to that question are welcomed.

Robert Ringer is a best-selling author and blogger.

Originally posted here:

Robert Ringer: Health care is not a right, it's an impossible dream - Savannah Morning News

The Eric Frein trial and Peace Officers Memorial Day linger on as tragic reminders of the dangers our state troopers face every day.

Corporal Bryon Dickson II and close to 100 other Pennsylvania troopers have been killed in the line of duty since the force was founded in 1905, in response to the Great Anthracite Strike. The force was created to control mob violence, track down criminals, patrol farms and protect wildlife. It was not until the 1930s, as the roadway network grew, that highway patrol duties were added.

While our gratitude and support for our State Police runs deep, the governors plan to levy a $25 per capita fee in communities without their own local police force sets a troubling new precedent and targets rural Pennsylvania towns who have traditionally relied on the State Police for more than a century.

Predicted to raise $63 million, the fee would strike approximately 1,294 of 2,571 municipalities, eight rural counties and about 2.5 million residents representing about 20 percent of the states population, according to State Police officials. While some larger communities have no local police force, the bulk of communities without their own local police forces are exceedingly small in population, square footage and tax base.

In hearings held in March, testifiers pointed out that this head tax is a first-time-ever move by the state to charge its own municipalities for service.

The state renders many services to local government, from restaurant inspections and agricultural marketing to infectious disease control, emergency response and environmental reviews. Yet, the state has not charged local governments extra for these services, on top of state taxes. This State Police fee would be a breakthrough double tax and may be the inaugural slide down a slippery slope.

The residents of rural municipalities without local police and in fact, all municipalities already pay for the State Police through sales, income and gas taxes, licensing and registration fees, and more. To say that rural residents are getting free police service ignores the many diverse revenue sources that fund our State Police.

All taxpaying Pennsylvanians, in both major cities and small rural communities, pay for the State Police. If communities want police protection that exceeds the level offered by the State Police, that is indeed their prerogative. They have made the choice to pay for protection that is closer, more accessible, and more personalized.

But it is essential to remember, these municipalities still use the State Police as a secondary force.

Yet, the state does not charge these municipalities, nor should it, when they must call in the State Police for back-up for crowd control, DNA testing, helicopter searches, cyber-crime detection, explosives control, terrorism threats, and more. If this head tax becomes a trend, will these municipalities also start to be charged fees each time they call the State Police for support?

Notably, fee supporters have stated their hope that this $25 fee will be a first step charge that will be raised every year. Set arbitrarily at $25, the surcharge is not tied to actual expenditures or cost-control measures meaning there is no limit to how high the tax can go in future years.

For some municipalities in our area, this head tax would generate a sum that exceeds their entire local operating budget. It is reminiscent of the taxing levels proposed by urbanites who push to tax people based on the mileage they drive a clear attack on rural Pennsylvania, where the bulk of our food and energy originate.

Taxpayers have asked me if they will see what their added $25 is buying. But sadly, this fee does not buy them added protection or personnel. As a one-size-fits-all fee, it would also be paid by everyone, from infants to college students living away from home, to retirees and seniors living in nursing homes.

Instead of turning to their own municipalities when the state needs money, it would be wiser for the state to undertake systematic reforms and address the spending problem.

Adding an unprecedented, arbitrarily set new tax on small town rural communities, not based on actual costs or ability to pay, and without cost controls, is not the ticket to a balanced budget for the rural communities I represent.

Id love to hear from you. Please tell me what you think about the governors $25 per capita tax suggestion.

Visit my website at http://www.senatorbrooks.com, and share your feedback with me. And thank you, as always, for the privilege and honor of representing you in the state Senate, where I will continue to protect the freedom, safety and fiscal stability of our families and friends.

REPUBLICAN Sen. Michele Brooks of Jamestown represents the 50th District.

Read the original post:

GUEST VIEW: $25 tax not the ticket for raising police revenue - Sharonherald

Media release Staples Rodway

Tax Freedom Day shows Kiwis paying 9.5% more tax year-on-year

Bracket creep costs taxpayers an extra $1,700 per year, or the equivalent of a flat white each day

Auckland, 8 May 2017 Today marks the day that New Zealanders have collectively paid off their tax bill for the year and can keep the rest of their income for themselves in what has been coined national Tax Freedom Day.

Each year New Zealand accounting and business advisory firm Staples Rodway calculates when Tax Freedom Day will fall by analysing GDP, tax revenue and current tax brackets which determine the rate of tax people pay on their income.

This year Tax Freedom Day falls six days later than last year, meaning people are effectively paying more tax than they did in 2016. The total amount Kiwis paid in taxes has increased by 9.5 percent year-on-year, more than double the increase of last year, alongside a 5.1 percent increase in nominal GDP.

Staples Rodway Director of Tax Mike Rudd says the higher tax bill is reflective of companies turning over higher profits and therefore contributing to growth in government revenue.

Our methodology shows the true impact of the government on your back pocket each year. Most of the growth in government tax revenue has come from the corporate sector. By the end of February this year, corporate tax collected was already 25 percent higher than in the year to March 2016. In the absence of any major tax changes in the last year, this can only be a sign of a well performing New Zealand economy in spite of uncertainty on the global horizon.

Bracket creep is also having an impact as a result of inflation pushing wages and salaries into higher tax brackets, leading to a fiscal drag situation. This means that a person earning the average national wage is paying nearly 3 percent more in tax than they did in 2011. That is, the overall tax rate on the average national wage was 15.41 percent in 2011 but is now 18.27 percent, an increase of 18.5 percent.

Had the marginal tax brackets moved in line with wage growth, the average wage earner would have an extra $33 in their pocket per week. Thats $1,700 per year or the equivalent of your daily flat white. Instead, this money has gone to central government.

We are hearing that the government is considering providing some relief to the taxpayer in this years Budget to be delivered on May 25. Our hope is that this will include adjusting tax brackets to account for inflation over the past nine years since the last adjustment, Rudd says.

There are also calls for the government to ensure that tax brackets are adjusted for inflation on a continual basis, something which is expected to receive support from other political parties.

Across the ditch, Australians have higher marginal tax rates and a higher corporate tax rate, although the combination of lower GST (10 percent) and a nil tax threshold, means that the tax burden is lower than that of the New Zealand taxpayer. Australias Tax Freedom Day fell on April 13 this year, compared to April 23 for the US.

Ends

Note to editors

Please see attached infographics. Staples Rodway acknowledges that there are other methods to calculate Tax Freedom Day. However, these measures include debt funded capital spending and expenditure by state owned enterprises and do not measure the true impact of the Government on your back pocket each year.

About Staples Rodway

Staples Rodway is a New Zealand-wide network of accountancy and business advisory firms providing practical, responsive, and business-focussed services to a broad range of clients from start-ups to significant businesses across all industry types.

Scoop Media

Read more from the original source:

Tax Freedom Day shows Kiwis paying 9.5% more tax year-on-yea - Scoop.co.nz (press release)

COLUMBIA Three candidates remain in South Carolina's highly contested special congressional election to succeed Mick Mulvaney, a race that will determine whether the Republican Party maintains control of a seat they have held since the rise of the tea party or if the Democrats can flip a district that was once solidly blue.

With five Republican challengers out of the race following Tuesday's primary, GOP voters will now have to choose between state Rep. Tommy Pope and former lawmaker Ralph Norman, both of Rock Hill, in a runoff election on May 16.

Democrat Archie Parnell, a former tax attorney and congressional staffer from Sumter who beat two primary foes last week,will get a head start in the June 20 general election.

Whoever wins the special election will weigh in on a number of legislative priorities that Donald Trump's administration has yet to advance out of the president's first 100 days. Trump's promised wall on the U.S.-Mexico border has yet to materialize. A long-discussed tax reform package has yet to be unveiled in Congress.

The president's proposed spending plan, which Mulvaney crafted as his new budget director, has yet to get vote, though the plan has already received criticism for slashing domestic spending for after-school programs and Meals on Wheels.

A Republican proposal to replace the Affordable Care Act passed the House on Thursday, but the plan is being questioned already by some senators, meaninghealth care issues will likely loom in Congress at least through the end of the year.

Congressional special elections also are being watched closely this year as Democrats in Kansas and Georgia nearly pulled off upsets in heavily Republican districts.

Republican Runoff

If the primary is any indication, the GOP runoff election between Pope and Norman is going to be close. The two lawmakers each pulled in more than 11,000 votes with just 135 ballots separating them.

The crowded Republican primary grabbed attention because of controversial ads released byfifth-place Republican finisher Sheri Few. But in the end, the two recent state legislators won.

Two extremely well-known candidates in the front dominated this race, said Scott Huffmon, a political science professor at Winthrop University.

Pope and Norman both benefited, Huffmon said, from the name recognition they maintained from their 2016 campaigns for the state Legislature. Living in the most populated region of the 11-county congressional district also gave them a leg up.

York County accounted for 43 percent of the ballotscastin the entire special primary election. Pope and Norman picked up a large majority of that support, with each pulling in two-thirds of their votesin York County. The 5th District stretches from Rock Hill to Sumter.

Norman, a real estate developer, has tried to run to the right of Pope and has attempted to emulate Mulvaney, who won the district with 59 percent of the vote last fall. If elected, Normanplans to join the fiscal conservative U.S. House Freedom Caucus.

If you're interested in duplicating what Mick Mulvaney did, the choice is obviously me, Norman said.

Norman has attacked Pope for joining 96 other state lawmakers in voting for a gas tax increase in the Legislature in order to fix South Carolina's roadways. Norman didn't have to vote on that issue this year. He resigned from his Statehouse seat to run for Congressbefore the roads plan vote.

Pope, in turn, has run his campaign focusing on police, immigration and national security issues, while playing up his time as a South Carolina state solicitor. He says he likely wouldn't join the Freedom Caucus, and sees himself as more deliberative than Norman.

"Doing what's right and what's best is not always politically expedient," Pope said. "I think that's what will differentiate me from my opponent. I'm going to make a hard decision, not just a convenient decision."

Head start for Democrat

Parnell, a businessman who worked with Goldman Sachs and Exxon Mobil, has momentum heading into the upcoming general election, where he has shown an eagerness to use Mulvaney's proposed budget and the new Republican health care bill against either GOP opponent.

"They are refusing to take a stand on today's D.C. health bill that increases costs, cuts coverage, and is a giveaway to big insurance companies. I oppose that," said Parnell, who captured more than 70 percent of the Democratic primary vote last week.

Even so, it's likely to be a tough race for the new Democratic nominee with the district's makeup and the influx of wealthier, white voters from the Charlotte area.

"This district is just a difficult uphill climb even in the best of circumstances," said Huffmon, "and this special off-year election is not the best of circumstances.

There were 20,500 more ballots cast for the seven Republicans in the primary than there were for the three Democrats, which could make the math difficult for Parnell in the general election.

The Republicans aren't taking Parnell's candidacy lightly, however, after watching other special election races, including Georgia's 6th District outside Atlanta, where a Democrat nearly won an open primary outright.

You look at what happened in Georgia, you look what happened all over the country, Norman said. "People are still mad."

See the original post here:

Fighting for the 5th District: GOP foes battle in runoff while Democrat gets general election head start - Charleston Post Courier