Category Archives: Liberal

Illustrated | NICHOLAS KAMM/AFP via Getty Images, Aerial3/iStock, MicrovOne/iStock

December 18, 2019

Sign Up for

Our free email newsletters

I don't know how to put this delicately, so I will just out with it, in the hope of sparing the feelings of as many New York Times columnists as possible: The American people are not all that shot up with impeachment.

It's true that polls show that many of us are broadly in favor of it, whatever that means (though others also show, oddly enough, Trump beating every single one of the roughly 437 Democratic hopefuls). But even those who will blandly affirm their support for the process in a poll were not exactly taking to the streets on Tuesday night.

Impeachment was always going to be like this: one of those pet causes beloved of (mostly wealthy or very young) liberal activists and very serious people in the media. The rest of the country, whatever they think about Donald Trump, have more important things to do than develop detailed and passionate opinions about the contents of the House's nearly 700-page impeachment report. As soon as it became clear that "Trump Ukraine impeachment" was not going to be a story involving Eurasian hookers and coke and urine-related videocassettes, people started tuning it out. Bill Clinton's impeachment also divided the country 20 years ago, but for some reason people seemed to care more about the details.

All of this was, as I say, predictable. So too were the increasingly serious-sounding negative repercussions from impeachment in crucial states like Wisconsin and Michigan. This is the price you pay for a self-aggrandizing cynical strategy long opposed by your own party's leadership.

What I don't understand is why so so many of the president's critics are still pouting. Gee, it's so disappointing that you got exactly what you wanted and roughly half of the American people nominally agree with you about it. What a pity that ordinary working men and women feel like they have better things to do than join the rent-a-protester mobs being put on by various well-endowed SuperPACs to protest what, exactly? This impeachment game has been going on for a long time. Everyone knew what the final score would be.

So why shouldn't Trump's opponents enjoy impeachment for what it's been that is, a massive if mostly symbolic victory? They got under the old lizard's skin. They made it almost impossible for him to pursue infrastructure or any of the other things he campaigned on. They are living rent-free in his head and rarely leave their apartments. The same goes for his supporters. So have some fun. Invite friends over. Tweet your pronouns, thank your local graduate student or journo union, bathe in avocado liqueur, or whatever it is that people slightly to the left of Joe Lieberman are popularly supposed to do in the right-wing imagination. It doesn't matter what the lumpenproletariat think. Just keep dancing on your own.

Liberals will be glad they did six months from now, when they find themselves in the exact same position they did four years ago: trying to prevent the guy who once got paid millions of dollars to pretend to fire Gary Busey on television from being duly elected president of the United States. They thought it would be easy in 2016. They should know better now.

Powered By ZergNet

View post:

Wait did liberals actually think they'd remove Trump from office? - The Week

Once again, TIME has chosen a reliably liberal recipient to be Person of the Year. The winner is 16-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, who has spent the past year appearing at rallies and giving speeches railing about the dangers of fossil fuels. At a 2018 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poland, Thunberg claimed not to care about being popular. I care about climate justice and the living planet.

In September, she spent two weeks sailing across the Atlantic Ocean in a zero-emissions yacht. Her destination was New York City for the United Nations Climate Action Summit. In a speech that made international headlines, Thunberg fulminated that world leaders have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet Im one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. She challenged world leaders to stop destroying the future for young people and to address a problem that they were ignoring. She said, We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you!

In response to this well-publicized speech, President Trump sarcastically tweeted, She seems like a very happy young girl looking forward to a bright and wonderful future. So nice to see! In his comment, the President perfectly highlighted the hysterical nature of Thunbergs remarks. In contrast, liberals loved that Thunberg was so passionate about climate change. It set the stage for her to receive even more speaking engagements and publicity. Thus, it was not a complete surprise that TIME would have bestowed this award on her.

TIME Editor-in-Chief Edward Felsenthal called her the biggest voice on the biggest issue facing the planet. Possibly, TIME believes that Thunberg is the biggest voice, but others including Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro think that she is a brat because of her regular lectures directed at adults in leadership positions. Recently, Thunberg condemned the murder of two indigenous people in areas of the Amazon rainforest known for illegal logging. She tweeted, Indigenous people are literally being murdered for trying to protect the forest from illegal deforestation. Bolsonaro claimed that the illegal logging is being done by foreign governments and questioned why the media gives so much space to this kind of pirralha, which is a Portuguese word for brat.

As far as climate change being the biggest issue, surely this is the mantra of the left, as it is viewed as almost a religion. However, in a recent Yale survey, climate change was not listed as a top concern to most Americans. The study showed that global warming ranked as the 15th most important issue out of a list of 28 possibilities. Hard-working Americans are more concerned about healthcare, the economy, education and crime. Climate change is not an immediate problem for Americans who are taking care of their families and careers.

Instead of addressing concerns of average Americans, TIME has shown its elitism once again by this selection. The choice might not register with most Americans, but liberal professors, journalists and Hollywood stars surely celebrated Thunbergs selection. These activists can afford to obsess about climate change, but most Americans are too busy working.

Others who were considered for the award include House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), the CIA Ukraine whistleblower, the Hong Kong protesters and President Donald Trump. If TIME had been truly honest, Trump would have won the award this year. He has dominated the news unlike any other U.S. President in history.

Thunberg has had a fraction of the impact that Trump has had on the world. Unfortunately, TIME consistently refuses to bestow this award on conservatives. While Trump won it in 2016, he also should have won it in 2017 and 2018.

Donald Trump, Jr. blasted the award as a marketing gimmick and noted that TIME overlooked the Hong Kong Protesters fighting for their lives and freedoms. Trump, Jr. is right that the courageous people of Hong Kong have been true heroes this year. They displayed remarkable courage for standing up to the tyrannical regime in China to advocate for more autonomy for their region.

Not surprisingly, Thunberg has said absolutely nothing about China, a country that is known for massive pollution, abusing human rights, limiting freedoms, inhumane working conditions and doing very little to combat climate change. TIME should have given the award to President Trump or those Hong Kong protesters fighting real threats, such as Chinese communism. Instead, the award was given to a youngster who is promoting an elitist agenda which involves the transfer of massive amounts of wealth and is fighting a threat that many people, including renowned scientists, believe is not even real.

Original post:

Jeff Crouere: Another liberal named Person of the Year - The Franklin Sun

OTTAWA The Liberal government has likely painted itself into a corner on carbon taxes, particularly after Environment Minister Jonathan Wilkinson said he was wrestling with the approval of a major oilsands mine.

Ottawa has declined to commit to major carbon tax increases after 2022, despite Liberal claims that the levy will play a key role in meeting their climate targets. The Liberal government has committed to meeting its 2030 Paris agreements as well as a more recent pledge to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Wilkinson on Wednesday signalled that the 2050 target could weigh heavily on his decision to either approve or reject Teck Resources $20.6-billion oilsands mine in Alberta, saying it was not clear the project would fit into the Liberals environmental goals.

That is something that we will have to be discussing and wrestling with as we make a decision one way or the other, Wilkinson told reporters in Calgary on Wednesday.

The stakes are very, very high

The Frontier project north of Fort McMurray would mark the most significant new investment in the Alberta oilpatch in years. It is expected to generate $70 billion in tax revenue for the federal, provincial and local governments, create 7,000 construction jobs and 2,500 permanent jobs.

It would also generate about 4.1 million megatonnes of greenhouse gas emissions per year over its 40-year lifespan. A federal-provincial review this summer found that the project would be in the public interest, while also laying out a number of environmental damages that would come from the mine.

Wilkinson will make a final decision before the end of February on whether to approve the project.

But killing it would be a major blow, said Alberta Environment Minister Jason Nixon.

It would send a signal to investors that Alberta is not open for business and the federal government is going to go out of their way to stop projects. The stakes are very, very high, he told the Edmonton Journal.

Wilkinsons dilemma over the approval seems to underscore the challenge facing Prime Minster Justin Trudeau as he continues to claim that the Liberals can accommodate environmental concerns while also grow the economy. The environment minister will have to account for new sources of greenhouse gas emissions like Frontier, even as his office has declined to raise its carbon tax over the $50 per tonne threshold.

A report by the Parliamentary Budget Office, meanwhile, estimates that Ottawa would have to introduce various carbon levies of a combined $102 per tonne by 2030 in order to meet its environmental goals. By its own projections, the Liberal government is currently set to fall well short of meeting its Paris targets.

Various environmental policies under Trudeau have been met with intense criticism by some voters, particularly those in oil-rich Western provinces like Alberta and Saskatchewan. Critics of the policies argue that carbon emissions reduction should come entirely through technology, rather than taxes placed on households.

Wilkinson has said his office would conduct an early review of the carbon tax in 2020 and a second review in 2022, where it will consider further increases above the $50 threshold. Trudeau recently laid out directions in his mandate letter for Wilkinson, which included strengthening existing environmental policies while seeking to exceed Canadas 2030 targets.

A spokesperson for Wilkinson said Ottawa would close the gap on its emissions reduction shortfalls by planting two billion trees, subsidizing electric vehicles, retrofitting homes, and subsidizing clean technologies through a separate $5-billion fund.

Environmental groups broadly agree that Ottawa needs to raise its carbon tax well beyond $50 per tonne, and that it should be more open about the pace of that increase in order to give families and businesses time to plan for the additional costs.

What we need to see is transparency and consistency in how this is applied, said Josha MacNab, director of policy at the Pembina Institute, an environmental group.

What weve heard from business and industry consistently is that changing the rules of the game, rolling back policy, introducing new policy, not being clear about whats happening its not helpful.

Industry groups, meanwhile, have long claimed that Ottawa could continue to approve emissions-intensive projects like oilsands facilities, while achieving emissions reductions through other measures.

Oilsands producers have managed to make strides in reducing emissions in the past 20 years, largely through technological investments that they claim will continue to drive down greenhouse gas emissions and costs.

What we need to see is transparency and consistency

The Frontier project has been called one of the last major oilsands mines that will be built in northern Alberta, largely because producers are increasingly using steam-driven production methods as a way to target deeper-lying bitumen formations.

A November report by Canadas Ecofiscal Commission found that carbon taxes would have to reach as high as $210 per tonne by 2030 in order to meet the countrys targets, a move that it said might prove politically challenging. The increase would raise costs of gas by roughly 40 cents per litre, the report estimated.

The report said that the alternative to rising carbon taxes could be achieved through regulations, which it said was an even more costly option. People both opposed and supportive of carbon taxes have warmed to the more expensive regulatory option, as it is often hidden from sight and less likely to raise a political fight.

Under the Harper government, Canada agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 30 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. Trudeau promised in September to implement legally binding policies that would bring Canada to net-zero emissions by 2050 if re-elected.

View original post here:

Liberals in dilemma over carbon taxes, greenhouse gas emissions and a $20B mine in Alberta - National Post

One of the idealistic hopes that arose during the recent Israeli political wrangling was the possibility that centrist Benny Gantz would end the Netanyahu era by forming a minority government of 44 Jewish members of Knesset on the center-left with the outside support of legislators who would keep the government from being voted out. The outside bloc was ten or more Palestinian members of Knesset and eight seats held by rightwinger Avigdor Lieberman.

The Palestinian political leader Ayman Odeh implored Gantz to rise to the moment and make such a coalition, based on the idea of equality of Palestinians and Jews. In a stirring speech at J Street in October, Odeh explained that this was what Yitzhak Rabin had done in 1993: formed a governing coalition with the outside support of Palestinian parties, and it had allowed him to pursue the peace process.

Rabin led a minority government supported from the outside by the Arab and Arab Jewish parties Without [Palestinian leader Tawfik] Ziad there would have been no Rabin coalition, no negotiations, and no peace process. This is a time for bravery once again I am calling on Benny Gantz. Be brave like Rabin was in 1993 and it would be my honor to be brave like Tawfik Ziad. In the words of the great America poet Lin Manuel Miranda, history has its eyes on us. Our demand is nothing more and nothing less than a basic agenda for equality.

Odehs hope soon died. Gantz failed to form any kind of coalition, including a minority one. As the New York Timesand other media told us, it was because Avigdor Lieberman refused to have anything to do with Palestinians, labeling them a fifth column, and Gantz needed Liebermans eight seats.

Well, not really.

Yesterday I was shocked to learn something I should have known weeks ago: The reason the possibility of a minority government led by Benny Gantz in Israel did not go forward was that members of his own centrist party refused to sit with Palestinians.

Evan Gottesman and Eli Kowaz discussed the minority government idea on the Israel Policy Forum podcast (Dec. 12th):

Gottesman: It didnt seem like it was torpedoed by Lieberman even though in the public reaction to it, Lieberman had to take the role of saying, You know I would never sit with the Arabs, and taking on his typical bellicose stance. But it looked like that sort of initiative was actually most controversial within Kahol Lavan [Blue and White] itself, that there were some of the rightwing MKs within Kahol Lavan opposed to a narrow minority government that would be supported from the outside by the Joint List.

Kowaz: So from my understanding, it didnt even get to the point of inviting Avigdor Lieberman to be part of that government because of what you just noted about the Kahol Lavan MKs talking about, on the right. Kahol Lavanencompasses a lot of different political viewpoints.

Gottesman: That was Zvi Hauser and Yoaz Hendel I believe.

Kowaz: Exactly. Those are members of Bogie Yaalons Telem faction in Kahol Lavan.

This important point has not come out in the American press. The New York Times has repeatedly sanitized it. (Marc Schulman of Newsweek acknowledged it in passing but gave equal blame to Lieberman.)

You can find this point in the Israeli press, but over there, racism is ho-hum news. Gantz was reported last month to be angry at the racists. Because of Yoaz Hendel and Tzvika Hauser, Im not Prime Minister, he said.

But no problem. Gantz is now keeping the two men on his Blue and White list for the March elections. Even though Yoaz Hendel explicitly opposed Palestinian political participation, per the Israeli press last summer:

Blue and White will establish a broad and state-oriented nationalist unity government, Hendel said. We respect the Arab citizens of Israel and see them as citizens entitled to all rights, but we will not sit with the Arab parties, which fundamentally deny the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. Period.

The issue here is American liberals, our liberal press and liberal Zionists. Benny Gantz is a hero to liberal Zionists. They see him as the man who can take down Netanyahu. An Opening for Hope, the New Israel Fund said of Gantz getting the opportunity to form a government just last month.

[S]omething is changing for the better in Israel.

If Israels Jewish electorate said anything clearly, it was a clear no to Jewish extremists who incite against Arab citizens. And Israels Arabs citizens turned out in large numbers to vote for the Joint List, a party that the first time in a quarter century has reached out to Jewish parties to build political partnership.

Now look why that didnt happen. Because of racism inside the Blue and White Party. Liberal Americans who are connected to Israel ought to be denouncing this racism and putting pressure on Gantz to purge open racists from his party. Its not happening. Kowaz and Gottesman of Israel Policy Forum dont seem to regard this news as problematic. No, once again Israeli political culture has revealed itself to be deeply racist; and American friends of Israel walk on by.

Read the original here:

Blue and White party liberal Zionist heroes refused to cut deal with Palestinian legislators - Mondoweiss

The New Democratic Party is sitting in fourth place after the fall's divisive federal election and its leader Jagmeet Singh says he is not interested in partnering with the Conservatives to overwhelm Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's Liberal minority.

In a year-end interview with The Canadian Press, Singh acknowledged there could be political expediency in having his New Democrats turn to the Conservatives to either defeat or dominate the Liberals.

But Singh has no plans to go down that road.

"When it comes to the values that I have and have been pushing for, I don't see an alignment with the values the Conservatives have pushed forward," he said.

The NDP and Liberals found themselves in a war of words during the fall election campaign to prove which party was more progressive, especially after the New Democrats lost many of the seats they gained in the 2011 "orange wave" to the Liberals in 2015

In general, a weakened Liberal party is good for both the New Democrats and the Conservatives.

Despite this and despite the fact the NDP often struggles to differentiate itself from the Liberal party in its policies, Singh said he still couldn't imagine teaming up with the Conservatives even under a new leader, with Andrew Scheer's recent resignation.

"My goal isn't to defeat the Liberals. My goal is to push them to do better," he said.

Singh said he wants progressive laws that he believes are priorities for many Canadians, including to create national programs to cover drug costs and dental care.

However, Trudeau would be wise not to presume his offer of political help comes without strings, Singh said.

"The frame that I take is the Liberals need to work with somebody. They have 13 votes that they need in this minority government. So they need to get that support from somewhere. I put it out there that I am willing to be that person that supports them," Singh said.

But if the Liberals' goal is to simply "cruise along" and hold onto power, Singh said he's out.

"My leverage and my encouragement comes from if you need something passed that's meaningful, I'm right here. I'm ready to do it. But I'm not going to be taken for granted. I'm not going to support them blindly if it's not good for people."

Singh and his New Democratic Party had a roller-coaster of a year, beginning with Singh spending much of his time in British Columbia in a bid to win a seat in the House of Commons. He won his Burnaby South seat in a February byelection, but appearances in question period and the halls of Parliament did not translate into an immediate bump for the party.

The New Democrats struggled with fundraising after finishing 2018 with nearly $4.5 million in negative net assets the party's worst balance sheet since 2001.

A mass of recognized and well-respected NDP MPs retiring dealt further blows to party morale.

The NDP wasn't able to match the Liberals' and Conservatives' advertising during the campaign, thanks to its smaller war chest, and also only chartered a campaign plane for the last 12 days of the race.

Many pundits were predicting the NDP could lose official party status, thanks to these factors and low polling numbers at the start of the campaign.

However, Singh was able to turn his infectious, seemingly bottomless enthusiasm into upward momentum mid-race. Polling numbers started rising, crowds at his rallies started getting bigger and the spotlight started shining more positively in Singh's direction.

But the momentum didn't translate into enough votes to keep the NDP from losing seats.

The party was reduced to fourth place in the House of Commons behind the Liberals, Conservatives and Bloc Qubcois after winning just 24 seats, down from the 39 it held before the Oct. 21 vote.

The party's losses were especially deep in Quebec, where it lost all but one of 16 seats the party had held onto in 2015.

Singh attributes this to his being new to the federal scene. This election was his "introduction to Canada" and to Quebec, "where I had the biggest introduction to make," he said.

The campaign also saw heated debate among federal leaders over Quebec's controversial law banning religious symbols like hijabs, turbans, kippahs and prominent crucifixes for some civil servants a law that is widely popular among Quebec voters.

Watch: The NDP leader talks about working with the Liberals

Singh admits the law, known as Bill 21, could have played a part in his party's major losses in the province. Singh is a practising Sikh known for his brightly coloured turbans and he wears a symbolic knife.

"I think it was divisive as a bill and I think divisive bills will encourage or create more division. And that might impact me as someone, on first glance if there is something promoting division, because I look different."

Many people face discrimination based on race, gender or country of origin, Singh said, and he hopes to be a voice for those people and show he's willing to take a stand against it and to try to win over the "hearts and minds" of Quebecers.

Looking to 2020, Singh says he hopes to work with the Liberals to implement a universal, single-payer pharmacare program and national dental coverage and to see Indigenous communities finally given access to clean drinking water, housing and equitable child-welfare funding.

He says that even though Canada may be experiencing divisive politics and policies, he believes there is reason to hope.

"While we live in a beautiful place, it's an incredible country. There's so much more that unites us than divides us and there's this real, strong belief that people want to take care of their neighbours. And I want to build on that feeling of camaraderie."

View original post here:

From fourth place, Singh says he'd rather push Liberals than work with Tories - CBC.ca

Alexander Heffner, Opinion contributor Published 3:15 a.m. ET Dec. 16, 2019 | Updated 10:51 a.m. ET Dec. 16, 2019

The Trump impeachment is spotlighting the Founders' fears of foreign influence on US security and leaders, and turning liberals into originalists.

There is one indisputable fact about the impeachment of President Donald Trump that should be clear to all Americans: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is making the Constitution great again. Furthermore, she is charting a path forward for the Democratic Party to once again be the guardians of civil society and democracy and to make the liberals on the Supreme Court, and on the streets of America, the true originalists.

Last week Pelosi told the public and her congressional colleagues that she would not be trying to corral House votes on impeachment. "People have to come to their own conclusions," she said. "They've seen the facts as presented in the Intelligence Committee.They've seen the Constitution.They know it. They take an oath to protect and defend it.

That is the point. Abuse of power and obstruction are the cumulative law breaking and corrupt actions of the Trump years, from the Russian and Ukrainian affairs to Trump's violations of the emoluments clauses,relentless attacks on the First Amendment and authoritarian fantasyabouttearing up the Constitution and serving for 29 years.If you think these are Trumps jokes on the media, "Demagoguery and Democracy" author PatriciaRoberts-Miller reminds us that World War II Axis villains started their wars against humanity masking autocratic dystopian dreams in comedy.

By contrast, Pelosi has revived the Founders original intent, their established textual concern about foreign interference, bribery and influence adversely affecting the welfare of American citizens. Trumps violations are unbecoming a president of the United States.

Not only was this concern about foreign powers fortified constitutionally, Americas first president, George Washington, reiterated in his Farewell Address that his successors must never become subjected to the dictates of foreign governments. Had Washington, Alexander Hamilton, James Madisonor any of the framers heard an American presidential candidate and then president implore adversaries to hack our own American institutions, they would have considered that treason.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi(Photo: J. Scott Applewhite/AP)

There has been a bogus contention over too many years that the textualist view of the Constitution is only the 18th century ratified document instead of the text as it organically and authentically matured. This has always been a false choice. You are an originalist by reading the document, in its entire meaning and its entire body of precedent over decades and centuries.

This is what Pelosi has done, and her timing is preempting what could well be partisan Supreme Court decisions that deny the authority of Congress to subpoena witnesses and shield the presidents taxes from congressional and public scrutiny.The impeachment articles defend both federalism and the separation of powers, in which the Republicans believed until Trumps authoritarianism cannibalized them.

Impeach and remove: An election is no solution when Trump, Russia and Republicans are determined to steal it

Now there is reason for Pelosi to fear these faux textualists will ignore the original document of which they have feigned infatuation and rule in Trumps favor.This fear is justified.In the Senate, McConnell's decision to coordinate an impeachment defense with the White House and Graham's refusal to be an impartial juror are, like Trump's conduct, the opposite of the checks and balances the Founders envisioned.

Trump appointees to the bench have been proven retrograde, refusing to acknowledge many historicalconstitutional protections, and even the legal authority of Brown v. Board of Education. Roberts and company have also ruled against the centerpiece of American life: Voting. After deciding that Ohio can remove citizens from the rolls for not voting, the Supreme Court has emboldened disenfranchisement in Wisconsin, Georgia and elsewhere. The framers would laugh that anti-democratic outcome out of town. And theyd be appalled at the ruling to uphold a Muslim travel banthat excluded Saudi Arabia, the country that deployed the hijackers against us on 9/11 and to whichTrump has business ties.

Too serious to ignore:USA TODAY's Editorial Board: Impeach President Trump

Pelosi and her new originalists know it is past time for jurists and elected representatives to assert this basic truth: The Constitution, with the Bill of Rights, 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, reflects the norms and laws by which we live. It is Trump and Attorney General William Barr who behave like third-world autocrats and want to undermine the literal meaning of the Constitution of the United States. But Pelosi is determined not to let them.

A republic if you can keep it, Pelosi said, quoting Benjamin Franklin,when she opened the impeachment inquiry in September. Thats also the title of Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuchs book. But the mantle of the Founders does not belong to Gorsuch, or to Chief Justice John Roberts, or those farcically pretending to be textualists.Pelosi is rightfully reclaiming it for the American people, a majority of whom voted against Trumpin 2016, and half of whom nowfavor his removal from office.

Impeachment is the beginning of liberal originalism to safeguard law and order in America. And we'll haveSpeaker Pelosi to thank for it.

Alexander Heffner is host of "The Open Mind" on PBSand coauthor of A Documentary History of the United States.Follow him on Twitter: @heffnera

Autoplay

Show Thumbnails

Show Captions

Read or Share this story: https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/12/16/trump-impeachment-nancy-pelosi-revives-constitution-column/2657025001/

Read the original here:

Trump impeachment: Pelosi reclaims the Constitution for liberals and today's America - USA TODAY

Moodys Capital Markets Group Chief Economist John Lonski, Democratic strategist Capri Cafaro, GOP pollster Lee Carter and FOX Business' Neil Cavuto discuss the severity of America's debt and why Americans should be concerned.

Congress and the media obsess endlessly over whether President Trump should be impeached.

Both ignore $23 trillion of bigger problems.

That's how deep in debt the federal government is now, and because they keep spending much more than they could ever hope to collect in taxes, that number will only go up. It's increasing by $1 trillion a year.

IS AMERICA'S $23 TRILLION NATIONAL DEBT A PROBLEM?

Shut up, Stossel, you say. Youve been crying wolf about Americas debt for years, but were doing great!

You have a point.

(AP Photo/Mark Lennihan, File)

For many years, Ive predicted that government, to fund freebies both parties want, would print boatloads of money. That would cause massive inflation. I bought silver coins so I might afford a loaf of bread while the rest of you haul suitcases full of nearly worthless paper currency to the bakery -- or go hungry!

Clearly, that inflation crisis hasnt happened.

Thanks to Trumps contempt for the deep states love of endless regulation, businesses are hiring and stock prices are up. America isdoing great.

But while our deficits havent yet created a crisis, they will. You can stretch a rubber band farther and farther. Eventually, it will snap back -- or break.

We cant pay off our increasing debt -- unless were willing to tell the government to stop stationing soldiers in 80 countries, stop sending checks to poor people and old people, and stop paying for free health care for people like me. If the government did stop, the public would revolt.

Voters scream if theres even talkof cuts to Medicare or Social Security. But the programs are unsustainable. Social Security was meant to help the minorityof people who outlive their savings. When Social Security was created, most Americans didnt even reach age 65. Now its an entitlement for everyone.

USMCA WILL CARRY AMERICAN ECONOMY FORWARD: CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CEO

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health care spending account for about half of the federal budget, and because we old people rudely refuse to die, these entitlements consistently grow faster than the tax revenues meant to fund them.

Anyone serious about giving our kids a future has to be willing to make big cuts to those programs, or at least privatize them and let individuals make our own decisions with our own money.

But good luck to any politician who proposes that.

By contrast, voters dont get stirred up as we just quietly sink further and further into debt.

So politicians demand even more spending.

Earlier this monthSenate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said appropriations bills wont get passed by the end of the year unless Republicans agree to spend significant resources on fighting the opioid epidemic, gun violence, child care, violence against women, election security, infrastructure, etc.

With a Democratic House consumed with impeachment, there is very little appetite for the sorts of common-sense fiscal policies that could rein in our out-of-control deficits and debt, says Republican Sen. Ted Cruz.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

That implies that if Republicans were in charge, they would restore fiscal order. But theres little evidence of that. Republicans talk about spending cuts and responsibility but rarely cut anything.

Democrats want new social programs. Neither party wants to reduce the military budget. Trump wants his wall and tariffs. Farmers, once proud independent capitalists who criticized welfare, now get 40 percentof their income from the government.

The federal budget is on an unsustainable path, says Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell.

No matter who you vote for and no matter what speeches they make, none of them is doing anything to put us on a sustainable course. Its too bad.

Fortunately, thanks to the inventiveness of American entrepreneurs, our economy keeps creating new wealth for politicians to grab.

That might mean Congress wouldnt have to cut spending for America to gradually grow our way out of this terrible debt. All theyd need to do is make sure spending goes up slower than the rate of inflation.

They wont even do that.

John Stossel is the author of No They Cant! Why Government Fails -- But Individuals Succeed.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE ON FOX BUSINESS

The rest is here:

John Stossel: Trump impeachment -- Congress, liberal media obsess while $23 trillion in problems is forgotten - Fox Business

The Liberal Democrats are in a state of shock after waking up the morning after the United Kingdom's general election without a leader and in a worse position than they were heading into the poll.

The anti-Brexit party went into the election with such high hopes. Jo Swinson, who up until a few hours ago was its leader, said she was confident of making numerous gains, and that she could end up becoming prime minister.

However, the Liberal Democrats went backwards. They ended the day with eleven House of Commons seats, one fewer than they won at the 2017 general election.

None of the candidates who this year defected to the Liberal Democrats from other parties succeeded in getting re-elected. Tom Brake, the party's popular Brexit spokesperson, lost his seat to Boris Johnson's Conservatives.

In probably the night's biggest upset, Swinson lost own seat to the Scottish National Party, and swiftly quit as leader.

Just a few months ago, the Liberal Democrats were polling at around 20% in the polls after performing strongly in European and local elections. The party had acquired its biggest ever spending war chest coming into the election thanks to increased financial backing. Insiders thought they were on the cusp of a major electoral breakthrough.

So what went so badly wrong?

Dinendra Haria/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images

In case you might have missed it, the Liberal Democrats' biggest policy heading into this election was stopping Brexit.

However, the Liberal Democrats decided to go further than other pro-Remain parties like the Greens and Scottish National Party, promising to scrap Britain's exit altogether if elected to government by revoking Article 50.

The party took this decision at its autumn conference. Swinson and co believed it would be proof of the party's unequivocal status as the UK's leading Remain party and take votes away from both the Conservatives and Labour.

But a number of party figures and many members were uneasy about it. They were concerned that cancelling Brexit without consulting the public would be seen as undemocratic and risked alienating thousands of potential voters.

Sir Norman Lamb, a Lib Dem MP at the time, warned the party that it was "playing with fire" with its revoke policy.

The warnings turned out to be pretty accurate. On doorsteps during the general election campaign, even voters who described themselves as strong Remainers said they felt uneasy about the revoke policy, and that it was a step too far.

One party source said the policy was unnecessary because the Liberal Democrats were already clearly pro-Remain.

They told Business Insider: "Revoking Article 50 was odd I can see why they did it, but it's not as if anyone thought Liberal Democrats were anything but remain anyway."

Another party figure said: "Revoke was terrible and also just totally misread the public mood."

Aaron Chown/PA Images via Getty Images

Heading into the election, party insiders believed that one of their biggest strengths was Swinson as an individual.

They were keen to get her in as many television debates with Boris Johnson and Jeremy Corbyn as possible, predicting that compared with the pair, she would come across as an impressive performer and a breath of fresh air.

This is why the party decided to run a campaign that was effectively presidential in how much it centered around Swinson. A common sight of this election campaign was the party's battle bus traveling up and down the country with a huge potrait of Swinson plastered on its side.

However, as the campaign went on, Swinson's personal ratings gradually dwindled. Some would a say a key moment was a Question Time special in Sheffield where she endured tough questions from a hostile studio audience.

There was also a feeling among some party figures that the focus on Swinson came at the expense of exciting policies.

"There was just nothing to it [the campaign] other than early arrogant assertions Jo would be prime minister and 'woo remain'," one told Business Insider.

Others argued that it was always going to be difficult to run a presidential-style campaign around a candidate who going until the election was barely known to the general public.

Ultimately, Swinson did not succeed in endearing herself to voters in the way that those around her had hoped and predicted.

Nicola Tree/Getty Images

A big question heading into Thursday's general election was how much of an impact tactical voting would have.

The Lib Dems were heavily involved in efforts by anti-Brexit parties and campaigners to block a Conservative victory.

The party agreed to stand aside for the Greens and Plaid Cymru in a handful of seats and in many other constituencies tactical voting websites urged pro-Remain voters to support Liberal Democrat candidates.

However, while tactical voting undoubtedly was a more prominent feature of this general election than any other before, it failed to deliver results in the key seats that the Liberal Democrats were hoping to win.

In the Cities of London & Westminster, for example, Chuka Umunna failed to get the cross-party support he needed to take it from the Conservatives. It didn't help Luciana Berger in Finchley & Golders Green, either.

The Lib Dems say that tactical voting would have been much more effective, and would have delivered more Lib Dem members of Parliament, had Jeremy Corbyn's Labour put party politics to one side and agreed to strike a pact.

Anti-Brexit campaigners who were pushing tactical voting also say that Labour's refusal to countenance an electoral pact with the Liberal Democrats imposed clear limits on what the initiative could achieve.

Nonetheless, the Liberal Democrats' mission to lead a cross-party, anti-Brexit movement did not produce the results the party wanted.

See the rest here:

What went so badly wrong for the Liberal Democrats? - Business Insider

Now what? Boris Johnsons bonus for a stunning election victory is room for manoeuvre. He promised to get Brexit done and the UK will surely leave the EU in January. But he was careful not to say how. He only said that he would also leave Europes single market and customs union, a choice for which he will now claim a mandate. A mandate is not a plan.

British elections are good at hiding paradoxes. There was no great Tory swing. Johnson actually increased the partys vote share by just 1.2% on Theresa Mays ostensibly disastrous election two years ago. They won handsomely because of first-past-the-post. Labour and the Liberal Democrats could not bring themselves to do constituency deals and duly split the anti-Tory vote right across the country.

Had this been a transferable-vote presidency, Johnson, with just 43% of the poll, could well have lost. It was the fratricidal incompetence of the left that gave him victory. Evidence of this is that anti-Brexit parties secured more votes than the Tories and Brexit party together. If this really was a second referendum, it did not go for Brexit. But still Johnson won. And anyone fed up with the past three years of shambles must be relieved it was with a secure majority. Parliament can withdraw into the political background and attention turn to Johnsons use of his victory.

The prime minister knows that leaving the customs union and single market is fiendishly hard

Of course Brexit is not done, and will not be in January. Throughout the campaign, Johnson dodged all questions of what the UKs future relationship with Europe should be, trading or otherwise. For Britain to leave the EU is comparatively small beer compared with whether or not it disentangles itself from the colossal network of economic relationships governing the continent of Europe. Johnson has pledged just such disentanglement. It is a pledge he must break.

The prime minister must know that leaving the customs union and single market is fiendishly hard. He knows because he has just failed to bring it off for Northern Ireland. All experts claim a trade deal cannot be reached in the allotted year or without tearing up Britains relations with third parties who have existing deals with the EU. Withdrawing on WTO terms makes no sense.

Sooner or later, the grownups will have to take charge of this mess. Britain must, like Northern Ireland, remain in a relationship with the EU that is, as promised by the original leavers, frictionless. This will involve a long learning curve for Michael Gove or whoever negotiates it. It may require an ability to interpret the words customs union and single market in new and surprising ways. Either way, what matters is that Johnsons room for manoeuvre must be used to keep the British economy close to Europe however much his backwoodsmen protest. Nothing else about his government matters but the softening of Brexit.

For the rest, few prime ministers can have taken office with a cupboard so bare. Rightwing headline-grabbers on crime and immigration, vague promises on investment and welfare were classic election dross. Whether a big majority unleashes Johnson the social liberal, or whether it unleashes Johnson the cynical appeaser of the last lobbyist to gain his ear, remains to be seen. Most worrying was the sacking of his most able, and liberal, cabinet colleagues earlier this year. Johnson exchanged a ministry of talents for a ministry of toads. It must be the most underpowered cabinet in living memory.

This places even greater responsibility on Johnson personally for shaping the next chapter in British politics. The weight is awesome. Pessimism may seem in order. But for once let optimism have its day.

Simon Jenkins is a Guardian columnist

Read more here:

There is hope: Boris Johnsons big majority could unleash the social liberal within - The Guardian

A Liberal party member who helped organise a Chinese-Australian business fundraising dinner has denied links to the Chinese Communist party after references to Chinas Belt and Road initiative appeared on invitations to the event.

The Australia Chinese United Business Association Federation (Acubaf), representing more than 50 associations and 1,000 individual businesses, is hosting a charity dinner on Friday to raise money for the Salvation Army and its bushfire appeal.

Invitations to the dinner, seen by Guardian Australia, advertise Acubafs role as to provide a bridge between Australian Chinese business and to offer the chance to cooperate for all Chinese associations, meanwhile offering access to the One Belt, One Road policy in China.

The Belt and Road initiative is the Chinese Communist partys $1tn global infrastructure project, building trade and supply routes and subsequent influence across the world.

After inquiries from the Guardian, one of the dinners organisers, Lina Zhao, provided an alternative invitation, identical except that the reference to Belt and Road was absent. She suggested that the original invitation might be fraudulent.

There is no evidence of manipulation on the original invitation, and it was sent to Guardian Australia by several independent sources.

Zhao said the organising committee never approved or distributed the original version of the invitation, and Acubaf was not a vehicle for Belt and Road.

Acubaf is an independent and Australia-based business association, registered in NSW, which is not affiliated with any Chinese government organisation.

Zhao said the dinner was a charitable event to help people affected by these catastrophic bushfire conditions.

A Liberal party member, Nancy Liu, who was also on the organising committee, said she had no political connections or links to the Chinese government.

I have no connection at all to any foreign government or organisation, she said. This isnt anything related to any foreign countries. This dinner is a local fundraising event for our local community. It is a good chance for the Chinese business community to contribute to their mission of building our local community.

The website of the Chinese embassy in Australia says one of the purposes of Acubaf is to provide opportunities for the innovative development opportunities brought by Chinas Belt and Road.

The Australian government has declined to become involved in Belt and Road, though the Victorian state government has signed on, as have several Pacific Island states.

The Acubaf previously also known as the Australian Chinese Chamber of Commerce Association has hosted the prime minister, Scott Morrison, the immigration minister, David Coleman, and a suite of federal and state government ministers, Chinese embassy and government officials.

Acubaf is the peak body for Chinese business associations in Australia and was established at a meeting held at the Sydney premises of the Australian Council for the Peaceful Reunification of China in 2016, when the exiled Chinese businessman Huang Xiangmo was its president. Liu served as vice-president of the ACPPRC and Jiang was on its executive committee during the time Huang was president. Lius name has been removed from the ACPPRC website.

Huang served for three years as president of the ACPPRC, which is regarded as the most significant of dozens of organisations in Australia controlled by the United Front Work Department, a Chinese government agency overseen directly by the Chinese Communist partys central committee.

The United Front Work Department leads operations outside China aimed at influencing overseas Chinese and western elites, in particular business leaders and politicians, to back Beijings policies and aims. The Chinese president, Xi Jinping, has described it as important magic weapon for the victory of the partys cause.

Liu, who sits on the Georges River council in Sydney and the Liberal party Chinese council in New South Wales, said she had ceased all involvement in the ACPPRC and had no personal contact with Mr Huang.

Huang said he did not retain any links to business chambers in Australia.

Huang is in Hong Kong after the Australian government rescinded his permanent residency last December on character grounds. His application for citizenship was withdrawn. Australian intelligence agencies had consistently warned political parties not to accept money from Huang, cautioning that he may have been acting as a conduit for Communist party influence.

Huang is currently locked in a court battle with the tax office which alleges he owes $140m in unpaid taxes, interest and penalties. The tax office has won a freezing order over his assets worldwide, including over a $12m mansion in Mosman held in his wifes name, but which the ATO says he paid for.

Huang is contesting the charges and has accused the tax office of being a despicable tool for political persecution, and saying unknown dark forces within an Australian deep state were conspiring against him.

Since having his visa revoked, Huang has pulled more than $50m out of Australia, and the tax office may seek to bankrupt him as part of the federal court proceedings, arguing he no longer has the assets in Australia to pay his tax bill.

Huang has also been a significant if absent feature of the Independent Commission Against Corruption hearings into NSW Labor party corruption.

It was alleged by party figures that Huang was the secret donor who illegally gave $100,000 in cash delivered in person in an Aldi shopping bag which was then disguised by the party through a series of false straw donors.

Huang has denied the allegations made before Icac but has declined to give evidence.

Read this article:

Liberal party member denies links to Chinese Communist party after Belt and Road controversy - The Guardian