Archive for March, 2017

Liberals may be pleasantly surprised by the Budget but Tory Party faithfuls could be in for a shock – The Independent

In November 2009, the dying days of Gordon Browns premiership, his Chancellor, Alistair Darling, was named Survivor of the Year at The Spectator magazines parliamentary awards. It was a coy compliment from a right-leaning magazine, highlighting how close Darling had come that year to losing his job to Browns henchman Ed Balls (the pre-Strictly version). Yet it was also a grudging acknowledgement of how difficult it can be to maintain the second most powerful office in the land especially when the premier is used to having things his, or her, way.

Philip Hammond, as he delivers his first Budget on Wednesday, will also have emerged as a great survivor. On his appointment, he seemed to exemplify the aesthetic of the Theresa May regime: a safe pair of hands, an older and greyer head than the yuppie-young confidence tricksters of the Cameron years. Hammond was 61 when he took the job of Chancellor; GeorgeOsborne had been 38.

Yet it soon emerged that Hammond was altogether too grey, too sage, for the more excitable Brexit bunnies. The details of early rows found their way with regularity into Sunday papers. An early skirmish over immigration drew a public rebuke from No 10 when Hammond publicly floated the idea of excluding students from the Governments target. (Most economists would like to see British universities allowed to take as many foreign students as possible; Tory voters, and thus the Prime Minister, fear it as immigration by the back door.)May and Hammond already clashed over the independence of the Bank of England, and the regulation of foreign takeovers. By mid-October, Hammond had to deny that hed threatened to resign; No10 was left issuing anodyne statements about having full confidence in the Chancellor.

And yet he survived. Why? In part, it is because Hammond has firmly established himself as a steady check on the more extreme excesses of the hard Brexiteers. Unlike May, who is driven primarily by the electorates concerns, Hammonds focus has been on retaining Britains attractiveness to foreign investors and talking up economic growth It is clear to me that the British people did not vote on 23Juneto become poorer, he declared at last autumns party conference, before going on to caution against alienating international employers. As indicated by his intervention on student migration, Hammond is fundamentally an economic liberal, who has set himself the mission of salvaging as much of Britains openness to movement of labour as possible.

Perhaps that puts the Chancellor on a collision course with the Prime Minister. But the truth is that the PM has found it quite useful to have a proxy when David Davis dismisses off-hand the promise of an EU transitional deal, or Boris Johnson announces unilaterally that we wont pay for access to the single market. With his dry erudition Hammond is frequently described as intellectual arrogant by his opponents he commands the respect of the City. And he can babysit the Cabinet at the same time.

More fundamentally, Hammond and May know that both their necks are on the line if Brexit negotiations fail. The Conservative Party may have no effective opposition for now. But both have staked their political careers on steering Britain out of the Brexit quagmire and that means, however great their day-to-day differences, they know they have to steer together.

Philip Hammond: Post-Brexit Britain won't 'slink off like a wounded animal'

The advantage for Hammond, of course, is that Brexit is still the only game in town, even on Budget day. Brexit planning is sucking up the energy of the Government in a fashion that is downright dangerous talk to civil servants in the Department of Transport, or even atHealth, and theyll complain that their political masters are too busy with European matters to agree basic policy directives. So Wednesdays Budget will be watched closely to see the assumptions it makes about inflation and post-Brexit growth, but on fiscal detail, few people will be offering quite as much scrutiny as usual. Why bother, when you can go another round of expat versus migrant in the pub?

The Budget, such as it is, looks unlikely to break much with the Osborne tradition. (Hammond is said to have asked his predecessor for advice.) In a rare anti-market sop, Hammond retains Osbornes antipathy to the buy to let market, phasing out tax relief on Buy to Let mortgages although there are inklings he may reverse Osbornes stamp duty increase. Otherwise, its cautious but standard Tory fare: raising the personal allowance before tax is paid on income (although many of the working poor will still pay hefty NI contributions) and heavy cuts on child credit. Much will be made of small gestures gently increasing the budget again for staff in prisons, for example, despite a 30 per cent cut in recent years and 1bn for social care, which may provide a bandage to the current crisis but is unlikely to accompany major policy changes until a mooted review concludes.

So far, so Tory. But what makes Hammonds policy moves interesting is that hes one of the few characteristic conservatives left in senior positions. The Brexiteers are innately radical, enthralled by the concept of creative destruction. Hammond is inherently cautious look at this weekends appearance on Peston on Sunday and at how heavily he warned against getting too optimistic about the latest positive economic growth forecast. Perhaps the forecasts immediately following the Brexit vote were over-pessimistic, he admitted, but if somebody gives you a bit more headroom on your credit card, it doesn't mean you have to rush out and spend it all at once. Expect to hear a lot more of that on Wednesday and plenty of talk about the need for Britain to shore up long-term resilience. This is the rhetoric of a man playing a long game. If Britain emerges as a cautious survivor, so can he.

View post:
Liberals may be pleasantly surprised by the Budget but Tory Party faithfuls could be in for a shock - The Independent

Democrats Seek Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Election Interference – New York Times


New York Times
Democrats Seek Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Election Interference
New York Times
Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, said the appointment of a special counsel was necessary to shield the inquiry from the appearance of political interference by the Trump administration. Credit Gabriella Demczuk for The New York Times.
Senate Democrats Blow Best Chance to Demand Special Russia ProsecutorThe Intercept
Democrats grill Rod Rosenstein on RussiaBaltimore Sun
Democrats call for special counsel during hearing for Sessions' would-be deputyCNN
Chicago Tribune -STLtoday.com
all 311 news articles »

More:
Democrats Seek Special Counsel to Investigate Russian Election Interference - New York Times

Those mercurial Democrats – Washington Times

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The average American is understandably perplexed as to why Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi and, of course, runner-up in last years Democratic primaries, Bernie Saunders, are so lathered up over the Republicans recent overtures to the Russians. They are calling for the impeachment of Attorney General Jeff Sessions. They want a special prosecutor to look into President Donald Trumps relations with President Vladimir Putin. What has gotten into the Democrats? Why are they so bellicose toward Moscow?

What happened to detente? What happened to perestroika and glasnost? And how about their longtime fear of a nuclear winter and their longing for a nuclear freeze? The Democrats have always been big on mixing rhetoric with climate. Though admittedly, Mr. Putin and his fat cat cronies have changed over the years from the Soviets of old.

The old Soviet economy was something that Bernie Saunders and Mrs. Pelosi and even the Mr. Schumer of recent edition could identify with. In particular Bernie, the socialist, had more in common with the Soviet system than with American capitalism. The Soviet economy certainly made more sense to him than the wild swings of the American economy that we have today. Think of it: The stock market is up 10 to 12 percent since Donald Trump was elected. The giant corporations and Wall Street are doubtless making a killing. Those animal spirits that make him uneasy are even returning to the middle class. Bernie tried to warn us, but to no avail. Now Mr. Schumer and Mrs. Pelosi have let out a yell.

I well remember the glowing praise of yesterdays progressives for the Soviet economy. There were, for instance, John Kenneth Galbraith of Harvard and Lester Thurow of MIT in the 1980s enthusing over Soviet prosperity just as Mikhail Gorbachev was about to come to power. Of course, todays alarums, sounded by the Democrats, about the Republicans approaches to the Kremlin were not heard in the 1970s and 1980s, at least not from the Democratic leadership. Then they talked of peaceful coexistence. What about peaceful coexistence with Mr. Putin?

Do you recall Sen. Edward Kennedy, the lion of the Senate, writing Soviet leaders Leonid Brezhnev and Yuri Andropov in secret correspondence aimed at undermining Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan? Most probably you do not. Such communications by Kennedy and former Democratic Sen. John Tunney to the KGB were not widely reported in the American media at the time. Yet, Sovietologists such as Herbert Romerstein and Paul Kengor have been reporting these contacts for years. Go ahead, google Kennedy and the KGB. The Times of London reported on them. Now the Democratic leadership is suspicious about ambiguous allegations of contacts between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. The Mainstream Media even reports on such alleged contacts as ties.

Jeff Sessions neglected to answer to the Democrats satisfaction poorly constructed questions about two chance meetings he had with the current Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak. Mr. Sessions is in hot water. Though Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, after tweeting that she has never met Mr. Kislyak, had to revise her tweets. Her own Twitter account revealed two meetings. Just like Mr. Sessions, she overlooked them. More recently, Mrs. Pelosi had to clarify her claim that she had never met Mr. Kislyak. A picture turned up showing her with him. In her clarification an aide to Mrs. Pelosi said, She has never had a private one-on-one with him. Well, if it were a private meeting I assume there would be no pictures.

On that occasion, Mrs. Pelosi was actually meeting with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev. So Democratic bigwigs do occasionally meet with Mr. Putins people. Which reminds me of President Obamas embarrassment with outgoing President Medvedev. Without knowing his microphone was on, the Democratic president told Mr. Medvedev to assure incoming President Putin that after the 2012 election he would have more flexibility in dealing with the Russians. Mr. Medvedev agreed, though Mr. Obama did not apparently find Mr. Putin so lovey-dovey.

So now the modern Russians are not as clubbable as the Democrats found the Russians of the Soviet era. They are not even as agreeable as Mr. Obama found them in 2012. Perhaps ordinary Americans, having read their history, can agree with me. These Democrats are mercurial. No wonder more and more Americans are coming to the conclusion that the country is in better hands with a real estate developer.

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc.

Link:
Those mercurial Democrats - Washington Times

Democrats Say Trump Tax Returns Are a National Security Issue – Newsweek

U.S. Senate Democrats, seeking to capitalize on growing disclosures about the Trump campaign's contacts with Russia, urged a top Republican lawmaker on Tuesday to obtain President Donald Trump's tax returns as a matter of national security.

It was the second request for Trump's returns by Senate Democrats in as many weeks, part of a Democratic campaign to pressure Republicans in Congress into obtaining the documents that could reveal conflicts of interest posed by the president's global business empire.

Trump has defied decades of precedent by refusing to release his tax returns, saying his tax affairs were under federal audit. The Internal Revenue Service has said that is no obstacle to releasing them publicly.

Try Newsweek for only $1.25 per week

In a letter on Tuesday to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch, two of the panel's leading Democrats said Trump's tax returns should be pursued in light of "critical national security implications" posed by contacts between Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak and Trump associates, including U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

The Senate Finance Committee chair Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and ranking Democratic member Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) attend a hearing on "Examining the Opioid Epidemic: Challenges and Opportunities" in Washington February 23, 2016. REUTERS/Gary Cameron REUTERS/Gary Cameron

"There is no debate that the conflicts in question pose a threat to American national security and the integrity of the government of the United States, and more and more keep coming to light," wrote Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon, the committee's top Democrat, and Senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan.

Hatch and House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady rejected a request for the returns last Wednesday by Senate Democrats, saying congressional actions that target individual tax returns would constitute an abuse of authority and set a dangerous precedent.

On Tuesday, a Hatch spokesman said the Utah Republican had no further comment.

The two Democratic lawmakers said national security had long been a focus of the Senate Finance Committee oversight of issues involving trade, Iran and terrorism. They also said the panel previously sought the tax returns of former Enron Corp executives, oil and gas companies and the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, as part of its oversight duties.

Wyden and Stabenow said they wanted the committee to hold a closed session in which lawmakers could conduct a bipartisan review of Trump's returns.

They added: "If committee members identify ties or relations to foreign governments within these documents, we will respectfully request the chairman and members of the committee hold a vote to make that information available to the public."

Original post:
Democrats Say Trump Tax Returns Are a National Security Issue - Newsweek

Liberals threaten Democrats over support for Gorsuch – Washington Times

Liberal activists are increasingly upset at what they see as too little opposition to President Trumps Supreme Court nominee and are even threatening to run primary challengers against Democrats in the Senate who end up supporting Judge Neil Gorsuch.

Nearly a dozen influential liberal groups fired off a letter this week calling Judge Gorsuch an ultra-conservative and demanding a more unified opposition.

We need you to do better, the groups said in the letter, which was organized by NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Several news outlets reported that the groups may even back primary opponents against Democrats who dont show enough opposition.

On Capitol Hill, liberal senators are looking for lines of attack against Judge Gorsuch, who until now has received glowing reviews from many of the senators including Democrats with whom he has met.

Three Democrats held a press conference Tuesday to question Judge Gorsuchs rulings on workers rights, saying some of his decisions as an appellate judge contradict Mr. Trumps promises to empower American workers.

Sen. Patty Murray, Washington Democrat, said Judge Gorsuch has a distinctly anti-worker record.

She pointed to a ruling against a woman who lost her job after a leukemia diagnosis, against a female employees discrimination case and against a truck driver who was fired for leaving his post because of health concerns.

Im very concerned that should he end up on the court, he would side with conservative justices in continuing to undermine worker protections, safety and ability to organize, Ms. Murray said.

Carrie Severino, chief counsel at the conservative Judicial Crisis Network, said Ms. Murray and her colleagues were cherry-picking cases to distort the judges record.

She said Judge Gorsuch, as a lawyer, won a major antitrust case against U.S. Tobacco Co. and, as a judge, wrote a ruling that restored multimillion-dollar penalties against Dow Chemical Co. and Rockwell International.

Early efforts to undermine Judge Gorsuch have fallen flat, leaving ardent Democrats looking for new angles of attack.

Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Democrat, requested documents from the Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation, two conservative organizations that helped shape Mr. Trumps list of potential Supreme Court nominees.

The wholesale outsourcing of nominee selection to interest groups is without known precedent, especially for a position as important as associate justice of the Supreme Court, Mr. Blumenthal said.

Ms. Murray said liberal groups frustration should be aimed at Mr. Trump.

With all the chaos surrounding this new administration, I want to make it clear I have really serious concerns about moving forward with the nominee at this time, she said.

I think there is a lot going on that makes it very hard to look at anything that they are doing. The hide the ball campaign is real, and this is a serious nomination that should take serious consideration, Ms. Murray said.

Despite the liberal uprising, Judge Gorsuch made rounds Tuesday on Capitol Hill and met with four Senate Democrats.

Sen. Al Franken, Minnesota Democrat, told reporters that he wasnt satisfied with some of Judge Gorsuchs answers to his questions and thought he got into judgespeak.

Hes met with 70 senators, so I think hes probably gotten pretty good at speaking around some things, Mr. Franken said.

Sen. Ted Cruz, a Texas Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he doesnt expect Democrats to put aside politics because they are furious that the voters would dare vote for a Republican president and a Republican majority in both houses of Congress.

I have no doubt the Democrats will use whatever procedural tools they have to delay that confirmation, Mr. Cruz said.

Continued here:
Liberals threaten Democrats over support for Gorsuch - Washington Times