Mediaboss Marketing

Republicans searching for consensus on how to pay for tax cuts are beginning to weigh attacking spending in potentially sensitive areas of the budget.

Senate Finance Chairman Orrin Hatch told Bloomberg he prefers to find spending cuts to pay for a tax overhaul, though he stopped short of guaranteeing any outcome.

Thats what should be the solution, Ill put it that way, Hatch, a Utah Republican, said Thursday. And Im hopeful that the Republicans will work to do that. Id like to find some spending cuts. Were spending us into oblivion."

GOP leaders have not moved off their calls for revenue-neutral tax legislation -- that is, a bill that balances tax cuts with other provisions that would raise revenue. Still, a growing number of Republican lawmakers is calling for abandoning that concept.

Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, a leader of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, called for $400 billion in unspecified cuts to welfare programs to help cover the cost of tax cuts. Thats the way to unlock the logjam in the House on setting tax and spending levels in a budget resolution, Jordan said Friday at an event sponsored by the Heritage Foundation, a conservative policy and advocacy group. Drawing up a budget resolution is a procedural prerequisite for Congress to tackle a tax overhaul.

At issue is how to comply with Senate rules that require 60 votes for any bill that adds to the long-term budget deficit. Republicans have only 52 votes in the chamber, and they arent counting on Democratic support. So tax-overhaul legislation must either avoid increasing the deficit or set its changes to expire within 10 years.

House Speaker Paul Ryan has proposed financing tax cuts with new revenues, but his proposals -- including imposing a border-adjusted tax on U.S. companies imports and eliminating their ability to deduct net interest payments -- face considerable opposition. No consensus has emerged on any other ways to raise revenue, however.

The political facts are that there is not consensus for the border-adjustment tax, said Representative Mark Meadows, the Freedom Caucus chairman.

Jordan and Meadows said the Freedom Caucus wont insist on revenue-neutral legislation, meaning some tax provisions would have to automatically expire in 10 years. Some of the tax cuts could be temporary, so you dont have to get full revenue-neutral, Jordan said.

Republican Senator David Perdue of Georgia, a staunch opponent of the border-tax proposal, also floated spending cuts as a possible offset for a tax-cut package. Representative Mark Sanford of South Carolina floated a hybrid -- revenue-raisers and spending cuts, particularly for entitlement programs -- of offsets.

Get the latest on global politics in your inbox, every day.

Get our newsletter daily.

Achieving spending cuts on a large scale is easier said than done. The costliest programs in the U.S. budget are Medicare, Social Security and defense spending, which President Donald Trump has promised not to cut. The discretionary part of the budget has faced deep cuts in recent years, and many Republicans are reluctant to go further. That leaves mandatory spending, which covers popular safety-net programs like unemployment benefits, food stamps and veterans benefits.

If we dont get after mandatory spending, we will bankrupt our country, Representative Warren Davidson, an Ohio Republican. And that is not compassionate and we should not let that happen.

Some Republicans see no way out of the logjam other than to change the rules and allow deficit-raising tax cuts for a longer time horizon. Senator Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania cast doubt on the prospects for consensus on major spending cuts and instead has called for imposing a 30-year time horizon for budgetary changes that can add to the deficit.

I hope were not going to hold ourselves to something that is revenue-neutral, because then were not going to get good tax reform, Toomey said.

But Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell havent revised their calls for revenue-neutral tax reform. The White House hasnt taken a definitive position on that question, and the lack of guidance has fueled a free-for-all political environment. But the clock is ticking, and Republicans are eager to see some progress soon in order to keep hope alive of passing a tax bill in 2017.

Weve got to make some decisions, Meadows said. It is time to make some decisions.

Read more from the original source:
Republicans Tiptoe Toward Safety-Net Cuts to Unlock Tax 'Logjam' - Bloomberg

Wall Street Journal (subscription)

The Blue State Progressives Should Be Pleased to Share Wall Street Journal (subscription) Was it just an accident that the June 8 letters all came from blue states that pay more in federal taxes than they get back? The writers complain this is unfair. Don't they see the hypocrisy of their complaint? The states that get the perks are the ...

Continued here:
The Blue State Progressives Should Be Pleased to Share - Wall Street Journal (subscription)

New York Times

Religious Liberals Sat Out of Politics for 40 Years. Now They Want in the Game. New York Times Frustrated by Christian conservatives' focus on reversing liberal successes in legalizing abortion and same-sex marriage, those on the religious left want to turn instead to what they see as truly fundamental biblical imperatives caring for the poor ...

View original post here:
Religious Liberals Sat Out of Politics for 40 Years. Now They Want in the Game. - New York Times

Now that a minority NDP government is poised to take office with Green Party support, the question must be asked where does the future of the B.C. Liberals lie?

While the party came within a hairs breadth of gaining a majority in last months election, there was a palpable sense of voter exhaustion in several key strongholds.

Back in 2001, when the Liberals were elected, their emphasis on discipline was welcomed. The preceding decade of NDP rule, at times chaotic, had created a desire for stability among voters.

But as time passed, discipline turned into rigidity. Iron budget management became an excuse for ignoring other legitimate interests.

And the policy of accepting large corporate donations fed a suspicion that the party was more attached to big business than working-class families.

After 16 years in office, the Liberals appeared increasingly tone-deaf and out of touch. Voters wanted change, and not just in policy, but in style and empathy.

Fairly or not, any such change has to begin with the premier. Christy Clark, for all her strengths, is unavoidably a voice from the past. As long as she remains leader, everything the public has come to dislike about the Liberals lives on.

Then there is the matter of timing. Some in the Liberal caucus might believe there is no hurry. Wait long enough, they might think, and the NDP/Green alliance will self-destruct.

But that would be an error. We have been promised a referendum on electoral reform in October 2018. The Liberals stand to lose if such a reform were made.

Over the past four elections, the partys share of the vote lagged well behind the NDP/Green total. Had some form of rep by pop been in place, the Liberals would have lost all of those contests.

However, if the party means to dispute the need for change, it must first regain its standing as a government in waiting. That means overhauling its platform.

And it must do this in little more than a year. Time, in other words, is not on the Liberals side.

So what might a new platform look like? Certainly, it should continue to emphasize competent management. This is the partys main claim to govern, and it need not be abandoned.

But in two areas, major changes are needed. First, the Liberals must re-forge a connection with voters on social issues such as child care, support for low-income families and affordable housing.

In the process, several hatchets must be buried, in particular with the teachers union, and with the childrens representative. Near-endless warfare on these fronts damaged the Liberals and contributed to their reputation for picking the wrong fights.

Second, a way must be found to articulate a middle ground between protecting the environment, and protecting jobs and the economy.

Tilt too far in the green direction, and you breath life back into the B.C. Conservative party. Fixate on the economy, and you lose support in suburban communities where the environmental movement is strongest. It was here that the Liberals surrendered their majority.

Still, in the end, it all depends on who becomes leader. True, the Liberals have never possessed a particularly strong caucus, and some contenders, such as the outgoing health minister, Terry Lake, retired or lost their seats.

Nevertheless, it is essential that a fresh new face be found. Justin Trudeaus revival of the federal Liberals comes to mind.

Will any of this happen? To date, Clark has expressed every intention of staying.

Her strength of will is commendable. But if she persists in this view, the Liberals might be consigned to the backbenches for a very long time.

Original post:
Editorial: Liberals must rebuild quickly - Times Colonist

Kirsty Duncan, Justin Trudeaus Science Minister, is on the rampage against Canadas leading universities. Shes told them to improve diversity or else. Unless they meet their gender quotas for new research chairs, the federal government will yank their funding. Despite a decade of concerted hectoring, Canadas most prestigious researchers are still too non-Indigenous, too white, too abled and, especially, too male. Frankly, our country cannot reach its full potential if more than half of its people do not feel welcomed into the lab where their ideas, their talent and their ambition is needed, she sermonized.

At stake is hundreds of millions in grant money as well as the ability of expert hiring committees to make their own decisions. (Universities must sponsor the grant applications, which are nearly all approved by the federal funding bodies.) From now on, these committees will be overseen by phalanxes of bureaucrats whose job is to ensure that they come up with the right answers.

The governments emphasis on equity and diversity is central to its branding. Its 50-50 cabinet has won universal praise. But now it has embarked on a campaign of reverse discrimination that deeply undermines the concepts of fairness and excellence.

Academia isnt the only target. Since last fall, the Trudeau government has named 56 judges, of whom 33 or 59 per cent are women. (Women made up only 42 per cent of the applicants.) Its clear the Liberals will keep it up until the balance of judges is more to their liking. But at what cost? In the old days, it was offensive that people got judgeships just because they were Liberals or Tories, Ian Holloway, law dean at the University of Calgary, told The Globe and Mail. That helped breed contempt for the judiciary. What we dont want to do is replicate that in a different form.

The definition of equality has changed dramatically in recent times. Equality used to mean fairness. It meant that everybody should be treated equally, and that discrimination is not acceptable. But the new definition of equality is equal outcomes. And if outcomes arent equal, they must be adjusted until they are.

No one disagrees that our institutions should broadly reflect the society we live in. No one disagrees that disadvantaged people and underrepresented groups deserve a helping hand, and sometimes preferential treatment. Many businesses and public institutions have an unwritten rule: If all else is equal, hire the minority candidate.

But what if it isnt? What if fair hiring practices produce disparities in outcome as they inevitably do? For example, its mainly men who like hard sciences despite a generation of effort to encourage women. This effort has borne fruit. But it has not produced a massive change in womens career choices, which are overwhelmingly on the soft side. Theres also a sizable body of research showing that even women who are highly career-minded are less intent on attaining senior positions than men are.

On the face of it, the Canada Research Chair numbers dont look great. Women hold only 30 per cent of the 1,615 filled positions, a number that Ms. Duncan regards as dismal, and at some universities its much lower. Among the new applications, she notes disapprovingly that twice as many come from men. But these positions are heavily skewed toward hard sciences. Forty-five per cent are for natural sciences and engineering; 35 per cent are for health sciences; and just 20 per cent are for the social sciences and humanities.

But fair is no longer good enough. Only outcomes matter. The new quotas for Canada Research Chairs are: 31 per cent women, 15 per cent visible minorities, 4 per cent disabled, 1 per cent aboriginal. And woe to you if you do not comply.

Other institutions have gone much farther. At St. Michaels Hospital in Toronto, a document called Gender Equity Guidelines for Research Search Committees states, We are hoping to achieve recruitment of 50 per cent female scientists in the next 3-5 years, as well as to achieve 50 per cent female faculty in leadership positions in the next 5-7 years. Given the natural gender imbalance in science research, they might as well just post a sign saying: Men, dont bother! The document further states that all search committee members must take training in unconscious bias (an increasingly discredited idea), and that their work will be closely scrutinized by the diversity police to ensure the proper outcomes.

Im all for diversity. But these future researchers have important work to do. They could save lives. Dont we want people who can research and teach, instead of prove how diverse we are? I guess not. Weve got quotas to fill.

Follow us on Twitter: @GlobeDebate

View original post here:
Liberals' reverse discrimination comes at a cost - The Globe and Mail