Mediaboss Marketing

On a party-line vote, a Missouri House committee on Wednesday rejected a request for a recount in a legislative district decided by 99 votes in the November election.

Democratic members of the Special Committee on Election Contests voted against the decision to deny a recount. Majority Republicans said they opposed the recount because the challenger, Democratic nominee Cindy Berne, did not allege any irregularities in her loss to Republican Adam Schwadron in the 105th District in St. Charles County.

We have tried in every way we could to evaluate what has taken place, said Rep. Dan Stacy, R-Blue Springs, who served as the chairman of the committee.

Under state law, a candidate who loses by less than 1% of the vote has the right to ask for a recount. The margin in the 105th District was 0.91% of the 10,951 votes cast. Schwadron received 5,404, or 49.35%, to Bernes 5,305, or 48.44%, with Libertarian candidate Michael Carver picking up the remainder.

In its report to the House, the committee focused on the issue of irregularities, noting that Berne had not alleged any. Various state statutes, the report states, indicate that the committee has discretion to turn down the request if the person contesting the election hasnt shown that there is uncertainty about enough votes to potentially change the outcome.

Rep. Kimberly-Ann Collins, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said Berne deserved a recount even without an allegation of issues with the vote.

That is not what we should be focused on, Collins said.

The statute on recounts where the margin is less than 1% says the losing candidate shall have the right to a recount, Collins noted.

The gist of this is that they are owed a recount because it is less than 1% and that is whats in statute, she said.

Republicans on the committee pushed back, saying that the recount is discretionary when there are no other issues raised about how the election was conducted.

It should be used sparingly when there are not irregularities to point to, Rep. Peggy McGaugh, R-Carrollton and a former county clerk.

Stacy said extensive research showed that other statutes describing the circumstances triggering a recount and governing the power of the committee gave it the ability to turn down Bernes request.

I believe we have been very thorough, Stacy said. I feel we have followed the statute.

The Missouri Constitution makes the House the sole judge of election contests for its members. There is no right to appeal the committees decision to the courts.

If a recount had overturned the result, it would have been the fourth seat picked up by Democrats from the 2022 election. There are 52 Democrats and 111 Republicans in the 163-member House.

See the original post:
Missouri House committee rejects call for recount in close St ... - Missouri Independent

Darsha Dodge| Rapid City Journal

South Dakota's lone congressman has been named the "most effective House Republican" on agriculture for the 117th Congress, according to the Center for Effective Lawmaking.

It's Dusty Johnson's second time in a row receiving the honor.CEL also ranked him 14th out of his 222 House Republican colleagues.

Agriculture is the top industry in South Dakota. My focused efforts to represent our producers well have delivered results to the industry, Johnson said. Im proud to be named the top House Republican in Agriculture policy and will continue to work hard for South Dakota.

During the 117th Congress, Johnson was the Republican lead on many bills passed, including theOcean Shipping Reform ActandStrengthening the Agriculture and Food Supply Chain Act.

Other bills were implemented administratively by the agencies they affected, an often faster process than waiting for Congressional passage. TheFEEDD Actexpands relief under the federal crop insurance program, while theCattle Contract Library Actincreases transparency for producers by allowing them to view price components from different packers.

Johnsonsecured his third term in a landslide victoryover Libertarian Collin Duprel in November. Now months into the 118th Congress, Johnson continues to prioritize his agriculture work in the legislature. It's his third term serving on the agriculture committee, a vital seat on the national stage to represent South Dakota's number-one industry, especially in a year where Congress has to renegotiate the Farm Bill.

Since the session began on Jan. 3, Johnson has re-introduced two cattle-focused bills aimed at helping the ag industry theButcher Block Actand theA-PLUS Act. TheButcher Block Actassists new or expanded livestock or meat processors, allows for financing of cooperative stock and establishes a rural development grant program.The U.S. Department of Agriculture implemented a pilot program mirroring that legislation in July 2021.

He's been outspoken about Chinese Communist Party influence, noting repeatedly that "food security is national security." Johnson is one of 24 lawmakers appointed to the Select Committee on China; he questioned CCP involvement in America's agriculture and farmland productionduring the first hearing on Feb. 28.

Johnson recently visited Wall, wherehe and USDA Under Secretary Xochitl Torres Small toured Wall Meat Processing. Co-owner Ken Charfauros said the demand for locally sourced meat has exceeded the capacity of their 2,400-square-foot processing plant. Charfauros and the Wall Meat Processing team have expanded with their subsidiary, I-90 Meats, to create a 30,000-square-foot plant in New Underwood.

I-90 Meats received a $3.3 million federal grant to assist in the plant's creation, a direct impact from Johnson's legislation.

See the original post here:
Dusty Johnson gets second nod as 'most effective House ... - Argus Leader

Presidential candidate Nikki Haley on Monday laid out her plan for tackling the border crisis and the nations debt during a town-hall event in Dover, N.H.

I dont know that our kids are ever going to forgive us for this, Haley said of the nations $31 trillion in debt. Its easy to blame Biden for that, but our Republicans did that to us too, and we need to acknowledge that.

She pointed to the $2.2 trillion Covid stimulus bill that was passed in 2020 with no accountability.

It expanded welfare. We now have 90 million people on Medicaid in this country. Weve got 42 million people on food stamps, she told a full house at Dovers Restoration Church. And so what did Republicans do? Did they try and stop and correct? No, Republicans in Congress doubled down and for the first time in ten years, they went back to earmarks. Seven thousand earmarks they passed through . . . this past December.

Dont let them ever tell you Republicans and Democrats dont agree on anything, because they love wasting our money, she said, before again renewing her call for term limits and competency test for politicians over the age of 75.

If elected, Haley said she would vetoany spending bill that doesnt take us back to pre-Covid levels.

I balanced a budget in South Carolina. You balance a budget at home.Our businesses, we balance budgets. Why is Congress the only group thats exempt from doing that? We have to start balancing a budget, she said. To address the nations finances, we must also undertake entitlement reform, she added.

One such reform, she said, would be raising the retirement age for kids in their 20s, limiting benefits for the wealthy, changing the cost of living to more closely reflect inflation, and expanding Medicare Advantage programs.

National Review spoke to voters across the political spectrum who turned out to see Haley, most of whom said it was too early to say which candidate they will support in 2024. However, all said that the economy and inflation are among their top concerns.

Story continues

I love Nikki Haley. Ive been following her since she was in government elsewhere, and so I love her, but I want to hear what other people have to say before I make a decision, said one conservative resident. But I definitely am impressed with her so far over the years.

Diane Weir, a libertarian, said the Republican field looks good and that it has been nice to watch somebody confident like Haley.

She didnt dodge questions. I appreciated that, she said. I also thought the last time I heard [Republican senator] Tim Scott interviewed, he sounded very good. And of course, Im intrigued by Vivek [Ramaswamy.]

She cited the economy and the amount of drugs coming over the border as her top concerns but said she has reservations about Haleys neocon side and her hawkish positions on Ukraine.

Beth Voce, an independent, said she is interested in the prospect of a female candidate for president because Im tired of the good old boys system that is not working for our country.

So Im very excited, she said. Nikki Haley has a good reputation and has proven results.

Elaine Teeters said that she and her husband are still just feeling things out. She said she loves Governor Chris Sununu but would hate to lose him to the presidency. Her husband, John Teeters, said he voted for Trump in 2016 but he didnt vote for him in 2020 and wont vote for him in 2024.

John Teeters said he might trust Vice President Mike Pence to tone down the divisive rhetoric between the parties but added that Pence is a little far right for him. He would be interested in supporting a presidential run from former representative Liz Cheney.

Meanwhile, Haley today also unveiled her plan to tackle the border crisis, another top concern for many voters at the event.

Congress has let us know that they are incapable of figuring anything out, so we have to tell Congress what they need to do, Haley said, telling the engaged crowd at the church that Congress must pass mandatory E-verify to prevent businesses from hiring illegal immigrants.

She pointed to its successful implementation in South Carolina, where she was governor from 2011 to 2017. They left South Carolina because they couldnt get a job, she said.

She also said the government should hire an additional 25,000 Border Patrol and ICE agents instead of spending money to hire the additional IRS agents called for in the Democrats Inflation Reduction Act.

There should be no more money going to any illegal immigrants in this country whatsoever, she said. Other points in her agenda include a return to Trumps Remain in Mexico plan and the continued use of a Title 42 public-health order that allows for quick expulsions of illegal immigrants.

I will tell you the one thing that youre going to see in America when Im president, were going to stop catch and release and were going to start catch and deport, she said.

See the original post here:
Nikki Haley: Our Republicans Added to Our Debt Crisis - Yahoo News

Around the world, population growth rates are declining, and in many countries fertility rates are sufficiently low that the population is shrinking. Fertility decline has been happening for centuries in America and other developed countries, but it has recently attracted renewed attention. Liberals and conservatives alike, albeit for different reasons, have rallied around policies that might increase fertility, such as expanding the child tax credit or implementing federal paid family leave.

In Libertarian Land, a different perspective obtains: governments treat having children as a private decision whose main costs and benefits accrue to the individual or couple in question. So, as with other personal decisions, government avoids policies that discourage or encourage fertility, as either kind can generate undesirable outcomes from a personal or societal perspective.

This approach does not deny that having children might benefit society overall. Some evidence suggests that a higher population generates more innovation and technological progress. A larger population would mean a larger workforce and greater economic output, which might facilitate national defense or trade negotiations.

Yet a larger or faster growing population can have negatives as well. Under existing policies, a larger populace means higher costs for funding public schools, social services, and old age benefits. A higher population, other things equal, means more pollution, crowding on highways, and carbon emissions. Absent conclusive evidence regarding the net benefit or cost, therefore, policy should neither penalize nor subsidize fertility.

This perspective implies scaling back or eliminating numerous policies that subsidize children, such as the child tax credit. At the same time, it suggests eliminating policies that raise the costs of having and raising children.

Examples include occupational licensing, zoning, and immigration policies, which raise childcare costs; land use regulations, which raise housing costs; import tariffs on food and baby formula; and even excessive child safety regulations, including car seat requirements that increase financial costs but provide little associated safety benefit.

This laissez-faire perspective also recommends other smaller-government reforms that would make family life easier, including expanded educational choice, reasonable independence laws that allow children to play outside and walk to school alone, and protecting independent contractor status which facilitates flexible work schedules and working from home rather than imposing employee status, as proposed in both state and federal initiatives.

Even if increased population nets out as beneficial, population policies have serious potential for unintended consequences. The one child policy in mainland China led to sex-selective abortions and, decades later, a population decline that worries current leaders. Prohibitions on birth control that aimed to increase birth rates in Romania led to a surge of orphans. Although draconian policies are not currently being proposed, dasnt policymakers forget that meddling in personal areas of life can have damaging consequences.

Considerable evidence, moreover, suggests that pronatalist policies have limited influence on fertility and little long-term effect; often they increase fertility in the short-term by moving births forward in time for couples already planning to have children; thus, these policies do little to increase long-term fertility once births revert to baseline. Instead, these policies mainly transfer wealth to persons who want children from the general population, which may explain their political popularity.

None of this is meant to discourage having children or to raise warnings about population growth. The Malthusian prediction that growing populations would produce mass starvation made when world population was 1 billion, compared to almost 8 billion now has proved stunningly wrong.

The lesson, however, is not that we need policies to promote population growth but instead that neutral policies regarding private fertility decisions would be better. Government does not know best, and even if it did, past efforts to manage population have had limited effect at best and catastrophic outcomes at worst.

In Libertarian Land, policy makers recognize the limitations of population policy and instead liberate families by removing the many and varied government-imposed obstacles to family life.

Original post:
Is It Wise for Governments To Encourage Fertility? - The New York Sun

Ive been thinking about Frank Meyer lately. Among other things, Meyer was one of the founding editors ofNational Reviewand played an outsized role in the mid-century conservative disputes, arguing forand winninga synthesis, or fusion, between the traditionalist and libertarian camps. Meyer himself was more of a libertarian, but he argued that while traditionalists emphasized certain aspects of conservatism and libertarians emphasized others, no contradiction or repudiation was required. Its a fascinating history, and I recommend George H. NashsThe Conservative Intellectual Movement in America Since 1945to learn more.

Fusionism won at the time, but we know that a non-insignificant number of contemporary conservatives, perhaps especially the young, view it as defunct. Maybe, maybe not, and Im not here pursuing that problem. However, I would suggest a read of his 1956essay, Freedom, Tradition, Conservatism, not only for his take on fusionism, but for his description of the great tension facing conservatives in his timenamely, when we live in a time of Revolution, the conservative tendency to preserve, continue in tradition, and maintainpious modesty about our cultural accomplishments is largely defunct. In Revolutionary times, when institutions are corrupt and custom and habit off-kilter, we cannot, he suggests, rest in natural conservatism but must give rise to new attempts to preserve ordered liberty, even though these attempts differ from what we are used to seeing.

No one doubts that conservative thought has fragmented, and we are seeing an explosion of new schools of thought. This is to be expected, and is perfectly normal response to our age of Revolution. Some efforts will be more profitable than others, some will fail, some are unwise, but in many ways these efforts are to welcomed. We are thinking again. We are attempting to respond. We are attempting a struggle against a dehumanizing revolutionbut we really are all pushing or attempting to overcome the same common threat. Civilization saving isnt easy.

AtPublic Discourse, we intend to play the role of moderation and calm. We know our society is in the middle of a Revolutionand not a good oneand we know conservatives are experimenting and fracturing in their responses. We try to read and understand all the trends, all the possibilities, and stay calm and reasonable as we host debate and conversation about the best way forward.

Support Our Work

Public Discourseis completely free of charge to readers, which means we rely on the generosity of our donors. Please consider supporting our work.

Recent Highlights

This past month we continued this work. A great example was Kelly Hanlonsinterviewwith Samuel Gregg on Americas Commercial Republic, and Its Detractors. A good many contemporary conservatives arent so sure about free markets and free trade, and Gregg is someone to take seriously as he considers the issues.

OurLong Readwas from Baylors Thomas Hibbs, tackling the evident problem of contempt in online exchange and suggesting much of this anger stems from the sadness, isolation, and fear experienced by so many Americans. This is not an internet problem so much as a human problem, and the wisdom of the past, including from Thomas Aquinas, offers us sound advice.

If you cant keep up with the publishing houses output of excellent books, you might enjoy Matthew J. Francksreviewabout a book on a giant of constitutional law, James Bradley Thayer, or Richard Garnettsreviewof Philip HamburgersPurchasing Submission, orTerence Sweeneyon Michael Lamb and Augustines political thought. Joshua Katz provides an excellentcommentaryonJohn Agrestos new book on liberal education. Of course, its always worth the time to read Matt Francks column, The Bookshelf. This month on the idea and challenge ofinclusion, a word much in the news.

And be sure to read some of my favorites of this month:

From Our Archives

Since Ive been reflecting on Meyer, I also took some time to re-read Toward a New Consensus, an invitation from thePublic Discourseeditorial team to thinkers from the various conservative schools to lock themselves into argument. Argument is not cheap tricks, online scores, or owning anyone. Argument is fundamentally a sign of respect and equality, a commitment to the view that you and I both are capable of the common good of truth and knowledge. We atPDhavent changed our view on that, and I dont think we ever will.

What Were Reading around the Web

Miscellaneous

We have two announcements. First, to our readers in Washington, DC: on Monday, April 24 at 6:00pm we are hosting a panel with the Catholic Information Center featuring Mary Harrington on her new book,Feminism Against Progress.Alexandra DeSanctis,Christine Emba, andLeah Libresco Sargeantwill offer responses. Registration will open shortly, and we will send out a link once its available. For readers not in DC, we will publish everyones remarks as a symposium shortly following the event.

Second, weve put together a reader survey, which is quick and easy to complete.Wed be extremely grateful if youd click here to share your views.Because we value your input and your time, readers who complete the survey will be offered the opportunity to win two books, along with aPublic Discourse bookmark and mug. We will select ten readers who will each receive these items.

Sincerely,

R. J. SnellEditor-in-Chief,Public Discourse

Read more here:
From the Editors Desk - Public Discourse