Mediaboss Marketing

When Initiative 19, now Amendment 78, was first filed, the states nonpartisan Legislative Council offered its take on the proposed constitutional amendment. In a March 9 memo to the measures proponents, 49 questions and comments are listed that illuminate numerous potential impacts the proposal would have on how our state government currently operates.

Also read: POINT | Yes on 78; nix exec. branch slush funds

The comments reveal how the measure would do far more than what the proponents purported. Instead of just restricting the governors ability to appropriate emergency dollars, Amendment 78 tries to bring a whole swath of other dollars under the legislatures control. Even if you think restricting our governors authority over emergency relief dollars is a good idea, Amendment 78s reach probably isnt what youre looking for.

Here are just a few of the very serious possibilities the Legislative Council flagged:

Could the General Assembly continuously appropriate any money that currently is otherwise authorized by law?

...Would the amended version of section 33 require that the General Assembly appropriate money for highway projects rather than delegating this authority, by law, to a commission?

...the Department of Health Care Policy and Financing would not be able to use available federal funds to make provider reimbursements until the General Assembly appropriates the money. This may lead to a disruption of services or federal payments. Upon receiving these notes, did Amendment 78s authors slow down and consider the implications of what they proposed? No. Consumed with turning a talking point about the governors spending authority during a public health crisis into a political win on the ballot, they made a few marginal tweaks and steamed ahead.

Colorado is no stranger to unintended consequences on the ballot, but this one may well take the cake. If it passes, Amendment 78 will open our state up to unending shenanigans and showdowns. At a minimum, it will slow down federal relief in times of crisis. At worst, it could bring Washington-style stalemate politics to Colorado.

Right now, there are hundreds of types of dollars that pass through the state treasurers office and to their intended purposes. This is how our government operates throughout the year. Under existing law, state agencies and governmental entities (like our public universities) are already authorized to spend these dollars according to terms dictated by their source. And it isnt just federal dollars that are considered custodial -- its also legal settlement dollars and grants for numerous partnerships that make our state work. Nonprofits throughout the state interact with these funds. Most alarmingly, it puts emergency funds at risk for the Coloradans who need them, fast. When the floods hit in 2013, millions of federal dollars came to our aid, quickly and efficiently. When fires hit, money flows through the state to where its needed. And when a global pandemic struck, our community conduits worked.

But if Amendment 78 passes, this efficiency and speed will end. Well need a special session every time a natural disaster occurs. Beyond simply doubling the work our part-time legislature must do, it will create numerous opportunities for legislators to object to the role federal dollars play in our state. Health care dollars, transportation and transit funding, conservation funding, funding for scientific research -- this is what we are talking about when we talk about the funds affected by Amendment 78.

In a time of debt-ceiling showdowns and culture wars, do we want more opportunities to choke up our most important public systems with political theater? A vote for Amendment 78 is a vote for a recklessly written invitation for dysfunction and disagreement on simple questions that have already been decided. Vote no.

Scott Wasserman is the president of the Bell Policy Center in Denver.

Original post:
COUNTERPOINT | No on 78; it will sow dysfunction | Opinion | coloradopolitics.com - coloradopolitics.com

This week, Idaho political news went national, as the Brad Little-Janice McGeachin feud went nuclear.

It made for irresistible sport, without an obvious winner.

Playing the acting governor card once again, the lieutenant governor played to her base with a short-lived executive order banning schools from requiring COVID-19 vaccines (which they cant do anyway) and outlawing mandatory COVID-19 testing (which is probably more of a legal quandary). While joining fellow Republican governors along the U.S.-Mexican border, and essentially phoning in to rescind the McGeachin order, Little also took heat for political grandstanding.

But while one showdown played out for all of Idaho (and the nation) to see, another one is on hold.

On Thursday, Littles State Board of Education said it would delay again a proposed policy on campus diversity, educational equity and inclusion, or DEI for short. The proposal wont come up at the boards October meeting, and probably wont come up until 2022.

Before we continue consideration of a new policy, we are going to conduct a campus climate survey of students later this fall, State Board President Kurt Liebich said in a statement. It will be a scientific survey conducted by the Board office and independent of the institutions. We should have results back after the first of the year.

And as showdowns go, this one is a big deal. It doesnt have the drama of dueling executive orders and a full-on Twitter feud pitting two statewide elected officials. But hey, you cant have everything.

But this battle should reinforce Littles and McGeachins positions on opposite sides of the campus culture wars. And it could make Littles State Board a legitimate election issue in the May GOP gubernatorial primary.

McGeachin and the State Board have been circling each other suspiciously for months.

All summer, a hand-picked McGeachin task force sought evidence of classroom indoctrination, at the K-12 and higher education levels. Liebich has repeatedly, and publicly, disputed the claims of widespread indoctrination.

Meanwhile, in June, the State Board floated its DEI proposal, which would require Idahos four-year schools to come up with their own campus-specific programs.

Diversity, educational equity, and inclusion are necessary components of educational experiences that challenge individuals to grow, improve critical thinking, refine skills, build character, develop awareness, and engage in freedom of thought and expression, the proposed policy reads, in part. The Board affirms that encouraging and supporting diversity, educational equity, and inclusion is central to academic success, to engendering innovation and creativity, and to fully preparing students to thrive in an increasingly diverse and global workforce.

What has happened since June?

In mid-August, the board delayed a final vote on the DEI proposal, then scheduled for later in the month. At the time, Liebich said the delay was simply an attempt to collect public comment. But the move also averted a political collision course; the Aug. 25 and 26 State Board meeting would have coincided with the fourth and final meeting of the McGeachin education task force, also held Aug. 26.

Meanwhile, dozens of Idahoans have quietly and passionately weighed in.

Idaho Education News filed a public records request for public comments on the State Board proposal: more than 50 in all.

The majority of commenters opposed the proposal. Many of these comments used the loaded words that flowed freely during the four meetings of McGeachins education task force calling the State Board proposal racist, Marxist, socialist, divisive and anti-American.

Not surprisingly, emotions ran high on both sides of this ideological divide, with many of the comments directed at the State Board.

While many comments have kept to tidy ideological lines, there still were a few wrinkles.

Push Back Idaho, a new conservative PAC based in Blaine County, challenged the State Board to add language acknowledging that indoctrination is, itself, a form of oppression and unlawful discrimination. Yet this same group is one of former State Board member Debbie Critchfields biggest supporters, contributing $5,000 to the Little ally, and her campaign for state schools superintendent.

And the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, urged the State Board to reject the proposal, saying its language promoting civility could violate free speech rights. Much uncivil speech is indeed protected under the First Amendment. But this out-of-state group is by no means in the McGeachin camp. In August, FIRE spent hundreds of dollars to obtain redacted comments to McGeachins task force the same comments McGeachin released only after a judge ordered her to do so, and after the Idaho Press Club sought to have her held in contempt of court.

But one comment was not at all surprising. In a Sept. 23 letter, the task force doubled down on its summers work. Asserting that they have found overwhelming evidence of elements of critical race theory on campus, task force members urged the State Board to ditch the proposed policy.

The use of the word equity seeks to guarantee equitable outcomes, which will result in unconstitutional and unlawful discrimination, the task force said, in a letter first obtained not through the State Board, but from McGeachin Chief of Staff Jordan Watters. (On Thursday, State Board spokesman Mike Keckler acknowledged the oversight, saying he had inadvertently omitted the task force letter from the response to EdNews records request.)

The DEI proposal already illustrates a sharp difference between the way Littles State Board and McGeachins inner circle view the campus culture wars. The issue could give the lieutenant governor an avenue to spell out what a McGeachin State Board would look like.

That debate might not go national. But anyone who cares about Idaho higher education should pay attention.

Each week, Kevin Richert writes an analysis on education policy and education politics. Look for his stories each Thursday.

Senior reporter and blogger Kevin Richert specializes in education politics and education policy. He has more than 30 years of experience in Idaho journalism. He is a frequent guest on KIVI 6 On Your Side; "Idaho Reports" on Idaho Public Television; and "Idaho Matters" on Boise State Public Radio. Follow Kevin on Twitter: @KevinRichert. He can be reached at [emailprotected]

View original post here:
Analysis: Another Little-McGeachin education showdown is on hold, but not permanently - Idaho EdNews

Bangladesh all-rounder Shakib Al Hasan, who has been the mainstay for Kolkata Knight Riders in absence of Andre Russell, might miss the playoff game against Royal Challengers Bangalore (RCB) as he is set to join his national squad for the T20 World Cup. According to Cricfrenzy, Shakib Al Hasan, along with his Bangladesh teammate Mustafizur Rahman, who was part of the Rajasthan Royals dugout, will join the national side on Sunday to start the mandatory one-day quarantine ahead of their warm-up game against Sri Lanka on October 12.

According to the report, the Bangladesh squad for the T20 World Cup will depart for the UAE on Sunday, where they will be joined by Shakib and Mustafizur. Bangladesh is all set to play a warm-up game against Sri Lanka on Tuesday before starting their World Cup campaign against Scotland on October 17. Shakib Al Hasan was included in KKR's starting XI after Andre Russell was ruled out due to injury concerns. Shakib performed exceptionally well for KKR in the two league games that he played in phase 2 of IPL 2021.

Although Shakib did not get to bat in the previous two games that he played for KKR, the World No. 1 ranked all-rounder contributed in the other aspects of the game, including bowling and fielding. During KKR's game against SRH on October 3, Shakib picked onewicket and also effected an all-important run out to dismiss Kane Williamson. Shakib has played a total of five matches in IPL 2021 and has scored 38 runs at an average of 12.36. He also has fourwickets to his name.

As far as KKR is concerned, the team finished fourth in the points table after the completion of the league stage on Saturday. KKR became the last team to qualify for the playoffs, where they will lock horns against Virat Kohli's RCB on October 11 in the eliminator match. KKR have two IPL trophies in their cabinet and the side will look to make it three when they come out on the field on Monday.

Read more:
KKR suffer massive jolt with team's big player all set to miss knockout game against RCB - Republic World

Gareth Southgate believes that his England team have gained more respect in other countries than at home for the way they have transformed their fortunes and style of play.

England had not won a tournament knockout game in a decade before Southgate took charge in 2016 but then reached their first major final in 55 years in Euro 2020 after playing in the semi-finals of both the World Cup and the Nations League.

They have only dropped two points in qualifying for the 2022 World Cup and can close in on a spot in Qatar by beating Hungary at Wembley on Tuesday.

And Southgate, who inherited a side who had been beaten by Iceland in Euro 2016, said: I think across Europe we have gained a lot of respect. When I travel in Europe and talk to European coaches there is probably a greater recognition of what we have done and how we have played than there is here. That is always reassuring because you want the respect of your peers.

England beat Andorra 5-0 on Saturday but Southgate is set to make a host of changes, including recalling Harry Kane. The captain is one of only six Englishmen to score 40 international goals and is three behind the late Jimmy Greaves, who got 44.

Southgate added: When you put that scoring chart and that other five names, it is a reminder of how much Harry has already achieved and I know it is more important to him that the team has got to two semi-finals and a final.

Phil Foden pressed his case to start with a starring role in Andorra and Southgate admitted that he will be criticised, whoever he omits. I have a headache and I commit a crime every time I pick a team, he smiled. We have so many good players and such strong competition for places.

Foden and Kane are among four Englishmen on the 30-man Ballon dOr shortlist, along with Raheem Sterling and Mason Mount, who savoured his presence in a group that also includes Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Kylian Mbappe and Robert Lewandowski.

ENGLAND RATINGS v ANDORRA: Sam Johnstone - 6: Not a save to make until last 10 minutes although had been flagged for offside anyway. Well protected by defence on few occasions Andorra threatened and earned assist with throw to Grealish for fifth goal. Getty

It was special, said the Chelsea midfielder. To see that and be alongside those names, it is a dream, for all the years you work hard and dedicate, it shows it all pays off.

With Harry Maguire injured, Tyrone Mings is set to partner John Stones in the centre of defence, just as he did when the Manchester United captain was not fit to face Croatia and Scotland in the summer. Mings subsequently admitted that he struggled with his mental health in the tournament, feeling the country had doubts in him after shaky displays in friendlies.

Southgate said: I think this was a bit of performance anxiety. There is always that doubt as a player if you have not been in that situation before, you dont know if you can do it. There is a lot of pressure on young people. He dealt with two really high-profile and difficult games when he started.

England will play further qualifiers in November and Southgate is against proposals by Fifas head of global football, Arsene Wenger, to have either one or two longer international breaks a season.

Southgate added: There can be tweaks to the calendar that would help everyone. If there is only one per year I dont understand that as a concept from Fifa. If you are a player and you miss that one month, then you dont have an international career at all that year, that doesnt seem to make sense to me at all.

I gave some opinions to Arsene when he showed me his ideas. But the calendar needs joining up, we cant just keep adding.

Updated: October 11th 2021, 4:02 PM

Read the rest here:
Gareth Southgate says England are given more respect across Europe than at home - The National

The stench of defeat has clung to the Democrats failure to get either of their major infrastructure bills passed by Congress during the last week of September. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had committed herself to 27 September as the date by which she would bring to a vote the smaller, bipartisan bill infrastructure package already passed by the Senate. This was going to happen, she said, even if no progress had been made on meeting the progressive Democrats key demand: passing the larger reconciliation infrastructure bill at the same time. But Pelosi held no vote that day or even that week, even as she vowed with increasing frequency (and seeming desperation) that one was imminent. The week ended not with a dramatic roll call but with plenty of Democratic handwringing and gleeful Republican predictions that the collapse of Democratic rule and, with it, of Bidens presidency, was at hand.

Treating that fateful week as the moment when the promise of the Biden presidency vanished may be too hasty a conclusion, however. The difficult challenge facing Pelosi was to unite Democrats behind a second infrastructure bill much larger and more ambitious than the first. It was never going to be easy to pass that second bill, and not just because the Democrats were holding a slim majority in the House and the thinnest of majorities in the Senate. It is also the case that a bill of this size and scope has no clear precedent. We hear a lot about FDRs remarkable accomplishment, passing 15 separate bills in the first 100 days of his New Deal administration in 1933. The Democrats second infrastructure bill, if passed, would have been equally remarkable. It is best understood as an attempt to compress the equivalent of Roosevelts fifteen separate initiatives into one giant piece of legislation.

Its exhausting simply to read through the list of the second infrastructural bills major provisions: universal preschool, subsidies for child and elder care, a program of school lunches, paid medical leave, expansion of Medicare (and Obamacare and Medicaid), massive investments in a green economy, additional investments in physical infrastructure, a Civilian Climate Corps (modelled on FDRs storied Civilian Conservation Corps), affordable housing, Native American infrastructure, support for historically black colleges and universities, and an expanded green card program for immigrant workers and their families. Weve heard a lot about the way in which the filibuster warps American democracy and about the arcane process of reconciliation that, in a few instances, allows for a filibuster workaround. Weve heard a lot less about how the Democrats, in difficult political circumstances, have come within two Senate votes of achieving a legislative breakthrough on a scale that rivals FDRs legendary 100 days.

And despite pundit declarations to the contrary, Democrats attempt at breakthrough is not yet dead. It is true that the reconciliation infrastructural bill no longer has a chance of reaching an expenditure level of $4tn. If such a bill passes, it is likely to be in the $1.5-2tn range. The many major initiatives currently contained within it may have to be shrunk by a third. That will disappoint Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and their supporters, who had originally set their eyes on a $6tn package. Yet, history offers a different perspective. The Biden administration might still deliver a package of programs across its first year totaling $5tn: an estimated $2tn for a downsized reconciliation infrastructural bill; $2tn for Americas Rescue Plan already approved; and the $1tn for the bipartisan infrastructure bill that is sure to pass the House at some point. This shrunken 2021 package as a whole would still rival (as a percentage of GDP) government expenditures during the most expensive years of the second world war. It would exceed by more than five times the size of Obamas 2009 economic recovery plan.

The ambition of Bidens spending package reveals the distance that US politics has travelled since the Great Recession, when Obama relied for economic guidance on a group of economic advisors drawn from the neoliberal world of Robert Rubin and Goldman Sachs, and of Wall Street more broadlyfigures such as Timothy Geithner, Lawrence Summers, Peter Orszag, and Michael Froman. Elizabeth Warren had not then launched her political career, and Sanders was a lonely voice in the Senate. They were certainly not regarded as Democratic Party heavyweights. They now are. That Biden ultimately sided with the progressives during the 27 September week is a sure sign of their influence.

The progressives influence is equally apparent in Bidens decision, in the days leading up to the expected vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill, to nominate Saule Omarova to be Comptroller of the Currency. Omarova, a law professor at Cornell University, is a radical who wants to democratize and nationalize finance in America in ways never done before. In her legal writings, she has argued that the Federal Reserve ought to be turned into a peoples bank where Americans would keep their deposit accounts (rather than in private banks, as is currently the case). This newly configured Fed, in her vision, would also establish a national investment authority charged with directing Federal Reserve capital to projects that serve the public interest. Omarova may not receive confirmation from the Senate; even if she does, she may simply be a pawn in Bidens campaign to get the mainstream Jerome Powell reappointed as Fed chairman. But by nominating Omarova, Biden has spurred a conversation already underway about how to restructure the Fed in ways that make it less of a cloistered institution serving elite interests and both more transparent and more responsive to the democratic will.

Omarova is hardly a singular figure in Biden circles. Stephanie Kelton, an economics professor at Binghamton University and a former chief economist for Democrats on the US Senate Budget Committee, has argued in a widely-read book (The Deficit Myth) that governments can sustain much larger deficits than conventional economic theory prescribes. High-volume government expenditures, properly targeted, she asserts, will not slow economic growth but enhance a peoples economy. Lina Khan, appointed by Biden to chair the Federal Trade Commission, believes that social media and e-commerce giants such as Amazon exercise the kind of monopoly power that damage both the economy and American democracy. She has authorized the FTC to scrutinize the practices of these corporate titans with a view toward either breaking them up or subjecting them to much stricter public regulation than they have yet known. More generally, she aims to restore a regime of public regulation of private corporate power that FDR and his New Dealers did so much to bring into beingand that the Reagan Revolution did so much to break up. The bipartisan fury directed at Facebook during congressional hearings last week suggest that Khans views may have broad popular appeal.

It is still too soon to know which of these progressive views and the governing proposals that issue from them will prevail. The Democrats are operating in a political environment far more hostile than what Roosevelt faced in 1933, when he enjoyed large majorities in the House and the Senate. If they fail to pass versions of both infrastructural bills this autumn, the Democrats will seriously damage their chances of maintaining their majorities in the House and Senate in 2022. But it is also true, as is the case with the populist mobilization that Trump has engendered on the right, that the new progressivism is not going away anytime soon. We have entered a new political era, one in which the principles and strategies that guided the party during the Clinton and Obama eras no longer suffice.

Read the original:
Progressives are now heavyweights in the Democratic party - The Guardian