Mediaboss Marketing

On December 3,on national television,Sen. Rand Paul blamed politicians who pass cigarette tax laws for the death of Eric Garner, who died in a struggle with New York City police officers after he was arrested for sellingloose cigarettes. The junior senator from the Bluegrass State (thenumber two tobacco-producing statein the U.S.) isnot the firstnor willhe be the lastconservative to make this argument. Of course, everybody has the right to complain about the problems caused by high taxes. But to blame New York tax policy for the tragedy in Staten Island is opportunistic overreach. We have taxes that are lawfully enacted. Unless you are living in some fairyland, tax laws must be backed up by law enforcement. In 1794President George Washington himself led an army of 13,000into western Pennsylvania to enforce a federal tax on whiskey. The debate about the death of a father of six selling cigarettes on the street should stay focused on police tactics about how and why New York City police used deadly force in this case not on the popularity of the laws being enforced.

There are, however, some good points to be made by conservatives while the national spotlight is shining on New Yorks cigarettes taxes. Lets take a step away from the impassioned headlines and half-baked sound bites and examine the policy and politics behind cigarette taxes. For years I have been swimming against the tide andarguing that cigarette taxes are too high. There are two reasons. First, as a practical matter, sky-high cigarette taxes ($5.85 a pack in New York City) areextremely difficult to enforce. The opportunities for arbitrage are irresistible. Multinationals earn profits in the United States and book them in tax havens. Smugglersbuy cigarettes in Virginia(where the tax is 30 cents a pack) and sell them in Staten Island. The tax difference is more than $50 a carton. Whether its corporate profits or cigarettes, stuff that moves easily over borders is hard to tax.

Second, and more importantly, high cigarette taxes are unfair. Government statistics show that smokers are generally less educated and poorer than the population as a whole. And because they smoke, they are likely to live less healthy and shorter lives than the general population. The onerous taxation of smokers is doling out extra pain to people who already have enough problems. Of course, there is some good from cigarettes taxes to the extent they discourage smoking. But there are still42 million smokersin the United States. Nicotine is extremely addictive. These folks should elicit our compassion, not our contempt. And if we are going to fine them for their sins, the revenues should not inure to our benefit.

Now, about the politics. The unfairness of high cigarette taxes is a perfect issue for Republicans who are trying to make inroads with working-class voters. Unlike in the past, todayRepublicans are no longer minimizing the plight of the poor and the power of corporations. Thats because they know that if they ever want to win the White House again, they must directly address the economic insecurity of the vast majority of middle-income Americans whose paychecks have hardly grownin two decades. By endorsing the heavy taxation of cigarettes, Democrats play into the hands of Republicans who like to portray them aselitistswho are out of touch with the struggles of regular people.

More:
Rand Paul Puts Chokehold On Cigarette Taxes -- He's Got A Point

ABUJA

Nigerias main opposition party is holding primaries on Wednesday to choose its presidential candidate.

The All Progressives Congress is meeting at a stadium in Lagos to choose its presidential contender. Whoever they pick will be tasked with unseating incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan of the People's Democratic Party, who assumed power in 2010, after the death of President Umaru Yar Adua.

Five candidates are in the running, but there are only two real frontrunners, says political analyst Chris Ngwodo. Former military ruler Muhammadu Buhari and former vice president Atiku Abubakar have the best chance of securing the nomination of the party, which was formed last year as a coalition of the countrys best-known opposition groups. Buhari and Abubakar both have long histories in Nigeria. They also have political baggage, which the PDP will use against them, Ngwodo says.

Buhari commands support among people in Nigerias north, but hes also lost several elections and is remembered by older generations as an authoritarian ruler who was booted out in a coup. Some Christians in the south think hes a Muslim radical, but Ngwodo says theres little evidence to back that up. I mean, optimistically, this is actually going to be perhaps the closest election weve had since 1999. So if its Buhari, thats what he will bring to the contest. However, this is a man who has also lost three elections previously to three different candidates to the ruling party. His biggest problem is a perceptual one, a reputational one, Ngwodo states. Abubakar is seen as experienced and savvy when it comes to winning primaries, but Ngwodo says his checkered past, including his defection from the PDP, may be used against him. This is a gentleman, after all, who was in the ruling party and who was vice president of the ruling party," says Ngwodo. "Its going to be difficult to mount a sustainable critique of the ruling party, which he was a member of and served as vice-president in just a few years ago. So I think they have a ready, a very ready strategic response to that candidacy if he does emerge. The APC is a relatively new party and took longer than the PDP to coalesce behind a candidate. President Jonathan has been the PDPs de facto candidate for months. But Ngwodo says the delay hasnt hurt the partys chances. With the sort of name-brand recognition that the two main front-runners have, thats Buhari and Atiku, that shouldnt count for too much in their disfavor," he says, "They believe that they will be able to compensate for that lag, that time lag by producing someone, probably most likely Buhari, who has name-brand recognition nationally. Whoever is chosen will face a stiff challenge overcoming President Jonathan. But I think its going to be difficult simply because of the incumbency factor," Ngwodo says. "Its not going to be easy for the ruling party either. Im looking at an election that will be very keenly contested. A decision from APC is expected early Thursday morning.

Here is the original post:
Nigeria Opposition Party Choosing Presidential Contender

The confused public is in dire need of guidance from those with knowledge and understanding of Islam.

COMMENT

by Yusri Jamaluddin

The clash between liberal and Islamist ideologies is imminent in Malaysia. The liberals, who call themselves moderates, are on a sudden attacking spree, each amplifying the voice of the other. Their voices seem loud, but they are low in number and they constantly manipulate public perception through duplication of organizations with the same inherent agenda and political interests.

After losing in parliamentary elections, they seek to reclaim the nation with a barrage of campaigns under the umbrella of civil society institutions. In reality, their numbers are nothing compared to the silent majority. Unfortunately, the problem with the majority is that they are living in a cave of wealth and comfort, refusing to speak up to tell the world that our country is just fine without secular and liberal ideologies.

The Malaysian public is now in a confused state. Whom should the people trust the moderates, who keep painting a gruesome and bloody picture of a Malaysia ruled by militant extremists, or the Islamists, who constantly remind the nation to stay true to its identity in order to maintain peace and stability while issuing stern warnings to those who fail to do so?

ISMA has long warned of the existence of a group of people trying to secularize Malaysia. At the same time, ISMA calls for Malaysians to stay away from extremist militant groups. Many have failed to heed the warnings against secularism. Perhaps they want to wait until the day comes when they lose the religious identity that Malaysia has inherited.

It doesnt take a rocket scientist to understand that Malaysia is not a secular state and should never be treated as one. It is a myth that a secular state will ever recognize a religion to be the religion of the federation. After all, the principle concept of a secular state is that it separates religion from the affairs of the state. The fact that the constitution mentions liberty does not make it liberal either.

National identity

In light of recent events, we must ask ourselves a simple question: should a country mold itself to suit the different desires and inclinations of minority individuals, or should the people adapt to the national identity of this country, which stands on the principles that Islam is the religion of the Federation, Bahasa Melayu is the national language, the rights and privileges of the Malays and Bumiputeras are to be protected, the position of the monarchs is to be protected and the citizenship of other races is to be protected according to the social contract?

See the article here:
Liberals disguised as moderates

The Liberals are willing to fork over an additional $86 million to prove theres life on MaRS.

One day after auditor general Bonnie Lysyk upbraided Premier Kathleen Wynnes government for a high-risk $224-million bailout loan to MaRS, the Grits are doubling down on the medical and related sciences hub.

This is not a failed project, said Michael Nobrega, former CEO of the OMERS pension plan and chair of the Ontario Centre of Excellence, who co-chaired an expert panel on the future of the 20-storey tower at the corner of College Street and University Avenue across from Queens Park.

This is a project that has not been completed, Nobrega said Wednesday after recommending the government lend MaRS up to $86 million more to do upgrades that will make it easier to lease.

MaRS is only 31 per cent occupied, meaning it would not be worth immediately selling in order to recoup the provinces investment.

The new repayable line of credit is atop the $309 million already committed to MaRS, which includes the controversial $224-million loan in 2011, $65 million to buy out the buildings U.S. developer, Alexandria Real Estate (ARE), $4 million in debt-service payments, and $16 million used to buy the land.

In total, the Liberals will have sunk $395 million into the MaRS project.

Infrastructure Minister Brad Duguid conceded that this project had some significant difficulties along the way.

This is the best path forward. It will ensure that the governments loan is fully repaid with interest while also continuing our support for Ontarios innovation economy, Duguid said at an announcement attended by scores of MaRS employees.

Many people believe that the easiest ways out of the challenges we faced would be to sell the building outright and walk away from this project.

Continued here:
Liberals ready to float MaRS an additional $86 million loan

WASHINGTON Exposed to the light of day, a year-end, $1.1 trillion spending bill drew vociferous objections from liberals and milder criticism from conservatives Wednesday while lawmakers readied a brief, stopgap measure to prevent a government shutdown both parties vowed to avoid.

Democrats complained bitterly in public about a portion of the $1.1 trillion measure that eases regulations imposed on big banks in the wake of the 2008 economic meltdown even though 70 members of the party's rank and file supported an identical provision in a stand-alone bill late last year.

After a closed-door meeting, Democrats also chorused objections to a separate section of the spending bill that eases limits on campaign contributions to political parties.

The White House declined to state President Barack Obama's position on the legislation, negotiated in secret over several days by senior lawmakers, including top leaders in both parties and both houses.

"Putting these two things together in the same bill illustrates everything that's wrong with the political process right now," said Rep. Chris Van Hollen, D-Md.

Republicans countered correctly that Democratic negotiators initially signed off on both. Speaker John Boehner rebuffed a request from the Democratic leader, California Rep. Nancy Pelosi, to jettison them.

"If Rep. Pelosi doesn't think her negotiators did a good job, she should discuss it with them," said Michael Steel, Boehner's spokesman.

On the other side of the political spectrum, some conservatives grumbled that the measure left the administration's controversial new immigration policy unchallenged until the end of February. That decision "makes no sense at all. We've let the Democrats set their agenda as though we lost the election," said Louisiana Rep. John Fleming.

Given opposition from an unknown number of conservatives, Boehner and the Republican high command likely will need some Democratic support to assure the bill's passage in a vote set for Thursday.

Whatever the Democrats' motive, the political crossfire left the massive, 1,603-page bill in limbo and so, too, chances of a smooth ending for a Congress marked by two years of intense partisanship. Other legislation awaited approval as lawmakers looked to the year-end exits.

The rest is here:
Liberals, conservatives criticize $1.1 trillion spending bill