Widget Image
Follow PPD Social Media
Friday, February 7, 2025
HomeStandard Blog Whole Post (Page 424)

Poland's Prime Minister Beata Szydlo attends a debate on the state of the rule of law and restrictions to press freedom in Poland, at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, January 19, 2016. (Photo: Reuters)

Poland’s Prime Minister Beata Szydlo attends a debate on the state of the rule of law and restrictions to press freedom in Poland, at the European Parliament in Strasbourg, France, January 19, 2016. (Photo: Reuters)

Poland, the former Eastern Block state behind the Iron Curtain, is leading the charge to reform the European Union. Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydlo will attempt to enlist German Chancellor Angela Merkel in this effort during Merkel’s visit to Poland next month.

The Law and Justice Part of Poland which now runs the country has been historically Euro skeptic and wants to return power to member countries from a bloated Brussels bureaucracy.

“Indeed, I agree, this is an important visit, especially now when the EU is changing, when reforms are needed,” Szydlo said in an interview on the private RMF FM radio station, reports Reuters.

“Poland and Germany are certainly two countries that will set the tone for the discussion on change in the EU. We want reforms and I hope that Chancellor Merkel will become convinced that these reforms are needed for the EU.”

The Polish government has been criticized and has stirred up civil protest over its conservative policies and its tightened controls on the media. The party’s attempts to restrict abortion has also caused civil unrest.

[social-media-buttons]

This article appeared first on Tsarizm.com, bring you the news you need to know RIGHT NOW about Russia, the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe

Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydlo will attempt

Protesters assemble at JFK Airport after two Iraqi refugees were detained.

Protesters assemble at JFK Airport after two Iraqi refugees were detained.

A federal judge issued a temporary stay on Saturday blocking President Donald J. Trump from refusing admission to refugees with valid visas. The order applies only to visa holders after they have landed at a U.S. airport.

President Trump issued an executive order placing a 120-day moratorium on people from 7 predominantly Muslim countries known as terror hotbeds from entering the U.S. The president’s order also putting a temporary halt to refugee admissions, something that is backed by a large majority of Americans.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) claimed the stay will impact between 100 to 200 people detained at U.S. airports or are currently in transit. However, the government did not confirm that number. The order, as do all, did have complications as it was implemented.

Hameed Khalid Darweesh, 53, was an Army interpreter in Iraq. He had been stopped as he traveled with his wife and three kids before being released by midday Saturday.

“I suffered to move here, to get my family here. I can’t go back,” Darweesh said shortly after his release. Asked if he’d be killed in Iraq, he answered: “Yes, yes.”

Under the order, Darweesh would’ve been considered acting in the service of the U.S., which is an exemption. Yet, he was detained anyway. While those who oppose the order are omitting it, the same kinks needed to be worked out when prior presidents issued similiar orders. The other Iraqi detainee, Haider Sameer Abdulkhaleq Alshawi, 33, was released at about 6:30 p.m.

It was unclear what would happen with the other 10 refugees, whose nationalities were not immediately known.

A federal judge issued a temporary stay

President Donald J. Trump, left, shows his signature on an executive order in the Oval Office in Washington, and, a Syrian refugee, right, yells at a Hungarian border guard.

President Donald J. Trump, left, shows his signature on an executive order in the Oval Office in Washington, and, a Syrian refugee, right, yells at a Hungarian border guard.

Democratic lawmakers are blasting President Donald J. Trump over his moratorium on immigration from 7 predominantly Muslim nations known as terror hotbeds. Their activists are parked at airports around the country, while the left’s civil rights groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), are demanding entry of refugees now banned from traveling to the United States.

Well, we all saw this coming. The vocal minority may be loud, but it’s important to acknowledge that they are, in fact, a minority.

A PPD Poll conducted from Nov. 26 to Dec. 1, based on 1299 interviews via the PPD Internet Polling Panel, found a shockingly large majority (57%) of Americans said they supported an “immigration moratorium for Muslim nations known as hotbeds for Islamic terrorists.”

Only 38% opposed it.

On the question of whether “the U.S. should or should not allow refugees from Syria and other predominantly Muslim war-torn countries,” nearly two-thirds (63%) said the U.S. “should not,” while 32% still supported continuing President Barack Obama’s refugee resettlement program.

Putting aside the fact President Trump ran and won on a platform promising to crackdown on illegal immigration, temporarily ban immigration from certain countries in the Middle East and end the refugee resettlement program, our polling clearly indicates the American people support his executive action.

[social-media-buttons]

Worth noting, the PPD Poll asked questions based on more draconian policies previously proposed by President Trump, which is not the action he ultimately took.

The PPD Poll, which conducted the most accurate polling in 2016–is backed up by Rasmussen Reports and other firms that actually polled the election correctly. We pegged most of President Trump’s victories on on the statewide level within tens of percentage points, including Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The opposition to President Donald J. Trump's

U.S. President Donald Trump, signs his first executive orders at the White House on Friday. Behind him, from left, are senior adviser Jared Kushner, Vice President Mike Pence and staff secretary Rob Porter. (Photo: Reuters)

U.S. President Donald Trump, signs his first executive orders at the White House on Friday. Behind him, from left, are senior adviser Jared Kushner, Vice President Mike Pence and staff secretary Rob Porter. (Photo: Reuters)

President Donald J. Trump signed two executive orders on Saturday expanding the lobbying ban from 2 to 5 years and to restructure strategy to defeat Islamic State.

“It’s two years now and filled with loopholes,” President Trump said.

The order imposes a lifetime ban on administration officials lobbying for foreign governments, and a five-year ban for other lobbying. In the order, titled “ETHICS COMMITMENTS BY EXECUTIVE BRANCH APPOINTEES,” officials must now agree they “will not, within 5 years after the termination of my employment as an appointee in any executive agency in which I am appointed to serve, engage in lobbying activities with respect to that agency.”

The other order requires the Department of Department to submit a plan within 30 days to defeat ISIS.

ETHICS COMMITMENTS BY EXECUTIVE BRANCH APPOINTEES

By the authority vested in me as President of the United States by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including section 301 of title 3, United States Code, and sections 3301 and 7301 of title 5, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Ethics Pledge. Every appointee in every executive agency appointed on or after January 20, 2017, shall sign, and upon signing shall be contractually committed to, the following pledge upon becoming an appointee:

“As a condition, and in consideration, of my employment in the United States Government in an appointee position invested with the public trust, I commit myself to the following obligations, which I understand are binding on me and are enforceable under law:

“1. I will not, within 5 years after the termination of my employment as an appointee in any executive agency in which I am appointed to serve, engage in lobbying activities with respect to that agency.

“2. If, upon my departure from the Government, I am covered by the post-employment restrictions on communicating with employees of my former executive agency set forth in section 207(c) of title 18, United States Code, I agree that I will abide by those restrictions.

“3. In addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraphs 1 and 2, I also agree, upon leaving Government service, not to engage in lobbying activities with respect to any covered executive branch official or non-career Senior Executive Service appointee for the remainder of the Administration.

“4. I will not, at any time after the termination of my employment in the United States Government, engage in any activity on behalf of any foreign government or foreign political party which, were it undertaken on January 20, 2017, would require me to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended.

“5. I will not accept gifts from registered lobbyists or lobbying organizations for the duration of my service as an appointee.

“6. I will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.

“7. If I was a registered lobbyist within the 2 years before the date of my appointment, in addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph 6, I will not for a period of 2 years after the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied within the 2 years before the date of my appointment or participate in the specific issue area in which that particular matter falls.

“8. I agree that any hiring or other employment decisions I make will be based on the candidate’s qualifications, competence, and experience.

“9. I acknowledge that the Executive Order entitled ‘Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees,’ issued by the President on January 28, 2017, which I have read before signing this document, defines certain terms applicable to the foregoing obligations and sets forth the methods for enforcing them. I expressly accept the provisions of that Executive Order as a part of this agreement and as binding on me. I understand that the obligations of this pledge are in addition to any statutory or other legal restrictions applicable to me by virtue of Government service.”

Sec. 2. Definitions. As used herein and in the pledge set forth in section 1 of this order:

(a) “Administration” means all terms of office of the incumbent President serving at the time of the appointment of an appointee covered by this order.

(b) “Appointee” means every full-time, non-career Presidential or Vice-Presidential appointee, non-career appointee in the Senior Executive Service (or other SES-type system), and appointee to a position that has been excepted from the competitive service by reason of being of a confidential or policymaking character (Schedule C and other positions excepted under comparable criteria) in an executive agency. It does not include any person appointed as a member of the Senior Foreign Service or solely as a uniformed service commissioned officer.

(c) “Covered executive branch official” shall have the definition set forth in the Lobbying Disclosure Act.

(d) “Directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients” shall mean matters in which the appointee’s former employer or a former client is a party or represents a party.

(e) “Executive agency” and “agency” mean “executive agency” as defined in section 105 of title 5, United States Code, except that the terms shall include the Executive Office of the President, the United States Postal Service, and the Postal Regulatory Commission, and excludes the Government Accountability Office. As used in paragraph 1 of the pledge, “executive agency” means the entire agency in which the appointee is appointed to serve, except that:

(1) with respect to those appointees to whom such designations are applicable under section 207(h) of title 18, United States Code, the term means an agency or bureau designated by the Director of the Office of Government Ethics under section 207(h) as a separate department or agency at the time the appointee ceased to serve in that department or agency; and

(2) an appointee who is detailed from one executive agency to another for more than 60 days in any calendar year shall be deemed to be an officer or employee of both agencies during the period such person is detailed.

(f) “Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended” means sections 611 through 621 of title 22, United States Code.

(g) “Foreign government” means the “government of a foreign country,” as defined in section 1(e) of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 611(e).

(h) “Foreign political party” has the same meaning as that term has in section 1(f) of the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938, as amended, 22 U.S.C. 611(f).

(i) “Former client” is any person for whom the appointee served personally as agent, attorney, or consultant within the 2 years prior to the date of his or her appointment, but excluding instances where the service provided was limited to a speech or similar appearance. It does not include clients of the appointee’s former employer to whom the appointee did not personally provide services.

(j) “Former employer” is any person for whom the appointee has within the 2 years prior to the date of his or her appointment served as an employee, officer, director, trustee, or general partner, except that “former employer” does not include any executive agency or other entity of the Federal Government, State or local government, the District of Columbia, Native American tribe, or any United States territory or possession.

(k) “Gift”

(1) shall have the definition set forth in section 2635.203(b) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations;

(2) shall include gifts that are solicited or accepted indirectly as defined at section 2635.203(f) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations; and

(3) shall exclude those items excluded by sections 2635.204(b), (c), (e)(1) & (3), (j), (k), and (l) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.

(l) “Government official” means any employee of the executive branch.

(m) “Lobbied” shall mean to have acted as a registered lobbyist.

(n) “Lobbying activities” has the same meaning as that term has in the Lobbying Disclosure Act, except that the term does not include communicating or appearing with regard to: a judicial proceeding; a criminal or civil law enforcement inquiry, investigation, or proceeding; or any agency process for rulemaking, adjudication, or licensing, as defined in and governed by the Administrative Procedure Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.

(o) “Lobbying Disclosure Act” means sections 1601 et seq. of title 2, United States Code.

(p) “Lobbyist” shall have the definition set forth in the Lobbying Disclosure Act.

(q) “On behalf of another” means on behalf of a person or entity other than the individual signing the pledge or his or her spouse, child, or parent.

(r) “Particular matter” shall have the same meaning as set forth in section 207 of title 28, United States Code, and section 2635.402(b)(3) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations.

(s) “Particular matter involving specific parties” shall have the same meaning as set forth in section 2641.201(h) of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, except that it shall also include any meeting or other communication relating to the performance of one’s official duties with a former employer or former client, unless the communication applies to a particular matter of general applicability and participation in the meeting or other event is open to all interested parties.

(t) “Participate” means to participate personally and substantially.

(u) “Pledge” means the ethics pledge set forth in section 1 of this order.

(v) “Post-employment restrictions” shall include the provisions and exceptions in section 207(c) of title 18, United States Code, and the implementing regulations.

(w) “Registered lobbyist or lobbying organization” shall mean a lobbyist or an organization filing a registration pursuant to section 1603(a) of title 2, United States Code, and in the case of an organization filing such a registration, “registered lobbyist” shall include each of the lobbyists identified therein.

(x) Terms that are used herein and in the pledge, and also used in section 207 of title 18, United States Code, shall be given the same meaning as they have in section 207 and any implementing regulations issued or to be issued by the Office of Government Ethics, except to the extent those terms are otherwise defined in this order.

(y) All references to provisions of law and regulations shall refer to such provisions as in effect on January 20, 2017.

Sec. 3. Waiver. (a) The President or his designee may grant to any person a waiver of any restrictions contained in the pledge signed by such person.

(b) A waiver shall take effect when the certification is signed by the President or his designee.

(c) A copy of the waiver certification shall be furnished to the person covered by the waiver and provided to the head of the agency in which that person is or was appointed to serve.

Sec. 4. Administration. (a) The head of every executive agency shall establish for that agency such rules or procedures (conforming as nearly as practicable to the agency’s general ethics rules and procedures, including those relating to designated agency ethics officers) as are necessary or appropriate:

(1) to ensure that every appointee in the agency signs the pledge upon assuming the appointed office or otherwise becoming an appointee; and

(2) to ensure compliance with this order within the agency.

(b) With respect to the Executive Office of the President, the duties set forth in section 4(a) shall be the responsibility of the Counsel to the President or such other official or officials to whom the President delegates those duties.

(c) The Director of the Office of Government Ethics shall:

(1) ensure that the pledge and a copy of this Executive Order are made available for use by agencies in fulfilling their duties under section 4(a);

(2) in consultation with the Attorney General or Counsel to the President, when appropriate, assist designated agency ethics officers in providing advice to current or former appointees regarding the application of the pledge; and

(3) adopt such rules or procedures (conforming as nearly as practicable to its generally applicable rules and procedures) as are necessary or appropriate:

(i) to carry out the foregoing responsibilities;

(ii) to apply the lobbyist gift ban set forth in paragraph 5 of the pledge to all executive branch employees;

(iii) to authorize limited exceptions to the lobbyist gift ban for circumstances that do not implicate the purposes of the ban;

(iv) to make clear that no person shall have violated the lobbyist gift ban if the person properly disposes of a gift as provided by section 2635.206 of title 5, Code of Federal Regulations;

(v) to ensure that existing rules and procedures for Government employees engaged in negotiations for future employment with private businesses that are affected by their official actions do not affect the integrity of the Government’s programs and operations; and

(vi) to ensure, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, that the requirement set forth in paragraph 8 of the pledge is honored by every employee of the executive branch;

(d) An appointee who has signed the pledge is not required to sign the pledge again upon appointment or detail to a different office, except that a person who has ceased to be an appointee, due to termination of employment in the executive branch or otherwise, shall sign the pledge prior to thereafter assuming office as an appointee.

(e) All pledges signed by appointees, and all waiver certifications with respect thereto, shall be filed with the head of the appointee’s agency for permanent retention in the appointee’s official personnel folder or equivalent folder.

Sec. 5. Enforcement. (a) The contractual, fiduciary, and ethical commitments in the pledge provided for herein are solely enforceable by the United States by any legally available means, including any or all of the following: debarment proceedings within any affected executive agency or civil judicial proceedings for declaratory, injunctive, or monetary relief.

(b) Any former appointee who is determined, after notice and hearing, by the duly designated authority within any agency, to have violated his or her pledge may be barred from engaging in lobbying activities with respect to that agency for up to 5 years in addition to the 5-year time period covered by the pledge. The head of every executive agency shall, in consultation with the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, establish procedures to implement this subsection, which shall include (but not be limited to) providing for factfinding and investigation of possible violations of this order and for referrals to the Attorney General for his or her consideration pursuant to subsection (c).

(c) The Attorney General or his or her designee is authorized:

(1) upon receiving information regarding the possible breach of any commitment in a signed pledge, to request any appropriate Federal investigative authority to conduct such investigations as may be appropriate; and

(2) upon determining that there is a reasonable basis to believe that a breach of a commitment has occurred or will occur or continue, if not enjoined, to commence a civil action on behalf of the United States against the former officer or employee in any United States District Court with jurisdiction to consider the matter.

(d) In such civil action, the Attorney General or his or her designee is authorized to request any and all relief authorized by law, including but not limited to:

(1) such temporary restraining orders and preliminary and permanent injunctions as may be appropriate to restrain future, recurring, or continuing conduct by the former officer or employee in breach of the commitments in the pledge he or she signed; and

(2) establishment of a constructive trust for the benefit of the United States, requiring an accounting and payment to the United States Treasury of all money and other things of value received by, or payable to, the former officer or employee arising out of any breach or attempted breach of the pledge signed by the former officer or employee.

Sec. 6. General Provisions. (a) This order supersedes Executive Order 13490 of January 21, 2009 (Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel), and therefore Executive Order 13490 is hereby revoked. No other prior Executive Orders are repealed by this order. To the extent that this order is inconsistent with any provision of any prior Executive Order, this order shall control.

(b) If any provision of this order or the application of such provision is held to be invalid, the remainder of this order and other dissimilar applications of such provision shall not be affected.

(c) The pledge and this order are not intended to, and do not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party (other than by the United States) against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

(d) The definitions set forth in this order are solely applicable to the terms of this order, and are not otherwise intended to impair or affect existing law.

(e) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(1) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(2) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(f) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

DONALD J. TRUMP

President Donald J. Trump signed executive orders

File Photo: European Commission (Photo: AP/Associated Press)

File Photo: European Commission (Photo: AP/Associated Press)

The famous French diplomat Charles Maurice de Talleyrand supposedly said that a weakness of the Bourbon monarchs was that they learned nothing and forgot nothing. If so, the genetic descendants of the Bourbons are now in charge of Europe.

But before explaining why, let’s first establish that Europe is in trouble. I’ve made that point (manymany times) that the continent is in trouble because of statism and demographic change.

What’s far more noteworthy, though, is that even the Europeans are waking up to the fact that the continent faces a very grim future.

For instance, the bureaucrats in Brussels are pessimistic, as reported by the EU Observer.

…the report warns of a longer term risk for the EU economy. “As expectations of low growth ahead affect investment today, there is potential for a vicious circle,” the commission’s director general for economic and financial affairs writes in the report’s foreword. “In short, the projected pace of GDP growth may not be sufficient to prevent the cyclical impact of the crisis from becoming permanent (hysteresis), ” Marco Buti writes.

The people of Europe share that grim assessment.

Pew has some very sobering data on angst across the continent.

Support for European economic integration – the 1957 raison d’etre for creating the European Economic Community, the European Union’s predecessor – is down over last year in five of the eight European Union countries surveyed by the Pew Research Center in 2013. Positive views of the European Union are at or near their low point in most EU nations, even among the young, the hope for the EU’s future. The favorability of the EU has fallen from a median of 60% in 2012 to 45% in 2013.

Here’s the relevant chart.

Establishment-oriented voices in the United States also agree that the outlook is rather dismal.

Writing in the Washington Post, Sebastian Mallaby offers a grim assessment of Europe’s future.

…since 2008…, the 28 countries in the European Union managed combined growth of just 4 percent. And in the subset consisting of the eurozone minus Germany, output actually fell. …most of the Mediterranean periphery has suffered a lost decade. …The unemployment rate in the euro area stands at 9.8 percent, more than double the U.S. rate. Unemployment among Europe’s youth is even more appalling: In Greece, Spain, France, Croatia, Italy, Cyprus and Portugal, more than 1 in 4 workers under 25 are jobless.

The bottom line is that there’s widespread consensus that Europe is a mess and that things will probably get worse unless there are big changes.

But the key question, as always, is whether the changes are positive or negative. And this is why I started with a reference to the Bourbon kings. European leaders today also are infamous for learning nothing and forgetting nothing.

Indeed, the proponents of bad policy want to double down on the mistakes of bigger government and more centralization.

The International Monetary Fund (aka, the “Dr. Kevorkian” or “dumpster fire” of the global economy), led by France’s Christine Lagarde, actually is urging a new form of redistribution in Europe.

The International Monetary Fund called on Thursday for the creation of a fund…in the euro zone… Managing Director Christine Lagarde said… “countries would be pooling budgetary resources in a common pot which could be used for projects and certain operations”

Lagarde says the new fund should have strings attached, so that nations could access the loot if they complied with the EU’s budget rules, and also if they use the money for structural reform.

That sounds prudent, but only until you look at the fine print.

The current budget rules are misguided and are more likely to encourage tax hikes rather than spending restraint. And while many European nations need good structural reform, that’s not what the IMF has in mind.

Lagarde told a news conference the new fund could pay for projects related to migration, refugees, security, energy and climate change.

Instead, it appears that this is just a scheme to transfer money from countries such as Germany and Estonia that have restrained spending in recent years.

Germany, Estonia and Luxembourg are the only EU countries that have posted budget surpluses since 2014. Lagarde said the pooling of budgetary resources could put these surpluses to good use.

Sigh.

But the problem goes way beyond an international bureaucracy led by someone from Europe. This is the mentality that is deeply embedded in most European policymakers.

Simply stated, the people who helped create the European mess by pushing for bigger government and more centralization agree that the time if right for…you guessed it…bigger government and more centralization. Here’s an excerpt from a report by the Delors Institute.

…a true economic and monetary union still needs to be built. It will have to be based on significant risk sharing and sovereignty sharing within a coherent and legitimate framework of supranational economic governance. This third building block includes turning the ESM into a fully-fledged European Monetary Fund.

The bureaucrats in Brussels predictably agree that they should get more power, as noted in a story from the EU Observer.

The EU should raise its own taxes and use Brexit as an opportunity to push for the idea, a report by a group of top officials says. …”The Union must mobilise common resources to find common solutions to common problems,” says the document, seen by EUobserver. …The paper also proposes a EU-level corporate income tax that would be combined with a common consolidated corporate tax base… Other proposals include a bank levy, a financial transaction tax, or a European VAT that would top national VATs. …The new budget EU commissioner Guenther Oettinger said that the report was “of great quality”.

And the senior politicians in Brussels are also beating the drum for added centralization.

…divergence creates fragility… Progress must happen…towards a genuine Economic Union…towards a Fiscal Union…need to shift from a system of rules and guidelines for national economic policy-making to a system of further sovereignty sharing within common institutions…some degree of public risk sharing…including a ‘social protection floor’…a shared sense of purpose among all Member States

Wow. I don’t know if I’ve ever read something so wildly wrong. As Nassim Nicholas Taleb has sagely observed, it is centralization and harmonization that creates systemic risk.

And all this talk about “common resources” and “public risk sharing” is simply the governmental version of co-signing a loan for the deadbeat family alcoholic.

Yet Europe’s ideologues can’t resist their lemming-like march in the wrong direction.

What makes this especially odd is that there is so much evidence that Europe originally became rich for the opposite reason.

It was decentralization and jurisdictional competition that enabled prosperity.

Matt Ridley, writing for the UK-based Times, drives this point home.

…the leading theory among economic historians for why Europe after 1400 became the wealthiest and most innovative continent is political fragmentation. Precisely because it was not unified, Europe became a laboratory for different ways of governing, enabling the discovery of regimes that allowed free markets and invention to flourish, first in northern Italy and some parts of Germany, then the low countries, then Britain. By contrast, China’s unity under one ruler prevented such experimentation. …Baron Montesquieu…remarked, Europe’s “many medium-sized states” had incubated “a genius for liberty, which makes it very difficult to subjugate each part and to put it under a foreign force other than by laws and by what is useful to its commerce”. …David Hume…mused…Europe is the continent “most broken by seas, rivers, and mountains” and so “the divisions into small states are favourable to learning, by stopping the progress of authority as well as that of power”. …the idea has gained almost universal agreement among historians that a disunited Europe, while frequently wracked by war, was also prone to innovation and liberty — thanks to the ability of innovators and skilled craftsmen to cross borders in search of more congenial regimes.

But now Europe has swung completely in the other direction.

The European Commission’s obsession with harmonisation prevents the very pattern of experimentation that encourages innovation. Whereas the states system positively encouraged governments to be moderate in political, religious and fiscal terms or lose their talent, the commission detests jurisdictional competition, in taxes and regulations. The larger the empire, the less brake there is on governmental excess.

Ralph Raico echoes these insights in an article for the Foundation for Economic Education.

In seeking to answer the question why the industrial breakthrough occurred first in western Europe, …what was it that permitted private enterprise to flourish? …Europe’s radical decentralization… In contrast to other cultures — especially China, India, and the Islamic world — Europe comprised a system of divided and, hence, competing powers and jurisdictions. …Instead of experiencing the hegemony of a universal empire, Europe developed into a mosaic of kingdoms, principalities, city-states, ecclesiastical domains, and other political entities. Within this system, it was highly imprudent for any prince to attempt to infringe property rights in the manner customary elsewhere in the world. In constant rivalry with one another, princes found that outright expropriations, confiscatory taxation, and the blocking of trade did not go unpunished. The punishment was to be compelled to witness the relative economic progress of one’s rivals, often through the movement of capital, and capitalists, to neighboring realms. The possibility of “exit,” facilitated by geographical compactness and, especially, by cultural affinity, acted to transform the state into a “constrained predator”.

In other words, the “stationary bandit” couldn’t steal as much and that gave the private sector the breathing room that’s necessary for growth.

But today’s politicians in Europe want to strengthen the ability of governments to seize more money and power.

That strategy may work in the short run, but bailouts, redistribution, easy money, and statism are not a good long-run strategy.

So perhaps it’s appropriate that we conclude with a warning. As reported in a column for the UK-based Telegraph, one of the architects of the euro fears that bailouts are crippling the continent-wide currency.

The European Central Bank is becoming dangerously over-extended and the whole euro project is unworkable in its current form, the founding architect of the monetary union has warned. “One day, the house of cards will collapse,” said Professor Otmar Issing, the ECB’s first chief economist… Prof Issing lambasted the European Commission as a creature of political forces that has given up trying to enforce the rules in any meaningful way. “The moral hazard is overwhelming,” he said. The European Central Bank is on a “slippery slope” and has in his view fatally compromised the system by bailing out bankrupt states in palpable violation of the treaties. “…Market discipline is done away with by ECB interventions. …The no bailout clause is violated every day,” he said… Prof Issing slammed the first Greek rescue in 2010 as little more than a bailout for German and French banks, insisting that it would have been far better to eject Greece from the euro as a salutary lesson for all.

For what it’s worth, I fully agree that Greece should have been cut loose.

But European politicians and bureaucrats, driven by an ideological belief in centralization (and a desire to bail out their big banks), instead decided to undermine the euro by creating a bigger mess in Greece and sending a very bad signal about bailouts to other welfare states.

And keep in mind that the fuse is still burning on the European fiscal crisis.

As the old saying goes, this won’t end well.

P.S. While my prognosis for Europe is relatively bleak, there were some hopeful signs in the aforementioned Pew data.

First, Europeans at some level understand that government is simply too big. Indeed, they recognize that economic growth is far more likely to occur if fiscal burdens are reduced rather than increased.

Second, they also realize that the euro, while weakened and flawed, is a better option than restoring national currencies, which would give their governments the power to finance bigger government by printing money.

P.P.S. I can’t resist sharing one final bit of polling data from Pew. I’m amused that every nation sees itself as the most compassionate (though if you look at real data, all European nations lag the USA in real compassion). Meanwhile, the prize for self-doubt (or perhaps self-awareness?) goes to the Italians, who labeled themselves as least trustworthy. The schizophrenia prize goes to the Poles, who simultaneously view the Germans as the most trustworthy and least trustworthy.

Oh, and there’s probably some lesson to be learned from Germany dominating the data for being most trustworthy and least compassionate.

Europe choice the path of Big Government

I’ve written a great deal about how Donald Trump is a master negotiator, always three or four steps ahead of the party sitting across the table. He plans out deals before the other side even knows he wants one. He prepares the battlefield, the negotiating landscape, to ensure an outcome to his liking.

I was reminded of our president’s impressive bargaining skills once again when I opened an email just this morning from a successful and influential conservative friend of mine, who wrote, “I finally figured out Trump and NATO. He is treating the alliance like a jealous girlfriend. He wants them to pay more and just showing the consequences if they don’t.”

I thought about that for a while before writing this column — and I have to say it is insightful analysis.

Many of our NATO allies don’t pay enough for the collective defense. The U.S. has obviously footed a disproportionate share of the burden for some time now. When the Baltic nations and Poland became deathly afraid of Russia after the annexation of Crimea and the initiation of hostilities in eastern Ukraine, they didn’t appeal to Germany for troops. They called the U.S. military.

I understand there are historical and political issues with German troops on the Russian border, but I believe the Germans have been hiding behind this excuse for too long. They could spend much more to make the alliance credible, and Chancellor Angela Merkel knows it.

Ms. Merkel’s attempt to blame the U.S. for Europe’s migrant crisis is pure opportunism. Yes, the Iraq War stirred up the Middle East, but many forget that Iraq was stable, although massively corrupt, when George W. Bush left office in 2009. It was the liberal policies of Barack Obama and Ms. Merkel herself, the siren call of free stuff and welfare benefits, and a chance to replay the Islamic invasion of Europe that brought the Syrian hordes flooding into Germany and Western Europe.

President Trump understands that the only way to force European countries to pay their fair share is to create the credible threat of a different reality, a reality where the Trump administration looks to ensure America’s security by other means, even if that means working out a “deal” with Russia. We simply no longer have the money to foot nearly the entire bill for the trans-Atlantic defense on our own.

I recently did an interview via Skype for Zvezda TV in Moscow. It seems Russians are hungry for information on how the U.S. population sees Mr. Trump. They are knowledgeable about the players in American government. They asked about FBI Director James B. Comey, his survival prospects, his role in the notorious Trump dossier. What about waterboarding? What about CIA Director Mike Pompeo?

I tried to answer all their questions. But the message I wanted them to hear is that, indeed, the U.S. will be much stronger under Mr. Trump. He will rebuild our military. And, eventually the NATO alliance will be much stronger as Mr. Trump works his magic to make it more credible and united, with each member contributing its fair share.
And I highlighted that “fair” is the word that they should take away from the Trump presidency. Our new leader will present a strong America, but he will also be fair with everyone, including Russia. If there is a way we can work together for the good of the world, he will find it. But, I emphasized, if the Kremlin acts aggressively, he will not shy away from confrontation.

Mr. Trump knows the only way to make NATO strong, vibrant and fair is to be willing to walk away from a bad deal. This is the reasoning behind his NATO comments and his warming up to Vladimir Putin. He is negotiating to achieve a result that both benefits the American people monetarily and ensures their security for decades to come. He has already changed the game, and some people don’t even know it yet.

And on a not totally unrelated note, Romania’s president on Thursday scolded his government for failing to boost its defense budget and raise the percentage of gross domestic product it spends on its NATO defense requirements. See how that works?

Copyright © 2017 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

Many of our NATO allies don’t pay

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, left, has been plagued by allegations he was aware of the September 2013 lane closures at the George Washington Bridge, known as Bridgegate.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, left, has been plagued by allegations he was aware of the September 2013 lane closures at the George Washington Bridge, known as Bridgegate.

Bergen County prosecutors announced on Friday that New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie will not face any criminal charges related to BridgeGate. The complaint was filed over the lane closure on the George Washington Bridge.

The complaint was filed with the Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office by Willian Brennan, a former Teaneck firefighter. It alleged that Gov. Christie did not report the lanes were closed as part of a political revenge plot to punish a mayor who did not endorse his landslide reelection in 2013. The official reason given for the closures at the time was that it was part of a traffic study, though emails and testimony later revealed two aides were pivotal in the plot.

They were convicted in federal court this past November.

The Bergen County Persecutor’s Office sent a letter to Judge Bonnie Mizdol, which stated they would not pursue charges against the governor. Gov. Christie has always denied any wrongdoing in the case.

Bergen County prosecutors announced on Friday that

President Donald Trump shows his signature on an executive order in the Oval Office in Washington. (Photo: AP)

President Donald Trump shows his signature on an executive order in the Oval Office in Washington.

President Donald J. Trump signed executive orders requiring the “extreme vetting” of refugees and to begin rebuilding the U.S. military. Regarding the latter, components of the U.S. military under former President Barack Obama were reduced to levels not seen since before the second world war.

The president also met and spoke with world leaders today, hosting UK Prime Minister Theresa May at the White House and speaking with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto by phone for an hour Friday morning.

“The two had a productive and constructive call regarding the bilateral relationship between the two countries, the current trade deficit the United States has with Mexico, the importance of the friendship between the two nations, and the need for the two nations to work together to stop drug cartels, drug trafficking and illegal guns and arms sales,” the White House said in a statement.

President Nieto was scheduled to visit the White House this week, as well. However, he ultimately buckled to domestic political pressure over President Trump’s insistence on building a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border, a key campaign promise he made along with the promise that Mexico would pay for its construction. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said the president is weighing a tax on imported goods from Mexico to fund the construction.

[social-media-buttons]

“With respect to payment for the border wall, both presidents recognize their clear and very public differences of positions on this issue but have agreed to work these differences out as part of a comprehensive discussion on all aspects of the bilateral relationship,” the statement added. “Both presidents have instructed their teams to continue the dialogue to strengthen this important strategic and economic relationship in a constructive way.”

President Donald J. Trump signed executive orders

Office workers and shoppers walk through Sydney's central business district in Australia, September 7, 2016. (Photo: Reuters)

Office workers and shoppers walk through Sydney’s central business district in Australia, September 7, 2016. (Photo: Reuters)

Yesterday was “Australia Day,” which I gather for Aussies is sort of like the 4th of July for Americans. To belatedly celebrate for our friends Down Under, I suppose we could sing Waltzing Matilda.

But since I’m a policy wonk with a special fondness for the nation, let’s instead acknowledge Australia Day by citing some very interesting research

Economists at the Australian Treasury crunched the numbers and estimated the economic effects of a lower corporate tax rate. They had several levers in their model for how this change could be financed, including increases in other taxes.

Corporate income taxes are one of the most destructive ways for a government to generate revenue, so it’s not surprising that the study concluded that a lower rate would be desirable under just about any circumstance.

But what caught my attention was the section that looked at the economic impact of a lower corporate tax rate that is offset by a reduction in the burden of government spending. The consequences are very positive.

This subsection reports the findings from the model simulation of a company income tax rate cut from 30 to 25 per cent, leaving all other tax rates unchanged and assuming any shortfall in revenue across all jurisdictions is financed by a cut in government spending. …Under this scenario, GNI is expected to rise by 0.7 per cent in the long run (see Chart 9). …the improvement in real GNI is largely due to the gain in labour income. Underlying the gain in COE is an estimated rise in before-tax real wages of around 1.1 per cent and a rise in employment of 0.1 per cent.

For readers unfamiliar with economic jargon, GNI is gross national income and COE is compensation of employees.

And here’s the chart that was referenced. Note that workers (labour income) actually get more benefit from the lower corporate rate than investors (capital income).

So the bottom line is that a lower corporate tax rate leads to more economic output, with workers enjoying higher incomes.

And higher output and increased income also means more taxable income. And this larger “tax base” means that there is a Laffer Curve impact on tax revenues.

No, the lower corporate tax rate isn’t self financing. That only happens in rare circumstances.

But the study notes that about half of the revenue lost because of the lower corporate rate is recovered thanks to additional economic activity.

…After second-round effects, it is estimated that government spending must be cut by 51 cents for every dollar of direct net company tax cut. It is also estimated that 13 cents of every dollar cut is recovered through higher personal income tax receipts in the long run, while 14 cents is recovered thorough higher company income tax receipts. In the long run, the total revenue dividend from the company tax cut is estimated to be around 49 cents per dollar lost through the company tax cut

Here’s the relevant chart showing these results.

And the study specifically notes that the economic benefits of a lower corporate rate are largest when it is accompanied by less government spending.

A decrease in the company income tax rate financed by lower government spending implies a significantly higher overall welfare gain when compared with the previous scenarios of around 0.7 percentage points… As anticipated in the theoretical discussion, when viewed from the standpoint of the notional owners of the factors of production, the welfare gain is largely due to a significant improvement in labour income due to higher after-tax real wages.

By the way, the paper does speculate whether the benefits (of a lower corporate rate financed in part by less government spending) are overstated because they don’t capture benefits that might theoretically be generated by government spending. That’s a possibility, to be sure.

But it’s far more likely that the benefits are understated because government spending generates negative macroeconomic and microeconomic effects.

In the conclusion, the report sensibly points out that higher productivity is the way to increase higher living standards. And if that’s the goal, a lower corporate tax rate is a very good recipe.

Australia’s terms of trade, labour force participation and population growth are expected to be flat or declining in the foreseeable future which implies any improvement in Australia’s living standards must be driven by a higher level of labour productivity. This paper shows that a company income tax cut can do that, even after allowing for increases in other taxes or cutting government spending to recover lost revenue, by lowering the before tax cost of capital. This encourages investment, which in turn increases the capital stock and labour productivity.

This is spot on. A punitive corporate income tax is a very destructive way of generating revenue for government.

Which is why I hope American policy makers pay attention to this research. We already have the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world (arguably the entire world depending on how some severance taxes in poor nations are counted), and we magnify the damage with onerous rules that further undermine competitiveness.

Economists at the Australian Treasury crunched the

regulations

Regulations (Photo:ShutterStock)

Red tape is a huge burden on the American economy, with even an Obama Administration bureaucracy acknowledging that costs far exceed supposed benefits.

And the problem gets worse every year.

If I had to pick the worst example of foolish regulation, there would be lots of absurd examples from the federal government, and the crazy bureaucrats at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission probably would be at the top of the list.

But the worst regulations, at least if measured by the harm to lower-income Americans, probably are imposed by state governments. Yes, I’m talking about the scourge of occupational licensing.

A report published by The American Interest elaborates on this problem.

…it’s important that policymakers don’t lose sight of more subtle ways the government has distorted the economy to favor the politically connected. One example: Onerous occupational licensing laws that force people to undergo thousands of hours of often redundant and gratuitous training to perform jobs like auctioneering, tree trimming, and hair styling. …licensing laws are the result of higher-skilled professionals seeking to protect their market share at the consumers’ expense. …This not just a minor concern for a few key industries; it is a weight dragging down the entire economy, raising prices while blocking access to less-skilled trades. The Obama administration has already recommended that states look at ways to loosen these requirements.

Yes, you read correctly. This is an issue where the Obama Administration was basically on the right side.

I’m not joking. Here are excerpts from a White House statement last year.

Today nearly one-quarter of all U.S. workers need a government license to do their jobs. The prevalence of occupational licensing has risen from less than 5 percent in the early 1950s with the majority of the growth coming from an increase in the number of professions that require a license rather than composition in the workforce. …the current system often requires unnecessary training, lengthy delays, or high fees. This can in turn artificially create higher costs for consumers and prohibit skilled American workers like florists or hairdressers from entering jobs in which they could otherwise excel.

Senator Mike Lee of Utah is a strong advocate of curtailing these protectionist regulations and allowing capitalism to flourish. Using teeth-whitening services as an example, he explained the downside of government-enforced cartels in an article for Forbes.

Should only dentists be allowed to whiten people’s teeth? …This may sound like a silly question… Keep in mind that the Food and Drug Administration already regulates teeth-whitening products for safety and that virtually no one has ever been injured by someone administering these products. But in a number of states throughout the country, dentists began losing teeth-whitening customers to non-dentists who had set up kiosks in shopping malls and were charging less money for the same teeth-whitening services. These upset dentists then went to their state dental-licensing boards and urged those boards to add teeth whitening to the definition of “the practice of dentistry.” These state boards complied… The results were unemployed teeth whiteners, more expensive teeth whitening, and higher profits for the dentists. …An organized cartel (the dentists)…used the threat of government punishment to enforce their monopoly.

Unfortunately, Senator Lee explains, this is a problem that goes way beyond teeth whitening.

…when the deeper question of occupational licensing is applied to the broader economy, it turns out that there are millions of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars at stake. …dentists are not the only professionals using government power to harm consumers and line their pockets. A 2013 study found that 25% of today’s workforce is in an occupation licensed by a state entity, up from just 5% in 1950. And the number of licensed professionals is not growing because everyone is suddenly becoming a doctor or a lawyer. Instead, it is the number of professions requiring licenses that is growing. Security guards, florists, barbers, massage therapists, interior decorators, manicurists, hair stylists, personal trainers, tree trimmers and auctioneers work in just some of the many, many professions that state legislatures have seen fit to cartelize.

But do consumers get some sort of benefit as a result of all this red tape?

Nope.

According to a study by University of Minnesota Professor Morris Kleiner, “Occupational licensing has either no impact or even a negative impact on the quality of services provided to customers by members of the regulated occupation.” Occupational licensing has grown not because consumers demanded it, but because lobbyists recognized a business opportunity where they could use government power to get rich at the public’s expense. …Consumers end up paying $200 billion in higher costs annually, prospective professionals lose an estimated three million jobs, and millions more Americans find it harder to live where they want due to licensing requirements.

By the way, the barriers to mobility are a major problem. A professor at Yale Law School crunched the numbers and found that occupational licensing has undermined the great America tradition of moving where the jobs are.

Here are some details from the abstract of the study.

Rates of inter-state mobility, by most estimates, have been falling for decades. Even research that does not find a general decline finds that inter-state mobility rates are low among disadvantaged groups and are not increasing despite a growing connection between moving and economic opportunity. …governments, mostly at the state and local levels, have created a huge number of legal barriers to inter-state mobility. Land-use laws and occupational licensing regimes limit entry into local and state labor markets.

In an article for Reason, Ronald Bailey highlights some of the key findings from the scholarly study.

From the end of World War II through the 1980s, the Census Bureau reports, about 20 percent of Americans changed their residences annually, with more than 3 percent moving to a different state each year. Now more are staying home. In November, the Census Bureau reported that Americans were moving at historically low rates: Only 11.2 percent moved in 2015, and just 1.5 percent moved to a different state. …Yale law professor David Schleicher blames bad public policy. …Schleicher identifies and analyzes the policies that limit people’s ability to enter job-rich markets and exit job-poor ones. …Why? First, lots of job-rich areas have erected barriers that keep job-seekers from other regions out. The two biggest barriers are land use and occupational licensing restrictions. …Schleicher notes that more than 1,100 occupations require licensing in at least one state, but fewer than 60 are regulated in all states. A 2015 White House report on occupational licensing found that “interstate migration rates for workers in the most licensed occupations are lower by an amount equal to nearly 15 percent of the average migration rate compared to those in the least licensed occupations.”

Let’s close by putting this in practical terms.

Imagine you don’t have a lot of education. And you definitely don’t have out-of-state licenses that are necessary for dozens of professions.

Are you going to move where there are more jobs?

Several decades ago, the answer likely was yes. Now, the incentive for mobility has been curtailed thanks to licensing laws that are really nothing more than regulatory protectionism.

Such laws should be repealed, or struck down by the courts as illegal restraints on trade.

The red tape created by government regulations

People's Pundit Daily
You have %%pigeonMeterAvailable%% free %%pigeonCopyPage%% remaining this month. Get unlimited access and support reader-funded, independent data journalism.

Start a 14-day free trial now. Pay later!

Start Trial