Mediaboss Marketing

The B.C. Liberals, facing defeat in the legislature, will release financial year-end numbers Wednesday before the auditor generals office has had a chance to sign off on them.

The B.C. NDP and B.C. Green Party characterized the move as the last gasp of a dying government

But Finance Minister Mike deJong defended the decision to release the 2016-17 figures, saying the government issues financial updates all the time.

I dont think theres anything unusual with that, he said. Im not trying to present something as something theyre not. They are a summary of what has taken place and also an update on what has taken place in 2017.

So I should think people would be very interested to know how weve done.

Auditor general Carol Bellringer said her office is still reviewing the statements and called it unusual for the government to release the numbers before they have been certified by her office.

On a quarterly basis its not unusual, but I dont know that theyve ever done it at year-end before, she said in an interview. I mean, its obviously not being introduced as a new practice; its being introduced because of the timing around the situation the governments in.

Bellringer was unable to say how much the numbers will change by the time they are certified. Theres quite a few things were still talking to them about.

De Jong said the auditor generals office will be in a position to certify the numbers next week, but Bellringer said no date has been set. Until we know everything thats going to unfold over the next two weeks, we dont know when were going to release our opinion.

De Jong acknowledged that somebody other than him may be handling the file by then anyway.

The NDP and Green Party are expected to defeat the Liberals in a vote of non-confidence on the throne speech set for Thursday afternoon. Once that happens, Lt.-Gov. Judith Guichon will either call another election or ask the NDP to form a minority government and seek the confidence of the house.

No party won a majority of seats in the May 9 election but the 41 NDP MLAs and three Greens have signed an accord to topple the 43 Liberals led by Premier Christy Clark and replace her with NDP Leader John Horgan.

The Liberals tried to avoid defeat last week with a throne speech that borrowed heavily from the NDP and Green campaign platforms and promised dozens of new programs not included in Februarys budget.

De Jong and Clark said the proposed spending spree was possible because the provincial economy is performing better than expected.

The NDPs Carole James, MLA for Victoria-Beacon Hill, portrayed the rushed release of the provinces financial picture as a desperate ploy by the Liberals. This is another game, another tactic, another distraction by a premier who wants to hang onto power for herself, not for the public.

James said shell wait to see the numbers. If they are as positive as the finance minister is claiming, then Ill be looking forward to the B.C. Liberals support for our entire platform, she said.

Green Party Leader Andrew Weaver predicted that the Liberals will trumpet the provinces strong economic performance while ignoring the factors behind it.

The game will be, Look at the economy, rah, rah rah, he said. But frankly . . .this is all coming from the construction industry in Vancouver and an out-of-control real estate sector. The subtext wont be there.

De Jong stirred controversy elsewhere Tuesday by tabling a letter in the legislature that asks Speaker Steve Thomson to clarify the role that he or his replacement will play in the event of tie votes.

Thomson, Liberal MLA for Kelowna-Mission, was acclaimed to the post last Thursday.

De Jong said his analysis shows that when legislation gets to third reading and there is a tie, unless its a confidence motion, the Speaker is bound to vote against the bill.

That makes passage of a bill very, very . . . well, it makes it impossible in that case, he said.

De Jong said the issue is critical because a reconfigured parliament under an NDP minority government could result in tie votes on a regular basis.

The Liberals have suggested that Thomson will resign as Speaker if the government falls, leaving the subsequent NDP government to find a replacement from within its ranks. In that scenario, the government and Opposition sides of the house will have 43 MLAs apiece, requiring the Speaker to break ties.

The NDPs Mike Farnworth dismissed de Jongs letter as more games-playing by the Liberals. He fired off his own letter to the Speaker, arguing that de Jongs requested ruling exceeds the Speakers authority.

Farnworth said in an interview the rules are clear that a Speaker can cast a deciding vote. Has it been used very often? No. But then we are not usually in a minority government situation, but the provision is there, he said. I feel quite confident that the existing standing orders will allow a government to function. Will it be challenging making sure all the numbers are there for when the required votes are in place? Of course.

Weaver accused de Jong and the premier of setting traps and trying to create uncertainty in order to trigger an election that nobody wants.

He called it extraordinary that de Jong would ask Thomson, who has been in the Speakers job fewer than three days, to make a constitutional ruling.

Its very odd that you would elect a Speaker, who you say is going to step down, to come up with a ruling that wont apply to him in the role of Speaker, because hell step down. I mean, this is just a game for the B.C. Liberals.

lkines@timescolonist.com

Original post:
BC Liberals rush to release financial books, NDP see a ploy - Times Colonist

As of now, Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., plans to cast the same vote on Senate Republicans' healthcare legislation as every single member of the Democratic Party. Despite that, Democrats are attacking him anyway.

Parroting his peers across the aisle, Heller said of the bill last Friday, "I cannot support a piece of legislation that takes insurance away from tens of millions of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Nevadans." That line could be ripped from straight from a speech given by any Senate Democrat.

Nevertheless, as Politico highlighted, several powerful liberal organizations responded by blasting Heller as "cowardly" and "utterly spineless." EMILY's List called Heller's opposition to the bill "entirely self-serving." American Bridge PAC accused him of making "a craven attempt to save his political career."

After demanding Republicans oppose the bill because it leaves people uninsured, they are slamming a Republican for opposing the bill because it leaves people uninsured. There is, perhaps, no more transparent an illustration of how Democrats are using the legislation as a political football.

If they believe Republicans should oppose the bill, why are they attacking a Republican for opposing the bill? If opposing the bill is moral, as they say, why is it immoral for Heller to oppose the bill? Because there is political capital to be gained.

Of course, both parties are currently and have been playing partisan politics with healthcare reform for years. But for all the Democratic rhetoric about the people they believe will suffer under the Republican plan, most members of the party express little sympathy for the people currently suffering under their own plan. It's easier to wax dramatic about the future than take responsibility for the problems they created in the present.

Heller is vulnerable in 2018, making his seat an attractive target for Democrats. Nevada has been inundated with ads from both sides pressuring Heller to either support or oppose his party's healthcare legislation.

The reactions of these outside groups are just another reminder that for all their dramatic spin about potential suffering (which conveniently glosses over all the current suffering) Democrats would prefer to unseat Republicans than admit Obamacare has failed and work to fix the system.

Emily Jashinskyis a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner.

See the original post:
Liberals attack Republican Sen. Dean Heller for opposing a bill they want him to oppose - Washington Examiner

CNSNews.com (blog)

Levin Warns of the 'Bleak Tyranny' of Liberals, Calls Americans to 'Take on Their Elites' CNSNews.com (blog) Appearing on Tuesday's show, Levin explained how his new book, Rediscovering Americanism and the Tyranny of Progressivism, warns of the dangerous, destructive principles behind liberalism. It's vitally important to understand what liberal elites ... and more »

Read the original here:
Levin Warns of the 'Bleak Tyranny' of Liberals, Calls Americans to 'Take on Their Elites' - CNSNews.com (blog)

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau insisted Tuesday that his Liberal government has been keeping its promise to be fiscally responsible and blamed the previous Conservative administration for being at least partly responsible for higher-than-expected deficits.

Trudeau maintained the Liberals remained consistent with their 2015 election commitment to add about $10 billion in new spending for 2016-17, their first full year in office.

He argued, however, that the Liberals had to deal with a baseline deficit of $18 billion after coming to power, even though their Tory predecessors had predicted a balanced budget.

The Tories have long disputed Liberal claims that they left the country in the red at the time of their electoral defeat, which came part way through the 2015-16 fiscal year.

In trying to make his case Tuesday, Trudeau re-ignited the bitter political debate over the post-election state of the public books that raged between Liberals and Tories long after the election.

"We just went from a floor where the budget was balanced, because supposedly the Conservatives had balanced the budget, to what was the reality of our budget of being at about $18 billion in deficit at the end of that first year," Trudeau told a news conference.

"So, we've been consistent with our plan and our approach."

When asked about Trudeau's comments, a spokeswoman for Finance Minister Bill Morneau later said that, when the Liberals formed government, Ottawa's books were facing a baseline deficit of $18.4 billion for 2016-17.

The fiscal impact left behind by the Tories was a $1-billion deficit that affected the bottom line in 2015-16, Chloe Luciani-Girouard wrote in an email.

Earlier this month, Trudeau told Global's West Block that a combination of low oil prices and the "economic situation the Conservatives left us" left the Liberals facing a bigger shortfall than anticipated.

Each party held power for several months in 2015-16, a year marked by economic disappointment primarily linked to the weak global economy and low oil prices.

In fiscal 2015-16, which was partly under the Conservative government and partly under the Liberals, Ottawa ended up posting a deficit of $1 billion. The Harper government had projected a surplus of $1.4 billion for that year.

The Tories blamed the eventual shortfall on fresh spending by the Liberals.

On Tuesday, Tory MP Gerard Deltell pointed to testimony last fall by the parliamentary budget officer. Jean-Denis Frechette told a House of Commons committee that Ottawa would've posted a small surplus in 2015-16 instead of the slim shortfall had it not been for new Liberal spending measures.

Conservative MP Gerard Deltell questions where Trudeau's numbers on the deficit the Liberals inherited came from. "Did he find it in a Cracker Jack (box), or what? Because this is all wrong." (Justin Tang/Canadian Press)

Deltell said he didn't know how Trudeau came up with the $18-billion deficit number.

"Did he find it in a Cracker Jack (box), or what? Because this is all wrong," he said Tuesday in an interview.

Deltell got personal in his criticism, which points to just how sensitive the debate over the Harper government's budgetary legacy has been.

"For me, it's no surprise because the guy said two years ago that the budget balances by itself, which was totally stupid," Deltell said.

"When we talk about numbers, the prime minister is not exactly the best person and the most accurate person in Canada to talk about it."

The Trudeau government has faced repeated attacks for a budgetary outlook that project several years of deficits, including a shortfall of $23 billion for 2016-17 and no timeline to balance the books. The final 2016-17 figures are expected in the fall.

This fiscal year, the Liberal government is predicting a deficit of $28.5 billion, including a $3-billion accounting adjustment for risk.

The Liberals have also been criticized for abandoning fiscal pledges from their election campaign.

They won on a platform that vowed to run annual shortfalls of no more than $10 billion over the first three years of their mandate and to eliminate the deficit by 2019-20.

A federal report, published on the Finance Department website in December, predicted that, barring any policy changes, Ottawa could be on a path filled with annual deficits until at least 2050-51.

On Tuesday, the prime minister refused once again, however, to say when the books would actually be balanced.

"We made the decision ... in the last election that instead of focusing on balancing the books arbitrarily, and at all costs, we would focus on the investments needed to grow the economy," he said, referring to the Liberal plan to run deficits in order to invest billions in areas such as infrastructure.

"We're always going to be fiscally responsible in the decisions we make."

Follow this link:
Liberals meeting fiscal goals, but inherited $18B baseline deficit, Trudeau says - CBC.ca

Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch a reactionary who dresses up his cruel views in folksy charms. Above, Gorsuch in the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 1.

Saul Loeb/AFP/Getty Images

On Monday, Justice Neil Gorsuch revealed himself to be everything that liberals had most feared: pro-gun, protravel ban, anti-gay, antichurch/state separation. He is certainly more conservative than Justice Samuel Alito and possibly to the right of Justice Clarence Thomas. He is an uncompromising reactionary and an unmitigated disaster for the progressive constitutional project. And he will likely serve on the court for at least three more decades.

Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for Slate. He covers the law and LGBTQ issues.

Although Gorsuch has barely been on the bench for two months, he has already had an opportunity to weigh in on some of the most pressing constitutional issues of our time. In each case, he has chosen the most conservative position. On Monday, Gorsuch indicated that he opposes equal rights for same-sex couples, dissenting from a ruling that requires states to list same-sex parents on birth certificates. (Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito joined his dissent.) That, alone, is startling: In Obergefell v. Hodges, the court held that the Constitution compels states to grant same-sex couples the constellation of rights, benefits, and responsibilities that the states have linked to marriage, including birth and death certificates. Obergefell, then, already settled this issue. Gorsuchs dissent suggests he may not accept Obergefell as settled law and may instead seek to undermine or reverse it.

Gorsuch also joined Thomas in dissenting from the courts refusal to review a challenge to Californias concealed carry laws. California grants concealed carry permits for good causenamely, a particularized need, substantiated by documentary evidence, to carry a firearm for self-defense. Gun advocates challenged this rule, alleging a violation of the Second Amendment. But the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the California regime, and on Monday, the court declined to reconsider its decision. Thomas and Gorsuch dissented vociferously, essentially declaring that the Second Amendment grants individuals a right to carry loaded firearms in public. Not even the archconservative Alito joined their bizarre opinion. It appears Gorsuch is eager to strike down almost any law that limits the right to keep and bear arms in any way. If adopted by the court, Gorsuchs theory would effectively bar state and local governments from passing almost any kind of gun safety legislation.

Monday also revealed Gorsuchs deep hostility to the separation of church and state. He joined Chief Justice John Roberts opinion for the court in Trinity Lutheran v. Comer, holding that a state may not constitutionally refuse to subsidize houses of worship. The court, joined by Gorsuch, held that, when a state declines to fund a churchs improvement project, it somehow violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor noted in her vehement and impressive dissent, Roberts opinion held for the first time that the Constitution requires the government to provide public funds directly to a church. Roberts decision is especially noteworthy for its complete rejection of originalism: As Sotomayor painstakingly proved, the United States has a rich history of laws preventing the government from directing taxpayer funds to houses of worship. Never before has the court found that these laws somehow interfere with the free exercise of religion.

Gorsuch joined Roberts opinion, although he parted ways with the chief justice when it came to a critical footnote that limited its holding. Trinity Lutheran involved playground resurfacing: The church wanted a state grant for a special rubber substance it wished to pour onto its play area. In a footnote, Roberts wrote that this case involves express discrimination based on religious identity with respect to playground resurfacing. We do not address religious uses of funding or other forms of discrimination. (Emphasis mine.) Gorsuch, as well as Thomas, rejected this footnote; both justices wrote separately to declare that theyd go further, holding that any disparate treatment of religious organizations likely runs afoul of the Constitution. That seemingly benign statement implies that both justices would force states to funnel more taxpayer money to churches and religious groups. To their minds, the government discriminates against religion when it refuses to subsidize it.

Then, finally, theres the travel ban ruling. In a compromise decision, the justices allowed Trumps executive order to take effect but exempted foreign nationals who have a credible claim of a bona fide relationship with a person or entity in the United States. The order gives the Trump administration most of what it wants, while ensuring that individuals with significant ties to the U.S. will not be turned away at the border. Yet Gorsuch, joined by Thomas and Alito, opposed this compromise: He wouldve let the travel ban take effect in its entirety, as he believes it to be lawful. So much for the fantasy of Gorsuch standing up to Trump.

When Trump first nominated Gorsuch, I was relieved he hadnt picked an outright lunatic, and I felt cautiously optimistic that Gorsuch might be less of a hard-line conservative than liberals believed. I was wrong. Gorsuch is the worst kind of justice. He is a reactionary who dresses up his cruel, antediluvian views in folksy charm; who professes restraint while espousing extreme, sweeping views; who has no sympathy for vulnerable minorities but believes Christians are being oppressed. And he will guide the course of the law for the next 30 years or more. He is a catastrophe for proponents of civil rights and equal justice. And his influence over the court only stands to grow.

This country is in terrible trouble.

Follow this link:
Supreme Court Breakfast Table - Slate Magazine