The three documents bring the total number of policy briefs to seven under Our Common Agenda. Four other briefs will follow.

In his policy brief on reforming the international financial architecture, Guterres stressed the need for structural reforms in addition to immediate measures to relieve the burden on developing and emerging economies.

The Bretton Woods system was established in 1945, when many of today’s developing and emerging economies were under colonial rule. It is supposed to serve the world but does not represent the world, he said.

The COVID-19 pandemic and its aftermath were a stress test for that system, but it largely failed and did not fulfill its core mandate as a financial global safety net. It did not provide enough of the financing needed to support a recovery in developing countries, many of which are now in the throes of a deep financial crisis, said Guterres.

Fifty-two developing countries are in, or near, debt distress, while debt relief is at a standstill. Inflation and rising interest rates are adding to the unsustainable financial pressure on developing countries. Some governments are being forced to choose between making debt repayments or defaulting in order to pay public sector workers — possibly ruining their credit rating for years to come. Africa now spends more on debt service costs than on health care, he noted.

In the short term, the international community needs to take urgent steps under current arrangements to relieve the burden on developing and emerging economies, said Guterres. “But beyond emergency measures, we need a structural response. The international community must reform the international financial architecture to make it resilient, equitable, and accessible to all.”

The policy brief sets out ambitious, concrete proposals in six areas to address historic injustices and systemic bias: global economic governance, debt relief and the cost of sovereign borrowing, international public finance, the global financial safety net, addressing short-termism in capital markets and sustainable finance, and a global tax architecture.

The brief proposes strengthening the voice and representation of developing countries on the boards of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF); proposes reforms to IMF quotas, which should be delinked from access to resources; suggests changes to IMF voting rights and decision-making rules; and proposes a representative apex body overseeing the entire system, to enhance its coherence and align its priorities with the 2030 Agenda.

Overall, the proposals in the brief are aimed at moving away from a system that benefits the rich and prioritizes short-term gains, toward one that is equitable, and invests up-front in the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), climate action, and future generations, said Guterres.

In the policy brief concerning GDP, he urged member states to move toward universal and comprehensive measurements to complement GDP as a metric for economic progress.

GDP “will continue to be an important metric. But there is a growing recognition that GDP overlooks human activities that sustain life and contribute to well-being, while placing disproportionate value on those that damage us and deplete our planet,” said the UN chief.

According to Guterres, GDP ignores or obscures the complexity of sustainable development, as deforestation, overfishing and the mining and burning of fossil fuels all increase GDP, while GDP takes no account of environmental sustainability, unpaid care work, and the negative impact on people and societies of many economic activities.

Some countries may have a relatively high GDP, but due to special circumstances, they may be at increased risk from economic shocks. Conversely, some countries with lower GDP may be more resilient to shocks because of a strong social contract, or a geographic location that protects them from the worst impacts of climate chaos, he said.

This policy brief proposes a path toward complementary metrics that more accurately reflect what humans value, said Guterres.

First, it proposes that member states make a political commitment to a conceptual framework that accurately values what matters for people, the planet, and the future.

Second, the brief calls for a technical process to develop metrics to inform this framework. It proposes that an independent high-level expert group should produce a dashboard of key alternative indicators by March 2024.

Third, the brief calls for a massive upgrading of support to countries so that they can develop the data capacity needed to make new metrics operational.

In the policy brief on the Global Digital Compact, Guterres said there is an urgent need for governments to come together in such a compact to mitigate the risks of digital technologies and identify ways to harness their benefits for the good of humanity.

Artificial intelligence (AI), deep fakes, and bio-engineering are just three areas of latest technological progress that are testing governance capacities beyond their limits. This exponential acceleration makes cooperation on technology even more important, he said.

Generative AI will have a huge impact on education, communication, the world of work and far more. But the future of that impact is not clear to anyone. Jobs will be both created and lost, and the world of work will change, he said.

While AI has the potential to turbocharge development and productivity, accelerating progress toward the SDGs, it also presents serious ethical challenges. The weaponization of AI is a huge concern, he warned.

The policy brief proposes a vision for digital cooperation that puts humanity at the core, with no one left behind: a digital future that is anchored in universal human rights; global cooperation that harnesses technology for human development and turbocharges progress on the SDGs; digital technologies that are governed by humans, for humans, said Guterres.

The Global Digital Compact is a unique opportunity to bring together governments, regional organizations, the private sector and civil society in a global approach to digital governance, he said. “The compact would provide a framework to align national, regional and industry approaches around global priorities, principles and objectives.”

The policy brief identifies areas for urgent action, from scaling up efforts to connect the unconnected, to building digital public infrastructure and supporting public administrations to regulate technology for everyone’s benefit.

The brief proposes steps to address gaps in the governance of AI. It reiterates Guterres’ proposal for a high-level advisory body for AI, which could meet regularly to review AI governance arrangements and offer recommendations on how they can be aligned with human rights, the rule of law and the common good.

“We will start work on this body by the end of this year, and task it to present options for the international governance of AI. This could include an AI Accord, connected to the Global Digital Compact process,” said Guterres.

The brief also proposes a Digital Cooperation Forum that would evaluate progress on digital governance and highlight gaps.

The series of policy briefs on Our Common Agenda provide insights for member states as they prepare for this year’s SDG Summit and next year’s Summit of the Future. 

The post UN Chief Launches 3 Policy Briefs on Our Common Agenda appeared first on Policy Print.

The post EU Foreign Policy Chief To Visit China appeared first on Policy Print.

Uzbekistan became a member of the International Monetary Fund on September 21, 1992. In September 1993, an IMF representative office was opened in Tashkent. In the end of 90s, the ties between the government of Uzbekistan and the IMF began to deteriorate. The plummeting of world price of gold and cotton then, which were the main export items of the country, resulted in the higher level of protectionism in Uzbekistan’s currency control and international trade. A large gap begins to emerge between the official exchange and the black market rates.

Christopher Rosenberg, who served as a representative of the IMF in Uzbekistan in 2001 said then that the representative office in Uzbekistan would be suspended due to the unstable policy course of Karimov’s government and increasing economic isolation.

After the change of administration in Uzbekistan, relations with the IMF, as well as with other international organizations, began to improve. After free floating of the exchange rate as of September 2017. On September 19 of the same year, a bilateral meeting was held between the President of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev and the managing director of the IMF, Christine Lagarde, with several agreements reached.

The post IMF’s Managing Director Kristalina Georgieva to land in Tashkent appeared first on Policy Print.

Deputy Director

International Institute for Central Asia

A national referendum on the law on the new Constitution will be held in Uzbekistan on April 30, 2023. The updated Basic Law is intended to consolidate the country’s strategic course for further reform of society and the state, which has had a positive impact on its foreign policy, primarily in the Central Asian region.

In this regard, it is obvious that the referendum will be the most important political event in the life of the citizens of Uzbekistan this year. This is evidenced, first of all, by the most active participation of society in the process of drafting a new Constitution.

The Legislative Chamber of the Oliy Majlis of Uzbekistan recognized that it was initially envisaged to change 30% of the text of the Basic Law, but more than 220 thousand proposals were received, which is why the amendments now concern 65%. It is no coincidence that Uzbek expert and public circles already call the updated Constitution “people’s one”.

Reflection of the transformation of society and the state

In fact, the draft of the new Constitution reflects the serious changes that have taken place in Uzbekistan since the beginning of large-scale reforms announced by President Shavkat Mirziyoyev at the end of 2016. Then, for foreign experts, the political and economic opening of Uzbekistan came as a surprise. Most observers expected a few symbolic innovations, but mostly continuity. However, since Shavkat Mirziyoyev took office in 2016, Uzbekistan has undoubtedly been going through a phase of profound changes.

Serious amendments have been made to the draft new Constitution concerning human rights and freedoms, personal inviolability of citizens and their private life in criminal proceedings, conditions of detention, detention and detention. In the administration of justice, the use of evidence obtained in violation of the law is not allowed. Torture, violence, ill-treatment, and the death penalty are prohibited.

Unlike the current Basic Law, Uzbekistan is defined “as a legal, social, secular, democratic state.” Articles affecting the social rights of citizens in such important areas as education and healthcare have been significantly expanded. The rights of youth, children and women will be protected by the State. Special attention is paid to the protection of the rights and interests of citizens with disabilities, as well as socially vulnerable segments of the population.

For the first time, a separate chapter dedicated to civil society institutions is included, guarantees of their activities are established. Thus, special attention is paid to improving the norms concerning the strengthening of not only civil society institutions, but also the mass media. In this context, it should be emphasized that in December 2022, the number of foreign TV channels allowed to be distributed on the territory of Uzbekistan increased from 50 to 192. Among them are BBC, Sky News, CNN, CNBC, Fox News, Bloomberg and others.

In the part concerning the economic rights of citizens, a separate article in the draft Constitution prohibits forced labor, any form of child labor. In 2021, Uzbekistan eliminated forced and child labor from the production cycle in cotton growing.

According to the International Labor Organization, under the leadership of President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, the country embarked on the path of reforms, including the modernization of the former agrarian economic model and the rejection of the widely used practice of using child and forced labor in cotton harvesting.

In Tashkent in March 2023, US Secretary of State E. Blinken called this fact a “historic achievement”. According to him, “this is a model for countries around the world facing similar problems.”… We look forward to working with the (Uzbek) government to advance similar efforts in other sectors.”

The updated Constitution of Uzbekistan significantly strengthens the role of Parliament.

Thus, it is proposed to increase the number of exclusive powers of the Legislative Chamber of the Oliy Majlis from 5 to 12, the Senate – from 14 to 18. Part of the current powers of the president in the field of forming the system of executive and judicial power is transferred to parliament.

Thus, the renewal of the Constitution not only confirms the reformist course of President Shavkat Mirziyoyev, but also defines clear guidelines for where Uzbekistan will move in its further development. There is still much to be done, the head of state himself has repeatedly noted, but reforms, renewal and modernization are irreversible.

According to the World Bank’s Regional Director for Central Asia, Tatiana Proskuryakova, “Uzbekistan remains committed to the most important reforms, despite the difficult situation around the world and in the region of Europe and Central Asia.” President of Uzbekistan Shavkat Mirziyoyev has launched a large-scale reform program, in which significant progress has been made, especially in the field of economic liberalization.

British experts were not mistaken when back in 2018 they noted that the economic modernization of Uzbekistan and its growing political openness could have huge consequences for economic growth and political stability throughout Central Asia. Uzbekistan is the most populous country in Central Asia and its geographical center. These features make him a natural and historical trendsetter of political and economic fashion in the region.

Modernization of Uzbekistan’s economy and increased political openness will be of great importance for economic growth and political stability in Central Asia. If successful, his reforms could also make Uzbekistan a positive model for other Muslim-majority countries.

New adjustments in the regional policy of Uzbekistan

In 2016, President Shavkat Mirziyoyev declared Central Asia the main priority of Uzbekistan’s foreign policy. The Preamble of the draft new Constitution notes “Uzbekistan’s desire to strengthen and develop friendly relations with the world community, primarily with neighboring states, on the basis of cooperation, mutual support, peace and harmony.”

It is noteworthy that in June 2018, exactly five years ago, the UN General Assembly adopted the resolution “Strengthening regional and international cooperation to ensure peace, stability and sustainable development in the Central Asian region”. The initiative to adopt this document was put forward by President Shavkat Mirziyoyev at the international conference on Central Asia, held in November 2017 in the city of Samarkand.

As the President of Uzbekistan noted at the time: “Our main goal is to jointly transform Central Asia into a stable, economically developed and prosperous region.” The regional policy of Shavkat Mirziyoyev has become a new stage in the history of interstate relations of the Central Asian countries and marked the beginning of their consolidation.

For the first time since gaining their independence, the Central Asian States have confirmed their ability not only to take joint actions to solve common regional problems, but also to ensure the well-being and prosperity of their citizens.

Today, the countries of the region are consistently solving the difficult tasks of ensuring security and stability, sustainable socio-economic development of Central Asia. A lot of barriers have been eliminated in a short time, first of all, sensitive border problems. Сonditions have been created for the free movement of citizens, active cultural and tourist exchanges between the countries of the region.

For the first time in recent decades, joint industrial cooperation projects have been launched, new value chains are being created. Thus, investment banks of Uzbekistan with Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have been established to finance promising projects in the fields of industry, the agricultural sector, energy, infrastructure, automotive and other areas.

Moreover, water energy, which was previously a “bone of contention”, has become the subject of partnership between the countries of Central Asia. So, in January 2023, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan signed a roadmap for the implementation of the Kambarata HPP-1 construction project.

A favorable environment has been formed in Central Asia, which contributes to the growth of mutual trade. Uzbekistan has started creating border trade and economic zones with almost all countries of the region. Thanks to this, intraregional trade has doubled over the past five years, and the total GDP of the countries of the region has increased by $75 billion. to over $358 billion (in 1991, this figure was about $46 billion.).

All these changes have a positive impact on the daily life of the peoples of the Central Asian countries, improving their well-being, contributing to strengthening stability in the region. It is obvious that the reforms in Uzbekistan and its new regional policy have contributed to a serious acceleration of the economic development of the Central Asian countries.

Moreover, consolidation has allowed the countries of the region to increase their role as subjects of the system of international relations, as well as the ability to take responsibility for regional security. The international community recognizes that only a stable, dynamically developing and prosperous Central Asia can become an attractive, constructive and long-term partner.

As US Secretary of State E. Blinken noted in Tashkent, a more interconnected, cooperative Central Asia will be able to better determine its own future and meet the needs of its people.

Over the past five years, there has been a serious transformation of Central Asia, which has gone from a region of tension and conflict to a zone of mutual trust, cooperation and partnership. The agenda of the leaders of the Central Asian states has changed, in which issues of implementing common projects of interconnectedness in the spheres of trade, economy, investment, cultural and humanitarian ties already prevail today.

In short, in recent years, the dynamic trends of Uzbekistan’s cooperation with neighboring states have acquired a qualitatively new, systemic and dynamic character. In a short period of time, Uzbekistan’s bilateral relations with the countries of the region have been elevated to the level of strategic partnership (Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan) and alliance (Kazakhstan, Tajikistan).

The mechanism of Consultative Meetings of the heads of Central Asian States initiated by Uzbekistan in 2017 has been successfully launched, contributing to the formation of common approaches and joint search for solutions to problems of regional security and sustainable development. An active, constructive political dialogue is becoming a key factor in strengthening mutual trust and the common responsibility of the Central Asian States for the present and future of the region.

A powerful impetus to the multifaceted regional partnership is given by cultural and humanitarian cooperation, in which various social groups of the population of Central Asian countries have been increasingly involved in recent years. Such dynamics, strengthening the perception of historical and civilizational community in the societies of the states of the region, creates conditions for strengthening regional identity.

The countries of the region are building balanced relations with the leading states within the framework of the dialogue format “Central Asia Plus”. This practice has acquired a steady, regular character, contributing to strengthening the image of Central Asia as a unified, consolidated and strategically important region in the system of international relations.

In general, the main result of the implementation of the new regional policy of President Shavkat Mirziyoyev was not only the overcoming of previously seemingly unsolvable contradictions, but also the formation of a powerful foundation for further promotion of regional priorities in the field of security and sustainable development.

In this regard, the renewal of the Constitution, which defines the trajectory of Uzbekistan’s transformation into an open, democratic, dynamically developing stable state with a strong civil society, determines Tashkent’s more active regional policy in Central Asia. This trend meets the long-term interests not only of the Central Asian countries themselves, but also of the entire international community, which expresses its support for the processes taking place since 2016 in one of the strategically important regions of the world.

The post The Referendum in Uzbekistan: What Will Change in Regional Policy appeared first on Policy Print.

Tomorrow is the final day of voting in Georgia’s runoff election for the U.S. Senate. In this state, where the evangelical vote is key, Christianity has been at the center of the race. But the Republican candidate, Herschel Walker, has been plagued by scandals over domestic violence and abortion. So how do evangelical voters reckon with the contradictions between a right-wing candidate’s personal conduct and their political positions? We’re joined by Timothy Head. He’s the executive director of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a conservative political advocacy group. He joins us from just outside Atlanta. Thank you so much for being with us this morning.

TIMOTHY HEAD: Good morning. Thank you for having me.

MARTIN: A majority of Georgia voters who identify as evangelical Christians are supporting Herschel Walker in this race, even though his rival, Senator Raphael Warnock, is himself a minister. Why is the former football player their pick?

HEAD: Well, you know, (inaudible) – we’ve kind of worked our way through this election cycle. We’ve seen the policy contrasts become more and more stark. And at this point, you know, certainly economic issues are prevailing issues for all kinds of voters across the country. But social issues, especially (inaudible) – a policy issue, like the life question after the Dobbs decision has become front of mind and a clear contrast in the policy (inaudible) – by Raphael Warnock (inaudible) – a pro-choice minister versus Herschel Walker, who (inaudible) – identifies as a pro-life advocate.

MARTIN: We’re having a hard time with your line. I’ll just say that out loud. But I hear you saying economic issues are important, but centrally, it’s about what evangelical Christians view as the life question, abortion. Multiple women have come forward and claimed that Herschel Walker paid for their abortions in the past. If you are voting for Walker because of his public anti-abortion position, how do you reconcile that?

HEAD: Well, you know, the questions that are (inaudible) – kind of being discussed around Walker’s past (inaudible) – whereas, you know, he and his wife – his current wife have actually had about, you know, a 11- or 12-year history of being strong pro-life advocates. And so I think that demonstrated history here in the recent years has certainly assuaged most evangelical voters who are pro-life that Walker…

MARTIN: Although – I’m sorry to interrupt, but that…

HEAD: …Would indeed be a strong pro-life advocate if he were to be in the Senate.

MARTIN: I’m sorry to interrupt you. But you, as a Christian, no doubt understand the difference between someone’s public position on something and their personal behavior, and personal behavior reflects – is supposed to reflect Christian values.

HEAD: Yes, absolutely. And I think that, you know, (inaudible) – the history there is (inaudible) – certainly a challenging one. But a demonstrated history change, I think, has been pretty convincing (inaudible) – for most pro-life voters.

MARTIN: The Supreme Court overturned a constitutional right to an abortion. Do you think this issue should still have equal weight in determining how evangelical Christians vote?

HEAD: Well, I think it certainly changed the venue (ph) from being more of a federal issue to being more of a state issue. But first (inaudible) – the issue is very much still one in question from a public policy standpoint. And secondly, there certainly are efforts – have been discussed efforts at least for (inaudible) – laws in Washington, D.C. So I don’t think that the Dobbs decision is going to erase the discussion (inaudible) – continue to be an issue for (inaudible) – to come.

MARTIN: Herschel Walker received roughly 200,000 fewer votes during this fall’s primary election than Republican Governor Brian Kemp. What do you believe has kept some conservative voters from supporting him, Walker?

HEAD: Well, I think it’s (inaudible) – that those almost 200,000 voters, mostly in suburban Atlanta – (inaudible) certainly had some kind of (inaudible) – around Herschel Walker’s, you know, purported back – kind of backstory, if you will. And (inaudible) – I think that this – that’s going to be (inaudible) – challenge here is trying to (inaudible) – one last time in these last probably two days here.

MARTIN: I want to apologize to listeners again for the roughness of this audio line. We’ll try to get Timothy Head back for another conversation. Timothy Head, the executive director of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a conservative political advocacy group in Georgia. Thank you so much for your time this morning.

Source: Wqln.Org

The post Evangelical voters grapple with Herschel Walker’s controversial image appeared first on Policy Print.

The House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis held its final hearing Tuesday, the end of an era that saw lawmakers devote unprecedented attention to the greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet.

The committee was never a legislative powerhouse, nor was it intended to be. And after its first few hearings in 2019, it was rarely covered or discussed in major media outlets.

It nonetheless gave lawmakers from both parties a venue to discuss climate policy from virtually every angle, filling in gaps for House standing committees segmented by agency and issue jurisdiction.

Democrats also believe the panel played a crucial role in developing the policy ideas that eventually became the Inflation Reduction Act, a historic suite of climate and clean energy investments. Many of the recommendations and ideas from the panel’s 2020 majority staff report eventually ended up in the Inflation Reduction Act.

“I think we can take an appropriate victory dance that the report we did became the Inflation Reduction Act,” Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.), a member of the committee, said in an interview.

The Democratic staff plans to release an additional report next week outlining the policies that have already been enacted by Congress and further steps they believe are necessary to adapt to climate change and reduce emissions.

It was an unusual scene Tuesday, as Chair Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) teared up while wrapping up her closing remarks. Lawmakers do not usually bid farewell to an entire committee when party control changes hands.

Castor likened the experience of chairing the committee to college. The panel has held dozens of hearings over the past four years.

“I’ve learned a lot,” Castor said. “It’s like I’ve gone through a graduate course in all this, and there’s still a lot to learn.”

Republicans plan to disband the committee when they take control of the House in January. Ranking Member Garret Graves (R-La.) said the committee had been valuable in some ways during its four-year existence, and he acknowledged that it’s given him a microphone to talk about the energy policy issues he cares about.

“I do think it’s important that you have a committee involved in that kind of crosscutting,” Graves said in an interview.

At the same time, Graves said, “I think at the end of the day it probably isn’t going to be regarded as the greatest return on investment for taxpayers.”

The committee was the brainchild of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Pelosi had created a Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming during her first term as speaker from 2007 to 2011, and she sought to recreate it when Democrats took control of the House again in the 2018 midterms.

She faced resistance, however, from standing committee chairs, who feared a select panel would leach away their power. Chief among the opponents was Energy and Commerce Chair Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), who at one point said he didn’t believe the Select Committee was “necessary” (E&E Daily, Nov. 14, 2018).

Progressive activists were also pushing Pelosi to make the committee focus on the Green New Deal, then a huge political talking point on her party’s left flank.

In the end, Democrats settled on the “climate crisis” terminology, which has become the preferred term for discussing planetary warming and its impacts for some news outlets, green groups and academics.

In a concession to standing committee opponents, the committee ended up with no formal legislative or subpoena powers.

“The chairs and the committee staff understood that we weren’t there to really tread on their jurisdiction but to weave together the whole plan,” Castor said.

The committee managed to grab the spotlight every once in a while. It hosted youth climate activist Greta Thunberg alongside conservative climate advocate Benji Backer during one 2019 joint hearing that drew national attention.

A ‘critical role’

Casten said the panel managed to pull together conversations about the morality of stopping climate change, the energy transition and energy prices under one roof.

“Where does that conversation ever happen, really holistically, except on this committee?” Casten said.

Democrats, during the hearing Tuesday, emphasized that further action is needed to hold world temperatures under 1.5 degrees Celsius and meet President Joe Biden’s pledge of halving emissions by 2030.

“Our work remains urgent. Climate disasters are putting America’s security and stability at serious risk — threatening our economy, our way of life, and our communities,” Castor said. “The crisis is no longer a distant threat.”

Greg Wetstone, president and CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy, told lawmakers they had played a “critical role” in “defining the nation’s climate agenda,” pointing to the majority staff report.

“An impressive 305 of the report’s recommendations are now enacted into law, a clear testament to the sagacity and lasting impact of the Select Committee’s work,” Wetstone said.

Source: EE News.Net

The post ‘Victory dance’ for Climate Crisis panel in its final hearing appeared first on Policy Print.

House Republicans are plotting tactics for their new majority and weighing how to use their leverage to enact a laundry list of demands, with many zeroing in on an issue with enormous economic implications: Raising the nation’s borrowing limit.

It’s an issue confronting House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy, who is rounding up the votes to win the House speaker race and facing pressure from some of his colleagues to more forcefully detail how he plans to handle the sensitive topic before they decide whether to support him on January 3 for the most powerful position in Congress.

In interviews with CNN, more than two dozen House GOP lawmakers laid out their demands to avoid the nation’s first-ever debt default, ranging from new immigration policies to imposing deep domestic spending cuts. And several Republicans flatly said they would oppose raising the borrowing limit even if all their demands were met, making McCarthy’s narrow path even narrower.

“I’m a no, no matter what,” Rep. Tim Burchett, a Tennessee Republican, said of raising the debt ceiling.

Despite Congress suspending the nation’s borrowing limit three times when Donald Trump was president, even under all-GOP control of Washington, lawmakers say it is highly uncertain how the matter will be dealt with in a divided Congress next year – reminiscent of the furious battles between House Republicans and Barack Obama’s White House that put the country on the brink of economic disaster.

For McCarthy, the debt ceiling debate will represent one of his most difficult balancing acts if he’s elected speaker: He would need to work with Senate Democrats and President Joe Biden to cut a deal and avoid economic catastrophe without angering his emboldened right flank for caving into the left. And unlike other bills in the GOP House that will die in the Democratic-led Senate, a debt ceiling increase is one of the few must-pass items awaiting the new Congress – something many Republicans see as critical leverage.

Some Republicans say it is incumbent upon McCarthy to spell out his strategy on the issue before they decide if they will support him in the speakership race – when the California Republican can only afford to lose four GOP votes. In one private meeting with a member of the House Freedom Caucus, McCarthy was urged to take a harder public stance on the coming policy issues for next year, according to a person familiar with the matter.

“Several (House Freedom Caucus) members have made spending a main issue,” one GOP lawmaker who has been critical of McCarthy told CNN.

Rep. Scott Perry, the leader of the hardline Freedom Caucus, confirmed it’s an issue that has been broached with McCarthy as he has been wooing members ahead of next month’s vote.

“Debt ceiling has been a conversation that has been perennial in every single conversation or meeting around here since I’ve been here,” the Pennsylvania Republican said in an interview.

But some moderate Republicans – whom McCarthy needs to protect in order to keep their fragile majority in 2024 – have expressed uneasiness over using the debt ceiling as a bargaining chip, risking both a catastrophic default and the political blame, especially if Republicans push for cuts to popular entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security. Republicans remember 2011 all too well when a proposal from then-Rep. Paul Ryan to overhaul Medicare became fodder for attacks that depicted him rolling an elderly lady in a wheelchair off a cliff.

“We shouldn’t put the United States in a position to default on our debt, clearly,” said Rep. Dusty Johnson, a South Dakota Republican. “But I also think every member of Congress needs to acknowledge that the $32 trillion debt is not in our national interest.”

Rep. Chuck Fleischmann of Tennessee said the debt ceiling increase is part of a discussion “we should have had a long time ago – to talk about some structural solutions.”

But he added: “I think the vast majority of responsible legislators realize this is money already spent and that we can never put the United States in a default position.”

Other Republicans, however, argue that the fears of going off the fiscal cliff are overblown.

“I don’t fear not raising the debt ceiling, because if we didn’t raise the debt ceiling, all that would mean we’d have to cut discretionary spending so we stop spending more than we’re taking in,” said Rep. Bob Good of Virginia, an anti-McCarthy Republican. “That’s a panic here in Washington because we’re so beholden to spending.”

Indiana Rep. Greg Pence added of raising the debt limit: “It’s a no.”

McCarthy told CNN in an interview before the midterm elections that he wouldn’t raise the borrowing limit without getting some sort of spending cuts in return, though he was light on specifics.

“If you’re going to give a person a higher limit, wouldn’t you first say you should change your behavior, so you just don’t keep raising and all the time?” McCarthy asked. “You shouldn’t just say, ‘Oh, I’m gonna let you keep spending money.’ No household should do that.”

Fears over a stalemate

Democrats had hoped to raise the debt ceiling in the current lame-duck session of Congress, but they’re running out of time and there’s little political will to do so since the borrowing limit won’t need to be raised until next year some time. The Treasury Department declined to comment when asked when the debt ceiling would need to be raised again, though Goldman Sachs indicated in an analysis that “funds could run dry as soon as July and as late as October.”

Before that point, the divided Congress will need to act, even as the White House has made clear its opposition to attaching strings to the debt ceiling hike – namely if it involves cuts to Medicare or Social Security.

“Telling the middle class out of the gate, before the new Congress has even begun, that working to override their will and hollow-out the benefits they have earned throughout their lives is a stone-cold nonstarter,” said White House spokesman Andrew Bates.

Still, conservatives, eager to use their newly found leverage, have already begun to outline what concessions they want from Democrats.

Rep. Jeff Duncan, a South Carolina Republican, wants to see cuts to both discretionary and mandatory spending, including entitlement programs such as Social Security and Medicare. But he said no one currently drawing benefits should be impacted, and that the structural reforms should be designed to make the programs more solvent for future generations.

“There are benefits – Social Security, Medicare, veterans’ benefits – that people paid into it or were promised,” Duncan said. “But there are other welfare programs in the Farm Bill, the nutrition title. All of that needs to be addressed. Because truly they’re the drivers of some of the spending.”

Even though debts spiked under Trump and Republicans raised few objections to rising deficits, Republicans say Biden’s push for more spending on his domestic priorities has forced them to toughen their demands ahead of the next debt limit increase.

“Border Security and getting rid of all the Covid spending that we don’t need,” said Rep. Byron Donalds, a Florida Republican, when asked about his demands for raising the debt ceiling.

Others were just as emphatic.

“Hell no,” Rep. Chip Roy of Texas said when asked if he’d support a clean debt ceiling hike without slashing discretionary programs at federal agencies and mandatory spending, which includes entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security.

“There’s a lot of fat and garbage that’s way off the mission that we can cut,” Roy said.

Good, a member of the House Freedom Caucus, wants Republicans to use their leverage in the debt ceiling fight to push for other policy changes. The Freedom Caucus, a band of roughly 40 Trump-aligned Republicans, is known for using hardball tactics on the House floor to pull legislation to the right – and McCarthy needs the support from nearly all of those members to win the speakership.

“There’s other things that we as Republicans should be fighting for as part of that, things like ending the vaccine mandate, securing the border, restoring Trump’s energy policies,” Good said.

But some Republicans have signaled there may be no scenario in which they’re willing to raise the nation’s borrowing limit.

“I’m not sure I’ve seen anything that’s going to be able to convince me to raise the debt ceiling,” said Rep. Andy Biggs, a former Freedom Caucus chief who is also opposing McCarthy for speaker. “This place does nothing but create mounting structural deficits that are huge, which in turn grows the national debt, and we don’t have a plan to bring it down. Why would we lift it again?”

That’s a proposition that has Democrats worried.

“McCarthy has said he may well use the debt limit as a leverage. That’s very high stakes to use debt limit, which would plunge us and the world economy into a tailspin,” said Rep. Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat and the outgoing House majority leader.

How McCarthy plans to approach the various looming fiscal showdowns next year has begun to factor into the speaker race. Last month, Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina pledged to oppose McCarthy on the floor, citing McCarthy’s refusal to support a seven-year balanced budget.

Norman was among a cross section of Republicans who recently met with McCarthy in his office to discuss a package of rules changes.

Rep. Kevin Hern of Oklahoma, the head of the conservative Republican Study Committee, said the group also talked about upcoming budget battles, “how to deal with the relationship with the Senate,” and “how to push bills out of the House of Representatives with the most conservative votes that we can possibly get.”

While the prospect of a high-stakes fiscal showdown has put members in both parties on edge, some Republicans believe cooler heads will prevail.

“Just the maximum,” said Rep. Joe Wilson of South Carolina, when asked what he wanted for a debt ceiling hike. “And I have faith in Kevin McCarthy that he will achieve it.”

Source: Edition.CNN

The post Kevin McCarthy faces debt-limit dilemma as House GOP ratchets up demands amid speaker bid appeared first on Policy Print.

It has been easy to point to Mr. Trump and his progeny nationally and locally and conclude that there is something wrong in American politics that has negatively affected us in Nevada. However, the Trump effect did not spring into existence in a vacuum. No, for the last few decades, there has been a vile cesspool of festering anger, fear, and distrust directed at the people, processes, and institutions of our fragile democracy.  

Some scholars in political science and applied psychology define this political phenomena as “cynicism.” It has become the default setting of our society. Indeed, we consider it astute and insightful when comedians, politicians, pastors, reporters, and political commentators sardonically pontificate on the news of the day. The quicker and more forceful the cynical take on current events, the more clicks, views, engagements, and other measures of influence and success achieve high ratings. Nowadays, it truly seems that first responses from pundits, politicians, and keyboard warriors on social media on any current event, policy, or question concerning politics is a cynical one. 

Cynicism has, in certain quarters, a distinct kind of glamor. It sounds tough not to have to have an optimistic attitude about the future in the face of adversity and to deride optimism as useless idealism. Cynics will tell you that everyone is selfish and weak and that ‘the system’ is rigged and driven by greed, and that there is nothing you can do to influence or change the system to create good outcomes that benefit people and society. And, if you try, you will be disappointed. 

Many politicians seem to be brokers of cynicism rather than leaders working to inspire the best out of us by articulating shared hopes and values. It is harder to obtain and keep power with a positive point of view about what we can do together to solve problems. But is this phenomena being driven by politicians or is it being driven by you and I – citizens and voters entrusted with the responsibility of electing good people and supporting policy choices that benefit all of us?

It seems to me that voters often reward the dishonest, the self-interested, the partisan, the incompetent actors in our political system by allowing them to manipulate our fears for political gain. We have the power to resist what is cynical and embrace a more optimistic view of who we are and what we want to become, but we seem to settle for a political identity driven by our favorite actors in the angertainment industry. 

Some might suggest that the Age of Trump emerged as the direct result of cynicism imposed upon us by both the political right and political left. Perhaps. Many assume that the political radicalization in recent years is a product of increased issue position polarization driven by activists on the left and the right, but this is not the best explanation according to some scholars who have looked at this issue. In “A Radical Vision of Radicalism: Political Cynicism, not Incrementally Stronger Partisan Positions, Explains Political Radicalization,” in Advances in Political Psychology, Alain Van Hiel, Jasper Van Assche, Tessa Haesevoets, David De Cremer, and Gordon Hodson (November 10, 2021), Van Hiel et al. challenge the “priority afforded to the idea that moderate people espouse ever more radical ideas because of issue position polarization, whereby more moderate left-wing adherents gradually become more and more attracted to radical left-wing parties and moderate right-wing supporters become ever more attracted to radical right-wing parties.” 

Instead, they argue that issue position polarization — the psychological process that makes like-minded people become more extreme, and because of this, also more similar — is not the best way to understand the rise in electoral support for radical people and their political parties. Rather, they point to “… decisive evidence that issue position polarization is not the major driving force behind “political polarization,” and argue that other mechanisms are likely in play, namely by those “rooted in political cynicism.” 

From this perspective, according to Van Hiel et al, the abyss between moderates and radicals rests upon whether  people wish “to be in the political system” at all. The authors then make the compelling argument that, “[p]olitical cynicism, which entails a profoundly negative attitude towards and lack of trust in the establishment, is a most relevant political attitude which divides moderates from radicals and populists.”

“Politically cynical people show low trust, and they generally have active, overt negative feelings towards and negative expectations about the intentions and actions of politicians. It is exactly because of the powerful negative emotions embedded in political cynicism that makes it particularly central in shaping political preferences.”

Our constitutional form of government provides a mirror of who we are and what we value every election cycle. So before we raise our voice in outrage over what we don’t like about those we elect, we should consider how our own biases, prejudices, fears, and anger have contributed to the results we have achieved together. If we don’t like the leaders we have nominated or elected, then the answer is not only to “vote the bum out,” but also to consider our own failure to hold ourselves accountable for positively engaging in our civic duties. 

This does not mean we will get everything we want from government or that we will always like the outcomes achieved through the political or legal processes established by law and Constitution. It does mean we will agree to play by common rules, engage in the process in good faith, and accept the results. If we don’t like the rules and processes or believe the rules are unfair and produce unjust results, then there is a process and procedure available to create change that requires the grievant to make a case, build a coalition, and propose a better alternative.

Inevitably, cynicism erodes perceptions of legitimacy in our institutions of government causing citizens to disregard the rule of law. Because democratic governments derive their authority from public support, a persistently high level of political cynicism threatens their credibility and legitimacy. But even if the legitimacy of the government is not at risk, a politically cynical climate has been shown to lead to a situation in which political leaders have a harder time solving societal problems (Chanley et al., 2000; Neustadt, 1990). As a result, leaders make weak decisions and fail to address controversial issues decisively (Hetherington, 1998; Porter, 2008). (Levels of political distrust and cynicism are high, as manifested in the startlingly high figure of not less than three-quarters of the electorate which nowadays says it does not trust the political process and the politicians participating in it

One of the causes of political cynicism is the overwhelming amount of information and misinformation available — and the inability to distinguish fact from fiction. Facts are now a matter of perspective and preference more than a thing that is known or can be objectively proved to be true. In the age of so-called “fake news,” not all of that information is reliable. Even for voters who are savvy enough to separate the good information from the bad, merely feeling as though they’ve been exposed to false information is enough to affect their attitudes about politics come Election Day, researchers have found.

Dam Hee Kim, an assistant professor in the Department of Communication at the University of Arizona’s College of Social and Behavioral Sciences, and Kate Kenski, a professor in the same department, co-authored a paper that looks at how perceived exposure to false information – also termed misinformation or disinformation – affects political cynicism. The paper, which they co-wrote with lead author S. Mo Jones-Jang of Boston College, is published in the journal New Media and Society. The researchers’ findings, based on survey data from the 2018 U.S. midterm elections, show that the more people believe they were exposed to disinformation in the two weeks prior to an election, the more cynical they feel about politics when it’s time to vote.

Americans have never been more cynical, according to several studies and surveys. For example, as Maggie Koerth pointed out on the site FiveThirtyEight, the American National Election Studies survey, which has tracked American opinion since 1948, the average trust score in 2016 was 17, the lowest ever recorded, and has continued to decline. Although these questions are about trust, they serve as a proxy for understanding cynicism. When cynicism goes up, trust goes down, and vice versa. Koerth also notes the same trend in other measures of trust, perdata collected by the Pew Research Center.

Based on the foregoing, I wonder, dear reader, whether we should blame our elected leaders and point our fingers at their failures and shortcomings in a storm of cynical vitriol as we try to make sense of why our political culture is so toxic and our political system for resolving our differences seems broken? Perhaps if we hold the mirror of democracy up to our own rhetoric and political activity in furtherance of what we believe and value, we would discover poisonous hallucinogenic cynicism has infected our perspectives, attitudes, and actions, which in turn have shaped our present political realities. With this wisdom in hand, we would then be compelled to seek an antidote to our cynicism that will bring a sober optimism to our body politic, one grounded in our shared identity as citizens of our great nation and state, our commitment to defending and upholding our Constitutional form of government, and our uncompromising respect for the rule of law. 

To be certain, there are liars, idiots, and corrupt individuals that should be opposed vigorously. There also are those with a hyper-partisan and cynical commitment to promoting conflict in society in order to gain and keep power. There also are bad policy decisions made by leaders that cause human suffering that should be debated and fixed. Moreover, even uncynical people are often driven by self-interested agendas that should be tempered by what is truly in the public interest.

Resisting cynicism does not require us to ignore facts and disregard truth. Indeed, there is no civil society without a shared understanding of facts and truths that are, as the Founding Fathers of our country put it, “self-evident.” But even in the face of sharp disagreements, we have built a resilient system of government that works to safeguard against the failings and shortcomings of human beings.

Though we may have cause not to trust one another for one reason or another, we should trust our system of government – all three branches – to do what they were designed to do to provide for our life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This is cause for great political optimism even in the face of what sometimes appears to be a hopelessly broken political culture.  

Source: The Nevada Independent

The post A cynic’s lament on political cynicism appeared first on Policy Print.