The Entire Trump Agenda Is at a Tipping Point–The Mess in US Senate and House


June 29, 2017

The Entire Trump Agenda Is at a Tipping Point–The Mess in US Senate and House

by Ryan Lizza*

http://www.newyorker.com/news/ryan-lizza/the-entire-trump-agenda-is-at-a-tipping-point

Image result for Trump and Mitch

Ryan, Trump and McConnell and the Legislative Mess they created in the House and Senate. I label them the Dysfunctional Trio –Din Merican

Earlier this month, a senior White House official deeply involved in enacting President Trump’s agenda on Capitol Hill laid out the Administration’s ideal legislative schedule for the rest of this year.

“Between now and the August recess, we’d like them to get health care done, we’d like them to get the debt ceiling done, we’d like them to start tackling the budget,” he told me. “So when they get back from the August recess, first or second week of September, we can throw a tax proposal down and, literally, we can do taxes for September, October, and November.”

The G.O.P. has adopted a major—even radical—agenda: transforming a massive sector of the economy, slashing taxes and rewriting the entire tax code, passing a budget that would dramatically reduce the size of government, and, in the middle of all of that, raising the debt limit. They have a plan to accomplish almost all of it before the end of the year, with minimal transparency, and without relying on a single Democratic vote. But if health-care reform goes down this summer, the rest of the plan may sink with it.

For obscure parliamentary reasons, Republicans can’t move on with the rest of their wish list until they pass the health-care bill. And those prospects are not looking good. On Tuesday, Mike Lee, of Utah, became the fifth Republican senator to say that he would vote against even bringing the health-care bill up for debate. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who announced, also on Tuesday, that he will delay the vote until after the July 4th recess, may yet broker a deal on health care, but if he fails to do so the legislative impact for Trump could be calamitous.

The parliamentary maneuver McConnell is using is called reconciliation. The process was created, in 1974, as a way to streamline the congressional budgeting process. It wasn’t intended to be used for major legislative changes. However, as partisan deadlock has grown, it has become an increasingly attractive legislative tool because it is protected from a filibuster in the Senate and therefore needs only fifty, rather than sixty, votes to pass. (Vice-President Mike Pence can cast a tie-breaking vote in both cases.)

Bill Clinton’s attempt at reforming health care was probably doomed the day that he decided not to use reconciliation. Obama passed his initial health-care bill through the Senate without using reconciliation, but he always kept it as a backup plan—and it turned out that he needed it. When he lost his sixty-vote majority in the Senate, Democrats used the process to pass a final package of tweaks to the bill.

This year, Republicans have been even more creative. They planned to use one reconciliation bill for health care and a separate one for the beast of tax reform. But one of the many arcane rules about the reconciliation process is that any new reconciliation bill cancels out the old one. “This is the first time anyone has tried to do this,” Stan Collender, a longtime budget expert who now works for the strategic-communications firm MSLGROUP, said. “You can only have one budget resolution in effect at a time. Their idea was to do health care and then move on to tax reform, but that strategy was based on doing health care quickly.”

If the Senate health-care bill dies and Republicans move on to tax reform, they will have an interesting choice to make: do they give up on health care and propose only a tax-reform bill? Or do they combine tax reform and health care into one monster bill, which would make passage even more daunting?

Some of these procedural issues might be overcome by a kind of nuclear option, whereby Republicans ignore or find a way to overrule the Senate parliamentarian who enforces the budget rules. But, however health care is resolved, the rest of the items on the Trump agenda consist of a series of fiendishly difficult political issues that divide Republicans. The budget, which must be resolved by October 1st, will pit congressional Republicans, who have decried the White House’s proposed budget, against Trump, who was so miffed about being ignored during the budget negotiations earlier this year that he tweeted, “Our country needs a good ‘shutdown’ in September to fix mess!” Republicans in the House are comfortable with defaulting on the debt, and the President himself has called for a shutdown. Things could quickly grow ugly.

Image result for us treasury secretary

DJT and his Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin-Getting the US Economy moving again?

In the middle of this drama, the White House wants to pass a comprehensive tax-reform bill. The last time Congress approved such a piece of legislation was in 1986, and it was the result of a lengthy and bipartisan process of hearings and horse-trading. So how are Republicans approaching tax reform this year? They are writing a bill in secret that they intend to pass using reconciliation. The group writing it, which calls itself the Big Six, consists of Steve Mnuchin, the Treasury Secretary; Gary Cohn, Trump’s top economic adviser; Representative Kevin Brady, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee; Orrin Hatch, the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee; House Speaker Paul Ryan; and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. There are no Democrats and no women involved, and there have been no hearings.

“We are all on the same page,” the senior White House official told me, referring to tax reform. “There’s going to be one tax bill and one tax bill only.”

Before a tax bill can move forward, Republicans will have to agree on health care—or abandon the issue. The health-care reconciliation package is a giant iceberg that needs to be cleared out of the way before Republicans can move forward with the rest of their agenda.

*Ryan Lizza is the Washington correspondent for The New Yorker, and also an on-air contributor for CNN. Before joining the magazine, in 2007, he was a political correspondent for The New Republic, from 1998 to 2007, and, before that, a correspondent for GQ and a contributing editor at New York. He has also written for the New York TimesWashington Monthly, and The Atlantic Monthly. Since 1998, he has covered most of the country’s major political stories, including the last four Presidential campaigns, and has written many political profiles for The New Yorker, on Barack ObamaHillary ClintonJoe BidenMitt RomneyJohn McCainPaul RyanEric CantorMichele BachmannDarrell IssaPeter OrszagLarry SummersRahm Emmanuel, and John Hickenlooper, among others. His awards include the 2012 National Press Club’s Hood Award for Diplomatic Correspondence, for his article “The Consequentialist,” and the White House Correspondents’ Association’s Aldo Beckman Memorial Award, for a series on Obama’s Presidency and reëlection campaign. His article “Making It” was a 2009 National Magazine Award finalist, and his 2010 article “As the World Burns” received honorable mentions from the Toner Prize for Excellence in Political Reporting and the National Press Foundation Dirksen Award for Distinguished Reporting of Congress.

Reading List: Ryan Lizza recommends “Trump Solo,” Mark Singer’s 1997 profile of Donald Trump.

Watch: Ryan Lizza discusses campaign politics and the future of the G.O.P. on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show.”

A blinkered Fiscal Vision-There is no such thing as a free lunch, Mr. Trump


Match 7, 2017

Donald Trump may have veered from self-inflicted crisis to self-inflicted crisis over the course of his young presidency, but he has kept one policy goal steadily before him: tax cuts for the wealthy. A case in point is his recent proposal to find $54 billion more for military spending by slashing Head Start, food aid for low-income pregnant women, environmental protection and other programs. Those trade-offs are bad enough in themselves. But they also reveal a ruinous worldview in which nondefense spending is always excessive and tax cuts are necessary for growth. This sort of thinking will only weaken the economy and betray the people who put their hopes in Mr. Trump.

Spending on the nonmilitary discretionary programs that have been targeted by Mr. Trump comes to 3.2 percent of the economy — well below the average of 3.8 percent going back to 1962. By calling for cuts that would average about 15 percent in almost every category other than defense and “mandatory” programs like Social Security and Medicare, Mr. Trump would undermine his promises to make sure “every child in America has access to a good education,” to help the “poorest and most vulnerable” and to rebuild infrastructure. Other categories at risk of being cut include scientific and medical research, job training, national parks, air traffic control and maintenance of dams.

Worse yet, some Republicans may call for limiting Mr. Trump’s proposed reductions by cutting instead from Social Security and Medicare, which Mr. Trump has pledged to protect. That would be needlessly tightfisted. A rich nation with a resilient economy can afford to care for both the poor and the elderly. Besides, support for the elderly is already becoming stingier as a result of changes instituted years ago, including an increase in the Social Security retirement age from 65 in 2002 to 67 by 2027.

That is not to imply that all spending cuts are off limits. But it’s sensible to mix them with tax increases. The approach of Mr. Trump and congressional Republicans would deeply cut taxes even as spending is slashed.

Mr. Trump has essentially called for three tax cuts: a personal income tax cut, a corporate income tax cut and a cut achieved by repealing the Affordable Care Act. Specifics are scant, but one thing is clear: All three would overwhelmingly benefit the wealthiest Americans. A campaign draft of the income tax plan indicated that at least half of the proposed multitrillion-dollar tax cut would flow to the top 1 percent of earners in 2025, according to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center. Repealing the A.C.A. would end the additional 0.9 percent Medicare Hospital Tax on incomes above $200,000 ($250,000 for married couples).

Image result for trump's fiscal policy plan
Donald Trump is a bold conservative. But he’s not just a conservative on fiscal issues… He is a foreign policy conservative, too! That’s why  on MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Donald Trump explained his plan to do what President Barack Obama is unable to do: Destroy the Islamic State (ISIS). But make sure that these mentally deranged Islamic fanatics don’t screw  you first like they did to George W. Bush on September 9, 2011

Mr. Trump and Republican lawmakers say tax cuts spread prosperity by generating economic growth and thus increasing federal revenue — a thoroughly debunked claim. Experience shows that large tax cuts either deepen the nation’s debt or necessitate spending cuts. Forecasts from the Congressional Budget Office indicate that if tax revenue is not increased in the coming decade, spending cuts of $3 trillion — or about 25 percent outside of Social Security and Medicare — will be required to keep the debt at its current level of 77.5 percent of the economy. Clearly, if defense spending rises in the coming decade, as Mr. Trump has called for, while tax revenue declines, either the debt will rise or spending cuts will need to be even deeper.

Both outcomes can be avoided by abandoning deep tax cuts. It would be wise to take on new debt for stimulus during economic downturns or for infrastructure investments, but not to finance tax cuts during a military buildup. Economic activity could be encouraged by bolstering wages, including federal overtime protections. Tax revenue could be raised in constructive ways, including a carbon tax.

Giving the wealthy never-ending tax cuts while gutting programs for the middle class would create more of the resentment and inequality Mr. Trump has promised to address.

Fiscal Deficit and Fiscal Reform in Japan


September 13, 2016

Asia Pacific Bulletin

Number 351 | September 13, 2016
ANALYSIS

Fiscal Deficit and Fiscal Reform in Japan

by Taro Ohno

Over the past few decades, Japan has experienced a number of changes in its social and economic circumstances as its population has been aging, its birth rate has been falling, and its economic growth rate has been declining. These changes all affect central government finances: they encourage increased expenditures (especially with regard to social insurance benefits) and decrease tax revenues, thereby increasing the fiscal deficit.

Image result for Shintaro Abe

The key turning point for central government finance came around 1990 when the economic bubble burst, and since that time Japan has been grappling with the issue of fiscal reform. The first attempt to deal with the fiscal deficit was a set of fiscal reforms introduced in 1997, the goal of which was to reduce the deficit by 2003. However, this effort proved ineffective because of the domestic financial crisis that started in 1997. The second attempt came in 2006, when the government set a policy target that sought to shift the primary budget balance to a surplus by 2011. However, this target was deferred in 2008 as a result of the recession. The most recent attempt was the setting of a new policy target in 2010 to eliminate the deficit and create a surplus by 2020. Currently, the Abe cabinet is continuing to pursue that target. It raised the consumption tax rate to 8 percent in 2014 and will raise it to 10 percent in 2019 to achieve this goal. However, these reforms alone are insufficient.

The major contributor to the current negative fiscal situation is the increasing cost of social insurance, and given the country’s aging population, that trend will continue. The current fiscal reform will not be able to achieve its target by relying only on restraining the costs of social insurance, and so a further tax hike is unavoidable.

What kind of tax policy, then, would be most effective? In Japan, current fiscal policy over emphasizes inter-generational redistribution, which places a heavy burden on the younger generation to fund the benefits of social insurance for the elderly generation. In addition, the burden on the younger generation is already heavy due to pension insurance premiums. Therefore, because an income tax has the disadvantage of the burden falling predominantly on those who are younger, an income tax hike is not a feasible approach. What is desired is that both young and old alike bear the burden. A consumption tax has the advantage that the burden falls on all age groups, making it a more feasible approach. However, it also poses a problem. Namely, the consumption tax burden on lower-income households is heavier than that for higher-income households on a point-in-time basis, as the ratio of tax burden to income is disproportionate. A consumption tax is “regressive,” meaning that some measures for low-income households would be necessary.

A lower consumption tax burden on higher-income households exists because of their high savings rate. As a household’s ratio of savings to income increases, its ratio of consumption to income decreases. This in turn lowers the ratio of consumption tax burden to income. However, a household will spend down its savings in the future, and thus will eventually bear the consumption tax burden on that spending. In other words, savings only has the effect of changing the timing of consumption; it does not relieve the tax burden entirely. Therefore, it is also necessary to evaluate the tax burden on a lifetime basis. Based on the author’s estimates (Ohno et al. 2014), the consumption tax burden of higher-income households is heavier than that for lower-income households. This implies that the consumption tax is in fact “progressive.” This would imply that any measures for low-income households might be adequate if applied only to the younger age brackets.

The current policy debate in Japan emphasizes the results on a point-in-time basis. This leads to the conclusion that some measures need to be taken to protect low-income households. Several such measures exist as options. First is a reduced consumption tax rate for necessities, such as food. Second is a benefit given only to low-income households — for example cash benefits or an earned income tax credit. In September 2015, Japan’s Ministry of Finance proposed a plan for low-income households that included a combination of the reduced tax rate on food and a tax refund. Each individual’s consumption information would be recorded through a unified electronic card called the “My Number Card,” which is similar to a social security card in the United States. Low-income households could apply for a tax refund equal to the amount of the tax cut for food expenditures at the end of the fiscal year. The public, however, reacted negatively and criticized the plan for the complexity of the system and voiced concerns about the security of the identity card. The public prefers a reduced rate for the consumption tax on food rather than the plan proposed by the Ministry of Finance because it is a simpler system and free from worry about the security of personal information in the unified electronic card. As a result, the government decided to raise the general consumption tax rate to 10 percent while at the same time adopting a reduced tax rate for food. However, the reduced tax rate for food is not an optimally effective policy because higher-income households are benefiting as well.

“Given the current situation in Japan, where a further tax hike is unavoidable, a consumption tax hike is a better option than an income tax hike.”

Barring any sudden drastic changes in the country’s birth rate or immigration policy, Japan will continue to face daunting fiscal challenges in the years ahead, and thus finding the most effective and equitable fiscal policy should be a top priority for the Japanese government. We can conclude that a further consumption tax hike is desirable. Given the current situation in Japan, where a further tax hike is unavoidable, a consumption tax hike is a better option than an income tax hike. However, the policy debates in Japan today seem to emphasize the results only on a point-in-time basis. In designing the optimal policy, it is important to evaluate the current tax system not only on a point-in-time basis but also on a lifetime basis. Finally, the reduced consumption tax rate for food needs to be reconsidered. While the public prefers the reduced tax rate, this policy is less effective in terms of being a measure for lower-income households.

About the Author

Taro Ohno is an Associate Professor in the Faculty of Economics and Law at Shinshu University, Japan. He can be reached at taro_ohno@shinshu-u.ac.jp.

The East-West Center promotes better relations and understanding among the people and nations of the United States, Asia, and the Pacific through cooperative study, research, and dialogue.

Established by the US Congress in 1960, the Center serves as a resource for information and analysis on critical issues of common concern, bringing people together to exchange views, build expertise, and develop policy options.

The Asia Pacific Bulletin (APB) series is produced by the East-West Center in Washington.

APB Series Editor: Dr. Satu Limaye, Director, East-West Center in Washington
APB Series Coordinator: Alex Forster, Project Assistant, East-West Center in Washington

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the policy or position of the East-West Center or any organization with which the author is affiliated.

For comments/responses on APB issues or article submissions, please contact washington@eastwestcenter.org.

East-West Center | 1601 East-West Road | Honolulu, HI | 808.944.7111
East-West Center in Washington | 1819 L Street, NW, Suite 600 | Washington, DC | 202.293.3995

East-West Center in Washington, 1819 L Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20036

Malaysian Prime Minister reacts to BREXIT Decision


New York

June 24, 2016

Malaysian Prime Minister reacts to BREXIT Decision

by Najib Razak

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com

UK voters have spoken. As democrats, we must respect the result. We wish our British friends well in the new future they have chosen.

The step the UK has taken is historic and unprecedented. The future cannot be predicted, although a period of volatility in financial markets is to be expected as the ramifications of the result are understood and as the UK’s exit is negotiated.

We will monitor developments closely and remain vigilant to any emerging economic risks. However, we do not expect a major impact on the Malaysian economy.

With our sound fundamentals, diversified economic structure and ample liquidity in our financial markets, Malaysia is well positioned to face any volatility. I am confident that we will be able to weather this period of uncertainty. The government will also continue to strengthen the economy and further our fiscal reforms.–Prime Minister Najib Razak

With our sound fundamentals, diversified economic structure and ample liquidity in our financial markets, Malaysia is well positioned to face any volatility. I am confident that we will be able to weather this period of uncertainty. The government will also continue to strengthen the economy and further our fiscal reforms.

 We regard the UK as an important partner in all areas, including trade, investment, defence, education and tourism.For example, trade between us has been growing, with British companies such as Rolls Royce, Dyson and BAE Systems increasing their footprint in Malaysia, and Malaysian companies driving the redevelopment of one of London’s greatest landmarks, Battersea Power Station.

But our economic exposure to the UK is limited, as it is not among Malaysia’s top 10 trading partners and only accounts for about 1% of our total trade. We should increase this, and there may be an opportunity to do so now if the UK reaches out to strategically important nations beyond the EU.

Whatever comes to pass, I am confident that the Malaysia-UK relationship will be maintained and strengthened.We are both outward-facing nations, with a diversity of faiths and cultures and strong traditions of moderation and cooperation.

Bound by deep ties of shared history, friendship and trade, our peoples fought alongside each other in the Second World War and during the insurgency in what was then Malaya.We are firm allies in the fight against violent extremism, a scourge which affects us all. We must remain united in that long-term effort.

On a personal note, I have had an excellent working relationship with David Cameron. I am sad to see him depart as Prime Minister, although I respect his principled reasons for resigning. I look forward to working with his successor.

There will be testing times ahead for the UK. But the British people should know that one old friend will always be with them as they open a new chapter in their long history.

 

Heroic Zunar lampoons the Goons, Buffoons and Loony-Tun


November 22, 2015

Cartoonist Zunar lampoons the Goons, Buffoons and Loony-Tun

by Dean Johns

http://www.malaysiakini.com

As I wrote in a column in May last year entitled ‘Zunar zaps the zombies’, there are few if any people I admire more than Zulkifly Anwar Haque aka Zunar, who for years has used his cartoons to lampoon the platoons of goons, buffoons and loony-tunes, not to mention the loony-Tuns, who have long been running – and ruining – Malaysia.

He’s one of the pitifully few heroes in the struggle against the zanies, zealots, xenophobes and moral and ethical zombies of the zalim Barisan Nasional regime, and a shining, shaming example to the millions of Malaysians who remain too lazy, dozy, cosy or just plain gutless to take a stand against the ruin of the country they claim to love by a gang of lying, criminal zeroes.

But, as Zunar reminded us in his appearances in person and interviews on radio and TV during his flying visit to Sydney, UMNO-BN appears to be increasingly becoming one of its own worst enemies by racking-up such an astonishing string of zeroes as to amaze and appall not just formerly dozy Malaysians, but also to attract the opprobrium of the whole wide world.

Khairy Jamaluddin’s Malaysia Boleh National Soccer Team

Everywhere you look these days, from the RM2,600,000,000 that passed through Prime Minister Najib Abdul Razak’s personal bank account and the ongoing fiasco of the RM42 billion 1MDB fraud to the Malaysian football team’s 6-0, 10-0 and now 6-0 again thrashings by such low-level opponents as Palestine and the UAE in World Cup qualifying matches, UMNO-BN is scoring zeroes.

But the human zeroes responsible for such catastrophes are responding to them by doing…nothing. Nada, zip, or to once again repeat our theme here, zero. There is zero sign that Najib intends to ever come clean about either his personal banking transactions or the billions missing from 1MDB.

And similarly zero sign that Youth and Sports Minister in Najib’s alleged ‘government’, Khairy Jamaluddin, intends to take the slightest responsibility for the disgraceful state of affairs in his department.

It is also clear that there is zero chance that any of the other zeroes infesting and supporting the zombie UMNO-BN regime will do anything but absolute zero about getting rid of Najib, Khairy or any of their other partners in crime and incompetence, as they are all without exception either willing accomplices in or accessories to whatever dirty deeds one or more of them commit.

All of which explains why, of course, they have zero tolerance for not only Zunar’s books of cartoons, but also for leaving him at liberty to produce them. As countless formerly UMNO BN-unaware Australians have been outraged to learn this past week, this most talented and persistent of patriots is facing a raft of charges that could earn him about 45 years in jail!

But Zunar himself is undaunted, declaring to the many audiences he addressed this past week that he has no plans to seek refuge from regime repression and retribution in some cartoon-friendly foreign country, but to stay in Malaysia and keep demonstrating his philosophy that ‘even my pen has a stand’.

Ridiculing them right out of power

But, far from seeing himself as a hero against the zeroes, this most modest, unassuming and softly-spoken of men simply considers it his duty as a Malaysian citizen to use his cartooning talents to combat the criminal regime by what he considers the most effective possible means, which is to ridicule them right out of power.

He also hopes to inspire other Malaysians to do whatever they can think of to join him and his fellow opponents of the lying, thieving regime to do however much or little they can to zap the UMNO-BN zeroes. And in this regard he says he is tremendously heartened by the fact that the younger generation of Malaysians of all races and creeds seem to be increasingly demonstrating zero-tolerance of the regime.

Najib Tipu Melayu

King of the Goons

Certainly more and more Malaysians are joining him in seeing Najib and the gang as a laughing-stock, as evidenced by over a million ‘likes’ on social media for one of his most recent cartoons.

And his latest banned book is bound to win him floods more fans. Of course there’s no space here to take you through the entire 128 pages of this hilarious collection, but the cover itself says volumes.

In illustration of the book’s title, ‘Sapuman, Man of Steal’, the cover shows Najib flying along with a bundle labelled ‘RM2.6 billion’ in one hand, and the bat-infested ‘Putar Jaya’ building down below. And of course the drawing also features Zunar’s trademark sketches of a diamond ring, a crone-like creature with a big hairdo with a RM1,200 price-tag and an idiot in police uniform going ‘twit, twit’ on his smartphone.

And in added emphasis of the core message of the cover, the book is priced at RM26 to further symbolise the RM2.6 billion that Sapuman, the super-zero, has been revealed as having received in his personal bank account.

But as fiendishly funny as ‘Sapuman, Man of Steal’ most certainly is, it is far from Zunar’s intention to simply sell lots of copies, get lots of laughs and make himself a hero.

What keeps him drawing cartoons making fun of UMNO-BN hoons, goons and buffoons is the thought that by his efforts he’s helping inspire as many other Malaysians as possible to realise that, if only they can be awakened from their snooze, they can all be heroes in the fight against the zeroes.


DEAN JOHNS, after many years in Asia, currently lives with his Malaysian-born wife and daughter in Sydney, where he coaches and mentors writers and authors and practises as a writing therapist. Published books of his columns for Malaysiakini include ‘Mad about Malaysia’, ‘Even Madder about Malaysia’, ‘Missing Malaysia’, ‘1Malaysia.con’ and ‘Malaysia Mania’.

 

MALAYSIA–Parliamentary Approval for 2016 People’s Budget


November 17, 2015

COMMENT: The fight for change continues. The much anticipateddin-merican-and-dr-kamsiah1 move to reject Malaysia’s 2016 Budget did not materialise since the Opposition failed to garner biparisan support to defeat it. 128 votes in favour of it were convincing enough and our country is spared a fiscal crisis. It is  relief that our government can continue to function with money approved for its programmes in 2016.

While I have been critical of the Prime Minister’s misdemeanors, especially the USD 700 million that went into his personal bank, his lack of transparency and accountability on 1MDB, and his lavish spending ways, I am never comfortable at the prospect of our public administration and security services (defense and police) grinding to a halt at a time of global terrorism just because a disgruntled opposition is trying to use us Malaysians as pawns in their desire to cause the collapse of an elected government.

My message to our Prime Minister cum Finance Minister is that he must be be prudent and smart in spending our taxes. May I also remind him that every tax dollar spent must produce a satisfactory rate of return which is equal to the cost of our sovereign debt. Otherwise, we as citizens will be burdened with  more taxes. That is Fiscal 101 and pure common sense.

Confidence in our Prime Minister’s leadership may not return any time soon. However, if he comes clean on the 1MDB financial scandal, ceases using draconian laws against his critics and stops playing race and religion for his political ends by pandering to racist pressure  groups and religious extremists within and outside UMNO, there is a possibility for the ringgit to bounce back and for much-needed capital inflows to return. –Din Merican

MALAYSIA–Parliamentary Approval for 2016 People’s Budget

by Arfa Yunus

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com

MOF Najib Razak

Prime Minister Najib Razak may still have the support of Barisan Nasional (BN) lawmakers, evident from the success of the vote on Budget 2016 last night, says UMNO veteran Tengku Razaleigh Hamzah.

He said he himself, voted for Budget 2016 to go through despite talks of him being part of a movement to bring Najib down.Tengku Razaleigh, speaking to reporters at the Parliament lobby here today, said that he had voted in favour of the Budget as he “believed in the government’s plan for the year.”

He, however, was coy when asked if his vote meant that he also supported Najib as the nation’s Prime Minister.“No, that means we support the government programme for the (next) year (as) it was presented by the Minister of Finance, who is also the Prime Minister,” said the Gua Musang Member of Parliament.

“Why these questions? You decide for yourself ok,” he added, refusing to comment further. The UMNO veteran has been linked to a group allegedly led by former Prime Minister Dr Mahathir Mohamad, who aims to have Najib removed from his top post.

Budget 2016 passed the policy stage last night after successfully garnering 128 votes. All BN legislators present, including former Deputy Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin voted in favour of it.

This came as a surprise to most as both Razaleigh and Muhyiddin were rumoured to be on the list of seven UMNO leaders currently under the party’s watch for openly criticising Najib.