Monthly Archives: September 2024

Internal Contradiction

Posted on by
Reply

Or a tacit admission. Vermont’s Independent Senator Bernie Sanders is making one or the other, or maybe both. And so is Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris, through her studied silence.

Kristen Welker, of NBC‘s “Meet the Press,” put a question to Sanders:

She [Harris] has previously supported Medicare-For-All, now she does not. She’s previously supported a ban on fracking, now she does not. These, senator, are ideas that you have campaigned on. Do you think she is abandoning her progressive ideals?

Sanders’ answer:

No, I don’t think she’s abandoning her ideals. I think she’s trying to be pragmatic and doing what she thinks is right in order to win the election.

Harris, then, is for the things she’s now publicly deviating from or is publicly silent on, contradicting herself. Or, she’s hiding her true positions from us American voters because she knows we disapprove of them and would vote her down if we knew where she stood. That’s her admission that her policy preferences are failures.

Either way, count on Harris to push those progressive policies, inflict them on us to our and our nation’s severe detriment, if she’s elected this fall, or at any other Presidential election cycle.

What She Said Then, What She Says Now

Posted on by
1

News outlet writers are starting to object, however mildly, to Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris’ reluctance to do interviews and news conferences. Harris did do the one interview recently, with a friendly interviewer and while accompanied by her Comfort Running Mate, but that’s it. The press does have a beef about her apparent fear of sitting for unscripted interviews with objective interviewers—and doing them frequently and alone—and to have unscripted, free-wheeling news conferences of some duration and frequency where she wouldn’t know the questions in advance.

The press, though, couches their objections in the premise that without these interviews and news conferences, they won’t know what her platform is or what policies she intends to push were she elected.

Those of us outside the press, us less credulous average Americans, do know what her platform and policies are—Harris has told us quite clearly over the last several years, right up to mid-2024 when she supplanted Joe Biden as Party’s candidate.

Here is her platform made manifest, from what she has said and what she’s saying now, even if her remarks today are scattered about, and her remarks yesterday are being busily ignored by those same news outlet writers.

What She Said Then What She Says Now
There’s no question I’m in favor of banning fracking. I made that clear on the debate stage in 2020 that I would not ban fracking, as vice president I did not ban fracking, as president I will not ban fracking
“an undocumented immigrant is not a criminal”
And: once pledged to close all privately-run immigration detention centers “on day one” during her first presidential campaign		 Harris’ campaign manager: “I think at this point, you know, the policies that are, you know, having a real impact on ensuring that we have security and order at our border are policies that will continue”
January 2017 criticized t Obama’s refusal to veto a UN Security Council resolution on Israeli settlements. Israel has a right to defend itself, and how it does so matters.
I also expressed with the prime minister my serious concern about the scale of human suffering in Gaza…the images of dead children and desperate, hungry people fleeing for safety, sometimes displaced for the second, third, or fourth time.  We cannot look away in the face of these tragedies [not set at the feet of Hamas].
What She Said Then What She Still Says
Tax each stock and bond trade
Roll back 2017 tax cuts
Raise capital gains tax rates at the same rates as ordinary income		 Raise corporate taxes
Tax unrealized capital gains
4% “income-based premium” on households making more than $100,000 annually to pay for her version of “Medicare for All”
$10 trillion in public and private spending over 10 years to create millions of jobs and reduce greenhouse gas emissions		 Expand child tax credit and Earned Income Tax Credit, to be paid for by “there’s a great return on investment.”
Spending $25,000 via “tax credit” to cover the down payment costs for “first-time home buyers”

Do we believe her when she was saying what she believed, or do we believe her foxhole conversions of convenience today? I suggest, on the other hand, that where her positions today are substantially of those from yesterday, we certainly can take her at her word, and these are part of her clearly stated platform, also.

Here’s a Thought

Posted on by
Reply

The article opens with this subheadline and lede:

There might be better ways to help low-income families than vastly expanding the child tax credit
The child tax credit is one of the few government entitlements that both political parties want to make more generous.

The problem with the child tax credit, though, is that rewards folks for not working—the credit is fully refundable, meaning that families get the full handout credit even if their income is lower than the credit.

My thought is this: switch to a low, flat income tax rate regardless of the source of income. That will leave more money in the hands of all American citizens—more than just the credit’s value—it’ll leave that money in our hands throughout the year, instead of our having to struggle through all twelve of the months of the current year, plus tax time, in order to get the money back in the following year (only a fraction of the credit is handed out in installments).

And it’ll encourage getting more work, or at the least reduce the government’s handout-induced discouragement of work, by leaving that erstwhile tax money in the hands of folks who work and pay taxes. Further, that erstwhile tax money already is coordinated [sic] with income; there’s no need to play games with indexing.

The problem with that, though, is strictly political. The move directly challenges the Progressive-Democratic Party’s addiction to constantly raising taxes. The move also would greatly reduce Party’s ability to curry favor and buy votes with credits and circuses’ handouts.

She Contradicts Herself

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrat Vice President and Party Presidential candidate Kamala Harris does this with some regularity. Here’s her latest self-contradiction:

If you earn a million dollars a year or more, the tax rate on your long-term capital gains will be 28% under my plan, because we know when the government encourages investment, it leads to broad based economic growth[.]

Capital gains are the stuff of investment, both its goal and the source of funds for further investment as well as for initial investment in different directions.

Thus: Harris would “encourage” investment by taking investment funds away from investors via her higher taxes.

That’s some investment encouragement.

Wise Up?

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Holman Jenkins says our press needs to do regarding Russian propaganda. The headline and subhead give the gist of his plea:

Media Needs to Wise Up about Russian Propaganda
If the press wants to be an antidote and not a tool, take a closer look at the motives at work.

On what basis does Jenkins think our press isn’t already wise and doing the things which dismay him so much on purpose? He even closed is missive with this [emphasis added]:

In our new era of active disinformation, the deliberate propaganda efforts of, say, the US government, deliberately transmitted by an unanalytical domestic press, will have an almost infinitely larger effect on public attitudes than anonymous dribblings governments secrete on the internet via social-media posts.

Our press knows full well what it is doing; it is already wised up—its support for any disinformation that’s convenient to its own narrative is deep and broad. And that includes focusing on Vladimir Putin’s election interferences, such as they are, as distractions from our press’ own far more massive election interferences (to which Jenkins does grudgingly allude) with its spiking of inconvenient stories and pushing convenient ones.