Tag Archives: jobs

Lies of Progressive-Democrats

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s another example.

Colorado’s Office of Economic Development and International Trade, plans to hand out Wuhan Virus relief funds (which the State styles “COVID-19” relief funds) to businesses based on the race of the business’ owners. Stephen Collins, Resort Meeting Source owner and represented by the Pacific Legal Foundation, is suing the State over that.

Federal Judge William Martinez issued a temporary restraining order barring the OEDIT from acting on the discriminatory release of funds pending final adjudication of the matter in his court.

[H]e found that Collins was likely to prevail in the lawsuit because the Colorado law at issue “expressly requires OEDIT to prioritize minority-owned businesses in distributing grants under the Disproportionately Impacted Business Grant Program” and because “the process for qualifying as a disproportionately impacted business differs for minority-owned and non-minority-owned businesses.”

The lie(s):

OEDIT…forward[ed] two legal documents to Fox News. The office filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit on Wednesday, claiming that “race played no role in OEDIT’s funding decisions.”
OEDIT also filed a declaration from Michael Landes, director of OEDIT’s Opportunity Zone Program. Landes claimed that racial preferences will only come into account after all other criteria have been adjudicated.

[R]ace played no role—OEDIT is calling the judge a liar, or OEDIT is violating the State’s law requiring exactly that.

[R]acial preferences will only come into account after….  Landes calls himself a liar: either race played no role or it played a role after all other criteria. Landes calls himself a liar a second time: racial preferences will only come into account after—either racial preferences are being acted on, or they are not. When they’re being acted on doesn’t matter.

Dismissive Disingenuousness

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that some Alaskan-harvested fish, 26 million pounds of them, had been stranded in eastern Canada, just a few hundred yards from American fish-processing plants, because President Joe Biden’s (D) Customs and Border Protection managers threatened $41 million in penalties on fish handlers if those fish moved down a 100 yard railroad line into Maine, as the Jones Act explicitly allows.

Biden’s CBP managers decided that those 100 yards didn’t satisfy the Act (or Biden’s and those managers’ whims) after decades of the ride having been entirely satisfactory.

Federal Judge Sharon Gleason issued a temporary injunction against those and any further CBP penalties, allowing the fish to move.

What’s telling about this incident, though, is this statement that the Biden-Harris administration argued in court [emphasis added]:

…an injunction wasn’t needed, because food supply chains had already begun to adjust. “Within days of CBP issuing notices of penalties in this matter the movement of Russian-origin frozen seafood from the Bayside facility began.”

Maybe this isn’t dismissiveness or disingenuousness. Maybe it’s more of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s collusion with Russia.

A Hint

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrats appear to be losing votes in heretofore Progressive-Democrat-safe States.

21st Century Democrats looked at voting patterns throughout the rural Midwest (the heart of flyover country) over the last three Presidential elections. Aside from the expected shift to the right that the PAC saw in agricultural communities, the PAC found a much sharper shift, not just toward the right, but away from the Progressive-Democrats (my term) in rural manufacturing communities.

In the 565 factory town counties (small or midsize manufacturing), 19 had Democratic growth and 537 had GOP growth.

This outcome turns out to be closely tied to job availability and manufacturing facility existence.

In the small to midsize factory town counties…where support for the Republican presidential nominee grew between 2012 and 2020, more than 70% suffered declines in manufacturing jobs.

There’s a hint there regarding the current Biden-Harris administration’s job-destroying regulatory, spending, and taxing policies and its spend- and tax-a-thon reconciliation bill they’re about to pass.

There’s also a hint there for Republicans and about what they need to talk as they campaign in 2022 and 2024 and the outyears.

Worrying about the Wrong Time Frame

Posted on by
Reply

A Wall Street Journal opinion piece subheadline well summarizes the piece itself:

the Speaker pushes Democrats to take votes that will end careers in 2022

The WSJ‘s Editors write this as if they take the matter seriously. But they, and far too many others who also should know better, are taking far too short a view.

“Career ending” votes were taken in favor of Obamacare, too. Obamacare survives, and here is the Progressive-Democratic Party back in power.

So it will be with the Progressive-Democrat reconciliation bill and the pre-amendment to it that is the “infrastructure” bill. A few Progressive-Democrats might lose their seats as they vote to force passage, but these two destructive bills will live on.

And, dangerously, the Progressive-Democratic Party will recover.

This is Backwards

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal article on the difficulty of estimating ridership on roads and highways to be built in the future and so the need for them, and the poor allocations of costs and Federal dollars that result from the inaccuracies, there was this statement.

If lawmakers enact the $550 billion bipartisan infrastructure bill now before the House, state and local officials will have to decide which projects to spend money on.

This is backwards. State and local officials should have to decide first what infrastructure projects they want to complete, their cost, their priority, and have contracts already let contingent on receiving Federal dollars before Congress contemplates an infrastructure bill that would send taxpayer money to any of those States.

Those are critical first steps in getting to shovel-ready jobs to which to commit funds.