Tag Archives: political economy

Another Example…

Posted on by
Reply

…of the racist and sexist bigotry of the Biden administration.

The Biden administration’s Department of Agriculture has begun making disaster relief funding contingent on the race and sex of the disaster sufferer.

[T]he Biden administration has taken roughly $25 billion in disaster and pandemic aid approved by Congress for farmers in eight programs and devised a system to make awards based on race, gender, or other “socially disadvantaged” traits.

Texas farmers have filed suit to block this USDA move, noting that the

USDA does this by first defining farmers who are black/African-American, American Indian, Alaskan native, Hispanic, Asian-American, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, or a woman as “socially disadvantaged.” Then, it provides farmers who qualify as socially disadvantaged more money for the same loss than those it deems non-underserved, along with other preferential treatment[.]

An unbigoted Biden administration never would have done this in the first place. The farmer’s lawsuit shouldn’t be necessary, and it wouldn’t be, absent this administration’s naked racism and sexism.

Again, I Ask

Posted on by
Reply

The subheadline of a Wall Street Journal editorial concerning Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s pushing Ukraine to stop hitting inside Russia, particularly Russia’s oil refineries, says it al.

The White House fears attacks on refineries inside Russia could raise global prices.

In the body of the editorial:

…the Biden Administration had urged Ukraine to halt its campaign targeting Russian refineries and warned that “the drone strikes risk driving up global oil prices and provoking retaliation.”

That’s Biden’s tacit admission of two things: the currently in place oil sanctions against Russia aren’t working—else Ukraine’s successes would severely impact Putin’s ability to get fuel to his barbarians inside Ukraine, which we should be able to expect even Biden to consider good, but those successes would have no effect on oil prices outside Russia.

The other Biden admission is that he doesn’t want the sanctions to work.

Again I ask: whose side is Biden on?

Market Imperatives

Posted on by
Reply

Ford has said that it will delay the rollout of its wholly battery-powered three-row electric vehicles, its new model SUVs, from 2025 to 2027. That’s not because of development or production problems, either.

The additional time will allow for the consumer market for three-row EVs to further develop and enable Ford to take advantage of emerging battery technology, with the goal to provide customers increased durability and better value.

“Allowing the consumer market to develop further”—in other words, consumers don’t want these battery SUVs, and Ford isn’t intent on producing and not selling them, until customers actually want them. Which they don’t, never minding Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg’s æther-borne claim to the contrary.

Those silly consumers—they just don’t know what’s good for them.

Yet Another Misapprehension

Posted on by
Reply

…by the Left in its favoring of and dependency on Government. This one concerns what passes for education in our public schools and is written openly by a Letter writer in The Wall Street Journal‘s Tuesday Letters section.

The letter writer opines that since everything else is free in those schools, so should lunches be free.

We have long provided free books and transportation for schoolchildren, regardless of their parents’ income.

No, we never have. Those books and transportation means were, and are, paid for with our tax money.

We are responsible for students’ welfare from the time the free bus picks them up in the morning until the free bus takes them home at the end of the day.

Again, no we are not. “We” are responsible for students’ education from the time of their arrival at school to the end of the (too short IMNSHO) school day. Parents—the true “we”—are responsible for the students’ welfare all of the 24 hours in a day.

It makes sense that we should also be responsible for students’ nutrition while they are under our care at school.

This makes no sense at all, especially since they are not at all under “our” care at school. That “our” part is exacerbated by the sophistry that “our” care actually is educating our children.

What Progressive-Democrats Think of our Veterans

Posted on by
Reply

Massachusetts’ Progressive-Democrat Governor Maura Healey is moving to turn an erstwhile Boston veterans care facility into a shelter for illegal aliens. She’s intent on converting

the historic Chelsea Soldiers’ Home—which was vacant and scheduled for demolition—into a site for 100 migrant families and pregnant women[.]

Meanwhile, there remain several hundred of our veterans—who are in our nation legally—in Boston who are homeless and need shelter of their own. When the facility was open to veterans, they had to pay $10-$30 per month, depending on whether they needed nursing care or just a place to be. The facility was closed last December, though in lieu of a different, larger facility. Closed, not kept open as an additional facility for our veterans.

It’s true enough that otherwise unsupported pregnant women also need a place to be, and it’s true enough that the women aren’t necessarily illegal aliens. The fact remains though, that for all that earlier support, our veterans had to pay for their stays there. Now that it’s scheduled to become a shelter for illegal aliens, those illegals won’t even have to pay that token fee. America’s—Massachusetts’—taxpayers will foot the bill for them.

This is what Progressive-Democrats think about the generations of Americans, and of those soon-to-be-American by dint of their service, who have fought for our nation, for our freedom, and have been maimed, or killed in those struggles over the centuries. Illegal aliens—who broke our laws and continue to break them by staying here of their own, malice aforethought—will get better treatment under this move than our veterans, men and women in much direr straits as a result of their defense of our nation.

It is shameful that an American political party would treat those who made that party, and all the others, possible in this way.