Tag Archives: political parties

Another Reason Why…

Posted on by
Reply

…no member of the Progressive-Democratic Party can be trusted in any way. Elizabeth Warren (D, MA), for instance, in her letter to Businessman Elon Musk, who’s working the additional duty [sic:] of pro bono member of DOGE’s leadership, claimed that:

American taxpayers will shoulder the burden of tax cuts for Tesla, and they deserve answers about your efforts to secure massive tax breaks for billionaire corporations[.]

Here are some facts underlying Tesla’s income tax liability:

• much of Tesla’s $7.1 billion in net income last year doesn’t come from selling electric vehicles, solar panels, or battery storage
• $2.8 billion came from the sale of regulatory credits to other auto makers that need to comply with government EV mandates
• $1.6 billion in interest income on cash and short-term investment holdings. [Progressive-]Democrats can thank the Biden inflation for allowing companies to earn higher interest on their cash holdings
• Tesla recorded nearly $600 million in book income from price appreciation in its bitcoin holdings, but this is akin to an unrealized capital gain
• [Tesla] lost money every year it was in business from 2003 until 2020. All companies are allowed to carry forward net operating losses to offset future tax liabilities
• [Progressive-Democrats] exempted most net operating losses from the Inflation Reduction Act’s 15% corporate alternative minimum tax, including categories that include Tesla’s loss carry forward
• Tesla recorded $625 million from tax credits for its electric vehicles and $756 million for its solar and energy storage business last year

o these tax credits can also be carried forward to offset future tax liabilities
o Tesla had $1 billion in renewable energy tax credits on its books at the end of last year

Warren, and all of her Party cronies, are well aware of these things. Warren, and her cronies in Party, lie.

Why Would They Want To?

Posted on by
Reply

The lede says it all, even if the article is a bit dated now.

The leader of Senate Democrats moved to take the threat of a government shutdown off the table, following a grueling intraparty fight in which lawmakers struggled with how best to resist President Trump’s fast-paced efforts to slim down federal agencies.

Why would the Progressive-Democratic Party object to slimming Federal agencies and making them more efficient?

Oh, wait—this is the Party that insists Government knows better than us poor, benighted and ignorant average Americans, and that the way to make Government more efficient is to grow it in both financial and physical size and give it more control over our lives.

Couple Thoughts re Newsom and Progressive-Democrats

Posted on by
Reply

California’s Progressive-Democrat governor, Gavin Newsom, is looking to improve his standing among Conservatives. He’s even taken to hosting right-leaning and extreme-right guests (vis., Charlie Kirk and Steve Bannon, respectively) on his new podcast (which strikes me as nothing more than an attempt to manage his image).

As Newsom prepared to launch his new podcast, the governor told his team one of the themes he wanted to explore was how Republicans have been able to beat Democrats on messaging and win the White House.

What is the Progressive-Democratic Party doing, that it loses elections lately, and what must Party do to win. That seems to be Newsom’s thrust.

Then there’s this:

[Progressive-]Democrats are struggling to unite around a strategy to take on Trump and the GOP, which has complete control of power in Washington.

What is Party doing, that it loses elections to Trump and Trump supporters, and what must Party do to regain power in Washington.

Notice the common theme here. Newsom and Party, separately and together, are not the least bit interested in what’s good for our nation; neither is the least bit interested in looking to us average Americans and finding ways to satisfy our needs and wants.

Party—Newsom serves for the moment as Party’s canonical example of this theme—are interested only in its members holding high office and in holding personal political power.

A Good Start

Posted on by
Reply

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has pulled the security clearances and accesses to a number of Biden and other former government officials.

I have revoked security clearances and barred access to classified information for…Blinken, Jake Sullivan, Lisa Monaco, Mark Zaid, Norman Eisen, James, Bragg, and Andrew Weissman, along with the 51 signers of the Hunter Biden “disinformation” letter. The President’s Daily Brief is no longer being provided to former President Biden.

But it’s only a start. I have said before, and I’ll say again: when anyone leaves Federal government employ, for any reason, for any duration other than an authorized leave of absence, that now ex-employee should have his security clearance pulled the day he walks out the door. Even those on a leave of absence should have their access to classified material suspended until he returns to duty at the end of his leave.

He Thinks It’s a Countermove

Posted on by
Reply

Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro (D) is making a big deal out of his offer of jobs in the Pennsylvania State government to those terminated Federal bureaucrats who would be interested.

The commonwealth recognizes that a workforce of dedicated and talented public servants is the backbone of a responsive government that can ensure the efficient and effective delivery of services for Pennsylvanians[.]

Kudos to Shapiro, I say, for all that his motive is so highly questionable. There’s no doubt that the vast majority of Federal bureaucrats are talented, dedicated workers, and being offered jobs at the State level that match their skill sets is a Good Thing.

None of that, though, alters the simple fact that Federal employment is not an inherent right and that Federal bureaucrats are not entitled to any Federal job, much less any Federal sinecure. Neither does any of that alter the simple fact that these Federal bureaucrats are unnecessary to the function of the Federal government, and their redundancy should be recognized and acted on.

Indeed, those making the Federal cuts have said from the outset that the bureaucrats’ firings do not in any way impugn their skill, talent, or dedication—it’s simply that they are not needed; their job positions themselves are redundant.