I’ve written that a fractious Republican Party, compared with a monolithic Democratic Party (now a Progressive-Democratic Party), demonstrates with that fractiousness that it lives democracy while that other party merely talks about it.
Are the Conservatives in Great Britain, with their own fractiousness, demonstrating that they live democracy, too, rather than merely talking about it?
Maybe. But there are differences between the Republicans’ internal arguments and the Tories’ internal arguments.
The Republican Party’s fractiousness centers on arguments over policy, whether immigration, health care provision and health plan provision reform, tax reform, or…. The Tories, though, their fractiousness seems more centered on personality.
High-tax States, principally States run by Progressive-Democrat regimes, don’t like the tax reform’s cap on State and local taxes.
The governors of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut said on Friday that they would sue the federal government to overturn the new US tax law, saying the measure unconstitutionally discriminates against Democratic-leaning states.
This is just the raw sewage of disparate impact being spread across a tax bill—never mind that the tax reform is uniformly applied across all States, across all businesses and individual taxpayers. Never mind, too, that if some taxpayers, if some taxing jurisdictions, are impacted differently than others, it’s solely a result of the conscious individual, business, and State and local government choices. At least when “disparate impact” is imputed to matters of race, the alleged victims have no choice in their position in the differences alleged.
Top Democrats are calling on Facebook and Twitter to investigate and release information behind potential Russian-linked accounts pushing for the release of a sealed congressional memo allegedly containing details on US government surveillance abuses.
It couldn’t possibly be that there really is a broad public hue and cry to that information released. Us uninformed voters, denizens of fly-over country, couldn’t possibly know enough to demand the release on our own.
No, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) and Congressman Adam Schiff (D, CA), the two “top Democrats” in the quote, are desperate to have a distraction. Us uninformed might find out too much.
Bookending (in more than one sense of the term) California’s move to confiscate business’ tax cuts, New York’s Progressive-Democrat governor Andrew Cuomo wants to increase the taxes levied on that State’s citizens by $1 billion. He’s claiming, in all seriousness,
You can’t possibly get anywhere near where you want to be on education and health care unless you raise revenues. It’s just too big a deficit, and the choice of cutting education or cutting health care I don’t think is a place anyone wants to go to this year. So you have to raise revenue.
No, it’s worse than that. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY), in his continuing ducking of responsibility for his Progressive-Democratic Party’s decision to shut down the Federal government, frequently makes this…claim:
A party that controls the House, the Senate, and the presidency would rather sit back and point fingers of blame than roll up their sleeves and govern.
No, this is no petty exaggeration; it’s just another example of Schumer’s dishonesty. Neither party controls the Senate unless it has a 60-vote majority. That makes governing impossible when the minority party in the Senate refuses to negotiate in good faith, when the minority party puts its collective ego ahead the nation’s weal. Schumer knows these things.
The Progressive-Democrats, especially those in the Senate, have shown their true colors as they voted last Friday to shut down the Federal government, voting to block a temporary funding agreement that would have kept the government open for another month. I wrote earlier about that shutdown’s practical effects.
Here’s what the Progressive-Democrats voted to kill: six years of funding for CHIP, so now some millions of children in our poverty-level families will have no access to health insurance. DACA reform so that those illegal immigrant children could have some hope for their future.
California wants the Federal tax reform-saved money for itself, and they want a State Constitutional amendment to make the seizure permanent.
A proposed Assembly Constitutional Amendment by Assemblymen Kevin McCarty (D) and Phil Ting (D) would create a tax surcharge on California companies making more than $1 million….
The Progressive-Democrats claim the money would go to “programs that benefit low-income and middle-class families,” but that’s just tear-jerking. The State’s government would divert the monies to favored programs at convenience. That’s minor, though.
Louise Radnofsky had a piece early Friday morning—before the Senate vote on a bill that would keep the Federal government running for another month—outlining the costs of a shutdown, based on the Progressive-Democrats’ 2013 shutdown. Over those roughly two weeks of relative inactivity, the costs were quite trivial.
Those trivial costs are part of why the Progressive-Democrats are so anxious to have the shutdown this time around, too—they know there’ll be small practical impact while having large publicity impact.
The Progressive-Democrats in Congress don’t want a deal, neither on the budget nor on DACA. They want the Federal government shut down so they can blame the Republicans for it during this fall’s elections. They also want to keep the DACA situation and immigration in general alive as a debating question for those same elections.
Democrats said Mr Trump’s dismissal of “shithole countries” in Africa in a closed meeting last week with lawmakers positioned him as the person who upset the negotiations.
Recall the Progressive-Democratic Party-controlled legislature with their Progressive-Democrat governor who run things in California. In response to the just-passed tax reform bill’s capping of state and local tax deductions on the Federal income tax form at $10,000, these worthies have introduced a bill that would create a State-run “charity” foundation into which California citizens could make “donations” and receive a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that they could then apply to their SALT requirements that exceed those $10,000.
Never mind that, as The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board pointed out last Friday,