Last Friday, President Donald Trump hosted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY), House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R, CA), Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY), and a few others for another round of attempted negotiation over the border wall we so badly need.
The outcome? Pelosi and Schumer continued their refusal to negotiate at all. They demanded the government’s partial shutdown be ended before they’ll say a word about funding for a wall. Never mind that, as they’ve made clear since last month, that word, their only word, is “No,” anyway.
After Mitt Romney’s unprovoked tirade in his New Year’s Day op-ed in The Washington Post—before he even was sworn in as the Republican Senator from Utah—I have to ask.
The Trump presidency made a deep descent in December.
It’s downhill from there. America is divided and getting more so—and that’s President Donald’s fault, not at all the Progressive-Democrats’. It was the Progressive-Democrats that tried to assassinate with smear a Supreme Court nominee. It’s Progressive-Democrats that daily dismiss those who disagree with them as ignorant, racist, misogynists. It’s Progressive-Democrats who want to abolish ICE, hamstring CBP, and functionally eliminate our nation’s borders by demanding they be entirely open. It’s Progressive-Democrats who move to protect illegal aliens, even at the cost of murdered cops, American citizens, and the expansion of our drug abuse epidemic, while declining to protect those same cops and citizens with the same energy.
In a Fox News piece about billionaires contemplating running for President in 2020, one comment jumped out at me. Adrienne Elrod, erstwhile Hillary Clinton senior advisor and current Progressive-Democrat strategist, made this remark about Michael Bloomberg’s chances in particular, were he to enter the primary contest for the Progressive-Democrat Party’s nomination.
[T]he biggest thing that’s going to hurt him more than his personal wealth is the fact that he used to be a Republican.
Fox News cited her as continuing:
She said that would be a “far bigger liability” competing in “a very left-leaning progressive grassroots primary.”
Much has been made of the Republican Party’s “control” of a unified Federal government these past two years, with Republicans “controlling” the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency. Much is made, also, of the Republican Party’s continued “control” of the Senate, indeed its increased “control” following the mid-terms, as a result of which Republicans extended their majority from 51 to 53.
The latest is Matthew Continetti’s claim on last Friday’sSpecial Report (hosted by Bret Baier on Fox News): in discussing the Schumer Shutdown Redux (my term, not Continetti’s), Continetti insisted that this shutdown began in that unified government—repeating particularly the claim that Republicans “controlled” the Senate.
That’s what we can see made plain in the incoming Congress’ House of Representatives. Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman (D, NJ) had this on her Progressive-Democratic Party’s plans:
There are dozens of measures…that have been languishing with Republicans at the helm for years, and I expect to see many of them finally come to the floor under Democratic leadership[.]
Plans like rolling back the just enacted tax cuts and preventing the individual income tax cuts from becoming permanent. Because the Progressive-Democrats know more about how to spend our money than we do.
Here’s what our Constitution says about religious tests for Federal office, from Article IV [emphasis added]:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Despite this, the Progressive-Democratic Party’s Senators, on two separate occasions, challenged judicial nominees over their religious beliefs.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) is continuing to insist—brag, really—that there aren’t the votes in the House or the Senate for funding for a border wall. Presently, he’s focused on the Senate:
Schumer maintained that Trump does not have the votes for a wall, at least in the Senate.
That’s the claim of ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Jason Furman in a recent Wall Street Journalop-ed. It’s an accurate claim, too, when tax cuts are taken in isolation, as Furman took them throughout his piece. That loneliness was emphasized by his closing remarks.
Going forward, policy makers should aim for a reformed tax system that is more stable, economically efficient, simple, and directly supportive of the middle class. Do this right, and the results could be higher economic growth and higher wages without the higher deficits. That’s a combination that’s proved elusive to date.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) told NBC News‘ Meet the Press that there would be no money for a border wall “in any form.” House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D, CA) has been saying much the same thing the last couple of weeks, but she doesn’t have the votes to block the money, and she doesn’t have the votes to become Speaker next month if she doesn’t say no this month.
California has decided to kill two birds with one stone. The State thinks it needs more money, so it’s going to raise a new tax. The State is anxious to…manage…speech of which it disapproves, so it has chosen its target for its new tax.
California state regulators have been working on a plan to charge mobile phone users a text messaging fee intended to fund programs that make phone service accessible to the low-income residents, reports said Tuesday.
Here’s Jim Wunderman, Bay Area Council President, on the plot, though: