Tag Archives: politics

A Real Progressive-Democratic Party Problem

Posted on by
Reply

It’s not Party’s only problem, but it is a Critical Item problem, and it’s illustrated by an exchange between a constituent and Senator Michael Bennet (D, CO) at his recent town hall and by a Wall Street Journal newswriter’s assessment of the exchange. The constituent’s call:

A man who identified himself as Colin from Denver asked Bennet to consider the “dire times” facing the nation. “Schumer had no plan in the Democrats’ only moment of leverage against Trump,” he said. “When will you be calling for him to be replaced as minority leader?”

Bennett essentially responded with words to the effect that Schumer needed to go.

The writer’s assessment:

House and Senate members have publicly criticized Schumer’s handling of the matter in a remarkable public show of disunity at a time when they hoped to be unified against Trump.

Leverage against Trump. Unified against Trump. No plan for what Party thinks is good for our nation. No plan for how to achieve those Good Things. Not even any nascent ideas.

It’s No to Trump/Never Trump turtles all the way down.

That’s not good for our nation. Not good at all. All Party has, all Party seems interested in, is its toddler temper tantrum over not getting its own way.

Disingenuous Excuse-Making

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what seems to be the case involving Columbia University’s interim president Katrina Armstrong and a variety of personages criticizing her decisions, or their lack, or their careful vagueness, regarding Columbia’s rampant antisemitic bigotry and overt support for “protestors” supporting terrorists in Gaza and the West Bank.

Armstrong’s waffling on those items already has cost her university $400 million in Federal grants and contracts, yet she continues to waffle.

Chief among her excuse-making supporters is Johns Hopkins Medicine International President, Charles Wiener:

She’s in a situation now where every minute, every hour, there’s no way she’ll be able to do anything that pleases everybody[.]

Armstrong isn’t there to please everybody; she’s not even there to please anybody at all. She’s there to do the right thing: put an end to the school’s antisemitic bigotry that exceeds the bounds of free speech by overtly denying others their rights to free speech and religion—even merely to attend class—and expel the terrorist-supporting “protestors,” including faculty members; have those “protestors” who are not students or faculty arrested for their trespass; and have those—student, non-student, or faculty—involved in stealing university buildings (which is what their “occupations” amount to) and vandalizations arrested and brought to trial for their criminal acts.

Full stop.

Then the newswriters of this WSJ piece offer their own shabby excuse:

Armstrong has walked a fine line between acknowledging that some aspects of the university need to change while also asserting the importance of the school’s academic independence.

No. There is no fine line here. There is no academic freedom in an environment where the school’s Jewish students are prevented by those terrorist supporters from speaking, prevented from getting to class, even physically attacked simply for being Jewish, much less speaking anyway.

Ans this:

If she cedes [sic] to White House demands over campus antisemitism allegations, she risks revolt from faculty fearing a loss of academic freedom.

More excuse-making. Faculty members who revolt over this are simply self-selecting for prompt termination. Getting them out of the way would both reduce the bigotry that so rampantly denies Jewish students their free speech rights and increase academic freedom by removing those who insist that academic freedom means being free to do things their way only.

Armstrong needs to stop waffling. Or she needs to be replaced by someone willing to make the hard decisions necessary to reduce the bigoted attacks on disfavored groups and get rid of the “protestors,” and to enforce those decisions.

Update (compared to when I wrote this): Columbia University has, finally, acceded to many of the government’s demands regarding curbing its antisemitic bigotry and support for terrorists.

A Simple Enough Solution

Posted on by
Reply

Even if it isn’t necessarily politically easy to implement. But the political impediment is merely a lack of political courage in the same politicians who natter on about how expensive and abused is the system in question. I’m writing here about our nation’s Medicaid system.

Medicaid is broken, and Republicans in Washington and in state capitals have an opportunity to fix it. President Trump has pledged to protect the program, in part by cutting waste, fraud and abuse. The House budget target would reduce the growth of federal Medicaid payments over the next decade from $2 trillion to $1.2 trillion. That is a good start. Medicaid wastes enormous amounts of taxpayer money as states use it to reward politically powerful healthcare providers.

Instead of making this sort of namby-pamby tweaks around the edges, and masquerading putative reductions in growth as cuts, the simple enough solution is this.

Take the Medicaid-centered Federal transfers to each State in the current year as the baseline, and convert that amount to a block grant with no strings attached, other than the State must spend the block money on its Medicaid program. Then, each subsequent year transfer the Medicaid block grant, similarly without strings, reduced further each year by 10% of that baseline amount. In a short few years (I’ll leave the third grade arithmetic to the reader, rather than insult his intelligence), the block grants will reach $0.00, and the Federal government will, quite properly, be out of this aspect of the State’s business.

Notice that this solution also does not touch the heart of our nation’s Medicaid system, which is each State’s responsibility. On the contrary, it moves the system entirely into the States’ individual purviews, giving each State complete control over its own Medicaid program, free of Federal touching.

Mistaken Emphasis

Posted on by
2

Oil and gas companies are worried that, in the process of reducing the Federal employee work force, too many regulators who issue the permits these companies need to begin work on a project are being fired, and so the permits are being delayed.

Some companies are asking the administration not to lay off key personnel who deliver permits at federal agencies….
[C]ompanies receive permits to drill on US lands from Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, licenses to export liquefied natural gas from the Energy Department, and permits to build interstate natural gas pipelines from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

This isn’t the problem the executives make it out to be. The regulators in those entities are not independent satraps who act entirely on their own recognizance. They do not issue the permits or reject them in their own name; they act in the name of their respective Department or agency heads, and those agency heads are not independent satraps, either; they act in the name of their respective Department Secretaries. As such, the agency heads are fully capable of issuing/rejecting permits, and ultimately the Secretaries are fully capable of overruling their subordinate agency heads and issuing/rejecting the permits themselves.

Of course the Leftists and a large collection of fee-seeking lawyers will jump on this with litigation, but ultimately the agency and Secretary actions should be upheld.

Still, they can’t act entirely alone. Matt Schatzman, NextDecade CEO wants those agencies to hire more workers and cut red tape so the industry can start more projects as quickly as possible. It’s not necessary to have both of those. More hires is not necessary in any event; legislation is: require permits to be issued or rejected withing 30 days of the initial application, or the permits are deemed issued. Require the regulators to defend in concrete, measurable, publicly accessible terms their rejection within two weeks of their rejection, or the permit is deemed issued.

Donald Trump Bullies?

Posted on by
Reply

Really? A letter writer in Wednesday’s Letters section of The Wall Street Journal thinks so. He credulously makes, though, a couple of critical mistakes that no rational, grown adult would make.

Today, Donald Trump’s “bullying” embodies the more contemporary meaning: the cowardly actions of one who seeks to harm or intimidate those he views as weak.

This is risible on its face. Bullies have only the power their putative victims choose to grant them, not a minim more. The cowardice is in those who make the decision to allow themselves to be bullied. Yes, that’s often a hard decision to make, but “hard” means “possible.” There’s no excuse for choosing wrongly here.

The letter writer’s other mistake centers on this—which he, in all seriousness, offers as an example of Trumpian bullying:

[T]he president has issued an executive order stripping security clearances from lawyers at Covington & Burling, who provided pro bono legal assistance to former special counsel Jack Smith. More recently, Ed Martin, interim US attorney for the District of Columbia, sent a letter to Georgetown Law School, demanding that it cease diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, and warning that his office wouldn’t hire the school’s graduates unless it did so.
These actions violate the First Amendment’s protections of freedom of expression.

This is laughable beyond anything related to “bullying” or being “bullied.” There is no intrinsic free speech right, or any other right, to a security clearances—which grants the holder access (given a parallel and simultaneous need to know) to data involving national security. Neither Covington & Burling as an institution, nor any of its lawyers, have any such right. It’s not bullying to rescind the clearances of those entities and persons who no longer work for the government.

Neither is there any intrinsic free speech right—or any other 1st Amendment right or any other right sourced to any other clause or clauses of our Constitution—to a government job. The government, like any potential employer, has its own intrinsic right to determine for itself the qualifications required for a job and then to determine for itself who the best candidate(s) might be to be hired into that job.

Nor is there any such right held by Georgetown Law School to place its graduates into any particular job, including a government one.

Back to the bullying foolishness: if Georgetown managers feel bullied by this, that’s their conscious choice. It would be particularly easy, though, for these worthies to stand up to the alleged Trumpian bullying. The Federal government’s authority to enforce any demand, whether to desist from DEI efforts or anything else, extends only so far as Georgetown Law School takes in Federal dollars. The institution is under no obligation to take those dollars. The school’s managers could eliminate the pressures they’ve chosen to perceive simply by ceasing those acceptances rather than ceasing their DEI efforts.