“Little Consensus on Message or Direction”

That excerpt from the subheadline says it all regarding the Progressive-Democratic Party’s assessment of its current status and its plans for its—and our nation’s—future.

One of their solutions—far from the only one, which illustrates the problem—is this:

The fact that some of Trump’s cabinet nominees received Democratic votes angered many in the party.
In an interview, [Senate Minority Leader Chuck, D, NY] Schumer said the governors wanted senators to vote “no” on all nominees.

Right. And it’s not just about Trump’s nominees; it’s don’t work with Republicans at all on governing, even as they spent the last dozen years inveighing Republicans to work with them on governing. No, be knee-jerk No on anything not their own. That’s this faction’s Everything in the Party, nothing outside the Party, nothing against the Party mantra.

Then there’s this solution, from another Party faction, led by Schumer:

On Monday he issued a letter detailing new plans, including a portal for whistleblowers to report concerns, support for states’ lawsuits against the administration and amping up messaging to voters.

The portal already has been inundated with “whistleblower” reports detailing Joe Biden’s, Kamala Harris’, and Schumer’s own misbehaviors. The latter especially contained details of Schumer standing on the Supreme Court building steps explicitly threatening two Supreme Court Justices.

This solution also proudly seeks to continue the Progressive-Democrats’ lawfare assaults, now in overt defense of the rot and corruption in its several agencies and departments.

And that messaging bit—that’s Party’s contempt for us Americans. It’s not that their policies are bad—no. no, those are perfection personified—it’s that we’re simply too stupid to understand perfection when it’s placed right in front of us.

Party politicians, from top to bottom, still will not (not cannot) recognize, much less accept, that it’s not their messaging or “direction” that’s at issue. That position, in fact, exemplifies those politicians’ contempt for us average Americans: we’re just too stupid, as far as they’re concerned, to understand what they’re telling us.

Never mind that we are, in fact, not stupid; we understand exactly what they’re telling us, and we don’t like their policies at all. We rejected them in toto last November. We also rejected their attitude toward us. Those policies are well and succinctly summarized by Gerald Baker in his op-ed regarding Party actually objecting to DOGE’s efforts to root inefficiencies:

…the many strange battle lines the Democratic Party has chosen to defend these past few years: illegal migrants over citizens, teachers unions over parents and children, criminals over victims, men-turned-women over girls. Good luck with that, Democrats. …
Choosing to die on the hill of the right of permanent government officials to spend money without hindrance from the president’s delegates is an especially odd decision.

There’s yet another solution:

Some Democrats have begun talking about withholding votes on a spending deal as leverage, even if it shuts down the government….

These Party wonders want to just sulk and throw temper tantrums. Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for our nation, the quorum required to do business is a simple majority in each house of Congress (and on each committee in each house), and Republicans are that majority. It only requires a measure of unity within the Republican Party to allow business to go forward, more easily to boot without those Party children under foot.

On top of all of that—or beneath all of that—there’s the inherently racist nature of Party, exemplified by Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (D, TX):

…the only people that are crying are the mediocre white boys that have been beaten out by people that historically have had to work so, so much harder.

Until they recognize and accept any of that, and take concrete, publicly measurable steps—with equally concrete results—to rid themselves of their racism, their future in our politics will continue to be limited. And that’s good for our nation.

School Choice in Texas

The Wall Street Journal‘s editors are optimistic about school choice in Texas.

Texas. Everything is bigger here, but the Lone Star State has yet to prove it on school choice. Declaring ESAs an “emergency” item in his recent state of the state address, Republican Governor Greg Abbott is proposing a $1 billion program—twice as large as the $500 million he proposed in 2023.
The Senate last week passed a bill to provide scholarships of $10,000, with $2,000 for homeschoolers. House lawmakers, including Republicans, tanked ESAs last time around. But after the Governor backed school-choice proponents in the GOP primaries and November election, he has a new legislative majority that gives him a better chance of success. The House will likely take up ESA legislation in coming weeks.

I’m not sanguine at all about the bill. The nominally Republican-majority Texas House continues to be led by a Speaker who was elected by the Progressive-Democrats in the House along with a collection of nominally Republican politicians. It doesn’t matter that the Speaker is a different person than last session; he’s still in the hip pocket of Party, along with the cronies who voted with Party to elect him.

That’s enough to kill the Senate’s bill in the House. Actual Republicans and Conservatives need to be elected in those districts. Much progress was made last November toward replacing weak sister Republicans with those who have the courage of their Conservative convictions; we’ll need to make much more progress, though, in two years.

Two More Panic-Mongering Lawsuits

Newly installed OMB Director and Acting CFPB Director Russell Vought has moved to curb the abuses of the CFPB by ordering staff to issue no more new rules, to stop new investigations, and to suspend existing investigations and litigations pending a general review of the CFPB’s activities. Vought also has authorized DOGE personnel to audit CFPB’s financial activities, including its payroll.

The National Treasury Employees Union is mightily upset, and it has filed two suits to stop these cease and desists and the audit. The NTEU alleged in the first case

It is substantially likely that these initial directives are a precursor to a purge of CFPB’s workforce, which is now prohibited from fulfilling the agency’s statutory mission[.]

In the second case, the union alleged that the CFPB

granted access, and by extension, disclosed employee records to individuals associated with DOGE without employee consent to such disclosure.

I will be brief, and the NTEU will not find it pleasant.

The union’s first case is entirely speculative as no harm has yet occurred, nor has the union alleged any harm actually has occurred. The suit should be tossed on that ground alone. Regarding the union’s allegation of prohibition, this is pure fantasy: the activities are HIAed, not prohibited, and whether the CFPB is functioning as statutorily required in this context is a political assessment, not one that is justiciable.

In the second case, the union’s allegations are, once again, purely speculative, and no harm has yet occurred, nor has the union alleged any actual harm has occurred. All it has done is raise a series of scary boogieman possibilities for some time in a nebulous future. This case ought to be tossed on that ground as well. Regarding the consent allegation, the CFPB’s employees—all Federal government employees—agreed to have their pay records audited on demand when they signed on to their government employment. That allegation also should be tossed even if the larger case is continued.

The evident frivolousness of these two suits is one more reason why government unions are destructively counterproductive and why the sinecure nature of civil service jobs needs to be severely curtailed.

Defanging the PRC

At least by a little. As part of the People’s Republic of China’s economic war that it’s waging against us, they have moved to block important mergers involving American and non-PRC companies and today are threatening our major tech companies (and by extension our smaller tech companies and those companies that supply or otherwise do business with these).

Beijing has already said it is investigating Nvidia and Google over alleged antitrust issues. Other American companies in its sights include Apple, Silicon Valley tech company Broadcom, and semiconductor-design software vendor Synopsys, said people familiar with the matter. Synopsys has a $35 billion acquisition awaiting approval by Beijing.

And

[The PRC] said it had opened an antitrust probe against Google.

And

In 2018, amid US-China trade conflicts in the first Trump administration, Qualcomm terminated its proposed purchase of Dutch chip maker NXP Semiconductors after failing to obtain clearance from China.

And

US chip maker Broadcom’s takeover of VMware, valued at $61 billion when it was unveiled in May 2022, was in peril until a meeting between Biden and Chinese leader Xi Jinping in November 2023.

If these companies did no business with companies domiciled in the PRC and did no business within the PRC, that nation would be unable to go after them at all, including having no ability to block mergers between US and non-PRC companies. The PRC’s ability to damage our economy would be restricted commensurately. Of course, withdrawing from the PRC would be expensive in the short run, but it’s a large economic world, and while the PRC is a major player in it, that nation is not the only player. The magnitude of its role, too, would shrink as we reduce our economic ties with it.

Another, central, question is this: what’s the cost of letting an enemy nation have so much influence over our economy?

Carpetbagger

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg (D)—and former Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, which is of singular importance here—wants to run for Senator in…Michigan. He’s leading all the other current Progressive-Democrat contenders according to some polling data.

The Progressive-Democrats in the State don’t seem to care about Buttigieg’s carpetbagger status.

Progressive-Democrats do care about other carpetbaggers, though:

• Pennsylvania Senatorial candidate Republican Mehmet Oz (R) was accused by Progressive-Democrats and their supporters of carpetbagging because he had a house in New Jersey
• Michigan Senatorial candidate Mike Rogers was accused by Progressive-Democrats and their supporters of carpetbagging because he also has a house in Florida
• Wisconsin Senatorial candidate Eric Hovde (R) was accused by Progressive-Democrats and their supporters of carpetbagging because has a house, also, in California, and a business in Utah
• Montana Senator Tim Sheehy (R) was accused of carpetbagging against the State’s incumbent Progressive-Democrat Jon Tester for the sin of having grown up in Minnesota, never minding that Sheehy had been a Montana citizen for the 10 years before his campaign and election
• Ohio Senator Bernie Moreno (R) was accused by Progressive-Democrats and their supporters of carpetbagging because he had stakes in multiple properties from Costa Rica to New York City to the Florida Keys.

Progressive-Democratic Party politicians’ hypocrisy is embedded in nearly everything they say and do.