Cogently put by Keri Ingraham, Discovery Institute’s American Center for Transforming Education Director in her Tuesday Wall Street Journal op-ed:
[M]ost “public” schools aren’t public at all.
In most communities, children are restricted to a single assigned school based on their home address and arbitrary boundary lines. Private schools often have academic, behavioral or other admissions standards, but they don’t keep children out simply based on where they live.
There’s this bit, too:
Rightsizing is what the cool kids call it in their desperation to avoid notice, but what the House’s Republican Party’s Freedom Caucus is proposing represents a small, but needed, initial step toward downsizing our bloated Federal bureaucracy. Some of the State Department cuts being proposed include
- State’s US Agency for Global Media would be reduced from $798 million to $734 million
- State’s Democracy Fund and the United States Agency for International Development would be reduced from $355.7 million to $227.2 million
- State’s US Global Health Programs would be reduced from $6.3 billion to $5.7 billion
This is a preview of
A Step toward Downsizing the Federal Government
. Read the full post (344 words, estimated 1:23 mins reading time)
That’s what the Progressive-Democratic Party Representatives and Senators are threatening if they can’t continue their spendthrift ways in the upcoming budget negotiations.
[House] appropriators are expected to propose federal spending levels lower than the threshold in the Biden-McCarthy deal….
Two things about this: the spending level limit agreed in the debt limit deal is a ceiling, not a floor; it’s entirely legitimate for any budget to come in with even lower spending. The other thing is that cuts in spending (not merely reductions in spending growth) are critical to our nation’s weal.
In New York, it’s being done cynically and deliberately in order to funnel American taxpayer dollars to illegal aliens.
The New York Senate has approved a controversial plan to divert federal money to provide low-cost health care coverage for “undocumented individuals.”
They aren’t undocumented individuals; they’re illegal aliens.
A legislative memo describing the bill cited by the New York Post reads
The lack of coverage for significant numbers of New Yorkers….
They aren’t New Yorkers; they’re illegal aliens.
Even Just the News (first link above) the past year….
Progressive-Democratic Party politicians claim they want to prevent a future [debt ceiling] standoff by trying to defuse the borrowing limit as a weapon.
Congressman Brendan Boyle (D, PA), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said there is an increasing number of Democrats who want to fundamentally change the debt-ceiling process, with many colleagues recognizing it is “just insanity to keep doing this over and over and over again.”
Boyle also said this, as though it were a bad thing:
Because we have been fixated on this issue for months and months, we are dramatically behind on all the rest of the legislative work that Congress has to get done.
Even The Wall Street Journal is in on the artificial…excitement…act. Congress has just a few days to pass a bill before June 5 deadline goes the subheadline.
It’s not much of a deadline, with revenue flowing in under existing tax laws that’s more than sufficient to pay as scheduled the principal and interest on our nation’s debt, and then the scheduled payments for our soldiers and veterans, and then the scheduled payments for Social Security and Medicare along with the scheduled transfers to the States for Medicaid, and then the scheduled payments for HHS, then DoT (for good or ill), then DoEd (for good or ill), then….
Last month, against the backdrop of the Federal government approaching the debt ceiling, the House passed a bill that raised the debt ceiling along with some small steps toward controlling Federal spending.
Members of the Progressive-Democratic Party object and are trying to blame Republicans for the debt ceiling imbroglio.
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D, CA) when asked who would be to blame:
It’s Congress’ job, only Congress can raise the debt limit.
Umm, the Republican-led House did. Where are the Progressive-Democratic Party-led Senate and the Progressive-Democrat who occasionally sits in the Oval Office?
Congressman Seth Moulton (D, MA):
This one via The Wall Street Journal in an article positing three scenarios regarding our economy and the existing debt ceiling negotiations. The graph, which the WSJ sourced to the Bipartisan Policy Center, is especially dispositive given the backdrop of Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden refusing to negotiate over an already House-passed bill that raises the ceiling along with some initial, and small, spending reforms. That backdrop also includes Biden’s, his Progressive-Democratic Party Congressional cronies’, and journalism’s shrill panic-mongering over default if the debt ceiling isn’t raised.Notice that. Interest on our nation’s debt is tiny compared with the revenue flowing in for June; that means there’ll be no default if Biden and his Treasury Secretary obey our Constitution, the latter which makes the situation plain in the Preamble to Article I, Section 8:
James Freeman quoted Capital Alpha Partners‘ James Lucier’s prediction concerning reaching the current debt limit and Congress’ response to it:
We think that Congress will pass a temporary extension of the debt limit deadline for 30, 60, or 90 days.
The House already has passed a temporary debt limit extension—of ~365 days.
The sad fact is that all debt limit extensions, of however many years, are merely temporary, and that will continue to be the case until Congress quits spending more money than the Federal government takes in. The most efficient way of achieving that end is to cut spending—not merely reduce its rate of growth.
Here’s a fun fact, one that every child from three years old and up who gets an allowance clearly learns, one that’s made explicit in any high school basic economics class, and one that’s driven home in junior college and college Econ 101 classes: when you spend more than take in, you owe the difference, either explicitly by borrowing separately to make up the arrears or implicitly by the existence of the deficit resulting from spending more than is taken in.