Common Ground

The Democratic Party—the party being run by Progressives, hence the Progressive-Democratic Party—met earlier in the week in a Party retreat to plot its way forward as the minority party in the Federal, and a majority of State, governments.  The agenda consisted of how to block White House and House Republican proposals.

Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (D, MD) [at the retreat] pointed to the tally from the popular vote in the 2016 election to say that Democrats represent the “majority view” in America….

Never mind that that “majority” came solely from California and New York, two States that don’t come close to being representative of mainstream America.  Never mind, either, that majority of States whose voters have demonstrated—repeatedly—that the majority view, the mainstream view, is not close to the Progressive-Democratic Party view.

And

Actions like that [President Donald Trump’s EO imposing a moratorium on entry into the US from some Middle East countries], Ms Pelosi said, diminish hope of common ground with Democrats.

This is typical of the Progressive-Democrats’ arrogance.  The US must revolve around them. They have no need to seek out common ground with others, least of all those who disagree with them.

And this closer from House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi:

As long as the president continues down this path, there is nothing Democrats can work with him in[.]

No, the Progressive-Democrats need to cooperate and work with the Republican majority.  That was, after all, the majority Progressive-Democrats’ mantra during six of the last eight years when they held the majority of one or both houses of Congress.

But working with, cooperating, only goes one way, apparently.  The mountain must come to Mohamed.

Common ground, indeed.

A Carbon Tax Proposal

No less a pair of lights than George Shultz and James Baker III have one regarding atmospheric carbon emissions.  They’re prefacing their case on their then-boss, President Ronald Reagan’s successful negotiation of the Montreal Protocol to rein in the failures of atmospheric CFCs that were destroying the ozone layer.  Not that the two have anything to do with each other, but it makes for good obfuscation.

Shultz and Baker have four “pillars” to their proposal:

First, creating a gradually increasing carbon tax. Second, returning the tax proceeds to the American people in the form of dividends. Third, establishing border carbon adjustments that protect American competitiveness and encourage other countries to follow suit. And fourth, rolling back government regulations once such a system is in place.

Their first pillar echoes ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) promise to let electricity generators use all the coal they wanted; Obama’s policies just would put them out of business.  No carbon emissions. Period.  Never mind that there’s very little need to reduce carbon emissions.  Atmospheric CO2 used to generate acid rain, but that pollution is long since reduced to the point of elimination.  Beyond that, the EPA’s pseudo-science “finding” notwithstanding, atmospheric CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant.  We eliminate that plant food at risk.

Return the tax proceeds to us as dividends?  That’s just wealth redistribution by government fiat.  Haven’t we had enough of Progressive redistribution failure already?  Not to mention the cynically internally illogical mechanism for the redistribution.

A $40-per-ton carbon tax would provide a family of four with roughly $2,000 in carbon dividends in the first year, an amount that could grow over time as the carbon tax rate increased.

How could the dividend grow—isn’t the tax supposed to reduce emissions significantly?

Border carbon adjustments?  Pit importers against exporters again.  That’s the outcome of the existing border adjustment tax being proposed in the House today.

Roll back the regulations once “such a system is in place?”  Really?  Can Shultz or Baker name two programs that have been rolled back once they’ve been enacted?  They’re not that naïve.

This is just more Progressive foolishness, now being spouted by two fine gentlemen who’re past their age of usefulness.