Federal Funds Redistributions

The Department of Justice says it’s going to issue subpoenas, if necessary, to get sanctuary-related documents from cities who have proclaimed themselves sanctuary cities.  Sarah Isgur Flores, DoJ Public Affairs Director:

These are the jurisdictions that have politicians that release criminal aliens back onto the street.

In conjunction with that, she says that, if further necessary, DoJ will redirect Byrne Grant* funds to other jurisdictions that actively support law enforcement rather than picking and choosing those laws that are convenient to them and ignoring others.

Strange bedfellows: this sort of thing should get the Progressive-Democrats fronting for sanctuary jurisdictions on board with many of us Conservatives working to end Federal funds redistribution of one State’s citizens’ tax monies to another State’s government.  That would reduce the ability of the Federal government to push around any of the States on domestic matters.

 

*Byrne Grant: Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program, a major source of funding for state and local (and tribal) jurisdictions in their fight against crime.  Ironically, it’s named for NYPD Officer Edward Byrne, who was killed 40 years ago protecting an immigrant witness who was to testify against drug dealers.  Two things that sound mighty familiar today.

A Tool

Facebook’s management is beginning to realize the impact Facebook can have on our national society and on the politics of our society.  Product Manager Samidh Chakrabarti:

If there’s one fundamental truth about social media’s impact on democracy it’s that it amplifies human intent—both good and bad[.]

But in their hubris that same management is presuming to dictate to us how we will be allowed to use it.

[W]e have a moral duty to understand how these technologies are being used and what can be done to make communities like Facebook as representative, civil, and trustworthy as possible.

No.  Facebook technology is like any other tool, neither good nor bad in itself, but useful or destructive in from the way it’s used.  Like any large power tool, it certainly can be dangerous—but it’s on us to use it correctly and safely.

It’s certainly not on producers of technology, including of tools like Facebook (or Twitter, come to that, or Instragram, or Snapchat, or…), to take it on themselves to censor what they provide or omit.  That’s the responsibility of us as individuals.  Facebook’s management team has a responsibility to publish a serious, honest owner’s manual—just like Black & Decker has a responsibility to publish a serious, honest owner’s manual for its chainsaws.  But Black & Decker only has a responsibility vis-à-vis its saws to make them effective and safe.  Facebook management has the same responsibility—neither more nor less—to do the same with the tool known as Facebook.

It’s time they stopped condescending.  It’s time they stopped presuming to manage our outcomes for us.

Hypocrisy

…is alive and well in the National Football League.  The NFL invited American Veterans, a major veterans support organization, to submit an ad for the Super Bowl advertising suite.  So AMVET did.

It turns out the NFL just wanted to look good in the public shower; it wasn’t at all serious.  Having received AMVET’s submission, they chose to reject it.  The ad committed the heinous crime of asking folks to stand for the national anthem.  The NFL’s excuse?  The Super Bowl is

designed for fans to commemorate and celebrate the game, players, teams, and the Super Bowl…

it’s not a place for political statements.  But NFL allows football players to insult our veterans and attack our national anthem, including planned kneelings at the upcoming Super Bowl.  That’s not a political statement, though.

Consider this carefully as you decide whether you want to watch what used to be a great game.  Consider, also, whether you want to drop a dime, next year, on the NFL, given its support for its players’ attacks on our national anthem and their insults to generations of our veterans.

True Colors

The Progressive-Democrats, especially those in the Senate, have shown their true colors as they voted last Friday to shut down the Federal government, voting to block a temporary funding agreement that would have kept the government open for another month.  I wrote earlier about that shutdown’s practical effects.

Here’s what the Progressive-Democrats voted to kill: six years of funding for CHIP, so now some millions of children in our poverty-level families will have no access to health insurance.  DACA reform so that those illegal immigrant children could have some hope for their future.

CHIP funding was in the stop-gap bill, but now there’s no funding for it, and the program has expired.

DACA reform was not in the bill, having nothing to do with funding, but the Progressive-Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) demanded it be included or there would be no votes from his Party (in the event, five Progressive-Democrats from Republican States whose seats are in jeopardy in this fall’s elections, knowing their Party would kill the funding, cynically cast their meaningless votes for the bill).  It didn’t matter to these worthies that DACA had until early March to be negotiated or that there already exists bipartisan agreement on the outline and substance of a DACA proposal that could have been debated and voted up by the end of January in a separate bill.  Schumer and his Party cronies demanded their DACA right damn now.  Their attitude has badly poisoned any future DACA negotiations, perhaps fatally.

It gets worse.  There was nothing in the bill to which Progressive-Democrats actually objected.  It funded the government for a time, which the Prog-Dems claim they want.  It funded CHIP, which the Prog-Dems claim they want.  It funded defense, which even Prog-Dems claim they want.  The clean funding bill just didn’t have all the other, unrelated, things the Prog-Dems also demanded.

When Schumer went to the White House late Friday before the vote to deal personally with President Trump, he went with a Christmas tree of Progressive-Democrat demands beyond just DACA for inclusion in the stop-gap bill, including for instance, bailing out public union pension funds, added spending on opoid programs, and on and on.  That Christmas tree is what Schumer was talking about when he said after the meeting that progress had been made, but “we still have a good number of disagreements.”  All of these extras also could have been negotiated and voted on in the ensuing period.

Not good enough.  The Progressive-Democrats voted to shut down the government because the stop-gap didn’t have DACA and Schumer’s Christmas tree.  Party ego before national weal.

Remember this next fall.

Update: The Senate, on another cloture vote later this morning, voted 81-18 to end the filibuster and bring the bill to the floor for an up or down vote. The bill is changed trivially–the funding period is good for three weeks instead of four–but otherwise, it’s the same bill.  Because of that period change, though, it has to go back to the House, where I expect it’ll be voted up forthwith and sent to the President for prompt signing.

In return, Senate Republicans promised negotiations on DACA and on immigration and a vote on DACA. The DACA debate has been going on, all along, as noted above.

Businesses Behind the Tree

California wants the Federal tax reform-saved money for itself, and they want a State Constitutional amendment to make the seizure permanent.

A proposed Assembly Constitutional Amendment by Assemblymen Kevin McCarty (D) and Phil Ting (D) would create a tax surcharge on California companies making more than $1 million….

The Progressive-Democrats claim the money would go to “programs that benefit low-income and middle-class families,” but that’s just tear-jerking.  The State’s government would divert the monies to favored programs at convenience.  That’s minor, though.

The point of the proposal is to take the money from business—the surcharge is a tax of fully 50% of business’ Federal tax cut—because Government Knows Better, and business doesn’t deserve it, anyway.  Nor did they earn it.  Government did that.

Don’t tax you, don’t tax me.  Tax that business behind the tree.  That’s not quite what Russell Long (D, LA) said all those years ago, but California’s new tax proposal is close in spirit.  What the Progressive-Democrats in California’s legislature and governor’s mansion are missing, though, is another sentiment of Long’s regarding tax breaks for businesses:

I have become convinced you’re going to have to have capital if you’re going to have capitalism.

This is an understanding completely absent in the Progressive-Democratic Party.