Foolish

Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) has offered legislation, in coordination with Congressman Ro Khanna (D, CA), that is his latest bit of socialism.  His legislation would hit large businesses with a tax equal to 100% of the welfare payments any of their employees might receive while working.

Sanders and Khanna say—and they’re actually serious—that this would pay for the welfare programs involved.

Andy Puzder has a different view of such legislation.

[T]he first step on the path to financial self-sufficiency is finding a job. A tax on employing welfare recipients would discourage employers from hiring them. It would increase the cost of employing such people without an offsetting increase in productivity or employee satisfaction, since the extra payment would go to the government rather than the employee. Companies could avoid the tax simply by hiring people not on welfare, reducing job opportunities for the people most in need of jobs and opportunity.

This is the anti-business—worse, the anti-poor, the anti-single mom, and the anti-just-starting-out youth—position of the Progressive-Democrat Party and their Socialist confreres.

But, hey—votes.  Our youth, our single mothers, our poor, they aren’t human beings needing a start a or hand up in the eyes of the Party.  They’re just votes to be kept trapped in the Progressive-Democrats’ welfare cage.

Likenesses

Vanity Fair thinks Progressive-Democratic Party candidate for Senator from Texas is Kennedyesque.

Really?  Does Vanity Fair really think O’Rourke abandoned a young woman, trapped in his car, to drown in a Texas creek?  Does the magazine really think O’Rourke nakedly lied about a Supreme Court Justice nominee to smear him during a confirmation hearing?

That’s an interesting connection for the magazine to draw.

Whose Side?

On whose side is the current Pope?  What is his purpose, his goal?

First, the Pope condones covering up—even delaying a “conference” for chit-chat about the abuse for as long as possible—massive child abuse by Catholicism’s priests and bishops.

Now we have the Pope saying the Catholic Church—the Vatican—doesn’t even need to be the authority that selects the Church’s bishops.

…Catholic concession in a far-reaching deal between Rome and the Vatican announced Friday. The Vatican has agreed to recognize as legitimate seven Chinese priests who had been excommunicated by Rome for accepting their bishop hats without Vatican approval. Two bishops who had remained faithful to Rome will retire to make room for bishops more to Chinese President Xi Jinping’s liking.

What’s going on in the Catholic Church?

Jumped the Shark

The Progressive-Democratic Senator from San Francisco, Dianne Feinstein, has done it.  The Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee has “released a memo” purported to cast doubt on Judge and Justice nominee Brett Kavanaugh’s character.

This is a memo, too, that she’s been sitting on for the last couple of months, waiting for just the right time to “release” it.  Its source is secret, though, and its contents are not to be revealed to the public.  Her cronies at The New York Times, never fear, claim to have the…skinny…on the content: in a textbook example of projection, that outlet hints that the “memo” is all about sexual misbehavior.

Sadly, Feinstein has only shown her truth with this.  And it’s entirely consistent with her handling of her fellow Committee member Kamala Harris’ outright lie about a thing she claims Kavanaugh said.  She’s chosen to do nothing about that lie, even though she is Harris’ Ranking Member.  She’s also chosen to do nothing about fellow Committee member Corey Booker’s willfully unethical, if not illegal, behavior with Committee documents.  Of course, she’s on less firm ground there, since she earlier unethically released Committee documents (and then claimed that “cold medicine” made her do it).

Unable to disagree with him on his fitness to be a Justice of the Supreme Court, Progressive-Democrats are stooped to trying to smear his good name.

Go figure.

Timidity

Sadanand Dhume had an opinion piece in Thursday’s Wall Street Journal decrying Dutch politician Geert Wilders’ decision to cancel a contest through which ” participants were invited to lampoon the prophet Muhammad.”  Wilders pleaded “security concerns” because of some protests in Pakistan.

On the whole, I agree with Dhume.  However, I’m less concerned with Pakistani whinings than I am with the cowardice displayed by Wilders and his cronies in canceling their contest.

A few short years ago, a similar “Draw Muhammad” contest was held in Dallas. The terrorists who tried to disrupt that contest were stopped in their tracks by ordinary American citizens.  The Dutch are not Danes, but I wouldn’t have thought them this timid.