Free Speech in Illinois

Posted on by
Reply

Particularly, free speech in Progressive-Democratic Party reigned-over Illinois. A charitable organization, Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender, wants to register as a charitable organization in Illinois, but it’s being blocked by the State’s Secretary of State, Alexi Giannoulias.

Giannoulias’ rationalization is that a State law, the General Not for Profit Corporation Act, bars the use of terms like “regular democrat,” “regular democratic,” “regular republican,” “democrat,” “democratic” or “republican”  in any organization’s name without the party’s prior permission. It doesn’t matter that these terms are entirely generic and not—nor being generic, can they be—trademarked or copyrighted in any way.

DIAG is being blocked from registering in Illinois because it opposes Party’s support for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgical interventions so they more closely resemble the opposite sex over those procedures’ permanent effects, especially in children. The use of “Democrats” in the organization’s name is just an excuse, and DIAG, along with Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, have sued the State and Giannoulis over the legitimacy of that part of the law.

This is the level of free speech that Party allows in Illinois: what is freely spoken is what Party says its subjects are free to speak.

An Alternative Choice

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) is considering settling his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over that agency’s illegal (and politically motivated, I say) leak of his tax data to the New York Times. His thought is to send the proceeds to charity.

I have an alternative thought. Require, under the terms of the settlement, the IRS to send the settlement funds to the 401(c)(3) NGOs that it had blocked from certification or whose certifications it had slow-walked. Or, require the IRS to agree to allow Trump to spread the settlement funds across those entities in the IRS’ name.

Sometimes poetic justice also is legitimate justice.

Universalized Choices of K-12 Schools

Posted on by
Reply

Our public national education system—an inchoate agglomeration of local public school systems—is badly failing our children and through that badly failing our nation both in our economy and in our national security. Parochial schools, charter schools, voucher schools, homeschooling and pod-schooling (a pooling of homeschooler resources), which I’ll term choice schools—all of these do far better at educating our children than do those public schools, whether run by teacher unions or not. The ability to choose among those options is critical to our children’s education. The competition even produces improvements in the public schools. Hence, ESAs, Education Savings Accounts.

A limitation on ESAs is their funding. Formal funding for ESAs functionally caps their availability for students, with the result that vast numbers of students can’t get into one; the ESA program for their area has expended all of its funds before the enrollment lists got to them. The Wall Street Journal‘s editors propose a solution:

To create truly universal programs, states can remove enrollment caps and fund ESAs outside of annual appropriations…. They can boost scholarship amounts….

More money isn’t necessary. More money would help, even if it is government money, provided it’s allocated and spent wisely—but it would be government money.

More money could be made available for ESAs, if only indirectly, though, not by increasing spending but by allocating existing education dollars to the student rather than to the school district. In this way, when a parent moves his child out of the public school and into a choice school, the money would follow the student to that choice school, defraying the cost of attending that alternative school.

Other mechanisms for supporting school choice also are available. These include State governments removing such barriers to choice as caps on the number of charter or voucher schools allowed to exist in a jurisdiction, forcing homeschooling parents into teacher unions, limiting use of under-used or empty public school facilities by choice schools, onerous licensing and accreditation requirements for choice schools—even caps on the number of students allowed into an ESA program.

What We Have on our Northern Border

Posted on by
Reply

This is Canada under its PM Mark Carney.

  • refusing to honor its financial commitment to NATO; subsumed within that refusal is a betrayal of all of its fellow alliance members by rendering it needily dependent on their blood and treasure for defense while shamefully refusing to supply its own blood and treasure for their defense
  • concluding trade deals with the People’s Republic of China, a nation of avowed enmity toward us, that favor the PRC while producing little of material substance for Canadians
  • concluding similarly one-sided trade deals with Qatar, a nation that while nominally aligned with us actively supports and funds terrorists on the southern reaches of the Arabian Peninsula
  • leaving wide open to illegal alien flows and drug and human trafficking its border with us

Maybe the risk is greater than that from having Mexico on our southern border. At least, Mexico is taking steps to work with us on curbing illegal immigration and human and drug trafficking across that border, along with curbing imports of the PRC’s fentanyl constituent drugs.

Wrong Distinction

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a new challenge, allegedly, for grocers and their junk food sales; although their problem is whether, and if so how much and where, they should stock junk food on their shelves. This is suggested by the headline:

Is a Cookie a Type of Candy? Supermarkets Have a New Food-Stamp Conundrum

This is a trivial question, though, one that awaits only a government definition of what foods are eligible for food stamps. The larger, and the far more serious problem is posed by this claim, buried in the middle of the article:

Critics said that limiting grocery options ignores the real causes of poor diets, such as low incomes, high food prices and access to healthy food. Studies, they said, show little difference between what SNAP recipients buy and the purchases of non-SNAP households.

Say the critics are correct, and food stamp food eligibilities don’t address those root causes. Say, further, that those studies are accurate in their conclusions.

Those criticisms are wholly irrelevant. The fact remains, and it remains unaddressed, as well, that there is no reason for the rest of us to pay with our tax dollars for the poor diet choices those eating on our dime—those food stamp programs—make. If they want those junk foods, let them pay for them on their own dime, just as the purchasers in non-SNAP households do.

How dare we presume so, some might bleat. It’s a simple dare. We’re the ones paying and with our money. We’re the ones who should be determining how our tax dollars are spent.

It’s that straightforward, and it should be that simple.