Middle Man?

Posted on by
Reply

Andy Kessler touted San Jose Mayor and California candidate for Governor, Matt Mahan, as presenting a sufficiently centered (Progressive-)Democrat who opposes Party’s supposedly (they promise!) one-time billionaire tax on those Evil One-Percenters’ wealth, whether liquid or not.

But, Mr Mahan goes on [says Kessler], “I don’t believe that high-net-worth individuals should be able to borrow against appreciated assets endlessly as a way to avoid paying capital gains.” The mayor of the country’s 12th-largest city thinks that rather than impose wealth taxes, California should press Congress to eliminate the step-up in basis at death, so that estates or heirs would pay a tax on the appreciation of a decedent’s assets. (California has no estate tax.) That wouldn’t put “our economy, our engine of innovation and prosperity, at risk.”

Three guesses where that would take our economy. Here’s a hint:

No one wealthy would own capital assets, whether personal or enterprise—they’d lease them. That would thoroughly alter the structure of our private economy, real, financial, business ownership, and it would do so in ways that we won’t know until it starts happening. That’s dangerous.

And that doesn’t get to the ability of parents to leave to their children what those parents spent a lifetime building—at least not in any substantial way. That’s even more dangerous.

This is an example of careless compromise: Mahan’s position doesn’t move things to the extreme left, but it does move things toward the left, rather than making an even split, much less moving things a little bit to the right. That’s a loss, not just for Conservatives, but for all of California’s citizens, wherever they are on the political spectrum.

Still a Bankrupt Message

Posted on by
Reply

Rahm Emanuel, late of the Obama White House and the Chicago Mayor’s Mansion, wrote of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s golden opportunity in the Tuesday Wall Street Journal‘s editorial pages.

Many of his points are valid, and Republicans and Conservatives ignore them at their and our nation’s peril. But then he closed his piece with this:

The next 10 months will be about branding Republicans in Congress as Mr Trump’s enablers. Beyond that, we need to focus on speaking to the interests and sensibilities of those who considered or took the Faustian bargain Mr Trump offered them last year and are uncomfortable today with all the chaos they got in return for little economic benefit.

Here is the Republicans’ and Conservatives’ golden opportunity, if they will find some backbone and make use of it. Enablers. Faustian bargain. Branding. This is Party’s sole and constantly delivered message: everything anti-Trump, and those not for Party are just ignorant or foolish or both. Party is against a man and against millions of average Americans.

Party has not a word, not a syllable, about the policies its members would work for and how those policies would strengthen our nation and its security and increase the prosperity of us citizens. [S]peaking to the interests and sensibilities of those who are so ignorant or foolish as to be suckered by the man on which Party focuses its enmity? And say what, exactly? Even as Emanual warns his Party against its common error of smug “I told you so,” here he is recommending Party do exactly that. Addressing the interests and sensibilities of those he says are disgruntled or uncomfortable says nothing about what Party would intend to do to satisfy those disgruntlements.

Republicans’ and Conservatives’ golden opportunity consists of this, and it’s simple and straightforward. Don’t get sucked into a contest of personal opprobrium. Point out Party’s focus on the empty ad hominem of personal opprobrium, briefly; point out the lack of policies and policy goals on which Party campaigns, briefly. Then spend the large bulk of their messaging on their own policies and policy goals; how those enhance our nation and especially the lives of us citizens, individually and as groups; and be specific, fleshing out the glittering generalities with the specifics of carrying them out and the specific, measurable benefits to Americans that would ensue, including anticipated time frames for their coming to fruition and any pain points that might come from the transitions to those goals.

Being specific, of course, invites criticism and attack; staying with glittering generalities ducks them. This is where the backbones of Republicans and Conservatives come in, backbones that too many claiming to be Republican or Conservative have for too long lacked. Specifics are necessary to make the claims concrete and so to attract voters. This is where these wonders must, finally, step up.

Jumping the Gun

Posted on by
Reply

The headline is…optimistic.

China Loses a Foothold in Panama

The headline heads off an op-ed centered on the Panamanian Supreme Court ruling that the contracts giving management of, and so control over, the Panama Canal ports to CK Hutchison’s Panama Ports Co unconstitutional, and so illegitimate.

That’s a good, solid step in the right direction, but follow through is required.

CK Hutchison Holdings Ltd, which owns Panama Ports Co, which in turn is the owner of the port concessions at either end of the Panama Canal, has not withdrawn its subsidiary, nor has it withdrawn itself. Both are People’s Republic of China companies, and so both are obligated to the PRC government and to that government’s intelligence community.

The PRC does still control the canal, and it will until CK Hutchison and Panama Ports are both gone.

Cancel Culture of the Left

Posted on by
Reply

Education Secretary Linda McMahon was scheduled to speak and interact with children and their parents via an appearance at McKinley Elementary School in Fairfield, CT. Within hours of DoEd’s announcement of the visit, the school canceled the visit. Fairfield Superintendent of Schools Michael Testani [ellipsis in the original]:

…we heard from many families who expressed concerns and shared that they were considering keeping their children home[.]

The editors of the Hearst Connecticut Media crowed:

The appearance was billed as part of the US Education Department’s “History Rocks Tour!” aspiring to visit all 50 states on America’s 250th anniversary.
History does rock. And on this day, Fairfield, Connecticut, was on the right side of history.

This would have been a excellent opportunity for the kids and their parents to have heard thoughts with which they’re not familiar (at least the kids are not) and to interact with, ask questions of, and express their own concerns to the leading government official overseeing so many facets of American education systems.

Instead, this is the school’s management team’s, backed by news opinionators, terror of folks of whom he disapproves saying things of which he disapproves.

The editors added this in their piece:

We don’t know precisely what concerns were expressed.

Nor do they know how many of those parents actually were concerned. Testani chose to not make that datum public, either.

That didn’t stop these worthies, though, from clutching their faux pearls and celebrating another “success” at avoiding hearing a differing opinion.

Reapportionment

Posted on by
Reply

There is a flurry of domestic migration from Blue States to other States, usually Red. That could prove costly to the Blue States’ representation in the US House of Representatives.

The left-leaning Brennan Center has taken a look at the Census and finds Democratic-controlled states are likely to lose at least 10 House seats.
If recent trends in population growth and migration continue, the Brennan Center projects that Texas would gain four seats, Florida three, and Georgia, Arizona, Utah, North Carolina, and Idaho one each in the reapportionment after the 2030 Census. California would lose four, and New York two. Oregon, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island would give up one apiece.
This would give Southern states 164 House seats, which is 19 more than in the 2000s. The Northeast would have 81 seats, down from 92.

That representation reallocation isn’t all. That’s also a shift of Electoral College votes from Blue States to Red to the tune of 30 votes shifting right.

Which is why the Progressive-Democrats are so shrilly against requiring US citizenship as a criterion for voting in Federal elections, requiring proof of US citizenship in order to get a ballot for Federal elections, and—especially—against excluding non-citizens present in their States from the census count that’s used for apportionment. It’s also why Progressive-Democrats so shrilly push for open US borders and welcoming all comers, including illegal aliens, into their jurisdictions. If they succeed in keeping non-citizens in the apportionment count and blocking Voter ID, that would strongly favor apportionment toward them, even with the ongoing domestic outmigration from those States.

Progressive-Democrats are more interested in their political power than they are in free and fair elections.