Tag Archives: political parties

A Rich Property Transfer Tax

Posted on by
Reply

Chicago, already a heavily taxed city, is looking at increasing the tax it claims on the sale of properties valued at more than $1 million. It’s no tweak, either: the increase would be from the current 0.75% to 2.65%. Even so, it’s projected (more like hoped IMNSHO) to raise $163 million per year. The money ostensibly is to be explicitly earmarked for construction of (and, presumably, conversion of existing structures for) permanent supportive housing units for the homeless.

I have questions.

Chicago—Cook County—is losing population at a high rate.

Cook County lost more population than almost any other county in the nation, with the exception of Los Angeles County, from July 2021 to July 2022, according to U.S. Census Bureau estimates released March 30.
The leading cause of the drop was 94,344 residents who moved out of Cook County during the year, completely driving the county’s population to shrink by 68,314 residents.

With the city undergoing such high net outmigration for greener [sic] regions, who’s going to be buying those rich properties? Not folks in the surrounding counties; those regions are losing population, also, and not into Chicago. No one in his right mind is moving into Cook and surrounding counties. Sales are going to fall off year by year, and the sales that do occur are going to be at increasingly lower prices, reducing the number of million-dollar properties that exist, much less that are up for resale.

I have a downstream question, too. What properties does the city plan to seize for the construction/conversion? What does the city plan to do with the residents who will be displaced by this construction/conversion?

Impeaching Joe Biden

Posted on by
Reply

I’ll leave aside, for this post, concerns about the degree of wisdom of impeaching President Joe Biden (D) when there is no hope of the Senate seriously considering the matter during the ensuing trial, much less getting a serious vote regarding conviction or acquittal.

The question here is whether the House can impeach Biden (or any House impeach any President) for wrongs committed before he was in office as President.

House Republicans have floated launching an impeachment inquiry against President Biden amid newly surfaced allegations that suggest his involvement in the business dealings his son, Hunter. But can congressional lawmakers initiate the use of that constitutional tool for alleged treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors that transpired before holding the office of the presidency?

Alan Dershowitz says,

The answer is clear. No one knows.

I beg to differ. Here’s what Article II, Section 4, of our Constitution says:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Nowhere in that Article, nor anywhere else, does our Constitution define high Crimes and Misdemeanors. Those are whatever the House wants them to be, and more concretely, they’re whatever the Senate agrees with the House on and votes to convict.

Additionally, that lack of specificity regarding high Crimes and Misdemeanors necessarily includes lack of specificity surrounding when the behaviors occurred. Nor are there any timing constraints in Article I, Section 2 (regarding the House’s power of impeachment), or in Article I, Section 3 (regarding the Senate’s power to try impeachment cases), regarding those behaviors.

And, in any event there is no recourse for an impeachment and conviction: that outcome is unappealable.

I claim, then, that the answer is, indeed, clear. The House can impeach a President for any reason it wishes. But in the present case, such a move would be, in the words of a Senator of some years, a dumb idea.

We the People, now knowing better, shouldn’t reelect Biden. The House should move to impeach only on the basis of Biden’s current, in-office misbehaviors, and even then it should move only when there’s a serious chance that the Senate would conduct a serious trial. Impeaching absent that Senate seriousness would, at best, be a waste of time.

Conducting the impeachment inquiry that Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R, CA) is considering would be a very good idea. That would get the information regarding Biden’s current misbehaviors in front of We the People in time for us to consider it as we cast our votes in 16 months, even if it would be unlikely to convince Biden’s Progressive-Democratic Party Senate syndicate to take the matter seriously.

Talk About Violating Separation of Powers

Posted on by
Reply

In an effort to impose costs incurred by progressive States in their efforts to build out their “green” energy infrastructure onto conservatively governed States, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D) is demonstrating his allyship.

Schumer is directing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to stick red states with the bill.
Mr Schumer last week sent a letter demanding that FERC expedite a “strong transmission planning and cost allocation rule” to deliver more “clean power to Americans.”

In particular,

Mr Schumer writes that FERC should order states that “act as free riders” to pay for transmission upgrades. He also wants FERC to clarify its “backstop authority” to issue permits when states won’t. In other words, if West Virginians don’t want to pay for connecting New Jersey offshore wind farms to the grid, FERC should mandate that they pay anyway.

Quite apart from whether Schumer’s move is a good or bad idea for our energy industry or economically—it isn’t; it’s a terrible idea—this is a cynical, and I say deliberate, disregard for our Constitution’s separated powers structure for our Federal government.

In our system of governance, legislators, whether as a group or as individual Senators (or Representatives), don’t get to dictate to Executive Branch agencies what they must or must not do. If they want to influence such an agency, or the Executive Branch as a whole, the Congress as a whole must pass a bill that does so and get the President, the head of the Executive Branch, to sign off on it. Alternatively, the Congress as a whole must believe strongly enough in its move to muster a supermajority of legislators in each House to override the President’s veto.

That Schumer chooses to ignore that aspect of our Constitution is all too typical of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s contempt of and disregard for our Constitution.

Us ordinary Americans need to remember this in 16 months.

Biden’s Ongoing Betrayal of Ukraine

Posted on by
Reply

The lede in the Wall Street Journal article says it all.

The slow pace of Ukraine’s counteroffensive against entrenched Russian invaders is dimming hopes that negotiations for an end to the fighting could come this year and raising the specter of an open-ended conflict, according to Western officials.

The terms of negotiation have been clearly, and repeatedly, stated by Ukraine’s President Volodymir Zelenskyy. President Joe Biden (D) has steadfastly ignored them, as he’s more terrified of Russian President Vladimir Putin than he is supportive of actual Ukrainian victory, territorial integrity, and national sovereignty.

And this, in the immediately following paragraph:

A potential stalemate would test President Biden’s stated strategy of pouring billions of dollars in military aid into Ukraine, to enable Kyiv to negotiate with Russia from a position of strength.

It’s a stalemate created entirely by slow-walking—and outright blocking—delivery of the weapons, ammunition, training, and logistic support the Ukrainian defense establishment needs to win quickly and decisively. It’s a stalemate proximately created by Biden with his refusal to deliver the weapons and ammunition the Ukrainians needed to begin their offensive last winter. Instead, Biden’s timidity in front of Putin delayed the Ukrainians’ start for months, transferring to the barbarian, instead, those months for him to prepare his present defenses.

Then there’s this bit of despicable-ness in the article:

The US stay-the-course strategy holds some risks, however.

There should be no such strategy, and there never should have been. There should have been—and there still should be, with very good effect—a constant acceleration of delivery to Ukraine so that it could have, and still could, win decisively and quickly. Instead, Biden is perfectly happy to have Ukrainian soldiers and civilians, including women and children, bleed and die for Biden’s battle between democracy and authoritarianism.

It’s also an immediate Ukrainian battle for national survival, for Ukraine’s very existence. But Biden doesn’t care about that.

When Did History Begin?

Posted on by
Reply

According to members of the Progressive-Democratic Party, it began in 2022. Take, for instance, the Progressive-Democrat Congresswoman from Pennsylvania, Chrissy Houlahan.

As inflation cools, it’s important to think about how far we’ve come since the crisis brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic and the invasion of Ukraine by Russia.

How far we’ve come:

At this time last year, due to the efforts of the Biden administration and congressional Democrats as we emerged from the pandemic, we were seeing strong economic growth, historically low unemployment, and large wage increases, particularly for low and middle-income workers.

What we were seeing at this time last year was the beginning of an Obama-esque slow recovery from the booming economy that already was expanding rapidly as we came out of the Wuhan Virus situation in the summer and fall of 2020 in that history that exists before this time last year.

What we are seeing since this time last year is the recovery to that latter half of 2020’s historic unemployment—for women, blacks, and Hispanics, especially—due to the recovery of jobs lost during the Wuhan Virus situation, and very few new jobs created.

What we are seeing since this time last year has been declining real wages in the face of Party-driven inflation as those wage increases—which Houlahan knows are only nominal, but chooses to elide—paled in the face of inflation. Only in the last month did nominal wage increases exceed inflation, and that’s far too soon to know whether this one time is the start of a trend or merely a one-off.

What we are seeing over the last two years is a widening of the wage gap between whites and minorities as that slow recovery and Party’s racist and sexist identity politics limit who gets back into those recovered jobs. That wage gap had narrowed significantly over the four years through 2020, as folks on the lower rungs—especially minorities and single mothers—actually got jobs (that historically low unemployment rate extant in 2020 and before) and had income. And their wages rose—nominally and in real terms—faster than did the wages of the middle and upper classes.

However, Americans were still experiencing high prices.

Yes, we are. And we will relative to our incomes for some years. Inflation may finally be coming back down—it’s still higher, though, than it was at the end of the prior administration, over two years ago—but as Houlahan admitted, inflation is a rate of price increase, it is not the prices themselves. The prices Party’s inflation drove up will not come back down.

One factor that contributes to those high prices in addition to overall inflation is the cost of energy. That has become even more expensive with Party’s open war on fossil fuel-based energy, and its effort to eliminate that industry altogether. They don’t care that energy is at the heart of the cost of production (and so at the heart of the cost of us ordinary Americans‘ purchases, especially for those of us on the lower economic rungs, below Houlahan’s middle class).

It’s certainly true that supply chain disruptions have contributed, also, to higher prices. However, the prior administration, and American businesses on their own, had already been working to revamp our supply chains to re-anchor them in more stable, more favorable locations. The disruptions of the barbarian’s invasion of Ukraine also have contributed. But that invasion was encouraged to start by the Progressive-Democrat-run Biden administration’s open timidity in the face of terrorists in western Asia and in the face of the barbarian chieftain in the Kremlin.

New Democrat, same as the old Democrat.