Tag Archives: political parties

Reparations and Bargaining

Posted on by
Reply

California’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Gavin Newsom convened a “Let’s Give Reparation Payments to the Government-Favored” task force. Kenneth Blackwell exposed part of the purpose in his recent Fox News op-ed.

The idea was simple: the task force would deliberate, generating regular headlines, and then eventually propose something. Either the proposal would be feasible, in which case Black Californians would get some nominal amount of money and Newsom could claim a “win,” or it would be outlandish, in which case legislators would balk and Newsom would claim that he had done everything in his power to correct historic injustices.

The intent is in that “either” part: the proposal would be feasible, in which case Black Californians would get some nominal amount of money. In the so-far realization, California citizens identifying as black and having lived in the State for a nominal period would get hundreds of thousands to perhaps millions of taxpayer—fellow citizens’—dollars, ostensibly because of the sins of a century-and-a-half ago and the claimed continued failures ever since.

That’s the strategy, and it’s a standard bargaining technique. Open with a high bid, let yourself get talked down to a lower amount—this charade is far from played out—and walk away with something that you didn’t have any of at the start. And in the present case, still don’t deserve.

The current phase is epitomized by one California citizen’s mantra: Our vote is for sale. No reparations, no vote. Selling their civic duty to the highest bidder.

Each is an example of the cynicism of the Left and its Party.

A Telling Graph

Posted on by
Reply

This one via The Wall Street Journal in an article positing three scenarios regarding our economy and the existing debt ceiling negotiations. The graph, which the WSJ sourced to the Bipartisan Policy Center, is especially dispositive given the backdrop of Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden refusing to negotiate over an already House-passed bill that raises the ceiling along with some initial, and small, spending reforms. That backdrop also includes Biden’s, his Progressive-Democratic Party Congressional cronies’, and journalism’s shrill panic-mongering over default if the debt ceiling isn’t raised.Notice that. Interest on our nation’s debt is tiny compared with the revenue flowing in for June; that means there’ll be no default if Biden and his Treasury Secretary obey our Constitution, the latter which makes the situation plain in the Preamble to Article I, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power…to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States….

There’s also plenty of revenue with which to make the scheduled principal payments on our debt. In addition to the lack of default, there’s provid[ing] for the common Defence: DoD, military salaries , and veterans’ benefits together, along with Homeland Security, are similarly tiny compared to the revenue coming in. Biden’s lies about cutting those veterans’ benefits in particular are exposed. Then there’s the general Welfare: these comprise the biggest share of that revenue—and there’s plenty of revenue with which to cover Medicare and Social Security as scheduled and with which to make the Medicaid transfers to the States.

The hard numbers will vary from month to month, but the revenues will be there to make the Constitutionally required payments.

What’s necessary to resolve the current situation are two things: Republicans need to stand firm on passing a debt ceiling increase only with spending reforms in order to reduce the need for future ceiling increases (along with, separately and subsequently, passing out of the House, where such things originate, a budget that reduces spending in the out years. There’s no need to wait for Biden’s foolishness of a sham budget proposal, ever), and for Biden and his Party cronies to get serious about negotiating specifics within that framework instead of blindly following an angry old man’s stubbornness.

The Answers are Simple and Direct

Posted on by
Reply

The lawyer representing an IRS whistleblower who leads the IRS investigative team looking into Hunter Biden’s alleged tax-related peccadilloes has advised the relevant House and Senate oversight committees that the whistleblower and his entire team have been removed from the investigation into those Hunter tax affairs.

The removal came at the direct request of Attorney General Merrick Garland’s DoJ.

The response to this blatant obstruction of Congressional oversight is—or should be—short and sweet: bring the whistleblower in immediately—the person already has whistleblower protections explicitly from both Congress and DoJ (unless Garland chooses to extend his obstruction)—to testify under oath regarding what he has. In conjunction with that, and simultaneously with it, subpoena each member of the whistleblower’s team and bring them in to testify under oath. It’s a short walk from the IRS’ offices to Capital Hill; there’s no need for further delay.

Along these lines,

House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Michael McCaul (R, TX) is threatening to push forward with a vote next week to hold Secretary of State Antony Blinken in contempt of Congress if he does not hand over a classified cable sent from diplomats in the US Embassy in Kabul shortly before the Taliban seized power in Afghanistan.

No. Republicans need to stop yapping and start doing. Don’t threaten to vote to hold Blinken in contempt. He already is in contempt. He already has refused to hand over the demanded documents.

Hold the vote, don’t natter on about holding a vote. Put Garland, here, too, in the position of enforcing the contempt citation or on the record as obstructing yet another Congressional oversight action.

As long as Republicans in the House are, as it were, all hat and no cattle when it comes to confronting Executive Branch cabinets, they’ll continue to be the dude ranch tenderfoot pretenders so many of us consider them to be.

Government “Overreach”

Posted on by
Reply

Washington’s Progressive-Democrat Governor Jay Inslee has signed into law a collection of bills that move to outlaw a potful of firearms, including AR-15-style rifles. Inslee’s rationalization for this is this:

No one needs an AR-15 to protect your family….

No. Government does not get to dictate to us citizens what our needs are for the Arms we choose to keep and bear. That right, as our Constitution’s 2nd Amendment makes clear, shall not be infringed. Indeed, it’s precisely against this degree of Government misbehavior for which we have our uncaveated 2nd Amendment.

Full stop.

Actually, not just overreach. This is Government seeking to disarm us Americans, looking to render We the People defenseless against its reign. Which emphasizes the need [sic] for, as well as the uncaveated nature of, our 2nd Amendment.

Fuller stop.

Punishing a Legislator

Posted on by
Reply

Recall that, in response to scurrilous remarks made in opposition to a Montana legislature bill barring child mutilation gender-related “care” for children, Progressive-Democratic Party State Congresswoman Zooey Zephyr was censured and barred from the House floor for the remainder of the current legislative session.

Now she, along with four constituents, are suing the State and a variety of State officials over the matter. The ACLU, representing Zephyr in the suit, actually makes the claim that her censure and bar from the floor is unconstitutional.

Here’s what Montana’s State Constitution has to say on the matter [initial boldface in the original, emphasis at the end added]:

Section 10. Organization and procedure. (1) Each house shall judge the election and qualifications of its members. It may by law vest in the courts the power to try and determine contested elections. Each house shall choose its officers from among its members, keep a journal, and make rules for its proceedings. Each house may expel or punish a member for good cause shown with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its members.

The courts have no jurisdiction in this matter. The ACLU’s argument is silly, and even those lawyers should know better. Or, perhaps the ACLU prefers that Zephyr be expelled altogether, as Montana’s Constitution explicitly permits.