Tag Archives: political parties

Another Reason to Not Take Federal Dollars

Posted on by
Reply

Aside from the fact that those dollars aren’t actually Federal government dollars; they’re OPM, the tax remittances of us ordinary Americans from all over our nation that then get transferred to other jurisdictions than the ones we live in.

Here’s the latest reason.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development is proposing a rule that would require towns that receive federal money to create “equity plans” for fair housing and take action to end racially unbalanced neighborhoods.

In other words, as the Wall Street Journal‘s editors put it,

the Biden bureaucracy wants to socially engineer suburban neighborhoods to its racial and ethnic liking.

Not to the liking of us citizens.

Never mind that such plans are intrinsically racist, handing out funds as they do based on race, no matter the high-minded pretenses of the politician pushers. And never mind that “racially unbalanced neighborhoods” would balance out on their own—to some extent—in an unfettered free market. “Some” because in that free market, buyers and sellers would make their own decisions on where to live and among whom, and many free Americans would choose freely to live in the company of others like themselves.

In the end, the way to be free of Government strings attached to Government funds transfers is to stop taking Government funds. Breaking the addiction to OPM, as with any other addiction, will be deucedly hard. But hard means possible.

Punishing Success

Posted on by
Reply

You’ve earned your wages; husbanded them carefully; spent wisely, living within your means; paid your debts promptly and in full. As a result, you’ve gained an excellent credit rating.

Your reward? An artificially inflated mortgage cost, courtesy of the Progressive-Democratic Party-run Executive Branch, and redistribution of the fruits of your success, arbitrarily, to those who haven’t done those things.

A Biden administration rule is set to take effect that will force good-credit home buyers to pay more for their mortgages to subsidize loans to higher-risk borrowers.
Experts believe that borrowers with a credit score of about 680 would pay around $40 more per month on a $400,000 mortgage under rules from the Federal Housing Finance Agency that go into effect May 1, costs that will help subsidize people with lower credit ratings also looking for a mortgage, according to a Washington Times report Tuesday.

But. But, but, but. The Federal Housing Finance Agency, the Biden administration entity responsibility for this nonsense has long sought to give consumers more affordable housing options.

Under the new rules, consumers with lower credit ratings and less money for a down payment would qualify for better mortgage rates than they otherwise would have.

This is silly. The transfer of wealth from those who’ve earned good credit scores to those who have not will not make the latter better credit risks. It will increase the rate of default.

Here’s a thought: cut back on the regulations related to banking, lending, housing, landlording, construction, and utilities so as to bring down the cost of housing generally. See if that will give consumers more affordable housing options.

Stop punishing success; instead, encourage folks to work toward success.

Ban Assault Weapons

Posted on by
Reply

President Joe Biden (D) wants to ban assault weapons completely.

His Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director Steve Dettelbach, testifying under oath before a House Appropriations subcommittee, flat refused to say what an assault weapon was when asked by Congressman Jake Ellzey (R, TX).

…if Congress wishes to take that up, I think Congress would have to do the work, but we would be there to provide technical assistance. I, unlike you, am not a firearms expert to the same extent as you maybe, but we have people at ATF who can talk about velocity of firearms, what damage different kinds of firearms cause, so that whatever determination you chose to make would be an informed one.

Weasel words. You define the term, Dettelbach said, we’ll “help.” After all, he could have provided his own definition; those same experts could have advised him as he prepared for his testimony.

Biden wants to ban, and his ATF honcho—the man and the agency responsible for “regulating” the weapons us American citizens choose to keep and bear—refuses to say what it is that this administration would ban.

The obvious, and only logical, conclusion from this deliberate obfuscation is that Biden and his fellow Progressive-Democratic Party syndicate members intend to ban all of our firearms.

Progressive Idiocy

Posted on by
Reply

The New York City Council is striking again. These wonders are pushing their cutely named Choose 2 Reuse bill, which

aims to improve sustainability in the restaurant business, but would add some friction to a customer experience that is typically defined by its convenience. Consumers would be asked to later return their reusable food containers, knives, forks, and chopsticks either through delivery or logistics partners who come to pick them up or in person via receptacles at participating restaurants. The bill doesn’t require reusable beverage containers.

It’s interesting that the City Council excludes beverage containers. There was a time when beverage containers—soda bottles, for instance—could be returned for a return of a deposit paid when the (sodas) were sold, a practice that enabled more than a few boys and girls to earn a bit of extra money by collecting up the bottles and doing the return. And there never was a problem cleaning the then-glass bottles for reuse, nor was there a liability problem arising from the reuse of inadequately cleaned bottles.

That sort of thing fell into disfavor when tin, and later aluminum, cans proved easier and cheaper to manufacture (and wend their way through the bottling process)—and far from being one-use disposable, they could be recycled through a different chain.

Now NYC is bent on reverting to that greater cost—never minding that one-use food containers for takeout are easily manufactured for breakdown and return to the soil when disposed of in landfills. Or in many jurisdictions, converted to mulch for DIY gardeners. Or recycled for yet other non-food related uses.

Now, in addition to the added costs inflicted on restaurants and consumers alike, the Wonders of the Council also want to expose the city’s restaurants to liability through suits centered on real or imagined food poisoning from allegedly inadequately cleaned-for-reuse containers and utensils. Even stipulating that utensils would no longer be included (presumably by restaurant choice; nothing in the proposed bill suggests this)—requiring consumers to use their own—the containers would need to be made sturdy enough to survive the restaurant’s dishwashers—or to survive the consumers’ dishwashers, should they be offered a discount for doing the cleaning for the restaurant. And which the restaurant would have no guarantee that the consumer had cleaned the containers well enough to meet the government standards imposed on the restaurant.

Legalized Doxing

Posted on by
Reply

Doxing is the process of publicly identifying/publishing a person’s private information in order to “punish” that person for some imagined offense or for revenge because that person did something the doxxer didn’t like. In most jurisdictions, doxing is at least civilly wrong if not criminally so.

Now Michigan wants to force employers to dox their employees to unions.

A Michigan Senate bill currently under consideration aims to require employers to share employees’ name, home address, cell phone number, work address location, and personal email address with labor representatives every 90 days.

That’s all employees, not just union members. And every 90 days, yet—because the Progressive-Democratic Party members are at pains to keep the unions current on the dox data. State Senator John Cherry (D) on his Senate Bill 169:

The intent here is to make sure that individuals who are legally required to represent employees have the information on who they are actually required to represent and the ability to contact them and fulfill their requirements of representation[.]

This is utterly disingenuous. The unions already know who they represent: they have the union cards and the dues remittals. They don’t need to know where their members live, or their cell phone numbers, or their personal email data except to personally harass those employees who don’t toe the union line. They especially don’t need to know this information about employees who are not union members—union individuals don’t represent them, by intent of the non-union employee.

And for how long does anyone think unions would keep that information nonpublic, in any case, especially the information of those employees impudent enough to decline to join?

This is yet another example of unions gone amok and of Progressive-Democratic Party-run governments aiding and abetting union misbehavior.