Tag Archives: political parties

Works for Me

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Chris Murphy (D, CT) has his gun control panties all knotted up because lots of county sheriffs have said they won’t enforce intrinsically unconstitutional gun control laws.

I think we have to have a conversation about whether we can continue to fund law enforcement in states where they are refusing to implement these gun laws[.]

I’ve addressed whether local and county jurisdictions should accept State funding for this or that purpose or whether they, instead, should decline the funds and free themselves from higher government’s controlling strings.

At the national level, Murphy’s terms are acceptable.

They Should Take Him Up on His Offer

Posted on by
Reply

Many California local jurisdiction officials dispute with California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) over which has the larger responsibility for the homelessness rampant in those jurisdictions and what action should be taken to mitigate the problem. As a result of the dispute,

Mr Newsom recently put a temporary freeze on $1 billion of state grants for city and county homelessness programs. He also rejected a slate of proposals from local officials outlining how they would spend the money, saying the measures would have reduced homelessness statewide by 2% between 2020 and 2024, which he deemed inadequate.

In response,

Mayors and county officials, meanwhile, have said they need the Newsom administration to provide reliable, recurring revenue streams and a cohesive statewide framework to address the issue.

No, they don’t. City and county officials need to reassess their own spending priorities and their own ordinances regarding housing, employment, and homelessness and make their own adjustments. Nor should they be holding out for a Statewide “framework” for the problem: each local area has its own unique set of homeless problems, even if there might be considerable overlap among the areas.

Then these city and county officials need to accept Newsom’s generous offer to step back from interfering in city and county governance; they should accept his withholding from them of State funding.

The less State funding a city or county takes from the State government, the less hold on the city or county the State has and the weaker the ability of the State to dictate behaviors to the city or county government. This would be a relative increase in city and county power relative to the State and a net gain for the individual liberties of the local residents and the State citizens resident in there.

What’s not to like?

Whose Choice Is It?

Posted on by
Reply

And whose property is it?

A new law being seriously considered by lawmakers in New York City could strip landlords of the ability to perform criminal background checks on prospective tenants.

Because landlords shouldn’t be able to control who rents their property, shouldn’t be able to protect the interests of their existing tenants—who have, by dint of their rent agreements, have some property of their own in the landlord’s buildings.

This law means it’s city government property; landlords possess the buildings only in fee from the city lords.

Republican Councilwoman Inna Vernikov has the right of it:

A bill which would prohibit landlords from conducting criminal background checks of potential tenants. Murdered someone? Beat up your girlfriend? Robbed? Stabbed your neighbor? No problem. Come live among us!

Certainly felons, even violent felons, shouldn’t be blanketly denied a second chance, shouldn’t be blanketly denied an opportunity to demonstrate that they’ve rehabilitated themselves, shouldn’t be blanketly denied an opportunity at redemption.

But that should be the choice of the property owner, the landlord; it cannot be, legitimately, a choice forced upon the property owner, in a one-size-fits-all diktat by the Lords of the city.

Maybe It’s Time

Posted on by
Reply

The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction reported to Congress at the end of October that

for the first time in its history [SIGAR was] unable this quarter to provide Congress and the American people with a full accounting of this US government spending [in Afghanistan] due to the noncooperation of several US government agencies.
The United States Agency for International Development, which administers the majority of US government spending for Afghanistan, and the Treasury Department refused to cooperate with SIGAR in any capacity while the State Department was selective in the information it provided pursuant to SIGAR’s audit and quarterly data requests.

These refusals directly violate current law regarding fund expenditure reporting requirements and are yet further examples of the disdain for inconvenient law held by members and supporters of the Progressive-Democratic Party.

Maybe it’s time to defund entirely the USAID and to drastically reduce funding for Treasury and State. That would significantly reduce the amount of government spending that would go unreported.

It’ll be difficult and noisy to do, though, since the Progressive-Democratic Party politicians controlling the Senate and White House agree that this badly needed information should be covered up.

Political Payback

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal‘s Editors note that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R, CA) plans to remove three of the more sketchy and extremist members of the Progressive-Democratic Party from House committees if he becomes Speaker. The Editors then fret that

This sort of mutually assured political destruction is both a symptom and cause of the decline of Congress. But these are the polarizing precedents that Mrs Pelosi has set, and in politics payback is inevitable.

The Editors are correct regarding symptoms and causes here; however, they fail to proceed to the follow-on alternatives. The Republican Party getting even here will give both parties an opportunity to step back. Whether both of the parties take advantage of the chance is a separate question.

If there isn’t payback, though, the destruction is guaranteed to continue, and by a single party alone—which would be much worse.