Tag Archives: political parties

Why Not?

Posted on by
Reply

Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo (D) doesn’t want the US to decouple our trade or our trade relationship with the People’s Republic of China. It’s sufficient, she claims in all seriousness to safeguard [our] technology to ensure [our] economic competitiveness.

It’s important that we get the bilateral economic relationship right, not just by protecting but also by actively promoting our economic interests in trade. We are not seeking the decoupling from China.

Why not? There’s a broader concern here, that Raimondo and the Biden administration at large, carefully ignore than merely protecting our technology and technology advantages. That larger concern is our independence of action on the world stage in “competition” with a nation with the avowed goal of overtaking and supplanting the US in the world—of conquering us, whether overtly or functionally.

That goal, that threat is given concrete, measurable effect by the PRC’s

  • flooding the US with fentanyl and flooding Mexico with the components of fentanyl so that nation can flood US with fentanyl
  • our dependence on PRC for Critical Items in our supply chain
    • rare earths, which the PRC already has used in an attempt to extort Japan
    • lithium
    • cobalt
    • intermediate components in assembly of computer chips, computers, cell phones
  • overt threats against friends and allies, , Republic of China, Japan and Republic of Korea (East China Sea), nations rimming South China Sea
  • 2017 National Intelligence Law that makes every PRC company a spy for the PRC government and for the CCP
  • support for the barbarian’s invasion of Ukraine

Trade with the PRC funds their military development against that goal of replacing us.

The PRC is an enemy nation, and we should be doing nothing at all to support its economy, its economic adventurism around the world, its intelligence-gathering efforts, its own technological development, its military expansion and expansionism.

That requires decoupling altogether.

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.