Tag Archives: political parties

The New Pen and Phone

Posted on by
Reply

Ex-President Barack Obama (D) infamously bragged that he had a pen and a phone available if Congress wouldn’t do his bidding. And he proceeded to use them to reign via diktat—diktats often overruled in court (and remember, this was before former President Donald Trump (R) was able to restore textualist sanity and restrain judicial activism).

Behold, the President Joe Biden (D) version of the pen and phone tool for ruling, rather than governing: the permanent “public health emergency.”

The Biden Administration claims the declaration provides critical regulatory flexibility.

You bet it does.

Scofflaw Blue States

Posted on by
Reply

And guess who gets to pick up the tab. You get three, and the first two don’t count. Here are the scofflaws:

At least four Democratic-led states with budget surpluses this year have chosen not to fully repay the federal government for money borrowed to fund unemployment benefits, a move that will impose increased charges on businesses to help make up the difference.
California, Connecticut, Illinois, and New York have directed surplus funds to social programs and taxpayer rebates, among other causes, leaving unpaid debts to the federal government ranging from tens of millions of dollars to more than $15 billion.

This is the Progressive-Democratic Party at the State level treating loans as grants. Of course, that’s entirely consistent with Party’s attitude toward student loans, so we shouldn’t be surprised.

Ken Pokalsky, Business Council of New York State Vice President:

We’re going to be at elevated levels of taxes for a decade[.]

Yep.

Still Not Ready

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democratic Party’s Biden administration has had how many months since the leak of the Supreme Court’s then-putative Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization ruling that was going to overturn Roe v Wade (and which subsequently was published and did overturn Roe) in which to prepare a response?

This administration has had how many more months since the Supreme Court agreed to hear Dobbs in the first place in which to prepare a response?

This administration has known for how many years that the Supreme Court had had three textualist Justices appointed, Justices that would adhere to the text of our Constitution rather than rule in the activist manner, and so had a 5-3 majority (with Chief Justice John Roberts voting the way he thought legacy demanded) of textualists? Years in which this administration could have been preparing the outlines of responses to the Supreme Court’s various rulings?

And President Joe Biden (D) is only now coming up with an intrinsically fragile Executive Order with which to address the matter of abortion?

Regardless of what any of us might think about abortion or the Dobbs ruling or the overturning of Roe, this…tardiness…of response should give us all pause. This is an administration, and this is a Progressive-Democratic Party (that has had control of both houses of Congress for how long, now?), that seem incapable of planning ahead, of preparing responses (much less backup responses) to events that are coming down the pike and that are eminently visible in the distance on that pike.

A government that operates only via its rearview mirror is a government dangerous to the national weal and to the national security.

Where in the World….

Posted on by
Reply

…is Joe Biden?

Adding to the long list of European heads of state that have visited Ukraine and met face-to-face with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Kyiv and to the long list of American Congressmen who have done the same, Senators Lindsey Graham (R, SC) and Richard Blumenthal (D, CT) have met with Zelenskyy in Kyiv, just last Thursday.

Which raises anew the questions: where in the world is President Joe Biden (D)? Of what is he so terrified that he won’t go to Ukraine and meet with Zelenskyy face-to-face?

It’s not that Biden is unable to hack the trip itself; he’s been to Brussels in the last few months, after all.

Regulatory Review and Streamline

Posted on by
Reply

Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin (R) has a thought on this.

Youngkin signed Executive Order 19 to create the Office of Regulatory Management. This office will streamline the regulatory review process by subjecting agencies to its oversight. The executive order directs the new office to implement a 25% reduction in regulatory requirements.

And

The order states the office will review all regulations for their impact on local governments, the regulated community and private citizens. It will also streamline the regulatory process by requiring agencies to prepare a unified regulatory plan for every fiscal year.

It could work. It could, though, just turn into another layer of bureaucracy in getting regulations handled and new proposals enacted or rejected. As some of you might expect, I have a couple of thoughts of my own on this.

Although regulations must be reviewed every four years, the executive order states this is not uniformly achieved….

Regulations not reviewed on time or whose review isn’t finished on time should be deemed expired on the date of their review anniversary and no longer in existence as of that date. This requirement will require legislative action, though, rather than a Governor’s Executive Order.

And this thought, also deadline oriented:

According to the order, most regulatory proposals take two to three years to be adopted. The office will work to streamline this process to more quickly approve or reject proposed regulations.

Set hard deadlines—vis., 30 days, 90 days, as appropriate to the stage of proposal, 6 months to enactment—and if a stage of review is not complete by its deadline or the overall proposal not ready for enactment by its deadline, the proposal is deemed rejected and cannot be brought up again until after the next election cycle. This, too, will require legislative action rather than an EO.

Don’t allow stalling or dithering or indecision, or excuses for any of that. Push the pace, and specify the concrete, measurable response to stalling or dithering or indecision.