Tag Archives: political parties

Big Progressive-Democrat Government

Posted on by
Reply

A Rasmussen poll suggests that a majority of Americans oppose the socialism in the policies of the Biden-Harris administration.

That’s encouraging, but I have some concerns about the policies anyway, given that they’re being jammed through without regard for the views of the government’s employers.

The socialism aspect of the Biden-Harris and Progressive-Democratic Party policies is less a matter of the raw spending and usurious taxes in them much more a matter of the strings attached to the spending and of who gets (punitively) taxed.

The strings attached would give the Federal government more control over the States and over what businesses are allowed to produce and the prices they charge. The proposed tax structure would give the Federal government more indirect control by “encouraging” businesses to comport themselves IAW Government wishes.

That control is the essence of socialism, whether the control is through outright ownership or through controlling production permissions.

The spendthriftiness should be enough by itself to keep the bill from being passed.

The tax distortions should be enough by itself to keep the bill from being passed.

The increased Government control should be enough by itself to keep the bill from being passed.

Unfortunately, dangerously, each of the three individually (as well as together) are tightly aligned with Progressive-Democratic Party goals of spending to buy votes, taxing the Evil Rich to virtue-signal for votes, and to outright accrete power to Party.

A Progressive-Democrat Threatens

Posted on by
Reply

California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) has issued a threat to try to destroy one of our most fundamental rights as Americans: our right to keep and bear Arms. He’s doing it, too, while drawing a disingenuous parallel between Arms possession and abortion—and in the process, threatening an even more fundamental right, one imbued in all humans not just in Americans.

If states can shield their laws from review by federal courts, then CA will use that authority to help protect lives.
We will work to create the ability for private citizens to sue anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts in CA[.]

In the process, Newsom ignored a critical distinction here. Gun rights are in our Constitution.

The right to abortion exists only in a Supreme Court ruling and has only the force of statutory law—which is explicitly subordinate to our Constitution.

Regarding Newsom’s disingenuous claim about using legal authority to protect people’s lives, he’s also ignoring that our gun rights exist in critical (but not exclusive) part to defend lives and to defend against overreaching government. That the tools occasionally are misused to illegally kill only emphasizes the need to better catch and punish the killers, not to punish the vast majority of us for the crimes of those few. And to not keep letting the accused killers back out on the street with little to no bail.

Abortion laws, on the other hand, kill babies and tend toward blocking legal voices from speaking for them in court. That’s not very protective of our very youngest people’s lives.

A Rain Tax

Posted on by
Reply

It’s back.

Recall the Maryland rain tax that Progressive-Democrats in that State’s legislature actually got passed into law. That…foolishness…contributed to the State’s Progressive-Democrat Governor getting tossed at the next election and replaced by a Republican. The State’s legislature then repealed the tax within the next couple years.

Now we see that the Progressive-Democrat City Manager for Fairfax (that Fairfax), Robert Stalzer, proposed

taxing local residents and businesses for the amount of rainwater that falls on their roofs, driveways, parking lots, and other “impervious surfaces” on their property.

Just the News opened its article on this with this bit from The Beatles:

If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat
If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet

Not to be outdone, or not too badly, anyway, I offer this adaptation from The Lovin’ Spoonful:

You and me and rain on the roof,
Caught up in a taxing shower,
Going broke while it soaks our wallets.
Maybe we’ll be broke in hours,
Waiting out the Guv….

To quote Joe Biden, who railed in a different venue, this is a bonehead idea.

Chit-Chat

Posted on by
Reply

Secretary of State Antony Blinken has some.

The secretary declined to detail potential US responses [to a Russian invasion of Ukraine] but said Mr Biden cited the potential for “high-impact economic measures.”

And

If Beijing were to decide to try to change the status quo [vis-à-vis the Republic of China] unilaterally by force, it would be a very serious mistake[.]

Sure. What exactly might those high-impact economic measures be, and on what basis does Blinken—or Biden-Harris, for that matter—think Putin cares about those, given that he’ll have Ukraine under his control? What evidence do Blinken or Biden-Harris offer to suggest Putin has cared overmuch about past “economic measures?”

Blinken and Biden-Harris are carefully silent on all of that.

Further, what do Blinken or Biden-Harris suggest would be their corrective action for Beijing’s “mistake?” What makes either of them think Xi Jinping would care about any correction, since he’d already be occupying the RoC?

More careful silence.

The Petra Principle

Posted on by
Reply

We’re hearing increasing numbers of reports (I know, it’s the NLMSM, but still) of turmoil in the Kamala Harris (D) Vice President staff, and we have a number of those staffers hitting the bricks.

One journalist, Miranda Devine, who writes for the New York Post, had a thought on that during a Fox News Primetime interview. She suggested that the Harris half of the Biden-Harris Presidency is

elevated above her ability….

And

[Y]ou want your Vice President to be ready to lead. She can’t even lead her own office.

Could be. Certainly, her performance is an illustration of what happens when someone is chosen for a job on the basis of her race and her sex and not on the basis of her talent or experience.