Tag Archives: political parties

There’s Straightforward Fix

Posted on by
2

Progressive-Democrats are once again showing their monarchical and my-way-or-no-one-gets-anything attitude toward us average Americans. This time it’s the Texas branch of the Progressive-Democratic Party intending to have its State legislature politicians abscond from Texas in order to deny the State legislature the necessary quorum to conduct business. The proximate business is the legislature’s State redistricting proposal resetting the districts from which our State’s Federal Representatives would be elected.

The short term solution to this, I suggest, would be to hold the redistricting proposal as the first item on the agenda for every Special Session the governor calls and for every regular legislative session until the proposal gets a vote in each of the House and the Senate.

My wife has a longer-term solution: a Texas Constitutional Amendment that would allow the governor to declare every Representative or Senate seat whose Representative or Senator is absent for one week or more (she suggested two weeks) from an active legislative session as part of a group of Representatives or Senators who are absent, thereby denying the House or Senate (or both) a quorum—whether that’s the intent or not—vacant. The governor then must schedule a Special Election to elect a new Representative or Senator to the vacant seat, the election to be held within 30 days of the vacancy declaration.

To this, I add a couple of items. The heretofore incumbent would be ineligible to stand for immediate reelection; although he would be eligible at the next regular election following the Special Election or following the next regular election if the Special Election were to coincide with a regular election.

And this: the governor must appoint a Representative(s) or Senator(s) to fill every such vacancy in the interim between the vacancy declaration and the Special Election or regular election if the Special Election coincides with a regular election. This would allow the legislature to get on with its business without having to wait on that next election.

Core Progressive-Democratic Party Policy

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Cory Booker (D, NJ) made it explicit a couple days ago in a speech opposing unanimous consent passage of some bipartisan bills, including one led by his Progressive-Democrat colleague Catherine Cortez Masto (D, NV). Booker’s position, loudly and proudly stated on the Senate floor:

It’s time for Democrats to have a backbone[.]
…
This is a problem with Democrats in America right now. We’re willing to be complicit to Donald Trump to let this pass through, when we have all the leverage right now. When are we going to stand up as a body and defend our work, defend our jurisdiction, defend this coequal branch of government?

Then, when challenged on this by Cortez, instead of responding with facts and logic, Booker answered in typical Progressive-Democrat fashion:

Don’t question my integrity, don’t question my motives[.]

Those Progressive-Democrat Senators who disagreed with Booker and his behavior, Senators Masto and Amy Klobuchar (D, MN), are increasingly on Party’s fringe, far from the Party center. That’s where the Bookers of Party stand.

That stance: everything against Trump and Republicans, nothing for what’s explicitly good for their constituents or for our nation as a whole.

Party’s core and only policy is naked opposition to all things originating outside of Party.

Progressive-Democratic Party Policies

Posted on by
2

Neera Tanden, ex-policy advisor to ex-President Joe Biden (D), has a proposal regarding immigration. I’ll elide the manufactured hysteria with which she opens her piece.

Our proposal ends the misuse of asylum and restores it to its original purpose—to protect those persecuted for who they are or what they believe.
…
…more personnel, better technology, and barriers where appropriate—to deter illegal immigration and apprehend contraband goods.
…
We should expand legal immigration—with safeguards that prevent displacement for American workers….

With no ideas for how to prove the legitimacy of those asylum claims; throw money and bodies at the problem, though; and make sure those lettuce pickers and lawn mowers and house cleaners are available to do the dirty work for us.

The core of Tanden’s position, though, is this:

Democrats can win this issue—and cleave Republicans—if they support ending illegal immigration and increasing legal immigration. The left also has a chance to split the right as they have split us.

Party adherents’ policy plainly is merely anti-Republican and not at all pro-what’s good for America and America’s citizens. What about a policy whose goal is America and Americans winning?

Party adherents have no policies that they’re for; their core policy is Oppose the Other Side. Immigration is merely a tool for Party defeating Republicans. It’s not about making our nation greater.

A Clear Choice

Posted on by
Reply

The recently passed OBBBA has Federal funding for private school tuition in the form of tax credits—private schools being, primarily, charter and voucher schools. States must opt into the program, though; the tax credits won’t be available automatically.

As The Wall Street Journal headline put it, Blue States Face Big Decision. And then,

Now comes a protracted debate at the state level. Progressives and public-school groups object to funding private schools and say the new program will hurt public education. Supporters say the money will give families options outside of their neighborhood school.

The thing is, though, public schools are already beyond increases in hurting, especially in blue States—pupil test scores are bad and falling (rising recently only against the prior Wuhan Virus Situation school lockout steep drop), and public school’s pupil test scores especially lag those private schools’ student outcomes, as well as the test scores of homeschooled students.

A clear choice, indeed, and over the coming months we’ll see very clearly just how opposed to school choice and children’s education are Progressive-Democrat politician-run States and municipalities, and just how far in thrall are those politicians to teachers unions.

The Biggest Losers

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democratic Party New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani is a real threat to businesses domiciled in the city.

One of Mamdani’s most controversial proposals is a plan to launch government-run grocery stores in underserved neighborhoods.

Especially this, from 2021 when he was a city councilman:

…there are also other issues that we firmly believe in…the end goal of seizing the means of production….

Businesses would leave “in droves” if Mamdani gets elected, according to some. That’s the problem, though. Only those with mobile businesses—enterprises that can produce or sell their products anywhere, although factories of any size would be deucedly expensive to move. Businesses that can’t just pick up and go, though—the mom and pops, chain franchises that require hands-on direct customer-facing operations can’t. These include restaurants, fast food stores, gasoline stations, grocery stores, bodegas, food trucks, skating rinks, the list is endless: these businesses are trapped. And within a short time—one mayoral cycle, likely—they’ll be the ones left to pick up the city-imposed costs of operating in NYC.

And those small operations will be forced to compete against city government-run grocery stores, restaurants, gasoline stations, and on and on, businesses that have no worries about costs—especially with the city picking up, or waiving, the costs of rent and property taxes—because they’ll have the bottomless pocketbooks of the city’s coffers.

Yes, yes, Mamdani is only talking about government-run grocery stores. Who truly believes he’ll stop there? He’s already offering additions [from the first link]:

…eliminating subway fares, free municipal housing and childcare….