Tag Archives: political parties

Debt Ceilings and Spend-Thriftiness

Posted on by
Reply

One hundred and three House Republicans have signed a letter committing themselves to never vote for a debt ceiling increase under any circumstances. Forty-six Senate Republicans have signed a substantially similar letter.  (Aside: the nine Republican Representatives and four Republican Senators should be asked why they’re not signing on.) The signatories

will not vote to increase the debt ceiling, whether that increase comes through a stand-alone bill, a continuing resolution, or any other vehicle.

Of course, Congressional Progressive-Democrats are in a snit over that. Their beef centers, amorally, on “You guys are spendthrifts, too!”

They say most of the spending that will cause a breach of the debt limit later this year was passed on a bipartisan basis before President Biden assumed office.
They also note that Republicans significantly increased the deficit when they were in power during the first two years of former President Donald Trump’s term….

True enough. Both parties are guilty of spending American taxpayers’ money like it’s all Modern Monetary Theory’s bottomless bank of monopoly dollars. That, however, is no excuse for continuing the fiscal—and national economic security—folly.

Progressive-Democrats are in control now, with a majority in the House and control of both the Senate and the White House.

Progressive-Democrats have, today and in the coming months, the political capacity to show that they’re not just a bunch of woke virtue signalers and to live the virtue they claim. Today and in the coming months, the Progressive-Democrats can adjust their spending ways to limit themselves to the existing debt ceiling.

Thought Police

Posted on by
Reply

They’re metastasizing into the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a guide to “inclusive language” in order to promote “health equity” and “inclusive communication.”

For instance, their “Corrections & Detentions” section “suggests”

replacing terms such as “Inmate,” “Prisoner,” “Convict/ex-convict,” and “Criminal” with terms such as “People/persons,” “Persons in pre-trial or with charge,” “Persons on parole or probation,” or “People in immigration detention facilities.”

The problem with euphemisms, though, is that they mean precisely the same as the word they’re intended to replace. Persons on parole or probation still are criminals. That’s the status of folks on parole or probation—they’re still criminals, felons, until they complete their sentences. People in immigration detention facilities remain illegal aliens—that’s why they’re being detained.

The substitutes may soften the language in a misguided attempt to disguise or obfuscate the facts, but that’s only a temporary condition, and the frankness of the underlying meaning ultimately (and quickly) comes through. That’s why there’s a constant search for euphemisms.

The problem with government agents—the men and women who populate government agencies—being the ones pushing for euphemisms is that their push becomes mandates, and government mandates are nothing more than restrictions on free speech, limits on one of our most basic individual liberties. When government agents presume to dictate how we must term concepts, they’re dictating how we must think about them.

Even the worthies in government know that. Which is maybe why they’re making their push.

Government Fiat

Posted on by
Reply

This is what the Progressive-Democrats in charge of our Federal Government are plotting [sic] in the way of drug pricing under Medicare Part D (the drug provision of Medicare), per the Tax Foundation.

Under HR 3 [the Elijah Cummings Lower Drug Costs Now Act], if drug manufacturers do not agree to participate in negotiations, or do not agree to the negotiated price, they would be subject to an escalating excise tax on the sale of the drug in question. The tax would kick in at 65 percent and would rise by 10 percentage points each 90 days the manufacturers are in “noncompliance,” reaching a maximum tax rate of 95%.

What “negotiation?” This is the price we’re negotiating for, says the Health and Human Services Secretary, the Government official that HR3 says will represent the Government.

Here’s our counteroffer, says the drug manufacturer.

No, no, that’s too high, says SecHHS, repeating his original offer. Then he says, Here’s your noncompliance tax.

This isn’t negotiation, yet that’s what will occur, with the Government holding all the cards. Targeted drug manufacturers and sellers would not even be allowed to opt out of Medicare under HR3.

The Tax Foundation is concerned about drug innovation, and rightly so.

I’m also concerned about the fate of free enterprise and of individual freedom.

Alternatively

Posted on by
Reply

Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich has told the recalcitrant (because this is a more-or-less family blog) Maricopa County management folks to

comply with a state Senate subpoena and turn over its election routers to auditors or risk losing millions of dollars in state aid.

Specifically,

If MCBOS fails to resolve the violation within 30 days, the AGO, in accordance with state law, will notify the Arizona Treasurer to withhold state revenue from Maricopa County until MCBOS complies[.]

The withheld amount would run to $700 million, which amounts to roughly 23% of Maricopa’s 2020 budget.

It’s a nice step, but 30 more days? Maricopa’s managers have been ignoring the State Senate’s subpoena for some months already.

Alternatively, the AG or Governor could send the State Troopers in to execute the subpoena by seizing the routers and arresting any Maricopa County person who gets in the way of the execution.

A Letter Writer Points Out a Fact

Posted on by
Reply

Wayne Detring makes what should be a statement of the obvious in his Letter in The Wall Street Journal‘s Letters page.

Rule 3.1 of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct prohibits lawyers from bringing or defending a proceeding unless there is a basis in law or fact for doing so.

Granted, that’s not strictly binding on lawyers, but it is a strong statement of what’s not acceptable for lawyers to do.

Detring cited further:

Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that by signing or submitting a pleading, an attorney certifies that it is not presented for any improper purpose, such as to “cause unnecessary delay.” Rule 11 also provides a process for sanctioning violators.

That Rule is binding on lawyers.  With that background, he continued:

President Biden (Mr Garland’s client) publicly stated he and his staff were “unable to find the legal authority” for the executive order despite checking multiple times. He also admitted he couldn’t in good faith defend the order. But, the president said, “by the time it gets litigated, it will probably give additional time” for him to enforce his illegal order.

And the case:

Ordinary practicing attorneys would be in grave danger of sanctions for filing a pleading knowingly unsupported by law or fact, and by admittedly filing the pleading for the purpose of delay. The US attorney general should be no exception. In fact, those in power should be held to a stricter standard.

However, the only facility for bringing AG Garland to justice under Rule 11 (or the ABA’s Rule 3.1) is the Progressive-Democrat-controlled Congress. Those worthies are unlikely to worry about the misbehaviors of one of their own (and neither have been Republicans in their turn).

Sadly, rather than stricter standards, our Government personages are held to lesser standards than the rest of us. Which puts it on the rest of us to rectify the matter ourselves in 2022 and 2024.