Tag Archives: political parties

Minimum Wage and “Must Pass” Bills

Posted on by
Reply

Congressional Progressive-Democrats are looking for ways to pass a national minimum wage law through Congress.

Progressive House Democrats are rapidly searching for ways to revive the $15 minimum wage increase after a stinging loss in the passage of President Biden’s $1.9 trillion coronavirus stimulus law.

Congressman Mark Pocan (D, WI):

We will get at least 50 votes in the Senate, and we will find a way to finally do what Congress has been negligent to ask for too long; whether it’s adding it to a must-pass bill or pushing it around those arcane Senate rules or some other measure, America will get the raise that is long overdue that we are committed to[.]

Along strictly Party lines and/or by being buried in a bill that Congress and the President will decide the nation can’t exist without.

Not that anyone in the Progressive-Democratic Party cares about bipartisanship. Here’s Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D, MN):

We should not allow any obstacles to get in our way as we push for this policy. It’s imperative that we explore every avenue, every strategy, that will allow us to push through[.]

And here’s the utter contempt for those ordinary Americans who run the small and mom-and-pop businesses that will be most damaged by a nationally mandated minimum wage. Congressman Donald Norcross (D, NJ), Co-Chair of the Progressive-Democrats’ Congressional Labor Caucus insists that:

small business owners opposed to a $15 minimum wage hike are crying “crocodile tears,” arguing that “they should be happy because it levels the playing field with competition; across the street will be paying the same thing….

Yeah—those whiners should be satisfied that all of them are being equally damaged. Never mind that they aren’t only competing against those “across the street;” they’re also competing against the major businesses and chains—who can handle a mandated increase in wage.

But hey—the Progressive-Democrat knows far better, from the august heights of his Beltway bubble, than do actual business owners and operators what the situation is on the ground.

There’s a hint buried in there, though, somewhere. If the concept of a Federally mandated minimum wage can’t pass through Congress as a stand-alone bill, maybe it’s just barely possible that a Federally mandated minimum wage is a terrible idea, a bad law, and something that us Americans—and us actual business owners—don’t want.

“Not Appropriate”

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what Congresswoman Linda Sanchez (D, CA) says about the press entering President Joe Biden’s (D) illegal alien detention facilities and recording the doings there.

I don’t necessarily think that it’s appropriate for journalists to be inside centers that are not permanent places for children[.]

Because it’s inappropriate for the public to know the conditions in those facilities—especially as they concern unaccompanied and too-often trafficked children—and the true nature of the crisis at our southern border.

It’s especially inappropriate for us ordinary Americans to know the Wuhan Virus situation in the Biden-Obama cages containing those children. Sanchez insists—and she’s actually serious—that Virus protocols make it further “inappropriate” for journalists to be allowed to see the conditions in which these children are being held.

“Transparency” is just the Progressive-Democrats’ newspeak for “sit down and shut up.”

The Left’s Assault on the Sanctity of Each American’s Vote

Posted on by
Reply

That assault is embodied in the Progressive-Democratic Party’s HR-1 bill that the House passed on cynical Party lines and sent along to the Senate. The extent of the assault was laid out by Hans von Spakovsky, one-time Federal Election Commission Commissioner ande former counsel to DoJ’s Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, in a Sunday Fox News editorial.

  1. It would eviscerate state voter ID laws that require a voter to authenticate his identity. Indeed, it would force states to allow anyone to vote who simply signs a form saying that they are who they claim they are.
  2. It would make absentee ballots even more insecure than they already are. Not only could states not apply any ID requirement to absentee ballots, they could not enforce any witness signature or notarization requirement.
  3. It would worsen the problem of inaccurate registration rolls. HR 1 severely restricts the ability of states to take the basic steps necessary to maintain the accuracy of their voter rolls, such as comparing their lists with those of other states or using the US Postal Service’s National Change of Address System to find individuals who have moved.
  4. It would take away your ability to decide whether you want to register to vote. Instead, it requires states to automatically register individuals who interact with state agencies.
  5. It would force states to allow online registration, opening up the voter registration system to massive fraud by hackers and cybercriminals.
  6. It imposes onerous new regulatory restrictions on political speech and activity, including online and policy-related speech, by candidates, citizens, civic groups, unions, corporations and nonprofit organizations.
  7. It would authorize the IRS to investigate and consider the political and policy positions of nonprofit organizations when they apply for tax-exempt status. (Sort of like ex-President Barack Obama’s (D) IRS did.)
  8. It would set up a public funding program for candidates running for Congress. This would force taxpayers to subsidize (by a 6 to 1 ratio of taxpayer dollars per individual dollar) the political campaigns of individuals they may vehemently disagree with and wouldn’t vote for in a million years.

And don’t count on Senator Joe Manchin (D, WV) to stand in the way of eliminating the filibuster so the Senate Progressive-Democrats also can pass this on a Party-line vote. We’ve seen the value of his word regarding Republican input.

Earmarks

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrats in Congress are moving to bring these back. On this, I tend to agree.

Go ahead and do earmarks; they can be useful horse-trading tools. Just set aside 1% of the budget, the rough amount historically spent on them, as a separate line item.

Then require all earmarks in their aggregate to fit within that 1%, and require each earmark to be individually debated on the record and on the floor of the House and the Senate.

Let the public see, up front, what their tax dollars are paying for, and let the particular constituents see how effective their Congressman and Senator really are in representing them in each Congressional session.

Misapprehensions

Posted on by
Reply

More in a long list of Leftist and Progressive-Democrat misapprehensions. Recall that President Joe Biden has abandoned the Trump administration’s Public Charge Rule. That rule required immigrants be financially stable to become US citizens or obtain permanent residency.

Naturally, the Leftist critics are coming out of the woodwork with their objections.

…the policy hurts those trying to obtain citizenship or [permanent] residency. The Legal Aide society [sic] called the policy a “wealth tax” that discriminated against people on the basis of race and immigration status.

One misapprehension is this business about hurting those trying to obtain citizenship or [permanent] residency. No nation has any obligation to grant residency—permanent or otherwise—or citizenship to anyone wishing to immigrate (more on this in a bit). No nation has any obligation even to entertain such applications. Hence no injury is possible here.

Another misapprehension: the idea that any sort of wealth tax is being applied from a public charge sort of rule. There is no tax intrinsic or even implied in requiring prospective residents or citizens to be independent of the receiving nation’s welfare system, in requiring them to be able to fend for themselves or to rely on their own family. The only tax involved would be the added burden on the receiving nation’s extant taxpayers.

Yet another misapprehension: the idea that requiring a degree of independence or self sufficiency as a prerequisite to residency or citizenship is somehow racist. This beef suggests that prospective immigrants are, because of their race, inherently unable to see to their own welfare. That attitude itself is invidious and racist.

A fourth misapprehension: the idea that any sort of public charge criterion discriminates on the basis of immigration status. No. National borders effect that discrimination. It’s one of the purposes of national borders, it’s a part of maintaining and enforcing a nation’s sovereignty. No one, nor any collection of people, has any inherent right to enter another nation without that nation’s prior permission. Neither has that nation any obligation to grant that permission.