Tag Archives: political parties

Progressive-Democrats and Crises

Posted on by
1

We’re seeing their execution of Rahm Emanuel’s theory in spades these days.  The Republican-majority Senate has a proposal in the Senate, agreed in bipartisan fashion with Progressive-Democrat Senators that would aid average Americans and the small, medium, and large businesses—including our farmers and ranchers—weather the government-mandated shutdown of our economy in response to the present Wuhan Virus situation.

The bill would provide loans to businesses to help tide them over the current loss of revenue—many of the loans converted to grants if the businesses retain their employees on the payrolls.

The bill would provide payments of some few thousands of dollars directly to Americans now on lockdowns of varying degrees but that prevent the majority of them from going to work at all, so those individual Americans and their families can stay reasonably current on their ongoing bills.

The bill would facilitate production of badly needed medical supplies, both for the protection of medical personnel and first responders and for the support of hospitalized patients in the care of those medical personnel.

Like I said, these were bipartisanly agreed provisions.  Now those Progressive-Democrats in the Senate have welched on their agreements to these provisions. Now they’re actively—and as a Party—blocking cloture votes so the bill can’t even go to the floor for debate and an up-or-down vote.

Those Progressive-Democrats, having gotten their marching orders from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D, CA)—imagine that: even Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) has surrendered his Senate authority to Pelosi—who has decided she needs

  • to expand and make permanent unemployment provisions (which would trap the unemployed in the Progressive-Democrats’ welfare cage)
  • anti-carbon provisions added in
  • collective bargaining measures be added in
  • fuel emissions to be imposed on airlines
  • expansion of subsidies for wind and solar energy

None of these have anything to do with the COVID-19 situation and the associated government-mandated economy shutdown.

Progressive-Democrats’ behavior here is just naked blackmail and the holding of American citizens and our economy hostage for the Progressive-Democrats’ personal and ideological profit.

Remember this all up and down the ballot in November.

The Progressive-Democratic Party’s Presidential Candidate

Posted on by
Reply

The headline of a Wall Street Journal editorial tells the tale:

Biden Wins, but Sanders Persuades

The editors continued:

Joe Biden spent decades opposed to taxpayer funding of abortion, until last summer when he revised his values to fit the times.
…
Medicare for All registers 55% support to 33% oppose in Florida; 61% to 32% in Illinois; and 58% to 34% in Arizona. … Only 37% want a restoration of what Mr. Biden sometimes calls “our administration.”

The editors concluded with this:

It’s Joe Biden’s moment, but his agenda…show[s] how fast the party is moving in Bernie Sanders’s direction.

Stated differently, it’ll be Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) running for President on the Progressive-Democratic Party ticket; he’ll just be using Joe Biden’s mouth to say the words.

Never Let a Crisis Go to Waste

Posted on by
Reply

Especially if it can be used for personal political gain.  That’s Congressman Hakeem Jeffries’ (D, NY) empirically demonstrated position.  It seems the Senate—Republican led, mind you—has had the effrontery to begin work on an economic stimulus package subsequent to the one the Progressive-Democrat-led House spent so much time botching and patching before it finally sent that package to the Senate for passage. And they didn’t say Mother May I to the House, first.

That miserable Republican-led Senate has had the initiative and the focus and the desire to support ordinary citizens and our small businesses during this Wuhan virus situation, and that embarrasses (to be generous) some House Progressive-Democrats.  Jeffries:

Just so we’re clear. The Constitution gives the House sole power to initiate spending on behalf of the American people. Not the Senate. And certainly not this President. House Dems will prioritize displaced workers, families & small businesses #Stimulus.

And certainly not this President.  It doesn’t get any clearer than that.

Never mind that the President explicitly proposes spending initiatives—it’s in his annual budget proposal.

Never mind that our Constitution’s Article I, Section 7 opens with this clause:

All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives….

Revenue. Not spending, on which origin our Constitution is utterly silent.

The Right Reverend Jeffries knows this full well.

Nationalizing our Economy

Posted on by
Reply

A city mayor wants the Federal government to nationalize critical parts of our economy.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio is arguing that the best way to tackle the coronavirus outbreak is for the federal government to take over critical private companies in the medical field and have them running 24 hours a day.
…
“This is a case for a nationalization, literally a nationalization, of crucial factories and industries that could produce the medical supplies to prepare this country for what we need,” de Blasio told MSNBC‘s Joy Reid on Saturday, calling for “24/7 shifts” during what he called a “war-like situation.”

Just like the Progressive Theodore Roosevelt, who wanted to nationalize one-sixth of our then-economy, the railroads, because—presaging a later President—they’d made enough money and grown (in his personal view) too powerful.

Just like the Democrats Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman, under the excuse of war that de Blasio is bastardizing—Wilson nationalizing all the factories east of the Mississippi until the Supreme Court overruled him and Truman trying to seize the steel industry until the Supreme Court blocked him.

Just like Progressive-Democrat Barack Obama, who nationalized a current sixth of our economy, our health insurance industry, in order to turn it into a Government mandated, privately funded welfare program.

Now the Progressive-Democrat Bill de Blasio is grasping at his excuse for Government to seize control of our economy.

What’s the Progressive-Democrats’ limiting principle on such nationalizations? Nor they nor their forebears have ever been willing to say. That leaves us to conclude that their limit is the natural limit: complete nationalization of all of our economy—rank, pure socialism.

Remember this power grab attempt in November.

Van Jones Has a Thought

Posted on by
Reply

Van Jones, ex-Special Advisor to President Barack Obama (D) and now a television commentator, has concerns for Progressive-Democratic Party Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders’ (I, VT) supporters now that his chief competitor, Joe Biden, appears to be pulling away.

“You have now an insurgency that’s about to be defeated. What do you do with the people that you defeat?” he asked.
Jones told a panel…that young and progressive Democratic voters had a “champion” in the increasingly defiant and intrepid Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders (I).
“You’ve got young people who are graduating with a quarter-million dollars in debt, you’ve got young people with a lot of pain, and they had a champion. And, they thought they were going to be able to surround the divided establishment with their movement, crush that divided establishment, and move forward[.]

He went on:

Now, what do you do? Last time Bernie Sanders got beaten, there was an assumption that all his people were going to fall in line and vote against Trump and there was not enough care for the concern and the pain of his base[.]

What do you do with the people that you defeat?  The cynic in me recalls earlier days with the victors would run around the battlefield killing all the defeated wounded who’d been unable to escape.

That’s not going to happen here.  Still, the question is a valid one.  Biden and his team have spent the campaign, when they weren’t smearing President Donald Trump and his supporters, trashing Sanders and his socialist ideology and revolutionary policies—and by extension, Sanders’ supporters, who agreed with him.

Having done that for so long, how, indeed, can Biden, et al., go back to those supporters and say, “King’s X, we didn’t mean it. C’mon guys?”  If he tries to draw them in, what compromise can he offer them that they can believe?

If Biden moves in Sanders’ supporters’ direction, how could his current supporters believe that Biden still holds to the policies he espoused when he was trashing those Sanders ideas?

It’s a broader concern, though, than merely an intraparty tiffle.  If Biden moves far enough toward Sanders’ supporters to draw them to him, how, in the general election, could any voter believe Biden holds to any position with any sincerity, that he’s not just mouthing the policy that’s currently politically expedient—to be tossed aside when the expedience changes?