Tag Archives: political parties

Wisconsin Progressive-Democrats for Choice

Posted on by
Reply

The newly elected Wisconsin Governor, Progressive-Democrat Tony Evers, has made plain the Party’s definition of “choice.”  Choose to do it our way.

Evers’ current budget proposal

caps voucher enrollment in 2020, entirely phases out the program for special-needs students and blocks the creation of new independent charter schools.

No need for all those charter schools.  Progressive-Democrats want to avoid confusing us with such a plethora of decisions to make; they’ll protect us by deciding for us.

With not too many apologies to a hypothetical Joseph:

My dear fellow, there are in fact only so many choices the mind can contemplate in the course of an evening. …there are simply too many choices, that’s all. Cut a few, and it will be perfect.

Witness Tampering?

Posted on by
Reply

…Michael Cohen told House investigators this week [the week ending 8 Mar] that staff for Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D, CA) traveled to New York at least four times to meet with him for over 10 hours immediately before last month’s high-profile public testimony….

Schiff and his staff conducted these “meetings” in secret and without minority party representation (here Republican) present.

Then

One by one…Cohen fielded questions on precisely the same topics that the sources told Fox News he discussed with Schiff’s staff during the sit-downs in New York.

Sure looks and sounds like tampering.

Expanding Government for Freedom

Posted on by
Reply

That’s the Progressive-Democrats’ Orwellian claim about their HR1 bill, just passed on party lines.  It’s for the children, too.  If it saves just one life….  Here is some of what’s in the bill:

Mandates a nationalized system to publicly finance federal elections. It would allocate federal money to match certain small-dollar donations 6-to-1 and deposit those funds in campaign accounts.

We already can designate, on our tax returns, a donation to a Federal fund for Presidential campaigns; the monies to be divided equally between the political parties.  That’s been a complete failure over the years, with the amounts designated falling, and private money going directly to the parties, candidates, PACs, etc, expanding. The Progressive-Democrats’ answer is to “correct” that by forcing us to donate to political campaigns in even larger amounts, whether we want to or not.

Requires several classes of politically active organizations, including tax-exempt 501(c)(4) groups, to disclose donors who have given $10,000 or more during an election cycle.

Because anonymity is as anathema to Progressive-Democrats as it is critical to free speech and to liberty generally.

Changes the membership of the Federal Election Commission to five members, with the president’s party in the majority, from its current six members, evenly split between Democratic and Republican appointees.

Because balancing the membership also is anathema to Progressive-Democrats: they desperately need a purely partisan facility for overseeing our elections.

Fortunately, Republicans still have a majority in the Senate.

An Experiment in Progressivism

Posted on by
Reply

This one has the advantage of being live and current. The Progressive-Democratic Party has extended its control over the State of California.  The results accumulating from the several years of Progressive-Democratic dominance (now outright control) are these.  California has

  • the highest welfare numbers (a third of all Americans on welfare live in California)
  • the largest contingent of illegal immigrants
  • a burgeoning homeless population
  • onerous regulations on business and private property
  • mediocre public schools
  • high income taxes (the highest marginal rate is 13.3%) and sales taxes
  • a yawning gap between rich and poor
  • its own summer blend of expensive gasoline
  • bedraggled and crowded roads
  • a widely mocked high-speed rail boondoggle

Sadly, it doesn’t get any better than that for California.  Or for our United States if the Progressive-Democratic Party makes further gains in 2020 or beyond.

Tax the Rich

Posted on by
Reply

Of course, tax the rich, but tax everyone else, too.  The latest get (the) rich quick scheme, this one offered by Alan Davis, The Leonard and Sophie Davis Fund President and ex-founder and CEO of Conservatree Paper Company, though, falls into the same trap that all the other Progressive-Democrat schemes—Senator Elizabeth Warren’s (D, MA) wealth tax, Senator Bernie Sanders’ (I, VT) estate tax expansion, and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ (D, NY) 70% marginal tax—do.  What Davis is proposing is

a 10% surtax on the earnings (including both income and capital gains) of the top 0.1% of taxpayers

That’s the sucker trap.  Not singling out the rich for extra taxing, but maintaining the special treatment of capital gains, other than within his surtax.

Why should capital gains—or debt interest or any other form of income, or expense—get special treatment?  That’s just the social engineering distortion of our tax code that’s so badly counterproductive for our economy.

In 2007, the last year before the Panic of 2008, from which we’ve only begun a serious recovery over the last couple of years, we Americans earned $17.8 trillion dollars from all sources: wages and salaries, interest payments, dividends and capital gains, gambling earnings, pass-throughs from small businesses, and so on, and we paid, in aggregate, $1.15 trillion dollars in taxes on that income.

Of those taxes, the top 10% of us paid 70% while the bottom 50% of us paid little to nothing.

Take the social engineering out of our tax code.  Charge a flat 10% tax on all income regardless of source, and charge it to all who have income.  Americans will spend their money where they deem fit, not where Government dictates, and businesses will allocate their money according to sound business decision, not according to Government “desires.”

That will suitably tax the rich, as well as all of us.

Set our economy free.