Tag Archives: political parties

Rewarding Thuggery

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the rioting, looting, and graffiti-spraying—on l’Arc de Triomphe, yet—in France over the Macron government’s decision to raise fuel taxes and utility rates.  Now the government has abjectly surrendered to the rioters: it will not implement the new tax and utility rates at all (Deutsche Welle has reported that the tax is suspended for six months rather than canceled altogether).

The tax and rate hike were bad moves on principle: it’s nearly always wrong to raise taxes before cutting spending or to raise utility rates for reasons other than to cover expenses and preserve a measure of profit, but these were especially foolish: they were intended to fund the nation’s even more expensive—to the citizenry, and especially the nation’s poor and unemployed—move to a purely “green” economy.  This, though, was the wrong time to correct the error, and it’s the wrong reason to do so.

This was done, not in response to the will of the people demurring, it was in immediate, meek obedience to thugs.

And far from putting an end to the troubles, it has had the opposite—and obvious to objective outside observers—response from the thugs.

France’s Prime Minister, Edouard Philippe:

No tax is worth putting the nation’s unity in danger[.]  …  The violence must end[.]

I plead with you.

The response for his reward:

But the announcement is unlikely to put an end to the road blockades and demonstrations, with more protests possible in Paris this weekend.
…
“It’s a first step, but we will not settle for a crumb,” said Benjamin Cauchy, a protest leader.

And

Segolene Royal, a former candidate for president, lauded Philippe’s decision but said the course correction on the climate change tax came too late.

And

Marine Le Pen lashed out at the decision as too little, tweeting it was “obviously not up to the expectations of the French people struggling with precarity.” … “A moratorium on taxes is being considered. But a moratorium is only a postponement.”

President Emmanuel Macron:

I will never accept violence.  No cause justifies that authorities are attacked, that businesses are plundered, that passers-by or journalists are threatened or that the Arc de Triomphe is defiled.

Tough talk for someone who has just surrendered to the thugs.  No, Macron’s government isn’t finished paying up.

Desperation

Posted on by
Reply

With his legacy mostly erased, and more of it on the way after the current temporary interruption—an outcome ex-President Barack Obama (D) will thank us for in the fullness of time and his clearer understanding—Obama is desperate to preserve such of it as he can with his revisionist history.

Former President Barack Obama on Tuesday took credit for the boom in US oil and gas production, saying, “That was me, people.”

Of course, it was.  His sequestration of Federal lands and offshore fields from oil and gas exploration with his slow-walking of the necessary permits were instrumental in triggering the boom.

You wouldn’t always know it, but it went up every year I was president. That whole—suddenly America’s like the biggest oil producer and the biggest gas….

Never mind that those year-on-year increases—small as they were—were driven by exploration and exploitation of those fields on private and other non-Federal lands.  The increases didn’t get serious until Obama and his administration were out of the way, but we’ll not mention that.

Another bit of history that the revisionist Obama carefully elided was provided by ex-Shell Oil Company President John Hofmeister:

…he tried to remake the power generation industry without involving Congress, and the Paris accords—again without involving Congress.

That remake was his threat—which he tried most enthusiastically to carry out—to eliminate our carbon-based (mostly coal, but oil and gas, also) electricity production industry, along with the wholesale destruction to our overall economy that acting on his Paris Accord would have wreaked.

The extent of Obama’s desperation is sad.

Paying for Groceries

Posted on by
Reply

A farm bill is wending its way through Congress, finally, as the House and Senate have agreed to a common version.  What’s in this version?  Good question.

Lawmakers for months have been deeply divided over the farm bill, which funds crop insurance and farm subsidies, as well as programs to help low-income people pay for groceries.

But these…lawmakers…won’t talk publicly about the details of their compromise.

There are a couple of things here, though, that are clear despite the lack of transparency.  One is the inconsistency of having farm price supports—farm subsidies—along with funding programs to help the poor pay for that artificially costly food.  The other is the premise that Government belongs in the insurance business.  One would have thought Obamacare would have driven home the utter foolishness of that, even as it concerns such long-standing involvements like crop insurance.  Silly me.

No.  It’s long past high time for price supports to be eliminated and to let competition drive food prices to their naturally lower levels.  It’s also long past high time to get Government out of the crop insurance business (all insurance business, come to that), and let free market-competing private enterprises sell the relevant policies—and relieve tax payers of the burden.

As for the poor who still wouldn’t be able to afford those free market lower prices, the Senate-passed version that went to House-Senate committee (and about which outcome we’re told nothing) had no work requirement as a criterion for eligibility for welfare support/food stamps: the Progressive-Democrats won’t hear of any requirement to take steps to earn one’s way off welfare.  That work requirement needs to be a part of the bill that goes to the President for signing; those folks should have the opportunity to escape the Progressive-Democrats’ welfare cage.

A Necessary Start

Posted on by
Reply

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos is on the verge of issuing actual rules (not “guidance” letters) directing the way in which colleges and universities must handle accusations of sexual assault.  These rules will include

  • the right of every survivor to be taken seriously and the right of every person accused to know that guilt is not predetermined
  • both the alleged victim and the accused would be able to inspect and review all evidence
  • All Title IX hearings would include cross-examination, which could occur in-person or by live stream, with campus adjudicators allowed to observe the demeanor of witnesses as they assess credibility
  • statements of anyone who refuses cross-examination could not be considered in the final determination Title IX judges would be required to consider both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence.
  • acknowledges that schools’ “treatment of both complainant and respondent could constitute discrimination on the basis of sex”
  • both the alleged victim and the accused would enjoy the same opportunities for appeal, and, if both parties agreed, administrators could offer informal resolution processes like mediation
  • universities could still use a weaker “preponderance of evidence” as the standard of proof, similar to civil cases, rather than a higher “clear and convincing evidence” standard.

The proposal is a good start toward redressing the inequities of the Obama administration’s infamous Dear Colleague Letter, but there remain a couple of serious weaknesses.

One is the continued use of the preponderance of evidence standard.  The problem with this is that accusations of assault, whether sexual or other, are accusations of felonies.  That demands the clear and convincing evidence standard.  Related to this is the investigation and adjudication itself.  Such accusations demand the police and a criminal court conduct the investigation and trial, not the school and its administrators.  Sexual harassment accusations also need a more serious standard of proof than 50%-plus-one-minim of belief.

And: as long as acquittals—however a college/university wants to style them—are appealable by the accuser, there still is no justice possible in the proceedings or the rules that structure them.

That Progressive-Democrats object even to this nod toward justice, though, is instructive for 2020 and what a Progressive-Democrat Congress and White House will do to individual liberty.

Projection

Posted on by
Reply

The projection is especially strong in Mary Anne Marsh, as she demonstrated in a Fox News op-ed last Monday.  Here are just a few examples.

If the House impeached Trump would the Senate do the same? It is clearly a concern for the president….

Heh.  Leaving aside the pedanticism that the Senate cannot do the same as the House—it can only try a case based on a House impeachment—the foolishness of this claim is demonstrated a couple of ways.  One is that the Senate will not convict—that would take 67 Senators—as the votes aren’t there, especially since evidence to support any sort of conviction the Progressive-Democratic Party’s House might dream up isn’t there.

The larger foolishness is that a Progressive-Democrat impeachment isn’t anything to be feared by President Donald Trump.  On the contrary, it’s a move devoutly to be wished; such a thing would demonstrate the irrationality of that Party.  Just as the Republicans’ impeachment of Clinton ended badly for the Republicans, any impeachment of Trump will end badly for the Progressive-Democratic Party: 2020 is only two years off.

Trump’s appointment of conservative justices who are indebted to him for their new posts….

This is an especially blatant projection.  Progressive-Democrats do, indeed, expect their appointees to rule according to the debt they owe their appointers.  However, Conservative judges, by their nature, rule in accordance with the text of the Constitution and of the law; they don’t rule in repayment of any debt.  Republicans know that, and so they have no expectation of repayment when they nominate and confirm.

Aside from that, a lifetime appointment, which is what Justices and Federal judges get, inures them from any sort of debt—were there any (arguendo), there can be no consequence for not honoring it.  Most folks understand that.

his [Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s] confirmation hearing left many unresolved questions, pointedly asked by Senator Kamala Harris (D, CA) and others….

There were no unresolved questions at the end of Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, especially after the unusual additional episode of sworn testimony by both Dr Christine Blasey Ford and Kavanaugh.  Harris “and others” asked no serious questions of him.

Trump is also now hedging his bets with the House by supporting Nancy Pelosi for Speaker. Or so he thinks. Trump clearly believes he can flatter his way into Nancy Pelosi’s heart by promoting her as Speaker….

More projection.  Trump—and lots of other Republicans—would love to see a Speaker Pelosi, given they don’t have the majority in the coming Congress.  Pelosi will be a two-year gift for Republicans.

Last but not least is the nuclear option: Fire Mueller.

Last, but not least, this is what Progressive-Democrats would do in spades.  Trump, though, has spent all of the time since Mueller’s appointment disparaging him and his pseudo-investigation.  Disparaging and ridiculing and complaining about Mueller and his…investigation…nearly every day since that early 2017 appointment.  Mueller still is on the job, unimpeded.  Trump has made clear in word and deed that he has no intention of firing Mueller.

These are all things Progressive-Democrats would do or worry about were the shoes on the other feet.  They assume, from that, that everyone else would do the same.

Again: heh.