Tag Archives: political parties

Taxing vs Spending

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal piece about Tennessee’s required closure of failing bridges problem, a Leake County Democrat supervisor, Joe Andy Helton, had this:

…he was frustrated by politicians being afraid to raise taxes—even to pay for basic services like roads and bridges.

“There’s only but one way to fix things on the local, state or federal level and that’s taxes,” he said.

Of course. Reallocating spending is utterly inconceivable to him.

The two bridges in Helton’s county that must be closed until repaired would cost, at most, a bit over a half-million dollars, together.  That’s not pocket money for a rural county like Leake, but it’s not that much, either.  County and State spending could be (re)directed toward the repairs.

This is a local failure of performance, but rising taxes and no spending responsibility nationally are what we can expect if Progressive-Democratic Party politicians like this one gain the majority in the House this fall.

Messaging and the Midterms

Posted on by
Reply

Here’s a bit about income taxes, via Laura Saunders in Friday’s Wall Street Journal.

For 2018, households in the top 20% will have income of about $150,000 or more and 52% of total income, about the same as in 2017. But they will pay about 87% of income taxes, up from about 84% last year.

And

[T]he lower 60% of households, who have income up to about $86,000, receive about 27% of income. As a group, this tier will pay no net federal income tax in 2018 vs. 2% of it last year.

And this:

…the top 1% will pay for 43% of income tax, up from 38% in 2017.

So much for tax cuts being for the benefit of the rich.

Here’s another bit about who pays and who benefits:

[I]ncome includes earnings from wages and investments plus untaxed amounts, such as from health coverage. These additions nearly double the income of people in the lowest tier and add about 20% for those in the highest tier.

Republicans are shockingly silent about this in their respective local press outlets.  If they don’t start getting these messages out to their constituents early and often, each mid-term candidate needs to fire his communications director and replace him with someone who knows how to talk to local folks.

More Nonsense

Posted on by
Reply

Or more Progressive-Democrat contempt for conservative women.  On tour to promote her book, Hillary Clinton’s 2016 campaign Communications Director Jennifer Palmieri says about the election outcome,

It does show that we don’t have any models for our young girls and young women who are coming up in the world now to look at for how to lead.

Sure.  Because Condoleezza Rice, Provost of Stanford University, ex-NSA, and ex-Secretary of State is such a terrible role model.

Because Nikki Haley, ex-State Representative in the South Carolina House, ex-Governor of South Carolina, and current UN Ambassador is such a terrible role model.

Because Sarah Palin, ex-Governor of Alaska and 2008 Vice Presidential candidate is such a terrible role model.

Because Carly Fiorina, ex-Hewlett-Packard CEO and 2016 Presidential candidate is such a terrible role model.

Because Elaine Chao, ex-Deputy Secretary of Transportation, ex-Peace Corps Director, ex-Labor Secretary, and current Labor Secretary is such a terrible role model.

Because Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn (R, TN) and current Senate candidate is such a terrible role model.

Because Pam Bondi, Florida Attorney General is such a terrible role model.

Because Joni Ernst, Lt Col (USA, Ret), ex-Iowa State Senator, and current Senator is such a terrible role model.

Because Alveda King, State Congresswoman in Georgia’s House of Representatives, is such a terrible role model.

Because the late Jeane Kirkpatrick, ex-UN Ambassador, is such a terrible role model.

Because Mia Love, Congresswoman from Utah is such a terrible role model.

Because Susana Martinez, Governor of New Mexico, is such a terrible role model.

The list goes on; I’ve only begun to start scratching the surface.

But the Progressive-Democrat says “we don’t have any models for our young girls and young women…to look at for how to lead.”

Hmm….

Counting US Citizens is Illegal

Posted on by
Reply

That’s what California’s Attorney General, Xavier Bacerra (D), says.  The Commerce Department has said the 2020 census form will include a question asking whether the respondent is an American citizen, and Bacerra doesn’t like it.  In the op-ed he co-wrote with California’s Secretary of State Alex Padilla (D) for the San Francisco Chronicle, he wrote

Including a citizenship question on the 2020 census is not just a bad idea—it is illegal[]

and he repeated that claim in one of his tweets.

Never mind that there’s plenty of precedent: the Census Bureau asked this question during its decennial census-takings every time from 1820 through 1950, and every year through today on its annual census sampling.

The two politicians claim further that

California, with its large immigrant communities, would be disproportionately harmed by depressed participation in the 2020 census.  An undercount would threaten at least one of California’s seats in the House of Representatives (and, by extension, an elector in the electoral college).

The second part of that claim is true—undercounting the eligible folks would reduce legitimate representation.  The first part of that claim is patently false.  Here’s what the 14th Amendment says on the matter [the 19th Amendment broadened the franchise to include women]:

…when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced….

Citizens of the United States (who also are citizens of California, as the 14th Amendment also makes clear) and legally resident non-citizen immigrants have no fear of answering the Census’ question.  The only folks who might be hesitant are the illegal aliens.  Since they’re not citizens, and so not eligible to vote, their “undercounting” can have no effect on California’s apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives or in the Electoral College.  Bacerra, especially, as the highly educated, trained, and talented lawyer that he is, knows this full well.

It’s plain that these Progressive-Democrats, in the expectation that illegal immigrants would vote Progressive-Democrat, want the illegals to dilute the votes of American citizens, not all of whom do vote Progressive-Democrat—even in California.

It’s also true that “undercounting” can have the effect of depressing Federal funds transfers to the States that are undercounted.  Here, though, it’s the responsibility of those States allowing illegal residents to stay—even actively protecting them—in violation of Federal law to pay the costs of those illegalities.  No Federal funds should be transferred for those costs.  These Progressive-Democrats, though, are anxious to keep the spigot of OPM wide open for their own spending imperatives.

Banking Reform

Posted on by
Reply

The Senate has passed a bill that greatly diminishes Dodd-Frank’s interference with our banking industry by easing the regulatory burden on financial institutions lesser than the half-dozen or so that have been (mistakenly, IMNSHO) designated systemically important.

There’s concern about the willingness of the Progressive-Democrats who voted for it (including voting to get it past cloture) to vote for it again were it to come back from the House changed in any way.  Republican Senators, as a result, want the House to pass the bill as it is, without alteration or delay.

Many in the House, and The Wall Street Journal, whose op-ed prompted this post, demur and want more reforms added.

Republican Senators’ concerns about the timidity of the Progressive-Democrats and their willingness to vote favorably again is valid, though, and the House altering the bill and forcing that second vote in the Senate is unnecessarily risky. It might cost the entire bill.

Another path is for the House to take the bird in hand and pass it, preserving the partial reforms. Then they should pass their own bill containing the remaining items of interest. At that point Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) and his banking committee Senators should force a vote on the House bill, putting all the Progressive-Democrat Senators on the voting record as favoring or disfavoring banking reform.  In an election year.