Tag Archives: political parties

Deficits as Cudgel?

Posted on by
Reply

Gerald Seib says that’s what the Progressive-Democrats in Congress fear the Republicans will use them for.

Democrats worry that Republicans will simply use the rising deficits they are creating as an excuse to cut government spending on domestic programs important to Democrats—in the vernacular, that the tax bill will “starve the beast” of the federal government of the money it needs to keep spending at current levels.

I certainly hope those deficits will be used as the reason for cutting government spending.  The Federal government spends way too much of our money, and it does so without regard for whose money it is and without regard for the amount of revenue that taxes bring in—deficit spending is enthusiastically pursued regardless of tax rates or revenues.

Federal spending needs to be cut back drastically, not just on domestic programs important to Progressive-Democrats, but on all domestic programs (other than defense, which already is so low that our military cannot reliably win a war against a regional power like Russia, much less a rapidly expanding one like the People’s Republic of China.  We’ve even had to abandon our Cold War mission of being able to fight and win two separate wars simultaneously).  A good start would be a 10% across the board cut on all extant programs, and then begin cutting seriously from there.

And yes, that includes privatizing Social Security and Medicare and block granting Medicaid transfer payments to the States without strings—they know better than the Feds how to spend those funds State-domestically, anyway.  After conversion, the Feds then should reduce those Year Zero block grants by [10%] per year after that until there are no more Federal Medicaid transfers.

An additional step for Federal spending curtailment is to consolidate all current Federal transfers into a single block grant for each State and then reducing the size of that grant along the schedule above.  In this way, States like New York, California, and the rest of the dozen or so States that send more of their citizens’ tax money to the Federal government than they get back could keep all of their citizens’ money and spend it within their State in accordance with those citizens’ imperatives.  Surely even Progressive-Democrats could get behind a program that lets their constituents keep their money local—that’s more for the local Progressive-Democrats to spend.

Net recipient States would be able to keep all of their citizens’ tax money, also, reducing the alleged “need” for Federal transfers.

Additional cost saving: the middle-man bureaucracies, with their inherent costs, would be eliminated, too.

The only deviation from eliminating such knee-jerk routine transfers should be in times of declared State or regional emergency.

The Gentleman Doth Protest Too Much?

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Mark Warner (D, VA), Ranking Member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says President Donald Trump better not fire Special Counsel Robert Mueller, or else.

I believe it is up to every member of this institution, Republican or Democrat, to make a clear and unambiguous statement that any attempt by this president to remove Special Counsel Mueller from his position or to pardon key witnesses in any effort to shield them from accountability or shut down the investigation would be a gross abuse of power and a flagrant violation of executive branch responsibilities and authorities[.]

Which, of course, it would not be; none of that and not at all.  It might be bad optics, it might be bad politics, but each of those worried about actions is entirely legitimate, as well as legal, and wholly within the purview of a President to do.  Every single one of them.  Warner knows this.

In recent days, the president said he is not considering removing Special Counsel Mueller. But the president’s track record on this front is a source of concern. I’m certain that most of my colleagues believed that he wouldn’t fire Jim Comey either[.]

Now he’s both pretending the two are related.  Comey was fired, not only for his failure to perform, but for his deliberate misperformance.  Recall Comey’s confession of his illegal leaking to a friend, explicitly for the purpose publication in the press for the explicit purpose of influencing—getting created—his friend Mueller’s independent investigation.  Or is Warner suggested Comey’s and Mueller’s situation really are related?

And

The charges that some have made that somehow Democratic political bias have crept into this investigation or baseless, given the makeup of the leadership team.
…
In recent weeks, much has been made of some political opinions expressed by an FBI agent during the election last year.  This line of argument conveniently ignores the fact that as soon as Mr Mueller learned about these comments he immediately removed that agent in question from the investigation.

Warner’s line of argument ignores the fact that Mueller knew all along of the agent’s comments: he was the one who vetted, or approved the vetting, of the agent, and Mueller was the one who hired him.  Mueller didn’t remove the agent when he learned of the comments; he removed the agent when those comments became public via a FOIA request.  Why is Warner so afraid of what this agent might testify to if held to account?

If anything this incident only adds to Mr Mueller’s credibility as a fair and independent investigator.

On the contrary, this incident only further damages Mueller’s credibility.

Warner has done a mighty lot of protesting in support of a cynically erected straw man.  Of what is Warner so afraid in his Progressive-Democratic Party that Congressional investigations, proceeding without regard for Mueller’s performance, might discover?  Of what is he so afraid regarding his own behavior that might be discovered?  Why is he so desperate to distract from those investigations?

The Disappointing Joe Manchin

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Joe Manchin (D, WV) seemed, initially, like a center-left Democrat and a man who was capable of bipartisan work when he came on the scene a few short years ago.  Recall, for instance, his firm support of our 2nd Amendment and his opposition to much of Obamacare and to then-President Barack Obama’s (D) war on coal.

Now, though, he’s a proud member of the Progressive-Democratic Party’s caucus in the Senate, and the conflict between his claimed values and his voting against the just passed tax reform bill is showing.

“There’s some good in this bill. I acknowledge that,” Manchin said, when West Virginia radio talk show host Hoppy Kercheval asked the senator why he opposed legislation that will benefit the “vast majority” of taxpayers and businesses in the state.

“The things that you mention are correct. Initially people will benefit and see some changes in their taxes[.]”

But

Manchin blamed his opposition on projections from some analysts that the tax overhaul would increase the national debt, and that cuts directed at individuals and married couples is temporary and sunset in 2025 without further action from Congress, versus the corporate cuts, which are permanent.

And

Why did the permanency have to go on the big end, and not on the individuals who really got left behind?

He’s carefully eliding a number of things, though, with his rationalization.  One is that if he’s truly concerned about the national debt, he should get out of the way of Congressional efforts to cut Federal spending.  But he’s a Party man.  And the only way those temporary cuts actually will expire is if he and his fellow Progressive-Democrats go against Party tenets and prevent their extension or being made permanent rather than demanding the tax increases expiration would create.  But he’s a Party man; so are Progressive-Democrats all, all Party men.

Further, businesses plan—must plan—farther into the future than do us individual citizens.  They are far less agile than we can be; their costs for things like production supplies and for labor, to name just two factors, have to be planned for far in advance.  Businesses need the stability of permanence far more than we do; eight years is close enough to permanent for us.  Manchin knows this, or he’s too economically ignorant for national office.

And

He [Manchin] also complained of a coming increase in health care costs because the legislation repealed Obamacare’s individual mandate to purchase insurance.

He’s eliding another fact here, too.  Health coverage (not care) costs have been skyrocketing under Obamacare since the first months after it was enacted.  All that repealing the penalty for disobeying the Individual Mandate is doing is freeing up 13 million Americans—especially those at the lower end of the economic scale—from having to buy an Obamacare plan they can’t afford or that the rest of us can’t afford to subsidize.  Those health care costs have been sky-high all along—due to the lack of a free market in that particular industry; Obamacare only exacerbated this.  Manchin knows—or should know—this, as well.

Keep this in mind as this Progressive-Democrat runs for reelection in West Virginia next fall.

There’s More To It

Posted on by
Reply

As part of the (actually quite minor) snafu wherein the House and Senate passed trivially different versions of the tax reform bill, the Senate’s Parliamentarian ruled that 529 Savings Plans—modified by the tax bill to be usable for K-12 as well as secondary education expenses—cannot be used, on a straight majority vote, for K-12 homeschooling, even though formally schooled K-12 children and their parents can use the Plans.  Two icons of Progressive Democracy, Senators Bernie Sanders (I, VT) and Ron Wyden (D, OR), had objected and raised the matter to the Parliamentarian.

The Senate passed its version of the tax reform bill minus the protection for homeschooled children, since there weren’t going to be eight (or even one) Progressive-Democratic Party Senators who would vote for tax reform or lower taxes in any form and sent it back to the House where the bill was passed again and then sent to the White House for the President’s signature.

Senator Ted Cruz (R, TX, and whose 529 amendment was cut back by this maneuver) expressed his dismay.

What the Democrats did is they carved out one group, they carved out just homeschoolers, and they cut homeschoolers out. It really was shameful.
…
The Democrats view is they want control. They want control over everything, whether it is control over regulating an industry, control over the internet or, in this instance, control in how you educate your students.  The reason the Democrats don’t like homeschoolers is if you’re spending the time, investing the time at home teaching your kids, they can’t mandate what you’re teaching them.

Cruz is right, but that’s not all of it.  The Progressive-Democratic Party also is in the tank for the teachers unions, and homeschoolers are beyond the reach of those unions.  The Sanders-Wyden move also was in service to their unions.

In either case, or both of them, the Progressive-Democrats used children as political weapons.  That’s despicable.

Progressive-Democrats and Taxes

Posted on by
Reply

The Wall Street Journal asked in their Sunday op-ed how it came to be that

the party of the Kennedy tax cuts of the 1960s and the co-writers of the Reagan reform in the 1980s [became] implacably opposed to pro-growth tax policy?

The WSJ‘s editorialists should know better.  This isn’t their (or your or my) grandfather’s Democratic Party.  This is the Progressive-Democratic Party of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, Elizabeth Warren, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, and all of its rank-and-file politico members.

These politicians and their nine-year-old Progressive-Democratic Party that is the inevitable evolution of that prior entity do not want the folks who earned the money to be able to keep it and spend it IAW their own needs and wants and imperatives.  The Progressive-Democratic Party and its members need to have control over our money, and they are thoroughly dismayed over the loss to their political power that’s represented by the reduction in the amount of our money they’ll be able to control.  That’s power they’ll have much less of.

It has nothing to do with ideology.  It has nothing to do with income inequality.  It has only to do with political power.  It’s that nakedly simple.