Tag Archives: political parties

In Which the New York Times and the BBC Miss Again

Posted on by
Reply

It seems the women journalists in the pay of the BBC were being paid significantly less than their male colleagues, to the point that Carrie Gracie, BBC’s China Editor, resigned her position in protest (I’m citing a New York Times report about the BBC.  Why that’s important, rather than citing a BBC report directly, will come clear in a bit).  Gracie has returned to London, still a BBC journalist, but there she’ll be paid the same as her male colleagues.

And how did that equal pay come about, you might ask?

According to “the organization” (presumably a BBC mucky-muck or BBC mucky-muck’s spokesman),

The BBC has agreed to pay cuts with a number of leading BBC News presenters, and others have agreed in principle[.]

Jeremy Vine, one of the high-powered, and highly paid, journalists getting his pay cut, agreed with the move, and he did so in all seriousness.

I think it needs to be sorted out, and I support my female colleagues who have rightly said they should be paid the same when they’re doing the same job.  I think the BBC’s on it, and this story is part of it.

Wow.  Just wow.

If Gracie really is the doing substantially the same work as her colleagues, why shouldn’t she get a pay raise to get to substantially the same pay?  That’s how bad it is, folks.  This is the Left’s mindset.  It doesn’t even occur to them to raise the pay of the lower paid.  All they can think of is to cut the higher paid.

Hold back the successful.  Don’t push forward those behind.  Instead of a win-win outcome, the Left prefers the everybody loses outcome.

On second thought, the NYT, which was as silent on the pay cut/pay raise question as the BBC, and the BBC didn’t miss.  This is what progressives, the Liberal NLMSM, and the US’ Progressive-Democratic Party want.  Hold back the ones ahead, don’t help the ones behind catch up.

Living Democracy

Posted on by
Reply

I’ve written that a fractious Republican Party, compared with a monolithic Democratic Party (now a Progressive-Democratic Party), demonstrates with that fractiousness that it lives democracy while that other party merely talks about it.

Are the Conservatives in Great Britain, with their own fractiousness, demonstrating that they live democracy, too, rather than merely talking about it?

Maybe.  But there are differences between the Republicans’ internal arguments and the Tories’ internal arguments.

The Republican Party’s fractiousness centers on arguments over policy, whether immigration, health care provision and health plan provision reform, tax reform, or….  The Tories, though, their fractiousness seems more centered on personality.

Chancellor Philip Hammond must go.  It’s not that Party members disagree with his policies and they want to debate in favor of different ones, he must be removed.  Prime Minister Theresa May must resign.  Not because Party members disagree with her policies and want to argue for the Party supporting others, she must resign.  Foreign Affairs Minister Boris Johnson must be removed.  Not because Party members disagree with his policies, he’s just a boor and must be removed; there’s nothing to debate here.

That’s not a recipe for democracy or for a party’s success.  The Wall Street Journal closed its piece (at the third link above) with this:

If Conservatives think defenestrating Mr Hammond will help, that’s their choice. But they shouldn’t expect any better from a successor—on Brexit or in elections—unless the party unites behind an economic growth plan.

Indeed.  A policy debate, instead of a personal argument.

Disparate Impact

Posted on by
Reply

High-tax States, principally States run by Progressive-Democrat regimes, don’t like the tax reform’s cap on State and local taxes.

The governors of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut said on Friday that they would sue the federal government to overturn the new US tax law, saying the measure unconstitutionally discriminates against Democratic-leaning states.

This is just the raw sewage of disparate impact being spread across a tax bill—never mind that the tax reform is uniformly applied across all States, across all businesses and individual taxpayers.  Never mind, too, that if some taxpayers, if some taxing jurisdictions, are impacted differently than others, it’s solely a result of the conscious individual, business, and State and local government choices.  At least when “disparate impact” is imputed to matters of race, the alleged victims have no choice in their position in the differences alleged.

Here’s an example of the foolishness and disingenuousness of the suit:

The legal action will argue that the new tax law’s cap on state and local tax deductions infringes on states’ rights and amounts to double taxation[.]

The States have no “right” to a Federal income tax deduction.  Beyond that, the cap can’t possibly represent double taxation; the only tax here is the SALT applied by those State and local jurisdictions.  Not being able to deduct a fraction of that (or any of it, come to that) from a Federal income tax bill is no tax at all.

One hopes the Federal trial judge dismisses the suit out of hand and strongly sanctions the governments and Attorneys General of New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut for bringing such a frivolous suit.  Failing that, one hopes the Supreme Court, where the suit will end regardless of the trial court outcome, itself firmly chastises the State governments and Attorneys General.

Distraction

Posted on by
Reply

Top Democrats are calling on Facebook and Twitter to investigate and release information behind potential Russian-linked accounts pushing for the release of a sealed congressional memo allegedly containing details on US government surveillance abuses.

It couldn’t possibly be that there really is a broad public hue and cry to that information released.  Us uninformed voters, denizens of fly-over country, couldn’t possibly know enough to demand the release on our own.

No, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D, CA) and Congressman Adam Schiff (D, CA), the two “top Democrats” in the quote, are desperate to have a distraction.  Us uninformed might find out too much.

It’s rich coming from a Senator who released to the public, unethically, a Senate Judiciary Committee report concerning Fusion GPS and then blamed her unethical behavior on having taken cold medicines and so she wasn’t thinking clearly.  Feinstein and I are of an age, and I’ve taken cold medicines, too.  They’ve never addled my brain.

It’s also a bit much coming from a Congressman who’s not the least bit curious about the Steele dossier; he just wants that matter dropped.

Taxing and Spending in New York

Posted on by
Reply

Bookending (in more than one sense of the term) California’s move to confiscate business’ tax cuts, New York’s Progressive-Democrat governor Andrew Cuomo wants to increase the taxes levied on that State’s citizens by $1 billion.  He’s claiming, in all seriousness,

You can’t possibly get anywhere near where you want to be on education and health care unless you raise revenues.  It’s just too big a deficit, and the choice of cutting education or cutting health care I don’t think is a place anyone wants to go to this year. So you have to raise revenue.

This is a false choice.  The largest cause of the State’s deficit, after all, is its spending level, not the size of its revenue.  Thus, one choice Cuomo is carefully eliding is this: the State’s government could cut spending across the board; there is, after all, more going on in New York than just education and health coverage costs.

Alternatively (which Cuomo also avoids mentioning), the State’s government could simply reallocate existing spending into education and health care.

Still another alternative unmentioned, the State’s government could fix its runaway pension funds for its public unions by using accurate projections of investment return rates and increasing the contributions union members and the unions themselves make to the funds.  Along with this, the State’s government could fix its health coverage program, replacing its version of Obamacare with market-based solutions, and freeing the citizens to buy the health plans that suit them rather than suiting Government.  Or not buy at all.

There’s simply no need for more revenue for the State’s government, no need to take even more money out of the pockets of the State’s citizens.

Unfortunately, neither the man nor his Party cronies in the legislature are emotionally capable of conceiving of actually cutting spending, or even of reallocating existing spending.