Tag Archives: political parties

Poverty and Concern for the Rich

Posted on by
Reply

Recall the Progressive-Democratic Party-controlled legislature with their Progressive-Democrat governor who run things in California.  In response to the just-passed tax reform bill’s capping of state and local tax deductions on the Federal income tax form at $10,000, these worthies have introduced a bill that would create a State-run “charity” foundation into which California citizens could make “donations” and receive a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that they could then apply to their SALT requirements that exceed those $10,000.

Never mind that, as The Wall Street Journal‘s Editorial Board pointed out last Friday,

According to IRS data, California’s 71,000 taxpayers with million-dollar incomes deducted on average $462,500 in 2015 compared to $6,940 for individuals making between $50,000 and $100,000. Few California middle-class taxpayers will be harmed by the $10,000 deduction cap since the standard deduction has doubled to $12,000.

Kevin De León, President Pro Tempore of the California State Senate, and the Progressive-Democrat who introduced the bill, knows this full well.  These worthies are interested in protecting their rich buddies and donors.

Couple this with what the Los Angeles Times published last Sunday.  Twenty per cent of California residents are poor according to the Census Bureau’s Supplemental Poverty Measure, which considers the cost of housing, food, utilities, and clothing.  The Measure, importantly, also includes noncash government assistance in its income measure.  This 20% poverty rate is the highest rate in our nation.  It gets worse:

California recipients of state aid receive a disproportionately large share of it in no-strings-attached cash disbursements. It’s as though welfare reform passed California by, leaving a dependency trap in place.

But think about that in conjunction with the California progressive elite’s protection of their rich buds.  It’s not “as though welfare reform passed California by,” it has been by design that those elites created that dependency trap.  That’s how they get the votes—the poor have far more votes than their wealthy friends—and with those votes the elites can stay in power, exchanging favors and money with their wealthy associates.

Of course, the LAT laid most of this travesty for the poor part of the balance off on an exploding social-services community with its 883,000 full-time-equivalent state and local employees (as of 2014).  But who hires and provides the payroll and other budgets for these folks?  Yewbetcha.

The Rogue EPA

Posted on by
Reply

Glider trucks are freight-hauling trucks with used, rebuilt engines and drive trains installed in new cab-chassis.  Then-President Barack Obama’s (D) EPA, led by the paragon of green envy virtue, Gina McCarthy, decided that these used trucks actually were new trucks and held them required to meet that EPA’s emissions standards for new trucks.  After all, the Environmental Protection Act exempted used trucks from those standards, and the Obama crowd and its cronies like Volvo didn’t like that.

In late 2017, in order to prove the legitimacy of the claim, some holdover folks of the EPA ran a test on a couple of glider trucks and found them to meet/exceed EPA standards for new truck emissions.

So, shut up.

No.

Staff at EPA headquarters told [Steve Milloy, the author of the piece at the link] that administrator Scott Pruitt had no knowledge of these tests and never authorized them. The renegade report that the tests produced wasn’t peer-reviewed, as is customary. It also wasn’t printed on official EPA letterhead or assigned an internal EPA document number. It is not even available on the EPA lab’s website. Yet it mysteriously found its way into the hands of glider opponents at the early December public hearing on the proposed rollback.

The current budget request for the EPA contains a payroll budget level that’s consistent with a 47% reduction in EPA employees.  That reduction is clearly justified.

Projection

Posted on by
Reply

Kentucky has decided to take advantage of new Federal Medicaid rules and add a work requirement to those receiving Medicaid payments in order for them to be eligible for continued payments.  Recipients in the typical working age range of 19-64 must do 80 hours—two weeks—of what the State terms “community engagement.”  There are, of course, exceptions for those who cannot work.

As Kentucky’s governor Matt Bevin (R) noted in his tweet about his decision to approve the new rule,

There is dignity associated with earning the value of something that you receive. The vast majority of men and women, able-bodied men and women … they want the dignity associated with being able to earn and have engagement.

Progressive-Democrats are in an uproar over the requirement that people actually work in order to receive government largesse.

Congressman John Yarmuth [D, KY] call[ed] it a “dangerous and irresponsible” decision that will lead to the “financial ruin” for thousands of families that reside in Kentucky.

Of course.  Just like adding a work requirement in the Federal government’s reform of the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (later replaced by Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, which continued the work requirement—until then-President Barack Obama (D) waived the work requirement) dangerously and irresponsibly led to financial ruin for all those hundreds of thousands of families.  Oh, wait—that actually led to the adults in those families not only going to work, but to those families’ increased prosperity, since their earned income was greater than their AFDC/TANF payments.

The Progressive-Democrat is projecting.

 

*The waiver led to an explosion of families on TANF and their increased poverty, thus providing an actual experiment on the outcome of a work requirement.

Censorship

Posted on by
Reply

Three Leftist parties in Germany want to change—to “strengthen”—the nation’s online hate speech law: the Free Democratic Party, the Green Party, and the Left Party.  (FDP claims to be a libertarian-leaning, classical liberal party, but with this move, it exposes itself as being Modern Liberal.)

The current law requires social media companies to police themselves regarding posts someone—anyone—flags as offensive.  This is too much free speech, however.

[FDP General Secretary Nicola] Beer said Germany needed a law similar to the one the FDP proposed before Christmas that would give an “appropriately endowed authority” the right to enforce the rule of law online rather than give private companies the right to determine the illegality of flagged content.

“Appropriately endowed.”  Government, or a government sanctioned and guided facility, will “determine the illegality” of the speech.  Because Government Knows Better.

This is the Europe our own Left wants us to emulate.  This is the censorship college and university management, professors, and snowflakes want us to implement.

This is part of the Big Government that the Progressive-Democratic Party wants to inflict on us as part of their general Government intrusion into private lives push.

Value in Spending vs Parity in Spending

Posted on by
Reply

The House and Senate leadership met Wednesday in Speaker Paul Ryan’s (R, WI) office, along with White House Director of Legislative Affairs Marc Short and OMB Director Mick Mulvaney, to see if there’s any possibility of the Progressive-Democrats working with Republicans to get Federal spending under control.  It seems not.

Both parties claim to want to increase our ability to defend ourselves and our friends and allies, and so both claim to want to increase defense spending.  Only one of the two seems serious, however.  House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D, CA):

In these talks, Leader Schumer and I will continue to insist on parity in the caps[.]

Parity in the spending caps, she meant.  The icon of Progressive-Democracy in Congress is conflating parity with equal value.

There will be no domestic spending available if we can’t defend ourselves.  We will have nothing with which to deal with the opioid epidemic, veterans, pensions, disaster relief, National Institutes of Health, Children’s Health Insurance Program and community health centers, or infrastructure rebuilding, or education, or Social Security, or Medicare, or Medicaid or anything else if we can’t defend ourselves.

Or if we merely go broke, whether by being forced to spend all of our money just to pay the vig on that debt or by defaulting outright.

Parity—this is not the same as equal value. It is, however, another example of the Progressive-Democrats’ constant demand for equal outcomes rather than true equality.

It may be time to kill the filibuster on matters involving the Federal budget and spending bills, at least for the current Congressional session.  The alternative, if the Republicans stand tall on spending, along with getting their messaging skills up to snuff—finally—is to let the Progressive-Democrats shut down the Federal government over their demand to spend us into oblivion as their price for letting us spend enough on defense to rebuild our military.

To do any of that, though, Republicans also will have to understand that parity is not equality.