Tag Archives: political parties

Manufactured Racism

Posted on by
Reply

A Democratic congresswoman said drawing attention to a colleague’s first job in the fast food industry is racist.

Seriously.

Congressman Joe Wilson (R, SC) was talking up the value of a fast food job as a means of gaining valuable experience and life/work lessons while on the job, and he mentioned that Senator Tim Scott (R, SC) had started out in such a starter job in a Chick-fil-A franchise, and now he was a sitting Senator.

[Franchises] provide entry level jobs for people to have first-time employment, improve themselves, and succeed.  In South Carolina we particularly recognize this. US Senator Tim Scott had his first job at a Chick-fil-A franchise.

It’s true enough that Wilson was factually wrong about Scott’s relationship with the franchise—he was mentored by a franchisee rather than having his first job at one.  However, it’s crystalline that Wilson was not being racist in referencing Scott’s employment history.

That didn’t stop Congresswoman Marcia Fudge (D, OH) from deciding to get her knickers in a twist over the reference.

I have to say this. I am trying to figure out for the life of me what Tim Scott has to do with what we are talking about today. So he worked at Chick-fil-A? So what? I mean did [Wilson] bring it up because he’s black?

No, Wilson brought it up to show the value of starter jobs of the sort a franchise can offer.

Fudge knows this.  She manufactured her beef for her own political ends.  Making up a racist beef, though, where it’s clear that no racism exists is itself racist.  She could have served her personal politics in other ways.  Unless this is her personal politics.

Huzzah

Posted on by
Reply

Regular order—it lives, sort of, at least on spending measures, in the House.

The House on Thursday voted to send 12 appropriations bills to the Senate. The chamber approved four of these 2018 spending measures prior to its August recess, and the remaining eight were debated and passed as part of the broader Thursday vote. They had previously passed out of committee. This is the first time since 2004 that a House Republican majority has passed all of its individual spending bills….

Now all we need is for the Senate to figure out how to do its job and pass these bills.  However, with unreliable Republicans in the Senate like John McCain (R, AZ), Rand Paul (R, KY), and Lisa Murkowski (R, AK), The Wall Street Journal is almost as skeptical about that as I am.

Medicare for All

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) is beating that drum, again, and has support from some Progressive-Democratic Party Senators.

The health proposal, dubbed Medicare for all, would offer the same suite of medical benefits required for some insurance plans under the Affordable Care Act and eliminate most out-of-pocket costs. Mr Sanders argues that although taxes would likely rise to support the new system, families would save money by no longer needing to purchase health coverage. The government, he says, could also secure lower prices for medical services.

Of course it has the same stuff as Obamacare—it’s the planned evolution of Obamacare into a Federally mandated single-payer system.  Because Government Knows Better, especially one run by Progressive-Democrats and their Social Democrat crony.

“Taxes would likely rise”—yewbetcha, to the tune of an additional $24,000 per family.  Whether we want that “benefit” or not.  Families can save money by not having actually to purchase coverage?  That’s rich: what do these guys think those 24 stacks are, if not coverage purchase costs inflicted on us whether we want or need coverage or not?  Aside from that, lots of folks, my family included, don’t use health care services very much; we don’t need coverage against costs we don’t incur.  That’s for one geezer family.  Those 24 stacks represent no net savings for us at all.  The young families also are healthy, don’t use health care services very much, and so have no need of health coverage.  And as they’re just starting their lives, they don’t have those 24 stacks to begin with.

Government can get lower prices?  That’s, um, rich.  Just like it (doesn’t) get lower prices on so many other “services” it provides, what with requiring contractors to pay prevailing union labor wages, whether the contractors employ union workers or not.

[P]rivate insurers wouldn’t be permitted to compete with the government plan for basic coverage….

This, I suppose, is one way in which Sanders’ government would get lower prices—competition raises prices, after all, in his and his Progressive-Democrat cronies’ fetid imaginations.

The 96-page bill offers no mechanisms to pay for the plan….

Of course not.  Money grows on trees.  Or, as I speculate Sanders will tout in his promised for “tomorrow” white paper on funding, money is in the bottomless wallets of the rich.

Progressive-Democrat Bigotry

Posted on by
Reply

Senator Diane Feinstein (D, CA) during her inquisition of Judge Amy Barrett, who was appearing before the Senate Judicial Committee pursuant to her nomination to the 7th Circuit:

Why is it that so many of us on this side have this very uncomfortable feeling that—you know, dogma and law are two different things. And I think whatever a religion is, it has its own dogma. The law is totally different. And I think in your case, professor, when you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for years in this country.

Feinstein is projecting.  What Barrett has said in those speeches is that where the Constitution or statute would require a judge to go against his religious beliefs, that judge must recuse himself.  There’s no conflict here.

Senator Dick Durbin (D, IL):

Do you consider yourself an orthodox Catholic?

Or possibly, Congressman Dick Durbin in a bygone era: Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of the Communist Party?

Senator Al Franken (D, MN) accused Barrett of belonging to a hate group.  The group in question was the Alliance Defending Freedom, an organization that supports [ahem] religious freedom and on which ground that paragon of Leftist virtue, the Southern Poverty Law Center, labeled it a hate group.  And Franken took the SPLC seriously.

With this hearing, not only have Progressive-Democrats exposed their religious bigotry, they’ve exposed their disdain for the Constitution.  Here’s Article VI on religion:

…no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Which, of course, Progressive-Democrats in the Senate—every single one of them—know full well.

No Surprise

Posted on by
Reply

Howard Kurtz was on the right track when he wrote that Republicans shouldn’t be surprised that President Donald Trump cut a deal with Congress’ Progressive-Democratic Party* leadership regarding our debt ceiling and financial aid for Harvey and Irma victims.

However, Kurtz’ laying the blame on House Speaker Paul Ryan (R, WI) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY) is misplaced, though.  Ryan did get one Obamacare compromise repeal passed in the House.  McConnell did get 49 out of his 52 Senators to vote for that bill.  It’s the rank and file—the party as a whole—who are failing their duty.

The question of whether the Trump deal is good or bad in its own right also is irrelevant.

Trump has been saying since the Republicans collectively chose the first time to perpetuate Obamacare rather than pass a compromise, however flawed but that would have been an important first step toward remove and replace that he would have to work with the other party.

Since that initial failure, since that initial betrayal of each Congressman’s home district constituents (and yes, that includes Senators, whose home district is statewide) and of their not-too-distant secondary constituents, all of us Americans, those Republicans have continued to choose to inflict Obamacare on us rather than pass successive efforts at compromise toward remove and replace.  They have quibbled with each other over budgets, spending, and on and on, rather than passing Conservative budgets, spending bills, and on and on.  In the Senate, the Republicans won’t even take action on a House-passed bill that would rescind a destructive CFPB regulation.

Republicans still have no plan for removing and replacing Obamacare.  They still have no plan for reforming our mendaciously byzantine tax code.  In fact, here, they’re behaving even more shamefully: instead of acting on their own initiative, they’re meekly pleading for Trump’s tax reform plan details.

Since the Republicans in Congress have chosen not to act for the good of their constituents—either set of them—instead preferring to engage in the personal ego boost of virtue signaling, or preferring to wait to be told what to do, Trump had to act on his threat.

No, his deal with the Progressive-Democrats is no surprise.  Who else is he going to work with, since the Republicans won’t work?

 

*My term, not Kurtz’, which I use because there’s no daylight between today’s “Democrats” and the Progressive beginnings of Herb Croly, TRoosevelt, Woodrow Wilson.  Even today’s party bigwigs brag about being Progressives.