Tag Archives: political parties

A Democrat’s Disagreement

Posted on by
Reply

During the recent debate in the Arizona legislature concerning a bill that would allow school vouchers for all Arizona children, Democratic Congressman Jesus Rubalcava wrote on his Facebook page that he wanted to throat-punch one of the sponsors of the bill, Republican Senator Debbie Lesko.  The Arizona Republic captured a screen shot of Rubalcava’s Facebook post:

After Rubalcava’s post began circulating, after the ensuing uproar over his threat of violence against someone impertinent enough to disagree with him, he deleted his post (but not before the Republic had captured that screen shot) and apologized to Lesko.

And so, my comment, was definitely unprofessional, and it was unacceptable.  And I want this body to know that I have apologized to Senator Debbie Lesko for my comment, and I sincerely apologize, I want this body to know.

His apology?  It followed the form of one, but its substance?  Aside from cynically playing his victim card (in his apology he also carefully pointed out that he had been raised by a hard-working single mom, as though millions of Americans—who have not stooped to threats—have not been), he already had misbehaved, and his words of apology do not—can not—undo his threat of violence against a politician whose crime was to disagree with him.

Furthermore, his threat was not uttered in the heat of a zealous debate; not a bit of that.  He wrote his threat on his Facebook page—wrote it, not spoke it—which gave him plenty of time to reflect most carefully about what he was about to publish.  And then he published it.

This is what a Democrat looks like when he has even the merely perceived power of government at his back.  Congresswoman Lesko is a very generous woman, and she accepted this Democrat’s apology.  It’s a fine example, and we all should forgive, as she has done.  But we dare not forget the threats of Democrats when they’re in government.

Nor must we overlook the fact that the Arizona Democratic Party has not yet taken action against Rubalcava.  The Party’s hesitation is instructive in itself.

Democrats and Tax Reform

Posted on by
Reply

They’re plainly not interested in real tax reform, and so they’ll move to block all attempts to achieve reform that would benefit all Americans and so our economy.  This is illustrated by Senator Ben Cardin’s (D, MD) position on the matter.

Tax reform’s got to be responsible and it’s got to be progressive[.]

Pick one; these are mutually exclusive goals.  Punishing particular Democrat-disfavored groups of Americans for their success is the height of irresponsibility in a taxing venue.

On the other hand, a responsible tax reform package would lower corporate tax rates sharply enroute to an eventual elimination of corporate taxes, lower income taxes to the neighborhood of 10%-15% on all income, regardless of type or source, and eliminate most or all subsidies, credits, transfers, and other loopholes—which would have little value to the beneficiary of such distortions anyway at the lower rates.

Here’s the IRS’ (Internal Revenue Bureau then) Form 1040 from 1913, the first year of an income tax exaction after ratification of the 16th Amendment.  Not quite a post card, but it’s still pretty simple, and it’s the level of complexity we could expect for the form necessary to collect income taxes after a responsible tax reform today.

Until Democrats agree to stop using our tax code for their social engineering goals, though, don’t expect any serious effort toward bipartisanship to originate from them.

Obamacare

Posted on by
Reply

As The Wall Street Journal rightly pointed out, regarding the failed Obamacare repeal and replacement effort and the failing renewed discussions between the House Republican Conference and the Freedom Caucus of No,

The fury…suggests that some Freedom Caucus opposition is more cynical than sincere. Do its members want to appear to negotiate in good faith but insist on changes that centrists can’t accept, so they can then accuse centrists of killing the reform revival?

And

…perhaps there’s still hope for health-care reform. But first Republicans have to decide if they can accept progress that is short of perfection. If they can’t, then they’ll blow their best, and maybe only, shot at repealing and replacing a failing entitlement.

Here’s the problem, though: the Freedom Caucus of No already has betrayed their constituents once through that first failure by inflicting on them continued Obamacare instead of an improved system because the improvements weren’t perfection.

For how long will the No-ers continue to betray their employers? The No-ers are carefully eliding the back half of Reagan’s remark about half a loaf: come back tomorrow for the rest. Of course, that requires accepting the first half first….

A Thought on Filibusters and Supreme Court Nominees

Posted on by
2

In a Wall Street Journal piece on the potential for Senate Democrat obstructionism (my term) provoking an end to the filibuster as it concerns Supreme Court nominees, Kristina Peterson had this remark:

If the Senate is able to confirm Supreme Court nominees with just a simple majority, centrists in both parties fear that future presidents whose party also controls the Senate will have no incentive to pick a nominee aimed to garner bipartisan support.

What Peterson has missed, though, is that the Progressive-Democrats in the Senate have denied any possibility of bipartisan support for some time. There has been no such possibility at least as far back as 2012, when Senate Democrats announced through their spokesman, Harry Reid, that they would never work with a President Mitt Romney.

Who’s Trying to Bully?

Posted on by
Reply

Tom Perez, the new Democratic National Committee Chairman, which makes him the functional head of the Progressive-Democratic Party, has gone hysterical over his party’s loss of the Presidential election five months ago (see, especially, the opening of the video at the link to get the full flavor of his irrationality).

Donald Trump, you don’t stand for our values. You didn’t win this election[.]

Aside from the utter denial of facts about who won the election, it is true that Donald Trump doesn’t stand for DNC values, which center on their fundamental belief that

the average American individual is morally and intellectually inadequate to serious and consistent conception of his responsibilities as a democrat.

That, after all, is what Hillary Clinton was saying when she said millions of Americans were irredeemable and deplorable.  That is what Barack Obama said when he dismissed millions of Americans as nothing more than bitter Bible-clinging, gun-toting denizens of flyover country.

No, Donald Trump’s values are much closer to American values than they are to Progressive-Democrat values.

And this bit:

We have a bully in Washington in the White House[.]

Actually, no.  The bully wannabe has left the building.  Wannabe because a bully can’t succeed without the willing acquiescence of his intended victim—bullies being, fundamentally, cowards, after all.  And too many Americans refused to be cowed by Obama’s threats and slurs.

When Perez isn’t being hysterical, he’s merely projecting.