Tag Archives: political parties

“Our Federal Dollars”

Posted on by
Reply

It doesn’t get any clearer than this.  Seattle Mayor Ed Murray has illustrated the addictive nature of Federal funds transfers to the States and lower government jurisdictions with that phrase.

In defending his city’s lawsuit against the Federal government over DoJ’s decision to withhold Federal monies from cities that violate Federal law by protecting illegal aliens from enforcement of immigration law, Murray said this:

The federal government cannot compel our police department to enforce federal immigration law and cannot use our federal dollars to coerce Seattle into turning our backs on our immigrant and refugee communities.

Our federal dollars.  The dollars aren’t theirs.  Those dollars are Texas citizens’ money.  Those dollars are New York citizens’ money.  Those dollars are Illinois citizens’ money.  Those dollars are Oregon citizens’ money.  Those dollars are the money of the citizens of every State and territory in the nation, including Washington.  Those dollars are money transferred from all those other citizens around the nation.

This is what such transfers lead to: the powerful addiction of a sense of entitlement to other people’s money and the loss of any sense of responsibility for a jurisdiction’s own money.

Now It’s Overt

Posted on by
Reply

The Left has, for quite a number of years, quietly harbored contempt for those who disagree with them, believing those on the center-right and points further to be stupid, narrow, and venal, constantly voting as those unfortunates do, against their self-interest (which is to so not voting for those things the Left deems appropriate).

It’s no longer quiet or sub rosa.

This mad-as-hell view has been galvanized by reports that many Trump voters may lose their health insurance if the House version of ObamaCare repeal passes. The liberal gloaters say it serves them right.

From this perspective, those voters are too dumb to vote in their own economic self-interest and they’re probably gone for good. So it’s better to energize the Bernie Sanders base than to struggle to understand why many blue-collar Americans feel alienated from the Obama/Clinton party.

And from Frank Rich, of New York Magazine,  as cited by Howard Kurtz at the above link:

Rather than feeling everyone’s pain, “might the time have at last come for Democrats to weaponize their anger instead of swallowing it?

“…a fool’s errand for Democrats to fudge or abandon their own values to cater to the white-identity politics of the hard-core, often self-sabotaging Trump voters who helped drive the country into a ditch on Election Day. If we are free to loathe Trump, we are free to loathe his most loyal voters, who have put the rest of us at risk.”

This is nothing but the Progressive’s long-standing contempt for their fellow Americans, made as plain today as their BFF Herb Croly had it 100 years ago.

House Freedom Caucus of No

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, the membership of the House Freedom Caucus of No forced the American Health Care Act, the first stage of a three-stage Obamacare repeal and replace program offered by the majority of the House Republican Conference, to be withdrawn from the day’s backup vote (recall that these No-ers already had forced a delay from Thursday’s vote over their demand to have their way or there could be no Act), and so there will be no AHCA.

As a result of the No-ers’ our way or nothing attitude, the American people now get nothing at all.  We’re forced to stay with Obamacare and the disastrous failure of that program. Of particular interest, included in those American people are these No-ers’ own constituents, whose interests these No-ers so loudly pretend that they’re protecting.  Yet, with their performance, they’ve ensured that their own constituents also get nothing; the No-ers have betrayed their own electorate.

I have to ask: on whose side are the No-ers; their tactics have led directly to the continuation of Obamacare?  Are they on the side of the Progressive-Democrats whose program Obamacare is?  Or are they in Congress for their own benefit?

They’re certainly not interested in the welfare of the American people, or of their own constituents.

For your reference in the 2018 election cycle, here are the members of the House Freedom Caucus of No, who put their demands ahead of the nation’s citizens’ needs:

  • Mark Meadows, North Carolina, Chair
  • Justin Amash, Michigan
  • Brian Babin, Texas
  • Ted Poe, Texas
  • Randy Weber, Texas
  • Rod Blum, Iowa
  • Dave Brat, Virginia
  • Tom Garrett, Jr, Virginia
  • Morgan Griffith, Virginia
  • Jim Bridenstine, Oklahoma
  • Mo Brooks, Alabama
  • Ken Buck, Colorado
  • Warren Davidson, Ohio
  • Jim Jordan, Ohio
  • Ron DeSantis, Florida
  • Bill Posey, Florida
  • Ted Yoho, Florida
  • Scott DesJarlais, Tennessee
  • Jeff Duncan, South Carolina
  • Mark Sanford, South Carolina
  • Trent Franks, Arizona
  • Paul Gosar, Arizona
  • David Schweikert, Arizona
  • Andy Harris, Maryland
  • Jody Hice, Georgia
  • Raúl Labrador, Idaho
  • Alex Mooney, West Virginia
  • Gary Palmer, Alabama
  • Steve Pearce, New Mexico
  • Scott Perry, Pennsylvania

Delays

Posted on by
1

The House Republicans were forced to cancel yesterday’s scheduled American Health Care Act vote.  The Freedom Caucus, the Caucus of No, couldn’t be satisfied.  Congressmen like Jim Jordan (R, OH) and Caucus of No Chairman Mark Meadows (R, NC) refused late compromises, all the while insisting by implication from their refusals that constituents of other Congressmen, for instance Tom Cole (R, OK), worked for them and not that Cole worked for his Oklahoma constituents—and that those Oklahoma constituents might have different imperatives than those Congressmen of the Caucus.  So, no compromise from the No-ers.

Even after regulation changes that were part of Phase II of the overall three phase repeal and replace plan were offered to be brought into this Phase I AHCA, the No-ers refused.  Never mind that even the need to make such an offer displayed a monumental distrust by the No-ers of their ex-Congressional colleague, Tom Price, now Secretary of Health and Human Services and the gentleman who would have carried out those regulation rescissions of Phase II.  Even the No-ers’ plaint that they wanted those regulation removals written into law rather than merely rescinded makes no sense: that could have been legislated next year, by this same Congress, and that, as change to a done, deal would have thereby much easier to do.

Nor did a single member of the Caucus of No offer either any plan for getting the changed bill past a Senate filibuster from these too-large changes or any explanation of why their demanded changes would have permitted the bill still to go through via reconciliation and a majority-only vote.

It’s clear that the Freedom Caucus, this Caucus of No, is little more than a collection of yapping porch dogs, or alternatively just a bunch of right-handed virtue-signaling snowflakes, with little interest in actually improving our health provision system or restoring our health care to us constituents and our doctors.

Obamacare Replacement

Posted on by
Reply

One aspect of the plan on offer in the House is this:

…whether it includes enough reform to arrest the current death spiral in the individual insurance market.

Notably, the bill includes a new 10-year $100 billion “stability fund” that allows states to start to repair their individual insurance markets. Before ObamaCare, it wasn’t inevitable that costs would increase by 25% on average this year, or that nearly a third of US counties would become single-insurer monopolies. With better policy choices, states can make coverage cheaper and more attractive for consumers and coax insurers back into the market, and the stability fund is a powerful tool.

Right idea, but it needs a tweak.  As with all Federal transfers to the States (even though nearly all of them do not have this), this transfer needs a sunset (ideally, but not as a deal breaker, on a declining balance to the sunset date) by which the transfer will cease to exist.  States need time to adjust their budgets as their addiction to Federal money is broken, but in the end the costs a State inflicts on itself must be the sole responsibility of that State.

Then there’s this:

The larger goal is to start to restore the traditional state regulatory authority over health insurance that ObamaCare supplanted for federal control. Local governments understand local needs best. With more flexibility, autonomy and accountability, the GOP hope is that reform Governors can pry open markets and help promote a larger and more dynamic business.

The larger goal still, and an even better one, should be to reduce regulation altogether to a great degree, and let the markets regulate health insurance products and costs.

In the end, too, local governments do understand local needs better than remote Federal, and State, governments.  But the greatest understanding is even more local: the patient and his doctor.  These are the participants in a free market for health insurance products—nation-wide and freely crossing State borders—whose “regulatory” activities should prevail.