Of What are the Senate Progressives So Afraid?

Or is it that, since they already know all the answers, they have no need for actual facts or discussion of them?

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D, VT) has decided that the massive immigration overhaul bill on which the Gang of Eight are working behind locked doors, only deserves a single hearing before the Democrats vote it up and send it to the House.

Shades of Obamacare.  How’s that working out for us?

Plainly, since Democrats are so embarrassed by this pending legislation that they don’t want it discussed in public in any serious form, it’s a bad bill and needs to be voted down.

“I Do Think at a Certain Point You’ve Saved Enough Money”

Here we go, again.

President Barack Obama’s latest guess at a budget looks to cap Americans’ retirement accounts at roughly $3.4 million (never mind that what seems like a fairly substantial amount of money will shrink to insignificance in the coming Bernanke inflation).

On top of that, Obama wants to “return the estate tax to the parameters in place in 2009….  That move would drop the per-person exemption to $3.5 million (remarkably close to that retirement funding cap) from the present $5.25 million and increase the top tax rate on a deceased’s estate to 45% from 40%.

According to Obama, it isn’t really your money, and Big Government Knows Better what to do with it than you do, anyway.

In Which Die Tageszeitung Misses Badly

Other, better writers have already eulogized the passing of Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Baroness of Kesteven, and LG, OM, PC, FRS.  As happens with all great men and women, she has come in for no small amount of criticism on the occasion of her passing, some of it simply, puerilely, shameful.

Other criticisms, though, demonstrate a broad misunderstanding of the lady’s accomplishments, the good she did for the UK and for the world.  Die Tageszeitung (The Daily Newspaper) is one such that badly misses.  This newspaper demonstrates its left-wing (the liberal Spiegel International Online‘s characterization, not mine) cred with these remarks, and I cannot let them go unanswered, even at this late date.

Very few people get a political ideology named after them.  Thatcherism stands for deregulation, privatization and the destruction of the welfare state, as well as of a sense of community.  No one divided British society as much as former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.  She is responsible for the destruction of the trade unions and the ruin of the public sector, and especially of the National Health Service.

Actually, they got the first part of this right.  But then they talk about her being the cause of the reduction of union power and of the public sector as though these were bad things.  Britain’s unionism and its then public sector were at the heart of British economic malaise and symptomatic of the nation’s retreat from the world stage—and of Britain’s willingness to lie prostrate in the face of Soviet expansionism, hoping to be passed by, unnoticed.

The failures, the rate death through negligence of children, pensioners, and ages in between while in the tender mercies of the NHS is legendary.  Thatcher’s attempts to rein in this travesty did not achieve enough, unfortunately; although it wasn’t, as DT backhandedly notes, for her lack of effort.

Thatcher got away with her authoritarian leadership style for a long time.  She publicly snubbed difficult colleagues, or just sacked them.  During her time in office she used up more than 100 ministers and surrounded herself with yes-men.  The hope that she, as the first female leader of a major nation, would fan a feminist wind into politics went unfulfilled.  She was never interested in the women’s movement, and only one women made it into her cabinet during her long tenure.

If you can’t effectively attack Thatcher’s policies, attack her person.  And demonstrate a lack of understanding of leadership, and of what it is to be a “yes-man,” to boot.  If a subordinate is being…insubordinate…he should be terminated.  Dissension and debate are required while decisions are being worked out, but refusing to get fully behind a decision once taken is inexcusable.

And as for DT‘s feminist claptrap….  Thatcher was “never interested in the women’s movement” because she was the embodiment of everything that “movement” claims to stand for.  She was a Briton and a PM who happened to be a woman.

It’s hard to imagine greater success.

Progressives, Tax Scoring, and Economic Growth

In a related post, I wrote about dynamic scoring being preferred to static scoring and about the “wisdom” of revenue neutrality for tax reform.  In the same cited Wall Street Journal op-ed, Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray (D, WA) is quoted as decrying dynamic scoring on the grounds that it

relies on judgment calls.

She’s right, of course.  What she carefully ignores, though, is that static scoring relies on its own judgment call: that humans don’t respond to the taxing, or spending, or borrowing moves of government.

We’ve seen the “accuracy” of the government’s calls based on those static analyses.  Static analyses completely blew those 2006-2007 cap gains predictions.  Static analysis completely blew the cost predictions of Obamacare.  Static analysis is completely blowing the cost predictions of Dodd-Frank.  And that’s just from the present and immediately prior administrations.

It’s time for Murray and her…cronies…to get out of the way.

More Government Arrogance

This time on the immigration front, and it brings to mind the dark-of-night ram-through of Obamacare.  And that’s working out well, isn’t it?

Recall that Senator Marco Rubio (R, FL) wrote to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D, VT) about upcoming immigration reform legislation and urging a “make haste slowly” process with open hearings and an opportunity for all Senators, and through them all Americans, to see and debate the matter.

Leahy wrote back saying he’d give hearings some thought, and maybe hold one.  After all,

The Judiciary Committee is capable of swift and thorough action.

And

I…remain mindful of the urgent need for us to actually get to the work of debating and considering amendments without unnecessary delay….

Yeah.  Just like Obamacare.  No need for petty Republican argument.  We already know the answer.

A copy of Leahy’s letter to Rubio can be seen here.

Why are Progressives always so afraid of open debate?