Tag Archives: political parties

Empty Promises

Posted on by
Reply

The Left and their Progressive-Democratic Party politicians have been promising “good paying” jobs in green energy as they try to push our nation off hydrocarbon-based energy onto their “green” energy sources. Here’s an example, in Moapa, NV, of how well kept those promises are.

A coal power plant that once employed as many as 300 people closed near this small town about an hour outside of Las Vegas in 2017. Nevada’s public utility has since transformed the site into a home for batteries that store energy captured by nearby solar panels. The $257 million project received roughly $100 million in federal tax credits because of President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act.
… Construction of the site and installation of the batteries required roughly 200 workers over a year. Maintaining and operating the batteries will require about five.

Never fear, tough.

NV Energy [that Nevada public utility] executives said the federal money will enable the utility to make new investments while keeping energy costs low for consumers across the state. “We can pass that benefit directly onto our customers in a time-efficient way,” NV Energy Chief Executive Doug Cannon said.

Right. And I might know of some beachfront property north of Santa Fe that these folks might be interested in.

Not only is Party doing its best to push us onto expensive, unreliable energy sources, it’s also reducing the number of jobs available in our energy production industry, and farther as the ripples from the sort of failure here spreads.

This is why we’ll never have nice things as long as the Progressive-Democratic Party reigns.

Don’t Risk a Government Shutdown?

Posted on by
Reply

The Progressive-Democratic Party’s House representatives are urging Speaker Mike Johnson (R, LA) not to take that risk—to the extent the risk from a partial shutdown even exists—in their letter to him last Friday. They want no spending cuts, or policy changes, in any bill that would avert such a shutdown; those are poison pills in their lexicon.

That’s the Progressive-Democrats’ veiled threat that they will shut down the government if they don’t get their own way entirely, and they’ll blame the Republicans for that shutdown.

Were Progressive-Democratic Party members serious about avoiding a shutdown, they’d agree to both the spending cuts—so our economy can have a chance to resume growth—and to policy changes that would firm up the processes of reducing spending and subsequently keeping it under control. Instead, these Wonders are holding our government functioning hostage with their demand to spend without limit, their obstructionism, and their threats.

Speaker Johnson’s Job

Posted on by
Reply

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R, LA) has a job to do, and The Wall Street Journal tried to characterize it this way:

…Johnson has to decide whether to cut a government funding deal with Democrats that risks costing him his job.

No. The House’s job, and so Speaker Johnson’s job, is to control the Federal government’s spending. That job, that spending control, most assuredly does not include cutting deals with a Progressive-Democratic Party that is bent on profligate spending. That he’s confronted with so many timid Republicans desperate for the comfort of loyal opposition rather than the hard reality of governing only makes his own job harder. That timidity, no more than spendthriftiness, alters his job not a whit.

If the government partially shuts down, that’s on those obstructionist Progressive-Democrats, even as they’re aided and abetted by timid Republicans.

Progressive-Democrats Protecting Their Own

Posted on by
Reply

There’s a move afoot that might result in the Progressive-Democrats ruling the Senate won’t deign hold a trial for the just-impeached DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas. They’ll just table the matter and walk away.

…rumblings that US Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) plans to table and not even hold an impeachment hearing to try Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas….

Senator Eric Schmitt (R, MO) emphasized the need for the trial in his letter to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R, KY):

He called on McConnell to oppose any efforts by [Progressive-]Democrats “to shirk their constitutional duty, ensure that the Senate conducts a proper trial, and that every senator, Republican and Democrat, adjudicates this matter when the Senate returns.”

If Party really believes the charges over which Mayorkas was impeached are baseless, they’d be better to hold the trial and quickly acquit. What is it they’re covering up?

In the event, a properly unified Republican Senate minority could easily force the trial by simply blocking all Senate legislation until the trial is held and completed. All they need do is block cloture votes. If they can find the courage to do so, a commodity in reduced supply in today’s Republican Party.

How Good is Good Enough?

Posted on by
Reply

The EPA has finalized, despite a plethora of public comment decrying the move, a pollution regulation that, among other things, tries to vastly reduce the amount of soot particles in the air we breathe. Vastly reduce: from the current standard of 12 micrograms per cubic meter of air to 9 micrograms per cubic meter—from almost nothing to even more almost nothing.

Never mind that the ordinary march of technology and ordinary free market forces have already reduced the amount of soot in our air by 42%, or that there’s vanishingly small [sic] room between the existing almost nothing and nothing.

Never mind, either, most of these fine particles are produced by construction sites, unpaved roads, and agriculture fields.

As much as 30% of all counties in the US…would have to block permitting of manufacturing facilities and new infrastructure projects.

So much for Progressive-Democrat President Joe Biden’s highly touted infrastructure project spending. There is an upside, though. John Kerry and his climatista syndicate would be moved closer to their goal of putting farming out of business.

What is this EPA’s limiting principle? It doesn’t have one.