Tag Archives: politics

Demanding Instant Results

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration has threatened tariffs, raised and lowered them (though rarely as much as they were raised), and concluded on-again, off-again tariff agreements with the People’s Republic of China. The bulk of these moves have come within the opening months of Trump II, even though some moves were made during Trump I.

The good editors at The Wall Street Journal are taking a dim view of this. The opening of their lede:

President Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping struck their third trade truce in a year on Thursday, and the best we can say is that the deal averted more economic damage.

Later in the piece, they offered this…truism:

One lesson here is that trade wars aren’t easy to win, especially against a peer competitor.

To which I say, “Patience, Grasshoppers.”

Wars—and the PRC has been fighting this economic war with us for lots of years, even if we’ve been slow to recognize that—are rarely over in a day. WWI was fought over four years, and WWII took eight years out of our globe’s weal and life. Looking farther back was the 30 Years War and the 100 Years War. The barbarian’s 3-day invasion of Ukraine now is approaching its 4th year. Over in what is now the PRC, the period of the Warring States lasted 250 years, and the century of humiliation that the PRC still remembers (the opium wars were in the beginning of that period) lasted…100 years and a bit more.

The men and women of the PRC government take a long view of things, even a generational view. It would be good were the changing men and women of our government to take a similarly long view. The WSJ editorial board could contribute by doing the same.

Trump’s moves may, indeed, end up with no material net effect, or they may end in national disaster, or they may end in a renewed and refreshed century of Pax Americana. It’s years too early to tell.

Idiotic

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) made the rounds in Asia, working foreign policy goals with a measure of success that was greater than the shortfalls. Meanwhile, Progressive-Democrats kept the US government closed over their Never Trump, No Way snit centered on their demand to permanently extend Obamacare subsidies that they’d planned for expiry when they passed their own spending bill during the Biden reign, a discussion that would occur apace once the government is reopened.

During Trump’s trip took him out of the country while the Progressive-Democrats held the government closed, and because of that, Progressive-Democrats led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) bellyached loudly that Trump had left town during the shutdown. How dare he?

What’s being missed in the Progressive-Democrats’ plaints and what’s being actively ignored by the press is ex-President Jimmy Carter’s actions during the Iran hostage crisis. Carter promised to remain voluntarily imprisoned in the White House until those hostages were freed. He kept that promise for 444 days, with the hostages being released only the day before Ronald Reagan’s (R) inauguration, with Reagan having promised sterner responses to Iran’s hostage-taking.

Presidents holing up at home in response to every problem—serious or otherwise—that comes up only stupidly limits the President’s options and capabilities for dealing with other problems—serious or otherwise—that also crop up, even in today’s more modern communications environment.

It seems, though, that the Progressive-Democrats have chosen to ignore that lesson. They seem to have chosen, instead, to be upset that they can’t control a sitting President of the other party.

That, too

Posted on by
Reply

Progressive-Democrats are keeping the government shut down over their demand to extend—permanently, no negotiations—the Obamacare subsidies that the Progressive-Democrats during the Biden reign had scheduled to expire in November of this year, pretending at the time that the subsidies were just temporary, to tide people over during the Wuhan Virus situation. Their core claim on this aspect is that Obamacare premiums, as paid by the policy holder (carefully excluding, per those same Progressive-Democrats, the premium costs paid for by us taxpayers via those subsidies), will explode.

What the press, with equal care, ignores is that the purported need for those subsidies is a direct result of the cost of the government-run health care coverage program that is the Affordable Care Act. Government-run because these are coverage policies whose coverage suites are mandated by government, including the worst mandate of them all: the requirement to charge premiums (within narrow government set bands) for ailments and potential ailments without regard for the risk of the ailment being covered, and for some of those ailments at no cost to the policy holder at all.

The Wall Street Journal has pointed out an additional price to us average Americans:

If Republicans don’t extend the turbocharged subsidies, she [Minnesota Progressive-Democrat Senator Amy Klobuchar] warned, “early retirees like Bill & Shelly [who live in Meridian, ID] will see their health insurance premiums increase nearly 300%—from $442 to $1,700.”

And [emphasis added]

This is a tacit admission that ObamaCare encourages Americans to stop working. The Biden subsidies turbocharged that incentive by making subsidies larger and available even to those with incomes above 400% of the poverty line. The couple in Ms Klobuchar’s example had north of $130,000 of income in 2024….

This demand for permanentizing the ObamaCare subsidies is just one more aspect of big government taking over our lives, reducing individual liberties (the health coverage industry does not exist in a free, competitive market where individuals can make their own choices of what coverages they want, at prices that competition would make possible) and taking the flip side of individual liberties, individual responsibilities, away from the individual and, instead, spreading them across all of us together, as brokered by Government.

The editors offer some solutions that would be a good beginning toward correcting the failure that is the ObamaCare essay into socialized medicine.

  • codifying association health plans that let small businesses join up to form a larger risk pool to improve the economics of offering insurance
  • continuing to expand plans that can be paired with tax-preferred health-savings accounts
  • fix[ing] some ObamaCare regulations like the medical-loss ratio that obliges insurers to spend 80% of premiums on claims, which in practice is a profit cap

Also needed, I claim:

  • allowing health coverage plan providers to sell policies that cover preexisting conditions at premiums consistent with the risk involved. The risk here is not certainty since the preexisting conditions will not all flare up and require medical intervention simultaneously; the risks can be amortized across time, if government only got out of the way
  • allowing individuals to choose from, and insurers to offer, tailored coverages: only primary care—annual exams, for instance, and the occasional flu or broken bone
  • coverages only for catastrophic health potentialities
  • reducing the regulatory burden on doctors who want to eschew being reimbursed via health coverage providers by doing cash reimbursements, perhaps by annual subscriptions

But to do any of that, it’s necessary for the Progressive-Democrats to end their extortionate demand on subsidies as a condition or reopening, so those discussions can begin; it’s necessary for the Progressive-Democrats to release from their basements us American people, especially the poor and their children, whom they’ve taken hostage against their demand.

No—All Must Suffer

Posted on by
Reply

Recall House Minority Whip Katherine Clark (D, MA) saying the suffering of Americans during this Schumer Shutdown is leverage for Party. Recall further, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D, NY) saying the longer his shutdown continues, the better it is for Party.

Now we have two bills on offer that demonstrate the political bankruptcy of Party’s position, to say nothing of its moral bankruptcy. One is a bill on offer from Senator Josh Hawley (R, MO) that would fund the SNAP program during the shutdown so the needy could retain access to nutrition for themselves and their kids. Ten Republicans have signed on as co-sponsors. Exactly one Progressive-Democrat has.

The other bill is one offered by Senator Ron Johnson (R, WI) that would pay essential Federal workers and those furloughed now rather than after the Schumer Shutdown ends. Many of those employees, furloughed or still working, will without their paychecks find themselves—and in too many cases are alredady finding themselves—in any of a variety of breadlines because they can’t afford groceries. The bill would be especially important for those still required to work since those folks are ineligible for unemployment benefits. Here, too, only one Progressive-Democratic Senator has signed up to support it.

Marie Antoinette was a piker. The Progressive-Democratic Party politicians won’t even let our needy and our Federal employees have any cake* to eat.

*Cake: not the modern-day sweet confection, but for the French of Antoinette’s time, cake was the bread crust burned onto the peasants’ tiny oven walls as the loaves expanded hard onto those walls.

Hysteria

Posted on by
Reply

It runs deep in the Progressive-Democratic Party, even if it is artificial and cynically constructed. The latest example is provided by Congressman Eric Swalwell (D, CA):

Don’t even think of seeking the Democratic nomination for president unless you pledge to take a wrecking ball to the Trump Ballroom on DAY ONE.

Not immigration reform differences, not Obamacare subsidies, not spending or taxing policy differences. Just whether a President is allowed to remodel a portion of the White House.

This is how far Progressive-Democrats’ focus on manufacturing hysteria about anything Trump has taken them from matters important to us average Americans.