Tag Archives: politics

Carpetbagger

Posted on by
Reply

Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg (D)—and former Mayor of South Bend, Indiana, which is of singular importance here—wants to run for Senator in…Michigan. He’s leading all the other current Progressive-Democrat contenders according to some polling data.

The Progressive-Democrats in the State don’t seem to care about Buttigieg’s carpetbagger status.

Progressive-Democrats do care about other carpetbaggers, though:

• Pennsylvania Senatorial candidate Republican Mehmet Oz (R) was accused by Progressive-Democrats and their supporters of carpetbagging because he had a house in New Jersey
• Michigan Senatorial candidate Mike Rogers was accused by Progressive-Democrats and their supporters of carpetbagging because he also has a house in Florida
• Wisconsin Senatorial candidate Eric Hovde (R) was accused by Progressive-Democrats and their supporters of carpetbagging because has a house, also, in California, and a business in Utah
• Montana Senator Tim Sheehy (R) was accused of carpetbagging against the State’s incumbent Progressive-Democrat Jon Tester for the sin of having grown up in Minnesota, never minding that Sheehy had been a Montana citizen for the 10 years before his campaign and election
• Ohio Senator Bernie Moreno (R) was accused by Progressive-Democrats and their supporters of carpetbagging because he had stakes in multiple properties from Costa Rica to New York City to the Florida Keys.

Progressive-Democratic Party politicians’ hypocrisy is embedded in nearly everything they say and do.

Policy Chaos?

Posted on by
Reply

The State Department, following President Donald Trump’s (R) EO stating that it was US policy that there are only the male and female genders, has eliminated the X gender on new US passports along with barring passport holders from changing the gender listed on their passports.

The ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project staff attorney, Sruti Swaminathan:

The plaintiffs in this case have had their lives disrupted by a chaotic policy clearly motivated by animus that serves zero public interest[.]

Chaotic Policy? Clearly no. Policy is being—properly—stabilized at the status quo ante.

Why do we Care?

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) is moving to transfer as many as 30,000 illegal aliens with violent criminal histories to Guantanamo Bay for temporary housing until their final disposition is determined. A couple of Fox News‘ news writers are in such a tizzy over the prospect that they enumerated the 15 remaining prisoners—terrorists, the lot of them—along with brief biographies, who are still housed there. The writers seem worried in some inchoate manner about the potential for interaction between the two groups. The writers don’t say so in so many words, but why else would they feel constrained to point out the juxtaposition?

The larger question, which apparently hasn’t occurred to those writers, is this: why would any of us care that violent illegal aliens are being housed in the same facility as violent terrorists? After all, the former already are hardened criminals in their own right.

It Could be made to Work

Posted on by
Reply

President Donald Trump (R) wants a sovereign wealth fund for “promot[ing] fiscal sustainability,” “establish[ing] economic security for future generations, and promot[ing] United States economic and strategic leadership internationally.” This is a slush fund with a gussied up label.

It could work, nonetheless, under a very narrow Critical Item-level set of circumstances.

• slush fund dollars can be loaned only, not committed as grants or investments
• slush fund purposes and scope clearly defined and limited
• scope and types of enterprises to which slush fund dollars may be loaned clearly defined and limited
• slush fund loans to be made at annually adjusting rates equal to the prime rate plus 12.75%, which is roughly comparable to today’s credit card interest rate markup
• slush fund loans to be repaid in full within two years
• principle to be returned to the slush fund; interest payments to be sent to Treasury for the explicit purpose of paying down the national debt
• bankruptcy can be used to discharge slush fund loans, but only via liquidation bankruptcy

Those are stiffly limiting criteria for a Federal government slush fund, but the WSJ editors are correct in every respect in their concerns about the dangers of such a fund. Setting up such a device under these criteria is likely a pipe dream chasing a chimera, but the idea is worth serious consideration: under these criteria, the idea could work; alternatively, the idea could be put to rest for a useful period of years.

NGOs and Funding

Posted on by
Reply

Non-government organizations—are they non-governmental, or are they not?

President Donald Trump (R) has ordered all Executive Branch Departments and agencies to review their funding of non-government organizations (NGOs). His order has this:

The United States Government has provided significant taxpayer dollars to Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs), many of which are engaged in actions that actively undermine the security, prosperity, and safety of the American people.

It’s time to stop Federal transfers of taxpayer monies to NGOs. Emphasize—enforce—that “non-” part. Being affiliated with government—even if only through government financing of part of their operation—denies the “non-” part of their designation.

If us average Americans think an NGO’s activities are appropriate, we’ll support it voluntarily with our own, direct, donations. If we do not, we should not be dragooned into supporting it anyway by having our tax dollars shunted off to it.