Category: Politics

Don’t be fooled…

… by the socialist rhetoric spewed forth by NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio. For example, from his State of the City address on 1/10/2019:

“Here’s the truth, brothers and sisters, there’s plenty of money in the world. Plenty of money in this city,” the mayor said, flanked by screens with graphs of productivity outpacing compensation. “It’s just in the wrong hands!”

Referencing the graphs presented during his speech, the fact that worker productivity increases does not necessarily mean that wages should increase. In many cases productivity increases are being driven by competition, which drives prices down instead. The result is the same: people can buy more with their earnings. Also, to suggest that the government should force the redistribution of money earned by individuals involved in free trade is contrary to the foundations of capitalism and our country. People in America are free to contract with each other for goods, services and labor, and the exchange should be dictated by mutual agreement of the parties involved. For the government to come along after-the-fact and alter the exchange is patently wrong.

Such statements by de Blasio simply shows his ignorance of economics. However, an understanding of economics is not required to succeed as a socialist politician; all that is required is a 51% share of the population who don’t understand economics, either.

de Blasio also makes the statement:

“… This country has spent decades taking from working people and giving to the 1 percent …”

This is nothing but socialist rhetoric designed to inflame the senses. The truth is actually the other way around: the top 1% of earners in the United States paid 35.7% of all income taxes in 2016. From other perspectives: less than 5% of tax returns paid more than 57% of all taxes; barely 17% of tax returns paid 80% of all taxes. Out of more than 150 million tax returns for 2016, 50 million paid no taxes at all. Sounds instead like the “working people” are taking from the 1%!

Don’t be fooled by socialists; once they’ve taken the money from the “rich”, they’ll come after your money, too. After all, to someone else lower on the socioeconomic scale it is you who are the “rich” one…

Pardon me?

Rep. Steve Cohen, D-Tenn.,  introduced an amendment to the Constitution to limit the pardon powers of the President. He did this ostensibly so that Trump could not pardon himself, family members, campaign staff or administration. This move is surprising, considering that it was former President Clinton who pardoned:

  • his half-brother, Roger Clinton
  • his former business partner, Susan H. McDougal
  • his former housing secretary, Henry G. Cisneros
  • the son of his education secretary, and
  • a federal fugitive, Marc Rich

You can read more about Clinton’s questionable pardons at the Washington Post.

A clue…

…to the intents of the Democrats in the coming years: they have altered House rules to eliminate the 3/5 majority requirement to raise income taxes.

The goal of the Democrat’s tax strategy is simple: to purchase votes. The redistribution of wealth via taxes to support social welfare programs is a common means for politicians to use someone else’s money to buy voter loyalty. Unfortunately, many voters are simply too stupid to realize that wealth redistribution via taxation does not work.

The redistribution of wealth via taxes is a false reward for those so duped, for the process simply muddies the water of worker compensation. Do you really think that wages are not affected when employers are forced to provide additional benefits via government-sponsored wealth redistribution systems? Some bemoan the loss of “middle class” wages; could it be that some of these wages have been replaced with  benefits provided via employer taxation? And if the costs are forced to be absorbed my the employer – as many suggest – jobs will just move elsewhere. Think not? Ask Detroit.

Negotiating for these benefits directly with the employer (and realizing that wages will be affected) is a far better alternative. Using the government to obtain such benefits only adds government bureaucracy and overhead that ultimately reduces the value of such benefits. In addition, using force via taxation risks going too far and causing jobs to be lost entirely.

Be careful what you wish for… you might get exactly what you deserve.

Pelosi’s end run

Hidden away at the bottom of the Democrat’s rule changes for the new congress is a section that permits the Speaker to utilize House legal resources to fight legal battles in support of the Affordable Care Act. Unfortunately, it does not limit the use of these resources – but it does require reporting on costs.

I am concerned because this allows a simple House majority to champion laws using public funds. What’s to prevent them from doing the same for other aspects of our government? Say they wanted to provide legal support for challenged gun laws that violate the 2nd amendment? Or to provide legal support for challenged hate-speech laws that violate the 1st amendment?

People are free to use their own money to fight for causes in which they believe. But to give someone a blank check from the account of the American people to fight a cause that many will not support? That just seems wrong to me. If these politicians want to support such causes, it should come out of their own budgets or pocketbooks – not mine.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

And why not?

Democrats want to revise the House of Representative’s rule against hats in the chamber. These actions are sought specifically to allow the wearing of religious headwear, a request of the two new Muslim members of Congress. Said Ilhan Omar, an incoming Demcratic representative from Minnesota, in a tweet:

“No one puts a scarf on my head but me. It’s my choice—one protected by the first amendment.”

Omar’s freedom of expression claims have merit. On the other hand, the current rule is outdated and serves little purpose in a modern world. This provides us a perfect opportunity for representatives of both parties to come together and welcome their new members – regardless of their political or religious affiliation – to congress. There is no reason for this to be anything other than a unanimous vote (if a vote is required).

Come on, Republicans – show some backbone and vote to welcome these women to Congress.

What’s next? Taxation?

Some parents rotate looking over the kids (including their own) at a regularly-scheduled play date. Government officials are trying to regulate it, claiming that it is an unlicensed day care system.

Bureaucrats Consider Shutting Down Informal Play School for 2-Year-Olds Because It’s Too Safe

What’s next? Because each parent takes a turn looking over the kids, and because each gets a benefit (when others watch their children), my guess is that the government will also want to tax the benefit as earnings – even though no one accepts a dime for their work.

Can you say “governmental overreach”? I’ll bet you can…

…in accordance to their needs…

From the Mayor of New York, the infamous “democratic socialist” Bill De Blasio:

“I think people all over this city, of every background, would like to have the city government be able to determine which building goes where, how high it will be, who gets to live in it, what the rent will be,” de Blasio said in a wide-ranging interview with New York Magazine. “I think there’s a socialistic impulse, which I hear every day, in every kind of community that they would like things to be planned in accordance to their needs.” [emphasis mine]

Who do you think will pay for these buildings, Bill? Working people who save their hard-earned money to invest in real estate so as to earn a return, only to have you essentially nationalize their holdings for the benefit of others who can not or will not pay their own way? How long do you think it will take these investors to realize that NYC is a bad bet, slowing development to a crawl? And who gets to decide who lives in the remaining buildings, and how much rent they will pay? You, Bill, and your followers? Is this what you are after, Bill? Control – not by virtue of your ability to produce jobs or housing, but instead by virtue of your control over those who do?

‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need’

There wasn’t a man voting for it who didn’t think that under a setup of this kind he’d muscle in on the profits of the men abler than himself. There wasn’t a man rich and smart enough but that he didn’t think that somebody was richer and smarter, and this plan would give him a share of his better’s wealth and brain. But while he was thinking that he’d get unearned benefits from the men above, he forgot about the men below who’d get unearned benefits, too. He forgot about all his inferiors who’d rush to drain him just as he hoped to drain his superiors.”

Jeff Allen, a fictional character in Ayn Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged”

The reality is that people support Bill De Blasio’s socialist credo not because it is right, but instead because they believe it will give them the ability to pick the pockets of their betters. Unfortunately, they forget two simple eventualities:

1) Their betters will abandon them, giving them nothing to loot, and
2) They, too, are someone’s better.

Good luck, New York. With the likes of Bill De Blasio at the helm, you’re going to need it.