The Star Blows Up

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is the Socialist who won the Democrat primary in a New York congressional seat a few weeks back.  She became an instant media celebrity, in particular because of her full throated support for abolishing ICE.  That was the far left mantra of the moment, so it got repeated in a way that only a mantra can.  What made Ocasio-Cortez a star was that she beat a member of the Democrat House leadership in the primary.  Now a few weeks later Ocasio-Cortez is imploding.

First, she's shown herself to be not ready for the campaign trail.  She told Margaret Hoover on PBS that unemployment was down only because people were working two jobs.  That is, of course, wrong; people with two jobs are still counted only once.  Ocasio-Cortez says she has a degree in economics, so it seems strange that she doesn't know basic facts like that.  Then she gave an interview in which she called Israel "occupied Palestine".  When asked to explain the comment, she couldn't and eventually said that geo-politics really isn't her strong suit.  One has to wonder if she doesn't understand foreign policy or economics, why would she want to be in Congress.

Second, she's attacked the Democrat leadership in Washington.  As a Democrat, you expect her to attack Republicans, but it's a surprise that she is so vehement in condemning Washington Democrats as well.

Third, she's drawn some interesting opposition.  Former senator Joe Lieberman came out today in support of the congressman Ocasio-Cortez defeated in the primary.  He is still on the Working Families ticket on the November ballot.  We don't know yet if he will still run, but if he does he might yet win.  The primary had a meager turnout, so a full election day turnout could put him back in Congress.

Fourth, Ocasio-Cortez is courting controversy.  Yesterday, she called for people to occupy all the airports in the USA (as well as some other locations) to show just how seriously they view the separation of children from the parents at the border.  Think about that.  She wants people across the country to have their trips disrupted or prevented because she's angry about a policy that is already stopped.  That won't pull undecided voters to her cause.

The truth is that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is showing herself to be unready for a serious run for Congress.  Given that she's the official Democrat nominee in a district where only Democrats win, she's still likely to end up in Washington.  Her days as a star, however, are over except for the lunatic fringe of the Democrat party.

This Makes Things Look Good For My Wife

According to a poll released today, Democrat registered voters want a "fresh face" for their 2020 presidential candidate rather than someone who has run in the past.  The split was 73% to 16%.  That's an overwhelming margin.  It is also very bad news for Biden, Clinton, Sanders and the other oldsters who have been around forever.

It may be good news for someone like Kamala Harris of California or Corey Booker of NJ.  Somehow, though, I doubt that.  I've seen both of these people under pressure and they have the unique ability to screw things up and say the wrong thing.

Personally, I think the poll clears the field for my wife to run.  She's a Democrat.  She's never run for office in the past.  She would be the perfect candidate for the Democrats.  After all, if she ran and won, I could get to live in the White House.  I'm going to vote for her, that I can tell you.  Now all I have to do is convince her to run.

Unbelievable Gibberish From the AG's

The Attorneys General of a few states in the northeast (NY, NJ, CT etc.) have filed a suit in federal court seeking to overturn the tax cut act as unconstitutional because the new law changed the deduction for state and local taxation.  According to these legal geniuses, the limitation on this deduction discriminates against high tax states, something that Congress cannot do.

I've had a chance now to read the complaint.  To be fair, I've read a lot of complaints over the last 40 years of practicing law.  Here's my first reaction:

ha
ha
ha
ha
HA
HA
HA

The Constitution specifically authorizes Congress to levy the tax in the way it did.  Here is the 16th Amendment to the Constitution:

 "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Taxes levied "without apportionment among the several states" means that Congress could pass a tax that hits only some states and leaves others untouched.  The only requirement is that Congress have a rational reason to do this.  In fact, if there is a problem with treating states in different ways, then it would be the old law that allowed taxpayers in high tax states to deduct all their state taxes while denying the same deduction to taxpayers in low tax states a deduction that would be unconstitutional.  Of course, that was not the case.

I know it is an election year.  I also know that there are some judges out there across the country who are prepared to issue decisions for political purposes even if those decisions are not in accordance with the law.  Still, the idea that some moronic Democrat Attorneys General have brought a completely baseless suit to try to disrupt the tax cuts enacted last year is a disgrace.  These people should be run out of office.  They are using public funds to force the waste of even more public funds.

What Difference Would It Make - 2 Energy Production

In my continuing series discussing the differences between the policies of Republicans and those of Democrats for 2018, we have arrived at the subject of the production of energy.  Simply put, are heating oil, gasoline, natural gas and electricity more likely to be less expensive across the country if there's a Democrat majority or a Republican majority in Congress?

This is a key question.  Our country and our economy run on energy.  As the price of that energy gets higher, the availability of energy to power the country gets lower.  Energy gets priced out of the market and the amount used drops dramatically.

Since the 2016 election, the Republicans and President Trump have taken a series of steps to promote the production of more and more energy from American sources.  That tax cut bill includes the opening of a very small portion of the Arctic wildlife reserve for oil drilling.  Estimates are that there is close to twenty billions barrels of oil in that tiny area; the whole area is just a few square miles large.  The Democrats have pledged to shut down any drilling in the area.  Remember, the wildlife refuge is something like half a million square miles, but the area now opened for drilling is less than 5 square miles.  The refuge is preserved by the oil will get produced.  Then there's off shore drilling.  The GOP/Trump have opened up the areas under the oceans off our shores to drilling.  The Democrats want these areas shut off from drilling.  Once again, the GOP plan would increase production and decrease prices while the Democrats want to decrease production and increase prices.  Then there's natural gas drilling and fracking.  Fracking is the process which has made the USA once again the world's larges producer of natural gas.  It has been supported by Republicans.  Democrats have been trying to stop the use of fracking based upon their claim that it causes pollution.  That claim, however, remains unsupported by actual evidence.

There's a lot more on this subject, but the short version is this:  Republicans want to maximize energy production and minimize the price.  Democrats want to minimize production and maximize the price we pay for energy.  This is as good a reason as any to vote Republican. 

What Difference Would It Make? Part One

Today, I'm starting a series of posts discussing the main issues for November's elections.  Obviously, these are not national races, so local issues matter in both congressional and senatorial contests.  There remain over-arching issues that should swing the vote nevertheless.

The first issue in the series is taxation.  There's a marked difference between the Democrats and the Republicans on this matter.  In short, the Republicans gave us a major tax cut in late 2017.  They want to keep that cut in place.  The Democrats, however, are on record committing to raise taxes on both businesses and individuals.  They seek a major jump in corporate taxes and a restoration of most of the taxes cut on individuals.  With the economy booming as a result of the tax cuts, it seems strange that the Democrats want to choke off that growth by pushing taxes back up, but they do.

The last time there was this clear of a difference between the parties on taxes in an election was in 1984.  Ronald Reagan ran for re-election seeking further tax cuts (which he later got).  Walter Mondale ran for the Democrats promising that he would raise taxes.  Reagan won 49 out of 50 states.

 

A Perplexing Question For Some

Suppose that a major corporation selling milk was putting contaminated products into supermarkets.  One would want that stopped, right?  Suppose that the corporation had connections with the local authorities, so that no action was taken to get the contaminated milk off the shelf.  One would still want the contaminated milk removed from the market, right?  Now suppose that the North Korean government learned about the contaminated milk and released proof of the contamination and the involvement of the corporation in intentionally selling bad milk.  North Korea is our enemy, but would we ignore the selling of bad milk because we got the information about it from the NK's?  I don't think so.

What the Russians are alleged to have done in 2016, is very much like what the North Koreans did in the example above.  The Democrats rigged their primaries to favor Hillary Clinton and to block Bernie Sanders.  That is disgusting and anti-democratic behavior that should be condemned, right?  The White House knew what was going on at the DNC, but it took no steps to stop the rigging of the primaries.  The only reason that the American people know that the Dems and Hillary Clinton rigged the primaries is that someone, most likely the Russians, got the proof in emails and released them to the public.  So if that is the case, should we concern ourselves with Russian interference in the US election or would it be better to focus on the dishonest (and perhaps illegal) conduct by the Democrats in rigging their own primaries?  Does the fact that the Russians are not our close friends -- to put it mildly -- mean that when they uncover wrongdoing by Americans and release the details of that wrongdoing, we are to ignore what was done because of the source of the information?  I don't think so.

Let's put it this way.  When the police get information from a confidential informant (a snitch) who also happens to be a thief, should they ignore that information because the source is unsavory?  No way!

I mention all this because at yesterday's press conference with President Trump, the Russian president Vladimir Putin seemed to claim credit for disclosing some bad stuff about which Americans ought to know.  No one is paying much attention to that today, but they should be.  The real key here is not how the information was made public.  Rather, it is that some truly bad things were done by the Democrats and the truth about them was made public.

I'm Going To Stop Counting

When Donald Trump won and Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, we were told by the media and the Democrats that it was the end of the world.  When the net neutrality regulations were repealed, we were told by the media and the Democrats that it was the end of the world.  When Donald Trump called Kim Jung Un "little Rocket Man" and told the North Koreans that they would be destroyed if they ever took action against the USA, we were told by the media and the Democrats that it was the end of the world.  When the President moved the US embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in Israel, we were told that it was the end of the world.  When Trump withdrew the USA from the Paris climate accords, you guessed it, it was the end of the world.  When the President refused to certify Iranian compliance with the JCPOA, the Iranian nuke agreement, it was again the end of the world.  Of course, when President Trump withdrew the US from the JCPOA, it was even more than the end of the world (if that is possible.)  Then there's the tax cut legislation; once again the media and the Democrats told us that this was actually a tax increase (a lie) but that it was nevertheless the end of the world.  When Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court -- end of the world.  When Trump appointed Brett Kavanaugh to the same court -- again, the end of the world.  Now that Trump had a news conference at which he said that the intelligence agencies told him that it was likely the Russians who hacked the DNC in 2016 but that Putin had said it wasn't Russia and he wasn't sure who to believe, it seems to be the end of the world, in spades. 

There are so many more times in the last year and a half that we've been warned it was the end of the world, that I'm going to stop counting.  How many times can the same people tell us that "people will die; it's the end of the world"?  I've come to realize that when the media and the Democrats say that people will die or that it's the end of the world, what they really mean is this:  "We don't like this, but we really have nothing much rational to say on the subject so we'll just go with the end of the world nonsense."

They really need to find a new line.  This one has really gotten old.