Democrats are working overtime to change our nation for the worse

The rule of thumb of the Joe Biden presidency must be to undo what Donald Trump did. That is essentially what has been happening since January 20.

Is it simply the idea that Trump was so horrible a person and president that everything he did must be undone? Or, is it that Biden’s carefully hidden leftist philosophy demands moving us away from the successful capitalist nation that we are?

The “it’s not a crisis” catastrophe on the southern border that has allowed tens of thousands of migrants to enter the country, heads the list. Many thousands of them are overwhelming the facilities for housing them, and thousands more of uncertain origin and motive just walked across the border and disappeared into the country. What else is on the list of equally poor decisions from this president?

The Club for Growth recently highlighted several proposals and their predicted negative results. These include Biden’s proposed hiking of the corporate tax rate by one-third, from 21 percent to 28 percent, and predicting that as many as one million jobs could be killed, that GDP would fall by 0.8 percent, and worker’s wages will fall by 0.7 percent or, on average, $2,500 per year.

Biden’s executive order ending construction of the Keystone XL pipeline has already put about a thousand people out of work and is expected to kill another 10,000 jobs, which represent $1.6 billion in gross wages lost to the workforce. Another executive order halted drilling on federal lands, and that is said to eliminate as many as 60,000 jobs.

The proposed hike in the capital gains tax may go as high as 43.4 percent. And the planned minimum wage hike to $15 per hour is predicted to put 1.3 million workers out of work by 2025. 

And last, but hardly least, two climate-related proposals are predicted to kill even more jobs. Ending the use of fossil fuels will take out more than a million jobs, and rejoining the catastrophic Paris Climate Accords could cost the U.S. $3 trillion and eliminate 6.5 million jobs by 2040.

Another of Biden’s executive orders, this one on his first day in office, rescinded the prohibition of critical race theory (CRT) training for federal agencies and federal contractors that Trump put in place.

Calling that “a sad reversal for Americans committed to colorblindness in public life,” the New York Post said of CRT: “Critical race theory understands the world by viewing everything — society, economics, education, family, science — through the lens of ‘whiteness’ and white racism. White people, according to CRT, drift in a kind of amniotic fluid of privilege and unearned gifts based on the brutal ideology of ‘white supremacy.’”

CRT considers long-standing American values like hard work, objectivity, deferred gratification, family and respect for the written word as intrinsically racist, and strongly suggests that these values relentlessly suppress “black achievement while boosting white mediocrity into advancement,” the Post article said.

Where will America end up if qualities that have been so important to the nation’s development and success — such as the family, learning, working hard to achieve success, and being the best you can be — somehow become viewed as racist?

We now are hearing cries to abandon the sensible concept that the most qualified, most talented people are the ones who should be selected to fill jobs, hold positions, or get access to some things — a merit-based system. Instead, the idea is to fill jobs or award things based on equity of race, ethnicity, gender/gender identity.

If the subject is the allotment of public housing or similar things, the result won’t be terrible if this new concept is put in force. However, this concept is not a prescription for the most efficient, highest performing companies, teams, organizations, or whatever, and it will weaken the United States in every area to which equity mania is applied. It is especially dangerous if applied to the military services.

Most people are far less concerned with the gender/gender identity, race or ethnicity of their doctor, lawyer, teacher, mechanic, home improvement worker, care taker, etc., than with that person’s knowledge and ability to do the job ably and professionally. That’s what really matters. If quality is assured and social quotas are also met, great. 

But equity among the different groups must not be the primary consideration when selecting the people who will do critical, important work. Quality is essential.

Why is the American Left so bent on changing everything that has served the nation so well for its entire history? Obviously, these folks do not like being part of the most successful, free, and unique nation ever. They seem compelled to change those important elements that made America great, and move it into the group of failed socialistic nations that limit freedom, and insist that everyone share equally in the misery.

Tens of thousands of people from other countries want to come here. And few if any want to leave here. Why? Because it is the bright light of the world.

And yet Congressional Democrats are working overtime to change it into something much less than it is now. Why?

Democrats determined to make government work better. For them.

This may be the first time in American history where so many long-standing elements of our government were targeted for change. Such important things as increasing the number of Supreme Court justices; imposing term limits on justices; getting rid of the Senate filibuster procedure; imposing more gun control constraints; and statehood for the District of Columbia and the territory of Puerto Rico are on the plate.

Critics of these changes cite political advantage as the motivation. Four more justices appointed by the current Democrat president and approved by a Democrat-controlled Senate certainly fits that idea. Two U.S. Senators each and some number of Representatives for DC and Puerto Rico also fit in. 

And doing away with the filibuster, so the Senate would make all decisions at 51 percent like the House of Representatives, would make appointment approvals easier for both parties, and would remove protection against the tyranny of the majority. Democrats, incidentally, made good use of the filibuster during the Trump presidency.

The bill to make D.C. a state was passed by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform last Wednesday, and will get a vote by the full House this week. 

One reason cited for this historic transformation of the nation’s capitol is to provide the taxpayers of the District of Columbia with voting representation in the Congress and full control over local affairs.

However, it is important to know just why the nation’s capitol was not a state to begin with, and that goes back to the establishment of the U.S. Constitution, which was ratified in June of 1788.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to "exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States."

Founding Father James Madison, the nation’s fourth president, was concerned that if the capital doubled as a state, it would have greater power than the other states, creating an unequal situation, and he correctly believed that the federal government should be neutral in matters of the sovereign states.

An additional and more recent opinion about the nation’s capitol remaining an independent entity that is not associated with any state comes from Robert F. Kennedy when he was Attorney General in the 1960s. “It was indispensably necessary to the independence and the very existence of the new Federal Government to have a seat of government which was not subject to the jurisdiction or control of any State,” Kennedy wrote.

And regarding the perceived systemic inequality that has denied the full voting rights, citizenship and representation in Congress for residents of Washington DC, which some cite as justification for statehood, no one forces people to live in the District instead of a nearby state, where they would have voting rights and be only a short distance from the District. 

Further, DC statehood will definitely benefit Democrats. According to bestplaces.net, which got the following voter data from federal agencies, related that in the last five presidential elections, DC voters were heavily Democrat. And in 2016, DC voters voted Democrat 90.86 percent, against the 4.09 percent who voted Republican.

Virginia’s 9th District Republican Congressman Morgan Griffith addressed this situation in a recent correspondence to constituents. “Any measure giving the District statehood would need to go through the process of amending the Constitution. H.R. 51, the statehood bill the House will consider, does not do so. Instead, it shrinks the seat of the U.S. government to an area around the Mall, the White House, the Capitol, the Supreme Court, and other federal buildings, and admits the rest of the District as a state.”

“This approach suffers from an additional flaw beyond its constitutionality,” he continues. “The 23rd Amendment grants electoral votes to the ‘seat of Government of the United States,’ not the District of Columbia specifically, meaning that the handful of residents in this area, presumably including the president and his family, would have as much weight in the Electoral College as some states.”

“Giving the residents of the District of Columbia a voice in the Federal Government is a worthy goal,” he wrote, “but it must be done constitutionally.”

Offering a fair and sensible measure to satisfy this issue, Griffith has introduced H.R. 2614, the Compact Federal District Act. The bill recognizes the right of D.C. residents to be represented in Congress, and be able to vote for a U.S. House Representative and two Senators by transferring most of the District and its residents to Maryland in a process known as retrocession, which means returning the land to Maryland that it ceded to the federal government to form the District of Columbia. 

The proposed actions listed at the beginning of this commentary share a political desire, with the possible exception of term limits for Supreme Court justices. That desire is giving a clear and great advantage to one political party: The Democrats.

Apparently, they like this method of gaining power. If you cannot achieve your goals under the existing system, change it to meet your needs.

Biden’s “Building Back Better” is really “Biden Boldly Blunders”

President Joe Biden’s early days in office do not bode well for the next three-plus years.

Changes to successful illegal immigration measures have created a true border catastrophe. This is readily demonstrated by record-breaking numbers of illegal aliens entering the country. 

Some of those seeking asylum surrender to the Border Patrol; other illegals avoid capture when Border Patrol officers are moved from the border to tend to illegal aliens that overwhelm housing facilities, allowing illegals to stream into the country unimpeded.

Why not keep the Trump administration’s “Remain in Mexico” policy for those seeking asylum? That would reduce the number of people overloading holding facilities by temporarily returning the asylum seekers to Mexico while their cases are adjudicated. 

Some of those avoiding Border Patrol are criminals, gang members, drug dealers, and some are on the terrorist watch list. And, there are significant numbers of all illegals that test positive for the coronavirus. 

And the administration is considering a conditional cash transfer program to help address economic problems that encourage Central Americans to head north. A New York Post story said the administration is “considering sending cash payments to Central Americans in order to dissuade them from making the journey to the United States,” actually paying people not to come to the United States. Like that is going to work.

Illegal immigration is Biden’s most visible and dangerous calamity. So far. 

And then there is the idea of “packing” the Supreme Court.

Biden has said in the past that he is not a fan of Court packing, and called it “a bonehead idea.” Packing would involve adding activist justices to the Court who would apply their personal political and ideological philosophies to their legal rulings.

However, despite his not being a fan, Biden has appointed a commission of mostly liberals to look into various aspects of the Court, including adding justices and placing term limits on justices.

However, in addition to Biden, many other people oppose the idea of packing the Court, including former Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who passed away last September, and current Associate Justice Steven Breyer.

During an interview on National Public Radio in 2019, liberal Justice Ginsburg made it clear that she opposed such proposals. "If anything would make the Court look partisan," she said, "it would be that — one side saying, 'When we're in power, we're going to enlarge the number of judges, so we would have more people who would vote the way we want them to.'" She added that it "was a bad idea when President Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the court" in 1937.

In remarks prepared earlier this month for delivery at Harvard Law School, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer said, in what ABC News termed a stark public warning, that "It is wrong to think of the Court as another political institution," he continued, "And it is doubly wrong to think of its members as junior league politicians."

Prior to being elected, Biden campaigned on repealing the tax cuts made by then-President Donald Trump as one of his highest priorities, if elected.

In order to defend tax increases, Democrats play down the effects of the Trump reductions in tax rates. The Washington Examiner noted last October that “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has dismissed any benefit to the middle class as ‘crumbs,’ while presidential candidate Joe Biden has said that $1.3 trillion of these tax cuts went to the top one-tenth of 1 percent of wage earners.”

The Washington Post fact-checker gave Biden’s claim that the middle class did not see a tax cut its highest rating of four Pinocchios for being factually deficient.

The Trump economic policy changes resulted in the unemployment rate dropping to a 50-year low 3.5 percent in 2019. And, median household income rose by $4,440 or 6.8 percent, which is the largest one-year wage growth in history. 

Taxpayers in Pennsylvania and Colorado earning between $50,000 and $100,000 saw their tax liability drop by over 14 percent and 13 percent, respectively, while households with incomes over $1 million saw their tax liability drop by just 3.1 percent and 4.5 percent, respectively.

The Examiner also reported that the doubling of the child tax credit from $1,000 to $2,000 not only reduced taxes for families, “but the number of households claiming the credit increased from 22 million to 36 million.”

When Trump cut tax rates, it helped generate an economic upswing and benefitted millions of not-wealthy families and individuals. 

Biden, however, wants to raise more than $2 trillion over 15 years by increasing the corporate tax rate to 28 percent, the global minimum tax to 21 percent, and placing a 15 percent levy on book income for the largest corporations, and corporate inversion.

Will that money be used to pay down the enormous $28.1 trillion national debt? No, it will be used to support so-called infrastructure, most of which is not what is considered infrastructure, such as manufacturing, $300 billion; electric vehicles, $170 billion, et al. These are corporate subsidies, not infrastructure. 

Where will that additional tax money come from? Higher prices, lost jobs and other undesirable actions.

This is bad spending policy funded by bad tax policy.

Has the United States reacted appropriately to the COVID-19 virus?

As the COVID-19 pandemic drags on, the country is also besieged by pandemic fatigue. Everyone is tired of the restrictions on normal living, even as most abide by them, fearing getting or spreading the virus.

As with every crisis, there are the varying ideas of what is behind it all. Generally labeled “conspiracy theories,” these ideas affect people in three broad categories: true believers, non-believers, and those in the middle who aren’t sure what to believe. 

After all, who in America, a nation founded on principles of individual freedom, wants to believe that government at the national, state, and local levels would impose these heavy restrictions for any reason other than because they are believed to be necessary? 

Yet, many who are not conspiracy theorists do acknowledge the heaviness of these restrictions, and question their true value. 

“First, I have been shocked at the unprecedented exertion of power by the government since last March — issuing unilateral decrees, ordering the closure of businesses, churches, and schools, restricting personal movement, mandating behavior, and suspending indefinitely basic freedoms. Second, I was and remain stunned — almost frightened — at the acquiescence of the American people to such destructive, arbitrary, and wholly unscientific rules, restrictions, and mandates.”

Are those the words of QAnon, a leading voice of conspiracy theories? No. They are the words of Dr. Scott Atlas, a medical doctor and former professor at Stanford University Medical Center, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, a member of the Nominating Committee for the Nobel Prize in Medicine and Physiology, a special advisor to former-President Donald Trump and member of the Coronavirus Task Force in 2020.

His comments at a Hillsdale College National Leadership Seminar this past February were published in Hillsdale’s monthly speech digest Imprimis.

He readily acknowledges the bad things: “Over 500,000 American deaths have been attributed to the virus; more will follow. Even after almost a year, the pandemic still paralyzes our country. And despite all efforts, there has been an undeniable failure to stop cases from escalating and to prevent hospitalizations and deaths,” Atlas stated.

But he also recognizes the damage done by government-imposed lockdowns. Perhaps with the best of intentions, the lockdowns “have been extraordinarily harmful,” he said, to children by suspending in-person schooling, including poor learning, school dropouts, social isolation, and suicidal thoughts, most of which are far worse for lower income groups.

Further, people who are afraid to go to see doctors has resulted in up to 78 percent of cancers that were never detected due to missed screenings over a three-month period. Atlas noted that “if one extrapolates to the entire country, 750,000 to over a million new cancer cases over a nine-month period will have gone undetected.”

Add to that circumstance the missed critical surgeries, delayed presentations of pediatric illnesses, heart attack and stroke patients, and the number of injuries resulting from the lockdowns grows even greater. And he said that these problems are all well documented.

“Beyond hospital care,” he said, “the CDC reported four-fold increases in depression, three-fold increases in anxiety symptoms, and a doubling of suicidal ideation, particularly among young adults after the first few months of lockdowns, echoing American Medical Association reports of drug overdoses and suicides. Domestic and child abuse have been skyrocketing due to the isolation and loss of jobs.”

He states that hundreds of thousands of abuse cases went unreported, as abuse is commonly discovered when abused children are at school.

And a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research shows that the lockdowns will generate a three percent increase in the mortality rate and a 0.5 percent drop in life expectancy over the next 15 years. This will disproportionately affect African-Americans and women, the Bureau study showed. Those effects translate into what the study refers to as a “staggering” 890,000 additional U.S. deaths. 

To determine the best path forward, Atlas suggests that policymakers should objectively consider the impact both of the virus and the anti-virus policies to date. “This points to the importance of health policy, my own particular field, which requires a broader scope than that of epidemiologists and basic scientists. In the case of COVID, it requires taking into account the fact that lockdowns and other significant restrictions on individuals have been extraordinarily harmful — even deadly — especially for the working class and the poor,” he said.

We can see the benefit of not locking everything down by looking at how Florida has come through the virus to date. Florida remained largely open, and focused its vaccination program first on the oldest, most vulnerable population. 

A Wall Street Journal op-ed stated that “a year after the virus hit the U.S., Mr. Cuomo’s luster has faded, and Mr. DeSantis can claim vindication. The Sunshine State appears to have weathered the pandemic better than others like New York and California, which stayed locked down harder and longer.”

“Between Nov. 1 and Feb. 28, there were 5.8 new cases per 100 people in New York, 6.4 in California, and only 5 in Florida, where businesses could stay open at full capacity,” the op-ed continued.

Not giving into fear and thoughtfully addressing the pandemic has paid large dividends for Florida. We should learn from this.

Abolishing honest elections and re-imagining legislative procedures

Deceptively called the “For the People Act of 2021,” H.R. 1 and S. 1 should more accurately be named the “Act to Encourage Cheating and Vote Fraud.”

Critics of this legislative boondoggle charge that it federalizes and micromanages the election process now administered by the states. It also imposes unnecessary, foolish, and even unconstitutional mandates on the states, and puts the federal government in charge of elections, which is a reversal of the decentralization of the American election process as created by the Founders to protect our liberty and freedom. 

The Founders established a federalist system that deliberately did not cede all power to the federal government. 

Furthermore, it interferes with states and their citizens in determining qualifications for voters, ensuring the accuracy of voter registration rolls, securing the integrity of elections, participating in the political process, and determining district boundaries for electing their representatives.

States will be forced to implement perilous methods such as early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, and no-fault absentee balloting. The latter is the tool of choice of vote thieves.

Early voting is convenient, but voting early can put those voters at risk of casting their ballot before late-breaking developments occur that might affect their decision.

Same-day registration prevents election officials from verifying the eligibility of registrants, and allows ineligible voters to register and vote. It also makes it difficult to predict how many voters will appear at polling places, and thus more difficult to adequately staff the polling places.

The bill would also force precincts to allow voting by persons registered to vote in other precincts, preventing adequate steps to prevent ineligible voters from casting ballots, or to prevent people from voting more than once.

The accuracy of registration lists will be degraded by automatically registering individuals from state databases, such as DMV and welfare offices. These registrants likely will include large numbers of ineligible voters, including aliens, and multiple or duplicate registrations of the same individuals.

Online voter registration allows for massive fraudulent registrants through actions of cyber criminals if registrations are not tied to existing state records, such as a driver’s license.

These election revisions are a strategy for increasing fraud and abuse and are plain stupid. We must have an honest election system that will reflect the actual choices of eligible voters. The election system already needs to be strengthened; this bill will essentially destroy its security.

Elections are too important to allow foolish mechanisms in the system for no better reason than for a bit of convenience, which is a prominent reason cited for making these changes. Voting is too important to be made too easy.

Those behind these absurd changes also cry out against “voter suppression,” which they term any sensible idea that helps to protect the integrity of the election system, such as photo IDs and signature verification for mail-in ballots. We need photo IDs for lots of normal things we do, but somehow requiring an ID to vote is suppressing voters.

In addition to a clean and honest election system, we need a sensible system for creating legislation. Every piece of legislation offered should focus on making things in America better for the American people. Not some of the people; not a political party, but things benefitting the nation at large.

Bills should be limited to one topic and be only long enough to describe that topic. Having more bills of such a limited nature is far simpler, therefore better, than having a few gargantuan bills of hundreds or thousands of pages with multiple issues addressed.

Legislative language should be as brief as possible to get the concept of the legislation across, not written so as to make the intent difficult to understand. Most bills should be no longer than about 50 pages, which still is a significant read for legislators, particularly if there are more shorter bills to study.

Passage of legislation that affects the nation should be passed by a 60 percent or 67 percent majority. A truly beneficial bill will be able to gain that level of support. If it doesn’t gain enough support, it wasn’t a good enough bill.

No cheating! A good piece of legislation that benefits the entire country, and has broad bipartisan support, should not be a mechanism that members can load with pork-barrel items or items to benefit partisan goals. 

Trying to get a pork feature passed by tagging it onto a very good piece of legislation, hoping it will slide through if people are afraid to vote the good legislation down to prevent the bad feature from getting through, is blackmail.

No riders or amendments should be allowed that are not directly related to the topic of the legislation.

And while we are improving things, we need to remember that whatever the job is, the best qualified people are who deserve that job. If they are all men or all women, or all black, or all Asian, or all Latina, or all white or any combination of those groups, those who have displayed the highest level of competence and actual ability for the job in question are who should get the job.