Democrats missing the boat on immigration and the economy

July 29, 2025

Millions of illegal aliens crossed into the United States over the four years of the Biden-Harris administration. They settled in blue cities and states, for the most part. This was because the blue cities and states welcomed them.

Why would those living in, and running blue cities and states want illegal aliens in large numbers living among their citizens, given the costs of feeding and housing them, and the other problems that they bring with them, like murders, rapes, robberies, etc.?

One explanation is that the basis for how many representatives a state has in the House of Representatives, and votes in the Electoral College depends upon how many people — not just citizens, but all people, including illegals and other non-citizens — reside in a state. Illegal aliens help gain additional representatives and electoral votes.

Many on the left will laugh at that assertion, claim it is some sort of MAGA tactic, or just right-wing misinformation. But there are at least a few Congressional Democrats who support this idea.

Democratic Rep. Yvette Clarke of New York is one. She admitted in comments over the last few years that she wants immigrants to enter the United States to help Democrats with redistricting.

The original comments from Clarke came in 2021 during a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, and again in a 2024 post on X. Back in 2021, she fussed at Republicans who opposed Haitian migrants.

“I’m from Brooklyn, New York,” she said during the hearing. “We have a diaspora that, that can absorb a significant number of these migrants and that, you know, when I hear colleagues talk about, you know, the, the, the doors of the inn being closed [and] no room in the inn, I, I’m saying, you know, I, I need more people in my district just for redistricting purposes.”

Now that we have Donald Trump in the White House, many of the illegals are being caught and deported, and others are self-deporting. Also, the blue states, especially New York and California, are having problems and are losing businesses and residents.

Beginning back during the COVID-19 pandemic, progressively strong states have been seeing a heavy exodus of citizens leaving due to high crime rates, heavy taxes, and government overreach.

Looking for safer streets, economic and personal freedom, thousands are heading for better places like Florida, Texas and Tennessee. These states are projecting gains in congressional seats, with Texas expecting to gain three, and Florida looking for at least two.

This heavy exodus of citizens to red states has caught the attention of at least one blue state governor: California’s Gavin Newsom. He is threatening to call a special legislative session in an emergency effort to redraw district lines. California Republicans now hold only nine House seats, and Newsom hopes to replace between two and five of them with Democrats.

This process is customarily done once every decade. Whether Newsom’s effort to gerrymander more Democrat representatives, if it comes to pass, would be legal or not remains to be determined. It seems that some Democrats have no limits on how far they will go to stop Donald Trump.

It must be noted, however, that red state Texas is considering the same thing to build its Republican majority.

While the left wants to encourage illegal entry to the country and to their states to help them get and hold a majority in the House of Representatives and in Electoral voting, they still do not understand about taxation and prosperity. 

They want to punish the wealthy with absurdly high tax rates, never understanding that high tax rates are harmful to the economy, not just the wealthy.

Sens. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts support a return to 50%, 60% and even 70% tax rates. The left believes that lowering tax rates is just a method to benefit the rich, who they maintain do not pay “their fair share.”

However, why would it ever be fair or even sensible to collect half, or up to 70% of what someone — anyone — earned?

Economist Stephen Moore suggests that those Democrats and others who believe in this plan would be well served to read Arthur Laffer’s latest book, titled, “Taxes Have Consequences.” Laffer, known for the Laffer Curve, and his co-authors show that over the last 100 years, every time tax rates have been cut, three good things have happened: 

* Tax revenues have risen.

* The economy has improved.

* The rich have paid a higher share of the tax burden.

Think about it: If we have a smaller, less costly government that is efficient and restricted to constitutional functions, we will need less tax income to pay the bills. And, people will be able to keep more of what they earn, and use that money to buy the things they need and want. 

The more American citizens — both rich and not rich — spend their hard-earned money on the things they want to purchase is a true benefit to the economy. That will help increase businesses and a growing business sector means more jobs and generally better pay.

Our tax system, and what is the “fair share” for the rich?

January 21, 2025

Looking a bit deeper into the tax situation in the United States, the subject of the rich “paying their fair share” is a common point of discussion. It is especially popular with those who want to score points with voters by attacking the rich.

In his farewell address to the nation last week, and at other times, President Joe Biden made claims that are misleading or in need of context.

For example, he claimed that billionaires “paid an average of 8.2 percent in federal taxes.” Without further explanation, that figure is certifiably false. The truth is that under the current tax code, the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay an effective tax rate roughly three times that amount, about 25 percent on the income the government counts.

Whether Biden doesn’t actually know any better, or whether he just doesn’t care about the facts, is an open question. And, there is the theory that he just reads what he is given by the White House staff.

In general, Democrats think the lower income earners pay too much in taxes, and the wealthy pay too little. They are in support of an overhaul to the tax code and the tax system. They believe the country needs a tax code that rewards work and creates wealth for more people, which is certainly a positive goal. But they think we currently have a tax code that “hoards wealth for those who already have it,” and that we cannot afford to have tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

The Biden-Harris administration had proposed the following changes to the tax code:
* Raising the top income tax rate on the top 1 percent of earners from 37 percent to 39.6 percent
* Increasing the corporate income tax rate
* Taxing capital gains and dividends at ordinary income tax rates
* Increasing refundable tax credits for individuals

In response to the administration’s proposals, the Tax Foundation had estimated that the major tax increase proposals in the FY 2025 budget would reduce economic output by 1.6 percent, and reduce employment by 666,000 full-time jobs. Vice President and presidential candidate Kamala Harris had previously proposed to take the tax increases further, which would have made the economic losses even greater.

A look at the tax situation on The Balance website published last September cited these facts about the tax system in 2021:
* Most of the government’s federal income tax revenue comes from the nation’s top income earners. 
* In 2021, the top 1 percent of earners paid 45.8 percent of income taxes.
* The top 5 percent of earners — people with incomes $252,840 and above — collectively paid over $1.4 trillion in income taxes, or about 66 percent of the national total. 
* If you include the top 10 percent — everyone who made at least $169,800 — that figure rises to $1.7 trillion, or 76 percent of the total.
* The top 50 percent of earners contributed 97.7 percent of federal income tax revenue.

The unpopular and unfairly demonized “rich” carry the tax load for the rest of us. The top 10 percent of earners pay three-fourths of the tax revenue, much more than the relatively miniscule amount that some of the Democrat politicians would have everyone believe was the truth. And, the bottom 50 percent of earners contributed just 2.3 percent of income tax revenue.

It seems likely that given this information, any reasonable person would discount the old saw that the rich are not paying their fair share, with the wealthiest 1 percent paying nearly half of all income tax revenue.

There are seven different tax rates that an individual taxpayer, or taxpayers filing jointly, may pay, based upon their earnings: 10 percent; 12 percent; 22 percent; 24 percent; 32 percent; 35 percent; and 37 percent.

And taxes are collectable from a long list of income areas:
* Wages, salaries, and employee benefits
* Rental income
* Goods or services sold or bartered
* Royalties (e.g. from copyrights and patents)
* Business entities
* Capital gains (e.g. stocks and bonds)
* Digital assets (e.g. cryptocurrency)
* Government benefits (e.g. unemployment, Social Security)
* Tax refunds, reimbursements, and rebates
* Court awards and damages
* Gambling winnings
* Prizes and awards

Yes, we Americans — the citizens of the land of the free and the home of the brave — need to support our government’s functions. But Americans also deserve to keep as much of the money they work for as possible. And the government has a solemn duty to operate as efficiently and inexpensively as possible.

Our government is not living up to its economic responsibility. Those elected by the people, and the others who are hired to work in government, are there to serve the best interests of the American people. But they seem unconcerned about that duty. Rather than seek ways to economize, they seek expansion, which is both costly and infringes on the freedoms our Founders worked so hard to create for us.

We must hope that President Donald Trump’s incoming administration focuses on this duty, and that the opposition party is willing to help them.

“Taxation with representation” isn’t working so well, either!

January 14, 2025

These days, there are few things that Americans agree on. If there is one that has broad agreement, it is that we feel pretty much the same about taxes. Nobody likes paying taxes, although people do it with the understanding that it is necessary for the nation to survive.

Taxation has been around about as long as civilizations have existed. We know that taxation existed in Mesopotamia more than 4,500 years ago. And taxes here in the U.S. go all the way back to the colonies, when Great Britain taxed about everything that existed. The colonists objected, eventually creating the now well-known phrase "no taxation without representation." But the English king ignored them and this led to protests, the best known of them being the Boston Tea Party.

Even after the revolution and the creation of the United States of America taxes have been an important part of the lives of Americans. 

While understanding that they are necessary, there always has been much controversy about the system of taxation. One major issue is the length and complexity of the current tax code.

The tax code’s growth over the last century or so is hard to swallow. In 1913 the tax code was a relatively tiny 400 pages. Today, it is about 6,000 pages. But when you add in the IRS guidelines, with its nearly 10,000 sections it is 75,000 pages of regulations, instructions and guidance. Someone estimated that in order to read the entire code, it would take nine days of 24-hour reading. 

As explained by eFile.com, the code includes “categories for employment taxes, financing of election campaigns, coal industry health benefits, and the trust fund code. This incredible growth can be attributed to both expansions and revisions that are made to patch up tax loopholes. Over the past 10 years, it is estimated that the tax code has been amended or revised over 4,000 times.”

In the not so distant past, several changes were made to the tax code. President Ronald Reagan made two reforms, in 1981 and 1986, including the largest tax cut in our history, at the time. President Bill Clinton lowered taxes on the middle class in the 1990s, and President George W. Bush also cut taxes substantially in 2001.

President Donald Trump put forth the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, which helped people with lower incomes and it also lowered the corporate tax rate. His efforts are regarded as the largest overhaul of taxes in the 30 years prior to its passage.

Even so, these actions did not actually make the tax code any shorter or easier to understand and deal with.

Our tax code is so large and complex that the Tax Foundation estimates that 6.5 billion hours are needed each year to get all the tax work done. That works out to the equivalent of 3.1 million full-time workers. And the wages of these folks total $313 billion. In addition, there are 83,190 people working as tax preparers, as estimated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

And then there is the issue of tax rates. If there is to be a tax on personal income, why should there be different tax rates depending upon how much you make? The old saw that “the rich ought to pay more” works with everyone paying the same rate. At 10 percent of wages, earnings of $30,000 = $3,000; $75,000 = $7,500; $500,000 = $50,000; $1,000,000 = $100,000.

Why do higher income earners have to pay a higher tax rate? When wealthier people pay higher tax rates, they have less money to spend on the things they need and want, like homes and things in them, autos and other personal items, investments, donations to charity, etc. 

Lower rates give them more money to spend. Having more of their money in the economy is a very good thing. It increases sales of items and services, and that creates jobs and prosperity. Lower tax rates also reduce or eliminate the need for tax loopholes.

People with incomes at or below a certain point cannot afford to pay taxes on their income, so they should continue to get a break. And those in the income area just above that point might need a lower tax rate than others. But we shouldn’t need more than two rates.

Taxes must be sufficient to pay for the actions of government. But the actions of government must for this and other reasons be only as expensive as is absolutely necessary to provide for the safety and well-being of the people. A smaller, more efficient government would require less income from taxation to pay the bills.

The tax code should not be thousands of pages long. And it should not be so complicated that the average American cannot understand it and comply with it without having to seek help from professionals.

Increasing government efficiency at the same time as we are reducing excessive regulations, eliminating unnecessary or unconstitutional departments and agencies, and establishing sensible and fair income tax rates is long overdue.

Hopefully, the incoming Trump administration will address these problems and take steps to fix them.

Harris is the absolute worst choice to lead this country

September 24, 2024

As the 2024 presidential election draws nearer, Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democrat nominee, continues to avoid nearly every opportunity to tell voters about the specifics of her plan for what she will do, and how.

She has gained a reputation for some rather radical positions, including: wanting to abolish ICE, open the southern border, defund the police, release violent offenders, eliminate middle-class tax cuts, ban fracking and end fossil fuel use, confiscate guns from lawful owners, take away private health care plans, and provide taxpayer funded transgender surgeries for illegal aliens.

During a recent campaign stop in Moon Township, Pennsylvania, a reporter asked her: “And can you give us a sense of what other policies you want to unveil moving forward?"

In answering that question, she said, "Sure, well, I mean, you just look at it in terms of what we are talking about, for example, around children and the child tax credit and extending the EITC [Earned Income Tax Credit]." She did not answer the question. She then babbled on about the EITC, and in the process made false statements about it.

Late last month Harris told CNN's Dana Bash in her first sit-down interview since becoming the Democrat’s candidate through a non-democratic process that the Biden-Harris administration has done "good work" on the economy, but "there's more to do." She completely ignored the high level of inflation that developed during her tenure as VP.

Asked about her changing position on important issues, she said, "I think the most important and most significant aspect of my policy perspective and decisions is my values have not changed." Again, she avoided answering the question and failed to explain why she changed positions after becoming a candidate.

On immigration, Harris noted her prosecutorial record as attorney general of California saying she has long cared about border security, even though under her watch as “border czar,” the border has effectively become wide open, allowing in roughly 10 million illegal aliens.

Her priority on day one if elected will be to "strengthen and support the middle class," she said. Again, she did not take the opportunity to explain exactly how she plans to do that.

Harris seems to be following the lead of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, who famously said about a piece of legislation, “We have to pass it to find out what is in it.” Harris’ message: “Elect me to find out what I plan to do.”

Harris claims to be a Second Amendment advocate. She says she wants some “common sense” measures to keep everyone safe.

“I’m a gun owner,” she said in a friendly interview with Oprah Winfrey. “If someone breaks in my house, they’re getting shot.” Ooops! “Sorry. I probably should not have said that. [Cackling] My staff will deal with that later. [Cackling]” 

However, as a prosecutor in California in 2007, Harris outlined her view of why she could violate the Fourth Amendment. She said she would search the homes of gun owners. “Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn’t mean that we’re not going to walk into that home to check and see if you are being responsible and safe,” she said. 

And Harris said back in 2020: “These stand-your-ground laws … have often, often and frequently, been used as an excuse, if not a cover, for people motivated by race and racial profiling.” Seriously?

And even this year, while she claims she’s “not taking anybody’s guns away,” Harris still supports a mandatory buyback plan for so-called “assault rifles.” That is a disguise for what it really is: gun confiscation. “We need an assault weapons ban,” she said. 

While claiming that Bidenomics and other policies have been wonderfully successful these nearly four years, she says she will fix everything on day one. What needs to be fixed in this wonderfully successful administration? How will she fix it?

She cites words Trump used that are the same words Hitler used. So, Trump is like Hitler because they have sometimes used some of the same terms. But Harris isn’t like Hitler because some of her preferences are similar to Hitler’s?

So many of her supporters say they will vote for her because they “like her.” She refuses to give details on her plans if elected, but they will vote for her, anyway.

And let’s look at a broader picture: which side is more radical, the left or the right? Well, how many attempts to assassinate Joe Biden and Kamala Harris have we seen?

If you like the high prices on most everything; the millions of illegal aliens, gotaways and terror watch-list persons running free and committing crimes; our once-great energy status that existed before Biden-Harris; the coming higher taxes and increased regulations; our constitutional republic being torn apart, then vote on November 5 for the woman who spurns interviews and tough questions, refuses to publish her positions and policies, and promises to fix all the things her present administration brought on the American people over the last four years.

She does not understand or care about America, and will take us down the road to socialism. 

Our government spends too much, and taxes the people too much

April 7, 2024

Several weeks ago, as the April tax filing deadline neared, Facebook featured some comments about how Americans feel about taxes.

Among those comments were these: 

** The biggest scam in life: Paying taxes on money you make; taxes on money you spend; and taxes on things you own that you already paid taxes on with already taxed money.

** Paying taxes in the USA is like having a never-ending car payment on a car that won't run.

** If your country has enough money to give to illegals, your taxes are too high.

** If they can pay all these student loans, they can stop taxes on seniors!

Clearly, taxes are not popular with the American people, despite the need for the government to collect taxes to pay its bills.

Founder Benjamin Franklin in the very early days of the republic said the only two certainties in life are death and taxes. But he wasn't talking about income taxes, because they did not exist then.

In order to help pay for the Civil War, the United States government imposed its first personal income tax, on August 5, 1861, as part of the Revenue Act of 1861. Tax rates were 3 percent on income exceeding $600 and less than $10,000, and 5 percent on income exceeding $10,000. But this tax didn’t last very long. There were other income taxes of short duration.

The income tax we pay today came into existence in 1913 when the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. It was a tax on incomes of both individuals and corporations. 

As much as people dislike the taxes they must pay, they generally understand that taxes are necessary for governments at the federal, state, and local levels to operate. And here in America, with our commitment to personal freedom, those governments are expected to be lean, efficient, not overbearing, and not overly expensive.

On the federal level, those characteristics are not being followed as our Founders expected.

USA Facts tells us that the “federal government collected nearly $4.5 trillion in revenue in fiscal year 2023 (FY2023). About half was collected through individual income taxes, while 37 percent was through payroll taxes. Other revenue sources included corporate income taxes, customs duties, and sales taxes.”

However, the report continues, the “federal government spent almost $6.2 trillion in FY 2023, including funds distributed to states, Medicare, Social Security, defense and veterans, transfers to states, interest on the debt, and aid to individuals such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program and refundable tax credits accounted for 90 percent of spending.”

Worldometer online said that “the current population of the United States of America is 341,531,428 as of Sunday, May 5, 2024.” That’s about $13,000 in federal income collected per person. Spending, however, ran up to more than $18,000 per person.

Today, the National Debt stands at roughly $34 trillion. In 2006 the National Debt was around $8 trillion. A steady increase put it at about $23 trillion in 2020. And then the government stepped on the gas and the National Debt soared by $11 trillion in just 4 years to today’s $34 trillion. As a result, the per person amount to clear the National Debt today is more than $99,500.

The federal government is not as designed: small and limited in function. Today, it is too big, too expensive, not very efficient, and often quite over-bearing.

There are 15 executive departments and hundreds of federal agencies and commissions, employing approximately 1,427,700 federal employees, not including the military. Given the limited government philosophy of the Founders, many/most of these are not appropriate.

Which ones are needed? Here are a few of those executive branch departments that are sensible and needed: Department of Justice, Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of the Treasury. While others may function well and sometimes provide positive guidance, are they really appropriate under the founding principles?

Why do we need a federal Department of Education to tell states how to educate the young? Why do we need the Environmental Protection Agency to tell private land owners what they can and cannot do with their own property? Why do we need a Department of Labor to tell businesses how they must operate? Under our system of federalism, these and other functions should be under control of the states, not the federal government.

In many of these departments, agencies or commissions unelected bureaucrats set rules in place with the force of law, complete with penalties. However, they are not approved by Congress, the law-making body. These bureaucrats tell the people that they work for, and who pay their salaries, what they can and cannot do, and can render punishment for them if they do not comply.

Over the decades the limited government philosophy of the Founders has fattened up and grown far beyond what it was designed to be, and what is needed and appropriate.

With every such step, the freedom of Americans becomes a little bit more limited. And if this concept continues much longer, America will no longer be the Land of the Free.

Biden and the Democrats want to increase the size and cost of government

President Joe Biden’s rushed and ill-conceived exit from Afghanistan was a true disaster, with 13 American military personnel and other innocent lives lost, and many Americans and allies still trying to get out of there, without any American assets left in the country to help make that happen.

This colossal mess has damaged our relations with some allies, caused others to question our strength and direction, and has strengthened our adversaries.

Our southern border, which the Biden administration insists is “closed,” still allows and encourages thousands of illegal aliens to enter the country every day. These people — whose identity and character are unknown, and few if any of whom have been vaccinated against the Covid virus — are mostly left in the country, while some are deported.

In the chaos at the border our Border Patrol (BP) officers are now under fire for doing their job: trying to prevent people from illegally entering the country. 

People who see what they want to see, or who never fact-check their perceptions, falsely accused the mounted BP officers of carrying whips and beating the illegal migrants, when in fact the only migrants who received any sort of physical action were those who refused to obey the officers, or were trying to interfere with them by grabbing the reins of their horses as the officers tried to keep them out of the country.

Why aren’t these critics more concerned with the safety of our BP officers than that of the trespassers?

After launching an attack on Border Patrol officers, now Biden has launched an attack on wealthy Americans and large corporations, saying, "I'm sick and tired of the super-wealthy and giant corporations not paying their fair share in taxes. It's time for it to change."

First, let’s look at who pays what in taxes. The bottom 50% who make less than $43,600 per year pay only 3% of total income taxes; those making $43,600 to $87,000 pay 10%; those making $87,000 to $152,000 pay 16%; those making $152,000 to $218,000 pay 11%; those making $218,000 to $540,000 (the top 2% to 5%) pay 20%; and the hated top 1% making more than $540,000 pay 40% of total income taxes, according to data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).

If 1% of taxpayers pay 40% of income taxes and the top 5% pay 60%, while those in the lowest tax bracket pay only 3%, what would the fair share of total taxes paid be?

Just like there is some fraud in elections, there is some fraud among tax payers. But you likely would find that most wealthy people and large corporations follow the tax code pretty strictly.

If corporations are not paying enough in taxes, or maybe nothing in taxes, don’t suggest they are “un-American,” change the tax code.

Biden wants to change the reporting requirements for financial institutions, and for the IRS to be able to view transactions of all bank accounts with $600 or more in them. This is aimed at anyone who doesn’t report their income accurately, the tax dodgers. But it puts most people under the IRS microscope.

Biden’s “American Families Plan calls for banks and other financial institutions to report more than just a taxpayer’s interest earned, capital gains and losses,” Forbes magazine reported. “Banks and other financial institutions would also be required to report ‘aggregate account outflows and inflows.’

“In other words, the IRS will know about all of your bank accounts, whether you earned income on that account or not, how much is in the account in a given year, and how much was transferred in and out of the account,” the Forbes report continued. “It is unclear how this would work, but what is clear is that this new reporting obligation will create a massive compliance effort on the part of financial institutions, and eliminate a massive blind spot that the IRS is currently enduring.” Some good things, but also some bad things.

This new big government plan prompted Sen. Chuck Grassley, R–IA, to say, "Instead of promising a chicken in every pot, Biden's plan promises an auditor at every kitchen table."

And to make sure all bank accounts properly report everyone’s financial activities, the IRS will hire 87,000 new employees, and everyone can expect more scrutiny of the flow of money to and from their accounts.

Assuming that these employees make minimum wage, each one will receive gross pay of $15,080 for a year of 40-hour weeks. Figured for all 87,000 new IRS workers, that comes to an additional $1,311,960,000 per year. Most likely, they will make a bit more than the minimum wage, and probably at least double that figure. And that is only the wage cost of the new employees, not including office space and the needed equipment, etc.

Supposedly, this process will find additional income to be reported and taxed. But what it also does is increase the size and cost of government, and increase the weight of government on the shoulders of those who pay the salaries of Joe Biden, and everyone else who is employed by the federal government.

None of this represents the government that our Founders designed.

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?

“As California goes, so goes the nation.” Is that still true?

Not so long ago, California was “the” place to be. Known as “The Golden State,” it has beautiful topography, with the ocean, cliffs, lakes, mountains and forests, and generally nice, warm weather that lured those from other states to visit, and even to relocate. Many special attractions add to the state’s allure.

The state’s openness to, and propensity for novel ideas on government and other things led to the creation of phrase “As California goes, so goes the nation.”

Today, California is only a dark shadow of its former self. The natural beauty is still there, many of the other attractions remain, but the state has lost much of its charm and allure.

In certain areas it is very expensive to live, and that situation has not been improving of late. AMAC Magazine tells us that “In 1970, Californians spent three times their salary on a home.” That cost/earnings ratio has risen to 10 times salary. 

This and other factors drove a million residents to other states between 2007 and 2016. “The online survey, conducted [in January] by Edelman Intelligence, found that 53 percent of Californians surveyed are considering fleeing, representing a jump over the 49 percent polled a year ago,” as reported by CNBC. 

Taxes add to the discomfort. In some locations the state sales tax is worsened by local sales taxes, and the total tax averages out to 8.54 percent for people in those locations, one of the highest in the country. The 18-cents per-gallon gasoline tax makes things even worse.

The state has become very difficult for middle income earners, who can’t afford to live there comfortably anymore. 

As a result of high taxes and aggressive regulation, businesses now do studies to see if it makes economic sense for them to expand in California, or expand elsewhere, or to totally move from the state.

California’s “sanctuary state” status puts unneeded stress on social welfare programs and public education, both of which are funded by taxes. And, the homeless population is out of control.  

“In 2018, there were 129,972 people on the streets on any given night statewide,” as reported by the Los Angeles Times back in August. “The most recent count conducted in Los Angeles County revealed that there were nearly 59,000 homeless people in 2019, while there were 9,784 homeless people in San Francisco, including in jails, hospitals and rehab centers — a jump of 30 percent from 2017.”

And recently the state has been suffering from the annual wildfire season. Each year hundreds of thousands of acres of land and dozens of buildings are lost to these fires, and the lives of thousands of residents are turned upside-down, and some die. And things are getting worse each year.

Many people place blame on climate change, not only for the worsening degree of the fires each year, but for their origin. Democrat California Gov. Gavin Newsom, his predecessor, Jerry Brown, and many Newsom political allies claim climate change is driving California’s increasingly intense and deadly wildfires.

While natural circumstances contribute to the problem, most of the fires are started not by nature, but by the actions of people, about 84 percent of them, according to Vox.

Such things as a tree limb contacting a power line. Sparks from a trailer wheel rim with no tire on it produced sparks that caused one fire. Another was deliberately set by an arsonist. And so on.

Some sources say that the degree to which climate change contributes to the fire problem is directly related to the intensity of climate change assumptions that drive the state’s energy and environmental policies. 

“For instance, California’s large and heavily regulated public utilities — PG&E, SDG&E, and SCE — prioritize wind and solar power, leaving little for powerline maintenance and upgrades,” Chuck Devore wrote in The Federalist. “Simply put, the utilities are doing exactly what the regulators tell them to do. They make money for their investors on wind and solar; they don’t on powerline maintenance.”

And a 2015 Reason Foundation study noted: “While it is possible that climate change has played a role in increasing the size of fires, the primary cause seems to be forest management practices, which have changed several times over the course of the past 200 years.”

Failure to harvest timber and manage the downed trees that proliferate in wooded areas and fuel the fires has greatly increased the likelihood, and also the intensity of fires. The policies that limit forest management often are decisions by government to protect wildlife.

No one can argue that California does not have many problems, some very serious. But elected representatives have made scant progress, if any, toward solving the worst of them.

It is a fact that the state government and many/most local governments are and have been under Democrat control for a while. With the hard-left leanings of the current potential Democrat nominees for president, a Democrat president could be a real danger to the country, championing higher taxes and regressive policies such as those in The Golden State.

If it is still true that “As California goes, so goes the nation,” America is in deep trouble.

Democrats’ move toward socialism isn’t sitting well with their base

Most would agree that since the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States things have been crazier than they have ever been, or at least crazier than they have been in our memory.

The left regards Trump as whacko, even as their own policies push the boundaries of radicalism.

Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and even Hillary Clinton are still on scene, and they are joined with a cadre of faces new to the race for the Democrat nomination to oppose Trump, or if he is somehow taken out in the primary, or otherwise, whomever the Republicans put up in 2020.

Trump’s unconventional, non-politician, combative style has put off nearly everybody at some time (or always) and the inability of folks to get beyond their personal feelings surely has further gummed things up even more.

But somehow, all of this has emboldened and set free the most radical among the Democrats, who push socialist ideals as if they are actually reasonable.

“The Democrats have become socialists,” stated liberal columnist Dana Milbank back in September of 2017, less than a year after Trump took office.

“This became official, more or less … when [Bernie] Sanders rolled out his socialized health-care plan, Medicare for All, and he was supported by 16 of his Senate Democratic colleagues who signed on as co-sponsors, including the party's rising stars and potential presidential candidates in 2020: Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Kirsten Gillibrand.”

You may have seen the news since then that all of those folks, and even more, have either declared their candidacy, or hinted at it.

Sen. Harris, the former California Attorney General, suggests doing away with private health insurance, replacing it with single-payer government healthcare.

She told CNN’s Jake Tapper that if people like their current health insurance, they would not be able to keep it. "Well, listen, the idea is that everyone gets access to medical care,” she said. “And you don't have to go through the process of going through an insurance company, having them give you approval, going through the paperwork, all of the delay that may require," she told Tapper.

On its face, this actually sounds like a good move. But just ask many a military veteran how government healthcare has worked for them. And the idea that government healthcare would have less paperwork? Where does she think the mountains of existing paperwork had their origin?

But returning to Milbank’s 2017 column, he noted the dramatic shift since 2013, when “Sanders introduced similar legislation” and “he didn’t have a single co-sponsor.”

Democrats obviously believe this approach is their winning strategy, and perhaps even believe it makes sense. The current environment among Democrats has allowed the emergence of a 29-year-old whippersnapper named Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to dislodge a long-time New York House member, and quickly rise to fame. So fast and so prominently, in fact, that the old guard was knocked off balance, if balance they ever had.

These folks generally advocate doing away with ICE, open borders, single-payer healthcare - Medicare for All, doing away with private health insurance, abortion up to and even after birth, removing requirements for a photo ID to vote, allowing illegals to vote, radical gun control, raising taxes, free college education, and the Green New Deal.

The latter is one of Cortez’ favored positions. Somehow, despite her wild ideas and silly answers to serious questions, she has garnered a good bit of influence, enough to attract the attention of party leaders in Congress.

And liberal gadfly Michael Moore thinks so much of her that he wants the Constitution amended so that she can run for president.

“It's too bad you have to be 35 to be president,” Moore said on MSNBC. “We put that in the constitution, the Founding Fathers, because people died at 38 or 40 back then. Y'know, we need to lower that. If that was lowered to 30 ...” Obviously, logic is not Moore’s strong point.

These Democrat ideas have gotten so radical that one liberal Democrat, former Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, raised the flag of caution. “We’ve got to have actionable, practical ideas,” he said. “And I worry — we can’t get into this election season with everybody trying to out-promise one another.”

One survey shows that McAuliffe’s concerns are backed up by data. Democrat and Democrat-leaning registered voters responded to a Pew Research Center survey that by a 53- to 40-percent margin, they want their party to move right, to a more moderate position.

The number of Democrats who view their ever-more-socialist party favorably has fallen from 53 percent last September to 49 percent this year, and 47 percent viewed the party in a negative way.

Interestingly, the survey showed that 58 percent of Republicans seek a more conservative party, while 38 percent seek a more moderate party.

An editorial in Investor’s Business Daily puts things nicely into perspective: ”Socialism is the most pernicious political system ever. Wherever it's been tried, it's led to mass misery, poverty, loss of rights, and even mass killing. Today, Venezuela, North Korea and Zimbabwe are notable examples. True American socialism wouldn't be any better.”

Amen to that.

Democrats re-take the House: It is just as bad as we expected

She’s baaa-aaak! Imagining herself suddenly somehow equal to the President of the United States, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, basked in the glory of getting the gavel returned, after Democrats won back control of the House in the mid-term election.

Anxious to get back control of the House and wallowing in the glory of things to come, prior to the opening of the 2019 Congress caucusing Democrats, led by Maxine Waters, D-CA were overheard singing: “Investigate! Salivate! Dance to the music!”

And right on cue, the political foolishness began. The bad ideas Democrats had been discussing and preparing to unleash were officially unleashed.

Barely after members were sworn in and the election of the Speaker was completed, Rep. Brad Sherman, D-CA, rushed forth to introduce articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump as his first order of business.

Not long after that, Rep. Steve Cohen, D-TN, introduced a few new bills, one of which proposes the elimination of the Electoral College.

They also introduced a bill that many people would support to fund government agencies affected by the shutdown. Too good to be true, however, the bill also contained a hidden element that would provide more than a half-billion dollars in pro-abortion funding, including repealing a provision implemented by the Trump administration that would not fund NGOs that engaged in pro-abortion activities.

On the matter of impeachment, freshman Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-MI, wasted no time in calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump just hours after being sworn in.

Speaking to a crowd of supporters Thursday night, Tlaib said: "People love you and you win. And when your son looks at you and says, 'Momma, look you won. Bullies don't win.' And I said, 'Baby, they don't, because we’re gonna go in there and we’re gonna impeach the [vulgarity deleted].'”

Where the comment immediately placed her high in the running for the “2019 Classless Congressional Comment” award, it also garnered her much attention, but also a little welcome Democrat criticism.

Defensively, Tlaib pointed out that her “colorful” language should not overshadow her message. Well, if your message is really important to you, don’t use colorful language that interferes with it.

While we are on the topic of newbies, the freshman Democrat Darling and self-described socialist and radical, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, has danced and talked her way into the limelight.

Her dancing may well be the strongest of her talents, with economic understanding bringing up the rear. The 29 year-old Representative has displayed a great lack of understanding of her country’s Constitution and government organization, characteristic of many others of her age.

She has expressed strong support for raising taxes on the highest wage earners to as much as 70 percent to pay for her list of socialistic freebies. As ridiculous an idea as this is, it wouldn’t make a dent in the costs of the programs she favors.

A 70 percent tax is punitive, and would shift a great deal of money to government use rather than use by those who earned it, and has very little support. It heaps unjust obligations on the top earners, who already shoulder a hugely disproportionate share of America’s tax bill.

Democrats apparently have been forbidden from discussing the death of Police Officer Ronil Singh, the most recent American to be killed by an illegal alien. Nancy Pelosi reportedly responded to a question about this senseless crime, “No comment.”

The ban on discussion is apparently complete, prohibiting even the expression of sympathy to Singh’s family and fellow officers, lest they admit indirectly that we have a true and serious illegal alien problem that includes sanctuary cities/fugitive cities. They didn’t even allow the automatic reaction to a gun death: the call for gun control.

As the 18^th partial shutdown of the federal government since 1976 continues into its second week, there is no agreement between Congressional Democrats and President Trump to end it, as this is written.

Ranging from a few days to more than a month, under six presidents, both Democrat and Republican – Ford, Carter, Reagan, Clinton, G.H.W. Bush and Obama – government shutdowns are not uncommon. The longest one lasted 32 days under Bill Clinton.

The responsibility for the security of the United States and its citizens falls upon the shoulders of the Executive Branch: the President, not the Speaker of the House or the Senate Minority Leader.

Following the advice – the sincere and desperation-prompted pleas – of the people who are on the border trying to secure it, Trump wants an impenetrable barrier along sections of the border.

Under those conditions, Congressional Democrats, who voted to fund a wall previously, are instead acting to support the status quo, which includes the horrible things illegal aliens have done and will do, while Trump is working to secure the border and improve the immigration process.

In 1986, Ronald Reagan gave amnesty to 3 million people in exchange for the promise of border security. But border security was not achieved. Reagan said that was his biggest mistake. Trump does not want to make that same mistake.

In other news, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-TX, introduced a Congressional term limits bill.

Democrats distort tax bill for political purposes

The struggle among Congressional Republicans to design a tax reform bill was an arduous process, with constant opposition and obstruction from Democrats, and more than a little internal discord, as Republicans objected to some features that were contained in the bill and displeased that other features were missing. Now that it has been completed and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act has been signed into law, whether what Congress produced is good or bad depends upon whom you ask, as is always the case in political matters.

It should surprise no one that liberals/Democrats would not support a bill that lowers tax rates on their hated enemies, the rich and the corporate world, even though it lowered taxes on everyone else or nearly everyone else, too.

These days a perfect bill is virtually impossible, since they most always are hundreds of pages long, and are contain numerous elements, some of which can be guaranteed to evoke opposition. Add to that the idea of transforming the maddeningly complex tax system, and the possibility of a smooth and easy passage quickly disappears.

Predictably, Congressional Democrats are busy using their own special talents to distort the bill to generate public opposition among their constituents.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-MA, was shown on YouTube expelling copious amounts of carbon dioxide on the Senate floor: “[T]his bill doesn't provide middle-class tax relief, it ultimately raises taxes on more than 60 percent of working families in this country,” concerning what might happen years in the future.

She also imagines that Republicans “know that this bill won't raise wages for working people.” Apparently, she hadn’t heard that several large businesses have just raised their lowest employee hourly rate to $15, and others have given $1,000 bonuses. Warren doesn’t let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

But she was actually right one thing: there was “no input from a single Democrat,” since her party refused to participate.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, even referred to the bill as the “end of the world” and “Armageddon.” No enemy of hyperbole, she also stated on the House floor that it was “an all-out looting of America” and “the worst bill to ever come to the floor of the House.”

She charged with a straight face that the bill “raises taxes on 86 million middle-class households” and “hands a breathtaking 83 percent of its benefits to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans.”

Pelosi recently tweeted: “Shamefully, Republicans were cheering against the children as they rob from their future and ransack the middle class to reward the rich #GOPTaxScam.”

She has suddenly gotten religion about spending, but apparently doesn’t remember that while she was Speaker of the House over $5 trillion was added to the national debt.

And Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-NY, blathered, “Under this bill the working class, middle class and upper middle class get skewered while the rich and wealthy corporations make out like bandits. It is just the opposite of what America needs, and Republicans will rue the day they pass this.”

And this fantasy: “Today, the President gave himself an early Christmas present - an estimated $11 million tax cut. Who paid for it? My middle class constituents in New York,” the vast majority of whom will see their taxes lowered.

What happens when their constituents find out that this trio is lying to them?

Offering his two cents worth, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-VT, let loose with this bit of idiocy: “Nearly 13 million Americans are expected to lose their health insurance under the tax bill due to the loss of the individual mandate,” Sanders yammered.

The tax bill removes the mandate to buy health insurance; it does not take away anyone’s insurance. The only people who will lose coverage under the bill are those who decide not to buy it. That is called “freedom,” a concept Sanders and those on the far Left don’t understand.

Any bill of this size and complexity will contain something that nearly everybody can find fault with. In such circumstances the adage “don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good” is sound advice for all of us. And we need to remember that there is ample time to identify problem areas in the bill and address them.

With that in mind, here is part of a summary from The Heritage Foundation that explains important aspects of the bill: The U.S. tax code is sorely in need of reform. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is the most sweeping update to the U.S. tax code in more than 30 years. The bill lowers corporate and individual tax rates for the vast majority of Americans, doubles the standard deduction, expands the child tax credit, and repeals the individual health care mandate.

That last sentence identifies measures that are good for the general economy and for most all Americans. Putting more money in the hands of the people will expand economic activity, thereby increasing demand for goods and services, and creating jobs and improving lives.

Congressional Democrats don’t like the tax bill, because the worst thing for their election hopes is a good Republican economy.