Search
Archives

You are currently browsing the archives for the Elizabeth Warren category.

Categories

Archive for the ‘Elizabeth Warren’ Category

Judge Timothy Kelly sided with President Trump in the lawsuit brought by Leandra English in her quest to be the Acting Director of the CFPB.

According to the article, “A U.S. District Court judge in Washington on Tuesday handed a big victory to President Donald Trump, ruling in favor of the administration in its bid to install White House budget director Mick Mulvaney as acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Judge Timothy Kelly denied a request by Leandra English, who was named last week as acting director by outgoing CFPB chief Richard Cordray, for a temporary restraining order to block Mulvaney from taking the post. Kelly said there was not a substantial likelihood that the case would succeed on its merits. ‘The administration applauds the Court’s decision,’ White House deputy press secretary Raj Shah said in a statement. ‘It’s time for the Democrats to stop enabling this brazen political stunt by a rogue employee and allow Acting Director Mulvaney to continue the Bureau’s smooth transition into an agency that truly serves to help consumers.'”

Later in the article, Deepak Gupta, English’s lawyer, said that he’d “have to consult with his client about the next steps. These could either involve seeking a preliminary injunction or requesting a ruling on a permanent injunction, either of which could be appealed to a higher court.”

Based on Judge Kelly’s ruling, Gupta can appeal to his heart’s content but it likely won’t matter. Kelly said “there was not a substantial likelihood that the case would succeed on its merits.” The sky-is-falling-alarmists are already out in force:

It’s BS that the fines levied against the banks went to the people who suffered. That money went into the US Treasury. Sen. Mike Lee didn’t mince words in talking about his opinion of the CFPB:

Don’t be surprised if the CFPB is abolished by the US Supreme Court in the next 3-5 years. It’s just waiting for a lawsuit to be filed questioning its constitutionality.

Technorati: , , , , , ,

If I had to give this article a title, I’d give the title ‘You can’t beat something with nothing’. Another title I’d consider is ‘Republicans win while Democrats whine’. Katie Packer Beeson’s article is spot on.

It starts by saying “The Democrats seem to enjoy gloating about the hot mess that is the Republican Party these days. Former GOP presidents warning the president about the people he surrounds himself with; sitting Republican U.S. senators calling the president unstable and unqualified; and a former GOP speaker of the house saying “there is no Republican Party. The president isn’t a Republican.” And Democrats’ friends in the mainstream media have kindly created an echo chamber that makes them think that they are always right and the Republicans are a bunch of sexist, racist, whack jobs. So why aren’t they winning?”

It continued, saying “So when they lost the election, there was a reckoning. The leadership of the Democratic Party was drummed up and new, forward-looking leaders took the reins and offered an alternative to what they saw as the disaster of Donald Trump. Wait, no. That isn’t what happened. Instead, they re-elected Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the house. They elected Chuck Schumer as Senate majority [editor’s note: Schumer is minority leader] leader and completely sold out to the New York and California wings of the Democratic Party.”

Then there’s this:

Instead of talking about middle-class tax cuts, they talked about transgender bathroom access. Instead of talking about fixing Obamacare, which was crushing many in the middle class with high premiums and complicated doctor selections, they walked right into the trap of the alt-right and began tearing down Civil War statues.

Democrats still haven’t figured out how to talk to blue collar America. They’re experts at talking to college professors and progressive activists but they’re worthless at talking with factory workers, small businesses and tradesmen. It’s like those people are from another planet. (Perhaps, it’s the Democrats that are from a different planet?)

Look how paralyzed Hillary looks when confronted by a coal miner:

Hillary looked positively petrified. She looked like she would’ve rather been anywhere else in the world than at that roundtable.

What [Democrats] don’t seem to understand is that you can point out your opponent’s weaknesses all day long, but if you don’t provide an alternative, then people will stick with the status quo. I’ve spoken to dozens of Republican women in recent months who have grown disillusioned with the Republican Party, and when I ask why they don’t defect, the answer is always the same: “It’s no better over there.”

Until Democrats learn what animates blue collar workers, they should expect to lose lots of races, at least enough to keep them in the minority for a decade or more.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A generation ago, the Democratic Party was a legitimate political party. It isn’t anymore. Today’s Democrats have gone so far around the bend that even lifelong Democrats have started backpedalling … fast. Jim Geraghty’s column illustrates just how foolish the Democratic Party is. What caught my attention is the paragraph that says “The Democratic party’s leaders haven’t changed their methods, either. They denounced Trump and his ‘Deplorables’ and the rest of the Republican party in the most furious terms in 2016, but that didn’t produce the results they wanted. In 2017, Democrats decided to just keep on doing that, but with more profanity.”

Later, Geraghty wrote “After 2016, one might have expected Democrats to reconsider their full embrace of identity politics. Instead they’ve doubled down. Instead of examining why so many voters in so many states rejected their arguments and philosophies, many within the academy and universities greeted 2017 by insisting even more adamantly that freedom of speech is dangerous and that you should be threatened or violently assaulted if you express a view they disagree with. Instead of giving the lecturing speeches at awards shows a break, Hollywood celebrities are becoming even more politically outspoken and strident, and even more openly contemptuous of roughly half their audience.”

Rational people wouldn’t think that Sending rioters to a congressman’s front steps isn’t a way to prove you’re rational, either:

These tactics might help fire up the Democratic Party’s bi-coastal base but they won’t help flip any of the districts or states that they’ll need to retake the House, Senate or the White House. Republicans will increase their margin in the Senate, thereby marginalizing John McCain, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski and Rand Paul. Republicans will maintain their House majority, too. Most importantly, they’ll have net gains in terms of governorships, state legislators and total control of state governments.

This isn’t because Republicans are doing a great job. I’ve repeatedly said that they aren’t. It’s because Democrats are doing a great job frightening people, either with violence or unaffordable ideas like Medicare for All.

Next November, Democrats will gather somewhere to question what went wrong … again. The Media Wing of the Democratic Party won’t accept the fact that they’re hurting the Democratic Party. The Bernie Sanders/Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic Party won’t figure it out that their policies don’t appeal to many people. Instead, they’ll think that the enthusiasm that their supporters show are proof that they’re on the right track. They’ll be wrong … again.

Joe Donnelly, Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp are 3 of the most vulnerable Democrats in the US Senate that are up for re-election in 2018. They’ve tried portraying themselves as moderates. The importance of Paul Mirengoff’s post is that it provides proof that this trio are phonies.

According to Mirengoff’s post, “President Trump chose Noel Francisco for Solicitor General. Francisco has a distinguished background. He clerked for Judge Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and then for Justice Scalia.” Judge Luttig is J. Michael Luttig, one of the most distinguished conservative jurists of the last century or 2. Mirengoff then noted that “the Senate confirmed Francisco” by a vote of 50-47. Mirengoff noted that the vote “was strictly along party lines”, with Donnelly, Manchin and Heitkamp voting with Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.

Mirengoff then wondered whether this trio of so-called moderates would vote for a more moderate candidate for President Trump’s administration. This time, he talked about Rachel Brand, the Associate Attorney General. Mirengoff described her as “a center-right figure and thus, decidedly less conservative than Francisco.” Mirengoff then noted Brand’s confirmation vote, which was “52-46,” with “Manchin, Donnelly, and Heitkamp all [voting] no.” Finally, Mirengoff compared these ‘moderates’ votes for Neil Gorsuch, the conservative jurist and the newest member of the Supreme Court. Here’s what he wrote:

Manchin, Donnelly, and Heitkamp all voted to confirm Justice Gorsuch. What does this tell us? It tells us that in a high profile vote that might affect their reelection chances, these three Red State Democrats won’t oppose a very conservative nominee. On an under-the-radar vote, they will oppose not only a very conservative nominee, but also a center-right one.

It tells me they are phonies.

At one point, there was talk that Manchin would switch parties. It’s pretty apparent that won’t happen. The only way to get rid of these phonies is by defeating them in the 2018 midterm elections. It doesn’t bother me that they’re moderates. It’s that they’re dishonest. If people pretend that they’re moderates but then they vote with Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren, then they can’t be trusted. It’s time to throw them out if they aren’t trustworthy.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

There’s no denying the fact that Bernie Sanders doesn’t believe in timidity. That doesn’t mean he believes in total transparency. It just means that he’s prone to proposing wild ideas.

Proposing the Medicare for All Act of 2017 fits into that category. Intelligent people don’t propose legislation like that. Intelligent people don’t co-sponsor legislation like that, either. Matthew Continetti’s article highlights how far left the Democratic Party has drifted.

According to the article, “‘Mr. Sanders did not say how he would pay for his bill,’ writes Robert Pear of the New York Times. ‘Aides said he would issue a list of financing options.’ The ‘options’ are not included in the bill—but they are enough to raise the hair on the back of one’s neck.”

Sen. Sanders didn’t include his financing preferences because his bill is unaffordable. According to this LA Times article, “A single-payer healthcare system in California — a galvanizing cause among the state’s progressive flank — would cost $400 billion annually, according to a legislative analysis released on Monday.” Later, the article states:

The analysis, released in advance of the proposal’s hearing in a key fiscal committee, fills in what has so far been the biggest unanswered question concerning the plan to dramatically overhaul California’s healthcare coverage. The analysis found that the proposal would require:

A total cost of $400 billion per year to cover all healthcare and administrative costs. Of that, $200 billion of existing federal, state and local funds could be repurposed to go toward the single-payer system. The additional $200 billion would need to be raised from new taxes.

California’s population represents approximately one-eighth of the US population. Multiply that $400,000,000,000 times 8 to get to the approximate annual cost of Sen. Sanders’ hoax. This isn’t a plan because Sen. Sanders all but officially admits that it’s impossible to fund his fantasy:

The Sanders bill would add hundreds of millions of people into an already financially-strapped program while making it more generous — within four years. At no point in the legislation does he describe how he would expect to pay for this ambitious idea or deal with massive disruption it would mean for businesses, workers, and those trying to access care.

Not dealing with a massive spending increase is like declaring war but forgetting to name who you’ve declared war on. That’s utter insanity. Here’s Bernie and his politically suicidal friends touting Bernie’s Medicare for All Act of 2017:

Technorati: , , , ,

The Democrats won’t retake the majority in the US House of Representatives. They won’t because Democrats have a Martha Plimpton problem. As usual, Salena Zito identified the problem in her latest column. The opening paragraph of Ms. Zito’s column says “A clip of Martha Plimpton’s exuberance over the ‘best’ abortion she ever had played out on the television overhead of a gas-station counter somewhere along U.S. Route 422 between Ohio and Pennsylvania.”

To the average person, that’s a little too cold-hearted sounding. That image is amplified in this article. The opening paragraphs say “The days of abortion advocates calling abortion “rare” and “unfortunate” are clearly over. So are the days of being able to claim, “No one is really pro-abortion. No one actually likes it.”
Enter self-proclaimed ‘Christian’ abortionist Willie Parker and actress Martha Plimpton. Sadly, these (and other) abortion advocates do openly celebrate the violence of killing a preborn child. Between movements like #ShoutYourAbortion and Planned Parenthood fighting for abortion like it’s saving someone’s life instead of taking it, abortion has become a symbol of pride for many. Actress Martha Plimpton, however, has taken the pride of having an abortion to an incredulous level.”

In the 1990s, Bill Clinton famously said that abortions “should be safe, legal and rare.” That Democratic Party doesn’t exist anymore. Tom Perez, Nancy Pelosi, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren killed that Democratic Party.

Ms. Zito’s column continues:

After saying Seattle was the home of some of her family, she went on to cheer what she did in her teens: “I also had my first abortion at the Seattle Planned Parenthood. Yay!” With equal exuberance, she also revealed that her Seattle abortion wasn’t her last.

Later, she writes:

“Democrats used to debate the legal right to have one, and that was a point of view that was shared by most voters,” said Michael Wear, a theologically conservative evangelical Christian and Democrat who served in Barack Obama’s faith outreach office in the White House. “I don’t understand why, 14 months before a midterm election, why would you push 20 percent of voters who would love to support Democrats out the door? Better yet, why would you speak of pro-life Democrats as though they were some extraterrestrial who just landed on earth?” he said.

It is rare that anyone who has had an abortion celebrates it — Plimpton seems to fail to understand few in this country do. Maybe the privileged class celebrates abortions? Even if they did, that won’t help the Democratic Party win back voters. Or is it the intellectual class that celebrates them? Even if they did, that doesn’t win back majorities either. Or maybe it’s the celebrity class that does? If so, there’s not enough of them to win back the House or Senate.

In short, this is not the message you want to win every down-ballot seat the party has let waste away under the thrust of identity politics.

When Republican strategists talk about San Francisco liberals or tie candidates directly to Nancy Pelosi, that’s the image they’re trying to plant. It’s the image of a heartless, machine-like woman. (Barbara Boxer fit that image, too.)

Between driving away Catholics with these pro-abortion fanatics and blue collar workers in the Midwest and Rust Belt with their love of environmental activists, Democrats have ceded America’s heartland. That’s why the Democratic Party is a bi-coastal, urban political party.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

The Political Wilderness Party, aka the Democratic Party, won’t be returning from Lewis & Clark territory anytime soon, at least if Elizabeth Warren has a say in the matter.

Speaking at this weekend’s Nutroots Convention, Sen. Warren said “If we’re going to be the people who lead the Democratic Party back from the wilderness and lead our country out of this dark time, then we can’t waste energy arguing about whose issue matters more or who in our alliance should be voted off the island. We aren’t a wing of today’s Democratic Party. We’re the heart and soul of today’s Democratic Party.” Later, Sen Warren took a shot at the Clintons, saying “The Democratic party isn’t going back to the days of welfare reform and the crime bill. It is not going to happen.”

I’d be a bit dishonest if I said that, each time I pray, I thank God for foolish people like Elizabeth Warren. Sen. Warren apparently doesn’t understand what people hear when she makes statements like that. The Clinton administration had an impressive job creation record. If people have to choose between President Clinton’s economic record and President Obama’s economic record, that isn’t a fair fight. President Clinton will win that fight every time with voters 40 years of age and older.

Sen. Warren is right, though, in saying that the Warren/Sanders/Obama wing of the Democratic Party is “the heart and soul of today’s Democratic Party.” That’s why this is music to my ears:

Warren’s speech at the conference, which is viewed as a testing ground for prospective presidential candidates, further fuels buzz that Warren plans to run for president in 2020. The Times reported that the Massachusetts lawmaker made little attempt to dismiss the bid speculation.

Last November, President Trump won 306 electoral votes. If he’s running against Warren in 2020, expect that to increase to 328 or 332 electoral votes. I’d be surprised if President Trump didn’t add Virginia and Colorado if his 2020 opponent is Sen. Warren. New Hampshire would be a possibility, too, though a bit of a longshot compared with Virginia and Colorado.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,

Erin Murphy was one of the first declared DFL candidates. Based on this article, it appears as though she’s all but officially dead in the water.

First, it’s worth noting that “Murphy criticizes capitalist models of health care, saying that a for-profit model of any part of the health care system is bad for Americans.” It isn’t surprising to read that “Murphy also supports Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-VT) plan for Medicare for all across the United States.” From a DFL primary convention perspective, this isn’t a foolish strategy. She’s essentially just rolled out the red carpet for Bernie Sanders’ voters. Let’s remember that Sen. Sanders defeated Hillary Clinton by a 61%-38% margin in Minnesota’s caucuses.

This tends to support the belief that DFL voters are further left than a decade ago and significantly further left than during the Perpich era. But I digress.

Later in the article, it quotes her as saying “Let’s start by making MinnesotaCare an option available to everyone. Like Medicare, it’s tested, trusted, and affordable coverage, available everywhere in Minnesota.” The bad news for Murphy is that she’d be history if she made it to a general election. Here’s why:

NPR reported in May 2016 that expanding Medicare coverage to cover everyone in the United States would add $18 trillion to the national debt in just the next ten years. The current national debt is just under $20 trillion.

Murphy’s strategy appears to be to win the endorsement by winning over Sen. Sanders’ supporters. It likely also means she’s going hard left in the general election, too. Here’s what she said on her campaign website:

But for too many that’s not their reality. Too many of our neighbors are feeling forgotten, working harder than ever just to survive. Too many are at risk of falling further behind, and too many are not getting the opportunities they need to make progress.

That sounds like a repeat of Bernie Sanders’ or Elizabeth Warren’s stump speech.

Potentially, this sets up an interesting fight for the DFL endorsement for governor. Tim Walz appears to be running as a Blue Dog Democrat. That’s probably wise because I don’t think he can convince Sanders voters that he’s one of them. Murphy, however, appears to be running as the Bernie Sanders candidate. Here’s the question that we don’t have the answer to: will this split the DFL? Here’s another question: will the Iron Range finally reject a DFL gubernatorial candidate? At this point, that’s a distinct possibility if Rep. Murphy is the DFL’s candidate.

Don Davis’ article about the Thursday night vote on health care contains quotes from Sen. Franken and Sen. Klobuchar. Specifically, both senators talk about the importance of bipartisanship.

For instance, Sen. Franken said “Tonight’s vote will go down in the history books. But we can’t rest easy; the fight is far from over. My message to Republicans is come back to the table … and work with us in a bipartisan way to improve health care for all Americans. If we want to do this the right way, it’s the only path forward.”

Sen. Franken, the Senate just debated health care. Lots of amendments were offered. Why didn’t you offer amendments to improve the bill? It isn’t like you didn’t have the opportunity. Was it because you didn’t want to defend your proposals on the Senate floor? It’s one thing to insist on bipartisanship. It’s another to not offer any substantive amendments that would fix the ACA.

By comparison, Sen. Klobuchar is quoted as saying “Time to work across the aisle…” Again, Sen. Klobuchar didn’t offer any substantive amendments. She just spewed happy talk about working across the aisle. That sounds nice but it isn’t a solution. Further, it was the Democrats’ ideas that created this crisis. At least she didn’t celebrate like Sen. Franken:

While Americans suffer from limited options and high prices, Sen. Franken and Sen. Warren celebrated. Left unanswered in all this is a simple question that the MSM intentionally hasn’t asked. When iPads first hit the stores, they flew off the shelves. When Microsoft Office first came out, it flew off the shelves. When FedEx first opened, it didn’t take long for Fred Smith to become a billionaire. Here’s the unasked question that Democrats haven’t answered: if Obamacare policies are so good, why is the individual mandate required to get people to buy health insurance policies? Is it because the product stinks? Is it because the product’s price is too expensive?

Democrats have frequently said that the ACA “isn’t perfect.” (That’s understatement.) They’re pretending that it’s only 1-2 minor tweaks away from being a hot-selling commodity. It isn’t. It’s a total mess. Democrats have said that insurance companies are bailing from the exchanges because Republicans are trying to destabilize them. They’re bailing because they’re losing tens of millions of dollars. Thursday night, I sent this constituent email to Sen. Klobuchar:

Sen. Klobuchar, I wish I could say I was surprised that you voted against each Republican health care reform proposal. Unfortunately, your votes were entirely predictable.

On Facebook, you said “We can still put aside partisanship and instead work together on bipartisan solutions that will help every American. That’s utterly insulting. When Democrats passed the ACA, Democrats displayed nothing but partisanship. In fact, Harry Reid didn’t allow Republican amendments to the bill. At the time, I don’t remember you criticizing Sen. Reid for this blatant act of partisanship. Now that Obamacare is a failure and insurance companies are either pulling out of the exchanges or they’re demanding huge premium increases, we’re being told that bipartisanship is a must.

Why do I think that talk of bipartisanship will disappear the minute Democrats retake the majority? Honestly, I don’t care if there’s bipartisanship if either party gets this reform right. Right now, I’ve seen that the Democrats’ plan has failed pretty much everyone except those with pre-existing conditions.

It’s time you admitted that your ideas failed. Further, it’s time for you to move in the Republicans’ direction to solve this crisis. That means voting for Republican ideas. The ACA has caused dramatic spikes in premiums while barely increasing the number of people insured.

In short, you’ve failed. It’s time for you to vote with Republicans. Period.

In summarization, the Democrats’ plan is failing. That’s because Democrats didn’t listen to the consumer on what the consumers wanted. Instead, Democrats told their constituents what they’d be forced into getting. Predictably, that top-down approach has failed. People want to have options. The ACA hasn’t given people the options that they’ve had prior to the ACA.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Elizabeth Warren’s go-to line is that the American economy is rigged against the little guy. She’s actually right. Big government, high tax rates and a complicated tax code give the rich too many undeserved advantages. This op-ed, written by Rep. Ron Estes, (R-KS), asks some pointed questions that Sen. Warren and Sen. Sanders probably don’t want to answer.

For instance, I’m fairly certain Sen. Warren wouldn’t want to reply when Rep. Estes said “Today’s code is riddled with special interest giveaways that are essentially tax earmarks or “spending” in the tax code, to quote Martin Feldstein, the chief economic adviser to former President Ronald Reagan. Tax earmarks are tax increases on everyone who doesn’t receive the benefit. They keep rates artificially high for everyone to favor the few. Do Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren believe families should be paying higher rates so that officially recognized Eskimo whaling captains – one beneficiary in today’s code – can pay less?”

Sen. Warren and Sen. Sanders have advocated for higher tax rates but they’ve never advocated for cleaning up the tax code. Cleaning up the tax code is important because, the words of “Apple CEO Tim Cook, said on 60 Minutes in 2015, ‘This is a tax code … that was made for the industrial age, not the digital age. It’s backwards. It’s awful for America. It should have been fixed many years ago. It’s past time to get it done.'”

Rep. Estes said that there’s another important reason for updating the tax code:

In 2016, Americans spent $409 billion simply complying with the IRS code, according to the Tax Foundation.

What a waste of money. That’s money that should’ve been spent on creating jobs. Instead, it was spent on Big Government. Many of these carve-outs were put in place by lobbyists who advocate for the corporations that hired them. Small businesses don’t have the advocates that big corporations have.

Sen. Warren and Sen. Sanders love big government. That means their policies lead directly to the policies and conditions that they complain about. Their policies also lead to income inequality. Policymakers should implement tax reform. While that’s happening, reporters should report the progress that’s getting made. Once the bill is signed, though, the MSM should question Democrats about their tax policies. They should specifically ask Sen. Sanders and Sen. Warren why they favor policies that increase income inequality while slowing economic growth in the middle class. They should ask Sen. Schumer why he hasn’t told Democrats to jump on board with tax simplification.

Those are things that might happen in a dream world. Unfortunately, the MSM won’t ask those questions because they agree with Sen. Warren and Sen. Sanders. The MSM, aka the Agenda Media, will work tirelessly to protect Democrats. Anyone that thinks the MSM is fair-minded and that they seek the truth isn’t thinking straight. The MSM is mostly corrupt and shouldn’t be trusted.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , ,