Archive for the ‘Kevin McCarthy’ Category

It isn’t in the opening paragraph of this article but it’s certainly perplexing. Speaker Pelosi allegedly said “the committee will investigate how the private sector is spending its government funds and press to ensure the federal response is based on science and health experts. The committee will fight against profiteering, political favoritism and price gouging.”

Later in the article, Pelosi is quoted as saying “The committee will be empowered to examine all aspects of the federal response to coronavirus, and to assure that the taxpayers’ dollars are being wisely and efficiently spent to save lives, deliver relief and benefit our economy.” This isn’t how coherent people speak, though it’s significantly more coherent than Joe Biden has sounded in months.

What is Pelosi talking about when she says that this new committee will “ensure the federal response is based on science and health experts”, then say that this committee will be empowered to make sure that “the taxpayers’ dollars are being wisely and efficiently spent to save lives, deliver relief and benefit our economy”? What do scientists and health experts have to do with guaranteeing that the money will “benefit our economy”? That’s like insisting that Dr. Spry or Dean Banaian guarantee that the U of M’s agriculture research budget is spent wisely. They’re both intelligent men but they aren’t qualified to conduct oversight on agriculture projects. Their specialty is economics, not agriculture.

What’s happening is that Pelosi is saying the right-sounding things to make it sound like her oversight committee is legitimate. The longer she talks, though, the less authoritative she sounds. Pelosi won’t admit it but the CARES Act already has an oversight committee built into it. We need Pelosi’s oversight committee like a bank needs Bonnie and Clyde to guard the vault.

Red flag city

It was not immediately clear whom Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy of California might appoint as the GOP leader of the committee or the extent of the GOP participation of the committee that Pelosi billed as a “special bipartisan oversight panel.”

Speaking on a separate call with reporters, McCarthy voiced concern about the appointment of Clyburn to lead the group, citing reports that he had called the crisis an opportunity to “restructure” things to fit his party’s vision.

The fact that Pelosi created this oversight committee without talking with McCarthy is a huge red flag if the goal is bipartisanship. Why would you create a bipartisan committee with only partisan input? Red flag du jour? The chairman just spoke of the crisis relief bill as “an opportunity to restructure” the Democrats’ vision for the world. That’s setting off tons of red flags, especially in terms of bipartisanship. This is the opposite of bipartisanship. Does this sound like Pelosi is interested in creating bipartisanship?

After reading this article, it’s safe to say that House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is fired up about what he calls an “all-American Marshall Plan for Main Street”, aka the “Paycheck Protection Program.” Before getting into the program, Leader McCarthy talked about his background:

Before entering politics, I opened a small deli in my hometown of Bakersfield, California. Two lessons always stuck with me: 1) You’re the first to work, last to leave, and last to get paid, and 2) your employees are your greatest resource. I know from personal experience that small businesses create meaningful opportunities for entrepreneurs, satisfying work for employees, and personalized service for local communities. But I also know how difficult it is to run a small business, even in the best of times.

Leader McCarthy wasn’t a high-powered small businessman but he walked tons of miles in a small businessman’s shoes so he knows what it’s like.

Republican leaders worked with a handful of good-faith Senate Democrats (remember that House Democrats were on vacation that week) to put this package together. When Pelosi returned from vacation, she tried pushing her ideological wish list into the Paycheck Protection Program. Apparently, her highest priority wasn’t getting small businesses health. It was in lighting up a legislative Christmas tree with things like the Green New Deal, taking the voting system away from states and telling corporations who could be on their boards. That’s just a handful of Pelosi’s wish list.

With this program, businesses with fewer than 500 employees (including startups, sole proprietors, and the self-employed) will receive 100% federally guaranteed loans for eight weeks. If the loan is used to pay employees, rent, or utilities, or rehire employees who were laid off due to the virus, it is forgiven.

Loans will be available as early as Friday, thanks to the Trump administration’s quick actions. They will run from February 15 to June 30. Small businesses won’t need to navigate government bureaucracy to access these historic loans. Instead, they can work with any lender backed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Similarly, farmers can work with their trusted farm credit institutions to secure loans.

This is what a man who is committed to America looks like:

This is what a career politician looks like:

The man fighting for Main Street wants the U.S. to succeed. The career politician simply wants more political power. That’s the choice this November: Main Street winning vs. the Swamp winning. That isn’t a difficult decision for thoughtful Americans.

Matt Vespa’s article is the worst news Bernie Sanders has received in quite some time. Inside his article is this tidbit of information:

Nevada’s powerful Culinary Workers Union will not endorse in the presidential primary, while criticizing Bernie Sanders’ signature Medicare for All proposal, according to three sources with knowledge of the decision. In declining to pick a candidate, but sharply criticizing Sen. Bernie Sanders’ signature policy position, Medicare for All, the union created an opening for Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar, two moderate Democrats with little demonstrated support in the state.

That’s truly throwing Bernie under the bus. Taking direct aim at Bernie’s signature issue isn’t what he’d like to hear. The question is whether this issue will sink him in other states. This suggests it will:

In Pennsylvania, some top union leaders were also adamant that they would tell their people to stay home or vote for Trump should Sanders or Warren become the 2020 Democratic nominee. In the Keystone State, Sanders’ commitment to a universal ban on fracking, which will kill hundreds of thousands of jobs in the must-win state, is just a bridge too far.

LFR has frequently said that the Democrats’ opposition to fracking and fossil fuels is their Achilles heel. That’s the thing that puts Democrats in God’s little acre: just east of the rock, just west of the hard place. Some issues have multiple solutions. Energy is a binary choice. If you oppose fossil fuels, you’re the enemy. Period.

This is predictable. Bernie truly believes in Medicare-for-All. What he can’t do anything about is the fact that unions have often negotiated for Cadillac plans, which aren’t taxed, while settling for lower wages. Meanwhile, Bernie is on the wrong side of the fossil fuels issue. Dan Crenshaw and Kevin McCarthy are offering a better way forward:

Congressmen including House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, of California, and Dan Crenshaw, of Texas, are pitching the legislation as a common sense alternative to Democrats’ calls for limiting the use of fossil fuels. “There’s this false choice between doing nothing and over regulating,” Crenshaw said. “That would do nothing, because the United States is only 15 percent of emissions.”

International corporations like Exxon-Mobil and Chevron favor a carbon tax, likely because that’s a competition-killer. That doesn’t do anything to fix what’s wrong. Expect union rank-and-file to agree with Republicans on this issue.

For the past week+, the MSM has talked about how Sen. Schumer plans on making Cory Gardner, Martha McSally and Susan Collins make difficult votes about calling witnesses. This isn’t worthy of serious consideration. This is a tempest in a teapot. It’s difficult to picture that the issue is that important to most voters. If voters don’t care about the issue, it’s difficult to picture them voting for or against someone that votes for or against witnesses.

What’s important is that these senators can highlight the fact that they’ve voted for President Trump’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act tax cuts (that have put hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars into the average voter’s wallet.) Let’s do a brief thought experiment on this. Picture a voter making a decision on who to vote for. Will most people say ‘I just can’t vote for Sen. Gardner. He voted against calling witnesses’? Or will most people say ‘I’m voting for Sen. Collins because she voted to cut my taxes”?

If Republicans polled that pair of questions, there’s little doubt that the tax cut vote isn’t the most important of the 2 votes. Further, that’s before asking if, for instance, voters wouldn’t vote for Sen. Collins for fighting to lower prescription drug prices or Sen. McSally voting for additional funding for President Trump’s wall with Mexico.

Six months from now, if not sooner, impeachment will be a net negative for battleground state Democrats. Six months from now, lowering prescription drug prices, cutting taxes and building the wall will still be popular.

Voting for or against witnesses isn’t that difficult of a decision. That’s because it isn’t that important with most voters.

After House Democrats make their evidence-free, allegation-filled presentation, impeachment conviction will be on life support. After President Trump’s legal team finishes highlighting the holes in the House Democrats’ case, the American people will know that the Democrats’ impeachment investigation was a waste of time. The Trump legal team’s opening filing indicates the fact that they’re utilizing a take-no-prisoners approach to defending President Trump.

The first day or 2 will go relatively well for the Democrats. That’s because they’ll have the floor uncontested. After that, President Trump’s team will present their defense. It won’t take long for President Trump’s team to highlight the no-evidence nature of the Democrats’ case. Once that starts, Democrats will wish that they’d never impeached President Trump.

Kevin McCarthy’s closing statement highlights just how powerful the arguments from President Trump’s legal team will be:

By that time, anyone with common sense will know that President Trump did nothing worthy of impeachment.

Back when Yasser Arafat was still alive and leading the PLO (That’s what it was called back then), there was a cliché that said that the PLO “never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Apparently, Democrats must’ve inherited that trait.

What’s happening is that Adam Schiff is going too far:

House Republicans are demanding an “equal playing field” in the Democrat-led impeachment probe against President Trump after Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said ahead of Thursday’s scheduled testimony from former U.S. envoy for Ukraine Kurt Volker that GOP members of the Foreign Affairs Committee will not be permitted to ask questions or have equal representation during the session.

Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Mike McCaul tweeted this:


Then McCaul cited specific House Rules:

In the letter addressed to Chairman Eliot L. Engel, D-N.Y., McCaul further argued that despite statements made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and other Democrats, “there is not a ‘House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry” because the entire House has not voted on the matter.

Citing House Rules X and XI, McCaul said that until Congress members from both parties vote to create a special impeachment task force to carry out proceedings, “Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff lacks the jurisdiction to investigate the Department of State’s conduct of United States foreign policy toward Ukraine. That prerogative belongs to our Members.”

“Official impeachment inquiries are initiated by the adoption of a House resolution empowering or creating a committee or task force to undertake such activities,” McCaul continued. “In both the Nixon and Clinton cases, the Judiciary Committee debated and reported a resolution authorizing the Judiciary Committee to investigate whether there were sufficient grounds to impeach the President, which was then debated and voted on by the full House of Representatives. There have been no such debates or votes in this Congress.”

If Democrats want to run roughshod on Republicans, there might be a short-term gain (That’s no guarantee, BTW) but there will be a long-term loss. (That’s a guarantee.) People might or might not have an opinion on impeachment itself but I’m betting the ranch that they have a strong opinion on basic fairness. This doesn’t come close in terms of fairness. Don’t think that swing-district Democrats won’t pay a hefty price for Shiffty Schiff’s heavy-handed tactics.

If Democrats want to hand Chairman gavels back to Republicans, they’re following the right playbook. Between this ham-handedness and the Democrats’ all-impeachment-all-the-time agenda and nonexistent list of accomplishments, I don’t know how Pelosi’s Democrats avoid a big red wave. Expect Republicans to raise procedural complaints whenever Democrats attempt to thwart the minority party’s rights according to the rules.

It isn’t a secret that Democrats want to shove this impeachment through the House in rocket-docket fashion. Rest assured that House GOP leadership and President Trump to criticize Democrats mightily whenever Democrats try running roughshod on Republicans.

When Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy got together to write this op-ed that the WSJ published, they definitely tag-teamed Nancy Pelosi. Their opening paragraph definitely was the tempo-setter for the article:

President Trump and the leaders of Canada and Mexico announced the most significant trade deal in a generation a year ago this week. The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement is unambiguously a win for America. It would create new jobs, expand export markets, strengthen protections for workers, and generate billions of dollars in new prosperity. The USMCA would also help keep North American partners close while the U.S. hangs tough with China.

It wasn’t until the third paragraph that McConnell-McCarthy brought out the sharp elbows:

Under pressure from progressives to deny the country any successes during the Trump administration, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tried to run out the clock on the USMCA. Leading House Democrats frequently claim to support the deal in the abstract but have spent months finding one excuse after another to delay passing it.

After that, their elbows get significantly sharper:

The administration has worked tirelessly to address these shifting objections. It’s time for Mrs. Pelosi’s delay tactics to end. House Democrats need to put the country first and stop blocking this significant victory for the American people. The USMCA isn’t some political football. It’s a critical piece of economic policy. Its enactment or failure will have life-changing consequences for workers. Twelve million American jobs rely on trade with our northern and southern neighbors, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Mexico and Canada together represent a $500 billion export market for the U.S. They buy one-third of the goods America exports, plus tens of billions of dollars more in services.

Pelosi knows that she cant hold her majority if they don’t have any accomplishments. If she can’t put together the votes to ratify, then voters will know what today’s Democrats emphasize economically, which is socialism.

Frankly, the Resist Movement hasn’t helped Democrats going into this presidential election cycle. Resist has pushed for impeachment and hating Trump. That’s led to nothing in terms of accomplishments. When Republicans face the voters, they’ll rattle off an impressive list of accomplishments. When Democrats face the voters, they’ll be able to say ‘We impeached President Trump.

If anyone thinks that Democrats stand a fighting chance of winning swing districts, they’re kidding themselves.