Despite groveling coverage of Vice President Kamala Harris by the liberal press, she still needs to solve an intricate puzzle: how to distance herself from President Joe Biden’s failed and unpopular economic record, all of which she supported, while at the same time not actually changing any underlying policy.

So far, she has stalled for time and still has not given a substantive interview or press conference since she helped push Biden out of the race. Even the most supplicant press corps in a generation is getting impatient with Harris’s refusal to answer even the most basic questions about public policy. 

Enter Harris’s major speech on economic issues this Friday in North Carolina, where she will reportedly combat the Biden-Harris weakness on inflation by blaming “corporate greed” and promising to direct the Federal Trade Commission to set new price controls on “food and groceries” to fight “excessive corporate profits.”

The details of how Harris will set food prices and determine which corporate profits are “excessive” and which are not, are, according to the most friendly press outlets, “not immediately clear” and “light on detail.”

Don’t expect any more clarity in Harris’s Friday speech.

Blaming corporate greed for inflation is as old as the hills, but unlike those hills, it is not based on solid ground. Biden has been trying the same argument for years now. His most recent State of the Union speech focussed on corporate “price gouging” and “shrinkflation.” With Biden as the salesman, most voters weren’t buying. But with Harris at the top of the ticket, Democrats hope voters will take a second look.

Democrats have plenty of polling to show voters may buy the story. The left-wing think tank Data for Progress, founded by Sean McElwee of Abolish ICE fame, has been pushing polling data showing that 75% of voters support “the federal government fining companies that raise prices past the rate of inflation.” Blueprint, a polling firm created for the sole purpose of helping Democrats win in 2024, shows that while voters believe government spending is the top contributor to high inflation, “corporate greed” came in second.

If you talk to any economist, even Democratic ones, they will tell you this is all ignorant nonsense. It’s not as though corporations can raise prices willy-nilly in a competitive market without losing sales, nor did corporations suddenly get greedy after Donald Trump left office. And as bad as the “corporate greed” diagnosis is, Harris’s price control solution is even worse. Price controls lead to lower production and even higher prices on the black market.

In all likelihood, Harris will never implement the price controls she is threatening now. It is a purely political talking point that polls well and can be cast aside as soon as the election is over. Like Harris, it is almost entirely fake.

But just as Biden has abused the Department of Education to create illegal student loan amnesties, Harris could abuse the FTC to implement price controls.

We have seen a similar farce play out in California. Democratic policies have been jacking up the price of gas in the Golden State for years. Instead of admitting their own policies are causing the high prices, California Democrats have instituted policies to punish oil companies for gouging. The end result is fewer oil companies active in the state and even higher prices.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

It is the same playbook we’ve seen in socialist countries across Latin America: Flood the economy with spending, trigger inflation, and then promise to crack down on “corporate greed.” The next stop is government ownership of oil production, which is something California Democrats are actually considering. 

The reality is there is no difference between Harris and Biden on economic issues. If anything, Harris would have spent even more money than Biden. She is a fraud. But to the extent that she is different, she is more authoritarian and left-wing than he is. Which is saying something! Something not good.

2024-08-16 04:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3123159%2Fthe-dangerous-kamala-harris-price-control-farce%2F?w=600&h=450, Despite groveling coverage of Vice President Kamala Harris by the liberal press, she still needs to solve an intricate puzzle: how to distance herself from President Joe Biden’s failed and unpopular economic record, all of which she supported, while at the same time not actually changing any underlying policy. So far, she has stalled for,

Despite groveling coverage of Vice President Kamala Harris by the liberal press, she still needs to solve an intricate puzzle: how to distance herself from President Joe Biden’s failed and unpopular economic record, all of which she supported, while at the same time not actually changing any underlying policy.

So far, she has stalled for time and still has not given a substantive interview or press conference since she helped push Biden out of the race. Even the most supplicant press corps in a generation is getting impatient with Harris’s refusal to answer even the most basic questions about public policy. 

Enter Harris’s major speech on economic issues this Friday in North Carolina, where she will reportedly combat the Biden-Harris weakness on inflation by blaming “corporate greed” and promising to direct the Federal Trade Commission to set new price controls on “food and groceries” to fight “excessive corporate profits.”

The details of how Harris will set food prices and determine which corporate profits are “excessive” and which are not, are, according to the most friendly press outlets, “not immediately clear” and “light on detail.”

Don’t expect any more clarity in Harris’s Friday speech.

Blaming corporate greed for inflation is as old as the hills, but unlike those hills, it is not based on solid ground. Biden has been trying the same argument for years now. His most recent State of the Union speech focussed on corporate “price gouging” and “shrinkflation.” With Biden as the salesman, most voters weren’t buying. But with Harris at the top of the ticket, Democrats hope voters will take a second look.

Democrats have plenty of polling to show voters may buy the story. The left-wing think tank Data for Progress, founded by Sean McElwee of Abolish ICE fame, has been pushing polling data showing that 75% of voters support “the federal government fining companies that raise prices past the rate of inflation.” Blueprint, a polling firm created for the sole purpose of helping Democrats win in 2024, shows that while voters believe government spending is the top contributor to high inflation, “corporate greed” came in second.

If you talk to any economist, even Democratic ones, they will tell you this is all ignorant nonsense. It’s not as though corporations can raise prices willy-nilly in a competitive market without losing sales, nor did corporations suddenly get greedy after Donald Trump left office. And as bad as the “corporate greed” diagnosis is, Harris’s price control solution is even worse. Price controls lead to lower production and even higher prices on the black market.

In all likelihood, Harris will never implement the price controls she is threatening now. It is a purely political talking point that polls well and can be cast aside as soon as the election is over. Like Harris, it is almost entirely fake.

But just as Biden has abused the Department of Education to create illegal student loan amnesties, Harris could abuse the FTC to implement price controls.

We have seen a similar farce play out in California. Democratic policies have been jacking up the price of gas in the Golden State for years. Instead of admitting their own policies are causing the high prices, California Democrats have instituted policies to punish oil companies for gouging. The end result is fewer oil companies active in the state and even higher prices.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

It is the same playbook we’ve seen in socialist countries across Latin America: Flood the economy with spending, trigger inflation, and then promise to crack down on “corporate greed.” The next stop is government ownership of oil production, which is something California Democrats are actually considering. 

The reality is there is no difference between Harris and Biden on economic issues. If anything, Harris would have spent even more money than Biden. She is a fraud. But to the extent that she is different, she is more authoritarian and left-wing than he is. Which is saying something! Something not good.

, Despite groveling coverage of Vice President Kamala Harris by the liberal press, she still needs to solve an intricate puzzle: how to distance herself from President Joe Biden’s failed and unpopular economic record, all of which she supported, while at the same time not actually changing any underlying policy. So far, she has stalled for time and still has not given a substantive interview or press conference since she helped push Biden out of the race. Even the most supplicant press corps in a generation is getting impatient with Harris’s refusal to answer even the most basic questions about public policy.  Enter Harris’s major speech on economic issues this Friday in North Carolina, where she will reportedly combat the Biden-Harris weakness on inflation by blaming “corporate greed” and promising to direct the Federal Trade Commission to set new price controls on “food and groceries” to fight “excessive corporate profits.” The details of how Harris will set food prices and determine which corporate profits are “excessive” and which are not, are, according to the most friendly press outlets, “not immediately clear” and “light on detail.” Don’t expect any more clarity in Harris’s Friday speech. Blaming corporate greed for inflation is as old as the hills, but unlike those hills, it is not based on solid ground. Biden has been trying the same argument for years now. His most recent State of the Union speech focussed on corporate “price gouging” and “shrinkflation.” With Biden as the salesman, most voters weren’t buying. But with Harris at the top of the ticket, Democrats hope voters will take a second look. Democrats have plenty of polling to show voters may buy the story. The left-wing think tank Data for Progress, founded by Sean McElwee of Abolish ICE fame, has been pushing polling data showing that 75% of voters support “the federal government fining companies that raise prices past the rate of inflation.” Blueprint, a polling firm created for the sole purpose of helping Democrats win in 2024, shows that while voters believe government spending is the top contributor to high inflation, “corporate greed” came in second. If you talk to any economist, even Democratic ones, they will tell you this is all ignorant nonsense. It’s not as though corporations can raise prices willy-nilly in a competitive market without losing sales, nor did corporations suddenly get greedy after Donald Trump left office. And as bad as the “corporate greed” diagnosis is, Harris’s price control solution is even worse. Price controls lead to lower production and even higher prices on the black market. In all likelihood, Harris will never implement the price controls she is threatening now. It is a purely political talking point that polls well and can be cast aside as soon as the election is over. Like Harris, it is almost entirely fake. But just as Biden has abused the Department of Education to create illegal student loan amnesties, Harris could abuse the FTC to implement price controls. We have seen a similar farce play out in California. Democratic policies have been jacking up the price of gas in the Golden State for years. Instead of admitting their own policies are causing the high prices, California Democrats have instituted policies to punish oil companies for gouging. The end result is fewer oil companies active in the state and even higher prices. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER   It is the same playbook we’ve seen in socialist countries across Latin America: Flood the economy with spending, trigger inflation, and then promise to crack down on “corporate greed.” The next stop is government ownership of oil production, which is something California Democrats are actually considering.  The reality is there is no difference between Harris and Biden on economic issues. If anything, Harris would have spent even more money than Biden. She is a fraud. But to the extent that she is different, she is more authoritarian and left-wing than he is. Which is saying something! Something not good., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/harris-price-controls-1.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Washington Examiner,

Taxpayers have every right to expect that when they pay unionized teachers, firefighters, and social workers a full salary with benefits, those public sector workers will then teach, fight fires, and provide social services. But thanks to a practice known as “release time,” unionized government workers fail to deliver.

Instead of working to serve the public, thousands of unionized employees work for their union on the taxpayers’ dime, recruiting new union members, lobbying the government that employs them, and working to elect Democratic politicians.

Some “release time” employees are paid by the taxpayers to work for a union full time, meaning even if they are on the payroll as public school teachers, they spend not a second in the classroom teaching children.

Why do local governments agree to pay staff a full-time salary to work for a union to extract as much money as possible from the local government while fighting to make sure union members work as little as possible? It’s because clauses are written into the collective bargaining contracts unions sign with local governments. The practice has become more widespread since the Supreme Court’s 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision.

The court held that it was a violation of a government union employee’s First Amendment rights for a government union to force a government union employee to pay union dues to a union. Given the choice of contributing to government unions or not, many union employees chose not to, making union officials a lot poorer. 

Government unions then came up with “release time” to get around Janus. Instead of using government union monopoly power to force government employees to fund union activities, unions would force taxpayers to pay union officials’ salaries directly. It is not clear how widespread “release time” is, but a Goldwater Institute study documented at least 400,000 hours of annual “release time” in government union contracts from 44 jurisdictions.

One of the worst offenders was Phoenix, which allowed 67,511 hours of paid union release a year at a cost to taxpayers of $3.7 million. This included four full-time employees paid to work exclusively for a union.

The Goldwater Institute sued Phoenix on behalf of taxpayers, and last month, the Arizona Supreme Court sided against the unions, holding that “release time” violates the Arizona Constitution’s “gift clause,” which forbids giving public resources to private entities.

Most states have similar “gift clauses” in their constitutions, and taxpayer suits against “release time” are underway in New Jersey and Texas. Even if a state does not have a gift clause, “release time” can be fought legislatively by banning the inclusion of such provisions from government union contracts.

Ideally, government unions would not exist at all. That was the opinion of no less an advocate of labor than President Franklin Roosevelt, who said in 1937, “All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

“The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with government employee organizations,” he continued.

Someday, we may be able to heed Roosevelt and get rid of government unions. Till then, ending “release time” is a step in the right direction.

2024-08-15 04:01:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3119974%2Fgovernment-unions-lose-big-arizona%2F?w=600&h=450, Taxpayers have every right to expect that when they pay unionized teachers, firefighters, and social workers a full salary with benefits, those public sector workers will then teach, fight fires, and provide social services. But thanks to a practice known as “release time,” unionized government workers fail to deliver. Instead of working to serve the,

Taxpayers have every right to expect that when they pay unionized teachers, firefighters, and social workers a full salary with benefits, those public sector workers will then teach, fight fires, and provide social services. But thanks to a practice known as “release time,” unionized government workers fail to deliver.

Instead of working to serve the public, thousands of unionized employees work for their union on the taxpayers’ dime, recruiting new union members, lobbying the government that employs them, and working to elect Democratic politicians.

Some “release time” employees are paid by the taxpayers to work for a union full time, meaning even if they are on the payroll as public school teachers, they spend not a second in the classroom teaching children.

Why do local governments agree to pay staff a full-time salary to work for a union to extract as much money as possible from the local government while fighting to make sure union members work as little as possible? It’s because clauses are written into the collective bargaining contracts unions sign with local governments. The practice has become more widespread since the Supreme Court’s 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision.

The court held that it was a violation of a government union employee’s First Amendment rights for a government union to force a government union employee to pay union dues to a union. Given the choice of contributing to government unions or not, many union employees chose not to, making union officials a lot poorer. 

Government unions then came up with “release time” to get around Janus. Instead of using government union monopoly power to force government employees to fund union activities, unions would force taxpayers to pay union officials’ salaries directly. It is not clear how widespread “release time” is, but a Goldwater Institute study documented at least 400,000 hours of annual “release time” in government union contracts from 44 jurisdictions.

One of the worst offenders was Phoenix, which allowed 67,511 hours of paid union release a year at a cost to taxpayers of $3.7 million. This included four full-time employees paid to work exclusively for a union.

The Goldwater Institute sued Phoenix on behalf of taxpayers, and last month, the Arizona Supreme Court sided against the unions, holding that “release time” violates the Arizona Constitution’s “gift clause,” which forbids giving public resources to private entities.

Most states have similar “gift clauses” in their constitutions, and taxpayer suits against “release time” are underway in New Jersey and Texas. Even if a state does not have a gift clause, “release time” can be fought legislatively by banning the inclusion of such provisions from government union contracts.

Ideally, government unions would not exist at all. That was the opinion of no less an advocate of labor than President Franklin Roosevelt, who said in 1937, “All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

“The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with government employee organizations,” he continued.

Someday, we may be able to heed Roosevelt and get rid of government unions. Till then, ending “release time” is a step in the right direction.

, Taxpayers have every right to expect that when they pay unionized teachers, firefighters, and social workers a full salary with benefits, those public sector workers will then teach, fight fires, and provide social services. But thanks to a practice known as “release time,” unionized government workers fail to deliver. Instead of working to serve the public, thousands of unionized employees work for their union on the taxpayers’ dime, recruiting new union members, lobbying the government that employs them, and working to elect Democratic politicians. Some “release time” employees are paid by the taxpayers to work for a union full time, meaning even if they are on the payroll as public school teachers, they spend not a second in the classroom teaching children. Why do local governments agree to pay staff a full-time salary to work for a union to extract as much money as possible from the local government while fighting to make sure union members work as little as possible? It’s because clauses are written into the collective bargaining contracts unions sign with local governments. The practice has become more widespread since the Supreme Court’s 2018 Janus v. AFSCME decision. The court held that it was a violation of a government union employee’s First Amendment rights for a government union to force a government union employee to pay union dues to a union. Given the choice of contributing to government unions or not, many union employees chose not to, making union officials a lot poorer.  Government unions then came up with “release time” to get around Janus. Instead of using government union monopoly power to force government employees to fund union activities, unions would force taxpayers to pay union officials’ salaries directly. It is not clear how widespread “release time” is, but a Goldwater Institute study documented at least 400,000 hours of annual “release time” in government union contracts from 44 jurisdictions. One of the worst offenders was Phoenix, which allowed 67,511 hours of paid union release a year at a cost to taxpayers of $3.7 million. This included four full-time employees paid to work exclusively for a union. The Goldwater Institute sued Phoenix on behalf of taxpayers, and last month, the Arizona Supreme Court sided against the unions, holding that “release time” violates the Arizona Constitution’s “gift clause,” which forbids giving public resources to private entities. Most states have similar “gift clauses” in their constitutions, and taxpayer suits against “release time” are underway in New Jersey and Texas. Even if a state does not have a gift clause, “release time” can be fought legislatively by banning the inclusion of such provisions from government union contracts. Ideally, government unions would not exist at all. That was the opinion of no less an advocate of labor than President Franklin Roosevelt, who said in 1937, “All government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.” CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER   “The very nature and purposes of government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with government employee organizations,” he continued. Someday, we may be able to heed Roosevelt and get rid of government unions. Till then, ending “release time” is a step in the right direction., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/az-state-capitol-1024×598.jpg, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Washington Examiner,

Whatever problems Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) had when announced as former President Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick a month ago, he is now hitting his stride and put in three masterful performances last weekend on the Sunday talk shows of ABC, CBS, and CNN. 

He cogently pinned the blame for inflation and the border crisis where it belongs, which is on the disastrous policies of the Biden-Harris administration, while effectively questioning the character of Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN).

The highlight of Vance’s performance was when he made the positive case for a pro-family Trump-Vance agenda. “What President Trump and I want to do on family policy is make it easier for families to start in the first place,” Vance told CBS’s Margaret Brennan. “We want to bring down housing costs so that if you have a baby, there’s actually a place to raise that baby. We want to increase and expand the child tax credit. … We want to provide more options so that people are raising families in a thriving and happy way in this country.”

Vance successfully contrasted this pro-family set of policies with Vice President Kamala Harris’s “anti-family” ideas. “She has said things like it’s reasonable not to have children over climate change,” Vance told CNN’s Dana Bash. “I think that’s the exact opposite message we should be sending to our young families.”

The Democratic Party’s obsession with raising the cost of energy, as it has successfully done in Harris’s California and Walz’s Minnesota, is anti-family. More importantly, so is the version of an expanded child tax credit pushed by the Biden-Harris administration. 

“President Trump has been on the record for a long time supporting a bigger child tax credit, and I think you want it to apply to all American families,” Vance told Brennan. “I don’t think that you want this massive cutoff for lower-income families, which you have right now. You don’t want a different policy for higher-income families. You just want to have a pro-family child tax credit.”

Extending the child tax credit to all families, not just targeting low-income families as Democrats want, is important for more than fairness. It is also pro-child. The way Democrats designed their child tax credit increases existing marriage penalties in the tax code. The way Harris wants to expand the child tax credit is anti-child because it makes it more likely more children will grow up without a married father at home.

Although Democrats like Harris are loath to admit it, mountains of research conclusively prove that children do better when raised in a married household compared to when they are raised without a father in the home. This is especially true of boys. Children from married households are more likely to graduate from college, more likely to be employed, and less likely to be in jail than those raised by one parent. If making it more difficult for parents to get and stay married isn’t anti-family, what is?

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

For decades, the Democratic Party’s idea of family policy was to cut low-income families a check, as if money could make up for a father’s absence. The result has been record-low marriage rates and growing income inequality. 

Vance is articulating a new direction that recognizes that if young men and women aren’t starting new families together, something is fundamentally wrong with the system as a whole. An expanded child tax credit won’t solve all our problems, but it would be a step in the right direction.

2024-08-14 04:01:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3120156%2Fyes-kamala-harris-is-anti-family%2F?w=600&h=450, Whatever problems Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) had when announced as former President Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick a month ago, he is now hitting his stride and put in three masterful performances last weekend on the Sunday talk shows of ABC, CBS, and CNN.  He cogently pinned the blame for inflation and the border crisis,

Whatever problems Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) had when announced as former President Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick a month ago, he is now hitting his stride and put in three masterful performances last weekend on the Sunday talk shows of ABC, CBS, and CNN. 

He cogently pinned the blame for inflation and the border crisis where it belongs, which is on the disastrous policies of the Biden-Harris administration, while effectively questioning the character of Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN).

The highlight of Vance’s performance was when he made the positive case for a pro-family Trump-Vance agenda. “What President Trump and I want to do on family policy is make it easier for families to start in the first place,” Vance told CBS’s Margaret Brennan. “We want to bring down housing costs so that if you have a baby, there’s actually a place to raise that baby. We want to increase and expand the child tax credit. … We want to provide more options so that people are raising families in a thriving and happy way in this country.”

Vance successfully contrasted this pro-family set of policies with Vice President Kamala Harris’s “anti-family” ideas. “She has said things like it’s reasonable not to have children over climate change,” Vance told CNN’s Dana Bash. “I think that’s the exact opposite message we should be sending to our young families.”

The Democratic Party’s obsession with raising the cost of energy, as it has successfully done in Harris’s California and Walz’s Minnesota, is anti-family. More importantly, so is the version of an expanded child tax credit pushed by the Biden-Harris administration. 

“President Trump has been on the record for a long time supporting a bigger child tax credit, and I think you want it to apply to all American families,” Vance told Brennan. “I don’t think that you want this massive cutoff for lower-income families, which you have right now. You don’t want a different policy for higher-income families. You just want to have a pro-family child tax credit.”

Extending the child tax credit to all families, not just targeting low-income families as Democrats want, is important for more than fairness. It is also pro-child. The way Democrats designed their child tax credit increases existing marriage penalties in the tax code. The way Harris wants to expand the child tax credit is anti-child because it makes it more likely more children will grow up without a married father at home.

Although Democrats like Harris are loath to admit it, mountains of research conclusively prove that children do better when raised in a married household compared to when they are raised without a father in the home. This is especially true of boys. Children from married households are more likely to graduate from college, more likely to be employed, and less likely to be in jail than those raised by one parent. If making it more difficult for parents to get and stay married isn’t anti-family, what is?

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

For decades, the Democratic Party’s idea of family policy was to cut low-income families a check, as if money could make up for a father’s absence. The result has been record-low marriage rates and growing income inequality. 

Vance is articulating a new direction that recognizes that if young men and women aren’t starting new families together, something is fundamentally wrong with the system as a whole. An expanded child tax credit won’t solve all our problems, but it would be a step in the right direction.

, Whatever problems Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) had when announced as former President Donald Trump’s vice presidential pick a month ago, he is now hitting his stride and put in three masterful performances last weekend on the Sunday talk shows of ABC, CBS, and CNN.  He cogently pinned the blame for inflation and the border crisis where it belongs, which is on the disastrous policies of the Biden-Harris administration, while effectively questioning the character of Gov. Tim Walz (D-MN). The highlight of Vance’s performance was when he made the positive case for a pro-family Trump-Vance agenda. “What President Trump and I want to do on family policy is make it easier for families to start in the first place,” Vance told CBS’s Margaret Brennan. “We want to bring down housing costs so that if you have a baby, there’s actually a place to raise that baby. We want to increase and expand the child tax credit. … We want to provide more options so that people are raising families in a thriving and happy way in this country.” Vance successfully contrasted this pro-family set of policies with Vice President Kamala Harris’s “anti-family” ideas. “She has said things like it’s reasonable not to have children over climate change,” Vance told CNN’s Dana Bash. “I think that’s the exact opposite message we should be sending to our young families.” The Democratic Party’s obsession with raising the cost of energy, as it has successfully done in Harris’s California and Walz’s Minnesota, is anti-family. More importantly, so is the version of an expanded child tax credit pushed by the Biden-Harris administration.  “President Trump has been on the record for a long time supporting a bigger child tax credit, and I think you want it to apply to all American families,” Vance told Brennan. “I don’t think that you want this massive cutoff for lower-income families, which you have right now. You don’t want a different policy for higher-income families. You just want to have a pro-family child tax credit.” Extending the child tax credit to all families, not just targeting low-income families as Democrats want, is important for more than fairness. It is also pro-child. The way Democrats designed their child tax credit increases existing marriage penalties in the tax code. The way Harris wants to expand the child tax credit is anti-child because it makes it more likely more children will grow up without a married father at home. Although Democrats like Harris are loath to admit it, mountains of research conclusively prove that children do better when raised in a married household compared to when they are raised without a father in the home. This is especially true of boys. Children from married households are more likely to graduate from college, more likely to be employed, and less likely to be in jail than those raised by one parent. If making it more difficult for parents to get and stay married isn’t anti-family, what is? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER   For decades, the Democratic Party’s idea of family policy was to cut low-income families a check, as if money could make up for a father’s absence. The result has been record-low marriage rates and growing income inequality.  Vance is articulating a new direction that recognizes that if young men and women aren’t starting new families together, something is fundamentally wrong with the system as a whole. An expanded child tax credit won’t solve all our problems, but it would be a step in the right direction., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/jd-vance-kamala-harris.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Washington Examiner,

Pinning down Vice President Kamala Harris on any substantive policy matters has been impossible since she helped shove President Joe Biden out of the presidential race. She refuses to answer questions, and her staff is, at best, cryptic in what little information it releases.

For example, when asked if Harris still supports her 2019 position that illegally crossing the border be decriminalized, an unidentified campaign official told Axios, “Unauthorized border crossings are illegal.”

But this is just a statement of current law. It doesn’t tell us what Harris believes, if anything, about whether unauthorized border crossings should continue to be illegal or if she will prosecute migrants who break the law. We still don’t know where Harris stands on decriminalizing illegal immigration.

As much as Democrats may wish otherwise, Harris did not fall out of a coconut tree without a record. There are 20 years of factual evidence about how she deals with illegal immigrants, and voters should look at them. It will give an accurate and disturbing picture of Harris’s ideas on immigration.

She first won elected office in 2003 when she became San Francisco’s 27th District Attorney. San Francisco had been a sanctuary city for decades before then, and Harris continued a policy of not cooperating with federal immigration officials on crimes committed by illegal immigrants. 

In 2004, Harris’s first year on the job, Edwin Ramos, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, assaulted a pregnant woman, was convicted of attempted robbery, and served six months in prison before being released. At no point did Harris contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials about Ramos’s crime or his illegal status.

Four years later, Ramos was arrested again, this time because a passenger in Ramos’s car, who was a gang member like Ramos, tried to dispose of a gun connected to a double homicide. Harris failed to prosecute Ramos since it could not be proven that he knew his passenger had the gun. But she could have held Ramos in detention until ICE came to deport him. Instead, her office informed ICE about Ramos two hours after it had let him go. It does not seem a coincidence. Three months after Harris let Ramos walk free, he killed a father and two sons in a road rage incident. 

Harris’s experience helping illegal immigrants escape justice doesn’t end there. As attorney general, she took San Francisco’s once radical sanctuary policies statewide, issuing a bulletin to all California law enforcement agencies to clarify that “criminal justice policy should not be conflated with national immigration policy.”

She later went on to write the state’s brief in U.S. vs. Texas, in which she argued in favor of former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program. That policy was found to be illegal by the 5th Circuit, and the Supreme Court voted to leave that ruling in place.

Upon coming to the Senate, Harris made immigration her signature platform, pledging to be the “anti-Jeff Sessions” of the Senate. To that end, she sought to cut funding for Border Patrol detention centers at the border and defund ICE’s internal deportation efforts.

Harris is now running ads on television that claim she “will hire thousands more border agents” if elected. But if the policy those agents enforce is the swift processing of illegal migrants into the country, as seems to be what Harris will want, our nation’s border crisis will only get worse.

We do not need to hear another word from Harris about what her border policies would be as president. We know from her time as district attorney, attorney general, and senator what they would be. Her record shows she has no interest in protecting our nation’s sovereignty by enforcing immigration laws and every interest in letting illegal immigrants go free, including violent offenders.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

There is a reason Border Patrol agents tell the Washington Examiner, “We are screwed as a country if she becomes president. The border will never close.”

The agents are right. Biden has been a disaster for border security, and Harris would be worse.

2024-08-13 04:01:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3118647%2Fkamala-record-immigration%2F?w=600&h=450, Pinning down Vice President Kamala Harris on any substantive policy matters has been impossible since she helped shove President Joe Biden out of the presidential race. She refuses to answer questions, and her staff is, at best, cryptic in what little information it releases. For example, when asked if Harris still supports her 2019 position,

Pinning down Vice President Kamala Harris on any substantive policy matters has been impossible since she helped shove President Joe Biden out of the presidential race. She refuses to answer questions, and her staff is, at best, cryptic in what little information it releases.

For example, when asked if Harris still supports her 2019 position that illegally crossing the border be decriminalized, an unidentified campaign official told Axios, “Unauthorized border crossings are illegal.”

But this is just a statement of current law. It doesn’t tell us what Harris believes, if anything, about whether unauthorized border crossings should continue to be illegal or if she will prosecute migrants who break the law. We still don’t know where Harris stands on decriminalizing illegal immigration.

As much as Democrats may wish otherwise, Harris did not fall out of a coconut tree without a record. There are 20 years of factual evidence about how she deals with illegal immigrants, and voters should look at them. It will give an accurate and disturbing picture of Harris’s ideas on immigration.

She first won elected office in 2003 when she became San Francisco’s 27th District Attorney. San Francisco had been a sanctuary city for decades before then, and Harris continued a policy of not cooperating with federal immigration officials on crimes committed by illegal immigrants. 

In 2004, Harris’s first year on the job, Edwin Ramos, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, assaulted a pregnant woman, was convicted of attempted robbery, and served six months in prison before being released. At no point did Harris contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials about Ramos’s crime or his illegal status.

Four years later, Ramos was arrested again, this time because a passenger in Ramos’s car, who was a gang member like Ramos, tried to dispose of a gun connected to a double homicide. Harris failed to prosecute Ramos since it could not be proven that he knew his passenger had the gun. But she could have held Ramos in detention until ICE came to deport him. Instead, her office informed ICE about Ramos two hours after it had let him go. It does not seem a coincidence. Three months after Harris let Ramos walk free, he killed a father and two sons in a road rage incident. 

Harris’s experience helping illegal immigrants escape justice doesn’t end there. As attorney general, she took San Francisco’s once radical sanctuary policies statewide, issuing a bulletin to all California law enforcement agencies to clarify that “criminal justice policy should not be conflated with national immigration policy.”

She later went on to write the state’s brief in U.S. vs. Texas, in which she argued in favor of former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program. That policy was found to be illegal by the 5th Circuit, and the Supreme Court voted to leave that ruling in place.

Upon coming to the Senate, Harris made immigration her signature platform, pledging to be the “anti-Jeff Sessions” of the Senate. To that end, she sought to cut funding for Border Patrol detention centers at the border and defund ICE’s internal deportation efforts.

Harris is now running ads on television that claim she “will hire thousands more border agents” if elected. But if the policy those agents enforce is the swift processing of illegal migrants into the country, as seems to be what Harris will want, our nation’s border crisis will only get worse.

We do not need to hear another word from Harris about what her border policies would be as president. We know from her time as district attorney, attorney general, and senator what they would be. Her record shows she has no interest in protecting our nation’s sovereignty by enforcing immigration laws and every interest in letting illegal immigrants go free, including violent offenders.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER 

There is a reason Border Patrol agents tell the Washington Examiner, “We are screwed as a country if she becomes president. The border will never close.”

The agents are right. Biden has been a disaster for border security, and Harris would be worse.

, Pinning down Vice President Kamala Harris on any substantive policy matters has been impossible since she helped shove President Joe Biden out of the presidential race. She refuses to answer questions, and her staff is, at best, cryptic in what little information it releases. For example, when asked if Harris still supports her 2019 position that illegally crossing the border be decriminalized, an unidentified campaign official told Axios, “Unauthorized border crossings are illegal.” But this is just a statement of current law. It doesn’t tell us what Harris believes, if anything, about whether unauthorized border crossings should continue to be illegal or if she will prosecute migrants who break the law. We still don’t know where Harris stands on decriminalizing illegal immigration. As much as Democrats may wish otherwise, Harris did not fall out of a coconut tree without a record. There are 20 years of factual evidence about how she deals with illegal immigrants, and voters should look at them. It will give an accurate and disturbing picture of Harris’s ideas on immigration. She first won elected office in 2003 when she became San Francisco’s 27th District Attorney. San Francisco had been a sanctuary city for decades before then, and Harris continued a policy of not cooperating with federal immigration officials on crimes committed by illegal immigrants.  In 2004, Harris’s first year on the job, Edwin Ramos, an illegal immigrant from El Salvador, assaulted a pregnant woman, was convicted of attempted robbery, and served six months in prison before being released. At no point did Harris contact Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials about Ramos’s crime or his illegal status. Four years later, Ramos was arrested again, this time because a passenger in Ramos’s car, who was a gang member like Ramos, tried to dispose of a gun connected to a double homicide. Harris failed to prosecute Ramos since it could not be proven that he knew his passenger had the gun. But she could have held Ramos in detention until ICE came to deport him. Instead, her office informed ICE about Ramos two hours after it had let him go. It does not seem a coincidence. Three months after Harris let Ramos walk free, he killed a father and two sons in a road rage incident.  Harris’s experience helping illegal immigrants escape justice doesn’t end there. As attorney general, she took San Francisco’s once radical sanctuary policies statewide, issuing a bulletin to all California law enforcement agencies to clarify that “criminal justice policy should not be conflated with national immigration policy.” She later went on to write the state’s brief in U.S. vs. Texas, in which she argued in favor of former President Barack Obama’s Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program. That policy was found to be illegal by the 5th Circuit, and the Supreme Court voted to leave that ruling in place. Upon coming to the Senate, Harris made immigration her signature platform, pledging to be the “anti-Jeff Sessions” of the Senate. To that end, she sought to cut funding for Border Patrol detention centers at the border and defund ICE’s internal deportation efforts. Harris is now running ads on television that claim she “will hire thousands more border agents” if elected. But if the policy those agents enforce is the swift processing of illegal migrants into the country, as seems to be what Harris will want, our nation’s border crisis will only get worse. We do not need to hear another word from Harris about what her border policies would be as president. We know from her time as district attorney, attorney general, and senator what they would be. Her record shows she has no interest in protecting our nation’s sovereignty by enforcing immigration laws and every interest in letting illegal immigrants go free, including violent offenders. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER   There is a reason Border Patrol agents tell the Washington Examiner, “We are screwed as a country if she becomes president. The border will never close.” The agents are right. Biden has been a disaster for border security, and Harris would be worse., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/Immigration_Border_Crisis_Harris_27.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Washington Examiner,

Voters in Minneapolis have a chance in Tuesday’s primary to defeat Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) bid for renomination, thus extending a growing voter backlash against the most radically leftist Democrats in Congress.

The Minnesota voters would be following the lead of Missouri Democrats who voted to evict Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) on Aug. 6, as well as New York Democrats who chose to oust Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) in June. Like Bush and Bowman, Omar has built a record that can fairly be described as hateful and antisemitic.

Omar has repeatedly tweeted vile tropes about Jews supposedly buying influence, has referred to Jewish students as being “pro-genocide,” and has essentially equated “the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban” as all being in the same category of proneness to commit “unthinkable atrocities.” She associates with and helps raise funds for antisemitic groups, some with close financial ties with terrorism, and then has her aides lie about it. And those are just a few examples.

On other matters, Omar has voted against funding for U.S. defense and homeland security, against denouncing the murderous horrors of socialism, against denouncing violence committed against police, and even against a measure to develop a strategy to strengthen cooperation with Mexico. In all those cases, she voted against overwhelming, bipartisan majorities.

Key groups representing manufacturers, builders and contractors, independent businesses, and even bakers have given her ratings of absolute zero, meaning she is radically against the nation’s key job creators. And on almost every issue imaginable, she rates not just as liberal but as an extremist.

By contrast, her chief opponent, Don Samuels, has years of experience on the city council and the board of education as an old-fashioned, consensus-building liberal who speaks eloquently against political divisiveness. He also is more pragmatic than Omar, as he opposed an effort in 2021, which she supported, to replace the Minneapolis Police Department completely with a fuzzy-headed “Department of Public Safety.” The city’s voters wisely defeated the proposal in a landslide.

Samuels came within a mere 2 percentage points of defeating Omar in the 2022 primary, and now he is back for another try. Despite Omar’s hateful record, every member of the Democratic leadership in the U.S. House has endorsed her, demonstrating their preference for raw power over basic decency. Minnesota voters, though, can prove by defeating Omar that they are independent of Washington’s cynical power brokers.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Then again, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) also endorsed the radical Bowman in New York and Bush in Missouri, yet voters there rejected Jeffries’s misguided interference. Last week’s 6-point loss by Bush brought out the same extremist spirit in her that is the trademark of both Omar and of the disgraced Bowman, with Bush going on a 19-minute rant threatening retribution and saying she is now “radicalized even more.”

Democratic voters can prove they are better than all this. If they defeat Omar, they will have achieved a rare trifecta of beating incumbents in primary elections in one year, in this case, sending a signal that mainstream liberalism is far more constructive than divisiveness and hate.

2024-08-12 04:01:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3116345%2Fdemocratic-voters-evict-antisemite-defeating-ilhan-omar%2F?w=600&h=450, Voters in Minneapolis have a chance in Tuesday’s primary to defeat Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) bid for renomination, thus extending a growing voter backlash against the most radically leftist Democrats in Congress. The Minnesota voters would be following the lead of Missouri Democrats who voted to evict Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) on Aug. 6, as,

Voters in Minneapolis have a chance in Tuesday’s primary to defeat Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) bid for renomination, thus extending a growing voter backlash against the most radically leftist Democrats in Congress.

The Minnesota voters would be following the lead of Missouri Democrats who voted to evict Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) on Aug. 6, as well as New York Democrats who chose to oust Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) in June. Like Bush and Bowman, Omar has built a record that can fairly be described as hateful and antisemitic.

Omar has repeatedly tweeted vile tropes about Jews supposedly buying influence, has referred to Jewish students as being “pro-genocide,” and has essentially equated “the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban” as all being in the same category of proneness to commit “unthinkable atrocities.” She associates with and helps raise funds for antisemitic groups, some with close financial ties with terrorism, and then has her aides lie about it. And those are just a few examples.

On other matters, Omar has voted against funding for U.S. defense and homeland security, against denouncing the murderous horrors of socialism, against denouncing violence committed against police, and even against a measure to develop a strategy to strengthen cooperation with Mexico. In all those cases, she voted against overwhelming, bipartisan majorities.

Key groups representing manufacturers, builders and contractors, independent businesses, and even bakers have given her ratings of absolute zero, meaning she is radically against the nation’s key job creators. And on almost every issue imaginable, she rates not just as liberal but as an extremist.

By contrast, her chief opponent, Don Samuels, has years of experience on the city council and the board of education as an old-fashioned, consensus-building liberal who speaks eloquently against political divisiveness. He also is more pragmatic than Omar, as he opposed an effort in 2021, which she supported, to replace the Minneapolis Police Department completely with a fuzzy-headed “Department of Public Safety.” The city’s voters wisely defeated the proposal in a landslide.

Samuels came within a mere 2 percentage points of defeating Omar in the 2022 primary, and now he is back for another try. Despite Omar’s hateful record, every member of the Democratic leadership in the U.S. House has endorsed her, demonstrating their preference for raw power over basic decency. Minnesota voters, though, can prove by defeating Omar that they are independent of Washington’s cynical power brokers.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Then again, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) also endorsed the radical Bowman in New York and Bush in Missouri, yet voters there rejected Jeffries’s misguided interference. Last week’s 6-point loss by Bush brought out the same extremist spirit in her that is the trademark of both Omar and of the disgraced Bowman, with Bush going on a 19-minute rant threatening retribution and saying she is now “radicalized even more.”

Democratic voters can prove they are better than all this. If they defeat Omar, they will have achieved a rare trifecta of beating incumbents in primary elections in one year, in this case, sending a signal that mainstream liberalism is far more constructive than divisiveness and hate.

, Voters in Minneapolis have a chance in Tuesday’s primary to defeat Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-MN) bid for renomination, thus extending a growing voter backlash against the most radically leftist Democrats in Congress. The Minnesota voters would be following the lead of Missouri Democrats who voted to evict Rep. Cori Bush (D-MO) on Aug. 6, as well as New York Democrats who chose to oust Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) in June. Like Bush and Bowman, Omar has built a record that can fairly be described as hateful and antisemitic. Omar has repeatedly tweeted vile tropes about Jews supposedly buying influence, has referred to Jewish students as being “pro-genocide,” and has essentially equated “the U.S., Hamas, Israel, Afghanistan, and the Taliban” as all being in the same category of proneness to commit “unthinkable atrocities.” She associates with and helps raise funds for antisemitic groups, some with close financial ties with terrorism, and then has her aides lie about it. And those are just a few examples. On other matters, Omar has voted against funding for U.S. defense and homeland security, against denouncing the murderous horrors of socialism, against denouncing violence committed against police, and even against a measure to develop a strategy to strengthen cooperation with Mexico. In all those cases, she voted against overwhelming, bipartisan majorities. Key groups representing manufacturers, builders and contractors, independent businesses, and even bakers have given her ratings of absolute zero, meaning she is radically against the nation’s key job creators. And on almost every issue imaginable, she rates not just as liberal but as an extremist. By contrast, her chief opponent, Don Samuels, has years of experience on the city council and the board of education as an old-fashioned, consensus-building liberal who speaks eloquently against political divisiveness. He also is more pragmatic than Omar, as he opposed an effort in 2021, which she supported, to replace the Minneapolis Police Department completely with a fuzzy-headed “Department of Public Safety.” The city’s voters wisely defeated the proposal in a landslide. Samuels came within a mere 2 percentage points of defeating Omar in the 2022 primary, and now he is back for another try. Despite Omar’s hateful record, every member of the Democratic leadership in the U.S. House has endorsed her, demonstrating their preference for raw power over basic decency. Minnesota voters, though, can prove by defeating Omar that they are independent of Washington’s cynical power brokers. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Then again, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) also endorsed the radical Bowman in New York and Bush in Missouri, yet voters there rejected Jeffries’s misguided interference. Last week’s 6-point loss by Bush brought out the same extremist spirit in her that is the trademark of both Omar and of the disgraced Bowman, with Bush going on a 19-minute rant threatening retribution and saying she is now “radicalized even more.” Democratic voters can prove they are better than all this. If they defeat Omar, they will have achieved a rare trifecta of beating incumbents in primary elections in one year, in this case, sending a signal that mainstream liberalism is far more constructive than divisiveness and hate., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/AP23293770834413-1.jpg.optimal.jpg, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Washington Examiner,

The Democratic Party is so desperate to beat former President Donald Trump this November that it is literally registering the insane to vote for Vice President Kamala Harris.

The Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute, a psychiatric hospital in Harrisburg that serves patients with addiction, depression, schizophrenia, and other disorders, is pushing its patients to register to vote as they check into the hospital before they have been treated or stabilized.

“Voting is an important part of the recovery process,” explains a press release obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The hospital’s website explains that voting is a “therapeutic tool” that “helps empower patients and makes them feel good.”

Since PPI is a mental health hospital and not a voter registration expert, it has turned to Vot-ER, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that develops “nonpartisan civic engagement tools” for “every corner of the healthcare system.”

Vot-ER is now in more than 500 hospitals and clinics nationwide, including in Arizona, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

According to its website, Vot-ER is part of a larger movement in the healthcare profession to “empower patients and providers to alleviate the underlying factors of health disparities.” 

“Together,” Vot-ER promises, “we’re tackling root causes of public health outcomes and fostering a healthier, more equitable society.”

But just how nonpartisan is this partnership between Vot-ER and the doctors who push voter registration on their patients? What if a patient disagrees with his or her doctor’s assessment of what the “root causes” of certain public health outcomes are? Can we really trust these doctors not to push their personal political beliefs, particularly on hot-button social matters, such as abortion, onto their patients? This is particularly disturbing in mental health settings such as the one at PPI. 

It doesn’t help that Vot-ER was founded by a doctor who served as a personal adviser to Harris or that it is funded by left-wing nonprofit groups that push diversity, equity, and inclusion beliefs into the healthcare system. 

As studies of past nonprofit voter registration drives have shown, these efforts are rarely done on a truly nonpartisan basis. When Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg funded supposedly nonpartisan voting registration drives in 2020, later analysis found he concentrated his efforts in “deeply Democratic urban areas.” The end result was a huge gain in Democratic Party registrations, a narrow President Joe Biden win in Wisconsin, and a huge loss in confidence in our electoral system.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Our nation’s healthcare system already has enough problems with trust. It does not need nakedly partisan organizations, such as Vot-ER, corrupting doctor-patient relationships, especially in mental health settings.

No matter who wins in November, Congress should ban the use of nonprofit dollars for voter registration. If the Democratic and Republican parties want to register voters, they should do so using campaign dollars. Nonprofit organizations should not be involved in voter registration, which is an inherently partisan activity.

2024-08-11 04:01:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3116678%2Fpolitics-no-place-doctors-office%2F?w=600&h=450, The Democratic Party is so desperate to beat former President Donald Trump this November that it is literally registering the insane to vote for Vice President Kamala Harris. The Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute, a psychiatric hospital in Harrisburg that serves patients with addiction, depression, schizophrenia, and other disorders, is pushing its patients to register to vote,

The Democratic Party is so desperate to beat former President Donald Trump this November that it is literally registering the insane to vote for Vice President Kamala Harris.

The Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute, a psychiatric hospital in Harrisburg that serves patients with addiction, depression, schizophrenia, and other disorders, is pushing its patients to register to vote as they check into the hospital before they have been treated or stabilized.

“Voting is an important part of the recovery process,” explains a press release obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

The hospital’s website explains that voting is a “therapeutic tool” that “helps empower patients and makes them feel good.”

Since PPI is a mental health hospital and not a voter registration expert, it has turned to Vot-ER, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that develops “nonpartisan civic engagement tools” for “every corner of the healthcare system.”

Vot-ER is now in more than 500 hospitals and clinics nationwide, including in Arizona, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.

According to its website, Vot-ER is part of a larger movement in the healthcare profession to “empower patients and providers to alleviate the underlying factors of health disparities.” 

“Together,” Vot-ER promises, “we’re tackling root causes of public health outcomes and fostering a healthier, more equitable society.”

But just how nonpartisan is this partnership between Vot-ER and the doctors who push voter registration on their patients? What if a patient disagrees with his or her doctor’s assessment of what the “root causes” of certain public health outcomes are? Can we really trust these doctors not to push their personal political beliefs, particularly on hot-button social matters, such as abortion, onto their patients? This is particularly disturbing in mental health settings such as the one at PPI. 

It doesn’t help that Vot-ER was founded by a doctor who served as a personal adviser to Harris or that it is funded by left-wing nonprofit groups that push diversity, equity, and inclusion beliefs into the healthcare system. 

As studies of past nonprofit voter registration drives have shown, these efforts are rarely done on a truly nonpartisan basis. When Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg funded supposedly nonpartisan voting registration drives in 2020, later analysis found he concentrated his efforts in “deeply Democratic urban areas.” The end result was a huge gain in Democratic Party registrations, a narrow President Joe Biden win in Wisconsin, and a huge loss in confidence in our electoral system.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Our nation’s healthcare system already has enough problems with trust. It does not need nakedly partisan organizations, such as Vot-ER, corrupting doctor-patient relationships, especially in mental health settings.

No matter who wins in November, Congress should ban the use of nonprofit dollars for voter registration. If the Democratic and Republican parties want to register voters, they should do so using campaign dollars. Nonprofit organizations should not be involved in voter registration, which is an inherently partisan activity.

, The Democratic Party is so desperate to beat former President Donald Trump this November that it is literally registering the insane to vote for Vice President Kamala Harris. The Pennsylvania Psychiatric Institute, a psychiatric hospital in Harrisburg that serves patients with addiction, depression, schizophrenia, and other disorders, is pushing its patients to register to vote as they check into the hospital before they have been treated or stabilized. “Voting is an important part of the recovery process,” explains a press release obtained by the Washington Free Beacon. The hospital’s website explains that voting is a “therapeutic tool” that “helps empower patients and makes them feel good.” Since PPI is a mental health hospital and not a voter registration expert, it has turned to Vot-ER, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization that develops “nonpartisan civic engagement tools” for “every corner of the healthcare system.” Vot-ER is now in more than 500 hospitals and clinics nationwide, including in Arizona, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin. According to its website, Vot-ER is part of a larger movement in the healthcare profession to “empower patients and providers to alleviate the underlying factors of health disparities.”  “Together,” Vot-ER promises, “we’re tackling root causes of public health outcomes and fostering a healthier, more equitable society.” But just how nonpartisan is this partnership between Vot-ER and the doctors who push voter registration on their patients? What if a patient disagrees with his or her doctor’s assessment of what the “root causes” of certain public health outcomes are? Can we really trust these doctors not to push their personal political beliefs, particularly on hot-button social matters, such as abortion, onto their patients? This is particularly disturbing in mental health settings such as the one at PPI.  It doesn’t help that Vot-ER was founded by a doctor who served as a personal adviser to Harris or that it is funded by left-wing nonprofit groups that push diversity, equity, and inclusion beliefs into the healthcare system.  As studies of past nonprofit voter registration drives have shown, these efforts are rarely done on a truly nonpartisan basis. When Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg funded supposedly nonpartisan voting registration drives in 2020, later analysis found he concentrated his efforts in “deeply Democratic urban areas.” The end result was a huge gain in Democratic Party registrations, a narrow President Joe Biden win in Wisconsin, and a huge loss in confidence in our electoral system. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER Our nation’s healthcare system already has enough problems with trust. It does not need nakedly partisan organizations, such as Vot-ER, corrupting doctor-patient relationships, especially in mental health settings. No matter who wins in November, Congress should ban the use of nonprofit dollars for voter registration. If the Democratic and Republican parties want to register voters, they should do so using campaign dollars. Nonprofit organizations should not be involved in voter registration, which is an inherently partisan activity., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/iStock-1456035845-1024×548.jpg, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Washington Examiner,

The stock market has since undone much of the damage caused by Monday’s sell-off, alleviating concerns of an imminent recession, but economic danger lights are still flashing. 

The unemployment rate has risen steadily every month since January and is now almost a full point higher than it was last year, consumers overstretched on their credit cards are missing payments at near-record rates, and housing is still unaffordable for most people.

This made Monday an odd time for senior adviser Gene Sperling to leave the White House, but President Joe Biden tried to make the best of it by claiming “our economy was reeling” when Sperling was chosen to implement Biden’s $2 trillion American Rescue Plan. “I knew I needed an American Rescue Plan coordinator with the expertise and experience to hit the ground running,” Biden continued. “I’m glad I chose Gene Sperling.”

Whether or not anyone could have effectively implemented Biden’s $2 trillion sugar rush without causing inflation is in doubt. What is not in doubt is that Biden is either lying or suffering from dementia when he claims the economy was “reeling” when he took office. Nothing could be further from the truth.

While the COVID shutdowns did cause the U.S. economy to shrink and the unemployment rate to skyrocket, both economic measures were already recovering by the summer of 2020. Both job and economic growth were already booming, and had been for months, long before Biden ever took office.

Despite warnings from Obama-era Democratic Party economists like National Economic Council Director Larry Summers, Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Jason Furman, and auto bailout czar Steve Rattner that pouring $2 trillion in deficit spending onto an already red-hot economy was guaranteed to cause inflation, Biden went ahead and did it anyway, apparently convinced by sycophantic historians that he could be the next Franklin Roosevelt. 

The resulting worst inflationary crisis in 40 years has been a disaster for working people, and their real wages are still 4% lower than they were when Biden took office. But as bad as inflation was under Biden — inflation caused by Biden’s hubristic spending — it is important to recognize that both the deficit spending and resulting inflation would have been far worse under a President Kamala Harris.

According to credible reports, Harris wanted a much larger $4 trillion stimulus package, including spending not just on hard infrastructure such as roads and bridges but also through massive handouts to the healthcare industry and secular daycare providers. Biden reportedly dismissed Harris’s outlandish proposals immediately, thus avoiding even worse economic pain than he ended up causing.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

But if Harris wins in November, Biden will not be there to check Harris’s radical left-wing instincts. If Harris wins, there will be no adult in the room to tell her that decriminalizing illegal immigration, giving free healthcare to illegal immigrants, and banning plastic straws are all truly terrible ideas.

Biden has truly earned his historically low economic approval rating. Harris’s would only be far, far worse.

2024-08-10 04:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2F3115452%2Fbidenflation-was-bad-but-kamalaflation-wouldve-been-worse%2F?w=600&h=450, The stock market has since undone much of the damage caused by Monday’s sell-off, alleviating concerns of an imminent recession, but economic danger lights are still flashing.  The unemployment rate has risen steadily every month since January and is now almost a full point higher than it was last year, consumers overstretched on their credit,

The stock market has since undone much of the damage caused by Monday’s sell-off, alleviating concerns of an imminent recession, but economic danger lights are still flashing. 

The unemployment rate has risen steadily every month since January and is now almost a full point higher than it was last year, consumers overstretched on their credit cards are missing payments at near-record rates, and housing is still unaffordable for most people.

This made Monday an odd time for senior adviser Gene Sperling to leave the White House, but President Joe Biden tried to make the best of it by claiming “our economy was reeling” when Sperling was chosen to implement Biden’s $2 trillion American Rescue Plan. “I knew I needed an American Rescue Plan coordinator with the expertise and experience to hit the ground running,” Biden continued. “I’m glad I chose Gene Sperling.”

Whether or not anyone could have effectively implemented Biden’s $2 trillion sugar rush without causing inflation is in doubt. What is not in doubt is that Biden is either lying or suffering from dementia when he claims the economy was “reeling” when he took office. Nothing could be further from the truth.

While the COVID shutdowns did cause the U.S. economy to shrink and the unemployment rate to skyrocket, both economic measures were already recovering by the summer of 2020. Both job and economic growth were already booming, and had been for months, long before Biden ever took office.

Despite warnings from Obama-era Democratic Party economists like National Economic Council Director Larry Summers, Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Jason Furman, and auto bailout czar Steve Rattner that pouring $2 trillion in deficit spending onto an already red-hot economy was guaranteed to cause inflation, Biden went ahead and did it anyway, apparently convinced by sycophantic historians that he could be the next Franklin Roosevelt. 

The resulting worst inflationary crisis in 40 years has been a disaster for working people, and their real wages are still 4% lower than they were when Biden took office. But as bad as inflation was under Biden — inflation caused by Biden’s hubristic spending — it is important to recognize that both the deficit spending and resulting inflation would have been far worse under a President Kamala Harris.

According to credible reports, Harris wanted a much larger $4 trillion stimulus package, including spending not just on hard infrastructure such as roads and bridges but also through massive handouts to the healthcare industry and secular daycare providers. Biden reportedly dismissed Harris’s outlandish proposals immediately, thus avoiding even worse economic pain than he ended up causing.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

But if Harris wins in November, Biden will not be there to check Harris’s radical left-wing instincts. If Harris wins, there will be no adult in the room to tell her that decriminalizing illegal immigration, giving free healthcare to illegal immigrants, and banning plastic straws are all truly terrible ideas.

Biden has truly earned his historically low economic approval rating. Harris’s would only be far, far worse.

, The stock market has since undone much of the damage caused by Monday’s sell-off, alleviating concerns of an imminent recession, but economic danger lights are still flashing.  The unemployment rate has risen steadily every month since January and is now almost a full point higher than it was last year, consumers overstretched on their credit cards are missing payments at near-record rates, and housing is still unaffordable for most people. This made Monday an odd time for senior adviser Gene Sperling to leave the White House, but President Joe Biden tried to make the best of it by claiming “our economy was reeling” when Sperling was chosen to implement Biden’s $2 trillion American Rescue Plan. “I knew I needed an American Rescue Plan coordinator with the expertise and experience to hit the ground running,” Biden continued. “I’m glad I chose Gene Sperling.” Whether or not anyone could have effectively implemented Biden’s $2 trillion sugar rush without causing inflation is in doubt. What is not in doubt is that Biden is either lying or suffering from dementia when he claims the economy was “reeling” when he took office. Nothing could be further from the truth. While the COVID shutdowns did cause the U.S. economy to shrink and the unemployment rate to skyrocket, both economic measures were already recovering by the summer of 2020. Both job and economic growth were already booming, and had been for months, long before Biden ever took office. Despite warnings from Obama-era Democratic Party economists like National Economic Council Director Larry Summers, Council of Economic Advisers Chairman Jason Furman, and auto bailout czar Steve Rattner that pouring $2 trillion in deficit spending onto an already red-hot economy was guaranteed to cause inflation, Biden went ahead and did it anyway, apparently convinced by sycophantic historians that he could be the next Franklin Roosevelt.  The resulting worst inflationary crisis in 40 years has been a disaster for working people, and their real wages are still 4% lower than they were when Biden took office. But as bad as inflation was under Biden — inflation caused by Biden’s hubristic spending — it is important to recognize that both the deficit spending and resulting inflation would have been far worse under a President Kamala Harris. According to credible reports, Harris wanted a much larger $4 trillion stimulus package, including spending not just on hard infrastructure such as roads and bridges but also through massive handouts to the healthcare industry and secular daycare providers. Biden reportedly dismissed Harris’s outlandish proposals immediately, thus avoiding even worse economic pain than he ended up causing. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER But if Harris wins in November, Biden will not be there to check Harris’s radical left-wing instincts. If Harris wins, there will be no adult in the room to tell her that decriminalizing illegal immigration, giving free healthcare to illegal immigrants, and banning plastic straws are all truly terrible ideas. Biden has truly earned his historically low economic approval rating. Harris’s would only be far, far worse., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/kamala-biden-flation.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Washington Examiner,

If you wanted to design a program that simultaneously exploited vulnerable migrants, enriched human traffickers, and flooded our nation with illegal immigrants, you could not come up with a better policy than the Biden–Harris CHNV parole program.

Formally known as the Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, like any liberal policy, it sounds nice when you hear the first outline, but when it gets to the details, the mendacity of the effort is exposed.

Ostensibly, the CHNV parole program allows sponsors already in the United States to file paperwork with the Department of Homeland Security agreeing to financially support a migrant from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, or Venezuela.

Once the DHS approves the supporter, it sends the designated beneficiary an email with instructions on how to apply for permission to fly into the U.S. through the CBP One app. After passing a cursory background check, the migrant is then given permission to fly to the U.S., where, upon inspection at a port of entry, usually an airport, they are granted “humanitarian parole” for two years. This status makes many of them immediately eligible for food stamps, Medicaid, and welfare.

Sounds nice, right? Troubled migrants can connect with friends and relatives to safely travel to the U.S., where they can then pursue asylum claims.

The problem is that the program, which was never authorized by Congress, is filled with loopholes that make it a factory for fraud. For starters, sponsors don’t even have to know the migrants they are supporting. They don’t even have to be people. A chicken processing plant could sponsor a migrant.

Also, once here, the Biden-Harris administration does nothing to track where these migrants go, what they do, or even inform them about how to renew their temporary status. This means literally every day that one of these migrants hits his or her two-year mark in the country, he or she automatically becomes an illegal immigrant.

Worse, an internal DHS investigation found that the sponsor process has been corrupted by massive fraud. The DHS investigation found thousands of fake Social Security numbers, fake phone numbers, fake addresses, and often the same address used multiple times. Some 100 addresses were used on more than 19,000 applications. It appears that human traffickers were abusing the program to shake down migrants for profit.

“They call it humanitarian parole, but it has nothing to do with being humanitarian,” a Cuban migrant named Pedro Yudel Bruzon told reporters. Bruzon said CHNV parole program supporters in the U.S. were demanding an upfront $10,000 to sponsor migrants.

The Biden-Harris administration authorized more than 500,000 migrants to enter the U.S. through this program. None of them were screened for asylum status before they arrived. Asylum status was not even a requirement of the program. All that applicants needed was a “supporter” here in the U.S., and Biden-Harris just let them in.

To be clear, not a single part of this entire process was, in any way, approved by Congress. It is a completely illegal program entirely designed by the Biden-Harris administration. Fortunately, after the internal DHS report documenting widespread fraud in the program, the department shut the program down.

But short of Donald Trump being elected this November, there is nothing stopping Kamala Harris from starting it up again. Which, considering that she believes illegal immigration should be decriminalized, she most certainly will.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

And even if she doesn’t, what are we supposed to do with the literally hundreds of thousands of migrants admitted through the program who are losing their “humanitarian parole” status every day? Is Harris going to track them all down and deport them? Of course not. She wants to give them amnesty instead.

The only way to end Harris’s illegal immigration fraud factory is to defeat her this November. Then the process of restoring our nation’s sovereignty can begin.

2024-08-08 04:00:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Feditorials%2F3113584%2Fharris-illegal-immigration-fraud-factory%2F?w=600&h=450, If you wanted to design a program that simultaneously exploited vulnerable migrants, enriched human traffickers, and flooded our nation with illegal immigrants, you could not come up with a better policy than the Biden–Harris CHNV parole program. Formally known as the Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, like any liberal policy, it sounds nice,

If you wanted to design a program that simultaneously exploited vulnerable migrants, enriched human traffickers, and flooded our nation with illegal immigrants, you could not come up with a better policy than the Biden–Harris CHNV parole program.

Formally known as the Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, like any liberal policy, it sounds nice when you hear the first outline, but when it gets to the details, the mendacity of the effort is exposed.

Ostensibly, the CHNV parole program allows sponsors already in the United States to file paperwork with the Department of Homeland Security agreeing to financially support a migrant from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, or Venezuela.

Once the DHS approves the supporter, it sends the designated beneficiary an email with instructions on how to apply for permission to fly into the U.S. through the CBP One app. After passing a cursory background check, the migrant is then given permission to fly to the U.S., where, upon inspection at a port of entry, usually an airport, they are granted “humanitarian parole” for two years. This status makes many of them immediately eligible for food stamps, Medicaid, and welfare.

Sounds nice, right? Troubled migrants can connect with friends and relatives to safely travel to the U.S., where they can then pursue asylum claims.

The problem is that the program, which was never authorized by Congress, is filled with loopholes that make it a factory for fraud. For starters, sponsors don’t even have to know the migrants they are supporting. They don’t even have to be people. A chicken processing plant could sponsor a migrant.

Also, once here, the Biden-Harris administration does nothing to track where these migrants go, what they do, or even inform them about how to renew their temporary status. This means literally every day that one of these migrants hits his or her two-year mark in the country, he or she automatically becomes an illegal immigrant.

Worse, an internal DHS investigation found that the sponsor process has been corrupted by massive fraud. The DHS investigation found thousands of fake Social Security numbers, fake phone numbers, fake addresses, and often the same address used multiple times. Some 100 addresses were used on more than 19,000 applications. It appears that human traffickers were abusing the program to shake down migrants for profit.

“They call it humanitarian parole, but it has nothing to do with being humanitarian,” a Cuban migrant named Pedro Yudel Bruzon told reporters. Bruzon said CHNV parole program supporters in the U.S. were demanding an upfront $10,000 to sponsor migrants.

The Biden-Harris administration authorized more than 500,000 migrants to enter the U.S. through this program. None of them were screened for asylum status before they arrived. Asylum status was not even a requirement of the program. All that applicants needed was a “supporter” here in the U.S., and Biden-Harris just let them in.

To be clear, not a single part of this entire process was, in any way, approved by Congress. It is a completely illegal program entirely designed by the Biden-Harris administration. Fortunately, after the internal DHS report documenting widespread fraud in the program, the department shut the program down.

But short of Donald Trump being elected this November, there is nothing stopping Kamala Harris from starting it up again. Which, considering that she believes illegal immigration should be decriminalized, she most certainly will.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

And even if she doesn’t, what are we supposed to do with the literally hundreds of thousands of migrants admitted through the program who are losing their “humanitarian parole” status every day? Is Harris going to track them all down and deport them? Of course not. She wants to give them amnesty instead.

The only way to end Harris’s illegal immigration fraud factory is to defeat her this November. Then the process of restoring our nation’s sovereignty can begin.

, If you wanted to design a program that simultaneously exploited vulnerable migrants, enriched human traffickers, and flooded our nation with illegal immigrants, you could not come up with a better policy than the Biden–Harris CHNV parole program. Formally known as the Processes for Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans, like any liberal policy, it sounds nice when you hear the first outline, but when it gets to the details, the mendacity of the effort is exposed. Ostensibly, the CHNV parole program allows sponsors already in the United States to file paperwork with the Department of Homeland Security agreeing to financially support a migrant from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, or Venezuela. Once the DHS approves the supporter, it sends the designated beneficiary an email with instructions on how to apply for permission to fly into the U.S. through the CBP One app. After passing a cursory background check, the migrant is then given permission to fly to the U.S., where, upon inspection at a port of entry, usually an airport, they are granted “humanitarian parole” for two years. This status makes many of them immediately eligible for food stamps, Medicaid, and welfare. Sounds nice, right? Troubled migrants can connect with friends and relatives to safely travel to the U.S., where they can then pursue asylum claims. The problem is that the program, which was never authorized by Congress, is filled with loopholes that make it a factory for fraud. For starters, sponsors don’t even have to know the migrants they are supporting. They don’t even have to be people. A chicken processing plant could sponsor a migrant. Also, once here, the Biden-Harris administration does nothing to track where these migrants go, what they do, or even inform them about how to renew their temporary status. This means literally every day that one of these migrants hits his or her two-year mark in the country, he or she automatically becomes an illegal immigrant. Worse, an internal DHS investigation found that the sponsor process has been corrupted by massive fraud. The DHS investigation found thousands of fake Social Security numbers, fake phone numbers, fake addresses, and often the same address used multiple times. Some 100 addresses were used on more than 19,000 applications. It appears that human traffickers were abusing the program to shake down migrants for profit. “They call it humanitarian parole, but it has nothing to do with being humanitarian,” a Cuban migrant named Pedro Yudel Bruzon told reporters. Bruzon said CHNV parole program supporters in the U.S. were demanding an upfront $10,000 to sponsor migrants. The Biden-Harris administration authorized more than 500,000 migrants to enter the U.S. through this program. None of them were screened for asylum status before they arrived. Asylum status was not even a requirement of the program. All that applicants needed was a “supporter” here in the U.S., and Biden-Harris just let them in. To be clear, not a single part of this entire process was, in any way, approved by Congress. It is a completely illegal program entirely designed by the Biden-Harris administration. Fortunately, after the internal DHS report documenting widespread fraud in the program, the department shut the program down. But short of Donald Trump being elected this November, there is nothing stopping Kamala Harris from starting it up again. Which, considering that she believes illegal immigration should be decriminalized, she most certainly will. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER And even if she doesn’t, what are we supposed to do with the literally hundreds of thousands of migrants admitted through the program who are losing their “humanitarian parole” status every day? Is Harris going to track them all down and deport them? Of course not. She wants to give them amnesty instead. The only way to end Harris’s illegal immigration fraud factory is to defeat her this November. Then the process of restoring our nation’s sovereignty can begin., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/migrants-chicago-airport.webp, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Washington Examiner,

Chevron became just the latest employer to announce its exit from California last week, and while it is tempting to blame the state’s war against fossil fuels as the cause for the departure, energy firms are far from the only companies fleeing the state as fast as they can.

In just the last four years, rocket manufacturer SpaceX, financial servicer Charles Schwab, and software creator Oracle have all left California and moved to Texas. And major corporations aren’t the only ones leaving. California has led the United States in outstate migration for a generation now, with most residents following employers to Texas.

On the energy front, California has done plenty to target fossil fuel companies like Chevron. The state charges cap-and-trade taxes on energy producers, imposes costly environmental mandates on refiners, and, on top of all that, charges oil companies an “excessive profits” tax to add insult to injury.

“We believe California has a number of policies that raise costs, that hurt consumers, that discourage investment, and ultimately, we think that’s not good for the economy in California or for consumers,” Chevron CEO Mike Wirth said as his company announced its move to Houston. 

But as much as California’s energy policies have raised costs, hurt consumers, and discouraged investment, so have its policies in every other sector. The nation’s strictest environmental laws make it prohibitively expensive to build housing, factories, and infrastructure. As a result, California now has the nation’s highest gas prices, the nation’s highest energy costs, and the nation’s most unaffordable housing.

One might hope that while the Democratic Party is inflicting all of these high costs on consumers across all sectors of the economy, it would at least be able to deliver good public services as a result. Unfortunately not. Despite a 14.4% top income tax rate and an 8.8% corporate tax rate, the state is still $46.8 billion in debt, the homeless population is the nation’s highest, the schools are among the nation’s worst, and so are the state’s roads and highways. The Democratic Party is so enamored with the myth of a green new economy that it has poured more than $10 billion into a high-speed train to nowhere that has constructed barely a mile of track while still needing over $100 billion to complete the project.

No wonder California has the nation’s highest unemployment rate to boot.

As bad as is the Democratic Party’s malfeasance in running California into the ground, the lone bright spot is that middle-class families still have the freedom to escape Democratic Party tyranny and flee to Republican-controlled states such as Utah, Texas, and Florida.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

But that is what makes Vice President Kamala Harris’s candidacy such a danger. Harris wants to take the far-left extreme policies that have destroyed California and inflict them on the rest of the nation. Despite her flip-flopping on mandatory gun buybacks, fracking bans, and a ban on private health insurance, positions on which she will surely flip right back if elected, she still supports decriminalizing illegal border crossings, free healthcare for illegal immigrants, as California already provides, and the elimination of cash bail.

If Harris wins and the Democratic Party continues to do to the U.S. what it did to California, making it an unaffordable debt and homeless-ridden dump, to where will the rest of us flee?

2024-08-06 04:01:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Feditorials%2F3110822%2Fexodus-kamala-harris-california-continues%2F?w=600&h=450, Chevron became just the latest employer to announce its exit from California last week, and while it is tempting to blame the state’s war against fossil fuels as the cause for the departure, energy firms are far from the only companies fleeing the state as fast as they can. In just the last four years,

Chevron became just the latest employer to announce its exit from California last week, and while it is tempting to blame the state’s war against fossil fuels as the cause for the departure, energy firms are far from the only companies fleeing the state as fast as they can.

In just the last four years, rocket manufacturer SpaceX, financial servicer Charles Schwab, and software creator Oracle have all left California and moved to Texas. And major corporations aren’t the only ones leaving. California has led the United States in outstate migration for a generation now, with most residents following employers to Texas.

On the energy front, California has done plenty to target fossil fuel companies like Chevron. The state charges cap-and-trade taxes on energy producers, imposes costly environmental mandates on refiners, and, on top of all that, charges oil companies an “excessive profits” tax to add insult to injury.

“We believe California has a number of policies that raise costs, that hurt consumers, that discourage investment, and ultimately, we think that’s not good for the economy in California or for consumers,” Chevron CEO Mike Wirth said as his company announced its move to Houston. 

But as much as California’s energy policies have raised costs, hurt consumers, and discouraged investment, so have its policies in every other sector. The nation’s strictest environmental laws make it prohibitively expensive to build housing, factories, and infrastructure. As a result, California now has the nation’s highest gas prices, the nation’s highest energy costs, and the nation’s most unaffordable housing.

One might hope that while the Democratic Party is inflicting all of these high costs on consumers across all sectors of the economy, it would at least be able to deliver good public services as a result. Unfortunately not. Despite a 14.4% top income tax rate and an 8.8% corporate tax rate, the state is still $46.8 billion in debt, the homeless population is the nation’s highest, the schools are among the nation’s worst, and so are the state’s roads and highways. The Democratic Party is so enamored with the myth of a green new economy that it has poured more than $10 billion into a high-speed train to nowhere that has constructed barely a mile of track while still needing over $100 billion to complete the project.

No wonder California has the nation’s highest unemployment rate to boot.

As bad as is the Democratic Party’s malfeasance in running California into the ground, the lone bright spot is that middle-class families still have the freedom to escape Democratic Party tyranny and flee to Republican-controlled states such as Utah, Texas, and Florida.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

But that is what makes Vice President Kamala Harris’s candidacy such a danger. Harris wants to take the far-left extreme policies that have destroyed California and inflict them on the rest of the nation. Despite her flip-flopping on mandatory gun buybacks, fracking bans, and a ban on private health insurance, positions on which she will surely flip right back if elected, she still supports decriminalizing illegal border crossings, free healthcare for illegal immigrants, as California already provides, and the elimination of cash bail.

If Harris wins and the Democratic Party continues to do to the U.S. what it did to California, making it an unaffordable debt and homeless-ridden dump, to where will the rest of us flee?

, Chevron became just the latest employer to announce its exit from California last week, and while it is tempting to blame the state’s war against fossil fuels as the cause for the departure, energy firms are far from the only companies fleeing the state as fast as they can. In just the last four years, rocket manufacturer SpaceX, financial servicer Charles Schwab, and software creator Oracle have all left California and moved to Texas. And major corporations aren’t the only ones leaving. California has led the United States in outstate migration for a generation now, with most residents following employers to Texas. On the energy front, California has done plenty to target fossil fuel companies like Chevron. The state charges cap-and-trade taxes on energy producers, imposes costly environmental mandates on refiners, and, on top of all that, charges oil companies an “excessive profits” tax to add insult to injury. “We believe California has a number of policies that raise costs, that hurt consumers, that discourage investment, and ultimately, we think that’s not good for the economy in California or for consumers,” Chevron CEO Mike Wirth said as his company announced its move to Houston.  But as much as California’s energy policies have raised costs, hurt consumers, and discouraged investment, so have its policies in every other sector. The nation’s strictest environmental laws make it prohibitively expensive to build housing, factories, and infrastructure. As a result, California now has the nation’s highest gas prices, the nation’s highest energy costs, and the nation’s most unaffordable housing. One might hope that while the Democratic Party is inflicting all of these high costs on consumers across all sectors of the economy, it would at least be able to deliver good public services as a result. Unfortunately not. Despite a 14.4% top income tax rate and an 8.8% corporate tax rate, the state is still $46.8 billion in debt, the homeless population is the nation’s highest, the schools are among the nation’s worst, and so are the state’s roads and highways. The Democratic Party is so enamored with the myth of a green new economy that it has poured more than $10 billion into a high-speed train to nowhere that has constructed barely a mile of track while still needing over $100 billion to complete the project. No wonder California has the nation’s highest unemployment rate to boot. As bad as is the Democratic Party’s malfeasance in running California into the ground, the lone bright spot is that middle-class families still have the freedom to escape Democratic Party tyranny and flee to Republican-controlled states such as Utah, Texas, and Florida. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER But that is what makes Vice President Kamala Harris’s candidacy such a danger. Harris wants to take the far-left extreme policies that have destroyed California and inflict them on the rest of the nation. Despite her flip-flopping on mandatory gun buybacks, fracking bans, and a ban on private health insurance, positions on which she will surely flip right back if elected, she still supports decriminalizing illegal border crossings, free healthcare for illegal immigrants, as California already provides, and the elimination of cash bail. If Harris wins and the Democratic Party continues to do to the U.S. what it did to California, making it an unaffordable debt and homeless-ridden dump, to where will the rest of us flee?, , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/AP20002718879776-scaled-1024×710.jpg, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Washington Examiner,

Vice President Kamala Harris has never met an issue she hasn’t flip-flopped on, but that should not stop the Republican Party from finding out where she stands on permitting reform. The Democratic Party can subsidize factory creation, energy production, and home construction all they want, but until real permitting reform is passed, taxpayers will be wasting billions of dollars and hundreds of years on waste and delays.

This past week, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 on a 15-4 bipartisan basis. The legislation, co-sponsored by Chairman Joe Manchin (I-WV) and ranking member John Barrasso (R-WY), would ease resource extraction, renewable energy creation, and power transmission. 

The legislation enables a true “all of the above” approach to energy policy with provisions designed to help oil and gas extraction, hydropower construction, mineral mining, and power line construction. Most importantly, the bill creates a 150-day statute of limitations for all legal challenges to any energy project and sets a 180-day deadline for federal agency action when projects are attacked in court. The bill also repeals President Joe Biden’s ban on liquefied natural gas exports and encourages the development of geothermal energy.

Radical environmental groups opposed the legislation, however, with Public Citizen calling the bill “nothing short of the first steps to implement the radical corporate giveaway agenda espoused in Project 2025, a sweeping far-right initiative led by the Heritage Foundation.”

On the one hand, Public Citizen couldn’t be more wrong: Nothing in the bill is a “giveaway” to anyone — unless you think letting people build power lines without interference from radical environmentalists is a “giveaway.” But on the other hand, Public Citizen is correct: The Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 is very much in line with Project 2025’s goal of making America a country that builds things again.

If anything, the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 doesn’t go far enough. Instead of picking around the edges of the National Environmental Policy Act, the legislation that enables environmental radicals to stall any infrastructure project in federal court, NEPA should be repealed entirely. Not just for energy-related projects, both fossil and renewable, but for all infrastructure projects: factories, highways, railways, residential, everything. We have the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act to ensure our air is breathable and our water is drinkable. We do not need to give radical environmentalists veto power over every construction project with a nexus to the federal government.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

But as essential as a full repeal of NEPA is, the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 is at least a good start, and Republicans should make every effort possible to force Harris to take a stand on the legislation. Does Harris stand with the American Clean Power Association and the National Mining Association and the millions of jobs and kilowatt hours they produce? Or does she stand with the radical environmentalists who create nothing but billable hours for lawyers?

Republican senators should press Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to bring this legislation to the Senate floor, and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) should pledge House action on the bill as soon as possible.

2024-08-05 04:01:00, http://s.wordpress.com/mshots/v1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonexaminer.com%2Fopinion%2Feditorials%2F3108762%2Fwhere-does-kamala-harris-stand-on-permitting%2F?w=600&h=450, Vice President Kamala Harris has never met an issue she hasn’t flip-flopped on, but that should not stop the Republican Party from finding out where she stands on permitting reform. The Democratic Party can subsidize factory creation, energy production, and home construction all they want, but until real permitting reform is passed, taxpayers will be,

Vice President Kamala Harris has never met an issue she hasn’t flip-flopped on, but that should not stop the Republican Party from finding out where she stands on permitting reform. The Democratic Party can subsidize factory creation, energy production, and home construction all they want, but until real permitting reform is passed, taxpayers will be wasting billions of dollars and hundreds of years on waste and delays.

This past week, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 on a 15-4 bipartisan basis. The legislation, co-sponsored by Chairman Joe Manchin (I-WV) and ranking member John Barrasso (R-WY), would ease resource extraction, renewable energy creation, and power transmission. 

The legislation enables a true “all of the above” approach to energy policy with provisions designed to help oil and gas extraction, hydropower construction, mineral mining, and power line construction. Most importantly, the bill creates a 150-day statute of limitations for all legal challenges to any energy project and sets a 180-day deadline for federal agency action when projects are attacked in court. The bill also repeals President Joe Biden’s ban on liquefied natural gas exports and encourages the development of geothermal energy.

Radical environmental groups opposed the legislation, however, with Public Citizen calling the bill “nothing short of the first steps to implement the radical corporate giveaway agenda espoused in Project 2025, a sweeping far-right initiative led by the Heritage Foundation.”

On the one hand, Public Citizen couldn’t be more wrong: Nothing in the bill is a “giveaway” to anyone — unless you think letting people build power lines without interference from radical environmentalists is a “giveaway.” But on the other hand, Public Citizen is correct: The Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 is very much in line with Project 2025’s goal of making America a country that builds things again.

If anything, the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 doesn’t go far enough. Instead of picking around the edges of the National Environmental Policy Act, the legislation that enables environmental radicals to stall any infrastructure project in federal court, NEPA should be repealed entirely. Not just for energy-related projects, both fossil and renewable, but for all infrastructure projects: factories, highways, railways, residential, everything. We have the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act to ensure our air is breathable and our water is drinkable. We do not need to give radical environmentalists veto power over every construction project with a nexus to the federal government.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

But as essential as a full repeal of NEPA is, the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 is at least a good start, and Republicans should make every effort possible to force Harris to take a stand on the legislation. Does Harris stand with the American Clean Power Association and the National Mining Association and the millions of jobs and kilowatt hours they produce? Or does she stand with the radical environmentalists who create nothing but billable hours for lawyers?

Republican senators should press Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to bring this legislation to the Senate floor, and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) should pledge House action on the bill as soon as possible.

, Vice President Kamala Harris has never met an issue she hasn’t flip-flopped on, but that should not stop the Republican Party from finding out where she stands on permitting reform. The Democratic Party can subsidize factory creation, energy production, and home construction all they want, but until real permitting reform is passed, taxpayers will be wasting billions of dollars and hundreds of years on waste and delays. This past week, the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee passed the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 on a 15-4 bipartisan basis. The legislation, co-sponsored by Chairman Joe Manchin (I-WV) and ranking member John Barrasso (R-WY), would ease resource extraction, renewable energy creation, and power transmission.  The legislation enables a true “all of the above” approach to energy policy with provisions designed to help oil and gas extraction, hydropower construction, mineral mining, and power line construction. Most importantly, the bill creates a 150-day statute of limitations for all legal challenges to any energy project and sets a 180-day deadline for federal agency action when projects are attacked in court. The bill also repeals President Joe Biden’s ban on liquefied natural gas exports and encourages the development of geothermal energy. Radical environmental groups opposed the legislation, however, with Public Citizen calling the bill “nothing short of the first steps to implement the radical corporate giveaway agenda espoused in Project 2025, a sweeping far-right initiative led by the Heritage Foundation.” On the one hand, Public Citizen couldn’t be more wrong: Nothing in the bill is a “giveaway” to anyone — unless you think letting people build power lines without interference from radical environmentalists is a “giveaway.” But on the other hand, Public Citizen is correct: The Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 is very much in line with Project 2025’s goal of making America a country that builds things again. If anything, the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 doesn’t go far enough. Instead of picking around the edges of the National Environmental Policy Act, the legislation that enables environmental radicals to stall any infrastructure project in federal court, NEPA should be repealed entirely. Not just for energy-related projects, both fossil and renewable, but for all infrastructure projects: factories, highways, railways, residential, everything. We have the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act to ensure our air is breathable and our water is drinkable. We do not need to give radical environmentalists veto power over every construction project with a nexus to the federal government. CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER But as essential as a full repeal of NEPA is, the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 is at least a good start, and Republicans should make every effort possible to force Harris to take a stand on the legislation. Does Harris stand with the American Clean Power Association and the National Mining Association and the millions of jobs and kilowatt hours they produce? Or does she stand with the radical environmentalists who create nothing but billable hours for lawyers? Republican senators should press Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to bring this legislation to the Senate floor, and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) should pledge House action on the bill as soon as possible., , , https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/AP23339785278268-1024×683.jpg, Washington Examiner, Political News and Conservative Analysis About Congress, the President, and the Federal Government, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/feed/, Washington Examiner,