The Nightmare of Radical One-Party Rule Is Upon Us: Will This Be the Final Nail in the Coffin?
January 17, 2021
Since Joe Biden won the presidency this past November, I have been obsessing over the possibility of radical one-party rule. Even though there have been times in our history when the presidency and both houses of congress have been controlled by the same party, this time is different. The Democrat Party is now under the control of radical left-wing Democrats. Moderate Democrats are almost nonexistent and liberals are becoming scarce. What’s left are radicals such as Pelosi, Schumer, Warren, Sanders and far-left lunatics like the squad. Some of these elected officials actually sound like authoritarian communists. You need only listen to them. They have no scruples. If the law gets in the way they will ignore it. If rules get in the way, they change them. They will do whatever is necessary to move their radical agenda forward. They will mislead or flat out lie. It doesn’t matter. In their minds, “The ends always justify the means.”
With the loss of the two Senate seats in Georgia the likelihood of authoritarian one-party rule is now a foregone conclusion. The Democrat-controlled Senate need only stack the Supreme Court and the other federal courts with radical left-wing activist judges and the Democrats will be in control of all three branches of the federal government.
The ability to approve federal judges became much easier in 2013. It was then that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, at the behest of President Obama, lowered the number of votes necessary to confirm federal judges from sixty to a simple majority. At the time, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell warned Senator Reid that this decision would come back to haunt Democrats someday—and it did. Because of this rule change, President Trump was able to nominate, and confirm, almost 250 federal judges, including three Justices of the Supreme Court.
It is likely that Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia will vote to block the Democrats from stacking the federal courts. He has stated publicly that he will not vote to stack the Supreme Courts. As courageous as it would be for Senator Manchin to not vote with his party, his actions will provide only a temporary halt to the Democrat plan. This is so because Democrats want to add two more states to the union—namely, Washington DC and Puerto Rico. Both are strongly Democrat and would add four additional Democrat votes to the Senate. This would effectively put the Senate under Democrat control for years to come, if not in perpetuity.
The sixty-vote threshold to invoke cloture (end debate on an issue in the Senate) is now in danger of being eliminated. It currently takes a sixty-vote majority to close debate on an issue in the Senate. If cloture is not approved, debate on the issue continues indefinitely. This is referred to as a filibuster. It is a procedural rule of the Senate whereby the minority can kill a bill without taking it to a vote. Normally, in order to change a Senate rule it would require a two-thirds majority of the senators present to vote in favor of the rule change.
There is another way of changing a Senate rule without getting a two thirds majority. It can also be done by “changing the precedent.” I really do not have a clear understanding of this parliamentary procedure, but as I understand it the majority leader of the Senate can call a point of order regarding a Senate rule. I believe that it can then be voted on by those senators who are present and a simple majority is all that is needed to approve the rule change. This procedure is referred to as the nuclear option and could be used to eliminate the filibuster and thus change the way that the Senate does business. This would lower the sixty-vote threshold to a simple majority and thus make it much easier for the majority party to pass legislation. Senator Sinema of Arizona and Senator Manchin of West Virginia are both opposed to this change.
It is my opinion that the reason that this hasn’t been done previously is because doing so would change the Senate from the very deliberative body it is currently to nothing more than a smaller version of the House. If both houses of Congress were controlled by the same party, this would effectively castrate the minority party in the Senate and turn that chamber into nothing more than a rubber stamp for the House.
An area which has been a major concern of mine for quite some time is deficit spending. As I have written in previous posts, the practice has not only become a normal part of the budget process, it has become acceptable. It was a serious threat to the country when we had a divided government. Now with the executive branch and both houses of the legislative branch under the control of the same party, they have almost complete control of the nation’s finances. They now have almost unlimited authority to tax and spend, borrow and print as much money as they want, and spend it in almost any way that they want. The danger of deficit spending getting completely out of control has become a frightening possibility.
President Biden has already made public his plan to spend an additional $11T over the next ten years. Coupled with that spending increase is his intention to raise taxes by $3.6T during the same period. In addition, he is proposing to eliminate the Trump Tax cuts and Jobs Act which would result in a tax increase for almost every taxpayer in the country. Eliminating these tax cuts would result in increasing the corporate tax back up to 35%, not 28% as President Biden stated. It would generate an additional $2.5T over a ten-year period. If you recall when Barack Obama raised the corporate tax up to 35% many businesses left the country and took their jobs with them. I see no reason why they would not do the same thing again.
In addition to raising taxes on individuals and corporations, he is also in favor of taxing capital gains at ordinary income tax rates. This would result in a substantial tax increase on capital gains. This President is also on board with increasing the maximum individual tax rate from 37% to 39.6%.
Even with the proposed tax increases there would still be an additional deficit in excess of $5T over the next ten years. When added to the pre-pandemic deficits of over $1T per year, the additional Covid Relief Bills, and his proposed spending on infrastructure, it would not be out of the question that our national debt could reach $50T or more by the year 2030. This would raise our debt to GDP ratio to somewhere between 165% and 180% by 2030. This would not only be a risk to the nation’s financial well-being, but it would also pose a significant risk to our national security.
Democrat one-party rule poses some very scary scenarios, not the least of which is cutting spending on defense and on homeland security. As the new chairman of the budget committee, Senator Sanders intends to cut defense spending by at least 10% and to cut spending on homeland security as well. It is the Senator’s opinion that this money would be better spent on increased entitlements.
Let me be perfectly clear: The only thing preventing a war between the US and the Chinese is the presence and the strength of the US military. It is the US Navy that patrols the shipping lanes in the Western Pacific and keeps them open. Together with the help of our allies the vital sea lanes remain open. If not for the US military the Chinese could close these shipping lanes and choke off trade between our allies. Eventually allies such as Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, and especially Taiwan could be blockaded into submission one at a time.
There is a similar situation in eastern Europe. The US, along with our NATO allies, are the only reason that the new democracies in that region are still free. Here again, if not for the US military and our NATO allies these small fledgling democracies would be overcome militarily by Russia and taken over. There would not be sufficient push back if not for the US military. The US military is the main reason why these countries remain free today.
The third reason for not cutting defense spending is Iran who, in addition to being our enemy, is the enemy of just about every other middle-eastern country except Syria. Iran is a much greater threat to its neighbors than it is to the US. The Iranian military, including reserves, is about one million strong. There are also a number of proxy fighters that are funded by the Iranians. Their Air Force and Navy, although formidable in the region, are not really capable of confronting the US in a sustained conflict, as was seen during a previous confrontation with the Iranian Navy. When it was over, a number of their ships had gone to bottom while others were forced to limp back to their port.
Another problem that exists with this radical one-party Democrat rule is the ongoing problem of illegal immigration. The situation has degraded to such an extent that it is no longer permitted, according to our new President, to deport illegals, even those who have been convicted of a violent crime. This executive order, signed by President Biden, has put the US and its citizens at greater risk.
There are other issues that need to be addressed regarding illegal immigration. For example, our new President wants to provide a path to citizenship for the “eleven million” illegals who have entered our country illegally and uninvited. Why would this radical left-wing government reward these people for breaking US immigration law? It’s not because they care about these people one way or the other, or because it’s the Christian thing to do. The real reason is that most of these people will eventually vote Democrat. That will help them to retain political power and that is the only thing they care about.
We should all understand that we are not talking about eleven million people. That was the estimate ten or more years ago. The current number is now said to be upwards of twenty million. The question that I now have for our new President is whether this path to citizenship will apply to the next twenty, thirty, forty, fifty, or one hundred million immigrants who invite themselves into our country. Will there be a limit on the number? And will there be a limit on the amount of taxpayer money that will be allocated to support these people? How much of that money will come out of the Social Security or the Medicare Trust Funds? These are legitimate questions that deserve to be answered honestly.
Another serious consequence of radical one-party Democrat rule is the open war on fossil fuels. The first salvo in this war has just been fired by President Joe Biden. Energy, which is the life’s blood of this country, is now under attack. In one of his first executive orders, the new President cancelled the permit to build the Keystone XL Pipeline, putting roughly 11,000 workers on both sides of the Canadian border out of work. The Biden Administration has also stopped issuing new oil drilling leases on federal land. As I understand it, the move to stop issuing new leases on federal land will not have an immediate effect on energy production in the foreseeable future because there are millions of acres of federal lands and offshore areas that are already being leased by oil companies. Production should therefore remain steady for quite some time. It was reported that this executive order would cost roughly 120,000 jobs. As I said above, I don’t think any of those jobs will be at risk, at least in the short term.
This also holds true for the crude oil being recovered from the Canadian tar sands. This oil was supposed to be delivered to market via the Keystone XL Pipeline. Since construction on this pipeline has been stopped, this energy will continue to be shipped by truck and by rail car. This will obviously result in more greenhouse gases than if this product had been shipped by the pipeline, but it will still be shipped, at least in the short term.
So, what’s all this hubbub about not issuing new oil leases on federal land? Right now there doesn’t seem to be any major consequence at all. Oil companies who have leased these federal lands have millions of acres of untapped land that have yet to be drilled. Eventually, as the reserves of crude and natural gas are harvested, the price of all energy products will increase, but in the short term I really don’t see a large impact on the supply of crude oil.
Another issue regarding energy is that we are not only talking about the supply, and therefore the market price, but also the very strong possibility that our current radical one-party government will impose new taxes on all forms of energy. These taxes would be regressive in nature, meaning that they would hurt low-income and lower middle-income families the most. This would be the case because these new taxes would represent a higher percentage of their gross income than that of wealthier families. These new taxes could also be imposed in the form of a mileage tax, which would also be regressive.
When the price of energy increases it affects the economy in the same way as an increase in income taxes. It takes money out of the hands of consumers that would ordinarily have been spent on entertainment, home improvements, new furniture, or a new vehicle. These types of expenditures help the economy grow and create jobs. Instead, consumers will be forced to spend this money on increased commuting costs and to heat and light their homes. Here again, it is the lower economic classes who will feel the pinch the most.
There is one other relevant point that I rarely, if ever, hear mentioned by the media. This is so because it really doesn’t fit the left-wing, anti-fossil fuel narrative. According to our new “energy czar” John Kerry, it is basically a fact that all the pain that would be put on the American consumer by reducing our use of fossil fuels would have little or no effect on reducing the effects of global warming. This is because, again according to Mr. Kerry, 90% of the world’s greenhouse gases emanate from other countries around the world.
Polluters such as Japan, India, Russia, and especially China—who itself is responsible for over 30% of the world’s carbon and greenhouse gas pollution—would not be affected as much as the US. As I said above, this war on fossil fuels in the US will have little or no effect on slowing the rate of global warming, but will have a negative effect on the economic well-being of this nation and cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, if not more.
The plan of the Biden Administration to abruptly reduce the use of fossil fuels in the US would hurt the country economically and benefit our competitors and political enemies. Why would the President of the United States do that?
For example, if the US were to unilaterally cut its oil and natural gas production who would benefit? The price of these commodities would increase significantly on the world market if the supply were to decline. The countries who would benefit are other oil producers worldwide, including Russian and Iran. The US would lose billions in revenue, thousands upon of thousands of jobs, and be forced to pay much higher prices for energy. This would make our enemies stronger and the US weaker. It would be a major boon for our enemies.
Another Biden policy that will hurt the US and could possibly be a major benefit to our most dangerous political foe, China, is the cancellation of the Keystone XL Pipeline. This pipeline was designed and built to transport 800,000 barrels of Canadian crude per day from Canada to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast.
Canada has been shipping between 150,000 and 200,000 barrels per day to the US by truck and rail car. If the pipeline were to have been completed that number would have increased to 800,000 barrels per day. If Canada decides that the current level of shipments to the US are not sufficient to meet their needs, they have the option of shipping their crude to China. This would result in the loss of another source of energy to the US and be a major benefit to the Chinese. Where is the advantage to the US in helping our most dangerous adversary and hurting our closest ally?
President Biden is planning to form a commission made up of Democrats, Republicans, liberals, and conservatives. I’m curious. Why are left-wing radicals being excluded from participating in this commission?
This commission will be convened to determine how we can “fix” our judicial system. Our President is of the opinion that “it is out of whack.” Once convened, this commission will be given six months to determine what “improvements” can be made and implemented to “fix” the system. It is my belief that the solution will be to add four additional liberal-leaning justices to the Supreme Court, thereby giving the court a seven to six majority with a liberal slant. This commission could also be convened to “fix” the other federal courts, which are most likely also “out of whack.” President Biden need only make the nominations and the Democrat-controlled senate will do the rest. Maybe.
The Biden Administration and many far-left Democrats are in favor of raising the minimum wage incrementally to $15/hr by 2025. There are pros and cons to this issue. Raising the federal minimum may be helpful for some low-wage earners but devastating to others.
Those who advocate for the $15/hr minimum wage argue that increasing the minimum wage will raise the standard of living of low-wage workers by reducing the number of working poor by millions. These arguments are about as disingenuous as it can get. What they are not telling you is that, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), increasing the minimum wage to $15/hr will result in the loss of between 1.4 million and 2.7 million low-wage jobs. I was unable to determine whether this loss of jobs included those jobs that would be shipped overseas or those that will be replaced by automation. A recent study concluded that millions of US jobs will be replaced by automation in the next fifteen years.
Another reason given in favor of a higher minimum wage is that the country will experience an increase in economic growth. The basis for this argument is that any increase in wages will be spent by the recipients on goods and services in the marketplace, thus stimulating our economy. Advocates also argue that raising the minimum wage will save taxpayers billions in welfare benefits and food stamps. These arguments may actually be true, at least in the short term. The reality is that as wages go up the cost of living will also go up. The point here is that any benefit derived from an increase in the minimum wage will be eaten up, at least in part, by an increase in the cost of living, resulting in little or no benefit to those at the low end of the wage scale.
Other arguments in favor of an increased minimum wage include a) reducing race and gender inequality and crime and b) producing a healthier population by giving low wage workers the means to purchase the basic needs of life. There was no explanation given as to just exactly what the basic needs of life are.
Many of the issues mentioned above as reasons for raising the minimum wage are social issues and are therefore not the responsibility of business owners, especially small business owners. Crime, poverty, income and gender inequality, social justice, and affordable housing are issues that are within the purview of federal, state, and local governments. Raising the minimum wage will hurt small business and result, at least in some cases, in the closing of those businesses and the elimination of any jobs associated with those businesses.
I mentioned above that the CBO estimates that between 1.4 million and 2.7 million people will lose their jobs if the minimum wage were increased to $15/hr. For those who are fortunate enough to not lose their job, the possibility will exist that their hours may be cut. This would result in those employees making less money overall.
As mentioned above, because of this large increase in the minimum wage many small businesses may be forced to close. It would not only be small businesses that would be affected, but larger businesses as well. For example, the White Castle Hamburger chain estimates that if the proposed $15/hr minimum wage were to become law, the company would be forced to close half of its stores. Even Walmart has stated that it has decided to close some of its stores and cancel construction on several others.
Another reason against raising the minimum wage is that it will become more difficult for inexperienced young people to find that first job. What small business would want to pay $15/hr to an untrained, inexperienced young person when he could hire someone with work experience for the same amount of money? I’m talking about high school kids who want to work to earn spending money and gain work experience.
There are minimum wage jobs that are just not worth $15/hr. There are low-wage workers who are currently earning $10 or even $12/hr to perform a certain job who will be hurt by this increase in the minimum wage. The reason being that sometimes the job that they perform is simply not worth $15/hr. It is not only the hourly wage that has to be considered but also payroll taxes, such as social security and Medicare as well as federal and state unemployment. There may also be employee benefits, such as paid vacations and paid holidays. Many of the people in these circumstances will either lose their jobs or have their hours reduced.
My final reason for being against a minimum wage is because of the “spillover effect.” This occurs when the minimum wage is increased and it becomes necessary to not only increase the wages of those making the minimum wage, but also the wages of those who are currently earning a wage that is above the minimum wage. It is necessary to do this because some of those employees have seniority or have a job with a higher level of responsibility and therefore deserve a higher level of compensation. This increases the stress on the small business owner to either cut the number of employees or reduce the total number of hours worked.
There are other reasons why Radical Democrat one-party rule will put this country at risk. One of these is that in the next few days House Democrats are going to try and de-platform media companies such as Fox News, Newsmax, and America One Media in an effort to silence their viewpoint. This would be a violation of one of our most sacred first amendment rights—the right of a free press. It is outrageous that elected officials of this country, regardless of their political persuasion, would even consider something as egregious as trying to limit our first amendment right to a free press.
Another reason for concern is President Biden’s desire to reform gun ownership here in the US. If these so-called “common sense reforms” are enacted, there will be more and more reforms down the road to limit your right to own a firearm. These reforms will be enforced only against law-abiding gun owners who have registered their guns and will eventually lead to the elimination of our constitutional right to own a firearm. It will not apply to those who have unregistered weapons because being unregistered, by definition, means that the government doesn’t know that those weapons exist. Therefore, they cannot be confiscated. The result is that criminals will have firearms and law-abiding citizens will not.
I could go on and cite other examples of the damage that could occur if we are unable to resist this attack of radical one-party rule on our republic. Just to be clear, by resist I am not suggesting that we go to Washington DC and storm the capital. Not only would that type of action be really dumb, it would rally support for the radical left. That would be the exact opposite of our goal.
What needs to be done is that conservatives from all over the country need to write letters to people like Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Senator Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, and Senator John Tester of Montana. These are Democrat senators who have significant Republican/Conservative voters in their states and could possibly be persuaded to vote against the radical left agenda being pushed by Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer. If this agenda is allowed to go forward the country may never recover politically, socially, or economically. The country will become a toothless tiger unable to support itself financially or defend itself militarily.
For the first time in my life I have absolutely no confidence in the duly elected President of the United States to successfully run this country. I say this not because I bear him or any of the other radicals in the Democrat party any ill will. I say this because I vehemently disagree with their left-wing agenda that will not move this country forward but will stifle economic growth and be more of a benefit to our enemies than to ourselves.
Their socialist agenda has been tried numerous times by countries around the world and has failed every time. That said, the elected morons of this country seem poised to try it again here in the US. Winston Churchill once paraphrased an aphorism by philosopher George Santayana that I consider to be relevant in this discussion. He said, “Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” Churchill spoke those words over seventy years ago and it would seem that he was correct.
America is at a crossroads. We can either continue on as a free capitalist society where everyone has the opportunity to work hard and thrive, or we can go down the road of socialism where our economy will descend into an economic abyss and our free and law abiding society will decline into lawlessness and anarchy. The time to choose is here. If we make the wrong choice the country may never recover. The people of this country should think long and hard about what kind of country they want to leave to their children and grandchildren. The time to choose is now. We better make the right choice.
If you enjoyed the read, pass it on to a friend.