In case you were wondering, Republicans don’t care about people.
That would be, if they aren’t white.
So asserted Nancy Pelosi Thursday.
She was appearing on CNBC, where Mad Money host Jim Cramer — with the emphasis of a boxing announcer — laid out a plan for America. Here’s a list of things to which you should give a “huge chunk” of cash:
“Why can’t you go across the aisle and say, ‘Representative Lewis, civil rights legend, would have loved it if we could do something for the totally disenfranchised in this country. No matter what, can we give — can we give a huge chunk of money to the people who are disenfranchised, to minorities who want so badly to stay in business, and can’t, and to people who are trying to go to college or have student loans who are minorities, who are the most affected because they had the least chance in our country?’ That’s gotta be something both sides can agree to.”
Small business owners have certainly been put out by government-ordered shutdowns in the name of public health. Do you want to subsidize some, according to race? Pay some people’s student loans, based on their race?
If not, to hear Pelosi tell it, you’re like that guy from Gone With the Wind:
“Perhaps you mistook them for somebody who gives a damn for what you just described?”
Jim reacted: “Ooh, geez.”
The senator knows a problem when she sees one, and you — and/or those you support — are it.
And by the way, in case you didn’t know, you don’t support the idea of governance.
Learn ’em good, Nance:
“Yeah, that’s the problem. See, the thing is, they don’t believe in governance. They don’t believe in governance, and that requires some acts of government to do that. But just what you described is what Mr. Schumer — Chuck Schumer — is proposing that we do with some of the resources in the bill.”
She was talking about May’s Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions Act — AKA the Heroes Act.
The HEROES Act would provide funding for a wide range of groups, a new stimulus check, funding for state and local governments, hazard pay for essential workers, funding for coronavirus testing, rent and mortgage assistance, an extension of the $600 weekly unemployment expansion, additional funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, additional funding for small businesses, emergency relief for the U.S. Postal Service, and provisions for election safety and facilitating voting by mail.
Nancy wants to toss our money to the right places:
“And you described Chuck Schumer’s proposal exactly. In addition to the, um, the Heroes Act, if we’re talking about how much and how long and how targeted, [if] we’re going to juggle some of this money, let’s focus it where it’s going to do the most good.”
She’s trying to do right by economists:
“Basically, economists tell us: Spend the money, invest the money for those who need it the most because they will spend it, it will be a stimulus or at least a stabilization. And that’s a good thing. Consumer confidence is a good thing for the economy — you know that better than anyone.”
She’s right about being in a great position — herself alone.
In the interest of doing good, she could throw in a hefty “chunk” of her own: As per Fox Business, she’s worth $114 million.
With regard to congressional spending, The Daily Wire notes that not all economists are free-wheeling.
From “legendary economist” Henry Hazlitt’s book, Economics in One Lesson:
Everywhere government spending is presented as a panacea for all our economic ills. An enormous literature is based on this fallacy, and, as so often happens with doctrines of this sort, it has become part of an intricate network of fallacies that mutually support each other … Everything we get must in some way be paid for and all government expenditures must eventually be paid out of the proceeds of taxation… Practically all government attempts to redistribute wealth and income tend to smother productive incentives and lead toward general impoverishment.
And here’s a bit from the great Walter E. Williams:
“The fact that Congress has no resources of its very own forces us to recognize that the only way Congress can give one American one dollar is to first — through intimidation, threats and coercion — confiscate that dollar from some other American through the tax code.”
Back to Nancy, she wants to lower the threshold at which people can apply for a second loan:
“[It]…would make, I’m told, by the hospitality industry, a big difference for them — many jobs, many entry level jobs, many union jobs, many people of color jobs, and I hope they would consider that.”
It’s great that Democrats want to help the country. But haven’t they, as a party, been erring on the side of closed businesses, to the point that we’re in such a mess in the first place?
If so, don’t expect Nancy to take a side other than her own. After all, since the election, she’s lambasted Trump’s border fence as “an immorality.” But when some people climbed the fence around her property last year, the police were called.
Maybe she should call the police on Republicans — evidently, they don’t give a d-mn about people.
See more pieces from me:
Find all my RedState work here.
Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.