Dems: All Good Things Must Come to a Spend

Dems: All Good Things Must Come to a Spend

July 22, 2021

Forget reading the bill after you pass it -- now Senate Democrats want to pass a bill that doesn't exist! Taking their abuse of the legislative process to new heights, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) did something that no one learned on Schoolhouse Rock: he held a vote on nothing. Just trust us, Democrats cooed. It'll be great. Republicans, who've been stung by plenty of bills they had read, refused. Maybe Schumer needs a refresher on how Congress works -- but, as Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) pointed out, "Around here, we typically write the bills before we go."

The phantom proposal, which was supposed to be the shell of Joe Biden's phony infrastructure bill, never materialized. Amazingly, that didn't deter Democrats, who are desperate to blow through more taxpayer dollars before summer recess. Well, the Left has proved they can game the system, but they can't bypass it. "These discussions have yet to conclude," McConnell said "There's no outcome yet, no bipartisan agreement, no text. Nothing for the Congressional Budget Office to evaluate. And certainly nothing on which to vote. Not yet. So obviously, if the Democratic leader tries to force a cloture vote on a bill that does not exist. It will fail."

And it did. Republicans, even the ones negotiating with Democrats, refused to take a $1.2 trillion dollar proposal on faith. "There just isn't the kind of trust around it right now that would allow that to happen," Senator John Thune (R-S.D.) warned. Across the aisle, Schumer, competing for understatement of the year, declared after the vote, "In order to finish the bill, first we need to start." That's proving to be a tall order for Biden's party. Turns out, there's a big difference between squawking about bipartisanship and actually practicing it. And of course, Democrats have made that even more difficult by trying to cram the bill full of wildly unpopular priorities.

Just this week, Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) argued that the bill -- which is already so far removed from actual infrastructure that it's become a late-night punchline -- should include things like "voting rights." What does that have to do with paving highways? Absolutely nothing -- unless the road is to a permanent Democratic majority. On the White House's Twitter account, Biden's spin-masters insist the plan will build "thousands of bridges." That's interesting, NRO's Dominic Pino writes. Because 99.2 percent of what they're discussing has nothing to do with bridges.

Frankly, the idea that members of both parties are willing to add heaping piles of debt onto a towering mountain of IOUs ought to worry everyone, Senator Steve Daines (R-Mont.) warned on "Washington Watch." "How are they going to pay for this $1.2 trillion dollars?" he asked. And let's not forget, Daines said, "This is just the warm-up. [These are] the hors d'oeuvres for the main course the Democrats are salivating over. And that's the $3.5 trillion dollar -- that's with a T -- [grab bag of liberal priorities that Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is pushing], which includes massive spending, massive tax increases, massive increase in the deficit, massive effects on inflation in our country. But if there's something the Democrats do really, really well," Daines pointed out, "it's that they know how to spend and they know how to raise taxes."

Not surprisingly, Daines said, this twin set of bills -- worth an eye-popping $4.7 trillion -- will cost much more than what they're claiming. "Because what they've done is [stuffed it with brand] new entitlements that go out for five years. But the reality is, those will continue on beyond five years and [will] probably be there forever. As Ronald Reagan talked about, [these are] the forever programs of federal government... And what's going on now is, of course, inflation... the greatest inflation we've had in 13 years. Inflation is really a tax on the American people. It's the most regressive kind of tax, because those who can afford it the least are impacted the most. With inflation, you throw another $5 trillion dollars of spending in the economy and you know what's going to happen? It's going to put more inflationary pressure."

But wait -- what about Biden's speech that spending helps inflation? Daines, like everyone else who understands basic economics, half-laughed. "You can't defy the laws of gravity. That's what's going on. Or when you inject that amount of federal spending into the economy, we're already starting to see the effects... I can't imagine what will happen here if they're successful in pushing another $5 trillion dollars into the economy over a relatively short period of time... The scale of what they're looking at is dangerous," he warned. Apart from the actual numbers -- which are massive -- this whole stunt of moving forward with a bill that doesn't even exist is very revealing. It's like running around with a checkbook full of signed checks! How many Americans in their right mind would do that? And yet, that's exactly what the Left tried here.

Americans need to be paying attention, Daines said, because China is. They watched Biden ram through -- on purely partisan lines -- another $2 trillion dollar COVID relief package this year -- even though we still had a trillion dollars of unspent funds from 2020. "We didn't need it." Now, there's $4.7 trillion dollars on deck, and China is cheering -- because if we keep passing proposals like this one, America will eventually collapse under the weight of all of this spending. "We're unilaterally disarming in this country by raising taxes to make us less competitive, pushing jobs back overseas, creating inflationary pressures which really shrinks the paycheck of the American people. This is recklessness by the Left," he insisted. "We must do everything we can to stop it. And by the way, it just takes one Democrat to stop this -- just one -- because they don't pass this purely on a 50-50 kind of vote. If one Dem stands up and has the courage to push back, we can stop this."

So do your part! Contact your senators and urge them to stop negotiating a bill America doesn't need -- and can't afford!


Tony Perkins's Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.


California's Preferred Pronouns Are Free/Speech

July 22, 2021

There was no "he said, she said" in the unanimous decision issued by California's Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The three-judge panel unanimously ruled that a law requiring nursing home staff to address residents by their preferred pronouns violated free speech. The opinion calls the provision a "content-based restriction on speech," that permits some viewpoints while suppressing others. A California state court unanimously defeating such a draconian transgender mandate gives powerful evidence that liberty may not be quite dead out on the Left coast. The law was uniquely egregious because of its enforcement. Repeat offenders could face criminal charges and fines as high as $1,000 or up to a year in prison.

This law is a case study in the progressive isolation of California. California State Senator Scott Wiener, who authored the bill, was genuinely surprised when the bill drew criticism from Christian groups, apparently unaware that anyone would find it objectionable. Even though it had been cleared for passage in the state legislature, where Democrats hold supermajorities in both houses, Wiener withdrew the bill and met with its critics. Evidently, he found their arguments unconvincing and reintroduced the bill in 2017. It passed the California Assembly 55-19 and the California Senate 27-12.

To Leftists, there is no reason against using someone's preferred pronouns. They deny absolute truth, maintaining each person determines the truth for himself. From this perspective, it is unacceptable to foist your personal beliefs about truth on someone else; refusing to identify someone by that person's preferred pronouns is a manifestation of stubborn intolerance. Doing so becomes a just target for outrage, cancellation, and ostracism. This perspective is wrong. It collapses upon its own standards. When such relativists accuse others of intolerance based on their own personal understanding of truth, they commit the same error they are condemning.

Christians must not play by the Left's rulebook. We know absolute truth because God has revealed it to us. This truth, external to us, does not change to meet our whims or any other's. That Word reveals that God made man in his image, male and female. We represent something of God's character to one another in our biological sex. If we attempt to alter our gender, pretend to alter it, or acquiesce to another pretended alteration, we stand opposed to the truth found in God's Word and are essentially lying. Without even considering others, this should cause us to fear for our souls.

We should consider others, however; each person is valuable because he or she is made in God's image. In fact, God commands us to love others, and insists that loving other people is evidence that we truly love God. Is it loving someone who identifies as transgender to use their preferred pronouns? The world certainly tells us so. But loving someone is about seeking their ultimate good, not their momentary gratification. Every person's ultimate need is forgiveness of their sins and reconciliation with God. Christians love non-Christians by telling them about this good God. Participating in someone's pronoun farce leads that person away from the truth and is therefore unloving.

We must not compromise the truth even when the world labels that truth as "offensive" and "intolerant." We must pray for wisdom and grace in sharing God's design for sexuality. But as our culture drowns in half-tolerance, we ought to remember that insisting on God's truth is loving, not arrogant.

The pronoun wars will escalate further. The law's sponsor is urging California to appeal. Teachers in Virginia, Florida, and Ohio have faced punishment for using the "wrong" pronouns. The Chairwoman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is forcing this pronoun mandate on businesses nationwide. Each Christian must answer this question: who do you fear more, God or man?

Protecting Life on College Campuses

July 22, 2021

The physical and psychological traumas associated with the chemical abortion regimen evince the unique horrors of the procedure -- even beyond what we are used to in the abortion context. Tammi, one victim of the abortion industry's embrace of this practice, reflected on her chemical abortion as "savage" and "horrific." She recalled extreme physical pain and fear throughout the process, ending in the ultimate delivery of her developing child, possessing undeniably human features, into a toilet bowl at her home.

Tammi's traumatizing experience with chemical abortion could easily be that of many college freshmen, suffering physical and emotional torture in an unsanitary communal dorm bathroom. Abortion advocates nevertheless have begun pushing for access to the dangerous mifepristone and misoprostol cocktail to be available for students in their campus health centers.

To address this issue, yesterday Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) introduced the Protecting Life on College Campus Act of 2021 in coordination with Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.), with Sen. Steve Daines (R-Mont.) introducing the Senate version. This bill would block federal funding for colleges and universities that provide the chemical abortion regimen to students or employees. In a statement about the bill, Roy -- who has been a great leader on this issue -- said, "A college dorm room is no place to have a do-it-yourself abortion, and the American taxpayer should not be paying for the destruction of innocent human life on our college campuses. But, as we already know, what the abortion industry really cares about are profits -- not the welfare of mothers or the integrity of higher learning."

It is no secret that the abortion industry deliberately targets vulnerable women in order to expand their reach. Its newest project of invading academic institutions, however, reaches the new low of turning "our college dorm rooms [...] into abortion clinics," as Daines told Tony Perkins on "Washington Watch." As FRC's Meg Kilgannon shared at the press conference for the bill, "Colleges are places for women to grow intellectually, emotionally, and spiritually. It's not the place to be handed dangerous chemical abortion pills that kill her unborn child and harm her as well."

Beyond their obvious disregard for the lives of the unborn, the abortion industry makes clear that it also has no concern for the wellbeing of women by advocating for access to chemical abortions on campuses, affirming what Miller stated explained on the show, "the abortion industry is about death and lying." She explained how young women are "told that this is a safe, easy, painless way to take care of the pregnancy" only to later suffer painfully from the process.

Communal bathrooms in girls' dorms are hardly a sanitary or safe location to carry out a "medical procedure" that causes extreme cramping, hemorrhage requiring transfusions, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, and bleeding that may continue for up to 30 days. Daines reflected in his discussion with Tony that, "seven percent of the women that take those abortion inducing pills need some kind of surgery."

The Protecting Life on College Campus Act is a direct response to the California College Student Right to Access Act (SB 24) that will go into effect in 2023, providing students in the state's public universities with access to the dangerous abortion pills. In her own interview with Tony Perkins on Washington Watch, Miller discussed the evils of providing chemical abortions to college students, saying that providers are, "preying on vulnerable women that are afraid... and they live to regret it."

As Tony reflected in his interview with Daines, "We've seen that fact, that reality that what starts in California does not stay there." This principle rings true as a warning to the rest of the nation to take action before more states face the battle of keeping gruesome abortions out of college dorms.

The Protecting Life on College Campus Act affirms the dignity of young women by ensuring that they are not coerced into dangerous chemical abortions while experiencing their first taste of independence at college. As Meg Kilgannon stated, "Stop telling women that to be successful we have to kill our children. Start telling women the ways you'll adapt a system -- that for decades focused only on males -- to accommodate the totality of women--including women's fertility."