Betsy McCaughey: Build Back Broke

 

Betsy McCaughey was a go-to resource when Congress was preparing to ram Obamacare down our throats.  Today in the New York Post, she gets into the weeds with the bazillion dollar Build Back Better bill:

Democrats are quarreling over the price tag of their Build Back Better bill. But the real problem is what’s in it. The bill coerces workers to join unions, imposes racial preferences on every facet of life and redistributes money from workers to takers.

Fortunately, the bill is in limbo. Moderate Democrats like Sen. Joe Manchin (W.Va) insist the bill has to be pared down to less than half its current price tag. The far left is outraged. But the bill can’t pass without every Senate Democrat supporting it.

Not passing it would be best: This bill is as un-American as it gets. Here are some of its details, which Democrats would prefer you not see. Judge for yourself.

Here are the bullet points:

• First-generation down-payment assistance: Most people work and save for years to buy a home. This bill makes them into suckers. It gives $6.8 billion to low-income first-time homebuyers with no conditions. It’s part of President Biden’s scheme to increase racial and economic diversity in the suburbs.
• Home-efficiency rebates: The bill offers up to $14,000 to homeowners who lower energy use by installing new heat pumps, air conditioning systems, insulation and energy-efficient appliances. It’s a pot of gold for homeowners who qualify and tens of billions of dollars in new business for [union] contractors.
• Direct-care workforce: The bill awards $1.48 billion to labor unions and community organizations to recruit and train workers to care for the elderly or disabled at home. Top priority is training workers in their rights and organizing them. This is your tax dollars at work creating a new army of likely Democratic voters.

Click here for the rest of the column.  None of it is good news.

# # #

Another misnomer: Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing

image credit: 123rf.com

Stanley Kurtz was the investigative reporter who went to Chicago during the 2008 election cycle to uncover the records from the now-defunct Annenberg Challenge, a foundation that funneled funds to far left educational programs and institutions.  It was noteworthy because future President Barack Obama and the terrorist Bill Ayers both sat on the board.

Last night, Mark Levin interviewed Stanley Kurtz on his hour-long Life, Liberty, and Levin.  Mr. Kurtz has turned his attention to the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing legislation, and this innocuous-sounding piece of legislation is, in fact, one of the biggest threats to our way of life.  Candidate Joe Biden is all for it.  The link for Mr. Levin’s broadcast web page is here (video page here), and if you have difficulty with access, here are a few paragraphs from Mr. Kurtz’s essay "Biden and Dems Are Set to Abolish the Suburbs" on line (at the Ethics and Public Policy Center):

. . . Biden has actually promised to go much further than AFFH [Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing]. Biden has embraced Cory Booker’s strategy for ending single-family zoning in the suburbs and creating what you might call “little downtowns” in the suburbs. Combine the Obama-Biden administration’s radical AFFH regulation with Booker’s new strategy, and I don’t see how the suburbs can retain their ability to govern themselves. It will mean the end of local control, the end of a style of living that many people prefer to the city, and therefore the end of meaningful choice in how Americans can live. Shouldn’t voters know that this is what’s at stake in the election?

It is no exaggeration to say that progressive urbanists have long dreamed of abolishing the suburbs. (In fact, I’ve explained it all in a book.) Initially, these anti-suburban radicals wanted large cities to simply annex their surrounding suburbs, like cities did in the 19th century. That way a big city could fatten up its tax base. Once progressives discovered it had since become illegal for a city to annex its surrounding suburbs without voter consent, they cooked up a strategy that would amount to the same thing.

This de facto annexation strategy had three parts: (1) use a kind of quota system to force “economic integration” on the suburbs, pushing urban residents outside of the city; (2) close down suburban growth by regulating development, restricting automobile use, and limiting highway growth and repair, thus forcing would-be suburbanites back to the city; (3) use state and federal laws to force suburbs to redistribute tax revenue to poorer cities in their greater metropolitan region. If you force urbanites into suburbs, force suburbanites back into cities, and redistribute suburban tax revenue, then presto! You have effectively abolished the suburbs.

Read the rest here.

Related:  Mr. Kurtz’s article “Suburbs Hold Key to 2020 Presidential Choice” is here.

This is a subject of concern to every friend, associate, or family member who lives in the suburbs. This is an excellent topic to share with them.

# # #