President Biden’s progressive policy agenda

President Joe Biden’s policy agenda has been unmistakably progressive. But is it sustainable? The president, who ran for office as a uniting figure, has come to disregard bipartisanship in favor of an ever more-progressive set of priorities.

Last month, Biden and congressional leaders rammed through a $1.9 trillion spending package without a single Republican vote.

Now, Senate Democrats are once again eyeing means of bypassing the usual 60 voterequirement to advance legislation to speed up Biden’s $2 trillion-plus infrastructure spending proposal.

And on Friday, the president announced a new $1.5 trillion budget plan, a 16% increase in spending on domestic programs.

“Biden seems to believe that bigger government is definitionally better government, almost independent of the policy specifics, so he’s pushing for bigger government just about any way he can,” notes Reason Magazine’s Peter Suderman.

But at some point the federal spending sprees have to come to an end.

Even pre-pandemic, with a booming economy, the federal government was projected to generate deficits of over $1 trillion per year for the next decade.

The closest thing to fiscal responsibility one can see from the president is his wish to raise over $2 trillion in taxes from corporations to finance his $2 trillion infrastructure plan, which is mainly a collection of giveaways to his favored special interests.

How long Biden and congressional Democrats can sustain this approach to the federal budget remains to be seen. But it unfortunately seems to be the case that the president is willing to continue with or without Republican input.

Besides spending, Biden has also chosen to test the waters on changes to the Supreme Court.

Last week, he announced the formation of a commission to study, among other things, “the length of service and turnover of justices on the Court” and “the membership and size of the Court.”

Naturally, this raises the possibility of a deeply divisive court-packing fight in the years ahead.

Curiously, President Biden has stopped short of backing the idea of court-packing recently.

As a candidate for the Democratic nomination, Biden went so far as to outright oppose the concept.

“No, I’m not prepared to go on and try to pack the court, because we’ll live to rue that day,” he said.

Yet, now that he’s president, he’s forming a commission that will open the matter.

Notably, Justice Stephen Breyer, a staunch liberal on the court, has spoken out against the idea of transforming the court.

“I hope and expect that the court will retain its authority,” Breyer said. “But that authority, like the rule of law, depends on trust, a trust that the court is guided by legal principle, not politics. Structural alteration motivated by the perception of political influence can only feed that perception, further eroding that trust.”

This is the debate that

Biden has chosen to open. For the average American, a re-examination of the court is probably not one of the biggest issues of concern. But for progressive ideologues who see the court as a barrier to their big-government visions, this is an opportunity.

The question is how far Biden is actually willing to go and how much longer he can shift policy discussions to the left without running into the inevitable backlash.

Whether it’s spending or gun control or court-packing or anything else, Biden has opted to test the limits of going far to the left, and in a hurry.

Mayor John Valdivia is failed leader

John Valdivia’s opinion letter published in the SB Sun, April 4, demonstrates once again that he is a finger pointing hypocrite continuing his incompetence as mayor by further engaging in his petty political bickering, exacerbating dysfunction at City Hall.

He is a finger pointer because he blames Councilman Ted Sanchez for blight in the First Ward, he blames Mayors Morris and Davis for the city’s bankruptcy, and he blames the Sun for reporting his many misdeeds as Mayor.

He is a hypocrite, because he does not acknowledge his share of responsibility for blight everywhere in the city, including the First Ward.

He claims Morris and Davis drove San Bernardino into bankruptcy when it is the city council, of which he was a sitting member at the time, that controls the fiscal activity of the city, not the mayor.

He blames the newspaper for reporting facts about his misdeeds instead of avoiding the shenanigans that result in all of the bad press.

He is incompetent, because competent leaders must first recognize the problems and challenges they face, and then accept their responsibility for confronting the same by seeking solutions to address them.

Then a competent mayor will diligently work to establish consensus and collaboration among council persons, city staff and the public to address needs of the city head on.

Regarding Valdivia’s position that Morris and Davis drove the city into bankruptcy, the city was already in its second year of bankruptcy court proceedings at the time Davis took office, and in fact, Davis worked diligently with the city’s bankruptcy team, including myself, to ultimately get the city out of bankruptcy. Morris, while not having a council vote on financial matters, always encouraged fiscal responsibility, urging council to address deficit issues, including unfunded pension obligations. Instead, it was the council, including then council person John Valdivia that had the authority and responsibility to address fiscal issues and guide the city’s financial future.

Valdivia, ironically, points his finger at Davis and Morris when he had a seat at the council dais that had fiscal control of the city at the time the city was driven into bankruptcy.

Valdivia’s opinion is itself evidence of his failure to lead. Rather than writing about how he will move our city forward, he opts to pour fuel on political dysfunction.

We need a mayor who is ready to actively work collaboratively not only with council and staff, but with all residents willing to roll up sleeves, pull together, and fix the many problems facing San Bernardino.

The petty bickering, finger pointing and senseless non productive activity of Valdivia, including his opinion published in the SB Sun, are counterproductive to the needs of our city.

Second Amendmentright to bear arms

I returned from Vietnam 53 years ago and have not used a rifle since.

I have no problem with men and women having the weapon of their choice who have earned the right through that ignored first clause of the Second Amendment: “A well regulated militia necessary to a free state.”

Those who demand their “right” to keep and bear arms should man up and do their duty first.

The hundreds of millions of weapons privately owned in this country are not all owned by the 7% of the population who have earned the right.