RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bidens-fact-free-infrastructure-fact-sheet/?utm_source=recirc-desktop&utm_medium=homepage&utm_campaign=river&utm_content=featured-content-trending&utm_term=second

On June 24, the White House put out a fact sheet on the much-celebrated bipartisan infrastructure deal. The purpose of these fact sheets is not to present a full, detailed explanation of proposed legislation, and we don’t have an actual bill yet. Indeed, the purpose is more political — to set the narrative and give the public a reference point from which to start debate on whether the proposals are good ideas. It would be unfair to expect full details from a fact sheet, but we should expect some details. Especially when the White House prefaces the whole thing with the notion that it’s “showing that democracy can deliver results.”

The only thing the American people know about this infrastructure deal is that politicians want to spend $1.2 trillion of their money. On what? Infrastructure. It should be said that this is an improvement over the Democrats’ proposed plan, wherein everything was infrastructure. At least we’ve narrowed down to actual infrastructure. But Congress agreeing to spend money on a broad category is a pretty low standard for celebration.

https://fee.org/articles/restaurants-are-now-adding-equity-charges-to-customers-che

“Where should we eat tomorrow?” my wife asked me excitedly as we sat on our deck Friday evening.

She had locked down a babysitter for Saturday night, and we were both eager for our first dinner date alone together in months.

“Broders’,” I answered without hesitation.

Located in southwest Minneapolis, Broders Pasta Bar is a local gem. It has a great outdoor patio and the best Italian cuisine in the Twin Cities. We had not eaten there since the pandemic began.

My wife nodded and started to make a reservation on her phone. Then her jaw dropped.

“You’re not going to like this,” she said.

An Equity Charge?

She was right.

On its website, Broders’ has a notice to customers notifying them of a new 15 percent “benefits and equity” charge they’ve instituted. They justify the charge, first, by explaining that “many states have allowed reduced minimum wages for service staff in the form of a tip credit.” (More on this in a minute.)

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/06/republicans-mustnt-get-hoodwinked-on-defund-the-police-pivot/

And by the way, if you go to the Black Lives Matter website, you will still find this: “#DefundThePolice: . . . We call for a national defunding of police. . . .” (Compare now-vice president Kamala Harris in 2020 praising Black Lives Matter as “the most significant agent for change within the criminal justice system”).
Democrats might be making the case for funding once more, but it comes with a big catch.

O bviously, it makes sense for Republicans to denounce the Biden administration over Jen Psaki’s ridiculous claim that it was the GOP that wanted to cut police funding, the White House’s . . . um . . . rationale being that opposition to the president’s economic wrecking ball of a stimulus proposal equals opposition to every individual item in that boondoggle — as if deciding not to buy the manse you can’t afford in the tony school district means you oppose public-school education.

Everyone knows it was Democrats who made “defund the police” a mantra — occasionally, even a litmus test of what it means to be a viable Democratic candidate or official these days (even as Democrats who championed the scrapping of police departments spent taxpayer funds on security guards for themselves).

Nevertheless, as I have pointed out before, the smarter progressives have never been in favor of defunding the police, never mind zeroing out their budgets to achieve a wholesale elimination of the police. They not only want full funding, but significantly increased funding levels.

But here’s the catch: They want to change the definition of what policing is.

The savvy Democrats know that, as violent-crime rates surge, the party is getting killed over its “defund the police” madness. There is nothing to be done about that in the short term: The Bolshevik Left has insisted that Democrats are dead serious about gutting law enforcement (AOC: “Defunding the police means defunding the police” — not “budget tricks or funny math”); and the “defund the police” rhetoric is associated in the public mind with the months of lethal rioting that began last spring, and that was led by Black Lives Matter and Antifa, for whom Democrats continue to provide cover.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pelosis-jan-6-commission-11625005856?mod=opinion_lead_pos4

Nancy Pelosi is giving her plan to investigate the Jan. 6 Capitol riot one more try, and this one looks even less likely to find a common set of credible facts and conclusions.

The Speaker on Monday introduced legislation to create a new select House committee to probe the Capitol riot and may hold a vote this week. This follows her attempt to establish a commission with members from outside Congress. That failed amid Republican concern that the structure of the commission gave Democrats the ability to appoint and control the commission staff.

Her new plan is even more lopsided. Mrs. Pelosi would appoint all 13 members and the chairman. Eight spots would go to Democrats, and five to Republicans—despite a closely divided House. Mrs. Pelosi would retain authority to veto GOP members named by Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy. The committee chairman would have unilateral subpoena power, as well as the ability to order depositions in consultation with the (Pelosi-approved) ranking Republican.

Mrs. Pelosi has already made clear what she thinks happened on Jan. 6. She said the committee’s job will be to explore the “root causes of [Jan. 6]—the white supremacy, the anti-Semitism, the Islamophobia, all the rest of it that was so evident.” Nothing like prejudging. It will also look at Capitol security and “what it means to be ready for such an insurrection.”

Her real goal is to keep Jan. 6 alive in the public mind to use against Republicans to maintain control of the House in 2022. Democrats also hope the committee will divide Republicans. Mrs. Pelosi said this week she might name a Republican as one of her eight picks. She’s betting Reps. Liz Cheney or Adam Kinzinger will sign up, and in the process highlight the GOP divide over Donald Trump.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-new-racial-discrimination-11625006066?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

The Supreme Court recently put off whether to hear a case accusing Harvard of discriminating by race in admissions. The Court asked the Biden Administration for its view of the case, punting a decision to next fall or later. We hope the Justices realize that sooner or later they will have to decide whether the new wave of racial discrimination is constitutional.

President Biden’s emphasis on “equity” as a dominant policy goal is already creating new challenges in the federal courts. By equity, Mr. Biden means preferences for some racial groups over others to achieve equal outcomes. A federal judge in Wisconsin recently issued a temporary restraining order against a $3.8 billion Department of Agriculture program that allocates loan forgiveness by race. And last week another federal judge, this one in Florida, issued a preliminary injunction.

This program, part of Covid-19 relief, is aimed at helping “socially disadvantaged farmers.” A USDA fact sheet boasts that it steers benefits to those who are “Black, Native American/Alaskan Native, Asian American or Pacific Islander, or are of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity.” The legislation further includes $1.01 billion in funding “to USDA to create a racial equity commission and address longstanding discrimination across USDA.”