March 27, 2020 the President signed into law the CARES Act (Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act), a 2.2 trillion dollar spending package to follow a “Phase 1” expenditure of 8.6 billion and “Phase 2” representing 114 billion for a total of 2.3 trillion dollars. The US government acquires approximately 3 trillion in tax revenue indicating the triad of recent spending packages represents three-quarters of federal annual receipts and this is before adding mandatory spending (Social Security, Medicare, unemployment and Medicaid), discretionary spending and interest payments on the national debt. While the intent of the “Phase 3” relief package is to assist Americans and small business in navigating this unnatural economic interruption, the initiatives also contribute to government expansion in ways such as:
- $25B food stamps and child nutrition
- $12B housing
- $3.5B states for childcare
- $32B education
- $900M low-income housing assistance
- $50M legal service for the poor
Approximately $200 additional billion was spent on non-related emergency healthcare including but not limited to:
- $37M US Forest Service
- $75M National Foundation of Arts and Humanities
- $25M John Kennedy Center
- $78K Institute of American Indian and Alaska Native Culture Arts Development
- $500K Utah water project
Items that didn’t make it into these packages include:
- Funding for Planned Parenthood
- Airline Carbon Emissions Reporting requirements
- Union medical care for funds
- Collective bargaining programs (US Postal Service pension fund)
- Violence against women program grants
- National $15 minimum wage law
The Senate passed the CARES Act on Wednesday, March 25 with a 96-0 vote.
The bill reached the House of Representatives on Friday, March 27 after many House members had already departed from Washington. Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY) felt the 880 page, largest spending bill ever passed in US history merited not only the dignity of calling a constitutionally required quorum to be present, but that the vote follow regular roll call procedure and document votes versus passing the behemoth on reverberating “aye” or “nay” echos. Massie argued healthcare workers, grocery store clerks, truck drivers, policemen and other essential service employees are being asked to maintain critical services during this crisis, shouldn’t Congress likewise rise to the dignity of the office and pass this Goliath spending bill following regular, constitutional rules of order.
The CARES Act is now law; the largest redistribution of American wealth and reshuffling of American employment will begin in the immediate future.
Meanwhile, it appears current physical distancing guidelines will remain in place as the outbreak purportedly hits its peak in mid-April, yet some legislators are already clamoring for a fourth spending bill. Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has been quoted saying “we have some other things we want to do” and “there are so many things that we didn’t get in any of these bills yet, in the way that we need to.” Representative James Clyburn (D-SC) has suggested the bill was “a tremendous opportunity to restructure things to fit our vision.”
Is that what’s being done here, “restructuring things to fit our vision?” Are …
Rumor has it there are citizens, particularly voters, who are shocked that a contender for President of the United States is a self-declared atheist, socialist who is keen on communism. However, for conservatives, this is no surprise but rather the inevitable consequence of failing to teach several generations with sufficient profundity the Bill of Rights, the US Constitution and the glory of their premises, failing to illuminate the successes of our economic and political system, misleading our children on primacy of “global citizenship” versus responsibility to American citizenship, and allowing radical, left-leaning ideology to hijack our institutions of higher learning. Ronald Reagan wasn’t hyperbolizing when he stated “freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream.”
The transformation away from everything America was founded to be is underway- the political, the social and economic framework that has allowed for the manifestation of the American idea is truly in a state of compromise. And among the multitude of policies, laws and ideas America is embracing to her own detriment is the normalization of transgenderism.
How Did We Get Here?
It has taken several decades of policy and campaigning to enfeeble the primary institution required for a free, flourishing society- the Institution of the Family. Replacing belief in eternal moral truth (that which is good with that which feels good) has been stunningly effective with the populous. Social policies promoting promiscuity, economic policies encouraging single motherhood and fatherless homes, feminism’s orthodoxy encouraging women to pursue manhood, children’s overexposure to graphic television and video games, government policy luring toddlers away from their parents to government run pre-schools, or teaching comprehensive sex education courses at all levels of schooling normalizing sexual promiscuity even among our youngest; all are contributors to the shift from healthy family life and high standards of morality. The sexualization of children is a current favorite among the social experiments and positioned at the helm is the transgender movement.
First The Facts
The American College of Pediatricians considers human biological sex to be “a biological trait that defines living things as male and female based on the complement of sex chromosomes and the presence of reproductive organs. “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of male and female, respectively, and are found in every cell of the human body. Sex is established at conception, declares itself in utero, and is acknowledged at birth.” While there are exceedingly rare instances of chromosomal anomalies (occurring in less than 0.02% of births , this does not constitute a third sex or a “spectrum.” In reality sex cannot be changed as it is determined by unalterable chromosomes. One may ingest hormones to induce physical changes or undergo surgery to imitate the opposite sex but one may never become biologically different from assignment at birth.
In order to escape the confines of biological truths, the psychological phenomenon of “gender identity” was conceptualized to decouple sex from its biological moorings. How did …
In the first quarter of the year 2020, the term “social distancing” has made its way into common vernacular. The concept was coined and popularized when governments launched the term into the media as the preferred strategy for curbing the global spread of the COVID19 virus. The term itself appears among recommended strategies advanced in the Imperial College of London Report:
Two fundamental strategies are possible: (a) mitigation, which focuses on slowing but not necessarily stopping epidemic spread –reducing peak healthcare demand while protecting those most at risk of severe disease from infection, and (b) suppression, which aims to reverse epidemic growth, reducing case numbers to low levels and maintaining that situation indefinitely.Each policy has major challenges. We find that that optimal mitigation policies (combining home isolation of suspect cases, home quarantine of those living in the same household as suspect cases, and social distancing of the elderly and others at most risk of severe disease) might reduce peak healthcare demand by 2/3 and deaths by half. However, the resulting mitigated epidemic would still likely result in hundreds of thousands of deaths and health systems (most notably intensive care units) being overwhelmed many times over.For countries able to achieve it, this leaves suppression as the preferred policy option. We show that in the UK and US context, suppression will minimally require a combination of social distancing of the entire population, home isolation of cases and household quarantine of their family members. This may need to be supplemented by school and university closures, though it should be recognized that such closures may have negative impacts on health systems due to increased absenteeism. The major challenge of suppression is that this type of intensive intervention package –or something equivalently effective at reducing transmission –will need to be maintained until a vaccine becomes available (potentially 18 months or more) –given that we predict that transmission will quickly rebound if interventions are relaxed.We show that intermittent social distancing –triggered by trends in disease surveillance –may allow interventions to be relaxed temporarily in relative short time windows, but measures will need to be reintroduced if or when case numbers rebound.Last, while experience in China and now South Korea show that suppression is possible in the short term, it remains to be seen whether it is possible long-term, and whether the social and economic costs of the interventions adopted thus far can be reduced
While the approach has presumably been effective in curbing the spread, is “social distancing” in fact the actual goal? Is “physical distancing” more accurate terminology or even existing concepts of “self-quarantine” or “self isolation?”
Human beings are inherently and definitively designed to live as social, relational, communal creatures. Humans do not thrive in isolation.
The twenty first century has introduced miraculous advances providing for widespread, instantaneous communication while, in tandem, old-fashioned counterparts still exist- the telephone, letter writing or strolling down the road to check on a neighbor.
Americans continue to follow mandated protocols of physical distancing and self-isolation, but let …
Sign up to receive updates for creative, informative content on the Conservative Chalkboard.
Just want to leave us a message?
Use the form below. Name and email are optional, but if you’d like to hear back from us, we’ll need an email.