“In just the past few weeks, Trump has floated—and senior members of his administration have defended—four policy proposals that would have been loudly denounced as socialist overreach had they come from the progressive wing of the Democratic Party. And for good reason. Progressives champion similar big-government policies.
Start with the proposal to ban institutional investors from buying single-family homes. This is not conservative policy; it’s the federal government deciding who should be allowed to buy property based on identity rather than on behavior. It substitutes political discretion for voluntary market exchange and treats ownership itself as suspect.
The proposal rests on the false premise that allowing corporate investors to own and subsequently rent out homes is a major driver of high home prices. The practice is supposedly diverting capital away from construction, limiting the number of homes changing hands and crowding out owner-occupiers.
The data say something much different. Depending on the source, institutional investors own only about 1–2 percent of U.S. single-family homes. Estimates from the American Enterprise Institute and HousingWire show that even at the upper bound, this share is far too small to plausibly explain the 50 percent nationwide increase in home prices since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic.
…
the idea of ordering Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to purchase $200 billion in mortgage-backed securities, a kind of housing-specific version of the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing, in an effort to lower mortgage rates. Conservatives spent the last election cycle correctly explaining that subsidizing demand in a supply-constrained housing market only pushes prices higher.
…
the proposed 10 percent cap on credit card interest rates. Price controls on unsecured credit don’t make borrowing cheaper; they make it disappear for anyone deemed risky. When banks cannot price risk to certain borrowers, they stop lending to them. But borrowers don’t stop needing credit; they just get pushed into far worse alternatives.”
“Hours after the Senate voted to advance the war powers resolution rebuking the White House’s current and future actions in Venezuela, President Donald Trump placed “angry” calls to each of the five Republicans who crossed the aisle, according to people with knowledge of the calls.
Sens. Josh Hawley, R-Mo.; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; Rand Paul, R-Ky.; Susan Collins, R-Maine; and Todd Young, R-Ind., voted with Democrats to require the administration to get congressional approval for future military action in Venezuela.
Thursday’s vote was a procedural motion, and it advances the legislation to a full Senate vote that will require a simple majority.
Soon after the vote, Trump threatened each senator with primary challenges, vowing to unseat them, the people said.”
The first action in Venezuela already required Congressional authorization and was unconstitutional!
Tea partiers give Trump a higher proportion of their support than do non-tea party Republicans, but Trump has always had a significant amount of support from both. The tea party as a movement motivated by debt and government spending was a myth. Someone truly angry about debt and spending does not support Trump.
The big city libs want to fund rural hospitals in flyover country. Trump does not.
“President Donald Trump pressed Congress in July to pass his big tax and spending law, which slashed more than $1 trillion from health care programs and could lead to an estimated 11.8 million people losing their health insurance. It also included cuts to what’s known as the provider tax, which nearly all states use to increase Medicaid payments to hospitals, in part to help them fund services in rural communities where providing care may not otherwise be financially possible.
By one estimate, the law’s tax cuts could force more than 300 rural hospitals to close. In Erwin, Tennessee, it may mean Unicoi Hospital never reopens, leaving the county without any hospitals or emergency rooms.”
“These strange divisions underscore the complex political dynamics of the president’s latest power play. It’s become a loyalty test that could boost Republicans’ chances of keeping their trifecta in Washington, but one that also carries significant electoral risk for several of their own members in Congress and potential for broader voter backlash.”
A common Republican response to a school shooting is mental health is the problem. A few years ago, members of both parties passed a mental health bill and school therapists were paid for. The Trump administration cut that funding because of a line about diversity hiring; Republicans who voted for this funding are silent.
“Special tax breaks for venture capitalists, Alaskan fisheries, spaceports, private schools, rum makers and others — together costing tens of billions of dollars — quietly caught a ride on Republicans’ sprawling domestic policy megabill.”
“These reversals may be surprising, but they were not remarkable. It was par for the course for congressional Republicans who, in recent years, have shown a proclivity for taking bold, theatrical stands before meekly capitulating in the face of political pressure — particularly from President Donald Trump.”