Connect with us

Elections

NYC Mayor warns public school shutdowns to begin Monday, what happens to our children?

Published

on

bill de blasio mayor

Can you imagine what is happening to these children in our major urban centers, like New York City trying to remote learn on lockdowns? What about the children in poverty? What about children in low to middle class incomes with multiple siblings and only one computer?

He urged all parents of the public-school system to prepare for remote learning as early as Monday, saying that city schools were more likely to close because of rising coronavirus cases.

Why is this all the sudden a priority? NYC Mayor de Blasio threatens New Yorkers with $1000 fine for forgoing masks didn’t mandate that there be no celebrations in the streets after the election due to the rising Covid-19 cases, which by the way existed prior to this week.

So why now?

It’s political. I hate to be the harbinger of bad news but I really believe that the Democrats push to shut down schools and businesses before Biden officially takes office, is to give him a boost once he does. It also effects the economy and President Donald Trump, should he not succeed in getting the courts to invalidate the ballots the Republicans say are illegitimate, giving the Democrats the time needed to implement their plans.

We’ve been told that masks work. We’ve been told that young children are rarely affected and rarely transmit the virus. We’ve been told that there’s a vaccine that is 90 % effective at stopping the spread.

So why the urgency then?

Can you imagine what is happening to these children in our major urban centers, like New York City trying to remote learn on lockdowns? What about the children in poverty? What about children in low to middle class incomes with multiple siblings and only one computer?

Sara A Carter

According to the Wall Street Journal people in NYC that tested positive for Covid-19 hit 2.83% over a seven-day average, and the daily rate was 3.09%, according to the most recently released data.

The city has set a threshold to stop in-person learning at schools if the seven-day average positivity rate reaches 3%.

de Blasio didn’t even bother to give parents enough time to prepare. He made the announcement in a radio interview saying that parents need a backup plan for their children as early as Monday, and adding that he hopes “if we all do what we have to do in the city as a whole that we can overcome this in a matter of weeks.”

Remember earlier this year, it was 15 days to slow the spread. How long did that last – well, just about six months or more for many people. Then it was “flatten the curve” and we’ve still been trying to flatten some curve that no normal person can quite explain. It’s unbelievable.

Can you imagine what is happening to these children in our major urban centers, like New York City trying to remote learn on lockdowns? What about the children in poverty? What about children in low to middle class incomes with multiple siblings and only one computer?

What about parents who can’t supervise their children because they can’t afford child care? It’s easy for de Blasio, because he doesn’t have these worries and because frankly this is more than worrying about the spread of a virus that we actually have a vaccine for now, it’s all political.

“If we shut down, the goal is to reopen and then stay reopened, obviously,” de Blasio said, adding that reopening may take some time.

See, he’s already warning New Yorkers that this could last a long time. We shouldn’t be so easy to accept what these politicians are doing and we shouldn’t be afraid to ask questions, particularly when it effects our freedom, our children and our business.

You can follow Sara A Carter on Twitter @SaraCarterOfficial or on Twitter @SaraCarterDC

You may like

Continue Reading

Politics

The Looming National Debt Crisis: The Uncomfortable Truth No One Wants to Discuss

Published

on

Screen Shot 2021 01 26 at 9.19.52 AM

As Republican candidates gather for a debate, the skeleton in the closet remains the ballooning national debt, a subject that’s largely been relegated to the shadows of political discourse.

While the candidates may briefly touch upon the issue and offer surface-level solutions, the uncomfortable truth is that addressing the national debt’s growing burden would require difficult, unpopular choices. Candidates find themselves in a precarious position, tasked with both solving the problem and securing votes, all within the constraints of a 90-second debate response.

Since surpassing the $33 trillion debt threshold, the United States has been accruing over $800 million in new debt every hour, adding more than $2 billion daily in interest payments. The most recent debt ceiling bill has suspended any cap on this debt until January 2025, casting a long shadow over the nation’s future freedom and prosperity.

Democrats have occasionally pointed to the “Trump Tax Cuts” as a driver of the deficit. However, the tax cuts did stimulate economic growth and resulted in record-high Treasury revenues, albeit without corresponding spending cuts.

One feasible solution begins with fixing the federal budget process, though it is by no means an easy task. Nonetheless, it would substantially rein in Congress’s control over the spending pie chart. A recent Heritage study revealed that only 10 percent of the $7.5 trillion in COVID-related spending actually went to healthcare. The remaining 90 percent, charged as overhead and other expenses, underscores the need for significant reform.

According to reports from Fox News, while the discretionary budget, including debt interest payments and defense spending, constitutes less than 25 percent of overall expenditures and continues to shrink, the true driver of federal deficits lies in mandatory, programmatic spending. These are expenditures Congress does not address annually but continues unabated.

Furthermore, they encompass popular transfer programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, student loans, and healthcare initiatives like Obamacare, among countless others. Altering these programs involves a political third rail, a risk few presidential candidates are willing to take.

Mandatory, programmatic expenditures are perpetual and don’t undergo annual scrutiny or adjustment. There is virtually no constituency for tackling these fundamental issues, despite their role as the primary drivers of the nation’s fiscal challenges.

Many citizens believe that trimming discretionary spending, such as congressional salaries or foreign aid, or rooting out “waste, fraud, and abuse,” can resolve the debt problem. While these are valid concerns, the real target for reform should be mandatory, programmatic spending to ensure the sustainability of essential programs.

The Republican candidates vying for the nomination face a daunting question: Who among them possesses the courage and leadership to make the unpopular decisions necessary to restore fiscal responsibility to the nation’s future?

On the other side of the aisle, Democrats seem unlikely to embrace responsible spending as part of their agenda, leaving the issue largely unaddressed in their political DNA.

In a political landscape dominated by divisive issues and partisan debates, the national debt looms as the silent crisis that few are willing to confront.

The path to fiscal responsibility requires acknowledging the harsh reality that popular programs must also be on the table for reform. Only then can America hope to secure a stable financial future for its citizens.

You may like

Continue Reading
Advertisement
-->

Trending Now

Advertisement

Trending