The average price of a single-family home has risen nearly 38% since President Joe Biden took office, according to the S&P Case-Shiller home price index. The sudden spike, along with rising interest rates, has acted as a giant emergency brake on homebuying, leaving many families stranded in places they did not expect to be long-term. It also drove a giant wedge between those who own a home and those who do not. But not all is hopeless.
First, the data. The Case-Shiller index for home prices rose 38% between January 2021 and June 2024. For comparison, the index rose 44% over a comparable, three-and-a-half-year period (January 2003 to June 2006) during the mid-2000s housing bubble. Interest rates have risen over the same period, with the average rate for a 30-year, fixed-rate mortgage rising by 127%, from 2.79% on January 14, 2021 to 6.35% on September 5, 2024 (after peaking at nearly 8% in November 2023).
These facts combine to make purchasing a new house costlier — and in many cases cost prohibitive — particularly for first-time homebuyers. According to data compiled by Harvard University’s Joint Center for Housing Studies, “For the low-downpayment loans commonly pursued by first-time buyers, the total monthly payment on the median-priced home is now $3,096 after taxes and insurance” (compared to a median monthly payment of slightly over $2,000 in January 2021). To afford the current monthly payment for a median-priced home “under common payment-to-income ratios” (with the payment equal to 31% of income), a family would need an annual household income of $119,800. The Harvard report adds that only one in seven American families who do not own a home can meet that threshold.
It may seem counterintuitive at first, but this dramatic increase in the cost of buying a new home does not translate into rising costs for all housing. For instance, families who already own a home are locked into a mortgage with a pre-determined principal and interest rate, which is not affected by these rising costs. However, these rising costs do affect their ability to move by making it more expensive to sell their house and buy a different one.
Rising home costs will also affect rental costs. Because it is more expensive to buy a home, some people who would have purchased a home will choose to rent instead. As a result, the demand for home rentals will be higher than it otherwise would be. And, when rental home demand increases, basic supply-and-demand stipulates that the price of rental homes will increase too. Thus, the rising costs of homes affects non-homeowners in two ways. Not only are many people priced out of buying their first home, but they will also see their rental costs rise as well.
These rising costs affect homeowners and non-homeowners in slightly different ways. People who already own a home benefit in the sense that their property value is increasing, although they lose flexibility if they have to move. Families may choose not to pursue a job opportunity in another city, for example, or have more children, due to the extra costs related to moving. Meanwhile, people who do not own a home suffer from rising costs whether they buy a home or not. Additionally, they also miss out on the opportunity for independence and wealth accumulation provided by home ownership. In a way, the rising costs of purchasing a home drives a further wedge between homeowners and renters.
In an indirect way, the current record-high home prices may be on the November ballot, but for now, families must take them as a life circumstance beyond their control. The sovereign Lord of the universe does not judge us based on what we cannot control, but based on how we respond to the trials he does control. So, in this far-from-ideal situation, how should Christians respond?
Non-homeowners can respond by pursuing godly community. As renters, they have more freedom to move, and they should use that freedom to locate themselves among God’s people. Those who are not married can join houses of likeminded men or women, where they can cultivate habits of daily discipleship, fellowship, and prayer, which God blessed in Acts 2:42-47. Those who are married, or who have children can choose to locate themselves close to a church community so that they can be an integral part of the church’s life — serving and fellowship at every opportunity.
Homeowners can respond by investing in their local church, especially through hospitality. Perhaps the economic conditions that prevent them from moving are God’s way of nudging them to go deeper in their current church community, building the deep discipling relationships (Matthew 28:19) that only come with time.
Christian homeowners should also use the homes God has given them to bless his people through showing hospitality, as the New Testament commands (Romans 12:13, Hebrews 13:2, 1 Peter 4:9). Perhaps they can house a visiting missionary or refugee. Perhaps they can invite another family over for a weeknight dinner or a Sunday afternoon meal. Perhaps they can host a Bible study.
Instead of viewing these activities as hassles or burdens, they should recognize that they are making investments in the kingdom of God and particularly in the souls with whom they share their own local church. Jesus concluded his parable of the dishonest manager, “Make friends for yourselves by means of unrighteous wealth, so that when it fails they may receive you into the eternal dwellings” (Luke 11:9).
Jesus continued, “One who is faithful in a very little is also faithful in much, and one who is dishonest in a very little is also dishonest in much” (Luke 11:10). So, whether you have much or little, whether you live in a paid-off mansion or have been frustrated in your first home purchase by the poor economy, use whatever you have to “seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matthew 6:33).
The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2024-09-12 09:54:552024-09-12 09:54:5538% Rise in Home Prices Leaves Families Stranded in Place
As presidential hopefuls Donald Trump and Kamala Harris approach their first debate on Tuesday, their campaigns have unveiled economic policies that seem in some ways diametrically opposed — and only one could stimulate “robust economic growth,” a leading economist has warned.
Harris has proposed imposing price controls on food, undoing the Trump tax cuts of 2017 by raising the top tax rate to 39.6%, hiking corporate taxes and capital gains taxes to 28%, giving first-time homebuyers $25,000, and doubling down on Obamacare by raising taxpayer-funded subsidies for those who buy their plans from the exchange.
She also proposed one tax cut to benefit small businesses. “I want to see 25 million new small business applications by the end of my first term,” said Harris last week. “So, part of my plan is we will expand the tax deduction for startups to $50,000.”
In a speech at the Economic Club of New York last Thursday, former President Trump proposed unleashing the power of the free market by maintaining the 2017 tax cuts and further slashing the corporate tax from 21% to 15%, cutting red tape, protecting U.S. manufacturing by raising tariffs on imported goods, clawing back all unspent funds from the Biden-Harris administration’s Inflation Reduction Act, and making more jobs available to U.S. citizens by deporting illegal immigrants who lower wages and compete for jobs.
Both candidates agree on ending federal taxation on tips, a policy first proposed this presidential race by Trump and parroted by Harris.
“Kamala Harris is running a giveaway campaign,” Paul Mueller, a senior research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) told “Washington Watch” guest host Joseph Backholm last Thursday. “Of course, the Biden administration has been trying to cancel various forms of student debt for years now. And her approach, I think, to stimulating the economy is more of what we’ve seen over the past four years, which is extensive government involvement, huge amounts of spending. It’s not really an organic growth within the economy.”
Artificial stimulus raises prices, a major problem over the course of the Biden-Harris administration. “When you subsidize people’s ability to buy things — whether that’s higher education or health care — and we give people money in the form of loans or grants or scholarships to do that, what it does is boosts demand. And so what we see over time in both of those areas is rising costs. The cost of higher education has grown much faster than everything else in the economy. The rate of increase for health care has increased very rapidly,” Mueller stated. “And so this $25,000 credit for first-time home buyers, while it sounds nice, it’s actually going to continue to put upward pressure on the price of housing overall.”
The entire amount of the subsidy is “actually going to be eaten up by rising prices,” Mueller noted.
Even a putatively pro-business tax policy like a small business tax credit could backfire. “There are a lot of small business owners who maybe will close down their existing business and start a new one just to get the tax credit,” Mueller warned.
On the other hand, “President Trump’s agenda” has the potential to spur “robust economic growth” in an organic way, said Mueller. “He has talked about wanting to roll back regulations.”
Mueller noted he opposed Trump’s tariff policy, “and, then, he hasn’t really addressed runaway government spending. And the more money that is spent by the federal government, the less money there is for people in the private sector to spend on their businesses, their houses, their projects.”
Backholm suggested the greatest vacuum in economic dialogue involves America’s $35 trillion national debt. “So far, we are not seeing a lot of politicians raise their hand and say, ‘I’m the guy that’s going to give you less so we can save the future.’ I think that might be what we need. We’re not getting that from anybody at this point.”
The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2024-09-09 18:52:132024-09-09 18:52:13‘Kamala Harris Is Running a Giveaway Campaign’: Economist
, D.C. /PRNewswire/ — The presidential debate early next week is the perfect opportunity for us to hear from Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump about how they would tackle the challenges of $2 trillion annual budget deficits, ballooning national debt, and the pending insolvency of Social Security and Medicare trust funds.
These problems are not new. In fact, 30 years ago The Concord Coalition’s co-chairmen, Jack Danforth and Bob Kerrey — both then U.S. Senators – chaired a commission that warned of unsustainable fiscal trends. And, because politicians have failed to act in the intervening decades, the commission’s findings are still valid today.
“In our introduction to the August 1994 Interim Report of the Commission we wrote ‘America is at a fiscal crossroads…if we fail to act, we threaten the financial future of our children and our Nation…If the country does not respond, Americans 10,15…20 years from now will ask why we had so little foresight.’ Thirty years have passed, and the American people have a right to ask that question. Why has there been so little action? “There is no good answer. So, we are issuing a challenge to a new generation of national leaders: Take up this cause. Solve this problem.”
ABOUT THE CONCORD COALITION
The Concord Coalition is a nationwide, non-partisan, grassroots organization advocating generationally responsible fiscal policy. The Concord Coalition was founded in 1992 by the late former Senator Paul Tsongas (D-Mass.), former Senator Warren Rudman (R-N.H.), and former U.S. Secretary of Commerce Peter Peterson.
The Concord Coalition is dedicated to educating the public about the causes and consequences of large-and-growing federal budget deficits and national debt, the long-term challenges facing the economy and how to build a sound fiscal future for all generations. The Concord Coalition’s national field staff and volunteer Fiscal Lookouts cover the country, hosting lectures, facilitating interactive exercises, conducting classes, giving media interviews and briefing elected officials and their staffs.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2024-09-06 17:51:512024-09-06 17:51:51Harris/Trump Debate: Let’s Give Them Something to Talk About — Fiscal Sustainability, Says Concord Coalition
Kamala Harris is a Marxist puppet of George Soros and the corrupt deep state. She is a fake American intent on destroying our free market capitalist republic.
Her long term objective is to continue former Communist President Barack Hussein Obama’s “Hope and Change” unconstitutional transformation of our country into a Marxist state and she was well trained by her Marxist father.
Her ideology is also an exact mirror image of the Communist government running Venezuela under the dictatorship of comrade Nicolàs Maduro, a narco drug trafficker with a $15 million bounty on his head and minus his private, jet thanks to president Trumps former administration and his sanctions.
Let’s compare Comrade Kamala Harris and Comrade Nicolàs Maduro’s economic policies and ideology.
1. Federal Price Controls.
Kamala Harris stated she will implement Federal price controls to curb the inflation if elected President, inflation which she created with her deciding vote in the Senate in August 2022 adding close to 4 trillion dollars in additional national debt.
In his first year as president, Nicolàs Maduro was responsible for the closure of 77,839 businesses destroying 173,000 jobs across Venezuela when he implemented Federal price controls according to the Venezuelan National Statistics Institute (INE).
2. Government Rent Controls.
Kamala Harris in July 2024 stated while speaking in Atlanta Georgia to a crowd of 10,000 supporters, Harris promised to “take on corporate landlords and cap unfair rent increases.”
In 2014, President Maduro also created “a freeze on commercial rents at rates more than 50 percent lower than they had been which resulted with Venezuela’s private rental sector including apartments, malls and the retail industry with landlords losing 75% of their incomes. Landlords discontinued maintenance on their properties and stopped renting apartments creating a housing shortage.
3. Inflation and Hyperinflation.
Kamala Harris was the deciding vote in August 2022 with the fraudulently named Inflation Reduction Act which actually was the approval of the Green New Deal. It inflicted an increase close to 7% more inflation on our republic and more devaluation of the dollar creating a massive reduction of American consumers spending power and the printing of more dollars to pay the interest on our national debt.
During President Maduro’s presidency, Venezuela’s economy began hyperinflation in response to the high inflation rate created by both unprecedented money-printing and government deficit spending.
4. Government Control of Minimum Wages.
Kamala Harris supported the government implementation and control of minimum wages in California. When it was implemented this resulted in an immediate loss of over 10,000 jobs in the restaurant industry and hundreds of service industry businesses closing when government interference in Sacramento forced a $20 minimum immediate 22% wage increase on certain franchised businesses.
In April 2014, President Maduro raised by force the minimum wage by 30%, hoping to improve citizens’ purchasing power. This resulted in over half of the small businesses closing or laying off staff costing the Venezuelan government millions in income tax revenue and an immediate loss in citizens purchasing power and jobs.
5. Effects of Communist interference in free market capitalism and entrepreneurial risk taking.
The unemployment rate data promulgated by Biden’s US Department of Labor cannot be trusted and has submitted fake claims recently. Fraudulent Communist propaganda is a common practice in the Biden administration. The current state of our economy is very bad.
When President Maduro took office in early 2013, the unemployment rate in Venezuela was 7.6%. By 2017, after more of his Marxist economic policies where implemented this resulted in an unemployment rate of over 25% in Venezuela.
6. Promises of Low Income Homes and Free Money.
Kamala Harris copying a Communist blue print disguised as the “Build the American Dream: Lowering the Costs of Renting and Owning a Home,” said she will construct 3 million new housing units in the next four years, with rent controls and she also proposed $25,000 in down payment support for first-time homeowners. No word on how this will be funded by us taxpayers.
In May 2024 Nicolàs Maduro continued the Great Housing Mission created by Communist President Hugo Chavez in 2011 to allocate homes to low-income families at low cost or free.
His program supposedly built 4.6 million homes with no evidence to back up his claim. My family that lives in Venezuela would never accept any government benefit from Maduro and they see no such project was ever built. The limited number of homes that were built under this program was proven to be filled with corruption and structural deficiencies.
Kamala Harris is an exponential threat to our constitutional republic, she is following a Venezuelan government Communist path to our economic destruction.
I am amazed that Americans would support her Marxist policies so it must be a reflection of the low IQ Americans that vote for and support these tyrannical people.
No doubt they are a product of an indoctrinated left wing administered public school system and propaganda machine ran from the highest levels in state, local and federal governments.
To protect our free market economy, to protect our free speech and lawful ownership of weapons for self defense from a Marxist Harris dictatorship vote for Donald Trump this November 2024. Our children and grand children are depending on us to keep them free.
On August 16, presidential candidate Kamala Harris unveiled a series of housing proposals that recycle the same failed strategies that have plagued federal housing policy for decades. Among the key components are subsidies for the construction of 3 million new housing units over four years, as well as a total of $100 billion over four years in down payment assistance to first-time homebuyers (FTBs).
Experience tells us her plan would be worse than doing nothing.
These proposals rest on the faulty premise that housing affordability can be improved through subsidies for construction and home purchases. But history offers a cautionary tale: From the 1930s to 2008, Congress passed and presidents signed into law at least 43 housing, urban renewal, and community development programs. Despite their lofty promises, these initiatives consistently failed in making housing more affordable.
Candidate Harris’s plan will be no different.
First, the plan to provide up to $25,000 in down payment assistance to 4 million first-time buyers over four years is likely to inadvertently raise home prices, thereby diminishing the intended benefits of this support. Currently, first-time buyers typically make a median down payment of around $10,500, or 3 percent of the home price. We estimate that even without the Harris proposal, 3 million of its recipients would have been able to purchase a home without any additional assistance and would experience a significant boost their purchasing power, in an already supply limited market. Additionally, the subsidy will also create and draw forward new demand from approximately 1 million additional buyers, further inflating prices. The cost-effectiveness of this plan is also questionable: With only one in four buyers truly needing the assistance, the cost per added homebuyer rises to a steep $100,000.
Second, Harris’s proposal to subsidize the construction of 3 million new housing units over four years is unlikely to significantly increase the overall housing supply. Much of this plan depends on expanding the Low Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC), a program that, like many other subsidy programs, faces several challenges, which we dub the Five Cs: cost, complexity, corruption, a cartel of specialized LIHTC developers and non-profits, and the crowding out of private developers; studies show that nearly all LIHTC developments displace other housing that could have been built by the market without subsidies.
On the cost side, we estimate that the average new LIHTC unit costs around $450,000. Additionally, nearly half of the LIHTC units funded are allocated for the renovation and preservation of existing affordable units, rather than adding new ones.
Harris’ proposed tax incentive for building starter homes is the other main driver to add supply. It would suffer from many of the same Five Cs as LIHTC, and like the down payment assistance program, many of these new homes would have been built without the subsidy.
History shows that this approach can lead to significant market distortions. For example, the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 provided easy credit terms and substantial subsidies, resulting in a surge of housing permits by 1971-1972, only for this boom to dissipate by 1975. This program left lasting scars on cities like Detroit, Chicago, and Cleveland—areas that remain hollowed out to this day. Similarly, the 1992 congressional mandate for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to meet affordable housing goals led to an easing of credit before the Great Financial Crisis. This policy caused housing permits to double from 1.1 million in 1992 to 2.2 million in 2005, but the market collapsed by 73 percent in 2009, leaving behind millions of foreclosures and a persistent housing supply deficit that still affects us today.
Third, Harris’s $40 billion fund for local governments to explore “innovative” housing solutions will likely funnel money into projects burdened by self-defeating government-mandated affordability requirements, which HUD loves but markets abhor. By further empowering federal bureaucrats, it will do more harm than good.
The fundamental problem with past programs and Harris’s proposed efforts is not insufficient subsidies but structural issues—namely, restrictive zoning and land use rules—that are holding back housing construction. These regulations make buildable land both scarce and expensive.
What is needed is a paradigm shift. As CharlesMarohn, the founder of Strong Towns, succinctly put it, “We have to move beyond the narrow, almost futile task of making affordable [subsidized] housing and start working on the broader and more meaningful effort of making housing affordable.”
To achieve this, we need to significantly increase housing supply. The federal government has several levers at its disposal to encourage this result. First, a 10-year plan to auction surplus federal lands for new market-rate home construction could add 200,000 homes per year. This initiative could generate $10 billion in annual receipts. Second, eliminating the mortgage interest deduction for second homes could free up 700,000 existing homes over the next decade for first-time buyers. Third, reducing regulatory costs that hold back builders by increasing construction expenses is crucial—and indeed, this is an issue that Harris’s plan rightfully addresses.
These measures, in combination with state and local efforts to deregulate land use and zoning, can more effectively address the housing affordability crisis, all at no taxpayer cost and without unintended consequences.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2024-09-06 15:51:362024-09-06 15:51:36Kamala Harris’s Housing Plan Would Be Worse Than Doing Nothing
President Trump and Elon Musk will do, what the do nothing Republican’s have never done – audit and dismantle all the wasteful federal government spending and departments.
The Republican and Democrat Uni-Party pigs have been sucking on the taxpayers mammaries for years and years. The federal government is so fat it would qualify as a DEI hire.
Soon we will return to fiscal responsibility and sanity and fund only what is required to maintain a strong national defense.
Trump will secure our borders, and also return our constitutional republic to energy independence.
Trump will tell the Speaker of the House no more bullxxxx continuing resolutions (CR) it’s time for a fiscally conservative budget that puts American citizens first.
The weak Republican Party is also being flushed and cleansed of its fraud party members. The Communist Democrat party is imploding under its tyranny.
Trump 2024.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2024-09-05 16:51:262024-09-05 16:51:26Trump & Musk Will Restore Fiscal Responsibility To Our Republic
It’s almost September, and that can only mean one thing: Congress is returning to Washington, and Americans should hold on to their wallets. Several things could combine to make this fall a budget-buster: The fiscal year end means that $6 trillion worth of federal budgeting must be renewed by September 30th; the last three weeks of September are the last time Congress will be in session before the November 5th election; and, liberals in Washington only know one way to win — by buying reelection with your taxpayer dollars.
Dear taxpayer, September ain’t gonna be pretty, so buckle up.
Already in July, well ahead of next month’s funding fights, several reporters who cover Capitol Hill suddenly began simultaneously reporting that House Republicans are “fighting culture wars” by stuffing supposedly unrelated provisions into congressional spending bills. They are repeating Democratic talking points that characterize the spending bills in the Senate (controlled by Democrats) as neutral and bipartisan. The obvious implication of this reporting is that the “fair” approach would be to reject House conservatives’ “inflaming” language and instead adopt the Senate’s “neutral” language. Look for that framing to be used in force in September, when the House and Senate return to Washington to try to pass a budget.
This framing gets at least two things wrong.
First, the House and Senate are miles apart, not just on moral issues but on basic spending levels. Last year, the House and Senate fiscal year 2024 (FY24) spending bills were more than $150 billion dollars apart. (Neither set of spending bills balanced the budget, much less made a dent in the national debt, but the Republican-controlled House was proposing spending levels that were either pared down or more modestly increased than the Democrat-controlled Senate.)
This year will be no different, and the difference between what House Republicans and Senate Democrats (with some Republicans) want to spend will likely be even greater. With inflation ballooning under the Biden-Harris administration because of government spending, Democrats in Washington and their friends in the media would like nothing better than to deflect attention onto so-called “culture war issues.” Don’t miss the sleight of hand.
Second, when it comes to standing for life, marriage, and religious liberty, it’s important to realize that conservatives on Capitol Hill are actually playing defense against the Biden-Harris administration’s aggressive offense. Last year, for example, Planned Parenthood received one-third of its budget — $699.4 million — from taxpayers. The Biden-Harris administration is actively and aggressively using the levers of government to advocate for false sexual identities (LGBT) in everything from federally-funded school lunch programs to foreign assistance to poor countries. The government is being weaponized against people of faith and people with no faith at all who continue to believe that marriage is between one man and one woman.
In other words, if there is a “culture war,” it is one that the Biden-Harris administration is waging, with the help of Congressional Democrats who dominate the Senate. Meanwhile, House Republicans — the only bulwark to this onslaught — comprise a bare majority that is split into several factions. Conservative House Republicans are pushing back against the Democrats’ radical agenda, but other House Republicans try to stay as far away from the issues as they can, and some Republicans even join Democrats in destructive efforts to underminemarriage and target the unborn. Senate conservatives often do not have the votes to block harmful Democratic policies.
While some Republicans seem embarrassed by conservative principles, Democrats have seemingly no shame in using taxpayer funding to advance a radical leftist agenda. In the Senate, for example, here are some examples of radical, “culture war” earmarks that Senate Democrats have offered in this year’s spending bills:
Supporting abortion providers
$5,106,000 in earmarks for a hospital that provides the abortion drug, mifepristone, up to 10 weeks and surgical abortions up to 23 weeks, when some infants would be able to survive outside of the womb (Sen. Tom Carper, D-Del., ChristianaCare Health Services, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies — Labor-HHS appropriations bill, in twoseparate earmarks).
$500,000 earmark for a hospital that provides abortions through 13 weeks and six days (Tammy Duckworth, D-Ill., Stroger Hospital, Labor-HHS bill).
Pushing false sexual identities on youth
$1,050,000 earmark for an LGBT advocacy organization that pushes this ideology on youth and advocates for them to undergo harmful gender transition procedures (Laphonza Butler, D-Calif., The Trevor Project, Labor-HHS bill).
$750,000 earmark to push gender ideology on youth ages 11-18 years old (Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., Long Island Gay and Lesbian Youth, Inc., Labor-HHS bill).
$500,000 earmark for a “mental health support initiative” to counsel youth through the lens of LGBT ideology (Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.M., and Schumer, Lesbian and Gay Community Services, Inc., Labor-HHS bill).
$356,000 earmark for an all-expenses-paid “training intensive” for self-identified transgender and non-binary theater artists in New York City (Schumer, D-NY, Unremarkable Productions, Labor-HHS bill).
$238,000 earmark for an organization said to serve not only girls, but “gender-expansive youth,” signaling that the organization pushes gender ideology on youth (Sen. John Hickenlooper, D-Colo., Asian Girls Ignite, Labor-HHS bill).
Directing funding for women’s services to serve men, and vice versa
$2,846,000 in earmarks for a young men’s organization to provide “accessibility” to YMCA programs regardless of certain characteristics, including gender identity, suggesting that the money will be used (in part) to facilitate the provision of services meant for men to women who identify as men (Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, D-Va., Young Men’s Christian Association of Central Virginia, Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development, and Related Agencies — T-HUD appropriations bill).
$1,500,000 earmark to provide “gender-inclusive shelter” to victims of abuse, raising the concern that biological men will be housed with women, increasing the latter’s risk of harm in the name of inclusivity (Tina Smith, D-Minn., Alexandra House, Inc., T-HUD bill).
House Democrats are no slouches, either, offering at least one “culture war” earmark and many, many amendments to stop conservatives from pumping the brakes on the radical Biden-Harris agenda.
Here are some examples of ways they have prioritized false LGBT identities:
Pushing false sexual identities on youth
$125,000 earmark for a heretical church seeking to establish a taxpayer-funded program that would likely push LGBT ideology on at-risk youth struggling with their gender or sexual identities under the guise of “juvenile justice prevention and education” (Mark Pocan, D-Wis., First Congregational United Church of Christ, Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies —CJS appropriations bill).
Discriminating against Americans who believe in one-man, one-woman marriage
Amendments to prevent Republicans from removing false sexual identities (“sexual orientation and gender identity”) from housing law (Nanette Barragan, D-Calif., and Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich., amendments to the T-HUD bill).
Putting women at risk, paying for false sexual identities
Amendment to strike a section preventing the Bureau of Prisons from assigning placements based on gender identity, which would allow the placement of men in women’s prisons (Tlaib, D-Mich., amendment to the CJS bill).
Amendment to strike a section that would prohibit placement in federal prisons based on gender identity, and a section prohibiting public funding of gender transition procedures (Lee, D-Pa., amendment to the CJS bill).
Amendment to strike sections barring funding for gender transition procedures, defunding Biden’s anti-religious liberty in adoption final rule, and barring funding for schools that allow males to participate in women’s and girls’ sports (Craig, D-Minn., amendment to the Labor-HHS bill).
Here are a few examples of ways House Democrats are prioritizing the promotion of abortion and other policies leading to the destruction of human life:
Advocating for dangerous, do-it-yourself, at-home abortions
Amendment expressing the sense of Congress that the abortion drug, mifepristone, was appropriately approved and is appropriately regulated under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and that this law supersedes any state effort to regulate this drug to mitigate harms to women (Pat Ryan, D-N.Y., amendment to the Ag bill).
Paying for/subsidizing abortions and the destruction of human life
Amendment to strike the Hyde Amendment, which has been in place for 47 years and prohibits HHS funds from being used for abortions (Barbara Lee, D-Calif., amendment to the Labor-HHS bill).
Amendment to restore Title X Family Planning Funding to FY23 levels. Title X pays for drugs and devices that can destroy human embryos, and programs that bypass parental consent laws for minors; it also heavily subsidizes abortion businesses like Planned Parenthood (Kathy Manning, D-N.C., amendment to the Labor-HHS bill).
Amendment to strike a section barring funding for certain organizations that provide abortions, including Planned Parenthood (Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., amendment to the Labor-HHS bill).
Amendment to strike a section that would allow an individual to sue in court for a suspected violation of the Weldon amendment, which prohibits funding for programs/agencies that discriminate against healthcare entities that decline to provide/pay for abortions (Sara Jacobs, D-Calif., amendment to the Labor-HHS bill).
Amendment to strike a section prohibiting the NIH from using fetal tissue obtained from an elective abortion in medical research (Diana DeGette, D-Colo., amendment to the Labor-HHS bill).
Amendment to strike a section barring funding for elective abortions for federal prisoners (Lois Frankel, D-Fla., amendmentto the CJS bill).
Amendment to narrow the scope of the Dornan amendment, which prohibits D.C. funds from paying for abortions, allowing the use of local funds for this purpose (Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., amendment to the FSGG bill).
Amendment to prevent the Office of Personnel Management from contracting with Federal Employees Health Benefits (FEHB) carriers unless their plans cover IVF, a procedure that results in the routine destruction and perpetual freezing of living human embryos (Gerry Connolly, D-Va., amendment to the FSGG bill).
Amendment to strike a provision prohibiting abortion coverage under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (Ritchie Torres, D-Calif., amendment to the FSGG bill).
Amendment to strike a section prohibiting funds to establish, support, administer, oversee, or issue a grant, contract, or cooperative agreement to provide information on, promote access to, or facilitate an abortion (Lizzie Fletcher, D-Va., amendment to the Labor-HHS bill).
Allowing the District of Columbia to side-step pro-life federal protections
Amendment to strike a section requiring D.C. to submit a report to Congress on its enforcement of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, keeping Americans in the dark about unlawful abortions being performed on (sometimes viable) babies (such as the DC Five) in D.C. (Norton, D-D.C., amendment to the FSGG bill).
Amendment to strike a section barring D.C. from enforcing its law allowing physician-assisted suicide and from passing any other similar legislation in the future (Norton, D-D.C., amendment to the FSGG bill).
Discriminating against Americans who are pro-life
Amendment to strike a section prohibiting funds to implement the EEOC’s rule requiring reasonable accommodations for employees to get abortions, even if such actions would be against the employer’s conscience (Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., amendment to the CJS bill).
Amendments to prevent Republicans from protecting the conscience rights of employers from being forced to provide coverage of or accommodations for abortions and contraception for their employees (Norton, D-D.C., amendment to the FSGG bill).
Amendment to strike a section that would bar funding for post-graduate physician training programs if they don’t provide an opt-out option for abortion training or if they discriminate against physicians who do opt-out (Kathy Castor, D-Fla., amendment to the Labor-HHS bill).
Amendment to strike a section barring funding for two pro-abortion Biden executive orders — the first contained directives to convene volunteer lawyers to sue against pro-life legislation, use the FTC to go after pregnancy resource centers, and convene an interagency task force to promote abortion while the second set up policies to pay for out-of-state travel for abortion through Medicaid and used sex discrimination laws to go after health care providers that will not provide abortions because of moral objections (Manning, D-N.C., amendment to the Labor-HHS bill).
Amendment to strike a section prohibiting funding for HHS to administer, enforce, or finalize its proposed rule that would stop taxpayer dollars from going to pregnancy resource centers, which provide practical support for women facing unplanned pregnancies (Josh Gottheimer, D-N.J., amendment to the Labor-HHS bill).
Jim Wallis, a liberal theologian, left-wing activist, and author of the ambitiously titled “Politics According to the Bible,” famously helped coin the phrase, “A budget is a moral document” to argue that it is immoral to cut federal spending. For close to two decades, Democrats have used itto cloak policy prescriptions for everything from wide-open borders to abortion-on-demand in biblical-sounding verbiage and to berate conservatives who opposed the expansion of the federal government far beyond its authority or means.
Maybe it’s time for conservative Republicans to take liberals at their word and take the fight to them. (Hint: They started to last year, and many of those spending provisions either made it into the final package or at least blunted radical Democrats’ counter-proposals.)
Whether or not spending bills are moral documents, they are a battleground. Those are your tax dollars being spent, and you have a right to demand that they reflect your values.
The Washington Stand is Family Research Council’s outlet for news and commentary from a biblical worldview. The Washington Stand is based in Washington, D.C. and is published by FRC, whose mission is to advance faith, family, and freedom in public policy and the culture from a biblical worldview. We invite you to stand with us by partnering with FRC.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2024-09-03 14:51:462024-09-03 14:51:46The Democrats’ War on Reality: Spending Bills Reveal a Twisted Vision for the Future
“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” — Karl Marx, German-born philosopher, political theorist, economist, historian, sociologist, journalist, and revolutionary socialist.
Who pays for this? The hardworking Oregon taxpayer.
The proposal is meeting stiff bipartisan resistance from elected officials and pushback from the business community.
Oregonians will vote in November on a controversial ballot measure that would give every resident, regardless of age or income, $1,600 each year—as long as they live at least 200 days in the state.
A family of four would receive $6,400 annually, with no strings attached. The money would be nontaxable and would not affect other benefits.
If voters approve Measure 118, the universal basic income (UBI) program would be funded by a tax on the gross receipts of corporations that generate more than $25 million in annual sales.
Oregon would be the first state to roll out such a comprehensive UBI.
As of June, no U.S. states had a UBI program, though several states and cities have run pilot programs.
Oregon Rebate, the group backing the measure, says on its website that Measure 118 (previously known as IP 17) would increase minimum corporate taxes to 3 percent.
The organization claims that the “largest corporations” currently pay less than 1 percent in Oregon tax, while individual taxpayers pay from 5 percent to 10 percent.
Local small businesses would not be affected by the tax increase, it says, as the tax would apply only to corporations making more than $25 million a year.
The Tax Foundation, a Washington-based think tank, disputes the claim that corporations pay less than 1 percent in Oregon taxes. It notes that the state already has “one of the highest business tax burdens in the country.” In a report on the measure, the foundation concludes that Oregon corporations pay a 7.6 percent corporate income tax and a 0.57 percent gross receipts tax.
If they’re in the Portland area, they are subject to a 2.6 percent business license tax, a 2 percent business income tax, a 1 percent supportive housing services tax, and a 1 percent Clean Energy Surcharge, all of which are additional taxes on net income. Story continues below advertisement
Oregon corporations pay taxes on profits and gross receipts (sales attributable to Oregon), making it one of only two states (the other is Delaware) that impose both types of taxes.
Money provided by the measure would decrease overall poverty in the state by 36 percent, childhood poverty by 53 percent, and senior citizen poverty by 26 percent, according to Oregon Rebate.
“More money in the pocket of Oregonians will boost our economy and mean more jobs, opportunities, and taxable revenue,” the group states. According to an Oregon legislative fiscal analysis published on July 23, households making less than $40,000 won’t have any Oregon tax liability should the measure pass.
“The [payment] might sound good,” the Tax Foundation wrote, “but if it raises the cost of goods, drives jobs and economic activity out of state, and puts Oregon-based businesses at a massive disadvantage with their out-of-state competitors, it’s likely to be an awful deal for Oregonians.”
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2024-08-29 07:51:462024-08-29 07:51:46COMMUNISM: Oregon Voters to Consider Approving Nation’s First Universal Basic Income
‘These gimmicks do not include even one fix for the root causes of higher prices’.
On Friday, Aug. 16, Que Mala Harris laid out her economic plan: price controls, $25,000 to first-time home buyers, credits for children and legislation against price gouging. Those are all band-aids trying to deal with higher prices, but these gimmicks do not include even one fix for the root causes of higher prices.
Harris compared prices now to the prices prior to COVID and shared how many food prices and other prices are up more than 40 and 50% since before the pandemic. Why prior to COVID? Because prices were actually much lower after COVID when Biden/Harris took control and have increased more than 40% since the Democrats took control.
Even with her comparison to prices before COVID, prices are up for food, housing, energy and clothing more than 40% – by her own admission.
So what are the root causes of price increases? And what did Harris propose to fix those root causes? Nothing.
Why? Because government is the root cause. This Democrat-run government caused the inflation with federal spending that increased from a norm of 18% of GDP to this current record high of 25% of GDP (a 40% increase) and by limiting oil production, which drove up oil prices and prices for every product oil influences, including costs for basic transportation to ship products.
Questions: How much will these programs of Harris cost? She doesn’t know. Many experts say trillions of dollars. And where does that money come from? Taxpayers, you and me – or more government debt. And what does that debt cause? More inflation!
None of these types of programs worked to lower inflation when Jimmy Carter was president. Rationing and price controls just caused product shortages when Nixon was president. None of these types of programs work. They exacerbate the problem by causing product shortages just like in Russia and China. They have never worked in socialist countries. Did Harris study any of that?
Robert Reich is an economic adviser to Harris and Democrats. He has continually pushed MMT (Modern Monetary Theory), which states that government should spend as much money as it wants to spend and then simply print more money since money is just fiat anyway. Maybe that is what Harris plans to do – just print more money to cover her increased spending. And then what happens when you pump more money into the economy? Just look at Venezuela. Incredibly high inflation. MMT has never worked anywhere. Never.
If Harris issues more debt to cover her increased spending, then what happens to interest rates? They increase to attract more bond purchasers. And when interest rates increase, then what happens to housing costs, credit card payments and rents? They all increase as well.
The only ways to reduce inflation for average working Americans is to cut government spending to the traditional 18% of GDP and to increase oil production so that oil supply increases while energy prices decrease. And that is the Trump plan, not the Harris plan.
Harris is economically stupid. A lawyer. A prosecutor by her own words. A government employee for her entire career with no actual private-sector business experience. And her economic plan now proves that fact.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2024-08-20 08:51:322024-08-20 08:51:32Kamala is economically stupid: Her plan proves it!
Well, on Friday, August 16, Que Mala Harris laid out her economic plan: price controls, $25,000 to first time new citizen home buyers, credits for children, and legislation against price gouging. Those are all band aids to problems of higher prices, but do not include even one fix for the root causes of higher prices.
Instead of paying new home buyers $25,000, why doesn’t the government just reduce down payments by 5 or 10% on home purchases that are under $300,000? That effectively reduces the need for cash from the buyer by around $25,000 and does not cost the government or tax payers anything. It could be done immediately without the need for legislation. And would not potentially be unconstitutional as the the Harris plan could be.
So why not lower down payments now? Because that would not get Harris any additional votes. It stops another Democrat give-a-way for votes. So of course Harris and the deep state will not do it, especially not now, for the same reason why they haven’t done it in the last 3 1/2 years… no political gain.
Harris compared prices now to the prices prior to COVID and shared how many food prices and other prices are up more than 40 and 50% since prior to COVID. Why prior to COVID? Because prices were actually much less after COVID when Biden/Harris took control and have increased even more than 40% since Biden/Harris took control.
Even with her comparison to prices before COVID, prices are up for food, housing, energy, and clothing more than 40% since Biden/Harris took control by her own admission.
Price gouging is not a cause of higher prices. That is just more class warfare by Democrats. The CPI has tracked exactly to PPI with a 90 day lag to PPI for the last 3 years. If price gouging was a problem, then CPI would be much higher than PPI.
So what are the root causes of price increases? What did Harris propose to fix those root causes? Nothing.
Why? Because government is the root cause. This Democrat run government caused the inflation with government spending that increased from a norm of 18% of GDP to this current record high of 25% of GDP (40% increase) and by limiting oil production which drove up oil prices and prices for every product that oil influences including costs for basic transportation to ship products.
OK, questions: How much will these programs of Harris cost? She doesn’t know. Many experts say trillions of dollars. And where does that money come from? tax payers. you and me. or more government debt. And what does that debt cause? more inflation.
None of these types of programs worked to lower inflation when Jimmy Carter was president. Rationing and price controls just caused product shortages when Nixon was president. None of these types of programs work. They exacerbate the problem by causing product shortages just like in Russia and China. They have not worked in socialist countries. Did Harris study any of that?
Robert Riech is an economic advisor to Harris and Democrats. He has continually pushed MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) which states that government should spend as much money as it wants to spend and then simply print more money since money is just fiat anyway. Maybe that is what Harris plans to do… just print more money to cover her increased spending. And then what happens when you pump more money into the economy? Just look at Venezuela. Incredibly more inflation. MMT has never worked anywhere. Never.
If Harris issues more debt to cover her increased spending, then what happens to interest rates? They increase to attract more bond purchasers. And when interest rates increase, then what happens to housing costs, credit card payments, and rents? They all increase.
The only ways to reduce inflation for average working Americans is to cut government spending to the traditional 18% of GDP and to increase oil production so that oil supply = demand. And that is the Trump plan, not the Harris plan.
Harris is economically stupid. A lawyer. A prosecutor by her own words. A government employee for her entire career with no actual private sector business experience. And her economic plan now proves it.
As a side note: in her address, Harris referred to “price gouging” as “price gaging.” Evidently, she was just reading from a teleprompter and read it incorrectly. She made no attempt to correct her words. That is just more evidence that she has no idea about what she is talking about. None. She just says what her handlers tell her to say.
While appearing on “Fox News Sunday” Republican Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance equated Vice President Kamala Harris “controlling” the inflation response to giving deceased pedophile Jeffrey Epstein “control” over human trafficking policy.
Since Harris became the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, the party has seen a significant polling shift in her favor against former President Donald Trump. While some Republicans have questioned Trump’s campaign messaging, Vance argued Americans won’t “buy” Harris as a “fresh start,” dismissing her proposals as “more of the same” failed policies.
“First of all, the polls tend to radically overstate Democrats. We certainly saw that during the polling of summer of 2020 and summer of 2016 and of course, a lot of those polls were wrong when it came to Election Day. The second thing I’ll say, Shannon, is what we’ve certainly seen is that Kamala Harris got a bit of a sugar high a couple of weeks ago. But what we’ve actually seen from our own internal data, Shannon, is that Kamala Harris has already leveled off,” Vance said.
Vance claimed that Harris’ campaign insiders are allegedly “worried” about her ties to President Joe Biden’s administration, as voters have consistently voiced their disapproval of Biden’s job performance.
WATCH:
“If you talk to insiders in the Kamala Harris campaign, they’re very worried about where they are because the American people just don’t buy the idea that Kamala Harris, who has been vice president for three and a half years is somehow going to tackle the inflation crisis in a way tomorrow that she hasn’t for the past 1,300 days,” Vance continued.
“Giving Kamala Harris control over inflation policy, Shannon, it’s like giving Jeffrey Epstein control over human trafficking policy. The American people are much smarter than that. They don’t buy the idea that Kamala Harris represents a fresh start,” Vance said. “She is more of the same. It is doubling down on the failed policies of the Harris administration, to give Kamala Harris a promotion rather than to fire her, which is what I think most Americans are going to do on November.”
After unveiling her economic plans in a North Carolina speech, Harris faced significant pushback from pundits who criticized proposals like a federal ban on “corporate price gouging” in food and grocery stores as unrealistic. Despite not giving interviews or publishing a full policy platform on her website as of Sunday, Harris is currently leading Trump in the polls.
In the latest ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll, Harris holds a six-point lead over Trump, with 51% support from likely voters compared to Trump’s 45%. Among registered voters, Harris’ lead narrows as she sits at 49%, with Trump still at 45%, data shows.
Despite Harris’ national lead, the polling data shows voters still don’t trust the vice president on key issues like the economy, inflation and immigration, according to the ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll. Trump leads Harris by nine points on who voters trust more to handle the economy and inflation alike, as well as ten points on handling the U.S.-Mexico border, data shows.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2024-08-19 07:52:202024-08-19 07:52:20Vance Says Harris ‘Controlling’ Inflation Response Is Like Giving ‘Epstein Control Over Human Trafficking Policy’
“Every socialist experiment in human history has started with caps on food and it has resulted in bread lines like you can see in the image behind me…This is a mistake. It is anti-American.” — David Friedberg on Kamala Harris Grocery ‘Price Gouging’ plan.
Kamala Harris wants to impose Communist-style price controls. federal ;price fixing, to crackdown on inflation. When that happens, your grocery store shelves will be empty within months. The Democrats want to impose Communism in the United States. We know what happens when you institute these communist programs – we saw this tried in many communist countries — Venezuela, Argentina, the Soviet Union.
Inflation and the resultant higher prices for all is a direct consequence of runaway government spending. Period.
“Inflation Is created by government and by no one else.”Milton Friedman, preeminent American economist, advisor, academic and Nobel prize winner.
“Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon, in the sense that it is and can be produced only by a more rapid increase in the quantity of money than in output.” “There has never in history been an inflation that was not accompanied by an extremely rapid increase in the quantity of money.”
Early in the pandemic, a local merchant I know in New York, an immigrant who owns a small stationary store, worked tirelessly to obtain the goods his customers all then believed were needed—masks, hand sanitizer, and so on. He paid a markup for these goods, not to mention the time it cost him to secure them, and naturally passed the higher prices on to his customers. But given the emergency, he faced a price limit on what he could sell the masks for, with steep fines if he didn’t comply. He fought these mandates in court and nearly lost his business.
This is the world that could await us if Vice President Kamala Harris has her way. So far, the Harris/Tim Walz economic policy platform is a bit of a mystery. Will it reflect her left-wing campaign of 2019, which featured Medicare for all and a ban on fracking, or something more moderate? Voters will get some idea on Friday, when Harris reveals the centerpiece of her economic policy: price controls. Her campaign announced that she would pursue a federal ban on “corporate price-gouging in the food and grocery industries.”
This is the wrong solution to a nonexistent problem. Food prices have steadily fallen over time as a share of income. The exception was the pandemic, where the cost of food eaten at home rose 20 percent. This was caused not by grocers’ price gouging but by shortages and elevated demand from excessive fiscal policy. The natural market response to less supply and more demand is to raise prices. Doing so eliminates shortages and keeps markets functioning.
Inflation on food at home now stands near zero. People are frustrated, though, because prices are significantly higher than they used to be; short of mandating wage cuts for everyone involved in the food chain, there is no way to bring prices back to 2019 levels. The Harris/Walz plan also entails raising the federal minimum wage to some unknown level, which will increase labor costs for grocery stores and undermine any effort to lower prices.
Gouging is often hard to define, let alone spot in the wild. It could be argued that the proposed policy is harmless because food price inflation is low now, anyway. But as in the example of the immigrant merchant, having an anti-gouging law on the books invites regulatory abuse. Targeting big companies, as the Harris plan seems designed to do, is not harmless, either. Food prices as a share of income fell as the food industry consolidated and took advantage of economies of scale. Limiting food companies’ ability to set prices in response to market conditions will only curb their growth and willingness to operate in less populated areas—further increasing the prices that many consumers pay. We can expect fewer goods available during the next event that increases demand or reduces supply. Good luck finding food during the next hurricane.
Economists mostly agree that price controls don’t work, succeeding only in creating shortages and making inflation worse. Price controls reduce merchants’ incentive to secure more goods that they must sell at a loss. The Harris proposal is a clear signal that we can expect her campaign to push economic policies even more populist and left-leaning than those of the Biden administration.
Not listening to economists has become a trend of late. This may be because many bad economic policies already enjoy support among voters. It’s easy to blame faceless corporations or landlords who set the prices that we pay without considering their costs and incentives. And both parties want to get elected, after all. But the job of public officials isn’t to pander—it’s to lead, explain hard tradeoffs that are often necessary, and pursue the most sensible policies that, however incrementally, might make people’s lives better. Instead, we get more policies that will make us all poorer.
They’ve never worked in the private sector, never made an honest living so why would they respect the schnooks who do? They piss on your hard earned wages.
There’s no accountability, no transparency. Just corruption.
Tim Walz’s $250M state program to feed hungry kids fraudulently spent on luxury goods, overseas real estate Between 2022 and 2024, 70 people have been charged in connection with the fraud scheme that resulted in a $250 million loss
Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is facing renewed scrutiny for a $250 million COVID-19 fraud scandal in Minnesota that critics say falls on his shoulders as governor, particularly after he was tapped as a running mate for Kamala Harris on the 2024 Democratic ticket.
Between 2022 and 2024, 70 people have been charged in connection with the fraud scheme that resulted in a quarter-billion-dollar loss from the Minnesota Department of Education’s (MDE) Feeding Our Future program — a federally funded meal assistance plan meant to help give free meals to eligible children and adults.
“At least a quarter billion dollars was stolen by fraudsters,” Billy Glahn, adjunct policy fellow with Minnesota-based Center of the American Experiment, told Fox News Digital of the scandal.
“The question, of course, came up: How did the state Department of Education let out $250 million out the door to people who were later convicted of defrauding the program? The legislative auditor took this on as one of her projects and did this report looking at how the department oversaw a single one of these nonprofits involved.”
Glahn is referencing a report from the Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor (OLA), which frequently releases state government oversight reports.
The report about fraud scheme in question, titled “Minnesota Department of Education: Oversight of Feeding Our Future,” was released in June. In it, legislative auditor Judy Randall concludes that although MDE officials told OLA they quickly identified and stopped the fraud, OLA believes they could have done more to prevent $250 million in stolen funds.
“MDE officials told us that the department began to have concerns about Feeding Our Future only after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. However, we think MDE failed to act on warning signs known to the department prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic and prior to the start of the alleged fraud,” the report states.
It continues later on: “More broadly, the failures we highlight in this report are symptoms of a department that was ill-prepared to respond to the issues it encountered with Feeding Our Future.” Kamala-Harris-And-Running-Mate-Tim-Walz-Make-First-Appearance-Together-In-Philadelphia
Critics say this failure goes back to Walz’s leadership as governor. “The buck has to stop somewhere,” as Glahn put it.
“He is the chief executive of the state. All of the people at the Department of Education and the other departments where fraud has taken place were appointed by him,” Glahn noted. “So he appoints the commissioner, the deputy commissioner, assistant commissioners. They were all appointed by him. They all report to him. And these are the folks whom the legislative auditor has documented failed to do their job. So where does the buck stop?”
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2024-08-14 13:52:042024-08-14 13:52:04Tim Walz’s $250M state program to feed hungry kids fraudulently spent on luxury goods, fancy cars, overseas real estate
Billionaire investor Ken Fisher said on Wednesday that Vice President Kamala Harris abruptly entering the presidential race contributed to the market downturn because of the unpredictability it provoked.
The Dow Jones Industrial Average closed down 2.6% Monday, while the S&P 500 plunged by 3% and the NASDAQ declined by 3.43% following a dismal Friday jobs report that sparked U.S. recession fears. Fisher, on “Your World With Neil Cavuto,” said Harris unexpectedly joining the presidential race and making it much tighter than when it was between President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump added to the economic uncertainty that fueled the downturn.
WATCH:
“There’s always the fear of the Fed doing something stupid … they almost always do something stupid. And then there was the fear of the yen carry trade. There’s all the newness about Harris as the presidential nominee,” Fisher said. “On and on and on … What about Iran adventurism? You can go on and on with fears. The fact of the matter is that corrections always have abundant fears that end up being shown afterwards to be false factors. And fear of a false factor is always bullish because it’s in the market price now. The fact is, when you’ve been as strong as we’ve been for as long as we’ve been in the stock market, it doesn’t take much to get people going.”
“So, this year, unlike most, it was just generally presumed at the beginning of the year that it would be Biden versus Trump. And the fact of the matter is that took a fair amount of uncertainty off the table early,” he added later. “We had unusually low uncertainty because normally you got all the contentious primaries and hoopla hoopla. We knew these two men so well compared to any two that have run before each other. And I’ve said that on your show before there was less to get frittered about. Now that Harris is a new and polls have tightened and … there’s more to worry about, so uncertainty’s up.”
Harris is currently leading Trump by 0.5% in the polls, whereas Trump was beating Biden by 3.1% before he dropped out of the race, according to RealClearPolling averages.
“That’s consistent with the time period of the market falling also. We will get to a winner. We always get a winner in November,” he continued. “We like the winner in November better than we thought we would when we started. And uncertainty will fall, and we’ll have that consistent bull market resuming when it resumes. Exactly when, I don’t know. It could be next week. Could be tomorrow. Could be three weeks from now or the week after that. But the reality is corrections return to bull markets. And this bull market will continue.”
Trump blamed Harris for the market plunge in a series of posts on Truth Social on Monday.
“Of course there is a massive market downturn. Kamala is even worse than Crooked Joe. Markets will NEVER accept the Radical Left Lunatic that DESTROYED San Francisco and California, as a whole,” he posted. “Next move, THE GREAT DEPRESSION OF 2024! You can’t play games with MARKETS. KAMALA CRASH!!!”
Editor’s note: This article has been updated to include additional context from earlier in Fisher’s segment indicating that there were several factors contributing to the market uncertainty that led to the stock market downturn.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2024-08-10 09:51:552024-08-10 09:51:55‘More To Worry About’: Billionaire Investor Says ‘Uncertainty’ From Harris Joining Race Contributed To Market Downturn
In July 2024, after U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris entered the race to become president, a claim that her father was a Marxist economist began to circulate online (archived):
Fun fact: Did you know that Kamala Harris’ father, Donald J Harris, was a post-Keynesian & Marxian economist? His research focused on economic inequality, uneven development & how the growth rate of an economy is fundamentally dependent on the class structure of society. pic.twitter.com/490r3uJXWi
The X post, which had gained 1.7 million views and 4,900 likes, came from Maxine Fowé, a political economist and an economic policy adviser at the German Federal Parliament, according to her LinkedIn profile.
The claim is true. Taking a closer look at Harris’ work and the economics school of thought he professed, we were able to confirm that he inscribed himself in Marx’s intellectual tradition.
Starting with Fowe, we found her biography on the website of one her previous employers, the German think tank Das Progressive Zentrum, which described her focus on “issues in the field of democratization of the economy and post-Keynesian economics in times of financialization dynamics.”
This detail is important because Donald J. Harris, a professor of economics at Stanford University, also did his research from a post-Keynesian perspective. Fowé was noting his line of inquiry admiringly. Keynesians stipulate that markets alone cannot ensure full employment and instead advocate for government intervention. Post-Keynesians agree, but argue that in intervening, the government should focus on equality and redistribution of wealth.
The post-Keynesian school of economics finds its roots in “The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money” — a 1936 book by economist John Maynard Keynes. In his book, Keynes attacked classical economics, which was the orthodoxy — that is, the mainstream — of the time.
Keynes’ main argument was that, contrary to classical economics’ assumption, markets alone would never ensure full employment because employment depends on demand — that is, the amount of money people and companies spend on available goods and services. He said that the psychology of markets was too volatile to manage. Instead, Keynes advocated for government intervention to stabilize the economy. For example, his recommendation for getting out of the 1930s Great Depression was that governments should simultaneously spend more and cut taxes.
From Keynes, three schools of thought emerged: Neo-Keynesians, new Keynesians and post-Keynesians. Neo-Keynesianism supporters, who focus on growth and stability rather than full employment, were the mainstream — or the orthodoxy — in the 1950s and 1960s. In the 1980s and 1990s, new Keynesians took the spotlight. New Keynesians argued that due to the fact that prices and wages are “rigid” — they don’t move easily as others schools of thought assume they do — unemployment and monetary policy (interest rates and money supply) have a much larger impact on demand.
Post-Keynesianism, which also evolved from Keynesianism, is in the heterodoxy — outside of the mainstream. Like Keynesianism, it assumes that markets alone cannot ensure full employment, and that the government must stimulate demand. But to post-Keynesians, the dimension of equality, classes and economic power is very important. Therefore, they are very concerned with distribution of income — how a country’s wealth is distributed among its inhabitants.
The title of Harris’ 1978 book, “Capital Accumulation and Income Distribution,” illustrates this concern. Harris was also preoccupied with exploitation and other concepts that came directly from Karl Marx’s theory of capital. For example, The Economist recounts that he once argued that the inequality that beset Black people in the U.S. did not come from a form of “colonial rule” where white people dominate. Instead, he argued that the problem was capitalism. In this sense, Harris was indeed Marxist in his thinking.
In fact, a 2019 paper in Elgar Online argued that “Marx should not be considered as an ‘early post-Keynesian’ but rather as an important forerunner of modern post-Keynesianism, with certain similarities, but also some important differences, and several areas of compatibility.”
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2024-08-05 21:51:492024-08-05 21:51:49Kamala Harris’ Father Was a ‘Marxist Economist’? Snopes rating TRUE!
High interest rates and low demand have led to the number of U.S. office buildings threatened by default reaching its highest point since the fourth quarter of 2012, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday.
Around $38 billion worth of office buildings are currently facing defaults, foreclosures or another form of financial distress, according to data from finance firm MSCI acquired by the WSJ. The defaults are part of a larger commercial real estate crisis, as high interest rates set by the Federal Reserve to combat elevated inflation and a slump in demand due to a rise in work-from-home policies have left office owners with huge debts and struggling to find tenants.
The payoff rate for commercial mortgage-backed securities (CMBS) in 2023 was at its lowest point since data began being collected in 2007, with only 35% of office owners paying back their loans at the end of their term, according to the WSJ. In 2021, more than 90% of office owners with a CMBS did so.
“The problem you have in office is, in many instances, there is no cash flow at all,” Bill Demchak, PNC Chief Executive, said on an earnings call, according to the WSJ. “It is really a unique animal at the moment.”
Only interest is typically paid for CMBS during the term of the loan, with the full amount being paid at maturity, or it has to be refinanced with current interest rates. Refinancing could pose an issue for commercial real estate owners due to a jump in interest rates as a result of the Federal Reserve setting its federal funds rate in a range of 5.25% and 5.50%, the highest level in 23 years.
The Fed set its rate to its current level in an effort to decelerate inflation, which peaked at 9% in June 2022 and is currently at 3.5% as of March, far higher than the Fed’s 2% target.
Not a good sign when small banks balance sheets are already 30% CRE and that share has been slowly growing over the last month after only briefly dropping: pic.twitter.com/zilY3eD5Kr
Around $18 billion in office loans that were converted to CMBS in the past are set to come to term in the next 12 months, twice as many that matured in 2023, according to the WSJ. Office vacancy rates are also up to a record 13.8%, as opposed to 9.4% at the end of 2019.
Office owners are resorting to bolstering the amenities offered in their buildings to lure wary tenants who don’t necessarily need office space, driving up costs to obtain renters, according to the WSJ.
Defaults in commercial real estate pose a particularly big issue for small- and medium-sized banks that hold an outsized portion of CMBS. The mid-sized New York Community Bancorp experienced a massive drop in its stock earlier this year after posting a $252 million loss in the fourth quarter of 2023, largely due to commercial real estate loans, leading a group of investors, including former Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, to bail out the bank.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2024-05-02 18:51:322024-05-02 18:51:32Office Loan Defaults At Highest Point In More Than A Decade
“Honesty is of God and dishonesty of the devil; the devil was a liar from the beginning.” — Joseph B. Wirthlin
“When you’re a liar, a person of low moral fortitude, really any explanation you need to be true can be true. Especially if you’re smart enough. You can figure out a way to justify anything.” — Samuel Witwer
“Half a truth is often a great lie.” — Benjamin Franklin
“By a lie, a man… annihilates his dignity as a man.” — Immanuel Kant, philosopher
“America last. America last. That’s all this is. America last, every single day.” – Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene
By now, most Americans have figured out that our new Speaker of the House of Representatives lied to us, and not just once.
In his two-hour interview with Sean Hannity after he was elected, Johnson told host Hannity that, “Someone asked me today in the media, ‘People are curious, what does Mike Johnson think about any issue under the sun?’ I said, ‘Well, go pick up a Bible off your shelf and read it. That’s my worldview.’”
Better take a look at Ecclesiastes 5:5 Mr. Speaker. You have broken every promise you vowed to keep. Yes, we can look in the Bible to know you and you seem cuddled up with the Stalinist demons of darkness.
What happened to Chip Roy (R-TX) and Byron Donalds (R-FL) working on plans for Continuing Resolutions cutting spending by eight percent and securing the border and protecting our military and veterans? That was your stated promise in the Sean Hannity interview.
You haven’t provided even one dime to protect the southern border from the swarms of people entering the country illegally.
But all three men want to open and change our US Constitution. Birds of a feather.
You, Mr. Speaker, and the Stalinist democrats, approved a nearly $100 billion foreign aid package that provides funding for Israel and Taiwan – but the bulk of the money is going to corrupt Ukraine – some $61 billion.
Promises, promises…all lies.
Tucker Carlson previously interviewed Bret Weinstein who had been to the Darien Gap at the request of Michael Yon. The Weinstein interviews and the latest interview with Michael Yon should be seen by every American.
Who is facilitating the invasion and destruction of our country? Our own government!
Obama’s “fundamental transformation of America” is taking place before our eyes.
Watch the 58 second trailer of this Tucker Carlson interview with Michael Yon.
Johnson’s Personal Life
Normally, I’d consider personal life off target, but similar to former VP Mike Pence, Speaker Johnson lauds the fact that he’s a Christian and carries his Bible out front. It seems apparent that both he and Pence carry a knife behind their backs.
Johnson claims Christianity as his faith, but he is 52 and has a 40-year-old “adopted” black son who has a lengthy criminal record, lives in Los Angeles and has fathered four children. Speaker Johnson and his wife took custody of Michael Tirrell James, but never formally adopted him. He is not included in their family pictures, by his own choice.
In 2022, the speaker revealed to media that he had installed “accountability software” between himself and his then 15-year-old biological son. The surveillance software is called Covenant Eyes and is on devices in order to abstain from internet porn and other unsavory websites. It is spyware. Covenant Eyes developed important relationships with Promise Keepers, Focus on the Family, churches and many other organizations. Their founder is Ron DeHaas, an elder in his Calvinist Presbyterian Church.
Mike Johnson and his biological son, who is now 17, receive weekly reports on sites they’ve been to on their phones and computers. One wonders if this includes his father’s political correspondence. And why would anyone use this unless there was a problem?
Promise Keepers has a radical charismatic connection and promotes strong overt ecumenicism of the movement. One variation of the charismatic movement is the Vineyard movement, which has strong links to the Kansas City Prophets — a controversial cult claiming visions and revelations from God. They believe that God is giving new revelation today and that the miraculous signs of the early church should be normative for today. These beliefs have led to much confusion and error.
Treason
Johnson must think surveillance is just fine if he’s doing it with his son and vice versa, as he was the tie breaker to pass the reauthorization of section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), without a requirement for warrants for surveillance on American citizens. This was a massive betrayal of the fourth amendment.
In a highly unusual outcome, the amendment from Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ) to the reauthorization of the FISA Act tied at 212 — thereby failing. More than 80 Democrats joined with 128 Republicans in backing the measure, while 86 Republicans and 126 Democrats opposed it.
Face it! The betrayal is massive, and it’s not just the Stalinist Democrat Party; it is the majority of Trotskyite Republicans as well. Our own country comes last with the representatives in both houses of Congress. Gaetz got rid of McCarthy, and we ended up with someone equally deceptive.
There is $61 billion more for Ukraine in this bill, bringing the total with armaments to over $250 billion given to the corrupt nation of Ukraine. (Zelensky just purchased the former home of Prince Charles and Diana.) Israel will get $26.4 billion in aid and Taiwan will get $8 billion.
Johnson also buried $9 billion in aid to Gaza – meaning that money will be confiscated by Hamas.
Not a single penny went to secure our southern border.
Instead, Speaker Johnson actually endorsed the open border by making sure that another $4 billion is allocated for “migration and refugee assistance,” which is used by non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for the border invasion and migrant freebies.
The divvying up is this: $481 million in the Ukraine bill and $3.5 billion in the Israel bill.
Cindy Dyer is the U.S. Ambassador-at-Large to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons and appears to be highly qualified to lead that State Dept. office. But it’s like pulling teeth to get this woman to talk about the mass human trafficking at our compromised southern border.
Tara Lee Rodas, who worked with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Refugee Resettlement to place unaccompanied migrant children with sponsors said, “Whether intentional or not, it can be argued that the US Government has become the middleman in a large scale, multi-billion-dollar, child trafficking operation run by bad actors seeking to profit off the lives of children.”
Chinese military, dangerous criminals, terrorists, and Mexican cartels are making tons of money in child trafficking and drugs as they pour across our southern border.
Our new Speaker spoke to Hakeem Jeffries, and said he would pray about the bill and how many Republicans he could deliver. Apparently, Johnson believes the Lord told him to give billions of our tax dollars to Ukraine and Gaza and to ignore the invasion of our nation.
Democrats cheered this recent foreign aid bill and waved Ukrainian flags in the House.
Joe Biden lauded the Speaker and signed the bill.
Senator Schumer heaped praise on Johnson’s bi-partisan efforts.
Speaker Johnson has sided with the Stalinist Democrats who are decimating our country.
“Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson, has come under scrutiny following revelations that he received significant campaign contributions from a foreign lobby group, particularly known for its pro-foreign policy stance. According to analysis conducted by The Intercept based on Federal Election Commission records, this lobby group donated approximately $95,000 to Johnson’s campaign in November of last year.” Link
“In a shockingly short period of time, Speaker Johnson went from a MAGA hopeful to a Deep State stooge.” Scott Adams explains in layman terms how the CIA ‘captures’ our lawmakers right under our nose.
Betrayal
Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) was threatened with a $500 fine for posting evidence of Congressional treason with the betrayal of lawmakers waving Ukrainian flags in celebration of them passing a $95 billion foreign aid package for Ukraine and Israel.
Dinesh D’Souza reposted it on X after Massie was told by Johnson to take it down.
Johnson had to walk back the fine as there was outrage from the GOP. Instead of securing the border, Johnson caved to the Democrats.
Where in the Constitution is it legal to give tax dollars to foreign countries, and why is it that only Israel ever repays the funds and favors?
Our nation’s elected representatives are selling us down the river. They’re all in on it, other than a small handful, and Matt Rosendale, one of the good guys, is leaving at the end of the year.
Our national debt is at the untenable amount of $35 trillion, yet they’re giving away borrowed money that is losing more value every day. Inflation and shrinkflation are taxing the public into the poor house.
We’re looking at becoming the Weimar Republic in more ways than one, with hyper-inflation, Nazi rise and ultimate collapse.
Leo Hohmann writes, “Included in the package is $300 million to protect Ukraine’s border with Poland. This $300 million will be used to keep Ukrainians from fleeing into Poland to escape the military draft, which sends them into the meatgrinder and certain death at the front with a superior Russian military. No matter how hard they try to serve it up on a pretty platter, it doesn’t get any more evil than this.”
Leo ends his latest article with, “As the Bible says, woe to those who call good evil and evil good. Our politicians are on a mission to crash and burn what’s left of Western civilization.”
Johnson blew any border security leverage we had with his betrayal of the American people.
Johnson’s Advisors
Breitbart reports that Johnson’s top policy adviser is a former lobbyist who has corporate interests in the Ukraine War. Dan Ziegler was previously executive director of the conservative Republican Study Committee that Johnson chaired from 2019 to 2021, and he left the Hill in December to join Williams and Jensen as a principal.
As a lobbyist with Williams and Jensen, Ziegler had a client list prone to support the Ukraine funding. Here is a list of the groups and corporations who have retained them. Ziegler is a Heritage Action and American Energy Alliance alum, who lobbied for a range of health care clients, including Pfizer, Merck, Sanofi (the one Dr. Robert Malone loves), Owens & Minor, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, PhRMA, Amgen and Elevance Health, in addition to companies like Visa, Vanguard Group, Bloom Energy and W Diamond Corporation. (Heritage Action is a sister organization of controlled-opposition Heritage Foundation.)
According to a recent Breitbart article, Ziegler also represented News Media Alliance which was lobbying congress back when Ziegler worked for Williams and Jensen, to promote a very dangerous proposal that would silence conservative media. The proposal is called the Journalism Competition & Preservation Act (JCPA). It has failed, but keeps coming back.
Johnson has several neo-con backers in his party. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Michael McCaul (R-TX) attacked conservatives who were against this horrendous bill in order to achieve passage. He even launched an “unhinged attack” on Sen. J.D. Vance (R-OH) over Ukraine aid. McCaul endorsed the bill before even having seen it.
Dan Ziegler and Josh Hodges are the top aides to Johnson and influence how he votes. Hodges is Johnson’s National Security Adviser but reports to Ziegler. Breitbart states, “Hodges is the brain behind many of the most controversial Johnson policy decisions related to funding foreign wars, FISA, foreign affairs, and national security, a source familiar with the Speaker’s office’s inner workings told Breitbart News. According to Legistorm, Hodges handles Johnson’s armed forces and national security portfolios.”
Both Zeigler and Hodges advocate the votes we’ve seen Johnson make. Johnson’s Deputy Chief of Staff for communications, Raj Shah, has refused to answer any questions. After Shah left Trump’s White House, he went to work for Fox News with Paul Ryan. Shah called out Massie and Greene for their threats to oust Johnson. Knowing that Ryan and Mike Pence were good friends in Congress doesn’t make me feel all warm and cuddly about Shah, much less about Ziegler and Hodges.
In Rep. Greene’s (R-GA) interview with Tucker Carlson, she claimed that Mike Johnson often speaks with Biden’s National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan. ABC reported that Sullivan “pushed” Johnson to put a bipartisan foreign aid bill to a vote. He has been an adviser to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Joe Biden. He clerked for former Associate Justice Stephen Breyer. Sullivan is a Rhodes scholar and earned his law degree at Yale. He was an editor of the Yale Law Journal and the Yale Daily News. He interned at the globalist Council on Foreign Relations, and often writes for their Foreign Affairs Magazine.
Sullivan was a State Department official under then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton when in 2012, four Americans were killed in the terrorist attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya. In 2015, he was called to testify before the U.S. House Select Committee on Benghazi. Sullivan’s testimony became part of the Committee’s final report that concluded Clinton and Sullivan may have sent highly classified information using unsecured private emails rather than through secure government servers.
Jake speaks often at the Brookings Institute regarding the Biden administration’s international agenda. Its largest contributors include the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, the Hutchins Family Foundation, JPMorgan Chase, the LEGO Foundation, David Rubenstein, State of Qatar, and John L. Thornton.
Edward Snowden says Johnson is a textbook case of Congressional capture. Revolver News explains, “In short, ‘Congressional capture’ is when lawmakers or legislative bodies fall under the heavy influence of outside interests, like big corporations, special interest groups, or US intel. These influences ensure that their agendas take precedence over the public’s needs. In simple terms, this means certain policies or laws that favor these groups are advanced, while criticism or resistance is quietly suppressed. Suddenly, their most ferocious critics become their biggest cheerleaders.”
We’re $35 trillion in debt, but that doesn’t even stop them! These are inflationary dollars they’re printing with no backing.
This is the Weimar Republic’s hyperinflation in America!
There is no accounting for any of the money given to Ukraine.
And no audits of the US funding.
This could be one of the greatest financial frauds in US history – Next to the Biden COVID assistance fraud. Link
The new “Christian Conservative Constitutional Attorney” is fulfilling the dreams of the Democrat Party while making Matt Gaetz’ removal of Kevin McCarthy look downright stupid.
Conclusion
President Trump said, “I stand with the Speaker,” and “Johnson is doing a very good job.”
Sorry President Trump, but Mike Johnson is being controlled by the very people stabbing you in the back.
Giving Biden’s political gestapo a brand-new FBI building bigger than the Pentagon, while not providing a dime to protect the southern border from the swarms of people entering the country illegally, is doing a “good job?
Meanwhile, Chinese military, dangerous criminals, terrorists, and Mexican cartels are making tons of money in child trafficking and drugs as they pour across our southern border.
This administration invited this invasion, and Speaker Johnson is complicit.
The Biden administration’s analysis of its revenue proposals for fiscal year 2025 argues targeted tax hikes that disproportionately affect white people would ease racial wealth inequality.
Increasing taxes on capital gains and income-based wealth would reduce racial wealth inequality for black and Hispanic families, the Treasury Department outlined in the analysis published in mid-March. The Treasury points out that white families disproportionately hold assets subject to capital gains tax or are in a higher tax bracket, meaning a hike in those taxes would benefit black and Hispanic families.
The Biden administration argues for taxing capital income for high-income earners at “ordinary rates,” increasing the top rate from 37% to 39.6% for those who earn more than $1 million a year. Taxes on net investment income would also be hiked by 1.2 percentage points to 5% for those who make over $400,000 per year, bringing the total top marginal rate to 44.6%.
“Taxing capital gains at 44.6% at the federal level — not to mention state taxes — would be economic suicide,” Preston Brashers, research fellow for tax policy in the Heritage Foundation’s Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Before the tax ever took effect, investors would rush to pull their money out of equities subject to such exorbitant tax rates. U.S. businesses would be starved for capital, and business activity would slow to a crawl. Ultimately, corporate income and capital gains income would fall off a cliff, so the net result would be less tax revenue, not more. The middle class and working class would be slammed with mass layoffs and lower real wages.”
The Treasury estimates that white families are the recipients of 92% of the benefits of preferential rates on capital gains and qualified dividends, compared to 2% and 3% for Hispanic families. Only 0.4% of white families, less than 0.05% of black families and 0.1% of Hispanic families will be affected by the proposed rule change on capital gains.
“So, if President Biden’s goal of redistribution is to make the rich poorer, his proposal would be successful,” Brashers told the DCNF. “But if the goal is to lift up the middle class, the plan would fail spectacularly. Note, even the Urban-Brooking Tax Policy Center use estimates that imply that the revenue-maximizing long-term capital gains rate is about 28%, so it’s clear that Biden’s proposal is on the wrong side of the Laffer curve.”
The proposal also calls for establishing a minimum 25% income tax that includes unrealized capital gains for those with wealth over $100 million. The Biden administration argues that the wealthiest taxpayers utilize their stake in unrealized gains to lower their total income and reduce their tax liability, but taxing unrealized gains may force many business owners to sell stakes in their company if they are not liquid enough to pay the burden.
“The wealthy already pay far more than their fair share, while the tax burden on large corporations ends up landing on individuals across the economy, including low-income individuals,” Chris Edwards, the Kilts Family Chair in Fiscal Studies at the Cato Institute, told the DCNF.
The Biden administration also calls for ending a “loophole” that allows families to postpone their estate tax burden by creating trust assets that benefit multiple future generations and are not taxed on the death of the beneficiary. Around 30% of white families receive an inheritance that would qualify as of 2019, compared to 10% for black families and 7% for Hispanic families.
“Left-wing Biden economists seem unable to appreciate that raising taxes on capital hurts labor. Capital and labor work together to produce economic growth,” Edwards told the DCNF. “They are complements. The Biden economists seem to hold the Marxist view that capital and labor are bitter enemies, and that the only way that labor can win is for the government to crush capital.”
The Biden administration is also proposing to expand the child tax credit, temporarily increasing the amount given per child and permanently restoring the full refundability provision. The Treasury argues that it will ease racial disparities since a disproportionate number of black and Hispanic kids have benefited from it in the past.
“These proposals would also increase the fairness of the tax system by addressing some of the features that have historically reinforced racial disparities,” the proposal reads. “Over time, these proposals are expected to increase wealth accumulation by low- and middle-income families and reduce racial wealth gaps.”
The proposal was released in conjunction with calls from the Biden administration to drastically increase spending for fiscal year 2025, adding at least $14.8 trillion to the national debt by the end of a presumptive second term for the president.
The national debt has continued to grow rapidly under President Joe Biden, totaling more than $34.55 trillion as of April 26, up from $34 trillion at the beginning of the year, according to the Treasury Department.
Huge government spending is also putting the U.S. economy at risk of stagflation, with first quarter growth only totaling 1.6% while inflation remains high at 3.5% in March year-over-year.
“This hints at the false view that sadly underlies much of the Biden administration’s economic policy: high-earners only achieve success through luck, and low-earners can only achieve success through government handouts,” Edwards told the DCNF. “That is an appalling, un-American view.”
The White House did not immediately respond to a request to comment from the DCNF.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2024-04-30 15:52:352024-04-30 15:52:35‘Economic Suicide’: Biden Admin Justifies Tax Hike Based On Racial Criteria
Congress’ new $60 billion aid package is unlikely to move the needle in Ukraine’s war against Russia, experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
The House overwhelmingly voted to pass the $60.8 billion package on Saturday that aims to bolster Ukraine’s war effort and replenish U.S. stockpiles, and the Pentagon is reportedly quickly sketching up a plan to deliver Kyiv tactical vehicles, armored personnel carriers and missiles if the bill is ultimately signed off on by President Joe Biden, according to Politico. But given the lack of an endgame strategy to end the war and Ukraine’s failed counteroffensive in the face of a growing Russian military, the aid could help bolster Kyiv’s defenses for a while, but is unlikely to push it closer to a military victory, former U.S. officials and defense experts told the DCNF.
“By itself, the latest tranche of U.S. aid is not zero-sum and it’s hard to imagine it will prompt a turning point in the war. However, if used properly the funds should be helpful for a period of time,” Michael Bars, former White House senior communications advisor and National Security Council official, told the DCNF. “It’s disappointing that another $60 billion went out the door without a penny for U.S. border enforcement, on which the Speaker long-conditioned additional Ukraine aid.”
Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, who helped spearhead the bill’s creation and passing, previously insisted that any future Ukraine aid needed to be tied to border security. Johnson ultimately discarded that idea and helped pass the Ukraine bill separately, provoking ire from several GOP lawmakers.
This is the U.S. House of Representatives under the direction of Speaker Mike Johnson. Democrats are celebrating his total capitulation with no victory for securing our border. #MTVpic.twitter.com/TtaIgnX9eg
This is the U.S. House of Representatives under the direction of Speaker Mike Johnson. Democrats are celebrating his total capitulation with no victory for securing our border. #MTVpic.twitter.com/TtaIgnX9eg
“I think there’s not enough money available, either in this bill or in a much larger one, to help Ukraine achieve their goals of retaking all their territory or even go on offense in a sustained way,” Benjamin Friedman, policy director at Defense Priorities, told the DCNF. “So in a sense, moving forward is beyond their grasp, even if we give them a lot more weapons. The aid might be useful in helping them hold the line and not suffer some kind of breakthrough where the Russians start to make real progress. So I think it’s a little bit opaque exactly how dire things are for Ukraine.”
Ukraine has thus far received approximately $73 billion in aid, including military and economic assistance, from the U.S. alone since the country’s war with Russia began in February 2022. Ukraine has burned through existing aid and yet has failed to make any territorial advances in its counteroffensive operations.
Ukraine suffers not only from a lack of munitions and weaponry but also a shortage of manpower, having lost an estimated 70,000 troops as of December, U.S. officials previously told The New York Times. Ukrainian forces took a significant blow during the withdrawal of Avdiivka in Eastern Ukraine amid a shortage of manpower as Russian forces advanced and seized control of the city.
Zelenskyy is lowering broadening conscription standards in a bid to increase mobilization, but it may be too late to make a difference now, even with additional munitions, Michael DiMino, a senior fellow at Defense Priorities and former CIA officer, told the DCNF.
“It’s kind of too little, too late,” DiMino told the DCNF. “Even if you mobilize those people now, you’re 30 points down right now… if you want to do the right thing, Zelenskyy should have made that call two, three years ago at this point.”
Complicating matters further is Russia’s military-industrial complex, which, despite heavy sanctions from the West, is at full operational capacity and producing armaments at a swift rate. Despite sustaining heavy manpower losses, Russia’s military has recovered back to pre-war levels and is growing much faster than Ukraine’s, head of U.S. European Command Gen. Christopher Cavoli warned Congress last week.
“It appears that Russia, with a reputedly sanction-proofed economy, is prepared for a long haul and will continue insisting on territorial concessions from Ukraine,” Bars told the DCNF. “This will put the U.S. on the hook for even more aid down the road as part of protracted conflict.”
Russia has economically allied itself more closely with Western adversaries such as China, Moscow’s largest trading partner as of 2024, to ease some of the weight of sanctions. Russia has also deepened its military cooperation with Iran and North Korea, both of whom are also burdened by sanctions.
The new Ukraine aid package, if signed into law, will provide Kyiv with approximately $14 billion for the direct purchase of weapons and munitions through the Pentagon’s Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative. At least $13.4 billion will go toward replenishing the U.S.’ weapons stockpile, which can be transferred to foreign allies through the presidential drawdown authority.
Roughly $10 billion will be provided as an economic loan under the package, which the president would eventually be able to waive in its entirety.
“The loan system itself is an innovation and allows for much-needed oversight. Otherwise, it would be a straight grant and no oversight,” Johnson’s office told the DCNF on Monday. “Every single dollar that goes to Ukraine for aid is now a loan. The other money goes to our own national security and replenishes our stockpile.”
“The loan system is split in a tiered system so it cannot all be forgiven immediately or at one time,” Johnson’s office told the DCNF. “The process for congressional review puts heavy oversight on the president’s ability to forgive the loan.”
DiMino told the DCNF he is not opposed to sending Ukraine more military aid so long as it is attached to a cohesive war strategy, which he felt has thus far not been presented by the Biden administration or supporters in Congress.
“Whether people are in favor of the aid or not, I don’t really care about that. What I care about is, what is the theory of victory? I would argue right now that this current administration does not have a theory of victory.” DiMino told the DCNF. “President Biden mentioned Ukraine for two minutes at the top of the State of the Union, and he said, ‘Putin is evil, and democracy is important.’ And that’s great, and we can probably agree on that. But that’s not a strategy to win a war. That doesn’t actually discuss the tactical realities on the ground.”
“$50 billion, $60 billion, $10 billion — it doesn’t matter. It has to be tied to a strategy and to an objective that’s achievable,” DiMino told the DCNF. “It has to be a realistic objective. And I would argue that taking back 100% of Ukraine’s territory is not really a feasible military objective at this juncture.”
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2024-04-23 09:51:192024-04-23 09:51:19‘Too Little, Too Late’: Congress’ $60 Billion Aid Package Won’t Get Ukraine Off The Ropes, Experts Say
The Biden administration could allow California to implement a rule designed to push green locomotives, but a growing list of stakeholders are warning that the regulation would severely impact the state’s economy and the national rail industry.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could soon determine whether it will allow the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to move forward with a state regulation that would ban the use of locomotives that are more than 23 years past their manufacturing date unless they run using zero-emissions technology, according to Progressive Railroading.
The rule could disrupt supply chains and saddle the state’s railway industry with huge new costs that would flow to consumers, with the effects of the rule potentially spilling out in other parts of the country, according to numerous trade groups, lawmakers and policy experts who believe the Biden administration should reject CARB’s request.
CARB passed the locomotive rule in April 2023, but the agency must first receive the EPA’s permission before it enacts a regulation that goes above and beyond federal rules, according to the EPA’s Federal Register entry on the request. Monday was the last day to file comments with the EPA about the matter, signaling that a final determination could be coming soon.
“When you look at regulations in California, they’re being promulgated by people who don’t really understand the ramifications of what they’re requiring,” Edward Ring, a veteran of the railroad industry who is now the director of water and energy policy for the California Policy Center, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “CARB is asking for something — zero-emissions locomotives — that do not yet exist. And what’s going to happen is it’s going to dramatically raise the cost of shipping anywhere in California, and that’s going to have a ripple effect across the country. This is another example of California’s environmentalist regulations raising the cost of living.”
California Is Staring Down The Barrel Of A Yawning Budget Deficit. Can It Even Be Fixed? https://t.co/pxy1zh0Smp
The rule for locomotives would take effect in 2030, assuming EPA allows CARB to proceed. Some of the rule’s critics say that timeline is too tight to meet given the current lack of dependable, affordable zero-emissions technology available for locomotives on the market.
Moreover, the rule also would require locomotive operators to pay into their own trust accounts to fund the acquisition of zero-emissions locomotives and related infrastructure, according to CARB. The payment structure requires operators to contribute more into the accounts for operating dirtier locomotives than they have to put up for running cleaner ones.
Because many other states adhere to CARB guidelines, the EPA’s approval could set off a chain reaction expanding the impact of the rule well beyond California’s borders, according to Ted Greener, vice president of public affairs for the Association of American Railroads (AAR).
“If EPA approves the waiver the rule becomes a national matter on the first day. Roughly 65% of the locomotive fleet goes in and out of California and almost all of the freight rail traffic that moves in the state of California traverses state lines,” Ted Greener, vice president of public affairs for the Association of American Railroads (AAR), told the DCNF. “Moreover, EPA granting the waiver enables other states to opt-in and replicate the regulation in full – including the phase out dates andthe spending accounts. Such a balkanized system would be unspeakably costly, but also disruptive to the flow of goods.”
A “large number” of locomotives would be impacted by the rule, Greener told the DCNF. Typically, locomotives have a lifespan ranging from 30 to 50 years, and they are regularly upgraded or otherwise modified to be more fuel-efficient, Greener added.
Other rail industry interest groups, such as the American Short Line and Railroad Association (ASLRRA), have also opposed the rule.
“While the spirit behind this rule is consistent with short lines’ environmental commitment, the rule itself is impractical, unworkable, and simply not feasible for most short lines,” Chuck Baker, president of ASLRRA, said of CARB’s rule in May 2023. “In addition, this rulemaking does not acknowledge the impact of the elimination of some short line rail service to Californians … Short lines would not in fact be able to pass on these costs to their customers and some of them would be eliminated by this rule.”
For its part, CARB downplays most of these criticisms and concerns.
“Despite the availability of cleaner options, railroad companies have failed to make investments to replace their outdated, dirty locomotives that contribute to the state’s air quality problems and endanger the lives and health of Californians,” a CARB spokesperson told the DCNF. “Passenger vehicles, heavy-duty trucks, ocean-going vessels, heavy off-road equipment, small off-road engines used in landscaping, among other emissions sectors are all doing their part. It’s time for the rail industry to join and work with us to become part of the solution rather than focusing their efforts on litigation and PR campaigns.”
“In addition, under CARB’s Locomotive Regulation, railroads need not purchase new locomotives, but instead have many options available to them, including the use of zero-emission tender cars, rail electrification, or retrofitting of their existing locomotive fleet to ensure zero-emission operation while operating within California,” the spokesperson continued.
Moreover, a diverse coalition of more than 60 trade groups — including the National Association of Manufacturers, the Beer Institute and the Aluminum Association — wrote a letter Friday to Karl Simon, the director of EPA’s Transportation and Climate Division, expressing significant concerns with the rule should CARB be allowed to proceed.
“This regulation from CARB has the potential to create significant disruptions in the supply chain for all sectors of the U.S. economy, especially manufacturers and shippers who rely on consistent, reliable rail service,” the letter reads. “This rule could lead to delays for businesses and increased costs for both shippers and consumers that could ultimately lead to a massive supply chain crisis. If railroads are forced to spend large amounts of money to ensure compliance with this rule, those costs will be passed along the entire supply chain and could inhibit rail service at facilities across the country – not just in California.”
“The issue is that no viable technology exists today to move freight beyond yards on a zero-emissions basis,” the letter continues. “Despite aggressive [research and development] and innovation in the rail sector and significant private investments, the technologies to achieve this rule simply do not exist at this point.”
Democratic West Virginia Sen. Joe Manchin and 11 Republican Senators also wrote their own letter expressing concern about the CARB rule to EPA Administrator Michael Reagan on April 16. In addition to raising questions about the legality of CARB’s rule, the lawmakers urged the EPA to “carefully consider the environmental, supply chain, and modal shift implications that EPA approving CARB’s waiver request would have.”
The EPA did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
https://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.png00DrRichSwier.comhttps://libertyfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/logo_v6_225x110.pngDrRichSwier.com2024-04-23 09:51:162024-04-23 09:51:16Biden Admin Weighs California’s Latest Green Gambit That Could Set Off Chain Reaction Of Economic Pain
