Biden IRS Plans to Crackdown on Waitress’ Tips As Biden Lies No New Taxes On Working Class In SOTU Speech thumbnail

Biden IRS Plans to Crackdown on Waitress’ Tips As Biden Lies No New Taxes On Working Class In SOTU Speech

By Dr. Rich Swier

Biden’s IRS plans to crack down on waiters’ tips

‘They’re coming after waitresses’ tips now,’ tax expert Mike Palicz says

By Thomas Catenacci | Fox News

California, New York, Connecticut, Washington, Hawaii, Illinois and Maryland among the states to tax wealthy who flee.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) proposed a revenue procedure this week to crack down on the service industry’s reporting of tips.

The Service Industry Tip Compliance Agreement (SITCA) program would be a voluntary tip reporting system in which the IRS and service industry companies cooperate, according to the announcement Monday. As part of the proposal, the IRS will give the public until early May to provide feedback on the program before implementing it.

“Those 87,000 new IRS agents that you were promised would only target the rich,” tweeted Mike Palicz, federal affairs manager at Americans for Tax Reform. “They’re coming after waitresses’ tips now.”

According to the IRS, the program would seek to “improve tip reporting compliance,” reduce administrative burdens and provide more transparency and certainty to taxpayers.

“This is not a proposal for the auditing of servers,” an IRS official told Fox News Digital. “Yesterday’s action was a proposal for comment – not a rule – based on over a decade of feedback from restaurants and other businesses seeking the increased flexibility for their overall tax compliance on tips.”

“This proposal is not in effect and is intended to welcome further conversation from all interested parties before any rule is put into place,” the official added.

Biden:”Let me be clear, no one making less than $400k pr yr is going to pay a penny more in taxes”

The Nasty Italian: Let me be clear. Biden is fucking piece of shit liar & everyone of you assholes who were dumb enough to vote for him deserves to be poor!https://t.co/Tq7L0s92pU

— The Nasty Italian🍷🇺🇸 🇮🇹 (@sayitnspinit) February 7, 2023

Those 87,000 new IRS agents that you were promised would only target the rich…

They’re coming after waitresses’ tips now: “monitoring of employer compliance based on actual annual tip revenue and charge tip data from an employer’s point-of-sale system.”https://t.co/WAvh0t2cNN

— Mike Palicz (@Mike_Palicz) February 7, 2023

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Obamacare Ropes More Into Government Dependency thumbnail

Obamacare Ropes More Into Government Dependency

By The Daily Skirmish – Liberato.US

The Biden administration is crowing about the record number of sign-ups for Obamacare this year.  They shouldn’t be.

A record 16.3 million people signed up in the latest enrollment period.  Supporters trumpet the notion this is double the number who signed up when Obamacare first became available.  Sounds great, right?  Not so fast.  When they were selling us the Obamacare legislation, they promised 21 million people would sign up right away.  That’s never happened, and they’re still 30 percent short of the goal they set for themselves ten years ago.

Besides, it’s no mystery why enrollment went up this year.  Obamacare subsidies have been jumbo-sized and the jumbo subsidies have been extended through 2025.  Now, some people don’t have to pay for it at all.  They get zero-dollar premiums.  If you give it away for free, of course more people will sign up.  No mystery there.  So now they’re practically giving it away and they’re still 30 percent short of where they thought they would be a decade ago.  That’s not a triumph.  It’s an utter abysmal failure.  The failure is not unexpected; only half of Americans approve of Obamacare and, now as we’ve seen, most people don’t want it, unless it’s handed to them on a silver platter.

It’s not hard to see why people don’t want it.  First of all, lots of the best hospitals and doctors won’t take Obamacare.   Obamacare patients don’t have access to top-tier care.  Doctors hate Obamacare because it adds layers of paperwork to their burdens.

Second, Obamacare has led to concentration in the individual insurance market.  Prior to Obamacare, there were lots of insurers competing on price and features.  Obamacare standardized many of those features and, in addition, caused lots of insurers to drop out.  I read one article crowing about how most of the country now has three insurers in their state Obamacare exchange.  Only three?  Here’s what happens when the market becomes concentrated and you only have three companies competing for business, according to a recent GAO report:

From 2015 through 2020, most states’ exchanges were concentrated and became more concentrated over time…. In 2020, the exchanges were concentrated in all states…. [M]arket concentration … can result in higher premiums due to less competition in the market.”

So what’s being covered up by the jumbo subsidies is the fact that premiums are rising behind the scenes, because of Obamacare.  Insurers can hike prices because federal subsidies ensure consumers don’t feel the pain.  By the way, the overall price tag for those subsidies is a lot higher than originally estimated.

Obamacare is also causing overall healthcare costs to go up.  The insurance taxes in Obamacare get passed along to consumers.  Obamacare was supposed to keep people out of expensive emergency rooms, but ERs are more crowded than ever.

But the most insidious effect of Obamacare is increasing dependency on government.  People are being trained to rely on government as the answer for everything instead of relying on themselves and looking to the private sphere for solutions to what they need.  The law putting jumbo Obamacare subsidies in place also pushed welfare spending further into the middle class.  A family of four that makes $111,000 a year is now eligible for subsidized health insurance.  That’s crazy.  Most people who take the subsidies already had health insurance, so government dependency is crowding out private insurance.

There’s been commentary recently that we’re turning into a nation of welfare moochers.  People can make $80,000 to $100,000 a year in Obamacare subsidies and other government benefits for sitting around doing nothing.  That’s not normal, healthy, or sustainable.  As the economists like to say, things will continue until they can’t.

©Christopher Wright. All rights reserved.

Visit The Daily Skirmish and Watch Eagle Headline News – 7:30am ET Weekdays

America Hit Rock Bottom In 2022 thumbnail

America Hit Rock Bottom In 2022

By The Geller Report

Hit bottom, keeps digging.

The decent and civilized among us are shouting into the void. What’s it going to take?

By: Christopher Bedford, The Federalist, February 7, 2023:

Chaos in Washington, madness at the airport, holiday hangovers: The first month of 2023 was familiar enough. What might seem less familiar to Americans, however, are the cracks appearing in our walls.

Sure, Americans have long felt a decline — maybe a few shifts in the foundations; the yearly polls on trust in major institutions reflect that well enough. You might hear an uncle who says, “Wall Street’s a bunch of crooks!” or a neighbor who notices, “Washington politicians are only in it for themselves,” or even an old classmate who thinks, “Colleges are just a bunch of crazy activists these days,” but the complaints largely ended with the complaints themselves. Everything still worked well enough.

And then it didn’t.

While politicians, “the experts,” and their friends in corporate media managed to muddy the waters in the first year of lockdowns, by 2021 everyday Americans felt like they’d earned the right to wonder why their kindergarteners were in masks, or their local teachers still refused to teach. Modern homeschooling flourished like never before, while enrollment in Catholic schools increased for the first time in decades.

The easy and pervasive idea that you could drop your kids off at school and expect they’d get an education like you did back in the day was dead. The assumption that you could trust the hospital administrator went out with the idea that you could trust your favorite news anchor. Hell, even pastors and funeral directors stood in the way of the business of life, death, and salvation.

But these were just people, most reasoned; or at least these were just institutions. And anyway, these were “unprecedented times” and “we’re all in this together.” “The pendulum will swing back,” Americans confidently predicted. “This craziness will pass.”

Today, in the first month of 2023, we don’t have the luxury of thinking it’s all going to get better. Because far from the year America changed course and settled into “normalcy,” 2022 was the year the basic, behind-the-scenes systems we all count on started to break down.

People struggled to buy a car. Baby formula moved behind locked counters, where the cigarettes used to be sold. Baby aspirin and other simple medicines were in such high demand, friends and neighbors worked together to supply the most vulnerable. Container ships backed up for weeks while their contents rotted. Diesel shortages threatened the lifeblood of the American economy.

Even if you don’t have an infant or a child looking for medicine, even if you didn’t see the ships lining up the California coast or the Chesapeake Bay, or missed the growing unease in the trucking industry, you might have noticed the cost of meat fluctuating so greatly that some local restaurants charged “market price” for chicken fingers. Or maybe you noticed condiments and other basic items were out of stock in the fast food joints across your town. Or maybe a friend texted you to please keep an eye out for a certain type of formula for his baby daughter, who needs it.

The point is: “Good Morning America” could ignore it all they liked, but you noticed.

Keep reading.

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Chinese Intelligence Purchasing Properties Close To U.S. Military Installations thumbnail

Chinese Intelligence Purchasing Properties Close To U.S. Military Installations

By The Geller Report

What does the Biden regime imagine the Chinese are doing? This should never have been allowed.

Here’s How Much US Farmland Has Been Bought Up By China

By: Philip Lenczycki, Daily Caller, on February 6, 2023

Ownership of U.S. farmland by Chinese nationals has risen significantly in the last decade and amounted to 338,000 acres as of 2020, according to U.S. Agriculture Department data.

Since 2010, Chinese nationals have reportedly purchased an additional 75,000 acres of U.S. farmland, according to U.S. Agriculture Department data obtained by the WSJ. Although amounting to less than 1% of all U.S. agricultural land held by foreign citizens, ownership of U.S. farmland by Chinese nationals has received increased scrutiny in recent years following warnings from U.S. government officials claiming that the Chinese government may seek to use land for military and espionage purposes, according to the WSJ.

“South Dakota is now the only home of the B-21 Bomber,” South Dakota Republican Governor Kristi Noem said on Friday. “That’s huge for both our state’s economy and our national security, but it also means that hostile countries like China are going to do whatever they can to get intelligence on that bomber.”

“Just last year we saw a Chinese entity purchase land near an Air Force Base in North Dakota,” Noem said. “Though they claimed it was for corn processing, there is not enough corn nearby to justify the facility. So, it appears to be more nefarious.”

Promising jobs and increased tax revenue, Chinese company Fufeng Group purchased 370 acres of farmland in Grand Forks, North Dakota, claiming their intention to build a $700 million corn mill, the WSJ reported.

While supportive of Fufeng’s proposal at first, Grand Forks Mayor Brandon Bochenski reportedly changed his mind about the corn mill’s construction after receiving a U.S. Air Force letter first made public in January, according to a related WSJ report from January, which identified Fufeng’s project as a counterintelligence threat, given its close proximity to Grand Forks Air Force Base.

Grand Forks has since denied Fufeng building permits.

Similarly, Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott signed the Lone Star Infrastructure Protection Act in June 2022, which, among other things, prohibits Texas businesses from entering into agreements related to “critical infrastructure” with companies owned by Chinese citizens. Abbot’s bill emerged after an alleged former Chinese military officer’s company purchased a wind farm in Val Verde County near Laughlin Air Force Base, according to Forbes.

Half of all U.S. agricultural land owned by Chinese nationals is reportedly located in Texas, according to the WSJ.

The U.S. government has also identified Chinese intelligence threats emanating from U.S. urban areas as well.

America Changle Association, a New York City social group allegedly tied to Chinese intelligence, closed recently after the FBI raided the organization’s Manhattan office sometime in fall 2022. Changle’s closure came several months after the DCNF found that during a 2021 video conference, Chinese officials identified Changle’s former chairman as having worked with an alleged Chinese intelligence service.

U.S. officials also reportedly scuttled a 2017 Chinese government proposal to build a $100 million garden at the National Arboretum in Washington, D.C., CNN reported. Authorities reportedly determined that the project’s proposed location presented a surveillance threat, given the National Arboretum’s location at one of the highest points in the capital.

The Chinese Consulate did not respond immediately to the DCNF’s request for comment and Fufeng could not be reached.

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.

The purchase of North Dakota farmland by a Chinese company has raised national security concerns

Chinese food manufacturer Fufeng Group bought 300 acres of land near Grand Forks, North Dakota, to set up a milling plant. The land is located about 20 minutes from the Grand Forks Air Force Base home to some of the nation’s most sensitive military drone technology.

The base is also the home of a new space networking center which, according to a North Dakota senator, handles “the backbone of all U.S. military communications across the globe.”

Grand Forks also happens to be around 40 miles away from Grafton, North Dakota, where a limited liability company controlled by billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates recently paid $13 million for thousands of acres of prime farmland.

NYPost reports: Three North Dakotans sold the land to Fufeng Group for $2.6 million, according to CNBC.

Like the Gates-linked purchase, the sale of local farmland to a Chinese company sparked a visceral reaction, according to one of the sellers, Gary Bridgeford.

That’s because the land is just a 20-minute drive from Grand Forks Air Force Base, which is believed to be the home of some of the country’s most sophisticated military drone technology.

Bridgeford told CNBC that some locals planted signs on his front yard condemning the transaction.

“I’ve been threatened,” he said. “I’ve been called every name in the book for selling property.”

Another local business owner, however, said the fears are justified. Craig Spicer, who runs a trucking company adjacent to the new Chinese-owned land, told CNBC: “It makes me feel nervous for my grandkids. It makes me feel nervous for my kids.”

Chinese intelligence is operating within the real estate industry purchasing properties in proximity to #USA military installations. Photos show such a property (star) near the U.S. Indo-Pacific Command HQ (circle) and its line-of-sight view to Pearl Harbor.#China #Biden #Trump pic.twitter.com/yBKt1Hq8pl

— Dr. Lawrence Sellin (@LawrenceSellin) February 6, 2023

AUTHOR

Pamela Geller

RELATED ARTICLES:

Broken Biden Regime Blames Trump For Chinese Spyship Disaster As Their Lies Continue to Change

Radical Leftists Nuclear Ban Rally at NYC Library

Why Jordan Should Extradite Palestinian Mass Murderer Ahlam Al-Tamimi to the U.S.

Biden Regime Quietly Frees One of 9/11 Terrorist Planners from Gitmo

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Arizona Republicans Seek to Streamline Homebuilding Process to Quell Housing Shortage thumbnail

Arizona Republicans Seek to Streamline Homebuilding Process to Quell Housing Shortage

By Cameron Arcand

Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen introduced legislation to tackle the state’s affordable housing crisis.

Senate Bill 1103 aims to speed up the process developers have to go through to build developments to keep up with the housing demand in the state.

If passed into law, a city or town could have administrators review plans such as site and design plans, and preliminary and final plats, without requiring a public hearing. In addition, it would “adopt” a self-certification program” that would allow architects and engineers to self-certify projects. It would also permit “at-risk submittals” for some early activities in the process of a build.

Those applying for permits with a good history of following rules could get a faster review of their application.

“Twenty years ago, the homebuilding process from start to finish would take approximately six months. Today, that process can take up to four years,” Petersen said in a news release. “I believe this action will soon provide relief for our citizens that are hurting from sky high housing prices by quickly increasing supply.”

Several Republican senators are co-sponsoring the bill.

The senate committee on government is scheduled to consider the bill on Wednesday [2/8].

As Arizona is one of the fastest-growing states in the country, there’s been widespread concern about the cost and accessibility of housing and resources such as water. The United States Census Bureau Data from July 2021 to June 2022 estimated that Arizona had a 1.3% population increase, The Center Square previously reported.

“However, we must also acknowledge the flip side of this prosperity, that too many families are getting further away from achieving the American dream due to the high cost of housing,” Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs said in her State of the State address earlier this month. “Our state is no stranger to the boom-and-bust housing cycles – but this is something wholly different.”

*****
This article was published by The Center Square – Arizona and is reproduced with permission.

Don’t Be Fooled: There’s No ‘Decline’ in Illegal Alien Crossings thumbnail

Don’t Be Fooled: There’s No ‘Decline’ in Illegal Alien Crossings

By Catherine Salgado

I wrote yesterday for PJ Media about how the Biden Homeland Security Department (DHS) was already congratulating itself on huge drops or “plummet[s]” in illegal migrant crossings at the southern border, and lecturing Republican states (which are suing to stop the new program) on how “incomprehensible” it is they are supposedly opposing “effective enforcement measures”. Don’t be fooled—Biden’s “decline” in illegal aliens is nothing but a deception and trick. It’s not an “enforcement” measure, but a word game. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can give up to 360,000 migrants a year legitimized status through mobile app CBP One, meaning hundreds of thousands of illegals will not be counted as illegals when they pour into the US.

As I previously explained, “A new plan announced Jan. 5 tells the largest migrant groups, “up to 360,000 Haitians, Cubans, Venezuelans, and Nicaraguans each year” (and only those groups), to apply for “humanitarian parole” from outside the United States on CBP One. The United Nations (UN), Mexico, and many non-governmental organizations (NGOs) help the illegal migrants find a U.S. sponsor, create a “plausible” sob story, and collect application documents while they wait. And just like that, there are “big reductions” in those illegal border crossing numbers, while the crossings continue as constant as ever.”

“If anything, [CIS’s Todd] Bensman predicted, the new program will probably tempt even more illegal migrants to America. Henceforth illegals won’t have to spend thousands of dollars being smuggled across the border by criminal cartels, and they will get a coveted U.S. work permit. There are already thousands lining up for the “pre-legalization” CBP One program, Bensman said. Expect that number to increase.”

Now Andrew Arthur from the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) has a few questions the Biden regime should be asked.

“I’ve recently analyzed two proposals in President Biden’s January 5 “New Border Enforcement Actions”: a parole program for Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Haitians, and Cubans that’s being challenged in federal court; and the scheduling of interviews via the CBP One app, which allows CBP to funnel would-be illegal migrants into the United States through the ports of entry. There are a lot of ‘unknown unknowns’ in those programs, including whether and when aliens in the two programs are given work authorization, how long those who appear for such interviews can remain before being placed into removal proceedings, and whether those aliens count as Southwest border ‘encounters’ in CBP’s monthly statistics. A few congressmen and federal judges may want to know answers to those questions.”

There is a lot of interesting information and legal explanations in Arthur’s piece, including, “81 percent of all aliens who claimed credible fear between FY 2008 and FY 2019 received such a determination from asylum officers” and “The current administration has not even tried to detain the vast majority of the more than 4.5 million aliens CBP encountered at the Southwest border since” Feb. 2021. Arthur explained just how out of hand the new CBP One program could get, how it could strain resources and cause a surge of applicants.

The Biden border crisis has not improved. It’s only likely to get worse.

*****
This article was published by Pro Deo et Libertate and is reproduced with permission.

The Most Splendid Housing Bubbles in America, January Update: Now Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Francisco, Seattle, San Diego Plunge Fastest thumbnail

The Most Splendid Housing Bubbles in America, January Update: Now Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Francisco, Seattle, San Diego Plunge Fastest

By Wolf Richter

This takes some doing: San Francisco Bay Area house prices plunged faster from the peak than they’d spiked to the peak.

Housing Bubble 2 continues to deflate relentlessly, no matter what data set we’re looking at. Today we got the S&P CoreLogic Case-Shiller Home Price Index for “November,” which is a three-month moving average of home sales that were entered into public records in September, October, and November, reflecting deals made largely in August through October.

Prices in all of the 20 metros in the index dropped from the prior month, and all continued their slide from the peak last spring or summer.

The San Francisco Bay Area is the leader here. The index for single-family houses was down 14% from the peak in May and turned negative year-over-year, having plunged faster in the six months since the peak in May than they’d spiked in the six months up through May.

The Case-Shiller Index is different from the median-price indices. It uses the “sales pairs” method, comparing sales in the current month to when the same houses sold previously. The price changes are weighted based on how long ago the prior sale occurred, and adjustments are made for home improvements and other factors (methodology). This “sales pairs” method makes the Case-Shiller index a more reliable indicator than median price indices, but it lags months behind.

Median-price indices reflect the price in the middle of all homes that sold that month, and can therefore be skewed by a change in the mix of homes that are sold, which is a big issue when there is a dramatic change in the market, such as in 2022. But they’re more current.

And the median price indices have plunged a whole lot further. The median price across the US of all types of homes sold in December fell 11.3% from the peak in June, according to the National Association of Realtors, while today’s National Case-Shiller Index (three-month moving average through November), dropped only 3.6% from the peak.

In the San  Francisco Bay Area, the median price plunged by 30% in December from the crazy peak in March, and was down 10% year-over-year. The Case-Shiller Index for the Bay Area today (reflecting home sales in September, October, and November) was down 14.4% from the peak, and was down 1.6% year-over-year.

On a month-to-month basis, today’s Case-Shiller Index dropped again in all 20 metros that it covers. The biggest month-to-month drops occurred in:

  • Phoenix: -1.9%
  • Las Vegas: -1.7%
  • San Francisco: -1.6%
  • Seattle: -1.5%
  • San Diego: -1.4%
  • Dallas: -1.1%
  • Tampa: -1.0%

From their peaks, which range from May to July, house prices dropped the most in:

  • San Francisco Bay Area: -14.3%
  • Seattle metro: -13.5%
  • San Diego metro: -9.9%
  • Phoenix metro: -7.7%
  • Denver metro: -7.5%
  • Los Angeles metro: -7.4%
  • Las Vegas metro: -7.0%.
  • Dallas metro: -6.6%

*****

Continue reading this article Wolf Street.

Today’s Anti-Capitalists Want to Regulate What You Can Eat, How Often You Drive, and the Size of Your Home thumbnail

Today’s Anti-Capitalists Want to Regulate What You Can Eat, How Often You Drive, and the Size of Your Home

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

It may sound cruel to say so, but such thinking closely mirrors that of the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia.


Planned economics is enjoying yet another revival. Climate protection advocates and anti-capitalists are demanding that capitalism be abolished and replaced with a planned economy.

Otherwise, they claim, humanity has no chance of survival.

In Germany, a book called Das Ende des Kapitalismus (English: The End of Capitalism) is a bestseller and its author, Ulrike Hermann, has become a regular guest on all the talk shows. She openly promotes a planned economy, although this has already failed once in Germany—just like everywhere else it has been tried.

Unlike under classical socialism, in a planned economy, companies are not nationalized, they are allowed to remain in private hands. But it is the state that specifies precisely what and how much is produced.

There would be no more flights and no more private motor vehicles. The state would determine almost every facet of daily life—for example, there would no longer be any single-family houses and no one would be allowed to own a second home. New construction would be banned because it is harmful to the environment. Instead, existing land would be distributed “fairly,” with the state deciding how much space is appropriate for each individual. And the consumption of meat would only be allowed as an exception because meat production is harmful to the climate.

In general, people should not eat so much: 2,500 calories a day are enough, says Herrmann, who proposes a daily intake of 500 grams of fruit and vegetables, 232 grams of whole meal cereals or rice, 13 grams of eggs, and 7 grams of pork.

“At first glance, this menu may seem a bit meager, but Germans would be much healthier if they changed their eating habits,” reassures this critic of capitalism. And since people would be equal, they would also be happy: “Rationing sounds unpleasant. But perhaps life would even be more pleasant than it is today, because justice makes people happy.”

Such ideas are by no means new. The popular Canadian critic of capitalism and globalization, Naomi Klein, admits that she initially had no particular interest in climate change. Then, in 2014, she wrote a hefty 500-page tome called This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate.

Why did she suddenly become so interested?

Well, prior to writing this book, Klein’s main interest was the fight against free trade and globalization. She says quite openly: “I was propelled into a deeper engagement with it partly because I realized it could be a catalyst for forms of social and economic justice in which I already believed.” She calls for a “carefully planned economy” and government guidelines on “how often we drive, how often we fly, whether our food has to be flown to get to us, whether the goods we buy are built to last … how large our homes are.” She also embraces a suggestion that the most well-off 20 percent of the population should accept the largest cuts in order to create a fairer society.

These quotes – to which many more such statements in Klein’s book could be added – confirm that the most important goal of anti-capitalists such as Herrmann and Klein is not to improve the environment or find solutions for climate change. Their real goal is to eliminate capitalism and establish a state-run, planned economy. In reality, this would involve the abolition of private property, even if, technically, property rights continued to exist. Because all that would be left is the formal legal title of ownership. The “entrepreneur” would still own his factory, but what and how much it produces would be decided by the state alone. He would become an employed manager of the state.

The biggest mistake planned-economy advocates have always made was believing in the illusion that an economic order could be planned on paper; that an authority could sit at a desk and come up with the ideal economic order. All that would be left to do would be to convince enough politicians to implement the economic order in the real world. It may sound cruel, but the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia also thought that way.

The most radical socialist experiment in history, which took place in Cambodia in the mid to late 1970s, was originally conceived in the universities of Paris. This experiment, which the Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot (also referred to as “Brother 1”) called the “Super Great Leap Forward,” in honor of Mao’s Great Leap Forward, is most revealing because it offers an extreme demonstration of the belief that a society can be artificially constructed on the drawing board.

Today, it is often claimed that Pol Pot and his comrades wanted to implement a puritan form of “primitive communism,” and their rule is painted as a manifestation of unrestrained irrationality. In fact, this couldn’t be further from the truth. The Khmer Rouge’s masterminds and leaders were intellectuals from upstanding families, who had studied in Paris and were members of the French Communist Party. Two of the masterminds, Khieu Samphan and Hu Nim, had written Marxist and Maoist dissertations in Paris. In fact, the intellectual elite who had studied in Paris occupied almost all of the government’s leading positions after the seizure of power.

They had worked out a detailed Four-Year Plan that listed all the products the country would need in exacting detail (needles, scissors, lighters, cups, combs, etc.). The level of specificity was highly unusual, even for a planned economy. For example, it said, “Eating and drinking are collectivized. Dessert is also collectively prepared. Briefly, raising the people’s living standards in our own country means doing it collectively. In 1977, there are to be two desserts per week. In 1978 there is one dessert every two days. Then in 1979, there is one dessert every day, and so on. So people live collectively with enough to eat; they are nourished with snacks. They are happy to live in this system.”

The party, the sociologist Daniel Bultmann writes in his analysis, “planned the lives of the population as if on a drawing board, fitting them into pre-determined spaces and needs.” Everywhere, gigantic irrigation systems and fields were to be built to a uniform, rectilinear model. All regions were subjected to the same targets, as the Party believed that standardized conditions in fields of exactly the same size would also produce standardized yields. With the new irrigation system and the checkerboard rice fields, nature was to be harnessed to the utopian reality of a fully-collectivist order that eliminated inequality from day one.

Yet the arrangement of irrigation dams in equal squares with equally square fields in their center led to frequent floods, because the system totally ignored natural water flows, and 80 percent of the irrigation systems did not work—in the same way that the small blast furnaces did not work in Mao’s Great Leap Forward.

Throughout history, capitalism has evolved, just as languages have evolved. Languages were not invented, constructed, and conceived, but are the result of uncontrolled spontaneous processes. Although the aptly named “planned language” Esperanto was invented as early as 1887, it has completely failed to establish itself as the world’s most widely spoken foreign language, as its inventors had expected.

Socialism has much in common with a planned language, a system devised by intellectuals. Its adherents strive to gain political power in order to then implement their chosen system. None of these systems have ever worked anywhere—but this apparently does not stop intellectuals from believing that they have found the philosopher’s stone and have finally devised the perfect economic system in their ivory tower. It is pointless to discuss ideas like Herrmann’s or Klein’s in detail because the whole constructivist approach—i.e. the idea that an author can “dream up” an economic system in their heads or on paper—is wrong.

The historian and sociologist Rainer Zitelmann is the author of the book IN DEFENCE OF CAPITALISM which is being published in 30 languages.

AUTHOR

Dr. Rainer Zitelmann

Dr. Rainer Zitelmann is a historian and sociologist. He is also a world-renowned author, successful businessman, and real estate investor. Zitelmann has written more than 20 books. His books are successful all around the world, especially in China, India, and South Korea. His most recent books are The Rich in Public Opinion which was published in May 2020, and The Power of Capitalism which was published in 2019.

RELATED ARTICLE: New Hampshire Bakery Ordered to Remove Mural Because It Depicts Pastries

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Yes, Biden And The Left Are Coming For Your Gas Stove One Way Or Another thumbnail

Yes, Biden And The Left Are Coming For Your Gas Stove One Way Or Another

By The Daily Caller

Remember when worries about the government coming for your gas stove were dismissed as just another conservative fever dream? At least that was the canned response from everyone from the Biden White House to the party loyalists in the corporate media.

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm even chimed in, saying: “That is so ridiculous, that story. Because, it sounds like the government’s coming in to take your stuff. That is so not true. That is just not true.”

That’s a relief! Well, not really.

Less than two weeks after dismissing the gas stove furor as little more than tinfoil hat conspiracies, Granholm’s own agency proposed energy efficiency standards that ignited opposition from the gas appliance industry.

“We are concerned that this is another attempt by the federal government to use regulations to remove viable and efficient natural gas products from the market,” American Gas Association President Karen Harbert told Bloomberg.

“This approach by DOE could effectively ban gas appliances,” echoed Jill Notini with the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. “We are concerned this approach could eliminate fully featured gas products.”

National Propane Gas Association President and CEO Steve Kaminski indicated that “[o]ne area clearly in [the Energy Department’s] crosshairs is pilot light usage.” Indeed, in its current form, the Energy Department admits its proposal would effectively take half of gas stove models off the market.

The reality may be worse, according to Notini, who told Bloomberg “‘it appears’ that 95% of the market would not meet the proposed levels.”

“This is what I would consider a more serious threat because the Department of Energy has greater authority than the [Consumer Product Safety Commission],” Kaminski went on to tell another outlet.

He’s right. The Energy Department has sweeping authority to squeeze your favorite household appliances out of existence should it so choose. In fact, the Biden Energy Department has issued over 100 energy efficiency rules on appliances and household equipment, which they claim will fight climate change and save you money.

But ask yourself this question: if this is so great, why is the government forcing it on us?

If history is any guide, every appliance the Energy Department touches will end up performing worse and costing way more. That, combined with state and local efforts to ban natural gas hook-ups in new homes and buildings, is how the left can take your gas stove from you without ever having to set foot inside your home.

It was never very believable that the president who promised to “end fossil fuels” would simply leave your gas stoves alone. Sure, the White House says they don’t support a ban, but they sure as heck aren’t working to make gas stoves more affordable or widely available.

Except gas stoves to die by 1,000 regulatory cuts. The Energy Department’s proposal is only one slash of the knife. The aforementioned state and local attacks on gas appliances and infrastructure will also cause the gas stove industry to bleed out.

The Biden Interior Department’s restrictions on drilling will cause more pain, as will the Inflation Reduction Act’s tax on methane emissions from natural gas operations.

Likewise, the Consumer Product Safety Commission could still take a swipe at your stoves. Even as the commission walked back a commissioner’s initial claim that a gas stove ban was “on the table,” its chairman said the group was “researching gas emissions in stoves and exploring new ways to address health risks.”

In other words, keep an eye on them.

And don’t forget to keep an eye on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which was petitioned by a coalition of environmental groups in August to crack down on gas stoves and other gas appliances.

The environmentalists’ petition even makes the ludicrous claim that gas appliances carry “significant health impacts, from increasing the rates of asthma to causing thousands of premature deaths each year.”

Junk science claims like that defy logic and commonsense. And as journalist and author Robert Bryce recently noted, this distinctly anti-working class campaign is being funded by billionaires who probably use gas stoves in at least one of their many mansions.

If gas stoves get more expensive, the Mike Bloombergs and Jeff Bezoses of the world wouldn’t blink. They can afford to buy a gas stove at any price. If electricity rates skyrocket because everyone is forced to “go electric,” you think they would even notice?

Probably not, but middle class Americans sure would.

AUTHOR

MICHAEL BASTASCH

DCNF Managing Editor. Follow Michael on Twitter

RELATED ARTICLE: SANDS: Banning Gas Stoves? That’s Too Many Government Cooks In Your Kitchen

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. 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.

The Fed’s Takeover Of American Money And Energy Must Be Stopped thumbnail

The Fed’s Takeover Of American Money And Energy Must Be Stopped

By James Anthony

A pilot exercise in Federal Reserve Board social control of energy choices has been announced for 2023. The exercise will start with the government-crony Fed publishing climate scenario narratives.

Six mega-banks will take these ideologues’ narratives, supposing that climate-related financial risks exist. Using these narratives, the banks will practice deciding who to create money for and lend it to, and who to refuse to create money for and lend it to. Banks are the tools that the Fed uses to create money, producing inflation. Almost all the money that gets created gets created by banks; and all of that created money gets lent out by the banks.

The Fed will review the banks’ “analyses” and “engage with” the banks to build up their capacity to exercise this control. The Fed may publish publicly-available “insights,” but will remove information that would identify the banks and the targets of the Fed and banks’ control.

This exercise calls to mind the October 18, 2019 pandemic exercise Event 201. The simulation yielded several strong recommendations. In a pandemic, taxpayers should fund and governments should stockpile and control vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. It was also found that governments should curb mis- and disinformation. Governments followed this playbook exactly during the 2020-2022 COVID-19 pandemic.

The Fed’s planned 2023 exercise isn’t innocent and isn’t advisory — it’s control.

Keep in mind that government bureaucrats are not consultants who can be hired or fired. Progressives have exploited this vulnerability to create permanent bureaucrats who stand in our way and don’t leave us alone until we pay off them and their cronies.

This administrative state has transitioned beyond formal rulemaking, issuing guidance to menace us and often leaving us guessing. For instance, the first director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Richard Cordray, said that the bureau wouldn’t issue any regulations defining exactly what actions or practices violate the bureau’s law. During COVID, health bureaucrats issued guidelines, which many state and local officials and other organizations enforced as law.

Such in-your-face coercion is making people start paying closer attention.

People realize that agencies like the FBI and government-chartered cartels such as the Fed, are like Chekhov’s gun — give them such power and they will soon use it.

People have yet to grasp that the existence of government monopolies doesn’t mean these monopolies are necessary or even helpful. Such monopolies’ existence only shows that special interests got some politicians to grant them favors. Since then, no politicians have put an end to them.

In the case of the Fed, there is a solution. Government money manipulation is unnecessary. Private banks have in the past produced sound money, backed by 100% reserves. This meant that money had to be saved up before it could be lent; it couldn’t just be created out of thin air. Private money producers can do this again, producing value-conserving, constant-quantity gold money, or, ultimately, productive equity-based money.

Removing Fed socialism will remove the bank’s destabilizing stimuli and money inflation that have disincentivized individuals from saving and have brought more serious crises. Removing fractional reserves will eliminate the crises seen throughout the USA’s past because of unconstitutional fractional reserves — under the various precious metals standards and post-1971 paper money.

With the Fed swept into the dustbin of history, massive problems will no longer be denied or kicked down the road:

  • Current total government spending of 38% of GDP (versus, through 1913, just 4% to 8% of GNP, and in the American Colonies just 1% to 2% of GNP) will no longer be possible by borrowing on future taxpayers’ back. Instead, constitutionally backing off, by honorably refusing to execute the unconstitutional administrative state and repealing it, will free individuals.
  • Retirement income-support and medical payments will no longer have their contracted-on purchasing power stealthily eroded by Fed inflation. Instead, outgrowing entitlements will further free individuals.
  • Government debts, which Progressive politicians have foisted on individuals, needn’t be left in place, leaving never-ending interest payments for the taxpayer. Instead, repudiation could — and should — end this shakedown. Future creditors would then shy away, further limiting the government’s ability to borrow more.

Governments can’t know as much as individuals know. Governments can’t act in individuals’ best interests as well as individuals can. Governments can’t control as many actions as individuals control.

Governments operate through force. They can’t add value. Governments can only take more of our wealth and block us from creating more.

The best way to change governments is quickly and extensively. Push that bully out of the way, and build ourselves up to keep him out of the way.

The Fed can’t fix the climate. The Fed can’t even stop itself from enabling government growth and from enabling bank lending to problematic cronies, even including customer-shunned, living-dead zombie companies. One Great Depression and two Great Inflations are more than enough already.

We will take care of our own business much better by ourselves.

*****
This article was published by The Daily Caller and is reproduced with permission.

20 State AGs: Abortion-by-Mail Scheme Is Unsafe, Illegal thumbnail

20 State AGs: Abortion-by-Mail Scheme Is Unsafe, Illegal

By Family Research Council

Distributing abortion pills through the mail is unsafe and illegal under both federal and state law, wrote Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey and the attorneys general of 19 other states, in letters to the headquarters of national pharmacy chains CVS and Walgreens. Both companies are seeking certification from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to dispense abortion pills through the mail. “We will use every tool at our disposal to uphold the law if broken,” said Bailey.

The Missouri attorney general was joined on the letters by the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, and West Virginia.”

“Federal law expressly prohibits using the mail to send or receive any drug that will ‘be used or applied for producing abortion.’ 18 U.S.C. § 1461,” state the letters (the bodies of which are identical). “The text could not be clearer: ‘every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion … shall not be conveyed in the mails.’ And anyone who ‘knowingly takes any such thing from the mails for the purpose of circulating’ is guilty of a federal crime.”

While the law is clear, the letters suggested the confusion originated from another source. “In December, the Biden administration’s Office of Legal Counsel encouraged the U.S. Postal Service to disregard this plain text.”

“But,” continue the letters, “the text, not the Biden administration’s view, is what governs. And the Biden administration’s opinion fails to stand up even to the slightest amount of scrutiny. The Biden administration’s opinion admits that the plain text of § 1461 prohibits using the mail to send or receive any drug that will be used for abortion …. But then the Biden administration argues that the text should not be ‘“[t]aken literally”’ by “marshalling a series of increasingly strange antitextual arguments.”

Because of the weakness of the Biden administration’s opinion, pharmacy giants cannot protect themselves from legal liability by hiding behind its opinion, the letters warn. The AGs predicted that courts will “reject the Biden administration’s bizarre interpretation” because “courts do not lightly ignore the plain text of statutes.” In particular, “the Supreme Court has been openly aversive to other attempts by the Biden administration to press antitextual arguments.”

Additionally, “a future U.S. Attorney General will almost certainly reject the Biden administration’s results-oriented, strained reading.” A simple change of administration — guaranteed every four to eight years — would leave the abortion pill-by-mail infrastructure out in the cold.

But “consequences for accepting the Biden administration’s reading could come far sooner,” the letters warn. “Section 1461 can be enforced … through civil litigation by State Attorneys General and private parties under § 1964(c).” In other words, these state AGs have threatened to sue CVS and Walgreens if they follow through on their intention to become abortion dispensaries.

In addition to the violation of federal law, “the laws of many states also prohibit using the mail to send or receive abortion drugs,” continue the letters. Using the example of Missouri, not only is it “unlawful to distribute an abortion drug through the mail,” but also “Missouri law also prohibits unfair or deceptive trade practices — and trade practices that violate federal law necessarily are unfair and deceptive.” This prohibition on unfair or deceptive trade practices is far more difficult to dodge or challenge in court, and it is likely paralleled in the laws of other states.

The letters justified Missouri’s state-level prohibition by explaining that abortion pills are unsafe. First, they “are far riskier than surgical abortions, … ‘5.96 times as likely to result in a complication as first-trimester aspiration

abortions.’” Second, “when these heightened complications invariably occur, women suffer those harms at home, away from medical help.” Third, “mail-order abortion pills also invite the horror of an increase in coerced abortions … because there is no oversight. Outside the regulated medical context, a person can obtain an abortion pill quite easily and then coerce a woman into taking it.”

CVS and Walgreens have come under increasing pressure after they announced plans to obtain FDA certification to dispense abortion pills. Earlier this month, 14 pro-life groups wrote letters to both pharmacy corporations, urging them to reconsider. Meanwhile, other pharmacies, like Walmart, are waiting in the wings to see whether the decision backfires.

AUTHOR

Joshua Arnold

Joshua Arnold is a staff writer at The Washington Stand.

RELATED ARTICLE:  Youngkin: Virginians Want Fewer Abortions, Not More

EDITORS NOTE: This Washington Stand column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. 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.

Get Woke. Go Broke? thumbnail

Get Woke. Go Broke?

By Wallace Bruschweiler

According to a Rasmussen poll released on January 24, 2023, under the title “Get Woke, Go Broke?” what matters most to 87 percent of Americans is product quality. A majority of those polled want corporate officers and their boards to focus on making their products safe, effective, and more affordable. Not spending their time “virtue signaling” about how “woke” they are. Or, riding their “wokeness” to invitations to trendy cocktail parties in Georgetown or on NYC’s Upper East Side.

Arguably, there is a difference between boycotting certain “virtue signaling” products and simply choosing not to buy them anymore because you, as a consumer, think management is paying more attention to being “woke” than to product quality, safety, and value.

So, if one is put off because that pretty Native American Princess is no longer on the butter carton, buy some other brand. If the welcoming smile of the lady on the pancake box is gone, buy a different brand. If your favorite little chocolate bits go “woke,” buy something else. Or, better yet, save your teeth from sugar-caused decay.

Mind you, there is nothing wrong with the concepts of Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (DIE). Applied fairly, they are quite laudable. For example: How wonderful if college faculties were more “diverse” by “including” more conservative professors among the faculty for a change. Or, not punishing professors for having a different interpretation of history from others. (Surveys show liberal professors outnumber conservative professors by a ratio of 12 to 1.)

And no one should be excluded because of race, religion, or ethnic origin. Unfortunately, some think Equity means “free stuff” at taxpayer expense in exchange for no work. In other words: perpetual welfare. But, as U.S. Senator John Kennedy (R-LA) says, “Welfare should be a bridge. Not a parking lot.”

Moreover, racial quotas are a very bad idea. Professor Thomas Sowell, himself a person o color, says racial quotas have done more harm than good for people of color. Who among us, of all colors, has not wondered if someone appointed or even elected to high office got there due to merit or solely due to skin color, gender, or sexual orientation? Quotas provide a mental shortcut to being dismissive of others.

An unfortunate side effect of quotas is that they attach a stigma that cannot be detached. For example: In 1960, Major League Baseball attached an asterisk to Roger Maris’ home run record because it took Maris* more games to break the previous home run record set by Babe Ruth.

If “woke” CEOs would like to “virtue signal” their support for our military veterans and for the elderly in general, how about spending some effort to make the cooking instructions on their cans and other packaging more readable? Or, how about finding ways to make packaged goods easier for the physically challenged to open? It should not take a pair of garden shears or a saber saw to open a package.

Manufacturers should stay in their own lanes and leave the politics to the voters and to the politicians who are fully capable of messing everything up, all on our own.

Suggested reading: Black Rednecks and White Liberals by Thomas Sowell, 2005. Preferential Policies by Thomas Sowell, 1990. Econ Journal Watch, September 2016. Free to Choose by Milton and Rose Friedman, 1980.

©2023. William Hamilton. All rights reserved.

Take Your Foot off the Gas thumbnail

Take Your Foot off the Gas

By Jon Sanders

In 1991, a year after his controversial firing as men’s basketball coach at North Carolina State University, Jim Valvano published a book titled They Gave Me a Lifetime Contract, and Then They Declared Me Dead. It’s a great title.

The past few weeks’ convergence of energy and environmental news reminded me of the irony of that book title. Rolling blackouts, which the 2022 State of Reliability report by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation (NERC) had previously warned about, affected several states on Christmas Eve. Days later, a White House announcement on December 29 hailed Pres. Joe Biden’s “goal that 50 percent of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in 2030 be electric vehicles” and advertised new and revised tax credits for people buying electric vehicles (EVs). Then on January 9, a Biden appointee to the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) openly talked about possibly banning gas stoves, which are used by an estimated 40 percent of households across the country.

So half of all new cars and trucks sold in the future would have to be electric? Nearly half of households (not to mention so many professional kitchens) in America would have to switch to electric stoves? We’d need to generate much, much more electricity to fill the void of all that power once produced by millions of gasoline-powered engines and gas-fired stoves.

If environmental zealots in the Biden administration were to get their way, then something would have to answer the call for such a huge increase in electricity demand. Do they have an answer for this challenge?

No. They declared natural gas the bridge fuel to renewables, and then they declared pipeline projects dead.

No new pipelines means no new supplies of “bridge fuel”

The “bridge fuel” conception of natural gas promotes it as a reliable baseload generator with significantly lower emissions than coal (a reliable baseload generator). From there, this view envisions natural gas serving as an emissions-lowering stopgap until sometime in the future when zero-emissions renewable resources and battery storage will be able to meet electricity demand reliably, to the extent that they can replace natural gas to scale. President Barack Obama talked about it in his 2014 State of the Union address, for example, and last year Biden’s “Special Envoy to the Climate” John Kerry talked about it (with some caveats) to the US Chamber of Commerce. Some environmental extremists dislike it on principle, of course, or they suspect that even when renewables and storage were finally ready for the big time, utilities would choose instead to continue favoring low-cost, efficient electricity from natural gas.

The natural-gas bridge is alluded to in the NERC report: “natural-gas-fired generators are now necessary, balancing resources for reliable integration of the growing fleet of variable renewable energy resources and can be expected to remain so until new storage technologies are fully developed and deployed at scale to provide balancing” (emphasis added). Furthermore, “With the continued retirement of coal and nuclear units and a growing reliance on natural-gas-fired generation, the interdependency of the electricity and natural gas industries has become more pronounced.”

In other words, the existing demand for electricity in this country is more dependent than ever on natural gas. NERC warned of an increasing risk of energy shortfalls as “the resource mix evolves” away from “flexible generation (i.e., fuel-assured, weatherized, and dispatchable resources)” such as natural gas and toward weather-dependent, fickle sources such as solar and wind.

Note that this risk is growing before an increased demand for electrification to power cars, trucks, and buses, and possibly also stoves. The Biden administration seems oblivious to the risk, however. Biden’s day-one cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline permits set the stage, cementing his campaign promise to stop pipeline infrastructure. By May of last year, the Biden administration and Congress had taken over 100 separate actions that make it harder to produce oil and gas in America.

On March 24, 2022, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) proposed changing its policies regarding pipeline approvals, no longer relying on precedent agreements and also adding “adverse impacts” (including such things as “environmental interests” and “environmental justice communities”) for which it could deny an application. FERC also proposed a new greenhouse gas policy that would require FERC’s oversight of natural gas pipeline projects’ “reasonably foreseeable” greenhouse gas emissions. Those, however, could include future emissions, construction and operation, and even upstream and downstream effects.

Both of those changes would increase the uncertainty surrounding the viability of pipeline projects, which would at best increase their expected costs and at worst prevent new natural gas pipelines from being built.

Federal efforts to delay and block pipeline projects compound the efforts of environmentalists filing expensive lawsuits and of state regulators withholding or slow-walking permits until the projects become too expensive to finish. The Institute for Energy Research described it as the “‘death by a thousand cuts’ approach to stopping pipelines.”

Leaving people worse off while getting in their own way

By stopping pipelines, however, federal overseers are also standing in the way of their own goal of seeing electricity generation transition to zero-emissions resources without dangerous power disruptions. (Of course, they could simply advocate for the only baseload zero-emissions resource out there, which also happens to be the most efficient, reliable generation resource: nuclear power. That they don’t is a great mystery.)

It should go without saying that government taking popular consumer choices away from people leaves them worse off, as consumers as well as makers and sellers. The drive to deprive people of gas stoves and conventional cars and trucks is fueled by the same environmental extremism that opposes gas-fired electricity. It betrays an impatience with people making choices that best address their own needs, and it also shows an inability to wait for entrepreneurs and innovators to solve the riddle of zero-emissions reliable electricity generation (other than nuclear, for whatever reason).

Instead, regulators would rather force changes through government that not only level serious harms against people, but even cripple their own long-term goals.

*****
This article was published by American Institute for Economic Research and is reproduced with permission.

The Stock Market Hesitates at Important Resistance Just Before FED Meeting thumbnail

The Stock Market Hesitates at Important Resistance Just Before FED Meeting

By Neland Nobel

Various financial markets will be focused this week on the February 1st, meeting of the Federal Reserve Board. This comes on the heels of an unusual number of other central banks conducting meetings. The meeting itself and the commentary come at a critical inflection point for the stock market.

The markets since the turn of the year have been enthusiastic, even while the economy suffers and is widely expected to slide into recession. That seems a bit odd, but it continues to be the game of “bad news is good news” because bad news will supposedly cause the FED to pause and then start to lower interest rates once again. The stock market in particular seems betting on a “soft landing” and a pivot in interest rate policy.

Why the market has such faith that the 600 or so PhDs running the FED can engineer a soft landing after the same geniuses so badly misplayed inflation, is indeed a wonder. But the FED over the past 20 years has quickly injected liquidity and lowered interest rates when the economy and/or the markets stumble. So, a whole generation of traders has grown up to expect this behavior.

This creates a dilemma for the FED.  They have been trying to talk inflation down, including asset inflation, and soaring markets make their job more difficult. Maybe that is the ironic payback the FED gets for training the markets to jump around like puppies seeking a treat. How do they pivot without once again creating the asset bubble they are seeking to deflate?

There are additional hopes that China’s reopening after its extensive and brutal Covid lockdown, will also cause that economy to revive and help pull the world out of its stupor. Chinese stock indexes have been rising sharply.

In the US, just after the opening on Monday, the S&P index is up 5.3% so far in this very new year.  The more value-laden Dow Industrials are up 2.5%, and the more speculative and tech-rich NASDAQ Composite is up 9.3%.

The aggregate bond index AGG is up 3%, after last year’s brutal pounding. The Commodity Index is flat.

Gold is up 5.65%, beating the S&P by a slight margin while GDX, which represents gold mining stocks is up 12%. Silver is down 1.75%.

The general stock market is banging on the door of what technical types call overhead resistance. After making a series of declining peaks over the past year or so of decline, the tops can be joined to form a trendline. Many traders also watch the 200-day moving average. The S&P basically is right at the resistance of the bear market linear trendline and the 200-day moving average, so a good response to the mid-week FED meeting (and auxiliary FED statements) will come at a critical technical level for the market. Stocks will either break through or fail again at this resistance.

The market last week was slightly above the linear trend, above the 200-day moving average and the 50-day moving average is about to cross the 200-day moving average creating what is called a “golden cross.”

A number of indices also display golden crosses.  This is also regarded by technical mavens as a sign of market strength.

So regardless of what one’s preconceptions are about the economy, and your opinion about stocks should be doing, the stock market since the turn of the year has been strong and is now barking at the door of a decent breakout to the upside.

But, we will just have to see if that breakout occurs or if we fail again at resistance.

One negative related factor is that sentiment studies show the market is too enthusiastic. Without getting too deep into the technical weeds, when everyone gets enthusiastic, that attitude gets translated into action, and hence current prices already reflect that positive view. Various studies including the CNN Fear and Greed gauge now show the market view solidly in the greed range. The  CNN Fear and Greed reading is compiled using about a half dozen indicators measuring investor attitude.

The gauge has moved to 68 and was just 37 one month ago, which shows just how quickly opinions can change. Readings over 75 are considered extreme greed.

That does not necessarily negate completely the chance of a break out to the upside for the market, but history suggests that when sentiment is already this hot, breakouts don’t carry that much further upward because excessive optimism is already in the price structure.

Like most investors, we have been enjoying the recovery in prices. However, with sentiment already hot and a recession still the most likely outcome, investors should consider caution and temper their confidence. While objectively we have been getting a market advance, the question is: is it sustainable or is it just a bear market rally?

Buying more equities would work if it is the former, but would be disastrous if it turns out to be the latter.

This week will certainly provide us much needed additional information.

*** The graph included in this article is courtesy of stockcharts.com

The US Consumer Has Cracked: Discover Plunges After “Shocking” Charge-Off Forecast thumbnail

The US Consumer Has Cracked: Discover Plunges After “Shocking” Charge-Off Forecast

By The Editors

One week ago we looked at the latest consumer credit data where we found not one but two flashing red alerts:

First, the total amount of credit card debt hit a new all time high, which however was to be expected from one of the most consistently increasing series across all US economic data, and one which predictably is correlated to the US savings rate which is at all time lows.

Second, thanks to the Fed’s crusade to spark a great recession, the average rate across US credit cards just rose to an all time high 19%+

Summarizing these ominous trends we concluded that…

The combination of record high credit card debt and record high credit card interest is nothing short of catastrophic for both the US economy, and the strapped consumer who has no choice but to keep buying on credit while hoping next month’s bill will somehow not come. Unfortunately, it will and at some point in the very near future, this will also translate into massive loan losses for US consumer banks; that’s when Powell will finally panic.

And while the big US banks are diversified enough – and flooded with enough reserves for now – to deflect attention from spiking charge offs rates on their balance sheets, even though as we discussed last week the credit loss provisions (a hedge against a spike in bad debt) across the Big Four banks did in fact jump the most in a decade (excluding the covid shock)…

some of the smaller credit-card companies can no longer avoid the reality that the US consumer has finally cracked and a wave of defaults is coming.

Presenting Exhibit A: Discover Financial Services (DFS), a credit card issuer which traditionally targets to low to middle-income households, and which yesterday reported earnings that were so scary, Wall Street has uniformly dubbed them “shocking.” But while the bulk of the company’s historical results were actually not all that bad, it was its forecast that a stunner: in a presentation on its website, DFS forecast that its charge offs would climb as high as 3.9% this year (it gave a range of 3.50% to 3.90%) which is more than double the 1.82% net charge off rate it booked for all of 2022 and was about 100bps higher than the 2.8% consensus estimate…..

*****

Continue reading at Zero Hedge.

This is How Much the Federal Government Makes from Gun Sales in Arizona thumbnail

This is How Much the Federal Government Makes from Gun Sales in Arizona

By Samual Stebbins

America’s gun industry is booming. Over 11.3 million firearms were manufactured in the United States in 2020, more than double the 5.6 million produced in 2010, and nearly triple the 3.9 million guns manufactured in 2000, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives. Surging demand for firearms has been a boon not only for the balance sheets of American gun makers, but also government coffers.

Between sporting arms and ammunition companies and supporting sectors, the American firearm industry generated $70.5 billion in economic output in 2021, according to the advocacy group The Firearm Industry Trade Association. The federal government also levied $4.6 billion in business taxes from the gun industry in 2021, up 84% from a decade earlier. The firearm industry in some states accounts for a far larger share of government firearm tax revenue than others.

The federal government collected $180.2 million in business tax revenue from the firearm industry in Arizona in 2021. Adjusting for population, this comes out to about $25 per state resident, the 10th highest among the 50 states.

Overall, Arizona’s firearm and ammunition industry, including supporting sectors, employed 11,933 people in 2021. The industry generated $2.3 billion in total economic output, or $320 per capita, the 13th highest per capita figure among states.

*****
This article was published by The Center Square – Arizona and is reproduced with permission.

First Small Modular Reactor Gets Certification From Nuclear Regulatory Commission thumbnail

First Small Modular Reactor Gets Certification From Nuclear Regulatory Commission

By Jeremy Beaman

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced the first-ever certification Friday of a small modular reactor design, a big step in the process of developing a new generation of new and more flexible nuclear reactors.

The NRC approved the reactor design from NuScale Power, making it the first SMR design to be certified by the regulator and only the seventh reactor design cleared for use in the United States.

“SMRs are no longer an abstract concept,” said Kathryn Huff, assistant secretary for nuclear energy at the Department of Energy. “They are real, and they are ready for deployment thanks to the hard work of NuScale, the university community, our national labs, industry partners, and the NRC.”

NuScale is one among many nuclear energy companies working to re-imagine the legacy nuclear reactor technologies developed in the 20th century by scaling them down, with one leading motivation being to make the construction of nuclear power plants more cost-effective.

The company, which was awarded a contract to build an SMR power plant on-site at DOE’s Idaho National Laboratory, celebrated certification of the design Friday of its advanced light-water reactor. The reactor uses power modules that each can generate 50 megawatts of electricity.

By comparison, the two new reactors at Plant Vogtle in Georgia are each rated at 1,250 megawatts.

The Biden administration has prioritized the advancement of new nuclear technologies, as well as the preservation of existing and operating power plants.

The Inflation Reduction Act, Democrats’ new green energy and healthcare spending law, offers a mix of tax incentives to nuclear power generators and funding to produce the uranium necessary to fuel advanced reactors…..

*****

Continue reading this article at Washington Examiner.

The Unseen Cost of Government Largesse thumbnail

The Unseen Cost of Government Largesse

By Foundation for Economic Education (FEE)

The U.S. government recently hit its $31.5 trillion debt limit after years of careening baseline spending on entitlements combined with emergency COVID-19 spending in the last few years to produce record-busting deficits. The new Republican majority in the House of Representatives, elected largely on economic concerns like inflation and runaway spending, now faces an obstinate Senate and White House. A showdown appears likely as does the ritual brow-beating of all those who object to simply raising the debt limit “without conditions,” as President Biden demands.

To those who will inevitably cry, “Don’t use the debt ceiling as a negotiating tool!” over the coming weeks and months, it should be pointed out that it is the only tool that has been even remotely effective at taming Congress’s appetite for spending. In the same way that an intervention is only possible when a drug addict is in crisis, debt limit negotiations are the only context in which Uncle Sam has accepted even modest constraints on government spending in recent decades.

Conservatives and libertarians rightly decry the rapidly-expanding national debt as an embarrassment, a threat to the nation, a root cause of inflation (as the Federal Reserve must expand its balance sheet to purchase the Treasuries that finance these huge deficits, as happened most clearly in the pandemic’s peak), and a promise of higher future taxes. While all these are accurate observations, one effect of massive government spending and deficits is often overlooked in the standard conservative critique: the forgone private investment of capital and therefore forgone economic growth, often termed the “crowding out effect.”

The basic idea is that there exists a total sum of money, or financial capital, that individual and institutional investors are willing to loan out or invest. Most economists call this the “loanable funds market.” The supply of loans, as with any supply curve, slopes upward and to the right. In other words, as the interest rate (the price of a loan) rises, more people will be eager to supply loans. In contrast, the demand for loanable funds slopes, like a normal demand curve, downward and to the right. That is, as the interest rate goes down, more people are interested in borrowing money. Just think of any normal supply-demand graph, but with the good in question being a loan rather than a physical good or a service, and the vertical axis labeled “interest rate” rather than “price,” as in other markets.

The demand for loanable funds is a function of how much capital investment businesses need (which is itself a function of how profitable those capital investments are), what quantity of money consumers need for purchases like homes and new vehicles, and how much money the government needs to borrow. In a game where the total supply of loanable funds per year is set, say at $5 trillion, every $1 trillion the government runs up in deficits is $1 trillion less available for private investment in the innovations that improve quality of life, bring us new medicines, and create new jobs.

Increased government deficits shift the demand for loanable funds to the right. As any student of elementary economics knows, this increases the price, or in this case, the nominal interest rate. Many private sector projects that make sense at 4 percent interest are no longer acted upon if the government runs such a large deficit that the interest rate must increase to 7 percent for investors to shell out the cash necessary to finance that deficit. Increasing the supply of loanable funds through monetary expansion, as happened in the COVID pandemic with breathtaking speed, can temporarily hide this effect. However, this spurs inflation that reduces real returns and hampers economic growth (the stock market’s dismal returns since runaway inflation started in late 2021 is one example of this result).

In contrast to the Keynesian “money multiplier” theory, which insists that government spending stimulates the economy by circulating money via transfer payments that otherwise would have remained in savings and uncirculated, savings in nearly all developed countries are not locked away gathering moths and rust, but invested. Of every dollar put in the bank, more than 90 percent is invested in loans for commercial enterprises, in home loans, and in bonds, and this doesn’t account for the fact that a larger and larger share of surplus savings in the United States are not in the traditional banking system, but in brokerage accounts, 401(k)s, and elsewhere.

Government spending does not multiply the economic power of money, it diminishes it. If the opposite were true, Cuba, North Korea, and Venezuela would be among the wealthiest nations on the planet, since nearly all economic activity is facilitated through government spending in those nations. That they are not, but that nations with relatively free markets such as the United States, Singapore, the United Kingdom, and Japan punch above their weight economically suggests that private investment in the innovations and technologies of tomorrow everywhere and always beats government transfer payments in facilitating economic growth.

Every dollar the government must borrow is a dollar not available for private businesses or individuals to borrow, and that reduces future economic growth and job creation. With America’s debt now hovering near 125 percent of GDP (before netting for debt held by government entities) and deficits topping $1 trillion yearly as far as the eye can see, we can no longer ignore this drag on the American economy.

AUTHOR

Nathan J. Richendollar

Nathan Richendollar is a summa cum laude economics and politics graduate of Washington and Lee University in Lexington, VA. He lives in Southwest Missouri and works in the financial sector.

RELATED ARTICLE: Why Do Wages Rise? Not Because of Minimum Wage Laws, New Data Show

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

The IRS has Taxpayers Subsidize the ‘Iran Lobby’ thumbnail

The IRS has Taxpayers Subsidize the ‘Iran Lobby’

By Jihad Watch

And the double standard on pro-Israel and pro-Iran groups.


During the freedom protests in Iran, #NIACLobbies4Mullahs trended on Twitter.

It’s not the first time that Iranian refugees, dissidents and activists have denounced the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) and accused it of acting as the ‘Iran Lobby’. But the over 300,000 tweets demonstrated the forceful opposition of Iranians to the regime and to the ‘Iran Lobby’. So did the marchers in Washington D.C. chanting, “NIAC is not our voice!”

“Iranians expect @TheJusticeDept to look into this hashtag: #NIACLobbies4Mullahs,” Arash Sobhani, a prominent Iranian-American musician and dissident, tweeted.

A Justice Department investigation of NIAC for violations of the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA) is long overdue and has been urged by Senator Tom Cotton and other legislators.

But the pro-Iran group has also maintained a tax-exempt status with the IRS for over 20 years and that’s all the more remarkable considering the very different treatment of pro-Israel groups.

The New York Times has spent over a decade urging the IRS to investigate pro-Israel non-profits. In 2021, antisemitic congressmembers, including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rep. Rashida Tlaib, and Rep. Andre Carson, who met with Louis Farrakhan, signed a letter urging the Biden administration to crack down on the tax-exempt status of pro-Israel groups.

Treasury Secretary Yellen “must act to enforce US law and end these organizations 501(c)(3) status,” Rep. Tlaib tweeted.

If the Biden administration uses the IRS to go after pro-Israel groups, it will be following up on the work of the Obama administration which launched an unprecedented effort to shut down pro-Israel groups who were critical of its foreign policy including its empowerment of Iran.

In 2009, Z Street founder Lori Lowenthal Marcus applied for tax exempt status for the pro-Israel group. When the IRS refused to move forward, she was told that it “has to give special scrutiny to organizations connected to Israel.”

NIAC was never given this special level of scrutiny. Nor was the American Iranian Council, whose founder had run for the presidency of Iran and at whose events Biden had appeared.

In 2009, Eli Lake, then of the Washington Timeswarned that communications between NIAC founder Trita Paris and Iran’s UN ambassador “offer evidence that the group has operated as an undeclared lobby and may be guilty of violating tax laws, the Foreign Agents Registration Act and lobbying disclosure laws.”

IFMAT, an Iranian dissident site, alleged that, “according to NIAC’s own documents released during the lawsuit, the organization used to ‘defraud IRS [and] did not report lobbying.’”

The IRS however appeared to show little interest in NIAC and instead went after pro-Israel groups. While pro-Israel groups were asked to “explain their religious beliefs about the Land of Israel”, there’s no sign that NIAC has been asked to explain Shiite religious beliefs about Iran.

Before founding NIAC, Trita Parsi had created, “Iranians for International Cooperation” which admitted that it existed to “safeguard Iran’s and Iranian interests”. The same IRS, which had asked of a pro-Israel group, “does your organization support the existence of the land of Israel?” did not seem especially interested in whether NIAC supported an Islamic terror state.

Parsi then moved on to the American Iranian Council before founding NIAC allegedly in coordination with Hamyaran which had been created by the Iranian government.

The IRS however decided to go after pro-Israel groups instead. Five of these groups were audited at the same time even as revelations about NIAC were emerging. “Israel is one of many Middle Eastern countries that have a ‘higher risk of terrorism,’” an IRS manager argued.

Israel had a higher risk of terrorism because Iran was targeting it with a terror campaign. But instead of scrutinizing the terrorists, the IRS decided that the victims of Islamic terrorism were the ones who really needed investigating.

In 2018, the case by Z Street was finally settled after eight years of litigation.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus told Front Page Magazine that, “One of the excuses given to Z Street by an IRS official was that the IRS had to make sure we were not ‘engaged in terrorism’ because we mentioned ‘terror’ in our mission statement. The part of Z Street’s mission that mentioned terror? ‘We will not engage with, negotiate with or appease terrorists.’ Yet Z Street’s application for 501(c)(3) status was sidelined for seven years while Z Street litigated the IRS’s unconstitutional application of Viewpoint Discrimination against us.”

The IRS demonstrated that when it came to Z Street and other pro-Israel groups, it was willing and able to scrutinize, investigate and harass them. It has demonstrated the same thing with conservative groups. It is not however willing to apply that same standard to the ‘Iran Lobby’.

And the reasons may be obvious.

NIAC Action, its sister PAC, endorsed Biden and declared, “our long, national nightmare is almost over. AP has called the race for Joe Biden.”

Jamal Abdi, the executive director of NIAC Action, was one of Biden’s bundlers and claimed that its members had dominated phone banks and donated $385,000 to Biden.

NIAC Action had gushed that, “our long, national nightmare is almost over. AP has called the race for Joe Biden”.

“It’s an obscene joke that NIAC was given and retains the U.S. government’s permission to provide its donors with the ability to write off their tax donations to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s U.S. cheerleading squad, NIAC,” Marcus, the founder of Z Street, told Front Page Magazine.

In Iran, protesters are putting their lives on the line for freedom. And some of them are calling for a long overdue investigation of the ‘Iran Lobby’ and its influence over American politics.

NIAC Action’s recent endorsements include Rep. Katie Porter, who now aspires to the Senate, Rep. Ro Khanna, who is seen as the successor for the Bernie Sanders camp and a possible presidential candidate, and antisemitic figures like Rep. Ilhan Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib.

After over two decades of neglect by the IRS, NIAC has gained unprecedented influence.

NIAC’s nonprofit status is evidence of a glaring double standard by the IRS and a national security crisis.

AUTHOR

RELATED ARTICLES:

What a Coincidence: Pelosi Sold $3 Million of Google Stock Just Before Antitrust Probe Began

Ilhan Omar says McCarthy leaving her off subcommittee is ‘racist, xenophobic and discriminatory’

Biden’s handlers’ nominee for State Department post, supporter of neo-Nazi BDS movement, withdraws

EDITORS NOTE: This Jihad Watch column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved.

Poll: Americans Say Economy is in Trouble thumbnail

Poll: Americans Say Economy is in Trouble

By Casey Harper

Americans think the U.S. economy is in trouble, according to a new poll.

Released by CBS News and YouGov, the poll found that 64% of those surveyed said the national economy is doing “fairly bad” or “very bad.”

The survey found 56% disapprove of the job Joe Biden is doing as president. Those two figures are likely intertwined. Inflation has soared since Biden took office. Gas prices hit record highs last summer and are expected to rise again this year. Food prices have soared as well and show little sign of returning to their previous level.

Notably, 49% of those surveyed say they feel “scared” about the fate of the U.S. in the next year.

The poll also found 65% of Americans said things in the U.S. are going “very badly” or “somewhat badly.” That pessimism is similar to the sentiment found in a recent Gallup poll that found that that about 80% of those surveyed expect a higher deficit, higher taxes, and a worse economy in 2023.

“More than six in 10 think prices will rise at a high rate and the stock market will fall in the year ahead, both of which happened in 2022,” Gallup reports. “In addition, just over half of Americans predict that unemployment will increase in 2023, an economic problem the U.S. was spared in 2022.”

But it’s not just the economy. Americans are also worried about crime with Gallup reporting that 72% of surveyed Americans predict crime rates will increase, not decrease, this year.

*****
This article was published by The Center Square and is reproduced with permission.