This Is the Largest Gunmaker in Arizona thumbnail

This Is the Largest Gunmaker in Arizona

By Samual Stebbins

The United States is the single largest civilian firearm market in the world. A recent Gallup poll found that 45% of Americans have a gun in their home. And many of those households have more than one, as the U.S. is the only country with more privately-owned guns than people.

Whether for hunting, target shooting, personal protection, or home defense, consumer demand for firearms in the U.S. fuels a $32.1 billion a year industry. And across the country, companies are cashing in. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives reported that over 13.3 million firearms were manufactured in the U.S. for the domestic market in 2021. (Here is a look at which Americans own the most guns: a survey of all 50 states.)

According to the ATF, there are more than 3,200 federally licensed firearm production plants in the U.S., and 192 of them are operating in Arizona. Between them, a total of 699,100 firearms were manufactured in the state in 2021.

No company made more firearms in Arizona that year than Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. Through a production facility in Prescott, the company produced a reported 603,500 guns – or 86.3% of all firearms made in the state in 2021.

State Gun production facilities in state, 2021 Guns manufactured in state, 2021 Largest gunmaker in state, 2021 Largest gunmaker output, 2021
Alabama 52 294,166 Kimber Mfg Inc. 275,325
Alaska 21 258 Annex Industries, LLC 50
Arizona 192 699,100 Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. 603,500
Arkansas 47 73,351 Wilson’s Gun Shop Inc. 41,746
California 76 82,532 Senga Engineering Inc. 23,324
Colorado 75 3,109 M+M Inc. 1,712
Connecticut 33 184,633 Colt’s Manufacturing Company LLC 151,771
Delaware 2 11 Gusovsky Gunsmithing LLC 8
Florida 198 671,359 SCCY Industries LLC 216,932
Georgia 105 1,496,877 Glock Inc. 581,944
Hawaii 2 8 Koffin Wurks LLC 7
Idaho 75 43,241 FM Products Inc. 18,593
Illinois 43 647,423 Springfield Inc. 590,750
Indiana 60 41,498 Tippmann Arms Company LLC 15,113
Iowa 47 25,326 Brownells Inc. 11,024
Kansas 46 19,287 CZ-USA 14,383
Kentucky 39 510,679 WM C Anderson Inc. 505,635
Louisiana 43 2,658 Brothers LA Arms, LLC 640
Maine 21 23,226 Windham Weaponry Inc. 22,930
Maryland 24 30,358 LWRC International 27,331
Massachusetts 27 435,514 Savage Arms, Inc. 406,867
Michigan 73 26,424 Great Lakes Firearms and Ammunition LLC 22,388
Minnesota 37 46,584 Magnum Research Inc. 14,586
Mississippi 39 3,003 JMS Manufacturing Inc. 1,289
Missouri 93 2,467,145 Smith & Wesson 2,316,857
Montana 55 26,446 Noreen Firearms LLC 16,296
Nebraska 26 6,882 Zermatt Arms Inc. 4,076
Nevada 56 262,086 Legacy Sports International Inc. 214,258
New Hampshire 27 1,992,731 Sig Sauer Inc. 1,293,532
New Jersey 11 209,770 Henry RAC Holding Corp. 208,423
New Mexico 24 281 Farnsworth, Dustin Robert and Angie J 81
New York 61 128,276 RemArms LLC 86,594
North Carolina 152 894,882 Sturm, Ruger & Company, Inc. 604,941
North Dakota 10 1,301 Roughrider Arms LLC 1,167
Ohio 117 130,848 Strassells Machine Inc. 106,807
Oklahoma 69 14,654 International Firearm Corporation LLC 11,423
Oregon 50 16,619 TNW Firearms Inc. 4,004
Pennsylvania 110 228,400 IWI US Inc. 96,662
Rhode Island 5 144 Ocean State Armory LLC 50
South Carolina 55 240,114 Fn America, LLC 169,407
South Dakota 20 906 West River Rifle Company LLC 277
Tennessee 82 185,720 Beretta USA Corp. 155,352
Texas 401 814,838 Maverick Arms, Inc. 492,167
Utah 103 271,862 TDJ Buyer, LLC 72,983
Vermont 20 135,030 Century Arms Inc. 132,705
Virginia 84 17,890 Kriss USA, Inc. 12,809
Washington 62 242,736 Aero Precision LLC 174,662
West Virginia 28 6,941 Childers Guns LLC 5,108
Wisconsin 80 137,397 Henry RAC Holding Corp. 112,180
Wyoming 52 10,341 Weatherby Inc. 7,630

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Scientist Admits Omitting “Full Truth” From Climate Study To Get It Published thumbnail

Scientist Admits Omitting “Full Truth” From Climate Study To Get It Published

By Nick Pope

Patrick T. Brown, a climate scientist, wrote Tuesday in The Free Press that he deliberately omitted the “full truth” from a paper he recently authored in order to increase its chances of publication in a prestigious journal.

Brown explained his decision-making in the piece, asserting that he overlooked truths in his work in order to make it more appealing to the editorial biases of leading journals like Nature and Science. Brown and seven other authors wrote a paper which examined the relationship between climate change and wildfire risks in California, and Nature published the paper in August 2023.

Brown stated that scientists hoping to advance their careers by getting published in leading journals are inclined to tailor their findings to align with the biases of editors and reviewers, a dynamic which “distorts a great deal of climate science research, misinforms the public and most importantly, makes practical solutions more difficult to achieve.”

“I knew not to try to quantify key aspects other than climate change in my research because it would dilute the story that prestigious journals like Nature and its rival, Science, want to tell,” Brown wrote of his paper. He asserted that reviewers and “editors of these journals have made it abundantly clear, both by what they publish and what they reject, that they want climate papers that support certain preapproved narratives—even when those narratives come at the expense of broader knowledge for society.” (RELATED: ‘Shady Deals’: UN Enlisted Google To Push Down Opposing Viewpoints On Climate Science)

Brown further pointed out that the incentive structure he criticizes induces authors to overlook or downplay practical measures for mitigating climate-related risks, such as reasonable forest management policies. Instead, authors are inclined to highlight the problem of greenhouse gas emissions, which skews scientific analysis and facilitates legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act that takes aim at problems rather than facilitating solutions, Brown asserted in the piece.

“In my paper, we didn’t bother to study the influence of these other obviously relevant factors. Did I know that including them would make for a more realistic and useful analysis? I did,” Brown wrote in The Free Press. “But I also knew that it would detract from the clean narrative centered on the negative impact of climate change and thus decrease the odds that the paper would pass muster with Nature’s editors and reviewers.”

The media also deserves some blame because reporters often take studies at face value in pursuit of driving traffic, Brown wrote.

“You might be wondering at this point if I’m disowning my own paper. I’m not,” Brown stated in the piece regarding his paper. “On the contrary, I think it advances our understanding of climate change’s role in day-to-day wildfire behavior. It’s just that the process of customizing the research for an eminent journal caused it to be less useful than it could have been. ”

Representatives for Nature did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

*****

This article was published by the Daily Caller News Foundation and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Weekend Read: What the Left Did to Our Country thumbnail

Weekend Read: What the Left Did to Our Country

By Victor Davis Hanson

Will their upheaval  succeed?

In the last 20 years, the Left has boasted that it has gained control of most of America institutions of power and influence—the corporate boardroom, media, Silicon Valley, Wall Street, the administrative state, academia, foundations, social media, entertainment, professional sports, and Hollywood.

With such support, between 2009-17, Barack Obama was empowered to transform the Democratic Party from its middle-class roots and class concerns into the party of the bicoastal rich and subsidized poor—obsessions with big money, race, a new intolerant green religion, and dividing the country into a binary of oppressors and oppressed.

The Obamas entered the presidency spouting the usual leftwing boilerplate (“spread the wealth,” “just downright mean country,” “get in their face,” “first time I’ve been proud of my country”) as upper-middle-class, former community activists, hurt that their genius and talents had not yet been sufficiently monetized.

After getting elected through temporarily pivoting to racial ecumenicalism and pseudo-calls for unity, they reverted to form and governed by dividing the country. And then the two left the White House as soon-to-be mansion living, mega-rich elites, cashing in on the fears they had inculcated over the prior eight years.

To push through the accompanying unpopular agendas of an open border, mandatory wind and solar energy, racial essentialism, and the weaponization of the state, Obama had begun demonizing his opponents and the country in general: America was an unexceptional place. Cops were racist. “Clingers” of the Midwest were hopelessly ignorant and prejudiced. Only fundamental socialist transformation could salvage a historically oppressive, immoral, and racist nation.

The people finally rebelled at such preposterousness. Obama lost his party some 1,400 local and state offices during his tenure, along with both houses of Congress. His presidency was characterized by his own polarizing mediocrity. His one legacy was Obamacare, the veritable destruction of the entire system of a once workable health insurance, of the hallowed doctor-patient relationship, and of former easy access to competent specialists.

Yet Obama’s unfufilled ambitions set the stage for the Biden administration—staffed heavily with Obama veterans—to complete the revolutionary transformation of the Democratic Party and country.

It was ironic that while Obama was acknowledged as young and charismatic, nonetheless a cognitively challenged, past plagiarist, fabulist, and utterly corrupt Joe Biden was far more effective in ramming through a socialist woke agenda and altering the very way Americans vote and conduct their legal system.

Stranger still, Biden accomplished this subversion of traditional America while debilitated and often mentally inert—along with being mired in a bribery and influence-peddling scandal that may ultimately confirm that he easily was the most corrupt president to hold office in U.S. history.

How was all this possible?

Covid had allowed the unwell Biden to run a surrogate campaign from his basement as he outsourced his politicking to a corrupt media.

Senility proved a godsend for Biden. His cognitive disabilities masked his newfound radicalism and long-accustomed incompetence. Unlike his past failed campaigns, the lockdowns allowed Biden to be rarely seen or heard—and thus as much liked in the abstract as he had previously been disliked in the concrete.

His handlers, the Obamas, and the Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren radical Democrats, saw Biden’s half-century pretense as a gladhander—good ole Joe Biden from Scranton—as the perfect delivery system to funnel their own otherwise-unpopular leftwing agendas. In sum, via the listless Biden, they sought to change the very way America used to work.

And what a revolution Biden’s puppeteers have unleashed in less than three years.

They launched a base attack on the American legal system. Supreme Court judges are libeled, their houses swarmed, and their lives threatened with impunity. The Left promised to pack the court or to ignore any decision it resents. The media runs hit pieces on any conservative justice deemed too influential. The prior Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer whipped up a mob outside the court’s doors, and threatened two justices by name. As Schumer presciently put it, they would soon “reap the whirlwind” of what they supposedly had sowed and thus would have no idea what was about to “hit” them.

Under the pretense of Covid fears, balloting went from 70 percent participation on election day in most states to a mere 30 percent. Yet the rates of properly rejected illegal or improper ballots often dived by a magnitude of ten.

Assaults now followed on hallowed processes, laws, customs, and institutions—the Senate filibuster, the 50-state union, the Electoral College, the nine-justice Supreme Court, Election Day, and voter IDs.

Under Biden, the revolution had institutionalized first-term impeachment, the trial of an ex-president while a private citizen, and the indictment of a chief political rival and ex-president on trumped up charges by local and federal prosecutors—all to destroy a political rival and alter the 2024 election cycle.

Biden destroyed the southern border—literally. Eight million entered illegally—no background checks, no green cards, no proof of vaccinations. America will be dealing with the consequences for decades. Mexico was delighted, receiving some $60 million in annual remittances, while the cartels were empowered to ship enough fentanyl to kill 100,000 Americans a year.

Modern monetary theory,” the Leftist absurdity that printing money ensures prosperity, followed. It has nearly bankrupted the country, unleashed wild inflation, and resulted in the highest interest rates in a quarter-century. Middle-class wages fell further behind as a doddering Biden praised his disastrous “Bidenomics.”

Biden warred on fossil fuels, cancelling federal leases and pipelines, jawboning lending agencies to defund fracking, demonizing state-of-the-art, clean-burning cars, and putting vast areas of oil- and gas-rich federals lands off-limits to drilling.

When gas prices predictably doubled under Biden and the 2022 midterms approached, he tried temporarily to lease out a few new fields, to drain the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and to beg the Saudis, and our enemies, the Iranians, the Venezuelans, and the Russians, to pump more oil and gas that Biden himself would not. All this was a pathetic ruse to temporarily lower gas prices before the mid-term elections.

Biden abandoned Afghanistan, leaving the largest trove of military equipment behind in U.S. military history, along with thousands of loyal Afghans and pro-American contractors.

Biden insulted the parents of the 13 Marines blown up in this worst U.S. military debacle since Pearl Harbor. He lied to the parents of the dead that he too lost a son in the Iraq war, and when among them later impatiently checked his watch as he seemed bored with the commemoration of the fallen—and made no effort to hide his sense that the ceremony was tedious to him.

Vladimir Putin summed up the Afghan debacle—and Biden’s nonchalant remark that he wouldn’t react strongly to a “minor” invasion of Ukraine if it were minor—as a green light to invade Ukraine.

When Biden did awaken, his first reaction was an offer to fly the Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy out of the country as soon as possible. What has followed proved the greatest European killing ground since the 1944-45 Battle of the Bulge, albeit one that has now fossilized into a Verdun-like quagmire that is draining American military supply stocks and killing a half-million Ukrainians and Russians.

Suddenly, there are three genders, not two. Women’s sports have been wrecked by biological men competing as women, destroying a half-century of female athletic achievement. Young girls in locker rooms, co-eds in sororities, and women in prison must dress and shower with biological men transitioning to women by assertion.

There is no longer a commitment to free speech. The American Civil Liberties Union is a woke, intolerant group trying to ban free expression under the pretense of fighting “hate” speech and “disinformation.”

The Left has revived McCarthyite loyal oaths straight out of the 1950s, forcing professors, job applicants, and students applying for college to pledge their commitment to “diversity” as a requisite for hiring, admittance, or promotion. Diversity is our era’s version of the Jacobins’ “Cult of Reason.”

Race relations hit a 50-year nadir. Joe Biden has a long history of racist insults and putdowns. And now as apparent penance, he has reinvented himself as a reverse racial provocateur, spouting nonsense about white supremacy, exploiting shootings or hyping racial tensions to ensure that an increasingly disgusted black electorate does not leave the new Democratic Party.

The military has adopted wokeism, oblivious that it has eroded meritocracy in the ranks and slashed military recruitment. It is underfunded, wracked by internal suspicion, loss of morale and ginned up racial and gender animosity. Its supply stocks are drained. Arms productions is snail-like, and generalship is seen as a revolving door to corporate defense contractor board riches.

Big-city Democratic district attorneys subverted the criminal justice system, destroyed law enforcement deterrence, and unleashed a record crime wave. Did they wish to create anarchy as protest against the normal, or were they Jokerist nihilists who delighted in sowing ruin for ruin’s sake?

Radical racial activists, with Democrat endorsement, demand polarizing racial reparations. The louder the demands, the quieter they remain about smash-and-grab looting, carjacking, and the swarming of malls by disproportionally black teens—even as black-on-black urban murders reach record proportions.

In response, Biden tried to exploit the growing tensions by spouting lies that “white supremacy” and “white privilege” fuel such racial unrest—even as his ill-gotten gains, past record of racist demagoguery and resulting lucre and mansions appear the epitome of his own so-called white privilege.

This litany of disasters could be vastly expanded, but more interesting is the why of it all?

What we are witnessing seems to be utter nihilism. The border is not porous but nonexistent. Mass looting and carjackings are not poorly punished, but simply exempt from all and any consequences. Our downtowns are reduced to a Hobbesian “war of all against all,” where the strong dictate to the weak and the latter adjust as they must. The streets of our major cities in just a few years have become precivilizational—there are more human feces on the sidewalks of San Francisco than were in the gutters of Medieval London.

The FBI and DOJ are not simply wayward and weaponized, but corrupt and renegade. Apparently the perquisite now for an FBI director is the ability either to lie while under oath or better to mask such lying by claiming amnesia or ignorance.

Immigration is akin to the vast unchecked influxes of the late Roman Empire across the Danube and Rhine that helped to finish off a millennium-old civilization that had lost all confidence in its culture and thus had no need for borders.

In other words, the revolution is not so much political as anarchist. Nothing escapes it—not ceiling fans, not natural gas cooktops, not parents at school board meetings, not Christian bakeries, not champion female swimmers, not dutiful policemen, not hard-working oil drillers, not privates and corporals in the armed forces, not teens applying on their merits to college, not anyone, anywhere, anytime.

The operating principle is either to allow or to engineer things to become so atrocious in everyday American life—the inability to afford food and fuel, the inability to walk safely in daylight in our major cities, the inability to afford to drive as one pleases, the inability to obtain or pay back a high interest loan—that the government can absorb the private sector and begin regimenting the masses along elite dictates. The more the people tire of the leftist agenda, the more its architects furiously seek to implement it, hoping that their institutional and cultural control can do what  ballots cannot.

We could variously characterize their efforts as destroying the nation to save it, or burning it down to start over, or fundamentally transforming America into something never envisioned by the Founders.

Will their upheaval  succeed? All the levers of the power and money are on the side of the revolutionaries. The people are not. And they are starting to wake to the notion if they do not stop the madness in their midst they very soon won’t have a country.

*****

This article was published at American Greatness and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Covid Forever thumbnail

Covid Forever

By Auguste Meyrat

The elites dearly miss having a pandemic on hand.

Apparently, prescribing Ivermectin for people with Covid was fine all along. Sure, nearly every public authority vehemently denounced Ivermectin, calling it “horse dewormer,” and social media platforms censored people who dared mention it. And sure, they slandered medical experts like Dr. Peter McCullough and Dr. Robert Malone and even placed jaundiced filters on pictures of Joe Rogan, who credited Ivermectin for his quick recovery from Covid. But now, after some doctors are suing the FDA for all but banning an effective treatment for the coronavirus, FDA officials have claimed that their aggressive criticisms of the drug were “merely quips.”

When it comes to acknowledging the many blunders of the Covid response, none of this is surprising. Whether they were wrong about social distancinglockdownsmaskingtaking the jabnatural immunity, or finding the origins of the virus, the experts are oddly forgetful now of just how confident and belligerent they were at the time. In other cases, as with “public intellectual” Sam Harris, many leftists still maintain that imposing Covid vaccine mandates was justified because the virus could have been much worse—even though it wasn’t.

Fortunately for these hypocrites, most Americans today are tired of hearing about Covid. They don’t want to think about hysteria, the lies that were told, the rights that were stripped away, the friendships and families that were destroyed, the businesses that were shut down, or the many students who fell years behind in their learning. Not only is it painful to think about, but any attempt to rectify those mistakes seems futile. Everyone just wants to move on. As Emily Oster recommended in her infamous essay last year in The Atlantic, “We have to put these fights aside and declare a pandemic amnesty.”

However, as tempting as this thinking is, moving on and declaring a blanket amnesty won’t be possible until Americans face up to what happened during those dark days. Otherwise, history will repeat itself, the worst offenses will go unpunished, and worst of all, true healing won’t take place.

Although the worst of the pandemic is long gone, Covid is still making people sick. Many adults came down with pink eye and various flu symptoms earlier this summer. In all likelihood, these aren’t the usual seasonal ailments but are the newest strains of the Wuhan virus.

Of course, it’s always possible that a new virus could replace Covid. After all, SARS-CoV-2 was a synthetically designed virus that almost certainly came out of a bio lab conducting gain-of-function research. There are many such labs around the world, all of which carry the risk of inadvertently releasing another devastating virus. It’s not conspiracy kookery to seek accountability for the lab leak and demand that all labs conducting this research be defunded and shut down.

Moreover, the bad actors need to be punished. Thus far, none of the great liars who stoked hysteria demonized whole swaths of the country, pushed untested vaccines on the entire population, and crashed the economy have been held to account. They continue to command great respect and speak on issues of the day, and many of them are enjoying the fortunes they made because of the lockdowns and relentless propaganda. Even petty dictators like Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who devastated their states with lockdowns, suffered little to no backlash from voters.

This means that the same people who exploited Covid have every incentive to keep up their exploitation. Considering how richly they’ve been rewarded in the past, they’d be foolish to not try again.

And sure enough, yet a new variant of Covid has popped up this month, causing companies and municipalities to push masking again. We can expect yet another round of universal mail-in ballots, more “strong leadership” from the petty dictators, certain particularly weak candidates campaigning from their basements again, and the perfect catchall excuse for any and all crises that come up in the next year (“Covid did it!”).

But along with avoiding another pandemic and holding people accountable, Americans need to psychologically process Covid and the disastrous response to it. With so much damage done to so many people, resentment can fester and initiate a cycle of revenge. Communities become polarized to the point that neighbors live in different worlds, and politics become “weaponized,” a means of striking back at the other side rather than one of bringing people together. In some countries, this can look like a civil war; in America this looks like a two-tiered corrupt system of elites oppressing non-elites.

For the time being, it would be counterproductive to attempt wide-scale reconciliation. The people who wanted anti-vaxxers to die and believe in the power of a biomedical security state to keep them safe from sickness have no intention of repenting. Those who faced persecution for appealing to common sense are under no obligation to let bygones be bygones. For reconciliation to happen, one side would need to admit to the harm done, take steps to reform the system, and apologize; in turn, the other side would also admit the harm done, help with reform, and accept the apology.

Until this happens, the people who found themselves vilified, silenced, fired from their jobs, and even denied healthcare will have to take the steps of remembering the harm done and distancing themselves from the people who hurt them (or at the very least, stop voting for them). Although feelings of seeking revenge will surely surface, they cannot take over. Non-elites have no real way to take revenge on the ruling class which holds all the power, and even if it were possible, revenge would create more problems than it solves. Revenge will only exacerbate negative feelings, worsening the pain already inflicted and making it all-consuming.

If one is bleeding from a mortal wound, he first needs to accept the fact that he is bleeding, treat the wound, and then understand how this happened. Similarly, Americans need to accept that they suffered harm (instead of impulsively wishing it away), treat the problem directly with reasonable action and prudent judgment, and understand the problems that led to it. Only after this process occurs does it become possible to recover, and even forgive. The cycle of violence is finally broken.

Whatever people decide to do, simply pretending Covid never happened and thinking happy thoughts is not an option. Americans of all political stripes are hurting right now and at a high risk of going through the misery again. A deep collective reckoning on what has happened for the past three years is long past due. It may be unpleasant, but it’s the only way to truly move on and get to a better place.

*****

This article was published by The American Mind and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Debilitating Hatred thumbnail

Debilitating Hatred

By Bruce Bialosky

There are certain emotions that will either eat you alive or cause a boomerang effect on you from the actions you take. There has been a hatred manifested throughout this country that is eating at our core and will cause repercussions that may severely affect all of us for a long, long time.

A local prosecutor charged the former President of the United States and eighteen others with a RICO statute violation. Most people are confused as to why a local prosecutor has jurisdiction to make these charges regarding a statewide election. She insisted on two things: a mug shot and bail. Her actions may make her a heroine to the Left, but they brought our democracy to a new low. Did she ask herself whether mug shots were really necessary? Did they not know what “the guy” and others charged looked like? Doesn’t the entire world know what “the guy” looks like? Did she think “the guy” was going to go on the lam?

Before we go further, let’s dispel the inane and childish slogan that is currently en vogue with Trump haters – “No one is above the law.” Yes, some are. There have always been people above the law since we have had laws. A mob can enter a Nordstrom department store, walk off with $100,000 of merchandise, and have no legal ramifications. In 2020, a bunch of criminals attacked cities and looted stores, and no one was prosecuted. Don’t get me started on Hillary and her actions in 2016, or the actions of Hunter and his father for the last decade. We should have a law that anyone who invokes those stupid words should serve 90 days in jail.

The prosecutor must have thought one of two things – either I will be loved by the Trump haters forever who have wanted him “frog walked” since he announced his campaign; or, in some demented interpretation of her role in life, she thought this was somehow a responsible act.

The Hill, formerly a responsible publication until lurching to the left with the rest of the legacy media, had a rotating picture of various mug shots at the top of their afternoon report the next day. It must have sent tingles down the legs of so many of their Trump-hating readers. Responsible journalism is out the door.

Let’s look at the prosecutor. Did she call out Stacey Abrams in 2018 for the same actions that the Trump team did? No. Instead, she questioned whether all the votes were counted in the election, posting on Facebook “You all better start paying attention to what is really going on.”

She required bail on Trump and all these well-known people. In 2018, the Atlanta City Council followed the same deranged actions (common thinking among most Democrat-run cities) that criminals are not really criminals and suspended bail on a broad basis. With Trump she must have thought he was going to flee the country based on her ridiculous case against him?

Yes, I have read extensively about her charges and how she wants to handle this case. She wants to start this case in October 2023. That is funny. At least she has a sense of humor. She wants to try the nineteen defendants together. The day after the charges were released, a former New York prosecutor made a hilarious comment on this. He talked about the jury selection process with 19 attorneys querying each potential juror and raising objections. He then spoke about the courtroom where she was presenting her case with 19 attorneys objecting to her questions with the poor judge losing control of the entire matter. This woman is either a raging lunatic or a delusional amateur.

She thinks she is going to roll these people up against Trump, but I would refer her to the scene in the movie Usual Suspects where the five criminals are in a holding pen. Kevin Spacey’s character states in a narration the cops did not understand that these people will never crack, never fold. The people charged in Georgia are certainly not going to fold on this ridiculous case.

Then there is the simple act of charging Trump’s attorneys for providing advice to him. Many have stated this is purposely done to chill other attorneys from advising him or other Republicans from seeking future advice. This action has ramifications way beyond our political system. It cuts at the core of our Bill of Rights.

This amplifies the 65 Project actions. They pitch themselves as “bipartisan,” but they are a wildly partisan operation attempting to scare attorneys from ever working with Republicans to question election procedures. The prosecutor in Atlanta is bringing their ideas to the highest level.

The permanent harm to our democracy from this local prosecutor bringing a contrived RICO case against a former president and a current presidential candidate is yet to be told. Let me refer you to the case of former (and late) Nevada Senator Harry Reid, then majority leader of the U.S. Senate. He thought he was a smarty pants and would change the filibuster rules for judges. Minority leader Mitch McConnell warned him it would come back to haunt him. Mr. Reid, say hello to Justices (for life) Neil Gorsuch, Brent Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. You put them on the U.S. Supreme Court.

This case and these disgusting actions foisted upon the former President of the United States (mug shot and bail) will cause untold harm to our country. I say this as a person who explicitly stated that I wish Trump would leave the election and clear the field for a group of very capable candidates to effectively pursue like policies. I say this also as a person who clearly understands unless the Republicans nominate a gay, black, wheelchair-bound woman who believes in unfettered abortion, the nominee will be savaged by the Left and their handmaidens, the legacy media.

This is what debilitating hatred causes. I felt revulsion looking at the mug shot. Not because of who was in it, but because this charade has so degenerated and harmed this country I love.

*****

This article was published by Flash Report and is reproduced with permission from the author.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Second Nobel Prize Winner Signs Letter With 1,600 Scientists Declaring Climate ‘Emergency’ A Myth

By Tristan Justice

A coalition of more than 1,600 scientists critical of their peers’ hyperbolic claims about climate change drew a prominent recruit to sign their 2019 declaration that the climate “emergency” is a myth.

John Clauser, who won last year’s Nobel Prize in physics, became the second Nobel laureate last month to sign the document with 1,607 other scientists rebuking the idea of a climate crisis.

“Climate science should be less political, while climate policies should be more scientific,” the declaration organized by the Climate Intelligence Foundation (CLINTEL) reads. “Scientists should openly address uncertainties and exaggerations in their predictions of global warming, while politicians should dispassionately count the real costs as well as the imagined benefits of their policy measures.”

Last year, the International Energy Agency (IEA) debuted a roadmap to net-zero emissions that became the model for corporate bishops of environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards. A June report from the Energy Policy Research Foundation criticized the initiatives outlined as a “green mirage.” The IEA roadmap, researchers wrote, “will dramatically increase energy costs, devastate Western economies, and increase human suffering.”

“The aim of global policy should be ‘prosperity for all’ by providing reliable and affordable energy at all times,” reads CLINTEL’s World Climate Declaration. “There is no climate emergency. Therefore, there is no cause for panic and alarm.”

Norwegian-American engineer Ivan Giaever, who won the Nobel Prize in physics in 1973, is also a signatory to the declaration.

“The popular narrative about climate change reflects a dangerous corruption of science that threatens the world’s economy and the well-being of billions of people. Misguided climate science has metastasized into massive shock-journalistic pseudoscience,” Clauser said. “In turn, the pseudoscience has become a scapegoat for a wide variety of other unrelated ills. It has been promoted and extended by similarly misguided business marketing agents, politicians, journalists, government agencies, and environmentalists.”

The document makes several claims that contradict popular narratives peddled by climate hysterics. For example, the planet is warming slower than predicted and has not driven a spike in natural disasters.

Mega-disasters are actually on the decline, while the destruction from natural events such as hurricanes and wildfires is on the rise. The increase in billion-dollar disasters, however, is a result of there being more to destroy. But that hasn’t stopped legacy outlets from blaming every natural event on the “climate crisis.” Two years ago, The New York Times published “Postcards From A World On Fire” despite natural disaster deaths declining by 90 percent.

The World Climate Declaration also notes that carbon dioxide is plant food, “not a pollutant.”

“It is essential to all life on Earth,” the document reads.

In fact, reforestation is on the rise, promoted by a global “greening” effect proliferating plant growth.

*****

This article was published by The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.


Race Based Reparations Don’t Make Sense thumbnail

Race Based Reparations Don’t Make Sense

By Dr. Thomas Patterson

When the notion of race-based reparations was first advanced, I didn’t take it seriously. Surely, something so costly and unhelpful would never gain traction with the American public, so why worry about it?

But on further reflection, it seems several ideas have graduated from the unthinkable to reality over the last few years in today’s America. The idea that reputable physicians would actively encourage even pre-adolescents to retard their sexual development and permanently mutilate their bodies, based on nothing more than a probably transient feeling of gender dysphoria, would have seemed absolutely bizarre not long ago.

So would the idea that the schoolchildren should learn to reject the teachings of Martin Luther King and instead be taught that there were irreconcilable inborn racial differences that warranted further discrimination? Spending trillions of dollars we don’t have on unnecessary programs. Allowing immigrants by the millions to illegally breach our border.  Even allowing a top government official to walk after intentionally destroying thousands of evidentiary emails during an active investigation.  We can no longer count on rational thought to prevail.

Thus the drive for race-based reparations continues to advance. Nearly every year, Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee introduces a bill calling for a commission to compile documentary evidence of slavery (?), analyze its effects, and recommend ways to remedy the effects of servitude including an apology and, of course, cash.

Now others are joining the chorus. California’s Task Force to Study and Develop Reparations Proposals for African-Americans issued a detailed calculation of recommended awards. They include $13,619 for each year of residency in the state for healthcare disparities, $3,336 per year for housing discrimination, and $2,532 per year for over-policing and mass incarceration. That’s up to $1.2 million for each of the 2.3 million black residents of the state.

Determined not to be outbid, San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors unanimously endorsed a proposal to provide a $5 million payment to each black resident to compensate for past wrongs. Each would also receive forgiveness of all loans including credit cards and income subsidies for the next 250 years to bring them to the median city income, currently $97,000.

Two years ago, Evanston, Illinois became the first American city to actually pay racial reparations, $2500 to each black resident to pay for housing improvements.

But the notion of reparations awarded to all members of a racial or ethnic group contains no guardrails to determine where the practice logically starts and stops. While reparations for specific incidents like the Holocaust and Japanese internment are easier to define and limit, abuse by and against races has been virtually constant in human history.

Slavery has been widely practiced for millennia. That doesn’t excuse it but it does make just compensation awards more problematic. Do all the nations who practiced, or are still practicing slavery owe compensation? Should descendants of the tribal chieftains who fueled the African slave trade by capturing and selling fellow Africans into bondage be liable? Should people whose ancestors never owned slaves have to pay anyway? Once the foolish principle is established, we’re just quibbling about amounts.

But the ultimate objection to raced-based reparations isn’t affordability or morality. It is that reparations are economically devastating to the recipients.

Think of America’s own history. Our modern relationship with the indigenous peoples was based on promises to atone for our admittedly shabby treatment of them. They were soon transformed from proud, capable human beings to highly regulated dependents who couldn’t build a bridge, provide their own housing, or obtain medical care without federal government permission and aid.

Black Americans were making significant social and economic progress until the entitlements of the Great Society in the 1960s broke up their families, robbed them of self-sufficiency, and preempted their prospects for prosperity. Many sank into dependence, criminality, and despair.

The newly proposed reparations would likely be just as toxic, killing the incentives for self-sufficiency. The greatest gift we could give to lagging minority groups would be to double down on equipping them with the tools to fully participate in the American dream.

Helping them to rebuild families, schools, and social structures, although difficult, would be helpful. Reparations and more entitlements are the road to nowhere.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Don’t Give Up on the Constitution thumbnail

Don’t Give Up on the Constitution

By Yuval Levin

I am enormously grateful to Law & Liberty for recruiting such heavy hitters to respond to my lead essay. What a joy to get such humbling and instructive comments, each brimming with its author’s characteristic intellectual virtues. I thank all four responders and only regret that the imperative for brevity in this summary reply means I can only scratch the surface of what they had to offer. They should know that I have more to say, especially by way of gratitude and admiration.

James Stoner brilliantly deepens and sharpens the case for the Constitution’s unifying potential in several important respects, and he rightly ends up worrying that the problem we face now is a shortage of will to repair what is broken.

I agree with him entirely that restoring the logic of American federalism would require not only a re-conception of the distribution of administrative responsibilities but also a recovery of federal fiscal restraint. Congress did not so much mandate as purchase the modern deformation of federalism, and the states have not so much surrendered as sold their prerogatives to Washington. But seeing that part of what all this has brought us is greater social division can reinforce the case for pushing back against it.

Stephanie Slade insightfully extends the logic of that case for federalism to also stress the unifying value of the Bill of Rights. Just as federalism takes some divisive questions off the national stage, so the Bill of Rights can, in the words of Justice Robert Jackson, “withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials.” This is a crucial point, though I would argue that the logic of federalism does not describe a trajectory of increasing personal freedom the further we move from the national government. Local constraints on personal choice are generally deemed more legitimate than national ones, but for that reason, they are often also more onerous. The state and local governments are given greater freedom of action, since, as James Madison put it in Federalist 45, “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined, those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”

The Constitution protects some personal rights in ways that limit such powers, and as those limits have come over time to be applied to the states as well as the federal government they have often served the kind of purpose Slade describes. But federalism and the Bill of Rights nonetheless approach the task of lowering the temperature of our politics differently. Slade makes a powerful case for “rediscovering that not every issue needs to be decided by government,” but the temptation to use the model of personal rights beyond its narrow sphere does pose serious risks.

John Inazu agrees with Slade that the role of core political rights should have a more central place than my essay gave it in our conception of the unifying potential of the Constitution. They are both plainly right about this. But in his wise, incisive way, Inazu also expresses grave concerns about whether we still possess enough of a common identity to be citizens of one society at all. He writes: “Perhaps citizens of this country can name an ‘us’ that is sometimes positioned—not always in the healthiest ways—against a ‘them’ that lies beyond our domestic borders. But beyond this loose sense of American identity, if we are not strangers, then what are we?”

I would say that we are fellow citizens, with an enormous amount in common. We disagree about a lot (though by no means everything), but our common culture, history, instincts, and presumptions add up to a common national character that no one outside the United States could miss. Our politics naturally takes shape around our disagreements, but we should not imagine that this renders Americans into strangers, let alone enemies, to one another. Ask Americans what they think of the opposite party, and they will say nasty things. But ask them about what they believe and prioritize themselves, and you will find a lot of common ground.

Aristotle’s conception of civic friendship is helpful on this front—it is a kind of friendship by analogy, much thinner than a comprehensive agreement on the highest things, but rooted in some shared ideals and focused on practical needs that confront us in common. (On this front, I highly recommend Paul Ludwig’s superb 2020 book Rediscovering Political Friendship.) Building on this foundation demands an emphasis on moral formation, as Inazu rightly notes, and on the formative institutions that are upstream of the political. But it can also benefit from a clearer sense of how the institutions of our constitutional system could form us toward a more accommodative mindset, and of what it would take for them to do so now in practice. Those would be complementary and much related efforts toward better formation in the republican virtue essential to our society’s wellbeing.

Our prospects now depend on our capacity to approach our governing institutions in a spirit of repair—informed by a sense of what is missing and broken, but inspired by a sense of what is good in what we have.

Andrew Beck eloquently contends that it is too late for any of this to matter and that no recovery of American constitutionalism is possible because we are too far down the path of civic corruption. “If there is common agreement on anything,” he writes, “it is between the left and right in their belief that we need regime change now.” He argues that the progressive deformation of the Constitution that I describe in my essay has utterly succeeded, and concludes: “As America slips further into the form of an Empire, most politically minded Americans will eventually recognize the urgent necessity of contending for control of the Emperor’s Ring: the imperial city and its institutions.”

His concerns are not unfounded, but I worry that they gesture toward an extravagant despair that exaggerates our difficulties and in the process justifies doing nothing about them. I do agree that our politics has grown bitterly divided in recent decades less because two competing visions of constitutionalism have faced off against each other than because the more progressive vision has been adopted in many arenas of our public life, and has changed our constitutional system in ways that neglect and degrade its unifying potential. But renewal in response to failure and dissatisfaction is a permanent possibility in American politics, provided we sustain a living link to the roots of our political tradition. That is the hard work of conservatives in every generation, and there is no excuse for shirking it.

The challenges confronting this particular generation when it comes to sustaining that effort are nowhere near the worst our country has seen. I am just not all that impressed with the contemporary left and its hold on the future, and I don’t think most Americans are either. The trouble is that we on the right are also not giving them much to be impressed with. There have been many moments in our history when it would have been far more reasonable to give up all hope for the constitutional project than it is today, and we are fortunate that prior generations did not do so. Future generations deserve no less from us.

Indeed, the Constitution’s durability has been underestimated from the start. On August 8, 1787, the constitutional convention took up the question of the formula for representation in the House of Representatives. In his notes from that day, James Madison recorded that, while he himself was making a point about how one proposed approach might play out over many decades, Massachusetts delegate Nathaniel Gorham rose to object that thinking so far ahead was a waste of time. “It is not to be supposed that the government will last so long as to produce this effect,” Gorham insisted. “Can it be supposed that this vast country, including the Western territory, will 150 years hence remain one nation?”

It was a reasonable question. And Madison made no mention in his notes of offering any reply to Gorham. But the Constitution that the convention ended up producing was itself a reply in the affirmative. The system of government it created could last, and it has lasted, with amendments and adaptations, far longer than even the century and a half that was the furthest that Gorham’s imagination could stretch. We have remained one nation, thanks in no small part to the Constitution’s distinct approach to keeping us together.

That approach still has a lot to offer us, but it is not self-executing. We have deformed and disrupted it, and our prospects now depend on our capacity to approach our governing institutions in a spirit of repair—informed by a sense of what is missing and broken, but inspired by a sense of what is good in what we have and could serve us well. This moment ceaselessly tempts us to repudiate our inheritance, but our common future as a nation requires us to renew it.

*****

This article was published by Law & Liberty and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Thoughts About Some Interesting Charts thumbnail

Thoughts About Some Interesting Charts

By Neland Nobel

Charts, like photos, sometimes capture the mood of data.  They also have a way of compacting history, so one can see differences or similarities to previous economic cycles.

This chart shows the extent to which the “yield curve” is inverted.  An inverted yield curve is caused when rates for short-term debt exceed the rates paid on long-term debts.  This is abnormal.  The more time there is on a loan, the more time there is for things to go wrong, like increased inflation or the chance of default.  So longer-term debt should carry a higher interest rate than short term.  That is not the case today.  More importantly, note that since 1920 there are very few times the curve has been this inverted.  The shaded areas on the charts are recessions.  Note that when typically the relationship gets to zero or below, we have a recession.  Currently, we are severely inverted and it is about the same level as it was in 1928, just before the Great Depression.  Notice there have been only four occasions over the past 100 years we have been at or below the red dotted line.  Given this history, do you feel there might be a reason for concern?

Above is a rather short-term chart that tells another but related story.  With all the stimulus checks that were issued, and with the economy largely frozen by the ill-advised Covid Lockdown, consumers had increased cash reserves and little to spend it on.  Therefore, household savings bulged, and that excess has been worked off as the economy opened back up. This pile of cash helped keep the “miracle consumer” spending on both goods and services.  This seems to have delayed recession, which is normally predicted by the inverted yield curve explained above.  However, the data now shows that this surplus of excess cash has now been largely worked off, which in turn suggests it will become more difficult in the next 12 months for the consumer to keep up the level of consumption.  The consumer is responding by running up credit card debt at a record pace and will be paying extremely high interest rates to do so.  Running down cash and going deeply into debt with expensive credit may lengthen the expansion, but history shows that this condition does not end well when the economy slows.   Income is not guaranteed because employment is not guaranteed.  But debt stays on the books and must be either serviced, refinanced, or defaulted upon.

The chart above is for households.  Now, let us turn to the corporate sector.  Corporations we are told, have plenty of cash.  That is both true and misleading. The bulk of this cash is highly concentrated in the handful of giant tech companies that have been responsible for about 90% of the stock gains so far this year.  That means while cash in the aggregate is high, it is not well distributed.  Many weaker corporations will be forced to roll their debt forward and this chart shows that a huge amount of corporate debt must be refinanced just in the next few years.  That would not normally be a problem but today, corporations must roll their debt forward into an interest rate structure that is twice as expensive as they previously were.  Many of these corporations are only marginally profitable and do not have high-quality bond ratings.  This chart suggests that real pressure will be put on the marginal borrower in the next few years. Just like consumer debt, corporations are not guaranteed profits but their debt stays on the books.  It must be either refinanced, paid off, or defaulted upon.  It would not be surprising to see a rising rate of corporate bankruptcies.  There are early indications this process may already be underway.  

Corporate bankruptcies are already up better than 23% so far this year.  Just this past August set a new monthly record for corporate bankruptcy filings.  This stress, of course, has the potential to spread.  One corporation failing to meet its obligations to another can get both in trouble.  And it goes without saying, corporations employ people and bankruptcies can lead to layoffs.  Trouble in corporate finance, as we saw with regional banks, can accelerate and come out of seemingly nowhere.

Years of zero-interest rate policies have created a large number of distortions in the housing market.  Housing is where the bulk of household savings resides.  Rising interest rates are driving “housing affordability” to record lows.  The combination of rising real estate prices and mortgage payments is pricing many people out of the market.  People in those wonderful 3% mortgages cannot move, because it would cause their payments to more than double.  This has frozen up “existing home” sales which are down about 17%.  Existing homes are now more expensive than new homes, just constructed by developers. But among the worst distortions is the cost to rent is now way below the cost to buy.  This could eventually cause prices for homes to sag or for rents to skyrocket.  Notice too, whether it is causation or correlation, the last time this relationship was this severe was just before the last great housing bust.

The Leading Economic Indicators are a composite of “leading” indicators that historically have given advance (hence leading versus lagging) warnings of trouble in the economy. Again, please note the shaded areas are periods of economic recession.  They now have been down 16 months in a row, much longer than normal before the recession actually arrived.  This is the third longest period since 1960 so we are now in the extreme range of this reading. Only the crash of 1973-74 and the 2008 Great Financial Crisis have seen a longer period of negative LEI numbers.  It is always possible we will see an exception to the rule, but with some of the other indicators we have just noted, to bet we will avoid a recession seems like a poor probability wager.  However, as always, the timing of a recession is extremely difficult to predict.

While betting we will avoid a recession seems based on the data to be a poor bet, that is exactly the bet being taken by the vast majority of people.  The positive action of the stock market, the willingness of consumers both to spend and run up credit card debt, and the popularity now of a “soft landing” outcome, suggest that most people are ignoring the implication of the charts previously shown. The stock market itself seems to behave as if recession is highly unlikely.  It usually discounts the economy anywhere from six months to a year ahead, and its very positive story has many complacent. Our concern is that with so many people leaning into the optimistic outcome, they may not be prepared if they get surprised.  And, they may be relying on an indicator (the stock market) that has been so distorted by a handful of giant tech companies, that it may be losing its predictive capabilities.

However, many Wall Street firms now doubt we will have a recession.  One very prominent banking house (Goldman Sachs) now puts the odds at about 15%.

Whatever the case, we live in a strange time where the bifurcation between the stock market and bond market has never been worse (bonds have had the worst 4-year return on record) and the stock market also seems disconnected from some of our best predictive tools, such as the inverted yield curve and the Leading Economic Indicators.

Given the clash between some of these indicators and particularly the stock market market, it suggests one or the other has got it wrong.

What do you think are the indicators that have it right, and those that have it wrong?

Finally, we would be remiss if we did not mention oil prices.  Oil prices are now back to where they were a year ago, over $84 per barrel.  They are up about 30% just over the past few months, this despite the Biden Administration selling our Strategic Petroleum Reserve down to just 20 days supply, a completely irresponsible thing to do given the current war situation in Europe and the chance for escalation.  Having reached such a low level, the SPR can no longer be used by the Administration to create short-term relief for consumers. Meanwhile, the same administration is doing everything to depress US production as they appear completely within the grip of environmental extremists who will not consider any no trade-offs with their anti-carbon agenda.  Rising oil prices translate not into just the price of fuel, but that of plastics, and over 6,000 other products made from petroleum.  Moreover, rising gasoline prices and diesel fuel raise the cost of agriculture and the cost of transporting goods.  This adds to inflation and takes money out of the family budget which is already being squeezed by rising food, rent, and medical costs.  The higher inflation goes, the more difficult it is for the Federal Reserve to back off from its interest rate increases. This all combines to make it even more difficult for the consumer to continue his spending spree, which has been supporting the economy.

Many now believe there will be no recession or that at worst it will be delayed.  For many, it is a case of choosing whatever indicator best makes your point and helps you make the sale. We hope we are not guilty of that, and we are not selling anything.  Notice we concentrated on things that really impact consumers: interest rates, available cash, oil prices, and housing. Consumer spending is 70% or more of GDP so what influences consumer behavior is important. Moreover, the charts above continue to suggest that the economy is not balanced right now and is flashing signals that in the past have been very reliable indicators.  Caution continues to be warranted. We would rather be prepared for a recession, and not have one, than vice versa.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Masters Considers Run For Sinema’s U.S. Senate Seat thumbnail

Masters Considers Run For Sinema’s U.S. Senate Seat

By Cameron Arcand

Arizona Republican Blake Masters is considering another bid for the United States Senate, which could pave the way for a competitive primary race.

The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that Masters was considering a bid for the seat currently held by Independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, who left the Democratic Party last year. On the Democratic side, Congressman Ruben Gallego is the only major contender for the nomination, and he raised a noteworthy $3.1 million quarter.

However, Republicans have a much less clear situation when it comes to their field of candidates. Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb is the only major declared candidate, but others have waited to see whether or not former gubernatorial nominee Kari Lake decides to enter the race. Lake has repeatedly said she’s considering the possibility.

Shortly after the story broke, the Arizona Democratic Party was quick to jump in with their thoughts on the potential development in the race.

“The Arizona Senate race is rapidly becoming the GOP’s worst nightmare,” Arizona Democratic Party Senior Communications Advisor Olivia Taylor-Puckett said in a statement.

Lake and Masters essentially ran as a ticket in the 2022 midterm election, and they campaigned together alongside Secretary of State nominee Mark Finchem and Attorney General nominee Abe Hamadeh. Lamb also campaigned in support of the Republican nominees, including joining the slate at the southern border days before the election.

All four of them lost to their Democratic opponents, with Hamadeh coming the closest, as a recount determined he lost by 280 votes.

Masters conceded his race to Sen. Mark Kelly in November, whereas the others fought their results in court. While Lake and Masters were seemingly in lockstep during the general election, signs of dissent amongst them both appeared on social media last week.

When Masters was promoting an audio event known on X, formerly known as Twitter, Lake criticized him for staying out of the spotlight recently.

“I hope you bring up election fraud, and Election crime. You’ve been quite silent. And “Dr” Andrew doesn’t think it exists,” she posted, also critiquing the host of the event.

As for the incumbent Sinema, she has yet to formally announce whether or not she will pursue re-election.

*****

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

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Institutional Racism:  Fact or Fiction? thumbnail

Institutional Racism: Fact or Fiction?

By Craig J. Cantoni

The wrong answer has resulted in the wrong public policies.

A popular narrative is that institutional racism explains why African Americans, as a group, on average, experience higher poverty rates, lower test scores, fewer advancement opportunities, worse health outcomes, higher arrest rates, longer prison sentences, fewer housing options, and higher rates of being victims of crime.

But is it true that institutional racism is the cause?

The answer depends on whether the reference is to the past or the present.  It’s one thing to say that the legacies of past institutional racism are still negatively affecting Blacks.  It’s quite another to say that institutional racism still exists.

The latter belief leads to a logical conclusion: that racism won’t be stopped until America’s institutions are overhauled or overturned.

A corresponding belief in some quarters is that America’s institutions are built on White privilege and such White values and traditions as capitalism, individualism, merit, the Protestant work ethic, two-parent families, and even the rules of grammar and math.  This leads to another logical conclusion:  that institutional racism won’t end until White privilege and norms are replaced with non-White ones, whatever those might be.

Only a fool would claim that today’s Blacks don’t suffer from the legacies of past institutional racism—from the horrors of slavery and Jim Crow, from voting restrictions, from redlining, from being excluded from trade unions, from other employment discrimination, from separate and unequal schools, and from other institutional forms of discrimination.

To claim that such legacies don’t still affect Blacks socioeconomically today is to believe that there is something inherently or genetically deficient with Blacks that accounts for their socioeconomic disadvantages.  That tracks with the original definition of racism:  a belief that a given race or ethnic group is, by nature, inferior or deficient in some way.  It’s exactly how the KKK saw Blacks and how White supremacists still see them.  (It’s also how the Black Panthers saw Whites and how some Black radicals and White intellectuals see Whites today).

While it’s foolish to claim that Blacks don’t suffer from the legacies of past institutional racism, it’s just as foolish to claim that America’s institutions are not dramatically different from what they used to be.  Reforms to address the effects of slavery and Jim Crow have significantly changed American institutions, including the institutions of politics, government, education, media, and industry. 

Among other reforms, the nation adopted constitutional amendments to further equal rights, passed civil rights legislation and voting rights legislation, conducted the War on Poverty, pursued the dream of the Great Society, established the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, sanctioned affirmative action programs through the establishment of the Office of Federal Contract Compliance, gave preferential loans and contracts to minority businesses through the Minority Business Development Agency, encouraged outreach and diversity initiatives to further the hiring and promotion of Blacks and other so-called minorities, and spent trillions of dollars on a plethora of social welfare programs.

Not only do institutions now vigorously compete with each other to land Blacks for key positions, but Americans voted a Black into the highest office in the land.  And in the deep South, in the heart of the former Confederacy, a Black prosecutor has indicted a White former president.

Institutional racism?  Hardly.

Of course, racism and racial prejudices still exist, primarily at the individual level but rarely at the institutional level.  Racial disparities in outcomes also continue to exist.  But despite what many race activists claim, unequal outcomes are not prima facie evidence of institutional racism.  If unequal outcomes were prima facie evidence, then the fact that more than 30 million Whites live in poverty would be evidence of institutional racism.  Further evidence would be the fact that East Indian Americans rank higher in income than White Americans.

Overlooked in the claims of institutional racism are the deleterious effects of misguided social programs, especially those that have fueled an increase in fatherless families, which in turn has generated an array of socioeconomic problems and pathologies.  Not to turn this into a partisan commentary, but progressives in particular tend to deny this cause and effect, perhaps because they were the driving force behind the programs.          

In any event, just as poorly designed social programs have resulted in negative unintended consequences, the belief that institutional racism is still a root problem results in public policies with negative unintended consequences.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Are We Facing Lockdowns 2.0? thumbnail

Are We Facing Lockdowns 2.0?

By Jeffrey Tucker

National Public Radio was in a frenzy this morning but it felt like the movie Groundhog Day: they were spreading tremendous alarm about the rise of Covid cases. We have to stop the spread, the announcer said, and that’s why masks are coming back to classrooms. However, they added, relief is on the way in the form of a new vaccine.

Rinse, repeat – as the shampoo bottles say.

This line of thinking – stop the spread to reduce strain on hospitals, mask up, and so on – is being echoed by all major media organs. Leading the way is of course the New York Times. 

I’m a bit superstitious about stories in the New York Times designed to drum up disease panic. It was February 28, 2020, when this paper threw out one hundred years of editorial policy on infectious disease to counsel panic over calm, thus paving the way for what would come two weeks later: the astonishing wreckage of Covid lockdowns and everything that entailed.

There was a reason the Times was chosen to be the first media outlet to take this line on Covid. It would be exceedingly naive to think that this was driven by an independent editorial judgment. Someone likely put them up to it.

Regardless, I knew that day that the darkness was falling, that this was likely the beginning of a grand experiment in public health that would not only fail to achieve its aims but also wreck American liberty and prosperity. After all, sectors of the ruling class had been gaming pandemics for twenty years. They needed to justify the endless hours and billions put into the grand project of pandemic planning.

The result was a calamity without precedent. We are nowhere near recovered. Substantial numbers of people today fear lockdowns far more than Covid, and for very good reasons. It was the crisis of our lives.

Even more striking, we’ve yet to have a reckoning. The people in charge today are the same people who did this or their direct successors. There have been no apologies but rather quite the reverse. They worked hard to codify lockdowns as the preferred policy for pandemics, and we have every reason to suspect that they will repeat the experience if they can get away with it.

That’s why my heart jumped a beat at the above-the-fold headline in the Times yesterday morning.

This happens at the same time we are getting more reports of new mask mandates, school closures, and the rollout of a new Covid vaccine invented by the usual suspects that President Biden has personally suggested that every American take. From all appearances, it does seem like another lockdown could be coming, or perhaps they are just trying to scare us into the reminder that they can do it if they want to.

Just this morning, the White House spokesman took to the lectern to warn Americans about ominous subvariant BA.2.86, not to be confused with all the other subvariants being tracked in a pseudoscientific track-and-trace operation being run by the usual suspects.

The Washington Post was chosen to announce the terror behind this one. “While only about a dozen cases of the new BA.2.86 variants have been reported worldwide — including three in the United States — experts say this variant requires intense monitoring and vigilance that many of its predecessors did not. That’s because it has even greater potential to escape the antibodies that protect people from getting sick, even if you’ve recently been infected or vaccinated.”

You will notice that BA.2.86 is not on the current list. That only means it could be the worst yet, whatever that means.

It will surely be added. And no doubt every commentator on TV in the coming months will have great expertise with all this coded gibberish, spouting off these letters and numbers like they are known friends while the rest of us stare at our screen in amazement at the flashy science these experts are tossing around.

Our pro-lockdown friend and Pfizer board member Scott Gottlieb is already at it, letting all these subvariant names roll off his tongue on CNN and thus display his astonishing mastery over the microbial kingdom.

This could be the way in which Lockdown 2.0 will be different from 1.0. The last time, the main spokespeople like Deborah Birx spoke to us like children to make sure we got the message. The downside of that approach is that it invites regular people to comment on the wisdom of lockdowns.

The next time around, they will be much more sciency about it, with all this talk of subvariants, R-naughts, hospitalization rates, wastewater examinations, and so on, and do so in ways that intimidate regular people into thinking our opinions cannot possibly matter much. 

Let’s take a closer look at this New York Times piece.

“But for Americans who have become accustomed to feeling that the nation has moved beyond Covid,” the newspaper says, “the current wave could be a rude reminder that the emerging New Normal is not a world without the virus.”

Are we really continuing to imagine the goal of eradication still? That seemed to be the purpose of the lockdowns in the first place, if there was any goal at all. It’s utterly impossible to create a world in which there are no viruses. And actually, such a world would be stunningly dangerous, for it is the presence of pathogens that themselves train the immune system in the art of resistance, same as exercise makes the body more healthy.

Sadly, this was the great taboo subject for three years, and, as a result, there was almost no talk of natural immunity during the last Covid mania. And there has been little to no reckoning since those days about the meaning of endemicity, the failure to recommend repurposed drugs as therapeutics, and the positive contribution of widespread exposure to creating the public health benefit of stronger immune systems. All of these topics were denounced and then censored. Oddly, they still are.

To this day, public health officials continue to pretend that they did everything right. Oh sure, they could have locked down earlier, forced masks earlier, and imposed vaccine mandates with much more ferocity. So far as they are concerned, this was their only failing. And they have no intention of making those supposed mistakes again.

In my own circles, everyone believes that they will never get away with it all again simply because there is too much resistance. I’m not so optimistic actually. Let’s say that 20 percent of the population is still convinced of the entire Covid religion. These people working with media and Big Tech, combined with daily propaganda from Covid, might be enough to overcome a large portion of the public that swears they will not comply this time.

Honestly, I never believed they would get away with it the first time. How in the world do you convince Catholic Bishops to demand the closure of Churches on Easter under the excuse of the widespread circulation of a virus with a 99-plus percent survival rate in which the verified deaths from Covid alone is centered on a population older than life expectancy itself? I never could have imagined such a thing would be possible.

But the desire on the part of aspirational professionals – in academia, industry, and religion – to stay out of trouble and continue to ascend the ranks is so powerful as to cause multitudes to bury their best instincts for what they imagine will be a temporary but prudent compliance. I do not for a moment believe that bravery on the level of the Amish or the Hasidim is widespread enough in the population to create a mass resistance movement.

“Some institutions have responded to the recent increase in Covid infections by reinstating pandemic-era rules,” writes the Times. Then the article proceeds to celebrate all the cases of pandemic restrictions, without a hint that these didn’t work last time and won’t work this time either. Again, there has been no reckoning, which only increases the likelihood of a new round of lockdowns.

Lockdowns were the most successful state/corporate policy in world history for convincing the population to give up volition, liberty, and money to the biomedical cartels and all their associated parts. 

Every government benefitted and so did all the biggest companies, particularly the digital ones that had been working for a leg up and a big win from the great reset. Something that is this monstrously successful for them becomes a model for the future, which they try and try until the population gets utterly and completely sick of it, as they did with the religious wars of old.

Until that day comes, lockdowns will be an ever-present threat.

*****

This article was published by the Brownstone Institute and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Arizona News: September 6, 2023 thumbnail

Arizona News: September 6, 2023

By The Editors

The Prickly Pear will provide current, linked articles about Arizona consistent with our Mission Statement to ‘inform, educate and advocate’. We are an Arizona based website and believe this information should be available to all of our statewide readers.

Masters considers run for Sinema’s U.S. Senate seat

Guilty pleas secured in election-related cases in Georgia and Arizona

Arizona Permanent Land Endowment Trust Fund Hits Record

AZ Department Of Housing Will Not Enforce Homeless Housing Provision In Contract With Scottsdale

Arizona Legislator: COVID-19 “Mandates Won’t Be Happening Here In Arizona”

ASU Survey Reveals Majority Of Arizonans, Californians, Texans Oppose ‘Trans Rights’

The Left’s Lawfare Subpoenas Against The Free Enterprise Club And Other Conservative Orgs Are A Direct Attack On Our First Amendment Rights

Keep Your Hands To Yourself

Don’t Let The Lockdown Artists Bring COVID Hysteria Back

Hobbs rolls back Ducey-era orders, allows for public employee vaccine requirement

56 Arizona Educators Face Discipline For Sexual Misconduct With Minors This Year

Small Businesses Find Some Relief In Legal Guardrails Placed On Legislation

Thompson Works To Rein In Ratepayer-Funded Incentives To Contractors

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

A Viable Realism and Revival Doctrine thumbnail

A Viable Realism and Revival Doctrine

By Vivek Ramaswamy

Washington, Monroe, and Nixon equals America First.

In his inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson famously summarized the thought of George Washington in what is now known as the Washington Doctrine: “Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” The last of the Founders to serve as president, James Monroe, formulated the Monroe Doctrine, in which he declared to the European powers that the Western Hemisphere would henceforth be the unique sphere of influence of the United States. Over a century later, with the United States having ascended to superpower status, Richard Nixon expanded the corpus of American foreign policy strategy with his own doctrine, which called for our allies to bear their own security burdens and provide the primary manpower for their own defense, with America serving as a defender of last resort.

In the years since Nixon formulated his doctrine, our country has moved from being one of two superpowers to ascendancy as the world’s sole superpower after the fall of the USSR. We squandered our post-Cold War opportunity to preserve that position through a bipartisan embrace of “democratic capitalism” with Communist China, on the false premise that we could spread democracy through capitalism by creating mutual economic codependence with China. Our mistaken posture towards Communist China led us over the last three decades to a new uncomfortable equilibrium, where the United States tenuously remains the world’s great superpower but our two great power rivals—China and Russia—are now working together in a way that threatens us. We must admit our mistakes, recognize our time, and adopt a revised strategic vision for our day aligned with reality rather than wistfully wishing the immediate post-Cold War order back into existence.

The Washington Doctrine provides apt inspiration for where to begin. I will lead our nation from the bloody follies of neoconservatism and liberal internationalism abroad towards a strategy that affirmatively defends our homeland. We will be Uncle Sucker no more. Rather than spending billions projecting power into global vacuums where our allies will not spend to maintain it themselves, we will put America First again—as George Washington urged—as we recalibrate and consider our true interests.

Nixon and Realism

Though I often pay tribute to George Washington, when it comes to foreign policy, the president I most admire is Richard Nixon. Against the chaotic backdrop of the 1960s, where battles over ideas spilled into the streets, Nixon asserted a cold and sober realism. He formulated peace in the Middle East, while maintaining only the lightest possible military footprint there. He declined to intervene in the subcontinental war between India and Pakistan, while still demonstrating naval deterrence. He got us out of Vietnam. Most importantly, he recognized the unique threat posed by the Soviet Union. In China, he saw the greatest butcher of the 20th century, Mao Zedong. Yet rather than counting Mao’s crimes or launching a moralistic push for his downfall, he understood that Mao was the driver of the Sino-Soviet split. Nixon could never trust Mao to be a great leader or a saint, but he could trust him to act in his nation’s own interests. Thus it was that Nixon went to China and changed the Cold War forever.

If only Nixon could have seen the giveaways future administrations would offer to China. He was wary of the Chinese and believed they would become a great power and a great threat by the 21st century, but he could not have imagined that a whole generation of American leaders would help them do it—“useful idiots,” in communist parlance. In his day, many useful idiots populated the foreign-policy establishment, and he rejected their influence. Under Nixon’s leadership, the engines of state were turned from universalist language to, as he put it, driving local actors to take the “primary responsibility of providing the manpower for [their] defense.”

As U.S. president, I will respect and revive Nixon’s legacy by rejecting the bloodthirsty blather of the useful idiots who preach a no-win war in Ukraine that forces our two great power foes ever closer. The longer the war in Ukraine goes on, it becomes ever clearer that there is only one winner: China. I will lead America from moralism to realism by executing the inverse of what Nixon did in 1972: I will go to Moscow in 2025. I will deliver peace in Ukraine under the only terms that should matter to us—terms that put American interests first. The Biden administration has foolishly tried to get Xi to dump Putin. In reality, we should get Putin to dump Xi.

A good deal requires all parties to get something out of it. To that end, I will accept Russian control of the occupied territories and pledge to block Ukraine’s candidacy for NATO in exchange for Russia exiting its military alliance with China. I will end sanctions and bring Russia back into the world market. In this way, I will elevate Russia as a strategic check on China’s designs in East Asia.

With the same realist candor, I will admit that it is unacceptably dangerous that so much of our way of life is dependent upon Chinese manufacturing and Taiwanese semiconductors. I will declare economic independence from China. I will demand fairness in our trading relations with them. There will be no more industrial espionage and theft through forced “technology transfers” or other political favors as a condition for U.S. companies expanding into China, or else I will take swift action to punish China and to bar U.S. businesses from engaging in such behaviors. I will incentivize American companies to move supply chains away from China and rebase them in allied markets, especially in our own hemisphere, and I will use trade deals as the main way to do it. The key to so many supply chains is the semiconductor, and here, I will work with American industry to make certain our country achieves semiconductor independence.

Monroe and Security

If Nixon taught us how to approach more distant foreign policy, it is Monroe who teaches us how to handle security and relations with our near-abroad in the Western Hemisphere. His doctrine has driven American grand strategy since the 1800s. I do not want to change Monroe’s centrality; rather, I want to reinvigorate Monroe.

As we look at the Western Hemisphere today, we see encroachments that James Monroe would never have tolerated: Chinese spy balloons drifting over our heartland, Chinese spy bases in Cuba, Chinese ports near the Panama Canal. We must re-embrace the Monroe Doctrine and say that America comes First and that our hemisphere is not to be encroached by our adversaries.

Our foes abroad have sowed discord in our home hemisphere. Waves of leftism have roiled Latin America and created economic instability. Unstable states are unable to protect their own people, often leading to parallel states like the drug cartels that plague Mexico. These cartels are then used as foot soldiers by Chinese criminal enterprises that use them to push poisonous fentanyl into our country. In the form of both migrants and drugs, our border is under attack.

A safe Western Hemisphere makes for a safe America. To our foes who wish ill upon us and our hemispheric partners, I say keep your distance or you will be made to regret it. When I make that promise, I look especially at our U.S. Navy, which has fallen into sad decline but will be a key target of strategic investment for my administration. Meanwhile, to our hemispheric partners, I say, now is the time to invest in your own security and prosperity so that your people will have no desire to migrate.

Especially with regard to regional prosperity, I pledge that America will be a willing partner in the commerce Jefferson mentioned so long ago. We already have free trade agreements signed with twelve neighbors in our hemisphere, most especially the USMCA deal that covers our two most important trading partners in Mexico and Canada. Under my leadership, we will grow hemispheric trade to historic levels. We will pursue fair trade deals that will help create good-paying jobs both in the United States and in our neighboring nations, with an eye towards helping us to near-shore our supply chain and move it away from China.

My Foreign Policy Vision

With Nixon and Monroe firmly in hand, we can now move into application. Let us start with our great power rival, China, and the jewel of their near-abroad, Taiwan. We have operated in strategic ambiguity with regard to Taiwan for far too long. I will move to strategic clarity, by which I mean that China must understand that I will defend American interests in Taiwan. If Taiwan wants any partnership in their defense, then they will need to raise their defense spending and military readiness to acceptable levels. Meanwhile, I will commit to making sure Taiwan has the weapons they need for that defense, both from a sea-borne invasion, and in future, for a long-term insurgency against any occupying foreign force, if needed.

Aside from China, India is the key to our Indo-Pacific policy. I respect India’s realist tradition of non-alignment and equidistance, but I will nevertheless find ways to draw them closer to us and into regional leadership. Right now, India is the world’s largest arms importer, as well as a strong center for technology and engineering. The American defense industry needs time to grow and recover from decades of post-Cold War mismanagement. India can serve as a helpful partner in the meantime. We can use trade and tech transfer to unleash India’s tech and manufacturing might to not just arm India but other regional allies – to transform them from importer to exporter. In a similar way, I will pursue an AUKUS-style deal to share nuclear submarine technology and empower the Indian Navy. The result should be that if there is war in Taiwan, we can reliably depend on India to stand with us in a naval blockade of the Andaman Sea and Malacca Strait—the way of passage for China-bound oil supplies from the Middle East. This possibility alone will further deter China from invading Taiwan.

Elsewhere in Asia and Oceania, we must encourage other allies like Japan, the Philippines, and Australia to expand their defense budgets. These countries and others, including European countries like France and the U.K., should be encouraged to invest in poorer regional countries to offset Chinese economic influence, including the Polynesian islands. France and the U.K. both retain possessions in the regions, and I will encourage them to reposition their naval forces and permanently garrison their Pacific protectorates with manpower and assets. If we are to stand with the Europeans on their continent, then we should feel no compunction in asking them to stand with us in Asia.

On the European continent, we must seek a finite NATO border and pledge no further territorial expansion. European manpower should be the primary defense of Europe’s frontiers, with America as a balancer of last resort. Since about 1960, the United States has averaged about 36 percent of allied GDP but more than 60 percent of allied defense spending. Uncle Sam should not serve as Uncle Sucker to Europe. While European and American interests remain aligned, our spending priorities are not. No longer will America subsidize European weakness. Standing in the way of this recounting is the NATO bureaucracy, which is prone to push liberal internationalist missions that are beyond the alliance’s core role. Just like with the American administrative state, the NATO bureaucracy is beyond repair and must be pared to the bone. I will refashion NATO as a strictly defensive military alliance, not an internationalist club that opines on the domestic politics of its members.

One of my great hopes is that the United States will need to concern itself with the Middle East far less than we have in the last century. Oil drew us into the internecine rivalries of this region. Time and again, we tried to pick winners and losers in lands torn by ancient hatreds that were impenetrable to us. In the past few years, the Middle East has settled into an uneasy equilibrium. The Abraham Accords stand as a shining achievement that delivered a peace previously unimaginable. Yet we must recognize what more than anything drove these accords: Israelis and Arabs working together out of necessity to counterbalance the power of Iranians. There’s no one single power that poses a hegemonic challenge in the region, and if and when there is, America will be there to resist. We have settled at an uneasy equilibrium, but it is an equilibrium nonetheless—any further intervention by the United States risks throwing this situation out of balance again. We should therefore return to the Nixonian wisdom of keeping a minimal footprint in a region beset by historic grievances that Americans neither can change nor should even try to change with social engineering, unless a major great power threat emerges.

My campaign, at its core, is about reestablishing American national identity. When my two terms have elapsed, Americans will have taken back their country from unelected elites. We will rightly experience national pride again. The better we Americans understand our national identity, the better the world will understand us too. I will be honest with our partners abroad as I will be with our own citizens: the U.S. government’s job is exclusively to represent the interests of Americans. I further contend that the better we Americans understand our national identity, the better the world will understand our international identity. We still seek peace, commerce, and friendship with all nations. We remain committed to our own sovereignty above any internationalist delusions that promise paradise on earth, even as we still seek peace, commerce, and friendship with other nations. We are one nation under God, cognizant of the fallenness of our world, resigned to approaching it with realism, and yet enlivened with the certainty that our own liberty and prosperity may animate hope in the hearts of peoples abroad of what is possible when the greatest nation founded on freedom is indeed the strongest version of itself at home.

*****

This article was published in The American Conservative and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

The U.S. Fiscal Ponzi Scheme: Enjoy The Sun While You Can thumbnail

The U.S. Fiscal Ponzi Scheme: Enjoy The Sun While You Can

By Ken Veit

There are few things as confusing as the concept of money. Thorough explanations quickly become bogged down in technical weeds. I am going to attempt to make this as simple as possible for the general reader. It will probably upset my more technically savvy financial friends, but let the chips fall where they may.

Perhaps the most fundamental concept in finance is the reality that the money you take in must equal the money you spend over some reasonable period. This applies to individuals, companies, and countries, although many believe that governments are somehow immune and can just spend and spend.

The real world of Finance Is made exceptionally complicated by the interaction of the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, and the banking system, as well as the relationship between cash money, bank deposits, digital currency, liabilities, inter-governmental agency transfers, and temporary overnight transactions.

Let’s simplify things by assuming the economy operates 100% in cash, the kind we carry in our wallets. When anyone buys something, they pay cash for it. (For practical reasons, that is not done, but it is theoretically possible, and it helps simplify the explanation of what is going on.) The seller takes the cash and either spend it or invests it. We all know that if an individual, a family, or a business habitually spends more than it earns, they will eventually go bankrupt. Somehow, that does not seem to apply to the Government although there are innumerable examples of sovereign defaults.

Most people are aware that the Government habitually spends a great deal more than it collects in taxes. How is this possible, year er year?

In the private sector, when you want to spend more than you earn, you can borrow, up to a point where no one will lend you any more money. The Government operates the same way, except that there seems to be no real limit to its borrowing. (The periodic “debt ceiling crisis” is political fiction, and everyone knows it, despite the automatic media frenzy.)

In my simplified all-cash world, taxpayers send taxes to the IRS which turns the money over to the Treasury to spend, based on what Congress has authorized. Inevitably, there is a shortfall, because the Treasury does not have enough cash to cover all the salaries, supplies, welfare, etc. that the Government is committed to paying. So, the Treasury borrows the deficit.

Stay with me now, because you have to pay attention in order to follow which walnut shell the pea is hiding under.

The Fed is an independent arm of the Government, but essentially it is a huge bank that finances the Treasury’s borrowing. In normal private banking, the lending bank provides money (in the form of credit) to the borrower and takes debt (bonds) in return. Since the Fed is not sitting on a pile of cash like a commercial bank, it simply creates the money out of thin air by allowing the Treasury to print what it needs. The Fed adds the Treasury’s new debt to the bank’s assets (known as “expanding its balance sheet”).

Unlike commercial banking, the Fed does not keep its books in balance by reducing its cash account, because it has not given any cash to the Treasury. (It just gives it a credit.) The Treasury’s balance sheet looks to be in balance because it adds the cash it has printed to its assets, but shows the debt it owes to the Fed as a liability (i.e., it increases the nation’s debt).

It should be noted that regular commercial banks also engage in creating money out of thin air by lending money it does not have on hand. However, the amount of “leverage” they are permitted to have in their balance sheet is strictly limited by law. In addition, banks expand credit on real production so the expansion of money is linked to the expansion of goods and services.  Banks also are examined regularly by government officials, are accountable to shareholders, and must comply with a host of securities laws and accounting practices.  There really is no one supervising the FED or the Treasury in the same sense as money creators in the private sector. When it comes to government “banking”, the question is always who supervises the supervisors.

What supervision there is most often performed by politicians who are not particularly knowledgeable and who often have a vested interest in the money expansion pursued by the FED, which finances the spending goals of the same politicians. It is not a system that leads to much if any control.

“Leverage” is a financial term that refers to the relationship between one’s assets and one’s net worth. For example, if you have a house worth $500,000 and a mortgage of $400,000, your equity is only $100,000, and your leverage is 5 to 1.  The more leverage you have, the more risk you are placing on your net worth since a small change in the value of your assets has a disproportionate effect on your equity (net worth). As leverage increases, lenders perceive that they are taking greater risks by lending more money to that borrower, with the result that they either refuse to lend more or only do so if they realize a higher interest rate return to compensate for the greater risk being assumed. Often this starts a negative feedback loop where higher risk leads to higher interest rates, which increases the risk of being unable to service the debt, which leads to still higher interest rates…..

The Treasury does not finance all of its deficit spending in this manner. It sells some portion of its new debt to the public or to foreign investors. However, it also engages in another activity that is a serious source of concern. It borrows from the huge Social Security Trust Funds. This is essentially the left-hand borrowing from the right-hand, much like a family borrowing from a child’s college education account to pay this month’s rent.

Since it began 90 years ago the Social Security System has collected far more in taxes than it has paid out in benefits, since only a small percentage of the population was retired until recently. If it operated like a proper insurance company, it would invest annual excess receipts in a diversified portfolio of assets. Instead, it only invests in U.S. Government debt. There are a number of reasons for this, mostly political, but in essence, it is investing in what amounts to Government promises to pay. The Government actually spends the cash Social Security collects in taxes, and in return gets Government bonds. Benefits are not funded primarily from accumulated reserves, but increasingly from current cash collections. This, of course, would make it a classical Ponzi scheme, except for the fact that the public trusts the Government’s promises.

Any lender has to ask whether they will get all the money they are owed. The more debt the Government owes, the greater the chance of default, although in the case of the U.S., there is little chance of actually not honoring its debts, notwithstanding periodic grandstanding threats in Congress.

The problem is that the appetite for lending money to the U.S. Government is shrinking as the borrowed funds are used for consumption (e.g., welfare) instead of activities that will lead to increased Government revenues. Interest rates have to be substantially increased in order to attract lenders.

What happens when investors are insufficient to cover the amounts the Treasury needs to borrow, and when Social Security funds are no longer a cheap source of Government financing? The answer is simple. Someone has to be screwed. Either taxes have to be raised or benefits reduced, both politically lethal choices for politicians. The only other choice is to reduce the real value of bond obligations via higher inflation, which screws both investors and the public but can be conveniently blamed on “the other party” (i.e., the one not in power). Since the true causes of inflation can be finessed due to the public’s ignorance, political costs may be deflected for a while.

A glib answer is given by those who argue that the Government can always just print more money, or that a new form of “money” like cryptocurrency will come along to save us. Those are just examples of management by hope, and they are usually proposed by those who either don’t understand how money works or whose personal interests are better served by keeping the public ignorant and confused. The politically popular strategy of alleviating the ravages of inflation by handing out “free” Government money is a cruel way of buying off the anger of the masses in the short term but with negative long-term consequences.

Let’s pause and see where we are in our example

  • The Government meets its immediate cash needs.
  • The economy has benefited in the short term from the stimulus resulting from the excess Government spending.
  • The Fed has increased its leverage, causing investors to worry about the U.S.’ financial stability. Interest rates rise accordingly.
  • Investors who bought the bonds lose value as interest rates rise. (A bond paying 3% interest is worth less when interest rates rise above 3%.)
  • Taxpayers enjoy a currently booming economy but at the cost of higher future taxes being required.
  • The solvency of the Social Security System is further imperiled by its already dangerous condition.

As my friend Art Klee once put it, “We are like people trapped on an iceberg in polar regions, floating toward the Equator, but enjoying the sun.”

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Wealthy Democrats Aided And Abetted The Biden Border Crisis, Now They’re Whining About It thumbnail

Wealthy Democrats Aided And Abetted The Biden Border Crisis, Now They’re Whining About It

By John Daniel Davidson

Amid the scrum of news this week about Democrat-led schemes to put former President Donald Trump on trial during the GOP primaries and rig the 2024 election in plain sight, you might have missed a cautionary tale out of New York City, where Democrat millionaires are whining about a migrant crisis they helped create.

A group of more than 120 executives, including Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase, Larry Fink of BlackRock, and Jane Fraser of Citigroup, sent a letter to the Biden administration and congressional leaders asking for more federal aid to New York, to help with what they call “the humanitarian crisis that has resulted from the continued flow of asylum-seekers into our country.

Credit where credit is due: These wealthy New York executives seem to have figured out the connection between huge numbers of illegal immigrants — sorry, “asylum-seekers” — and the humanitarian crisis that always follows.

It’s a connection many of us made years ago, back when massive waves of illegal immigrants were overrunning Texas border towns and gathering in sprawling makeshift encampments along the north banks of the Rio Grande. Unable to house or even properly process these people, federal border officials resorted to dropping them off at bus stations in places like McAllen and Del Rio, Texas — relatively small towns with few resources to cope with the thousands of illegal immigrants released from federal custody, sometimes on a daily basis.

But so long as the chaos and crisis stayed in south Texas, Democrats in deep-blue enclaves like New York, Chicago, and Los Angeles were happy to tut-tut anyone who claimed there was a problem at the border or suggested that maybe we should do something to stop the flow of illegal border-crossers. If you complained or proposed solutions, you were a racist — just like those Border Patrol horsemen with their “whips.” How dare they try to stop foreigners from illegally entering the country right in front of them?

But now that hotels and shelters are filled to overflowing in these cities, now that the crisis has come directly to open-border Democrats’ homes and places of work, wealthy urban elites want the government to do something about it. (A New York Times story this week mentioned that new arrivals are being forced to sleep outside over-capacity shelters, including one at the Roosevelt Hotel in Midtown, “just blocks away from JPMorgan’s offices.”)

The New York letter, whose list of signatories includes people like Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla and Wells Fargo CEO Charles Scharf, ends with a plea to Washington “to take immediate action to better control the border and the process of asylum and provide relief to the cities and states that are bearing the burdens posed by the influx of asylum seekers.”

Of course, to hear White House flack Karine Jean-Pierre tell it, President Biden is controlling the influx of migrants at the border and, in fact, has stopped the flow! She actually said that this week, even though as Bill Melugin of Fox News was quick to point out, it’s completely false.

Leaving aside idiotic White House spin, do the wealthy letter-signers of New York realize that one very effective way to “better control the border” is for state and local law enforcement to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement to ensure illegal immigrants under an order of deportation by an immigration judge are actually deported? Do they know that kind of enforcement is a powerful deterrent to would-be illegal border-crossers abroad, and lack of such enforcement is a powerful pull factor that encourages more illegal immigration?

It would seem they do not. These are the same people, after all, who tacitly supported a 2019 law making it much easier for illegal immigrants to get a driver’s license in New York, thus shielding them from detection, while also prohibiting ICE and CBP from accessing New York DMV records.

Did the current Democratic mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, support this policy when it was introduced four years ago? He was a state senator for years; surely he knew about it. Today, Mayor Adams says that any plan to address the migrant crisis in his city that does not involve stopping the flow of illegal immigration at the border “is a failed plan.”

I hate to be the one to break it to him, but stopping the flow of illegal immigration at the border means taking away the incentives for people to illegally cross the border in the first place. Making it easy for illegal immigrants to get a driver’s license, for example, while helping to shield them from federal immigration authorities, is a recipe for more, not less, illegal immigration.

New York is of course only one state among many that have passed such laws. Indeed, a vast illegal immigrant sanctuary network has sprung up nationwide in recent years among blue cities, states, and counties that have enacted laws, ordinances, regulations, and policies that hinder immigration enforcement and shield criminal aliens from ICE.

Still, even amid the crisis, with migrant families sleeping on the streets of New York and other major cities, blue-state elites don’t quite seem to grasp what’s happening, which is why they aren’t demanding deportation but better processing and expedited work permits for “asylum-seekers” — policies that do nothing but provide more and stronger incentives for migrants to enter the United States illegally.

And make no mistake: Would-be migrants are acutely aware of the incentives and disincentives at work here. As Todd Bensman of the Center for Immigration Studies noted in a recent interview, “All U.S.-bound immigrants pay very, very close, almost academic attention, to any and all policy pronouncements uttered or implemented by American leaders about immigration. They also pay close attention to news of all immigration-related court rulings. The reason they are so disciplined is because this or that policy or court ruling either makes illegal entry easier or harder.”

Which means, in turn, that surges in illegal border crossings of the kind we’ve seen since Biden took office — a record 2.3 million border arrests last year and on track for the same or greater this year — are driven almost entirely by policy decisions coming out of Washington, D.C., and legal rulings from the federal judiciary.

If New York millionaire Democrats paid half as much attention to border policy as illegal immigrants do, maybe they’d grasp what’s going on at the border, and why. Maybe they could then start to make sense of the anger and frustration of working- and middle-class residents of their cities, who increasingly show up at public meetings to express outrage at the migrant crisis. One woman, a Chicago resident speaking at a recent meeting about a migrant shelter in Hyde Park, was blunt about it: “I don’t want them there. Take them someplace else or send them back to Venezuela. I don’t care where they go. This is wrong. You got 73 percent of the people homeless in this city are black people. What have you done for them?”

Maybe, just maybe the wealthy elites who run our blue cities are beginning to wake up and realize that soon that woman’s question will be on the lips of every resident of New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and every other place where Democrats have helped create the conditions for this crisis.

Here’s hoping they can connect the dots. If they can’t, they can always go down to the local migrant shelter and have an asylum-seeker explain it to them.

*****

This article was published by The Federalist and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

The Richest Opponents of Carbon-Free Nuclear Energy thumbnail

The Richest Opponents of Carbon-Free Nuclear Energy

By Ken Braun

A new profile at InfluenceWatch for the Opposition to Nuclear Energy movement lists eleven anti-nuclear nonprofits that each individually have annual revenue in excess of $50 million. As shown in a previous essay, there are hundreds of left-leaning nonprofits that oppose the use of zero-carbon nuclear energy, including nearly all of the nation’s largest climate/carbon alarmist groups.

Their combined annual revenue exceeds $2.3 billion.

Nuclear power is America’s largest source of zero-carbon electricity, and second place isn’t even close. In 2022, according to the U.S. Department of Energy, nuclear provided 78 percent more electricity than wind turbines, 189 percent more power than hydro-electric dams, and 435 percent more than solar panels.

A nation that was serious about cutting carbon emissions could and should be building far more nuclear power stations.

It’s the cleanest of the “clean” energy sources. According to the Department of Energy, “nuclear energy produces more electricity on less land than any other clean-air source.” The Department of Energy notes the comparison is particularly apt for wind and solar because “wind farms require 360 times more land area to produce the same amount of electricity and solar photovoltaic plants require 75 times more space.”

The waste profile of nuclear power is tiny. According to the Department of Energy, “all of the used nuclear fuel produced by the U.S. nuclear energy industry over the last 60 years could fit on a football field at a depth of less than 10 yards!”

The fuel is plentiful. The Department of Energy also reports that uranium is “a common metal found in rocks all over the world.” And a 2009 Scientific American analysis projected that supplies found in seawater could keep nuclear reactors running for another 60,000 years.

Nuclear is also the safest major power source we have. In 2020, Our World in Data estimated that getting an equal amount of energy from nuclear fuel rather than other major other sources “results in 99.9% fewer deaths than brown coal; 99.8% fewer than coal; 99.7% fewer than oil; and 97.6% fewer than gas.”

These 11 American nonprofits known to have annual revenue in excess of $50 million are the vanguard of the opposition to the development of carbon-free nuclear energy.

World Wildlife Fund

The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) reported a total revenue of $381,636,162 for the year ending June 2022.

In April 2021, according to the WWF InfluenceWatch profile, the group registered its opposition to a final draft of proposed rules regarding what the European Union would consider “green taxonomy” energy investments. The World Wildlife Fund statement declared that “fossil fuels and nuclear power are unsustainable” and that the final rules needed “to make clear that gas and nuclear will not be part of the green taxonomy once and for all.” In March 2020, as recommendations were being made regarding the final draft, the WWF praised recommendations provided to the EU that “would rightfully put an end to polluting fossil fuels, nuclear and bioenergy being greenwashed.”

World Resources Institute

The World Resources Institute (WRI) reported a total revenue of $289,669,226 for the year ending September 2021.

In 2018, according to the WRI InfluenceWatch profile, the group hosted an awards ceremony honoring two activists credited with blocking the construction of a nuclear power plant in South Africa. A WRI news release praised the pair for a “victory that protected South Africa from an unprecedented expansion of the nuclear industry. . .”

EDF

The Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) reported a total revenue of $284,762,302 for the year ending September 2022.

In 2017, according to the EDF InfluenceWatch profile, the group advocated for the shutdown of a nuclear energy plant in New York. In 2016 EDF promoted the shutdown of the Diablo Canyon nuclear plant in California. The pro-nuclear Environmental Progress has accused EDF of “hypocrisy” because EDF advocated for taxpayer subsidies for wind and solar energy but opposed similar assistance for nuclear energy.

NRDC

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) reported total revenues of $186,185,838 for the year ending June 2022.

The NRDC Influence Watch profile shows the group has repeatedly supported the shutdown of nuclear power plants, including Diablo Canyon in California and Indian Point in New York.

Sierra Club

The Sierra Club reported total revenues of $152,093,074 for the year ending December 2021.

The InfluenceWatch profile for the Sierra Club shows that the group is one of the nation’s most strident opponents of nuclear power. The Sierra Club website has stated that nuclear power is “a uniquely dangerous energy technology for humanity” and that the “Sierra Club remains unequivocally opposed to nuclear energy.”

Rocky Mountain Institute

The Rocky Mountain Institute reported a total revenue of $116,983,377 for the year ending June 2022.

Amory Lovins, the RMI founder, has been an influential opponent of nuclear energy for nearly fifty years. The RMI InfluenceWatch profile quotes a 2011 RMI report written by Lovins, in which he asserted that nuclear power is “costly and dangerous and a poor alternative to renewable energy sources.” Lovins reiterated his criticisms of nuclear power in a July 2017 report for RMI.

Also covered in the InfluenceWatch profile for RMI is a February 2022 report on solutions to an energy shortage in Europe. Written by another RMI researcher, the report recommended that policymakers not look “backward to domestic fossil or large-scale nuclear,” criticized French and Dutch investments in nuclear energy, and proposed that all of Europe should instead invest heavily in alternative sources such as weather-dependent wind.

League of Conservation Voters

The League of Conservation Voters (LCV) reported total revenues of $114,796,662 for the year ending December 2021.

According to LCV’s InfluenceWatch profile, the group was one of more than 100 co-signatories on a November 2020 letter to the U.S. Senate that expressed opposition to S. 4897, the “American Nuclear Infrastructure Act of 2020.” The letter stated that nuclear power “amplifies and expands the dangers of climate change” and denounced it as an example of “false solutions to the climate crisis that perpetuate our reliance on dirty energy industries.”

NAACP

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) reported total revenue of $103,738,054 for the year ending December 2021.

The InfluenceWatch profile for the NAACP shows two examples of the group’s opposition to nuclear energy.

In 2018 the NAACP approved a resolution titled: “In Opposition to Nuclear and Fossil Fuel Technologies as Safe, Viable Alternatives to Renewable Energy.” The text of the resolution stated: “THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that, the NAACP stands in opposition to nuclear energy and attempts to avoid the much needed, inevitable energy transition by merely converting from one fossil fuel source to another…”

In May of 2021, the NAACP was one of 715 groups and businesses listed as a co-signer on a letter to the leadership of the U.S. House and Senate that referred to nuclear energy as a “dirty” form of energy production and a “significant” source of pollution.

Southern Environmental Law Center

The Southern Environmental Law Center (SELC) reported total revenues of $82,818,237 for the year ending March 2022.

The InfluenceWatch profile for SELC shows the group has repeatedly criticized and opposed nuclear power generation and promoted instead weather-dependent wind and solar energy systems. Examples of SELC’s anti-nuclear advocacy have occurred in Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia.

Dream Corps

Dream Corps reported a total revenue of $57,812,679 for the year ending December 2021.

Green for All is the climate policy project of Dream Corps. The Dream Corps profile on InfluenceWatch reports that Green for All was one of more than 600 co-signing organizations on a January 2019 open letter to Congress that denounced nuclear power as an example of “dirty energy” that should not be included in any legislation promoting the use of so-called “renewable energy.”

Movement Strategy Center

The Movement Strategy Center reported a total revenue of $57,326,783 for the year ending June 2022.

The MSC profile on InfluenceWatch features quotes from a January 2015 report produced jointly by MSC that criticized nuclear energy and carbon capture technology as examples of “false solutions” to the challenge of creating low-carbon and carbon-free energy sources. The same report praised the work of left-leaning advocates in India who were opposing nuclear power and zero-carbon hydro-electric dams.

*****

This article was published by Capital Research and is reproduced with permission.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Curse of Easy Money: US Government Interest Payments v. Tax Receipts, Average Interest on Treasury Debt, & Debt to GDP thumbnail

Curse of Easy Money: US Government Interest Payments v. Tax Receipts, Average Interest on Treasury Debt, & Debt to GDP

By Wolf Richter

Spiking Interest payments will hopefully, knock on wood, force the drunken sailors in Washington to go through detox.

The gigantic US government debt is now approaching $33 trillion, amid a tsunami of issuance of Treasury securities to fund the mind-blowing government deficits and roll over maturing securities. At the same time, the Fed has hiked its policy rates where borrowing with short-term Treasury bills costs the government now close to 5.5% in interest, and borrowing longer-term costs over 4%.

But, the higher interest rates that the government pays now apply only to the new Treasury securities to fund the new deficits and to replace maturing securities with lower rates. The securities issued years ago will cost the government whatever coupon interest they came with until they mature.

So the average interest rate that the government is paying on all its interest-bearing debt has been ticking up gradually from the historic low point of 1.57% in February 2022 to 2.84% in July. And it will continue to rise as new securities with higher interest rates take on a larger share. Back in 2001, the average interest rate was over 6%:

To what extent do interest payments eat up tax revenues?

So first the primary measure of the burden of the national debt on government finances, and then into the components: The chart below shows interest expense as a percent of tax revenues. This measure of tax revenues – total tax revenues minus contributions to social insurance and some other factors – was released today by the Bureau of Economic Analysis as part of its GDP revision. This is what’s available to pay for regular government expenditures, including interest expense.

The ratio of interest expense as a percent of tax revenues spiked to 36.2% in Q2, up from 33.0% in Q1, and up from 20.9% a year ago, a huge jump in just one year.

  • The ratio (36.2%) is back where it had been in Q1 1997
  • In Q1 2022, the ratio had dropped to 19.3%, lowest since 1969.
  • Between 1983 and 1993, the ratio ranged from 45% to 52%. Oh, those crazy times! Eventually, it triggered a lot of fretting, including in Congress.

Detox not yet. As we saw back when interest expense ate nearly half of the federal tax revenues in the 1980s through the early 1990s, a high-interest burden might be the only discipline available that will sober up our drunken sailors in Congress. But I’m not taking any bets on it. Drunken sailors don’t want to sober up. Free booze for this long is a terrible thing. Hard to detox…..

*****

Continue reading this article at Wolf Street.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

COVID-19 Lies and What to Do About Them thumbnail

COVID-19 Lies and What to Do About Them

By Kurt Mahlburg

The fall of Fauci and the unraveling narrative about COVID-19’s origins is something of a slow-motion train wreck.

As recently as 2021, White House Chief Medical Advisor and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci was hailed as a national hero and an icon of science.

To be fair, Fauci did much of the hailing. “I represent science,” he infamously boasted on CBS’s Face the Nation. Just months earlier, he had assured MSNBC host Chuck Todd, “Attacks on me quite frankly are attacks on science.”

Now Fauci is the subject of an official Department of Justice criminal referral by Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky. Senator Paul has credibly accused Fauci of lying to Congress about his use of U.S. taxpayer dollars to fund risky gain-of-function research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

As for COVID-19’s origins, until recently, every man and his dog was accused of spreading misinformation—and was silenced on social media—for suggesting the virus came from the Wuhan lab.

We now know from the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence that “all agencies continue to assess that both a natural and laboratory-associated origin remain plausible hypotheses to explain the first human infection.” The lab leak theory remains the FBI’s favored explanation for the origins of the pandemic and, after much kicking and screaming, one that many mainstream news outlets finally acknowledge as a possibility.

Most damning of all is the trove of emails and other memos sent between Fauci and his co-conspirators that have been forced out into the light of day thanks to Freedom of Information Act requests.

Perhaps the most influential peer-reviewed paper on COVID-19’s origins was “The proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2,” published in Nature Medicine on March 17, 2020.

The paper argued COVID-19 “is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.” Its authors penned public emails and appeared in interviews denouncing the lab leak hypothesis as “crackpot” and “conspiracy theories.”

The only problem?

In private communications, every one of the paper’s five authors feared that SARS-CoV-2—the virus that brought the world to a standstill for two years—may in fact have leaked from the Wuhan lab.

These eminent scientists consciously misled the world, publishing dogged claims they secretly questioned.

*****

Continue reading this article at Intellectual Take Out.

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.

Is the Fair Tax in Our Future?“ thumbnail

Is the Fair Tax in Our Future?“

By Dr. Thomas Patterson

Critics of Donald Trump once counted tax evasion among his many faults. But it turned out that he wasn’t breaking any tax laws. He was simply utilizing the complex web of exemptions, deductions and other rules available to reduce his tax bill to near zero.

It would be hard to imagine a worse tax system than our federal government’s. It is based on taxing economic productivity which in a free market system benefits us all. Politicians use taxation not only to generate revenue but to pursue a grab bag of policies ranging from welfare programs to “climate change”, home ownership and subsidization of state and local taxes.

The tax code is hopelessly complex and expensive to operate. Individuals and businesses spend around $37 billion and over 3 billion hours annually in tax compliance, up to 10 times as much as taxpayers in other wealthy countries.

Phil Gramm was right 25 years ago to suggest that the best option would be to scrap our entire tax system and replace it with a single national sales tax. He didn’t succeed, of course, but the concept is so sound it still remains active in academia, think tanks and government white-papers.

Representative Buddy Carter introduced the Fair Tax Act of 2023 in Congress this year and was promised a floor vote. This bill would eliminate all personal and corporate income taxes, payroll taxes for Medicare and Social Security, estate and gift taxes as well as the Internal Revenue Service itself.

Instead there would be an effective 30% consumption tax, but households would get a tax rebate check each month adjusted for family size and income.  The rebate would have the effect of exempting all purchases up to the poverty line from taxation. The tax rate and rebates could be adjusted to make the tax revenue neutral and roughly as progressive as our current structure.

Still, Democrats and their media buddies immediately attacked the proposal as “ tax cuts for the rich, period” and a “ Republican dream to build a wealth aristocracy.” Even the Wall Street Journal criticized it on political grounds, worrying that even though it “made sense”, it might hand Democrats a juicy campaign issue.

But its critics, perhaps intentionally, misunderstand the bill. Americans would not on the net pay more taxes, Nor would low income earners be punished. The tax burden wouldn’t grow but only be redistributed.

Outsized deductions and other tax shelters would vanish, meaning the ultra-wealthy and the big spenders would pay taxes more appropriate to their incomes. Savers would obviously benefit. Investments could grow tax-free.

Some critics argue that tax evasion would be a problem. But that’s true of any tax scheme, including the one we have now. The IRS estimates that America’s underpay their taxes by $500 billion annually, in addition to the billions of fraudulent claims in programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit.

The Fair Tax wouldn’t have to be perfect to be more efficient and less cumbersome than our current system of self-reporting buttressed with audits. Avoiding the stressful hassles with the IRS would be a welcome relief to many Americans.

A more substantial concern is that future legislatures may try to augment the consumption tax by adding back income and other taxes so that we end up with the worst of both worlds. A constitutional amendment prohibiting an income tax would be preferable. Otherwise, careful consideration must be given to rigid self-activating safeguards to protect taxpayers.

The Fair Tax has never passed because of political opposition from groups that have too much to lose by giving up the status quo. Yet if government wants to subsidize things like housing, electric vehicles or healthcare, it would be more transparent and accountable to appropriate the money rather than disguising it as a tax deduction or credit. Likewise, if Americans want to financially support charitable causes, and they do, they should do it with their own money, not a partial government subsidy that comes with strings attached.

Tax reforms are always opposed by those who benefit from the current structure. But the Fair Tax would be a far more equitable and transparent way to fund government. It deserves a look.  

TAKE ACTION

As we move through 2023 and into the next election cycle, The Prickly Pear will resume Take Action recommendations and information.