by | BIDEN, BLOG, ECONOMY, HYPOCRISY
Biden told one of the biggest whoppers of his presidency during a speech today when he went after oil and gas companies and accused them of “war profiteering” after companies posted record profits. But what he purposefully left out was the fact that his own war on energy has directly contributed to the situation. Don’t forget that Biden once vowed to “end fossil fuels”.
It is laughable that Biden chastised Exxon, Shell, and other companies, saying “They have a responsibility to act in the interest of their consumers, their community and their country, to invest in America by increasing production and refining capacity” when one of his very first acts of his presidency was to cancel the permit on the Keystone pipeline so that it came to a screeching halt.
One week after taking office, he delivered on his campaign promises to ban “new oil and gas permitting on public lands and waters” by signing an Executive Order doing just that.
Emboldened by Biden’s alternative energy push, three Democrats submitted the “Fossil Free Finance Act” to Congress in September 2021, which would have ordered “the Fed to take unprecedented steps meant to steer financial support away from oil, gas, coal and companies by unraveling banks who refuse to comply.”
Likewise, Biden pushed for Sarah Bloom Raskin to be named to the Federal Reserve Board until she withdrew her nomination in March 2022. Raskin’s vision was that financial regulators move toward policies that will “allocate capital and align portfolios toward sustainable investments that do not depend on carbon and fossil fuels.”
If there is any actual “war profiteering,” it’s the war on fossil fuels Biden and the Democrats have been waging, causing oil and gas companies to change their investment strategies since they have been stymied by this administration since day one.
Even worse, Biden continued his war by threatening to impose a new tax on excess earnings if companies don’t start investing and lowering prices, saying, “if they don’t, they’re going to pay a higher tax on their excess profits and face other restrictions.” But such a tax, should it come to fruition, would actually discourage investment in new production, thereby exacerbating the very problem that Biden himself has manufactured!
After two years of demonizing the oil and gas industry and choking off new growth, Biden now wants to blame them for higher energy prices. But who in their right mind would invest in such an odious (and now economically risky) environment? This is exactly what Biden wanted, except now it is threatening the Democrats’ standings in the upcoming midterm elections.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, BUSINESS, ECONOMY
Though the head of JP Morgan Chase feels that the economy is still doing okay, he foresees a recession in 6-9 months. This is due in part to “the impact of runaway inflation, interest rates going up more than expected, the unknown effects of quantitative tightening and Russia’s war in Ukraine.” He further implored that the Fed “waited too long and did too little” as inflation increased to its highest rate in 40 years. Though they are aggressively raising rates now to curb inflation, raising them too much too fast can also cause problems. The Fed is widely expected to raise the rate another 3/4 point at its next meeting in a few weeks.
by | BIDEN, BLOG, GOVERNMENT
The Jones Act, as you know, requires that all cargo shipped between U.S. ports be carried by U.S.-built, U.S.-crewed, U.S.-owned ships. It makes any business involving shipping between Puerto Rico and the mainland impossible, thereby currently impeding the recovery effort from Hurricane Ian. Ships with supplies and fuel are ready to aid the people of Puerto Rico — if only they could dock there.
The Jones Act puts an unnecessary burden on our U.S territories; exempting Puerto Rico from this provision would provide disaster relief. Repealing the Jones Act permanently would actually give Puerto Rico a much-needed burst of commerce and lower the cost of living. As it is now, the Jones Act limits international competition for imports and creates higher taxes on basic necessities such as energy and food.
At the very least, President Biden should provide a temporary waiver of the Jones Act but the right thing to do in the long run would be to retire it completely.
by | BIDEN, BLOG, COVID, FREEDOM, GOVERNMENT
How can Biden get away with saying the pandemic is over, at the very same time his attorney wrote the legal opinion that debt forgiveness was constitutional because of the COVID State of Emergency? He is trying to play both sides.
On 60 Minutes this past Sunday, President Biden declared that “The pandemic is over. We still have a problem with Covid.” He furthered this assertion by reiterating “the pandemic is over. If you notice, no one’s wearing masks. Everybody seems to be in pretty good shape. And so I think it’s changing.”
Since Biden says it’s over, then it’s time for the enduring COVID State of Emergency to be over. But that poses a problem for him. With that, any additional COVID funding should also cease. He needs to declare the pandemic over right before midterms to show that he and the Democrats have been successful in something since he took office. But he is simultaneously hanging on to the enduring COVID State of Emergency and using that to justify his unconstitutional student loan forgiveness scheme.
Biden is a criminal liar and simply cannot have it both ways.
by | ARTICLES, BIDEN, BLOG, ECONOMY
What is happening, as demonstrated by the Census, is that the government largess is taking some people out of poverty, but it is having an even greater and more dangerously perverse effect. It’s making people overall worse economically and preventing them from moving up to the middle class while expanding the lower levels and destroying a generation of minorities. Biden is the poster child for the very people he’s supposed to be helping and he’s made it worse for them. This article in the WSJ, “How Welfare Left Americans Poorer” explains the terrible and true cost of transfer payments. I have reproduced it below.
The Census Bureau released its 2021 income report Tuesday, and the political spin is that unprecedented pandemic transfer payments lifted millions out of poverty. It’s more accurate to say that most Americans are worse off than before the pandemic owing in part to . . . unprecedented transfer payments.
Lifting government lockdowns last year should have caused millions of Americans to return to work and raised average incomes. That didn’t happen. Real median pre-tax household income fell $402 last year to $70,784 and was $2,024 lower than in 2019. The total number of workers didn’t budge between 2020 and 2021.
Millions of Americans whose hours were cut during lockdowns did return to full-time work, but many laid-off Americans stayed home. The number of full-time, year-round workers increased by 11.1 million last year, but their real median earnings declined 4.1%.
Rising prices (see nearby) may have reduced the incentive to work as the purchasing power of paychecks declined. But the Census report also underscores the outsize effects of the March 2021 $1.9 trillion spending bill, which helped drive the “supplemental” poverty measure (which accounts for transfer payments) to a record low even though the official poverty rate didn’t improve.
The $300 a week unemployment benefit boost finally lapsed last September, but transfer payments on the whole grew last year. These included the $3,600 child tax credit; $1,400 payments for each adult and child; food stamps averaging about $230 a person a month; expanded Affordable Care Act (ACA) premium subsidies, and more.
The ACA subsidy enhancement, in particular, has enabled pre-Medicare age Americans to retire early. Adding up all of last year’s government largesse, a lower-income family with two young children would have received nearly $24,000 in “free” cash, which doesn’t even include the cost of government health coverage.
We’ve written about how a March 2020 law restricts states from ending Medicaid for people no longer financially eligible as long as the national pandemic emergency is in effect. The same law suspended food stamp work requirements and raised benefits. When leisure pays as much as work, fewer work.
Democrats highlight the Census Bureau’s finding that 1.1 million fewer Americans were without health insurance last year than in 2020. But the bigger story was the shift from private to government health coverage. The number of people with private plans fell by 1.5 million while enrollment in Medicaid increased by 3.2 million and Medicare by 1.7 million.
This underscores warnings that Medicaid and ACA subsidy expansions might induce small employers to drop coverage, especially as they have to pay more to attract workers. Medicaid spending has increased by about a third during the pandemic and amounted to $33,000 last year for each new Medicaid enrollee.
Government had to support struggling Americans when government shut down the economy in 2020. But Democrats used Covid to expand the welfare state long after the crisis has passed. Americans are paying for it via inflation that has eroded their incomes.
Real median post-tax income including transfer payments declined last year by 1% for all households, 2.9% for those without children and 4.2% for seniors. Most Americans are worse off than they would have been had that $1.9 trillion bill never passed.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, ECONOMY, GOVERNMENT
Phill Gramm and John Early do a nice job laying out the misnomer that income inequality is the problem. This concept of inequality really became a selling point during the Obama administration when the Democrats consistently implored that “millionaires and billionaires” should “pay their fair share.” But the simple fact remains that income inequality isn’t the actual problem with the economy. The problem lies in the fact that, due to the massive amount of government transfer payments, the bottom 60% of income earners have seen their income equalized to the point of nearly attaining the same amount of income of Americans who receive none. The result of this phenomenon is that the labor participation rate among the bottom quintile has fallen sharply to 36% (through 2017, the latest year for statistics), which is what is truly disastrous for the economy. (What’s more, this article doesn’t even begin to touch the ever-worsening labor participation/economic situation due to COVID policies and extra government transfers.) The article from the Wall Street Journal is reprinted below. It is a strong read about the concepts of income inequality and equality.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, the most dramatic and consequential change in the distribution of income in America in the past half-century isn’t rising income inequality but the extraordinary growth in income equality among the bottom 60% of household earners.
Real government transfer payments to the bottom 20% of household earners surged by 269% between 1967 and 2017, while middle-income households saw their real earnings after taxes rise by only 154% during the same period. That has largely equalized the income of the bottom 60% of Americans. This government-created equality has caused the labor-force participation rate to collapse among working-age people in low-income households and unleashed a populist realignment that is unraveling the coalition that has dominated American politics since the 1930s.
On these pages, we have debunked the myth that income inequality is extreme and growing on a secular basis by showing that the Census Bureau measure of income fails to include two-thirds of all federal, state and local transfer payments as income to the recipients and fails to treat taxes paid as income lost to the taxpayer. The Census Bureau measure overstates current income inequality between the highest and lowest 20% of earners by more than 300% and claims that income inequality has risen by 21% since 1967, when in fact it has fallen by 3%.
Our most significant finding from correcting the census income calculations wasn’t the overstated inequality between top and bottom earners. It was the extraordinary equality of income among the bottom 60% of American households, regardless of employment status. In 2017, among working-age households, the bottom 20% earned only $6,941 on average, and only 36% were employed. But after transfer payments and taxes, those households had an average income of $48,806. The average working-age household in the second quintile earned $31,811 and 85% of them were employed. But after transfers and taxes, they had income of $50,492, a mere 3.5% more than the bottom quintile. The middle quintile earned $66,453 and 92% were employed. But after taxes and transfers, they kept only $61,350—just 26% more than the bottom quintile.
Even these figures don’t tell the whole story. In the bottom quintile, there are on average only 1.92 people living in a household. The second and middle quintiles have 2.41 and 2.62 people respectively. After adjusting income for the number of people living in the household, the bottom-quintile household received $33,653 per capita. The second and middle quintile households had on average $29,497 and $32,574 per capita, respectively. The blockbuster finding is that on a per capita basis the average bottom quintile household received 14% more income than the average second-quintile household and 3.3% more than the average middle-income household.
It should be noted that while per capita comparisons are widely used, they tend to overstate the effects of household size. Two people living together can achieve the same material well-being for less than they could living separately. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development has developed a measure widely used internationally to adjust for household size, and the Census Bureau has a similar adjustment it uses in its supplemental poverty measure. Since the results produced by the OECD and the Census Bureau adjustments are so similar, we simply use the average of the two below.
The nearby chart compares the after-tax, after-transfer incomes of the bottom three quintiles of American households with no adjustment for household size, on a per capita basis, and using the average of the OECD and census adjustments for household size. We found that the average bottom-quintile household has $2,401 (or 6.6%) more income than the second quintile and only $3,306 (or 7.8%) less than the middle-income quintile.
The average second-quintile household earned almost five times as much as the average household in the bottom quintile, because it had 2.4 times as many working-age members working and on average each worker worked 80% more hours. The average middle-quintile household earned almost 10 times as much and had 2.6 times the percentage of its working-age people working, each working twice as many hours. Yet the bottom 60% of American households received essentially the same income after accounting for taxes, transfer payments and household size.
Given the surge in transfer payments since the war on poverty, it isn’t surprising that the percentage of working-age people in the bottom quintile who actually worked plummeted from 68% in 1967 to 36% in 2017. With transfer payments giving recipients about as much for not working as they could earn working, only a mandatory work requirement as a condition for receiving means-tested benefits will bring them back into the labor market. While official statistics don’t count two-thirds of those transfer payments and don’t show the income equality they produce, Americans who work hard to make ends meet are aware of it. Despite Democratic politicians’ efforts to provoke resentment against the rich, when was the last time you heard working people complain that some people in America are rich? The hostility of working people is increasingly focused on a system where those who don’t break a sweat are about as well off as they are.
This justifiable resentment is the economic source of today’s American populism. It is ravaging the increasingly unstable Democratic political alliance between welfare recipients and blue-collar workers. It was already building in the 1980s, with what were then called Reagan Democrats, and it was fully manifested in the Trump blue-collar political base. It is now driving political realignment among Hispanic voters, who are disproportionately middle-income earners.
By eroding self-reliance, worker pride and labor-force participation, government-generated income equality undermines the very foundations of American prosperity. A democratic society won’t knowingly tolerate it.
by | BLOG, IRS
The Internal Revenue Service is inept to such a degree that it could rightly be called criminal. The problems go beyond the numerous cited issues, such as only answering 10% of taxpayer calls or a backlog of 21 million unprocessed tax returns. The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (Tigta) 2017 report stated that the IRS took to seizing property from its targets before even conducting interviews. Tigta also reports that even when interviews were conducted, the IRS failed to advise the accused of their rights or the interview’s purpose and to consider “realistic defenses or explanations.” Tigta found that “most” of those targeted (owners of gas stations, jewelry stores, scrap-metal dealers, restaurants) had not committed crimes, though many were never able to regain their property. The IRS is engaged in theft on a scale, not of thousands or millions, but billions of dollars. The IRS is rotten to the bone and giving them more funding will only exacerbate the corruption.
The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: “I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.” A conglomerate of heavy government hitters, including Sen. Joe Manchin, Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, and last but not least, President Joe Biden, have come together to unleash what they call “beast mode” executive power. The bill would increase by 600x the current annual IRS budget over ten years from $12.6 billion to $80 billion. Let’s not mince words. Despite this President’s claims, the IRS will not be targeting the 1%; they will be targeting middle-class Americans and small business owners like they always have. The Joint Committee on Taxation, Congress’s official tax scorekeeper, says that 78% to 90% of the money raised from under-reported income would likely come from those making less than $200,000 a year. Only 4% to 9% would come from those making more than $500,000. This is because the middle-class is ill-prepared to defend themselves; the IRS knows that wealthy individuals have the funds available to hire accountants and lawyers to put up a fight. But even those who fight do not go unscathed as there is a tremendous cost to defense, so even those who “successfully” defend themselves are out roughly the $200 to $400 per hour they pay their tax attorney. Like a bully picking on the smallest kid on the playground, the IRS comes after the electrician, firefighter, supermarket worker, and small business owner. Like the Government, the IRS is not your friend and will undoubtedly fail to solve this country’s money problems.
by | ARTICLES, BLOG, COVID, ECONOMY
When the CDC admitted failure this week for its COVID response, one might have felt a bit vindicated regarding the lockdowns and disruptions — but only for a moment. Because it turns out that the CDC actually means is that they didn’t go far enough in their response measures and that next time it should be even more restrictive. This flies in the face of copious amounts of data that show the deleterious effects COVID response had on basically every facet of society — economic, mental, physical, educational, etc. John Tierney does a decent job taking to task this unreasonable CDC outlook. The WSJ article is printed in its entirety below.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention belatedly admitted failure this week. “For 75 years, CDC and public health have been preparing for Covid-19, and in our big moment, our performance did not reliably meet expectations,” Director Rochelle Walensky said. She vowed to establish an “action-oriented culture.”
Lockdowns and mask mandates were the most radical experiment in the history of public health, but Dr. Walensky isn’t alone in thinking they failed because they didn’t go far enough. Anthony Fauci, chief medical adviser to the president, recently said there should have been “much, much more stringent restrictions” early in the pandemic. The World Health Organization is revising its official guidance to call for stricter lockdown measures in the next pandemic, and it is even seeking a new treaty that would compel nations to adopt them. The World Economic Forum hails the Covid lockdowns as the model for a “Great Reset” empowering technocrats to dictate policies world-wide.
Yet these oppressive measures were taken against the longstanding advice of public-health experts, who warned that they would lead to catastrophe and were proved right. For all the talk from officials like Dr. Fauci about following “the science,” these leaders ignored decades of research—as well as fresh data from the pandemic—when they set strict Covid regulations. The burden of proof was on them to justify their dangerous experiment, yet they failed to conduct rigorous analyses, preferring to tout badly flawed studies while refusing to confront obvious evidence of the policies’ failure.
U.S. states with more-restrictive policies fared no better, on average, than states with less-restrictive policies. There’s still no convincing evidence that masks provided any significant benefits. When case rates throughout the pandemic are plotted on a graph, the trajectory in states with mask mandates is virtually identical to the trajectory in states without mandates. (The states without mandates actually had slightly fewer Covid deaths per capita.) International comparisons yield similar results. A Johns Hopkins University meta-analysis of studies around the world concluded that lockdown and mask restrictions have had “little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality.”
Florida and Sweden were accused of deadly folly for keeping schools and businesses open without masks, but their policies have been vindicated. In Florida the cumulative age-adjusted rate of Covid mortality is below the national average, and the rate of excess mortality is lower than in California, which endured one of the nation’s strictest lockdowns and worst spikes in unemployment. Sweden’s cumulative rate of excess mortality is one of the lowest in the world, and there’s one particularly dismal difference between it and the rest of Europe as well as America: the number of younger adults who died not from Covid but from the effects of lockdowns.
Even in 2020, Sweden’s worst year of the pandemic, the mortality rate remained normal among Swedes under 70. Meanwhile, the death rate surged among younger adults in the U.S., and a majority of them died from causes other than Covid. In Sweden, there have been no excess deaths from non-Covid causes during the pandemic, but in the U.S. there have been more than 170,000 of these excess deaths.
No one knows exactly how many of those deaths were caused by lockdowns, but the social disruptions, isolation, inactivity and economic havoc clearly exacted a toll. Medical treatments and screenings were delayed, and there were sharp increases in the rates of depression, anxiety, obesity, diabetes, fatal strokes and heart disease, and fatal abuse of alcohol and drugs.
These were the sorts of calamities foreseen long before 2020 by eminent epidemiologists such as Donald Henderson, who directed the successful international effort to eradicate smallpox. In 2006 he and colleagues at the University of Pittsburgh considered an array of proposed measures to deal with a virus as deadly as the 1918 Spanish flu.
Should schools be closed? Should everyone wear face masks in public places? Should those exposed to an infection be required to quarantine at home? Should public-health officials rely on computer models of viral spread to impose strict limitations on people’s movements? In each case, the answer was no, because there was no evidence these measures would make a significant difference.
“Experience has shown,” Henderson’s team concluded, “that communities faced with epidemics or other adverse events respond best and with the least anxiety when the normal social functioning of the community is least disrupted.” The researchers specifically advised leaders not to be guided by computer models, because no model could reliably predict the effects of the measures or take into account the “devastating” collateral damage. If leaders overreacted and panicked the public, “a manageable epidemic could move toward catastrophe.”
This advice was subsequently heeded in the pre-Covid pandemic plans prepared by the CDC and other public-health agencies. The WHO’s review of the scientific literature concluded that there was “no evidence” that universal masking “is effective in reducing transmission.” The CDC’s pre-2020 planning scenarios didn’t recommend universal masking or extended school and business closures even during a pandemic as severe as the 1918 Spanish flu. Neither did the U.K.’s 2011 plan, which urged “those who are well to carry on with their normal daily lives” and flatly declared, “It will not be possible to halt the spread of a new pandemic influenza virus, and it would be a waste of public health resources and capacity to attempt to do so.”
But those plans were abruptly discarded in March 2020, when computer modelers in England announced that a lockdown like China’s was the only way to avert doomsday. As Henderson had warned, the computer model’s projections—such as 30 Covid patients for every available bed in intensive-care units—proved to be absurdly wrong. Just as the British planners had predicted, it was impossible to halt the virus. A few isolated places managed to keep out the virus with border closures and draconian lockdowns, but the virus spread quickly once they opened up. China’s hopeless fantasy of “Zero Covid” became a humanitarian nightmare.
It was bad enough that Dr. Fauci, the CDC and the WHO ignored the best scientific advice at the start of this pandemic. It’s sociopathic for them to promote a worse catastrophe for future outbreaks. If a drug company behaved this way, ignoring evidence while marketing an ineffective treatment with fatal side effects, its executives would be facing lawsuits, bankruptcy and probably criminal charges. Dr. Fauci and his fellow public officials can’t easily be sued, but they need to be put out of business long before the next pandemic.
Mr. Tierney is a contributing editor to City Journal and a co-author of “The Power of Bad: How the Negativity Effect Rules Us and How We Can Rule It.”
