Joe Biden loves to give away money, especially if it’s not his own. He has spent trillions of dollars for political benefit that didn’t need otherwise to be spent.
The recipients laud his compassion and generosity. Common Americans though are trapped in an inflationary spiral while our grandchildren face an unpayable bill.
Thus, in a recent presentation about his second attempt to forgive student loan debt, he actually bragged about the hundreds of billions it would cost. He twice mentioned the fact that many blacks would receive benefits.
He became so consumed in self-congratulation that he apparently lost awareness of how blatant his political pandering was. We know black voters are a key demographic in play in the upcoming election.
Biden’s sheer enthusiasm for spending again evidenced itself in his response to the Baltimore bridge collapse. His first reaction was to guarantee that the federal government would underwrite the entire cost of reconstruction. What a guy!
Neither offer made sense. Regarding the student loan debt, the Supreme Court had affirmed that the Constitution means what it says, that the power to initiate spending lies solely with Congress. Most public criticism focused on the obvious unfairness of the policy, how it would disadvantage those who had been responsible in favor of those who wished to renounce their legal obligations.
Biden’s bridge proposal was also nonsense. The bridge isn’t owned by the United States. There is no conceivable reason for the federal government to be deemed responsible for its repair. The bridge was demolished by a cargo ship, in an industry which insures heavily against such misfortunes. Other jurisdictions have also acknowledged partial responsibility.
Here’s the problem with the mindset that it’s okay to get involved with all these giveaways: we don’t have the money. We’re seriously in debt, with expenses vastly exceeding our income and no plan in place for repayment or even deficit reduction.
Biden is hardly the only politician who has deduced that spending other people’s money (OPM) can win elections. Even many Republicans, to their shame, support the spending juggernaut. The spenders are the moral equivalent of a wastrel with no money and no job, with bankruptcy looming, who continues to pick up tabs and buy pricey gifts with credit cards he has no intention of paying off.
Still, the spenders know that Americans have mostly normalized excessive spending even when unnecessary. So, Biden was able to propose a whopping $7.3 trillion budget for next year (up $500 billion in the last year alone) without provoking much outrage.
The $2 trillion spent on COVID relief accomplished nothing. It was mainly an excuse to push more money out the door. At least it was supposed to be temporary. Biden’s budget though would pocket the COVID bump and add yet more permanent spending, mostly on programs for “climate change” and other boondoggles. A $10 trillion budget by 2033 is projected.
What can’t go on forever won’t. Our present course is unsustainable. Income tax revenues are soaring, yet the debt continues to grow. We are using borrowed money to pay the debt interest, which has surpassed all budget items except entitlement programs.
How do we get out of this death spiral? The left’s favorite solution is to raise taxes. That doesn’t work. The historical record shows that tax increases put us further in the hole.
For example, the Obamacare tax increases raised $1.4 trillion but so hindered economic growth, according to the Congressional Budget Office, that the feds lost $3.8 trillion in revenues. In contrast, President Clinton signed the 1997 Republican tax and spending cuts. Four years of budget surpluses ensued.
It’s well known that reform of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security is necessary for a balanced budget. Yet both parties are interested only in demagoguing the other if they catch them even considering the issue. If the politicians, including Donald Trump, continue to insist on prioritizing incumbent reelection, the only way out may be for the people to take matters into our own hands.
Anybody else interested in seriously revisiting the notion of amending the Constitution to mandate a balanced budget? Sure, it may (or may not) be difficult, but the consequence of doing nothing is surely worse.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
Rep. David Schweikert (R-AZ-01) gave a brief rundown on the state of his constituents’ financial well-being under Biden before Congress on Tuesday.
Schweikert said that his district consists of some of the more well-off, educated, and entrepreneurial constituents in Arizona and the country. Yet, Schweikert says his more “prosperous” district has become poorer even when accounting for factors like wage growth.
“In my district, we’ve had the highest inflation in the continental United States. If you do not make 23.6 percent more money today than you did the day President Biden took office, you are poorer,” said Schweikert.
Want to understand why the public isn’t so bubbly about the economy?
If you live in the Phoenix-Scottsdale area and haven’t received a 23.6% pay increase since President Biden took office, you are poorer today.
Schweikert’s district spans a northeast section of Phoenix that encompasses Scottsdale, Paradise Valley Fountain Hills, Cave Creek, the Salt River and Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation reservations, and part of the Tonto National Forest.
The congressman went on to say that his fellow congressmen, dubbed “the clown show,” needed to have “an honest conversation” with constituents to acknowledge that they’ve grown poorer in recent years.
Arizona experienced the highest inflation rates since February 2021, only returning to a lower rate of 2.7 percent earlier this year, last seen March 2021.
Both Arizona State University business professor and Carey School director Mark Stapp and University of Arizona economics center director George Hammond toldCronkite News last year that the reason for Arizona having the highest inflation — mainly Phoenix — has to do with shelter costs.
Arizona’s high growth rate, coupled with the lack of supply, prompted a rapid rise in housing and rent prices.
In 2022, the state boasted the highest inflation rate in the nation. At the time, the Phoenix area had a 13 percent inflation, much higher than the nationwide inflation rate at the time of 8 percent.
Schweikert has repeatedly urged his colleagues to curb inflation, last month pointing out the effects of the record levels of spending under the Biden administration. Schweikert projected that the total deficit spending for the 2024 fiscal year will be higher than both the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) have projected.
Over the past three years, Arizona’s food banks have reported an unprecedented increase in the number of clientele they’re serving. The Arizona Food Bank Network reported earlier this year that it and its member food banks have served 14 percent more individuals in 2023 than in 2022 (a total of nearly 570,000 people a month), and 20 percent more than before the pandemic.
Conversely, the census reported that 12.5 percent of Arizonans were living in poverty in 2023 — the lowest rate in the past decade.
Schweikert hasn’t been the only one of Arizona’s congressmen to criticize federal leaders’ approach to handling inflation. Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) remarked during President Joe Biden’s State of the Union last month that the overall inflation rate had hit nearly 20 percent since 2021, costing Arizonans nearly $13,000 in 2023 according to the Joint Economic Committee.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
One week the Environmental Protection Agency comes for our gasoline-powered cars, the next for our diesel-powered trucks.
EPA chose Good Friday, when many Americans were preparing to celebrate Easter Sunday (if not Transgender Day of Visibility), to release a new rule requiring that 25% of truck sales be electric by 2032.
Practically everything Americans use comes by truck, either all the way from the producer or from ports or railroad terminals. That’s why, if electric truck and charging technology existed, EPA’s new rule would raise costs of everything Americans buy, resulting in higher prices for goods and services and inflationary pressures throughout the economy.
All this at a time when the Federal Reserve is trying to get inflation down to 2%.
But America doesn’t have the electrical grid capacity, the charging stations, or the technology to operate long-haul electric trucks, and the nation won’t have them by 2032.
Trucking and utility companies would have to invest almost $1 trillion in charging infrastructure before electric trucks could be operational. EPA’s goals either will have to be discarded or moved steadily into the future.
The electric truck rule follows regulations released last month that would require 70% of cars and light trucks, such as pickup trucks, to be electric by 2032. Both these rules will face court challenges on the grounds that EPA exceeded its authority.
EPA’s stated rationale is to reduce emissions, but electrifying trucks would have minimal effect on global temperatures while raising transportation costs and therefore inflation.
The differences in the costs of diesel and electric trucks are monumental, and only a government official with no trucking experience could consider one a substitute for another.
A diesel truck costs about $120,000; an electric truck costs in the range of $450,000 to $500,000. Trucking companies would have to raise prices to cover these costs, and small trucking companies simply couldn’t afford the higher costs and would go out of business.
Not only that, but a proposed power plant rule from the EPA, soon to be released in final form, would make electricity more expensive. This rule, not mentioned in EPA’s vehicle tailpipe regulations, would require power plants to sequester 90% of their carbon emissions by 2039 or close in 2040.
Although smaller commercial trucks, including school buses and utility trucks, often travel locally and can be charged at depots overnight, heavy-duty trucks transport goods for long distances. These larger electric trucks can’t carry loads as heavy as diesel trucks do, because they lose range. So businesses need more trucks to carry a given volume of product, which raises transportation costs.
Electric trucks now have a range of 230 to 310 miles, and generally must stop and recharge when battery strength falls below 20%. Truckers would have to recharge every 180 to 250 miles, which can take one to two hours.
Long-haul electric trucks also can’t travel as many miles in a day, because truckers are limited to 11 hours on the road, and recharging time comes out of that.
Truckers are already in high demand, with 80,000 estimated job vacancies. Because of growing e-commerce, more trucks are needed, rather than fewer.
Requiring truckers to stop for two hours to recharge would reduce earnings and make these jobs less desirable. Some drivers would quit, and others would have to be paid more to remain on the job.
EPA calls the costs of truck electrification “billions of dollars’ worth of investments from trucking fleets, vehicle manufacturers, and U.S. states,” as though these investments would have a positive rate of return. But the costs would be borne by all Americans in the form of higher prices.
EPA’s massive project to reshape America’s transportation system would lower economic growth and increase the budget deficit as manufacturers attempt to comply with regulations and use green tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act to waste resources investing in products that are unsuited to companies’ needs.
EPA justifies its regulation on the grounds that America would have cleaner air as a result. But electric trucks are not emissions-free and impose costs on the environment that gasoline-powered cars don’t.
Electricity for battery-powered vehicles comes from coal and natural gas, not renewable energy sources. Solar, wind, and nuclear power are generally fully used for other purposes; additional sources of energy to meet demand for electricity come from fossil fuels and hydropower.
Batteries for electric heavy trucks are produced in China using energy from coal-fired power plants. Producing batteries for electric vehicles uses carbon; the longer the range of the battery, the more carbon is used.
Large electric trucks need two 8,000-pound batteries. Miners have to move 500,000 pounds of earth to get enough critical minerals for one 1,000-pound passenger car battery, according to physicist Mark Mills, and multiple quantities of these minerals would be required for electric trucks.
Mining for critical minerals is environmentally disruptive. America outsources the work to Asia, Latin America, and Africa.
In 2022, the Supreme Court concluded in West Virginia v. EPA that EPA had overstepped its authority in its 2015 Clean Power Plan by forcing states to shut down power plants. Chief Justice John Roberts described the plan as “a regulatory program that Congress had conspicuously declined to enact itself.”
Now, in a similar sleight of hand, the Environmental Protection Agency is trying to determine what vehicles are allowed on the road, adopting a program that Congress has not voted into law.
EPA wants to require the purchase of electric trucks because companies wouldn’t use them otherwise—just as the agency is requiring more passenger vehicles to be electric than Americans want to buy.
It is pure illusion to think that America’s commerce could run on electric trucks. The size and composition of the batteries, the network of charging stations, and the electricity to run those stations make this whole enterprise fantastical.
Far more people believe in the Easter Bunny than believe that EPA will succeed in this particular mission.
Diana Furchtgott-Roth is director of the Center for Energy, Climate and Environment and the Herbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow.
Inflation hasn’t discouraged Americans from spending to celebrate the upcoming Easter holiday. Analysts project a spending total surpassing $22 billion, with consumers explaining to them that Easter is an important tradition.
Despite record inflation and consumer goods increasing in price by more than double over the past several years, it appears that Americans still feel the holiday of hope and new life is worth the expense.
The projections come from the annual survey by the National Retail Federation (NFR) and Prosper Insights & Analytics (PIA). In a press release, NRF President and CEO Matthew Shay explained that Easter maintained its positive meaning for Americans.
“Each year, Americans look forward to the celebration of Easter and the renewal of time and traditions with loved ones,” said Shay.
NRF surveys date back to 2003. This year’s survey spanned about 8,400 adult consumers from March 1 to 6 with a margin of error plus one or minus 1.1 percent. A majority of Americans (81 percent) said they would celebrate Easter.
64 percent of consumers told survey analysts that they remain inspired to shop for Easter-related items because it’s tradition for them. The next-highest popular reason concerned spending time with family or friends (32 percent), while a close third (29 percent) shopped to capitalize on sales and promotions.
These projections account for food, clothing, and gifts in general. Respondents said they would spend an average of $177 per person. Unsurprisingly, the top-reported expenditures were equally candy and food, followed by general gifts, then clothing, then decorations.
Last year’s Easter shoppers set the record high at $24 billion, with about $190 spent per person.
Back in 2007, shoppers spent $14.5 billion. The 2008 recession did cause a decline in Easter shopping for several years; it wouldn’t be until 2011 that Americans would surpass 2007 Easter spending.
The annual survey also gauged how consumers planned to spend their Easter weekend. 57 percent mentioned cooking a holiday meal, 53 percent mentioned visiting friends and family, and 43 percent mentioned going to church. Only half of households with children planned to conduct an Easter egg hunt at home.
Discount stores were top of the list for Easter shopping destinations (53 percent), followed by department stores (40 percent), online retail (33 percent), local/small businesses (22 percent), and specialty stores (20 percent).
There were those surveyed who shared that they would not be celebrating Easter. 55 percent of that demographic said they would still take advantage of Easter sales, but would spend much less per person, around $20. The capture of their market has to do with how stores advertise and curate a shopping experience, explained PIA Vice President of Strategy Phil Rist in the NRF press release.
“The overall shopping experience itself also plays a role in purchasing behavior,” said Rist. “This year almost one-quarter of consumers said they were inspired to shop for Easter items from store displays and decorations as well as exclusive or seasonal products.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Inflation persists due to record levels of spending over the past three years, according to Rep. David Schweikert, R-Ariz., in a speech on the House floor Thursday night.
Schweikert said the total deficit spending for FY24 will be dramatically higher than both the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) initially projected if the national debt continues to increase at the current pace of over $99,000 per second.
Last May, Congressional fights over the next speaker overshadowed the greater concern, the national debt, Schweikert said.
“And think of this — in that time, we were fighting over like $16 billion,” he said. “We’re borrowing about $9 billion a day. So we’ve gone how many months, and we’ve never gotten around to actually working on the real problems because of the theatrics around here.”
As a result, the Scottsdale-Phoenix area resident said the Congressional Budget Office missed its FY24 deficit spending projection by $1 trillion.
Interest spending alone is projected to top $1 trillion this fiscal year, he said.
“When I came here a couple of months ago and said we could be heading for $1 trillion [in interest spending], I got mocked. I even saw my colleagues go, ‘Schweikert, you’ve got to stop making things up!’ Well, turns out I’m right,” he said.
“We will spend all day fighting over a few million here, which is important, and I am willing to cut these things, but we’re picking up pennies off the ground as the avalanche is crushing us,” he continued. “Because that same day we fought over those millions, we borrowed $9 billion a day when we are fighting over millions. Understand, $1 trillion has 12 zeros. Start to work your zeros and understand the scale.”
Addressing inflation, Schweikert said America is paying the price for spending money in ways that did not actually spike productivity. He said subsidizing things does not yield the most efficient and cheap way to produce them.
Schweikert advocated for a level of competition so the best, fastest product is rewarded.
“The last two months, [inflation] hasn’t been going down the way it’s supposed to,” he said. “So expect these interest rates I just showed you to continue. And if you live in my neighborhood, if you live in the Scottsdale-Phoenix area — wonderful area, absolutely incredibly beautiful this time of year. From January 2021 to two months ago, if you’re not making 23.6% more, you are poorer today than you were in January 2021.”
Making Americans less sick with new healthcare technology is one of the most powerful things we could do to lower the national debt, he said. Six weeks ago, the FDA approved the first cure to sickle cell anemia.
“Artificial intelligence is about to have a revolution in bringing cures to market dramatically faster,” Schweikert stated. “We’ve actually now had the first couple of AI drugs designed to make it through the FDA.”
Schweikert said policies can make it possible to bring new drugs to the market without costing $100 million.
“Do we think about things we could do in farm policy and nutrition policy in helping our brothers and sisters live better, healthier, more prosperous, [improve their] ability to join the labor force, maybe family formation, crushing income inequality,” he asked his fellow congress members.
Elizabeth Troutman is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send her news tips using this link.
