Ohio GOP Attorney General WINS Lawsuit Against “Biden Relief” Bill UNCONSTITUTIONALLY Bars Tax Cuts

Democrat communist fiat averted.

Obscene legal plunder impeded …. for the moment.

Ohio GOP attorney general prevails in lawsuit alleging Biden relief bill unconstitutionally bars tax cuts

By: Zachary Halaschak | Washington Examiner | July 02, 2021:

A federal judge has ruled that a provision in President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 relief bill limiting state tax cuts is unconstitutional, handing a victory to Republicans.

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost had filed a federal lawsuit against the Treasury Department and its secretary, Janet Yellen, alleging that a provision in the $1.9 trillion Democratic spending package that prohibits states from using relief funds to offset tax cuts or credits “directly or indirectly” is unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Douglas Cole issued the permanent injunction against what Yost dubbed the “tax mandate” on Thursday, ruling that the provision exceeds the federal government’s power over states.

“The federal government has to stay in their lane, and if they don’t, we’re prepared to bump them up against the guardrail and keep them where they belong,” Yost told the Washington Examiner in a Friday morning phone call.

Cole ruled that the tax mandate “falls short of the clarity” that Supreme Court precedent requires for the Constitution’s spending clause as it relates to conditional grants to states. The judge also rejected Yellen’s argument that Treasury Department regulations clear up the ambiguity of the provision.

“Accordingly, the Court finds that the Tax Mandate exceeds Congress’s power under the Constitution,” Cole concluded. “The Court further finds that Ohio has met the conditions for injunctive relief to prevent the ongoing harm that this constitutional violation is causing.”

It is likely that the federal government will appeal the ruling. A spokesperson with the Treasury Department told the Washington Examiner after the decision that the department disagrees with Cole’s opinion and is exploring options regarding the next steps.

“We are confident that the act is constitutional and Treasury is committed to implementing it in a manner consistent with Congress’s direction so we can continue to promote a robust and equitable recovery,” the spokesperson said in a statement.

Yost touted the ruling as “a huge win for our federalist system” and pointed out that while Democrats might be disappointed with the decision, they might see it differently in the future. He said he sees the judgment as having broader implications than just this one provision.

“The progressives are going to be howling right now because they don’t like the idea that the federal government can’t tell Ohio what to do with its tax policy, but they’ll be quoting this decision soon enough to a Republican president who might want to tell a blue state how to run their state,” Yost said.

While Ohio was the first to sue the Biden administration over the tax mandate, it is not alone in its litigation on the matter.

Several other states have joined another federal lawsuit contending that the mandate violates the 10th Amendment, the conditional spending doctrine, and the anti-commandeering doctrine. Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich also filed a lawsuit attacking the provision.

Yost said that while the ruling in his case won’t directly affect the other lawsuits, he thinks that Cole’s ruling will be closely examined by judges across the country.

“It’s a really well-reasoned opinion by Judge Cole, and I think other federal judges will read it and find it well reasoned,” he said. “So, it doesn’t have any direct power, but it is very persuasive.”

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

Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Help us fight the great fight.

And if you can, please contribute to Geller Report. YOU make the work possible.

Biden Says July 4th Just Got Cheaper!

I begin today with two wise old African proverbs from the country of my birth, Rhodesia.

Shona Proverb:- “ The innocent looking people are often the guilty.” In Shona that would read “Imbwa nyoro ndidzo tsengi dzamatovo.”

An old Shangaan proverb: “Don’t replace a puff adder with a black mamba.” Or in their language “Huma Mheri kunghena mamba.”

The Biden WH just tweeted that the cost of a July 4th Bar B Q just got cheaper for his American proletariat! How much cheaper? Great question. Let me tell you here! Hold your breath. Here it is! $0.16!

Apparently they worked out that the average cook out went down that huge amount and it is therefore a sign that prices are coming down and the rumors about hyperinflation or just inflation is just that. Rumors. Sent out by white supremists. Conservatives. You know? The evil Trump supporters. In other words you and me!

Biden is trying to say that his economic plan is working and things are just hunky dory!

Hmmmmm…….I for one am not feeling that.

I understand that Biden probably has not been to a gas station lately, or if by chance he had, he probably forgot! After all, his mental capacity is very diminished! The average price across the country for a gallon of regular gas is now $3.15, the highest price since 2014 and an increase of a massive 42% from just last year under the Trump administration.

Home prices have gone up 24% this year moving more and more average Americans away from the dream of home ownership. That, Sniffer Joe, is $0.16 every 1.3 seconds! Takes care of that $0.16 saving on our cookout!! Yay!!

By the way according to the US Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service there is not one product or price category that has gone down in 2021 over 2020!

This is the tweet sent out by the lunatics in the WH press office supposedly from Biden! “Planning a cookout this year? Ketchup on the news. According to the Farm Bureau, the cost of a 4th of July BBQ is down from last year. It’s a fact you must-hear(d). Hot dog, the Biden economic plan is working. And that’s something we can all relish.”

What comic! They should all be on stage! I suggest the first one outa town!

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

Democrat Mandated COVID-19 Lockdowns Caused More Deaths Instead Of Reducing Them, RAND study finds

The Democrat media complex was an accomplice to this mass murder.

COVID-19 lockdowns caused more deaths instead of reducing them, RAND study finds

By: Michael McKenna,  June 30, 2021 Washington Times,:

COVID-19 lockdowns caused more deaths instead of reducing them, study finds

Those who pushed ‘shelter in place’ policies share the blame, but everyone feels the consequences

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

As we begin to pick through the rubble of the early days of the coronavirus that started in Wuhan in an effort to determine with some specificity the origins of COVID-19, and whether it was accidentally or purposefully released from a Chinese lab, it is important, too, that we assess the wisdom of our public health approaches to the disease.

Chief among those approaches was the institution of lockdowns across a broad range of populations.

The pathologies of the lockdowns are clear and have been both predicted and recorded. They include increased risk of preventable deaths from cancer, heart disease, etc., as well as psychological trauma, resulting in increased homicides, accidents and suicidal ideations, caused by long periods of isolation.

What is less clear is whether the lockdowns served any useful medical purpose.

Fortunately, two researchers at the RAND Corporation and two researchers from the University of Southern California have done an analysis of the medical value of the lockdowns (which they refer to as “sheltering in place,” or SIP, policies). They looked at 43 countries and all of the states in the union, and published their assessment in June as a working paper of the National Bureau for Economic Research.
Shelter-in-place orders didn’t save lives during the pandemic, research paper concludes

You may have missed the report. It has not received much coverage from the media, who must be busy with some incredibly important and hard-hitting story about Dr. Anthony Fauci or the first lady.

Let’s remedy that oversight.

The RAND/USC team is unsparingly direct: “[W]e fail to find that SIP policies saved lives. To the contrary, we find a positive association between SIP policies and excess deaths. We find that following the implementation of SIP policies, excess mortality increases.”

So, the lockdowns didn’t reduce the number of deaths, failed to prevent any excess deaths, and in fact resulted in increased deaths.

Additionally, countries that locked their citizens in their homes were experiencing declining — not increasing — excess mortality prior to lockdowns. In other words, lockdowns probably made the situation worse.

The researchers were again direct. “If SIP were implemented when excess deaths were rising then the results … would be biased towards finding that SIP policies lead to excess deaths. However, we find the opposite: countries that implemented SIP policies experienced a decline in excess mortality prior to implementation compared to countries that did not implement SIP policies.”

Moreover, unless you lived on an island, it did not seem to make any difference when the lockdowns were implemented. They were ineffectual at best and led to increased mortality at worst.

From the study: “It is also possible that the average effects in our event studies might hide heterogeneity (differences) in the impact of policies across countries and U.S. states. For example, SIP policies might be more effective when implemented early in the pandemic or SIP policies might work better when community transmission is high. … Overall, we find little evidence of heterogenous effects except that SIP policies seem to be more effective in island nations or … Hawaii.”

Finally, there was no advantage to locking down early or staying locked down longer. The researchers noted: “We failed to find that countries or U.S. states that implemented SIP policies earlier, and in which SIP policies had longer to operate, had lower excess deaths than countries/U.S. states that were slower to implement SIP policies.”

So, the duration of the lockdowns made no difference.

The simple fact is that COVID-19 was and is a highly infectious respiratory disease to which everyone is eventually going be exposed either naturally or through vaccines. The disease tends to kill older people and those with preexisting respiratory challenges or who are obese.

The RAND/USC study makes it clear that all the lockdowns accomplished was to add personal, psychological and economic devastation to the terrible personal and societal toll of illness and death.

Everyone involved — from President Trump and his public health advisers who initiated the first lockdown (remember “15 days to slow the spread”), right on through to those who continue to insist that isolation for everyone, even those not at risk, is the correct course of action — share the blame.

But all of us share the consequences.

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

Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Help us fight the great fight.

And if you can, please contribute to Geller Report. YOU make the work possible.

Covid Ensured Massive Wealth Transfer

For a period of well over a year, our government, Republican and Democrat, used Covid as a way to create the largest ever wealth transfer from average Americans to those that were already extremely wealthy. The destruction of the Middle Class.

I am not sure Americans actually even will come to terms with what I just wrote. I mean I am incensed but I do not hear too many of my fellow Americans saying a thing. They are not in the streets. They don’t even appear to be too upset???? I am sure some people recognize this fact but just seem accepting of it. When I immigrated to the USA in October, 1994, if you had asked me if Americans would have just folded over, bent over and taken a rough insertion by these enemies of the people, I would have said NO. HECK NO. NOT AMERICA!!

I read an English blogger the other day called Algora. She wrote the following after a massive London protest against the tyrannical Covid regulations and the One World Order. Reading the below sadly appears true about America today.

She wrote: 

“And where are similar protests in the USA? Oh, that’s right. You have to go to a public school board meeting to see parents up in arms about COVID measures because they want to keep using the Nanny State’s school system to babysit their children so they don’t have to. And if we do see protests, they will probably be much smaller than this one in London today, with BLMers on one side and Trump supporters on the other, and they won’t be protesting against the Globalists, but fighting each other instead. If the masses do rise up together to overthrow tyranny, I’d bet on the UK over the US any day. It looks like they are fairly unified in taking down Boris Johnson and the rest of the hoodlums in Parliament.”

How sad that the above is how America and Americans are seen in the world today. No pride in that. Just shame. All gone since the fraudulent elections of 2020 which bought a mentally challenged traitor, crook and pervert into the White House.

The reduction in our rights, freedoms and liberties already lost will never return without bloodshed and sacrifice. Even then maybe some will be lost for ever.

For years the government has been interfering at the expense of small businesses but ensured the rewarding of large corporations and companies. Everything it touches from healthcare to education, home ownership to food has cost us billions in tax money and overruns that has badly affected the middle class. We have the Federal Reserve, which should not exist, printing money 24/7 like there is no tomorrow and suppressing interest rates at speeds not seen before. Why? To continue the wealth transfer.

Coronavirus arrived and boy, the government took advantage. They and they alone decided which businesses were ‘essential’ and which were not. Which businesses had to close their doors and which could stay open. Which group of workers lost their jobs and which kept theirs.

Trust me – this wasn’t based on science but on political clout. Small companies were forcibly closed with shockingly little to no rebellion by the owners and large companies stood prepared and ready to take their sales, customers and money!

The Fed has continuously since Covid started and before taken actions to support the stock market and biggest companies allowing them unlimited access to capital with next to zero interest rates. This way the Fed kept pumping money into our economy while destroying small businesses.

Trust me here America, if the government had attempted to close down those huge corporations and companies, the yelling and noise that would have come from them would have had the government reversing themselves real fast. The tyrannical lockdowns would have been over in days or maybe weeks. The huge profits earned by these ‘protected’ big businesses is in the trillions of dollars. The profits became absolutely insane.

Amazon, Walmart, Home Depot, Lowes, Costco, Sams etc. reaped the benefits they were offered and helped destroy lives.

The Government mustn’t ever be allowed again to pick and choose their cronies over ordinary Americans. Everyone should be treated equally under the law. Our very freedom and survival as a group is at risk by the governments full frontal assault on small businesses and their staff and families.

In the mean time the elderly retirees and savers have been kicked in the proverbial groin area as we have been unable to earn any interest on savings without taking too much risk. Pensions like Social Security and state pensions have not kept up with inflation and as we hurtle into hyper inflation we will fall further behind again affecting the Middle class and lower class folk.

How did we ever allow such a disconnect between government and the citizenry? I will tell you how. We were asleep at the wheel. We trusted them too much despite the obvious signs of their corruption and their lies. Despite the fact that we saw politicians getting richer and richer while serving. People like AOC who a few years ago didn’t have a penny to her name, but a few years as a congresswoman has a new Tesla, huge apartment in a luxury area and wears $2000 outfits! All while claiming she is a girl of the people!! How about Sniffer Joe with his multiple million dollar homes? The list of corrupt, treasonous and evil anti America globalist and socialist politicians living the high life on our dime goes on for ever. Both parties. This is not just a Democrat thing.

We have become lazy, uncaring, unpatriotic, demanding, expecting everything for nothing. We should be in the streets with pitchforks demanding a total reversal of all the wrongs government had done in our name. They are not to be trusted. They have proved that endlessly. They enter politics occasionally meaning to actually serve but then get corrupted by the swamp members whose sole intention is to destroy our beloved country while gaining power and enriching themselves.

America. We are not all in this together. There is a them and us. Everyday they get richer while our dreams are shattered. Billions are spent in promoting and getting the right people elected to ensure these huge company and their stockholders keep getting richer.

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

Here Are the 10 Best [And Worst] Cities Ranked By Post-Pandemic Economic Recovery

When the COVID-19 outbreak began and governments started imposing economic lockdowns, most parts of the country experienced huge upticks in unemployment. But how have different cities fared in the year since? A new report from WalletHub offers some insight.

The financial analytics firm looked at cities’ most recent unemployment rates, from May 2021, and compared them to their pre- and mid-pandemic unemployment rates from May 2019, May 2020, and January 2020. Using the national unemployment rate of 5.9 percent as a standard, this gives us a useful comparison showing how different cities have recovered from the pandemic and ensuing economic damage.

Here are the top 10 cities with the best post-pandemic unemployment rates as of May 2021:

  1. Manchester, New Hampshire: 1.6 percent
  2. Nashua, New Hampshire: 1.7 percent
  3. Burlington, Vermont: 1.3 percent
  4. South Burlington, Vermont: 1.2 percent
  5. Lincoln, Nebraska: 2.2 percent
  6. Huntsville, Alabama: 2.4 percent
  7. Omaha, Nebraska: 2.8 percent
  8. Salt Lake City, Utah: 2.7 percent
  9. Sioux Falls, South Dakota: 2.7 percent
  10. Billings, Montana: 3 percent

And, in stark contrast, here are the 10 cities with the worst post-pandemic unemployment rates as of May 2021:

  1. Hialeah, Florida: 8 percent
  2. New Orleans, Louisiana: 11 percent
  3. Long Beach, California: 10.6 percent
  4. Glendale, California: 10.4 percent
  5. Newark, New Jersey: 11.6 percent
  6. New York City, New York: 9.8 percent
  7. Los Angeles, California: 10.1 percent
  8. San Bernardino, California: 9.6 percent
  9. Chicago, Illinois: 9.3 percent
  10. North Las Vegas, Nevada: 9.9 percent

What explains the wide discrepancy between the cities who have essentially entirely recovered and those that remain deep in the red? Well, there are undoubtedly many factors influencing these cities’ unemployment rates, but two glaring ones stand out.

First, not all parts of the country locked down their economies with equal vigor or duration. From New Hampshire to Vermont to South Dakota, many of the states with cities represented in the top 10 strong recovery spots had relatively lighter government restrictions and rolled them back sooner. On the other hand, cities from intense lockdown states like California, New York, and New Jersey are heavily represented on the list—and that’s surely no coincidence.

Economies are complex systems, and cannot simply be switched on and off like a light switch. Those cities whose governments strangled economic activity over an extended period of time and hoped it would all come back when they decided to “open up” are clearly still experiencing the economic pain.

Secondly, the availability of ultra-generous unemployment benefits that pay many unemployed people more to stay home on welfare surely has had some influence on these rankings. States like New Hampshire with cities ranking highly have announced that they would end these benefits early, whereas states like California, Illinois, and New York have left them in place. The clear work disincentive presented by an unemployment system where households can earn the equivalent of $25/hour in many states has surely led to prolonged and heightened unemployment in the states which continue to embrace it.

Of course, there are many complex causes of city-level variations in unemployment rates and the economic recovery. But time and time again across these statistics and, frankly, the entire global economy, we see that areas with freer markets and less interference prosper more than those stifled by government control.


Data of the Day:

The jobs report for June was released today, and it shows an economy on the rebound. The economy added 850,000 new jobs in June, while the unemployment rate actually ticked up from 5.8 percent to 5.9 percent. This latter change likely indicates more people seeking work—only active job hunters count as “unemployed”—rather than more layoffs/job losses.

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

VIDEO: What You Need to Know About China’s Technology Theft Campaigns

One of the greatest threats to our freedom and democracy is the undermining of our economic vitality. The Chinese Communist Party and its business partners continue to steal technology and information from the U.S. at a staggering rate. They then use this technology to undermine our economy and achieve global economic dominance.

Investigative journalist Lara Logan explains the issue and provides viewers with an overview of this large and growing threat to our freedom.

WATCH:

©Clarion Project. All rights reserved.

Federal Government Imposes Up to $14,000 in ‘Hidden Taxes’ on Households Every Year, New Report Reveals

Most Americans pay close attention to how much of their money is taken in taxes each year. But there’s another, less obvious way the federal government imposes financial costs on citizens—and according to a new report, it amounts to trillions annually.

The fiscally-conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) just released its annual “Ten Thousand Commandments” report, which documents the “size, scope, and cost of federal regulations, and how they affect American consumers, businesses, and the U.S. economy at large.” Report author Clyde Wayne Crews explains how we face a “hidden tax” from the economic burden of our massive regulatory state. After all, tens of thousands of new regulations are imposed every year.

The report estimates the economic costs of federal regulation at an astounding $1.9 trillion annually.

To put that abstract sum in context, it’s nearly as much as the federal government collects in income and corporate taxes in a year. And a country that produced $1.9 trillion in output would be the 8th largest economy in the world (excluding the US). $1.9 trillion is more in economic output than Brazil or Italy produce in an entire calendar year.

Much of this $1.9 trillion in “hidden taxes” is ultimately borne by everyday Americans. To understand why, simply remember that regulations increase the costs associated with production. An unnecessary environmental regulation, for example, may force companies to take more cost-intensive steps during the production process. Ultimately, this leads to higher prices at the check-out line.

The CEI report explains that if we assume the costs all ultimately fall on consumers, then it equates to up to $14,368 in annual costs per US household.

This is a huge hit to the wallet. $14,368 in annual regulatory costs amounts to roughly 23 percent of the average household’s spending budget. It’s more than the typical household spends on food, transportation, healthcare, or anything except housing.

Oh, and don’t forget the $88 billion in taxpayer money spent by federal agencies each year just to administer, implement, and police these regulations.

The takeaway here is broader than just the financial impact of federal regulation, as significant as that may be. It’s yet another reminder that, as economist Frédéric Bastiat famously identified, the costs of government go beyond the obvious, what is “seen,” and extend to the “unseen.”

Of course, when it comes to the ever-expanding federal government, the most obvious cost is what the politicians in Washington, DC take from us in taxes every year. But this new report further proves that the unseen, hidden costs of the federal government’s growing involvement in economic life are even more drastic than what comes directly out of our paychecks.

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

States Ending Ultra-Generous Welfare Are Doing Better in One Big Way, New Data Show

We’ve got a new contender in the competition for the least-surprising news development of all time. As it turns out, if you pay people more to stay on unemployment welfare than they can earn working, and then scale back the benefits, more people will go back to work. Shocking!

Some have denied and pushed back against this basic economic reality, largely for political and partisan reasons. But new data on the unemployment trends across states taking different approaches to unemployment welfare make this truth truly impossible to deny.

Recent history offers us something of a natural experiment. The $300/week federal supplement on top of existing state-level unemployment benefits is set to expire at the end of September. Yet the dysfunctional expansion of the welfare system has meant that 42 percent of the unemployed can earn the same or more by not working. In 21 states, unemployed households can earn the equivalent of $25/hour while not working.

The work disincentives here are obvious. It’s hardly shocking that a record-breaking number of small businesses report being unable to fill their job openings.

So, dozens of conservative-leaning states have discontinued the benefits early, while dozens of liberal-leaning states have left it in place.

Thanks to recently released Labor Department data on unemployment claims, we can now, quite predictably, see the welfare rolls expanding in the states where the unemployment bonus remains in place. Yet the number of people on welfare is rapidly shrinking in the states where the supplement is set to expire or already has expired.

“The 26 states that have announced their plan to end participation in the $300 weekly unemployment bonus have seen a 12.7 percent decline on average in initial claims over the past week,” the fiscally-conservative Foundation for Government Accountability reports. “Meanwhile, states that have indicated they will continue participating in the unemployment bonus programs have seen an increase in initial claims by an average of 1.6 percent during this same period. The 12 states that have officially opted out of the $300 weekly bonus thus far have seen consistent declines each week since ending participation in the bonus.”

In other words, people are leaving the welfare rolls and returning to work in the states where the government is getting out of the way. They are not doing so as much in the states where expanded welfare continues to create dysfunctional incentives.

“State leaders are proving that ending enhanced unemployment bonuses can reignite the economic recovery for workers and businesses alike,” FGA Senior Research Analyst Hayden Dublois said. “This recent report highlights how ending the bonus will help get unemployed individuals back into the workforce quickly, help fill the record number of open jobs, and ensure small businesses can thrive.”

Of course, a strong correlation alone does not prove causation. But when combined with the fact that this result is exactly what basic economic theory—or even an elementary understanding of how humans respond to incentives—would predict, it’s strong evidence nonetheless.

When politicians muck up the labor market and discourage work with excessive welfare, dysfunction is sure to ensue. Getting the government out of the way does more good than any “stimulus” scheme ever will.

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

DemonRats Ensure Cruel & Unusual Punishment

Inflation, the cruelest tax of all, is here. Under the insane monetary agenda of this socialist administration, America and Americans are all going to feel the terrible affects of inflation. There is no other option as they, the Democrats, resort to previously failed policies and discard any attempt at being fiscally conservative or responsible. Hyper inflation is coming shortly to every store and household in America. Thanks Joe! NOT!

Manufacturers are all facing major dilemmas now. Raise prices or suffer the losses and increased overheads. Unfortunately most will have no other option than to raise prices, and once that route is selected, it will become continuous as inflation rises. I spoke recently to an Israeli who has a tea import/export business. He used to pay only 6 months ago, $1800 per container shipped from China to the US. He now pays $8300 for the same container load and his company is losing money daily. He has large contracts with fixed pricing with companies like CVS and May have to break contracts as the losses mount. That, America, is inflation.

A little later in this blog I am going to give some more examples of companies that produce everyday products we all buy and consume which have already increased in pricing and they intend to continue that process as inflation increases.

The surging cost increases that are a direct result of the Democrats policies have increased fuel costs, raw materials, energy and transportation. These increases in many cases are in double figures. Sometimes triple figures.

18 of 26 S&P500 companies have already acknowledged increases in their products. The other 8 will follow shortly. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said Wednesday the WH will raise its inflation forecast for the year in its forthcoming midyear economic projections amid growing concerns about surging consumer prices. That shows they understand their policies will hurt all Americans but they do not care. They use a figure excluding food and energy data to try say inflation in May alone was 3.8% as opposed to well over 5% which I think is also understated and low.

They lie.

The following companies have, as I said already, committed themselves to continuous price increases.

Clorox has committed to increases from July. In the words of the Company CEO Linda Rendle:- “Given the volatility and the increases we’re seeing in the resin market, we’re looking at taking additional pricing in Glad based on what we’ve seen.”

Constellation Brands, the beer and wine producer, have increased prices 2% and further increases will follow, possibly monthly, as their raw product and material prices soar.

General Mills financial officers stated that increases will continue as global, broad based inflation increases. You all eat cereal? Maybe have to cut back on that!

Coca Cola is having to increase prices, and those increases appear to be large and the company is expecting headwinds from consumers as the financial year 2021 and 2022 proceeds. They expect to keep their increases coming monthly in line with inflation.

Kimberley-Clark stated in April they had no option but to increase prices on all their products, the best known being Scott toilet paper and Huggies diapers. They raised them all from high single digits to double figure increases. These will continue as inflation grows.

Kraft Heinz has stated that they haven’t increased prices yet but are examining everything. Remember America, these corporations, regardless of size, will only absorb a certain amount of losses before shareholders object. Up to now they have mitigated those extra costs by reducing their own costs with efficiencies in staffing levels etc.

Kellogg’s, the other major cereal producer of fame, state they have examined many levers to deal with inflation with price increases and what they call “price park architecture.” This is putting smaller amounts of product into the same size or similar box to make you feel it’s not too expensive. A con job. To me that is wrong. It shows immorality in that company but they are not alone in that fraudulent application.

Tyson, the US second largest producer of chicken, pork and beef product, have already increased their prices as animal feed and other basic materials have increased exponentially. They have seen substantial increases from their entire supply chain and have had no option other than to raise pricing.

When you add the ever increasing cost of fuel, wages, energy costs and staff shortages into this bleak picture, we are in for a rocky road. Wages will not keep up with inflation and our standard of living will go down dramatically. Jobs will be lost as companies try to stop losses or slow them down. Luxuries will not be bought. Unhealthy foods will be bought as they are far cheaper when feeding a family. Vacations will be cancelled. There will be Trades Union actions against companies that will not be able to afford increases in salaries and benefits as their bottom line contracts.

I have seen this play out in countries I have lived in or visited. It is not a pretty picture. It is very destructive to any society and a great leveler of financial groups from middle class down.

A recent Axios/Momentive survey showed that the majority of young people (18 to 35) are willing to get rid of capitalism and move to socialism. These younger folk are led mainly by African Americans and women. In pre Covid days the same group were asked about socialism and capitalism and just 39% held a positive view on socialism. Now that figure has gone up over 50%.

I wonder if they still will as socialism plays out and they begin to suffer!

©Fred Brownbill. All rights reserved.

New Poll Details Voters’ Distrust of Big Tech, Big Government

Never, in the history of mankind, has such immense, incalculable power been in the hands of so few.

New poll details voters’ distrust of Big Tech, big government

By Samuel Chamberlain, NY Post, June 26, 2021 |

Most American voters believe that five tech giants, including Facebook and Google, have too much power — but even more think the federal government has a surplus of sway, according to a new poll.

Fox News survey of 1,001 registered voters found that 63 percent believe Facebook has too much power. By comparison, 68 percent of respondents said they believe the federal government has too much power and 65 percent said they think the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has too much power.

Voters aren’t much more fond of other Big Tech mainstays, with 55 percent believing Google has too much power, 53 percent saying Twitter has too much power and 52 percent saying the same about Apple. Fifty-one percent of respondents said that Amazon has too much power, the same percentage who said the FBI is too powerful.

Paradoxically, the vast majority of respondents say that they have either a Facebook account (70 percent), an Amazon account (76 percent), or a Google account (81 percent), though the percentage of Facebook users is down four percentage points from 2018.

Despite the widespread use of social media companies, a whopping 69 percent of respondents said they don’t trust those firms to make “fair decisions” about what information is posted on their platforms, compared to just 26 percent who said they do.

Possibly due to mistrust of the federal government, most voters don’t want the tech giants to be broken up, with one exception: 53 percent of respondents said Facebook should be dismantled, while just 46 percent said the same of Amazon, Apple and Google.

Lawmakers from both parties have long had Facebook and Twitter in their crosshairs, with Democrats accusing them of doing nothing to stop the spread of misinformation that they believe contributed to Donald Trump’s victory in the 2016 presidential election. Republicans have accused both platforms of anti-conservative bias and of restricting the reach of accounts that they deem to be “misinformation” (a process known as “shadow-banning”), even while allowing representatives of totalitarian regimes like Iran and China to spread lies indiscriminately.

Last fall, Twitter prevented its users from sharing The Post’s bombshell reporting on Hunter Biden’s abandoned laptop, which exposed the now-first son’s business dealings in Ukraine and China. Twitter even went so far as to lock The Post out of its own account, citing a policy against sharing hacked materials despite there being no evidence that the materials were hacked.

On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee narrowly approved the last piece of a legislation package meant to prevent big tech companies from using their reach to throttle competitors.

The legislation requires tech giants to sell lines of business they run on their platforms if they also compete against them; show that potential mergers are legal rather than require antitrust enforcers prove they are not, and allow users to transfer their data elsewhere.

The legislation’s future in a closely divided House and Senate is unclear, but House Republicans have said they intend to introduce their own legislation to combat alleged anti-conservative bias by social media companies.

RELATED ARTICLE: Joe Biden Forgets to Address Miami-Dade Building Collapse, AWKWARD Moment VP Harris Reminds Him

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

Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Twitter, LinkedIn, Google Adsense permanently banned us. Facebook, Twitter, Google search et al have shadow-banned, suspended and deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Help us fight. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here  — it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever. Share our posts on your social channels and with your email contacts. Help us fight the great fight.

And if you can, please contribute to Geller Report. YOU make the work possible.

New Data Offer Even More Proof Price Inflation is on the Rise

Proponents of big government spending have desperately argued that mounting price inflation is just temporary. But multiple alarming inflation metrics came out for April and May, and examples of rising prices are clear to see from big-box retail stores to the real estate market.

Now, yet another metric has come in making the ongoing inflation even more difficult to deny. CNBC reports that the personal consumption expenditures price index, which the Federal Reserve uses to make policy, came in at an annualized 3.4 percent on Friday. This is the largest increase in the metric in nearly 30 years. When factoring in food and energy, the metric reports that consumer prices rose 3.9 percent from May 2020 to May 2021.

In certain sectors, the price inflation is especially acute. The report says that the energy sector alone has experienced a 27.4 percent increase in prices over the last year.

Why does this matter? Well, price inflation is a form of “stealth taxation” that erodes the real purchasing power and living standards of Americans.

“After a year of lockdowns leading to job losses and pay cuts, many Americans aren’t in a position to pay… higher prices,” FEE economist Peter Jacobsen wrote. “It’s easy for someone with a comfortable job or nest egg to scoff at these price increases, but working-class and poor Americans feel the difference.”

For people living paycheck-to-paycheck, a 27 percent increase in their energy bill is a serious problem. And it’s also important to understand that, at least in part, the current price inflation can be traced back to federal monetary policy. Simply put, the Federal Reserve printed trillions of new dollars to fund “stimulus” efforts, and prices naturally rose as a result.

“The quantity of money has increased more than 32.9% since January 2020,” Jacobsen explained. “That means nearly one-quarter of the money in circulation has been created since then. If more dollars chase the exact same goods, prices will rise.”

The laws of economics don’t care about the politics of who is in charge of the federal government at the moment. As politically inconvenient as it may be for some, we just got even more confirmation that profligate federal policy is contributing to rising prices for American consumers.

Data of the Day: Axios reports that the bipartisan compromise infrastructure deal reached between President Biden and some Senate Republicans does not include any tax increases—which means the spending binge would add $1.2 trillion to the national debt.

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

Biden Administration’s New ‘Woke’ Corporate Disclosure Rules Will Cost Companies Billions, Experts Warn

Under the Biden administration’s leadership, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has proposed new “woke” corporate disclosure rules. A new form of social-justice-based financial regulation, the federal agency’s rules would mandate that companies track, report, and disclose a wide array of data on issues such as climate change emissions and diversity.

This might poll well or look nice at first glance. But like any complex federal regulation, the woke reporting rules will have many unintended consequences—namely, they’ll cost businesses billions.

“Business groups are trying to calculate just how much money public companies might have to shell out to comply with the Securities and Exchange Commission’s planned new ‘woke’ corporate disclosure rules, and initial estimates aren’t pretty,” Fox Business reports. “While no exact estimate can be determined, the SEC’s new disclosure mandates involving everything from the environment to board diversity is likely to cost U.S. public companies well into the billions of dollars.”

The goal of the SEC regulation is to promote environmentalism and racial equality, with regulators likely having good intentions. But they are either unable or unwilling to foresee the adverse consequences that could accompany this virtue-signaling effort.

Heritage Foundation senior fellow David R. Burton, a specialist in tax and financial regulation, laid out the many ways these rules will likely backfire in a letter to the SEC.

He agreed that “requiring all public companies to develop climate modeling expertise, the ability to make macroeconomic projections based on these models and then make firm-specific economic assessments based on these climate and economic models will be expensive,” likely costing billions.

The result?

“These expenses would harm investors by reducing shareholder returns,” Burton explained. This means it’s not just Big Business, but the millions of Americans who invest in the stock market or rely on it for their retirement, who could bear the costs.

Burton further warns that these woke disclosure rules would result in “the creation of a new compliance eco-system and pro-complexity lobby composed of the economists, accountants, attorneys and compliance officers that live off of [regulatory compliance].” Simply put, they would even further entrap firms into wasting money on red tape compliance costs.

The Heritage expert also added that the rules would fuel a huge rise in costly litigation.

Meanwhile, it’s unclear what, if anything, the SEC’s woke disclosure mandates would accomplish—beyond merely virtue-signaling, of course.

“This whole ESG thing is just one giant waste of time and money,” said Chris Whalen, chief of Whalen Global Advisors. “It’s just a big show that only benefits the consultants and the lawyers who are making money off of this.”

Data of the Day: Meal prices at restaurants have surged as much as 5 percent in just the last few weeks, Bloomberg reports, in the latest example of inflation eating away at everyday Americans’ wallets. It’s part of a broader trend in food inflation.

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

The Supreme Court Just Struck a Big Blow for Private Property—Against Union Invasion

Do union activists have the right to invade a business owner’s private property? The Supreme Court just rejected a California regulation and answered the question with a resounding “no.”

Here’s the backstory.

Mike Fahner owns a successful strawberry farm in California, Cedar Point Nursery, which provides roughly 500 jobs and pays above-market wages. But in 2015, union activists came to the farm, which is private property, to protest and harass the farmworkers in an attempt to get them to join their union. Video shows their behavior was aggressive and disruptive. Yet due to a California state law mandating that union activists be allowed on private property up to 3 hours a day, 120 days a year, Fahner was unable to make the activists leave his property.

Working with the libertarian-leaning Pacific Legal Foundation, Fahner challenged this law as an unconstitutional violation of his property rights—and his case made it all the way to the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 ruling handed down on Wednesday, the Supreme Court struck down the California law as a violation of the Fifth Amendment, which protects Americans’ property rights. The Fifth Amendment mandates that the government cannot take peoples’ property without providing them adequate compensation.

“The right to exclude is ‘a fundamental element of the property right,’” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority. What he means is that core to your property rights is the ability to remove people from your property. After all, you don’t really own your home if you don’t have the right to make other people leave.

So, by restricting business owners’ rights to exclude people from their property—and failing to compensate them for this restriction—the California government violated the Constitution.
​​​The three liberal-leaning justices argued that this regulation doesn’t count as a “taking” of property, because the state is not literally taking it away, but merely regulating its use. However, as the Wall Street Journal editorial board notes, such a narrow and limited view of property contradicts the Founders’ vision and would negate landowners’ fundamental rights.

“Under the liberals’ interpretation, governments could require property owners to give the public or special interest groups access to their land to promote broadly defined social goods,” the Journal explains. “Owners of beach front property would have to let the public trample through their land. Workplaces might have to let political organizers talk to employees.”

Whether one loves or loathes unions is entirely beside the point. The Supreme Court just struck a blow for property rights, and all Americans should celebrate this victory for freedom.

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

Restaurants Are Now Adding ‘Equity’ Charges to Customers’ Checks to Fight Oppression

“Where should we eat tomorrow?” my wife asked me excitedly as we sat on our deck Friday evening.

She had locked down a babysitter for Saturday night, and we were both eager for our first dinner date alone together in months.

“Broders’,” I answered without hesitation.

Located in southwest Minneapolis, Broders Pasta Bar is a local gem. It has a great outdoor patio and the best Italian cuisine in the Twin Cities. We had not eaten there since the pandemic began.

My wife nodded and started to make a reservation on her phone. Then her jaw dropped.

“You’re not going to like this,” she said.

An Equity Charge?

She was right.

On its website, Broders’ has a notice to customers notifying them of a new 15 percent “benefits and equity” charge they’ve instituted. They justify the charge, first, by explaining that “many states have allowed reduced minimum wages for service staff in the form of a tip credit.” (More on this in a minute.)

The restaurant’s second justification is that many tippers are racist and sexist, according to uncited research.

“Studies have also shown that there is inequity and built-in bias in the way consumers give tips,” the statement reads. “In general, Black or Brown servers receive less tips than Caucasian servers. There is gender bias as well.”

The final part of the statement says the new policy stems from wider racial injustice and is not a substitute for gratuity.

“In the wake of racial injustice protests and the closures due to Covid, now is the time for Broders’ to reimagine its economics and provide fair pay across the company,” the statement reads. “Our Benefits & Equity Charge is applied entirely to employee compensation. This supplement helps us to set a $16 minimum hourly wage for customer facing employees, $18 minimum hourly wage for kitchen employees… Altogether this allows everyone in our company to earn a real living wage. The 15% Benefits & Equity Charge is not a gratuity.”

Broders’ is of course free to add this additional charge, but there are few things that should be noted.

First, it’s true that many states allow tipped employees to make less than the minimum wage. However, Minnesota is not one of those states. Businesses with gross revenue over $500,000 are legally required to pay employees—including tipped workers—at least $10.08 an hour. (For businesses with gross revenue less than $500,000, the minimum wage is $8.21.)

For Broders’ to include this sentence—”many states have allowed reduced minimum wages”—for a justification of its equity policy while fully knowing this policy is not in use in Minnesota is nothing short of deceptive.

Second, I’m no Robert Irvine, but telling your customers you are going to begin charging them more because they are too bigoted to tip fairly might not be a winning restaurant strategy. Just sayin’. As a former restaurant worker, I pride myself on being a generous and fair tipper, and the implication that I can’t be trusted with this responsibility doesn’t sit well with me.

Finally, if Broders’ doesn’t feel restaurant workers in the back are earning enough money, there is a solution to that: pay them more. This action doesn’t require any surcharges or public lectures on systemic oppression. It only requires the restaurant to run an efficient and profitable business that allows them to pay workers a wage they believe is fair and “livable.”

Out of curiosity, I looked around to see if other restaurants are adding similar charges. I quickly found one. Pizzeria Toro, a North Carolina restaurant, recently announced that it is introducing a 20 percent Living Wage Fee.

The pizzeria’s owner, Gray Brooks, said this is the “equitable” thing to do. “In order for the bottom to rise up, the top has to come down a little bit,” said Brooks.

This is, of course, a perfect example of the fixed pie fallacy. For those unfamiliar, the fallacy assumes that the economy is fixed, and for the poor to do better, the better off must simply sacrifice more.

“If we assume that wealth is a fixed pie, then the more slices the rich get, the fewer are left over for the poor,” Chelsea Follett explained. “In other words, people can only better themselves at the expense of others. In the world of the fixed pie, if we observe the rich becoming richer, then it must be because other people are becoming poorer. Fortunately, in the real world, the pie is not fixed.”

That the fixed pie is a fallacy is clear. New matter cannot be created, but new value can be. Value is created every time two parties make a voluntary exchange. And the market economy is a vast network of trillions upon trillions of value-creating exchanges.

The market economy’s “pie” of value grows with every “win-win” exchange. So, there’s no need for “win-lose” transfers from have-mores to have-lesses.

Historically, the poor have been helped much more by the freedom and opportunity to participate in the market than from wealth transfers (whether in the form of charity or taxation). And the most poverty-alleviating way to use private wealth has not been to give it away, but to invest it in capital goods, which boosts labor productivity and thus lifts up real wages. Just look at the rise of per capita income since the 18th century, which shows “the growing pie” of the market benefited everyone.

The owners of these establishments are free to run their businesses as they like (just as I’m free to take my business elsewhere). But, if they really care about uplifting their workers, they should worry less about corporate virtue-signaling and more about actually improving their business. And if they still have bandwidth to do some good after that, they might work on opposing all the myriad ways—the minimum wage, occupational licensing, etc—that government gets in the way of workers participating in and benefiting from “growing the pie.”

“Most economic fallacies derive from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another,” Milton Friedman once observed.

One of the reasons the fixed pie fallacy persists, no doubt, is this hyperfocus on equity. Some might look at equity surcharges as just a shrewd ploy for restaurants to get more for their workers, but that doesn’t mean they are benign.

Focusing on equity tends to place labor and business at odds, implying that workers are being exploited and deprived of their fair share. This idea—that the employer-employee relationship is inherently exploitative—is grounded in Marxism, and has been effectively refuted by economists. This mindset taps into resentment and class struggle, two pillars of socialism, and teaches people to see the world through the lens of oppression and conflict.

To be sure, in a new twist, restaurants appear to be trying to pass this alleged exploitation onto customers, perhaps to placate disgruntled workers or maybe to tap into social justice currents. But this doesn’t make the ideas less harmful.

Whatever the case, I suspect attempts to make customers pay “equity” chargers will backfire.

Customers like having choices. That’s one of the many beauties of markets. Consumers can choose how we respond to things. If you don’t like Twitter’s aggressive policies on speech, fine; you can go somewhere else. If you don’t care for Chick fil A’s charitable donations, you can eat at Popeye’s. If a car dealership treats you poorly, you can take your business elsewhere.

And if you don’t like your favorite restaurant’s new equity surcharge policy, you can simply exercise the power of exit—and I intend to.

The choice for me was simple: My favorite restaurant added an equity surcharge. What should I do?

I will not be eating at Broders’ again, I’m sad to say. At least not while I’m being slapped with equity charges.

COLUMN BY

Jon Miltimore

Jonathan Miltimore is the Managing Editor of FEE.org. His writing/reporting has been the subject of articles in TIME magazine, The Wall Street Journal, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, and the Star Tribune. Bylines: Newsweek, The Washington Times, MSN.com, The Washington Examiner, The Daily Caller, The Federalist, the Epoch Times.

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

Progressive Lawmakers Are Working on a Backdoor Plan to Quietly Take Us One Step Closer to Socialist Healthcare

Bipartisan talks over compromise spending legislation are ongoing in Congress, but the prospects of the two parties reaching a compromise aren’t exactly bright. So, progressive lawmakers in Washington, DC are already planning a $6 trillion spending bonanza that they will try to push through on a party-line vote if or when bipartisan talks hit a roadblock. Included in this plan is a big expansion of government healthcare.

“The package – which Democrats could pass on a party-line vote using their slimmest-possible Senate majority – includes other Democratic goals, such as lowering Medicare’s eligibility age from 65 to 55 or 60 and expanding the program to cover dental work, glasses and eye surgeries as well as hearing aids,” Fox Business reports.

This sounds like a small tweak to Medicare, the massive government healthcare program for senior citizens. But lowering the age to 60 is actually a move with drastic ramifications.

For one, Medicare is already one of the biggest drivers of our federal budget crisis. Its major trust funds are projected to reach insolvency within the next 5 years. Further expanding this program that’s already fueling our debt crisis will only accelerate this impending fiscal nightmare.

But even more importantly, it represents a significant step toward the socialist dream of government-run healthcare for all. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 60—let alone 55—could lead to up to 14.1 million people being shifted off of private health insurance and onto the government plan.

In short, it’s a big step toward “Medicare for All,” the progressive dream where private health insurance is all but eradicated and the government controls our healthcare. The problems with this are endless.

As flawed as our crony, highly-regulated healthcare system may be, the preservation of some degree of profit-motive due to the remaining private sector is why we have one of the most innovative healthcare systems in the world. As the Washington Examiner’s Tiana Lowe explains, “The United States comprises 4.4 percent of the world’s population, yet we produce 44 percent of the world’s medical research and development. This is not a coincidence. Of the $171.8 billion we spend on R&D, the federal government contributes just one-fifth, with private industry footing the overwhelming majority of the bill.”

Meanwhile, shifting everyone on to the government’s healthcare would eventually require more than doubling federal income and corporate taxes—and that’s a conservative estimate. And even then, healthcare shortages and rationing are sure to ensue.

More fundamentally, if the government completely takes over our healthcare, we may soon find that the choices we make about our health are no longer our own.

Regardless, if lawmakers want to pass a massive expansion of government healthcare, they should openly propose it and make their case to the American people. If they’re able to quietly slip it into a huge spending bill, a big loss for freedom could occur without much of a fight.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Restaurants Are Now Adding ‘Equity’ Charges to Customers’ Checks to Fight Oppression

4 Signs Parents Won’t Be Sending Their Kids Back to Public School This Fall

No, Fidel Castro Didn’t Improve Health Care or Education in Cuba

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