Federal Reserve Bank of New York Study Finds Biden-Harris ‘Equity’ Proposal Would Make Racial Inequality Worse

A recent Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that a monetary shock would raise stock prices by 5 percent, raising the annual incomes of white people by as much as 300 percent more than those of blacks.


The Biden-Harris administration has made stamping out racial “inequities” the focus of all its policies. But the government interventions proposed to close these gaps will only “accentuate inequalities for extended periods” of time, according to a recent study.

Days before the 2020 election, Kamala Harris announced a plan to replace equality with equity in government policymaking. Rather than treating people equally, politicians committed to advancing equity would try to assure an equality of outcome between racial and ethnic groups. In one of the many executive orders Joe Biden signed on his first day in office, the president promised an “ambitious whole-of-government equity agenda” to fight “systemic racism.”

This includes the prospect of instrumentalizing the Federal Reserve’s control over monetary policy to equalize wealth across racial categories. His campaign platform, which pledges to “strengthen the Federal Reserve’s focus on racial economic gaps,” states that “the Fed should aggressively enhance its surveillance and targeting of persistent racial gaps in jobs, wages, and wealth” and then report “what actions the Fed is taking through its monetary and regulatory policies to close these gaps.”

The idea has a full slate of supporters, who want to add effecting racial equity to the Federal Reserve’s two existing mandates of “maximum employment and price stability.” Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Maxine Waters introduced the Federal Reserve Racial and Economic Equity Act last year, which instructs the Federal Open Market Committee “to minimize  and  eliminate  racial  disparities  in  employment,  wages,  wealth,  and  access  to  affordable credit.” And Rep. Ayanna Pressley raised the issue with Fed Chairman Jerome Powell during a House Financial Services Committee hearing last Tuesday.

It is, shall we say, a going concern.

These politicians would have the Fed keep interest rates artificially low and the monetary supply growing, based on the Phillips Curve. Jared Bernstein, one of Biden’s economic advisers, believes that lower interest rates and what are traditionally regarded as inflationary policies will juice the economy enough to decimate persistent pockets of poverty.

As it turns out, the policy would backfire, thanks to the law of unintended consequences.

The Federal Reserve Bank of New York tested the impact of a “monetary policy shock” on the black-white racial gap. While such a “policy increases employment of black households more than white households, the overall effects are small” – a mere 0.2 percentage points.

But the “solution” creates two new problems. Low interest rates and inflation punish savers and reward investors by making more capital available and driving people to seek a higher rate of return in the stock market. The study found that a monetary shock would raise stock prices by 5 percent, raising the annual incomes of white people by 200 percent to 300 percent more than those of blacks.

The Fed also made the startling discovery that inflationary policies result in inflation. The proposed policy would raise “house prices by over 2% over a five year period.” That will only deepen the 30-point home ownership gap between whites and blacks. Home ownership accounts for approximately 60 percent of the average household’s wealth.

In the end, the equity-building policy actually “exacerbates the wealth difference between black and white households, because black households own less financial assets that appreciate in value.”

Critical theory’s single-minded focus on “equity” constitutes a four-fold error of collectivism:

  • It assumes an individual’s race, sex, ethnicity, or other self-identification category is the most important aspect of his or her identity;
  • It asserts that the individual’s well-being is controlled by membership in these discreet groups
  • It presumes the individual’s lot in life can be dictated by government intervention; and
  • It posits that the individual has been harmed when his or her income, wealth, and living standards increase if other groups benefit even more at the same time, widening the gap between population cohorts.

Measuring “wealth inequality” has its share of empirical pitfalls. But critical theory causes its true believers to advocate for policies that are self-defeating on their own terms.

This is all the more frustrating, since the United States has recent experience in how to improve the status of the poor and minorities. President Donald Trump’s administration did not rely on Fed policy to achieve record-breaking employment for blacks and Hispanics. These results came about through a combination of tax cuts and deregulation, which freed the pent-up creativity and innovation that had been lying dormant under more restrictive policies. While they were active, black and Hispanic wealth grew by 1,100% to 2,200% more than whites, according to the Federal Reserve:

Between 2016 and 2019, median wealth rose for all race and ethnicity groups … Growth rates for the 2016–19 period were faster for [b]lack and Hispanic families, rising 33 and 65 percent, respectively, compared to [w]hite families, whose wealth rose 3 percent, and other families, whose wealth rose 8 percent.

These gains came from a president whom critical theory proponents regard as indifferent or hostile to minorities’ interests. The legislation contained no special provisions to boost “equity” by increasing minority wealth. Yet these policies, which generally tended to reduce the role of government in people’s lives, succeeded because they allowed individuals greater margin to pursue their God-given talents for the service of others.

Perhaps the wisest counsel to reduce racial inequities comes from the Apostle James: “My brothers and sisters, believers in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ must not show favoritism” (James 2:1).

This Acton Institute article was republished with permission.

COLUMN BY

Ben Johnson

Rev. Ben Johnson is a senior editor at the Acton Institute. His work focuses on the principles necessary to create a free and virtuous society in the transatlantic sphere (the U.S., Canada, and Europe).

RELATED ARTICLES:

Cuomo’s Controversial COVID Policy Linked to Higher Nursing Home Deaths, Study Finds

Dolly Parton’s Powerful Message About the American Dream (and What Her Critics Get Wrong)

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

Defend Florida Video Update: Protecting the Rights of Florida and Its Citizens

Defend Florida wants to thank you for your SUPPORT in helping us get the word out about Defend Florida and ACTING when we send the Call to Action! Our efforts have inspired and connected leaders in our communities across Florida. We, collectively, stand as a force for freedom, justice and The American Way.

Exciting Things Are Happening at Defend Florida and You Are Part of This Amazing Movement!

General Flynn Exclusive: We the People, Power of the Grassroots!

General Michael Flynn discusses the Defend Florida movement and how it is inspiring freedom-loving Americans to unite at the grassroots level to restore our liberties and our constitutional rights.


Defend Florida at CPAC

We are so excited to be part of this years event. CPAC will be held at the Hyatt Regency Orlando from February 25 – 28, 2021.

List of Speakers here: https://cpac.conservative.org/speakers/

The event is currently sold out for general admin tickets but you can get a live link on the CPAC website.

Defend Florida Location:

Defend Florida will meet at Saturday at 8:00 am in front of the Regency Ballroom. 

Look For This Poster, come by and say hi! We look forward to meeting you.

National Unity Summit: Make America Free Again

We will be adding speakers to this event in the coming days. Check our website or Eventbrite for updates. 

Save The Date March 21st @ 6:00 p.m. EST, 3:00 p.m. PST, 4:00 p.m. Central.

Get Your Free Tickets Here: Free Tickets

If you have seen or Experienced Voter Fraud Please fill out the Form Below:

https://form.jotform.com/ms533957/Voter_Current


Watch Caroline Wetherington explain more about what Defend Florida is about.

Copyright @2021DefendFlorida.org.  All rights reserved.

Are lockdowns one of the most catastrophic policy errors of the century?

In many countries, there has been a systematic and mandatory paralysis of schooling, work, leisure, and mobility.


When respected scientific experts sitting on prestigious governmental advisory committees warned citizens early last year that the only way to protect themselves against Covid-19 was to shut down their businesses and stay at home until public health officials deemed it safe to come out again, most complied, even at great personal and economic cost.

The result has been one of the most far-reaching and unprecedented social experiments of modern times: the systematic and mandatory paralysis of a large swathe of normal social activity, including schooling, work, leisure, and mobility. If this giant experiment had been run on a one-off basis for a few weeks, the impact might have been moderate; but as it morphed into “rolling” lockdowns, the cure became far worse than the disease.

China got the ball rolling, by imposing a dramatic lockdown upon its citizens in January 2020. A host of Western governments soon followed suit, and lockdowns were imposed in relatively quick succession in Italy, France, Spain, Ireland, Germany, Belgium, Greece, the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and large parts of North America.

A “lockdown” could be technically defined as one or more non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) which heavily restrict the movements and activities of the general population in order to contain the spread of an infectious disease. Voluntary reductions in socialising are not considered as lockdown measures; involuntary, police-enforced restrictions such as stay-at-home orders, travel restrictions, partial or complete border closures, and mandatory school and business closures, are.

The use of these sorts of highly intrusive population-wide measures to mitigate a pandemic represent a revolutionary break with conventional wisdom and best practice surrounding infectious disease control.

Prior to 2020, national and international public health authorities generally accepted that infectious diseases should be mitigated through relatively non-intrusive measures like improved hand hygiene, the development of more effective medical treatments and vaccines, and isolation of specific individuals or groups known to have been exposed to an infectious disease.

For example, the report on “Non-pharmaceutical public health measures for mitigating the risk and impact of epidemic and pandemic influenza” issued by the World Health Organisation in 2019 did not endorse the general efficacy of border closures as tools of disease control, nor did it contemplate the possibility of confining healthy populations to their homes.

So much for the prevailing philosophies of disease control. What of prevailing practices of disease control? To my knowledge, neither mandatory school and business closures, nor stay-at-home orders, have ever been employed in a systematic and centrally coordinated way to mitigate disease – that is, until January 2020. Therefore, centrally coordinated lockdowns of the sort that we have seen in 2020 must be considered as unorthodox, untested, and highly experimental interventions.

The question is, what have been the fruits of this giant public policy experiment? Have lockdowns actually been vindicated by their net benefits?

In order to adequately address this question, we must be clear on one thing: the appropriate benchmark for assessing the merits of lockdown policies is not just their capacity to reduce Covid infections or deaths, but their capacity to advance the overall health and well-being of affected populations.

For example, even if we eliminated Covid from the face of the earth, that would hardly be desirable if it drove a large section of the population into poverty and increased overall excess mortality.

Nobody in their right mind would deny that Covid-19 illnesses and deaths are a serious harm that we should mitigate in any reasonable way we can. Nonetheless, given the massive collateral damages that severe and prolonged lockdowns are known to inflict on society, they should never be undertaken in the absence of a careful cost-benefit analysis.

Yet to this day, I have not seen reports of any serious or sustained effort by pro-lockdown governments to show that the enormous harms of lockdown are justified by their likely net benefits. The fact that lockdowns have been employed without this sort of justification in hand is reason enough to consider them as reckless, inhumane and morally abhorrent.

The predictable harms of lockdowns, which will have to be carefully documented and tallied over the coming months and years, are extensive.

They include the worst global recession, according to World Bank analysts, since World War II, and dramatic increases in poverty and unemployment (currently at 25% in Ireland, including recipients of Covid payments according to the Central Office of Statistics), which are known to bring in their train declines in mental and physical health. This is also resulting in reduced public funding for healthcare due to a depressed economy; and an increase in social inequality, as day labourers and contract workers are uniquely vulnerable to the economic shock of lockdowns.

We’ve also seen an unprecedented transfer of wealth from small and medium businesses to multinational companies like Amazon, Netflix, and Google (given that small and medium traders are hit much harder by lockdowns than online traders).

Other tragic consequences of lockdown include spikes in loneliness, depression, and domestic abuse as people are deprived of social outlets beyond their homes. A generation of children are being set back in their education and life prospects by prolonged school closures (according to UNESCO, the impact of school closures “is particularly severe for the most vulnerable and marginalized (children)”.

A spike in untreated illnesses in expected, including cancer and heart disease, due to the cancellation of routine medical services and the generalised fear and panic generated by lockdowns. The WHO reported this month that the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic was “stark” and “profound” with “50 per cent of governments (having) cancer services partially or completely disrupted because of the pandemic.” One study in The Lancet Oncology journal estimates an increase of 8-9% in breast cancer deaths up to 5 years after diagnosis due to reductions or suspensions in cancer services.

On top of these obvious harms, we should not underestimate the impact of lockdown policies on civil rights and the rule of law. Legislators across Europe and North America have empowered the police to interrogate citizens just because they step into their cars, pay a visit to a friend or relative, or take a walk on the beach.

This level of State interference with basic civil liberties puts in jeopardy something very precious about the Western way of life: the idea that law-abiding citizens are free and responsible for their own actions, and not prisoners or wards of State.

Lockdowns are morally questionable on civil liberty grounds alone. But even if one believes it is legitimate to imprison citizens in their homes and strip them of a livelihood for the greater good, lockdowns remain a dangerous social experiment which should never be attempted in the absence of a compelling case that they do more good than harm.

Any government that does not provide a transparent and rigorous assessment of the likely costs and benefits of lockdowns before implementing them is guilty of gross negligence, and must answer to its citizens for its reckless and misguided interventions.

This article has been republished from Gript, with the permission of the author.

COLUMN BY

David Thunder

David Thunder is the Ramón y Cajal Researcher at the Institute for Culture & Society, (Religion & Civil Society Project) Biblioteca de Humanidades, University of Navarra, Spain. His publications… More by David Thunder

RELATED ARTICLE: How should we argue about what matters most?

RELATED TWEET:

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

Biden Cripples Immigration Law Enforcement: When Executive Orders handcuff agents – and set law violators free.

On February 18, 2021 the Washington Post reported, Biden memo for ICE officers points to fewer deportations and strict oversight.

Here is how that news report began:

U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers will need preapproval from a senior manager before trying to deport anyone who is not a recent border crosser, a national security threat or a criminal offender with an aggravated-felony conviction, according to interim enforcement memo issued by the Biden administration Thursday.

The narrower priorities are expected to result in a steep drop in immigration arrests and deportations. Biden officials said the new guidelines — which will be in effect for the next 90 days — will allow the agency to make better use of its resources while prioritizing public safety threats.

Having spent 26 years as an INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) special agent provides me with a unique perspective that I have provided at numerous congressional hearings and when I provided testimony to the 9/11 Commission.

As I read Biden’s Executive Orders and the various proposals for immigration law changes and massive amnesty programs, I am disheartened and frustrated.  What was the point to the hearings and the 9/11 Commission when the President promulgates policies that not only ignore the 9/11 Commission but actually take America in precisely the opposite direction from where we should be going?

With the stroke of his pen, and without legislation, Biden has profoundly undermined immigration law enforcement.

The DHS (Department of Homeland Security) was created in the wake of the 9/11 terror attacks.  The INS which had been under the Justice Department was replaced by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) and moved into the DHS.  ICE agents have the same lawful authority to enforce and administer the Immigration and Nationality Act as did agents of the INS and are important elements of what is referred to as the “Interior enforcement” of our immigration laws.

Under the law such agents are empowered to make warrantless arrests of aliens who are illegally present in the United States.  This is important to back up the efforts by the Border Patrol to prevent the un-inspected entry of aliens into the United States and the CBP (Customs and Border Protection) inspectors at ports of entry who admit aliens under various categories of visas.

Any alien who runs the border or violates the terms of his/her entry into the United States should not ever feel confident that they will not be discovered and arrested.  This is important to not only address alien law violators who are present in the United States but to deter foreign nationals who may seek to enter the United States illegally or otherwise violate our immigration laws.

This contributes to the integrity and credibility of our immigration laws and, indeed, all of our laws in general.  It has been said that you only get one opportunity to make a first impression.  Generally the first laws alien encounter are our immigration laws.  How we enforce those important laws sets the tone for all that follows.

Aliens who illegally take jobs are subject to deportation.  This is to protect the jobs and wages of American and lawful immigrant workers and is of particular importance during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Biden’s Executive Order, stripping ICE agents of discretionary authority to arrest illegal aliens they encounter sends a dangerous message to aspiring illegal aliens from around the world- that in America violations of our laws will not only be tolerated, but rewarded!

Preventing ICE agents from arresting aliens who are not “recent border crossers” is absurd.  No record of entry is created when aliens enter the United States without inspection.  From a practical standpoint, any illegal alien can now avoid arrest by lying about when he/she ran the border.

ICE agents would find it virtually impossible to refute such false claims as to the date the alien entered the United States.

The interior enforcement of our immigration laws and immigration fraud were identified by the 9/11 Commission as key issues and, in point of fact, The 9/11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel addressed these issues.

Page 54 contained this excerpt under the title 3.2 Terrorist Travel Tactics by Plot.”

Although there is evidence that some land and sea border entries (of terrorists) without inspection occurred, these conspirators mainly subverted the legal entry system by entering at airports.

In doing so, they relied on a wide variety of fraudulent documents, on aliases, and on government corruption. Because terrorist operations were not suicide missions in the early to mid-1990s, once in the United States terrorists and their supporters tried to get legal immigration status that would permit them to remain here, primarily by committing serial, or repeated, immigration fraud, by claiming political asylum, and by marrying Americans. Many of these tactics would remain largely unchanged and undetected throughout the 1990s and up to the 9/11 attack.

Thus, abuse of the immigration system and a lack of interior immigration enforcement were unwittingly working together to support terrorist activity. It would remain largely unknown, since no agency of the United States government analyzed terrorist travel patterns until after 9/11. This lack of attention meant that critical opportunities to disrupt terrorist travel and, therefore, deadly terrorist operations were missed.

While I agree that law enforcement has to prioritize actions which get the “most bang for the buck” through the creation of a sort of triage system where violent criminals should be the focus, it is wrongheaded and dangerous to ignore aliens who are not “aggravated felons.”

It is also wrong and dangerous to require ICE agents to provide information to local law enforcement about impending arrests since this presents a potential security problem, especially in “Sanctuary” jurisdictions.

Sleeper agents are foreign terrorists who are careful to not attract anyone’s attention. It has been said that effective spies would not attract the attention of a waiter or waitress as a “greasy spoon diner.”  International terrorists operate in the exact same manner, and, in point of fact spies and terrorists may well work as waiters or waitresses as they go about their deadly and nefarious goals.

Therefore there is no such thing as a “minor case.”

My very first fraud investigation, as a brand-new agent, caused me to trip over a terror plot in Israel.  A young man from Israel arrived at John F. Kennedy International Airport in the summer of 1976.  He had apparently altered his visa by chaining the date of expiration and the fact that he had already used that visa to enter the U.S. the previous year.  (The visa was valid for one entry and he had changed the number “one” to the number “two.”)   I was instructed to take a statement from him, if he was willing to cooperate.  This was supposed to be more of a training exercise for me.  He was going to be sent back to Israel, no matter what he might have to say.

Because of his recalcitrance to answer certain questions, I called the Israeli consulate in New York and they sent over several security officials to interview him.

During the course of interviewing him I found that his shirt did not fit properly.  I had him remove his shirt and was surprised to find that a pocket was sown into the inside of his shirt.  The pocket contained a piece of paper with an ink-drawn schematic diagram and Arabic writing.  I handed it over to the Israelis and we were all shocked that the diagram was of an oil refinery in Israel.  He was, we later found out, here to get the money to buy explosives to be used in a terror attack.

My superiors notified the FBI and working with the Israeli National Police six would-be co-conspirators were arrested in Israel just days before the attack was to have been carried out.

Another memorable case involved an alien working in a glass factory in Brooklyn.  He claimed to have been a naturalized citizen.  His story, however, did not add up.  He lied about his name and other facts.  As it turned out, he had been convicted of a homicide years earlier, served time in jail and was then deported back to his native Belize.  He was arrested when he reentered the United States without permission and was serving a prison sentence in a federal penitentiary for the crime of Reentry After Deportation (8 U.S. Code § 1326) when he escaped from the prison.  He took a job in that factory where we found him.  His boss, the factory’s owner, was shocked; he told me that he actually trusted him to lock up the factory the night when he had to leave early and had invited him to his home for dinner.

Rather than deterring violations of our nation’s immigration laws by aliens, which constitute our first and last line of defense, Biden has singled-handedly deterred the enforcement of those vital laws by dedicated ICE agents.

There is an expression used by agents that is worth considering:  “Big cases- big problems, little cases- little problems, no cases- NO PROBLEMS!”

It would appear that a new version of the “Miranda Warning” should be given to ICE agents warning them that anything that they do may be used against them!

©Michael Cutler. All rights reserved.

BREAKING VIDEO: Zuckerberg Takes ‘Anti-Vax’ Stance in Violation of Facebook’s Policy

Project Veritas released a new video today provided by a Brave Facebook Insider exposing Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg’s contradictory position when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines.

Here are some of the highlights from the video:

  • Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook CEO in July 2020: “But I do just want to make sure that I share some caution on this [vaccine] because we just don’t know the long-term side effects of basically modifying people’s DNA and RNA…basically the ability to produce those antibodies and whether that causes other mutations or other risks downstream. So, there’s work on both paths of vaccine development.”
  • During a public live stream with Dr. Fauci in November 2020, Zuckerberg had a different take: “Just to clear up one point, my understanding is that these vaccines do not modify your DNA or RNA. So that’s just an important point to clarify.”
  • Facebook announced last week that they are “expanding [their] efforts to remove false claims on Facebook and Instagram about COVID-19, COVID-19 vaccines and vaccines in general during the pandemic.”
  • Facebook said it would remove claims that vaccines change people’s DNA.
  • Facebook claims it wants people to “discuss, debate and share their personal experiences, opinions and views” as it pertains to the pandemic but will remove vaccine concerns from its platform that had once been expressed by their own CEO.

It is unclear if Facebook still stands by Zuckerberg’s concerns in July and whether or not the company would ban this video of Zuckerberg from its platforms because of vaccine policy violations.

Project Veritas continues to seek Brave Insiders working within Big Tech to come forward with more newsworthy information.

Contact us at VeritasTips@protonmail.com with tips that we should pursue.

You can also reach out through Signal: 914-653-3110.

©Project Veritas. All rights reserved.

PODCAST: Who Is Filling Biden’s Cabinet?

I was recently talking to old friend Rick Trader of the Conservative Commandos Radio show regarding President Biden’s cabinet picks. This caused me to dig in deeper and look into their background. Naturally, they are all filled in by Democrats, just as President Trump’s was filled in with Republicans, but there is something else going on.

In theory, the cabinet Secretaries should be the most qualified people for their jobs, just as in the business world. The idea of appointing someone for political favoritism reeks of nepotism and, quite often, is an impediment to progress. We typically see ambassadorships rewarded to political donors but cabinet positions are used to run the country, and political rewards would be a serious mistake.

In looking over the appointments, some make sense, others are just plain off the wall. It appears Biden has been selecting people based on their race, gender, their far-left ideology, or their work in the Obama administration (6 in all). It was certainly not for their management skills. As one example, Pete Buttigieg is a young man who only served as mayor of South Bend, Indiana (home of the University of Notre Dame), with a population of 102K, which is rather small in comparison to most major American cities. Nonetheless, he was appointed Secretary of Transportation, a field in which he has no experience whatsoever. I suspect he was rewarded this for his position on climate control which he spoke on during his failed campaign for president.

Let’s look over the list of cabinet appointments, and consider their qualifications; let us also look at the immediate predecessor from the Trump administration.

CABINET – APPOINTMENT

AGRICULTURE – TOM VILSACK

An Obama appointee, he held this position from 2009-2017. He is also a former governor of Iowa.

Trump: Ed Schafer – served twice as Agriculture Secretary and is a former governor of North Dakota.

ATTORNEY GENERAL – MERRICK GARLAND

Garland is best remembered as the Obama pick to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court, which was not acted on by the Senate. He has been serving as a federal judge, on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Believed to be moderate in most decisions, but leaning slightly left.

Trump: William Barr – twice served as Attorney General.

COMMERCE – GINA RAIMONDO

Currently, she is the governor of Rhode Island. Her background includes being a venture capitalist. As governor, she cut taxes every year, removed thousands of pages of regulations, raised the state minimum wage to $11.50, and made community colleges tuition-free (a favorite with the far-left). However, her approval ratings routinely ranked in the bottom of all governors in the United States.

Trump: Wilbur Ross – successful businessman. Named by Bloomberg Markets as one of the 50 most influential people in global finance.

DEFENSE – LLOYD AUSTIN

Austin is a West Point graduate and served over 40 years in the military. If confirmed, he will be the first black defense secretary. Previously, he was picked as Vice Chief of Staff of the United States Army by Barrack Obama.

Trump: Mark Esper – Also a West Point graduate, Esper joined the U.S. Army and served as an infantry officer with the 101st Airborne Division. He saw action in the Gulf War. Afterwards, he served in the 82nd Airborne and the Army National Guard.

EDUCATION – MIGUEL CARDONA

Cardona serves as the Connecticut commissioner of education. He has an extensive background in Connecticut education. The hard issues he faces include opening schools closed due to COVID-19, and transgender sports.

Trump: (acting) Phil Rosenfelt – been with the Department of Education since 2005.

ENERGY – JEFFIFER GRANHOLM

Former governor of Michigan. Was a member of the Obama transition team. Granholm is a distinguished adjunct professor of law and public policy at UC Berkeley. No energy experience.

Trump: Dan Brouillette – previously served as the Deputy Secretary of Energy from August 2017 to December 2019.

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES – XAVIER BECERRA

He is currently attorney general of California. He was previously a Congressman representing downtown Los Angeles. While in the House, he served as the chair of the House Democrat Caucus from 2013 to 2017. Becerra is perhaps best known as the AG, along with 15 other Democrat-led states, to file a lawsuit against the Trump administration over the president’s declaration of a national emergency to fund and build the southern U.S. border, as well as many more lawsuits against the administration. He is far-left.

Trump: (acting) Norris Cochran – part of DHHS since 2006.

HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) – MARCIA FUDGE

Fudge is currently a Democrat member of the House from Ohio. Her background is substantially different than her predecessor.

Trump: Dr. Ben Carson – a pioneer in the field of neurosurgery. He was also a professor of neurosurgery, oncology, plastic surgery, and pediatrics at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine. He is also known for his run for the presidency in 2016. If anything, Dr. Carson was over qualified for his job as HUD Secretary.

INTERIOR – DEB HAALAND

If confirmed, she will be the first Native American cabinet secretary. She has been very active in Democrat politics, such as speaking against the appointment of Judge Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court. She also actively supports the Green New Deal and Medicare for All. She is far-left.

Haaland’s appointment is controversial as a group of 15 Republican House members sent a letter to President Biden urging him to withdraw her name claiming, her nomination is “a direct threat to working men and women and a rejection of responsible development of America’s natural resources.”

Trump: David Bernhardt – also worked for the Department of the Interior during George W. Bush’s presidency.

LABOR – MARTY WALSH

Walsh is the current mayor of Boston. He is one of the few cabinet appointments cruising through his confirmation hearing. Walsh has an extensive background in unions, both as a member and as a mayor working with them.

Trump: Eugene Scalia – served one year as Solicitor of the Department of Labor during the George W. Bush administration. He is a son of the late Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia.

STATE – ANTONY BLINKEN

An Obama appointment serving as deputy secretary. Also served in Clinton’s state department and on the National Security Council for then VP Biden.

Trump: Mike Pompeo – former CIA Director, graduated first in his class as a West Point graduate, also served in the House of Representatives (KS).

TRANSPORTATION – PETE BUTTIGIEG

Former mayor of South Bend, Indiana. Ran for president in 2020. He worked on John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign as an advisor, policy and research specialist. No transportation experience. He is far-left.

Trump: Elaine Chao – Naturalized citizen. Married to Sen. Mitch McConnell. She has served the Department of Transportation since 1986, particularly in the Maritime Administration. Served as Deputy Transportation Secretary from 1989-1991. She was also the longest-serving Secretary of Labor.

TREASURY – JANET YELLEN

Recently confirmed, she is the first female Treasury Secretary. She has prior experience as the chair of the council of economic advisors and chair of the Federal Reserve under Obama. She comes from academia, where she has taught economics for many years at Harvard and the London School of Economics.

Trump: Steven Mnuchin – American investment banker at Goldman Sachs.

CONCLUSION

As with any job, people should be eminently qualified to successfully fulfill a job, but this isn’t always the case in Washington, DC. Unfortunately, the best people are not always available. After all, they would have to sacrifice their business careers in order to serve. So, you have to ask the question, are the people selected doing this for love of country or are there other ulterior motives, such as political recognition and power?

As we can see, not all of the candidates herein are qualified for their positions. This is like hiring ditch-diggers to work in Silicon Valley. Undoubtedly, all will tow the line when it comes to Democrat values and priorities, but will that make for a well-oiled machine to run the country? In all likelihood, when the Biden administration is done, we will have another costly mess to clean up and not a clean and productive hand-off. Unfortunately, this is how the American public elects to operate.

In the business world, there are two tried and proven tactics to rationalize failure; first, blame your predecessor, and; second, reorganize everything, making it difficult to straighten out later on. What we are now witnessing in the Biden administration is both excuses being implemented at warp speed. God help us!

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – For a listing of my books, click HERE.

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

DEFEND FLORIDA ACTION ALERT: Please Take Action on Two Key Gun Bills

ACTION ALERT 1 Florida State Legislation

House Bill (HB)133 – Surrendered Newborn Infants aka “Baby Box Bill”. (Related bill is SB122)

This bill extends the safely dropping off of unwanted babies from 7 days to 30 days.

It is being heard in the Children, Families, & Seniors Subcommittee tomorrow, Feb. 16, 2021, in Tallahassee at 1:00 PM, Room 214 House Office Building.

WHETHER YOU CAN ATTEND OR NOT, please go to this website and click on Appear at Meeting to show your support of this bill.

If you cannot attend, please CALL THIS NUMBER, (850) 717-4840, and state your Support of HB133.

Friends, there are 18 members in this Committee and only 3 are Democrats. This should pass with no problems, YET the Dems have successfully killed this bill in prior years because they have more people speaking and showing support Against it!

Let us know you called, emailed committee members, or attended!

Click here to support for HB 133


ACTION ALERT 2 Federal Legislation

Contact Senator Marco Rubio and Senator Rick Scott to Drop Support of Gun Confiscation Bill S 292

Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott (are) acting more like California Democrats than Florida Republicans.

Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott just announced they’re teaming up with radical anti-gun Democrats to push a “Red Flag” Gun Confiscation bill, S. 292.1

S.292 is a bill to provide family members of an individual who they fear is a danger to himself, herself, or others, or law enforcement, with new tools to prevent gun violence.2

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

We need to stop this trend of Republican-sponsored gun confiscation in its tracks.

Demand they withdraw their “Red Flag” Gun Confiscation bill and stop trying to appease the gun grabbers immediately

Email Senators Rubio and Scott today. Your message can be as simple as:

As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, I demand you withdraw your support for S. 292, unconstitutional “Red Flag” Gun Confiscation.

Enter your email at these addresses:

Sen. Marco Rubio: https://www.rubio.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact

Sen. Rick Scott: https://www.rickscott.senate.gov/contact_rick

1 “Red Flag” Gun Confiscation bills (disingenuously titled Extreme Risk Protection Orders) call for legally owned firearms to be forcibly confiscated from law-abiding Americans without due process, based on unsubstantiated accusations from disgruntled family members, neighbors, co-workers, and/or current or ex-romantic partners, or roommates. In other words: Gun Confiscation without due process. The National Association for Gun Rights expects all pro-gun members of the U.S. House and Senate to join us in opposing this type of gun confiscation.

https://nationalgunrights.org/default/assets/File/Red%20Flag%20Position%20Paper_CTS%20edits.pdf

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/292/text?r=4&s=1

Contact Marco Rubio

Contact Rick Scott

©Defend Florida. All rights reserved.

VIDEO: Beijing ☭ Biden Comes For Your Guns

Parkland parent calls Biden’s gun control agenda far from ‘common sense’


On the 3rd anniversary of Parkland shooting, Biden pushes Congress to enact gun control measures.

Shredding our Constitutional rights, the First and now Second Amendments, in the continuing destruction of the American greatness.

Joe Biden Marks 3rd Anniversary of Parkland Shooting with Gun Control Push

By: AWR Hawkins, 14 Feb 20212,618
3:09

President Joe Biden marked February 14, 2021–the third anniversary of the Parkland school shooting–by calling on Congress to pass more gun control.

He used a tweet to recount the heinous attack, writing, “In seconds, the lives of dozens of families, and the life of an American community, was changed forever.”

Biden referenced the “lone gunman [who] took the lives of 14 students and three educators” and also directed attention toward violence in certain cities across America. He suggested singled out the “gun violence disproportionately devastating Black and Brown individuals in our cities.”

He concluded, in part, by writing:

Today, I am calling on Congress to enact commonsense gun law reforms, including requiring background checks on all gun sales, banning assault weapons and high capacity magazines, and eliminating immunity for gun manufacturers who knowingly put weapons of war on our streets.

A number of things needs to be noted.

First, the Parkland shooter acquired his gun “legally,” according to USA Today. That terminology means he went through a background check, so expanding checks from retail alone to retail and private sales would have done nothing to prevent the attack.

Secondly, the Parkland attack was not carried out “in seconds.” Rather, ABC News reported that the gunman had enough time to “[stop] firing five times to reload his” firearm.

In fact, the Atlanta Constitution-Journal reported the length of the attack at “six minutes.”

This means the attacker could have caused mayhem with any size magazine–he could swap empty mags for full ones–because he had time.

When the commission investigating the Parkland shooting put forward its findings, one key suggestion was to enable teachers to be armed so any future, would-be attacker, would not have the benefit of carrying out his evil deeds without armed response. On January 3, 2019, Breitbart News noted that the commission’s report recommended that teachers “who volunteer to undergo firearms training, should be allowed to carry guns.”

But Biden has made clear no federal funds will be used to train teachers to use guns for classroom defense.

Moreover, Biden mentioned the cities where gun violence is surging but did not note that some of the most violent cities already have the controls he wants federally.

For example, South L.A. saw a 742 percent surge in shooting victims during the first 16 days of 2021, although California has universal background checks and “assault weapons” ban.

RELATED ARTICLE: Who believes the WHO?

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Facebook, Twitter, Google et al have shadowbanned, suspended and in some cases deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever.

WATCH: The Dangers of H.R. 127 — Then Take Action!

UPDATE:


Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights posted the below video and commentary in an email to members:

Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX) has unveiled the Unholy Grail of gun control, H.R. 127, and it is every gun owner’s worst nightmare.

In this video, NAGR’s Director of Political Operations Austin Hein breaks down this insidious bill and what it could mean for law-abiding gun owners across the country.


Also, please sign your “Stop the H.R. 127 Gun Grab!” petition right away!


Take a moment to watch the video.

And if you want to see more videos from us, please subscribe to our Youtube channel.

©National Association for Gun Rights. All rights reserved.

‘Florida Is Going To Kill All Of Us’: Sunny Hostin Blasts Ron DeSantis After Super Bowl Partiers Ditch Masks

Governor Ron DeSantis must continue to respond forcefully to these unhinged and slanderous attacks by the MSM. The MSM knows that DeSantis can win in 2024, so they will attempt to destroy his character.

‘Florida Is Going To Kill All Of Us’: Sunny Hostin Blasts Ron DeSantis After Super Bowl Partiers Ditch Masks

By Daily Wire, February 8, 2021

Sunny Hostin lashed out Monday at Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, saying, “Florida is going to kill all of us.”

Hostin blamed DeSantis for Florida’s “woefully inadequate” response to the coronavirus pandemic, suggesting on ABC’s “The View” that his move to lift restrictions could turn Sunday’s Super Bowl in Tampa Bay into a “super-spreader”

Hostin began by saying that she intended to continue taking precautions, but that she had been concerned by the number of people who had ignored social distancing and mask guidelines during post-game parties in Tampa Bay.

“I got to tell you, in watching 22,000 fans in the stadium yesterday — most wearing masks, but then afterwards revelers running all around without masks — I just kept on thinking, super-spreader event, super-spreader event, super-spreader event,” Hostin said.

She went on to say that DeSantis had lifted restrictions, a move that she believed to be ill-advised.

“I thought, you know, Florida is going to kill all of us,” she continued, noting that wearing masks still appeared to be a political divide. “There should be no reason why Governor DeSantis has been so woefully inadequate in terms of protecting the people not only of Florida, but the people of the United States. Imagine all those — those people, those 14,500 ticket buyers who are going to fly back home to their community and infect other people. I thought it was despicable and disgusting.”

RELATED ARTICLE: Ron DeSantis on Going Maskless at Super Bowl: ‘How the Hell am I Going to Drink a Beer?’

EDITORS NOTE: This Geller Report column is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. Quick note: Tech giants are snuffing us out. You know this. Facebook, Twitter, Google et al have shadowbanned, suspended and in some cases deleted us from your news feeds. They are disappearing us. But we are here. Subscribe to Geller Report newsletter here— it’s free and it’s critical NOW more than ever.

PODCAST: Who Are The Domestic Terrorists?

The term “terrorist” came into vogue during the 1970’s as we experienced a spike in airline skyjackings. This, of course, led to the tightening of security measures at airports. I’m old enough to remember life before this, back when you just showed up at the airport, walked on the plane and handed your ticket to the stewardess. Yes, it was that easy, and flying was fun. Not anymore, TSA has seen to that.

Since then, use of the word “terrorist” became associated with atrocities in the Middle East, such as kidnappings, murders, bombings, extortion, and executions, such as cutting off heads. In this sense, terrorism has been around for hundreds of years, but more recently it came to the forefront in the latter part of the 20th century and is considered barbarous.

Please understand the purpose of terrorism, to wit; to use unlawful force or violence to intimidate people for political or social gain. It is a technique used to get one’s way, particularly if the opposition is too large to fight one-on-one. Consequently, the terrorist turns to clandestine tactics to intimidate others.

Today, we are hearing a lot about “domestic terrorists,” meaning a group of people in this country who are trying to use savage methods to get their way. Even President Biden, in his inaugural address, alluded to such a phenomenon, “And now, a rise in political extremism, white supremacy, domestic terrorism that we must confront and we will defeat.”

Other prominent Democrats have been repeating this mantra as well, including Rep. Nancy Pelosi and Sen. Chuck Schumer. Much of this is designed to convict President Donald Trump after impeachment, but it goes after his supporters as well. Recently, a group of Senate Democrats introduced a resolution to review “domestic terrorist” threats by extremist groups. It has even been suggested that the Republican Party be placed on such a domestic terrorist watch list. Again, this is designed more to intimidate Trump supporters than anything else. Make no mistake though, their constant references to “White Supremacist” groups is a swipe at Republicans and not the KKK.

These same Democrats have remained stone silent on the violent actions of groups such as Antifa and Black Lives Matter (BLM) who actively participated in the 2020 “Summer of Hate” where buildings were invaded, burned, looted, and local citizens viciously attacked. They were certainly not “peaceful protesters.” This means “domestic terrorism” has two different interpretations depending on the political party you embrace.

The use of the expression “white supremacy” is a clever attempt to label all Republicans as racists and should be punished accordingly, including the termination of their free-speech rights. The Democrats’ loath some characterization of Trump supporters is reminiscent of Hitler’s persecution of the Jews, as evil parasites feeding on the Aryan master race. Yet, the Democrats seem to have no problem threatening Republicans:

“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that (Trump) Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them” – Rep. Maxine Waters – June 25, 2018.

This is much more threatening than anything spoken by President Trump at the “Stop the Steal” protest of January 6th, yet while the Democrats claim Waters was only kidding, they are Hell-bent on impeaching the former president.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) has even gone so far as to brand Congressional Republicans as white supremacists, “This term (2021) there are legitimate white supremacist sympathizers that sit at the heart and at the core of the Republican caucus in the House of Representatives” (as told to MSNBC, Jan 28, 2021).

By doing so, AOC is declaring them racists and, as such, unfit to serve in Congress. This, of course, is fallacious. I just wish AOC was aware of her own party’s role in the preservation of slavery, the Civil War, the KKK, and Jim Crowe laws. She obviously doesn’t remember the “Stand in the Schoolhouse Door” incident in the 1960’s by Alabama Governor George Wallace (a prominent Southern Democrat). All of this is in sharp contrast to the Republicans who promoted freedom and reconstruction, which is all conveniently forgotten. AOC’s sense of history is embarrassing.

Let us also understand this recent push to declare groups of people as “domestic terrorists”; by doing so, this means they can be treated like any other terrorist group and subject to prosecution under the Patriot Act, which is certainly not a misdemeanor. It also means the federal government can spy on you, as well as search and seize your belongings without a subpoena.

So, the question remains, who are the domestic terrorists? That depends on your political persuasion and the violence committed. If you are a Democrat, you point at your political opponents, the Republicans, for whom you brand as “white supremacists” a la Identity Politics. If you are a Republican, you point at those vandalizing and creating mayhem in our cities, such as Antifa, BLM, and those sponsoring these groups.

So, to be correctly labeled a terrorist, you have to ask which side commits true violence and for what purpose, specifically intimidation. If it doesn’t pass this simple acid-test, they are not terrorists, but political pawns instead. All of this is aimed at changing our perspective and a part of a larger picture of de-programming the citizens of this country.

Keep the Faith!

P.S. – For a listing of my books, click HERE.

EDITORS NOTE: This Bryce is Right podcast is republished with permission. ©All rights reserved. All trademarks both marked and unmarked belong to their respective companies.

VIDEO: Proposed Bill H.R.1 Gives Congress Total Authority Over Future Elections Codifying Election Fraud

The Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution is in Article I, Section 4, which reads:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.

The Constitution Center notes this about the “Elections Clause“:

The Framers of the Constitution were concerned that states might establish unfair election procedures or attempt to undermine the national government by refusing to hold elections for Congress. They empowered Congress to step in and regulate such elections as a self-defense mechanism.

[ … ]

The Supreme Court has explained that the Elections Clause also imposes implicit restrictions on the power to regulate congressional elections. Neither Congress nor the states may attempt to dictate electoral outcomes, or favor or disfavor certain classes of candidates.

[Emphasis added]

Contrary to what the Framers of the Constitution intended in the “Election Clause,” H.R.1 is a power grab by Congress to usurp the election process. The “stealing of national elections” may now be codified in law if Congress passes H.R.1 – For The People Act. H.R.1 is the perhaps the most sweeping change to voting regulations ever proposed by Congress. It shifts power from state legislatures to the Congress. Watch:

Changes to voting regulations in H.R.1 include:

  1. Promoting Internet Registration
  2. Automatic Voter Registration
  3. Same Day Voter Registration
  4. Prohibiting Interference With Voter Registration
  5. Voter Registration Of Minors (under 18-years old)
  6. Voting By Mail
  7. Findings Relating To District Of Columbia Statehood

What is wrong with H.R.1?

Heritage Action For America asks Is H.R. 1 Really “for the People?” Heritage Action states:

In January, House Democrats introduced their signature piece of legislation, H.R. 1, the “For The People Act.” H.R. 1 is full of unconstitutional and unnecessary policies that liberals want to use to hijack America’s election processes. This bill is anything but “for the people.”

Heritage Action For America lists the following problems with H.R.1:

    1. H.R. 1 forces taxpayers to finance politicians’ campaigns
    2. H.R. 1 eliminates the ability of states to control their own elections
    3. H.R. 1 undermines the First Amendment right to free speech
    4. H.R. 1 eviscerates the right of states to draw their own congressional district lines

Heritage Action For America concludes:

Although Democrats are promoting H.R. 1 as a bill that would “strengthen our democracy and return political power to the people,” it is actually an anti-democratic bill that would wreak havoc on our election system by manipulating election rules in favor of Democratic politicians. H.R. 1 is nothing but a left-wing power grab and is definitely not “for the people.”

We fully agree. H.R.1 is not about empowering the people. It is all about empowering politicians at the federal level.

A more appropriate name for H.R.1 might be the We The Politicians Act.

©Dr. Rich Swier. All rights reserved.

RELATED ARTICLE: If You Thought the 2020 Elections Were Chaotic, Just Wait

RELATED VIDEO: Endless hate towards Republicans

Why Chick-fil-A Is so Much More Efficient (and Friendlier) Than Government

There’s a simple reasons operations like Chick-fil-A can operate with an efficiency bureaucracies will never be able to match.


When Will Haynie had a traffic problem, he knew just who to call.

It started with a computer glitch on a busy Friday at the COVID-19 vaccination center at Seacoast Church. Health officials told the Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, mayor that traffic was a mess and wait-times for the vaccine had reached more than an hour.

So Haynie called in the cavalry: Chick-fil-A Manager Jerry Walkowiak.

“When you need help, call the pros,” Haynie said. “I called him [Walkowiak] on my way over and he actually got there before I did.”

Standing beneath an umbrella in a cold rain, Walkowiak quickly began directing drivers using the Chick-fil-A blueprint, approaching drivers in line, ensuring they had their paperwork ready to go, and then directing them to a spot where they could wait to receive their vaccine.

Soon wait times were down to just 15 minutes, Fox 11 Los Angeles reports.

“All those issues got fixed as things progressed,” Haynie later tweeted. “[Chick-fil-A] to the rescue!”

The COVID-19 vaccine has arrived, but the pandemic is far from over. More than 4,000 Americans are dying with the virus each day, according to official statistics.

Part of the problem stems from the clumsy rollout of vaccines by public officials. Distribution has been slow and marred by mass dumping of vaccines—inoculations that could be saving lives—because of bureaucratic dysfunction and rigid guidelines.

While there are no reports of vaccine dumping in South Carolina, some public officials have expressed frustration with delays in the rollout. News reports say that as of Sunday, South Carolina had received 542,750 total vaccines, 277,258 of which had been administered.

To be sure, delivering and administering hundreds of thousands of vaccines takes time. But that’s all the more reason why unnecessary delays—like the one briefly experienced at Seacoast Church on Friday—should be avoided at all costs.

Chick-fil-A is the third largest fast food chain in the US, bringing in $11.3 billion in sales in 2019 at more than 2,600 locations. One of the reasons for its meteoric rise is its legendary drive-thru efficiency.

Chick-fil-A is known for insanely long lines, especially during peak hours. According to Buzzfeed Newson average, a Chick-fil-A drive-thru serves 95 cars between noon and 1 p.m. alone, far more than its competitors, and more than 60 percent of the chain’s revenues come via the drive-thru window.

So many people marvel at Chick-fil-A’s drive-thru mastery that it came as a shock to many to learn the chain’s drive-thru times are actually longer than its competitors. This revelation, which was reported by news outlets with little context, didn’t sit well with Chick-fil-A fans.

But as QSR magazine (who conducted the survey) points out, there’s more to the story than long wait times.

Put simply, [Chick-fil-A’s] speed of service is much longer because its drive-thru lanes are busier than every other competitor—and it’s not even close. A full 77 percent of its drive-thru experiences had three or more cars in line, according to the study, while 35.5 percent had six or more cars in line.

For context, McDonald’s claimed the second-busiest drive thru, and only 41.8 percent of its drive thrus had three or more cars and 9.1 percent had six or more.

Essentially, drive-thru times are a bit longer because of the enormous volume Chick-fil-A serves at the drive-thru.

The reality is people hate waiting in lines, and Chick-fil-A fans are no exception. But Chick-fil-A has managed to make waits relatively short—322 seconds, on average, about a minute longer than the fast food average—despite its insanely long lines.

This speed and efficiency—Chick-fil-A also earns top marks in order accuracy—is the reason surveys show Chick-fil-A ranks number one in customer satisfaction among fast-food chains.

Chick-fil-A is only able to pull this off because of the efficiency Walkowiak showed at the vaccine center. And that efficiency is no accident.

Chick-fil-A has no fewer than three “Innovation Centers” where the chain tests restaurant layouts to maximize efficiency for various operations. Buzzfeed reporter Venessa Wong describes how on one January afternoon, at the Atlanta-based chain’s newest innovation center, workers tested a new drive-thru design at a mock restaurant.

“The main question at hand: How narrow could the drive-thru lanes get to save space?” Wong writes. “There is also the lingering but essential question of how to move cars through more quickly, to shorten those epic lines.”

The solution, or one of them, was to have teams of servers (up to six people) walking among cars drive-thru lanes taking orders and running payments via tablet. This allows Chick-fil-A to get customers in and out quickly despite lines that at times look, frankly, daunting.

But the effort to serve customers and make their experience enjoyable and swift has paid off.

Customers love Chick-fil-A and its stellar service, and the chain continues to see impressive growth in revenue and franchises.

Compare the miraculous efficiency of Chick-fil-A to, say, your local DMV.

On my last visit, I waited in line 10 minutes before I was able to talk to someone. When I got to the window, I was given a number and told to take a seat. “It might be a while.”

Forty-five minutes later, a woman tested my eyes, snapped my picture, and asked me to sign some paperwork. The entire process took two minutes, but I was there for an hour. And the truth was, I was relieved! It could have taken longer, or I could have dealt with an unpleasant person.

The woman who took my picture was not exactly warm, but at least she wasn’t rude or curt. And in my experience, this often is not the case when dealing with bureaucrats and bureaucracy. In fact, it’s something we almost expect.

There’s a reason the unhelpful or snippy bureaucrat has been depicted ad infinitum in both film and literature. The theme of the nightmares of bureaucracy has been explored by numerous thinkers—most notably, perhaps, by the great Franz Kafka—but my personal favorite depiction comes in the 2015 Wachowskis film Jupiter Ascending, starring Mila Kunis, Sean Bean, and Channing Tatum.

While the space opera was a bit of a disappointment overall, the scene depicting the horror of dealing with an interplanetary bureaucracy (see below) is nothing short of hilarious. And part of the reason it’s so funny is because it’s something nearly all of us have experienced at one time or another.

Think about it for a moment. Why is your service at Chick-fil-A, Home Depot, or the local Toyota dealer so different from your visit to the DMV or the Post Office? It’s not because nice people go into customer service and ornery or unhelpful people go into bureaucracy.

The answer comes down to a single word: incentives. The absence of market forces means there is really no compelling incentive for the DMV to improve efficiency (or smile when you come through the door). As I pointed out earlier, we’ve pretty much come to expect bureaucracies to be slow and cold.

For Chick-fil-A, however, there is a clear incentive. Chick-fil-A wants customers to be happy because they want their business, which means serving them the very best they can. Indeed, the word customer service tells us something about the relationship between buyer and seller. The seller exists to serve customers.

Now, we’ve all had less than satisfactory experiences with businesses as well as bureaucracy, but the inherent dynamics of the systems themselves are unmistakable. Businesses want people to be happy and are incentivized to make them so. No such incentive exists in bureaucracy, which is why we walk on eggshells when going through TSA security checkpoints or walk up to the counter at the DMV.

The “customer” in these situations has very little power. We know it and, more importantly, they know it. This is why the economist Ludwig von Mises found descriptive terms for modem captains of industry—“chocolate king” or a “cotton king” or “automobile king”—as inherently misleading.

“Their use of such terminology implies that they see practically no difference between the modern heads of industry and those feudal kings, dukes or lords of earlier days,” Mises wrote. “But the difference is in fact very great, for a chocolate king does not rule at all, he serves.”

Mises correctly observed that these “kings” do not in fact reign over conquered territory. They exist to serve us.

“The chocolate king—or the steel king or the automobile king or any other king of modern industry—depends on the industry he operates and on the customers he serves,” Mises continued. “This ‘king’ must stay in the good graces of his subjects, the consumers; he loses his ‘kingdom’ as soon as he is no longer in a position to give his customers better service and provide it at lower cost than others with whom he must compete.”

With government “services,” on the other hand, we the “customers” are the ones who often must grovel like subjects to win the good graces of a bureaucrat if we want to make our flight, renew our driver’s license, or (in some systems) get the medical care we need.

It’s this dynamic that explains why our experiences at Chick-fil-A are so much better than those trips to the DMV. And the incentives baked into markets—to make customer experience enjoyable and satisfactory—also explain why operations like Chick-fil-A can operate with an efficiency bureaucracies will never be able to match.

Some might be tempted to believe we could improve, say, vaccine distribution if only bureaucracies had more resources, if they partnered with private industry, or if they were led by people like Jerry Walkowiak.

But that’s the wrong lesson.

The lesson is that vaccine distribution should be removed from the hands of bureaucrats altogether, and placed in the metaphorical hands of markets. Only then will we see these life-saving doses quickly and efficiently administered.

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.

Companies Are Preparing to Cut Jobs and Automate if Biden Gets $15 Minimum Wage Hike, Reporting Shows

Let’s hope that Joe Biden’s minimum wage fantasies never become law—or workers will pay the price for his economic naiveté.


Nobel laureate Milton Friedman once said that “One of the great mistakes is to judge policies and programs by their intentions rather than their results.” When it comes to the $15 minimum wage hike supported by Joe Biden and many of his fellow Democrats, it’s becoming increasingly clear that the results will be ugly.

New reporting reveals that Chief Financial Officers at top American companies are “considering raising prices, cutting workers’ hours and investing in automation to offset a potential rise in labor costs.”

“Companies including Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc., Potbelly Corp. and Texas Roadhouse Inc. are already doing the math to assess what a higher federal minimum wage could mean for their operations and cost base,” the Wall Street Journal reports.

“Some executives fear that increases to the federal pay floor would drive up wages across income classes, hurting profits and forcing businesses to find savings to offset higher spending on labor,” the paper continues.

First and foremost, we can expect businesses to respond to artificially-high wage mandates by cutting jobs and reducing employee hours.

Why?

Well, labor is a product like any other. If the cost of soda was artificially mandated at $10 per can by the government, the simple fact is that consumers would buy less of it. When employers are legally forced to pay more for labor than it is worth in the market, they naturally and inevitably do the same.

“By the simplest and most basic economics, a price artificially raised tends to cause more to be supplied and less to be demanded than when prices are left to be determined by supply and demand in a free market,” famed economist Thomas Sowell wrote in Basic Economics. “The result is a surplus, whether the price that is set artificially high is that of farm produce or labor.”

“Unfortunately, the real minimum wage is always zero,” Sowell concluded. “And that is the wage that many workers receive in the wake of the creation or escalation of a government-mandated minimum wage.”

Ample evidence confirms these theoretical predictions.

For example, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that enacting a $15 minimum wage nationwide would destroy from 1.3 to 3.7 million jobs. Similarly, analysis from the Employment Policies Institute concludes that a federal $15 minimum wage would kill 2 million jobs.

These studies aren’t outliers. A research review by the Cato Institute concluded, “The main finding of economic theory and empirical research over the past 70 years is that minimum wage increases tend to reduce employment.”

So, it’s fair to assume that the warnings CFOs are offering about potential slashes in employment can be extrapolated beyond their specific companies. Proponents of a $15 minimum wage might intend to help workers, but they will inevitably and invariably put millions of them out of work altogether if their efforts are successful.

Meanwhile, other companies told the Journal they would pass the costs onto consumers by hiking prices. (Is that a win for the working class?)

And in an another twist, some companies said they would seek additional opportunities to invest in automation and eliminate their demand for labor altogether in lieu of paying mandated wages that far exceed a worker’s value.

“Pool Corp., a distributor of swimming pool supplies, plans to ramp up investments in technology to offset the potential rise in labor costs,” the Journal reports. “The company would look to reduce manual processes such as product orders and certain warehouse operations.”

“[Automation is] the most significant investment that we can make…when it comes to lowering the impact of potentially higher labor costs down the road,” Pool Corp CFO Mark Joslin said.

All of this is bad, bad news for workers. You know, the group that a $15 minimum wage is supposed to help.

So, let’s hope that Joe Biden’s minimum wage fantasies never become law—or workers will pay the price for his naiveté.

COLUMN BY

Brad Polumbo

Brad Polumbo (@Brad_Polumbo) is a libertarian-conservative journalist and Opinion Editor at the Foundation for Economic Education.

RELATED PODCAST: “Wage”ing War

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

VIDEO: NY Young Republicans Re-Occupy Wall Street: Let the People Trade!

“We shouldn’t have one rule for rich hedge funds in Manhattan and a different set of rules for every other American.” – Ted Cruz


January 31. 2021. Noon. A small crowd braved the bitter cold in Zuccotti Park, scene of the once infamous Occupy Wall Street encampment of 2011 (2011 Flickr Link).

Today the NYC Young Republican Club was out to RE-Occupy Zuccotti, demanding that The People be allowed to trade.

The group is co-opting the Occupy name to push populist policies in light of the GameStop short selling fiasco.

“Wall Street hedge fund hypocrites, “corporate oligarchs”  are “screwing the little people”. One more assault on our economy as the world according to Biden and the CCP communists continues to spiral.” [NY Post]

This whole mess with #WallStreet is about to make people on BOTH the Left and Right realize we have found the new class of “robber barons”—hedge fund managers.

The main speaker of the event was Curtis Sliwa, leader of the Guardian Angels and candidate for Mayor of New York.

Sliwa challenged the crowd with, “They screwed the little people once, let’s get these hedge-fund monsters before they get us.”

He also called-out the hypocritical Wall Street bankers who took billions of dollars in tax-funded bailouts in 2008, only to now cry foul.

Just before the presser began, this fellow started shouting at the crowd – particularly about the CCP. (very short video)

According to the Young Republicans, Sunday’s protest wasn’t about political affiliations — they dubbed it a non-partisan event.

“There’s two standards, Wax said in a speech to protesters,  “There’s rules for thee, not for me. You got these big hedge-fund guys who are trying to short companies into the ground, and then they got called on their bluff by a bunch of anonymous day traders on Reddit.”

Gavin Wax video –

They want us to bail them out, they want Janet Yellen to make phone calls for them, they want to shut down trading. Are you kidding me? These schmucks in Wall Street or Greenwich can do whatever the hell they want to do with no repercussions.”  Jan 31  Gavin Wax at @NYYRC rally

He then introduced, Viswanag B. Burra – Vice President New York Young Republican Club [ video ]

A published statement, from their President, Gavin Wax (@GavinWax)

“Fellow patriots,

We look forward to seeing you tomorrow, Sunday, January 31, at 12:00 pm as we gather in Zuccotti Park to RE-OCCUPY WALL STREET.

Over the past few days, we have seen how corporate oligarchs who work in connection with key members of the Biden administration have corrupted the integrity of our financial markets in a blatant manner by directing retail brokerages to freeze trading for small investors while institutional investors operate unimpeded.

As rumors percolate that the SEC may attempt to unwind trades in certain companies conducted over the past few days, our protest to LET THE PEOPLE TRADE becomes ever more critical.

And remember: unlike the original “Occupiers,” we will assemble peaceably and in accordance with civilized standards of decorum. No shitting in the streets.”

Reports from NY Post and Breitbart:

[Breitbart]

“Members of the New York Young Republicans staged a “Re-Occupy Wall Street” demonstration Sunday over the financial sector’s manipulation of GameStop stock after a Reddit group launched a buying surge.

GameStop, a mall retailer of video games and electronic accessories, saw shares soar more than 1,700 percent this week when amateur day traders bought massive amounts of the stock to protest Wall Street short-sellers who were banking on GameStop’s failure.

It was co-ordinated. There needs to be repercussions,” Wax said of the institutions’ efforts to shut down amateur trading.

The Reddit page WallStreetBets initially organized the mass buy.

As the stock skyrocketed and hedge funds lost billions of dollars, trading apps tried to block additional sales of the stock. One of the apps, RobinHood, faces a class-action lawsuit.”

[NY Post] [NY Post 2]

“Dozens of members of the New York Young Republicans Club jumped on the anti-Wall Street bandwagon Sunday, gathering in Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park to blast the hedge-fund managers targeting GameStop.

The “Re-Occupy Wall Street” protesters ripped the big-money investors as “despicable” for moving to stop last week’s “little guy” Reddit-fueled run on the video-game-seller’s stock to shore it up after the money men bet on it tanking.

“There’s some blatant corruption going on in the buildings around us and in Greenwich, [Ct.], wherever hell they are,” Gavin Wax, the group’s president, told about 50 protesters.”

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