The Politics of Inflation

The article below omits to mention that inflation came down in response to the Fed stifling demand, people being unable to buy what they usually would, which was and is hard on a lot of people. So Biden is far from off the hook

February’s Consumer Price Index (CPI) showed prices up by 0.62% in the past month. If that rate of increase kept up for the rest of the year, the annual inflation rate would be 7.4%. But the CPI won’t keep rising that fast.

Over the past several years, almost all of the annual increase in the CPI came in the first half of the year, so if this year is like past years, month-over-month inflation will come to a halt after mid-year. That would seem to be advantageous to the Biden administration in November.

The annual rate of inflation is coming down, if slowly. It was 3.4% for 2023 and has fallen to 3.2% from February 2023 to February 2024. If it keeps dropping at that rate, the Federal Reserve will hit its 2% inflation target in six months—another seeming advantage to the Biden administration’s November hopes.

However, most people are not concerned about inflation per se, but rather high prices. Whether inflation is up or down is not something most people keep track of. People are looking at how much they have to pay for stuff. So, even if the Fed’s inflation goals are met by November, prices will still be higher than they were a few years ago, and people will still associate those few years with the Biden administration.

For that reason, no matter how successful the Federal Reserve is in curbing inflation, inflation will weigh as a negative on the Biden administration’s reelection prospects. People will remember that the Biden administration claimed that inflation was a transitory phenomenon. However, prices are still higher than they were a few years ago.

Is this fair to the Biden administration? Inflation has subsided more rapidly than I expected (but less rapidly than Biden and Jerome Powell said it would). I’m willing to call that a success and credit Powell and the Federal Reserve.

Most voters will not see it that way. Prices are still high, and they will not be coming down. People care about that, and this issue will matter in November.

https://blog.independent.org/2024/03/13/the-politics-of-inflation/

*******************************************

The NHS puberty blocker ban for children is long overdue

Debbie Hayton

Children in England will no longer be prescribed puberty blockers at NHS gender identity clinics. This is good news: it was never appropriate to halt the normal physical development of young people struggling with the concept of growing up into the men and women that nature intended.

Puberty blockers, followed by cross-sex hormones, were a so-called solution that, in my view as a transgender adult, created a very serious problem. A cohort of young people identified as transgender, non-binary or maybe something yet more mysterious. They demanded powerful and life-altering drugs to ward off what they – or their parents – feared might be a mental health catastrophe. All too readily, those demands were met.

Hundreds of under-16s have been prescribed puberty blockers on the NHS

Now, Hilary Cass – the paediatrician who is conducting an independent review of gender identity services for children and young people – has helped put the brakes on this madness. She said, in a 2022 review, that there is a lack of clarity over whether the drugs simply ‘pause’ puberty or if they act as ‘an initial part of a transition pathway’ with most patients becoming ‘locked in’ to changing their gender. The landmark guidelines issued yesterday back Cass up: these said that there is not enough evidence that the drugs are safe and from now on they should only be given as part of clinical trials. This is long overdue.

Hundreds of under-16s have been prescribed puberty blockers on the NHS since 2011, having been referred to the gender identity clinic run by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust in north London. In recent years, demand for treatment has overwhelmed the limited provision and waiting lists for children – as well as adults – have mushroomed. According to reports, fewer than 100 children are now currently on puberty blockers through the NHS Gender Identity Development Service, though how many more have their lives on hold is unknown. Waiting forlornly for a call from a distant clinic is no way to live.

The fact that the treatment may ultimately be worse than the wait is hardly comforting to children who have been led to believe that it would solve their problems. It won’t – and that is a particular tragedy for children who would otherwise benefit from timely community mental health support. If the promises made by gender clinics cannot be delivered, then it is better not to make them at all. As such, yesterday’s news is welcome all round.

Unfortunately, that is not the full story. The interim policy on which NHS England consulted last year suggested that, ‘access to puberty suppressing hormones for children and young people with gender incongruence/dysphoria should only be available as part of research’. One would hope that further research involving clinical trials would now be struck down as unethical, but a loophole is left open for further meddling with children’s development.

Then there is the rest of the United Kingdom to worry about. NHS England’s remit is for England. Scotland, whose government seems desperate to be ever more wokier-than-thou, has a separate NHS. While increasing caution has been applied south of the border, Healthcare Improvement Scotland (HIS), part of NHS Scotland, outlined the need for prescribing to continue outside research because of rising numbers of adults and children seeking help.

Finally, there are private providers ready to sell into a market that will pay. Last year, GenderGP asserted that NHS England Specialist Services does not govern what GPs and hospital consultants do in their own services, and has ‘no impact on private doctors and what they decide is the right care for their patients.’ GenderGP says it will ‘continue to provide puberty blockers and gender-affirming hormones to patients who need them’.

So, while yesterday’s announcement is a step in the right direction, more is needed to protect children. Liz Truss’s private members’ bill to Amend the Health and Equality Acts is due to be debated on Friday. This bill would make it an offence to prescribe, administer or supply medicinal products to a child as part of a course of treatment for gender dysphoria for the purposes of stopping or delaying the normal onset of puberty, or affirming the child’s perception of their sex where that perception is inconsistent with the child’s sex.

It’s a worthy and valuable aim, but one that is unlikely to be delivered without the active support of the government. To make progress, this bill needs time and expertise to ensure that the drafting is watertight. The Tories look doomed whatever Rishi Sunak does between now and the election. But what better legacy to leave than the protection of children? If Sunak means business, this is an opportunity to make a lasting difference.

https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/03/the-nhs-puberty-blocker-ban-for-children-is-long-overdue/

**************************************************

The dangers of the TikTok bill

“The TikTok bill gives Biden the power to ban websites & apps run by ‘a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity.’ Given that Biden routinely smears political opponents as being under the control of Putin, the danger should be obvious.”

That was entrepreneur David Sacks on X (formerly Twitter) on March 13 noting the fact that H.R. 7521, which has easily passed the House and is now on a fast track in the U.S Senate will give the President, right now it’s Joe Biden but also future presidents, can force divestiture of any website or application or else have it removed from hosting services if the President determines it is run by “a person subject to the direction or control of a foreign person or entity” including Russia, China, North Korea or Iran.

To get there, according to the legislation, the application must be “determined by the President to present a significant threat to the national security of the United States”.

It applies to the Chinese-owned TikTok app, but the bill goes further to leave it to the President for all future determinations about who is “subject to the direction or control” of Russia, China, North Korea or Iran.

That’s actually dangerous because Sacks is right. The U.S. government has been routinely accusing political opponents of being foreign agents who are “subject to the direction or control” of Russia and other countries.

The biggest recent example was Russiagate. In fact, to obtain surveillance of the Trump campaign, as happened in Oct. 2016, the FBI and the Justice Department had to give the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court a “statement of the facts and circumstances relied upon by the applicant to justify his belief that… the target of the electronic surveillance is a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power…”

The Oct. 2016 application to the FISA Court stated, “The target of this application is Carter W. Page, a U.S. person, and an agent of a foreign power… The status of the target was determined in or about October 2016 from information provided by the U.S. State Department…”

In part, those allegations relied on the Clinton campaign and DNC-financed Christopher Steele dossier that there was a “well-developed conspiracy” by Russia and the Trump campaign to hack the DNC and give their emails to Wikileaks.

But they also stated as part of the justification for that interference in the Trump campaign that Russia was attempting to convince the Trump campaign to not send weapons to Ukraine and to instead recognize Russia’s annexation of Crimea in Ukraine, telling the FISA Court that the Trump campaign, per the FISA application, “worked behind the scenes to make sure [the Republican] platform would not call for giving weapons to Ukraine to fight Russian and rebel forces” stating Trump “might recognize Crimea as Russian territory and lift punitive U.S. sanctions against Russia,” citing news reports.

The Justice Department also included an Aug. 2016 Politico story highlighting Trump’s opposition to U.S. intervention in Ukraine, including his suggestion the people of Crimea preferred to live in Russia, and his doubts that the territories Russia had seized could be reclaimed suggested without risking World War III.

At a Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, the Politico report relied upon by the Justice Department quoted Trump saying a military conflict to take back Crimea would risk nuclear war: “You wanna go back? …You want to have World War III to get it back?” And it quoted Trump on ABC’s “This Week” suggesting the people of Crimea supported Russian annexation: “The people of Crimea, from what I’ve heard, would rather be with Russia than where they were.”

So, that was the predicate before the FISA Court: A foreign power was allegedly attempting to influence the candidate, Trump, via campaign volunteers like Page but also hired help like Manafort, to simply recognize Russia’s claims to Ukraine’s sovereign territories in order to avert war. But these are also political and policy differences Trump had with the Obama administration and his opponent, Hillary Clinton.

During the convention, Paul Manafort was campaign chairman, who was swiftly removed by Trump after the New York Times non-coincidentally ran an erroneous hit piece in Aug. 2016 stating he had corrupt dealings in Ukraine, with a supposed ominous sounding “black ledger.” Manafort was the campaign manager of deposed former Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych when he was first elected in 2010. He also helped Gerald Ford secure the Republican nomination on the floor against Ronald Reagan in 1976, and then helped Reagan do the same thing in 1980. In 2016, Trump tapped him to win the convention by ensuring Trump delegates he won in the primaries would vote for him on the floor.

Page was similarly removed from the campaign when a Sept. 2016 news story appeared alleging, falsely as it turned out, he was a Russian agent.

Ultimately, former Special Counsel Robert Mueller found there was no Trump campaign conspiracy with Russia to hack the DNC and give the emails to Wikileaks. According to Mueller’s final report to the Attorney General, “the evidence was not sufficient to charge that any member of the Trump Campaign conspired or coordinated with representatives of the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election.”

The report added, “In particular, the Office did not find evidence likely to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Campaign officials such as Paul Manafort, George Papadopoulos, and Carter Page acted as agents of the Russian government — or at its direction, control or request — during the relevant time period.”

Manafort was brought up on unrelated tax and bank fraud charges. As for Michael Cohen, “Cohen had never traveled to Prague…” and so, he very well could not have been there meeting with Russian intelligence officials as Steele had alleged.

As for Page, he was never charged with anything.

But all it took for federal intervention in the presidential campaign to occur was a mere accusation of being a foreign agent.

And that is precisely how the TikTok bill could be used against other apps besides TikTok, Sacks now warns.

On March 14, he noted some on X who believe “X is ‘foreign adversary controlled’”.

And others who believed “Tucker Carlson Network is ‘foreign adversary controlled’”.

And others who believed “Rumble is ‘foreign adversary controlled’”.

And others who still believe “Of course Trump is ‘foreign adversary controlled’ — and through him the entire Republican Party.”

The legislation now under consideration, if it became law, and if the President agreed that Donald Trump who also runs Truth Social, Rumble, X and Tucker Carlson were “foreign adversary controlled” then the federal government could force divestiture or else have the websites and apps removed from hosting services.

https://dailytorch.com/2024/03/if-h-r-7521-was-only-about-tiktok-it-would-only-apply-to-tiktok

************************************************

High-Income Earners Pay Much More Than Their “Fair Share”

What is your fair share of what someone else has earned? That’s the fundamental principle being tested when discussing “the wealthy paying their fair share.”

Politicians frequently use this hackneyed phrase with ill-defined terms in their calls to raise taxes. Still, the numbers don’t support the idea that the wealthy are skirting their financial responsibility to the nation.

According to the U.S. Treasury, the bottom 10% of income earners pay no taxes, and the second income decile has an average tax rate of minus-4.8%. Mechanisms like refundable tax credits mean this group receives more from the Treasury than it pays in taxes, creating a negative rate.

Those in the 20% to 30% of income earners pay an average tax rate of just 2.8%. Predictably, as a person earns more, he or she pays a higher percentage of his or her income in taxes. Still, no one in the bottom half of income-earners pays more than a 10.1% average tax rate.

The average tax rate has climbed 27% for the top 10% of income earners, but many Americans are surprised to learn that the threshold for this group is just $136,000 for individual income earners.

Most people in the top-income decile are considered middle class. To find the “wealthy,” we must look at a much narrower portion of the income distribution.

The threshold for the top 0.1% of income earners is $3.3 million, and their average tax rate is 33.5%, meaning just over one-third of their income is confiscated in federal taxes.

Then, there are state and local taxes to consider. In places like California and New York, these can push average tax rates close to 50%.

Is it fair to take half of what someone else has earned? And who is wealthy? A high income is not the same as wealth, which is only acquired through saving and investing.

It’s disturbing that the current political climate tends to demonize wealth. The saving and investing of income, not dissipation through spending, generates economic growth. Without savings, capital will decline. That means fewer factories and machines, fewer homes available, slower technological advances and medical breakthroughs, etc.

Investment in capital puts tools in the hands of workers, making them more productive, which increases their incomes. More capital also means more houses and apartments, something America desperately needs amid a housing shortage and cost-of-living crisis.

Capital investment also results in higher living standards because it drives economic growth. As capital accumulation spread across the globe over the last century, technological improvements exploded. The percentage of people living in poverty was cut from 80% to less than 10%, even as the population grew exponentially.

Those who think the wealthy don’t pay their fair share of taxes should also remember if you tax something, you get less of it. Wealth is no different. A reduction in wealth means a reduction in economic growth, leaving everyone worse off, particularly low-income earners.

The top 0.1% of income earners provide a disproportionate amount of America’s economic growth, which is why they also earn a disproportionate amount of the nation’s income. But the amount of taxes they pay are even more out of proportion, accounting for 14.9% of all federal tax receipts from just 8.9% of family incomes.

That indicates high-income earners are already paying more than their fair share.

Unfortunately, complex data like these rarely involve conversations around amorphous words like “wealthy” and “fairness.” Instead, bureaucrats gin up class envy by cherry-picking data to promote a false narrative of imagined animosity between income groups.

The facts are very different. While capital investment and innovation undoubtedly make investors and inventors wealthier, they make society wealthier too. More than 90% of the benefits created by inventors fall on society broadly, with less than 10% going to the inventors themselves.

For example, the creators of smartphones have obviously received substantial benefits from selling their invention, but everyone who owns a smartphone has clearly benefited, too. (You may be reading this on one right now!)

High-income earners already pay disproportionately high taxes and receive disproportionately low amounts of the proceeds from their economic activity. They’re paying their fair share as is. Confiscating even more is a surefire way to kill innovation and hurt middle-class America.

https://www.heritage.org/taxes/commentary/high-income-earners-pay-much-more-their-fair-share

****************************************

My other blogs. Main ones below:

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)

http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs

*****************************************