Rep. Lois Frankel sold her First Republic Bank stock weeks before bank’s collapse

Florida Democratic representative Lois Frankel is capitalizing on First Republic Bank’s collapse and subsequent buyout by JP Morgan Chase & Co, according to congressional financial disclosures reported on by Newsweek.

Frankel sold her stock in the San Francisco-based bank on March 16, weeks before the value of its shares dropped 75 percent and U.S. regulators seized the failing bank’s assets, Newsweek reported. A few days later, on March 22, Frankel bought stock in JP Morgan Chase & Co, which on Monday bought most of First Republic Bank’s assets. The exact amount of stock Frankel traded is unknown, but according to the filing, the value for each trade was between $1,001 and $15,000, Newsweek reported.

Frankel’s shrewd trading fuels mounting criticism of members of Congress buying and selling stocks, which allows them to profit from industries they are supposed to regulate. Reps. Earl Blumenauer (D., Ore.) and John Curtis (R., Utah) also reported trading First Republic Bank stocks before its collapse. Several members of Congress have introduced legislation to ban congressional stock trading.

“My account is managed independently by a money manager who buys and sells stocks at his discretion,” Frankel said in a statement to Newsweek.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

FBI warns that Chinese use talent recruitment programs for economic espionage, theft of trade secrets

The founder of a lithium battery company poised to receive a $200 million grant from the Biden administration was once brought to China through a Chinese Communist Party program that the FBI warns is used for economic espionage.

The founder and chief executive officer of Microvast, Wu Yang, in 2000 was recruited to move back to China from the United States as part of a Chinese government-sponsored “talent program.” The grant to Microvast could conflict with the stated policy of the Department of Energy, which plans to boost the company with the massive green energy grant. A DOE official said in February that the department is “prohibited” from funding people who are involved in foreign talent programs.

The Department of Energy has faced criticism from lawmakers for months over its proposed $200 million grant to Microvast to build a battery separator facility, after the Washington Free Beacon reported late last year that the company operates primarily out of China. While the administration in a pre-election press release last October portrayed the funding as a done deal, the department now says the grant is still under review.

But the Microvast CEO’s participation in a talent recruitment program could complicate the deal further. Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.), who first noted Wu’s participation in the Chinese program, is urging Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm to “immediately terminate [the department’s] award negotiations with Microvast, Inc.”

Barrasso says there is “clear evidence that the founder, chairman, and CEO of Microvast participated in a Chinese Communist Party (CCP) talent program designed to entice overseas talent to return to China for the benefit of the CCP.” These programs work to entice high-achieving individuals to move back to China—but the Chinese Communist Party often uses them to “encourage trade secret theft [and] economic espionage,” according to the FBI.

The United Front Work Department of the Huzhou municipal government—a local branch of China’s national “United Front” overseas influence operation—in a 2017 press release lauded Wu for his involvement in the talent program. According to the release, Wu was recruited by a local talent program called the “South Taihu Lake Elite Project.”

“In 2000, he responded to the ‘South Taihu Lake Elite Project’ and returned from the United States with $3 million in his pocket,” the press release said. “In 2006, he established Weihong Power System (Huzhou) Co., Ltd., specializing in the R&D.”

Should Wu’s participation be confirmed, it could tank Microvast’s grant, which was awarded through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passed in 2021.

Granholm deputy David Turk in February assured the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that “any persons participating … in a foreign government-sponsored talent recruitment program … [are] prohibited from participating in projects selected for federal funding.”

The Energy Department declined to comment, but it directed the Free Beacon to Granholm’s remarks during a Senate hearing last month.

“We are very vigilant about making sure that no taxpayer dollars go to any state-owned enterprise or Chinese-influenced company,” Granholm said. “That particular [Microvast] award is still under negotiation, and we’ll get back to you on the final conclusions on that.”

Barrasso said the department’s failure to identify problems with Microvast calls into question its entire grant-awarding process, and he argued that grants should be “suspended until a robust, pre-selection security review process for awardees is finalized by your department with input from other members of the intelligence community.”

“DOE’s distribution of $200 million in taxpayer funds to a company joined at the hip with China is demonstrably antithetical to the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law’s intent,” Barrasso said.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said that climate-related issues are being “exploited” by wealthy individuals in a bid to enact “totalitarian controls” over society.

“Climate issues and pollution issues are being exploited by … mega billionaires” like Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, Kennedy told radio host Kim Iversen over the past weekend. “The same way that COVID was exploited to use it as an excuse to clamp down top-down totalitarian controls on society and then to give us engineering solutions.”

“And if you look closely, as it turns out, the guys who are promoting those engineering solutions are the people who own … the patents for those solutions,” Kennedy said during Iversen’s show. “It’s a way they’ve given climate chaos a bad name because people now see that it’s just another crisis that’s being used to strip mine the wealth of the poor and to enrich billionaires.”

“I, for 40 years, have had the same policy on climate and engineering,” said Kennedy, the scion of former Attorney General and New York Sen. Robert F. Kennedy. “You can go check my speeches from the 1980s, and I’ve said the most important solution for environmental issues [is] not top-down controls, it’s free market capitalism.”

Kennedy—a longtime environmental activist and lawyer—wrote in a 2014 blog post for corporations and other groups that “sponsor climate lies” should face punishment. But he wrote that he “support[s] the First Amendment which makes room for any citizen to, even knowingly, spew far more vile lies without legal consequence” before adding at the time: “I do, however, believe that corporations which deliberately, purposefully, maliciously, and systematically sponsor climate lies should be given the death penalty,” Kennedy wrote for EcoWatch.

Kennedy’s comments about climate change years ago were highlighted by Fox News and other right-leaning publications after he declared his candidacy for president last month. Although he’s better known for his comments about childhood vaccines, Kennedy worked as an environmental lawyer for New York City and also for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC).

Also in the Iversen interview, Kennedy suggested that other than Gates, the World Economic Forum is also exploiting climate-related policies to produce a totalitarian society. The Davos, Switzerland-based group hosts annual meetings each year that include world leaders and top business executives, while in January, speakers at the forum said that governments and businesses should pursue a “net-zero” policy around carbon emissions and that people don’t need cars.

“What we have in this country now is not free market capitalism—it’s corporate crony capitalism. It’s … a cushy kind of socialism for the rich and a brutal, barbaric, merciless capitalism for the poor,” Kennedy also stated in the interview.

Kennedy filed paperwork with the Federal Election Commission to launch his 2024 bid on April 5. He’s joining self-help writer Marianne Williamson as well as President Joe Biden, who announced his reelection bid last week via campaign video.

When he announced his 2024 candidacy, Kennedy said that he has a desire to work with “rural and working-class Americans, and particularly hunters and fishermen.” Those individuals, he said, have been “alienated from the mainstream environmental community.”

He’s also said that he’s running because he believes Democrats have gone astray, becoming the “party of war,” corporate interests, and “censorship.”

While Biden remains the favorite to win the Democratic nomination for president, a Fox News poll recently showed Kennedy has around 20 percent support among Democrat voters. He also recently drew headlines after being interviewed by ABC News and accused the Disney-owned broadcaster of censoring his comments about vaccines.

“We should note that during our conversation, Kennedy made false claims about the COVID-19 vaccines,” ABC News Live anchor Linsey Davis said last week after his presidential announcement. “We’ve used our editorial judgment in not including portions of that exchange in our interview.”

On social media, however, Kennedy accused the network of violating federal election laws by editing out his remarks about vaccines. “ABC showed its contempt for the law, democracy, and its audience by cutting most of the content of my interview with host Linsey Davis leaving only cherry-picked snippets and a defamatory disclaimer,” Kennedy said.

“I’m happy to supply citations to support every statement I made during that exchange. I’m certain that ABC’s decision to censor came as a shock to Linsey as well. Instead of journalism, the public saw a hatchet job,” he added.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The World Economic Forum (WEF) has warned that the employment landscape will change drastically over the next five years amid increasingly widespread use of artificial intelligence (AI), the transition to green energy, environmental, social, and governance (ESG) standards, and slower economic growth.

According to WEF’s “The Future of Jobs Report 2023,” roughly 23 percent of jobs are expected to change by 2027, with around 69 million new jobs to be created and 83 million eliminated, resulting in a decrease of 14 million jobs, or 2 percent of current employment.

The report (pdf) surveyed 803 companies collectively employing more than 11.3 million workers in 27 industry clusters and 45 economies from across the globe, on macro and technology trends and their impact on jobs and skills, as well as the “workforce transformation strategies” that businesses plan to implement between now and 2027.

It found that clerical or secretarial roles, including bank tellers, cashiers and ticket clerks, data entry clerks, postal service clerks, and administrative and executive secretaries will likely see the fastest decline in roles over the next five years relative to their size today, with roughly 26 million fewer jobs by 2027.

Meanwhile, certain tech jobs, including those focused on AI and machine learning, sustainability specialists, business intelligence analysts, information security specialists, and fintech engineers, are expected to see an increase in employment.

Overall, the biggest job growth will likely be seen across the fields of education (10 percent, leading to 3 million additional jobs), agriculture (30 percent, or 3 million additional jobs), and digital commerce and trade (4 million additional jobs), according to the report.

Renewable Energy, ESG Pushing Job Changes

The WEF cites trends such as the transition to renewable energy, ESG standards—which are used by companies in the investment decision-making process to measure sustainable and ethical impacts—advancing technology adoption, and localization of supply chains as the “leading drivers of job growth,” while economic challenges such as ongoing high inflation, slower economic growth, and supply shortages pose “the greatest threat” to job creation.

“The largest job creation and destruction effects come from environmental, technology, and economic trends. Among the macro trends listed, businesses predict the strongest net job-creation effect to be driven by investments that facilitate the green transition of businesses, the broader application of ESG standards, and supply chains becoming more localized, albeit with job growth offset by partial job displacement in each case,” the report states.

U.S. Republican lawmakers have repeatedly warned that companies embracing ESG standards risk slashing investment returns and hampering economic growth, which could have ripple effects across the economy.

“Climate change adaptation and the demographic dividend in developing and emerging economies also rate high as net job creators,” the WEF report adds. “Technological advancement through increased adoption of new and frontier technologies and increased digital access are expected to drive job growth in more than half of surveyed companies, offset by expected job displacement in one-fifth of companies,” it continues.

The report also cites the increasing cost of living for consumers as another factor that will likely pose the greatest threat to the job market in the next five years and will significantly displace jobs.

Firms ‘Need to Be Ready for the Disruptions Ahead’

Elsewhere, the WEF found that the ongoing impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, increased geopolitical divisions, and demographic dividends in developing and emerging economies ranked lower as drivers of business evolution by respondents.

The latest report comes shortly after Goldman Sachs economists forecast two-thirds of occupations across America could be partially automated by AI, which has exploded in use in recent years, despite concerns over its potential risks to society and humanity.

However, economists also noted that its use in both business and society could lead to an almost $7 trillion increase in global GDP owing to increased productivity and manufacturing, among other factors.

According to the WEF report, nearly 75 percent of companies surveyed plan to adopt AI, big data, and cloud computing within the next five years, which around 50 percent of firms believe will create job growth and 25 percent expect will lead to job losses.

Elsewhere, the report found that organizations estimate roughly 34 percent of all business-related tasks are currently performed by machines, with the remaining 66 percent performed by humans.

“The latest findings in the Future of Jobs Report renew calls for action from all labor market stakeholders,” said Sander van’t Noordende, CEO of the human resource consulting firm, Randstad.

“Acceleration in digitalization, AI, and automation are creating tremendous opportunities for the global workforce, but employers, governments, and other organizations need to be ready for the disruptions ahead. By collectively offering greater skilling resources, more efficiently connecting talent to jobs, and advocating for a well-regulated labor market, we can protect and prepare workers for a more specialized and equitable future of work,” he added.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

More than 30 officials from 27 states are demanding the Biden administration end its mortgage redistribution program that makes borrowers with good credit scores pay more to subsidize loans for borrowers with poor credit.

“The policy will take money away from the people who played by the rules and did things right—including millions of hardworking, middle-class Americans who built a good credit score,” the state officials said in a letter to President Joe Biden. 

BREAKING: 34 state financial officers from 27 states have signed-on to a letter to the Biden Administration demanding that they end their new mortgage equity program, which forces buyers with good credit to pay higher rates to subsidize loans for riskier borrowers. pic.twitter.com/P8RHbj0zzf

— Will Hild (@WillHild) May 1, 2023

The policy goes into effect Monday and will increase monthly mortgage payments for borrowers with good credit scores. The program is run by the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which will use the revenue from higher fees to lower the monthly mortgage cost for borrowers with poor credit. The Washington Free Beacon described how the policy will work in a report last week:

Riskier borrowers with low credit scores or income pay more each month for their mortgage. These borrowers will still pay more after May 1 but much less than they paid before. In order to compensate for that lost revenue, borrowers with strong credit will see their monthly increase to roughly $40 a month on a $400,000 mortgage. That’s an extra $14,400 over the course of a standard 30-year mortgage.

“It is already clear that this new policy will be a disaster,” the state officials said. “It amounts to a middle-class tax hike that will unfairly cost American families millions upon millions of dollars.”

“We urge you to take immediate action to end this unconscionable policy,” the letter concluded.

Former Federal Housing Finance Agency director Mark Calabria said the new policy appears to be an attempt by the Biden administration to subsidize minorities without falling foul of federal law against racial discrimination.

“The Biden administration is definitely trying to create more of a cross subsidy between good credit and bad credit, that’s the intent,” Calabria told the Free Beacon. “They are essentially trying to discriminate by race within the legal rules they have and minorities tend to have lower credit scores.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Industry leaders in panic as Congress pushes to impose tariffs on Chinese solar panels

The green energy industry is scrambling as Congress pushes forward with legislation that would impose costly tariffs on Chinese solar panels, a move that industry leaders say would cripple their business given their overwhelming reliance on cheap Chinese suppliers.

The House on Friday passed a bipartisan bill to restore tariffs on Chinese solar panels sold out of Southeast Asia, tariffs that President Joe Biden suspended last year in an attempt to “satisfy the demand for reliable and clean energy.” The legislation has already garnered support among some Senate Democrats, reflecting s significant possibility that the bill will become law.

For the green energy industry, that possibility marks a full-blown disaster.

China controls more than 80 percent of the world’s solar panel production, a figure that hasn’t waned as Biden spends hundreds of billions of dollars on green energy subsidies intended to give the United States the ability to “compete with China.” Instead, U.S. solar companies have been flooded with increased demand and have turned to China to satisfy it. A reimposition of Chinese solar tariffs would cost U.S. developers at least $1 billion in retroactive fees, prompting solar executives and trade groups to publicly stress their need to maintain a free flow of cheap Chinese goods.

The Solar Energy Industries Association, for example, admitted in a Friday statement that the United States “cannot produce enough solar panels and cells to meet demand.” The American Council on Renewable Energy similarly said Chinese tariffs “would have a devastating impact on U.S. solar deployment.” Solar energy contractor George Hershman, meanwhile, said tariffs would prompt him to lay off “thousands of people,” given the hundreds of millions of dollars in projects that his company, SOLV Energy, has fulfilled using Chinese goods. “I don’t know why anyone would support this,” Hershman told the Washington Post.

But for many congressional Democrats and Republicans, the reasoning for renewed tariffs is clear. China has for years provided illegal subsidies to its solar energy companies, allowing them to undercut U.S. competitors. When the United States imposed tariffs on Chinese solar companies to combat those illegal practices, China got around the tariffs by shipping its products through a handful of nations in Southeast Asia, including Cambodia, Malaysia, and Vietnam. Tariffs on Chinese goods sold out of those countries, then, allow U.S. solar manufacturers to compete with “cheap, unfairly subsidized imports,” an argument that both Missouri Republican congressman Jason Smith and Ohio Democratic senator Sherrod Brown have made in recent days.

For the Biden administration, however, the desire to transition to green energy has outweighed any appetite to combat China. Last summer, as Biden’s Commerce Department investigated whether Chinese solar companies dodged U.S. tariffs by routing their operations through Southeast Asia, Biden issued an executive order delaying tariffs on Chinese solar products sold in the region for two years. Biden held firm on that delay even as his Commerce Department determined months later that China’s solar industry indeed did dodge U.S. tariffs through its work in Southeast Asia. Ensuring a steady supply of solar panels, the White House said in a June 2022 fact sheet, was simply too important to risk.

“We need to boost short-term solar panel supply to support construction projects in the United States right now,” read the fact sheet announcing the delay. “Grid operators around the country are relying on planned solar projects to come online to ensure there is sufficient power to meet demand.”

The Biden administration, which did not return a request for comment, hasn’t changed its assessment as the solar tariff bill works its way through Congress. Biden said last week he would veto the bill, which the White House said would “create deep uncertainty for jobs and investments in the solar supply chain.” Still, should the tariffs receive staunch bipartisan support, they could still become law if Congress includes them in a bill that Biden does support, a possibility about which a House Democratic aide warned in an April interview with the Post.

“I’m worried that if you give them 60 [votes] in the Senate, Republicans will keep coming back for more bites at the apple,” the aide said. “They’re going to find every possible way to make us take hard votes on that.”

This is far from the first time that influential Biden administration officials have lobbied in favor of China’s solar industry. Top Energy Department official Jigar Shah in 2011 partnered with three Chinese solar giants to form the Coalition for Affordable Energy, a nonprofit that mounted an aggressive campaign to kill U.S. tariffs on Chinese solar panels. American consumers, Shah argued, could not afford solar panels without cheap Chinese goods, stressing the need for the two nations to “work together to solve our planet’s energy and environmental crisis.” Shah also accused the tariffs’ proponents of mounting a baseless “anti-China crusade.”

A decade later, in 2021, Biden tapped Shah to run the Energy Department’s Loan Programs Office, which is flooding the China-dominated green energy sector with billions of taxpayer dollars. While the office was largely dormant under Trump, Biden’s so-called Inflation Reduction Act gave it hundreds of billions of dollars, meaning Shah now has close to $400 billion at his disposal.

https://freebeacon.com/energy/green-energy-industry-admits-it-needs-cheap-chinese-goods-to-survive/

On Monday, the stock prices of several mid-size banks experienced a significant drop following the collapse of the third major U.S. bank in two months.

On Monday morning, First Republic Bank closed after an attempt to save the regional bank failed to materialize. Federal regulators promptly seized control of the bank. Later that day, JP Morgan Chase announced its acquisition of First Republic.

After striking a deal to purchase the bank, JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon declared, “this part of the crisis is over.”

“This part of the crisis is over,” says JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon during an analyst call after the firm struck a deal to purchase First Republic Bank https://t.co/BWdvKfsp7h pic.twitter.com/mstsNlNZePMay 1, 2023

CNBC has more:

JPMorgan emerged as the winner of a weekend auction for First Republic after regulators decided that time had run out on a private sector solution. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation seized the bank and New York-based JPMorgan announced early Monday that it was acquiring nearly all of the deposits and most of the assets of First Republic.

“There are only so many banks that were offsides this way,” Dimon told analysts in a call shortly after the deal was announced.

“There may be another smaller one, but this pretty much resolves them all,” Dimon said. “This part of the crisis is over.”

In the wake of the sudden collapse in March of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank, investors have punished other lenders that had similar characteristics to SVB. Companies with the highest percentage of uninsured deposits and losses on their balance sheet were most scrutinized.

Biden promised Americans the banking system was secure after the collapse of SVB.

SOURCE: American Liberty News

First Republic Bank has been seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC), which announced on May 1 that the beleaguered bank is being bought by JPMorgan Chase.

California financial regulators on May 1 ordered First Republic Bank closed, with the FDIC appointed as receiver.

“To protect depositors, the FDIC is entering into a purchase and assumption agreement with JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Columbus, Ohio, to assume all of the deposits and substantially all of the assets of First Republic Bank,” the FDIC stated on May 1.

The purchase and assumption agreement will see the FDIC contribute an estimated $13 billion from its deposit insurance fund to sweeten the deal, which was hammered out late April 30 and early May 1 after several banks submitted last-minute bids.

The Epoch Times hasn’t been able to confirm other participants in the bidding, but the FDIC stated that JPMorgan’s offer—which includes the assumption of all customer deposits and substantially all of its assets—fits the bill.

“The resolution of First Republic Bank involved a highly competitive bidding process and resulted in a transaction consistent with the least-cost requirements of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act,” the FDIC stated.

This refers to the legal requirement for the FDIC to pick a form of “resolution”—or orderly liquidation of a failing bank—that results in the lowest possible cost to its deposit insurance fund and, indirectly, to customers of healthy banks that will eventually be encumbered by the cost of topping up the fund via a special assessment (or insurance premium) on banks.

The FDIC is also entering into a loss-share transaction with JPMorgan Chase on real estate loans purchased from First Republic, an arrangement meant to both minimize disruptions for loan customers and maximize recoveries.

“The FDIC as receiver and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, will share in the losses and potential recoveries on the loans covered by the loss-share agreement,” the FDIC stated.

First Republic Bank had approximately $229.1 billion in total assets and $103.9 billion in total deposits as of April 13.

Under the terms of the takeover, depositors of First Republic will automatically become depositors of JPMorgan Chase and will continue to have full access to their deposits.

On May 1, First Republic Bank’s 84 offices in eight states reopened as branches of JPMorgan Chase, which will operate normally during regular business hours.

The transaction makes JPMorgan Chase—already the nation’s biggest bank—even larger.

The announcement of the deal caps weeks of speculation about the fate of First Republic, which was tossed a lifeline recently in the form of a $30 billion injection of uninsured deposits by five of the nation’s biggest banks, including JPMorgan.

First Republic was, by July 2020, the 14th biggest bank in the United States, and at the end of last year, it employed more than 7,200 people.

The San Francisco-based lender was, like other regional lenders, squeezed by the Federal Reserve’s rapid rate hikes in a bid to quash soaring inflation. Rising rates made the bank’s portfolio of bonds drop in value, and the March collapse of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) sparked what First Republic executives said was an “unprecedented” outflow of deposits, sparking a steep selloff of its shares.

‘Unprecedented Deposit Outflows’

An earnings report (pdf) released by First Republic on April 24 revealed it had experienced an “unprecedented” run on deposits following the collapse of SVB and Signature Bank.

“With the closure of several banks in March, we experienced unprecedented deposit outflows,” Neal Holland, First Republic’s chief financial officer, said in the earnings report.

On March 9, a day before SVB failed, First Republic’s deposits stood at $173.5 billion, down 1.7 percent from year-end 2022.

But on March 10, as SVB’s collapse grabbed headlines, First Republic began experiencing an unprecedented run on its deposits that saw $101 billion in savings flee the bank through April 21.

Word of the deposit exodus sent First Republic Bank’s stock to record lows.

In the run-up to the FDIC’s April 29 seizure of First Republic, there was speculation as to whether the bank would try to continue operating while taking steps to bolster its balance sheet.

That seemed to be the preferred course of action for First Republic CEO Michael Roffler, who said in the earnings report that deposits had stabilized and the bank remained “fully committed” to serving its customers.

“With the stabilization of our deposit base and the strength of our credit quality and capital position, we continue to take steps to strengthen our business,” he said.

At the same time, First Republic said in the earnings report that it was “pursuing strategic options,” which is Wall Street code for looking for a white knight to swoop in for a rescue.

Some analysts say that the failure of First Republic will put more pressure on an already battered financial sector.

‘Credit Shocks’ Coming?

The banking crisis is expected to cause “credit shocks,” which would drag down economic growth, according to Morgan Stanley.

“Disruption in the financial system will leave its mark on the real economy,” Morgan Stanley economists wrote in a recent note. “Our banking analysts see permanently higher funding costs for banks going forward, and the disruption to funding markets will likely lead to a tightening in credit conditions.”

The manufacturing, commercial real estate, and technology sectors are the most vulnerable to a pullback in bank lending, according to Goldman Sachs.

A reduction in lending will result in lower business investment in these industries, Jan Hatzius, chief economist of Goldman Sachs, wrote in a recent note.

“We also expect slowing job growth in the leisure and hospitality and other services industries, as diminished loan availability dissuades restaurant operators and other smaller businesses from hiring new workers and opening new establishments,” Hatzius said.

Although deposit outflows have stabilized in recent weeks after an initial surge in the wake of the SVB collapse, the banking sector isn’t yet out of the woods, experts say.

“The U.S. banking sector continues to have fundamental weaknesses that have been contained due to liquidity injections and short term loans,” Daniel Lacalle, chief economist at hedge fund Tressis and a contributor to The Epoch Times, said in an email.

“But the core problem remains: the profitable asset base has been destroyed by years of negative real rates.”

Negative real rates occur when nominal interest rates—those usually quoted by banks on loans and other financial products—are lower than the rate of inflation. Banks have a harder time turning profits when interest rates are low.

Before soaring prices forced the Fed to start hiking interest rates in March 2022, there was a period of more than a decade during which the central bank expanded its balance sheet by buying government securities, driving interest rates to near zero, and flooding the economy with cheap money.

Analysts say many banks took added risks to increase investment returns during years of very low interest rates and some may have failed to hedge against the risk of rising interest rates.

“Deposit outflows have also forced banks to sell assets at a loss that they had intended to hold to maturity in order to generate the cash required to cover deposit withdrawals,” Ben Johnston, chief operating officer of Kapitus, a provider of financing for small and medium-sized businesses, told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement.

“These losses have reduced the equity value of the banks, weakening their ability to withstand future losses, and worrying their customer bases. While fear in the banking system has subsided, these risks have not gone away.”

Investor Warren Buffett predicted recently that “we’re not through with bank failures,” and JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon wrote in a letter to shareholders that even when the current crisis is behind us, “there will be repercussions from it for years to come.”

Liam Cosgrove and Emel Akan contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The latest tax migration data from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) shows that the exodus of taxpayers from high-tax states continued from 2020 to 2021, with California, New York, and Illinois again suffering some of the nation’s biggest losses of people and money.

California’s tax base shrank by nearly $29.1 billion as the Golden State saw a net loss of 332,000 taxpayers and their dependents during a time of widespread lockdowns, stay-at-home orders, and business closures, according to the IRS migration data released Thursday.

In second place was New York, which was hit by a net loss of $24.5 billion and 262,000 people. Illinois was third, with a net loss of $10.9 billion and 105,000 people. Other high-tax states such as Massachusetts ($2.6 billion) and New Jersey ($2.3 billion) also saw tens of thousands of people moving out during the period.

On the winning side, Florida reaped the benefits of the wealth migration more than any other state, enjoying a net gain of $39.1 billion in gross income from 256,000 new residents. Texas, which gained $10.9 billion and 175,000 people, came in second. They were followed by Nevada ($4.6 billion), North Carolina ($4.5 billion), Arizona ($4.4 billion), South Carolina ($4.2 billion), and Tennessee ($4.1 billion).

The data was compiled by comparing the mailing addresses on one year’s income tax return and that of the next. The most recent migration data reflects address changes that occurred between when taxpayers filed their tax year 2019 returns in calendar year 2020 and when they filed their tax year 2020 returns in calendar year 2021.

Even before the COVID-19 pandemic, California had already seen a net outflow of people and money to other states. According to previous IRS data, California lost $8 billion in income in 2018 and $8.8 billion in 2019.

California still takes in more tax revenue than any other state due to its tax structure, which places higher rates on wealthy residents. Gov. Gavin Newsom announced last May that his state had a historic $97.5 billion budget surplus.

There remains a question over the stability of such a system that heavily relies on taxing the top one percent of earners. In January, just eight months after Newsom unveiled the unprecedented budget surplus, the Democrat governor asked lawmakers to cut billions of dollars of investment and put expensive programs on hold to balance a $22.5 billion budget deficit in case tax revenues don’t rebound.

In New York, the Democrat-led state Legislature has reached a deal with Gov. Kathy Hochul, who resisted a proposed plan to increase tax rates on those earning more than $5 million and $25 million a year from 10.9 percent to 11.4 percent. Like California, New York generated billions of dollars in budget surplus from previous tax hikes on rich New Yorkers.

Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker recently questioned whether his state is losing population, claiming that the state has grown in size.

“We did not lose population as you saw when the Census Bureau data came through for the 2020 census,” Pritzker said in March. “We actually gained population, especially as they looked more closely after the initial announcements at what happened state to state.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The Federal Reserve wants more regulatory power after string of oversight failures

(Reuters)—The Federal Reserve issued a detailed and scathing assessment on Friday of its failure to identify problems and push for fixes at Silicon Valley Bank before the U.S. lender’s collapse, and promised tougher supervision and stricter rules for banks.

In what Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michael Barr called an “unflinching” review of the U.S. central bank’s supervision of SVB, the Fed said its oversight of the Santa Clara, California-based bank proved inadequate and that regulatory standards were too low.

“SVB’s failure demonstrates that there are weaknesses in regulation and supervision that must be addressed,” Barr said in a letter accompanying a 114-page report supplemented by confidential materials that are typically not made public.

While it was the regional bank’s own mismanagement of basic risks that was at the root of SVB’s downfall, the Fed said, supervisors of SVB did not fully appreciate the problems, delaying their responses to gather more evidence even as weaknesses mounted, and failed to appropriately escalate certain deficiencies when they were identified.

At the time of its failure, SVB had 31 unaddressed citations on its safety and soundness, triple what its peers in the banking sector had, the report said.

One particularly effective change the Fed could make on supervision would be to put mitigants in place quickly in response to serious issues on capital, liquidity, or management, a senior Fed official said.

Increased capital and liquidity requirements also would have bolstered SVB’s resilience, the Fed added. Barr said as a consequence of the failure, the central bank will reexamine how it supervises and regulates liquidity risk, beginning with the risks of uninsured deposits.

Regulators shut SVB on March 10 after customers withdrew $42 billion on the previous day and queued requests for another $100 billion the following morning.

The historic run triggered massive deposit outflows at other regional banks that were seen to have similar weaknesses, including a large proportion of uninsured deposits and big holdings of long-term securities that had lost market value as the Fed raised short-term interest rates.

New York-based Signature Bank failed two days later – the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation is due to release its review of that collapse later on Friday – and the Fed and other U.S. government authorities moved to head off an emerging crisis of confidence in the banking sector with an emergency funding program for otherwise healthy banks under sudden pressure, and guarantees on all deposits at the two banks.

SUPERVISION HEADCOUNT FELL

Before the twin failures in March, banking regulators had focused most of their supervisory firepower on the very biggest U.S. banks that were seen as critical to financial stability.

The realization that smaller banks are capable not only of causing ructions in the broader financial system but of doing it at such speed has forced a rethink.

“Contagion from the failure of SVB threatened the ability of a broader range of banks to provide financial services and access to credit for individuals, families, and businesses,” Barr said. “Weaknesses in supervision and regulation must be fixed.”

In its report, the Fed said that from 2018 to 2021 its supervisory practices shifted and there were increased expectations for supervisors to accumulate more evidence before considering taking action. Staff interviewed as part of the Fed’s review reported pressure during this period to reduce burdens on firms and demonstrate due process, the report said.

Between 2016 and 2022, as assets in the banking sector grew 37%, the Fed’s supervision headcount declined by 3%, according to the report.

As SVB itself grew, the Fed did not step up its supervisory game quickly enough, the report showed, allowing weaknesses to fester as executives left them unaddressed, even after staff finally did downgrade the bank’s confidential rating to “not-well-managed.”

The Fed is looking at linking executive compensation to fixing problems at banks designated as deficient on management so as to focus executives’ attention on those problems, a senior Fed official said in a briefing.

While the fallout from the failures of SVB and Signature has slowed, some firms are still feeling the effects, with San Francisco-based First Republic Bank struggling for survival after reporting earlier this week that its deposit outflows after the SVB and Signature collapses exceeded $100 billion.

(Reporting by Ann Saphir, Hannah Lang and Chris Prentice; Editing by Dan Burns and Paul Simao)

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

(Reuters)—Shares of First Republic Bank plunged to a record low on Friday, losing nearly half of their value after a CNBC report said the troubled lender was most likely headed for receivership under the U.S. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

The stock fell as much as 46% to $3.33, giving it a market capitalization of $620 million. Trading in the bank’s shares was halted multiple times.

A Reuters report of a government-brokered rescue deal for First Republic had pushed its shares up as much 6.6% earlier in the session.

According to the report, the FDIC, the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve are among government bodies that have started to orchestrate meetings with financial companies about a lifeline for the bank.

The government’s involvement was helping bring more parties, including banks and private equity firms, to the negotiating table, one of the sources for the report had told Reuters.

Still, concerns remained that deposit declines at First Republic could worsen and spark a fresh meltdown in the U.S. banking industry even as it recovers from the collapse of two regional lenders last month.

First Republic earlier this week said its deposits had slumped by more than $100 billion in the first quarter.

“The potential worst-case scenario stemming from the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank appears to have been averted,” said Mark Haefele, chief investment officer at UBS Global Wealth Management, in a note.

“But the problems at First Republic are a reminder that further problems remain possible.”

The San Francisco-based lender’s stock has more than halved so far this week. Since the start of the year, it has lost nearly 97% in value, making it the worst-performing S&P 500 stock.

(Reporting by Medha Singh and Niket Nishant in Bengaluru; Editing by Saumyadeb Chakrabarty and Devika Syamnath)

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Democrats in state have voiced concerns about the Chinese government’s infiltration of Michigan

Michigan Democratic governor Gretchen Whitmer’s latest appointee to a powerful state economic board is a nonprofit executive who helped facilitate the deal that brought a controversial Chinese battery company to the Great Lakes State.

Whitmer on Thursday tapped Randy Thelen to serve on the Michigan Strategic Fund, a powerful state board that approves the distribution of public grants and tax breaks to private businesses. Thelen is the CEO of Grand Rapids-based nonprofit The Right Place, which works to drive economic development in western Michigan. With Thelen at the helm, the nonprofit partnered with Chinese battery maker Gotion to help the company acquire land for a western Michigan factory, a controversial project that the state is showering with hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funds.

Whitmer’s decision to appoint Thelen comes as Michigan residents and elected officials express concern over Gotion’s presence in the state. The Chinese battery giant’s leader is a known Chinese Communist Party member, and the company’s bylaws require Gotion to “carry out party activities in accordance with the Constitution of the Communist Party of China.” Gotion’s ties to the CCP prompted hundreds of Michiganders to hold a rally last week in opposition to the battery plant, and even Democratic lawmakers have questioned Gotion’s Michigan project. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D., Mich.), for example, acknowledged Tuesday that she’s “worried” about the project’s national security implications.

“Am I worried about national security implications? I have to tell you that I am,” Dingell said during a Fox News appearance. “Let us be clear—if you are a Chinese business, the communist government is part of your business. So it’s something that worries me every day.”

Just days before Dingell made those comments, Michigan’s legislature approved $175 million in state funds to support Gotion, $50 million of which will go to The Right Place to secure “site preparation and land acquisition” for the Chinese company’s plant. The Right Place on its website also touts Gotion’s Michigan project, with the nonprofit saying in October that it’s “honored to have played a role in bringing this transformational project” to the state. As Michiganders protested Gotion in recent weeks, meanwhile, Thelen worked to defend his Chinese partner, arguing during an April 5 meeting with local residents that Gotion would merely become one of many Chinese-owned companies in Michigan.

Thelen is related to Gotion vice president of North American affairs Chuck Thelen. The cousins told Bridge Michigan they did not know each other before they worked on the Gotion deal.

For conservative group Michigan Freedom Fund, Whitmer’s willingness to elevate Thelen to an influential state board despite the CEO’s work with Gotion “raises concerns about Gov. Whitmer’s decision-making and signals her disdain for Michigan residents.”

“Rather than making any effort to quell fears of both local and state residents, Whitmer … doubled down,” Michigan Freedom Fund spokeswoman Mary Drabik said in a statement. “Appointing Thelen is a clear signal of where the governor’s priorities lie: with China and rewarding those who stand to profit from the Gotion deal.”

Neither Whitmer nor The Right Place returned requests for comment.

Gotion is not the only Chinese company with impending plans to settle in the Great Lakes State. American auto giant Ford in February announced plans to build a Michigan electric vehicle battery factory in partnership with Chinese battery giant Contemporary Amperex Technology Co., Limited (CATL), which will provide technology, equipment, and workers to help build and run the factory. Ford says the factory will nonetheless qualify for lucrative federal subsidies under President Joe Biden’s so-called Inflation Reduction Act, which the Democrat said would help the United States “compete with China for the future.”

Ford’s use of federal funds to partner with CATL has sparked intense criticism from congressional Republicans, with Florida senator Marco Rubio in March unveiling a bill that would block Ford from earning taxpayer dollars through its Chinese partnership.

“Without additional restrictions, Chinese companies will benefit from the subsidies President Joe Biden claimed would spur domestic manufacturing,” Rubio said. “Hard-working Americans should not be forced to subsidize Chinese companies that make batteries for electric vehicles that cost more than most people make in a year.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

New York governor Kathy Hochul on Thursday declared progress in her push to make her state the first in the nation to ban natural gas in new buildings, announcing a budget agreement that would mandate new buildings be “zero emissions” starting in 2025. 

The state is “going to be the first state in the nation to advance zero emissions in new homes and buildings,” Hochul said during a speech at the State Capitol in Albany. If the budget passes, natural gas appliances will be banned in new small buildings by 2025 and large buildings by 2028. 

“Our budget prioritizes nation-leading climate action that meets this moment with ambition and the commitment it demands,” Hochul said.

Hochul’s announcement comes just months after she and Democrats in the state legislature pledged support for the controversial policy. “We are taking these steps now because climate change remains the greatest threat to our planet, and to our children and grandchildren,” Hochul said in January.

It’s the latest move by Democrats to ban the use of natural gas and the appliances that rely on it. The Biden administration’s Energy Department is advancing regulations that would effectively ban roughly half of gas stoves on the market from being sold. 

The controversy surrounding gas stove bans kicked off in January, when a Biden-appointed commissioner of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Richard Trumka Jr., floated banning gas stoves, citing a study by an environmental group that attributed 13 percent of U.S. childhood asthma cases to gas stoves. 

Scientists later criticized the study. Facing backlash, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Biden would not support such a ban. The Washington Free Beacon reported in January that the group behind the now-infamous study worked with the Chinese government to push “an economy-wide transformation” away from gas and oil. 

Climate activists not only want gas banned, but also argue the administration must change how it refers to the substance. A climate group recently demanded the Biden administration stop using the term “natural gas” because it sounds too climate friendly. The group, Gas Leaks, suggested saying “fossil gas” or “methane gas” instead. 

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Justices ridicule Neal Katyal’s defense of county that seized woman’s home over $2,300 in unpaid taxes

A left-wing lawyer who once defended al Qaeda terrorists argued before the Supreme Court Wednesday that a Minnesota county was in the right when it confiscated an elderly woman’s condo and took all the profits from its sale over a small unpaid tax. 

Supreme Court justices appeared unconvinced by lawyer Neal Katyal’s defense of Hennepin County, which contains Minneapolis, according to the Associated Press. The plaintiff in the case, Geraldine Tyler, now 94 years old, didn’t get any of the $40,000 the county received from the sale of her condo. The county seized the property in 2015 over $2,300 in unpaid taxes. Tyler owed $15,000 total with penalties and interest on the unpaid taxes. 

“At bottom, she’s saying the county took her property and made a profit on her surplus equity. It belongs to her,” Justice Clarence Thomas said Wednesday. 

Justice Neil Gorsuch ridiculed the county’s position that expensive properties could also be seized for minuscule missing payments. “So a $5 property tax, a million dollar property, good to go?” Gorsuch asked Katyal, who answered in the affirmative. 

Katyal’s defense referenced historical events dating back to 1272, as well as the Court’s recent striking down of Roe v. Wade, the Associated Press reported. “I just don’t understand what on earth any of that history has to do with this case,” Gorsuch said of Katyal’s historical references.

Katyal, who served as acting solicitor general under the Obama administration, is no stranger to representing controversial defendants. He is known as one of the “al Qaeda 7,” a group of lawyers who represented al Qaeda terrorists against the Bush administration. 

He also appeared before the Supreme Court in 2020 to defend Nestlé and Cargill, who faced charges of abetting child slavery at cocoa plantations in Africa.

Katyal, a frequent face on MSNBC, rose in popularity in 2017 for leading challenges against former president Donald Trump’s temporary travel ban on countries including North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela. 

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

‘We consciously are disrupting people’s lives,’ climate alarmism group says after protest

Here’s a snapshot of the climate history over the past half million years. It’s several years old. We are at the top of the curve and heading downward as we enter a grand solar minimum. The things claimed by the alarmists are the things that will happen if we DO abandon our current energy sources overnight, not if we don’t. Catching photons and wisps of wind do not make nearly enough power. [US Patriot]

A climate activist who shut down a Washington, D.C., highway acknowledged that she’s consciously “disrupting people’s lives” and compared herself to civil rights pioneers who were “not well liked during their time.”

Declare Emergency, a climate alarmism group that conducts disruptive protests in and around D.C. in hopes of urging Joe Biden to declare a climate emergency, on Wednesday blockaded a busy section of the George Washington Memorial Parkway. After the demonstration, group spokeswoman Nora Swisher dismissed criticism of the protest, admitting that the “point” of the protest is to ruin people’s days. Swisher went on to argue that those who don’t like her tactics will eventually come around, just as the general public now reveres once-unpopular civil rights pioneers.

“We consciously are disrupting people’s lives today in hopes that we can mitigate more serious destruction down the road. Because that’s the trajectory we’re on right now,” Swisher told FOX 5. When asked if she feared whether the protest would turn people against her cause, Swisher said she “expected” such a backlash and expressed confidence that history would look fondly upon the group. “This has been true of nonviolent civil disobedience movements throughout history,” Swisher said. “The suffragettes, the civil rights movement—they were not well liked during their time. Now, with hindsight, we see that their actions were moral and justified.”

Far-left environmental groups have long pressed the federal government to declare a national climate emergency, but the calls have entered the Democratic Party’s mainstream in recent years. Biden reportedly considered issuing a climate emergency declaration last summer but stopped short, prompting criticism from climate activists. Months later, in October 2022, a group of eight Democratic senators urged Biden to declare the emergency, arguing that he could not reach his emission reduction goals without the declaration.

“We will only achieve these targets if you build off the momentum of the Inflation Reduction Act with strong executive action,” wrote the group, which included Rhode Island’s Sheldon Whitehouse, California’s Alex Padilla, and Maryland’s Chris Van Hollen. “We urge you to take the important next step of declaring a climate emergency and unlocking the full tools at your disposal to address this crisis.”

A climate emergency declaration would allow Biden to unlock COVID-esque emergency powers to fight climate change through executive order. Under a climate emergency, for example, Biden could use the Defense Production Act to stimulate green energy generation. He could also deploy the military to build green energy projects near military installments around the country.

Declare Emergency has long blocked highways around D.C., including last year on Independence Day. In October 2022, meanwhile, the group planned a “week of arrest,” which then-leader Donald Zepeda said was necessary to spur climate action. “What people are interested in and concerned about is the sacrifice element,” Zepeda told the Washington Free Beacon. “So I don’t think we’re going to have actions without arrests.”

Residents in D.C. and Northern Virginia can expect similar protests from the group “in the coming weeks and months,” Swisher told FOX 5. Those demonstrations are not likely to make Declare Emergency any friends. One local resident trashed the group’s Wednesday protest in an interview with FOX 5, saying the demonstration forced her to miss a medical appointment for her dog.

“It’s something that’s a very important cause, of course, but you’re now having all these people idle, and you’re also now making them angry,” the woman said. “If you want people to be attentive to your cause, making them angry is not the way to do it, especially at 9 o’clock on a Wednesday morning.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Chinese ownership of US agricultural lands saw 5000% increase in one decade

The valleys give way to the prairies and the prairies give way to the badlands where fields of golden cinquefoils surrender to the might of towering plateaus of striated bedrock.

The rugged openness of South Dakota presents the quintessential image of the American countryside, a pure distillation of the natural environment that captured the pioneers’ hope for a better future all those years ago.

But how long this countryside remains American is now an open question in these parts.

That’s because Chinese-owned entities, some linked to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), have been purchasing land here in South Dakota and elsewhere in the country at a breathtaking pace for more than a decade.

Some of the land they gobble up is for farming, other acreage is allotted for energy use, and still more parcels are forebodingly adjacent to sensitive U.S. military sites.

Indeed, the U.S. Department of Agriculture estimates (pdf) that Chinese holdings of U.S. agricultural lands reached more than 352,000 acres in 2020, up more than 5,300 percent from the less than 14,000 acres owned in 2010.

To stem the growing incursion, state governments from across the nation are working desperately to craft legislation that would end the trend once and for all.

Too often however, those efforts are met with stolid resistance from entrenched business interests and, as was the case in South Dakota, are ultimately abandoned to placate private interests.

A Permanent Spy Balloon

Adam Savit heads the China Policy division of the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), a conservative think tank tasked with the mission of advancing policies that put American citizens’ rights and well-being before other considerations.

He believes that the continued acceptance of CCP-backed acquisitions of U.S. land are an affront to American laws and norms, as well as a violation of equitable international practice.

To allow the regime to continue investing in U.S. land and resources, while U.S. companies are barred from doing the same in China, he says, runs counter to the value of “reciprocity” that so much international trust is necessarily built on.

“If we don’t have access to a resource, opportunity, or institution in the CCP, they should not have access to that in our country,” Savit tells The Epoch Times.

To that end, Savit authored the institute’s latest issue brief (pdf), which tracks state responses to the growing threat posed by CCP land grabs in the United States.

Numerous states are now seeking to bar the CCP or other, similarly aggressive entities, from purchasing U.S. land.

Much of this effort is no doubt a reaction to the alleged national security threat posed by allowing CCP-linked companies to purchase land in close proximity to U.S. military bases, as previously occurred in North Dakota, as well as efforts to buy huge swaths of land and energy infrastructure, as previously happened in Texas.

“This land [near military bases] is a permanent version of that [spy balloon],” Savit says of the CCP’s efforts. “They can station whatever they wish wherever they wish.”

To that end, Savit underscored the necessity of state legislation to help curb the increasing Chinese investments in an area otherwise devoid of meaningful legal protections.

“In most states, there’s no legal barrier to [these purchases] right now and no process to vet or evaluate the side effects of that,” Savit says.

Seeing the struggles of its neighbor to the north, for example, South Dakota sought to insulate itself against similar incursions, with lawmakers crafting a law that would have granted the governor the ability to oversee foreign investments into state land.

Despite initial support from state lawmakers, however, the bill was roundly defeated after all the state’s major agricultural associations and unions lobbied against it for fear of giving too much power to the state’s executive branch as well as concern that the effort could ignite racial animosity toward Chinese Americans and immigrants.

States Seek to Repel CCP Influence

South Dakota is not alone. The AFPI report highlights legal struggles underway in 23 states from Arizona to Virginia, totaling 53 separate bills.

In more than a dozen other states, Savit says, some laws already exist that could feasibly be used to prevent the Chinese acquisition of U.S. lands but are never enforced.

The legislation springing up across the country is as varied as the states giving rise to it, and includes efforts to ban investments from CCP-linked entities in Iowa, a law to ban land purchases from revanchist nations like North Korea and Iran in Georgia, as well as a blanket ban on all foreign land buys in Texas, which was recently diluted to apply only to state-linked entities.

Savit believes “there’s no foolproof way” to prevent the CCP regime from getting its hands on American lands but commends the varied efforts of the states to address the issue in their own ways.

“There is no perfect way because each state has its different concerns,” Savit says. “Each state has its different existing laws. Each state has different agricultural sectors. These are all experiments.”

“There is no one-size-fits-all answer. It’s a dynamic challenge.”

US Failing to Track Foreign Investments

The problem of determining who is a legitimate investor and who is a CCP proxy is a particularly daunting task for state governments, however. Particularly at a time when record numbers of Chinese are fleeing the country amid increasingly harsh repression efforts by the CCP.

For Savit and the AFPI, the issue is simple: Those with the resources to make the purchases likely have some connection to the CCP’s regime.

“An investor from China is going to have some sort of connection,” Savit says.

“Our assumption … is that anyone with that capital or able to invest in that way has some sort of direct or indirect connection to the CCP or they’re being leveraged in some way.”

There’s one critical issue with that assumption, however. Namely, that the United States has little to no understanding of who is actually buying the land.

Enter Lars Schonander, a policy technologist at the Lincoln Network think tank.

Schonander has spent considerable time in recent years tracking what he calls “malign foreign investment” in the United States. That is, investments made by hostile nations in the U.S. with the ultimate goal of exploiting or otherwise undermining the nation’s interests.

The relevant data needed to track such investments, he tells The Epoch Times, is “private but not classified” and can be stunningly frustrating to get a hold of. Simply put, the federal government is not collecting in-depth data about foreign land purchases in the country.

“This plays out strangely specifically when one wants to look at detailed data [of foreign investments],” Schonander says.

“What I’ve discovered is the annual reports have high-level data on how much investors from a given country invest in a year but, you can only know what specific foreign corporations and entities are investing in by going to the private database, which makes it next to impossible if there is a specific project you’re concerned about.”

At present, the only federal law that tracks such investments is the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act, which requires foreign entities to report transactions of farmland to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).

Schonander cautions, however, that the USDA is authorized only to acquire data on land purchases up to three orders of ownership. This means that a series of U.S. shell corporations could be ultimately owned by a foreign entity and the agency would never know.

This issue is magnified, he says, by the huge lag times between an investment being made and it being recorded.

“There’s quite a bit of a lag between people maybe knowing of a certain investment and it actually being in the database,” Schonander says.

“The data is only updated at the end of a year. So, right now, we only have as of the end of last year, the 2021 data. At the end of this year, we’ll have the 2022 data.”

Because of this, Schonander notes, even members of Congress will be working with data that is, at best, a year old.

This is not to say that the government has always been aloof to the need for more granular data on foreign investments.

Schonander notes, for example, that the U.S. Energy Information Administration used to require details each year about foreign investments into U.S. energy infrastructure, but that the single form used to collect that information had been discontinued following the federal government’s  budget sequestration in 2011.

“It was quite valuable information because in the more recent reports they had acquisitions and investor data which, nowadays, you’d probably have to either manually collect yourself or pay a data broker for,” Schonander says. “Now we have no idea publicly.”

With that in mind, Schonander says hat collecting more useful data could be as simple as restarting the program to measure such investments using the tools previously set up for the same purpose.

“They have the form and they still have the personnel to set it up,” he says. “They just haven’t sent out the forms in over 10 years.”

A spokesperson for the Energy Information Administration told The Epoch Times that the agency has no plans to reinstate the program. The Epoch Times has also reached out to the USDA for comment.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Tehran falsely claims the United States is in cahoots with the Islamic State

An Iranian court on Wednesday ordered the United States government to pay more than $1 billion in fines for terror strikes that Tehran now says were American-ordered.

The court determined “the U.S. government as well as some American officials and institutions must pay $312,950,000 in damages” to the families of those killed in a 2017 terror strike on Iran’s parliament and a popular holy site. The court “also set $9,950,000 for material damages, $104 million for moral damages caused to the plaintiffs, and $199 million for punitive damages,” according to Iran’s state-controlled press.

Iran is blaming the United States for a spate of attacks that are known to have been carried out by the Islamic State, a rival terror organization that is at odds with Iran’s clerical regime. Iranian officials claim the American government is in cahoots with the Islamic State, and is chiefly responsible for the 2017 attack that killed 17 and wounded 50 others.

The judgment is likely payback for the U.S.  government’s 2021 seizure of around $7 million in Iranian assets, which were paid out to the victims of Tehran’s terrorism enterprise. The United States also successfully petitioned the International Court of Justice in March to toss a case that would have barred further payments from Iranian coffers.

Iran’s countersuit names former presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, former U.S. general Tommy Franks, the CIA, U.S. Central Command, and the Treasury Department as defendants. Lockheed Martin and American Airlines also are named in the suit.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

San Diego leaders are requesting state funds to buy three hotels for the city’s homeless at a cost of $383,000 per room, the San Diego Union-Tribune reported.

The wealthy city, where homelessness has surged to record highs in recent months, will apply for the funds from California governor Gavin Newsom’s (D.) latest $736 million round of funding from his homelessness grant program. City officials were unfazed by the cost of the plan, with commissioner Ryan Clumpner calling it “a fantastic value proposition.”

Commissioner Stefanie Benvenuto called the value of the purchases “incredible when you see the cost at the door.”

San Diego is eyeing the hotel purchases despite the recent failure of a similar initiative. In 2020, city commissioners approved the purchase of two hotels to house homeless people at $278,000 to $353,000 per room. A newly opened affordable housing apartment project cost $51.1 million in total, or $583,000 per room. Still, downtown San Diego’s homeless population reached a new record high earlier this year of nearly 2,000 people.

“They’re nuts,” Bob Rauch, a San Diego businessman whose company owns and operates hotels, told the Union-Tribune of the city’s leaders. “They overpaid last time during a pandemic, and they’d be overpaying again.”

Meanwhile, Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass’s (D.) latest budget proposal includes $1.3 billion for the city’s nearly 41,000 homeless, which equates to $32,000 per person. The per capita Los Angeles income is $39,380. 

A similar trend has played out on the state level. California Democrats have spent some $20 billion over the past five years to address a growing homelessnes crisis.

Last month, Newsom proposed a ballot initiative to approve a minimum of $1 billion each year to house homeless people who are mentally ill. 

According to the federal government’slatest count, California holds nearly a third of the nation’s homeless—multitudes more than any other state.

Earlier this month, a legislative committee approved a bipartisan request for an audit of where local, state and federal funds to address homelessness are going and what the dollars are accomplishing.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Natural gas occurs naturally underground

Climate activists are pushing the Biden administration to stop companies from using the term “natural gas,” arguing that use of the word “natural” makes the energy source appear overly green.

Environmental group Gas Leaks is working to change the way Joe Biden’s Federal Trade Commission regulates the use of “natural gas” in marketing materials, Bloomberg reported Wednesday. For the group’s campaign director, Caleb Heeringa, the term misleadingly suggests that the energy source is clean and should thus be replaced by expressions such as “fossil gas” and “methane gas.”

“There’s nothing natural about fracking; there’s nothing natural about thousands of miles of pipelines and there’s nothing natural about the indoor air pollution that is associated with gas,” Heeringa said.

Despite Heeringa’s claims, natural gas does occur naturally. The colorless, odorless fuel source forms when decomposing plants and animals are subject to underground heat and pressure. Its name was adopted in the 1820s, Bloomberg noted, to distinguish it from gas produced via unnatural means, such as by burning coal and oil.

It’s unclear how Biden’s Federal Trade Commission will react to Gas Leaks’s efforts—the agency declined to comment. But Biden administration officials have taken cues from liberal climate activists in the past.

In January, for example, Biden’s pick to serve on the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Richard Trumka Jr., threatened to ban gas stoves after an environmental group published a study attributing 13 percent of U.S. childhood asthma cases to gas stove use. Academics later criticized that study, and when Trumka’s threat prompted swift backlash, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Biden would not support such a ban. Still, Biden’s Energy Department has moved forward with regulations that would effectively ban at least half of all gas stoves on the U.S. market from being sold.

Should Biden’s Federal Trade Commission entertain regulatory action targeting the use of “natural gas” in marketing materials, the effort will certainly attract pushback. The American Gas Association defended its use of the term Wednesday, telling Bloomberg that “natural gas” has “a history of use colloquially and in reference works, legislation, and academic journals.”

Natural gas is “instantly recognizable to customers for what it is: the name of a vital source of energy for tens of millions of Americans,” association general counsel Michael Murray said.

It was a dream come true—or rather about to come true—when the Halls bought their forever home. It had everything they needed and more: five bedrooms, four bathrooms, a family room, a dining room, a roomy garage, good schools, and a good neighborhood. Sure, a fixer-upper, but they felt up to it. Prentiss Hall, a home improvement contractor, made it his life project, and everybody lent a hand—his wife, Tawanda, and six children, cousins, and friends.

“We were really excited,” Tawanda told The Epoch Times.

They negotiated the price down to $67,000—a bargain, perhaps, but the home demanded a daunting amount of “tender love and care.”

“The house had been sitting there for a while. I guess it had mold in it, and it needed new windows and doors and electric,” Tawanda said.

“The city made us get all kinds of permits to get the house up to code. So we went in there and just started working.”

It took about a year before they were able to move into the home in the quiet Detroit suburb of Southfield, Michigan. And it was several years before they felt “comfortable” with it, she said.

The result was worth it.

“It was a dream home. It was big enough … for our family to be there, we had plenty of rooms, big enough to have our holiday dinners, and everyone can come and be comfortable,” she said.

For a Detroit girl, it was nice to have a peaceful place to live, away from all the noise and hustle.

“We just hoped and planned to stay and grow and raise grandchildren and, you know,” she paused.

“But—,” her voice trailed into a sigh.

Shattered Dreams

Several years in, the Halls got into financial trouble. Tawanda’s handicapped brother and her sick mother moved in with them even as all their money still went into improving the house.

“We just had a lot of things happening at once,” she said. “Before I knew it, I was behind on all my taxes.”

Property tax on the 3,700-square-foot home ran over $5,000. In a few years, the debt ballooned to over $22,000, including interest and fees.

In February 2018, Oakland County foreclosed on the home.

The next month, the county put the Halls on a payment plan of $650 a month intended to allow them to get the house back. They prepaid a few months in advance and were told that they don’t need to worry about timely payments as long as they caught up on the payments by February 2019, according to court documents reviewed by The Epoch Times (pdf, pdf).

In June 2018, however, the county suddenly transferred the property to the city of Southfield, which had a preferential right to buy foreclosed properties for the price of the debt.

The Halls were informed they had to move out.

Four months later, the city gave the property to a private company, Southfield Neighborhood Revitalization Initiative, for $1.

In early 2020, the house was put on the market and then sold for more than $300,000.

To the Halls’ shock, they learned they were not entitled to a single penny of that payout.

“I feel like someone stole from me and my family,” Tawanda said.

Less than a month later, Prentiss Hall passed away. Loss of the house put him under enormous stress, and his health deteriorated, she said.

Widespread Problem

Thousands of Americans have been put in a similar position—losing their homes and other properties over tax debts that only represented a small fraction of the property value.

In most of the country, such a practice is illegal. Local authorities are allowed to foreclose on properties over unpaid taxes, but they are required to sell them and return the owners everything above what they owe.

There are 12 states plus the District of Columbia that allow governments to keep the whole property and all sales proceeds: Maine, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Alabama, Minnesota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Colorado, Arizona, and Oregon.

Another nine states have various loopholes, mostly allowing the government to keep such properties for public use (like in Alaska, California, Idaho, Nevada, Ohio, and Rhode Island). Montana allows the government to keep all proceeds from the sale of commercial properties, not residential ones. Texas allows governments to sell properties at a discount in some circumstances. Wisconsin allows governments to keep the properties, but if they sell them, excess proceeds go back to the original owners, according to Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF), a nonprofit that has been tracking and litigating the issue.

Between 2014 and 2021, this practice has cost homeowners over $860 million in home value—equity—spread over some 6,200 homes. But those are only the cases PLF was able to document by looking at the more populous counties in the 12 states and only at homes for which there was enough information available. For thousands more, there wasn’t enough information. And there are untold more the PLF hasn’t looked at yet.

Most of the lost equity was wasted by selling the houses at a deep discount. About $30 million actually ended up in government coffers, while another about $280 million was pocketed by private investors that buy property tax debt from governments and then foreclose on the homes and sell them, based on data from nearly 4,700 property sales.

Legal Battle

For PLF lawyer David Deerson, the issue boils down to theft.

“It’s true that the government can take your property with few limits, but one of the limits is, whatever it takes, it has to pay you for it,” he told The Epoch Times.

Governments have been defending the practice on “legalistic” grounds, in his view.

“It’s commonly understood that property rights are not created by the Constitution. They’re protected by the Constitution, but they’re created by other sources of law, such as state law.”

Thus, governments have argued property owners don’t own the value of a property in excess of a debt unless the specific state law says so.

“There can’t be a property right in equity because if you look at the way the statutes are written, they don’t provide you with a chance to get your equity back,” Deerson explained the argument.

PLF and a lineup of legal and advocacy groups across the political spectrum disagree.

“In every single other context you can possibly imagine, equity is treated as a property right,” he said.

In a divorce, equity in a home is treated as part of the wealth being divided. In a private foreclosure, the bank cannot take a penny beyond what it’s owed.

“Of course, they have to pay you back the surplus equity. Why? Because you have a property right to it,” Deerson said.

“Equity isn’t treated as a property right only if it’s the government itself trying to take it.”

In 2020, PLF secured a ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court that outlawed the practice of governments keeping extra proceeds from tax foreclosures in the state. That should have resolved Tawanda’s case, but the government has continued to litigate the issue in federal courts.

In October, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which covers Michigan, ruled the practice unconstitutional, but the state government appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, leaving the case pending.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court announced it would pick up a similar case in Minnesota, where a 94-year-old grandmother lost her condo over some $15,000 in unpaid taxes and fees. The local government sold the condo for $40,000, again keeping every penny.

PLF is in the process of arguing the case before the Supreme Court, with the first hearing scheduled for April 26.

The case, Tyler v. Hennepin County, could decide the fate of Tawanda Hall and thousands of others.

“I’m hoping that they can change the law because it’s unfair to a lot of families who put their lives into their homes,” Tawanda said.

‘Wrong’ Argument

While the issue may seem clear-cut, courts have been split on it for decades.

In Nebraska, for example, the state’s Supreme Court has affirmed the practice. So did, last year, the federal appeals court for the Eight Circuit, which covers several states that allow the practice—Nebraska, South Dakota, and Minnesota.

It was the split between the Sixth and Eight Circuits, both stemming from PLF cases, that likely prompted the Supreme Court to pick up the issue, according to Deerson.

He didn’t think the Nebraska Supreme Court was malicious in its ruling.

“We just think the court got it wrong,” he said.

The court indicated that “basically because this process has been in place for a long time that it must be constitutional,” he said.

“That is not a principle of law that we agree with.”

Governments have also argued that the threat of losing the whole property serves as a deterrent against tax delinquency. In that sense, the lost equity could be seen as a form of penalty.

That still wouldn’t pass constitutional muster, according to Deerson.

“Yes, the government can charge fines, but they have to be proportional to whatever the offense committed was. And failing to pay your taxes—it’s not a crime; it’s a civil infraction,” he said.

If a government were to try to confiscate a house as a form of a tax delinquency fine, “then it certainly looks like an excessive fine which is prohibited by the Eight Amendment of the Constitution,” he said.

Falling on Hard Times

Usually, there’s no criminal intent in tax delinquency, Deerson noted.

“It’s usually a result of simply not being able to afford it or not understanding the process.”

Kevin Fair, for example, quit his job at a locksmith service to care for his wife, suffering from multiple sclerosis.

“I didn’t want to leave her by herself, and I couldn’t afford to hire somebody to come over and watch her, so I quit my job to stay home with her, and we used what little money we had in savings to pay the medical bills and etc.,” he told The Epoch Times.

In 2014, he missed the $588 property tax bill on their small house in Scottsbluff, Nebraska. The tax lien was bought by a private investor, Continental Resources, which then started to pay his tax bills and pile up 14 percent interest on top of them.

By 2018, the debt snowballed to more than $5,000. Fair was informed that he either pays the sum in a few months or the company would possession of his house which, according to PLF, was worth about $60,000.

That wasn’t feasible for Fair, whose wife passed away and who now lives off a $900 monthly in Social Security.

His monthly bills alone can run up to $600, leaving precious little to live on.

“This month right now, I don’t have any money. Period. I am broke,” he said.

“I eat a lot of lunchmeat and stuff like that because that’s the only thing I can afford. And if they kick me out of the house … I’ll be wandering around on streets.”

PLF was able to negotiate for Fair, now 66, to be able to stay in the house while the Supreme Court case is pending.

Fair said he would be willing to move if he could keep the extra cash after the house is sold. Alternatively, he hopes he could work out a deal with the company that now owns his home—paying it rent, for example.

“It just doesn’t seem right for them to be able to do this,” he said.

Hard to Challenge

In some jurisdictions, tax foreclosure laws have gone virtually unchallenged.

“People who’ve failed to pay their property taxes for reasons you can imagine are often some of the people who are least capable of fighting back against government abuse,” Deerson said.

“I mean, people aren’t intentionally neglecting to pay their property taxes. They’re not gleefully ignoring the law. They’re often elderly, they’re impoverished, they’re ill, or they’re dealing with an illness in their family. And for the same reasons that they’re struggling to keep up with their property taxes, they’ll also struggle to find adequate representation to understand what their rights are and what they can do to push back.”

In Massachusetts, for instance, PLF represented several clients in situations similar to Fair’s, with a private company buying their debt and then foreclosing on their homes. In all such cases, the company agreed to settle the case before the courts got a chance to consider the law’s constitutionality, according to PLF’s attorney Josh Polk.

“We’re talking about a huge cash cow here. Investors are able to purchase a tax lien for a couple thousand dollars and then go on and sell the property for hundreds of thousands of dollars, taking a massive windfall at the expense of taxpayers,” he told The Epoch Times.

“And so it’s unsurprising that they’re eager to settle rather than take this up to the Massachusetts Supreme Court.”

A few years ago, the state’s highest court “seemed to signal that it wanted to hear the issue but had not been presented an opportunity,” Polk said. “And so we were anxious to give it the opportunity.”

The case of Alan DiPietro could just do the trick.

In 2014, DiPietro bought five lots totaling 34 acres.

“I wanted to bring my alpacas over,” he told The Epoch Times.

He’s been raising the South American animals since 2008 for their fine fleece, and the property gave him hope to finally bring the business to some semblance of profitability.

Instead, the town of Bolton, Massachusetts, buried him under a pile of red tape, including a lawsuit over his supposed disturbance of a wetland on his property.

Before long, he was behind on his taxes.

What started with missed payment of $6,116 in 2017 expanded to about $60,000 in just four years.

He tried to sell one of the lots to pay off the debt, but the town wouldn’t issue him the permits necessary to make the lot suitable for sale. The town reasoned he couldn’t get the permits because he was behind on taxes.

“I said, ‘Well, I’m trying to sell this to pay the taxes. If you give me the permits, I’ll sell the property, the one lot, and I’ll pay the taxes,’” he said. “Well, they didn’t like that idea.”

He tried other ways: Cut some timber on the land and sell it—the government blocked it; grow hemp on the land—the government blocked it, he said.

“They just used it as a leverage against me. They knew that they didn’t have to deal with me.”

In the end, the local government foreclosed on the property and proceeded to evict DiPietro.

“We’ve been fighting it in the state court,” he said.

The case has been on hold pending the resolution of the PLF’s Supreme Court case.

‘Take the Money and Run’

If the case goes his way, DiPietro would still lose the land. But since it’s worth some $370,000 in PLF’s estimate, he’d at least have money to start anew.

“I don’t have much choice at this point. I’d rather have something than nothing,” he said. “Obviously, I’d rather stay here and continue what I was doing, but the way the town has been, you know, I might be happy just to take the money and run.”

He’d run far, too.

“I’d probably move south. I think I’d be done with Massachusetts,” he said.

The atmosphere in the state has gotten too controlling, he suggested.

“I’ve lived here my whole life, and unfortunately, the people around here … they’ve got some crazy ideas about what they can and can’t tell their neighbors to do. It’s not really a live-and-let-live situation anymore. There are some people who think that they get to dictate every part of your life,” he said. “I get 34 acres. I’m farming it. I’m not harming anyone. I don’t need them making up issues to come over and harass me about. It’s just not how I want to live anymore.”

Like many others, he had no idea that in Massachusetts, the government gets to keep foreclosed properties wholesale.

“It’s just legal theft. I mean, it’s bad enough you have to pay the property tax on something you already own, but then they’re going to take everything? I was just amazed,” he said.

“And unfortunately, I’ve been left with zero options. If I could have sold, I probably would have moved out of here several years ago already, you know? It’s a funny thing. It’s like they want me out, but they give me no options to leave.”

Correction: A previous version of this article misspelled Tawanda Hall’s name. The Epoch Times regrets the error.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The House of Representatives approved a Republican plan to temporarily raise the debt ceiling while cutting future spending with a vote of 217–215 on April 26.

In a departure from regular order, the vote came less than 24 hours after the bill was formally introduced into the House and just 12 hours after a late-night committee, where the bill was revised by Republicans along party lines.

The move irked Democrats, who complained that there was little opportunity to read the bill and its amendments, let alone debate them.

Republican leaders portrayed the move as a starting point for a discussion on federal spending with Democrats, who hold both the Senate and the White House and can reject the legislation if they choose.

The vote is a win for House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who engineered a majority vote among the fractious Republican caucus in the narrowly divided House. Four Republicans voted against the bill. Two Republicans and two Democrats didn’t vote.

Start of Negotiations

McCarthy’s stated aim is to use the bill to force President Joe Biden to negotiate over cuts to federal spending, something the president has refused to consider.

Republican Caucus Chair Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) repeated that goal at a press conference hours ahead of the vote.

“President Biden has been missing in action on the debt ceiling, refusing to negotiate, and putting our economy and the livelihoods of hardworking American families at risk,” Stefanik said. “President Biden must work with us who represent the American people to address our nation’s spending and debt crisis.”

“House Republicans are selling out hardworking Americans in order to defend their top priority: restoring the Trump tax cuts for the wealthiest and corporations at a cost of over $3 trillion,” White House Communications Director Ben LaBolt said in an April 26 statement.

The president will veto the Limit, Save, Grow Act if it reaches his desk, according to an April 25 White House statement.

What’s In The Bill

The measure would raise the nation’s $31.4 trillion debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion, temporarily relieving anxiety about the prospect of a default on the nation’s financial obligations. The increase would expire on March 31, 2024, requiring another vote in less than 12 months.

The bill would reduce discretionary spending to the 2022 level, limit spending increases to 1 percent annually for 10 years, and reinstate work requirements for some recipients of SNAP and Medicaid. It would also rescind most green energy tax cuts and reduce bureaucratic obstacles to domestic energy production.

Despite the spending cuts and caps, some House Republicans were leaning against voting for the bill on the day before the vote. The speaker spent the evening of April 25 wrangling votes from reluctant caucus members.

Then, during the early morning hours of April 26, Republicans on the House Rules Committee, the only committee to debate the bill, introduced three amendments that appear to be aimed at mollifying holdouts.

One amendment would reinstate work requirements for some recipients of SNAP and Medicaid in 2024, a year sooner than planned.

A second would preserve three biofuel tax credits while other green energy tax credits were rescinded by the bill. At least 10 members from Midwestern states, known for the production of corn used to make ethanol, had reportedly objected to the removal of the credits.

The third would rescind certain funding from the Inflation Reduction Act, including those designated for green building construction, Energy Department loan guarantees, deferred maintenance for national parks, air pollution reduction, and a neighborhood access and equity grant.

Republican leaders, who had insisted that no changes would be made to the bill, attempted to downplay the 11th-hour amendments as “technical changes.”

“In the initial draft, it repealed all of the tax credits, but some of those tax credits were not part of the [Inflation Reduction Act],” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) told reporters just hours before the vote. “So the intention wasn’t to get rid of all of those, just the ones that were created in the IRA.”

Changes to the work requirement provisions were made merely to align the start dates of the requirements across various federal programs, according to Scalise.

“The bill was closed,” House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) said. “There’s nothing of substance that was changed in the bill.”

‘Extortion’ or Starting Point?

Democrats objected to the bill largely because of its perceived effect on government programs. Although the bill enumerates few specific spending cuts, Democrats believe that the overall level of spending reduction can’t be achieved without slashing services for veterans, working people, and the poor.

“This is extortion, not a negotiation,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said of the bill’s hurried passage. “You’re saying if we don’t agree to all these draconian cuts, they’re going to hurt people that we fight for every day on this side of the aisle.”

Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said during the floor debate, “It’s hypocrisy for my Republican colleagues to say that they somehow suddenly care about the debt when they passed a 2017 tax scam that increased the deficit by $2 trillion. And nearly half of those tax cuts went to the top 5 percent.

“But now all of a sudden, they care about debt, and they want to cut nutrition assistance to nearly 3 million women, children, and seniors.”

Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) denied any attempt at coercion, portraying the bill as the first offer in a negotiation.

“We’re saying we just want to talk, here’s our opening proposal,” he said.

“We don’t expect you will take everything or agree with everything. We know you control the United States Senate. We know the president of the United States has a veto, but you’re going to talk with us. We’re going to have a real discussion about what we need to do as a country.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

ANALYSIS – Global military spending reached an all-time high of $2.24 trillion in 2022, according to a leading defense think tank. Eastern Europe saw the sharpest rise in spending, driven by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

However, increasing tensions due to Chinese belligerence in the Pacific also contributed to the sharp increase.

The U.S. and China are by far the biggest defense spenders in the world.

However, military expenditure in Europe saw its steepest year-on-year increase since the end of the Cold War, up 13 percent, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI, said on Monday.

Russian military spending grew by an estimated 9.2 percent in 2022 to around $86.4 billion – equivalent to 4.1 percent of Russia’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 2022, up from 3.7 percent of GDP in 2021.

Ukraine’s military spending reached $44.0 billion in 2022. At 640 percent, this was the highest single-year increase in a country’s military expenditure recorded in SIPRI data. 

As a result of the rise and the war-related damage to Ukraine’s economy, military spending as a share of GDP shot up to 34 percent of GDP in 2022, from 3.2 percent in 2021.

But some European countries have been ramping up military spending for a few years.

“Many former Eastern bloc states have more than doubled their military spending since 2014, the year when Russia annexed Crimea.”

Still, Russian threats to Europe are only part of the equation.

“The continuous rise in global military expenditure in recent years is a sign that we are living in an increasingly insecure world,” said Dr. Nan Tian, Senior Researcher with SIPRI’s Military Expenditure and Arms Production Program.

“States are bolstering military strength in response to a deteriorating security environment, which they do not foresee improving in the near future,” Tian added.

And Chinese (and Russian) threats in Asia are also significant factors.

According to Al Jazeera, “Japan and China led military spending in Asia and Oceania, which amounted to $575bn. SIPRI said military expenditure in the region had been rising since at least 1989.”

China reportedly remains the world’s second-largest military spender, spending an estimated $292bn in 2022. This was 4.2 percent more than in 2021 and is part of a massive, years-long military buildup.

However, as I have explained before, Chinese military spending is significantly higher, based on actual purchasing power (bang for their buck) and deliberately opaque and misleading statistics provided by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and People’s Liberation Army (PLA).

Meanwhile, Japan spent $46bn on the military in 2022, a 5.9 percent increase over last year. SIPRI said it was the highest level of Japanese military spending since 1960.

Al Jazeera added:

Tensions in East Asia have risen over the self-ruled island of Taiwan, which Beijing considers part of its territory. China also lays claim to almost all of the South China Sea, a major maritime trading route, parts of which are also claimed by countries including the Philippines, Vietnam and Malaysia.

Japan and China are also embroiled in a dispute over the Senkaku or Diaoyu Islands, which lie northeast of Taiwan.

Tokyo also has a long-running dispute with Moscow over the Northern Territories, which lie northeast of Hokkaido and were seized by the Soviet Union at the end of World War II. Russia calls them the Kuril Islands.

The United States is still considered the world’s largest military spender with reportedly 39 percent of total global military spending.

But since the defense spending figures for China are deeply underestimated, these global percentages are also questionable.

The U.S. increase was largely driven by “the unprecedented level of financial military aid it provided to Ukraine,” SIPRI’s Nan Tian said.

Still, according to SIPRI, the U.S. defense budget was only up 0.7 percent to $877bn in 2022. The U.S. figures for 2023 will be higher. 

And thanks to China and Russia, they need to be.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.

SOURCE: American Liberty News

USAID may use taxpayer dollars to cover an ‘awardee’s rent in Geneva or Rome or Paris,’ lawmakers say

The Biden administration is stonewalling a congressional probe into whether the U.S. Agency for International Development wasted hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on hotels, lobbying services, and luxury airfare.

USAID refuses to tell Congress how much of the $15 billion it doled out to foreign entities in 2022 was ultimately spent on items unrelated to humanitarian projects. The agency’s opacity could mask the fact that USAID grant recipients are wasting taxpayer dollars on frivolous expenses, a pair of lawmakers claim in an oversight letter obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.

“Indirect costs, which can include rent for a partner’s corporate headquarters, lobbying costs, and other miscellaneous expenses can easily exceed 25% of an organization’s total award,” Sen. Joni Ernst (R., Iowa) and Rep. Michael McCaul (R., Texas) wrote to USAID last week in a letter ordering the agency to stop obstructing congressional efforts to investigate this spending.

There is no way to know exactly how much USAID has wasted on these expenditures because the agency has been blocking a congressional investigation for more than a year, according to the lawmakers. Ernst and McCaul described the agency’s behavior as “troubling” and said the House Foreign Affairs Committee intends to discover if taxpayer funds are being “wasted on paying for awardee’s rent in Geneva or Rome or Paris.”

The foreign aid agency has a history of misallocating funds. An inspector general determined in 2019 that just 43 percent of the agency’s awards “achieved, on average, just half of their intended results.” USAID, whose budget President Joe Biden increased by 10 percent after taking office, also has a history of supporting organizations that work alongside terror groups and maintaining links to militant organizations like Hamas. The agency’s spotty oversight record has long been a source of concern on Capitol Hill, and with Republicans now in control of the House, Congressional investigators are ramping up efforts to hold USAID accountable.

Ernst and McCaul’s investigation hinges on Negotiated Indirect Cost Rate Agreements (NICRA), a little-known contract carveout that permits U.S. government grantees to spend a substantial portion of taxpayer dollars on things like lobbyists, hotel stays, and even first-class airfare.

In theory, NICRAs restrict how much money federal grantees spend on extraneous items, but these costs “have ballooned due to a lack of stewardship and care” under the Biden administration, the lawmakers say.

USAID is supposed to renegotiate these NICRA rates every year to ensure taxpayer funds are not being wasted on frivolous projects. But the agency has let oversight fall to the wayside, as it failed to hire more officials to keep up with ballooning expenditures. Just 7 federal employees are responsible for reviewing nearly 6,000 transactions to more than 300 organizations.

Ernst and McCaul, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, are particularly interested in USAID’s lies to Congress about the NICRA database it maintains.

Ernst first inquired about the payments in November 2022 but did not hear from USAID until February 2023, when the agency claimed it “does not have a system to track or report on this data.” Later that month, Ernst discovered a public NICRA database and presented the information to USAID, which subsequently confirmed the database does exist.

The agency then claimed it was “legally restricted from sharing an implementing partner’s proprietary information, including its NICRA” and threatened the senator with “civil and criminal penalties” if she pursues an investigation.

Ernst again called the agency’s bluff mid-February, saying that “congressional oversight on federal agencies spending and contracting negotiations most certainly does not violate federal law, including the acts listed in your response.”

After that exchange, USAID provided a third explanation for its refusal to cooperate with Congress, saying it “protects the confidential business information of its implementing partners, including NICRAs,” and would not disclose this information.

The pair now have plans to grill USAID administrator Samantha Power over the issue, according to congressional sources who said the Republican-controlled House committee is poised for a fight with the agency.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

WASHINGTON (Reuters)— Joe Biden will veto congressional efforts to overturn his policy to waive solar tariffs on four Southeast Asian nations for two years, White House officials told Reuters on Monday.

In June, Biden waived tariffs on solar panels from Cambodia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam in an effort to create a “bridge” while U.S. manufacturing ramped up.

Last week a U.S. House of Representatives committee voted in favor of restoring the tariffs on the solar panels from the four countries, reversing Biden’s suspension. That legislation is expected to come up for a full vote in the House.

The White House argues that Biden’s policy has worked and points to an increase in domestic solar production since Biden came into office.

“This legislation would sabotage U.S. energy security. It would undermine our momentum in creating a massive new domestic industry. It would sideline workers who are fired up to build these projects and operate them across the country,” Ali Zaidi, Biden’s national climate adviser, told Reuters.

“It’s not about slowing things down. It’s about fundamentally undermining our progress towards increased energy security and having the tools we need to attack the climate crisis,” he said.

The United States is on track to increase domestic solar panel manufacturing capacity 8-fold by the end of 2024, another official said.

Biden does not plan to issue an extension on the tariff waivers after the 2-year period has concluded because domestic manufacturing has taken off.

“Given the strong trends in the domestic solar industry, the President does not intend to extend the tariff suspension at the conclusion of the 24-month period in June 2024,” the White House said in a “Statement of Administration Policy” obtained by Reuters before its official release.

“If Congress were to pass this joint resolution, the President would veto it,” it said.

(Reporting by Jeff Mason; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama and Nick Zieminski)

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Here’s how the White House could make your mortgage more expensive

If you’ve worked hard to maintain good credit, Joe Biden is about to make your future mortgage more expensive.

A Federal Housing Finance Agency rule set to take effect on May 1 will increase monthly mortgage fees for borrowers with good credit scores. Those higher fees will be used to subsidize individuals with bad credit scores.

The administration claims the change will help support low-income home buyers. But others say it’s part of the White House’s ongoing effort to remedy racial differences in home ownership.

Whatever the rationale, the result is clear: Borrowers with strong credit will likely wind up paying thousands of dollars more over the course of their mortgages, thanks to the Biden administration’s policy.

Here’s how the rule change will work:

When an individual takes out a mortgage, the interest rate they pay generally reflects two things: the federal funds rate set by the Federal Reserve and something called a loan-level price adjustment. The latter functions like a car insurance premium that goes up after you’ve had an accident.

In short, riskier borrowers with low credit scores or income pay more each month for their mortgage. These borrowers will still pay more after May 1 but much less than they paid before. In order to compensate for that lost revenue, borrowers with strong credit will see their monthly increase to roughly $40 a month on a $400,000 mortgage. That’s an extra $14,400 over the course of a standard 30-year mortgage.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency regulates federal mortgage guarantor giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—which are both quasi-government agencies—meaning those fee hikes will be reflected for most consumers who seek to take out a mortgage with a bank. A majority of mortgages are eventually secured by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, resulting in the two companies holding tremendous influence over conventional mortgage rates.

According to former Federal Housing Finance Agency director Mark Calabria, shaping the policy to benefit anyone with lousy credit lets the Biden administration avoid offering sweetheart deals to minorities, which would violate federal law.

“The Biden administration is definitely trying to create more of a cross subsidy between good credit and bad credit, that’s the intent,” Calabria said. “They are essentially trying to discriminate by race within the legal rules they have and minorities tend to have lower credit scores.”

A review of the Federal Housing Finance Agency’s recent rule proposals make it clear that increasing minority—in particular black—home equity is at the heart of a variety of agency initiatives.

On April 19, the Federal Housing Finance Agency proposed a series of rules targeted at “Fair Lending, Fair Housing, and Equitable Housing Finance Plans.” Most of the proposals would “codify existing FHFA practices” but also add requirements for lenders related to increasing minority homeownership. Some objectives of the rules include “reducing the homeownership gap for an underserved community” and “reducing disparities in negative outcomes for an underserved community in servicing, loan modifications, and loss mitigation.”

In those proposals, the Federal Housing Finance Agency states that part of the reason it wishes to boost minority homeownership is to generate wealth for those communities.

Because lenders heavily rely “on certain credit attributes in the current mortgage underwriting process,” black home loan applications are denied at a higher rate than every other ethnic group in the country, including Hispanics and native Indians. Neighborhoods with higher concentrations of blacks also see lower home prices, the Federal Housing Finance Agency notes.

“Their view is you didn’t build that credit. It’s part of their general belief that credit scores are due to societal facts out of their control,” Calabria said. “It’s legitimate for people to be kind of offended and angry at some of this.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday rejected a bid by major oil companies to move a series of climate change-related lawsuits against them out of state courts and into federal courts, where they hoped to have better odds.

The justices denied (pdf) a total of five petitions from BP, Chevron, Exxon Mobil, Shell, Suncor Energy, and Sunoco LP over lower court rulings that keep their cases in the state court where they were originally filed.

These companies are accused of causing climate change damages to properties owned or operated by the state of Rhode Island; the counties of Boulder, Colorado and San Mateo, California; and the cities of Baltimore, Maryland, Boulder, Colorado, and Honolulu, Hawaii.

A separate appeal by the oil companies challenging lower court decisions in climate accountability lawsuits brought by the states of New Jersey and Delaware is still pending before the Supreme Court.

Justice Samuel Alito, who owns oil stocks, recused himself from Monday’s decisions. Justice Brett Kavanaugh indicated that he would grant the petition for the case involving Colorado municipalities and Suncor and Exxon.

The lawsuits, backed by the Biden administration, are largely seen as an effort to force through environmental regulations from the bench, as opposed to having elected lawmakers craft and pass laws that address the issue.

In the Colorado case, for example, the plaintiffs argued that the oil companies should pay reparations for forest fires and drought, which they claimed to be a result of climate change caused by the use of fossil fuel products.

The companies, according to court filings, allegedly engaged in concealing and misrepresenting “the dangers associated with the burning of fossil fuels despite having been aware of those dangers for decades.” These practices “contributed to excessive burning of fossil fuels,” which in turn led to “increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere” and forced the municipalities to spend more taxpayer’s money on maintaining roads and fighting forest fires.

In March, the Biden administration weighed in the case in favor of the plaintiffs. Following an invitation from the Supreme Court seeking guidance on the matter, the U.S. Office of the Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar recommended that the high court reject the companies’ petition and allow the case to proceed in Colorado state court.

Specifically, Prelogar said the Biden administration decided that “state-law claims like those pleaded here should not be recharacterized as claims arising under federal common law,” and therefore, the companies’ petition should be denied.

This is a change from the policy of the Trump administration, she said.

Meanwhile, the companies have urged the Supreme Court to intervene, arguing that leaving this matter to the discretion of state courts would disrupt the economy on a national, if not a global, scale.

“If respondents’ unprecedented effort to transform state courts into global climate-change regulators succeeds, every state court in the Nation will be empowered to use state law to unilaterally impose its own view of energy and environmental policy nationwide and, indeed, worldwide,” wrote Theodore Boutrous, a lawyer representing Chevron, in a court filing for the California case.

“Respondents’ claims expose the energy sector to vast, indeterminate monetary relief that will deter investment and employment across the industry and the broader economy, and cause disruption to the global economy,” the document added.

In a statement to the media outlets following Monday’s decision, Boutrous said he is confident that the suits will ultimately be dismissed.

“Climate change is an issue of national and global magnitude that requires a coordinated federal policy response, not a disjointed patchwork of lawsuits in state courts across multiple states,” he said. “These wasteful lawsuits in state courts will do nothing to advance global climate solutions, nothing to reduce emissions, and nothing to address climate-related impacts.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will likely face more legal challenges over its latest emissions standards, which are projected to lead to two-thirds of new car sales being all-electric vehicles by 2032.

“Once it’s published as a final rule, it will undoubtedly be challenged again, just like the last set of rules was challenged,” Steven Bradbury, a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, and a former general counsel at the Department of Transportation (DOT), told The Epoch Times.

“At that point, there may be a ruling by the D.C. Circuit [Court of Appeals] on the earlier challenges that would help inform how the court would handle a new challenge,” he added.

Currently, three interrelated legal challenges are pending in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. The challenges are to the EPA’s current emissions rules seeking to make half of new car sales be all-electric by 2030, EPA’s waiver to California to allow the state to set its own emissions rules, which mandates 100 percent zero-emission new vehicle sales by 2035, and fuel economy requirements by Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

And some petitioners of the current legal challenges have already spoken up.

American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), the main trade association representing oil refineries for gasoline and other petroleum products, said EPA’s new emissions rules would “effectively ban gasoline and diesel vehicles.”

“The Agency should withdraw this rule and work collaboratively with the fuel, petrochemical, and vehicle industries to find cost-effective ways to reduce emissions while maintaining competition, U.S. energy and national security, and choice for consumers,” wrote AFPM President and CEO Chet Thompson in a statement on April 12, the same day EPA announced the proposed new emissions rules.

AFPM didn’t respond to The Epoch Times’ inquiry about whether the organization planned to file a new legal challenge, but referred to its statements.

Also on April 12, West Virginia Attorney General Patrick Morrisey said that the new EPA emissions rules were “enormously problematic.” “Over the coming weeks, we’ll be taking a closer look at the proposed rule, and we’ll be ready to once again lead the charge against wrongheaded energy proposals like these,” he said, hinting at potential legal action.

His spokesperson didn’t confirm or deny potential legal petitions to The Epoch Times. The attorney general’s office in Texas, another Republican-led state currently challenging EPA emissions rules finalized in 2021, hasn’t responded to The Epoch Times’ inquiry.

Agency Power at Question

In his statement, Morrisey also questioned whether the EPA has the statutory authority to set the emissions rules.

When setting the emissions rules, EPA claimed statutory authority under the Clean Air Act. In addition, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) has specified carbon dioxide as a type of greenhouse gas; that has led to some believing that the IRA has given EPA additional authority, a view that Jonathan Adler, a law professor and director of the Coleman P. Burke Center for Environmental Law at Case Western Reserve University, disagrees with.

According to him, the IRA doesn’t give EPA new authority because the definition applies to provisions that are not related to EPA’s regulatory authority.

“The EPA does have the authority under current law to regulate greenhouse gases from automobiles. The question is how far that extends. And does that allow them to adopt rules that either mandate or dramatically encourage the use of electric vehicles?” Adler told The Epoch Times.

While the Clean Air Act (CAA) authorizes EPA to regulate emission standards, DOT’s NHTSA controls fuel economy as per the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA).

According to Bradbury, EPA’s role in fuel economy is limited to measuring and reinforcing the standards NHTSA sets. In his view, the EPA’s setting the limit on the amount of carbon dioxide a car can emit per mile traveled is the equivalent of imposing an MPG requirement due to “a direct and constant relationship between EPA’s carbon dioxide emission limits and NHTSA’s fuel economy standards.”

Therefore, EPCA and CAA overlap in some ways. “I don’t think that means EPA can properly move the Department of Transportation out of the way and, in effect, set fuel economy standards for cars,” said Bradbury, adding that this viewpoint hasn’t been tested in court, but will be heard when the pending legal challenges reach argument stage in the D.C. Circuit Court.

Adler agrees.

“You have these two statutes that are focused on two different questions that happen to overlap,” he said. “It will certainly be something that will have to be resolved in court for sure.”

“When it comes to electric vehicles, you’re dealing with something that can be thought of in both terms because electric vehicles both result in lower emissions but also have a lot to do with energy conservation because they don’t use fossil fuels,” he added.

‘Real-World Economics’

Bradbury said that CAA talks about the costs of regulation and asks for practical rules.

“The statute says EPA is supposed to take into account the costs of regulation. They are supposed to come up with a practical rule and weigh the benefits,” he added. “It doesn’t say anything about using Section 202 of the Clean Air Act to try to force a complete transformation of the industry and force it to electrification.”

A similar practicality requirement is in place for NHTSA, he said. “Congress made it clear that the fuel economy standards have to take into account real-world economics.”

In his view, EPCA, a response to the Arab oil embargo in retaliation against the United States’ support of Israel during the Arab–Israeli War, is “not an environmental statute.” “It was really a concern about national security and our dependence on foreign oil. And it was also a concern about preserving the markets for transportation options for America’s families, the vitality of the auto industry, etc.”

“When Congress created the fuel economy program in the 1970s, it was very careful and made it very clear in the statute, I believe, that it did not want NHTSA’s fuel economy standards to undermine the health and vitality of the automotive industry,” he said.

“Because, of course, the auto industry in the U.S. is a major part of our industrial base. There are not just the hundreds of thousands of jobs that the automakers are responsible for; there are millions of jobs in all the companies that supply inputs to the automotive industry.”

In 2022, several months after EPA’s emissions standards for light-duty vehicles in model years 2023 through 2026 became final, NHTSA released corresponding fuel economy requirements, increasing MPG requirements by nearly 10 miles per gallon on average for 2026 over 2021 models. Bradbury said NHTSA will likely soon release an updated MPG requirement to go along with EPA’s latest rules for car models in years 2027 through 2032.

“So when EPA goes first with these rules, EPA is getting out in front of DOT and is usurping DOT’s role to set fuel economy standards by, in effect, setting its own fuel economy standards,” he said.

“So here again, we have an old statute enacted for very different purposes or reasons being used today by the Biden Department of Transportation for a very different purpose—one that Congress never contemplated, never approved—which is trying to force through regulatory fiat a massive wholesale transformation in the industry from internal combustion engine production vehicles to electric vehicles,” he added, referring to EPCA.

The Epoch Times has contacted EPA for comment.

Possible Legal Outcomes

A 30-day period of public comments is underway on the latest EPA emissions standards. Once it’s published as a final rule, petitioners have 60 days to file their complaints to the D.C. Circuit Court. So they will likely file petitions before the pending challenges, which have not reached the argument stage, render any decisions.

According to Bradbury, the petitions may have one of the following outcomes: the D.C. Circuit may reject the challenges; it may send the rules back to EPA to reconsider if it finds that the agency needs to address any neglected factors; or it may hold that the agency doesn’t have authority from Congress and strike the rules down based on the “major questions doctrine”—an agency must have clear authorization from Congress before it can decide a major issue of national importance.

After the ruling of a three-judge panel, the parties could seek review by all judges in the whole D.C. Circuit, which is rare, or by the Supreme Court as a next step. Bradbury said if the D.C. Circuit rules that the EPA doesn’t have sufficient authority or strikes the rules down based on the major questions doctrine, those types of decisions would be more likely to be taken up by the Supreme Court because they are big decisions.

Consumer Choice and National Security

As a part of the initiative to achieve President Joe Biden’s executive order on tackling climate issues, the standards would “significantly reduce climate and other harmful air pollution, unlocking significant benefits for public health, especially in communities that have borne the greatest burden of poor air quality,” according to the EPA.

However, the Energy Information Administration, a principal agency responsible for official energy statistics, projected the market share of electric light-duty vehicles—including battery electric and hybrid electric—to be between 10 and 30 percent by 2025, according to its annual energy outlook released last month.

“I think the fundamental thing is: people don’t want to buy these cars,” Diana Furchtgott‑Roth, director of the Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment at the Heritage Foundation, told The Epoch Times. “Because they don’t want to have to stop 45 minutes to charge [EVs] up. They’re more expensive; they’re smaller. And they have very limited range and don’t fit people’s lifestyles.”

Only 5.8 percent of new vehicles sold last year in America were electrics, and she pointed out further that two-thirds of last year’s new EV car sales were from Tesla. “So people don’t really want to buy these other vehicles.”

“Here, it’s a question of forcing people, people don’t want to buy this but they’re forcing them to do so,” she added.

According to a new Gallup poll earlier this month, 41 percent of adults said they would never buy an EV. Four percent said they currently own an EV, and an additional 12 percent said they were “seriously considering” buying one.

A Pew Research poll conducted in July 2022 found that 55 percent of Americans opposed phasing out new gasoline cars and trucks by 2035, while 43 percent were in favor of that. The poll also showed that people were divided on whether Biden’s climate policies were taking the country in the right direction: 49 percent said it was right versus 47 percent who said it was wrong. Among Democrats, a majority—79 percent—supported Biden’s climate policies, and a majority of Republicans—82 percent—said those policies were taking the country in the wrong direction.

According to Furchtgott‑Roth, an economist and a former deputy assistant secretary for research and technology at DOT, China has increased its carbon emissions by more than 5 billion tons in the past 16 years. Due to the use of cleaner natural gas, the United States has seen its carbon emissions decline by over 1 billion metric tonnes during the same period.

“Moving our energy-intensive manufacturing abroad to China doesn’t help global emissions because the emissions come off made in China rather than here. And goods are produced in China with coal-fired power plants rather than here with clean natural gas,” she added. “This is making China’s economy stronger and America’s economy weaker.”

AFPM’s Thompson agrees.

“It’s unconscionable that the Administration would propose this knowing full well that China controls 80% of global battery production capacity, and even with robust U.S. investment to fortify our own electric grid and grow our battery supply chains by a magnitude of 10, we will not come close to overtaking China’s dominant position and will be left more dependent and financially beholden to them as a result,” he said in a statement on April 12, while calling the new EPA standards “bad for consumers, the environment, our freedom of mobility, and U.S. national security.”

Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) said the new EPA emissions standard “kills jobs” and would make the United States fall behind China. “It sums up all these things that they’re doing: the entire effort of this administration is to make us beholden to China, undermine our growth,” he told The Epoch Times.

“These EPA rules, all of the IRA subsidies can be turned back,” he added.

In response to a query from The Epoch Times on whether the new rules will aid China, the EPA defended the proposed standards, saying that they are “in line with the direction the American auto industry is already going.” The industry has made significant investments in zero-emissions vehicles, which the administration is building upon, an EPA spokesperson said.

Auto Industry’s Reaction

America’s automobile industry supported the EPA’s previous rule that would lead to half of new car sales being all-electric by 2030. But the industry was worried this time when EPA took it further by accelerating that goal to 60 percent by 2030 and 67 percent by 2032.

“To be clear, 50 percent was always a stretch goal and predicated on several conditions,” John Bozzella, CEO of the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, which represents large U.S. and foreign automakers, said in a statement on April 12. “Those included supportive policies like the manufacturing incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act (that have only just begun to be implemented) and tax credits to support EV purchases and affordability.”

But in an emailed statement to The Epoch Times on April 17, Bozzella’s tone seemed to have softened.

“Customer affordability is a key condition for a successful EV transition (along with charging, critical mineral availability, and utility capacity), so that’s why we’ve been focused on making the 30D incentive as broadly available to as many customers and on as many EVs as possible,” he said, referring to the EV consumer credit of up to $7,500 under the Inflation Reduction Act.

The auto industry’s embrace of Biden’s EV push was a misstep, according to Bradbury. “I think they cooked their own goose.”

“At this point, they’re probably regretting that because even though they publicly made commitments to transition to electric vehicle production as quickly as they can, and are incurring enormous expenses to do that, they can’t really meet these benchmarks that are being mandated. And at some point, something’s got to give,” he added.

He described the industry’s reaction as “political.” “They’re sort of testing the political winds or predicting the political winds. And I think they think the push for green technology and electric vehicles is here to stay.”

In addition, the industry welcomed the U.S. government’s mandate to force consumers to accept EVs so they could achieve global economies of scale, since they were also selling EVs in Europe and China, according to Bradbury.

The new EPA rule is “going to have enormous dislocating costs across the economy, just massive costs,” he added.

“For a rule like that, I think it’s classic under the major questions doctrine that the Supreme Court should require that there be a clear and express authorization from Congress to do something like that, and that [authorization] certainly does not exist.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Americans are worried that a U.S. Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) could end up compromising essential freedoms, further centralizing monetary policy, and making the country’s currency vulnerable to hacking, according to a recently published Fed survey.

In January last year, the Fed published a white paper on what a CBDC could look like. It asked for public comments on issues like potential risks and benefits a CBDC can have on the country. On April 20, the Fed released the responses in nine documents. Here are some of the various answers and concerns expressed by respondents, some of whom were named, others who were unnamed, as well as those whose names were redacted.

A student from Texas pointed to the breach of privacy, government overreach, and hacking as risks posed by CBDC. “With this digital currency, the government would be able to usurp freedoms without the knowledge/consent of the public.

“The best e-hackers and cybersecurity personnel don’t work for the government. They work in the private sector. It is naive to think, given the government’s track record, that it could ever be trusted to secure such an asset.” A CBDC might also trigger a “run on financial institutions,” the individual warned.

Andrew W. from Virginia warned that centralization of monetary policies can “easily be abused and cause unintended disruption.” CBDCs can further centralize monetary policies and “only increases the risk potential.”

Hollie Bishop from Indiana cited public mistrust as her number one concern about central bank digital currencies. “People are afraid of being constantly monitored. Also, our aging and elderly population pay bills in cash and may not know how to use this system, leaving them susceptible to hunger, bills not being paid, etc.”

Power Issues, Quantum Computing Hack

Lucas Vincent from Arizona warned that power consumption is a major issue. “The power consumption that provides the means of creating said digital currency, which has caused power outages in places like Kazakhstan and even New York, is an enormous risk that puts Earth at stake because of the environmental damage that digital currency mining causes,” he said.

Andy Garcia from Georgia notes that the dependence of CBDCs on electricity makes them vulnerable. “If the long-term goal is to get rid of paper currency, relying strictly on CBDC, the entire economic system will become vulnerable and susceptible to crippling cyber-attacks. There needs to be a fallback system that would work without electricity, much like paper currency does.”

Horacio Gasquet from Texas pointed out that with the advent of quantum computing, even the most sophisticated encryption algorithms can be cracked. As such, in order for a CBDC to be “truly secure,” the digital currency should be “rooted in quantum key encryption.”

A few of the comments highlighted purported benefits of CBDCs, like faster fund transfers and providing stability in case of hyperinflation.

Should the US Follow Other Nations?

The Fed asked, “How should decisions by other large economy nations to issue CBDCs influence the decision whether the United States should do so?”

An unnamed individual answered (pdf): “It should send warning signs to our country creating a CBDC. There’s a reason China implemented a CBDC, and it’s not for efficiency.”

Aaron Olszewski from New Hampshire also said, “A shift to a CBDC is a shift to push people away from using that nation’s currency.”

Brian Marshall from Idaho replied, “The United States should first worry about following the Constitution and preserving liberty, not trying to follow other countries in their descent into tyranny. Free markets will always provide the means to exchange one currency for another.”

JC Denton from California said that other nations adopting a CBDC does not mean the United States ought to do the same.

“Our financial purpose should be to focus on our own issues. If other nations wish to perform such actions, it is their choice. We don’t need to follow a bad idea just because other groups are doing it,” said Chad Rytting from Utah.

Phil Zobrist from Illinois said that the United States was “the standard” and it can remain so if “you maintain a strong dollar.”

Many of the respondents reacted negatively to the idea of the United States following other countries in adopting financial systems. A small minority voiced support for a CBDC, stating a goal of catching up to other nations.

The US Constitution

Many responses (pdf) to the Fed survey mentioned how the idea of a CBDC was antithetical to the U.S. Constitution.

When the Fed asked, “Should a CBDC be designed to maximize ease of use and acceptance at the point of sale?” Lawrence Raymond from Maryland replied, “No, because all transactions would become public, which goes against the freedoms outlined in the Constitution.”

When the Fed asked, “Could some or all of the potential benefits of a CBDC be better achieved in a different way?” Richard Hay from Texas said, “Yes, return to the constitutional definition of money, which is gold and silver.

“Fiat currencies continue to destroy the poor and middle class by endless expansion of debt and the money supply destroying the value of wages and savings of the vast majority of the population while enriching the owners of assets by driving asset prices higher via inflationary pressures caused by the expansion of credit. Our founders envisioned an honest monetary system.”

Hay added, “The CBDC would eventually be weaponized against political opponents and groups of people that differ from the beliefs of a centralized control governing system.”

Rodger Reed from California said: “Our economy must remain a function of the constitutional mandate created by the founders. By design, a CBDC does not serve the American people the way sound money does.”

When the Fed asked, “What additional potential benefits, policy considerations, or risks of a CBDC may exist that have not been raised in this paper?” Charles Dowling from Colorado said: “The people who are aware of reality do not respect the government whatsoever. And would probably not use your CBDC. And no one wants an illegal, unconstitutional government poking into their business.”

https://subs.theepochtimes.com/template/show?tid=cc3f343f-227c-4eec-8289-8d2fe30e4467&sid=www.theepochtimes.com&v=5&ck=JTdCJTIyZXBvY2hfdXNlcl9pZCUyMiUzQSUyMnVzZXJfOWRmZTU0NmQ1NzNjODBjMTQwZTY3NTgwMTA2ZWQ5NTU2YjY2YzRjZCUyMiUyQyUyMmVwb2NoX3Nlc3Npb25pZCUyMiUzQSUyMmhrWG1fQkNUQ2FmRzA1RHk2TVl0d2UyT2Y2YnpHUFdiamhocXJ5cng4SHlna1RYZ2w3RzhrZFM4dGhxX2E3SUtCaFo0cldLTmdSTiUyQk4wX1NnQUFmTjNmRWd0V3doandYeG1sb25jelUxU2p3MDV3blgyVjRfbEx2YVVNJTNEJTIyJTJDJTIyZXBvY2hfdG9rZW4lMjIlM0ElMjJleUpoYkdjaU9pSlNVekkxTmlJc0luUjVjQ0k2SWtwWFZDSjkuZXlKbGVIQWlPakUzTVRNNE56WXdPRFlzSWxSdmEyVnVWSGx3WlNJNklteGxkbVZzTVNJc0lrNWhiV1VpT2lKMWMyVnlYemxrWm1VMU5EWmtOVGN6WXpnd1l6RTBNR1UyTnpVNE1ERXdObVZrT1RVMU5tSTJObU0wWTJRaWZRLkJJMnNwUjVWdHI1MnJnM0hYTEI3Znk0a0txazBYalZrXzJFX0J1R0pzZXRiY0M3UzQ5dExFUWlJWGIwZE9yLU9FTEh3LTkyb3Fxanh2MTFuQ3l1REE2a1hReUw1eG5GZ3B5SXZPdGxqOWJXMzhZU29lNGR3QWlvb0IwbnZqYlQwSV9CbWVTWHNfUTZwd2kwTnYwUmROU0xqRXVva2FRaGF1ZFZzMS11UGlrMCUyMiUyQyUyMmVwb2NoX3N1YnNjcmliZWQlMjIlM0ElMjIlMjIlN0Q=&pl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theepochtimes.com%2Ffed-asks-americans-for-feedback-on-a-central-bank-digital-currency-here-are-some-responses_5215215.html%3Futm_source%3DMorningbrief%26src_src%3DMorningbrief%26utm_campaign%3Dmb-2023-04-24%26src_cmp%3Dmb-2023-04-24%26utm_medium%3Demail%26est%3DikTbHoK%252BiGar7xAnFt%252FNaa1wYMeFopkH2fB8dk%252FZ3Wi5Yl5T1VmQ6s2xyQO%252BNz6K%252Bw%253D%253D&u=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&tn=newsletter_widget&dna=%7B%22u_s%22%3A%22Morningbrief%22%2C%22u_c%22%3A%22mb-2023-04-24%22%2C%22r%22%3A%22%22%2C%22pid%22%3A%22anon490a-3963-4599-8eea-93695a2383d4%22%2C%22uid%22%3A%22user_9dfe546d573c80c140e67580106ed9556b66c4cd%22%2C%22x%22%3A%22641-988-68%22%2C%22vt%22%3A0%2C%22g1%22%3A%22us%22%2C%22g2%22%3A%22md%22%7D&source=morning-bell&email=walkerboh2112%40msn.com

Privacy Concerns

During a recent speech in Washington, Federal Reserve Governor Michelle W. Bowman admitted that “safeguarding privacy is a top concern” with regard to the use of CBDCs. Bowman wants CBDCs to have enough protections to safeguard the privacy of customers and businesses while also being transparent enough to deter criminal activity.

“In thinking about the implications of CBDC and privacy, we must also consider the central role that money plays in our daily lives, and the risk that a CBDC would provide not only a window into but potentially an impediment to, the freedom Americans enjoy in choosing how money and resources are used and invested,” said Bowman.

“So, a central consideration must be how a potential U.S. CBDC could incorporate privacy considerations into its design, and what technology and policy options could support a robust privacy framework.”

An analysis by the Cato Institute warned that CBDCs pose a foundational threat to America’s economic systems. A U.S. CBDC will eventually “usurp” the private sector and endanger the core freedoms of American citizens, it said.

As such, CBDCs should have “no place” in the American economy, the institute stated. It called on Congress to “explicitly prohibit” the Department of Treasury and the Federal Reserve from issuing CBDCs in any form.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Washington, D.C. – The operatives who design and execute strategy in American political campaigns are driven by the need to know why voters behave the way they do. What drives them to pick one candidate over another? Is their choice personality-driven or do issues matter? If it’s the latter, what issues are they? And are they constant or do they change from election to election?

There are a lot of things the pollsters and practitioners of the political arts want to know about why people vote the way they do. Most of all, what keeps them up at night? What all-consuming fear arises in the quiet times when they are alone with their thoughts that leave them sleepless?

That, to put it bluntly, is what the consultant class believes goes into the “secret sauce” that helps people determine which party they’re going to support and how they’ll vote. That’s the theory anyway, which is why the number of negative ads on the air increases as the election gets closer.

In real life, voters are a bit more sophisticated. They’re not just motivated by fear, although it does play a part, as is evident from the way campaigns unfold. That’s why the Democrats spend so much time and money in every election accusing the Republicans of having a plan to cut Social Security benefits. It doesn’t matter if it’s true (and it isn’t, by the way). It’s just a matter of making enough high-propensity voters over the age of 62 believe it’s true enough to influence how they vote.

Unfortunately for many of the consultants and the candidates they advise, the American people are neither monolithic nor binary in their behavior, their attitudes or their fears. They are complex individuals who, in perfectly rational ways, can see the same thing very differently.

Pollsters David Winston and Myra Miller have been exploring this issue as it applies to the debt ceiling. What they’ve found in their latest surveys is particularly instructive.

“The debt limit standoff between the White House and Republicans is not only over philosophies on government spending but also about different views on the most serious threats to the country,” the pair wrote in the most recent edition of The Winston Group’s Discussion Points memo.

That is the issue, on the button. Republicans tend to think the mounting debt, fueled by reckless spending demands coming from Congress and the White House, has pushed the nation to the brink of insolvency and is, therefore, the most serious issue before us.

Democrats, on the other hand, believe it to be what the president and others have called “the existential threat of climate change” which, if left unaddressed, could bring disaster to the nation of an entirely different kind. They, therefore, support the spending, particularly that which was part of the Inflation Reduction Act which has been described by critics and supporters alike as “the most significant climate legislation in US history.”

Both issues are relevant to the debate, Winston and Miller wrote after matching them up head-to-head in a survey at the beginning of March.

“While both issues may be important,” they wrote, “more than half the country (57%) identified the national debt as the more serious threat over climate change at 38%, but with significant differences by party.”

How that breaks down should come as no surprise. Republicans “overwhelmingly prioritized” the debt, 85% to 13% as did independents but by a smaller margin of 50-42. Democrats, meanwhile, said “climate change” but by just 61 to 35, “with some distinctions among moderates and liberals.”

“By more than 3:1, liberal Democrats identified climate change (70%) as a more serious threat than the debt (27%), with moderate Democrats still prioritizing climate change but at a closer 12-point margin (41-53 debt-climate),” the pollsters wrote.

The split is equally interesting by age. “Generation X (60-36) and Baby Boomers (63-32) prioritized the debt by large margins, with millennial/Gen Z — the group most likely to experience long-term consequences of both climate change and the debt — being split (48-47) on which one is the more serious threat,” Winston and Miller explained.

Returning to where we started, it appears that more people are staying up late worrying about debt than climate change, that is if they’re staying up at all. Both President Joe Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy presume they are, which is why they’ve each dug in so deep. The GOP proposal released Wednesday appears modest, even reasonable by current standards. The Democrats have responded to it, however, as though it were a plan for ending the world. That reflects not just where they are as politicians and ideologues but where they think their constituent base is as well.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News.

SOURCE: American Liberty News

New ‘Environmental Justice Scorecard’ tracks DOD’s work to fight climate change, address ‘historically overburdened communities’

Joe Biden will grade the U.S. military and all other government agencies on their “efforts to advance environmental justice” through a new scorecard that tracks their work to fight climate change and deliver “environmental and health benefits to disadvantaged communities.”

Biden on Friday morning announced the U.S. government’s “first-ever Environmental Justice Scorecard,” a “new government-wide assessment of federal agencies’ efforts to advance environmental justice.” Included in the project is the Department of Defense, which Biden will grade on its work to address “environmental, climate-related, and cumulative impacts on communities with environmental justice concerns.”

The department’s first scorecard highlights some of that work. The Navy, for example, organized the traffic flow at one of its docks at Pearl Harbor in a way that “minimizes impacts on historically overburdened communities,” according to the scorecard. The Navy also adjusted a “modernization project” at its Fallon Range Training Complex, which hosts pre-deployment combat training for both air and ground forces, to “respond to several Tribal concerns,” the card says. The scorecard goes on to commend the Department of Defense for hosting “40 internal training(s) for staff on environmental justice” and hiring “at least 640 staff that work on environmental justice,” though it does ding the department for not updating its “environmental justice strategic plan” in the last five years.

Biden has placed the fight against climate change at the center of his administration, but the effort does not stop with the Democrat’s Energy Department and Environmental Protection Agency. That’s because Biden in January 2021 issued an executive order calling on all government agencies to “combat the climate crisis with bold, progressive action.” Federal agencies from the Department of Justice to the Department of Veterans Affairs responded by releasing “Climate Action” plans, which outline how the agencies will “incorporate climate adaptation considerations” and “comprehensively consider environmental justice” in their daily work.

For Florida Republican congressman Mike Waltz, Biden has gone “way too far” in applying the administration’s climate initiatives to the military.

“While it’s essential we ensure our military bases are resilient, the Biden administration is again taking things way too far,” Waltz told the Washington Free Beacon. “Our country faces more threats than ever before and now our military will be forced to take their focus off lethality to ensure they make some sort of environmental justice scorecard? It’s absurd.”

The White House, which did not return a request for comment, announced the scorecard as part of an executive order aimed at “further embedding environmental justice into the work of federal agencies.” During her Friday press briefing, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre struggled to explain how the order would help vulnerable Americans recovering from a toxic train derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, instead opting to tout Biden’s “most ambitious climate agenda.”

Q: What does Biden’s environmental justice announcement mean for East Palestine?

KJP:”What’s important to note about this environmental justice EO is the president’s continued support in his climate agenda. His ambitious climate agenda. He has the most ambitious climate agenda.” pic.twitter.com/d8bzI0Ok1J

— Washington Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) April 21, 2023

Still, Biden has spent big on environmental justice in recent weeks. Earlier this month, for example, his administration pledged to spend up to $1 billion in taxpayer funds to promote “equitable access to trees,” an effort it said would “advance environmental justice” and fight climate change.

In some cases, Biden’s expensive, whole-of-government approach to climate change has prompted criticism from Republicans for what they say is wasteful spending. Biden’s U.S. Agency for International Development, for example, last year released its 2022-2030 climate strategy, which details a $150 billion “whole-of-Agency approach” to building an “equitable world with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.” Included in the effort is a pledge to inspire and support young climate activists in developing countries and help those activists address the “climate-related mental health conditions” they suffer from, the Free Beacon reported in March. Congressional Republicans hammered Biden in response, with Florida senator Rick Scott calling the policy “the definition of America last.”

“American tax dollars should be spent supporting Americans, not overseas climate activists,” Scott said.

This is not the first time Biden has faced criticism for his “woke military,” with Republicans arguing that left-wing politics are distracting America’s armed forces from their “core mission” to fight and win wars. In one case, the Department of Defense in November issued a “Climate Literacy” questionnaire, which asked service members whether they have the “right amount of knowledge/information on climate change” needed to perform their duties and if they are “integrating climate change considerations” into their “regular responsibilities.” Alabama Republican congressman Mike Rogers trashed the poll, accusing the Department of Defense of “wasting our service members’ time with surveys on climate change.”

“The military should not be distracted from its mission of maintaining the most lethal and capable force in the world,” Rogers told Fox News.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The end of the federal tax season is a perfect time to assess what this annual exercise costs taxpayers. Not in the taxes paid. But in the time and money spent complying with the tax code.

Those costs are very real and very big. In testimony before the Senate Budget Committee, the Tax Foundation‘s William McBride noted that the tax code itself is an unwieldy monster that contains “more than 6,000 pages and about 4 million words (plus about 15,000 pages of associated tax law interpretations)…”

It’s no wonder, then that complying with such a behemoth is so costly:

IN 2022 (BEFORE THE IRA OR THE CHIPS ACT), AMERICANS SPENT MORE THAN 6.5 BILLION HOURS TRYING TO COMPLY WITH THE TAX CODE, ACCORDING TO THE LATEST ESTIMATES FROM THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS (OIRA). BASED ON WAGE AND BENEFIT ESTIMATES FOR TAX PREPARERS AND CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS, WE ESTIMATE THE HOURLY COMPLIANCE COSTS OF THE TAX CODE EQUATES TO ABOUT $313 BILLION EACH YEAR IN LOST PRODUCTIVITY, OR 1.4 PERCENT OF GDP. THE COMPLIANCE BURDEN FOR INDIVIDUAL TAXPAYERS IS NEARLY $74 BILLION ANNUALLY, WHILE THE BURDEN ON CORPORATE ENTITIES OF COMPLYING WITH JUST THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS IS MORE THAN $60 BILLION. MUCH OF THE REMAINING $179 BILLION OF COSTS COMES FROM COMPLYING WITH HUNDREDS OF OTHER BUSINESS TAX FORMS AND REGULATIONS, SUCH AS THOSE RELATING TO DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION. COMPLIANCE WITH INCOME TAX RETURNS FOR ESTATES AND TRUSTS COSTS $18 BILLION A YEAR, APPROACHING THE AMOUNT OF TAX REVENUE RAISED BY THE ESTATE TAX.

Think of it this way: tax compliance costs drain as much from the economy as a mild recession.

– Advertisement –

The IRS is not exempt from the burden, and cost, of having to plow through all those forms and the rules behind them:

PURSUANT TO ITS EXPANDED ROLE, IN FY 2021 THE IRS PROCESSED SOME 261 MILLION RETURNS AND FORMS AND RECEIVED SOME 4.7 BILLION PIECES OF INFORMATION, DETAILING THE COMPOSITION AND ACTIVITIES OF NEARLY EVERY AMERICAN HOUSEHOLD AND BUSINESS. IN RECENT YEARS, THE IRS HAS FOUND ITSELF LITERALLY BURIED IN PAPERWORK, RESULTING IN PROCESSING DELAYS, MILLIONS OF RETURNS BACKLOGGED, AND POOR CUSTOMER SERVICE. LAST YEAR, FOR INSTANCE, THE IRS ANSWERED ONLY ABOUT 13 PERCENT OF THE 173 MILLION PHONE CALLS IT RECEIVED FROM TAXPAYERS ASKING FOR HELP; THOSE WHO GOT THROUGH WAITED AN AVERAGE OF 29 MINUTES. CLEARLY, ADMINISTRATIVE CHALLENGES AT THE IRS ARE ALSO PROBLEMATIC FOR TAXPAYERS.

The IRS is getting $80 billion over the next ten years – half to help it process returns quicker and answer taxpayer questions better and half to squeeze more money out of “the rich.”

Taxpayers won’t be getting any such boost. Which means the cost of compliance will continue to be a drag on economic growth, productivity, common sense and patience.

A greatly simplified tax code that emphasized revenue rather than assorted political goals, social nudges and interest group lobbying is an obvious solution. Just don’t hold your breath waiting for either major party to suggest a code revamp that puts clarity, simplicity and fairness first.

SOURCE: American Liberty News

The Republican-controlled Wisconsin State Assembly passed a pair of bills on Tuesday that would preemptively stop any effort by state or local agencies from banning gas-powered vehicles and appliances like lawnmowers and snow blowers.

Wisconsin Assembly Bill 141 specifies that “no state agency and no local governmental unit may restrict the use or sale of a device based on the energy source that is used to power the device,” while Assembly Bill 142 specifies that “no state agency and no local governmental unit may restrict the use or sale of motor vehicles based on the energy source used to power the motor vehicle, including use for propulsion or use for powering other functions of the motor vehicle.”

“The government should not be forcing individuals to buy certain products, eliminate competition and destroy the free market,” said Rep. Ellen Schutt, a Republican from Clinton who co-authored the bills.

AB 141 and 142 passed in the Wisconsin State Assembly by a vote of 62-35 and 63-35, respectively. No Democrats in the State Assembly supported the bills.

Rep. Christine Sinicki, a Democrat from Milwuakee, argued that the state of Wisconsin has no plans currently to prohibit gas-powered vehicles and appliances and called the legislation “a big waste of time.”

“These bills are really a solution that is looking for a problem that does not exist,” Sinicki said, APG Wisconsin reported.

While Sinicki denied gas-powered engines are at risk, Democratic Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers recently celebrated the launch of the Clean Economy Coalition of Wisconsin (CECW), which advocates for “Carbon-free power” and “policies that support a 100 percent carbon-free state by 2050.”

Though Wisconsin has yet to set a specific timeline for phasing out gas-powered vehicles and appliances, several other U.S. states have set timelines for ending the sale of gas-powered vehicles. California was the first U.S. state to propose ending sales of gas-powered vehicles by 2035, and other states have since followed.

Rep. Shae Sortwell, a Republican from Two Rivers, also criticized Sinicki’s premise that lawmakers shouldn’t bother with passing legislation to prevent something from happening in the future.

“It’s a basic premise of good government that we try to look into the future and say, ‘OK, what might people do?’” Sortwell said, according to a Wisconsin Examiner report.

“[If] we’re going to say, ‘Oh, we’re not going to pass this because nobody has attempted to do it.’ Well, there’s a whole lot of things that haven’t been attempted yet. And yet, we have laws and constitutions to protect the rights of the people to live their lives, without interference of future governments.”

Gas stations and fossil fuel industry groups such as Kwik Trip and the American Petroleum Institute have thrown their support behind the measures. Meanwhile, environmental advocates and the American Lung Association oppose them.

Veto?

The bills now go on to the Republican-controlled state Senate. While the legislation may pass the legislature, it faces tougher odds of garnering Evers’signature. Republicans recently gained a supermajority in the Wisconsin Senate but are still two votes shy of a supermajority in the State Assembly, making it unlikely that they could override a veto of the bills from Evers.

Evers has been at odds with Republicans when pushing to use state money to build electric vehicle charging stations.

He has not said outright whether he would veto the Republican bills prohibiting bans on gas-powered vehicles and appliances. At an event in Milwaukee on Tuesday, Evers said he didn’t believe a ban on gas engines was necessary for Wisconsin to eventually transition to using electric vehicles.

From NTD News.

The Associated Press contributed to this article.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Taxpayer money meant to bolster U.S. energy production could instead benefit Chinese entities

Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm told a Senate committee the Department of Energy is still considering giving a $200 million grant to Microvast, a China-based lithium battery company, despite months of pushback from Congress.

“That particular award is still under negotiation,” said Granholm during a Senate Energy and Natural Resources committee hearing on Thursday, adding that the DOE is “very vigilant about making sure that no taxpayer dollars goes to any state owned enterprise or Chinese influenced company.”

It was the first time Granholm has faced in-person questions from Congress over the proposed award. Lawmakers have urged the DOE to drop the grant, noting that the infrastructure law funding is intended to bolster American energy production and prevent federal dollars from going to Chinese entities.

The hearing also comes days after DOE’s top watchdog, Inspector General Teri Donaldson, warned Congress that her office is “woefully underfunded” and doesn’t have the resources to properly investigate the department’s spending, including “those big fraud cases that we all know are coming just because this is a lot of money moving fast.”

The DOE has defended the proposed grant, saying that Microvast is headquartered in Texas and the money would be used to build a battery separator facility in Tennessee. According to Microvast’s financial records, the company’s operations are primarily based in China and the Chinese government “exerts substantial influence” over its business activities, the Washington Free Beacon first reported last year.

During the hearing, Sen. John Barrasso (R., Wyo.) noted that the majority of Microvast’s revenue comes from China and just 1 percent from the United States.

Barrasso also cited a statement from a Chinese government entity that said it “successfully recruited Microvast’s CEO to return from the United States to China under their talent program.” China’s talent recruitment programs are often a cover for trade secret theft and economic espionage, according to the FBI.

“The CEO is a participant in the Chinese Communist Party talent program,” said Barrasso. “Can you assure us today that you will not go forward with the $200 million award to Microvast or any other company under such significant Chinese influence?”

Granholm declined to rule it out, saying the DOE is still conducting due diligence on the grant and “we’ll get back to you on the final conclusions on that.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Democrat says funding will support ‘developing countries in taking stronger climate action’

Joe Biden is pledging $1 billion in taxpayer money to a United Nations climate fund that funnels millions of dollars to China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon and second-largest economy.

Biden during a Thursday morning speech announced the contribution to the United Nations’ Green Climate Fund, saying the money will support “developing countries in taking stronger climate action.” Because the United Nations still classifies China, despite its massive economy, as a developing country, the communist nation receives significant Green Climate Fund money. The fund in November 2019 pledged $100 million to create a “Green Development Fund” in Shandong, China’s second most populated province. The Green Climate Fund disbursed $28 million to its Chinese partner in September 2022, and tens of millions of dollars are still poised to go out to the project, which will remain active through April 2042.

Biden has long stressed the need to help developing countries fight climate change, an effort the Democrat promised he would fund to the tune of $11 billion a year. Biden’s decision to pursue that effort through international organizations, however, is sure to bring controversy. Many of those organizations, such as the United Nations, still consider China a developing country, making the communist nation eligible for international climate investment. In November, for example, the Biden administration agreed to establish an international “climate justice” fund that would pay climate reparations to developing nations. But China did not agree to pay into the fund, and its status as a developing nation left the administration scrambling to ensure “that China would not be eligible to receive money from it,” according to the New York Times.

Beyond its economic status, China is by far the world’s number-one carbon emitter. The communist nation’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2019 “exceeded those of the U.S. and other developed nations combined.” That year saw China pledge to show “the highest possible ambition” in fighting climate change, but two years later, in 2021, China’s coal production surged to record highs.

Daniel Turner, the founder and executive director of energy advocacy group Power the Future, admonished the Biden administration for “subsidizing countries like China” as the communist nation simultaneously ramps up fossil fuel production.

“China is building the equivalent of two new coal plants a week, and they don’t deny it. Meanwhile, we’re closing down our coal plants and giving China money for green products, which we’ll then buy,” Turner told the Washington Free Beacon. “So we’re subsidizing them twice. And you just wonder—how much more in debt do we have to go? And how much more do we have to risk on national security?”

Neither the White House nor the Green Climate Fund returned requests for comment.

The Green Climate Fund says its Chinese investment will go toward climate change “mitigation and adaptation initiatives across several sectors” in Shandong, which “has the highest energy consumption” among China’s provinces due to “its high use of coal as an energy source for its large industrial base.” The Shandong project is not the U.N. fund’s only tie to China—the fund’s board also includes an official from China’s Ministry of Finance, Yingzhi Liu, who the fund says represents “developing country parties from Asia-Pacific states.”

China’s developing nation status has attracted bipartisan ire on the Hill. In March, the House unanimously passed the PRC Is Not a Developing Country Act, a bill from California Republican congresswoman Young Kim that’s aimed at stripping China of its developing country label in the United Nations and other global organizations. Chinese Communist Party propaganda rag China Daily in a Monday column admonished the move, calling China’s developing country status “legitimate.”

“China has not only achieved remarkable results but also become the world’s second-largest economy and the largest trading country,” the column says. “But despite all this, China’s per capita income is still much less than developed countries. This means it is still a developing country.”‘

Still, Kim told the Free Beacon she’s undeterred and will work to get her bill “across the finish line.”

“The People’s Republic of China contributes more emissions than any country in the world yet receives funds from international treaties and organizations due to its ‘developing country’ status. Handing over taxpayer dollars to subsidize the Chinese Communist Party is a bad investment and will do nothing to protect our national security or promote U.S. development globally,” Kim said. “The Biden administration’s announcement of $1 billion to the Green Climate Fund, which sends millions to PRC projects, underscores the need to revoke the PRC’s developing country status and ensure the PRC plays by the rules in international agreements.”

Biden’s Thursday announcement marks the first time the United States will contribute to the Green Climate Fund since 2017, when former president Donald Trump pledged to “terminate” U.S. contributions to the fund. The Green Climate Fund in a Thursday statement applauded Biden’s announcement, saying the $1 billion “will provide urgently needed climate finance for the most vulnerable countries in the world.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The Biden administration will soon punish Americans with high credit ratings to pay more for their mortgages to subsidize loans for homebuyers with lower scores.

Starting May 1, Americans purchasing a new home or are refinancing their existing mortgages will have to pay higher mortgage rates and monthly fees if they have a higher credit score, The Washington Times reported on April 18.

Consumers with lower credit scores and less money for a down payment will be given better mortgage rates than they otherwise would have in a form of wealth redistribution by adjusting the fees on loan-level price adjustments.

Experts said that borrowers with a credit score of about 680 would pay more than $40 per month on a $400,000 mortgage, due to new rules issued by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA).

Homebuyers who make down payments of 15–20 percent will get hit with the largest fees to support those who would normally be unqualified for a mortgage, to buy a home.

FHFA director Sandra Thompson explained that the new rules were designed to “increase pricing support for purchase borrowers limited by income or by wealth” and comes with “minimal” fee changes.

The changes will immediately affect mortgages originating at private banks nationwide, from Wells Fargo to JPMorgan Chase, and will effectively tweak interest rates paid by the vast majority of homebuyers.

“In the wake of a three percentage-point increase in mortgage rates, now is not the time to raise fees on homebuyers,” Kenny Parcell, president of the National Association of Realtors, told the FHFA earlier this year.

Biden Wants to Weaken Mortgage Loan Rules or Racial Equity

The Biden administration has been attempting close the racial gap in homeownership by enacting numerous changes to housing market rules that benefit those at the lower end of the spectrum, such as underprivileged minorities.

The FHFA, which oversees federally backed home mortgage companies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, was set up to give consumers more affordable housing options—but instead the White House has made racial equity a top priority.

However, many who work in the housing industry believe the new rules will only serve to frustrate and confuse homeowners.

“The changes do not make sense. Penalizing borrowers with larger downpayments and credit scores will not go over well,” Ian Wright, a senior loan officer at Bay Equity Home Loans, told The Washington Times.

“It overcomplicates things for consumers during a process that can already feel overwhelming with the amount of paperwork, jargon, etc. Confusing the borrower is never a good thing.”

The federally backed agency also raised upfront fees on second homes and for some larger mortgage loans.

“I am all for the first-time buyer having a chance to get into the market, but it’s clear these decisions aren’t being made by folks that understand the entire mortgage process,” Wright continued.

The push to put riskier mortgages into the hands of those who cannot afford homes will, in most cases, likely cause massive disruption to the market when the predicted recession hits.

Former FHA Chief Believes New Regulations Will Disrupt Mortgage Industry

“This confusing approach won’t work, and more importantly couldn’t come at a worse time for an industry struggling to get back on its feet after these past 12 months,” wrote David Stevens, a former commissioner of the Federal Housing Administration, on LinkedIn.

“To do this at the onset of the spring market is almost offensive to the market, consumers, and lenders.”

Stevens, who was also the former CEO of the Mortgage Bankers Association, told the New York Post that these changes are unprecedented and that his “email is full from mortgage companies and CEOs [telling] me how unbelievably shocked they are by this move.”

“This was a blatant and significant cut of fees for their highest-risk borrowers and a clear increase in much better credit quality buyers—which just clarified to the world that this move was a pretty significant cross-subsidy pricing change,” added Stevens.

Although Stevens agreed that the lack of low-income, minority borrowers being able to qualify for affordable homes was an issue, he argued that attempting to manipulate prices would not solve the problem.

“Why was this done? The answer is simple: it was to try to narrow the gap in access to credit, especially for minority homebuyers who often have lower downpayments and lower credit scores,” Stevens said.

“The gap in homeownership opportunity is real. America is facing a severe shortage of affordable homes for sales, combined with excessive demand, causing an imbalance. But convoluting pricing and credit is not the way to solve this problem,” he said.

US Housing Market Already Suffering High Borrowing Rates

The housing market has already been struggling due to multiple interest-rate hikes by the Federal Reserve in its attempts to combat inflation.

The changes could further complicate the complicated mortgage-application process and put more pressure on the remaining segment of buyers in a housing market already facing the worse downturn since 2008.

The average 30-year mortgage rate was at 6.27 percent at the end last week, up from about 5 percent a year ago and more than twice as high from 2021, according to data from Freddie Mac.

The FHFA also eliminated upfront fees last year for first-time buyers who are at or below 100 percent of their area’s median income, or 120 percent in areas that are identified as “high cost.”

After much backlash, the FHFA delayed upfront fee changes for debt-to-income ratios of 40 percent or more to August 1.

The ratio is calculated by dividing a homebuyer’s monthly debt payments by gross income, which is one of the ways lenders determine whether an individual qualifies for a mortgage loan.

Thompson claims the postponement will help “to ensure a level playing field for all lenders to have sufficient time to deploy the fee.”

Mortgage Bankers Association president Bob Broeksmit,sent a letter to Thompson in February explaining that the timing of the fee changes was “especially troubling,” and that the debt-to-income ratio fee creates “operational issues and quality control” for lenders.

“A borrower’s income and expenses can change several times throughout the loan application and underwriting process, especially considering evolving assumptions concerning the nature of debt and income, and the growth in self-employment, part-time employment, and ‘gig economy’ employment,” Broeksmit said.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

(Reuters)—A U.S. House of Representatives committee voted in favor of restoring tariffs on solar panels from four Southeast Asian nations on Wednesday and reversing Joe Biden’s earlier suspension, setting the resolution up for a vote by the full House.

Biden suspended tariffs last June as part of a key pillar of his clean energy policy. The repeal effort is aimed supporting domestic solar manufacturers that have struggled to compete with cheap panels made overseas, often by Chinese companies, though U.S. buyers have spoken against the repeal.

The resolution passed the House Ways and Means committee 26 to 13. Democrat Terri Sewell joined the Republican majority in approving the measure.

The bill faces an uphill battle. If approved by the House, it will be sent to the Senate, which Democrats control and where it is not expected to have enough support to override a veto by Biden.

Republicans and Democrats introduced the measure in January under the Congressional Review Act (CRA), a law that allows Congress to reverse federal agency rules with a simple majority.

Representative Dan Kildee, a Democrat who co-sponsored the resolution, did not vote because he was recovering from surgery. He said in a statement that “by suspending tariffs on those who violate our trade laws, we are rewarding bad behavior and penalizing companies that do follow the law.”

The vote is a concern to U.S. solar project developers, who have argued that tariffs would freeze development of projects needed to meet Biden’s ambitious climate change goals.

“The Ways and Means Committee just took a hammer to business certainty and American energy independence,” Solar Energy Industries Association President Abigail Ross Hopper said in a statement.

Biden last year waived tariffs on solar products from Cambodia, Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam as the Commerce Department was considering whether those imports were dodging duties on goods made in China and violating U.S. trade law.

Months later, Commerce issued a preliminary decision to extend existing tariffs on Chinese solar products to goods from those nations.

(Reporting by Nichola Groom; Editing by Josie Kao)

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Biden must decide if fighting so-called climate change is bigger priority than fighting America’s actual enemies

The U.S. military is not on board with Joe Biden’s plan to address so-called climate change by building large unsightly wind farms along the East Coast.

Bloomberg reports that the Pentagon is concerned that many of the administration’s proposed wind farm sites would conflict with military operations in the area. Maps circulated among industry stakeholders—eager to cash in on the administration’s enthusiasm for so-called clean energy projects—show that the Navy and Air Force have deemed vast swathes of the offshore terrain earmarked for wind farm development to be “highly problematic.”

The Coast Guard has also raised concerns about how Biden’s wind farms could disrupt its operations off the coasts of North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The military’s objections are great news for critics and skeptics of Biden’s radical goal of producing 30 gigawatts of offshore wind power by the end of the decade. That’s the equivalent of 30 nuclear reactors.

Alas, Biden and his Democratic allies have made clear that they view fighting so-called climate change as a much higher priority than they do fighting America’s actual enemies and maintaining a dominant military force. So the president may ultimately decide to ignore his own military advisers to litter our oceans with wind turbines.

Some context: The Obama administration, in which Biden served as vice president, ruthlessly deployed wind turbines and other so-called clean energy contraptions in an effort to kill and maim hundreds of thousands of majestic birds, including bald eagles.

READ MORE:

Two Suspected Illegal Immigrants Killed a Bald Eagle for Dinner. Federal Authorities Don’t Seem To Care.

Democrats Are ‘Saving the Environment’ by Killing Whales

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

National Public Radio left Twitter recently because it says the social media company’s decision to label it as “state-affiliated media” hurts its “credibility” and unfairly questions its editorial independence.

As much as this appears to be a tempest in a social media teapot, the question about the state media label Elon Musk‘s private company attached to NPR comes down to money:

Twitter…revised its label on NPR’s account to “government-funded media.” The news organization says that is inaccurate and misleading, given that NPR is a private, nonprofit company with editorial independence. It receives less than 1 percent of its $300 million annual budget from the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

So 99 percent of its funding is from private sources. That’s good. NPR could avoid the government-funded label entirely if it decided to drop that one percent and go completely private.

It wouldn’t be easy – giving up a big funder is never easy for a nonprofit organization, media, arts or otherwise.

But it would make NPR genuinely, wholly, and completely independent of any strictures government may decide to impose on its contribution. After all, taking even a small amount of government money comes with enormous strings. NPR, of all organizations, should understand this.

And if they don’t, then they could just as easily interview Twitter owner Elon Musk, whose various businesses, not the least of which are Tesla and SpaceX, are creatures of government handouts:

SpaceX is, after all, primarily a government contractor, racking up $15.3 billion in awarded contracts since 2003, according to US government records. Its most important businesses are launching astronauts and scientific missions for NASA, and flying satellites for the US military.

Musk may quibble that payments for goods and services aren’t government subsidies but he owes the existence of the company to NASA. If the US space agency hadn’t backed the rocket-maker with a critical contract in 2008, the company likely would have failed.

As for Tesla, government grants, subsidies and tax breaks have long been a part of its bottom line. The company devotes a lot of digital ink to explaining how potential electric car buyers can get federal, state and local tax incentives for their purchases.

Of course, Musk and his companies are hardly the only private entities reliant on government largesse. That list is long and growing.

But few have called them “government-funded enterprises.” At least so far. The more common terms are “crony capitalists” who get “corporate welfare” to feed their bottom lines. All thanks to taxpayers, who have little to no choice in the matter.

SOURCE: American Liberty News

Just 327 people were responsible for a third of all retail crime arrests in New York City last year, the New York Times reported Saturday, a statistic that raises new questions about the repercussions of New York State’s far-left bail reform law.

Those 327 thieves, some of whom use “shoplifting as a trade,” were “arrested and rearrested more than 6,000 times,” according to New York Police Department commissioner Keechant Sewell.

The thieves were likely able to keep stealing because of New York’s 2019 bail reform law, which banned judges from setting bail for almost all misdemeanors and nonviolent felonies. While the state in 2020 changed the law so that judges could set bail for some additional crimes, it still prohibits bail in most instances of retail crime.

Shoplifting complaints have nearly doubled since New York passed the bail law, making for “one of the main drivers of the city’s overall crime rate.”

The Times report comes as “organized shoplifting crews” target stores in primarily Democrat-run cities across America. According to a retail association official, “organized retail crime is more than petty shoplifting, and the economic impact has become alarming,” the Washington Free Beacon reported last year. “Professional thieves and organized criminal rings are building a business model by stealing and reselling products,” the official said.

New York Republican representative Elise Stefanik, who has said that bail reform created a “revolving door of criminals,” directly blamed the reform laws for the Big Apple’s crime spike. Stefanik also pointed the finger at far-left Manhattan district attorney Alvin Bragg (D.), who has announced that his office will not prosecute many nonviolent crimes.

The Empire State is “the epicenter of the catastrophic crime crisis happening across our country,” Stefanik told the New York Post.

Stefanik’s fight against bail reform has garnered some bipartisan support from Democratic New York mayor Eric Adams. The mayor has called on the State Legislature to toughen the law and said that “we are not going to stand by and let criminals undermine our economy.”

Most Democrats, however, want “no changes to the state’s bail laws,” the Times reported last month. At the same time, one California Democrat went so far as to wave aside burglaries as “basic city life experiences,” the Free Beacon reported.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The two senators whom disgraced crypto mogul Sam Bankman-Fried donated the most to both pledged to return the contributions, but newly filed campaign finance disclosures show the Democratic senators fell far short of their promises.

Take Michigan senator Debbie Stabenow. The four-term Democrat said in December she would donate the $26,600 that Bankman-Fried gave her to charity. But campaign filings do not list any such payments, nor do they show refunds to Bankman-Fried, or payments to the government relief fund for victims of Bankman-Fried’s alleged fraud.

Then there’s Sen. Maggie Hassan (D., N.H.), who said in January she would return contributions from Bankman-Fried. Hassan’s campaign last month gave $5,800 of the funds from Bankman-Fried to a victim fund set up by the U.S. Marshals Service. But Hassan appears to have held onto the $20,800 that Bankman-Fried gave the Maggie Hassan Victory Fund. The fund helps raise money for Hassan’s campaign and her political action committee, Granite Values PAC.

The revelation comes as lawmakers face increased pressure to rid themselves of donations from Bankman-Fried, who faces more than a dozen federal charges for defrauding investors of his crypto exchange, FTX, and violating campaign finance laws.

According to prosecutors, Bankman-Fried doled out more than $40 million to political candidates and committees in order to “improve his personal standing” in Washington, D.C., and “curry favor” with candidates who could pass legislation favorable to FTX. Nearly all of Bankman-Fried’s contributions were to Democrats.

The strategy worked to some degree. Bankman-Fried, who contributed $5 million in 2020 to a super PAC that supported President Joe Biden, met with top White House officials in meetings last year, the Washington Free Beacon reported.

And Stabenow, who chairs the Senate Agriculture Committee, drafted Bankman-Fried-backed legislation that would put the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in charge of regulating the crypto industry, instead of the much larger Securities and Exchange Commission.

Stabenow, who announced in January that she would not seek reelection in 2024, is no stranger to controversial campaign donors. Her campaign took $10,000 from Sen. Bob Menendez’s super PAC, months before the New Jersey senator stood trial for corruption.

Lawmakers have embraced a variety of strategies to handle the ill-gotten crypto gains. Soon after FTX’s collapse in November, several lawmakers said they would forward campaign contributions to charity. Some refunded donations back to Bankman-Fried, while others said they would wait for direction from federal prosecutors on how to handle the donations.

In February, federal prosecutors asked campaigns to turn over the donations to the government to go into a victim relief fund.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.), another top recipient of Bankman-Fried cash, donated his $5,800 in campaign contributions to charity. A spokesman for Gillibrand says she “no longer has” a $10,800 contribution that Bankman-Fried gave the Gillibrand Victory Fund.

Stabenow and Hassan did not respond to requests for comment submitted to their offices.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Washington, D.C. – A group of prominent economists Thursday urged congressional leaders to reject the Biden administration‘s FY 2024 proposal, calling it “irresponsible” and suggesting that, if adopted, it would set the nation on a path to economic disaster.

In a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., the economists lamented the “anti-growth tax increases and unsustainable budget deficits” the administration put forward in its latest budget document.

Instead of enacting the Biden budget, the 434 economists who signed the letter called for Congress to focus on the process of “reducing the federal government’s unsustainable and dangerous fiscal imbalances.”

The president’s 2024 budget plan continues the disastrous policies that have nearly half of all American – 41% in a February 2023 ABC News/Washington Post poll – saying they are worse off economically than they were two years ago when Biden came into office.

The letter, organized by economist James Carter, accuses the Biden administration of believing “the solution to America’s economic woes is more federal spending and higher taxes,” adding that polling by pollster Scott Rasmussen shows the American people concur.

Carter cites a recent national survey conducted by Rasmussen that found 76% of Americans believe the federal “government spends too much.” Only 17% believe the government “doesn’t receive enough money.”

“The bottom line,” Carter said, is that “the U.S. cannot afford to continue with policies that simply do not work.

The letter is as follows:

April 13, 2023

Dear Speaker McCarthy and Leader Schumer: 

We, the undersigned economists, urge Congress to reject the anti-growth tax increases and unsustainable budget deficits put forward by the Biden Administration. 

Our economy is still suffering the lingering effects of excessive government spending, massive increases in regulation, and the 40-year high inflation crushing American families. With consumer sentiment languishing and 41% of the American people saying they are worse off economically than they were two years ago, the recent failure of three banks will further shock our economy.

President Biden’s budget proposal continues these disastrous policies by calling for trillions of dollars more in taxes and spending over the next 10 years. These proposals would lock in government spending at nearly 25% of our gross domestic product compared to the less than 21% it has averaged over the last 40 years. As government commands more of the economy, private sector investment has less room to facilitate long-term growth. Meanwhile, federal receipts totaled 19.2% of national output last year, the fourth-highest total in our Nation’s history. We do not have a revenue problem; we have an enormous spending problem.

It is time for Congress to ensure we avoid future high inflation resulting from the federal government’s unsustainable fiscal path. The consequences of allowing federal debt to accumulate at its current and projected pace—with spending demands vastly outstripping the country’s ability to meet them—would be disastrous for the well-being of the country and especially for the most vulnerable Americans.

Families and small businesses have already been struggling for too long under the weight of high inflation, rising borrowing costs, crippling labor shortages, and damaging economic uncertainty. We urge Congress to reject President Biden’s irresponsible budget proposal and work together to address the country’s short-term needs while also committing itself to take steps toward reducing the federal government’s unsustainable and dangerous fiscal imbalances.

In addition to Carter, who directs the Center for American Prosperity at the America First Policy Institute, it is also signed by former presidential Council of Economic Affairs Chairman Kevin Hassett and former National Economic Council head Larry Kudlow.

Other prominent economists who signed include economist and former House Majority Leader Richard K. Armey, the Heritage Foundation’s Diana Furchgott-Roth, Johns Hopkins University’s Dr. Stephen Hanke, Trend Macrolytics Donald Luskin, the Center for Freedom and Prosperity’s Dan Mitchell, Duke University’s Michael Munger and Brian Westbury of First Trust Advisors L.P.

SOURCE: American Liberty News

Data on US funding for CCP-tied entities are ‘incomplete and sometimes inaccurate’

The U.S. government does not know how much taxpayer money is being funneled to China each year due to “incomplete and sometimes inaccurate” data, according to a federal watchdog report.

The American government from 2017 to 2021 allocated at least $48 million for partnerships with Chinese Communist Party-controlled entities, including more than $10 million for China’s Center for Disease Control and Prevention, which played a central role in misleading the world about the origins of the coronavirus. But “the full extent of this funding remains unclear,” according to a report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the government’s top watchdog group.

Much of this money was awarded by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) to Chinese universities and government-controlled research centers. Partnerships at these institutions have been under the congressional microscope since the start of the coronavirus pandemic and the determination that the virus likely leaked from a Communist Party laboratory that received U.S. funding. Michael Sobolik, a veteran China analyst and fellow at the American Foreign Policy Council think tank, said the federal government should be increasing its efforts to account for every taxpayer dollar sent to China and CCP-linked entities.

“It’s standard practice for U.S. government contractors to not report small subawards. That makes sense generally, but it presents some problems in the China context,” Sobolik said. “Washington owes it to the American taxpayer to account for every dollar spent within the borders of our greatest geopolitical adversary.”

Peking University, which maintains a partnership with the Communist Party’s defense industry and nuclear weapons program, received nearly $6 million from the U.S. government during the years covered by the report. “Peking also conducts classified work on semiconductors, satellite communications, flight propulsion, and computer science,” the Washington Free Beacon reported in 2021.

Other CCP schools, including Wuhan University, Fudan University, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences, received six-figure cash awards from the U.S. government over the course of the four years tracked in the report. This funding in particular could raise red flags since Chinese schools feed the Communist Party’s military sector, including its spy operations and research on advanced weapons.

At least 15 Chinese universities “have been implicated in cyberattacks, illegal exports, or espionage,” according to the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.

More than $809,000 was also awarded to individual Chinese recipients, whose identities are not disclosed.

All told, “U.S. agencies reported obligating approximately $22.8 million through assistance awards and approximately $25.2 million through contracts,” according to the report.

Federal investigators found that entities receiving U.S. cash often did not report smaller expenditures in China, which makes it difficult to pinpoint overall funding figures. U.S. companies that receive federal funds, for instance, can contract with entities located in China. Those figures are not tracked, according to investigators who worked on the report, who said they found inconsistencies in the reporting of these expenditures.

Funding data are also incomplete because subawards under $30,000 do not need to be reported back to the federal government, meaning that the primary recipients of U.S. dollars are not required to tell the government about limited spending in China. Because of these guidelines, “the full extent of such funding [to China] is unknown because of limitations related to the completeness and accuracy of subaward data reported in government systems.” Essentially, as federal money got channeled further down the chain, reporting on how it was spent and where it went became less clear.

Around 94 percent of the federal funds that were awarded to China came from NIH, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control, and the State Department, according to the report.

The State Department, for instance, paid $4.3 million to “a company in China to obtain internet services at the U.S embassy and consulates throughout mainland China.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Admin says investment will help achieve ‘environmental justice,’ fight climate change

The Biden administration is spending up to $1 billion in taxpayer funds to promote “equitable access to trees,” an effort it says will “advance environmental justice” and fight climate change.

Joe Biden’s Agriculture Department on Wednesday announced the funding, which it called a “historic investment in our nation’s urban tree canopy.” The money is available to universities, nonprofits, and states working to “increase tree cover in urban spaces and boost equitable access to nature” and “advance environmental justice by mitigating the impact of climate change on communities who lack tree cover.” California, for example, is set to receive $43 million, the program’s largest allocation.

Biden has already allocated hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars to tackle what he calls the “climate crisis” with “the urgency that science demands.” In many cases, however, that spending has gone beyond more traditional investments into alternative energy infrastructure and technology. After Biden in January 2021 issued an executive order calling on all government agencies to “combat the climate crisis with bold, progressive action,” federal entities that have seemingly little to do with the issue—such as the Department of Veterans Affairs—released plans meant to increase “climate adaptation and resilience.”

But not all of Biden’s climate spending will stay in the United States. The Democrat’s U.S. Agency for International Development last year unveiled its 2022-2030 climate strategy, which outlines a $150 billion “whole-of-agency approach” to building an “equitable world with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.” The effort includes a pledge to inspire and support young climate activists in developing countries—and help those activists address the “broad range of climate-related mental health conditions” they may suffer from, including “eco-anxiety.” In March, meanwhile, the agency announced a grant notice seeking proposals for a “Disability-Inclusive Climate Action” project in Tajikistan, which aims to ensure disabled people in the Central Asian nation are included “in the development of climate change response and mitigation policies.”

Biden’s Agriculture Department says its equitable tree access investments “go beyond planting trees in tree wells” and will “support lasting community relationships and engagements that strengthen communities.” The spending is part of the administration’s Justice40 Initiative, which calls for “40 percent of the overall benefits of certain federal investments flow to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized, underserved, and overburdened by pollution.”

The department’s Wednesday announcement includes supportive quotes from New Jersey Democratic senator Cory Booker, who is best known for forcing his girlfriend to endorse his failed presidential bid, and senior adviser to the president for Clean Energy Innovation and Implementation John Podesta, who has praised China’s efforts to combat climate change and encouraged the communist nation to “build American infrastructure.”

“This historic investment will help us tackle the most pernicious effects of climate change, move us closer to remedying environmental justice in our communities, and pay dividends for generations to come,” Booker said.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) sided with conservative investors this week in their request to investigate what they say is PayPal’s systematic political and religious discrimination against customers.

Over the objections of PayPal’s management, the SEC allowed a proposal by the National Center for Public Policy Research (NCPPR) to go to a shareholder vote at the company’s next annual meeting. This decision follows a similar decision on March 29, in which the SEC green-lighted a proposal regarding alleged political and religious discrimination at JPMorgan Chase, America’s largest bank.

In an April 10 letter to PayPal’s attorneys, the SEC stated that NCPPR’s proposal “requests that the board conduct an evaluation and issue a report within the next year evaluating how it oversees risks related to discrimination against individuals based on their race, color, religion (including religious views), sex, national origin, or political views, and whether such discrimination may impact individuals’ exercise of their constitutionally protected civil rights.”

Responding to PayPal’s request to block the proposal from going to a shareholder vote, the SEC stated: “We are unable to concur in your view that the Company may exclude the Proposal under Rule 14a-8(i)(7). In our view, the Proposal transcends ordinary business matters.”

PayPal had argued that its shareholders should not consider NCPPR’s request because the issue of viewpoint discrimination is part of the company’s “ordinary business operations” and that “the proposal seeks to ‘micro-manage’ the company by probing too deeply into matters of a complex nature upon which shareholders, as a group, would not be in a position to make an informed judgment.”

The NCPPR proposal stated, among other things, that “companies that provide banking or financial services are essential pillars of the marketplace. On account of their unique and pivotal role in America’s economy, many federal and state laws already prohibit them from discriminating when providing financial services to the public. And the UN Declaration of Human Rights, consistent with many other laws and the U.S. Constitution, recognizes that ‘everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion.’”

Conservatives Charge Viewpoint Discrimination

“We know from news stories that PayPal has been discriminating on the basis of viewpoints, shutting down accounts that differ from their ‘woke’ political principles,” Scott Shepard, a director at NCPPR and co-author of the proposal, told The Epoch Times. “We’re giving them a chance with this to consider ways to rectify those problems.”

PayPal has scored well in terms of its support for progressive causes. Standard & Poor’s ranked it a 49 out of 100 in the social-justice category of its environmental, social, and governance (ESG) score, more than double the industry average of 22, though below the industry best of 90. Its overall ESG rating increased steadily from 18 in 2018 to 58 today.

PayPal scored a perfect 100 percent on the Corporate Equality Index (CEI), published by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). The HRC publishes various corporate indices that it says are “benchmarks of LGBTQ-inclusive policies, practices, and benefits of our nation’s employers.” Noting left-wing philanthropist George Soros’s funding of the HRC, some analysts have suggested that campaigns such as Bud Light’s endorsement of trans activist Dylan Mulvaney were part of a standard corporate practice of pursuing high scores from ESG rating agencies and progressive organizations like the HRC. Anheuser-Busch, the brewer of Bud Light beer, scored 100 on HRC’s Corporate Equality Index.

The NCPPR proposal suggested that PayPal also take note of the Viewpoint Diversity Index, which is produced by the Alliance Defending Freedom and measures “corporate respect for religious and ideological diversity.” According to this metric, PayPal scores 5 out of 100 in terms of respecting customers and vendors freedom of expression and belief and has an overall viewpoint diversity score of 7 out of 100.

JPMorgan, whose shareholders will be voting May 16 on a proposal to investigate political and religious discrimination, also scored a perfect 100 on the HRC’s Corporate Equality Index.

Regarding companies’ CEI scores, Shepard said that “they can only get the scores they received if they’ve been taking hard-left positions in the culture wars.” JPMorgan Chase scored 15 out of 100 on the Viewpoint Diversity Index.

Asset Managers, Proxy Agents Control Corporate Votes

Neither the PayPal nor the JPMorgan proposal is likely to get majority support from shareholders because proxy agents like ISS and Glass Lewis will recommend against them, he said, and asset managers like BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street habitually vote against them. According to a Harvard study, institutional asset managers–like mutual funds, index funds and pension funds–own about 70 percent of all corporate shares, compared to 30 percent that are owned by individual shareholders.

ISS and Glass Lewis are the two largest proxy voting agents and together represent an estimated 97 percent share of the industry. Proxy agents advise asset managers and other shareholders how they should vote at corporate shareholder meetings and often vote on shareholders’ behalf.

According to Glass Lewis’s ESG Initiatives, it advocates that corporations disclose and manage their climate-change practices, stating “in instances where we find either of these disclosures to be absent or significantly lacking, we may recommend voting against responsible directors.” Glass Lewis also recommends that shareholders support racial equity audits.

Despite its long odds of success, NCPPR continues to put conservative voting proposals in front of corporate shareholders, requesting an examination of policies that may be discriminatory.

“It does put these corporations on the spot by explaining to them in an official, public way, that they’re failing in their fiduciary duties by throwing away customers because of their executives’ personal preferences and in ways that create, among other things, litigation liability for them,” Shepard said.

NCPPR has put similar shareholder proposals in front of MasterCard, Capital One and Charles Schwab. All of those will go to a shareholder vote without intervention from the SEC because management of those companies, while not supporting the proposals, did not challenge them.

The Epoch Times requested PayPal’s comment for this article, but PayPal has not responded.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

A senior House Republican leader said Wednesday that passing a “strong” debt limit bill should be the GOP’s top legislative priority and called for a vote on the measure in April, arguing that “the time for action is now.”

Rep. Kevin Hern (R-Okla.), who chairs the Republican Study Committee (RSC), set the end-of-month deadline for a vote on the bill in a Wednesday letter to his GOP colleagues (pdf).

“Passage of a strong debt limit bill before the end of the April legislative session must be the chamber’s top priority,” Hern wrote. “We must work night and day to get it passed to show the American people we can be trusted and force the Senate and White House to answer for their dereliction of duty.”

Hern’s appeal to the RSC’s 176 members comes amid a debt ceiling deadlock between House Speaker Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) and Joe Biden, as the United States inches closer to a possible debt default.

Hern’s letter did not specify what the RSC wants to include in the debt limiting measure, but the group released a “Debt Limit Playbook” (pdf) in March that outlines their priorities, which focus on discretionary spending cuts.

House lawmakers face a tight window to meet Hern’s request for a vote by the end of April after they return from Easter recess next week.

Debt Ceiling Standoff

Both Democrats and Republicans have warned that failure to meet the country’s debt obligation would be disastrous for the economy. But while Republicans have pushed for Democrat commitments to cut spending in exchange for agreeing to lift the $31.4 trillion borrowing cap, Biden has so far insisted on a clean bill to raise the debt limit.

The United States hit the $31.4 trillion borrowing limit earlier this year, forcing the Treasury Department to deploy a series of “extraordinary measures” to keep setting U.S. debt obligations and avoid a national debt default.

However, according to projections from the Congressional Budget Office, the Treasury’s extraordinary measures will run out sometime between July and September this year unless Congress raises the debt cap.

Rather than negotiate with the GOP on spending cuts as part of raising the debt ceiling, Biden and his Democrat allies in Congress have demanded that Republicans make their spending-cut proposals public.

“I shared my budget with the American people on March 9, 2023,” the president wrote in a letter to McCarthy earlier this month. “My hope is that House Republicans can present the American public with your budget plan before the Congress leaves for the Easter recess so that we can have an in-depth conversation when you return,” Biden added.

Biden said that he’s prepared to consider Republican proposals for spending cuts as part of a budget plan, but that such discussions must be separate from “prompt action on the Congress’ basic obligation to pay the nation’s bills an avoid economic catastrophe.”

McCarthy told Biden in a letter of his own that the president’s refusal to negotiate spending cuts to get GOP backing on raising the debt ceiling “could prevent America from meeting its obligations and hold dire ramifications for the entire nation.”

“With each passing day, I am incredibly concerned that you are putting an already fragile economy in jeopardy by insisting upon your extreme position of refusing to negotiate any meaningful changes to out-of-control government spending alongside an increase of the debt limit,” McCarthy wrote.

Republicans have taken issue with Biden’s big-ticket spending, blaming it for sending inflation to multi-decade highs.

Spending Cuts

Since taking office, Biden has signed off on trillions in spending, including the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the $745 billion Inflation Reduction Act, and, most recently, a $1.7 trillion omnibus package passed at the end of the last Congress.

Hern said in his letter that American voters “are sick of the persistent hardships inflicted by Democrats’ excessive spending and oppressive policies.”

“They gave us a mandate: tame inflation, deliver affordable energy and a strong economy, stop spending their future away, and rein in the woke and weaponized government,” Hern added.

The RSC’s “Debt Limit Playbook” sets forth their agenda for spending curbs. The proposal includes rolling back the recent growth in discretionary spending, reducing regulatory obstacles to domestic energy production, looking for ways to cut down on government waste, and creating measures for long-term fiscal control.

Biden has accused Republicans of targeting mandatory spending programs like Social Security and Medicare, while the GOP has insisted their focus is solely on cutting back on non-defense discretionary spending.

Meanwhile, McCarthy said recently that investors should be worried about the deadlock in Washington over raising the debt ceiling.

“Unfortunately, I tried to sit down with the president and the president doesn’t want to communicate,” McCarthy told Bloomberg TV, adding that since a meeting with Biden on Feb. 1, the only communication between the two on the debt ceiling has been via an exchange of letters.

McCarthy said Republicans were working on a proposal for raising the debt ceiling. Asked whether he plans to speak to investors about the GOP proposal in order to reassure markets, McCarthy said that Wall Street is right to be worried.

“They should be concerned,” McCarthy said, adding that Biden hasn’t wanted to meet and that communication between the two has basically ground to a standstill.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) proposed emissions standards for automobiles and trucks are raising eyebrows in the auto industry and Washington alike.

“EPA’s proposed emissions plan is aggressive by any measure. By that I mean it sets automotive electrification goals in the next few years that are … very high,” John Bozzella, president and CEO of the automaker trade organization Alliance for Automotive Innovation, wrote in an April 12 blog post.

The federal standards would tightly restrict emissions from new vehicles. That would effectively force automakers to boost their sales of electric vehicles (EVs).

The agency’s proposal anticipates that under the new standards, two-thirds of new light-duty vehicles sold in the United States would be electric by the model year 2032.

It also predicts that 46 percent of new medium-duty vehicles sold in the United States would be electric by that model year.

EVs made up less than 6 percent of total new vehicle sales in 2022. That’s an increased percentage relative to past years, even as total new vehicle sales were down to 13.8 million units from 17.3 million in 2018.

The EPA claims that its standards would lower carbon dioxide emissions by 10 billion tons.

Agency administrator Michael Regan described the standards as the “strongest ever” during an April 12 press conference.

“The proposal exceeds the administration’s own 50 percent electrification target,” Bozzella wrote, noting that his industry is “fully committed to an electric and low-carbon transportation future.”

Not Enough Chargers

Less than two weeks ago, the IRS and the Treasury Department issued complex guidance on EV tax credits that could make it harder for consumers to benefit from those financial incentives.

Bozzella, who began his career working for then-New York Mayor David Dinkins, a Democrat, said the guidance would reduce the number of vehicles qualifying for tax credits. That would seem to disincentivize EV adoption even as the administration steps up other measures intended to facilitate more EV purchases.

Bozzella also said the 100,000 public, nonproprietary EV chargers in the United States are “not enough.”

An April 6 memo from the automotive alliance stated that electrification would take a “massive, 100-year change to the U.S. industrial base and the way Americans drive.”

Groups outside of the auto industry also voiced concerns.

Will Hild, executive director of Consumers’ Research, a consumer protection organization, said the standards are “the same thing BlackRock and ESG extremists like Larry Fink are doing with U.S. pensions and retirement dollars.”

“The American people won’t stand for it,” he said.

Republicans Object

Republican lawmakers on Capitol Hill criticized the announcement, which comes days after new EPA coal plant standards and vetoes by President Joe Biden aimed at furthering the president’s environmental agenda.

“The Environmental Protection Agency will make cars unaffordable by following California’s lead towards a complete ban on gas-powered vehicles,” said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

California’s 2022 plan would outlaw gas-powered vehicle sales in the state by 2035.

“[Biden’s] misguided policies are hurting American families while helping China,” said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), the ranking Republican member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

“The ‘electrification of everything’ is not a solution. It’s a road to higher prices and fewer choices.”

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), the ranking Republican member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, highlighted some potentially significant issues for the United States as the domestic EV fleet expands.

“These misguided emissions standards were made without considering the supply chain challenges American automakers are still facing, the lack of sufficiently operational electric vehicle charging infrastructure, or the fact that it takes nearly a decade to permit a mine to extract the minerals needed to make electric vehicles, forcing businesses to look to China for these raw materials,” Capito said.

Rep. Bruce Westerman (R-Ark.), who chairs the House Committee on Natural Resources, said in a statement to The Epoch Times that “EVs should be part of the equation, not the entire solution.”

He suggested that Americans would be better served by H.R. 1, an energy bill championed by Republicans that passed the House in March.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has said the bill will be “dead on arrival” in the upper chamber, and the White House on March 27 said Biden would veto it “in its current form.”

Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Tesla, and Ford didn’t respond by press time to requests by The Epoch Times for comment. Toyota directed The Epoch Times to Bozzella’s April 12 blog post.

SAE International, an engineering professional association with close ties to the automotive sector, had no comment.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The United States is not King Midas, and the gold is running out.  

For much of the post-World War II era, America has been expected by many of its citizens to be a benevolent King Midas to the rest of the world. We have attained unprecedented levels of prosperity, and we are expected to share that with anyone seeking to improve their conditions.

While such philanthropy may cause hearts to swell with good feelings, it often comes at a steep price. At a time when America is showing all the characteristics of an empire in decline, that price has now become a crippling burden.

One of the most irksome talking points anti-borders activists repeat endlessly is that “America is the wealthiest country on Earth.” This is based on data showing the United States has the highest concentration of millionaires and the largest gross domestic product.  

There is trouble, however, below that hyper-affluent upper level. The share of American adults who live in middle-class households has shrunk by 11 percent in the last 50 years. The gross federal debt sits at an all-time high of over $31 trillion. China is working aggressively to supplant the United States as the global superpower and is attacking our currency, military supremacy, and access to vital natural resources, among other areas. Our current leadership seems interested not in reversing America’s deterioration, but rather in managing it better than the opposition party.

Now add excessive immigration to these problems. Instead of “making America stronger,” as clueless sanctuary mayors dutifully insist immigration does, today it is only making America poorer and more balkanized.

A recent New York Times report found that the children of immigrants, those here both legally and illegally, now make up four-in-nine of all poor children living in the United States. This comes at a time when homelessness is reaching crisis levels in many of our larger cities. How many homeless Americans, many of whom are often military veterans suffering from mental illness, now have to compete with illegal aliens for limited shelter space and city resources to stay alive?

It should not be surprising that mayors who virtue signal their cities’ sanctuary status are also dealing with the highest levels of homelessness, crime, crowding, and drug addiction. Taking on seemingly infinite numbers of migrants costs a lot of money. When that happens, money is diverted from other programs.

New York City, currently the most dangerous sanctuary community in America, has been complaining about the costs of illegal immigration since Governors Greg Abbott (R-Texas) and Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) began busing illegal aliens there. Unable to pay the costs of his sanctuary rhetoric, Mayor Eric Adams has been forced to slash a combined $1.1 billion from the city budget each year for the next four years.

The honorable thing for Adams to do in this situation would be to admit his mistake regarding sanctuary policies and change course. Instead, he has reaffirmed his support for the policies and sent a $654 million bill to the federal government.   

Did the residents of states like Nebraska and Mississippi vote for Gotham to become a sanctuary city? They did not, but now they are being told to pay for the fashionable noblesse oblige of New York’s political class. Why are such passionate advocates for anti-borders policies so quick to make anyone but themselves pay for them?

While the same activists claim illegal aliens pay taxes, the net effect of illegal immigration is a huge loss for the country. That is evidenced by the $150.7 billion total fiscal cost of illegal immigration on U.S. taxpayers.

We live in a time when many other institutions in America are struggling with insufficient resources. Our schools, healthcare systems, drug treatment centers, and transportation infrastructure—to name just a few—are all suffering from a lack of funding. An infusion of more than $150 billion would make a huge difference toward addressing those problems. Instead, we throw that money into an abyss, as mandated by radical activists and unscrupulous politicians looking to cement their hold on power through policies that make their constituents feel good but spend other people’s money.  

The reality is that America’s salad days of the late 20th century are over. We no longer have the luxury of trying to solve global poverty by importing poverty here in never-ending numbers. While we should keep the door open for legitimate refugees suffering persecution by their governments, we must deal in self-preservation first. America is not King Midas, and the gold is running out.  

SOURCE: American Greatness

Experts say impending EPA proposal would kill jobs and spark supply chain issues

The Biden administration is set to unveil new environmental regulations that would force U.S. automakers to sell electric vehicles over their gas-powered counterparts, a move experts say will kill jobs and bring major supply chain issues.

Joe Biden’s Environmental Protection Agency will announce on Wednesday a proposed rule to limit tailpipe emissions. That rule, according to the New York Times, will impose a strict emissions limit on vehicles sold—so strict that it will force automakers to ensure that two-thirds of the vehicles they sell are electric by 2032. “This is a massive undertaking,” said Alliance for Automotive Innovation president John Bozzella, who represents U.S. automakers. “It is nothing short of complete transformation of the automotive industrial base and the automotive market.”

If the rule is enacted, it would mark a significant escalation in both electric vehicle sales and U.S. environmental standards. Just 6 percent of vehicles sold last year were electric, and Biden in August 2021 signed an executive order calling for half of all U.S. car sales to be electric by 2030, well below the proposal’s two-thirds benchmark. The rule would also prompt layoffs for autoworkers in states such as Michigan and Ohio, experts say, because electric cars take considerably fewer workers to build than gas-powered cars.

“We’ve dealt with the loss of jobs before through technology,” United Auto Workers leader Mark DePaoli told the Times, “but when you talk about the speed of this, it’s hard to fathom that we won’t lose jobs.”

In addition to auto industry layoffs, Biden’s aggressive transition to electric vehicles would bring major supply chain and infrastructure challenges. China has an iron grip on the minerals required to build electric vehicle batteries, control that helped the communist nation produce 75 percent of the world’s lithium batteries in 2021. Widespread electric vehicle use would also require expensive investments in charging stations and power grids, which must withstand skyrocketing demand should millions of Americans plug in their cars rather than fill them up with gas.

Biden has attempted to address some of those problems by signing bills that allocate tens of billions of dollars in green energy spending. But even with that spending, plenty of bumps remain on the road to electric vehicles. The 2021 Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, for example, provided $7.5 billion to build roughly 500,000 charging stations—well below the more than 2 million stations experts say are needed to support the electric vehicle revolution. Power grid investments would likely be even more expensive, given that California alone must spend a whopping $9.3 billion to prepare its power grid for a green energy transition, the state’s utility operator said last week.

Still, the pricey challenges associated with an electric vehicle transition have not stopped green energy advocates from arguing in favor of government standards that effectively mandate such a transition. Instead, the uncertainties associated with the electric vehicle market and supply chain only reinforce the need for government action, International Council on Clean Transportation executive director Drew Kodjak contented, as private companies and consumers may not flock to electric vehicles on their own.

“Everyone who’s watched this movie knows that the market is fickle,” Kodjak said in an interview with the Times. “What if there’s a market downturn? What if the battery minerals don’t pan out? Without these firm standards that have a clear trajectory on timing, none of the players can be sure that this will happen.”

The Environmental Protection Agency said in a Friday statement that it’s working to “accelerate the transition to a zero-emissions transportation future” but did not confirm the proposal’s details. The agency’s administrator, Michael Regan, is expected to announce the rule during a Wednesday event in Washington, D.C.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The San Francisco Chronicle’s editorial board issued a warning this week that office workers staying home to work rather than commuting to the city will spark a “doom loop” that will erode its tax base.

“Experts say post-pandemic woes stemming from office workers staying home instead of commuting into the city could send San Francisco into a ‘doom loop’ that would gut its tax base, decimate fare-reliant regional transit systems like BART and trap it in an economic death spiral,” the paper’s editorial board wrote, specifically referring to downtown San Francisco.

“Despite our housing crisis, it was years into the COVID pandemic before our leaders meaningfully questioned the logic of reserving some of the most prized real estate on Earth for fickle suburbanites and their cars,” the editorial also said. “And so we wasted generous federal COVID emergency funds trying to bludgeon, cajole, and pray for office workers to return downtown instead of planning for change. We’re now staring down the consequences for that lack of vision.”

The Chronicle’s editorial board suggested making more investments into office-to-housing conversions. It also recommended that some office buildings be demolished to make way for new projects, but it said that such moves would require assistance from the California state government.

In the opinion article, the city’s paper of record claimed that the Newsom administration needs to “do its long-neglected part to help San Francisco address the behavioral health crisis on its streets,” referring to rampant drug usage and homelessness. “In the meantime, San Francisco should address the roadblocks that have hampered it from spending the hundreds of millions of dollars earmarked for homelessness and prevented it from filling hundreds of empty housing units,” it said.

The board drew a comparison between San Francisco’s post-COVID-19 reality and Manhattan after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. After the 2001 incident, New Yorkers feared returning to work in Lower Manhattan skyscrapers.

The Chronicle said that subsidies allowed Manhattan to rebound following the attacks. San Francisco hasn’t made such changes, it argued.

The city’s mayor, Democrat London Breed, responded to the Chronicle’s prognostications of doom-and-gloom. “It’s easy to throw out dire predictions about the death of downtown. But that’s not our reality and it’s not going to happen,” Breed said, although she did not provide evidence to the contrary.

Meanwhile, in recent years, San Francisco has developed a reputation for being dirty and fraught with drug addicts as well as homeless encampments. Last year, the city recalled left-wing District Attorney Chesa Boudin, who was accused of taking a soft-on-crime approach, and replaced him with District Attorney Brooke Jenkins, considered by many to be a moderate.

In the early hours of Tuesday morning, Cash App founder Bob Lee was stabbed to death in San Francisco, sending shockwaves through the tech world. A number of tech billionaires, including Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey and current owner Elon Musk, weighed in.

Musk, whose social media company is based in San Francisco, said that crime is out of control. Lee was reportedly stabbed to death in an affluent part of the city, not in a more irreputable spot like the Tenderloin district, which has been notorious for its open-air drug markets and high violent crime rate.

“Very sorry to hear that. Many people I know have been severely assaulted. Violent crime in SF is horrific,” Musk wrote on Twitter this week.

Some residents said to local media outlets several weeks ago that surging crime and dirty streets remain a serious problem. Oscar Gonzalez, who operates a restaurant in the Mission District, told CBS Bay Area that it “can’t go on like this. It’s just getting worse … there has to be a positive change.”

“The situation in The Mission is terrible,” resident Guadalupe Hernandez chimed in. “It’s sad. I remember 21 years ago when I came to live here, and The Mission was so pretty, but now everything is ugly, sad, dirty.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Why Beijing’s plan to supplant the dollar might succeed or fail

A longstanding plan by China and Russia to replace the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency has had a string of recent headline-grabbing successes, as China methodically builds a rival monetary system that has been dubbed “Bretton Woods III.”

This currency initiative is the financial component of the Beijing regime’s strategy to gain influence over global energy supplies and overcome its key weakness as an energy-poor country—a strategy that appears to be working.

“Given the increased weaponization of the dollar for national security purposes, and the growing geopolitical rivalry between the West and revisionist powers such as China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea, some argue that de-dollarization will accelerate,” economist Nouriel Roubini wrote in a Financial Times op-ed, titled “A Bipolar Currency Regime Will Replace the Dollar’s Exorbitant Privilege.”

According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Bretton Woods III is “a new monetary order centered around commodity-based currencies.” This system features a network of agreements among China and commodity-exporting countries to trade in Chinese yuan or other currencies besides the U.S. dollar.

But dethroning the dollar as the world’s reserve currency is a side benefit to China’s goal of establishing reliable long-term access to the energy supplies it so desperately needs. Countries that have thus far agreed to accept Chinese yuan as payment for oil include Russia, Iran, and Venezuela. Together, these three oil exporters represent 40 percent of the world’s known reserves; all are currently under embargo by the United States.

Meanwhile, China and Brazil have struck a deal to ditch the U.S. dollar in trade transactions in favor of their respective currencies.

What Roubini called the “weaponization of the dollar” refers to the United States’ habit of using its financial authority to punish its adversaries, most recently ousting Russian banks from the foreign exchange-settlement system known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication (SWIFT). Some analysts, however, warn that America’s politicization of the global dollar system is compelling an ever-larger number of nations to seek alternatives, and China appears happy to oblige them.

Most recently, and perhaps worryingly for the United States, Saudi Arabia, the world’s largest oil exporter, has stated its willingness to consider using yuan for oil exports as well. China scored a strategic coup on March 10 when it brokered a diplomatic détente between Saudi Arabia and Iran—with no United States involvement.

Much of the reason for the dollar’s global dominance is the result of “petrodollars,” the outcome of a protocol that has, since the 1970s, dominated trade by Saudi Arabia and other oil-producing countries in dollars. While oil, gas, and other forms of energy make up the majority of the world’s commodity markets, most other commodities, including minerals and agricultural goods, are also priced and traded in dollars.

That’s forced countries around the world to hold dollars in order to trade in these markets, and this demand for U.S. dollars and Treasury securities has reduced the cost of borrowing for the United States even as government spending and deficits reach new heights.

Why China’s Plan Might Fail

Many financial analysts insist that the dollar’s dominant position is unassailable for many years to come. While America’s economic dominance has declined from half of the world’s gross domestic product (GDP) in 1945 to about one-quarter today, and while China has succeeded in establishing yuan-denominated trading deals with key commodity exporters, the dollar’s role in global finance is still paramount.

“There’s such a huge head start for the dollar on any dimension,” including foreign exchange, trade invoices, and debt and equity markets,” economist David Beckworth, a research fellow at George Mason University, told The Epoch Times. “Any proposal for an alternative currency that would compete with the dollar would have to scale up in such a size that it doesn’t seem feasible.”

The dollar’s share of global debt markets isn’t only dominant but increasing.

In order for China to become a reserve currency, “it would have to completely open its capital markets so that money can flow across the border into and out of China without any kind of restrictions … and that’s something that the authoritarian regime that’s in power does not want to do,” Beckworth said.

Currently, about half of the world’s trade and about 60 percent of all central bank foreign-exchange reserves are denominated in U.S. dollars. The euro, the dollar’s closest competitor, is a distant second, at 20 percent of central bank reserves. The share of reserves held in yuan is 3 percent.

In some areas, the dollar’s role is steadily declining. Its share of global reserves has fallen to 59 percent in 2022 from more than 70 percent in 2000. Still, to replace the dollar, some analysts say a currency must have attributes that only the United States possesses.

A key question, then, for those who would accept Chinese yuan in trade is: What do they do with them? The attractiveness of dollars isn’t only that they are widely accepted but also the prevalence of investment opportunities.

The United States is among the most open economies in the world, and investment options for dollars range from demand deposits to bonds, stocks, and real estate. China, by contrast, is a relatively closed economy with currency controls and limited investment options. U.S. equity markets comprise about one-third of all global stocks; China’s stock market comprises less than 8 percent.

In addition, dollars are featured in about 90 percent of all foreign-exchange transactions. Even after getting a boost from the Russia/dollar embargo, yuan were featured in only 7 percent of foreign currency trades, behind the euro, the British pound, and the Japanese yen.

Another key shortcoming for the yuan is that it lacks a history of stability. Even with America’s more recent history of profligate spending and interest-rate manipulation, the dollar has built a reputation over centuries as a credible and dependable currency. Within China, there is a constant risk of “capital flight,” as the wealthy attempt—amid currency controls on the yuan—to move their savings abroad to safer havens such as the United States.

In addition, China would have to run persistent trade deficits in order to supply enough yuan abroad for global transactions, which is the opposite of China’s current export-led growth strategy, Beckworth said.

China’s trade deals are bilateral, while the dollar is in common use among all countries of the world, whether or not the United States is part of the transaction, according to noted economist Milton Ezrati, who is an Epoch Times contributor.

“The yuan is a long way from an international reserve currency such as the dollar,” Ezrati stated during an interview with NTD, the sister media outlet of The Epoch Times. “It might hurt Washington that China has supplanted the dollar in a relationship with Brazil or Saudi Arabia, or many countries that have joined the Belt and Road” initiative, a global infrastructure development plan launched by China across the developing world in 2013.

“I’m sure it does irritate them. Washington loves power,” he said, “and this is a slight erosion in that power. But I don’t think it’s a challenge to the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.”

Why China’s Plan Could Work

Roubini argues that China may yet succeed.

“Complete exchange-rate flexibility and international capital mobility are not necessary in order for a country to achieve reserve currency status,” he stated. “After all, in the era of the gold-exchange standard, the dollar was dominant in spite of fixed exchange rates and widespread capital controls.”

“While China may have capital controls, the U.S. has its own version that may reduce the appeal of dollar assets. … These include financial sanctions against its rivals, ” Roubini said. In some cases, such as during the Russia–Ukraine war, the United States has frozen or confiscated dollar assets held by foreigners.

While the dollar is simply backed by a promise of the U.S. government to pay, China’s yuan-based trade deals offer something of tangible value. On Dec. 9, Chinese leader Xi Jinping proclaimed to Saudi Arabia and other Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) leaders gathered in Riyadh “a new paradigm of all-dimensional energy cooperation.”

“China will continue to import large quantities of crude oil on a long-term basis from GCC countries, and purchase more LNG,” he stated. “We will strengthen our cooperation in the upstream sector, engineering services, as well as storage, transportation, and refinery of oil and gas.

“The Shanghai Petroleum and Natural Gas Exchange platform will be fully utilized for RMB [renminbi] settlement in oil and gas trade.” (To distinguish, the renminbi is the official name of the currency; the yuan is a unit of the renminbi, but is the currency name used in international contexts.)

In short, China will provide technology, capital, and engineering services to build infrastructure, refining facilities, nuclear plants, oil extraction, etc., in return for a steady stream of oil supplies denominated in yuan.

In an effort to backstop the yuan, China has also been sharply increasing its purchases of gold. There also have been discussions about pooling several countries’ currencies into a basket currency that would be backed by commodities.

How China’s Success Could Hurt US

It would be “catastrophic” if the dollar lost its position as the global reserve currency, former U.S. Assistant Treasury Secretary Monica Crowley told Fox News.

“If Saudi Arabia decides to join with America’s enemies … and start trading oil in different currencies, that is going to undermine the entire global economic system.” The dollar’s loss of reserve status would “mean raging inflation, so much worse than anything we have ever experienced.”

In a report titled, “War and Commodity Encumbrance,” economist Zoltan Pozsar writes that “China is starting to dominate OPEC+,” or OPEC plus Russia and 10 other non-member nations.

“The U.S. has sanctioned half of OPEC with 40 percent of the world’s oil reserves and lost them to China,” he writes, “while China is courting the other half of OPEC with an offer that’s hard to refuse.” He warns that other countries could be boxed out of energy supplies that are increasingly being pledged to China.

The result, he argues, could be that China emerges as the central power broker for global energy. He cites as an example the decision by German chemical company BASF to shift its chemical operations from Germany to China, where it is able to access energy and raw materials at a much lower cost.

Added to this is the fact that China already dominates global mineral markets, having, for example, controlling stakes in the Democratic Republic of Congo’s cobalt mines, as well as a near monopoly on mineral refining. As the West attempts a shift from fossil fuels, which the United States has in abundance, to mineral-based energy such wind and solar, its dependence on China will only increase.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

MOST OF THE MEDIA FIXATED ON HIS LEGAL WOES, BUT TRUMP HAD ANOTHER MESSAGE, AND PEOPLE HAD BETTER LISTEN UP.

PALM BEACH, Florida – Former President Donald J. Trump gave both barrels to Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and the wider ‘lawfare’ campaign against him during a short and fiery speech to a massive, raucous crowd of his supporters at his Mar-a-Lago home in Florida on Tuesday night.

Trump, who had just stepped off his ‘Trump Force One’ plane from New York, clearly decided that, as ever, the best defense is a good offense. He used the remarks to level a litany of accusations at his pursuers, setting America’s political left shrieking about how he won’t just lay down and die.

“God bless you all, and I never thought anything like this could happen in America,” he opened, to a raucous audience of MAGA stalwarts and Mar-a-Lago club regulars.

Guests were invited on relatively short notice, to the speech immediately following Trump’s appearance in a Manhattan court room. The logistical concerns scarcely hampered the hundreds who thronged to Palm Beach island, parking their cars and trucks against the river, some of which were adorned with humorous pro-Trump messaging:

Outside MAL last night. pic.twitter.com/GEuQ4Shvro

— Raheem J. Kassam (@RaheemKassam) April 5, 2023

Inside the Donald J. Trump Presidential Ballroom, the press packed the back wall with stages, lighting rigs, and staffing at levels unseen since the height of 2016’s presidential election.

“The only crime that I have committed is to fearlessly defend our nation from those who seek to destroy it,” said Trump, in an unusually disciplined address.

“The USA is a mess. Our economy is crashing, inflation is out of control. Russia has joined with China… Saudi Arabia has joined with Iran. China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea have formed together as a menacing and destructive coalition,” he blasted.

MUST READ: WaPo Editor: Bragg’s Case Against Trump is ‘Disturbingly Unilluminating’ and ‘Unnervingly Flimsy’.

“It would’ve never happened if I were your President, it would never have happened, nor would Russia attacking Ukraine have happened. All of those lives would be saved. All of those beautiful cities would be standing,” he declared.

In a nod to what many are claiming is an impending recession of significant magnitude, Trump prophesied: “Our currency is crashing and will soon no longer be the world’s standard, which will be our greatest defeat, frankly, in 200 years. There will be no defeat like that. That will take us away from being even a great power.”

Beyond the issues in New York, the populist leader said he had to contend with the likes of “a local racist Democrat district attorney in Atlanta who is doing everything in her power to indict me over an absolutely perfect phone call, even more perfect than the one I made with the president of Ukraine” – namely Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

“This fake case was brought only to interfere with the upcoming 2024 election and it should be dropped immediately,” Trump declared.

The former president also took aim at “the boxes hoax” related to supposedly classified documents he had in his possession, which saw Mar-a-Lago “raided by many gun-toting FBI agents, who took whatever they wanted, including my passports and medical records.”

“Everybody was in shock. Nobody had ever heard of such a raid before. We can’t even believe it. Who would think that that could happen today? I immediately thought of the Fourth Amendment that protects against unreasonable search and seizure, but they did it anyway because our justice system has become lawless,” he accused, adding that the authorities are apparently investigating him under the Espionage Act of 1917 – “where the penalty is death”.

MUST READ: ‘Political Persecution’ Evidence Mounts as New York D.A. Alvin Bragg’s Staff Leave Wildly Anti-Trump, Leftist Social Media & Job Trail.

He contrasted his treatment with that of Joe Biden, saying the 80-year-old Democrat had taken “massive amounts” of documents and “even removed many boxes to Chinatown.”

“As President, I have the right to declassify documents and the process is automatic. If I take them with me, it’s automatic, declassified. Biden was Vice President. He had absolutely no right to declassify as Vice President,” Trump insisted – but added that “it’s not going to matter” because the authorities “don’t follow the law” impartially.

“Incredibly, we are now a failing nation. We are a nation in decline, and now these radical left lunatics want to interfere with our elections by using law enforcement. We can’t let that happen,” he declared.

“With all of this being said and with a very dark cloud over our beloved country, I have no doubt nevertheless that we will make America great again. Thank you very much and God bless you, and God bless America.”

The U.S. Department of Energy plans to phase incandescent lightbulbs out of use in favor of compact fluorescent and light-emitting diode (LED) bulbs.

Last April, the DOE announced revised efficiency standards for lamps that would require the gradual phasing out of the traditional incandescent lightbulbs, which have been used to light homes since the late 1800s. According to the DOE timeline, conventional incandescent lightbulbs will no longer be available through retailers starting this summer. The department will gradually introduce civil penalties against manufacturers and private labelers knowingly distributing such bulbs.

The Biden administration and the DOE argued that the new regulations would increase energy efficiency and savings for U.S. consumers.

“By raising energy efficiency standards for lightbulbs, we’re putting $3 billion back in the pockets of American consumers every year and substantially reducing domestic carbon emissions,” U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm said of the new regulations last year. “The lighting industry is already embracing more energy-efficient products, and this measure will accelerate progress to deliver the best products to American consumers and build a better and brighter future.”

The Biden White House said the phase-out of incandescent lightbulbs and new energy efficiency standards for lighting will reduce carbon emissions by 222 million metric tons over 30 years or “the equivalent of what 28 million homes emit in a year.”

Biden Admin Reverses Trump

The regulations on lightbulbs were initially proposed by the outgoing administration of President Barack Obama in January 2017, in line with laws passed by Congress, such as the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA). The DOE under President Donald Trump reversed those lightbulb regulations in a December 2019 decision, ruling the standards on incandescent light bulbs “do not need to be amended because the benefits of more stringent standards do not outweigh the cost to the American people.” An analysis by the Trump-era DOE  concluded that increasing the efficiency of incandescent lamps “could cost consumers more than 300 percent compared to the price of today’s incandescent lamps.”

“Today, the Trump Administration chose to protect consumer choice by ensuring that the American people do not pay the price for unnecessary overregulation from the federal government,” then-Secretary Dan Brouillette said in December 2019. “Innovation and technology are already driving progress, increasing the efficiency and affordability of light bulbs, without federal government intervention. The American people will continue to have a choice on how they light their homes.”

The Biden administration, in turn, reversed the Trump-era decision.

Costs and Benefits of New Lightbulb Rules

While the Biden administration has said the new regulations will increase energy efficiency, consumers could see an immediate difference in out-of-pocket costs the next time they buy lightbulbs.

According to a report by Lifehacker, the average cost for an LED lightbulb ranges from $5 to $7 a piece, compared to $2 to $3 for an incandescent bulb. The study found that while the out-of-pocket cost to buy an LED bulb is greater, consumers will use less energy with that bulb. Lifehacker calculated it costs about $6.60 to operate a 60W incandescent bulb for 1,000 hours compared to $1.32 to run a 12W LED bulb for 1,000 hours.

Some research has raised concerns over the health impacts of the increased use of LED lights, which change the spectral composition of lighting. Last year, researchers at the University of Exeter found that the increased use of LEDs in Europe is associated with higher exposure to blue light emissions. Research suggests a link between increased blue light exposure and difficulty sleeping and headaches.

The Biden administration is moving forward with the phase-out of incandescent lights while also considering regulations that would impact about half of the gas cooking stoves currently on the market.

“First, the Biden Admin went after gas stoves. Then, the Biden Admin went after washing machines. Now, the Biden Admin is going after light bulbs. Is there anything they won’t try to ban?” Rep. Lance Gooden (R-Texas) tweeted on Sunday.

From NTD News

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Many of the environmental problems confronting the planet have nothing to do with CO2 emissions and, in many cases, are worsened by misguided steps being taken to curb CO2 emissions.

The environmentalist movement is a political weapon. It unites the most powerful special interests in the world behind an agenda that will further centralize power and wealth, eliminate any hope of financial independence for the vast majority of people, and transition previously free and independent nations into managed, sham democracies that have lost their sovereign agency.

The overwhelming theme of environmentalism today, designed to obscure its true agenda, is the alleged “climate crisis.”

Americans may or may not eventually muster the impertinence to successfully challenge the political power grab masquerading as environmentalism today. But either way, its centerpiece, the “climate crisis,” is responsible for devastating harm both to what was once a legitimate environmentalist movement, as well as to the environment itself.

Policies ostensibly designed to manage the planet’s climate are taking attention and resources away from genuine environmental threats. At the same time, a growing percentage of people are recognizing the fraudulent essence of the “climate crisis” agenda and, as a result, are becoming indifferent to legitimate environmental concerns.

This is a tragedy. While crooked billionaires bleat incessantly about how “the planet has a fever” and grasp additional billions for their cronies in the businesses of renewable energy and “carbon credits,” we fail to address truly important environmental problems. Compared to “overheating oceans” and “burning continents,” however, these problems lack sex appeal.

Here are just a few of the environmental disasters in progress that nobody talks about either because they’re making too much money pushing the climate change scam, or because they’re thoroughly disgusted with the climate change scam and disregard all environmentalist concerns.

1) Loss of Insect Population: By some estimates, and for reasons we don’t yet adequately understand, the total insect mass on Earth is dropping by an estimated 2.5 percent per year, faster than any other endangered species. This is an existential threat. Insects pollinate many vital food crops. They play a critical role in consuming decomposing animals and plants. They are an essential link in the food chain, the glue that connects microorganisms to smaller predators. Wind turbine blades are a mass killer of insects. Whatever else is killing insects, it won’t stop because we banned fossil fuels.

2) Aquatic Dead Zones: While criticism has been appropriately directed at unjustifiable attempts to shut down farms that use fertilizers derived from nitrogen and phosphorus, the problems posed by these compounds cannot be ignored. But the consequences of overloading waterways with nutrient runoff, either from flood irrigation, dairy and cattle manure, or insufficiently treated urban wastewater, have relatively little to do with “climate change.” Instead, the problem is that nutrient-rich waterways nourish overgrowth of algae, which produce deadly toxins that kill fish en masse and create massive aquatic dead zones. A rational approach to this challenge would be to stop connecting it to climate change, which is a stretch at best, and instead develop precision irrigation and fertilizing methods, as well as adaptive reuse of effluent from livestock and humans.

3) Overfishing: The overfishing of the oceans is another environmental catastrophe in the making that has nothing to do with climate change. Banning incandescent light bulbs will do nothing to stop illegal fishing trawlers from strip-mining the oceans with drift nets that can be over 30 miles long. Cramming humanity into small apartments will not prevent factory ships from clearcutting the floor of the continental shelf with weighted nets that scoop up every living organism. Anyone who thinks humanity hasn’t by now acquired the capacity to extract every scrap of living protein out of the oceans isn’t paying attention. Rational solutions are to enforce fishing quotas, and encourage industrial aquaculture onshore and in coastal waters.

4) Energy Security in Developing Nations: One of the many ironic results of the climate alarmist war on fossil fuel is the inability of equatorial African nations to achieve energy security, which is a prerequisite to prosperity, which, in turn, causes population stabilization. Instead of having energy security, these burgeoning, desperately poor populations are stripping the forests of wood for fuel and wildlife for food. The primary threat to wilderness and wildlife on Earth today is not “climate change.” It is that climate alarm has inspired the international community to do everything in its power to deny prosperity to the poverty-stricken populations living in proximity to the world’s great tropical forests.

5) The Biofuel Disaster: Which brings us to biofuel, an example not only of an environmental catastrophe that is ignored in favor of climate alarm, but an environmental catastrophe explicitly caused by climate alarm. Over 500,000 square miles are now given over to biofuel monocultures, most of them saturated in chemical fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides, most of them replacing what previously were tropical rainforests. In exchange for this devastation, biofuel produces less than 2 percent of global transportation fuel.

6) Massive Oceanic Garbage Patches: In the Central Pacific Ocean, a body of water larger in area than every continent on Earth put together, there is a concentration of floating garbage spread over nearly 8 million square miles. It is the largest of several massive concentrations of plastic waste, contaminating literally every living oceanic organism from plankton to whales.

The plastic-spewing superpower these days is the Philippines. With less than 2 percent of the world’s population, this island nation produces nearly one-third of the estimated 1 million tons of plastic dumped into the ocean every year. The solution is to develop more sanitary landfills, implement new and more effective methods to reprocess plastic waste, and where possible, invent substitutes to plastic. But “climate change” has nothing to do with this problem.

7) Population Crash: The population crash currently afflicting every developed nation on earth may be good news for those environmentalists who have succumbed to misanthropic nihilism, but for the rest of us, it’s possibly the biggest catastrophe of all.

The crash is usually attributed to cultural and economic causes, but environmental factors may play a direct and indirect role. Humans today ingest increasing levels of chemical endocrine disruptors unknown a century ago, present in everything from the air, water, and food, to fabrics and cosmetics, harming health and fertility. They are not only a direct physical cause of declining birth rates through lowered fertility, they may also cause behavioral changes that indirectly lower birth rates. Endocrine disruptors should be removed from the environment and avoided in the meantime. But carbon dioxide, the climate alarmist boogeyman, has nothing to do with endocrine disruption.

These are just some of the environmental problems confronting humanity and the planet that have nothing to do with CO2 emissions and, in many cases, are worsened by misguided steps being taken to curb CO2 emissions. By now, the fraudulent reality of “renewables” that aren’t renewable is well documented, even if that fact receives scant attention in the mainstream press. But this additional fact—that the climate alarmist focus on achieving “net zero” is discrediting environmentalism at large, and taking attention away from other serious environmental threats—is perhaps the saddest chapter in the story of a movement that has lost its way.

SOURCE: American Greatness

‘We cannot cede these important resources and capabilities to another country,’ Jamie Dimon says in shareholder letter

China’s dominance of the green energy supply chain means the Biden administration’s push to transition to electric vehicles could benefit Beijing and “imperil” U.S. national security, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon said Monday.

In his annual letter to shareholders, Dimon stressed the need to counter China through an “industrial policy” that eases China’s grip on the rare earth minerals required to build electric vehicles and other forms of green energy. Without such a policy, Dimon warned, China “could eventually imperil national security” by “using subsidies and its economic muscle to dominate batteries, rare earths, semiconductors, or [electric vehicles].” “We cannot cede these important resources and capabilities to another country,” he wrote.

Dimon’s warning comes just days after President Joe Biden’s interior secretary, former Democratic congresswoman Deb Haaland, agreed that a transition to electric vehicles increases America’s reliance on China. The communist nation, Pennsylvania Republican congressman Guy Reschenthaler noted during a March 28 House Appropriations Committee hearing, controls the majority of the world’s “rare earth elements” used to produce electric vehicle batteries. “By deductive reasoning, that would mean that electric vehicles and renewables deepen our reliance on China, correct?” Reschenthaler asked. “Yes,” responded Haaland, who testified at the hearing.

Reschenthaler used Haaland’s acknowledgment to argue that the United States should be moving to greenlight domestic mining projects that combat China by producing electric vehicle minerals. In many cases, however, the Biden administration has moved to kill those projects. In January, for example, Haaland issued a 20-year mining ban in a Minnesota area that holds 95 percent of the nation’s nickel reserves and 88 percent of its cobalt, two minerals that are crucial parts of the green energy supply chain.

The Biden administration’s hostility toward domestic mining projects is at odds with Biden’s campaign rhetoric. The Democrat in October 2020 assured American miners he would support domestic mines, a promise that brought support from the National Mining Association. But years later, Biden has moved to fund foreign mines instead. In November, the White House announced a $30 million investment in a Brazilian nickel and cobalt mine. Months later, Biden’s State Department said it was considering using taxpayer funds to support “around a dozen” mining projects in foreign countries. That announcement angered Republicans, with Minnesota congressman Pete Stauber hammering Biden for “choosing foreign workers over American workers.”

“It’s abundantly clear: Joe Biden wants to mine anywhere but in America, with any worker other than the American worker,” Stauber said in December.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

A Swiss billionaire is evading bans on foreign donations to political candidates and committees by giving tens of millions of dollars to a web of nonprofits to bankroll Joe Biden’s agenda. 

Hansjörg Wyss, who made billions in the medical device industry, is positioning himself as a megadonor to Democrat-aligned groups despite being forbidden from making political donations as a foreign national. Wyss gave $72 million in 2021 to the Berger Action Fund, which directs money to nonprofits that don’t have to disclose their donors or expenditures. By donating to the fund, Wyss can bypass bans on foreign political financial involvement. 

Wyss created the fund in 2007, and it has donated $339 million to left-leaning groups since 2016, according to the Associated Press. Wyss’s representatives claim the tens of millions go to “issue advocacy,” addressing the environment, for example, and not partisan interests. 

Yet groups that received Wyss’s money have spent heavily backing Biden and Democrats, the AP reported: 

Of the $72.7 million donated in 2021 by Wyss’ Berger Action Fund, $62.7 million went to two groups that were focused on building public support for Biden’s agenda, according to tax documents and a statement from the group.

Since switching his focus to nonprofits, two closely related organizations that play a role in Democratic politics have been among the biggest recipients of Wyss’ money. 

The Sixteen Thirty Fund and the New Venture Fund — two organizations that share the same founder, address and management firm — collectively received $245 million donated by Wyss’ groups since 2016, tax records show… 

Sixteen Thirty Fund gives directly to political committees, but it also donates to other nonprofit groups that give mcaioney to political committees or pay for TV ads that back specific candidates or causes, tax filings and campaign finance disclosures show.

Caitlin Sutherland, executive director of Americans for Public Trust, said Wyss’s giving must come under “immediate scrutiny.”

 “Tens of millions have been spent promoting President Biden’s radical agenda and propping up liberal candidates,” Sutherland said. “And now we know who financed the bulk of it: foreign national Hansjörg Wyss. Year after year, Mr. Wyss, who is prohibited from giving to candidates directly, routes his money through the Arabella Advisors network to influence American politics and policy.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

A new report indicates that the Social Security program is expected to run out of money by 2033 due to slower-than-predicted economic growth.

A Social Security and Medicare Trustees report released March 31 found the entitlement program could face insolvency a year earlier than previously reported, in part, due to a revision of gross domestic product and labor productivity over the coming years. Those benefits, which go to retired workers by in large, impact about 50 million people per month, with recipients getting an average payment of about $1,800, according to the Social Security Administration.

It added that if no significant changes are made before 2034 to shore up its funds, around 66 million Americans could see a benefit reduction between 23 percent and 25 percent.

“The combined trust funds will be insolvent by 2034, when today’s 56-year-olds reach the full retirement age and today’s youngest retirees turn 73,” the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) said in an analysis. “Upon insolvency, all beneficiaries will face a 20 percent across-the-board benefit cut.”

The group added that the “Social Security program is only 11 years from insolvency, with insolvency of the old-age program only a decade away” and warned that “action must be taken soon to prevent an across-the-board benefit cut for many current and future beneficiaries.”

And if no action is taken, “all retirees regardless of age, income, or need will face a 20 percent across-the-board benefit cut, which will grow to 26 percent by the end of the 75-year projection window” upon insolvency of the program, the group added.

For years, insolvency has been hovering over Social Security. But some experts have said that recent reports should be no cause for alarm.

“First of all, a year’s worth of fluctuation in the reserve depletion date is not a cause for alarm,” wrote Kathleen Romig, the director of Social Security and disability policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, on Twitter. She noted that trustees have forecast an insolvency date between 2033 and 2035 for years.

The U.S. Treasury Department and its secretary, Janet Yellen, were among those sounding the alarm about depleted funds, releasing a statement that the trust fund’s “reserves will fall below 20 percent of annual cost by the beginning of calendar year 2033 and will become depleted in 2033 in the absence of legislation to address this imbalance between scheduled benefits and revenue.”

“Social Security will continue to play a critical role in the lives of 67 million beneficiaries and 180 million workers and their families during 2023. With informed discussion, creative thinking, and timely legislative action, Social Security can continue to protect future generations,” Social Security Administration acting commissioner Kilolo Kijazaki added in a statement.

What Happens When 2033 Approaches?

The closer it gets to 2033, the less likely there will be benefit cuts, according to analysts. Benefit reductions typically are phased in slowly for future beneficiaries, so the impact of any cuts would not be adequate to achieve solvency.

“We’ve delayed so long that there are no plausible benefit reductions that can keep the trust fund from running dry in the 2030s,” said Andrew Biggs, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.

At the point of a 2033 crisis, an emergency injection of new revenue is most likely, said Paul Van de Water, senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. “Congress could allow the program to continue running deficits by changing the law to credit Social Security with additional income—in effect, it would be financing the program through borrowing.”

That solution would avert the sharp benefit cuts, but it would further fuel public worries about Social Security. A 2020 AARP poll found that 57 percent of respondents are not confident about the future of Social Security, citing a lack of trust in government to keep its promises and that “money is running out.”

Reuters contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Oil prices surge after Saudi-led cartel announces production cut

Oil prices surged Monday after OPEC announced it would cut production, a move that comes just months after Joe Biden abandoned a pledge to punish the Saudi-led cartel for past production cuts.

Crude prices jumped as much as 8 percent in early trading Monday morning, marking their largest single-day jump in more than a year, according to Bloomberg. Just hours before the price spike, OPEC—the Saudi-led cartel that controls roughly half of the world’s oil production—said it would cut output by more than one million barrels per day.

This is not the first time OPEC has announced such a production cut in the last six months alone. The organization in October announced a similar cut of two million barrels per day, prompting Biden to vow “consequences” for Saudi Arabia. But the Democrat never made good on his threat—instead, Biden’s administration quickly “ended its talk of retaliation,” the Washington Post reported in January, going as far as to praise the Saudis for working to advance “U.S. interests.”

Biden’s National Security Council in a Sunday statement criticized OPEC’s decision as unadvisable but did not tease any action to combat the oil production cut. Daniel Turner, the founder and executive director of energy group Power the Future, said that response is not enough.

“Only a few short years ago foreign governments were unable to use energy as a weapon against the United States. Then Joe Biden came along and made OPEC great again,” Turner said. “President Biden finally needs to put politics aside and unleash the power of American energy. Otherwise, we are headed back to $4 dollar a gallon gasoline as the norm, among many other unpleasant factors.”

The White House did not return a request for comment. OPEC’s cuts—which will take effect in May—are expected to push U.S. gasoline prices up by nearly 30 cents per gallon this summer, a season that already comes with peak gas prices due to increased driving demand. As a result, gas could exceed $4 per gallon nationwide in a few short months, an average price not seen since August.

Biden on the 2020 campaign trail railed against U.S. oil and gas production, promising to “end fossil fuel.” “No ability for the oil industry to continue to drill, period, ends, number one,” the Democrat said during a March 2020 debate. Biden went on to cancel the Keystone XL pipeline and implement a moratorium on new gas leases within days of taking office, moves that preceded a record-high spike in gas prices. In June 2022, the average price for a gallon of gas in the United States hit $5 for the first time ever.

Biden responded to that spike by urging the oil industry to “increase domestic production and keep gas prices down.” Biden administration officials, however, have pressured oil companies to do the opposite, citing the need to fight climate change. Biden climate czar John Kerry in March criticized plans from Chevron and BP to increase oil and gas investments, calling on those companies to “take stock … of where the science is today” and recognize that increased oil production is at odds with global climate initiatives.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

U.S. manufacturing reached its lowest point since the start of the pandemic, according to a report released just as President Joe Biden embarked on a tour of U.S. factories to tout his promise to boost the industry.

On Monday, the Institute for Supply Management’s manufacturing index reached its lowest point, 46.3, since May 2020, Reuters reported. Excluding the pandemic recession, the index, known as PMI, was at its lowest point since 2009.

PMI is a tool for identifying economic trends in the manufacturing and service sectors based on business conditions at hundreds of major companies. A PMI below 50 indicates decline.

Twenty-five percent of manufacturing gross domestic product had a PMI indicating decline in March, compared with 10 percent in February, according to ISM official Timothy Fiore.

On Monday, Biden began his “Investing in America” tour of factories nationwide to promote his administration’s vision for job creation and a clean energy economy.

The Biden administration has made its taxpayer-funded push to build a “clean energy economy” a central part of its plan to boost U.S. manufacturing. But critics have questioned the billions of dollars invested in green energy companies, which have enriched left-wing billionaire megadonors to the Democratic Party along with Chinese manufacturers that source materials for the firms.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Bradley Beychok and James Carville run a consulting firm that works to ‘reduce negative press’ for corporate clients

American Bridge 21st Century is the progressive movement’s largest super PAC, and it has a staff of Democratic superstars to prove it.

Chief among them are Bradley Beychok, the group’s cofounder, and James Carville, the “Ragin’ Cajun” Clinton operative and talking head who serves as an adviser. The pair has won praise for advancing progressive causes. They also run ABI Associates, a consulting firm that’s raking in cash from clients that are likely to raise eyebrows among their Democratic colleagues.

Clients like Greenfield Louisiana LLC, which stands accused of “environmental racism” for a proposed building project that would destroy historical slave sites in Louisiana. And the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America, a trade group whose members include the companies behind the Keystone XL Pipeline, a perennial target for progressive attacks.

Beychok launched ABI Associates in 2021 with former Joe Biden aide Ankit Desai. Carville serves as an adviser to the group, as does President Biden’s top pollster, John Anzalone. The group works to “reduce negative press” for clients, including those against whom the principals spend their days drumming up negative press.

It’s a lucrative gig for the American Bridge cohort, but one that could tarnish the super PAC’s image as the premier force in “Democratic and progressive politics.” Formed in 2011, American Bridge attacks Republicans over perceptions of racism or anti-environment policy positions through ads and opposition research.

Greenfield Louisiana has faced similar allegations from civil rights and conservation groups over a 238-acre grain terminal it wants to build on the banks of the Mississippi River, in the majority-black township of Wallace, La. According to lobbying records, Greenfield Louisiana LLC. recently hired ABI Associates to lobby on behalf of the terminal after critics objected to its proposed location and impact construction would have on residents.

The National Urban League, led by former New Orleans mayor Marc Morial (D.), in November called on the Environmental Protection Agency to open a civil rights probe of the terminal, asserting that the potential damage to the environment in the historic African-American community “violates the civil rights and environmental laws of the nation.” An organization called the Descendants Project has sued to stop the project, saying that it “threatens the health and safety” of the majority black community.

The National Trust for Historic Preservation says it opposes the grain terminal because of its proximity to “a former burial plot for enslaved people.” The Army Corps of Engineers reprimanded Greenfield Louisiana last month for falsely claiming that its grain terminal will have “no adverse effects” on black heritage sites in the area.

The American Bridge principals’ advocacy for Greenfield may not sit well with some of American Bridge’s biggest donors. The billionaire philanthropist George Soros, who has given $4.5 million to American Bridge through his Democracy PAC, funds numerous civil rights groups and has decried “environmental racism.”

It is unclear yet what services ABI Associates has provided Greenfield Louisiana, or who at the firm will work on the account. Desai, who was a legislative aide to Biden in the 2000s, is listed as ABI’s chief lobbyist for Greenfield.

In addition to traditional lobbying, ABI Associates says it helps its clients by identifying “impactful narratives” to tell a “compelling story to policymakers, organizations, and media.” The company relies on Anzalone, the Biden pollster, to “find angles that sway thought-leaders to join you and lend their support,” its website says.

ABI Associates’ deep political connections in Louisiana and Washington, D.C., are likely to help its new client.

Carville, a Louisiana native, has maintained high-level Democratic ties since his days working for Bill Clinton. Beychok was a campaign aide to former Rep. Charlie Melançon (D., La.) and former campaign director for the Louisiana Democratic Party. Desai was a Senate legislative aide to Biden in the 2000s and has advised several energy companies.

Beychok has forged ties to the Democratic Party’s top donors at American Bridge and worked closely in the 2020 cycle with Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm, who once served as chairwoman of the American Bridge 21st Century Foundation. Granholm is also a designated observer of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, which oversees the federal designation of historical sites.

Beychok, Desai, and Anzalone all maintain access to the White House. In September, Beychok and Desai met with Ryan Berni, a deputy to Mitch Landrieu, the former New Orleans mayor who serves as Biden’s infrastructure czar, according to White House visitor logs. Anzalone visited the White House at least 10 times last year, the logs show.

ABI Associates recently signed on with another client in the crosshairs of the progressive movement, according to lobbying records. The Interstate Natural Gas Association of America hired ABI amid an industry-wide push to persuade liberal voters to embrace natural gas as a climate-friendly fuel. According to the Washington Post, a group of natural gas companies has turned to Anzalone, the Biden pollster, to provide polling data about natural gas to the White House.

The American Bridge associates’ work for the natural gas group conflicts with their criticism of Republicans who support the natural gas industry. The group has criticized Republicans who support the Keystone XL pipeline, claiming carbon emissions from the project would contribute to climate change and would contaminate fresh water in eight states. TC Energy, the company behind the Keystone pipeline, is a member of the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America.

Desai operates another lobbying firm, AND Partners. Desai registered last week as a lobbyist for TikTok as the company fights against legislation to ban its popular social media app over ties to China. It is unclear if Beychok and ABI Associates are helping TikTok as well, but the American Bridge cofounder did tout the company earlier this month.

“Right now TikTok can be a valuable weapon, especially since Republicans have run away from it for political reasons,” Beychok told the Wall Street Journal. “You wouldn’t want a tool like that to be taken off the shelf.”

ABI Associates and American Bridge did not respond to requests for comment.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Saudi Arabia and other members of the oil-producing group OPEC+ announced on April 2 that they will be cutting their output by about 1.15 million barrels per day (bpd), a move expected to cause an immediate rise in prices.

According to its state news agency, Saudi Arabia will voluntarily cut its oil production by 500,000 bpd from May to the end of 2023. The Middle Eastern kingdom’s energy official described the decision as a “precautionary measure” aimed at “supporting the stability of the oil market.”

Russia, which has already been reducing oil production by 500,000 bpd since March in response to Western countries’ price caps designed to curtail the Kremlin’s ability to finance its military campaign in Ukraine, also confirmed that it will be extending the original three-month cut by another six months.

“As responsible and preemptive actions, Russia will extend its voluntary oil production reduction by 500,000 barrels a day until the end of 2023 from the average production level in February established in conformity with independent sources,” Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said, per state-owned TASS.

Other OPEC+ members also followed suit. Iraq announced a cut of 211,000 bpd, followed by the United Arab Emirates (144,000 bpd), Kuwait (128,000 bpd), Kazakhstan (78,000 bpd), Algeria (48,000 bpd), and Oman (40,000 bpd).

The collaborative production cuts come after oil prices in March fell toward a 15-month low at $70 a barrel, largely driven by worries that the ongoing global banking crisis would—as did the 2008–2009 financial crisis—spur a severe drop of global oil demand.

West Texas Intermediate, a U.S. benchmark for crude oil, in mid-March fell below $70 a barrel in the wake of the collapses of California-based Silicon Valley Bank and New York’s Signature Bank. International benchmark Brent Crude also dropped to its lowest point since December 2021, $71.46 per barrel.

Both benchmarks rose this week as concerns of a potential global banking meltdown eased.

OPEC’s decision is also built on what was agreed among its members and allies last October at a meeting in Vienna, including output cuts by 2 million bpd from November until the end of the year.

The Biden administration, which has been advocating for more oil to the global market since Russia began a full-scale military offensive against Ukraine, was upset by the oil-producing cartel’s plan.

“The President is disappointed by the shortsighted decision by OPEC+ to cut production quotas while the global economy is dealing with the continued negative impact of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine,” the White House stated. “At a time when maintaining a global supply of energy is of paramount importance, this decision will have the most negative impact on lower- and middle-income countries that are already reeling from elevated energy prices.”

Global oil demand in 2023 is about 100.9 million bpd, according to the latest short-term energy outlook by U.S. Energy Information Administration. With the April 2 announcement, the total volume of cuts by OPEC+ accounts for more than 3 percent of global demand.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The Biden administration on Thursday allowed California to force heavy duty truck operators to switch to electric vehicles, a policy critics say will further burden an already strained grid and raise food and energy prices.

The Environmental Protection Agency approved California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D.) request to phase in a ban on diesel trucks and semi-tractors, which will require all heavy-duty vehicles be electric by 2045. Experts say the ban, part of the Golden State’s attempt to shift appliances to the electric grid, will make life more expensive for Californians.

“It’s a fantasy type of policy that is not grounded on where the current technology is,” Wayne Winegarden, a senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute, told the Washington Free Beacon. “It’s irresponsible because it will hurt people economically, raise the cost of shipping goods in the state and further destabilize the electric grid.”

The vehicle ban comes as residents grapple with some of the highest electricity rates in the nation. Prices rose nearly 15 percent last year alone and have increased some 80 percent since 2008, when the state began its mandated pivot toward renewable energy. Along with higher prices, the intensifying reliance on electricity has strained the grid and threatened blackouts.

Newsom praised the Biden administration’s approval as a “big deal for climate action.”

“We’re leading the charge to get dirty trucks and buses—the most polluting vehicles—off our streets, and other states and countries are lining up to follow our lead around the world,” the governor said in a statement, noting that nearly 20 percent of new car sales were electric thanks to the “billions” in subsidies California is offering residents to buy them.

As the Newsom administration touts its accelerated overhaul of state energy systems, Californians are bracing for their high daily costs to keep rising. Earlier this month, San Diego Gas & Electric sought a rate increase of $3.6 billion over four years. PG&E, the state’s largest utility operator, has requested a 16 percent increase.

Meanwhile, greenhouse gas emissions from state power plants have increased, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. The Energy Department has warned that officials shouldn’t measure electric vehicles’ carbon footprint in tailpipe emissions alone but also in the cost of mining and manufacturing batteries.

According to Winegarden, California’s rapid transition to renewable energy is unsustainable. He pointed to European countries that quickly ditched fossil fuels, only to turn back to coal and natural gas when faced with energy shortages. Some European countries have even begun burning what’s left of their ancient forests for fuel.

California Democrats want to ban all non-electric truck sales by 2040.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, a Democrat, has signed into law a measure that requires the state’s public pension funds to make investment decisions on financial risks and returns, rather than environmental, social, and governance (ESG) factors.

Beshear signed House Bill 236 into law on March 24, mandating the state’s fiduciaries to solely consider factors that have a “direct and material connection to the financial risk or financial return of an investment,” according to the measure’s language.

It bans actions on “nonpecuniary interests,” including “environmental, social, political, or ideological interest” without a connection to the financial performance of an asset.

State Treasurer Allison Ball, a Republican, touted the new law.

“Kentucky now has the strongest anti-ESG legislation in the nation,” Just the News reported on March 28.

“For many years, pension investments were about maximizing returns. Recently, however, there has been a destructive shift in investment methodology to use the savings of Americans as financial muscle to push ideological causes through the ESG movement.

“Kentucky has said no to this shift by passing HB 236, which clarifies that pension fiduciaries must base investment decisions solely on financial metrics, not politics.”

The state’s House passed the legislation 77–17 on March 2, and the state’s Senate approved it on March 13 on a 32–5 vote. Republicans hold supermajorities in both chambers of the state legislature.

Heritage Action for America, a grassroots conservative advocacy group, applauded the Kentucky General Assembly and Ball in a statement on March 24 for “their efforts to protect citizens from the harms of the radical ESG movement.”

“With the ESG movement infiltrating businesses and threatening Americans’ finances, it’s now more important than ever to ensure that asset managers are following through with their fiduciary responsibilities,” said Jessica Anderson, the group’s executive director. “As the first bill of its kind to be enacted, HB 236 will require asset managers to prioritize the investment returns and financial interests of Kentuckians.

“This is a historic victory for Kentucky and will be an example for other states to follow as they look to protect their state industries, investments, and workers.

“We look forward to even more states across the country adopting this approach and taking additional steps to rid our states of ‘woke’ finance.”

Ball was in Washington on March 9 to take part in a bill-signing ceremony held by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who signed a resolution introduced by Rep. Andy Barr (R-Ky.) that would block a Labor Department rule that allows pension fund managers to consider ESG factors in investment decisions.

“I’m here to support what is happening as a Kentuckian and as the state treasurer of Kentucky,” Ball said at the ceremony. “I have been fighting to make sure our pension systems are strong and people can retire, so I’ve been pushing back against the ESG movement.

“We don’t need to push ideological agendas. We don’t need to push anything that is progressive. We need to focus on getting good returns so people can retire at the end of their work life.”

However, Joe Biden vetoed the resolution on March 20, saying the measure would “put at risk the retirement savings of individuals across the country.” The House failed to override Biden’s veto after a 219–200 vote on March 23, falling short of the two-thirds majority threshold needed.

After Biden’s veto, Ball took to Twitter to express her disappointment.

“He believes political agendas are more important than returns. In reality, ESG funds have underperformed the broader market over the past 5 years. Retirements are about returns, not politics,” she wrote.

Ball, who has been the state treasurer since 2016, is currently running to be Kentucky’s next state auditor. Beshear is running for reelection as governor of Kentucky.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

“Legal plunder” is just one way state power is used to benefit the few at the expense of the many. Another method the political class uses to extract compliance, acceptance and so on from the private sector is the old-fashioned shakedown.

Consider the case of the panic over egg prices just a few months ago. Egg prices went up – a lot – contributing to inflation. The political class and its hangers-on latched onto egg prices as a sure sign of corporate greed in action.

But reality is a complex and messy thing that often escapes the preferred narratives and shibboleths of right and left. As the Cato Institute’s Scott Lincicome writes, there was a lot going on behind those prices:

…good ol’ supply and demand. Most obviously, the United States in 2022 experienced the worst outbreak of avian influenza ever, with the virus forcing U.S. egg producers to cull around 45 million egg‐​laying birds last year…

Ah yes, the bird flu. It was a particularly bad year for it. And even worse if you happened to be an egg-producing chicken:

Most eggs in the United States are hatched in jam-packed industrial egg farms, where transmission is next to impossible to stop, so the go-to move when the flu is detected is to “depopulate,” the preferred industry term for killing all of the birds. Without such a brutal tactic, Bryan Richards, the emerging-disease coordinator at the U.S. Geological Survey, told me, the current wave would be much worse.

But this strategy also means fewer eggs, at least until new chicks grow into hens. That takes about six months, so there just haven’t been enough hens lately—especially for all the holiday baking people wanted to do, Thompson said. By the end of 2022, the U.S. egg inventory was 29 percent lower than it had been at the beginning of the year. The chicken supply, in contrast, is robust, because avian flu tends to affect older birds, like egg layers, Thompson said; at six to eight weeks old, the birds we eat, known as broilers, are not as susceptible. Also, she added, wild-bird migration pathways are not as concentrated in the Southeast, where most broiler production happens.

The avian flu took the lives of “more than 43 million hens,” which is going to pinch egg supply no matter what.

Left out of the left’s charges of greed and profiteering is an inconvenient bit Reason’s Joe Lancaster noted about egg prices in that long-ago time of 2020, right as the pandemic was getting underway:

…when egg prices plummeted from $2 to $1.32 in mid-2020, [former Labor Secretary Robert] Reich did not argue that this was a result of poultry firms’ generosity and not a side effect of a giant decrease in demand at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Of course not. It’s easier to shout “greed” – and threaten producers – than it is to acknowledge supply and demand’s role in setting prices. Even those of the humble egg.

SOURCE: American Liberty News

The U.S. is in “terrible shape” financially and is “flying blind in mountains of debt” that will cause future generations to “reap the whirlwind of an irreparable economic disaster” unless immediate action is taken, according to some witnesses and members of the House Budget Committee.

Witnesses testifying at the March 29 hearing on the country’s financial outlook uniformly recommended cutting the size of the federal budget deficit and reducing the national debt, which has reached $31.4 trillion, the largest dollar amount in history and the largest percentage of the nation’s gross domestic product since World War II.

Even some Democrats, who have uniformly defended President Joe Biden’s recent spending initiatives and proposed 2024 budget, acknowledged that the growing national debt poses a serious financial problem though they urged moderation in making spending cuts.

“Deficits and debt are projected, especially in the next decade, to reach levels that, simply, none of us would be comfortable with,” said Ranking Member Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.).

“So we’re seeing a similar picture. And we do have very different ideas as to where the solutions lie.”

Slowing Spending

Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) blamed the current inflation on the “avalanche of new spending” under the Biden administration that added $6 trillion to the national debt.

Agreeing that spending should not continue at the same rate, Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics, disagreed on the effect of the large federal spending bills passed over the last three years.

“The pandemic rescue packages, beginning with the Cares Act that was passed three years ago March of 2020 through the American Rescue Plan passed in March of 2021, have gone a long long way to restoring the economy to full employment,” Zandi said.

Noting that the unemployment rate is now at 3.6 percent, which is considered full employment, Zandi said, “That would not have happened without the very aggressive muscular response.”

Nevertheless, the level of U.S. debt will create serious problems in the future, especially by driving up interest rates, and must be addressed, according to Zandi.

“I do think it does require both tax increases and government spending restraint to be able to do that going forward,” he said.

Others more urgently advocated for deep cuts in federal spending.

Scott Hodge, president emeritus at the Tax Foundation, called for the elimination or privatization of a number of federal programs.

“Many of these budget problems are being driven by entitlement programs that are already bankrupt on a cash basis and must rely on a massive infusion of general revenues to keep them afloat,” Hodge said.

“The federal budget is still running failing business enterprises such as the Tennessee Valley Authority, Amtrak, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, and the U.S. Postal Service.

“These and many more federal assets should be sold off and the proceeds used to pay down the national debt.”

Agreeing in principle that the debt should be reduced, Boyle questioned the plan endorsed by a number of Republicans including Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) to balance the federal budget in 10 years without raising taxes or cutting Medicare or defense spending.

That approach would not be successful, according to Zandi. “It would require a complete cut of all discretionary, non-defense spending,” he said.

“It would be the fodder for a recession and … the fallout in terms of jobs and unemployment would be quite significant. So I don’t think that proposal is at all feasible or realistic.”

Planned Future

Expert witnesses were aligned in their opinion that the United States needs to be guided by a clear fiscal policy rather than moving from one spending program to another.

“The plain and simple and hard truth is the United States is [a] declining great power, and China is rising,” said David Walker, former comptroller general of the United States.

“Today, America is flying blind in mountains of debt, and without about navigation system,” Walker said, urging the committee to work toward a long-term financial strategy rather than simply approving an annual budget.

John Taylor, professor of economics at Stanford University and former undersecretary of the Treasury echoed the idea.

“Going forward, I think we need a renewed set of principles. Based on experience as well as economic theory, I recommend this alternative, a stimulus mantra: permanent, pervasive, and predictable,” Taylor said, meaning the government should deal with the nation’s finances in a comprehensive and stable manner.

“With uncommon courage and common-sense economic policies, we can stave off a debt crisis. We can strengthen America’s balance sheet and we can save the Union,” Arrington said.

“We have different views on how to do that. And I hope that we can at least agree that this current path is completely unsustainable.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Disgraced crypto kingpin Sam Bankman-Fried bribed Chinese officials to unfreeze his cryptocurrency firm’s accounts in China, according to an indictment released Tuesday.

Bankman-Fried paid $40 million in cryptocurrency to the officials in November 2021, federal prosecutors in Manhattan say. Chinese authorities had shuttered the accounts earlier that year as part of an investigation into a trading partner of Alameda Research, one of Bankman-Fried’s firms. The bribe payment worked, according to prosecutors, who said the Alameda trading accounts were reinstated.

Prosecutors slapped 12 additional charges on Bankman-Fried on Tuesday, including conspiracy to violate anti-bribery statutes for the payment to China. He was indicted in December on eight counts of money laundering, fraud, and illegal campaign donations. Prosecutors added four additional charges last month, after one of Bankman-Fried’s former colleagues struck a plea deal with prosecutors.

Bankman-Fried had a history of using his companies as piggy banks to influence regulators. Bankman-Fried paid tens of millions of dollars to political candidates, largely Democrats, in order to “improve his personal standing in Washington, D.C.” and “curry favor” with candidates who could help pass legislation to help his companies. He used other executives at his companies to donate millions of dollars more to Republican candidates in order to build bipartisan support in Washington.

Bankman-Fried’s donations opened doors for him in Washington. He visited the White House four times last year, meeting with top aides to Joe Biden in order to discuss regulation of the crypto industry, the Washington Free Beacon reported. Bankman-Fried gave $5 million to a pro-Biden political action committee in 2020, and said in June 2022 that he might give another $1 billion to support Democrats in the midterms.

Bankman-Fried donated heavily to Senate and House members who oversee the crypto industry. He gave more than $300,000 in donations to members of the House Financial Services Committee, which held hearings in 2021 and 2022 on the crypto industry, the Free Beacon reported. Bankman-Fried was photographed last year with Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.), the top Democrat on the committee.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

‘Yes, OK,’ Deb Haaland concedes when pressed on Chinese control of electric vehicle minerals

Yeah. And somehow New Mexico is getting all of the drilling rights when states like Alaska and Texas have the majority of the oil. What a bunch of anti-American scumbags! [US Patriot]

Joe Biden’s interior secretary acknowledged that a transition to electric vehicles increases America’s reliance on China, an admission that comes as the administration kills domestic mines that would produce the materials required to make those vehicles.

During a Tuesday House Appropriations Committee hearing, Pennsylvania Republican congressman Guy Reschenthaler grilled Interior Secretary Deb Haaland on China’s dominance of the green energy supply chain. The communist nation, Reschenthaler noted, controls the majority of the world’s “rare earth elements,” which are needed to produce electric vehicle batteries and other crucial components. “By deductive reasoning, that would mean that electric vehicles and renewables deepen our reliance on China, correct?” the Republican asked. “Yes, OK,” Haaland responded.

As a Biden cabinet official, Haaland has moved to curb U.S. mining projects that would ease China’s grip on electric vehicle minerals. In January, for example, Haaland issued a 20-year mining ban in a Minnesota area that holds 95 percent of the nation’s nickel reserves and 88 percent of its cobalt, both of which are key parts of the green energy supply chain. That decision, Republicans said, kneecapped America’s ability to compete with China on strategic minerals, something Biden has long promised to achieve.

“If Democrats were serious about developing renewable energy sources and breaking China’s stranglehold on the global market, they would be flinging open the doors to responsible mineral development here in the U.S.,” Arkansas Republican congressman Bruce Westerman, who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee, said after the administration announced the ban. “While Democrats play political ping-pong with American industries, China and Russia are laughing straight to the bank.”

Asked if Haaland stands by her agreement that electric vehicles increase America’s dependence on China, Interior Department communications director Melissa Schwartz denied that Haaland did so in the first place. “That is not what she said,” Schwartz told the Washington Free Beacon. “She acknowledged what members were saying to her as a polite gesture.”

Biden in December 2020 announced his intention to tap Haaland to run the Interior Department, calling her a “barrier-breaking public servant” who will be “ready on day one to protect our environment and fight for a clean energy future.” Prior to her stint in the Biden administration, Haaland served as a Democratic congresswoman from New Mexico, a job that saw her repeatedly call to ban oil fracking and drilling on public lands. In a November 2018 tweet, meanwhile, Haaland expressed her “100 percent support” for the Green New Deal due to her status “as a Native American woman who’s [sic] ancestral homeland is under attack from the fossil fuel industry.” Years later, new oil leasing under Biden and Haaland has slowed to its lowest level since World War II.

Update 5:06 p.m.: This piece has been updated with additional comment from the Interior Department.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

 Joe Biden is preparing a series of new executive orders to address climate change, according to recent comments by his special envoy on climate-related issues, John Kerry.

Kerry discussed the Biden administration’s plans for reducing U.S. emissions during an interview with Yahoo News Senior Climate Editor Ben Adler on Friday.

Adler noted that the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) championed by the Biden administration is projected to bring down U.S. emissions by about 40 percent, despite a goal set by the administration to bring about a 50 percent reduction in U.S. emissions by the end of the decade.

“We’re doing a lot more than just the IRA,” Kerry responded. “The IRA is a package that in and of itself can get the 40 percent. But in addition to that, the president is issuing executive orders. There’ll be changes on automobile, on light truck, heavy truck, heavy duty—a number of initiatives that are being taken by states, subnational, cities. They really kept us in the game, frankly, during the Trump administration when he pulled out of the [Paris Climate Agreement].”

Kerry didn’t provide many details on what new executive orders could be coming or how they might specifically impact businesses and industries.

“We have a lot of other options, tools, if you will, in the toolkit besides the IRA,” Kerry said. “The IRA is a huge leap forward, and it’s already having a major impact.”

What Happens If Republicans Win in 2024

Adler asked Kerry how the Biden administration’s goals on emission reductions might be impacted if Donald Trump or another Republican candidate wins control of the White House in 2024 and repeals certain emission reduction mandates and initiatives.

“Well, I think what’s important for everybody to note is that achieving our goal is not exclusively dependent on what the federal government says or does,” Kerry said. “It’s critical, but not wholly dependent.”

Republicans and conservatives have broadly defended fossil fuels as a key component of the current U.S. economy, while arguing that the transition to renewable energies would be less affordable or reliable. During his presidency, Trump withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement, calling the international emissions reduction framework “a total disaster” for the U.S. economy.

Kerry then said that 75 percent of the new electrical output that came about in the United States during President Donald Trump’s term came from one renewable energy resource or another. He noted other business entities have been independently pursuing their own emission reduction goals.

Kerry Defends Biden Permitting New Oil Drilling

While Kerry alluded to a new Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and stressed that the United States should do more to counteract climate change, he also defended a recent decision by Biden to approve a new oil drilling project in Alaska.

“You mentioned President Biden’s record, including land use management. But he’s also done some things that have increased fossil fuel production, the recent approval of the Willow project in Alaska,” Adler said.

“For the moment,” Kerry responded. “Remember, we have seven years before the 2030 target. And the president is determined that we will stay on that target. But in the immediate moment, while we transition, you don’t want to crash your whole economy.”

Kerry also defended the U.S. export of liquified natural gas to Europe, saying the move is “critical to the economy of Europe” while the United States and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies support Ukraine in its war with Russia.

Kerry also dismissed claims that he has flown in private jets, which can produce tons of carbon emissions every flight. Kerry said he hasn’t traveled on private jets over the course of his job as the presidential climate envoy, and wealthy individuals who do fly private jets while traveling to promote policies reducing global emissions can afford to offset their personal emissions “and they are working harder than most people I know to be able to try to effect this transition.”

Kerry Touts China’s Renewable Energy Projects, Says Coal Still a Problem

Kerry credited China with becoming the “largest deployer of solar panels.”

“In China, they have deployed far more renewable energy than we have or than Europe has,” Kerry said.

Republican lawmakers recently criticized U.S. Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm for saying “we can all learn from what China is doing” to lessen its carbon footprint and describing China’s clean energy initiatives as “encouraging.”

The lawmakers said China continues “to be one of the world’s worst polluters” and that Granholm’s comments “raise serious questions” about her judgment.

Kerry did express some concerns about China’s continued heavy reliance on coal. China is the leading coal-producing country and, as EcoWatch reported, the country produced a record 4.496 billion metric tons of coal in 2022.

NTD has reached out to Kerry’s office for comment.

From NTD News

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) warned in a March 28 letter that there could be “dire ramifications” for “the entire nation” if President Joe Biden refuses to negotiate with Republicans on the debt ceiling.

Biden has taken a hard line on the debt ceiling since Republicans took the House, suggesting that he will not allow Republicans to use the issue to force compromises. Republicans, on the other hand, hope to use the issue to force Biden to give concessions and reduce federal spending.

Two months ago, at the start of the 118th Congress, Biden nevertheless indicated a willingness to meet with McCarthy to discuss the dispute. This public willingness to talk, McCarthy said, has not translated to negotiations between the two leaders.

“Since that time, however, you and your team have been completely missing in action on any meaningful follow-up to this rapidly approaching deadline,” McCarthy said in his letter to the president.

By Biden’s refusal to meet with him, the speaker said, “[Y]ou are putting an already fragile economy in jeopardy by insisting upon your extreme position of refusing to negotiate any meaningful changes to out-of-control government spending alongside an increase of the debt limit.”

Since taking office, Biden has signed off on trillions in spending, including the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan, the $1.2 trillion Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, the $745 billion Inflation Reduction Act and, most recently, a $1.7 trillion omnibus package rushed through Congress at the end of the last Congress.

Republicans have long blamed this spending for the rise in consumer prices, and have said since the 117th Congress that cutting spending would be a top priority for the party if they took the House.

McCarthy told Biden that if he continues to refuse to negotiate, any debt ceiling crisis would be his fault.

“Your position—if maintained—could prevent America from meeting its obligations and hold dire ramifications for the entire nation,” McCarthy wrote.

‘No Interest in Brinksmanship’

McCarthy added to the president that he had “no interest” in playing political brinksmanship with the debt ceiling.

Rather, he said, “[I have interest] only in doing what is best for the American people.”

During a March 28 press conference, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) echoed the sentiment.

Biden, Scalise alleged, is “trying to cause a debt crisis by waiting and waiting and waiting [to meet with McCarthy] until the midnight hour.”

Congress is regularly tasked with raising the debt limit, which describes the congressionally-authorized U.S. borrowing limit. Without the green light from Congress to take on more debt, the Federal Reserve relies on so-called “extraordinary measures” to keep the government functioning.

According to projections from the Congressional Budget Office, the Federal Reserve’s “extraordinary measures” to keep the government funded will run out sometime between July and September of this year if Congress doesn’t authorize a debt limit increase.

In 2011, Republicans successfully used the debt ceiling issue to force major concessions from President Barack Obama.

However, the battle left the United States with a ding on its credit rating—a situation that both parties are anxious to avoid.

If the Congress does not authorize a debt ceiling increase before the Federal Reserve runs out of money, financial analysts say the results would be “catastrophic.”

Because the U.S. dollar is not backed by anything but the full faith and credit of the United States—which up to this point has a pristine credit rating—a failure to raise the debt ceiling would further decimate the value of the dollar, which has already lost a great deal of its value over the past two years.

GOP Expectations

In the letter, McCarthy laid out an overview of GOP expectations: he called for non-defense spending to return to “pre-inflationary levels,” the reclamation of unspent COVID-19 relief funds, strengthening of federal aid work requirements, and “[p]olicies to grow our economy and keep Americans safe.”

“Taken together,” McCarthy said, “such policies would help address the number one issue facing Americans today: stubbornly high inflation brought on by reckless government spending.”

McCarthy concluded: “Mr. President, simply put: you are on the clock. It’s time to drop the partisanship, roll up our sleeves, and find common ground on this urgent challenge.”

Any increase in the U.S. debt limit must be run through the House before it can head to the Senate or the president’s desk.

During the last Congress, facing GOP pushback to the debt limit in the Senate, some Democrats floated the idea for the Federal Reserve to mint a $1 trillion coin as an emergency measure—a suggestion which won the endorsement even of erstwhile moderates like Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.).

If Republicans and the White House are unable to reach an agreement, Democrats could begin pushing for policies that would allow the government to remain funded without congressional authorization.

White House Responds

In a statement, White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre responded to McCarthy.

“Congress has a constitutional obligation to address the debt limit—as they did three times in the previous administration without conditions,” the White House said.

Jean-Pierre added that “the threat of a default risks the livelihoods of American small businesses, retirees, and working families and would hand a massive win to China.

“[R]ecent events underscore the need for Congress to address the debt limit as soon as possible,” she said. “It’s time for Republicans to stop playing games, pass a clean debt ceiling bill, and quit threatening our economic recovery.”

Meanwhile, she claimed “The President welcomes a separate conversation about our nation’s fiscal future,” but that the specific cuts requested by Republicans “don’t reduce the deficit at all.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

China’s Foreign Ministry quotes Mark Pocan after Wisconsin Dem called TikTok’s opponents ‘xenophobic’

The Chinese Communist Party is using a Democratic congressman from Wisconsin to argue that calls to ban TikTok in the United States are part of a racist “witch hunt.”

After a bipartisan group of lawmakers during a Thursday hearing grilled TikTok CEO Shou Chew over the app’s ties to the CCP, China’s foreign ministry condemned the hearing in a press conference. Chinese propaganda outlet Global Times quickly highlighted the government’s response in a story headlined, “China denounces US TikTok ban threat as ‘xenophobic witch hunt,’ firmly opposes possible forced sale.” But the “xenophobic witch hunt” line did not come from China—the communist nation was actually quoting Wisconsin Democratic congressman Mark Pocan.

One day before the hearing, Pocan spoke at a “Keep TikTok” rally, which saw online content creators and liberal politicians voice their support for the Chinese app. During his speech, Pocan argued that banning TikTok “isn’t the answer” and accused those in Congress who support a ban of conducting a “xenophobic witch hunt.” It took just two days for the CCP to weaponize Pocan’s remark, with foreign ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning noting in her Friday press conference “that some U.S. lawmaker has said that to seek a TikTok ban is a ‘xenophobic witch hunt.'”

Pocan’s defense of TikTok came as the app, which is owned by China’s ByteDance, mounted an aggressive effort to circumvent a ban. TikTok in early March tapped top Democratic public relations firm SKDK to provide “communications support,” a move that likely bought the app a line to top liberals. Anita Dunn, an SKDK founding partner, is a senior adviser to President Joe Biden, and the firm’s executive vice president, Justin Goodman, served as Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer’s (D., N.Y.) communications director as recently as November. TikTok has also funneled large contributions to progressive organizations—it sent a combined $300,000 to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus in December.

Data from those sites, American intelligence officials have warned, could eventually end up in Beijing’s hands. That’s because China’s national intelligence law requires Chinese companies to turn over data when asked and prohibits those companies from disclosing when they do so. TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, is based in Beijing and maintains an internal CCP committee. Chew acknowledged Thursday that TikTok shares American user data with ByteDance but refused to say whether ByteDance could be forced to give data to Beijing.

“Under [People’s Republic of China] law, all Chinese companies, including TikTok, whose parent company is based in Beijing, are ultimately required to do the bidding of Chinese intelligence services, should they be called upon to do so,” Sens. John Thune (R., S.D.) and Mark Warner (D., Va.) said in a Thursday statement. “Nothing we heard from Mr. Chew today assuaged those concerns.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Columbia University economist Jeffrey Sachs calls on American leaders to ‘calm down’ on China

A prominent Ivy League economist bashed the United States at a recent Chinese Communist Party business forum, accusing American leaders of trying to “undermine” Chinese companies like TikTok and “escalating” a trade war with Beijing.

Columbia University professor Jeffrey Sachs called on American business leaders at the China Development Forum to urge U.S. officials to “calm down” in their stance toward China.

“We want to make peace, cooperation, and business; we don’t want conflict,” he said.

Sachs’s remarks have served as a useful propaganda tool for Beijing. State media outlets like China Daily and Global Times touted his criticism of the United States and praise of the forum for helping ease geopolitical tensions.

The Development Research Center of the State Council, which advises the Chinese Communist Party on political issues, sponsors the China Development Forum, which is billed as an alternative to the World Economic Forum held in Davos each year. Ding Xuexiang, a top adviser to Chinese leader Xi Jinping, gave the keynote speech at the forum. Prominent business leaders like Apple’s Tim Cook and Pfizer’s Albert Bourla also spoke at the event.

Sachs, widely considered one of the world’s most influential economists, has emerged as a leading critic of American foreign policy. A former adviser to China’s State Development Planning Commission, Sachs has appeared numerous times on China’s state-controlled media outlets to criticize the United States. He accused conservatives of waging an “unholy crusade” against China and labeled the U.S. government the “greatest threat” to international law and global peace.

Sachs, who was invited to the China Development Forum to speak on the topic of “safeguarding global energy security,” is head of Columbia’s Center for Sustainable Development, which advises governments and corporations around the globe on “sustainable development policy and best practices.” Through the center, Sachs leads the Lancet COVID-19 Commission, a blue-ribbon panel that studies the origins of the coronavirus pandemic, vaccines, and other pandemic-related issues.

Sachs has more recently taken a critical view of the United States in the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war. He has pushed the unverified claim that the U.S. government blew up the Nord Stream 2 pipeline, which transported oil from Russia to Europe. He has accused the United States of using Ukraine to wage a proxy war against Russia, echoing a popular Kremlin talking point.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The California Assembly on Monday approved a plan to create an agency that could cap oil refineries’ profits in a bid to slash gas prices as the state grapples with skyrocketing energy costs.

The bill, a pet project of Gov. Gavin Newsom (D.) and Attorney General Rob Bonta, would establish a politically appointed commission that could penalize the state’s oil refineries it believes earn too much money. Panelists would have the power to set a “price gouging penalty” for companies with profits officials deem to be too high, and oversee refineries’ maintenance schedules to prevent them from going offline at the same time.

The legislation comes as Californians grapple with the fallout of the state’s green energy policies. The Newsom administration’s push to shutter refineries and transition the grid to renewable sources last summer caused per-gallon gas prices to skyrocket to $6.30 on average.

Newsom first proposed the state commission ahead of the November elections, and last week released a modified plan to put a separate bureaucracy in charge. The legislature fast-tracked the proposal over the past week, and the state senate passed the bill Friday. It now goes to Newsom, who is expected to sign it.

Under the proposal, the new agency could subpoena oil refineries for production and financial records and refer any offending companies for state prosecution by the attorney general. Before approving a tax, the agency is supposed to run an analysis to predict if it will increase prices.

“Since when do we as a republic say we’re going to penalize any industry? That’s a very scary question and a very scary future,” Assemblyman Devon Mathis (R.) said in the final committee hearing Monday morning.

During the final legislative floor vote on Monday, Democrats blocked a Republican lawmaker’s pitch to give Californians a yearlong gas tax holiday. Democrats shrugged off criticisms that the policy could spook the market and drive prices higher, touting the plan as an effort to boost transparency into the oil industry.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

U.S. Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), and 36 of their Republican colleagues have introduced a Congressional Review Act (CRA) resolution to overturn Joe Biden’s student loan cancellation program.

The senators claim in their March 27 announcement of the legislation that the policy violates the limits of Biden’s executive authority under the Constitution and circumvents the authority of Congress.

“President Biden is not forgiving debt, he is shifting the burden of student loans off of the borrowers who willingly took on their debt, and placing it onto those who chose to not go to college or already fulfilled their commitment to pay off their loans,” said Cassidy, according to a press release about the resolution.

“It is extremely unfair to punish these Americans, forcing them to pay the bill for these irresponsible and unfair student loan schemes.”

According to the lawmakers, the plan seeks to transfer up to $20,000 in student loan debt per borrower onto taxpayers, costing an estimated $400 billion.

The resolution would also end the pause on student loan payments, which has been extended six times under the Biden administration, costing taxpayers $5 billion a month. The pause is set to expire in August of 2023 and will have cost Americans a total of $195 billion by then.

On March 17, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) classified Biden’s student loan policy as a rule, making it eligible to be overturned under the CRA.

Rep. Bob Good (R-Va.) introduced the companion CRA resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“Biden’s so-called student loan forgiveness programs do not make the debt go away, but merely transfer the costs from student loan borrowers onto taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars,” said Good, according to the press release.

“Congress should stop these unilateral actions, and I am proud to lead the fight in the House to hold President Biden accountable for his reckless, unfair, and unlawful student loan proposal. I hope all my colleagues will join me and support this effort.”

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the cases Biden v. Nebraska and Department of Education v. Brown on whether the student loan cancellation program violates President Biden’s executive authority under the Constitution. A decision is expected this summer.

Cassidy joined Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) and 41 other senators in sending an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in early February, contesting the Biden administration’s student debt cancellation program. He also joined Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) in introducing the Stop Reckless Student Loan Actions Act, which seeks to end Biden’s current student loan pause.

Cassidy also criticized Biden’s income-driven repayment (IDR) rule, which he claims would result in a majority of bachelor’s degree holders not having to repay their loans and would cost taxpayers an estimated $230 billion.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Wind power has been historically and scientifically unreliable, claims an Oxford University mathematician and physicist, with his calculations revealing the government to be pursuing a “bluster of windfarm politics” while discarding numerical evidence.

After the decision to cut down on fossil fuels was made at the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, the “instinctive reaction” around the world was to embrace renewables, Professor Emeritus Wade Allison, who is also a researcher at CERN, said in a 2023 paper (pdf).

Allison noted that because solar power is “extremely weak,” it was inadequate to “sustain even a small global population with an acceptable standard of living” before the Industrial Revolution.

“Today, modern technology is deployed to harvest these weak sources of energy. Vast ‘farms’ that monopolise the natural environment are built, to the detriment of other creatures. Developments are made regardless of the damage wrought. Hydro-electric schemes, enormous turbines and square miles of solar panels are constructed, despite being unreliable and ineffective; even unnecessary,” Allison said in the report, published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

“In particular, the generation of electricity by wind tells a disappointing story. The political enthusiasm and the investor hype are not supported by the evidence, even for offshore wind, which can be deployed out of sight of the infamous My Back Yard,” he wrote. “What does such evidence actually say?”

According to the U.S. Department of Energy, wind power generated more than 9 percent of the net total of the country’s energy in 2021 and is the largest source of renewable power in the country. Over 70,000 turbines generate enough power to serve the equivalent of 43 million American homes, the department says.

There are 120,000 jobs related to wind energy in the United States, the Energy Department says, and it’s one of the fastest-growing jobs in the country.

The Evidence

Allison explained that wind energy is measured based on the amount of moving air and the speed of the air as it reaches the area swept by the turbine blades.

The scientist calculated that, at 100 percent efficiency, if the wind blows at 10 meters per second (about 22 mph), the power is 600 watts per square meter. Hence, to deliver 3,200 million watts, the same output as Hinkley Point C—a planned zero-carbon nuclear power station in England—there would need to be 5.5 million square meters of turbine swept area.

“That should be quite unacceptable to those who care about birds and to other environmentalists,” Allison wrote.

The actual performance of the technology is much worse than the calculations made based on 100 percent efficiency, he said.

“Because the power carried by the wind depends on the third power of the wind speed, if the wind drops to half speed, the power available drops by a factor of 8,” he said. “Almost worse, if the wind speed doubles, the power delivered goes up 8 times, and as a result the turbine has to be turned off for its own protection.”

Allison noted that fluctuations are considerable as he pointed to a WindEurope Report that showed the installed nominal generating capacity across the European Union and United Kingdom on a daily basis was 236 gigawatts (GW). However, the highest output in 2021 registered at 103 GW on March 26 of that year.

The unreliability extends to offshore windfarms as well. Batteries used to store power are also severely restricted by current technology. In spite of such evidence, the government keeps ignoring the numbers, said Allison.

“With general energy shortages, the war in Europe, high prices and the likelihood of failures in electricity supply, many popular scientific presumptions underlying energy policy should be questioned. Wind power fails on every count,” he concluded.

Failing Turbines, Carbon Dioxide Demonization

Wind turbines across the United States have been failing more frequently in recent times, triggering concerns about additional costs resulting from such failures as well as their impact on power projects. Offshore windfarms, deployed in the name of environmentalism, are now seen as disastrous for ocean life.

Malfunctions in wind turbines range from small issues, like some key components becoming faulty, to full-blown collapses.

According to a 2022 paper published by Wallace Manheimer in the Journal of Sustainable Development, even as modern society depends on reliable sources of energy, the “climate industrial complex”—a powerful lobby of politicians, scientists, and media—pushes climate-related falsehoods into the popular perspective.

“It has somehow managed to convince many that CO2 in the atmosphere, a gas necessary for life on earth, one which we exhale with every breath, is an environmental poison. Multiple scientific theories and measurements show that there is no climate crisis,” said Manheimer, a retired U.S. Naval Research Laboratory scientist.

“Over the period of human civilization, the temperature has oscillated between quite a few warm and cold periods, with many of the warm periods being warmer than today,” he wrote. “During geological times, it and the carbon dioxide level have been all over the place with no correlation between them.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

USAID effort also includes call to address ‘climate-related mental health conditions’

The Biden administration plans to use taxpayer funds to inspire and support young climate activists in developing countries—even as it acknowledges that young people suffer from “climate-related mental health conditions.”

Joe Biden’s U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) last year released its 2022-2030 climate strategy, which outlines a $150 billion “whole-of-Agency approach” to building an “equitable world with net-zero greenhouse gas emissions.” Included in that effort is a pledge to support “behavior change and communications campaigns” that “encourage youth’s active participation” in the climate movement. Young people, the agency says, “have emerged in recent years as key actors … in demanding government action to tackle the climate crisis,” prompting USAID to increase its funding for “youth-led organizations” working to fight climate change in at least 40 partner countries.

Still, that effort comes with challenges. While young people make great climate activists, they also experience “a broad range of climate-related mental health conditions,” according to the agency’s strategy document. Any effort to support young climate activists, then, must also include support for “programs at scale that address these issues.” USAID’s strategy document specifically calls to recognize the “growing importance” of young people suffering from “eco-anxiety,” which the American Psychology Association describes as “the chronic fear of environmental cataclysm that comes from observing the seemingly irrevocable impact of climate change.”

The USAID plan reflects Biden’s government-wide mandate to fight climate change. Just one week after taking office, Biden in January 2021 issued an executive order calling on all government agencies to “combat the climate crisis with bold, progressive action.” Even the Department of Veterans Affairs responded in August 2021 by releasing a “Climate Action Plan,” and USAID—which had not released a new climate strategy since 2012—followed suit roughly a year later.

At the heart of the agency’s climate strategy is a concern over increased energy consumption in developing nations, which USAID says will grow by 70 percent in the next three decades. In order to avoid the “longer-term emissions trajectories” that come with that energy consumption growth, the agency says it must promote green energy and elevate young climate activist voices in “emerging economies.” For Daniel Turner, founder and executive director of energy advocacy group Power the Future, such a strategy “punishes the developing world by refusing them to have what we have, which is the prosperity that comes from fossil fuels.”

“It’s just horrifying to think we spend tax dollars, giving it to poor countries, to create more Greta Thunbergs,” Turner told the Washington Free Beacon. “There’s nothing charitable about that—if anything, it’s the epitome of first world privilege.”

In November, for example, Biden’s USAID announced a $78,000 grant to a Palestinian activist group whose leaders praised a man who murdered a U.S. military attaché and participated in a celebration for a Palestinian terrorist group. The agency in late 2021 also sent millions of dollars to EcoHealth Alliance, the research group that funded bat virus research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Biden in January 2021 tapped former Obama aide Samantha Power to head USAID. Power quickly touted her work “helping countries adapt to a warming climate” and later said climate change is “sexist” because women are “much more likely … to be killed by natural and climate disasters.” USAID’s climate work has seen Power travel the world—in March, the Democrat filmed a correspondence from a Vietnamese fish farm, where she said farmers are “already feeling the effects of climate change.” Power also met with Iraq’s foreign minister in February, not to discuss issues such as ISIS terrorism, but to praise the nation’s “ongoing work to address climate change.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Deutsche Bank shares tumbled as much as 16 percent on March 24 after the cost of insuring the financial institution’s debt against default risks increased to the highest levels in about four years.

The Frankfurt-listed stock later trimmed its losses to close 8.5 percent lower.

The company’s five-year credit default swaps (CDS), a type of default insurance for bondholders, surged above 220 basis points, up from 142 basis points earlier in the week; it’s the largest jump since the end of 2018. Despite the recent concerns, Deutsche CDSs are below their 300-basis-point record that occurred in 2011 during the eurozone debt crisis.

The higher CDS values go, the greater the odds the market sees the issuer defaulting.

Germany’s largest bank has recently eliminated $3 billion from its market value as its Frankfurt-listed shares have been sliding for three consecutive sessions.

The panic in Deutsche Bank has spread to the broader banking sector. The iShares MSCI Europe Financials ETF and the Financial Select Sector SPDR Fund each tumbled more than 1 percent on March 24.

Deutsche Bank also witnessed its Additional-Tier 1 (AT1) bonds slump in recent sessions. These instruments, which were crafted in the wake of the 2007–2009 financial crisis, convert bonds into equity when a lender faces difficulties, with the idea of absorbing losses should capital ratios slip below the listed threshold.

In the wake of Credit Suisse’s near failure, which saw Swiss regulators eliminate the bank’s AT1 debtholders, global financial markets have been paying closer attention to these so-called contingent convertibles (CoCo).

ING analysts believe that it will be challenging for other banks to begin issuing fresh AT1 bonds.

“It is doubtful that banks will be able to issue new AT1 anytime soon, increasing the likelihood of outstanding AT1 notes being extended,” wrote several ING economists and analysts, including James Knightley, the chief international economist, in a research note.

“We consider that the recent events in the banking sector have resulted in substantially increased uncertainty, which is likely to continue to be reflected as substantial short-term volatility in credit markets. We expect bank spreads to be negatively impacted in general and also in the longer term, whether in bank capital or in bank senior debt, as bank investors factor in more uncertainty regarding resolution practices.”

Deutsche’s 7.5 percent AT1 dollar bonds tumbled about 2 cents on March 23. The Invesco AT1 Capital Bond UCITS ETF AT1, which invests in these CoCos, declined as much as 4 percent on the London Stock Exchange (LSE) at the end of the trading week.

At the same time, a tier 2 subordinated bond climbed to face value after Deutsche suddenly redeemed the note early.

The global bond market also slid on March 24.

The U.S. benchmark 10-year yield fell nearly 4 basis points to below 3.39 percent. The U.K. 10-year yield slumped close to 9 basis points to nearly 3.27 percent. The 10-year German bond dropped 8 basis points to under 2.11 percent.

Another Credit Suisse Moment?

At this stage, investors are concerned about the health of Deutsche Bank.

But are these fears justified?

“We have no concerns about Deutsche’s viability or asset marks. To be crystal clear – Deutsche is NOT the next Credit Suisse,” a report from research firm Autonomous reads. “Judging from the movements in Deutsche’s CDS, AT1s and share price, investors are worrying about the health of the bank. We are relatively relaxed in view of Deutsche’s robust capital and liquidity positions.”

Deutsche Bank has reported 10 consecutive quarters of profit, including a $1.98 billion net profit in the fourth quarter, driven by a 159 percent year-over-year gain in its annual net income.

Deutsche Bank presently has $1.4 trillion in assets, with $880 billion in assets under management.

The company has been undergoing a thorough restructuring plan that started in 2019, with CEO Christian Sewing saying that the entity has been “successfully transformed” in the past three years.

“By refocusing our business around core strengths we have become significantly more profitable, better balanced and more cost-efficient. In 2022, we demonstrated this by delivering our best results for fifteen years,” Sewing said in a statement in February.

As the panic spreads, some investors are wondering whether the German government will come to the rescue, as Swiss authorities did for Credit Suisse.

For now, that doesn’t appear to be the case, according to a recent statement from German Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

“Deutsche Bank has modernized and organized the way it works. It’s a very profitable bank. There is no reason to be concerned,” he said after a summit of European Union leaders.

The bank has endured a series of scandals in the past decade, which some experts say could be contributing to the selloff.

Between 2013 and 2015, U.S., British, and European regulators slapped the company with more than $3 billion in fines after it was discovered that traders had manipulated interest rates.

In 2015, Deutsche paid out $260 million in fines following the discovery by U.S. authorities that the bank violated a U.S. embargo on Iran.

It also was revealed in 2015 that Deutsche Bank used stock transactions to launder approximately $10 billion of dirty money in Russian rubles. As a result, the financial institution paid a $600 million penalty to the U.S. government.

Since going public in November 1996, Deutsche Bank shares have plummeted 70 percent.

Deutsche Bank officials didn’t respond by press time to requests by The Epoch Times for comment.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

‘It’s rich that the president just stood there and lied to the American people,’ says House Oversight chairman

House Oversight chairman James Comer (R., Ky.) on Tuesday called on White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre to “issue a correction” after President Joe Biden denied that his family received a payout of more than $1 million from a CCP-backed energy company.FreeBeacon CarouselCalifornia Democratic Leader Proposed Lifting Red State Travel Ban a Day Before Newsom Announced Red State TourREAD MORE

“It’s rich that the president just stood there and lied to the American people,” Comer told Fox News. “It’s also rich that the mainstream media hasn’t called him out on it.”

Earlier this month, when asked about the payments to his family, Biden said to a reporter, “That’s not true.” Hunter Biden’s legal team, however, confirmed the payments from the Chinese energy company, according to a letter from Comer to the press secretary.

Comer’s comment comes as the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability ramps up its investigation of the Biden family’s foreign business dealings. Bank records obtained by the committee revealed that “State Energy HK Limited, a Chinese company, wired $3 million to Robinson Walker, LLC.,” which then sent over $1.3 million to three Biden family members.

“We’re going to get the truth out,” Comer told Fox News. “[T]he mainstream media is not going to be able to let him stand up there and lie to the American people about the fact that his family’s taken millions and millions of dollars from our adversary.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

JPMorgan Chase strategists warned Monday that recession chances have surged amid the banking crisis since the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank.

“The Fed is facing a difficult task on Wednesday, but it is likely already past the point of no return,” JPMorgan’s strategists wrote in a note to clients this week, according to news outlets. “A soft landing now looks unlikely, with the airplane in a tailspin (lack of market confidence) and engines about to turn off (bank lending).”

That warning came ahead of the Federal Reserve’s meeting this week in which members of the Federal Open Market Committee will decide on whether to raise interest rates again in the midst of decades-high inflation. Starting last year, the Fed has incrementally raised rates to their highest levels in years, a move that drew warnings from economists that a recession could come later this year or next year.

“Even if central bankers successfully contain contagion, credit conditions look set to tighten more rapidly because of pressure from both markets and regulators,” JPMorgan Chase strategists added in their note.

Earlier this month, two major regional banks—Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank of New York—collapsed after customers withdrew their deposits en masse amid warnings about the health of the two respective banks. The federal government has attempted to reassure consumers and investors that the U.S. banking system is sound and that deposits will be insured, with Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen touting the government’s efforts to tame contagion during a Senate hearing last week.

“We stay cautious on risk assets which price in too little recession risk, while the banking crisis raises the prospect of recession this year as credit is restricted,” JPMorgan’s strategists added. Meanwhile, JPMorgan Chase’s Marko Kolanovic warned that market turbulence, economic uncertainty, and bank collapses have increased the chances of a so-called “Minsky moment” in which an economic boom has caused investors to take on too much risk and have to sell assets to repay loans, reported Bloomberg.

Amid the Fed meeting this week, investors have speculated that board members will ease up on its monetary tightening efforts to avoid placing more strain on the banking system. Among them, Goldman Sachs analysts wrote last week that the central bank will likely hold off on raising rates, while others have speculated the Fed will raise rates by a relatively small amount.

The Fed, whose relentless rate hikes to rein in inflation are among factors blamed for the biggest banking sector meltdown since the 2008 financial crisis, is poised to raise rates by only 25 basis points (bps) rather than the previously expected 50 bps, owing to the fallout of the banking crisis.

The latest move to restore calm to restive regional bank stocks came as Pacific Western Bank, one of the regional lenders caught up in the market volatility, said it had raised $1.4 billion from investment firm Atlas SP Partners.

Shares of the bank, which have lost nearly 47 percent of their value so far this year, were down by around 10 percent in early trading even as it tried to assuage investor worries by saying it had more than $11.4 billion in cash as of March 20.

More Warnings

The chance of a recession is on the rise again for the first time since November, said a survey released by Bank of America on Tuesday that polled fund managers. Some 42 percent of fund managers said they believe a recession will come within the next 12 months, and 80 percent believe the economy will remain stagflationary over the next year or so.

Last week, Goldman Sachs Chief Economist Jan Hatzius wrote that he believes there will be a 35 percent chance of a recession within the next 12 months. That’s because of what he called  “increased near-term uncertainty” around the economic impacts of small bank collapses like SVB or Signature.

Jeffrey Gundlach, the chief executive of DoubleLine Capital, said a recession could happen within the next four months. “With all that’s going on I think a recession is probably within four months at the most,” Gundlach said in a Twitter Spaces audio chat on Thursday.

Reuters contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Asset Managers Dispute Biden’s Claim That ‘Extensive Evidence’ Supports ESG Investing

Joe Biden used his veto power on Monday to block a bipartisan action from Congress that would have prevented pension fund managers from investing retirees’ money according to environmental and social-justice criteria.

“There is extensive evidence showing that environmental, social, and governance factors can have a material impact on markets, industries, and businesses,” Biden stated.

However, despite attempts by its advocates to brand environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria as an effective risk-management tool, recent bank failures such as Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) suggest the opposite.

In defense of ESG, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that “America’s most successful asset managers and financial institutions have used ESG factors to minimize risk and maximize their clients’ returns. In fact, according to McKinsey, more than 90 percent of S&P 500 companies publish ESG reports today.”

This echoed a statement by Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan in 2020 that “our research shows that companies that do well on ESG end up doing better, or fail less.” Also advocating for ESG, The New York Times was quick to “fact check” critics who claimed that ESG was partly to blame for SVB’s demise.

In an op-ed titled, “No, ‘Wokeness’ Did Not Cause Silicon Valley Bank’s Collapse,” the Times argues that SVB “was not an outlier in its diversity goals or its ESG investments,” which is accurate as far as it goes. But the fact that most other financial institutions are doing the same thing is not reassuring to many who are concerned that ESG will now be used as a risk-management criteria for pensioners’ money.

Hiding Management Failures

“If management is focusing on ESG, then important functions like risk-management can easily fall to the wayside,” Aharon Friedman, a former senior counsel to the House Ways and Means Committee and former senior advisor to the Treasury Department, told The Epoch Times. “ESG metrics are inherently subjective and unquantifiable, so using ESG factors to measure a company’s performance can hide bad management practices.”

A cursory glance at SVB’s last two 10-K filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission underscores Friedman’s point. The bank’s balance sheet showed obvious red flags about how precarious its mismatch of assets and liabilities had become, and yet a substantial amount of management’s focus appeared to be on diversity and its exposure to climate change.

From 2020 to 2021, the bank’s holdings of U.S. Treasurys and mortgage-backed securities ballooned from $49 billion to $128 billion. These mostly fixed-rate longer-term assets were funded by short-term deposits, which increased from $102 billion to $189 billion that year, creating an enormous liquidity mismatch for a bank with $16.6 billion in equity and $211 billion in total assets.

These numbers were down slightly by the end of 2022 as depositors began their exodus, but remained in about the same perilous proportion. Given the mismatches on its balance sheet, if interest rates were to increase, which would cause the value of fixed-rate bonds to fall, SVB would be unable to make enough from selling its assets to pay out depositors.

And yet according to the risk factors detailed in its 10-K filings, SVB management didn’t appear to be particularly concerned about that. When detailing the bank’s most important risk factors, SVB’s 10K report dedicated three paragraphs to its exposure to climate change.

The bank’s filing states that because “federal and state regulatory authorities, investors, and other third parties have increasingly viewed financial institutions as important in addressing the risks related to climate change … we have announced commitments related to the management of climate risks and the transition to a less carbon-dependent economy.”

Regulators Push ESG on Banks

SVB was not wrong about regulatory authorities pushing ESG compliance. The Federal reserve Bank of San Francisco, which regulated SVB, states, “The impacts of a changing climate—including the frequency and magnitude of severe weather events—affects each of our three core roles: conducting monetary policy; regulating and supervising the banking system; and ensuring a safe and sound payment system.”

Regarding racial equity, the San Francisco Fed states, “Our Framework for Change is our commitment to taking action that will result in greater racial and ethnic equity in our organization and the communities we serve across the Federal Reserve’s Twelfth District.”

Meanwhile, SVB’s exposure to interest-rate risk—one of the most basic but more mundane aspects of bank risk management—became a material problem in March 2022, when the Federal Reserve announced its determination to fight runaway inflation with the first in an ongoing series of interest-rate hikes. Looking back at the end of that year, the bank noted in its 2023 filing that “increased interest rates can have a material effect on the company’s business … For instance, increases in interest rates have resulted, and may continue to result in, decreases in the fair value of our [available for sale] fixed-income investment portfolio.” But it had little else to say on the subject and nothing that suggested a sense of urgency.

According to one report, BlackRock, the world’s largest asset manager, warned SVB in early 2022 that the bank’s risk controls were “substantially below” what they should have been and offered to assist SVG in managing its portfolio risks. But its offer was rebuffed.

According to another report, SVB’s chief risk officer, Laura Izurieta, stepped down in April 2022, and the bank continued on without a replacement until Kim Olson took the job in January 2023. By that time, interest rates were substantially higher, and there was little the bank could do to right itself.

SVB Earns Top ESG Governance Scores

Prior to its collapse, SVB was a strong advocate of ESG criteria, both from an environmental and social-justice perspective, and it appeared to buy into the notion, echoed by President Biden this week, that ESG was an appropriate risk-management tool. Indeed, according the S&P’s ESG scoring system, SVB was rated an 89 out of 100 in the area of “corporate governance,” just shy of the “industry best” score, which is 91, and well above the “industry mean” score of 51.

Morningstar, one of the top ESG rating agencies, had given SVB a rating of 7.9 out of 10, or “leader,” in the governance category.

“In the case of SVB, the corporate governance management measurement was assessed before the public discovery of the bank’s collapse on March 10, 2023,” a Morningstar representative told The Epoch Times. “The news initiated an urgent review of its rating, resulting in the overall risk rating score increasing significantly with the assignment of a severe controversy (another layer in the methodology) and reflected in our public ratings on March 15. This controversy shows that even companies with leading corporate governance practices on paper are not immune to significant controversial events.”

SVB was able to earn such a high governance rating because of policies like its dedication to racial and gender criteria in hiring and promotion. The bank’s website notes that “45 percent of our board of directors are women, including our new chair as of April 21, 2022.” It further states that “we aim to create equity in hiring, performance management, benefits, supplier diversity, donations and volunteering,” and “we promote inclusion through cultural awareness celebrations, employee advocacy networks, DEI [diversity, equity, inclusion] trainings, employee surveys, and focus groups.”

But while SVB was outperforming according to ESG management principles, some argue that it was doing so at the cost of its most essential responsibilities.

“Insofar as ESG involves trying to show that your board and staff are ‘diverse,’ it means that you are willing to ascribe considerable importance to things like skin color or sex in selecting your people,” Samuel Gregg, author and Senior Research Fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, told The Epoch Times. “The problem is that people’s degree of financial expertise has nothing to do with such things. If you are willing to trade off financial knowledge and experience for ethnicity and gender, that means you are not giving financial expertise the priority that it should have in banking and finance.”

Credit Suisse, which faced collapse and was rescued by Swiss rival UBS on March 20, had also been promoting its adherence to ESG principles. It created a chief sustainability officer position and announced: “Our organizational structure is designed to ensure that ESG standards are embedded across regions and divisions in our client-based solutions as well as in our own operations as a company.”

Credit Suisse had so many management failures leading up to its collapse that ESG can hardly be blamed. However, it raises another issue about ESG, which is the extent to which corporate managers use it to cover up for underperformance.

An August 2021 study by the University of South Carolina and the University of Northern Iowa found that focusing on non-quantifiable ESG goals over financial results “provides managers with a convenient excuse that reduces accountability for poor firm performance.” In contrast to Biden’s claim that evidence proves the value of ESG investing, this report found that there was a correlation between CEO’s underperformance and how vocal they were in supporting ESG goals.

Disputing the ‘Extensive Evidence’ for ESG

Recently, even firms that had once championed ESG criteria, are now backpedaling.

Testifying before the Texas state senate last December, State Street chief investment officer Lori Heinel said, “I have no evidence that this [ESG] is good for returns in any time frame. In fact, we’ve seen the evidence to be quite contrary. Last year, if you didn’t own energy companies, you did miserably compared to broad benchmarks. The year before, that was quite the opposite … but that was just a happenstance, that’s not because it’s a good investment.”

Last month, Vanguard CEO Tim Buckley said, “Our research indicates that ESG investing does not have any advantage over broad-based investing.”

Meanwhile, a Harvard University report titled, “An Inconvenient Truth About ESG Investing,” found that ESG investing actually hurts returns. “ESG funds certainly perform poorly in financial terms,” the report stated.

SVB may have been no more compliant than its peers regarding its allegiance to ESG dogma, but the problem was that it was too weak to afford losing focus on its core business. Given its smaller size, concentrated depositor base, and undiversified asset portfolio, it could not survive having an unserious risk management structure in place.

SVB depositors were ultimately bailed out by federal regulators, but retirees, who will be affected by Biden’s new rule allowing ESG into Americans’ pensions, have no such guarantees. And when it comes to risk management, pension investors are in a significantly different position than bank depositors. They are the equity holders, who are last in line and who typically get wiped out when companies fail.

“The priority of anyone managing pension funds is to ensure that they create the profit and shareholder value that allows people who have saved to enjoy a comfortable retirement—period,” Gregg said. “If ESG distracts pension fund managers from pursuing that goal, they are doing a grave disservice to present and future retirees.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

American taxpayers have already given Moderna $10 billion for its coronavirus vaccine. If the Biden administration gets its wish, that tab could soon grow.

In a court filing last month, Department of Justice lawyers offered to “relieve” Moderna of any liability it faces from a lawsuit that accuses the drug company of failing to pay licensing fees for technology it used to develop its vaccine during “Operation Warp Speed.” Moderna has argued that the federal government should be on the hook for any legal settlement because of a stipulation in its contract that protects the company from patent litigation. The government had stayed silent on the matter until last month, when Justice Department lawyers said that any liability that Moderna faces should “transfer” to the United States government, citing a World War I-era law that protects federal contractors from patent disputes.

While the judge handling the case recently denied the request, Moderna and the federal government could appeal the decision and put taxpayers on the hook for any legal payout. Genevant, one of the companies that sued Moderna, has already accused the drug maker of “trying to shift responsibility for its patent infringement to the U.S. taxpayer.”

The government’s offer to bail out Moderna will likely not sit well with the American public or with senators when they grill Moderna’s CEO at a hearing on Wednesday. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee invited Stéphane Bancel to testify about the company’s plans to quadruple the price of its coronavirus vaccine. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) called Moderna the “poster child” for pharmaceutical industry greed. He criticized Moderna for the proposed price hike after the company relied on taxpayer support to develop and manufacture the vaccine.

The vaccine was a godsend for Moderna, which had not marketed a drug in its 10-year history. The company’s revenues went from less than $800 million in 2020 to $19 billion last year. That would add to the nearly $10 billion that the government has paid Moderna during the pandemic. The Pentagon awarded an $8.2 billion contract to Moderna, and the Department of Health and Human Services paid the company another $1.7 billion. Moderna booked net income of $12.2 billion in 2021 after reporting a loss of $747 million in 2020.

That has made Bancel a multi-billionaire, as Moderna’s stock price has surged from around $20 at the beginning of the pandemic to roughly $150 today. It peaked at a high of $450 in September 2021. Bancel sold $408 million worth of Moderna shares between the start of the pandemic and March 2022.

It is unclear whether Moderna and the Department of Justice will appeal the recent decision. Moderna did not respond to a request for comment. A Justice Department spokesman said the agency “doesn’t have anything else to add.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Biden’s $6.9 trillion budget spends tens of billions of dollars on welfare and social programs for minority groups

Joe Biden’s $6.9 trillion budget spends tens of billions of dollars on welfare and social programs for minority groups both domestically and abroad, including a $400 million State Department program that helps foster “inclusive and responsible technology development … [for] the ability of women, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex community, and other marginalized groups to safely access digital technologies” in Africa.

Many of the spending programs revolve around equity, a concept Biden has said is at the center the White House’s agenda and is mentioned 63 times throughout Biden’s 182-page budget. Equity, in contrast to equality of opportunity, focuses on cash transfers and programs for groups that have been historically discriminated against, such as black people and the LGBT community.

Republicans have bristled at Biden’s budget, which is roughly $700 billion more than the $6.2 trillion projected to be spent in the 2023 fiscal year. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) called the proposal “reckless” and said it is “doubling down on the same far-left spending policies that have led to record inflation and our current debt crisis.”

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a center-left think tank, criticized Biden’s budget for inadequately addressing the nation’s debt crisis. Biden’s budget would borrow $19 trillion over the next decade and raise the debt-to-GDP ratio to 110 percent by 2033.

“Spending in this budget is excessive,” committee president Maya MacGuineas said in a statement. “At $6.9 trillion, spending next year would be higher than any time during the pandemic and about $2.5 trillion above the pre-pandemic level, representing growth of 55 percent.”

For Republicans looking for places to start cutting from Biden’s budget, here are seven places they could start:

1. Billions of Dollars in Subsidized Housing for Minorities

As part of the Biden administration’s effort to expand “access to homeownership,” its budget provides $10 billion “in mandatory funding for a new First-Generation Down Payment Assistant program.” That fund would be used to “help address racial and ethnic homeownership and wealth gaps.” A separate $100 million fund would be used for a pilot program “to expand homeownership opportunities for first-generation and/or low-wealth first-time homebuyers.” U.S. home prices hit all-time highs last year, with experts citing low supply as the primary cause.

2. Half a Billion Dollars To Address ‘the Maternal Health Crisis’ Using Implicit Bias Training

Part of the $471 million to “support the ongoing implementation of the White House Blueprint to Address the Maternal Health Crisis” goes toward implementing “implicit bias training for health care providers.”

The Washington Free Beacon has reported on implicit bias training programs in medical schools, which critics call nothing more than left-wing ideological capture. Implicit bias training sessions often include asking participants to list examples of white privilege and, in at least one case, affirm that all white people are racist. There is little to no evidence that implicit bias training leads to change in behavior.

3. $400 Million To Help LGBTQ Africans Access the Internet

As part of the Biden administration’s efforts to strengthen “international digital connectivity,” the U.S. Agency for International Development is earmarked $395 million for programs in Africa that advance “inclusive and responsible technology development, which also supports the ability of women, the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex community, and other marginalized groups to safely access digital technologies.”

4. $3 Billion To ‘Advance Gender Equity and Equality Across a Broad Range of Sectors’

A $3 billion grant given to the State Department for advancing “gender equity and equality around the world” is part of the Biden administration’s “commitment to invest in opportunities for women and girls and support the needs of marginalized communities, including the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex community.” No further details on how the money will be spent are provided.

5. $50 Billion for Foreign Governments and Companies That Promote ‘Gender Equity’

Biden signed an agreement last year with six other nations committing to $600 billion in global infrastructure spending by 2027. As part of that agreement, Biden wants $50 billion to get started on foreign investments “to advance climate and energy security, health and health security, digital connectivity, gender equity and equality, and related transportation infrastructure.”  That spending, according to the Biden administration, will create “opportunities for American businesses.”

6. $54 Million for the Department of Energy’s Office of Economic Impact and Diversity

The Office of Economic Impact and Diversity provides guidance on how the Department of Energy can “strengthen diversity and inclusion goals affecting equal employment opportunities, small and disadvantaged businesses, minority educational institutions, and historically underrepresented communities.” And, should Biden get his way, the office will oversee a $54 million budget.

7. A $1.1 Billion ‘Pay Equity Initiative’ for the Transportation Security Agency

The folks yelling at you to remove your shoes at the airport are receiving a pay bump, all in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” TSA staff will receive $1.1 billion in more funding compared with the previous year as part of Biden’s “pay equity initiative.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Forbes misrepresents IRS audit numbers in a way that supports Democrat recommendations for changes at the IRS. Well, people can make mistakes. But every error – or misrepresentation – has the effect of making Senator Elizabeth Warren and her colleagues’ complaints and ideas about the IRS look good. It would be remarkable if all mistakes worked that way, wouldn’t it? That James Bond idea of once is happenstance, twice is a coincidence, and three times is enemy action comes into our thoughts.

The background here is the bill to increase the IRS budget to hire more agents to do more audits. Well, maybe that’s a good idea and maybe it isn’t. As usual, that’s not our point here, we’re about accuracy. If all the numbers get shaded to show that it’s an excellent idea then we’re not dealing with a neutral reporter on the subject.

For example:

Both the GAO and Trac attribute these disproportionate audits to the effects of reduced staffing. Budget cuts left the IRS with 1,400 staffers to examine the returns of 164 million taxpayers in the fiscal year 2022,

No. As the New York Times –  says:

Among the I.R.S.’s workforce of about 79,000 employees, 10,000 are actually agents. (Of those, 8,000 are revenue agents who audit tax filings and 2,000 are special agents who investigate potential tax crimes.)

That’s one error that makes Sen. Warren and a larger IRS look good. Confusing – because of course it must be confusion, right? – the number who conduct audits with those who investigate tax crimes.

From Forbes again:

From 2010 to 2019, the rate of taxpayer audits fell from 0.9% to 0.25% regardless of income, according to the Government Accountability Office. But audit rates decreased the most for Americans with incomes of $200,000 or more, the GAO found, with those making $5 million or more seeing the largest drop in audit rates, falling from 16% a decade ago to 2.4% last year.

No, that GAO report is here. The drop in audit rates over $5 million is 86%. That for $500k to $5 million is 87%, and for $200k to $500k, it’s  92% (Figure 1 on Page 7).

Now, it is possible to say that 16% or so to 2.4% is larger than the other falls. But the first two, the drop in all rates, and the drop in those over $200k are being expressed as percentages. To change the measure for the third – no doubt it’s just coincidence.

Forbes:

Meanwhile, an analysis of IRS data from Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC) at Syracuse University found that households earning less than $25,000 annually were five times as likely to be audited by the IRS.

Five times what? The report that they’re quoting is here (Table 1). It’s not even those who earn less than $25k, it’s those who get the EITC tax credit who have the higher audit rate. It’s also a lower audit rate than those over $1 million in income. It is 5 times the audit rate for all individual tax returns. But that’s really not the impression we’re given, is it?

Ah, the third time.

We could – should – add one more point. From the GAO report, something should be included to give a balanced view of these numbers. It’s even in the press release, often the only part most journalists bother to read of a report:

Audits of the lowest-income taxpayers, particularly those claiming the EITC, resulted in higher amounts of recommended additional tax per audit hour compared to all income groups except for the highest-income taxpayers.

The IRS earns more tax revenue per hour of employee time by auditing those EITC recipients. So, logically, the IRS audits those taxpayers more. We do think the IRS has the job of maximizing tax revenue given the resources devoted to tax collection, right?

The numbers are quoted here to make Sen. Warren’s ideas look good. Well, maybe they are good. But the repetitive misrepresentation of numbers to make a political point in a supposedly factual report, well, that’s not good. Possibly even bias. Or, as Mr. Bond would say, enemy action.

Oh yes, even at Forbes.

This article originally appeared in Accuracy in Media. The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the positions of American Liberty News. Republished with permission.

SOURCE: American Liberty News

Credit Suisse shares dove by 63 percent in early trading on March 20 to a new low after it was announced that UBS would buy the troubled bank in a multi-billion-dollar deal backstopped by a Swiss central bank $100 billion emergency credit line.

Shares of Credit Suisse clawed back some of the initial losses that morning and at the time of reporting were 59 percent down on the day, as investors digested news that UBS would be taking over its distressed peer in a state-backed takeover.

The rescue deal sees UBS buying the 167-year-old Credit Suisse for about $3.23 billion and absorbing up to $5.4 billion in losses.

“With the takeover of Credit Suisse by UBS, a solution has been found to secure financial stability and protect the Swiss economy in this exceptional situation,” the Swiss National Bank (SNB) stated.

Credit Suisse is among 30 financial institutions known as globally systemically important banks, and authorities worried that its failure could undermine broader financial system stability.

“An uncontrolled collapse of Credit Suisse would lead to incalculable consequences for the country and the international financial system,” Swiss President Alain Berset said on March 19 as he announced the deal, which he described as “one of great breadth for the stability of international finance.”

An emergency ordinance was required to allow UBS and Credit Suisse to merge without shareholder approval.

‘Best Available Outcome’

Credit Suisse stated that until the deal is finalized, it’s business as usual for the beleaguered bank.

“Until consummation of the merger, Credit Suisse will continue to conduct its business in the ordinary course and implement its restructuring measures in collaboration with UBS,” the statement reads.

Axel Lehmann, chairman of the board of directors of Credit Suisse, said in a statement that the merger with UBS is the best possible solution.

“Given recent extraordinary and unprecedented circumstances, the announced merger represents the best available outcome,” he said.

“This has been an extremely challenging time for Credit Suisse, and while the team has worked tirelessly to address many significant legacy issues and execute on its new strategy, we are forced to reach a solution today that provides a durable outcome.”

In order to ensure the takeover goes smoothly, the Swiss central bank has offered UBS about $100 billion in liquidity assistance.

“The substantial provision of liquidity will ensure that both banks have access to the necessary liquidity,” SNB said in a statement, with further details of the credit line not immediately available except that it’s to be backstopped by a federal default guarantee.

Following news of the emergency buyout, the world’s central banks—including the U.S. Federal Reserve—announced coordinated moves to stabilize banks, including rolling out swap lines to let banks borrow U.S. dollars if they need to.

UBS shares fell by 10 percent in trading on March 20, with the sharp price moves following a day of heavy selling in Asian financial markets as early investor optimism about efforts to stem a banking crisis evaporated.

Investor attention has shifted to the huge hit some Credit Suisse bondholders would take under the UBS acquisition.

Swiss financial regulator FINMA stated that the buyout deal would trigger a “complete write-down” of Credit Suisse’s additional tier 1 (AT1) bonds, amounting to about $17 billion in value, leading to a boost in the bank’s core capital.

The massive bond write-down has added to anxiety about other key risks, including contagion, the fragile state of U.S. regional banks, and the challenges for central banks as they seek to contain inflation and financial risks.

Shares in European banks took a beating in early trade on March 20 as investors digested news of the emergency takeover of Credit Suisse.

JPMorgan stated that although UBS stood to gain in the longer term from the deal, the write-down of the AT1 bonds would have an impact on other European banks.

“We believe this AT1 writedown by a systemically important bank will have negative implications for the wider European Banks’ AT1 market as well as overall funding profile and Cost of Equity for the Banks,” JPMorgan strategists wrote in a note on March 20.

An index of 600 European bank stocks fell by as much as 6 percent in early trading on March 20, although it has since clawed back some losses. By about 6:30 a.m. EST, the index was trading 1.5 percent down.

The index has shed about 16 percent this month after several recent failures of U.S. banks sparked fears of contagion and a wider sell-off in bank shares.

UBS Chairman Colm Kelleher said in a statement that the merger is “attractive” for UBS shareholders and that the deal cements UBS’s position as a leading asset manager in Europe.

“This acquisition is attractive for UBS shareholders, but, let us be clear, as far as Credit Suisse is concerned, this is an emergency rescue,” he said.

“The transaction will bring benefits to clients and create long-term sustainable value for our investors.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Nearly 200 more banks could be vulnerable to the same type of risk that collapsed Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) earlier this month, according to a recently published study.

There are 186 banks across the United States that could collapse if half of their respective uninsured depositors withdraw their funds, researchers with the Social Science Research Network found. Deposits at member banks of up to $250,000 are insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., although the agency agreed to insure depositors’ funds far above that after SVB’s collapse this month.

“Combined, losses and uninsured leverage provide incentives for an SVB uninsured depositor run,” an abstract of the paper reads. “We compute similar incentives for the sample of all U.S. banks. Even if only half of uninsured depositors decide to withdraw, almost 190 banks are at a potential risk of impairment to insured depositors, with potentially $300 billion of insured deposits at risk.

“If uninsured deposit withdrawals cause even small fire sales, substantially more banks are at risk. Overall, these calculations suggest that recent declines in bank asset values very significantly increased the fragility of the US banking system to uninsured depositor runs.”

Insured depositors of those banks could also see problems trying to withdraw their cash if those financial institutions face a bank run, the paper’s authors (pdf) say. The researchers noted that those banks hold a large amount of their assets in government bonds and mortgage-backed securities, which are highly reactive to interest rates that have been raised significantly over the past year by the Federal Reserve.

“Our calculations suggest these banks are certainly at a potential risk of a run, absent other government intervention or recapitalization,” the economists wrote.

Their study evaluated banks’ asset books around the United States, finding an estimated $2 trillion discrepancy in their overall market value. It also noted that uninsured depositors are a major source of funding for commercial banks and account for about $9 trillion of their liabilities, meaning that bank runs on these institutions could present a “significant risk.”

“As interest rates rise, the value of a bank’s assets can decline, potentially leading to bank failure through two broad, but related channels,” they wrote. “First, if a bank’s liabilities exceed the value of its assets, it may become insolvent. This is particularly likely for banks which need to increase deposit rates as interest rates rise. Second, uninsured depositors may become concerned about potential losses and withdraw their funds, causing a run on the bank.”

Other Details

In addition to SVB, Signature Bank of New York also collapsed. Last week, California-based First Republic Bank received an infusion of $30 billion from some of the top U.S. banks in a package backed by the Biden administration after the lender’s stock plunged after SVB’s collapse, triggering fears that financial contagion would spread to other regional banks.

In a joint statement, Bank of America, Citigroup, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, BNY-Mellon, PNC Bank, State Street, Truist, and U.S. Bank said they would provide the bank with the cash. Those deposits will be uninsured.

https://subs.theepochtimes.com/template/show?tid=cc3f343f-227c-4eec-8289-8d2fe30e4467&sid=www.theepochtimes.com&v=5&ck=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&pl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theepochtimes.com%2Faround-200-us-banks-at-risk-of-silicon-valley-bank-like-collapse-study_5134000.html%3Futm_source%3DMorningbrief%26src_src%3DMorningbrief%26utm_campaign%3Dmb-2023-03-20%26src_cmp%3Dmb-2023-03-20%26utm_medium%3Demail%26est%3DISxMafSpxpJ4Peorg1yM9su%252BrBQimZbzdvFF7XywkdoyaB8g8lTucCuIiU5i%252FaCCyA%253D%253D&u=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&tn=newsletter_widget&dna=%7B%22u_s%22%3A%22Morningbrief%22%2C%22u_c%22%3A%22mb-2023-03-20%22%2C%22r%22%3A%22%22%2C%22pid%22%3A%22anon490a-3963-4599-8eea-93695a2383d4%22%2C%22uid%22%3A%22user_9dfe546d573c80c140e67580106ed9556b66c4cd%22%2C%22x%22%3A%2276-557-833%22%2C%22vt%22%3A0%2C%22g1%22%3A%22us%22%2C%22g2%22%3A%22md%22%7D&source=morning-bell&email=walkerboh2112%40msn.com

Some have blamed the banks’ troubles on the Federal Reserve’s rapid installments of rate increases to tamp down decades-high inflation. Bank stocks other than First Republic have also suffered significantly over the past several days—with Switzerland’s Credit Suisse plummeting to record-low levels earlier this month.

SVB Financial Group confirmed on March 17 that it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and will seek buyers for its assets, coming after its Silicon Valley Bank division was taken over by federal regulators. The company stated that it has roughly $2.2 billion of liquidity, coming after it ended last year with more than $200 billion in assets.

Before the FDIC stepped in, SVB customers attempted to withdraw $42 billion in one day, on March 9, amid concerns about the bank’s overall health.

Also on March 17, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen told lawmakers at a Senate Finance Committee hearing that Americans’ bank savings and deposits “remain safe” amid the nascent financial turmoil. The Treasury Department and other federal agencies are committed to ensuring that the U.S. banking system is sound, she noted.

“I can assure the members of this committee that our banking system remains sound and that Americans can feel confident that their deposits will be there when they need them,” Yellen said in a prepared statement. “This week’s actions demonstrate our resolute commitment to ensure that depositors’ savings remain safe.”

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Hundreds of Americans are flooding President Joe Biden’s Consumer Product Safety Commission with negative reactions to its potential gas stove regulations, with commenters urging the administration to stay out of their kitchens.

More than 400 people have submitted comments to the commission since it moved earlier this month to seek public input on gas stoves, which Biden-backed commissioner Richard Trumka Jr. says pose “hidden hazards” in American homes. Roughly 99 percent of those comments, a Washington Free Beacon review found, express opposition to new gas stove regulations. While many of the negative comments are cordial, with respondents detailing their decades of gas stove use with no ill effects, other comments are not.

“Stay the f out of this issue, jackasses,” one comment read. “How about this, try pulling your head out of your ass,” another suggested. “Please inhale my gas emissions,” urged a commenter who identified himself as “Ligma Taynt.”

The barrage of backlash comes two months after Trumka said a gas stove ban was “on the table.” “This is a hidden hazard,” the Biden appointee said of cooking with gas. “Products that can’t be made safe can be banned.” The remarks prompted a political firestorm, and both the Consumer Product Safety Commission and the White House quickly moved to walk back the threat. “The president does not support banning gas stoves,” Biden press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre assured in January.

But in the following weeks, the Biden administration began moving to target gas stoves through two different government bodies. In addition to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, Biden’s Energy Department last month released an analysis of its proposed cooking appliance efficiency regulations, which it acknowledged would ban half of all gas stoves on the U.S. market from being sold. The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers responded by arguing that the regulations would actually nullify a much larger proportion of the market, citing a December Energy Department test that saw 20 of 21 gas stove models fail to meet the proposed rule’s efficiency standards.

The White House declined to comment.

Although some commenters used inflammatory methods to to express their displeasure with any gas stove regulations, respondents often opted to detail their positive experiences using the appliance. One respondent, for example, identified herself as the “pleased owner of five natural gas appliances” and the “fourth or fifth generation of homeowners in my family who have owned natural gas appliances.”

The commenter went on to disclose that she was born three months premature and subsequently has “seasonal allergy-induced asthma,” a condition that she said has her gas appliances have not exacerbated.

“No doctor has ever suggested that the detectable amount of [nitrogen oxides] from cooking on a stove or seasonal use of an interior natural gas fireplace could cause my asthma,” she wrote. “Scaring the public is not the sensible way to address decarbonization and legitimate human health concerns. Climate change is real. Energy efficiency is smart. But this is a silly waste of time.”

Trumka threatened to ban gas stoves after a Colorado-based green energy group, the Rocky Mountain Institute, released a December study that attributed 13 percent of U.S. childhood asthma cases to gas stove use. Both the study’s methodology and the institute’s biases attracted criticism from academic experts, with Yale University professor Dr. Harvey Risch telling the Free Beacon that the study “does not do any research on possible association between residential natural gas use and risk of childhood asthma.” The Rocky Mountain Institute openly works to implement “an ‘economy-wide transformation’ away from oil and gas,” a mission it has partnered with the Chinese government to achieve, the Free Beacon reported in January.

Gas stoves are not the only appliances the Biden administration is targeting through regulatory action. Biden’s Energy Department in February proposed new efficiency standards that would require washing machines to use considerably less energy and water in an attempt to “confront the global climate crisis.” Those mandates could lead to a stinky situation—manufacturers and industry groups argue that the changes will reduce cleaning performance and lead to dirtier clothes and longer cycles.

It’s unclear if any regulations will emerge from the Consumer Product Safety Commission’s gas stove review. A commission spokeswoman told the Free Beacon that any regulatory action “would require a vote by the full commission, which has not expressed support for any regulation” at this point. Commission chairman Alexander Hoehn-Saric, meanwhile, said in a March 1 statement that the regulatory body is merely studying “the chronic hazards that can arise from toxic emissions.” Still, Trumka has not backed down from his calls to regulate gas stoves—he said the vote to seek public input on the appliances marked “an important milestone on the road to protecting consumers from potential hidden hazards in their homes—the emissions from gas stoves.”

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Los Angeles socialists are helping a teachers’ union strike for massive boosts to their six-figure compensation, saying the strike boosts their “Green New Deal” for public schools.

The United Teachers of Los Angeles is planning to strike for three days next week in an effort to transform city schools into a “green” social services hub. The Los Angeles chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America has identified the teachers’ plan as part of its “Green New Deal for L.A. Public Schools” and said it is the group’s priority agenda item for the year. But buried beneath the teachers’ sundry progressive demands is a 20 percent salary hike over two years for Los Angeles teachers, whose average salaries and benefits run about $115,000.

The socialist-backed strike is the latest example of teachers’ unions harnessing allegedly high-minded progressive causes to wrest professional wins. As students languished under union-backed school closures during the pandemic, American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten pushed to ditch standardized testing in the name of equity. Last summer, the president of the National Education Association said the union would lobby on transgender issues, abortion, and gun control alongside its fight against charter schools. The California teachers’ union is lobbying on gun control, flavored tobacco bans, and LGBT issues to shore up support from other powerful political groups.

The teachers’ union lifted elements of the DSA’s Green New Deal for schools, such as demands for free public transportation for students, “climate literacy” courses taught through a “racial justice lens,” campus parks, and more school solar panels. The teachers’ platform, titled “Beyond Recovery,” also seeks city rent controls, taxpayer-funded parental leave, subsidized housing on unused school property, smaller classrooms, and a crackdown on charter schools. The union is also demanding that administrators lobby the federal government to make COVID-19 funds permanent and the state to increase cash flow.

Los Angeles public school teachers earn on average $86,578 per year, with total compensation running nearly $115,000 with benefits, according to Transparent California. That is well above the city’s average salary of $67,500. The strike would shut schools for three days in the state’s largest district, where kids are still reeling from learning losses and behavioral problems incurred during California’s longest-in-the-nation closures. Some 420,000 students would be affected.

The United Teachers of Los Angeles did not respond to the Free Beacon‘s request for comment. The Free Beacon was unable to find contact information for the DSA chapter.

The teachers’ union, which is coordinating its strike with the local SEIU chapter for low-wage school employees, has refused to engage in normal negotiations and isn’t budging from all its demands, according to district superintendent Alberto Carvalho. As he gave a press conference on Wednesday to promise to do everything he could to avert the strike, the Los Angeles Democratic Socialists of America rallied with both unions to cheer them on.

“Socialists support public school workers!” the Los Angeles DSA chapter tweeted.

The massive pay increase seems to contradict the mantra of the teachers’ socialist backers, who “believe that working people should run both the economy and society … to meet human needs, not to make profits for a few.”

The antics by the unions and their socialist allies follow a mass exodus from Los Angeles schools. About 20,000 students dropped out or moved to different schools to escape forced remote learning. Los Angeles school officials foresee more dwindling to come—and a corresponding hit to their budgets. Enrollment will likely shrink by nearly 30 percent by 2030, according to projections.

Correction, 3/19/2023, 9:00 a.m.: This piece has been updated with more accurate information about teachers’ compensation.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Prominent tech companies, liberal news outlets, and a Democratic politician’s vineyards are among the thousands of businesses that breathed a sigh of relief on Sunday when the Biden administration moved to bail out Silicon Valley Bank.

Silicon Valley Bank maintained $209 billion in assets and $175.4 billion in total deposits, making it the 16th-largest bank in the country. It was the second-largest bank to fail in American history when the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation took control of the institution on Friday.

President Joe Biden has insisted that the FDIC’s move was not a bailout, and claimed his administration is working to protect “American workers and small businesses.” But average Americans won’t benefit the most from the bailout. Ninety-three percent of the bank’s depositors kept more than $250,000 in the bank.

While the California bank was famous for its rolodex of tech clients, it happily accepted deposits from all manner of people, including some of the individuals and institutions involved in pushing the Biden administration’s bailout.

Here are just a few.

Gavin Newson

California Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D.) trio of wineries are clients of the failed financial institution, as is the governor himself. He has maintained personal accounts at the failed bank for years, the Intercept reported, citing a former Newsom aide. Newsom’s efforts to rescue Silicon Valley Bank’s clients could also put him on the wrong side of the law. California law prohibits elected officials from influencing official matters in which “the official has a financial interest,” Insider reported.

Newsom was instrumental in convincing Biden over the weekend that a bailout of the failing bank was necessary. He was also one of the first politicians nationwide to hail the president’s swift move on Sunday to make all of Silicon Valley Bank’s clients whole. Newsom was one of many high-profile Democrats who received money from Silicon Valley Bank, whose employees have also given tens of thousands of dollars to Democratic candidates and causes.

The emotional toll Newsom may have faced had his wineries failed amid Silicon Valley Bank’s implosion would have likely been equally as devastating as the impact on his bottom line. He refused to sell his businesses when he first ran for governor in 2018, saying: “These are my babies, my life, my family. I can’t do that. I can’t sell them.”

BuzzFeed

Liberal online media company BuzzFeed revealed to investors Monday that it held $56 million in cash and cash equivalents as of the end of 2022, the majority of which was held at Silicon Valley Bank. The news capped off a not-so-banner 2022 fiscal year for BuzzFeed, in which the company weathered a net loss of $201.3 million, laid off 40 percent of its newsroom, and saw its stock price plummet by 90 percent.

BuzzFeed has placed little focus on the bank’s collapse, having mentioned the story in its morning newsletter, a quiz published Wednesday, as well as a passing reference in a Tuesday story about a “viral alpha male finance podcast parody sketch.” None of the stories mentioned BuzzFeed’s financial connection to the bank.

As part of its efforts to right its ship, BuzzFeed announced it would leverage artificial intelligence to spin up viral listicles and quizzes. BuzzFeed News editor in chief Karolina Waclawiak also told the company’s remaining editorial staffers at a recent meeting to shift away from long-form news reporting and prioritize click-bait celebrity news, the Wall Street Journal reported.

Vox Media

Vox Media, the parent company of dozens of liberal news companies including Vox, New York magazine, the Verge, and Polygon, disclosed in news stories that it banked with Silicon Valley Bank before its collapse.

Unlike BuzzFeed, Vox has disclosed its financial connection to the failed bank in news stories this week. That hasn’t stopped the outlet, however, from carrying water for the Biden administration. On Tuesday, for example, it published a story mocking concerns that Silicon Valley Bank’s fixation on woke initiatives may have contributed to its demise.

Vox spokeswoman Lauren Starke told the Washington Post that the company doesn’t anticipate “any significant impact” due to the bank’s failure but added that it has suffered “logistical issues such as the temporary suspension of accounts and company credit cards.”

In a Monday piece on Silicon Valley Bank’s collapse, Vox competitor the Dispatch parenthetically disclosed it had been a Silicon Valley Bank customer.

Black Lives Matter

While Black Lives Matter isn’t a known client of Silicon Valley Bank, the bank’s untimely failure marks the end of a significant gravy train for the movement.

Silicon Valley Bank and its employees contributed more than $73 million to the Black Lives Matter movement and related causes since 2020, according to a database maintained by the Claremont Institute.

The Green Energy Racket

Silicon Valley Bank’s failure could have delivered a seismic blow to the climate change industry and the more than 1,550 technology companies that specialize in solar, hydrogen, and battery storage solutions that held funds at the bank, had Biden not bailed the institution out.

Still, the bank’s failure will have lingering effects for the industry, with insiders warning that Silicon Valley Bank was often the only institution willing to lend funds for their projects.

“Silicon Valley Bank was in many ways a climate bank,” Kiran Bhatraju, the chief executive of the nation’s largest community solar manager, Arcadia, told the New York Times. “When you have the majority of the market banking through one institution, there’s going to be a lot of collateral damage.”

Wedbush Securities technology sector analyst David Ives added that the bank’s failure is a “major blow to early-stage and even late-stage tech startups.”

Silicon Valley Bank “was the bank that would always pick up the phone when other large money center banks wouldn’t,” Ives told Politico.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Twice-failed Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams (D.) is parlaying her election losses into becoming a lawyer for a dark money group that is pushing to eliminate gas-powered stoves.

Abrams has taken over as general counsel for environmental group Rewiring America, Fox News reported. The group, part of a left-wing dark money fund controlled by Arabella Advisors, has long pushed for “decarbonizing our economy,” a cause the Biden administration has embraced in recent weeks.

Rewiring America researcher Talor Gruenwald, who wrote the study that the Biden administration has used to justify a potential gas-stove ban, was formerly employed by the Rocky Mountain Institute, which shares board members with Chinese state-controlled companies.

The failed candidate will “launch and scale a national awareness campaign and a network of large and small communities working to help Americans go electric,” Rewiring America announced. The group has blasted the use of gas stoves and called for mass “electrification,” which the group’s CEO praised as “the most equity-centered climate strategy we have.”

Abrams in 2018 refused to concede her election loss to Georgia governor Brian Kemp (R.), falsely claiming that Kemp stole the election from her. She again lost to Kemp in 2022, this time by nearly 300,000 votes.

Rewiring America in its statement praised Abrams as a “political leader, voting rights activist, and bestselling author.”

The group is sponsored by the Windward Fund, in turn a member of Arabella Advisors’ dark money network, Fox reported. Arabella also manages the North Fund, a shape-shifting organization that “uses aliases to push an array of left-wing causes from a shell office in Washington, D.C.,” the Washington Free Beacon reported.

While Abrams paints herself as an anti-corporate progressive, she has cozy relationships with other shadowy millionaires and corporations. Much of her 2022 fundraising haul came from “wealthy coastal Democrats,” the Free Beacon reported, while her “voting rights” nonprofit is bankrolled by a foreign billionaire.

Another one of Abrams’s nonprofits, the New Georgia Project, is facing multiple investigations. Among other concerns, over half a million dollars is missing from the group’s tax filing.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

According to Anders Corr, publisher of the Journal of Political Risk, China is ‘sanction proofing’ its economy from the United States in preparation for the potential invasion of Taiwan.

After the 14th National People’s Congress, the nation’s top legislature, closed its first session on March 13, China’s premier Li Qiang said that China would align with high-standard international economic and trade rules and further expand opening up this year, the state-controlled media, China Daily reported.

“China, which is open and in the constant process of development, welcomes everyone to invest and develop,” Qiang is quoted as saying.

However, Corr said, “What China’s really doing in terms of their so-called opening up is they’re refocusing on their domestic economy, which is really a form of sanction-proofing the economy.”

“We should see it as a risk indicator in terms of they’re attempting to not only sanction proof their economy, but they’re attempting to rocket their technological development in order to make it independent, so that when they do invade Taiwan, which is their stated plan, at some point in the future, if Taiwan doesn’t peacefully ‘reunify,’ the country will be sanction proof, the country will be independent technologically, and so be able to carry on,” Corr said on “China in Focus” on NTD, The Epoch Times’ sister media outlet, on Monday, March 13.

According to Corr, Qiang’s statement does not mean China is opening up, but it aims at “trying to convince countries to invest, to trade, because they know that’s where their money comes from.”

“But at its base, they want to keep growing economically and put that money into their military, which they will then use in their idea to take over Taiwan,” he said.

To prove his point, Corr pointed to Chinese leader Xi Jinping’s vow to modernize China’s military to make it a “Great Wall of Steel” at the National People’s Congress on Monday.

Freeze US Assets in China

The expert further sounded the alarm over the $2 trillion investment U.S. investors have poured into China since 1992.

Given the fact that variable interest enterprises (VIE), a “spider-web of contractual commitments” that essentially do not confer ownership in the Chinese company, and increasingly stringent regulatory scrutiny are the standard for foreigners investing in China stock, Corr called it “a very dangerous investment.”

“It’s a very dangerous investment; they’d be easy for the Chinese Communist Party to take at some point. I mean, it would cause market turmoil in terms of investments in China if they did, but I think that the Chinese Communist Party is very ready to do that. They’re sanction-proofing their economy, they’re ready to take Taiwan, so they’re certainly ready to take your shares if they can,” he said.

He singled out the report in which billionaire investor Mark Mobius recently said that the Chinese regime has taken “very significant” action to prevent him from withdrawing capital from Chinese equities since his HSBC account is in Shanghai.

Corr said that the United States and China would see assets frozen in a time of war.

“So you would see U.S. investors’ assets frozen in China,” he warned.

Economic Rethink of Dealing With China

He raised concerns about Temu, an online marketplace founded in Boston in 2022 by PDD Holdings Inc., which also operates Pinduoduo in China.

Corr compared Temu with the Chinese video-sharing app TikTok that has come under massive scrutiny over national security concerns.

He referred to Temu as “part and parcel of sort of the Tick Tock approach, which is to pretend that an app is somehow an American app, that it’s somehow secure.”

“But what we’re finding out about Tiktok is that it’s not at all secure, that we have whistleblowers coming out of the security of Tiktok-owned security apparatus saying it’s not secure, there are connections to China,” he said.

“We can expect the same to come to light over time with Temu,” he added.

“I just don’t think we ought to be letting these companies from China, which is now an adversary of the United States, [and] is thinking of providing weapons to Russia, to take huge amounts of market share in the United States,” he said.

“And that’s exactly what Tiktok has done, and I think that’s what Temu risks doing to a company like Amazon,” he said.

Corr called for “a complete economic rethink about how we deal with China that involves not letting big China companies into the U.S. market.”

He suggested that the United States and its allies, including Europe, Japan, India, and South Korea, impose stricter sanctions and tariffs on China and Russia, as he said, “these are the main two countries that are causing global instability today.”

“If we can impose those sanctions, we can weaken them and strengthen the interdependence of our own economies with each other. We need to be strengthening each other with trade instead of strengthening our adversary,” Corr said.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

With the ascent of leftism and the loss of meaning in society, more and more people seek purpose in their professions. We see the result with Silicon Valley Bank. 

The primary concern of the people who ran the Silicon Valley Bank (SVB)—the bank that just went bust—was not banking. Nor was it making money for the bank’s shareholders or safeguarding the funds of its depositors.

Their primary concern was social activism—LGBTQIA+, DEI (diversity, equity, inclusion), ESG (environmental, social, and governance), and climate change.

In fact, for nine months—from April 2022 until only eight weeks ago—SVB in America didn’t even have a chief risk officer (CRO). It did have a CRO for Europe, Africa, and the Middle East; but the woman entrusted with that role, Jay Ersapah, was apparently considerably more interested in left-wing activism than in risk assessment.  

The Daily Mail reported that Ersapah—who identifies herself as a “queer person of color”—”organized a host of LGBTQ initiatives including a month-long Pride campaign and implemented ‘safe space’ catch-ups for staff. In a corporate video published just nine months ago, she said she ‘could not be prouder’ to work for SVB serving ‘underrepresented minorities.’”

The professional network Outstanding listed Ersapah as a “Top-100 LGTBQ Future Leader.”

“Jay is a leading figure for the bank’s awareness activities including being a panelist at the SVB’s Global Pride townhall to share her experiences as a lesbian of color, moderating SVB’s EMEA (Europe, Middle East, Africa) Pride townhall and was instrumental in . . . supporting employees in sharing their experiences of coming out,” her bio on the Outstanding website states.

“It adds that she . . . had authored numerous articles to promote LGBTQ awareness. These included ‘Lesbian Visibility Day’ and ‘Trans Awareness Week.’”

How is one to explain SVB’s—and for that matter, virtually every major bank’s—woke activism? 

There are a number of possible reasons, but here is one that explains the left-wing activism of almost every profession.

Beginning in the second half of the 20th century, people in nearly every white-collar profession ceased finding their work inherently meaningful. So, they sought to use their profession to change the world.

Take journalism. For most of American history, reporters understood that their primary job was to report news. And for the most part, reporters believed that was important work. In the second half of the 20th century, more and more of them found reporting the news unexciting and meaningless. So, they sought to use journalism to change the world.

Sports writers are one such example. There is no group more woke, or more sheeplike in its behavior than sports writers. They decided that merely writing about sports was not particularly significant work. So, they decided to use their profession to change the world. It was sports writers who led the idiotic campaign to drop the name “Redskins” from the Washington NFL team—even though the name was adopted as an honorific (no one names their team for an insult) and even though the vast majority of Native Americans, according to the Washington Post itself, could not care less about the issue.

But the hysteria they whipped up over the name “Redskins” gave the lives of these sports writers much more meaning than merely reporting on football games. They were now making the world a better place.

The same holds true for actors. Until about the mid-20th century, few actors spoke out on political issues, let alone devoted their off-screen lives to social activism. Most actors actually found meaning in their profession—as indeed they should. Bringing plays and films to life, making people laugh and cry, distracting people from their troubles for a couple of hours—these things render acting a very meaningful profession. 

But, again, beginning in the second half of the 20th century, Hollywood stars thought they had to “make a difference” by changing the world. One obvious result has been the decimation of the Academy Awards, which have morphed into joyless celebrations not of acting, but of left-wing anger.

The same holds true for academia. If you’re an English professor, why merely teach English literature when you can change the world? Doesn’t that make you feel much more important? And, if that’s true for a college professor, how much more so is it true for an elementary school teacher? What makes you feel more important—teaching third graders how to read and write or fighting racism?

There are two related reasons for these developments.

One is the ascent of leftism, an ideology that regards literally every aspect of life as political. For the Left, there are no nonpolitical spheres. Whether you are a kindergarten teacher, a sports writer, or an oboist with the Philadelphia Orchestra, you are to bring political activism into your work.

The other reason is the loss of meaning in our secular society. Whereas in the past, people derived meaning in life from their religion—their religious community, their house of worship, Bible study—religious sources of meaning have begun to disappear from our secular society. And secularism is rapidly leading to the collapse of the other great source of meaning in people’s lives: marriage and family, as we witness the lowest number of marriages and children in American history.

Therefore, one has had to look elsewhere for meaning.

And where do people look? To career and political activism—and ideally, the merger of the two. Whereas in the past, one’s work was primarily regarded as a means to an end—namely, a way to provide for one’s family—today, work is an end in itself.

That’s why the people running the Silicon Valley Bank were more interested in LGBTQ activism than in making money for its investors and protecting the money of its depositors. The former is way more meaningful.

SOURCE: American Greatness

Sen. Jon Tester (D., Mont.), who bills himself as a “strong advocate for rural America,” attended a fundraiser Monday cohosted by a partner at the law firm that represents Silicon Valley Bank.

Michael Danaher, a cohost for Tester’s Palo Alto, Calif., fundraiser, is a partner at the firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati, which represents the bank and other Silicon Valley ventures, the New York Post reported. Other cohosts for the event—which cost between $250 and $6,600 to attend—included Greg Avis, the founder of venture capital firm Summit Partners, and Matt Glickman, a tech entrepreneur who cohosted a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton with disgraced Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes in 2016.

Tester’s attendance will likely draw unwelcome scrutiny as he prepares for a contentious reelection campaign. Tester, considered one of the most vulnerable Senate Democrats in the 2024 cycle, has faced criticism from liberals for his vote for a 2018 bill that cut regulations for mid-sized banks like Silicon Valley Bank, whose collapse last week is the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history. Tester, a member of the Senate Banking Committee, has not addressed his vote for the bill.

The Biden administration is under fire for bailing out depositors in the bank, which had more than $200 billion in assets. The Treasury Department said it will fully cover deposits at the bank, even above the $250,000 covered by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. The administration claims that taxpayers will not foot the bill, but it is widely expected that banks will jack up fees on customers in order to pay for higher insurance premiums brought on by the bailout, which has been described as “socialism for the rich.”

The fundraiser is the latest example of Tester’s campaign activity contradicting his image as a champion of rural values and “Montana’s unique way of life.” The Washington Free Beacon reported that Tester’s campaign spent $1.2 million since 2006 on catered events and restaurants, including a Beltway haunt that caters to “celebrities” and “powerbrokers,” and another that enforces a “strict upscale dress code” for its patrons.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Tester said pipeline would have ensured ‘energy independence,’ created ‘big benefits for our state’

Montana senator Jon Tester, who mourned the death of the Keystone XL pipeline and the hundreds of rural jobs it would have created, held a big-ticket Silicon Valley fundraiser with a green energy activist who helped kill the pipeline.

Tester’s Monday night Silicon Valley soirée—which cost up to $6,600 to attend—counted Natural Resources Defense Council board member Nicole Lederer as a sponsor. The council repeatedly sued the Trump administration to delay the Keystone pipeline project until President Joe Biden canceled it within days of taking office in January 2021. The council’s successful “takedown” of Keystone, its website says, “will go down as one of this generation’s most monumental environmental victories.” Lederer also personally trashed the project, writing in a Huffington Post column that Keystone “is against the best interest of our country” and would create “very few jobs.”

Tester’s willingness to rub elbows with Lederer contradicts the Democrat’s public support for the pipeline, which would have created hundreds of construction jobs in Big Sky Country—jobs that Tester himself said “would have yielded big benefits for our state.” And while Tester pledged to “keep fighting to create jobs in rural Montana” after the pipeline was killed, the Natural Resources Defense Council openly touts its work to kill oil and gas extraction in Montana and other northwestern states. That industry supports more than 29,000 Montana jobs, according to the Montana Petroleum Association.

The Tester campaign did not return a request for comment. Lederer, who is based in Palo Alto, Calif., and serves as chair of an environmental nonprofit that is a Natural Resources Defense Council partner, contributed more than $11,000 to Tester’s campaign prior to the Monday fundraiser, campaign finance records show. Lederer’s nonprofit said it was not involved with the fundraiser “in any way, shape, or form” and did not comment further.

Lederer was far from the only politically controversial attendee at the posh Palo Alto event. A partner at Silicon Valley Bank’s legal firm also sponsored the fundraiser, which took place just three days after the bank collapsed in the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history. Tester, who sits on the Senate Banking Committee, has faced criticism from liberals for his vote for a 2018 bill that cut regulations for mid-sized banks like Silicon Valley Bank. Tester has not addressed the vote.

Tester’s Silicon Valley fundraiser also comes days after the Washington Free Beacon found that the Democrat has spent more than a million dollars at swanky restaurants, including one Washington, D.C., establishment that boasts of its “ambiance and luxury” and status as a meeting place for “senators, congressmen, celebrities, and powerbrokers.” Tester, who bills himself as a “tireless defender of rural America,” insisted in 2012 he would rather eat meat from his Montana farm than go out to dinner. “At the end of the long day, I am happier not going out [to eat],” Tester said. “Taking meat with us is just something that we do. We like our own meat.”

Tester, who launched his 2024 reelection bid last month, is considered a top target for Senate Republicans as they try to earn a majority in the upper chamber. The party performed well in statewide Montana races in 2020, with Republicans Steve Daines and Greg Gianforte cruising to double-digit wins in their respective campaigns for senator and governor.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

The White House is adamant that the government money spent to prop up Silicon Valley Bank didn’t amount to a “bailout,” but very few economists, lawmakers, and political commentators appear to be buying the administration’s argument.

White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said on Monday that “this is not a bailout,” and President Joe Biden during his morning remarks that same day insisted that “no losses will be borne by the taxpayers.” But Biden appears to be on an island with that interpretation of the federal government’s extraordinary actions, which protected all of the bank’s depositors.

Financial journalists Sebastian Mallaby of the Washington Post, Andrew Ross Sorkin of the New York Times, and Emily Stewart of Vox all categorized the government actions as a bailout. Two economists interviewed by NPR said the same.

And lawmakers from both sides of the aisle agreed on something for once: Biden’s actions constituted a bailout. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I., Vt.) released a statement that said, “Now is not the time for U.S. taxpayers to bail out Silicon Valley Bank,” while Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R., Wyo.) said in a Monday interview the Biden administration’s “bailout” could “encourage risky behaviors by similar institutions down the road.”

The White House’s word games reportedly stem from concerns about optics. Politico reported on Monday that Biden was initially hesitant to order anything that “could be labeled a taxpayer-funded bailout,” recalling the political firestorm Washington faced in 2009 following the passage of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act and Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), which provided loans and liquidity to financial institutions at the height of the Great Recession.

But following pleas from advisers, and reportedly California governor Gavin Newsom (D.), Biden, in the words of one economist, decided to set “a crazy precedent.” Under the federal government’s emergency program, all of Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank’s depositors will have complete access to their deposits—even those above the $250,000 insurance limit covered by the FDIC. The Federal Reserve also created an emergency lending program—backed by taxpayer funds and unmentioned during Biden’s Monday remarks—to keep other financial institutions afloat should they run low on cash.

Richard Squire, a Fordham University law professor and banking expert, told NPR that “the venture capital firms and the startups are being bailed out. There is no doubt about that.”

Biden’s “rescue” is “like if you pay a bond for someone to get out of jail, rescuing someone when they’re in trouble,” he added. “If you don’t want to use the b-word, that is fine, but that is what is happening here.”

“If your definition [of a bailout] is government intervention to prevent private losses, then this is certainly a bailout,” Neil Barofsky, who oversaw TARP under both the Bush and Obama administrations, told NPR.

Critics say the federal government’s actions set a precedent that depositors, particularly wealthy ones, will pay even less attention about where they store their money, also known as a “moral hazard.” An insurance limit exists for a reason, critics allege, and dispersing with it during a panic raises questions over the purpose of the insurance policy.

In short, Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank—and potentially other institutions, if they draw from the Fed’s emergency program—were bailed out. Without the federal government’s intervention, those banks would have entered some form of bankruptcy, and depositors with funds above the FDIC insurance limit, mostly venture capitalists and tech firms in the case of Silicon Valley Bank, would have likely taken some losses when the banks’ customers were sold to another institution.

Biden’s assertion that “no losses will be borne by the taxpayers” is specious as well. Aside from the Federal Reserve’s emergency lending system, Americans will be on the hook for the FDIC’s actions. Most states require federal insurance for banks to operate, which they pay through fees to a federal insurance company. Those costs are ultimately borne by depositors or those who do business with the vast majority of banks, both of which are taxpayers. Moreover, the FDIC will need to recuperate the funds it used to make depositors whole.

The FDIC’s deposit insurance fund is roughly $130 billion, far less than the $22 trillion deposited in all U.S. banks. Roughly 42 percent of deposits in the United States are covered by insurance. Should the FDIC’s fund run out, it would be up to the Department of Treasury—i.e., taxpayers—to make up the difference.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Facebook parent Meta has announced that it’s slashing another 10,000 jobs and won’t fill 5,000 open position, as the beleaguered social media giant struggles to cut costs amid profit pressure.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg broke the bad news to staff in a statement on Tuesday, in which he gave an update on the company’s “Year of Efficiency” efforts to slash costs.

“As I’ve talked about efficiency this year, I’ve said that part of our work will involve removing jobs—and that will be in service of both building a leaner, more technical company,” Zuckerberg said.

The widely anticipated job cuts are part of a broader restructuring at Meta that includes canceling lower-priority projects, flattening layers of middle management, and “dramatically” boosting developer productivity.

“This will be tough, and there’s no way around that. It will mean saying goodbye to talented and passionate colleagues who have been part of our success,” Zuckerberg said.

The Facebook founder said U.S.-based tech workers will start seeing pink slips in late April, while in late May staff in the company’s business units can expect to be let go.

“With less hiring, I’ve made the difficult decision to further reduce the size of our recruiting team,” Zuckerberg continued, adding that recruiting team members will be notified over the next few days whether they still have jobs.

In a small number of cases, it could take until the end of the year to complete the terminations, Zuckerberg said, while job cut timelines for Meta’s international staff members will differ.

Shares of Meta jumped 6 percent on the news.

‘New Economic Reality’

Meta said in February that its profits were declining as it announced its third consecutive quarter of falling revenue. At the time, Zuckerberg said Meta would be laying off 11,000 workers, or around 13 percent of its workforce.

He blamed those job cuts on aggressive hiring during the pandemic, when business was booming as people spent more time on social media while locked down in their homes. But as lockdowns became a thing of the past and normal life resumed, the company’s revenue growth began to fade.

“Last year was a humbling wake-up call. The world economy changed, competitive pressures grew, and our growth slowed considerably,” Zuckerberg said in Tuesday’s message.

Meta responded to the changing market dynamics by scaling back budgets, getting rid of some office space, and cutting staff—with more on the way.

“I think we should prepare ourselves for the possibility that this new economic reality will continue for many years,” Zuckerberg said, pointing to factors like high interest rates putting an end to the easy money era that flooded businesses—tech companies in particular—with cash.

Heightened geopolitical instability means more volatility and a less predictable operating environment, he said, while blaming increased regulation for slower growth and higher innovation costs.

“Given this outlook, we’ll need to operate more efficiently than our previous headcount reduction to ensure success,” Zuckerberg said.

The Menlo Park, California, company has invested billions of dollars to realign its focus on its virtual reality “metaverse” and is looking to move aggressively into artificial intelligence.

“This work is incredibly important and the stakes are high,” Zuckerberg said, adding that Meta’s top investment priority is in artificial intelligence and building it into every single one of its products.

Tech Layoffs Soar

Roughly 128,000 technology industry employees from 483 companies have been laid off since the start of the year, according to the industry employment tracking website Layoffs.Fyi.

At the current pace of around 51,200 job losses per month, about 614,000 tech employees could lose their current jobs through the end of the year. That would represent around a 280 percent increase from 2022, when 160,997 people got pink slips, according to Layoffs.Fyi.

In January, Google began layoffs of 12,000 workers, or about 6 percent of its workforce, while Microsoft also started cutting about 10,000 jobs that same month.

In February, the computer maker Dell announced plans to cut about 6,650 employees in a plan to reduce its workforce by about 5 percent.

“Market conditions continue to erode with an uncertain future,” Dell co-chief operating officer Jeff Clarke said as he announced the job cuts. Clarke said the steps the company had taken to that point to stay ahead of the economic downturn were “no longer enough.”

Amazon also announced plans to cut 8,000 jobs, on top of the roughly 10,000 it slashed at the end of last year.

Twitter CEO Elon Musk, too, slashed around half of the social media platform’s workforce.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

The Biden administration’s new “energy-efficiency standards” for refrigerators and washing machines have sparked concern among industry experts who say the rules could end up costing manufacturers and consumers more at a time when energy costs have soared.

The Department of Energy (DOE) last month proposed new efficiency standards for washing machines, claiming that they would “lower household energy costs” while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and helping to combat the “climate crisis.”

Under the proposed rules (pdf), which would take effect in 2027, washing machines and refrigerators would be required to meet a more stringent set of energy efficiency standards and use considerably less water.

The department would also prevent manufacturers from “undercutting those playing by the rules” by providing “inferior-quality products.”

The new rules are expected to save consumers more than $60 billion over three decades, the DOE estimates, while noting that a majority of products achieving these standards are already commercially available.

However, industry experts and manufacturers have raised concerns over the new standards, claiming that they could reduce the cleaning performance of washers and increase costs for manufacturers and consumers.

“When you’re squeezing all you can out of efficiency in terms of electricity use and water … you by definition either make the appliance worse or slower,” Travis Fisher, a senior research fellow at Heritage Foundation’s Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment, told the Washington Free Beacon. “Why are we so focused on the energy output, as opposed to if it’s helping me wash my clothes?

“That standard has kind of gone off the rails,” Fisher said.

“They keep tightening the standards, and I’m not sure their reasoning makes sense anymore.”

Standards Could ‘Harm Consumers’

Elsewhere, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM) stated that a majority of appliances covered by the program now operate at peak efficiency, meaning that the additional standards are unlikely to result in significant energy gains.

“More stringent federal efficiency standards are likely to increase costs for manufacturers and consumers without providing meaningful energy savings,” the organization stated. “Continuing with the current policy could put product performance at risk as manufacturers are forced to make design changes to accommodate more stringent efficiency standards.”

American Enterprise Institute senior fellow James Coleman told Fox News Digital, “Like many efficiency standards, the government claims that although these standards will raise the cost of appliances, they are justified because they will reduce consumer spending on energy and water even more.

“Of course, if that were true, consumers would likely buy more efficient appliances anyway, given that studies show consumers consider energy and water costs,” he said.

“If consumers do fully consider what they will pay on energy in their individual circumstances, then the standards would, on-net, harm consumers.”

U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm said the regulations build on “a decades-long effort with industry to ensure tomorrow’s appliances work more efficiently and save Americans money.”

“Over the last 40 years, at the direction of Congress, DOE has worked to promote innovation, improve consumers’ options, and raise efficiency standards for household appliances without sacrificing the reliability and performance that Americans have come to expect,” she said.

According to the DOE, the proposed rules would save U.S. consumers about $3.5 billion a year on their energy and water bills, while reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 233 million metric tons.

Cleaning Performance May Be Affected

However, it also noted that about 25 percent of top-loading standard-size clothes washer consumers and 24 percent of front-loading (compact and standard-size) clothes washer consumers “would experience a net cost.”

“DOE acknowledges the larger impact on senior-only households as a result of smaller households and lower average annual use, but notes that the average LCC [life-cycle cost] savings are still positive,” the department stated.

Additionally, the DOE stated that it recognizes that generally, “a consumer-acceptable level of cleaning performance can be easier to achieve through the use of higher amounts of energy and water use during the clothes washer cycle.”

“Conversely, maintaining acceptable cleaning performance can be more difficult as energy and water levels are reduced.”

The department also stated that manufacturers would incur $690.8 million in conversion costs to bring the products into compliance with the amended standards.

Still, the department noted that it’s authorized to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment every six years under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which Congress approved in 1975.

The latest regulations come after the DOE proposed a maximum annual gas consumption of 1,204 thousand British thermal units for all gas cooking tops, a rule that, if finalized, would remove up to half the current gas cooking appliances on the U.S. market.

The White House has insisted that President Joe Biden doesn’t support such a ban.

The Department of Energy didn’t respond by press time to a request by The Epoch Times for comment.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Despite the “tax-the-rich” claims of dems, the FTX debacle and this bank implosion trend are ways to reward the mega-rich with taxpayer funding and circumvent the tax code. So, the net effect is hundreds of times worse than the current tax code. They are filling their pockets before China/Russia invade our country and assume full control. The only upside is that the dems that voted to make this happen will be subject to communism and totalitarianism. That is something to look forward to. [US Patriot]

The “rich people” with money in Silicon Valley Bank are the real winners in Joe Biden’s handling of the California-based bank’s collapse, economist Peter St Onge says. 

After the fall of Silicon Valley Bank over the weekend, the Biden administration announced that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. will cover all depositors’ money there.

Normally, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. is responsible for covering deposits up to $250,000, ensuring that most small businesses and individuals are financially protected from a collapse. But in this case, the FDIC is going far beyond that $250,000 cap to cover every deposit in Silicon Valley Bank, regardless of the amount. 

“If the administration gets away with this, then we are going to start moving into a world where bankers, where Wall Street, feels like they can take any risk they like, because this is all going to get bailed out because you’ve got these human shields,” St Onge, a research fellow in economics at The Heritage Foundation, says. (The Daily Signal is Heritage’s multimedia news organization.) 

Ultimately, the federal government’s actions to protect Silicon Valley depositors probably will result in higher inflation, St Onge says. “I think we’re very likely to see a lot more inflation,” he says.

St. Onge joins this episode of “The Daily Signal Podcast” to discuss how Silicon Valley Bank collapsed and what Biden’s actions mean for the nation’s economy. 

Read the lightly edited transcript.

Virginia Allen: We are joined today by Heritage Foundation research fellow in economics Peter St Onge. Peter, thanks so much for your time today. We really appreciate you joining.

Peter St Onge: Thanks for having me here.

Allen: So, we are watching a very interesting situation unfold right now with Silicon Valley Bank and honestly, what we’re seeing, it’s bringing up memories from 2008 and the bank bailouts there, but we’ve just seen this major bank fold in Silicon Valley. Before we get too far into the weeds of how this happened and all the details, go ahead and let us know just a little bit about this bank. Who were the investors, specifically the tech companies that had money in this bank?

St Onge: Silicon Valley Bank is almost a country club-style bank where you’ve got to be a big shot to be there. So you’ve got to be a significant startup in Silicon Valley. There were a lot of startups that would give them a call, they got to try to get their prestige membership in the bank, and they would be told, “Well, you guys are kind of small. Come back when you’ve got more money.”

And so pretty much anybody who was anybody in Silicon Valley was doing business with this bank. A lot of those companies were doing business, a lot of the individuals—so people like Mark Cuban had a big chunk of change in this bank. And the way that they would work is if you had a relationship with Silicon Valley Bank, they would expect that you do all of your banking there. So your home mortgage, your personal accounts, the whole thing.

And what it appears happened here is that Silicon Valley Bank was playing very fast and loose with a number of things that you wouldn’t expect from banks. So, for example, they were accepting yachts as collateral, boats—and yachts lose value very quickly, they’re not very liquid. It’s not like selling your used car. So that’s kind of abnormal.

It seems that they had equity relationships with a lot of their depositors where they were getting shares in companies in exchange for these relationships. It seems as if there was a fair amount of shenanigans going down.

The thing is, those are more the spark that caused the crisis at this bank. And by the way, this is a large bank, OK? This is one of the top 20 banks in the country. So they’re looking at about $200 billion of deposits. So despite all these shenanigans, that’s not actually, ironically, what brought them down. What brought them down, and this is the bigger concern, is something that’s going to really impact every bank in America, it was something called duration risk.

That means, when you buy treasuries, government debt—so, government debt basically underpins the entire banking system. Regulators love it, of course they want you to buy government bonds because they’d like somebody to soak all that money up. And the problem is that those bonds, they’re different than cash. Cash, a dollar is always a dollar, but when it comes to government bonds, when the interest rate moves around, those bonds can either get more or less valuable.

Now, what happened over the past year is that since the Federal Reserve caused all of this inflation, they basically stomped on the accelerator to try to convince voters to accept lockdowns, they stomped on that accelerator and that led to inflation, of course. At that point, the Fed panicked and they said, “My goodness, to stop the inflation, we’re going to have to ramp rates up.” There’s a surge in interest rates, and that’s essentially stomping on the brake pedal now, OK? And so when you do that, then all of those banks that had all of these Treasury bills as basically what’s in their vaults, those Treasury bills across the board had dropped by about 20%.

So imagine if you’re a bank and you got a bunch of money in the vault and all of a sudden 20% of it evaporated, you are going to have problems.

Now, in the case of Silicon Valley Bank, I guess they were the cleverest guys in the room, so they were very aggressive about that duration risk. So it looks like they may have losses closer to 40% on a lot of that collateral. But the concern here is that this may be something that we are seeing across the entire banking system.

The [Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.] recently came out with the estimates. They think that there are $620 billion of unrealized losses, largely in the form of those bonds that have now changed in price, meaning that a lot of these banks—banks typically skirt along with a pretty low buffer between the deposits, which, for a bank, is debt, and the assets they hold. So $620 billion, there may be a lot more banks that are in trouble because of this.

Allen: On Monday, we saw that Sen. Elizabeth Warren, she wrote in a New York Times op-ed that these recent bank failures are the direct result of leaders in Washington weakening the financial rules. Do you agree with that? I mean, should we be looking to Washington to blame or is this just these bank leaders making poor decisions about where they’re putting investors’ money?

St Onge: Yeah, the pattern in this administration is that every time they break something, they get all the interns to go and find something somewhere that [former President] Donald Trump did.

So in this case, they’re grabbing at straws here. They’re trying to get this little archaic thing in the Dodd-Frank bill where, yeah, the definition of systemic risk. They’re playing games. What caused Silicon Valley Bank to collapse was that duration risk that, according to the FDIC, that would be the Biden FDIC, that’s what’s creating systemic risk here, that is what is.

All of the regulators in Washington right now are in a state of absolute panic because of those structural deficiencies that the Fed and the Treasury together planted into our financial system.

Allen: Now, I want to talk, in just a few minutes, a little bit more about what all of this means for the average American, for our bank accounts, and for the future of the economy. But let’s take a moment right now and talk about the steps that the Biden administration is taking and what’s happening.

So, [President Joe] Biden, he’s not bailing out the bank, but the Treasury Department says that they are taking steps to protect all depositors that had money sitting in Silicon Valley Bank. So they’re saying, though, the Biden administration says, taxpayers are not going to be on the hook for this. So where exactly is the money coming from in order to pay these depositors who are looking at massive financial loss?

St Onge: Right. So, that’s the trick. Every time that you have some sort of financial panic, they’re going to use depositors and businesses as human shields to try to get some kind of bailout. And that’s exactly what’s happening here.

So there are two different types of depositors in a bank. There are the small depositors, those who hold less than $250,000. That’s almost all the people in America. How many people have $250,000 cash sitting in the bank? All right? So all of those regular depositors, they are already covered under the FDIC, OK? No further bailout; no, nothing is needed; they are fine.

The issue here was that because Silicon Valley Bank was this country club bank, almost all of the money in that bank were large depositors, so over $250,000. Mark Cuban had $10 million. And so the issue here is that the Biden administration is proposing to bail out all of those big people, all of those rich people. And that would be a huge change in how our financial system works.

What it would functionally be doing is saying to banks, “Look, you guys can be as reckless as you want. You can play with equity stakes, you can play with yachts, you can do all these things, because don’t worry about it, we are going to cover everybody.”

The traditional way that our FDIC has worked is that it has said, “If bankers are riskless, then they’re going to suffer and the large depositors are going to suffer.” And the FDIC is going to take care of the widows and orphans, the regular people … middle class, working class, all right? That was the bargain on the FDIC. What they’re trying to change that into is they want to drain the FDIC, raid it of billions of dollars so that they can bail out rich people. All right? So that’s step one, what they’re proposing here. And then step two, what they’re proposing is that the Federal Reserve would then step in and lend.

Remember all those treasuries, all that money back in the vaults that has gone down 20% or 40%? What the Fed wants to do is step in and pretend that all those bad investments are still worth what they bought them for and they will lend on that. The reason they want to do that is that they want to bail out all of these reckless banks, all these banks that played with duration risk, that did not buy insurance, which is widely available. So they want to bail out everybody to come.

So, who’s going to pay for it? Step one is the FDIC is going to get raided. Now, the FDIC is your money. When you have money in the bank, the FDIC effectively taxes that every year. It’s like an insurance program, but you, the bank depositor, funded it. This did not come out of Wall Street billionaires’ pockets. The FDIC, that is your money.

So that’s the first step, is that they’re going to raid every other bank account in the United States and they’re going to use that to bail out the rich people in Silicon Valley Bank. Because remember, all the regular people are already covered. That’s not an issue, nobody disagrees with that. Issue here is to bail out the rich people. That’s step one.

Now, the problem is that the FDIC only has about $120 billion, and the total deposits in the U.S. are north of $20 trillion, it’s not much money. So what happens when the FDIC or if it runs out of money? Well, we know what happens because it happened in 2009. They went directly to Treasury and they said, “Hey, guys, we’re going to need some money.” All right, now, in that case, they gave them a $100 billion lending line, and it was temporarily back then, as in March of 2009, it was increased to $500 billion.

So what’s going to happen is, step one, they’re going to raid all of the bank accounts in America to pay off these country club boys. They take it out of FDIC by draining it out of all the other bank accounts. Step two, they then go to Treasury and they get Treasury to issue more debt. Now, remember, Treasury is already debt-limited, all right? In theory, they shouldn’t be playing these games, they shouldn’t be handing out $100 billion here, $500 billion there.

And then step three is that by encouraging, by bailing out banks, by encouraging to take these risks, you then raise the odds that we’re going to go back to the high inflation that the Fed’s been fighting in the first place.

So we can go back to square one and all of this, at the end of the day, then converts into a bailout that’s funded by taxpayers, by all bank depositors in America, including the small ones, and by inflation. So it comes out of your grocery bill.

Allen: So, Peter, I want to make sure I’m understanding this all correctly. So the FDIC, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., they have a pool of money that’s set, the standard is to give $250,000 to individuals, to the small fish, when situations like this occur, when banks go belly up. And once you start going above that and lending out, they run the risk of running out of money. When that happens, then they go to the Treasury Department to say, “Hey, help us cover our costs.” Well, the money that the Treasury Department has is our tax dollars, is Americans’ money. And so, then, if that starts getting pulled on, that affects the larger economy as a whole. So in all likelihood, where does this path take us? What are the short-term and the long-term effects on the economy and on my money sitting in the bank?

Onge: Right. Short term, what we are certainly already seeing is that the Federal Reserve is already giving up the fight against inflation. They are scared, they have panicked, and so we are likely to go back down on interest rates. That will take some of the stress off the wider economy, but at that point, they really don’t have any way to fight inflation. They just use the standard inflation fighting playbook, which is choke the real economy.

And now, at this point, they have found that it’s a lot easier to break things than I think they expected. At this point, if they truly want to fight inflation, the only tool they have left is to reduce government spending. And that, of course, is the one thing they have not wanted to do. We at Heritage have been saying that since the beginning. The minute inflation took off, we said, “Don’t squeeze the real economy, you’ve got to cut government spending.” At this point, having run through the playbook, they’ve got nothing left.

So I think we’re very likely to see a lot more inflation. We are going to see these losses socialized. If the administration gets away with this, then we are going to start moving into a world where bankers, where Wall Street feels like they can take any risk they like, because this is all going to get bailed out because you’ve got these human shields.

And something important to remember is that in finance, risk always pays, risk return. If you are a bank, you will always make more money lending out riskier loans, buying riskier things. That is an iron rule of Wall Street. And so if we move into a world where the government is bailing out everybody, no matter how risky they were, we are inviting financial panic after financial panic.

Allen: And how similar is this situation to the financial crisis of 2008?

St Onge: It is very similar. What happened in 2008 is that a bunch of assets that were underpinning the banking system, so in other words, they were in the vault, called mortgage-backed securities, those were mispriced, OK? Everybody was pretending that they were one value, but they were actually worth less. So the dynamics of it are very similar.

I think what’s different here is that treasuries are even larger than MBSs were, mortgage-backed securities. The scale of the problem is bigger, the amount of debt that we have, both as a country and the financial system and in the government, the levels of debt are far higher than they were. So essentially, the risks that we had back then, that we have this giant almost Ponzi balanced very delicately waiting to topple over, those risks are all higher today. And the interventions that they’re proposing are actually more reckless than they were in 2008.

So I don’t think that we’re going to see a generalized bank panic here. The Federal Reserve has the ability to print unlimited money. I don’t think that this is the end of the republic or the end of the financial system. What I do think there’s a very big risk of is that Wall Street is going to get paid again. They’re going to break it and they are going to get trillions of dollars. The administration is already proposing that.

Allen: And what about the similarities specifically to TARP, the Troubled Asset Relief Program, that we saw in 2008?

Onge: It’s very similar to that, what the Fed is doing. So they are basically stepping in and saying, “Look, I know you guys made all these bad bets, but we’re going to pretend that it never happened, we’re going to lend you money on that.” And you do that so that on paper, they all look like they’re solvent, even though they’re not really solvent.

So it would be like if you went to an individual and you said, “OK, I know that your bitcoin has lost half value, but you’re my friend, so I’m just going to pretend that it’s still worth the amount you paid for it.” That would, of course, be corrupt. And that is not something that regular people, we don’t get to do that. Only the powerful apparently get to do that.

And I think the wider risk here is that we want to keep in mind that bank failures occur all the time. They shouldn’t, but they do. They happen year in, year out. And what I think the market is looking at this, the financial markets, they’re looking at it, they’re saying, “Well, wait a minute. We always work out bank failures. Typically, the FDIC takes them, the large depositors take a haircut,” in other words, they lose some of their money, typically, about 15, 20 cents on the dollar. The small guys are protected. All right?

So FDIC knows how to do it, they do it all the time. Again, it’s sad that they do it all the time, but they do. And so it begs the question, what’s different here? Why this time are we moving heaven and earth to bail out everybody under the sun when bank failures happen all the time? And I think the answer that Wall Street’s going to walk away with is it’s starting to look like everybody is too big to fail. So that crushes community banks. Community banks might not have that pipeline, they do go down all the time. And when they fail, they fail alone. But in this case, what we’re seeing is that if you have rich depositors, if you have rich friends, if you’re a part of the in crowd, we will change all of the rules in order to bail you out.

Allen: President Joe Biden spoke at the White House on Monday and he said that the American people should feel confident in our banking system. Should we feel confident or is this just the first domino to fall in a possible coming financial crisis?

St Onge: In the banking system itself, I think that people can be confident. For better or for worse, they can bail out an absolutely unlimited number of financial institutions. That converts into inflation, potentially catastrophic inflation, very, very high inflation, we might see double-digit or higher inflation. So it is coming out of your pocket. However, in terms of the actual financial system collapsing, the only way that could happen is if they are absolutely incompetent in Washington. They know how to deal with bank failures, they cause them all the time, and they know how to work them out without crushing the system.

Allen: Is there any financial guidance that you would give to the American people who are a little bit worried about their money right now?

St Onge: Right. If your bank account is less than $250,000, you’re going to be fine. Those will be bailed out, they will be covered. If your securities account, like your Schwab account or something, those are also covered. They are going to cover all of those things. I don’t think that you have to take any assets out.

It’s a little trickier if you have a business, where you have a business account at the bank. Those historically were covered up to $250,000, which should be happening in this situation, is that the FDIC should essentially take over the bank. From your perspective, it would run normally, but you would eventually get a haircut on it. If you’re a small business owner, that is something to be aware of. But for regular people, they’re going to play shenanigans behind the scenes, but I believe your money will still be there.

Allen: Peter, we really appreciate your time today. For all of our listeners, if you want to read Peter’s reporting on this, you can find him at The Heritage Foundation website. You can also follow him on Twitter, @profstonge. And Peter, we just really appreciate your insight today.

St Onge: Thank you, it was enjoyable.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. 

The post Who Are Winners and Losers in Biden’s Bailout of Silicon Valley Bank? Economist Explains appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Manufacturers say government climate change initiative would make your washing cycles longer, clothes dirtier

When Cincinnati firefighter Ed Wallace bought a high efficiency Whirlpool washing machine, he came to regret the decision almost immediately. The machine used less water—not enough to clean Wallace’s work clothes—and his colleagues at the firehouse quickly took notice. “I walked past my guys and they say, ‘Dude, you stink!'” Wallace said. “I smelled myself, and yeah, that’s me stinking.”  

Now, President Joe Biden is pushing regulations that could force Wallace’s stinky situation upon millions of Americans.

Biden’s Energy Department last month proposed new efficiency standards for washing machines that would require new appliances to use considerably less water, all in an effort to “confront the global climate crisis.” Those mandates would force manufacturers to reduce cleaning performance to ensure their machines comply, leading industry giants such as Whirlpool said in public comments on the rule. They’ll also make the appliances more expensive and laundry day a headache—each cycle will take longer, the detergent will cost more, and in the end, the clothes will be less clean, the manufacturers say. 

The proposed washing machine rule marks the latest example of the administration turning to consumer regulations to advance its climate change goals. Last month, the Energy Department published an analysis of its proposed cooking appliance efficiency regulations, which it found would effectively ban half of all gas stoves on the U.S. market from being sold. The department has also proposed new efficiency standards for refrigerators, which could come into effect in 2027. “Collectively these energy efficiency actions … support President Biden’s ambitious clean energy agenda to combat the climate crisis,” the Energy Department said in February.

While the Energy Department—which did not return a request for comment—acknowledged in its proposal that “maintaining acceptable cleaning performance can be more difficult as energy and water levels are reduced,” it expressed confidence that Whirlpool and other appliance manufacturers can comply with its regulations without sacrificing stain removal and other performance standards. For the Heritage Foundation’s Travis Fisher, however, manufacturer concerns over the proposal are justified.

“When you’re squeezing all you can out of the efficiency in terms of electricity use and water … you by definition either make the appliance worse or slower,” said Fisher, who serves as a senior research fellow at the foundation’s Center for Energy, Climate, and Environment. “Why are we so focused on the energy output, as opposed to if it’s helping me wash my clothes? That standard has kind of gone off the rails.”

Beyond the performance standard debate, the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers argued that the Energy Department’s washing machine regulations “would have a disproportionate, negative impact on low-income households” by eliminating cheaper appliances from the market. The Energy Department estimates that manufacturers will incur nearly $700 million in conversion costs to transition to the new machines.

The department countered concerns over higher appliance prices by arguing in its proposal that consumers will ultimately save money under the regulations through lower energy and water bills. Still, those estimated savings won’t apply to all consumers, roughly a quarter of whom “would experience a net cost” thanks to the efficiency rule, according to the Energy Department’s proposal.

The Energy Department is required to conduct efficiency standard reviews every six years under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, which Congress enacted in 1975, two years after an Arab oil embargo inflated gas prices in the United States. The Clinton administration subsequently established the country’s first washing machine energy and water efficiency standards in 2001, just before former president George W. Bush took office. Those standards led to “ruined laundry, ongoing maintenance, and service calls,” prompting Whirlpool to release a cleaning product “specifically designed to address moldy washing machines,” according to George Washington University’s Sofie Miller.

The debacle has not stopped the Biden administration from moving forward with more stringent appliance energy efficiency standards, which have not been updated for washing machines since 2012. The tightening of those standards “could put performance at risk” but is unlikely to provide “meaningful energy savings,” the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers says, because most appliances covered under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act “now operate at peak efficiency.”

“They keep tightening the standards, and I’m not sure their reasoning makes sense anymore,” Fisher told the Washington Free Beacon.

SOURCE: The Washington Free Beacon

Feds say all deposits will be guaranteed

U.S. regulators on Sunday announced they were intervening to close Signature Bank, marking the second U.S. bank to fail days apart and the third-largest bank failure in U.S. history.

The bank has been placed into receivership under the Fed’s emergency lending authority, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).

According to a December 2022 securities filing, N.Y.-based Signature Bank held more than $110 billion in assets and some of the biggest stakes among banks in the nation in the cryptocurrency industry.

The bank said at the time that it would be shrinking its $17.79 billion in crypto-related deposits by $8 billion to reduce risk in “a challenging cryptocurrency environment.”

The bank had client offices in New York, Connecticut, California, Nevada, and North Carolina, and had eight business lines beyond digital asset banking, including commercial real estate. Its clients among crypto companies included USDC stablecoin issuer Circle, the crypto exchange Coinbase, and the funds transfer network for cryptocurrency settlements and payments Fireblocks.

As of close of business Friday March 10 Coinbase had an approximately $240m balance in corporate cash at Signature. As stated by the FDIC, we expect to fully recover these funds. https://t.co/XY5L7m4RMs

— Coinbase (@coinbase) March 12, 2023

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said on Sunday that the closure decision, made alongside the state chartering authority and federal partners over the weekend, was to “stabilize the banking sector and protect the hard-earned money of New Yorkers whose livelihoods depend on impacted companies.”

“I’m grateful that the Federal regulators have taken steps to do just that, and I hope that these actions will provide increased confidence in the stability of our banking system. Many depositors at these banks are small businesses, including those driving the innovation economy, and their success is key to New York’s robust economy.”

SVB Fail

Following the failure of the tech-focused Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) in Santa Clara, California, on March 10, stock prices plunged at other banks that cater to technology companies, including First Republic Bank and PacWest Bank. SVB’s closure was the second-largest bank failure in U.S. history at $209 billion, following Washington Mutual’s collapse in the 2008 crisis.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen pointed to rising interest rates, which have been increased by the Federal Reserve to combat inflation, as the core problem for Silicon Valley Bank. Many of SVB’s assets that were Treasury bond holdings or mortgage-backed securities, lost value with each rate increase. At the same time, the bank’s startup clients were increasingly drawing down funds amid a sparsity of venture capital investment.

Regulators have stepped in to guarantee customer deposits, both insured and uninsured, in SVB and Signature Bank, seeking to reassure the public and prevent wider bank runs in tech-exposed institutions.

In a joint statement with the U.S. Treasury Department and Federal Reserve, the FDIC—said that it is “announcing a similar systemic risk exception for Signature Bank” as SVB was granted.

READ MORE

Government Steps In With Plan to Protect All Deposits at Silicon Valley Bank

“All depositors of this institution will be made whole. As with the resolution of Silicon Valley Bank, no losses will be borne by the taxpayer,” read a joint statement from the federal regulators.

“Shareholders and certain unsecured debtholders will not be protected. Senior management has also been removed. Any losses to the Deposit Insurance Fund to support uninsured depositors will be recovered by a special assessment on banks, as required by law,” the statement continued.

“These actions will reduce stress across the financial system, support financial stability and minimize any impact on businesses, households, taxpayers, and the broader economy,” the Fed said of its emergency management approach.

Earlier on March 8, crypto-focused Silvergate Bank also disclosed plans to wind down its operations and voluntarily liquidate. Its owner, the Silvergate Capital Corporation, said the decision was made “in light of recent industry and regulatory developments.” Silvergate said its liquidation plan included “full repayment of all deposits.”

The bank had been in the spotlight over its alleged involvement in the collapse of cryptofirm FTX.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee, introduced a bill on March 9 that would block U.S. subsidies to Chinese battery companies.

If enacted, Ford’s new electric vehicle battery plant that licenses a Chinese battery maker’s technology wouldn’t qualify for electric vehicle (EV) tax credits appropriated in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA).

In addition to disqualifying a U.S. company that “relies on technology via a licensing agreement with a foreign entity of concern” for the IRA tax credits, Rubio’s legislation includes other categories, such as an American company under the substantial influence of a foreign entity of concern, 20 percent or more owned by a foreign entity of concern, or a joint venture with at least one partner that is considered a foreign entity of concern.

Any entities governed by a “covered nation” are considered foreign entities of concern. The current covered nation list includes China, North Korea, Russia, and Iran.

“Making those batteries here at home is much better than continuing to rely exclusively on foreign imports, like other auto companies do,” Ford said in response to Rubio. “A wholly owned Ford subsidiary alone will build, own and operate this plant. No other entity will get U.S. tax dollars for this project.”

Last month, Ford announced a deal with Chinese EV battery maker Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Ltd. (CATL) to build a battery park in Marshall, Michigan. The plant will start operating in 2026 and will be a wholly owned subsidiary of the American company; CATL will provide the battery technology, some equipment, and workers.

https://subs.theepochtimes.com/template/show?tid=cc3f343f-227c-4eec-8289-8d2fe30e4467&sid=www.theepochtimes.com&v=5&ck=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&pl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theepochtimes.com%2Frubio-introduces-bill-to-block-ev-tax-credits-to-fords-plant-using-chinese-technology_5116683.html%3Futm_source%3DMorningbrief%26src_src%3DMorningbrief%26utm_campaign%3Dmb-2023-03-13%26src_cmp%3Dmb-2023-03-13%26utm_medium%3Demail%26est%3DrhVGXq%252B8TPtAm7l6RfbzUl7Pz9uZSY0AoAD9usxgV3YQeG2gzk45cY1V3iDQPYJ3Gw%253D%253D&u=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&tn=newsletter_widget&dna=%7B%22u_s%22%3A%22Morningbrief%22%2C%22u_c%22%3A%22mb-2023-03-13%22%2C%22r%22%3A%22%22%2C%22pid%22%3A%22anon490a-3963-4599-8eea-93695a2383d4%22%2C%22uid%22%3A%22user_9dfe546d573c80c140e67580106ed9556b66c4cd%22%2C%22x%22%3A%22821-914-264%22%2C%22vt%22%3A0%2C%22g1%22%3A%22us%22%2C%22g2%22%3A%22md%22%7D&source=US-China_Watch&email=walkerboh2112%40msn.com

On the same day as the Ford announcement, Rubio wrote a letter to the secretaries of Treasury, Energy, and Transportation, asking for a Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) review of the Ford–CATL licensing agreement. He said in a statement in February that he wanted to ensure no taxpayer dollars would “go to enrich PRC [People’s Republic of China] national champion CATL, or any other Beijing-supported company, directly or indirectly.”

Nick Iacovella, a spokesperson for the Coalition for a Prosperous America (CPA), previously told The Epoch Times that the production tax credit amount for the Ford–CATL battery plant could reach $1 billion, depending on the exact terms of the licensing agreement, given the factory’s annual capacity of 35 gigawatt-hours, or 35 million kilowatt-hours, and the IRA advanced manufacturing tax credit of $45 per kilowatt-hour.

CPA is an advocacy organization representing exclusively domestic manufacturing producers; Ford isn’t a member of the CPA.

In a Newsweek op-ed, Rubio called EVs a “Trojan horse that Beijing will use to threaten, divide, and outcompete the U.S.”

“Ford’s massive project will bring 2,500 new jobs to Marshall’s small, historic farming community, but it will also bring America’s greatest geopolitical adversary into the heartland,” he said.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times

Is Ben & Jerry’s on the brink of collapse?

The woke ice cream company is facing a class action lawsuit over its supply chain that allegedly employs migrant child labor.

The lawsuit followed an exposé from The New York Times, which uncovered child labor infractions by major U.S. companies. The report said migrant child labor is used to process milk in Ben & Jerry’s ice cream.

According to the Daily Caller, plaintiff Dovid Tyrnauer alleges he would not have purchased or would have paid less for Ben & Jerry’s products if he had known migrant child labor was used. The ice cream brand aligns itself with ethically-sourced products, which the plaintiff claims is a “breach of consumer trust” that amounts to “pompous virtue-signaling.”

“If migrant children needed to work full time, it was preferable for them to have jobs at a well-monitored workplace,” said Ben & Jerry’s head of values-led sourcing, Cheryl Pinto.

The class action lawsuit also claims Ben & Jerry’s uses social justice issues as part of its marketing. The ice cream seemingly promotes politicians such as Independent Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and former President Barack Obama. They also make limited ice creams for social justice issues such as “Change Is Brewing” for police reform in 2021, “Pecan Resist” against former President Donald Trump in 2019 and “Empower Mint” for alleged voter suppression in 2016. The most recent ice cream in 2023 promotes the “mission to end modern slavery in cocoa farming.”

It’s hard to celebrate 4/20 when so many people of color are still being arrested for pot. We have to do better. Learn more: https://t.co/DPCcqND0SI pic.twitter.com/fLsngGteOF— Ben & Jerry’s (@benandjerrys) April 20, 2019

The murder of George Floyd was the result of inhumane police brutality that is perpetuated by a culture of white supremacy. https://t.co/YppGJKHkyN pic.twitter.com/YABzgQMf69— Ben & Jerry’s (@benandjerrys) June 2, 2020

Following The Times report, Ben & Jerry’s issued a lengthy statement in response to the claims.

“We are deeply concerned by the claims made in this story, and do not tolerate any suppliers who are not adhering to the law. Let us be extremely clear: Ben & Jerry’s stands in strong opposition to child labor. We have a long history of standing for justice and equity, and using our business to improve the lives and livelihoods of those we serve and work with. These beliefs do not stop at our company’s supply chain,” Ben & Jerry’s said.

“It is an established fact that the dairy industry comes with profound social and environmental challenges. It is with this understanding that we, over the lifetime of the company, have sought to implement innovative solutions on dairy farms that promote thriving livelihoods for farmers and farmworkers, support animal welfare, and mitigate the negative environmental impacts of dairy farming.” the company continues.

READ NEXT: Why Is Russia Firing Nuclear-Capable Hypersonic Missiles At Ukraine Now?

SOURCE: American Liberty News

Documents show that the CEO of Silicon Valley Bank (SVB) sold $3.6 million in shares of the failed financial institution’s parent company several weeks before its collapse—the biggest U.S. bank failure since 2008 that sent a shudder of anxiety across markets.

A filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) shows that Greg Becker, who joined SVB as a loan officer three decades ago before becoming CEO about a decade later, sold 12,451 shares of the bank’s parent company SVB Financial Group on Feb. 27.

Becker sold the shares in accordance with a trading plan filed on Jan. 26, a little over a month before the group sent a letter to stakeholders (pdf) saying it was looking to raise over $2 billion in capital after taking losses.

An inquiry sent to SVB outside of normal working hours asking whether Becker was aware of the bank’s plans to try and raise capital was not immediately returned.

The announcement sent SVB stock plunging and prompted its lightning-fast unwind. The bank’s shares fell more than 60 percent after the announcement, wiping out $9.4 billion in market value and sparking fears of contagion.

“Lots of chatter today about the possibility of generalized U.S. banking system stress due to SVB troubles. Three summary things on this: While the U.S. banking system as a whole is solid, and it is, that does not mean that every bank is,” stated economist Mohamed A. El-Erian in a tweet.

SVB Collapses, FDIC Steps In

SVB failed on March 10, just days after the bank sent the notification signaling its scramble to raise capital after reporting a $1.8 billion loss after being forced to sell Treasury bonds to meet its deposit obligations.

California regulators ordered the bank shut and appointed the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver.

The FDIC, which has a mandate to protect depositors in case of bank failure and insure their deposits up to a coverage limit of $250,000, said in a statement that all insured depositors will have full access to their covered deposits by March 13.

SVB had approximately $209.0 billion in total assets and roughly $175.4 billion in total deposits as of Dec. 31, according to the FDIC.

“At the time of closing, the amount of deposits in excess of the insurance limits was undetermined,” the FDIC said. “The amount of uninsured deposits will be determined once the FDIC obtains additional information from the bank and customers.”

As of the end of 2022, SVB had around 89 percent of its $175 billion in deposits that were uninsured.

The FDIC said that it will pay uninsured depositors an advance dividend sometime next week. Uninsured depositors will be given receivership certificates for the uninsured portion of their deposits and, as the FDIC sells SVB’s assets, depositors may receive additional future payments.

SVB is the largest bank to fail since the 2008 financial crisis when Washington Mutual collapsed.

Sheila Bair, who helmed the FDIC during the global financial crisis, told Reuters in an interview that bank regulators are likely now turning their attention to other banks that may have high amounts of uninsured deposits and unrealized losses, two factors that contributed to SVB‘s quick failure.

“These banks that have large amounts of institutional uninsured money … that’s going to be hot money that runs if there’s a sign of trouble,” Bair said.

The sequence of events that led to SVB‘s rapid collapse include it selling U.S. Treasuries to lock in funding costs due to expectations of higher interest rates.

Faced with persistently high inflation, the Federal Reserve has hiked interest rates rapidly and officials have warned of further tightening ahead.

US Banks ‘Generally in a Strong Financial Condition’

Several days before SVB failed, FDIC Chairman Martin Gruenberg warned bankers gathered in Washington that financial institutions face higher levels of unrealized losses, as the Fed’s rapid interest rate increases have driven down the value of longer-term securities.

“The good news about this issue is that banks are generally in a strong financial condition … On the other hand, unrealized losses weaken a bank’s future ability to meet unexpected liquidity needs,” Gruenberg said.

Gruenberg’s remarks came three days before SVB announced it was looking to raise capital.

The speed of the SVB crash stunned observers and blindsided markets, wiping out more than $100 billion in market value for U.S. banks in two days.

Several experts said any ripple effects in the rest of the banking sector are likely to be limited. Part of this is because bigger banks have more diverse portfolios and depositors than SVB, which was highly reliant on the startup sector.

“We do not believe there is contagion risk for the rest of the banking sector,” said David Trainer, CEO of New Constructs, an investment research firm.

“The deposit base from the major banks is much more diversified than SVB and the big banks are in good financial health,” he added.

SVB’s collapse could lead to calls for tougher regulation.

Reuters contributed to this report.

SOURCE: The Epoch Times