Deceptive Political Appeal Of Affordability

After the highest inflation in 44-years under President Biden, specious Democrats are championing affordability. They are blasting President Trump for the lofty prices of housing, groceries, child care and insurance. Democrats are apoplectic that Trump hasn't lowered prices during his 11 months in office.

Democrats have a case of convenient amnesia.  During the period 2021-2024, prices ballooned a cumulative 19.5%, the worst runaway inflation since the 48.6% sticker shock during Jimmy Carter's term from 1977-1980. 

Democrats remained indifferent about mushrooming prices while they were in power.  Now the party has experienced an epiphany. Flip went flop and now they are concerned about the impact of galloping inflation on the financial health of Americans.

Cheeky Democrat political strategists thumped their chests and proclaimed elections in New Jersey, Virginia and New York City birthed a winning issue: "affordability," guaranteed to rouse voter anger and stoke turnout.  However, New Jersey and Virginia were centered on other issues.

Affordability was only front-and-center in New York, where the cost of living is more than double the national average.  Socialist Zohran Mamdani swept the Big Apple's mayoral race, promising to lower costs and make life easier for New Yorkers.That hardly suggests a Democrat midterm tsunami. 

However, there's no question Americans are weary of bearing the brunt of a never-ending march of higher prices.  You can't blame them. Inflation was 1.4% when Trump left office at the end of 2020.  In Biden's first year in 2021, prices rocketed 7% higher, the largest one-year inflation rate since 1981.

Here is a sample of the cumulative cost increases as measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) during the chaotic Biden years: 

• Transportation saw the largest increase, hiking 34.4%.  Gasoline prices were a key driver.
• Housing leapt by 23%.  Prices for rent soared 31%.
• Food and beverage prices rose 23.6%. Groceries skyrocketed 26%.
• Fuels and utilities catapulted 28.5%.  
• Since 2017, childcare costs have spiked 40% for a family with two children. 

While acknowledging COVID impacted inflation, the federal government spent a whopping $27.4 trillion in the fiscal years 2021 through 2024 as Democrats embarked on a spending spree unseen in modern times.The pump-priming flooded the economy with too much money chasing scare goods.   

The rampant spending included infrastructure projects and cash payments as part of the $1.9 trillion American Rescue Plan.  All that money sloshing around in the economy created jobs, but the numbers were inflated by the addition of 1.07 million government jobs in the Biden years.  

The reckless spending helped fuel a wage-price spiral that poured gasoline on services and goods igniting combustible inflation. 

The Federal Reserve was forced to act to hose down inflation, ratcheting up interest rates from near zero in 2020 to 5.5% in January, 2024.  Rising rates hit consumer's in digital wallets, as interest surged on credit cards, cars and housing mortgages. Americans hemorrhaged cash to make interest payments.

The interest rate bomb and exploding prices left about two-thirds of American households living paycheck-to-paycheck.  

The latest survey conducted by the University of Michigan underscores the economic migraine. The index plummeted to 50.3%, documenting flagging consumer sentiment.  A reading below 75 suggests consumer pessimism about the economy and personal finances.  Consumers are gasping for hope.  

All the hyper-political rhetoric will do nothing to return prices to 2019 levels. Prices will continue to rise, but are showing signs of increasing at a slower rate.  In the aftermath of the worst inflation under President Carter, prices stabilized but there was no retreat to pre-1977 levels.    

Some economic models show when inflation exceeds 8% it can take an average of 16 years to return to the Fed's official 2% target. Other economists hedge, saying it can take a few years or up to a decade. That explains why Democrats are pivoting to  "affordability" as the midterm slogan de jour.  

Consumers are unlikely to care about past economic policy, which is the reason Republicans need to be laser-focused on the economy.  Renewing current tax cuts approved during Trump's first term, while representing progress, doesn't put more money today in the pockets of consumers. 

Other Trump tax cuts--the no tax on tips and no taxes on overtime for some workers--will not be felt by consumers until 2026 when they file taxes for 2025. Americans will have more dollars to spend as a result of these policy changes.

However, most consumers gauge affordability by how much they shell out when they buy groceries, dine out, put gas in their vehicles, pay for rent, housing and utilities.  Since Trump assumed office, prices have declined for gasoline, fresh fruits, eggs and communications services.

Yet other prices--for example, those for electricity, health insurance, beef and rent--have marched higher than 2%. In recognition of consumers' economic pain, the Trump Administration announced this month it will eliminate tariffs on coffee, beef, bananas, other fruits and vegetables. 

While it's a positive development,  Republicans need to level with Americans about inflation. Prices aren't going to fall as fast as costs surged.  Trump should be laster focused on growing the economy and jobs, while reminding Americans that it was Democrats who drove the inflation bus off the cliff.  

Schumer Shutdown And Obamacare Subsidy Lies

Senator Chuck Schumer's government shutdown threatens to become the longest in American history, breaking the record 36-day stalemate in President Trump's first administration.  The NewYork lawmaker fears his party's leftist base will torpedo his reelection chances unless he remains recalcitrant. 

Schumer has frogmarched his Democratic Party minions into the Death Zone of politics.  Republicans are refusing to take his bait of extending Obamacare subsidies in exchange for unlocking the doors of government. Now Schumer faces the real threat of a pyrrhic victory, caving without a political victory.  

Pressure is ratcheting as airline executives, air traffic control union bosses, federal government worker union officials, small business associations and other groups are calling on Democrats to vote with Republicans to approve a continuing appropriation that Schumer voted for in March.

For those who insist both parties are at fault, this is the Big Lie. Republicans have voted more than 13 times for the so-called continuing resolution to fund the government at fiscal 2024 Biden-era levels.  A few Democrats have broken ranks, but Schumer has corralled the votes to enforce gridlock.  

Under Schumer's iron fist, Democrats have publicly made the shutdown about extending COVID-era Obamacare subsidies.  This may be the most bone-headed issue to pick for a shutdown showdown.  The media reporting reads like dispatches from Russian-controlled Pravda. 

The shutdown is not about all Obamacare premium subsidies.  It involves only the enhanced subsidies Democrats passed as part of American Rescue Plan (2021) and the Inflation Reduction Act (2022). Democrats voted to sunset the subsidies at the end of 2025. It was not a GOP idea.

These so-called enhanced subsidies, allegedly to help Americans during COVID, were nothing more than a scheme to put more individuals on Obamacare.  Under the plan, some Americans were able to get plans with no premiums or very low premiums.  These were pedaled as temporary measures. 

Democrats figured once millions of Americans were hooked up to the government teat they would cry foul if they were weaned from taxpayer subsidies.  This was a deliberate attempt to bloat the rolls with individuals willing to vote with Democrats to permanently latch on to the extraneous benefits.

To no one's surprise, the subsidies invited massive fraud.  Estimates by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) put the numbers of improperly enrolled individuals at between 2.3 million and 6.4 million. An independent estimate fixed the number at 5 million, costing taxpayers an extra $20 billion.  

The government uncovered insurance fraud as agents and brokers enrolled individuals without  their consent in order to collect commissions. An independent study by Paragon Health Institute found 11.7 million enrollees--more than one-third of the entire Obamacare marketplace--made no claims.

Where did the billions of dollars in subsidies go?  Into the pockets of unscrupulous insurance brokers and to insurance companies.  

That wasn't the only political hustle.  Obamacare subsidies were extended to households making 400 percent of the federal poverty cap. That allowed some Americans with incomes of $600,000 to qualify for government benefits.  About one-third of the enhanced subsidies went to these wealthy individuals.

How come the media has not highlighted these benefits for the often maligned bogeyman: the fat cats?  

This is what Democrats want their left wing base to believe is worth fighting for.  More fraud and taxpayer waste to keep the government in limbo.  There is no longer a COVID emergency and therefore there is no justification for making these costly subsidies permanent entitlements.  

Permanently extending the enhanced Obamacare subsidies would cost $488 billion, increasing the deficit by $350 billion over ten years, while adding another $60 billion in additional interest cost to finance the spending.

Even without the extended subsidies, the CBO projects the cost of Obamacare--the ill-named Affordable Care Act--to top $1.32 trillion during the ten-year period from 2025 through 2034.  

The approximately 24 million Americans currently enrolled in Obamacare health insurance plans face higher premiums next year, Democrats complain.  They quote the progressive  Kaiser Family Foundation forecasts that premiums through health exchanges will leap 26% on average next year, reflecting the rising cost of care. 

However, the foundation estimates are based on those who enroll in the Silver or second tier plan--not the lowest.  KFF also uses current enhanced subsidies in its calculation, which is skewed because it includes those Americans whose incomes are above the 400% of the poverty line.

A more accurate estimate is a study by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). It found the average Obamacare marketplace premium after tax credits is projected to cost $50 per month for the lowest cost plan next year.  Nearly 60% of enrollees will have access to those plans $50 and below.

Those estimates are based on the expiration of the enhanced subsidies. This destroys the Democrats' talking point that failure to extend the supercharged subsidies will significantly increase premiums for the poorest Americans.  

In fact, the cost for Obamacare coverage is significantly less than what most Americans pay for insurance through their employer.  And they don't get the advantage of taxpayer handouts. Taxpayers are forecast to cover 91% of the lowest cost plan premiums for Obamacare, CMS reports.    

Obamacare has left a shameful trail of broken promises.  You could keep your doctor.  If you liked your coverage, you could keep it.  Premiums would go down $2,500 on average. Reality was far different than what President Obama and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi sold to the American people. 

Millions found out their Obamacare plans did not include their doctor. In the first year alone, 9.3 million Americans lost coverage when their businesses stopped insuring them. Premiums ballooned 60% in just the first four years of Obamacare.

It is a failed experiment in government run health insurance. But like all government entitlements, politicians keep throwing your money at bad ideas. At least, Democrats and Republicans should agree that the COVID-era enhanced benefits can be accorded a Congressional burial.   

Make Money Tracking Congressional Stock Trades

Seemingly well-timed stock trades by members of Congress have raised eyebrows in the heartland but official Washington continues to wink at their astounding good fortune. Portfolios of lawmakers on both sides of the aisles have often outperformed the S&P 500 Index by wide margins. 

Their stock trading skills cannot be chalked up to luck or skill. Speculation--supported by trading patterns--indicate Washington's elected officials are using privileged information to enrich themselves in the market. Forget hiring a financial advisor.  Just mimic lawmakers' portfolios.

Data from Unusual Whales and public disclosures required by Congress provide a public window into the trading activity of representatives and senators. Unusual Whales tracks two Exchange Traded Funds (ETF) for investors who want to imitate the portfolios of Democrat and Republican lawmakers.  

The two ETF funds have likely outperformed your portfolio. For the period from February, 2023, through August 31 of this year, the fund that follows Democrat trades has returned 73% while the Republican version logged a paper profit of 41%.

During that time frame, the Democrat-focused ETC outpaced Vanguard's S&P 500 ETF by 12 percentage points.  Republicans were less fortunate during that time period. The ETF mirroring their trades lagged Vanguard's ETF by almost 20 percentage points.

A 2024 research report found that senators as a group beat the stock market by an average of 12% per year in the 1990's.  An article in ScienceDirect found that politicians' trading activity increases when they are in session, fueling conjecture that publicly undisclosed information may be driving trading.

ScienceDirect based its findings on an examination of 181,029 congressional stock trades from 4,630 trading days.  Their research uncovered that politicians make more buy trades during times of high economic policy uncertainty and equity market volatility.  

Morningstar, an investment research firm, examined the Unusual Whales funds and found the top stocks currently owned by Democrats, included Nividia, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet (Google), Apple, Salesforce, Crowdstrike and Netflix.  

Republicans favor JP Morgan Chase, Bitcoin ETF,  Nvidia, AT&T, Chevron, Allstate, Intel and Comfort Systems USA, which serves the Heating and Air Contractors industry. The stocks listed for Dems and the GOP represent their largest holdings, amounting to 40-to-50% of their portfolios. 

Some of the wealthiest members of Congress have been targets of scrutiny because they are among the most active traders in the market. Near the top is former Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, whose estimated net worth is $267.6 million.  

The 84-year-old has extensive holdings in Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Google and Netflix, according to Quiver Quantitative, a market research firm.  From 2014 to 2025, Pelosi racked up a 794.30% Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) on her stock portfolio. 

Next to Warren Buffet, Pelosi may have the largest following among individual investors. 

Another whale is Virginia Democrat Senator Mark Warner, whose fortune is estimated at  $247.36.  Much of his wealth was built on founding the venture capital firm Columbia Capitol.  Since 2009, Warner has made 113 trades worth $65.59 million.  

In the Senate, Warner serves on four key committees, including the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs; Intelligence; Finance, and, the Budget.  His assignments give him special insight into financial institutions, securities, insurance, energy and international trade. 

Warner and Pelosi's wealth is eclipsed by Florida Republican Rich Scott, who is worth a reported $549.91 million, according to Quiver Quantitative and Investopedia. However, the exact amount of his wealth remains contested because of his debts.  

Scott was a co-founder of HCA Healthcare in 1988 and Solantic in 2001. Since 2019 , the Republican has made 352 trades worth an estimated $239.68 million. according to Quiver Quantitive. Scott serves on the Armed Services Committee, which oversees military spending and research.  

This glimpse into Congressional stock trading should raise red flags with Americans, especially those who struggle to build modest stock returns for retirement. In 2012, public outcry over charges of insider trading, shamed lawmakers into passing the Stop Trading On Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act.

The law prohibits federal officials from using nonpublic information gained from their positions for personal financial gain.  The act also mandated more frequent online public disclosures of certain stock trades and requires disclosure of mortgage information.  

It was a start but the trading in individual stocks continues unabated. It is nearly impossible to prove members have benefited from so-called insider information. In fact, no member of Congress has even been prosecuted for violating the law.  But that doesn't mean there haven't been indiscretions.

Business Insider and several others news organizations recently identified 78 members of Congress who have failed to properly report their financial trades.  They usually make excuses, pleading ignorance of the law, clerical errors or a mistake by an accountant.  It's just a game to lawmakers.

It is time for real reform.  A bipartisan bill to ban trading of individual stocks by lawmakers lies dormant in the House.  The bill, The Restore Trust in Congress Act, has 16 co-sponsors.  But behind the scenes, powerful lawmakers are blocking its path to a vote.  The president has pledged to sign the bill.

Without news coverage and support from voters, the bill is likely to be cremeated rather than buried.  You can help save it by writing or calling your Senators and House member.  If we the people won't act, then senators and representatives will continue to enrich themselves by trading in stocks.   

The Ugly Aftermath of Charlie Kirk Assassination

Sadness and shame haunt our nation in the aftermath of the political assassination of conservative Charlie Kirk. A bullet fired from a rifle ended the life of the 31-year-old who rose to fame touring college campuses to promote free speech and debate.  He leaves behind a wife and two children.

Charlie was a hero to millions of young people in Generation Z (13-28 years old). Charlie's podcasts, campus appearances and YouTube interviews generated billions of views.  His killing leaves the same searing memory for Gen Z as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy did for my generation.  

Details of the shooting and the craven assassin have been obsessively covered in the media.  There will be no rehashing of the evil that struck down Charlie but failed to silence his movement.  However, the shameless exploitation of a human being's death is a stain on the nation. 

Videos of people celebrating Charlie's murder peppered social media after the shooting. The Satanic messengers were mostly young, political activists, the disenfranchised, people of color and a few celebrities. The stench of hatred on social media was on full display for the world to see.  

Widely circulated memes claimed Charlie wished harm to LGBTQ people. He was racist, homophobic, a fascist and a Nazi. Charlie's quotes were taken out of context to smear his character.  Liberal detractors could not stomach Charlie being seen as a martyr. 

The corporate news media also performed disgracefully in this dark moment. In the aftermath, news reports labeled Charlie Kirk a right winger whose message incited violence.  A reporter on a cable channel insinuated Charlie had it coming because he used "hateful words." 

Their characterization exposes how little the media cares about honesty.  Charlie appeared on campuses and offered students an opportunity to debate ideas.  He was never mean spirited or treated students with disrespect.  Characterizing his views "dangerous" exposes the cultural rot in the country. 

Imagine the vacuous media calling "hate speech" Charlie telling college kids not to get abortions, to embrace capitalism, to be monogamous, to turn to God, to reject the notion of men competing in women's sports and to love America.  Those are traditional Christian values, not extremism.  

The dishonest media stooped to new lows once the identity of the shooter was released. Police and the district attorney painted the picture of a radicalized 22-year-old who was in a romantic relationship with a transitioning male.  Despite the facts, the media branded the assassin a Trump supporter. 

The killer was white and had a gun.  In the biased media's view, that screams MAGA.  Their characterization fell apart when the alleged assassin's parents recounted their son's descent into leftist dogma.  That didn't stop a comedian from asserting the killer was clearly "one of them"--MAGA. 

What the venal media should focus on is the increasing political violence in the nation, particularly among Generation Z.   A 20-year old shot and wounded President Trump.  A 23-year old opened fire at a Minnesota Catholic Church, killing two and wounding 21 parishioners.

The accused killer of the CEO of UnitedHealthCare is 26-years old.  Last week's shooter at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Dallas was 29-years-old. Authorities said the killer took his own life after shooting three detainees, including one fatally. 

Surveys from 2024 and this year indicate a concerning trend of increased acceptance of violence among young people, especially political violence.  While older generations overwhelmingly reject violence, a growing minority of young adults find it acceptable in some circumstances. 

A poll this month by YouGov showed among adults under 30, 19% said political violence can sometimes be justified.  The Edelman Trust Barometer in January reported its poll found 31% of Gen Z justify violence, property damage and misinformation as means for social change.

Another survey this year by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression polled college students and discovered 34% of these young people say "using violence to stop a campus speech" can be acceptable. 

And it's not just political violence that some young people endorse.   A study by Psychology of Violence found that 41% of young adults viewed the murder of a CEO to be acceptable. This should trip alarm bells with every parent, teacher, professor and counselor as well as society at large. 

Many blame the radicalization of today's young people on social media. It's a convenient scapegoat for the lazy. Virtually every young person in America consumes social media.  But only a tiny minority commit murder.  Shouldn't we demand personal accountability instead of just blaming algorithms?

The media, educators, parents, the police and politicians should be asking hard questions about the radicalization of Generation Z.  How can someone believe that it's okay to kill a person over political or social beliefs?  Why is violence  happening so often? What can be done to stop it? 

It doesn't seem too much to ask that the police reveal the motive of each shooter who commits horrific acts of violence, instead of lapsing into obfuscation.  There is a timidness among law enforcement and prosecutors not to assign blame to radicalization or political rhetoric for stoking hatred.

The politicians and media have no shame in finger pointing after each episode.  But digging into the profile of shooters, their background, influencers and media consumption could reveal what contributes to violence.  Surely terms such as Hitler, Nazi and Gestapo are ammunition for depraved minds.       

It is instructive that after Kirk was gunned down, his millions of followers--mostly Generation Z--did not commit acts of vengeful violence.  No property was damaged.  No buildings were torched.  Cars were not set ablaze.  There were no angry mobs protesting and assaulting police. 

The reaction stands in stark contrast to the property damage and assaults during ICE raids.  The burning of Teslas because of the company's CEO politics. The assaults on police officers trying to restore order to the streets during out-of-control protests.  Actual violence begets more violence.   

Charlie Kirk above all else was an evangelist.  He proudly professed his faith in Jesus Christ on college campuses. He called others to return to God and to live out their faith.  He would've been proud that his followers refused to bow to hatred by singing hymns, praying and comforting one another.

Their example gives a ray of hope to a nation scarred by violence. Meanwhile, Charlie's legacy has ignited a religious and political awakening that is reverberating throughout the country.   

Crime Data: Misleading Statistics

Questions are swirling around crime data in the wake of the deployment of National Guard members to the nation's capital. City officials claim murders have declined.  National data suggests all crime has shrunk. But how reliable are the numbers?  There is evidence the data is problematic. 

Pew Research Center analyzed data in an effort to answer the question: "How much crime is there in the U.S." Their answer: "It's difficult to say for certain." The two primary sources of government crime statistics--the FBI and The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS)--paint an incomplete picture.

FBI reports, once the gold standard, is pocked with Swiss cheese holes. In 2019, 89% of municipal police departments submitted crime data to the agency.  To compensate for the incomplete data, the FBI estimated the missing municipalities crime numbers.  

In 2020, the FBI recorded a historic single-year increase in homicides of 30% in the aftermath of the George Floyd nationwide riots. There are some experts who believe the violent crime data that year was actually worse because big city police were swamped and reporting may have suffered as a result. 

The 2021 FBI data failed to improve. The bureau modernized its data collection system. Thousands of police agencies fell through the cracks. Only 63% of police departments submitted crime data, meaning 6,000 municipalities failed to report numbers. The FBI reported crime fell.   

Then in 2022, the FBI under Christopher Wray regrouped to right the data ship.  Pew reports 83% of police agencies participated. Two of the largest police departments in the country--New York and Los Angeles--were missing from the final FBI crime report. Unsurprisingly, crime declined.   

The FBI initially reported an estimated 1.7% decrease in violent crime. Later in 2023, the agency quietly revised the data, reporting a 4.5% increase in crime for 2022.  The FBI failed to include 1,699 murder, 7,780 rapes, 33,459 robberies and 37,091 aggravated assaults--a staggering oversight.

The bureau reported 19,800 homicide victims in 2023.  The Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued its cause of death data for the same year, counting 22,830 homicide deaths.  Its records are compiled from the Vital Statistics Cooperative Program provided by 57 jurisdictions. 

Last month the FBI issued its 2024 report from 16,419 police departments, still short of the 18,000 previously reporting crime data. Violent crime decreased 4.5%.  Leaving aside the issue of the veracity of the data, a violent crime occurred on average every 25.9 seconds somewhere in America.  

The Bureau of Justice Statistics National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) is second only to the FBI in perceived importance. It is a national survey of about 240,000 people 12 and older.  Participants are asked if they have been a victim of a crime in the past six months.  The methodology obviously eliminates murder victims, an obvious flaw.

However, the NCVS is recognized as more accurate in capturing the overall picture of violent crime, which includes rape, robbery aggravated assault, robbery and manslaughter.   While the FBI reported decreases in 2021 and 2022, the NCVS data for the same period shows violent victimization rose 75%.    

Data from most sources depends on local police records. And that's another problem.  In Washington, D.C., the flashpoint for crime, the head of the Metropolitan Police Department's top union official claims higher ups are fudging the crime data by directing cops to downgrade felonies to a lesser offense,

The union boss Gregg Pemberton shared his accusations with NBC Washington.  The contention followed the police department's suspension of a commander in mid-May for allegedly changing crime statistics in his local district. No word on how widespread the practice is.  

Even though the nation's capital has recorded a 27% drop in violent crime this year, it still has the fourth highest homicide rate in the country, nearly six times higher than New York City.  The city has recorded 103 fatal shootings this year.  For comparison, there were 105 murders in 2014.

Chicago has been in the spotlight after President Trump threatened to send the National Guard to the Windy City.  Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson has stiff armed any suggestion of federal assistance, pointing out homicides decreased by 7.3% last year, but still higher than pre-pandemic figures.

A University of Chicago Crime Lab report underscores the "persistent challenging patterns" of violence in the city.  Black residents are 22 more times likely to be killed compared to white residents. In some Chicago neighborhoods, a black person is 68 times more likely to be a victim of a fatal shooting.

And, while violent crime is down, the Crime Lab notes it is still higher than the five year average.  The primary contributors are soaring aggravated assaults, aggravated batteries and robberies, according to the Crime Lab. Since 2010, the rate at which shooting victims die from a gunshot has soared 44.9%.

You won't hear those numbers from the mayor, who has overseen the shrinking of the Chicago police force.  There are now fewer officers than the city had in 2018, a decline of nearly 13%.  In addition, Johnson has failed to deliver on a campaign pledge to add 200 more detectives, WGN reported.

The mayor's credibility took another hit Labor Day weekend when 58 Chicagoans were shot, eight fatally.  This underscores the issue in many large cities.  Crime may be down, if you believe the statistics, but it begs the question: How much crime is too much?

In many big cities such as Chicago, too many repeat offenders with long criminal records are arrested and freed without bail.  Failure to address this situation results in career criminals preying on the most vulnerable. Until district attorneys incarcerate thugs, systemic violent crime will continue.  

The credibility of crime data is not some conservative conspiracy as Democrats contend.  The Legal Defense Fund, a liberal group, called crime statistics "unreliable" because many crimes go unreported by victims.  Even reported crimes may not be recorded by police, the group points out.

Another liberal group, the VERA Institute, examined the FBI data and gave this assessment: "The FBI estimates national and state totals, sometimes using a relative small percentage of jurisdictions in a state" to flesh out its data making the numbers "deeply problematic."

VERA performed its own research on the quality of policing data from 94 of the country's largest cities.  Researchers concluded: "The results were, perhaps, predictably underwhelming.  Of the 94 localities included, only 21 scored more than 50 out of 100 on Vera's index, which rates the data's completeness. 

Public safety and crime are key issues with voters.  A recent national poll commissioned by the Associated Press (AP) found that 81% of Americans believe crime is a major problem in big cities.  Those running America's largest cities often seem out of touch with local concerns.    

It's time for Congress to standardize crime reporting methodology for local and state police organizations, while ending voluntary participation, and instead mandating records be furnished to the FBI. The agency also should be required to overhaul its processes in the interest of accuracy.

Crime data is not an academic exercise.  The numbers are essential to understanding the resources--both funding and manpower--needed to make all Americans safer.    

Harnessing AI's Power Without Sapping Resources

The Artificial Intelligence arms race between nations dwarfs the nuclear weapons competition of decades past.  Investments in AI are estimated to eclipse $7 trillion worldwide by 2030.  The capital intensive technology will require massive amounts of resources, including electricity, water and land.

Many countries are waking up to the perils of the explosive growth of generative AI and the rapid deployment of the technology.  It is dawning on leaders at the national, state and local level that there are unprecedented challenges fueled by the AI gold rush with little time to adapt.

At the birth of AI,  experts worried the technology would replace millions of jobs. That issue temporarily has been taken a backseat as the world watches the relentless building boom of data centers. A new AI data center is expected to come online every day this year, totaling 504 by year's end.

Capital required to finance this rapid expansion in AI data centers is expected to hit $6.7 trillion by 2030, according to a study by McKinsey & Company.  The price tag includes money for land, site development, power and cooling generators, hardware and human capital.

Private sector investment in AI topped $100 billion in the U.S. last year, nearly 10 times as much as China.  During the period from 2013 to 2023, private sector firms spent $470 billion, four times more than China. The government, mostly defense, spent $5.2 billion during the same ten year period.

Amazon leads the tech titans with a cap ex investment this year projected to top $100 billion and potentially could reach $118 billion. The corporate behemoth operates more than 100 data centers worldwide, each of which houses about 50,000 servers to support cloud computing services.

This insatiable demand for capital is stressing corporate balance sheets and forcing a recalibration of the financial resources needed to build the backbone of the new economy.  For perspective, that $7 trillion figure represents more than the Gross Domestic Product of every country but two: the U.S. and China.

Although data centers have been around since the 1940's, training and using AI requires enormous amounts of computing power in data centers.   AI centers consume seven to eight times more energy than a typical computing workload, according to a Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)  study.

AI data centers house advanced computing, network and storage architectures, buttressed by energy and cooling systems to handle high density workloads. AI centers are crammed with graphics processing units (GPU) that generate intense heat.    

A unique feature of generative AI is the increased fluctuations in energy use which occur over different phases in training machine learning.  One study estimated the training process to deploy a recent Open AI model consumed 1,287 megawatt hours of electricity, enough to power 120 average homes. 

Scientists estimate the power requirements for data centers nearly doubled just between 2022 and the end of 2023.  MIT researchers calculated that by 2026 the electricity consumption of all data centers will approach 1,050 terawatt hours. Each terawatt equals one trillion watts of electricity.  

A major new International Energy Agency (IEA) report calculates that data centers worldwide are expected to more than double by 2030, requiring around 945 terawatt hours of electricity, less than the MIT estimate by still a hefty amount.  That is more than the entire electricity consumption of Japan.

An already taxed electricity grid has prompted major technology companies to invest in their own energy facilities and to strike agreements for  dedicated electricity resources. Microsoft, for instance, has agreed to purchase  $16 billion in energy from the restarted Three Mile Island nuclear facility. 

Goggle is collaborating with Karios Power and the Tennessee Valley Authority to deploy advanced nuclear energy to supplement the electricity grid to power its data centers in Tennessee and Alabama. Amazon is partnering with Talen Energy to secure nuclear power from the Susquehanna power station.

Current data centers are already contributing to rising consumer electricity rates. The 13-state region served by PJM Interconnection is home to the largest concentration of data centers. Residential consumers were hit with a 20% spike in rates this summer as PJM's costs soared $9 billion.

Today's hyper scale AI data centers require as much as 1,200 acres or more to build.  To accommodate those acreage requirements, data centers are being constructed farther and farther away from cities. Currently, data centers have gobbled up 282.8 million square feet of land in the U.S.   

Northern Virginia, home to a high concentration of data centers, reports 51 million square feet of land dedicated to the facilities.  Operators require large tracts of land to develop multiple buildings over time. The acreage includes buffer zones for cooling plants, backup generators and electrical substations. 

Water consumption is often an overlooked issue when it comes to AI data centers. Training AI models generates significant heat, increasing the need for water to cool and to keep the humidity low. One study found that as much as 720 billion gallons of water annually will be needed by 2028 for AI data centers.

Googles's data center in Henderson, Nevada, consumed 352 million gallons of water in 2024, according to data obtained by the Las Vegas Review-Journal.  Goggle reported using more than 6 billion gallons of water in 2023 for all of its data centers.

The water and power resource drain is already causing some cities to rethink support for construction of massive data center projects. Tucson's city council recently defeated a proposal for a 290-acre data center in Pima County over concerns about water and electricity consumption.

The project would have generated $250 million in tax revenue and created 3,000 temporary construction jobs and provided 180 permanent positions.  Local officials identified the company as Amazon, but the firm declined to comment on the proposed Henderson facility.

This litany of thorny issues facing AI should not detract from its enormous potential.  Goldman Sachs predicts AI will boost the global GDP by $7 trillion over ten years.  McKinsey projects generative AI will add between $2.6 trillion and $4.4 trillion annually to the world's economy. 

The winner in the AI race will be those countries that encourage industry to address the requirements for power, water, acreage and financing before it's too late. The good news is the AI transformation is already fueling cutting edge solutions that will help fulfill the promise of the technological revolution.    

A Perspective On Removing Illegal Immigrants

Removing illegal immigrants from the country is not a new idea hatched by the Trump Administration. You wouldn't know it, judging by today's news coverage. Few, if any, Americans know a 1995 law signed by Democrat President Bill Clinton paved the way for millions of deportations and removals.  

Bipartisan legislation known as The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act green lighted the removal of illegals. Under Presidents Clinton, George W. Bush and Barrack Obama there were 27 million illegal immigrants ushered out of the United States.  

Likely, you are shaking your head.  That number--27 million--can't be accurate.  You won't find it in reporting by The New York Times, The Washington Post, NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN and MSNBC.  Those media hide behind bogus fact-checkers to claim the number is inflated.  But it's not.

The legacy media cabal claim the past "removals" data cannot be equated with Trump's deportations.  Fact checkers parse the word "due process" to argue previous administrations did not ignore the Constitution to send illegal immigrants out of the country.  

The truth is illegal immigrants were deported under previous presidents, regularly without hearings.  Whether you use the term "removals" or "deportations," the outcome was the same. Semantics aside, illegals were sent out of the country at the border and from the country's interior.   

Also, illegal immigrants who lived in the U.S. for 365 days or more were required to remain outside the country for ten years, unless they obtained a waiver. The act allowed the deportation of illegal immigrants who committed a misdemeanor or a felony. Those who overstayed visas could be removed.

Raise your hand if you knew about these provisions. Even fewer Americans know that many of the bill's provisions remain in force today. The Biden Administration chose to ignore the law, inviting in at least 10 million illegal immigrants to waltz into the country, while lying that the border was secure. 

Other Democrat presidents and President Bush viewed illegal immigration differently than Biden. 

Under Clinton, 12 million illegals were either deported, removed or returned during his two terms. The terminology doesn't matter. The fact is 11.4 million of those illegals were apprehended at the border and were given the choice: return to Mexico or face formal deportation hearings.  Most returned to Mexico. 

During the Bush Administration, more than 10 million illegals were sent out of the country. A large majority of those immigrants--8.3 million--were stopped at the border and returned to Mexico. About 1.6 million were deported over eight years.  

The data for Bush and Clinton removals and deportations comes from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

The number of deportations ratcheted up during President Obama's eight years in office. Between 2009 and 2012 the administration deported 1.6 million illegal immigrants, according to Pew Research. Of those, Pew found that 690,000 had criminal records. The final tally under Obama was 5 million. 

Obama defenders prefer to point out that as president he signed an executive order in 2012 protecting certain young undocumented immigrants who came to the U.S. as children from temporarily being deported.  However, Obama's action was at least partly in response to criticism from some in his party.

Immigration activists labeled Obama the "Deporter In Chief" for his rapid removal of illegal immigrants.  

For the record,  Obama officials deportation priorities were national security threats; noncitizens convicted of three or more misdemeanors or one serious crime; those who abused visa or visa waiver programs. DHS also targeted illegals who had a pending removal issue on or before January 1, 2014, but had remained in the country.  

A Democrat untruth is that every illegal immigrant received their day in court under Obama. Not according to the American Civil Liberties Union.  Here's what the ACLU posted on its website during the Obama years:

"The reality is that this (Obama) Administration has increasingly relied on methods, such as expedited removal and reinstatements of old decisions, which bypass a judicial hearing where a judge can consider U.S. ties and individuals circumstances and also fail to offer basic protections like notice to counsel."

Obama also had the cooperation of local police in cities.  His DHS department asked local police to hold an immigrant already in custody for forty-eight hours to give the feds can opportunity to place the migrant into deportation proceedings or take the individual into custody.

Given recent history, the Democrat hysterics and borderline delirium over current Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) arrests and deportations are hypocrisy.  There is very little daylight between the Trump Administration's deportation priorities and those of Obama. 

What's changed is the name of the president.  Obama deported more noncitizens than any president in U.S. history. Mayors didn't threaten DHS agents. No Congressmen or women demanded to peek inside detention centers. No federal judges halted deportations for lack of due process. There were no riots.

Moreover, the Border Patrol under Obama put children in detention centers , encircled by razor-wire fences.  Here's what the Arizona Republic wrote at the time:

"But they are still children in cages, not delinquents.  Just children, 900 of them, in a makeshift border town center that is longer than a football field." Similar articles appeared in the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times.  When Trump later used the same detention centers, he was skewered.

Criticize President Trump's deportations if you wish. But what the administration is doing is not beyond the norm of previous Democrat presidents. Some may suggest that the Trump plan includes deporting non-criminals or individuals who have been in the country for years but are not citizens.

It is beyond naive to claim that under Obama there were no such instances.  There was no oversight by Congress or the media.   

What America is dealing with today goes beyond what Obama faced.   Former President Biden created a nightmare immigration scenario that undid decades of immigration policies aimed at protecting the country. He and his administration deserve the blame for the current chaos.

The immigration issue was at least partly responsible for Americans voting for Donald Trump.  Democrats ceded the high ground on illegal immigration during the last four years.  Their current faux outrage and performative protests are nothing more than political theater.