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.   

The Myths and Misinformation About Tariffs

The latest four-letter word has not one but two "f's."  Although it has six letters, "tariff" rouses the same nastiness as the other "f" word.  The ongoing tariff war between President Trump and U.S. trading partners stirs passionate supporters and detractors at home and abroad.  

Democrats, the media and many on Wall Street land solidly in the camp of critics. The cabal has carried out an assault on Trump's plan to implement reciprocal tariffs.  The detractors have been guilty of deceptive partisanship rhetoric and a torrent of disinformation. 

Perspective has been universally ignored or deliberately obfuscated. Listening and reading the commentaries the average American might legitimately assume levying tariffs is a new phenomena instituted by Trump.  Or that tariffs are somehow unAmerican. Both assumptions are wrong.

For perspective, the U.S. trade deficit surged to an eye-watering $1.1 trillion in 2024 as Americans bought more imported products than our producers exported. The U.S. ran a $226 billion deficit with its top trading partners: Mexico and Canada. The largest deficit was with China: $270 billion.  

Trade deficits lead to job losses in domestic industries, particularly the manufacturing sector. Reduced production in key technology, military and mineral sectors increases dependence on foreign suppliers.  Deficits can also contribute to the nation's debt, as the U.S. relies on foreign borrowing to finance imports. 

Tariffs were first levied by the nascent United States in 1789.  The architect was Alexander Hamilton who shepherded a law passed by the new government authorizing tariffs.  Duties were slapped on a range of imported goods to help pay down Revolutionary War debts and protect American markets.

Trump's goals for reordering tariffs are similar to Hamilton's motives. The president favors reciprocal tariffs, mirroring each country's tariffs on American goods.  Some tariffs, like those on steel, are designed to protect our manufacturing base. Tariff income will go toward paying down national debt. 

U.S. tariff revenues for June eclipsed the $100 billion mark for the fiscal year after the country received $27 billion in custom duties for June. Compared to last June, the figures have skyrocketed 301%, according to the Treasury Department's Customers and Certain Excise Taxes data.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent estimated that the heightened tariffs may generate as much as $300 billion for the federal government by the end of the fiscal year.  For clarification's sake, businesses pay the duties on imported goods directly to the U.S. government. 

Another perception created by the detractors revolves around changing tariffs. Many argue that the tariffs do not need to be  altered. Tinkering with tariffs creates turbulence and uncertainty, miffs allies and drives up the prices Americans pay for goods and services.  

Firstly, tariffs seldom have remained static.  Countries around the world are constantly tweaking tariffs, primarily to protect home markets.  For its part, since 1789 this country's tariffs have swung back and forth. Tariffs were changed in 1890, 1913, 1920 and 1921, just to name a few examples.

The Tariff Act of 1930, designed to protect American agriculture, raised duties on 20,000 imported products.  Canada, Britain and France among others retaliated with their own tariff increases.  Sound familiar?  In the late 20th and early 21st centuries, there was a concerted effort to reduce tariffs.

During the back-and-forth over the years, tariffs have been as low as zero and as high as 49%.  

Critics have cried foul, fearing that Trump's tariff threats will disrupt the free flow of goods.  However, a trade war has raged under the radar against the U.S. for decades.  Tariffs and non-tariff barriers have been levied against America's producers by foreign countries, including traditional allies.

At the end of 2024, the average U.S. rate on all imports was 2.5% with no restrictions.  Canada had a duty free import tax, but it has many restrictions.  For example there are restrictions on dairy, chicken and eggs, putting a quota on imports. There are additional restrictions on fruits, beer and alcohol. 

Mexico also had a duty free levy on imports, but bans the importation of U.S. medical devices, pharmaceuticals, steel products, agricultural chemicals, cheese, milk, yogurt, mobile devices and genetically engineered corn and dough.  

Other countries have higher duties, for example: Japan; 3.9%; India 18.1%; European Union, 5.1%; China, 7.5%; Brazil, 11.1%; Argentina; 13.3%; Malaysia, 5.6%; Norway, 5.2%; Pakistan, 10.3%; Switzerland, 5.6%; Taiwan, 6.5%; Thailand, 9.7%; Turkey 16.8%; and Vietnam, 9.6%. 

The European Union has particularly onerous restrictions on U.S. imports. The confederation imposes a 26% tariff on fish and seafood; 10% on passenger vehicles; and, a 22% tariff on trucks. Additionally, the EU restricts or prohibits U.S. imports of beef, wine, pork and beef to name just a few products. 

The data is unambiguous. It's inaccurate to claim there is free and unrestricted trade among U.S. trading partners. 

The tariff pundits, particularly those on Wall Street, postulate that a tariff is a tax on goods and services.  That is a misleading characterization.  The EU places an average value added tax (VAT) of 21.8% on U.S. imports in addition to the tariffs.  The U.S. has no equivalent tax on imports. 

By using the misnomer "tax," critics want consumers to believe import duties automatically boost retail prices. The truth is companies that import goods decide how much, if any amount, to pass along to the consumer.  Often, foreign exporters lower their costs of goods to offset the tariffs.

Companies in competitive markets are more likely to find ways to mitigate the impact on consumer prices.  But firms with market power can pass the full cost of the tariff to the consumer.  For the sake of fairness, the factual answer on consumer prices is: "it depends" on market competition and the business.

The anti-Trump brigade on Wall Street point to the recent Consumer Price Index (CPI) of 2.7% as proof tariffs are increasing consumer prices. However, the Producer Price Index, which measures wholesale costs, showed no change in June.  In fact, the June number was the lowest since September 2024.

Unlike the CPI which measures prices from a consumer perspective, the PPI focuses on the producers costs. The latter provides insight into inflationary pressures in the economy and is closely followed by the Federal Reserve.  Rising wholesale prices often signal higher consumer prices.   

This helps validate the administration's view that tariffs are not solely responsible for increases in  consumer prices. The prices reflect retailers of goods and services choosing to increase costs for other reasons, such as wage hikes, transportation costs and supplier increases.

The biggest losers in any trade war will be the countries that export to the U.S., which has advantages of size, economic resilience and consumers with money to spend. Despite what you may hear, there is no other country's economy that could absorb the lion's share of  the imports transported to the U.S. 

In spite of complaints by free-trade hawks and naysayers, President Trump's tariffs are aimed at leveling the playing field for U.S. exports to foreign countries and reviving U.S. manufacturing.  No question it's a high risk strategy.  But fair treatment for American workers and companies is worth pursuing.  

It's Big, But Is It Beautiful or Ugly?

Dueling political narratives have flared up with the passage of President Trump's so-called Big Beautiful Bill.  Democrats argue it doles out tax breaks for billionaires and penalizes the poor.  Republicans retort it boosts paychecks for working families and cuts waste and fraud.   

The 887-page bill hashed out between the Republican controlled House and Senate was signed into law on July 4 after days of intrigue, party in-fighting, partisan rancor, arm-twisting and all-night voting sessions. The political war of words is becoming a flashpoint for next year's mid-term elections.

Democrats have lifted the curtain on their tactic for next year's attack ads aimed at building a majority in both houses of Congress.  Here's an early preview of criticisms of the bill along with the specific provisions in the mega package: 

• The bill is just a tax break for billionaires.    Tax rates on every person--from the poorest to the richest--will remain where they are. The legislation makes the tax cuts permanent, with annual inflation adjustments for those in the 10, 12 and 22 percent tax brackets.  It also increases standard deductions from $15,000 to $15,750 for individual taxpayers and from $30,000 to $31,500 for married couples filing jointly, subject to income limits. Taxes on businesses remain at 21%.  Prior to the 2017 law businesses were taxed at 35%. There are also reduced limits on business expensing and deductions. 

• But billionaires are getting the biggest tax break.  Households making under $50,000 receive a 14.9% tax cut in the legislation.  Households earning under $100,000 got a 12% tax break.  The top 1%--the billionaires and millionaires--received a 2.4% tax cut from the rates they paid prior to 2017.  

• The bill does nothing for the middle class and poor. New deductions for tips, overtime and car loan interest support hourly workers. The new law increases the child tax credit to $2,200 from $2,000 starting in 2026. The credits are adjusted annually for inflation.  The bill will allow individuals to deduct tips on wages and overtime pay for tax years 2025 through 2028. The bill caps the deductions on tips at $25,000 per year.  Under the legislation, no taxes apply to overtime up to $12,500 per individual. The tax benefits phase out for individuals making $150,000 or more. It also allows borrowers to deduct up to $10,000 in car loan interest payments for the next four tax years, if final assembly for the car was in the U.S. Eligibility is tied to income: Those earning $100,000 or less ($200,000 for joint filers) qualify. The mortgage interest deduction remains capped at $750,000 for joint filers.   

• The law does not eliminate taxes on Social Security as promised.  Indeed, taxes on Social Security remain the same, despite the President Trump's campaign pledge.  However, the bill allows individuals 65+ with up to $150,000 in household income (joint filers) to subtract $6,000 from their income. Taxpayers earning more than $250,000 jointly or $175,000 individually are not eligible to receive the benefit. The standard deduction for Americans 65+ has been raised by $2,000 for individuals and $1,600 for households. An estimated 64% of seniors receiving Social Security will benefit from the changes.These deductions will expire at the end of 2028.The bottom 20% of taxpayers remain exempt from taxation on SS benefits. They pay no tax today.  Eliminating taxes on Social Security would have lowered federal revenues by $1.5 trillion over ten years, raising the federal debt.

• People will die because of Medicaid cuts. There are no cuts in Medicaid payments to eligible recipients. The law stipulates new requirements in 2027 for those who enroll in Medicaid.  Abled-bodied recipients will no longer be eligible unless they meet certain requirements, primarily working 20 hours a week.  The legislation exempts the disabled, pregnant women, those enrolled in school, anyone caring for a child younger than 14 or persons who volunteers at least 20 hours a week.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates there are 4.8 million of the 84.6 million people on Medicaid who will no longer qualify. Medicaid costs have spiraled out of control since 2019, rising 60%.  

•                                               
• People will go hungry without food stamps. There are 42.6 million people receiving benefits under Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as food stamps.  Despite fewer unemployed persons today, those receiving benefits remain the same as 2012. Under the Clinton Administration, there was a work requirement for food stamps.  The Biden Administration waived work requirements for able bodied people.  The new legislation adopts work requirements and requires states to contribute to SNAP benefits, which are now 100% funded by federal government. The bill specifies able-bodied adults without dependents must work 80 hours per month (or 20 hours per week) to qualify for food stamps. Exemptions are made for physically or mentally handcapped, pregnant women, those caring for young children and individuals enrolled in certain educational and training programs.  Additionally, veterans, the homeless and foster care youth under the age of 24 are exempted from work requirements. SNAP payments will continue at current levels.  It is unclear when the new work requirements will take effect.  The Agriculture Department is charged with issuing the final guidelines.                                         

• People will lose their healthcare coverage. The legislation imposes stricter income verification requirements while enhancing premium tax credits for purchasing Obamacare (Affordable Care Act).  The credits will lower out-of-pocket costs for Americans who enroll in ACA plans, which may lead to increased enrollment, particularly among low-to-middle-income facilities. Critics claim the eligibility verification will add more red tape for enrollees, causing some to drop out of the program. A total of 6.4 million individuals were fraudulently enrolled in ACA plans in 2025 alone, costing taxpayers an estimated $27 billion. In addition, the legislation excludes illegal immigrants from enrollment.   

• Medicare benefits are at risk.  Medicare benefits and spending are not changed under the legislation. However, about 1.3 million people who qualify for both Medicare and Medicaid may have an increase in out-of-pocket costs. Some illegal immigrants may potentially lose their coverage, depending on the final rules adopted by Medicare.   

• The BBB will increase the national debt and produce budget deficits.  The Congressional Budget Office estimates the legislation will reduce tax revenues by $3.7 trillion over the 2025-2034 period, hiking the deficit by $2.4 trillion.  The estimate does not account for how the tax reduction will impact economic growth. The Tax Foundation puts the estimated federal budget deficits at $2.9 trillion covering the years 2025 through 2034.

• The bill negatively impacts the environment and eduction.  The bill ends the $7,500 tax credit for electric vehicles on September 30.  It maintains tax credits for hydrogen, carbon capture, nuclear energy, geothermal energy and boosts oil drilling. Individual tax credits for residential energy projects, such as solar panels, expire after 2025. Tax credits for commercial wind and solar projects will continue as long as construction begins by June 2025 and facilities are placed in service by 2027. College endowments with more than $2 million in assets per student will pay an 8% tax on investment income. Institutions with fewer than 3,000 tuition paying students are exempt.  Under the legislation, student loan interest payments will resume this year after being suspended by the Biden Administration under a loan forgiveness program that was blocked by a federal appeals court. 

Parental Rights Under Assault In Education

A seminal cultural issue is the tug-of-war over parental rights and children's education. Increasingly parents are demanding more involvement in what's taught in schools. School districts are pushing back, contending they know what's best for students. Parental rights stop at the school's front door.  

A high-stakes battle over the issue has reached the nation's highest court.  The case involves Maryland parents pitted against the Montgomery County Board of Education.  Parents sued the district over LGBTQ themed books for pre-Kindergarten and elementary-aged children. 

The Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision in the case this summer.  The suit has reignited the simmering battle over school books, curriculum and teachers classroom guides. Many school boards and the teachers union have erected roadblocks to parental oversight of their child's education. 

At issue in the Maryland case, is the Montgomery County Board of Education's refusal to allow parents to opt out classes that use books with LGBTQ themes in elementary school.  Montgomery County is the 14th largest district in the nation with more than 160,000 students, including 70,000 elementary kids. 

In 2022, Maryland's largest district announced revisions to its curriculum would include new storybooks with young LGBTQ characters to foster diversity and inclusion.  Parents decided to take the issue to court in 2023 after the district refused to honor opt-out requests for students after saying it would.  

Maryland has a law as many states do that requires parental notification and the ability to opt-out of sexual education classes and controversial readings on related topics. The board's own guidelines guarantee parents may seek opt-outs and alternative assignments.  

The board reversed course when a vocal group of parents protested that the opt-out amounted to a violation of their First Amendment rights. Three families took issue with the powerful board, arguing the books subject matter infringed on their free exercise of religion. 

It's worth noting that the opposition group included members of the Catholic, Muslim and Ukrainian Orthodox churches.  They did not challenge the curriculum or demand the school district stop reading the books to other students.  All they asked was the right to have their children excused from the class.

The media has tried to frame this as book banning.  That is patently untrue. Others have contended that religious beliefs don't belong in public schools. But the parents are not lobbying to teach a religious point of view on LGBTQ.  They just don't want their kids exposed to gender affirming messages.

A Montgomery County district board member defended their decision by claiming if books "offend your family's religious values or your core beliefs is just telling (your) kid, 'Here's another reason to hate another person.'"  That irrational judgment reflects the board's contempt for parents. 

Parents should not be asked to surrender their right to instill religious upbringing for their children. Issues surrounding family life and human sexuality are at the heart of many religions teachings. Parents are the best guides on these matters, especially at the elementary and pre-K level. 

It helps to know the content of the richly illustrated books to understand the parents' position. The books, read to pre-K and elementary school-age children, champion pride parades, gender transitioning and pronoun preferences for children.  

As one example, a book tasks three-and-four-year olds to search for images from a word list that includes "intersex flag," "drag queen," leather and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and sex worker. Teaching guides suggest it is "hurtful" if students question these ideas.

The books included "My Rainbow," about a mother who makes a rainbow colored wig for her transgender daughter. Another, "Love Violet," tells the story of a girl who develops a crush on her female classmate Mira. Only Mira made "Violet's heart skip," the book emphasizes. 

One book describes the story of a girl attending her uncle's same-sex wedding. Another, innocently named "Puppy Pride," tells the story of a dog that gets lost during a pride parade.  The deceptively disguised LGBTQ ideology unfolds on the pages. 

The books were front and center when the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in April.  The case landed at the high court after the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the parents of children enrolled in Montgomery County public schools had no right to be notified or opt-out their kids.

The high court has an opportunity to ratify parental rights and religious freedom in its decision.  In addition, the justices should make it clear that parents--not the state or school district--should have the right to decide when to introduce their children to sensitive issues about gender and sexuality.

Federal Taxes: Debunking The Democrat Narrative

Political theater is hogging the spotlight as Congress grapples with the issue of federal income taxes. The actors in Washington are repeating familiar lines.  Tax cuts benefit the oligarchs and billionaires. The wealthy don't pay their fair share. The tax burden falls on the shoulders of the little guy.

Leading roles are being played by Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexander Ocasio-Cortez. The Democrat duo are barnstorming the hinterland braying about a "government of the billionaires, by the billionaires and for the billionaires."  The rich are to be scorned and their earnings confiscated. 

The truth is without millionaires and billionaires the federal government would run out of money.  But class warfare has always been viewed by Democrats as a winning political strategy.  Personal success is permissive as along as your income doesn't cross the border into seven figures. 

Taxes are on center stage because of the impending expiration of key provisions of President Trump's 2017 Tax cuts and Jobs Act. Republicans are pushing legislation to make the current taxes permanent, while Democrats are characterizing the package as a pay off to the wealthiest.

Facts are stubborn reminders of the progressive nature of America's tax code.  The more money you make, the federal government takes a larger share of your income.  The 2017 legislation reduced taxes for most Americans, including those in the top 1% of the income bracket.

What Democrats and their media allies are loath to admit is the Trump tax cuts benefited most those in three of the bottom four income brackets. Included are Americans who earn $12,250, $49,750 and $106,000.  Raising their tax rates would hurt the middle class. 

If the current tax cuts are not renewed and rates revert to 2016 levels, 62 percent of tax filers would experience increases in their personal income taxes in 2026. 

Those who rail about reductions in taxes for high earners ignore history's lesson.  Even as taxes have been reduced for the top tax bracket, their share of the income tax burden has grown.  Conversely, the bottom half of earners share of the tax burden has sharply declined. Those are indisputable facts.

In 1980 the top marginal rate was 70% for the wealthiest 1%.  They paid 19% of all federal income taxes.  Since then, their share of the tax burden has grown, even as the top marginal rates were lowered.  At the same time, the tax share of the bottom 50% has declined from 7% in 1980 to 2.96% in 2022.

The latest Internal Revenue Service data from 2022, shows the top 1%--those with incomes over $663,164--paid 40.43% of all federal income taxes. The current tax rate is 39.6% for top earners.The top ten percent of taxpayers--those earning $261,591 and above--paid 76% of personal income taxes.

Including the top 25%, the percentage of taxes paid reaches 89%.  The IRS collected 97% of all personal income taxes from the top 50%. Of the 161.3 million returns filed for the tax year 2022, a total of 50.7 million individuals paid no federal income tax.  

Liberals are quick to point out that taxpayers whose income are in the bottom 50% pay more in payroll taxes than income taxes.  Employers collect these taxes from wages and pay the money directly to the IRS. Payroll taxes fund Social Security and Medicare. 

But that doesn't change the fact that the top 1% paid $855 billion dollars in personal income taxes in 2022, by far the largest share of any marginal tax rate group.  The wealthiest earned 22.4% of all the personal income yet paid nearly twice that percentage in taxes: 40.43%.

Tax fairness depends on your definition of what is equitable.  For historical perspective, the highest marginal tax rate was 94% during 1944.  From 1945 until 1963, it was 91%. By 1964, the rate fell to 77%. For the tax years 1991-1992, the rate dipped to 31%.  

Throughout those years, the top earners always paid the lion's share of taxes to Uncle Sam. 

The Trump tax cuts also lowered the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%.  Reverting to the higher rate would risk increasing inflation. Consumers ultimately pay corporate taxes.  Firms price their goods and services based on all their costs, including taxes.  Demagoguery doesn't change that fact. 

America does not have a revenue problem.  Spending is the chief issue. In the fiscal years of 2020-2024, the federal government spent $38.35 trillion. The gusher created a deficit chasm of $10.78 trillion over the same period. The national debt has ballooned to $36.22 trillion and counting. 

But even a suggestion of budget cuts triggers caterwauling throughout the halls of Congress.  People will go hungry if a smidgen is sliced from the federal government's budget.  But unless the federal budget growth is halted, taxes will need to be raised every year to avoid runaway deficits.

As the Washington drama unfolds, ignore the rhetoric.  This play acting is all about politics.  Democrats want to wreck the Trump presidency by raising taxes which will sink consumer confidence and rattle the  economy.  Winning the midterms is the goal without regard to costs to American household budgets.