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.   

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.