What's Up With Inflation? Everything!

Inflation is roaring in America's economy. This isn't news to consumers but the latest government data confirms prices for goods and services are spiraling at historic levels.  Costs for food, cars, fuel, construction materials, air travel, household furnishing, apparel and virtually everything else is soaring. 

The question on the minds of consumers, economists, bankers, investors and stock market analysts remains: Is this a transitional period of spiking prices that will end soon or will inflation continue for a year or more?   Answers depend on whom you ask and their stake in the outcome of the debate.

                                           The Data

Data not opinions are the appropriate starting point for a discussion about inflation.  The Consumer Price Index (CPI) surged one percent, in June.  But that monthly jump doesn't tell the whole story.  During the last 12 months, the index hiked 5.4%, the largest annual expansion since August 2008.  

Unpacking Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reveals eyeopening numbers.  The price for all energy has leaped 24.5% in the last 12 months. Gasoline prices are up 45.1%; used cars and trucks skyrocketed 45.2%; transportation services rose 10.4%; and, commodities forged ahead 8.7% in the same period.

In 44 of the nation's 50 largest metro areas, rents have surpassed levels before the pandemic began, according to data from Realtor.com.  Nationwide, the median rent reached a record high of $1,575 in June, an increase of 8% from a year ago. Housing is not a discretionary cost for Americans.  

Food, which is not included in the CPI, increased 0.8% in June, a larger upsurge than May's 0.4%. Food prices are heavily impacted by the cost of fuel, because farmers, wholesalers and grocery chains use gasoline for harvesting and for fleets of trucks to ship food to local stores.  

Consumer wages have not kept pace with the inflation.  The Bureau of Labor Statistics measures the growth of weekly earnings, adjusted for inflation.  From May 2020 to May 2021, real earnings decreased 2.2%. This creates a perfect storm of rising prices and falling purchasing power. 

The flow of money into the economy acutely effects inflation. The Federal Reserve has shoved down interest rates while maintaining bond purchases. This usually triggers robust economic activity and business investment, but inflation lurks as a danger.

In 2007 during the financial crisis, the Fed cleaved the federal funds rate from 5.25% to zero. Later, the Fed raised rates slightly, then sliced the target in 2020 to near zero due to the pandemic. This creates a phenomenon known as "easy money," lowering lending rates for consumers and businesses.

However, lax money policy dampens interest rates paid on money markets, savings and bonds. As a result, investors chase returns in the riskier stock market, fueling bumper growth in the major market indices.  Caution: the stock market is not always a reliable indicator of underlying inflation.   

Today's economy is also awash in Biden bucks as the administration, backed by Congress, has pumped trillions into the economy, including direct payments to individuals.  Economist Larry Summers calls the current stimulus "excessive" because it risks overheating the economy, accelerating inflation.  

Another contributor to the inflationary pressure is the rising cost of hiring employees.  As businesses resume normal operations, it is becoming harder to find workers.  Some remain on the sidelines, content to collect beefed-up government unemployment checks and stimulus payments.  

To complicate matters, many employers are not recalling laid off workers as normal operations resume. Lost jobs and idle workers help explain why the national unemployment rate in June swung to 5.9% In pre-pandemic January 2020, unemployment stood at 3.6%.

At the end of May, there were 9.2 million job openings, according to the BLS.  Desperate businesses are being forced to pay hiring bonuses and other perks to fill jobs.  The cost of wages and bonuses are passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices for services and goods.  

                                Inflation: Transitory or Long Term?

In day-one testimony before Congress, Fed Chairman Jerome Powell repeatedly said his colleagues are focused on returning to full employment and less concerned about temporary hike in inflation.  In fact, the Fed made it clear that it would tolerate higher inflation than its target rate: a 2% annual increase.

It is obvious the chairman believes the current inflation will diminish soon. He blames supply chain issues, increased post-pandemic spending and higher oil prices for the uptick.  "As these transitory supply effects abate, inflation is expected to drop back toward our longer-run goal," Powell says.

But is he right?

JPMorgan Chase chief executive Jamie Dimon is solidly in the camp of dissenters.  He recently opined that there is "a very good chance inflation will be more than transitory."  His investment bank, the largest by assets, is stockpiling cash to buy treasures and other investments when interest rates climb. 

He's not alone.  Deutsche Bank economists and Morgan Stanley are sounding the alarm about long-term inflation. But there are still doubters who frankly are championing easy money for their own economic interests, especially those who market stocks and other financial instruments,

"While inflation has a negative connotation for many people, inflation itself isn't inherently good or bad," says Jill Fopiano, president and CEO of O'Brien Wealth Partners.  "Some level of inflation is a sign that the economy is healthy."  

Gus Faucher, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group, points out recent sharp rises in prices are concentrated in parts of the economy that were whipsawed by the pandemic, including used cars, airfares and hotel stays.

"That suggests that this is part of the dislocation from the (economic) reopening and I would expect that...inflation will settle down later this year," Faucher forecasts.

Economists can find reasons to validate their views on alternative scenarios.  However, this writer doesn't consider wishy-washy perspectives to be a helpful guide to the future.  Uncertainty promotes more uncertainty.  Taking a stand always comes with risks of being wrong.  So be it.  

                                        An Inflation Prediction 

In day-two of his testimony, Powell modified his stance on "transitionary" inflation.  He told the Senate Banking Committee, "I think we're experiencing a big uptick in inflation.  Bigger than many expected.  Bigger than certainly I expected."  Analysts labeled the remarks a "softening" of his stance.

It is more like backpedaling or waffling.  Powell figures by hedging he protects his credibility regardless of the eventual outcome.  But a career economist and bank executive Howard Manning, who spent five years at the Federal Reserve Bank in Kansas City, isn't buying "transitory inflation."

"With the exception of the 1% money earners and the top 5% wealth holders, the rest of the U.S. economy is suffering from a runaway inflation spike that is dramatically effecting net disposable income," Manning notes.  Growing inflation is a drag on savings and investment, he adds.

To underscore his premise, Manning cites a rapid increase in commodity prices that have driven up food and clothing prices, which appear to be "running closer to 7% to 10% rather than the 2% to 5.5% the administration wants us to believe."

He acknowledges supply chain issues, but underscores the continuing outsourcing of production and manufacturing which effects capital formation.  American jobs are fleeing to China, India and other countries continuing to "rob the USA of middle class level wages," Manning reminds economists.

Manning's assessment of jobs: The COVID job losses are "permanent." "And the Green Energy jobs are not financially replacing former jobs. The future now is working for the military industrial complex--wages, healthcare (soft dollar) and government subsidy," he posits.  

In this writer's opinion, based on metrics, inflation will stick to the economy like Elmer's Super Glue for at least a year or more. Rising prices sometimes can be offset by efficiencies and productivity. However, the fastest way to mitigate exploding costs is by shaving payroll and jacking up prices.

Gasoline and fuel prices which effect food,  transportation and energy costs are blooming with no end in sight for at least the next 12 to 24 months.  Virtually every American, especially low income earners, will be forced to make purchase tradeoffs as inflation bubbles, threatening economic growth.

The Fed, economists, the administration and stock market pros will not be able to use the excuse they were blindsided by stubborn inflation.  The data is right in front of them.  They are choosing to adopt a rosy view.  The data indicates inflation will march steadily ahead without proactive Fed intervention. 

America: A Nation Divided, Angry and Depressed

America is in turmoil.  A nation divided by politics, media, culture, regionalism, religion, celebrities, sports, race, wealth, agism and patriotism.  Many scapegoat politicians as the culprits.  But we are at war with ourselves.  The only real solution is for We The People to first change ourselves.  

It is trendy to dredge up the cliche that things have never been worse in our country.  Those who assert this hypothesis never delved into our nation's past.  America was birthed in conflict.  Our founding fathers complained bitterly about the rancor within their newly minted United States of America.

America's first President George Washington fretted about the rank partisanship in the 1790's.  It was a time of hate-filled political rhetoric.  Sound familiar? Washington blamed the malice on politicians driven by "selfish motives."  He lamented the political groups formed to spread discord and enmity.

Our second President John Adams was furious at the pamphleteers who criticized his administration.  In 1798, he signed the Alien and Sedition Act, which made it illegal to "write, print or publish any false, scandalous and malicious writings" against the president and the executive branch.

America's messy democracy with its partisan politicians and unfettered press has a long history of stirring passion, antagonism and dissension.  It is the price we pay for freedom.  What needs to change is how Americans react to politics and how we discern the truth about what is reported in the media.   

The toxicity of today's politics is as volatile as Washington's era. Partisans on all sides of the political spectrum point the finger of guilt at one of the two major parties.  However, both parties and the extremists within each, are at fault. It doesn't matter a wit which party is in control, bitterness reigns. 

If you catch yourself shaking your head in disagreement, you are frankly in denial.  In 1994, I traveled to Washington for a private conference with Oklahoma Senator David Boren.  During our meeting, he disclosed he would not seek another term.  I was stunned.  The Democrat easily could be reelected.

"Politics in Washington is no longer civil," he confided.  "At one time, Democrats and Republicans would fight like dogs in the Senate chambers over issues.  But when the session adjourned, we were still friends.  We could socialize and solve issues.  Not any more.  The level of hostility is palpable."

That meeting was more than two decades ago.  The animus has worsened.

Both parties champion compromise when they are in power.  The party out of favor resists.  The needs of ordinary Americans are no longer the priority of Washington's pampered, entitled politicians. Thousands of special interest groups, flush with money, control both parties.  Don't doubt that.

As a country founded on the principle of freedom of expression, unrestrained speech is a blessing and often a cruse. The right to voice your opinions, no matter who it offends, is guaranteed.  People are embolden to speak honestly or utter falsehoods. Today that freedom is under fierce attack.

Social media titans, including Facebook and Twitter, arbitrarily ban content their censors find objectionable. No debate is allowed on issues such as vaccination, CDC health mandates, racial issues or any controversy that the social media cabal deems contrary to the progressive narrative.   

Even worse a majority of Americans get some or all of their news from the most unreliable source on the planet: social media.  According to some reports, about a half-a-billion tweets and Snapchat photos are shared every minute.  Add Facebook in the mix, and the numbers are nearly a billion.  

People use social media to vent their anger about everything from politics to customer service.  A Pew Research Center study found social media is a "significant contributor" to users' stress.  One Austrian research study discovered Facebook users moods are lower after engaging on the platform.

The legacy media--newspapers, television networks, online news platforms--once performed a public service by sorting fact from misinformation.  Today every news source without exception is guilty of bias, political favoritism, anonymous-sourced rumors and calculated negative reporting.

Research shows this development impacts our mental health.  A study in Psychology Today reported that the steady diet of negative news interfaces with "our cognitive biases, keeping our focus on everything that's going wrong, while blinding us to all the good things around us."

This combustible environment of noxious politics and poisonous news coverage is creating a dynamic of us-versus-them.  People are sick of politics and media but continue to wallow in the negative news and political morass with insatiable appetites.  We get the media and politicians we deserve. 

Politics and news may be the main triggers of general nastiness, but there are so many other influencers eroding civility.  Take patriotism. It was once unthinkable for any American to disrespect the nation's sacred flag.  Now the symbol of freedom is labeled a dog-whistle for racism.

Our flag no longer unites us.  It segregates the country.  How did this happen?

Too many Americans take their social and moral cues from multi-millionaire athletes and celebrities.  They exert an out-sized influence on Americans with their opinions, tweets, music, movies and behavior.  These self-appointed influencers are worshiped by a culture obsessed with celebrities.

Many gliterrarti preach hatred of America, faulting white nativism and racism for the nation's friction. The vitriol seeps into our consciousness.  We become depressed, angry, tribal.  Who advocates for all humans, regardless of race, creed or religion?  In fact, doing so ends up spurring more disunity.

As if the country needed more strife, there is a growing schism between secularism and religious practice.  Elitists want church doctrine or faith principles to conform to today's political or social mores.  Churches need to change, they demand.  They dangle the threat of removing charitable status.     

Not since the Civil War, have the states been so un-united.  There are self-identified red states and blue states.  States collectively band together to fight against what they view as harmful federal legislation to their region.  Some, like California, are refusing to do business with other states. 

Throw into this incendiary recipe a measure of rural-urban division. Rural communities, the fabric of America, are some of the most harmonious places in the country.  There is a sense of shared values. Urbanites and suburbanites prize progressive ideals and mock the values in rural America.   

Sports once was America's escapism.  Everyone came together and enjoyed a football, basketball or baseball game and forgot whatever anxieties and problems existed outside the stadium. Now egocentric, powerful owners and rich, spoiled athletes are turning events into forums to air grievances.

Schools and colleges are plunging into ugly political scrapes by insisting on doctrinal changes in curriculum, outraging parents. Colleges erect so-called safe zones to protect students' sensitivities. Institutions of learning discourage debate, silence speech and insist on conformity.

In past eras, Americans regardless of political affiliation united whenever our military engaged in a conflict.  World War I and II fostered rare solidarity.  Citizens bonded to support the troops, sacrifice for the good of the nation and volunteer when called. 

Beginning with the Vietnam War and continuing with the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, public and political support for the military has flagged.  The soldiers who answered the call to duty have returned home to hostile receptions.  We blame the brave for what politicians have wrought.  

COVID is a perfect example of Americans inability to set aside political differences to rally to combat an enemy.  The pandemic was politicized by partisans. Soon people--not the virus--became the villains. Health experts berated Americans for not taking the virus seriously or refusing to wear masks.

Instead of rallying Americans to join in a common effort to defeat the virus, the tenor of the health advice dripped with contempt for those who dared to question the experts, including doctors and epidemiologists.  This tactic fueled suspion of science as well as the motives of health officials.  

Then governors stepped into the breech and created often ill-advised mandates that angered and confused ordinary folks. Guidelines changed and then contradictory protocols were issued.  Mistrust was rampant. Ugly confrontations erupted between masked and unmasked citizens.

Rudeness is at the heart of much of what ails this country.  Its symptoms are road rage, unruly airline passengers, public shouting matches, random shootings, street bullies and much more. Studies show that rudeness reacts like a contagion, spreading from person-to-person until it infects a whole nation.   

Perhaps, some readers reject this dystopian view.  However, there can be no disagreement this litany of schisms exist, triggering cynicism and general depression in our nation.  Suicides have risen sharply. More Americans suffer from clinical anxiety than ever before. Something is wrong.  Terribly wrong.

We deny it at the peril of ourselves and our nation.  At its core, this problem calls for unification of at least We The People.  We must temper our behavior, get involved, raise our voices, encourage others, search for common ground and pursue our better selves.  America will not change if we don't. 

Never underestimate the power of one American.  The course of our nation has been altered by lone voices over the centuries.  But we don't have to rely on just our own initiative.  

In closing, here are words of wisdom from Corrie ten Boom, a Dutch watchmaker who was captured and sent to a Nazi concentration camp for hiding Jews in her home and aiding their escape during World War II: 

"In you look at the world, you'll be distressed.  If you look within, you'll be depressed,  If you look at God, you'll be at rest."

Sacrifices of America's Founding Fathers

America's founding fathers are the object of derision today.  Once revered for bravery and sacrifices, it is fashionable to judge these pioneers  as a bunch of slaveowners, racists and white supremacists. This narrative ignores historical scholarship and trivializes their contributions to creating our United States.  

It is time to set the record straight.  These courageous signers of the Declaration of Independence risked their lives, their fortunes and property to stand up to the world's mightiest power Great Britain.  On July 4, 1776, fearless representatives of the 13 colonies demanded their independence from British tyranny.

Among the 56 men who signed the declaration, five were captured and imprisoned during the Revolutionary War; 27 lost property and possessions to British raids; five forfeited their entire fortunes helping fund the Continental Army; and 12 fought the British as members of state militias.

Each leader knew he signed his death warrant by inking the document. This was an act of treason in the eyes of Britain's notorious King George III.  The monarch wanted to crush the rebellion with brute force as a warning to other British colonies around the world. Don't mess with Great Britain.

Here are a few vignettes describing the suffering, selflessness and valor of our founding fathers: 

Richard Stockton, a New Jersey delegate, was targeted by British troops.  The English commandeered his estate to use as their headquarters.  When they left, troops burned his library, private papers, furniture and clothes,  He was captured and imprisoned in a facility reserved for common criminals.

A Georgian, George Walton, served in his state's militia.  During the siege of Savannah, a British Army cannonball shattered Walton's leg, leading to his capture and imprisonment.  He was released after nine months in jail in a prisoner exchange with an English navy captain.

While Walton was held captive, his wife was captured by the British and jailed on an island in the West Indies. She too was eventually freed in a prisoner exchange. 

British mercenaries plundered the 400-acre farm of New Jersey delegate John Hart. After his farm was appropriated, Hart narrowly escaped marauding troops by fleeing his home.  During his absence, his wife died and his children were shipped off to live with neighbors. 

British troops ransacked then destroyed the estate of Pennsylvanian George Clymer during the battle of Philadelphia.   His life in tatters, Clymer converted his entire fortune to continental currency, a gutsy move in light of the colonies' meager chances of defeating the British. He donated it to the war effort.

Other patriots opened their vaults to fund the Continental Army. Carter Braxton of Virginia loaned 10,000 pounds sterling to Congress, but was never repaid.  He spent much of his remaining wealth outfitting American war ships. His largesse left him bankrupt after the end of the war.

Arthur Middleton, Edward Rutledge and Thomas Heyward Jr. joined state militias and were captured by the British and sent to a treacherous prison in St. Augustine, Florida.  British troops destroyed the Long Island estate of Francis Lewis.  His wife was imprisoned and tortured. 

You could fill a book with the grief and pain dealt by the British to those who dared to sign the Declaration of Independence.  Even historians today ignore the founders agony.  Their mission is to blaspheme their reputations by reducing these tenacious leaders to simply slaveholders. 

This biased, dubious narrative lacks perspective and discounts historical scholarship. Some dismiss the facts because history was written by white men and women.  This is reverse racism and assumes scholarly research, records and handwritten personal documents are mere reflections of prejudice.

Rewriting the nation's history through today's lens also reflects personal biases. The New York Times' 1619 Project is a classic example of injecting race into every aspect of the founding of the country to conjure a certain narrative, despite the documented evidence to the contrary.  

It is patently false to claim that all the declaration signers were slaveholders.  Records compiled by historians at Britannica Encyclopedia determined that 14 founders owned slaves at one time or another, including James Madison, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.  

Seven never owned slaves, including John Adams, Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Paine.  Historians have been unable to ascertain through extensive research whether or not the remaining 25 men who affixed their names to the declaration ever owned a single slave.

Another fact often ignored is that many founding fathers opposed slavery at the time the declaration was written.  A majority of founders, with the exception of those from South Carolina and Georgia, included language in the Articles of Confederation prohibiting the importation of slaves to individual states.

After the declaration, attitudes of the founders from the northern colonies shifted. Many openly campaigned to end slavery.  Ben Franklin, who had owned slaves, freed his slaves and later became president of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society.  He signed petitions as early as 1790 to abolish slavery.

Jon Jay, one of the largest slaveholders in New York, joined Alexander Hamilton in founding the New York Manumission Society, establishing the New York African Free School in 1787.  Robert Morris, during the debate on the Constitution, advocated for its abolition, branding it a "nefarious institution."

A balanced view of history would, however, concede that when the last of the remaining founders died in the 1830's, slavery still existed in the United States.  Those who opposed the owning of human beings were unsuccessful in overcoming the interests of southern states in retaining slave labor.  

It is a sad footnote to the founders' contributions. Nevertheless the majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence acted in the name of unity to preserve the fragile coalition of colonies. Without the support of southern states, the Revolutionary War would have been lost.

Whatever your personal view, it  does not change what happened at Independence Hall in Philadelphia in 1776,  The United States became a nation, unshackled from British rule.  The valiant men who wrote and signed this famous document deserve our eternal gratitude not scorn.   

The Torture Of Going To the Dentist

I hate using the word hate.  It's a venomous verb.  I don't hate yucky kale, mushy fish or stinky cheese. I just haven't acquired a taste for them. I don't hate humans, except Michigan fans. But I confess I hate going to the dentist. I would rather endure torture at Abu Ghraib prison than let a dentist near my teeth.

Come to think of it, a dental procedure is similar to being waterboarded in some remote rendition center. Only the music is better in Iraq's Abu Ghraib.  Who selects the tunes piped overhead while you maintain a death grip on both arms of a dental chair?  North Korea's Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un?  

Millions of Americans share my irrational fear. Some pointy heads in the dental health profession published a study in 2013 revealing 36% of my fellow citizens suffer from this phobia.  Of those, fully 12% are classified as having "extreme dental fear."  I am in the 1% that dentists fear most: whiners.

When a dentist spies my name on the daily appointment list, she likely gulps a few Xanax. "Not that guy!" I expect to be sedated right after I check in with the receptionist.  My teeth are more sensitive than a Woke college student.  A prick with a metal dental tool triggers electrical shocks to my gums.  

My adventures in Dental Hell began with my first trip to the dentist at about six years of age. I started bawling the minute the dentist cooed, "Open wide."  The poking, prodding and probing were excruciating. The dental assistant dropped her girth on my tiny body to prevent movement.

I was too young to remember this episode but it was repeated countless times by my parents whenever I was scheduled for another check-up, along with a stern warning: "Don't cry!"  Not exactly the most comforting thought before entering the Chamber of Torture.  But I never cried again.  So there.

My worst nightmare was the summer before my senior year in high school.  At a routine check-up, the dentist announced excitedly: "I found ten cavities!"  His thoughts must have drifted to an expensive vacation in the Swiss Alps.  This was going to be a whopping payday for a small-town practitioner.

Over the next two months, I shuttled back and forth to the dentist.  It seemed like the whole summer was wasted.  My mouth was permanently numb.  My jaw ached.  My teeth clanked with metal fillings. The anticipation of another  trip to the dentist haunted my dreams and kept me awake at night. 

Then in my 20's, I endured my first root canal.  For the uninitiated, this procedure ranks near the top of the pain scale, at least in 1970's dentistry.  Imagine a sensitive tooth pummeled with a hammer.  Then your mouth is stuffed with foul tasting goop. Warning: there are root canals in Hell.

When I lived in London in 1995, I was introduced to the Dark Ages of European dentistry. The techniques and equipment were right out America's 1950's.  Noisy foot-pedal drills, painful cleanings and brusque dentists.  And those were some of the bright spots.

The dentist examined a tooth that had been throbbing with pain. After a stroke of his chin, he decided an extraction was required. "Do you prefer I use a knife or pliers?" he asked with a poker face. Are you kidding me, I mumbled under my breath.  I almost bolted from his office.

Then he patiently explained he had been trained as a field surgeon in the British Army.  He was proficient at extracting teeth with a knife. But we weren't in a war theater.  Bombs weren't falling around us.  I was in a dentist office, for goodness sake.  "I prefer the pliers," I said. He appeared disappointed. 

Back stateside, I went 18 months without a checkup.  Bad idea.  When I finally trudged to the dentist's office, the torturer peered into my mouth and harrumphed.  "You have a lot of old fillings. Some are deteriorating. You need crowns.  Gold crowns."  This sounded like some crypto currency scam to me.

After a series of agonizing visits, my mouth resembled Fort Knox. Overnight, my crowns were worth more than my stock holdings. My net worth soared.  Big banks became my best friends.

These incidents were leading up to the equivalent of dentistry's MegaMillions jackpot.  An annual check-up revealed I needed a tooth implant.  There are few words that would do justice to the experience.  Close your eyes and pretend a 18-wheeler just plowed into your mouth.  Sideways.

A metal socket was implanted into my gums. Driven in with a sledge hammer or some such instrument. Then a tooth that appeared as if it was found in the zoo was fitted into the receptacle.  I have condensed the process to spare you the grisly details.  I guarantee you having heart bypass surgery is less stressful.

Pain is not just found in the dental chair.  Once a harassing assistant called my office and left a message with my secretary, claiming I owed $300.  The back office had filed my claim incorrectly.  It was their error.  I never got an apology.  I sent the dentist a nasty letter and told him I hoped his teeth rotted.

More than a decade ago,  I was fortunate to locate a compassionate, skilled dentist who empathizes with my peccadilloes.  Her name is Dr. Joan Dreyer DDS. She is the first dentist I have known with a sense of humor.  Apparently, you are required to be humorless to get a dental certification.  

Dr. D, as I call her, has a syringe standing by whenever I plop in the dental chair.  At the first sign of a twitch, she injects me with Happy Numbing Juice.  The pain disappears.  My heart palpitations vanish. She talks me through each procedure, like a psychiatrist dealing with a troubled child.

I know this may sound like I am a ninny.  But frankly, I don't care. Once you have suffered through the dental wars as I have, it is almost certain you will develop Post Traumatic Dental Stress Disorder (PTDSD). You won't find it in the medical books.  But I assure you it is real.  At least, I think it is.

Burgeoning Crime Wave Swamps Big Cities

America's big cities are wrestling with an unprecedented surge in crime.  No one can claim the rolling swell of crime is a shock in the wake of the nationwide clamor to defund police departments.  City officials bowed to rioting mobs demands, cleaving police budgets and trimming cops on the street.

The impact was predictable.  A Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) preliminary report shows murders and non-negligent manslaughter offenses increased 14.8% after years of decline.  Aggravated assaults climbed 4.6%.  Arson skyrocketed 19.2%. The reporting period covers January to June 2020.

The final FBI report for last year won't be released until this September.  However, In the last three months of 2020, the crime wave evolved into a tsunami.  Homicides spiraled 32.2% in cities with a population of at least one million, according to data in the FBI Quarterly Uniform Report. 

After the George Floyd death, riots and looting erupted in many major cities.  As the lawlessness continued night after night, weak kneed, mostly Democrat city officials surrendered to Black Lives Matter and Antifa by rushing to defund their police departments with little or no public debate. 

Cities including New York, Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Minneapolis, Seattle, Portland, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Austin and Atlanta ordered deep budget cuts that impacted manpower.  Departments were forced to slice payrolls and decrease police presence, which slowed response time.

Cuts ranged from $1 billion in New York City to $29 million in Oakland.  The result was devastating for the most vulnerable residents of these major cities.  Deadly crimes spiked in neighborhoods with mostly African-American and Hispanic majorities.  

In Minneapolis, scene of the Floyd death, murders jumped 46% between December of last year and March 28 of this year.  In New York City, murders shot up 11.8% as of March 21 year-over-year.  Shootings spiked 40.1% in just the first quarter of this year.

Los Angeles reported a 38% increase in murders in 2020, despite the Coronavirus  mandates that kept most residents sheltered in their homes and apartments.  After Austin sliced its police budget by $43 million, arsons soared 73%, aggravated assaults rose 26%.  

Portland, scene of some of the worst rioting, experienced a 1,600% increase in murders in just the first two months of this year.  From July 2020 to February, the homicide rate escalated 270.6%.  Once peaceful, laid back Portland was transformed into a war zone by anarchists. 

These depressing statistics prompted an outcry from citizen groups in these cities, pressuring city councils and mayors to backtrack in the face of withering criticism.  New York reinstated $92 million in its police budget, Baltimore proposed a $27 million increase after chopping $22 million in 2020.

Other cities followed suit, including Oakland, Minneapolis, Houston, San Diego and others.  After being drowned out for months by the anarchists, ordinary citizens and many business said: Enough!  But restoring budgets may be too late for many cities caught up in anti-police media and protests frenzy.

Police are leaving in droves in the cities that refused to back the blue.  New York City Police Department resignations and retirements are up 75% from the previous year.  More than 5,300 uniformed officers have left the force.  When cities defund police, it's a clear signal policing is no longer a priority.

In Minneapolis, more than 200 officers left between last July and this March.  That is a 49% increase from the previous year. The Police Department union blames the lack of city council support and the city's refusal to back officers during the worst of the riots.  

The story is the same in other crime plagued cities.  Seattle and Portland have both reported the biggest wave of  police departures in recent memory. Staffing shortages are exacerbating the out-of-control rise in violent crime in these cities and others.  Cutting police budgets has deadly consequences.

The head of the Police Union in Portland had harsh criticism for City Commissioner Joe Ann Hardesty, who spearheaded the defund the police movement in the city,  "Roving gangs of black clad rioters do not speak for the hundreds of thousands of residents and business owners, who want a safe and clean city. Yet local politicians supported them."

Some concerned law enforcement officials are speculating the defund the police movement has a broader agenda than just addressing the law enforcement shooting of African-Americans. Former Arizona police officer Brandon Tatum, author of an upcoming book on the subject, has a plausible theory.

"I believe it's an agenda to completely destroy and dismantle local police departments so that the (federal) government can have control of law enforcement in this country and push a nationwide agenda," Tatum said in an interview. 

Tatum has a point.  If law enforcement is federalized, then the government in Washington can enforce mandates and restrictions that support its progressive agenda.  Imagine a federal cops seizing guns from legal owners, forcing citizens to get COVID vaccines or policing public speech.

That would be a dangerous development that would infringe on Constitutional rights.  However, if the Washington progressives pass laws, then what better way to force compliance than having a federal police force to do its bidding?  It's a sobering thesis that should worry every American.

Evidence Mounts Virus Escaped From Wuhan Lab

A  clump of square buildings hunker in the forests of Wuhan China.  At the epicenter is a windowless steel structure, which houses a bio-safety level 4 laboratory. The sterile lab handles some of the world's most contagious pathogens and also conducts classified research for the Chinese military.

The facility is located just a few kilometers from a "wet market" where the first Coronavirus infections  emerged. In recent weeks, the Chinese scientific lab has bolted into the headlines as scientists take a fresh look at a once discredited theory that a leak at the facility may have been the origin of the Coronavirus.

Nearly 18 months ago, the official version circulated by American and Chinese health officials claimed the virus spread from the market, where vendors sell meat, fish, produce and some live animals. Scientists agreed the Coronavirus was naturally transmitted from a bat to humans. Few questioned the thesis.

A brave scientist speculated the virus may have spread as a result of an inadvertent leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. (WIV).  Molecular biologist Richard H. Ebright expressed concerns because of previous leaks at labs in Beijing.  Facebook and Google banned any discussion of the lab leak theory. 

In recent weeks, a drizzle of conjecture has evolved into a downpour of circumstantial as well as unambiguous evidence that the Coronavirus may be linked to a leak from the Wuhan facility, despite continued and often contentious denials from Communist Chinese officials.

Last year President Trump publicly speculated the virus may have been engineered in a laboratory, fueling a firestorm of outrage from scientists and the media. They coordinated an attack on the accusation, demeaning it as a conspiracy theory.  The lab leak thesis was effectively banned. 

The Washington Post huffed that the president and his supporters were "fanning the embers of a conspiracy theory that has been repeatedly debunked by experts."  The New York Times labeled the claim a "fringe theory."  The media piled on to promote its narrative that Trump was solely to blame for the virus.

Still questions lingered in medical chat rooms and among scientists whose concerns were never made public.  There were coincidences too foreboding to deny.  However, Dr. Anthony Fauci led a chorus of scientists who blotted out even the possibility of a leak being the origin for the pandemic.

A recently-released trove of emails from Dr. Fauci, the government's top specialist during COVID, revealed at the time he was pooh-poohing the leak publicly, he and his associates and colleagues privately discussed the possibility that the virus had indeed escaped from the Wuhan lab.

As early as last January, Dr. Fauci was alerted about the suspicious characteristics of COVID samples.  Kristian Anderson and five virologists, noted "unusual features" in the virus and added "one has to look really closely at all the sequences to see that some of the features (potentially) look engineered." 

Anderson also noted in his email to Dr. Fauci that he and his team "all find the genome inconsistent with expectations from an evolutionary theory."  The team's initial impression later flip-flopped, but they offered no evidence to support their new claim the laboratory scenario was no longer plausible.

The emails were publicly disclosed in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from Judicial Watch.  The duplicity of Dr. Fauci was further exposed when another FOIA request uncovered U.S. tax-payer funding of the Wuhan lab, in spite of the virologist's earlier denials in a Senate hearing.

Pressed  again on the matter, Dr. Fauci told lawmakers the government granted $600,000 in funding over a five year period.  But documents furnished by the Health and Human Services divulged that between 2014 and 2019, the U.S. provided $826,277 in taxpayer funds. 

The money came from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) directed by Dr. Fauci.  Documents show the funds were provided over a six-year period for "Understanding the Risk of Bat Coronavirus Emergence." NIAID funneled the money through a third party, EcoHealth Alliance.

Perhaps, it was just a coincidence that the Wuhan lab was conducting studies on bats and Coronavirus at the time of the outbreak.  The U.S. State Department raised eyebrows in January when it released a bombshell fact sheet that was generally ignored by a partisan media.

The fact sheet confirmed Wuhan was conducting experiments on a bat virus, including "gain of function" research on the engineering of "chimeric viruses" or man-made pathogens.

Gain of function is used to describe a process that alters an organism or a disease in a way that increases its pathogenesis, transmission or the types of hosts it can infect. Done ethically, this type of research is useful because it allows scientists to develop vaccines and medicines for treatment.

In the wrong hands, this research could be used to engineer an existing virus for rapid transmission or to cause a pandemic pathogen to replicate more quickly, increasing the spread to humans.  Research groups in the EU and US both regulate the oversight of this process in most labs to ensure safety.

In its document, the State Department insisted it had "reason to believe that several researchers inside the WIV (Wuhan lab) became sick in the autumn 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak, with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses."

Vanity Fair reported some officials at the State Department were explicitly told not to explore the Wuhan lab's "gain of function" research because it would bring what the publication described as "unwelcome" attention on U.S. government funding of the research. It would open "a can of worms" the outlet said.

The State Department claims triggered questions about the credibility of Wuhan lab's senior researcher Shi Zhengli who said there were "zero infections" among the WIV staff.  Denials from Chinese officials escalated in the face of a Wall Street Journal investigative report that fueled renewed speculation.

NBC News, quoting U.S. intelligence officials, followed with a broadcast revealing that a database of more than 22,000 virus samples at the Wuhan lab were removed from public view for so-called security reasons.  The disclosure cast a shadow over the probe by the World Health Organization (WHO).

Peter B. Embark, the head of the WHO group that investigated the origins, admitted in late February that his group "didn't do an audit of any of these labs, so we don't really have hard facts or detailed data done at the Wuhan lab." Yet he still contended it was "extremely unlikely" the virus originated at the lab.

That explanation did not satisfy some virologists.  Last month, 18 virologists published a letter in Science criticizing WHO 's joint investigation with China.  "Although there were no finding in clear support of either a natural spillover or a lab accident...the two theories were not given balanced consideration."

Even the WHO director general conceded the joint investigation's report lacked data to support its findings. The State Department backed by 13 countries said the WHO probe was "significantly delayed and lacked access to complete, original data samples."  

With interest heating up, Republicans are calling for President Biden to declassify all U.S. intelligence related to the Wuhan lab and the COVID-19 pandemic, so the American people can get answers they deserve.  Biden's national security adviser Jake Sullivan initially balked at releasing the intel.

This is the moment for politicians to put aside their differences and use the full resources of the government  to investigate the lab leak theory.  There has been too much government foot-dragging, failed probes derailed by China and a lack of transparency on this critical matter. 

What's maddening is why it has taken so long for the country's chief pandemic expert Dr. Fauci to unequivocally determine the origin of a deadly virus that killed nearly 600,000 Americans. The media has been complicit by its lazy reporting of the standard, approved version of the origin.

Why was it so critical for Dr. Fauci and other scientist to cling to the wet market theory?  Why did it take 18 months for the circumstantial evidence to appear in the public domain?  Was scientific curiosity shelved until after a presidential election because Coronavirus was the Democrats' campaign gift?

Don't expect answers to those questions from the administration, the media or the party in power. The opinion here is the wet market thesis will never be overturned.  The lab leak scenario will be swept under the Oval Office carpet after a "show" investigation.  There is no appetite to rattle relations with China.

Green Energy: Take A Fresh Look At Nuclear

Plans to expand nuclear power usually trigger fears of Chernobyl, Fukushima and Three Mile Island. Nightmarish accidents occurred at those three nuclear plants, designed in the 1960's and built in the 1970's, fueling a public climate of jitters about the safety of this energy source.

However, misgivings about nuclear's safety are at odds with the facts. At the end of 2019, there were 98 operating nuclear reactors at 58 power plants in 29 states in the U.S. with no incidents since the Three Mile Island radiation leak of 1979.  That was more than two decades ago. That plant is 38-years-old.

Primarily due to the escalating costs of regulation, construction and maintenance, the total number of operational nuclear reactors has shrunk from its pinnacle of 108 in 2000.  The price tag for today's traditional nuclear power plant, depending on capacity, runs anywhere from $6 billion to $9 billion.  

Although the country has fewer nuclear reactors, those power plants still produce 20% of all electricity. Natural gas accounts for 38% of power generation; coal, 23%; hydroelectric, 7%, and wind and solar output equals 12%.  Those sources combined churned out 4.1 billion mega-watt hours of power.  

Those figures are from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), which published the data this year. According to an EIA report, the U.S. has the most nuclear generation capacity of any nation, but France's nuclear plants account for a larger share of the country's total electricity output, 71.5%.   

As the world searches for ways to reduce carbon emissions, there is increasing interest in small modular nuclear reactors (SMR).  These advanced reactors are envisioned as power sources for electricity, desalination and other industrial uses.  U.S., Canada and China are pursuing the technology.

In 2020, the Energy Department awarded $210 million to ten projects to develop technologies for SMR's as part of an Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program.  Scores of SMR initiatives are underway at private firms, including General Electric, a pioneer in nuclear power.  

Although still in the development stage, these small, modular reactors will prospectively be designed to develop 300 mega watts of power, compared with more than 1,000 megawatts for larger plants operating in the country.  

What makes these smaller reactors different? The footprint is reduced.  In fact, one SMR could fit into an area the size of a microbrewery.  The light water-cooled reactors are modular, which means the plants could be built faster and cheaper, saving billions of dollars. 

These innovative reactors could be shipped by rail to power sites, reducing the time to erect a new plant and making nuclear more cost effective.  A few nascent SMR designs are contemplating incorporating the use of a coolant other than light water, such as gas, liquid metal or even molten salt.   

Proponents are not calling for abandoning green energy sources such as wind and solar, but suggest these innovative reactors could replace larger, outdated nuclear or coal facilities. They insist the mini-reactors are inherently safer than the older designs, offering added protection from nuclear meltdowns. 

The ingenious nuclear plant would work the same as today power facilities, heating water to produce steam.  The steam is used to spin large turbines that generate the electricity.  The process requires fission to split atoms inside the reactor.  The reactor core contains uranium fuel. 

In September, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a safety evaluation report on an SMR, a critical step before the final design can be approved.  The firm,  NuScale, based in Portland, is developing the first commercial SMR for utilities in Utah, slated for launch by the end of the decade.

One drawback for nuclear energy has always been the issue of nuclear waste, which remains highly radioactive for longer than a human lifespan. The new downsized reactors will produce waste, but there will be less of it because of its diminished power capacity. 

Concerns about nuclear waste are legitimate, but often exaggerated by the media.  All the waste from 60 years of America's nuclear reactors would take up less space than one average-size Walmart store. Compare that to the toxic waste from a single, large coal plant. It dwarfs nuclear waste.

Nuclear emits no carbon.  It can supplement renewables.  When clouds blot out the sun or the winds are calm, those two sources of energy are dormant.  Without a reliable backup source, homes and businesses would be plunged into darkness.  Today coal plants often are the backup.

As a practical matter, the more solar and wind populate a country's energy grid, the more backup power is needed.  Take Denmark for example.  On windy days, the country's offshore wind farms supply 100% of its power.  Over a full year, wind output accounts for only 50% of electricity generation.

On windless days, Denmark purchases backup power from other countries at premium prices. 

Germany has plowed $400 billion into its renewable program, yet carbon emissions have remained stubbornly high.  The reason? Backup power is often supplied by coal or gas burning plants. Closer to home, California has made billions in investments in renewables, but emissions remain essentially flat. 

A recent report by the National Renewable Energy Lab, an advocate for green energy, issued a green energy projection it cautiously labels as "theoretically" possible:

"Renewable electricity generation from technologies that are commercially available today, in combination with a more flexible electric system, is more than adequate to supply 80% of total U.S. electricity generation in  2050."  Even under this optimistic scenario, there's a 20% power shortage.

This by no means diminishes renewables.  Wind and solar are excellent sources of clean, carbon-free power.  However, addressing the power-gap should be the top concern of any country or environmentalist interested in achieving a carbon neutral goal. Ignoring it is foolhardy. 

There is no technology on the horizon that offers the scale of nuclear power as an immediate backup. Hydrogen and batteries are often discussed as green alternatives, but any development of a working plant remains decades away, if ever.

Solar panels and wind farms may offer the best hope of reducing carbon emissions, but neither can overcome intermittency when nature interrupts their source for generating power.  Future electric grids will need clean backup power.  That's why it's urgent to take a fresh look at nuclear.