Unraveling China's COVID Origins Deception

• FBI director confirms lab leak responsible for spreading deadly Coronavirus
• China has rebuffed an open and honest probe of the origins of the virus
• Inspector General report exposes NIH lax oversight of Wuhan lab research 
• Dr. Anthony Fauci owes a full explanation for grants to Wuhan facility

The pandemic ushered in unprecedented censorship of opinions about Coronavirus origins. No one was allowed to question the official government version that the deadly virus spread from animals to humans. Now there are growing questions about the hypothesis and its leading advocate Dr. Anthony Fauci.

It is about time for a thorough investigation after the virus ravaged the globe, killing 6.87 million people, including 1.1 million Americans.

Conventional wisdom about the virus recently was upended by The Wall Street Journal, citing a classified report by the Energy Department. The document expressed the viewpoint that the virus likely leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China.   

Defensive administration officials were quick to point out the Energy Department's assessment was made with "low confidence." National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan rushed to the microphones to assure there is "no definitive answer" that the pandemic can be traced to a lab leak in China.

Then FBI Director Christopher Wray dropped a bombshell that detonated the administration's attempt to preserve the natural origin thesis.  "The FBI has for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan," the director said in a television interview. 

For three years, Dr. Fauci and the World Health Organization (WHO) have collaborated to advance the theory that the virus spread to humans from animals, likely bats, at a market in Wuhan.  China promoted this version while stiff arming an independent, scientific investigation into the origin.

WHO officials were bullied by China into accepting the Communist theory. There was a hurried probe by an international group of experts, working alongside Chinese health officials.  The controversial study published in 2021 became the official thesis under pining the Chinese version.

In June of last year the WHO recommended further investigation into the possibility of a lab leak, marking a seismic shift from its earlier stance.  Under withering criticism, the world organization admitted the original finding had been "premature," asserting it could not rule out the lab leak version. 

China slammed the world organization and withdrew its collaboration with the group. In his interview, Wray took note of China's lack of cooperation and observed the Chinese government "has been doing its best to try to thwart, and obfuscate" a legitimate investigation into the role of the Wuhan lab. 

A State Department fact-sheet on its website minces no words on in assessing the Chinese government's role in a coverup:

"...The Chinese Communist Party has systematically prevented a transparent and thorough investigation of the COVID-19 pandemic's origin, choosing instead to devote enormous resources to deceit and disinformation."

The State Department verified it had reason to believe that several researchers inside the Wuhan lab became sick with COVID in the autumn of 2019, before the first identified case of the outbreak.  This raises questions about Wuhan officials public claims there were "zero infections" among its staff.

Despite mounting evidence of a lab leak, Dr. Fauci claims there is no data to support such a thesis. He knows global health authorities have been prevented from interviewing Wuhan researchers. He also fails to mention there is no credible, independent data to support the animal to human theory either. 

Early in the pandemic a Senate Committee disclosed internal emails showing Dr. Fauci was informed by senior scientists at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that a natural origin was "highly unlikely." Dr. Fauci was director of the National Institute of Allergy & Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the NIH. 

Perhaps, Dr. Fauci was protecting his reputation. As NIAID director, Dr. Fauci administered  grants totaling $2.57 million to the EcoHealth Alliance, a New York based nonprofit research group.  An estimated $1.8 million wound up funding research at the Wuhan research facility.  

What is indisputable is that the Wuhan lab engaged in "gain of function" research designed to replicate a virus to increase its virulence and transmissibility to humans.  Dr. Fauci has vociferously denied that American taxpayer dollars were used for "gain of function" experiments. 

Dr. Peter Daszak, a British zoologist who runs EcoHealth, has emerged as a central figure in the "gain of function" controversy.  He has been a target of recent Congressional inquiries for his role in overseeing the funding of the Wuhan lab, while tacitly supporting the research at the government facility.  

The office of Inspector General for the Department of Homeland Security audited the grants made by NIH to EcoHealth and issued a scathing 64-page report on January 25.  The document excoriates confusing protocols, misspent funds and monitoring of the potentially risky pathogens studied. 

The inspector general's audit found that the NIH "did not refer the research to HHS (Health & Human Services) for an outside review for enhanced potential pandemic pathogens" after a grant to the Wuhan lab.  Here are three key sentences from the OIG report:

"We found that NIH was only able to conclude that research resulted in virus growth that met specified benchmarks based on a late progress report from EcoHealth that NIH failed to follow up on until nearly two years after the due date.

"Based on these finding, we conclude that the NIH missed opportunities to more effectively monitor research.  With improved oversight, NIH may have been able to take more timely corrective actions to mitigate the inherent risks associated with this type of research.

"WIV's lack of cooperation following the COVID 19 outbreak limited EcoHealth's ability to monitor" how the funds were used by the Chinese facility.

In plain language: The NIH failed to supervise the administration of taxpayer money given to EcoHealth for pathogen research at the Wuhan lab.  That may explain why Dr. Fauci has stubbornly clung to the thesis that the global plague was transmitted naturally from animals to humans. 

Past censorship allowed China to escape culpability. Now there is a moral and scientific imperative for Congress and public health authorities to determine the full extent of China's complicity in covering up the origins of one of the deadliest pandemics in modern history.

Biden and Media Spin Economic Data

• Inflation increased in January by the largest percentage since last October
• Food prices continue to outpace the CPI index, rising 11.3% in the last 12 months
• Consumer debt has reached an all-time high and household savings rates have plummeted
• Despite robust wage growth, real wages are declining at a record pace 

President Biden shuffled a victory lap after the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its Consumer Price Index (CPI) report for January.   "Inflation in America is continuing to come down, which is good news for families and businesses across the country," the president crowed to the media.

His words were dutifully mimicked by the nation's pliable media:

The New York Times: "Pace of U.S. Inflation Eases Slightly Again, Data show."'

The Wall Street Journal: "January CPI Reports Shows Annual Inflation Cooled."

The Washington Post: "Inflation Eases Again, But Bringing Prices Further Down will Take Time."

Truth is elusive even when the economic data is staring you in the face.  The lackadaisical media apparently read the headline of the BLS report and nothing else.  The CPI Index came in at 6.4%, which represents the increase in prices over a 12-month period ending in January.  

The headline number--6.4%--sounds marginally better, compared to December's 6.5%. But wait, the data shows prices increased by .05% month-over-month, the largest jump since last October. No matter what you read, inflation increased.  That's not good news for American families or businesses.

Food costs continue to spiral.  The food at home index has risen 11.3% over the last 12 months.  It climbed 0.5% in January.  Prices for major grocery staples are marching upward.  Meats, poultry, fish and eggs ticked up 0.7% in January, compared to the previous month.  

Americans household budgets also took a blow from energy prices. Gasoline prices soared 3.2% and the index for natural gas spiked 6.7% over the previous month.  Electricity prices were up "only" 0.5%, which may provoke jubilation in Washington but not among Americans grappling with inflation

Month-over-month, the CPI has increased every month since August of last year.  That fact is lost in the blizzard of news about the rolling 12-month data.  Americans are feeling the pinch with nearly two-thirds (63%) of households now living paycheck-to-paycheck, according to LendingClub. 

The other shoe dropped when the Labor Department reported that the producer price index (PPI) surged 0.7%, the steepest monthly increase since last summer.  Inflation at the wholesale level usually seeps into the retail costs for inflation weary consumers.

Wall Street likes to point out that consumers are still spending based on January's 3% hike in retail sales. But the spike reverses two consecutive months of declining sales.  Consumers are financing spending with debt. Credit card debt reached an all-time high this month: $930 billion, leaping 18.5%.  

Americans also are paying near record interest rates for debt, topping 20% on outstanding balances. With debt climbing,  savings rates, which rose to 33% in 2020, are now hovering at a paltry 2%. The data suggests consumers may be on a last gasp spending spree.

Often the administration stubbornly insists Americans are doing well because wages are increasing. Really?  The latest report from BLS shows real average hourly earnings, adjusted for inflation, dipped 0.2% in January from December.  Over a 12-month period, hourly earnings decreased 1.8%.

In fact, since Joe Biden became president wages are up 9.5%, a fact he often touts.  However, after adjusting for inflation, real wages have plunged 4.1% since 2021. Americans wages have not kept up with inflation, which explains why credit card debt is ballooning and savings rates have cratered.

Those wizards on Biden's economic team beat you over the head with the jobs numbers whenever you use the "I" word (inflation).  In the January report, U.S. payrolls added an impressive 517,000 jobs, the largest gain since July, 2022.  That appears to be good news without impartial perspective.

More Americans are working two jobs, an estimated 400,000 according to the BLS.  A second job counts as a new job in the data. Overall, the economy added an unprecedented 4.5 million jobs in 2022.  Yet there are nearly three million fewer workers in the labor force compared to February, 2020.

The Great Resignation also weighs heavily on the job data.  On average, 4 million workers quit or lose their jobs monthly. Figures for the latest month reveal 5.9 million Americans quit, were laid off or discharged. Layoffs at large and medium-sized firms have picked up steam since the fourth quarter. 

Hiring in low-paying jobs in the hospitality and leisure sector is fueling the job growth.  Since 2021, those jobs have fluctuated between 7 to 9 percent of total hiring, outpacing other sectors. The  Labor Department estimates the sector still has about one million fewer jobs than it did before the pandemic.

Simply put, all those jobs lost during the pandemic are the main reason behind the robust job data as Americans gradually return to the workforce and pandemic unemployment benefits expire.    

Americans rarely get any perspective on the data gushing out of Washington.  Relying on the media for an honest interpretation is pointless.  Household budgets are the real gauge for Americans.  No matter how the data is spun, most Americans are worse off than they were a year ago.

Social Security Running Out of Money & Solutions

• Social Security is the single largest expenditure of the federal government: $2.01 trillion
• The 86-year-old program currently consumes 22.6% of the federal budget
• Inflation is driving up funding because of cost-of-living-adjustments (COLA)
• Social Security trustees project the program will be insolvent in 13 years

The contentious issue of Social Security burst into the spotlight after the State of the Union address when President Biden accused Republicans of wanting to pull the plug on the program. His partisanship may be a stumbling block for an overdue overhaul of the the 86-year old government benefit plan.

Social Security has a looming financial shortfall that threatens the program's solvency by 2035, according to Social Security's trustees. Even the prospect of an impending crisis is not likely to produce more than political lip service because no lawmaker wants to rile the 65.9 million beneficiaries. 

Nothing irritates seniors more than Washington crying wolf about Social Security running out of money or facing Draconian cuts.  You never hear lawmakers raising the alarm about the prospect that congressional pensions or welfare programs will have to be cut because of rising costs.  

Although Social Security has undergone a plethora of changes since its inception in 1937, little has been done to address the fundamental tenants of the program.  Inaction is unconscionable because Social Security consumes 22.6% of the federal government's annual budget and keeps sopping up more money.

In 2022, the federal government paid $2.01 trillion in Social Security benefits, primarily to retired workers and dependents.  The program also includes payments to survivors and disabled workers and their dependents.  It is the largest single item in the federal government's fiscal budget. 

In addition, this year's budget includes $13.3 billion in funding for administration of the program.  That represents a $785 million increase from the previous year.  The Social Security Administration employs about 64,000 workers. By comparison, the average Fortune 500 firm employs 60,629 workers.    

Since 1970 the number of beneficiaries has more than doubled and the program's costs have soared by 10,234% or more than 10 fold, The data for this and the other numbers cited above comes from the federal government and the Social Security Administration.  

Three Congressional acts are responsible for the ballooning costs, including: In 1950, lawmakers doubled the value of benefits; In 1975, Congress enacted legislation approving cost-of-living adjustments (COLA). In 1983, Congress approved borrowing from the program's trust funds.

The trust funds are under increasing  pressure now because of COLA, which usually runs 1.7% or less.  But during the hyper-inflation of the last two years annual increases were 5.9% in 2022 and 8.7% this year, the highest in 40 years.  The last time it was higher was in 1981when the increase was 11.2%.

Borrowing from Social Security began when it ran a surplus from 1984 through 2009. That money was borrowed and spent by the government to pay for other programs.  In exchange, the the Social Security trust funds were issued special Treasury bonds to redeem in the future.  

Since 2010, Social Security has been running an annual deficit, meaning it has been collecting less than it has paid out, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.  Social Security trust funds currently total $2.9 trillion, enough to cover about one year's worth of benefits.    

The trust funds collect money raised from a 6.2% Social Security tax on wages for employees and a matching amount (6.2%) is  paid by employers. Beneficiaries also pay taxes on their Social Security income. However, the total of all these taxes is insufficient to pay for current benefits. 

Fixing Social Security won't be easy because Congress has too long neglected the crisis, preferring to kick the proverbial can down the road.  Just raising the age for benefits is a band-aid solution. Here are some modest proposals to begin to realign Social Security to deal with the rising costs of the program

• Eliminate the wage base limit for the Social Security tax.Currently, no taxes are collected on income above $160,200. There's no wage base limit for the Medicare tax.
• Exclude COLA adjustments on Social Security benefits for single people making over $100,000 and couples earning more than $200,000.
• Reduce, but do not eliminate, benefits to the top 20% of earners receiving Social Security checks.

Changes also need to be made to the current CPI formula used to calculate the COLA adjustment.  The most controversial move would be to invest Social Security trust funds in equities and bonds to mimic other public pension plans. Currently, funds are invested in U.S. Treasuries, which historically have returned 1%.

Even these proposals may not be enough to insure Social Security's long term future. With more Baby Boomers retiring, the number of beneficiaries will continue to escalate through 2030.  At the same time, the ratio of the number of workers-to-beneficiaries is declining.

The Social Security trustees estimate the ratio of workers-to beneficiaries will drop from the current 2.8-to-every beneficiary to 2.1-to-one by 2035.  Unless the ratio improves, the program will be on life support, requiring steep tax hikes or harsh cuts in benefits. 

In light of these serious issues, the current Congress will be derelict if it does not begin taking steps to put Social Security on firm financial footing.  It will take more political courage than currently exists in Washington,  Therefore, lawmakers likely will do what they always do. Posture and little else.    

Egg Prices Are Nothing To Yolk About

• Egg prices bolted 138% higher in December from a year ago
• A dozen eggs retails for as high as $12.99 in some areas
• Smugglers are trafficking eggs from Mexico to the U.S. 
• A massive bird flu epidemic is to blame for the surging prices 

Skyrocketing egg prices are cracking up comedians.  "My wife wants something expensive for Valentine's, so I'm going to get her two dozen eggs. Prices are so high, I traded three dozen eggs for two Super Bowl tickets. Shoppers are so mad, they are giving the bird to store managers."  You get the yolk.

But egg prices are no laughing matter for consumers.  Large Grade A eggs cost an average of $4.25 a dozen in December, a 138% increase from a year earlier, data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows. Organic cage-free eggs retail for an average of $7 per carton nationwide.  

Overall, food prices soared 10.4% between December of 2021 and December, 2022, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) reports. Egg prices led the inflationary march by climbing 267% in December at the peek of the holiday baking season, before settling lower by the end of the month. 

Depending on where you shop, egg prices can fluctuate widely.  In the Upper East Side of Manhattan, a grommet store is selling a dozen large Grade A eggs for $12.99.  Organic cage-free eggs will set you back $17.99.  That's not chicken feed. 

Even as prices somersaulted above $4 a dozen, American consumers continued to purchase eggs.  In 2022, the average American consumed 177.5 eggs annually, only slightly lower than 2021, when Americans on average ate 183.5 eggs annually.  

A perfect storm of an outbreak of avian bird flu, peak demand and higher costs for feed and transportation are to blame for the historic prices for eggs.  Bird flu struck laying-hens in February of last year and continued in waves throughout the U.S., Europe and other countries. 

For commercial and small farms, many infections centered along the major Central and Mississippi migratory flyway.  Wild birds carry the disease and infect chickens, turkeys and other birds.  

The disease claimed 57 million birds, including 44 million laying hens, last year, according to USDA data. At the end of 2021, there were 389 million laying hens in the country. By the end of last October, the number had shrunk to 373 million.  As a result, egg inventories were 29% lower in December.  

The unprecedented poultry health disaster ravaged chicken yards in 46 states. The last major avian flu outbreak was in 2014-2015, which wiped out 50 million birds. That earlier outbreak started in winter like the current one but the ordeal ended in the following June.  The current one lasted through summer.

Texas A&M experts point out that the outbreak of bird flu is not the only factor driving up egg prices. The costs of corn and soybean used in feed have risen with inflation.  Additionally, diesel and electricity needed to transport eggs and run farms are more expensive.  

With egg prices cracking record levels, U.S. customs officers are intercepting shipments of eggs on the southern border.  Customs and Border Protection recorded a rise of 108% in egg seizures in the last three months of 2022. Violators shell out fines of up to $10,000.

Not everyone believes the avian flu is to blame for roiling egg prices. A liberal advocacy group called Farm Action suspects fowl play.  The group is urging the Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan to investigate profiteering and collusion between major egg producers.

However, food economists are skeptical an inquiry would uncover wrongdoing.  Amy Smith, Vice President at Advanced Economic Solutions, said: "I don't think we've seen anything that makes us think there's something other than normal economics happening right now."

How soon will consumers get a break in egg prices?  There may be a temporary drop in prices but with Easter on the horizon demand will rise again.  Government experts are forecasting the bird flu may return in the spring,  If accurate, consumers again will be scrambling to deal with rising prices.  

Opinion: China's Increasing Hostility

• Chinese surveillance balloon destroyed after traveling across the U.S.
• The Pentagon waited more than a week before shooting down the craft
• President Biden's decision-making process showed weakness
• America needs to reset its relations with China to address its hostility

The nation's eyes turned skyward as a Chinese surveillance balloon wafted over America last week. China brushed off the episode claiming it was a weather balloon gone astray, a preposterous lie even for a Communist regime.  Make no mistake: This was a deliberate provocation by China's military.  

Americans watched in disbelief as the balloon maneuvered over an underground nuclear missile silo in Montana.  The balloon hovered over the site before continuing its trek through our airspace. After nearly a week, President Biden green lighted the downing of the balloon over the Atlantic Ocean.  

The president was under increasing political pressure because the optics of a Chinese craft in American airspace called for a response. Military brass, according to the White House, advised against shooting down the ballon for days because of the risk of harmful debris in populated areas.

Finally on Saturday, an Air Force F-22 Raptor jet fired one air-to-air A9X sidewinder missile that tore through the balloon at an altitude of 58,000 feet.  The airship tumbled into the the Atlantic Ocean, scattering debris over a seven-mile area.  Military officials hope to recover sensitive spy electronics.

The administration expects popping the balloon to close the book on the Chinese spy drama.  But the entire episode raises a range of disturbing issues about America's slow response, future relations with the Communist nation and the increasing confrontational hostility of China.

China's use of an old-school espionage balloon was a curious decision. Surveillance balloons were first used in World War I.  Today's superpowers use low orbit satellites, packed with sophisticated electronics, to  photograph, eavesdrop, scoop up signals intelligence and map military installations.

So why did China use a low-tech, highly visible balloon?  The guess is that China's strategy was to invade American airspace to test America's response.  If that was the mission, the Biden administration flunked.  The president's decision-making response showed weakness that will be exploited by China.

China will not only factor Biden's actions into future military decisions, but the Communist regime will take advantage of the episode to sow skepticism among U.S. allies about America's role in protecting their interests when it cannot defend its homeland. 

There is also the issue of the Pentagon's decision to keep Americans in the dark about the approaching Chinese craft. Reports confirm the Pentagon knew January 28 that the balloon was headed to the continental U.S. after flying over Alaska, the Aleutian Islands and Canada.  

Once the airship was over Alaska, Biden should have called China's Xi Jinping and served notice the balloon would be shot down. The balloon could have been destroyed over lightly populated Alaska or the Aleutian Islands.  Inexplicably, the president said he was notified until February 1.   

If the roles were reversed, China would have obliterated a U.S. spy balloon as soon as it entered that country's airspace.  

Now there are news reports a Chinese spy balloon crashed into the Pacific off the coast of Hawaii four months ago.  Another spy airship flew over portions of Texas and Florida during the Trump administration. What other Chinese aggression has been kept secret from the American people?

Americans deserve answers.  

Congress must call the military brass accountable for its lack of transparency. The agency never acknowledged the spy balloon until it was captured by amateur photographers and television news cameras as the airship drifted over Montana.  This is not the transparency we were promised.

Why did the Pentagon wait so long?  It  seems plausible that the administration preferred to hide the airspace incursion from Congress and Americans. Perhaps, it was a desperate attempt to salvage Secretary of State Antony Blinken's upcoming diplomatic trip to China to ease tense relations. 

Once the Pentagon ended its charade, Blinken had no choice but to nix the visit to China.  If the trip had gone forward, it would have signaled America was willing to forget the affront and return to business as usual relations with the Communists.

The balloon incident underscores China's growing bellicose actions. Under Xi, China has invaded Taiwan airspace on numerous occasions and conducted military exercises near the island nation.  China has cozied up to Russia since its Ukraine invasion, even conducting joint military exercises. 

A recent memo authored by Four Star Air Force Gen. Mike Minihan warned he believes that the U.S. and China will go to battle in 2025. His warning comes on the heels of CIA Director Williams Burns' revelation that President XI has ordered his military to be ready for action no later than 2027.

America needs to stop treating China as a friendly nation.  Business ties between the two countries have skewed our perspective.  China's stated goal is dominate the world militarily and economically, spreading its Communist doctrine to every nation. Hopefully, the spy balloon is America's wake-up call. 

Spendaholics Put America In Debt Ceiling Crisis

• America's debt is $31.5 trillion and growing by $102 million every hour of every day
• Interest on the nation's debt is projected to skyrocket to $1.2 trillion by 2032
• Washington has spent a record $13 trillion in the last two fiscal years
• Runaway government spending fuels inflation and cripples the economy

The kerfuffle over raising the ceiling on the country's debt is Washington theatre at its best.  Biden Administration officials are indignant over the House of Representatives plan to slow the Bataan-like march of federal government spending in exchange for increasing the debt amount.

The media, led by The New York Times, are sounding alarms about financial Armageddon. Failing to lift the debt ceiling "would prevent Congress from doing the basic tasks of keeping the government open, paying the country's bills and avoiding default on America's trillions of dollars in debt," the Times wrote.

Scare mongering is a tactic that has often been used by both parties in discussions about the debt limit.  This time is no different as Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen raised the specter of military veterans going without benefits; no payments to Social Security recipients; and, pulling the plug on Medicare.

Yellen keeps reminding the public the debt limit increase is needed to pay for money already spent by the government as if that precludes reining in spending. No Republican (or Democrat) will vote to end entitlements, despite the babbling statements from the White House press secretary.   

Congress has never failed to lift the debt ceiling.  This Congress will do the same. Although President Biden insists there will be no negotiations with the House, his former boss President Obama reached a budget deal to avoid a shutdown in 2013 after a protracted battle with the GOP-controlled House.  

While the debt issue elicits hysteria, there was no outrage from the media or the administration when the federal government broke all spending records in fiscal year 2021 by doling out $6.8 trillion. The Democrat controlled Congress followed that gusher with a near-record $6.27 trillion in fiscal year 2022.

In the madcap dash before the new House could be seated, Congress agreed to a $5.8 trillion budget.  The limitless spending helps explain why the current national debt is $31.5 trillion and growing $102 million every hour.  Yellen's solution? Just raise the debt limit to accommodate more reckless spending.

The mountain of debt has risen so fast that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects government spending will result in multi-trillion dollar deficits stretching through 2032, adding $15.7 trillion to the national debt.  

Current debt is 124% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product (GDP). That puts the U.S. in company with countries such as Bahrain, Zambia and Sir Lanka.  For comparison's sake, U.S. debt averaged 65.2% of GDP from 1940 until 2022.  

The CBO has repeatedly warned since the last decade "the current trajectory of federal borrowing is unsustainable and could lead to slower economic growth in the long run as debt rises as a percentage of GDP. " Their admonition has fallen on deaf ears in Congress.  

In fiscal year 2021, just the interest on national debt reached $562 billion.  Last fiscal year, it soared to $724 billion, an increase of 30% in a single year.  The CBO estimates the interest on national debt will skyrocket to a record $1.2 trillion by 2032, representing 3.3% of GDP, the highest ever recorded.

Too often Americans fail to take notice of the debt.  It doesn't effect them directly, they falsely believe.  As debt grows, it will sap growth of the economy.  That directly impacts jobs and pay.  An economy in decline effects those who can least afford to ride out a recession. 

Overheated federal government spending also fuels inflation, which raises the prices of goods for all Americans. Inflation last year was 8.7%, making it harder for Americans to make ends meet. Deficit budgets will inevitably lead to tax hikes on average earners to pay for the excessive spending.

Every American has a vested interest in this squabble over the debt and spending. 

Irregardless of what politicians think, Americans aren't being fooled by the rhetoric,  A Scott Rasmussen National Survey found that 45% of Americans think the debt ceiling should only be raised on the condition there are spending cuts. Sixteen percent say the debt ceiling should not be raised at all. 

The prudent course is for Congress and the administration to reach a deal to increase the debt level in exchange for spending cuts.  Just bowing to the president's demand for no negotiations is an act of surrender.  Unchecked spending is the biggest threat to the economy, not the debt limit.    

Racial Quotas Are Another Form of Discrimination

Racial preferences in American college admissions are anathema to those who share the views of Dr. Martin Luther King. The civil rights icon preached judging people on the content of their character not the color of their skin. Yet most colleges today use some form of race-based formula to admit students.

Perhaps, the most egregious example is that Ivy League bastion Harvard. Students for Fair Admissions (SFA) sued Harvard in 2020 for using "racial classification" to discrimination against Asian Americans. In that case, the U.S. attorney general for civil rights argued before the First Circuit Court:

"Harvard monitors the evolving composition of the class by race at evert stage in the process. The application summary sheets used by admissions officers use race. First readers use race, second readers use race, subcommittees use race. The overall rating Harvard assigns each applicant uses race."

In the quest to achieve equity, Harvard's rules discriminate against primarily Asians, but whites too. Colleges continue to argue for racial preference based on the discrimination against African-Americans 60 years ago. Institutions cling to the rationale that blacks are unable to compete on a level playing field. 

Harvard's race-based policies are unambiguous. Here's the racial make-up of Harvard 2026 class: 42.5% white; 14.4% black; 27.6% Asian; 11.9% Hispanic and 3.6% Native American or Hawaiian.  The university's de facto policy is to exclude Asian applicants because they are overrepresented.  

Harvard, despite its liberal reputation, has a shameful history of discrimination,  In 1925, students of Jewish faith represented 27.6% of the campus.  Their numbers had increased from 10% in 1909.  The university decided it had a "Jewish problem" and was determined to limit admissions to Jews.

In 1926, the university discarded its academic admissions standard and changed its policy to focus on "character," a subjective tool to exclude "brilliant scholars."  It was a charade based on its desire to lower standards to admit more non-Jewish students of "average intelligence."  

Harvard and other universities believe without subjective admission policies, blacks would fail on their merit. This is demeaning to African-Americans and blatant racial discrimination. This isn't equality. It's the height of hypocrisy that universities embrace Critical Race Theory yet practice discrimination. 

This year the U.S. Supreme Court will take up racial allotments when it hears arguments involving the Harvard case and one associated the University of North Carolina.  The court has the opportunity to overturn a precedent set in 1978 when the justices first ruled on affirmative action in higher education. 

This should be a slam dunk decision for the court based on the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act.  Racial preferences violate Title VI of the Civil Rights act of 1964.  The 14th Amendment prohibits the denial of any person "the equal protection of the laws." 

But the court has shied away from overturning racial preferences because justices fear being branded anti-African American. The high court also is reluctant to overturn precedence set in past decisions upholding affirmative action. 

Public opinion supports an end to racial preference. A Pew Research Center poll in 2020 found 73% of Americans did not believe that race or ethnicity should be a factor in college admissions. Majorities of white, black, Hispanic and Asian respondents agreed. Pew ran the same poll this year.  The numbers had not changed.

Dr. King passionately championed equality for all races, black or white or brown.  He abhorred the idea of favoring one race over another. He believed America should stand for equality for all.  That concept should overcome whatever case precedent has been established by the Supreme Court.