WASHINGTON — During an interview with Tucker Carlson‚ Russian President Vladimir Putin said that he has no interest in expanding the war in Ukraine to Poland and Latvia. READ MORE: Putin’s Self-Serving Lies So with former Polish President Lech Walesa speaking at a Friday event put on by the Victims of Communism Museum‚ I had a chance to get the Polish game-changer’s view of Putin’s designs. What did Walesa make of Putin’s remark to Carlson? “But he would like to invade the United States‚” Walesa wryly responded. “That is why I am telling you‚ be careful.” It was a savvy warning for Americans who have felt invulnerable since the Cold War ended and buy into former President Donald Trump’s apparent belief that Putin can invade Eastern European countries without affecting us. The good news: Days after Walesa’s visit to Washington‚ 22 GOP senators joined most Senate Democrats to vote in favor of a $95 billion foreign aid bill that included $60 billion for Ukraine. What is a life-or-death issue for many Eastern Europeans now serves as an opportunity for the former commander-in-chief to win the news cycle. On Tuesday‚ President Joe Biden urged House Republicans to pass the bipartisan measure quickly as he dismissed attempts to block passage as “dumb‚ shameful‚ dangerous” and “un-American.” Biden sounded like Walesa when he argued‚ “If we don’t stop Putin’s appetite for power and control of Ukraine‚ he won’t limit himself just to Ukraine.” For years now‚ Trump has shown himself to be more hostile toward NATO than Putin. In 2017‚ during a dedication ceremony to a 9/11 memorial in Brussels‚ Trump failed to embrace Article 5‚ which represents the alliance’s one-for-all and all-for-one mission. I was there and‚ like most observers‚ taken aback. “For some reason‚ Trump chose to treat NATO like a freeloader‚ even though the alliance is sending NATO troops to Iraq and likely will increase troop levels in Afghanistan‚” I wrote for the Las Vegas Review-Journal. This latest Trump tidbit began during a weekend rally in South Carolina. Trump shared his version of a conversation he held with the unnamed leader of a “big” NATO nation. The leader asked Trump if the U.S. would protect NATO countries that didn’t pay their “bills.” (“Bills” is Trump’s shorthand for NATO members’ pledge to spend at least 2 percent of their GDP on defense. Most NATO countries have fallen short of that goal.) Trump said that he told the leader: “No‚ I would not protect you. In fact‚ I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want.” And here I am writing about it. Sure‚ Trump’s criticism of NATO resonates with voters who are sick of Washington’s big spending‚ lack of accountability‚ and failure to pay for emergency expenditures. But he’s singing Putin’s song. Who does it hurt? NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg responded appropriately: Any attack on NATO will be met with a united and forceful response. Any suggestion that allies will not defend each other undermines all of our security‚ including that of the U.S.‚ and puts American and European soldiers at increased risk. And who does it help? The thug who annexed Crimea in 2014 and invaded Ukraine in 2022. This is not a game. Contact Review-Journal Washington columnist Debra J. Saunders at dsaunders@reviewjournal.com. Follow @debrajsaunders on X. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post Putin Wants It All. NATO Stands in His Way. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Hollywood and the Movies of the Fifties: The Collapse of the Studio System‚ the Thrill of Cinerama‚ and the Invasion of the Ultimate Body Snatcher—Television By Foster Hirsch (Knopf‚ 672 pages‚ $40) If you listen to the Left‚ the 1950s were a decade of boring conformity (the poet Robert Lowell referred to it as “the tranquilized Fifties”) — and the movies of that era‚ one is told‚ were a reflection thereof. In a smart‚ juicy‚ jam-packed‚ and richly engaging new book‚ Hollywood and the Movies of the Fifties: The Collapse of the Studio System‚ the Thrill of Cinerama‚ and the Invasion of the Ultimate Body Snatcher—Television‚ Foster Hirsch proves otherwise. Now 80 years old‚ Hirsch is a veteran film professor and the author of a dozen earlier volumes on show business — including studies of film noir‚ the Actors Studio‚ Woody Allen‚ Laurence Olivier‚ film director Otto Preminger‚ composer Kurt Weill‚ and stage director Harold Prince. READ MORE from Bruce Bawer: Biting the (Left) Hand That Feeds Him Now‚ in this new work‚ Hirsch challenges the “glib‚ patronizing uninformed stereotyping” of the 1950s‚ arguing that “[b]eneath the supposed dullness‚ insipidity‚ and complacent prosperity of Eisenhower’s America was a country riven by conflict and discontent.” Hence‚ the cinematic record of the 1950s consist largely of “noir thrillers about defeat and mischance; domestic melodramas festering with secrets and sexual repression; apocalyptic science-fiction tales and westerns roiling with paranoid political subtexts.”  And that was just the tip of the iceberg. As Hirsch reminds us‚ the 1950s gave us oodles of low-budget schlock (Plan 9 from Outer Space‚ 1957)‚ highbrow biopics (Lust for Life‚ 1956)‚ TV adaptations (12 Angry Men‚ 1957)‚ stage adaptations (Death of a Salesman‚ 1951)‚ and a surprising number of literary adaptations‚ from Moby Dick (1956) and A Farewell to Arms (1957) to War and Peace (1956) and The Brothers Karamazov (1958). Then there were the genre movies — like the Western High Noon (1952) and the science-fiction noir Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956) — that were also political allegories. Hirsch covers it all.  It was also a decade during which‚ in the face of the challenge of TV‚ almost all of the film studios went through major convulsions — and Hirsch devotes a rich‚ informative chapter to each of them. At MGM‚ longtime honcho Louis B. Mayer was replaced in 1951 by Dore Schary‚ who supplemented the usual big‚ splashy Metro spectacles — such as Quo Vadis (1951)‚ An American in Paris (1951)‚ The Prisoner of Zenda (1952)‚ Singin’ in the Rain (1952)‚ and The Band Wagon (1953) — with grittier fare like Blackboard Jungle (1955)‚ about juvenile delinquency‚ and cynical items like The Bad and the Beautiful (1952)‚ about a megalomaniacal movie producer. Schary was fired soon enough‚ however‚ and by decade’s end the once mighty MGM was a quiet shell of its former self.  Meanwhile‚ Howard Hughes’ mismanagement of RKO (which in 1941 had released Citizen Kane‚ no less) ended up with the studio lot being sold in 1957 to Desilu — that is‚ to the newly minted TV superstars Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz‚ both of whom‚ ironically‚ “had been minor contract players at RKO in the late 1930s and early 1940s.” If Paramount stayed in the black throughout the decade‚ it was thanks largely to the lightweight comedies of Dean Martin and Jerry Lewis. And if Fox survived‚ it was due in no small part to studio boss Darryl Zanuck’s commitment to the new CinemaScope process‚ which resulted in “colossal grosses” for The Robe (1953) and was at its best‚ in Hirsch’s opinion‚ in the widely forgotten and/or derided The Egyptian (1954)‚ a film that’s one of my lifelong faves‚ and that Hirsch gratifyingly eulogizes as “a work of formal as well as thematic beauty” that’s deserving of “pantheon status.”  CinemaScope was only one of several exciting new celluloid processes that Hirsch covers at length and that were developed with an eye to overcoming the TV threat. Some of these processes‚ to be sure‚ were more successful than others. How the West Was Won (1962) was made in Cinerama‚ which divided the screen into three vertical strips‚ the lines between which were always at least faintly visible; Hitchcock made Dial M for Murder (1954) in 3D‚ which required special glasses; Paramount’s in-house process‚ VistaVision‚ was first used in the megahit White Christmas (1954); and Oklahoma! (1955) was shot in the short-lived Todd-AO.  The 1950s saw the waning of many acting careers‚ such as those of Clark Gable‚ Bette Davis‚ Humphrey Bogart‚ and Joan Crawford‚ and Hirsch limns their later years with sympathy and insight. (His enthusiasm for Crawford’s 1952 film Sudden Fear made me seek it out. Not bad.) It also saw the rise of a new generation‚ including Grace Kelly‚ Marilyn Monroe‚ Marlon Brando‚ and James Dean‚ whose careers — and acting styles — Hirsch analyzes perceptively. He also focuses on the rise of films about blacks (The Defiant Ones‚ 1958)‚ Asians (Sayonara‚ 1957)‚ and other minorities. Although he writes (in an apparent reference to the title of my 1993 book A Place at the Table) that “there was no place at the table for gay people in the 1950s‚” he teases out the highly veiled references to the topic in movies like Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958) and Suddenly‚ Last Summer (1959).  Hirsch devotes his most comprehensive coverage‚ perhaps‚ to the subject of communism‚ and he does a fascinating and highly responsible job of it. Discussing the major showbiz-related political events that shaped the decade — from the 1947 Waldorf Conference‚ at which the studio moguls agreed‚ after some exceedingly intense disagreement‚ to institute a Blacklist‚ to the notorious Hollywood hearings held in that year by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC)‚ to the formation of the star-studded Committee for the First Amendment‚ whose members flew‚ also in that year‚ to Washington‚ D.C.‚ to stand up for free-speech rights — Hirsch proves to be a refreshing departure from the armies of film historians who treat Stalinists as heroes.  Among other things‚ Hirsch observes that when screenwriter Philip Dunne‚ whom he describes as “probably the wisest and most prominent liberal anticommunist during the blacklist period‚” tried to prevent the establishment of a Blacklist‚ he was operating from “what would prove to be a fatal misconception: that most of the nineteen who had been accused” of communism by HUAC “were not actually communists.” In fact‚ almost all of them were Reds — as was every single one of the Hollywood Ten‚ a group of industry bigshots who refused to testify before HUAC.  Hirsch’s treatment of screenwriter Budd Schulberg and director Elia Kazan‚ both of whom “named names” to the HUAC and who’ve been demonized by historians ever since‚ is refreshing in its rejection of received left-wing opinion. Among those historians is Victor Navasky‚ whose 1980 book Naming Names Hirsch cannily describes as “itself a kind of blacklist — of informers who‚ having named names‚ ought to be‚ according to the author’s moral calculus‚ branded forever.” Hirsch quotes with admiration the conservative historian Kenneth Lloyd Billingsley‚ who in Hollywood Party: How Communism Seduced the American Film Industry in the 1930s and 1940s (1998)‚ reports on a 1997 Blacklist commemoration sponsored by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences at which actors‚ writers‚ and directors who’d defended Stalin‚ “the worst mass murderer in history[‚] were … virtually deified.”  Indeed‚ some movers and shakers in Hollywood didn’t just defend Stalin but glorified him. During the war‚ at least four films (rightly labeled “notorious” by Hirsch) had shamelessly whitewashed Soviet Communism — Mission to Moscow (1943)‚ Song of Russia (1944)‚ Counter-Attack (1945)‚ and Lillian Hellman’s reprehensible The North Star (1943). After the war‚ the studio chiefs looked back on these propaganda pieces with embarrassment‚ and in the 1950s they reversed course dramatically‚ churning out one anti-communist picture after another. Although they’re all routinely dismissed by progressive critics as hysterical red-baiting‚ Hirsch explores them with critical dispassion and‚ in some cases‚ even ekes out some praise. He calls The Red Menace (1949)‚ for example‚ “an essential film of the early postwar period” and singles out for special attention My Son John (1952)‚ saying that it’s director Leo McCarey’s “most personal film” and “deserves a reappraisal.”  I’d never seen My Son John‚ but I watched it after reading Hirsch’s pages-long account of it. Helen Hayes and Dean Jagger play the Jeffersons‚ a decent‚ pious small-town couple whose son John (Robert Walker)‚ now working in government in Washington‚ D.C.‚ turns out to be a Soviet spy. Hirsch admits that the film (which also features the terrific Van Heflin as an FBI agent) is “an overwrought piece of Christian propaganda infused with über-patriotic paranoia‚” but he adds that it’s “a unique period piece that expresses with deeper conviction than any other anticommunist film of the time the fear and loathing with which communism was widely regarded…. [O]n its own terms [it’s] a disturbing work of art rendered with a conviction so deeply rooted‚ so unmovable‚ that it achieves a kind of transcendence.”  This is admiration‚ if of a curious kind‚ and I share it. So‚ rather unexpectedly‚ it turns out‚ do many of Hirsch’s students‚ who‚ when he screens it for them‚ he says‚ “are almost invariably surprised that they are gripped by a story that takes place in a world and time so far removed from their own‚ and they always ask me about the ‘wonderful’ actress who plays Mrs. Jefferson.” Interesting. (Even more interesting is that the 1950s actor whom Hirsch’s film students overwhelmingly dislike is none other than Katharine Hepburn.)  The most famous member of the Hollywood Ten (and the best-paid screenwriter in Hollywood) was Dalton Trumbo‚ who more than half a century after the Blacklist became the subject of a biopic (Trumbo‚ 2015)‚ which I was glad Hirsch dragged into his discussion of Hollywood communism. I was especially gratified by Hirsch’s brilliant putdown of this despicable picture‚ which‚ as he puts it‚ “enshrine[s]” Trumbo “in political purity” while depicting his opponents as “satanic.” Trumbo‚ Hirsch powerfully asserts: is as extremist‚ as unyielding‚ as lacking in nuance as the fiercest Red-baiting features of the early Cold War period. With knee-jerk liberalism‚ the film regards Trumbo and his political colleagues as victims and martyrs for whom adulation is the only possible response; about their stubborn allegiance to a brutal foreign government: silence…. Trumbo canonizes its protagonist‚ whose beatitude (along with that of his blacklisted brethren) is likely to remain unmodified for generations to come. Alas.  If I haven’t made it clear enough already‚ this is a superb book. Hirsch doesn’t approach films as an art-house snob or with a political agenda; he appreciates genre pictures on their own terms; he’s splendid at describing directing‚ camerawork‚ lighting‚ sets‚ acting styles‚ and much else. Going into it‚ I wondered if he’d mention any of the 1950s movies‚ some of them quite obscure‚ of which I’m particularly fond; he not only mentioned them all but had interesting things to say about each of them. (For instance‚ I was delighted by his absorbing account of The Prince and the Showgirl‚ a 1957 comedy starring Laurence Olivier and Marilyn Monroe‚ which is usually either dismissed or forgotten.)  Also‚ while I don’t share his disdain for the classic tearjerker An Affair to Remember (1957)‚ I was delighted to discover that he shares my eternal puzzlement over the utterly ridiculous casting: “Does [Cary] Grant pass muster as an Italian roué‚ or [Deborah] Kerr as a svelte thrush?” Nope. Why couldn’t Grant’s character have been turned into an English roué? (It would’ve involved nothing more than a name change.) I have additional complaints. The first-act scenes on the transatlantic ocean liner seem never to end. And then there’s the coincidence of the ship docking at the exact port‚ Villefranche-sur-Mer‚ where Grant‚ then all of 57 years old‚ has a grandmother who’s still alive (played by Cathleen Nesbit‚ who in real life was 16 years his elder). Oh‚ well. I love the film anyway. But I can understand Hirsch’s distaste.  I could go on and on about Hollywood and the Movies of the Fifties. It’s equally fun to read Hirsch’s always intelligent takes on films you’ve seen and to be given a vivid introduction to movies you’ve never seen or perhaps never even heard of. And given that (as noted) the American 1950s and its cultural artifacts have long been treated by the establishment Left with scorn‚ it’s sheer pleasure to read a book about the movies of that decade by someone who treats them with respect‚ who’s given them serious thought‚ and who actually regards more than a few of them with something not unlike affection. In his concluding pages‚ Hirsch tells us that he’s working on a companion volume about the films of the 1960s. It’s an understatement to say that I greatly look forward to it.  The post No‚ the 1950s Weren’t ‘Dull’ and ‘Conformist.’ Neither Were the Movies. appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

SACRAMENTO — California’s environmental-friendly lawmakers were quite proud of themselves when‚ in 2014‚ they passed a first-in-the-nation ban on stores from handing out so-called single-use plastic bags as a means to turn back the tide‚ so to speak‚ on an ocean-pollution “crisis” that was threatening marine wildlife and supposedly turning our beaches into waste dumps. READ MORE from Steven Greenhut: Forcing Americans to Vote Turns Democracy Into a Farce The legislation got entangled in the usual interest-group politics involving bag makers‚ unions‚ grocers‚ and recyclers. The California Grocers Association even backed the law‚ arguing it promoted consistency rather than forced stores to deal with a hodgepodge of local bans. Of course‚ grocers suddenly got to charge 10 cents a pop for something it gave away for free. But now grocers could only sell bulky paper bags — or those thicker‚ supposedly reusable (and partially recycled) plastic bags. Anyway‚ the plastic-bag manufacturers gathered enough signatures to place the law (Senate Bill 270) on the statewide ballot in 2016 as a referendum. That delayed its implementation by two years‚ but the industry lost the vote — and in the ensuing eight years (sans a 60-day reprieve during COVID-19)‚ Californians have had to a) buy heavier plastic bags; b) bring their own bags; or c) just let their groceries roll around in the back of the SUV. Shoppers often complained about the annoyance of schlepping old bags and the slowed checkout process‚ as cashiers have to question shoppers about how many bags they want to buy — rather than just bagging up the groceries quickly and efficiently. Hey‚ but at least Californians could feel great about the substantive steps they’ve taken to bolster the ocean environment. OK‚ I don’t blame you for chuckling or rolling your eyes as your read that line. Per the Los Angeles Times this week: According to a report by the consumer advocacy group CALPIRG‚ 157‚385 tons of plastic bag waste was discarded in California the year the law was passed. By 2022‚ however‚ the tonnage of discarded plastic bags had skyrocketed to 231‚072 — a 47% jump. Even accounting for an increase in population‚ the number rose from 4.08 tons per 1‚000 people in 2014 to 5.89 tons per 1‚000 people in 2022. So a law that promised to slash plastic waste apparently led to a huge increase. The evidence has been obvious for a while‚ and it wasn’t hard to see that one coming from the beginning. For starters‚ those thin plastic bags that grocery stores used to hand out to shoppers weren’t really single-use bags. My personal shopping experiences aren’t unusual. I always kept a large drawer full of them because I would reuse them to line waste baskets‚ pick up dog poo‚ and whatnot. I refuse to drive around with dozens of old‚ germ-laden canvas sacks in my truck — I’m not a vagabond‚ after all — so I just buy however many bags I need. An extra 50 cents per shopping trip isn’t going to bust the budget‚ so who cares? In other words‚ I kept using bags‚ but this time I had to buy “reusable” bags that are five times thicker than the old ones and no longer fit in my pocket when I walked the dogs. So I always threw out those thick ones because they take too much space. I also order online thin bags to use for dog walks and as basket liners — not that any of this matters‚ given that I don’t litter anyway. By the way‚ people who opt for paper bags are using ones that‚ as studies show‚ cause significantly more pollutants than their svelte plastic cousins. This isn’t hindsight. I predicted some of these problems in a column in 2010‚ when the idea first started circulating in the California Legislature. I’m not prescient‚ as I was rehashing arguments virtually every critic was making at the time. It’s easy to go back in time on the internet and read what environmentalists and lawmakers were saying about the bill. They promised that it would reduce waste‚ save tax dollars in cleanup costs‚ and encourage manufacturers to switch to reusable bags. Well‚ the waste stream has increased; its doubtful cleanup costs have lessened — and the switch to reusable bags has exacerbated the problem. I’m convinced many environmentalists are more about annoying Americans about their “consumer” lifestyle than improving the planet‚ but it still might be nice if they occasionally considered rolling back initiatives after the evidence points to failure. Instead‚ Democratic legislators in both houses have introduced bills (Senate Bill 1053 and Assembly Bill 2236) that would now ban the new thicker bags they forced us to use after they banned the thinner ones. “We are choking our planet with plastic waste‚” SB 1053 co-author Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) said while unveiling the bill. Yet such environmental discussions might at least start with reality. Todd Myers‚ author of the new book Time to Think Small: How Nimble Environmental Technologies Can Solve the Planet’s Biggest Problems‚ reports that tiny Sri Lanka “puts five times as much plastic into the ocean as the entire United States.” In other words‚ the plastic-in-the-ocean problem comes largely from dumping in developing nations‚ just as the bulk of the world’s carbon emissions come from China and India. There’s some of it in California‚ but our residents aren’t choking the oceans. Myers points to an innovative recycling group that boasts more ocean-cleanup results than any governmental agency‚ but don’t expect California lawmakers to consider using incentives or private alternatives. Still‚ at some point one would think that lawmakers who are actually serious about environmental improvement might be open to something different. Instead‚ expect their new effort to close a “loophole” from the last effort to create another loophole or workaround that will worsen — rather than improve — whatever plastic-pollution problem exists here. Experience serves as a guide here. Steven Greenhut is Western region director for the R Street Institute. Write to him at sgreenhut@rstreet.org. The post Environmentalists Fail Again: Plastic Bag Ban Made Pollution Worse appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Joe Biden is gaslighting America on the economy. His administration is trying to oversell what has underperformed for several reasons: First‚ the economy is the one issue that affects most Americans most significantly. Second‚ Biden is doing worse on virtually every other issue. Finally‚ time is short: the economy is about to get worse‚ and the election is close. The administration’s strategy is to get Americans to believe what they hear and doubt what they see. Biden and his administration are loudly beating the drum on the economy. At a recent event in swing-state Wisconsin‚ the president told his audience: Just last week‚ we saw the biggest jump in 30 years and how positive consumers are feeling about the economy. Things are finally beginning to sink in. We passed a lot of really good legislation. We knew it was going to take time for it to begin to take hold‚ but it’s taken hold now in turning the economy around. The administration is hoping that repetition can trump performance and rhetoric displace reality. Despite his whistling past the graveyard‚ during Biden’s presidency‚ the economy has been tepid while inflation has been torrid. READ MORE: Is a Great American Bankruptcy Coming? This is what the economy has done over the last three years. In 2021‚ real GDP grew 5.8 percent‚ but that was the rebound effect from COVID’s (in Q2 of that year‚ it fell 28 percent) — and‚ even more‚ from lockdowns’ — effects in 2020: In statistics‚ climbing out of hole looks as though you’re jumping up. In 2022‚ the economy grew 1.9 percent and‚ in 2023‚ 2.5 percent. Tepid. What really has been strong in Biden’s economy has been inflation. When he took office in January 2021‚ it was running at 1.4 percent. Two months later‚ it crossed the Federal Reserve’s 2 percent threshold at 2.6 percent‚ and it hasn’t retreated across since. It finished 2021 at 7 percent. It peaked in June 2022 at 9.1 percent (a 40-year high) and finished 2022 at 6.5 percent. It finished 2023 at 3.4 percent. In 2024‚ it started January at 3.1 percent — still well above the Fed’s 2 percent target. Torrid. To summarize Biden’s economy: For working Americans‚ strong inflation has undercut the effect of mediocre economic growth. So why is Biden insisting on making his case on the economy? For one thing‚ this is what politicians do‚ and it is especially what Biden does. The old adage is that those who can’t do teach; in politics‚ those who haven’t done spin. For another thing‚ Biden doesn’t have anything to take credit for with average Americans; as a result‚ he’s doing worse with the American people on virtually everything else. On the economy‚ RealClearPolitics’ average of national poll results shows Biden with a 39 percent approval and 57.1 percent disapproval on the economy. As bad as that “minus 18” is on the economy‚ he’s at “minus 20.5” on foreign policy. On inflation‚ he’s “minus 25.2.” On the Israeli-Palestinian conflict‚ he’s “minus 20.8.” And on immigration‚ he’s “minus 30.8.” So‚ if Biden’s going to be positive about something‚ he’s got to pick what Americans view him less negatively on. Plus‚ the economy’s about to start doing worse — so he needs to make what hay he can while the sun is as close to shining as it’s going to get. As evidence‚ the Congressional Budget Office is predicting the economy’s real growth to be just 1.5 percent in 2024. The reason for slowing growth goes back to that torrid inflation. When inflation began spiking in 2022‚ the Fed began hiking. It raised interest rates 11 times in just over a year‚ taking them from a range of 0.25–0.50 percent to 5.25–5.50 percent. And there they have stayed — and with Tuesday’s release of higher-than-expected inflation readings‚ there they look likely to stay for longer than the markets had hoped. Such a rapid increase in interest rates is going to affect growth‚ and that effect is going to come in 2024. A worst-case scenario will be for growth to slow while inflation remains unacceptably high. It was fear over just such a scenario that sent the stock markets tumbling on Tuesday — the Dow’s worst drop in almost a year. The Biden administration is feeling the squeeze. Americans view the president negatively on the economy — and a lot else besides. The calendar is also squeezing: The election is less than nine months away. And the economy is likewise likely to start squeezing‚ as interest rates seek to slow what Biden’s excessive spending ($5.8 trillion in deficits over his first three years — with another $1.6 trillion coming in 2024‚ according to CBO) helped to fuel. At this point‚ the administration is pursuing a strategy of saying what the economy’s not in hopes that if Americans hear it long enough‚ they will begin to doubt what they know about the economy and the president. J.T. Young was a professional staffer in the House and Senate from 1987–2000‚ served in the Department of Treasury and Office of Management and Budget from 2001–2004‚ and was director of government relations for a Fortune 20 company from 2004–2023. The post Biden Gaslights America on the Economy appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Ah‚ February. A month of hope. The first whispering lilts of springtime are upon us. Our old friend from Pennsylvania — Punxsutawney Phil — emerged from his burrow on Gobbler’s Knob this month and announced that winter will be over soon‚ giving us official permission to daydream about warm summer days‚ backyard barbecues‚ and lazy frolics along the seashore (thanks‚ Phil!). READ MORE: Charles Dickens Teaches Washington Elites How to Budget Regrettably‚ this month also brings with it another longstanding tradition — the federal budget proposal for the next fiscal year. Even without dissecting it line by line‚ it is clear that this administration has learned nothing from past failures as it continues to propose massive increases in federal spending. The United States’ debt currently stands at $34 trillion. Federal budget experts indicate that our nation faces structural deficits of nearly $2 trillion per year‚ despite federal tax revenues being at an all-time high. Inflation‚ relatively tame over the last two generations‚ has now returned stronger than ever‚ with prices on necessities up between 10 and 40 percent since 2021. When the government spends too much‚ it has to borrow money to fill the gap or increase the money supply. Prices rise because there is too much money chasing too few goods. Interest rates also increase‚ making the cost of household debt — from credit card payments to auto loans to home mortgages — more expensive. Jimmy Malone said it best in The Untouchables‚ when he took Eliot Ness on his first liquor raid: “Everyone knows where the booze is. The problem isn’t finding it. The problem is who wants to cross Capone.” Similarly‚ our leaders know exactly what the problem is — unfettered government spending — but none confront this looming catastrophe head on. No initiatives to bend the spending arc and put the government on the road to fiscal sanity currently exist. An illustrative example is how the government is now proposing to increase the size of the IRS. Most Americans are aware that the IRS plans to hire thousands of new agents and employees. The chief human capital officer for the IRS‚ Traci DiMartini‚ recently said the IRS will utilize “every tool that is available to us” to implement this staffing increase. Its plan involves utilizing the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) — the government-run human resources agency — to solicit‚ vet‚ interview‚ and place applicants in these positions through its USA Staffing portal. To handle such a massive project‚ OPM would first have to recruit and hire even more federal employees because it lacks the resources for successful completion of such a large project. These new OPM employees would receive hefty government salaries and benefits‚ and‚ once this project is complete‚ would desperately search for new projects to justify their existence. Moreover‚ the bureaucratic geniuses at OPM lack a stellar track record in hiring — so it seems inevitable that these new hires will lead to further waste‚ fraud‚ and abuse of the U.S. taxpayer. A recent report revealed serious flaws in data management and cybersecurity at OPM dating back to 2015‚ when OPM was responsible for the largest government data breach in history‚ exposing the private data of thousands of federal employees. This violation was so grave that OPM was forced to provide these employees with “free” credit-monitoring services‚ all courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. Enough is enough. The government shouldn’t be getting bigger. But if it must get bigger‚ then it should be done responsibly‚ leveraging private-sector technical expertise to ensure cost efficiency. Until the utilization of such smart‚ cost-effective solutions become standard operating procedure government-wide‚ there is no hope of getting our financial house in order. Perhaps we should feel lucky that Punxsutawney Phil didn’t see the FY 2025 budget when he emerged from his stump on Feb. 2. If he had‚ he would have been so spooked by the shadow of fiscal calamity that he would have crawled back in‚ never to be seen again. Sean Moran is the former staff director of the Committee on House Administration of the United States House of Representatives. In that position‚ he had oversight responsibilities of all U.S. House Human Resources‚ payroll‚ and cybersecurity and was one of the official liaisons during the OPM data breach in 2015. Prior to that‚ he was the deputy chief of staff for Rep. Candice Miller (R-Mich.). He has extensive private-sector background in government contracting in the area of human capital management. The post Six More Weeks of IRS Power Grabs? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

🚨🇺🇸 2023 ILLEGAL MIGRATION GROWS 10X IN SEVEN YEARS 2024 SO FAR: 988‚8192023: 3‚201‚1442022: 2‚766‚5822021: 1‚956‚5192020: 405‚0362019: 859‚5012018: 404‚1422017: 310‚531 Source: US Customs &; Border Protectionpic.twitter.com/oLW6GyOLZr — Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) February 13‚ 2024

by Daisy Luther‚ The Organic Prepper: Will China Use the Supply Chain as a Weapon Against the US? Is the supply chain China’s secret weapon? Over the last few years‚ the phrase “supply chain” has become one of increasing importance to everyone – from corporate leaders to government officials and to customers. Now‚ it’s a […]