Connect with us


Inflation Isn’t Transitory, Biden And The Fed Are Finally Waking Up To See The Truth…

Joe Biden’s top officials and Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell were quick to dismiss the first embers of inflation in the spring of 2021 in a single word: Transitory.

More than a year later, price increases at 40-year peaks have proven to be anything but, so much so that the Fed this week appears ready to hike interest rates by the most since 1994 to quell them. Biden, meanwhile, is paying the political price for being the face Americans blame for $5 a gallon gas and 10% price increases for eggs.

In truth, the culprits contributing to the current U.S. inflation are numerous. Fiscal spending likely went a step too far; a red-hot job market lifted worker pay the most in a generation; global supply shocks kept coming instead of easing; the war in Ukraine created food and fuel scarcities.

But both the Fed and Biden administration were slow to shift their focus from fighting the economic shock of the pandemic, particularly on employment, to controlling inflation that is so acute the central bank is willing to court a recession to fix it.

By mid-summer 2021, the pandemic employment hole was still nearly 7 million jobs, but price increases were already running at their highest in a decade and twice the Fed’s 2% a year target. Biden and Powell each referred to “transitory” inflation within days of each other that July. Biden did so in a speech marking his first six months in office and Powell in his press conference following that month’s Fed policy meeting.

By September, the Fed appeared to finally take note, when it signaled the labor market conditions it had set for dialing back its bond purchases – the first step toward higher rates – would soon be met. The consumer price index then had climbed by more than 5% year-on-year, belying expectations for an easing.

When the Fed actually started reducing its asset purchases in November it would be north of 6%.

Consumers noticed as well. A measure of near-term inflation expectations from the University of Michigan that month hit its highest since 2008.

That presented the first inklings of a new and deeper problem.

High inflation becoming rooted in public psychology is something Fed officials have feared as it lowers obstacles for companies to raise prices, keeps consumers spending furiously, and undermines the Fed’s own credibility as an inflation fighter.

Indeed, that risk – which has only grown this year – is now central to the rapid change in the Fed’s posture .”As soon as (inflation) expectations move, you have to hit like a hammer. Do more and do it quick. That is where we are,” said Larry Meyer, a former Fed governor and chief executive of LH Meyer, referring to the prospect of a three quarter point Fed rate hike this week.


For its part, the White House in mid-2021 created a task force to deal with supply chain snarls, thick with retail and logistics company leaders, tried to stamp down rising oil prices with releases from the strategic petroleum reserve and focused on anti-competitive practices in key industries.

In December, Biden declared victory over empty shelves, seconded by FedEx Corp chief executive Fred Smith.

But inflation did not respond, prompting Biden in the fall to double down on his big plan to fix it. The Build Back Better Act aimed hundreds of billions of dollars in investment at reducing health care, housing, childcare and prescription drug costs, among other issues.

Instead, it died in Congress after negotiations failed between the White House, and progressive Democrats and hold out senators.

By May of this year, Biden was highlighting the role the Fed, not the White House, would play in reducing inflation, while promising to look at tariffs on goods from China and other issues that could have some impact.

Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen, a key promoter of the term “transitory,” publicly retired it in December, but she continued to reassure White House officials privately early this year that price pressures would ease in 2022. It was not until this month that she admitted her mistake.

White House officials now privately acknowledge they may have little control over price hikes ahead of the crucial November mid-terms, and would do what they could on the margins, while continuing to lay the blame on Russian President Vladimir Putin and his invasion of Ukraine that sent fuel and food costs sky-rocketing further.


Once Fed officials this year fully embraced that the situation had changed, their response took on increasing urgency as the clamor grew from financial market actors and other critics that they were woefully behind the curve.

They accelerated the end of their bond purchases and in March raised the benchmark short term federal funds rate for the first time since 2018, by a quarter percentage point.

But even then, policymakers’ projections signaled what, by historical standards, would be a modest rise in the federal funds rate to around 1.9% by the end of the year, with no change in unemployment from the current low rate of 3.6%.

In early May, they raised rates again, by half a point this time, and for weeks afterward touted a plan to raise them by that margin again at meetings in June and July.

Since then, the outlook on prices has eroded further, with annual consumer inflation as of May accelerating to 8.6%, and persistently high prices now amounting to a generational shock. Stock markets have sunk into a full-on bear market on worries that the Fed’s small steps will no longer be enough, and bond yields most sensitive to central bank policy expectations have shot to their highest since 2007.

When data on Friday showed a jump in consumers’ expectations about inflation, coupled with a similar outcome in a Monday New York Fed survey, it may have convinced Fed officials that their pledge to tame prices had not yet registered – to either the public or financial markets.

Jason Furman, former chair of the Council of Economic Advisers and a Harvard University professor, said Fed officials were paying the price for policy that promised to fight inflation but lacked any firm commitment to push rates to restrictive levels.

“It is hard to convince people you are going to do serious things next year when you are not going to do them this year,” he said.

(Reporting by Howard Schneider, Heather Timmons and Andrea Shalal; Writing by Dan Burns and Howard Schneider; Editing by Sam Holmes)


– Advertisement –

Inflation isn’t transitory, Biden and the Fed are finally waking up to see the truth… is written by Wolf Daily for

Continue Reading


Former Democrat Tops NH Trump VP Poll


In an electrifying and unexpected development, a new poll from the University of New Hampshire Survey Center reveals that former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii tops the list of preferred running mates for former President Donald Trump. This strategic choice underscores Trump’s commitment to broadening his appeal and strengthening his base with an unconventional but highly effective candidate.

Tulsi Gabbard, who initially ran for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, courageously left her party two years later to become an independent. Now, she emerges as the favorite among nearly a quarter (24%) of New Hampshire voters who are not supporting President Biden. Gabbard’s ability to connect with a diverse electorate and her staunch opposition to the far-left agenda make her a powerful ally for Trump.

Gabbard’s support stands seven points ahead of biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, indicating a strong preference for Gabbard’s unique blend of political independence and principled leadership. This shows that voters are looking for leaders who are willing to stand up against the establishment and fight for American values.

Ramaswamy, along with other notable figures like Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina and Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, have endorsed Trump, yet Gabbard’s lead suggests a deeper resonance with voters seeking a fresh and unifying voice. Her conservative principles, military background, and dedication to freedom and the Constitution make her an ideal running mate for Trump.

Trump’s consideration of Gabbard is a testament to his strategic thinking and commitment to broadening his appeal. Gabbard, a veteran of the Iraq War and an officer in the Hawaii National Guard, brings a wealth of experience and a compelling personal story as the first Samoan-American elected to Congress. Her transition from a progressive Democrat to an independent has been marked by her steadfast dedication to fundamental freedoms, resonating with many conservatives who feel disenfranchised by the current political climate.

In a Fox News town hall in February, Trump hinted that Gabbard was on his short list for running mates. Her praise for Trump, acknowledging his resilience and willingness to fight against the Washington establishment, underscores a shared commitment to challenging the status quo and defending American values against the encroachment of socialism and government overreach.

Gabbard’s familiarity with New Hampshire, a crucial swing state, adds another layer of strategic advantage. Her presence in the state during her 2020 presidential run and her support for Republican candidates in 2022 have cemented her popularity among voters who are tired of the same old politics and crave genuine change.

By considering Gabbard as a running mate, Trump demonstrates his ability to think outside traditional party lines and appeal to a broader coalition. This bold move could be the key to uniting the nation behind his campaign, bringing together a diverse group of voters eager for a leader who prioritizes American values and freedoms.

As the 2024 election approaches, the prospect of a Trump-Gabbard ticket promises an exciting and dynamic campaign. This powerful combination of leadership, experience, and dedication to conservative principles is poised to capture the imagination and support of Americans from all walks of life, ensuring a strong and united front against the progressive agenda threatening our nation’s future.


POLL: Would you support Tulsi Gabbard for VP?


Continue Reading


SCOTUS Sides With “Three Strikes” Laws in Support of Second Amendment


In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled 6–3 on May 23 in favor of the federal government in a case pivotal to the enforcement of a federal three-strikes gun law aimed at ensuring repeat offenders are appropriately penalized. This ruling reinforces the principle that those who repeatedly break the law, particularly with violent felonies or major drug offenses, should face stringent consequences, thereby protecting law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

Justice Samuel Alito, a stalwart defender of constitutional principles, authored the majority opinion in Brown v. United States, consolidated with Jackson v. United States. In a remarkable alignment, the decision saw a blending of ideologies, with one liberal justice joining the majority and a conservative justice siding with the dissenters. This highlights the importance and clarity of the case beyond traditional ideological divides.

Federal law rightly prohibits convicted felons from possessing firearms, and the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA) of 1984 was a significant step to address the disproportionate number of crimes committed by repeat offenders. The ACCA mandates a 15-year minimum sentence for individuals found guilty of illegally possessing a firearm if they have three or more prior convictions for serious drug offenses or violent felonies committed on separate occasions.

The recent Supreme Court ruling ensures that the severity of the law remains intact. It emphasizes that sentences under the ACCA should be based on the laws in effect at the time of the original convictions, maintaining the law’s integrity and original intent to deter habitual criminals. This is a win for those who believe in the Second Amendment and the rule of law, ensuring that dangerous individuals are kept from undermining our right to bear arms.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett stood firm in the majority, reflecting their commitment to upholding strict penalties for career criminals. Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch joined parts of the dissent, showcasing the robust debate within the court. Justice Elena Kagan and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, known for their liberal leanings, also contributed to the discourse.

Justice Alito’s opinion clarified that the ACCA’s requirement for a 15-year mandatory minimum sentence remains for those convicted of illegal firearm possession if they have a history of serious drug offenses or violent felonies. The definition of a “serious drug offense” includes state crimes that carry a maximum sentence of at least 10 years and involve a controlled substance as defined by the Controlled Substances Act.

Alito highlighted that state crimes qualify as serious drug offenses if they involved a drug listed on federal schedules at the time of the original conviction, not based on any subsequent changes to those schedules. This prevents loopholes that could otherwise allow habitual offenders to evade justice based on technicalities, thus preserving the stringent measures intended by the ACCA.

The government’s interpretation aligns with the ACCA’s objectives, focusing on the inherent risk and seriousness of certain offenses likely committed by career criminals. This approach ensures that those with a history of significant drug or violent offenses face enhanced penalties, protecting society and upholding the sanctity of the Second Amendment by ensuring firearms do not end up in the hands of dangerous individuals.

Justice Jackson’s dissent argued for applying the drug schedules in effect at the time of the federal firearms offense, a perspective that the majority rightly found unconvincing given the ACCA’s clear intent and context.

This ruling follows the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in March 2022’s Wooden v. United States, affirming that multiple convictions from a single criminal episode do not count as multiple under the ACCA. The current deliberations on Erlinger v. United States, which question whether a judge or jury should decide on the application of enhanced sentencing, continue to underscore the Court’s dedication to ensuring fair yet firm justice.

In summary, the Supreme Court’s decision is a significant victory for the pro-Second Amendment community, reinforcing the importance of strict penalties for repeat offenders. This decision ensures that the rights of law-abiding citizens to bear arms are protected by keeping firearms out of the hands of those who pose a danger to society.


Supreme Court: Illegal Immgrants Can Be Detained Without Bond

POLL: Do you support this ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States?


Continue Reading


HILARIOUS: Biden Not On the Ballot in Ohio… Yet


In a delicious twist of irony, President Biden—who has tried to block former President Trump from appearing on ballots in several states—might himself be excluded from the Ohio ballot come Election Day. Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose issued this hilarious warning on Tuesday, showcasing yet another instance of Democratic incompetence and hypocrisy.

Despite receiving weeks of warnings from LaRose’s office and the state legislature, the Ohio Democratic Party has hilariously bungled their way into potentially disqualifying Biden from the ballot. LaRose, a Republican, pointed out that the Democratic Party has yet to offer any solution that complies with existing law.

Ohio’s election law requires parties to certify their presidential candidates at least 90 days before Election Day. But in a move that screams “amateur hour,” the Democratic Party plans to certify Biden at its national convention in Wisconsin on August 19, just 75 days before the election—blatantly flouting the law.

“I’ve said from here to Colorado that it’s in the best interest of voters to have a choice in the race for president. I’m also duty-bound to follow the law as Ohio’s chief elections officer,” LaRose stated, barely containing his exasperation.

“As it stands today, the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee will not be on the Ohio ballot. That is not my choice. It’s due to a conflict in the law created by the party, and the party has so far offered no legally acceptable remedy,” he continued, likely shaking his head in disbelief.

“The Ohio House speaker said today there won’t be a legislative solution, so I’ve sent a letter to Ohio Democrats’ chair seeking (again) a solution that upholds the law and respects the voters. I trust they’ll act quickly,” he finished, probably chuckling at the absurdity of it all.

Ohio Democrats previously floated the idea that Ohio could accept a “provisional certification” for Biden’s candidacy, but LaRose quickly shut down this laughable suggestion, pointing out that state law makes no such allowances.

LaRose emphasized that either the state legislature must change the law to allow Biden’s certification, or the Democratic Party must get its act together. Ohio House Speaker Jason Stephens, another Republican, bluntly stated that lawmakers won’t bail Biden out. “There’s just not the will to do that from the legislature,” Stephens told reporters, likely with a smirk.

Even Democratic Ohio House Minority Leader Allison Russo couldn’t hide her frustration with her own party’s ineptitude, stating, “We’ve seen the dysfunction here in this place. And I think we’ve seen that folks have not been able to put aside partisanship and hyper-partisanship and infighting.… I think at this point, you’re probably going to see either, you know, some sort of inner party effects or perhaps court action.”

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine assured voters that Biden would be on the ballot come November, arguing that if the legislature doesn’t act, then it’s “going to be done by the court.”

Ohio Democrats have yet to respond to LaRose’s Tuesday letter. The irony of Biden’s predicament—potentially being excluded from the ballot while having sought to exclude Trump—is nothing short of poetic justice. This fiasco is a fitting testament to the chaos and mismanagement that has become the hallmark of the Democratic Party.



POLL: Will Biden be the Democrat nominee in November?


Continue Reading