Connect with us


Janet Yellen Falsely Advertises Build Back Better in Memo to Senate



Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen is carrying out a desperate, last-ditch effort to sell the increasingly unpopular Build Back Better Act before the year ends. 

Yellen sent a memo to the Senate Dec. 9 titled “Fiscal Responsibility and the Build Back Better Act.” She wanted to get ahead of major reports that delivered a one-two punch to the Democrats’ plan to increase taxes and dole it back out to friends of the party.

Despite repeated assertions of the bill being paid for, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office released a report showing that the temporary policies in the bill would increase deficit spending by $3 trillion. On top of that, inflation is hitting a 40-year high as consumer prices continue to rise because of out-of-control government spending.

As the Biden administration finds itself unable to escape the real economic consequences of its left-wing policies, Yellen in her memo swings blind with claims that are far removed from reality. Here are the following claims Yellen makes about the Build Back Better Act.

Claim 1: The Build Back Better Act is fully paid for in the first decade.

Fact Check: FALSE—The Congressional Budget Office shows that the Build Back Better Act is NOT fully paid for and will increase the deficit by nearly $400 billion.

Yellen states in her memo that the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation support her claim that the Build Back Better Act would reduce deficits by $100 billion in the first decade.

However, the memo links to an older report that outright refutes that claim and estimates the bill will increase the deficit by $367 billion over 10 years. Even if potentially higher revenues that could result from additional IRS administrative funding is included (the White House-Congressional scorekeeping guidelines exclude these types of revenues because they are highly speculative), the bill would still increase deficits by $160 billion.

Yellen is basing her claim on her own Treasury Department’s unrealistic assumption that IRS funding would yield more than double the revenues projected by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. A nonpartisan independent analysis has rejected the Treasury Department’s biased numbers.

Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office with the Joint Committee of Taxation, reports that the Build Back Better Act—without the smoke and mirrors of sunsetting new spending programs—would increase the deficit by $3 trillion over the first 10 years of its enactment.

Claim: The Build Back Better Act is a fully offset decade-long investment that will not add to near-term inflationary pressures.

Fact Check: FALSE—Americans are already experiencing inflationary pressures from previous deficit spending. The Build Back Better Act will only worsen existing inflationary pressures.

The federal government has flooded the economy with more than $5 trillion in newly printed deficit spending since the start of the coronavirus pandemic. As a result, Americans are getting hit with rising price increases—the highest it’s been in 40 years. For example, gasoline prices rose by 58.1% in the last year while meats, poultry, fish, and eggs rose by 12.8%.

If passed, the Build Back Better Act will add another $792 billion in deficits over the next five years and only worsen inflationary pressures.

At the same time as this higher government deficit spending, much of which will be purchased by the Federal Reserve, the Build Back Better would add higher taxes on investment, new government mandates and regulations, expansions of welfare without work, and harmful energy policies, all of which will make labor shortages and supply chain problems worse, driving up prices. The result is more dollars chasing fewer good and services, the classic recipe for inflation.

Claim: The Build Back Better Act will reduce deficits by around $2 trillion over two decades.

Fact Check: FALSE—This claim is based on purposefully dishonest accounting gimmicks to hide the true cost of the bill.

The American people made it clear. There is no appetite for a hyper-partisan, $3.5 trillion tax-and-spend bill. The Biden administration and his negotiators went back to design a bill that hides the true cost.

This claim assumes that the tax hikes are permanent while the slew of socialist benefit programs are temporary. But as the old saying goes, “the closest thing to eternal life on earth is a government program.” Like the excessive number of federal housing, welfare, and insurance programs that currently exist, the programs under Build Back Better will continue forever and run massive deficits.

What the most recent Congressional Budget Office report reveals is that if the programs are made permanent—which is what Democrats consistently say they want—the bill would add $3 trillion to the debt in the first decade. It would almost certainly add trillions more to the debt in a second decade.

Claim: Given this bill’s offsets and the commitment of President Joe Biden and congressional leadership to pay for this and future legislation, it is inappropriate to judge this legislation based on an assumption that future acts of Congress won’t be paid for.

Fact Check: FALSE—The logic behind this claim is entirely incoherent.

Yellen claims that Biden and his Democratic colleagues in Congress are so fiscally responsible, that the public should just believe them when they say they are committed to paying for this bill.

However, the whole concept of the national debt—currently at $29 trillion and rising—is that it reflects Congress’s long history of being unable to pay for the spending it has promised. To point out that Congress will struggle to pay for future programs while adding trillions of dollars more to the ocean of debt is not unfounded.

Financing the spending promises of progressives would require higher taxes on middle-class families. Even Democrats have rejected a variety of tax hike proposals during their Build Back Better negotiations.

The spotlight is on, and the Biden administration is beginning to feel the heat. More and more families are being squeezed by the results of progressive policies. Instead of propagating cynical falsehoods to pass an agenda that will crush families and the nation, this administration needs to own up to the fact that this bill is too radical for the American people.

This is a moment where Americans need to hold its leaders accountable, call them out for broadcasting flagrant lies to hide its own failures, and stop them from committing more.

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email [email protected] and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.

Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


Hailey Bieber Details Terrifying ‘Life-Altering’ Mini-Stroke She Suffered And Procedure To Close Hole In Her Heart



Hailey Bieber has spoken out in her “own words” about the “life-altering,” “scariest moment” of her life she had after suffering what she called a mini-stroke, and later underwent a procedure to close a hole in her heart.

The 25-year-old supermodel and wife of superstar singer Justin Bieber took to her YouTube channel Wednesday and opened up about the terrifying experience of being hospitalized last month after she suffered a blood clot to her brain that traveled through a hole in her heart between 12 and 13 millimeters, reported People magazine.

“I had, like, a very scary incident on March 10, basically,” Bieber shared. “I was sitting at breakfast with my husband, having a normal day … and all of the sudden, I felt this really weird sensation that kind of like traveled down my arm from my shoulder all the way down to my fingertips. And it made my fingertips feel really numb and weird.”

“Justin [her husband] was like, ‘Are you okay?’” she added, as she explained that she tried to respond to him, but she “couldn’t speak.” “The right side of my face started drooping; I couldn’t get a sentence out.”

“Obviously, immediately, I thought I was having a stroke,” the supermodel continued. “He thought I was having a stroke. Right away, he asked for somebody to please call 911 and get a doctor.”

Hailey said that where they were, there happened to be a medic who started asking her lots of questions and testing her arms, calling it definitely the “scariest moment” of her life. The model talked about how the “facial drooping lasted for probably like thirty seconds.” Her speech did came back, but her “anxiety” about what was happening just made “everything worse.”

“By the time I got to the emergency room, I was pretty much back to normal – [I] could talk, [I] wasn’t having any issues with my face or my arm,” Bieber explained.

She said scans revealed she had, in fact, suffered a “small blood clot” to her brain which was labeled a “TIA” [Transient Ischemic Attack]. Hailey told her followers it was basically like having a “mini-stroke.”

Doctors still weren’t sure what caused it, but she said it was widely believed it was a combination of birth-control issues, recently having COVID-19, and having just traveled “to Paris and back in a very short amount of time,” calling it a “perfect storm.”

Further testing at the University of California, Los Angeles, revealed Bieber had a Grade 5 PFO [a small opening in the heart that usually closes after birth]. The outlet said the hold measured between 12 and 13 millimeters. She later underwent a procedure to close the hole, and said it went “very smoothly” and she’s recovering.

“The biggest thing I feel is I just feel really relieved that we were able to figure everything out, that we were able to get it closed, that I will be able to just move on from this really scary situation and just live my life,” Hailey shared.

“If there’s anybody that watches this that has gone through the same thing or something similar, I definitely really empathize with you,” she concluded. “And I understand how life-altering and scary it is.”

Bieber, who’s the daughter of actor Stephen Baldwin and Kennya Baldwin, married her husband Justin in 2018.

Related: Hailey Baldwin Credits Christian Faith For Marriage To Justin Bieber

The Daily Wire is one of America’s fastest-growing conservative media companies for breaking news, investigative reporting, sports, podcasts, in-depth analysis, books, and entertainment for a reason: because we believe in what we do. We believe in our country, in the value of truth and the freedom to speak it, and in the right to challenge tyranny wherever we see it. Believe the same? Become a member now and join our mission.

Source link

Continue Reading


Wikipedia’s Left-Wing Bias



I love Wikipedia. I donated thousands of dollars to the Wikimedia Foundation.

Before Wikipedia, all we had were printed encyclopedias—out of date by the time we bought them.

Then libertarian Jimmy Wales came up with a web-based, crowd-sourced encyclopedia.

Crowd-sourced? A Britannica editor called Wikipedia “a public restroom.” But Wales won the battle. Britannica’s encyclopedias are no longer printed.

Congratulations to Wales.

But recently, I learned that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger now says Wikipedia’s political pages have turned into leftist “propaganda.”

That’s upsetting. Leftists took over the editing?

Sadly, yes. I checked it out.

All editing is done by volunteers. Wales hoped there would be enough diverse political persuasions that biases would be countered by others.

But that’s not what’s happening.

Leftists just like to write. Conservatives build things: companies, homes, farms.

You see the pattern comparing political donations from different professions: Surgeons, oil workers, truck drivers, loggers, and pilots lean right; artists, bartenders, librarians, reporters, and teachers lean left.

Conservatives don’t have as much time to tweet or argue on the web. Leftists do. And they love doing it. This helps them take over the media, universities, and now, Wikipedia.

Jonathan Weiss is what Wikipedia calls a “Top 100” Wikipedian because he’s made almost half a million edits. He says he’s noticed new bias: “Wikipedia does a great job on things like science and sports, but you see a lot of political bias come into play when you’re talking current events.”

Weiss is no conservative. In presidential races, he voted for Al Gore, Ralph Nader, and Barack Obama. Never for a Republican. “I’ve really never identified strongly with either political party,” he says.

Maybe that’s why he notices the new Wikipedia bias.

“People on the left far outweigh people on the center and the right … a lot [are] openly socialist and Marxist.” Some even post pictures of Che Guevara and Lenin on their own profiles.

These are the people who decide which news sources Wikipedia writers may cite. Wikipedia’s approved “Reliable sources” page rejects political reporting from Fox but calls CNN and MSNBC “reliable.”

Good conservative outlets like The Federalist, the Daily Caller, and The Daily Wire are all deemed “unreliable.” Same with the New York Post (That’s probably why Wikipedia called Hunter Biden’s emails a conspiracy theory even after other liberal media finally acknowledged that they were real).

While it excludes Fox, Wikipedia approves even hard left media like Vox, Slate, The Nation, Mother Jones, and Jacobin, a socialist publication.

Until recently, Wikipedia’s “socialism” and “communism” pages made no mention of the millions of people killed by socialism and communism. Even now, deaths are “deep in the article,” says Weiss, “treated as an arcane academic debate. But we’re talking about mass murder!”

The communism page even adds that we cannot ignore the “lives saved by communist modernization”! This is nuts.

Look up “concentration and internment camps” and you’ll find, along with the Holocaust, “Mexico-United States border,” and under that, “Trump administration family separation policy.”

What? Former President Donald Trump’s border controls, no matter how harsh, are very different from the Nazi’s mass murder.

Wikipedia does say “anyone can edit.” So, I made a small addition for political balance, mentioning that President Barack Obama built those cages.

My edit was taken down.

I wrote Wikipedia founder Wales to say that if his creation now uses only progressive sources, I would no longer donate.

He replied, “I totally respect the decision not to give us more money. I’m such a fan and have great respect for you and your work.” But then he said it is “just 100% false … that ‘only globalist, progressive mainstream sources’ are permitted.”

He gave examples of left-wing media that Wikipedia rejects, like Raw Story and Occupy Democrats.

I’m glad he rejects them. Those sites are childishly far left.

I then wrote again to ask why “there’s not a single right-leaning media outlet Wiki labels ‘reliable’ about politics, [but] Vox, Slate, The Nation, Mother Jones, CNN, MSNBC” get approval.

Wales then stopped responding to my emails.

Unless Wikipedia’s bias is fixed, I’ll be skeptical reading anything on the site.


The Daily Signal publishes a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Heritage Foundation. 

Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email, and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. 

Source link

Continue Reading


Public Health England to blame for sending patients to care homes without Covid tests



Speaking on condition of anonymity, Whitehall officials alleged that Prof Duncan Selbie, the former PHE chief executive, was ultimately responsible for informing Mr Hancock of the risks.

Prof Selbie is working as a senior adviser to the DHSC. Neither he nor the department responded to requests for comment on Wednesday.

Mr Hancock, who was replaced by Sajid Javid last year, claimed the High Court ruling had exonerated him and the had been cleared “of any wrongdoing” because PHE “failed to tell ministers what they knew about asymptomatic transmission”.

The High Court judges concluded that care home policies in March and April 2020 were “irrational” because they failed to advise that those discharged from hospitals “should, so far as practicable, be kept apart from other residents for up to 14 days”.

“Since there is no evidence that this question was considered by the secretary of state, or that he was asked to consider it, it is not an example of a political judgment on a finely balanced issue,” they said. “Nor is it a point on which any of the expert committees had advised that no guidance was required.”

After the ruling, Boris Johnson said he wanted to “renew my apologies and sympathies” to relatives who lost loved ones, adding: “The thing we didn’t know in particular was that Covid could be transmitted asymptomatically in the way that it was.”

However, the risks of asymptomatic transmission had been highlighted by Sir Patrick Vallance, the Government’s chief scientific adviser for England, who said it was “quite likely” as early as March 13 2020. Varying levels of risk had been outlined in papers from late January, the ruling said.

The judicial review was brought by Dr Cathy Gardner and Fay Harris, whose fathers, Michael Gibson and Donald Harris, died after testing positive for Covid.

‘Opens the floodgates for potential claims’

Paul Conrathe, a solicitor at Sinclairslaw who was instructed by both women, said: “It’s possible that care home providers and relatives who lost loved ones in the first wave could bring compensation claims. The Government was found to have acted ‘irrationally’ – that’s a very high legal hurdle.”

Nadra Ahmed, who chairs the National Care Association, said the ruling “opens the floodgates for potential claims to be brought against government policy”.

“This will be especially pertinent where the individual was not given a choice,” she said. “There will be a lot of people assimilating to the information as they consider if the loss of their loved one was premature, and holding the Government to account is the only way forward for them.”

Helen Wildbore, the director of the Relatives and Residents Association, said that the ruling proved “the protective ring around care homes was non-existent” and that older people were “abandoned at the outset of the pandemic”.

A government spokesman said it had been a “very difficult decision” to discharge hospital patients into care homes, taken when evidence on asymptomatic transmission was “extremely uncertain”.

The spokesman added: “We acknowledge the judge’s comments on assessing the risks of asymptomatic transmission and our guidance on isolation, and will respond in more detail in due course.”

‘He was in a home and should have been safe’

They stood outside the Royal Courts of Justice, two women unknown to each other before the Covid pandemic but brought together by tragedy, writes Tom Ough.

Cathy Gardner spoke first, delivering a steely reading of a statement. Matt Hancock’s boast of a “protective ring” encircling care homes, Dr Gardner said, was “a despicable lie of which he ought to be ashamed and for which he ought to apologise”.

Fay Harris, more downcast in demeanour but no less forthright, told journalists: “I have lost precious years with my wonderful Dad.”

Both women lost their fathers in early 2020, arguing that they might still be alive were it not for hospital patients having been discharged into care homes without having been tested for Covid.

Michael Gibson, born in 1931, had been a superintendent registrar of births and deaths. “He was in a home and should have been safe,” Dr Gardner told The Independent after his death.

Mr Gibson, who had advanced dementia, had fallen ill a couple of weeks before the first lockdown. Staff at his care home were unable to procure tests for Covid, but the virus is believed to have struck him down.

Source link

Continue Reading