Kamala Harris Has a Big Problem

Joe Cunningham reporting for RedState 

Kamala Harris is an important figure in the eyes of history. She checks off several boxes in the “Firsts” category (first black Vice President, first Indian-American Vice President, first female Vice President). She is part of a winning team that replaced one of the most *ahem* colorful presidencies in American history. She comes in on the heels of a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic.

But in the five months since she assumed the role of Vice President, Harris has been made extremely visible by the Biden administration, and it is proving to be quite the double-edged sword. So much so that some of her fans on the Democratic side of the aisle fear she’s been given a pair of concrete shoes and told to go swimming.

On Tuesday, a guest column went live at the New York Times warning Harris that her job right now is a trap.

Addressing the root causes of migration is one of several jobs President Biden has handed Ms. Harris, who had no deep expertise with Latin America issues or the decades-long quandary of federal immigration reform. He has also asked her to lead the administration’s voting-rights efforts, which are in a filibuster limbo. According to The Times, he has her working on combating vaccine hesitancy and fighting for policing reform, too, among other uphill battles.

[…]

Ms. Harris, at this point, can’t seem to win for trying. She is a historic yet inexperienced vice president who is taking on work that can easily backfire as so many people sit in judgment, with critics sniping (especially right-wing commentators) and allies spinning (like with official statements about “success”).

And all the while, the clock is ticking. Most political observers think that if Mr. Biden decides not to run for re-election in 2024 (when he will be 81), Ms. Harris most definitely will. He had to know that in choosing her as his vice president, he was making her his heir apparent. But based on how things look now, her work as his No. 2 could end up being baggage more than a boon. Mr. Biden and his team aren’t giving her chances to get some wins and more experience on her ledger. Rather, it’s the hardest of the hard stuff.

Harris came into the job after a presidential campaign that floundered so badly all it took was a crusade by the all-but-forgotten Tulsi Gabbard to put it out of its misery. Harris viciously played identity politics in attacking Biden, but her campaign was driven by social media reaction to issues rather than actual policy, and she wasn’t able to keep up.

Despite this, she was tapped to be Biden’s running mate in 2020, thanks in large part to her race and gender as well as her history as a prosecutor. The belief among some behind the scenes was that, based on her very public, very direct style of going after witnesses in Senate hearings, that could be used to make the case against Trump while Biden could lay low.

However, Harris has proved every step of the way that she lacks the charisma to ignite the American people to her party’s cause, and Biden ultimately had to start campaigning himself.

As the linked column and excerpt above remind us, Harris has been put in charge of some big initiatives. Her job in leading the administration’s efforts against the growing wave of illegal immigrants swarming the border has been without actual leadership — even the Times column admits that the administration calling her trip to the border a “success” is a stretch — and she had a frankly embarrassing interview with Lester Holt on the subject, which is why she had to go to the border herself in the first place.

Her push to get vaccines into the arms of the unvaccinated is… largely silent. She’s made some stops, but she is not visible. She isn’t taking interviews anymore, and she isn’t really communicating with the American people on any of the issues she is supposed to be taking leadership on.

AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin

The Times column opines that these are all really tough jobs she’s been given and that they will hurt her chances to carry on Biden’s legacy in either 2024 or 2028. To be fair, yes a lot of these jobs are all piling on at once. But the problem is that the history of the office show past Vice Presidents have had to do a lot of work and have had to bear a lot of heavy responsibilities that they could build their names off of.

Dick Cheney is considered in some circles to be one of the most influential Vice Presidents in history (the partisan divide comes in over whether that was a good or bad thing). He was very involved with military and foreign affairs during the Bush years, being one of the driving forces behind the Iraq War and some of the less than savory issues stemming from it.

Joe Biden, back when he was the Vice President, was a very vocal adviser to the Obama administration, and eventually asked to work on key issues like a troop drawdown in the Middle East and leading a task force on the issue of guns and violent shootings. Most recently, Mike Pence had to oversee the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which encompassed everything from deregulation efforts to prevent supply shortages to pushing companies to develop a working vaccine in record time.

Prior to those Vice Presidents, you had Al Gore leading the charge on information technology expansion, economy and finance policy, and environmental issues. Chances are Gore would also have had more issues to handle if it weren’t for the fact that Hillary Clinton’s own people were undermining him and going behind his back to Bill for things like the healthcare reform plan and others.

George H.W. Bush was tasked with leading efforts against drug trafficking and for deregulation. Walter Mondale, who came before him, is really considered the first “activist Vice President” who fought to make the job more of an advisory role to the President.

In fact, the only Vice President from Mondale to the present who has done less than Harris would be Dan Quayle, and frankly, it took me a moment to remember that Dan Quayle was a thing that happened in American history.

Maybe that’s the legacy for Harris. She’s doing better than Dan Quayle!

Here’s the thing. Peter Hasson at Fox News is absolutely right when he says this:

If we weren’t talking about all these tough jobs being piled on Harris right now, we’d be talking about why the Biden administration doesn’t trust her with these responsibilities. The problem isn’t the job (or jobs) she’s being asked to do and how tough they are. The problem is that she’s not doing them. Maybe her people thought she could skate by for four to eight years until she could run for President, but she is clearly unprepared every time she makes a public appearance.

That isn’t a task delegation problem. That’s a job performance problem.

Federal Protection of “Oath Keepers” Kingpin Breaks The Entire “Insurrection” Lie Wide Open

revolver

Hey Republicans, you can crack open the entire story of January 6, 2021 (“1/6”) with one simple, relentless question: what is the FBI and Army Counterintelligence’s relationship with Stewart Rhodes?

Yale Law School ‘04 graduate Elmer “Stewart” Rhodes, III.

Stewart Rhodes is the founder, boss and kingpin of the Oath Keepers.

The Oath Keepers, we are told, are America’s largest militia, the most prominent antigovernment group in the United States, and the preeminent right-wing domestic extremist insider threat to the entire U.S. military.

Whatever the truth of these hyperbolic claims, the fact remains: the Oath Keepers are the most extensively prosecuted paramilitary group alleged to be involved in 1/6. Indeed, it was the alleged “pre-planned assault” on the Capitol by Stewart Rhodes’s alleged Oath Keepers lieutenants that was used as the key talking point to try to convert the day’s events from a protest into an “insurrection.”

But Stewart Rhodes is not simply a key figure in the Oath Keepers. Stewart Rhodes is the Oath Keepers, according to Oath Keepers board member Richard Mack.

Elmer Stewart Rhodes III — a one-time Army paratrooper, disbarred Yale lawyer, constitutionalist, gun enthusiast, and far-right media star — founded the group called the Oath Keepers in 2009. Since then, he has ridden crosscurrents of American anger and strife that ran from scrubby Western deserts to angry urban protests right into the Capitol rotunda.

…

Mack said he and others also raised concerns about the Oath Keepers’ participation in violent protests…

He said it had become clear that the board had no real power. “[Stewart Rhodes] is the Oath Keepers. It’s hard to separate the two,” Mack said. “It’s his organization, and he can do what he wants to do.”

Other dissenting voices found that they were no longer welcome. Jim Arroyo, the vice president of the Arizona chapter, said relations began to fray over Rhodes’ insistence on total control... [Buzzfeed]

A mere indictment of Stewart Rhodes, today, for the same conspiracy charges alleged against his underlings, would collapse the entire “threat” of the Oath Keepers that the country has heard so much about. From NPR:

Rhodes is the central figure of the organization. He is the founder, leader and center of gravity for the group. In theory, then, an indictment against Rhodes could lead to the group’s collapse.

The Justice Department argues that Stewart Rhodes both substantially organized and activated an imputed plan to use violence, on 1/6, in real-time, through a series of encrypted Signal messages beginning at 1:38 p.m., as Trump concluded his rally speech on the National Mall, and 62 minutes before Oath Keepers lieutenants allegedly formed a “military stack” to rush the Capitol doors.

These facts alone, as alleged, are more than legally sufficient to secure an indictment of Stewart Rhodes. We will walk you through the mountains of direct and circumstantial evidence built on top of these allegations, but readers must understand this: the only reason Stewart Rhodes is not in jail *right now* is because of a deliberate decision by the Justice Department to protect him.

Indeed, it is unclear whether the FBI has even sought to search Stewart Rhodes’s residence, personal belongings, or electronic devices, other than a single iPhone allegedly seized on the streets from agents in unmarked FBI vehicles in late April (since returned). For reasons discussed below, there is good reason to suspect the FBI will pursue a tightly controlled and very limited scope of investigation into Stewart Rhodes,. Beyond that narrow scope, they may not want the information they are likely to find.

Why doesn’t anyone at the FBI or DOJ want him?

If 1/6 was an “insurrection,” why protect the one man who, more than any other individual referenced in the charging documents of the 530+ open criminal cases, comes closest to the media’s ravenous description of a “lead insurrectionist?”

Is it possible that the Oath Keepers, the most prominent antigovernment group in the United States, has been run, in effect, by the United States government itself — and nobody has mentioned it until now?

Revolver News generated tremendous discussion and controversy with our previous piece exploring the possibility that some of the unindicted individuals referred to in the 1/6 charging documents may be undercover agents or informants.

With this piece, we intend to focus this discussion on a single individual, Person One; i.e., Stewart Rhodes — the leader of the Oath Keepers.

If it turns out that Stewart Rhodes has had a relationship with the federal government, the implications would be nothing short of staggering.

For Stewart Rhodes is not just a senior member of the Oath Keepers, he is the Oath Keepers.  Given the fact that the Oath Keepers are the major paramilitary organization imputed (by government and media alike) to be responsible for the most serious and egregious elements of the so-called 1/6 insurrection, it follows that it would not only be fair, but necessary to conclude that in an essential respect the 1/6 event was planned and orchestrated by elements of the government itself.

In other words, 1/6 was not the result of an intelligence failure as FBI Director Christopher Wray, the US Senate, and the media tells us. Rather, 1/6 was the result of an intelligence set-up.

The following questions should be shouted from every megaphone, every street corner, and every Congressional lectern until the American people get full and complete answers:

The following questions should be shouted from every megaphone, every street corner, and every Congressional lectern until the American people get full and complete answers:

• Does the FBI now, or has it ever, maintained a formal or informal relationship or point of contact with Stewart Rhodes, whether directly or indirectly, including through intermediaries?
• Do any other Federal counterintelligence equities, whether in military, intelligence or law enforcement, including but not limited to Army Counterintelligence, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), or otherwise, maintain or have they ever maintained a formal or informal relationship with Stewart Rhodes, whether directly or indirectly, including through intermediaries?
• If such a confidential relationship did exist between Stewart Rhodes and one or more U.S. counterintelligence equities, how do the FBI and other responsible agencies reconcile the enormous gravity of this omission from their previous deflections, non-answers, and boilerplate that they had “no actionable intelligence” before 1/6?
• If such a confidential relationship did exist between Stewart Rhodes and one or more U.S. counterintelligence equities, does this explain the FBI and Justice Department’s failure to pursue criminal actions against Stewart Rhodes in similarly high-profile “right-wing conspiracy plots” in which Rhodes appears to have played a similarly driving role?
• More specifically, did the FBI or any other U.S. counterintelligence equities maintain a discrete or confidential relationship with Stewart Rhodes during the 2014 Bundy Ranch standoff? Was this fact dispositive in the Justice Department’s decision to charge 19 defendants — including certain of Stewart Rhodes’s alleged Oath Keepers underlings — for conspiracy to obstruct a legal proceeding, and to spare Rhodes of similar charges?
• Has the FBI even procured a search warrant for Stewart Rhodes’s personal residence and home electronics? If so, on what dates and what specific categories of evidence were sought?
• If Stewart Rhodes is subsequently arrested after the date of this report (given the pressure these revelations are likely to generate), how does the Justice Department explain its failure to indict Stewart Rhodes on conspiracy charges for nearly six months, when its declared purpose for seeking bail denial for simple trespassers was the DOJ’s stated need to prevent “the immediate danger to the community” defendants allegedly posed? Given that multiple Oath Keepers were charged before the January 20th inauguration citing the need to stop their “immediate danger,” why did the DOJ not file immediate charges against Rhodes, and then make a superseding indictment later in time, as is their routine practice in 1/6 cases?

Stewart Rhodes and the “Shock and Awe” Standard

Before we turn to Stewart Rhodes’ statements and behavior leading up to and during 1/6, it is important to keep in mind the so-called “shock and awe” standard of prosecution applied to those actually indicted for 1/6 related crimes.

Lead 1/6 prosecutor Michael Sherwin explains this “Shock and Awe” standard in his own words:

Here is a partial transcript of Shwerin’s interview above:

Sherwin: I wanted to ensure, and our office wanted to ensure, that there was shock and awe. That we could charge as many people as possible before [January] 20th. And it worked because we saw through media posts that people were afraid to come back to D.C., because they were like, ‘If we go there, we’re going to get charged.’

…

We wanted to take out those individuals who were thumbing their noses at the public for what they did…

Narrator: Sherwin told us that the most serious cases so far focus on about two dozen members of far right militias.

In this article we focus our scrutiny and our suspicion on one individual, Person One, otherwise known as Stewart Rhodes, the leader of the paramilitary Oath Keepers group. In keeping with the structure of our previous report, we will examine the as-of-yet unindicted Mr. Rhodes’ actions and statements in light of the Shock and Awe standard of prosecution described above.

But we emphasize a caveat from our previous report:

It is essential here to make an important note of clarification. The purpose of this analysis here is not to aid in the prosecution of any of these unindicted co-conspirators. Rather, our aim is to point out that, given the standards of indictment applied to those actually indicted, it is very strange and indeed suspicious that certain unindicted co-conspirators have managed to avoid indictment. This does not necessarily mean that we approve of the standard of indictment itself. Quite the contrary, the aggressive standard of indictment and prosecution, through an unimaginably broad application of “conspiracy” charges, is immoral, unjust, and absurd.

The same applies to this piece, and to Mr. Rhodes himself. Revolver harbors no ill-will toward Mr. Rhodes and we are not interested in calling for his indictment. Our interest in Mr. Rhodes is limited solely to our interest in the question of Federal foreknowledge of and possible involvement in the events of 1/6. 

continued at revolver

Obituary: Donald Rumsfeld

 

Donald Rumsfeld, who served as Secretary of Defence for President Gerald Ford and President George W Bush, has died aged 88.

Best known for overseeing the US response to the 9/11 terror attacks, his political career eventually came undone by the spiralling conflict in Iraq.

Across a career spanning decades, Rumsfeld forged a reputation as the ultimate Washington insider and a true political survivor notorious for outmanoeuvring his foes. But to his critics he was hawkish and ruthless - a Machiavellian figure and an architect of war.

One of his most memorable moments came at a 2002 news briefing when - asked about the lack of evidence linking Saddam Hussein to weapons of mass destruction - he gave a meandering answer about the concept of "known knowns" and "known unknowns" to much public mockery. 

 

 His family said: "History may remember him for his extraordinary accomplishments over six decades of public service, but for those who knew him best and whose lives were forever changed as a result, we will remember his unwavering love for his wife Joyce, his family and friends, and the integrity he brought to a life dedicated to country."

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54889848?xtor=AL-72-%5Bpartner%5D-%5Bbbc.news.twitter%5D-%5Bheadline%5D-%5Bnews%5D-%5Bbizdev%5D-%5Bisapi%5D&at_custom3=%40BBCWorld&at_campaign=64&at_medium=custom7&at_custom2=twitter&at_custom4=42498792-D9DE-11EB-A2F7-4CEF4744363C&at_custom1=%5Bpost+type%5D 

 

 

 

Panama official say terrorists are trying to enter U.S. through southern border disguised as migrants

 

OAN Newsroom

UPDATED 9:07 AM PT – Wednesday, June 30, 2021

Terrorists are reportedly attempting to enter the U.S. through the southern border as they blend in with migrants.

In an article for Foreign Policy magazine last week, Panama’s foreign minister said Kamala Harris is ignoring a key aspect of the migrant crisis in her role as border czar. According to the official, terrorists and extremists attempt to pass through her country everyday on their journey to the U.S.

Earlier this week, a group of House Republicans introduced a resolution to censure Joe Biden for his inaction on the U.S.-Mexico border.

“Biden’s border crisis is a humanitarian crisis and it all started when the Biden regime began rolling back President Trump’s firm and effective border policies,” asserted Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.).

 

 Panama’s foreign minister described the situation as a “international humanitarian crisis” and said her country will work closely with the U.S. to formulate an effective response.

 

https://www.oann.com/panama-official-say-terrorists-are-trying-to-enter-u-s-through-southern-border-disguised-as-migrants/ 

 

 

 

Article by Bing West in Military History in the News (Hoover Institution)

 

The Military’s Perilous Experiment

In war, the moral is to the physical as three is to one. The American military, the most powerful martial force in the world, has consistently preached and followed that dictum. In 2017, Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis declared that the fundamental criterion by which to judge key actions in the Department of Defense was clear: Does the action enhance the lethality of the force?

Inside the military, however, another criterion has taken central booking: diversity. The focus has shifted toward emphasizing gender and racial equality, particularly in leadership positions. Diversity has replaced lethality as the lodestone for the military. “It’s all about war-fighting readiness,” Chief of Naval Personnel Vice Admiral John Nowell Jr. said. “We know that diverse teams that are led inclusively will perform better.”

On one level, that sentence is a tautology; every individual is unique and therefore every team is diverse. On another level, the admiral is speaking in code. He is implying that the services have been under-performing because they have not properly rewarded diversity. As a Marine veteran, I find this disconcerting. From boot training on, Marines are taught to put aside diversity, not to emphasize it.

That is now changing. The Naval Special Warfare Command has established “the goal of normalizing women in SOF (Special Operations Forces) and better identifying issues specific to female candidates.” Another goal is to “eliminate cross-cultural barriers to entry.” What is a cross-cultural barrier? The Special Operations Commander, General Richard Clarke, said that the special forces must reflect “American diversity and values.” This is an oxymoron. Diversity occurs from birth; values occur from character.

“Diversity, equity and inclusion is important to this military,” Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin said recently. “We are going to make sure that our military looks like America and that our leadership looks like what’s in the ranks of the military.” This is impossible because our military does not look like America. In fact, the military does not want to recruit the average American; seventy percent of America’s youth cannot qualify to serve. A Marine recruiting slogan states, “We don’t promise you a rose garden.” Equity has never been a military principle because the military has based promotion upon individual merit, not upon race or gender.

A Navy task force, assembled to “combat discrimination,” recommended that sailors pledge to “acknowledge all lived experiences and intersectional identities.” Navy guidance singled out Black Lives Matter as a policy issue for which sailors could advocate. But why go down such an ideological path that stirs divisiveness inside the force?

“Based on a substantial amount of time talking to sailors in the fleet,” the Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Michael Gilday said, “there’s racism in the Navy.” This is a disconcerting statement. It implies that sailors confess to a four-star admiral, yet officers of lesser ranks are not aware of that racism. Indeed, as he rose through the ranks, Admiral Gilday was also unaware; otherwise he would undoubtedly have taken action a long time ago.

The lethality of our military is not enhanced through politically-imposed “equity” and “diversity.” The U.S. military is a family business in that most who volunteer have fathers or mother, brothers or aunts who served. A decade hence, it’s not predictable who will volunteer, if the zeal for “inclusivity” and “intersectionality” among gender and racial groups results in friction and acrimony, as every group comes to feel it is either patronized or excluded.

 

https://www.hoover.org/research/militarys-perilous-experiment

Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage

Tucker Carlson Outlines the Biden Administration Logistic Program to Facilitate the Southern Border Invasion

Beyond the insanity of the U.S. southern border being unsecured, many people wonder how this entire logistical process is funded.  The answer is quite simple; within every federal spending and appropriation bill there are carve-outs for various segments of the process.

The Department of Homeland Security and Department of Health and Human Services receive hundreds of billions in supplemental appropriation funding from within each federal spending package.  Each of the COVID relief bills contained money to facilitate various elements of this process.  Federal housing grants, food assistance programs, education funding, employment and income assistance, all of it, every single spending package, contains funding mechanisms to support the border invasion.

This is one of the largest private-public partnerships in the entirety of U.S. government.  The religious or ‘faith-based’ immigration groups are also fuel for the problem. In the past 15 to 20 years illegal immigration and refugee settlement has been financially beneficial for every supportive Non Governmental Agency (NGA).

Last night on Fox News, Tucker Carlson addressed part of the process, the logistics of moving almost 200,000 illegal aliens around the country every month.  WATCH:

Slight quibble, the Biden administration has not “lost control” of the border.  Illegal immigration is not an accident, a mistake, or any form of ineptitude. Nothing about this is unintentional {Go Deep}, we have tracked this for years.

The process of fundamentally transforming the United States of America, per Barack Obama statement, is exactly this mass illegal migration process.   The Biden administration has full control over the border, every crossing is purposefully accepted as part of the operational goal.

There is no greater disconnect between DC and taxpaying Americans as the policy positions of Democrats and Republican in Washington DC surrounding illegal immigration.  If congress really wanted to stop it, they could easily defund it.  They don’t.

Flying car completes test flight between airports

 

A prototype flying car has completed a 35-minute flight between international airports in Nitra and Bratislava, Slovakia.

The hybrid car-aircraft, AirCar, is equipped with a BMW engine and runs on regular petrol-pump fuel.

Its creator, Prof Stefan Klein, said it could fly about 1,000km (600 miles), at a height of 8,200ft (2,500m), and had clocked up 40 hours in the air so far.

It takes two minutes and 15 seconds to transform from car into aircraft.

'Very pleasant'

The narrow wings fold down along the sides of the car.

Prof Klein drove it straight off the runway and into town upon arrival, watched by invited reporters.

He described the experience, early on Monday morning, as "normal" and "very pleasant".

In the air, the vehicle reached a cruising speed of 170km/h.

It can carry two people, with a combined weight limit of 200kg (31 stone).

But unlike drone-taxi prototypes, it cannot take off and land vertically and requires a runway.

 

 

In 2019, consultant company Morgan Stanley predicted the sector could be worth $1.5trillion (£1tn) by 2040.

And at an industry event on Tuesday, Hyundai Motors Europe chief executive Michael Cole called the concept "part of our future".

It is considered a potential solution to the strain on existing transport infrastructures.

'Huge market'

The company behind AirCar, Klein Vision, says the prototype has taken about two years to develop and cost "less than 2m euros" (£1.7m) in investment.

Anton Rajac, an adviser and investor in Klein Vision, said if the company could attract even a small percentage of global airline or taxi sales, it would be hugely successful.

"There are about 40,000 orders of aircraft in the United States alone," he said.

"And if we convert 5% of those, to change the aircraft for the flying car - we have a huge market."

'Really cool'

Dr Stephen Wright, senior research fellow in avionics and aircraft, at the University of the West of England, described the AirCar as "the lovechild of a Bugatti Veyron and a Cesna 172".

 

 

And he did not think the vehicle would be particularly loud or uneconomical in terms of fuel costs, compared with other aircraft.

"I have to admit that this looks really cool - but I've got a hundred questions about certification," Dr Wright said.

"Anyone can make an aeroplane but the trick is making one that flies and flies and flies for the thick end of a million hours, with a person on board, without having an incident.

"I can't wait to see the piece of paper that says this is safe to fly and safe to sell."

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-57651843?xtor=AL-72-%5Bpartner%5D-%5Bbbc.news.twitter%5D-%5Bheadline%5D-%5Bnews%5D-%5Bbizdev%5D-%5Bisapi%5D&at_campaign=64&at_custom2=twitter&at_custom1=%5Bpost+type%5D&at_medium=custom7&at_custom3=%40BBCWorld&at_custom4=F7EB99C2-D935-11EB-9538-16CC4744363C 

 

 

 

 

 

The Stimulus Boom Is Already Over.

 The Stimulus Boom Is Already Over. Now Comes Stagnation.

Daniel Lacalle for Mises

The United States retail sales and jobless claims weakness, significantly below estimates, coincides with the largest fiscal and monetary stimulus in history. Something is not right when these figures come significantly below estimates in an environment of massive upgrades to gross domestic product (GDP). Why?

The diminishing returns of stimulus plans are very evident. Artificially boosting GDP with large government spending and monetized debt generates a short-term sugar high that is rapidly followed by a sugar low. The alleged positive effects of a $1 trillion stimulus plan fade shortly after three months. I recently had a conversation with Judy Shelton where she mentioned that the recovery would be stronger without this latest massive stimulus package. The economic debacle happened due to lockdowns and the recovery comes from the reopening. We need to let the economy breathe and strengthen, not bloat it.

The diminishing returns of stimulus plans are evident. A $20 trillion fiscal and monetary boost is expected to deliver just a $4 trillion real GDP recovery followed by a rapid return to the historical trend of GDP growth this will likely lead to new record levels of debt, weaker productivity growth and slower job recovery. The pace of global recoveries since 1975, according to the OECD shows a weaker trend.

Deficit spending is mostly devoted to current spending, which leads to an almost negligible potential growth improvement. If any, evidence suggests fiscal multipliers are poor, even negative, in highly indebted and open economies.

We must be cautious of the excess of euphoria that emerges from many statements about the so-called European “Next Generation” funds. Many of the optimistic estimates seem to forget the negligible effect of previous similar plans.

The sharp increase in contributions to the European Union Budget and the tax increases announced by some countries like Spain will likely diminish the net effect of these funds.

All the success or failure of the European Recovery Plan rests on the estimates of the multiplier effect of the investments made. And the prospects are not good if we look at history.

The average impact of the last programs such as the 2009 Employment and Growth Plan, the Juncker Plan or the Green Directives to support investment in renewables has been extremely low. The empirical evidence from the last fifteen years shows a range that, when positive, moves between 0.5 and 1 at most … And in most of the peripheral countries, they have been negative.

According to the European Union’s own estimates, the Juncker Plan generated between 2014 and 2019 a total impact pf +0.9 percent in GDP and added 1.1 million jobs from €439 billion invested. The return on invested capital of this massive plan was beyond poor. And let us remember that the Juncker Plan was used entirely for investment projects with expected real economic return and without the amount of current spending and political intervention of the 2021 Recovery Plan.

Can we really believe in an impact of 4 percent on GDP in three years from these European funds as the average consensus estimates when the Juncker Plan generated—if we believe it—0.9 percent in five years?

The government of Spain, in its Recovery, Transformation and Resilience Plan, states that “in aggregate terms, the employment generated by the Plan will represent twelve jobs for every million euros invested.” Twelve jobs per million spent!

The multiplier effect and its structural impact depend on execution and efficiency factors that are more than questionable. The likelihood that these funds will be malinvested or squandered is enormous.

The idea that hundreds of magnificent and profitable projects will suddenly appear is also questionable. It is very difficult to believe that, suddenly, thousands of profitable and job-creating projects will appear when they were not carried out in recent years with interest rates at historic lows, unlimited liquidity and growing investment appetite.

These so-called stimulus plans have a huge risk: that they involve a huge transfer of wealth from the middle classes and taxpayers destined for political spending without real economic return and investments of doubtful profitability.

There has never been capital available for technology, digitization, and sustainability investment. These investments do not need political direction or funding.

Cheap money, increased public intervention, and massive stimulus plans have not worked as drivers of productivity and potential growth. The path to stagnation and zombification was already a problem in 2018. We need private investment and free trade to boost productivity. We need open economies with a thriving entrepreneurial spirit, not an economy based on spending and debt. The problems created by the chain of the stimulus of the past years are clear: elevated debt and weak growth. More spending and debt will not solve them.

Doctors No Longer Recommending Antidepressants For White Males Since They're Supposed To Feel Bad

Babylon Bee🐝

U.S.—The American Psychiatric Association has announced it will no longer recommend prescribing antidepressants to white male patients suffering from depression—since they're white males and should probably feel bad anyway. 

"For too long, disgusting white males have come to us for relief from their guilt, shame, and clinical depression," said Dr. Xander Kibblestein, a board member in the APA. "How are they supposed to embrace their white guilt if we keep giving them drugs to feel happier? That's why we've decided to reserve our antidepressants for members of BIPOC communities."

According to sources, the APA will instead recommend alternate treatments, like posting TikTok videos about how terrible you are, drinking alcohol, or sitting alone in a dark room listening to sad songs on the radio.

"If we can get enough white men feeling really, really bad about themselves, then perhaps we can finally start to dismantle the systems of whiteness that have been a scourge on this country since 1619, according to that podcast I listened to once," said Xander. 

"It's great to see the medical community making strides toward greater equity."

Kyrsten Sinema Is Owning the Libs and It's Paying off Big Time for Her

Bonchie reporting for RedState 

There are rarely surprises in Congress. You can usually correctly peg a politician just by listening to a few minutes of a stump speech. Yet, compared to what most thought she would be in 2018 during her run against Martha McSally, Kyrsten Sinema has transformed into something very different. She has managed to stake out a unique position as a moderate Democrat, akin to a unicorn these days, who is not willing to bow before the demands of the far-left, whether those demands are coming from the socialist wing or the White House.

In response, many Democrats have suggested primarying her, contending that her opposition to blowing up the filibuster, for example, is harming her credibility and favorability.

That appears to be completely false. In fact, Sinema is taking ground few politicians ever manage to step foot on.

The top-line number isn’t that impressive, though, it is fairly high for a Senator to have a +13% approval rating in a swing state. Yet, it’s the breakdown of the favorable numbers that is truly surprising.

Sinema manages to be above 50% with both Democrats and Republicans, showing that she has a strong base of support in both parties. That just doesn’t happen when it comes to members of Congress. Oddly enough, Sinema struggles the most with independents, but given we have no idea what those people’s actual political beliefs are (and they could be all over the map), it’s hard to draw any conclusions from that. Regardless, it’s impressive that any Senator in our modern political moment could garner such wide, bipartisan support.

Now, to be sure, Sinema is a liberal, and no Republican voter should be under the illusion that she isn’t. If given the chance, you should vote against her in favor of a conservative. But where Sinema is truly different compared to her Democrat colleagues is that she has well-defined boundaries and sticks to them, even more so than faux moderate Joe Manchin. Despite an enormous amount of pressure, she has stood against the short-sighted outrage of her party to preserve the filibuster, something every Republican should be thankful for.

What does all this mean going forward? It likely means that Sinema is going to be in office as long as she wants to be. Republicans probably shouldn’t waste too much money trying to oppose her because with majorities approving of her from both parties, there’s little chance a challenger could make any headway. That’s not to say you don’t try with a decent candidate, but the new “maverick” looks to be here to stay.