$3.5 Trillion = $0.00: Only to a Democrat. Amazing. Both President Biden and Speaker Pelosi claim that somehow the government can borrow $3.5 Trillion by adding to the deficit and it really won’t cost a dime.
You can only pay for a $3.5 Trillion bill with $3.5 trillion in tax increases, or by borrowing $3.5 trillion, or through a mixture of the two, but, it is still a $3.5 trillion price tag.
Make no mistake: there is no free money.
How stupid do they think the American people are?!? We’ll see next November😊
–Saul Anuzis
Click Here for Past Commentary from Saul
60 Plus Weekly Video Rewind
In this week’s video rewind- Joe Biden boldly claims $3.5 trillion legislation will cost $0, Pelosi assures she will get the $0 legislation passed in the House, and inflation forces Dollar Tree to raises prices above one dollar!
Links to the articles discussed in the video:
Amazon will help US if you say yes! At NO cost to you, you can help the 60 Plus Foundation in its efforts to support conservative policies to protect senior citizens, get rid of the death tax and defend social security and Medicare using sound fiscal policies.
Sign up…and Amazon will donate 0.5% of what you spend to the Foundation! Please help us out by signing up here…at NO cost to you!
Sign up Today! Visit https://www.60plus.org/amazon-smile-program/
Biden’s absurd ‘zero cost’ claim – $3.5T is real money and it’s coming out of your pocket
Talk about a ludicrous advertising pitch! Speaking of the record-breaking tax-and-spend package currently being pushed through Congress, President Joe Biden on Friday said, “It is zero price tag on the debt. We’re going to pay for everything we spend.”
This is flatly wrong, and it isn’t even close.
While we don’t yet have a full accounting of the 2,465-page behemoth, it’s expected that the bill’s total amount of spending and tax credits will reach $3.5 trillion.
In contrast, the bill would increase taxes by about $2.3 trillion, leaving a gap of over $1 trillion. Democrats claim that the difference would be made up by imposing price controls on prescription drugs and through hoped-for economic growth – even though independent analysis says the bill would actually depress growth.
Yet rather than correct the record, Biden doubled down and then some.
In a tweet on Saturday, he said “My Build Back Better Agenda costs zero dollars.”
It’s one thing to incorrectly claim that legislation pays for itself. It’s another thing to claim that possibly the most expensive piece of legislation in world history has no cost whatsoever.
Make no mistake: there is no free money. Every dollar the federal government spends must either be taken from taxpayers or borrowed.
Extra borrowing would be irresponsible. The federal debt currently stands at $28.4 trillion, or about $220,000 for every household in the country.
Democrats set to lose control of Senate in 2022, polling suggests
Democrats could be on course to lose control of the Senate in the 2022 midterm elections after just two years in the majority as polls show tight races for key senators.
The party’s Senate majority currently depends on Vice President Kamala Harris, who has a casting vote in the chamber in which Democrats and Republicans are split 50-50.
A single loss to the Republicans in 2022 would hand the Senate back to the GOP and a new poll shows Nevada Senator Catherine Cortez Masto may be vulnerable next year.
An internal poll from Cortez Masto’s Republican opponent, Adam Laxalt, conducted from September 11 to 15 shows Laxalt leading Cortez Masto by 39 percent to 37 percent.
The poll showed 12 percent of respondents were undecided and another 12 percent chose “none of the above.” That is an option in Nevada races.
The Many Lies That Built the Reconciliation Bill
Democrats have done everything they can to avoid telling the truth about their latest spending binge.
In the beginning, President Biden created a $3.5 trillion spending bill. And the bill was without form, and void; and debt was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of common sense moved upon the face of the country. And so Biden said, let there be lies. And there were lies. And Biden saw that the lies were good. And Biden called up down, and the left he called right, and the trillions he called zero. And Biden made the beasts of the press repeat his lies, made every thing that creepeth upon the Sunday shows follow his lies; and Biden saw that it was good.
Everyone else was just baffled…
… White House press secretary Jen Psaki said yesterday with a straight face, “would cost zero dollars.” Psaki’s preposterous asseveration echoed President Biden, who had contended the day before that the cost was “going to be zero,” and progressive darling Pramila Jayapal, who said last Friday, “I just believe that this is going to be a zero-dollar bill.”
It’s not. A spending bill that costs $3.5 trillion costs $3.5 trillion irrespective of how you pay for it. Unless the government elects to cut precisely the same amount of spending as the bill adds, there is no such thing as a “free” or “zero-dollar” outlay. One can pay for a $3.5 trillion bill with $3.5 trillion in tax increases, or by borrowing $3.5 trillion, or through a mixture of the two, but, whatever one chooses to do, the cost remains precisely the same: $3.5 trillion. If, as seems to be the case, the Democrats do not want to be seen spending $3.5 trillion, then they have just one option: to decline to spend $3.5 trillion. They cannot get around this with word games.
Biden admin doublespeak – your handy guide to White House euphemisms
Things are getting confusing in the nation’s capital these days. Words that we thought we knew the meaning of are regularly twisted by the Biden administration to mean surprising things.
George Orwell referred to this kind of language as doublespeak in his seminal novel “1984.” That book is a warning, but Joe Biden and his minions treat it more like Ikea instructions for what is starting to resemble a particle board dictatorship.
So, for those keeping track, here is a brief glossary of terms minted by our dear leader.
Irregular Migration
This one started just a couple of days ago and it’s a hoot. An irregular migrant is what we used to call an illegal alien, or undocumented immigrant. White House press secretary Jen Psaki has started using the term as a way of convincing us that there is no crisis on the southern border, just a set of challenges facing our system of irregular migration.
You see, the term irregular carries no moral condemnation, like illegal, or unlawful do, it’s just not quite the norm. So what’s the big deal?
Over The Horizon…
The Generals Contradict Biden on Afghanistan
They supported leaving 2,500 U.S. troops in the country and have doubts about the ‘over-the-horizon’ counterterror strategy.
President Biden hopes the political fallout from his botched Afghanistan withdrawal will fade quickly, but Tuesday’s Senate hearing with the secretary of Defense and two top generals doesn’t cast his decisions in a better light.
The hearing underscored that the President acted against the advice of the military in yanking the residual U.S. force from the country. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley and Gen. Kenneth McKenzie both made clear in their testimony that they recommended that about 2,500 U.S. troops stay in Afghanistan to delay a Taliban takeover.
That’s not what Mr. Biden said he was told. Asked in an ABC News interview days after the August fall of Kabul if his military advisers urged him to maintain America’s small footprint in the country, Mr. Biden said, “No one said that to me that I can recall.”
The scandal isn’t that the President ignored military advice—he’s the decision-maker. It’s his refusal to own his decision. Mr. Biden wants political credit for ending America’s involvement in Afghanistan, but he’s not willing to take the political risk of admitting he overruled the brass in the process.
Amid Left-Wing ‘Defund The Police’ Push, Murders Rise Nearly 30 Percent
Amid a left-wing campaign to “defund the police,” murder rates in the United States skyrocketed in 2020 by nearly 30 percent.
According to the FBI’s 2020 crime statistics, there were more than 1,277,696 violent crimes committed in the United States in 2020. While robbery and rape offenses fell in 2020 compared to 2019, murder and “nonnegligent manslaughter offenses” increased by 29.4 percent. Motor vehicle thefts have also increased by 11.8 percent since 2019.
“For the first time in four years, the estimated number of violent crimes in the nation increased when compared with the previous year’s statistics,” the FBI admitted in a press release.
The numbers, which indicate a national crime surge, come shortly after Democrat-led city councils in Austin, Los Angeles, D.C., Baltimore, and Minneapolis voted to divert funds away from law enforcement or cut budgets that would have allowed for more officers to patrol the streets. The cuts were initiated shortly after the “summer of rage” in 2020 following the death of George Floyd. It was during this time that thousands of people rioted in the streets, calling “all cops b-stards” and even saying they should die.
While property crimes technically dropped by 7.8 percent compared to 2019, the FBI noted that “collectively, victims of property crimes (excluding arson) suffered losses estimated at $17.5 billion in 2020.”
That number does not include arson, which plagued many of the nation’s cities in 2020 during the Floyd riots. According to estimates made during the peak of rioting, the first three weeks of violence in 2020, which included arson, cost an estimated $2 billion to recover. Other reports suggest looting costs in America’s 20 largest metropolitan areas exceeded $400 million from just the first weekend of rioting, looting, arson, and other crimes committed in the name of “racial justice.”
Alejandro Mayorkas’ 7 border lies
Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas is spinning as fast as he can. But no matter how he tries to wave away the crisis at the border, his appearance on “Fox News Sunday” illustrated how this administration is deceiving the American public. Here are some of Mayorkas’ biggest whoppers:
Lie 1: “Approximately, I think it’s about 10,000 or so, 12,000. It could be even higher.”For the last couple weeks, Mayorkas has bobbed and weaved whenever he was asked how many of the Haitians camping under the Del Rio, Texas, bridge were being released into the United States and how many were being deported. At one point, he blamed “18-hour days” for his lack of clarity. But it’s clear the administration always knew the numbers, they just didn’t want to reveal them. Now that it’s impossible to stop the process, he again lowballs the number at 12,000 — vaguely adding it could be more. He knows it’s more.
Lie 2: “What we do is we follow the law as Congress has passed it.”
The US spends more on education than other countries. Why is it falling behind?
Spending per student exceeds the OECD average but the likes of Finland and South Korea get better results. What are they doing right and what can the US learn from them?
America’s schools are in trouble – but it’s not all about money. In 2014, the US spent an average of $16,268 a year to educate a pupil from primary through tertiary education, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) annual report of education indicators, well above the global average of $10,759.
But spending is on the decline – down 4% between 2010 to 2014 even as education spending, on average, rose 5% per student across the 35 countries in the OECD.
And – at the broad level – all that money does not appear to be translating into better results for US students. According to the Washington thinktank the National Center on Education and the Economy (NCEE), the average student in Singapore is 3.5 years ahead of her US counterpart in maths, 1.5 years ahead in reading and 2.5 in science. Children in countries as diverse as Canada, China, Estonia, Germany, Finland, Netherland, New Zealand and Singapore consistently outrank their US counterparts on the basics of education.
The US spent an average of $16,268 a year per student, well above the global average of $10,759
Ballot effort asks Michiganders to help decide presidency by popular vote
Michigan would award its 15 electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote if enough other states also join the agreement under a new ballot initiative announced today, Sept. 27, by former leaders in both the Democratic and the Republican parties.
Mark Brewer, who is former chairman of the Michigan Democratic Party, and Saul Anuzis, who is former chairman of the Michigan Republican Party, announced the development at a Monday news conference.
If enough states sign onto the pact, the U.S. would keep the electoral college system, but the presidential candidate who wins the nationwide popular vote would be guaranteed the White House, according to Brewer.
“We are excited to launch our effort to bring this important proposal to let voters, not politicians, determine if Michigan moves our country toward a national popular vote for president,” he said in a press release.
The national popular vote would only take effect if the participating states represent the 270 electoral votes needed to win the presidency. So far, national popular vote legislation has been enacted by 15 states and the District of Columbia, adding up to 195 electoral votes, according to a press release.
Additionally, the ballot initiative makes sure that presidential candidates have to campaign across the country, in every state, because their goal would be to get as many votes, from everywhere, as they can because that’s the only way they’re going to win, according to Brewer.The effort has been a long time coming. Anuzis says he got involved and first supported the effort in 2008.
“You could be a battleground state on one day and the very next day not be a battleground state,” Anuzis said. “That has a similar effect to both Republicans and Democrats, depending on who’s winning and losing. And, what happens under this proposal is: that would never happen. If we had a national popular vote, you could not afford to walk away from 10 million people in Michigan, and have a 5%, 2% or even 1% drop in presidential election turnouts, whether you’re Republican or Democrat.”
“The other unique thing that this does is that you know, under the winner take all rule, if we win, the Republicans, every vote over 50% plus one becomes irrelevant, and you’re just trying to win the election,” he continued. “And the Democrats, if they were to lose at 49% of vote, (would) completely become irrelevant because they don’t count under the winner take all rule. Under a national popular vote interstate compact, Michigan voters, whether they’re Republican, Democratic or Independent, will have a voice every single time. That’s really the goal here.”
Proponents say awarding the presidency to the candidate with the most votes only makes sense, “to fix the current broken presidential election system that causes division, mistrust and bad feelings all around,” according to Brewer.
“What happens today is we are basically distorting public policy and we’re distorting politics, as presidential candidates pander to the swing voters at any given election and ignore, often times, 40 to 42 to 45 states,” Anuzis said. “And, I’m sure that’s not what the founders intended. I think this is a reform that would actually fix this.”
“I think Republicans and Democrats will have an even chance or a fair chance of winning the national popular vote, when every voter in every state is politically relevant every time, and gets to participate every time in the presidential elections,” he continued.
