Month: August 2023

The collective yawn by Democratic leaders and their media supporters in response to both the revelations of the Durham Report, as well as the unnecessary crises resulting from the Biden Administration’s policies, indicates an extraordinary challenge facing the nation.

In his farewell address to the nation upon leaving office on September 17 of 1776, President Washington, America’s founding father, warned “However [political parties] may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion.”

 The Democratic Party scandals that have become increasingly evident, including the abusive practices by federal agencies to influence elections, manipulate public opinion, and intimidate opponents are unprecedented. Its policy choices have directly resulted in the loss of American energy independence, the elimination of effective control of the southern border, ruinous inflation, the virtual bankruptcy of the federal treasury, a loss of U.S. influence in strategic areas across the globe, and an increase in internal divisions within the population by race and gender. It has excused and assisted violence by extremist movements that further its agenda.

These goals are directly related to Democrat’s lust for power, on a level never before endured by Americans. Illegal immigration, which has devastated communities from Texas to New York, is seen as a vehicle to gradually increase party enrollment.  Perhaps not so gradually; tied in with Democrat’s opposition to voter ID, the impact of illegals on elections may occur far sooner than the attainment of citizenship. Openly, in testimony before Congress, the Biden Administration has stated that illegal immigration is under control, even in the face of both televised and statistical evidence to the contrary.

Unabashedly, the Democratic Party has lied to the American public on repeated occasions.  It has engaged in dramatic actions to attain and keep power.  The entire Russian Collusion scandal of the 2016 election has now been proven to be a fraud. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) falsely assured the citizenry that he had absolute proof of Moscow’s influence, tearing the nation apart. The revelations from the Hunter Biden laptop were suppressed by Democrat sympathizers within the government and the media. The overt actions of Hillary Clinton in destroying federal evidence went unpunished.

Key Party leaders have praised extremist organizations that have burned cities, looted stores, assaulted innocents, invaded police stations and attacked federal courthouses, all in a bid to garner support of particular demographic groups.

The current White House has weakened the military by placing the implementation of its political and social agenda over the key task of defending the nation.

Looming over the nation is the specter of a scandal which the Democrat Party and its media supporters diligently seek to downplay.  It defies common sense to maintain that the vast riches received by the Biden family from foreign powers in return for no viable product or service was not influence peddling. That offense is made far worse by the fact that a major player in this scheme was America’s most dangerous adversary, the People’s Republic of China.  Hunter flew aboard Air Force 2 with then vice-president Biden to China, and returned with exceptional gains for the Biden family.  

The downplaying of these outrageous scandals by Democrats and their staunch defenders in the media is the clearest indication that far too many have, in fulfillment of President George Washington’s ultimate nightmare, placed loyalty to a political party over the welfare of the nation.

Illustration: Pixabay

When I was a Criminal Court Judge, I accepted many plea agreements – sometimes, more than 50 in a day.  Many were routine – most did not involve jail sentences.  Most Defendants were required to pay a fine,  perform community service, enter into a treatment program, or sometimes, just avoid rearrest for anywhere from six months to a year.

In all cases, my job was to ascertain whether the Defendant was pleading guilty voluntarily, of their own free will, and whether they understood the terms of their plea agreement, and the obligations they were assuming under those terms.  I would explain the rights the Defendant was giving up by pleading guilty, including the right to a trial, the right to confront the witnesses against them, and the right to testify or present witnesses in their own behalf, should they choose to do so. 

90 percent of the time, the Defendant exhibited the requisite understanding and freely expressed their agreement.  But then, there were the other 10 percent…

Sometimes, the Defendant could not admit their guilt to the crime, no matter how attractive the terms of their plea agreement.  Other times, the Defendant wanted to continue the plea negotiations, or insisted on a trial.  There was even the occasional Defendant who was incompetent to enter a plea – usually from drug or alcohol use before their appearance in court.

But of that 10 percent, there were at least one percent of cases where I refused to accept a plea.  In most of those cases, I was not convinced that the Defendant really accepted their guilt, or that they were capable of fulfilling the terms of their plea (for instance, how was an unemployed felon going to pay restitution of thousands of dollars to the victim?  Steal from another victim?)

It was extraordinarily rare for me to refuse to accept a plea agreement because I believed the prosecutor was being too lenient with a Defendant.  In fact, more often than not, I sent the parties back to the negotiating table because I believed the District Attorney was being too hard.

Thus, it was with extreme interest that I watched the plea agreement in the Hunter Biden federal tax fraud case fall apart like a cheap suit in a rainstorm.  What happened?

In December of 2020, after Joe Biden was elected President, his son Hunter revealed that he was under investigation by the Justice Department.  That investigation is purported to have begun in 2018, but the Biden’s claim they were not made aware of the investigation until after the election.  “It isn’t clear which entities or business dealings might be tied up in the probe, though the person with knowledge of the matter said at least some of focus was on (Hunter’s) past work in China,” according to the Associated Press in 2020.  “Hunter Biden has a history of international affairs and business dealings in a number of countries. Trump and his allies have accused him of profiting off his political connections, and have also raised unsubstantiated charges of corruption related to his work in Ukraine at the time his father was vice president and leading the Obama administration’s dealings with the Eastern European nation.” 

Though, as stated, the Justice Department investigation is reported to have begun in 2018, in 2019, Hunter Biden dropped off his laptop for repairs at a shop in Delaware.  When he never paid for the repairs, or picked it up from the shop, the owner turned the laptop over to the FBI, keeping a copy of the contents.  Those contents became news in October of 2019, when the New York Post exposed a series of emails that detailed Hunter’s “history of international affairs and business dealings in a number of countries,” and provided details that substantiated “charges of corruption related to his work in Ukraine at the time his father was vice president.” 

Since the Biden’s primary residence is Delaware, the US Attorney for that state, David Weiss, conducted the investigation into Hunter Biden.  Though Hunter is the son of the President of the United States, and many of his alleged illegal activities involve his father, Weiss claims to have never sought appointment as a Special Counsel.  If he had, Weiss could have extended his probe of Hunter’s business dealings into other jurisdictions, and could have potentially conducted an investigation of the President himself.

In June of this year, after almost five years of investigation, the US Attorney offered Hunter a plea deal – “plead guilty to two charges of misdemeanor tax evasion and enter a pretrial diversion agreement on a firearm possession charge.”    So far, we haven’t discussed the gun charge – but understanding the nature of this allegation is crucial to understanding why the plea deal fell apart.

As detailed by Politico, “(i)n 2018, the wife of Hunter Biden’s late brother Beau allegedly found Hunter’s .38-caliber Colt revolver in his truck, disposed of it in a trash receptacle behind a Delaware grocery store and later returned to retrieve it, only to find it missing, according to a police report…a man who regularly rummaged in the trash returned the weapon to authorities a few days later…evidence…emerged as the investigation into the gun incident progressed: (Hunter had) responded ‘no’ to a question on the background-check questionnaire that asks, ‘Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?’ Five years earlier, he had been discharged from the Navy Reserve after testing positive for cocaine.”

As the plea agreement was described by Politico,  Hunter “will plead guilty to the two misdemeanors covering his failure to pay his federal taxes from 2017 and 2018, but will not be required to plead guilty to the gun charge. Instead, the charge will remain pending while he proceeds through the diversion program. If he complies with the terms of that program, prosecutors will drop the charge.” 

The outcry against the plea agreement was immediate.  “Republicans have spotlighted the long-running criminal investigation into Hunter as evidence of a two-tiered justice system that treated Democrats differently — particularly in light of the federal indictment of former President Donald Trump,” according to Roll Call.  “House Oversight Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., in a  statement Tuesday called the charges ‘a slap on the wrist.’ As part of an investigation, Comer has claimed that members of the Biden family have engaged in influence peddling and received payments from companies based in foreign countries.” 

The common belief that Hunter was getting a “sweetheart deal,” and “special treatment” was bolstered by the revelations made by IRS Investigator Gary Shapley, who detailed that “IRS investigators recommended charging Hunter Biden with attempted tax evasion and other felonies,” instead of the two misdemeanors he agreed to plead guilty to.  The recommendation called for Hunter Biden to be charged with tax evasion and filing a false tax return – both felonies – for 2014, 2018 and 2019. The IRS also recommended that prosecutors charge him with failing to pay taxes on time, a misdemeanor, for 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.”

The explosive part of Shapley’s statement was his allegation regarding political interference in the Justice Department investigation, which led to the reduced charges.  “I am alleging, with evidence, that DOJ provided preferential treatment, slow-walked the investigation, did nothing to avoid obvious conflicts of interest in this investigation,” Shapley stated. 

Shapley’s allegations were bolstered by another IRS whistleblower, Joseph Ziegler, who testified before Congress that “If you have a felony charge, if you have the evidence for the felony, and you also have the evidence for the misdemeanor, it’s departmental policy that you have to charge the felony. The reason for that is an equitable treatment of taxpayers.”  He also “told CNN host Michael Smerconish he came forward because the IRS did not ‘follow the normal process to do things’ in the case. Ziegler, who has previously said he identifies as a Democrat, said his testimony was not a ‘Democrat or Republican problem…(t)his is, ‘Is justice blind?’ We are bringing evidence forward that justice is not blind. That people are given preferential treatment, and that we need to change from that. That we need to learn from that so that this doesn’t happen again in the future.” 

Given this background, is it any wonder that many felt the Hunter Biden plea agreement was a prime example of favoritism being shown to the son of a US President?  But in another prime example, this time of blind justice,  U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika refused to accept Hunter’s plea agreement on July 26.

  According to Politico,  “(t)here were two agreements between the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Delaware and Hunter Biden. The first was an actual Plea Agreement, pursuant to which Biden was supposed to plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges. The second was an unusual “Diversion Agreement” between prosecutors and Biden, pursuant to which Biden is supposed to enter a pretrial diversion program for drug users in order to resolve a potential felony charge — with no guilty plea required — that he had knowingly possessed a firearm while being an unlawful user of a controlled substance.”

“The judge’s principal concerns appeared to be twofold.  First, she questioned the scope of a provision under which the government agreed not to prosecute Biden ‘for any federal crimes’ encompassed by the statement of facts attached to the documents, which principally concerned Biden’s overseas consulting work…Noreika asked in particular whether Biden could still be charged under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.  It was there that things went very awry – with a prosecutor saying that it was still possible under the terms of the deal, and one of Biden’s lawyers strenuously objecting, apparently on the theory that the deal was designed to resolve any and all potential charges related to the consulting work that gave rise to the tax charges.”

“Second, the judge took issue with the fact that the immunity provision was not in the Plea Agreement.  Instead the provision was in the Diversion Agreement, which, as structured by prosecutors and Biden’s lawyers, did not appear to require her sign-off.” 

These are not minor issues.  As explained by former US Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, Joyce Vance, “Hunter Biden’s team seemed to believe once he pled guilty, there would be no further prosecution coming out of the Delaware U.S. Attorney’s investigation…(t)he government’s view seemed to be that its investigation was ongoing, and it wouldn’t make that commitment. That’s unusual. There’s little incentive for a defendant to plead to ‘some’ charges knowing an investigation is ongoing and others could be coming.”

Further, “Vance argued the judge expressed concern about the agreement linking Hunter’s tax issues with the firearms charge, which would see the charges against him over the latter dismissed ‘as though they were never filed.’  She wrote: ‘It was the Judge who balked here, expressing concern that the role assigned to her went beyond her constitutional role. Under the Constitution, decisions about whom to indict and on what charges are reserved to the executive branch and put into the hands of the Justice Department.”

“Judges don’t make those decisions.,” Vance said. “The Judge was concerned that, because the agreement gave her the authority to oversee decisions about when a breach of the agreement occurred and charges could be brought to trial, that the parties were forcing her out of her constitutional lane…(u)ltimately, the judge determined that the way in which the parties structured their two, interlocking agreements — the plea agreement and the diversion agreement — required her to play a role in the latter’s enforcement without giving her a say over its approval.”  

Judge Noreika gave the Delaware federal prosecutors and Hunter’s legal team 30 days to try and come up with an agreement she could accept,  But a lot can happen in those 30 days, including the continuing Congressional investigation into the connection between Hunter’s “overseas business activities” and his father.

Stay tuned – this story is far from reaching its conclusion.

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC

Photo: Public Domain Pictures.net

Systemic rivalry between China and Western Europe is emerging as an issue in Germany and other EU nations. A 61-page, robust policy report examining China’s strategy in Europe was released recently using strong language toward Beijing. Joe Cacese, of the Jamestown Foundation, says that it emphasized the need for Germany, Europe’s largest economy, to reduce its dependency on China. Berlin is China’s largest trading partner. “The strategy reflects a compromise between Germany’s three ruling coalition parties, and a departure from Chancellor Olaf Scholz’s typically conciliatory approach to conducting business with the PRC”’ according to Cacese. The current administration in Germany has not altered its China trade policy in any significant way since taking over from Merkel’s. Chancellor Scholz, after last fall’s 20^th Party Congress, traveled to Beijing to deliver a message. It was that Germany stands with China in the need to maintain strong economic ties. 

Scholz ignored numerous national security concerns his own cabinet expressed when he authorized a deal to sell parts of the Hamburg port terminal to the Chinese shipping firm COSCO. He then claimed his downplaying or “derisking” of the China trade issue was justified because Germany had already diversified its supply chains. The “International Cooperation” portion of the German government report used strong language to emphasize the need for the EU to push back against Chinese pressure, saying “China is leveraging the political, military, and economic weight it has gained to pursue its interests on all continents and in international organizations, and it is working to reshape the existing rules-based international order according to its preferences.” 

The report also called for maintaining the status quo in the Taiwan Strait and contended that an Indo-Pacific security crisis would also implicate the EU, stating that “security in the Taiwan Strait is of crucial importance for peace and stability in the region and far beyond.” To strengthen the German economy, the report also called for tackling Chinese disinformation as well as including a roadmap for diversification of trade partnerships. Cacase says is notable is that the country’s principal position on its China strategy “is almost explicitly at odds with Scholz’s previous remarks, as it emphatically warns the country that ‘de-risking is urgently needed.’” Germany began the first quarter of 2023 in an economic recession. Energy prices continue to rise with the loss of cheap energy from Russian sources. That raises the political risks for Germany’s political elite. Despite these factors the government report is playing an expanded role in the political discourse over China and pushing for a change in trade policy.

This report is a first step. Last week European leaders said, according to the German Marshall Fund, that the path to reducing dependencies on China will not be a straight one, but that de-risking has “become the prism through which Europe views its relationship with China.” Germany continues to send conciliatory messages to Beijing, including an announcement by German carmaker Volkswagon to invest $700 million in China’s electric vehicle group Xpeng in Guangzhou. It will give the German company a 5% market share and a seat on the board. French Finance Minister Bruno Le Maire visited Beijing last week further blurring the hard line that some European leaders are calling for with China. France, the second largest economy in Europe, also is lobbying to invest in China’s electric auto industry. AP reports that on the trip Le Maire “defended Paris’s controls on foreign access to technology after authorities said two Chinese citizens are under investigation for what news reports say is possible smuggling of French-made processor chips with military uses to China and Russia.” The punch-counterpunch between economic stability and politics continues as China pushes its BRI programs into Europe.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

The Biden Administration removed the press credentials of one of the best reporters in the White House press corps. We have him on our program this week! Listen to our discussion with Fred Lucas.

Seventy years ago last week, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) celebrated its self-proclaimed “victory” in the war in Korea. Joining the celebration was Russia’s Defense Minister, Sergei Shoigu. Over the last seven decades Moscow has maintained formal relations with the DPRK, although Russia has not made the country a priority. North Korea is a difficult thorn in the side of both Russia and China. Today, Pyongyang is viewed as a junior partner to Putin’s Russia, as Moscow is one to Beijing. 

Since the start of its war in Ukraine, Moscow has shown an increased interest in North Korea, according to Boris Bondarev, of the Jamestown Foundation. Kim Jong-un, president of the DPRK, is determined to act independently of other states, including China. In past years China has maintained cross-border trade and allowed Chinese companies to do business there. It gave Beijing leverage over the regime and kept Kim from upsetting the balance on the Korean peninsula. The North Korean president, however, is determined to use Russia to free his state from Chinese influence, despite his owing his country’s existence to Beijing.

Western analysts are growing concerned with Russia’s increased interest in the DPRK over the last 15 months. Bondarev suggests that the North is a challenge for all sides involved and that its nuclear program is now of particular concern. He says “The problem of a peaceful settlement on the Korean peninsula as caused, and continues to cause, a major headache… It is no secret that North Korea is a difficult and problematic partner for the Kremlin—most notably, within the framework of the failed six-party talks of 2003–2009, which Russian diplomacy tried to take an active part.”

Kim is determined to demonstrate that the North is an independent and sovereign nation-state, which makes it increasingly dangerous and more likely to take unpredictable actions if its suspects an existential threat. Russia’s war in Ukraine has provided the DPRK with an opportunity to play a closer role to Moscow by supplying Vladimir Putin’s troops with the shells Russia  needs to continue the battle in Ukraine. The DPRK is one of the few countries Putin can label as an ally fully in his corner. Russia is depending on Kim to address the Kremlin’s “shell hunger.” From Kim’s perspective, it has raised his status in the eyes of the DPRK’s partner. Shoigu’s trip was not only a protocol one. Analysts point to the underlying goal of obtaining its large stockpile of munitions and weapons that are compatible with Russia’s. While visiting the North, Shoigu negotiated a number of agreements concerning delivery of a regular supply of Soviet-style weapons to Russia’s Armed Forces. 

 The Russian-DPRK bilateral relationship benefits both sides as Russia needs ammunition and Pyongyang needs the sales to help it struggling economy, according to the Korea Times. Kim can also play Russia against China if Beijing attempts to constrain the North. Bondarev says that “From the opposite side, what can Pyongyang offer Moscow? …[it] can provide its partner with desperately needed ammunition for artillery, mortars, tanks, rocket launchers and Multiple Rocket Launch Systems. The war in Ukraine is a “classic” artillery war characterized by an enormous consumption of munitions.”

Analysts suggest that despite it critical supply needs Moscow may not be able to count on the DPRK for a steady stream of weapons due to its lack of advanced manufacturing. With few countries willing to sell military equipment and artillery to Russia, Moscow knows that it must depend on Kim despite that significant percentage of defects and low quality.  “On the surface, it would seem that Russia, which boasts of its status as a permanent member of the UNSC, should be more active in defending the inviolability of its decisions,” says Bondarev. However, Putin’s action show no indication he is concerned about global stability and international security, nor does he appear to care about his country’s international image. Russia is paying a high cost due to Putin’s desire to maintain his personal power.

Beijing is standing down, according to analysts in Washington, as the war effectively diverts US attention away from China’s strategic pursuits and may be giving Xi Jinping the time he needs to plan for his own war with Taiwan. 

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Illustration: Pixabay

As the threats from China gain in intensity, U.S-Australian relations grow increasingly vital.

In June, an Australian Strategic Policy Institute study noted that “China’s military build-up is a big … problem, and it has long been large enough to, in and of itself, increase the potential for military conflict in the region, if only because it encourages other countries to modernize their military forces… it has taken several years of naked aggression and overt bullying from Beijing alongside that military build-up to show clearly how Australia’s interests and the global rules-based order could in the future be permanently undermined…To most observers of international politics in Asia, it’s now clear that China’s leaders won’t be satisfied until the United States is kicked out of the region, preferably unceremoniously, and Beijing has secured the unquestioning respect of all those left behind…From this analytical starting point, it is hard to view China as anything other than an enduring national security threat to Australia.”

In April, noted a Voice Of America report,  an unclassified version of a major defense study  recommended that Australia buy longer range missiles to counter China’s growing threat to ‘the global rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific… The review …warn(s) that Beijing’s rapid military build-up and its territorial ambitions in the South China Sea threaten Australia’s security. The review also details concerns that the Australian Defense Force is not equipped for modern warfare’s “missile age” and that Australia is no longer protected by its geographic isolation.

Measures have been taken to address the crisis.

In September 2021, leaders of Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States announced the creation of an enhanced trilateral security partnership called “AUKUS.” AUKUS is intended to strengthen the ability of each government to support security and defense interests, building on longstanding and ongoing bilateral ties. It will promote deeper information sharing and technology sharing; and foster deeper integration of security and defense-related science, technology, industrial bases and supply chains.

The two countries have taken significant steps to pave the way for closer defense and security ties. These have included the annual rotation of Marines to Darwin, which completed a twelfth year of exercises in 2023, and enhanced rotations of U.S. Air Force aircraft to Australia. Additionally, they signed the U.S.-Australia Force Posture Agreement at the annual Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN) in August 2014. In October 2015, the U.S. and Australian defense agencies also signed a Joint Statement on Defense Cooperation to guide future cooperation. Finally, in 2021, the United States and Australia led their ninth Talisman Saber, a biennial joint military exercise designed to ensure and demonstrate the ability of the two defense forces to work together with the highest levels of interoperability.

In March, AUKUS partners announced an optimal pathway to produce a nuclear-powered submarine capability in Australia at the earliest point.

The cooperation extends to air power, as well. Australia has a major role in the production of the F-35 fighter, which is transforming the defense posture of the U.S., Japan, and Australia in the Indo-Pacific.

Key training activities have been conducted to increase the ability of the nations’ militaries to work closely together

In July, several hundred U.S. Marine Corps infantrymen of the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit landed on the beach at Midge Point in Queensland, Australia.

With them were trucks, spare parts, mechanics, fuel, communications gear and everything else needed to support the infantry in a fight as part of Exercise Talisman Sabre 2023 — the U.S.-Australia exercise that included a dozen other partner nations.

When Marines came ashore in Navy landing craft air cushions, or LCACs as they are better known, they took with them all the supplies and other materiel needed to push inland against entrenched enemy forces in the exercise scenario, he said. It’s getting back to the roots of what the Marine Corps does best, he said: sustaining themselves in austere, contested environments and moving quickly to secure objectives without waiting for the logistics tail to catch up to the fighters.

Photo: Several hundred U.S. Marine Corps infantrymen of the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit landed yesterday on the beach at Midge Point in Queensland, Australia. (DoD)

President Biden has enthusiastically stated that his economic policies, summarized as “Bidenomics,” have been successful.  The facts do not appear to support the claim. 

Certainly, the average American family is not benefiting.  Will Marshall, writing for The Hill, notes that “While economists debate whether the glass is half empty or full, the public’s verdict is clear. Americans are strikingly pessimistic about the nation’s economy, with only 30 percent describing it as good.”

A Marketplace reports that “…the average paycheck lagged behind inflation in 2022, and the higher prices are hitting low-wage workers the hardest…[Bidenomics] also strikes a jarringly self-congratulatory note at a time when middle and low-income Americans are struggling with high living costs. The political class may find dueling economic doctrines scintillating, but what working families want is relief from hefty price increases for everyday goods and services that are gouging holes in their disposable income.”

Inflation is a central issue affecting U.S. families. Statista’s research Department explained in July that “The rate of inflation exceeded the growth of wages for the first time in recent years in April 2021. In this month, inflation amounted to 4.2 percent, while wages grew by 3.2 percent. The growth of wages surpassed that of inflation for the first time since March 2021 in February of 2023.”

Gas prices averaged $2.19 in 2020, but, as of this writing, are at an average at $3.52.

According a June 2023 report from the food information site Bon Appetit, , the  US Department of Agriculture reports that prices for food at home rose 11.4% last year—and that’s after spikes of 3.5% in both 2020 and 2021. In 2022…US consumers saw the largest annual increase in food prices since the 1980s…For context, pre-2020, the last time grocery prices rose more than a full percent in a year was in 2014, when they rose by 3.7%.

There is an extraordinary danger lurking in the nation’s economic future: a debt bomb that could wreak havoc. Bidenomics’ emphasis on federal spending makes that threat worse.

That debt applies to families and individuals as well as Washington.

According to the New York Fed, Total household debt rose by $148 billion, or 0.9 percent, to $17.05 trillion in the first quarter of 2023, according to the latest Quarterly Report on Household Debt and Credit. Mortgage balances climbed by $121 billion and stood at $12.04 trillion at the end of March. Auto loan and student loan balances also increased to $1.56 trillion and $1.60 trillion, respectively, but credit card balances were flat at $986 billion.

In their book, “The Debt Bomb,” authors Senator Tom Cotton and John Hart stress that “In a nation whose debt has outgrown the size of its entire economy, the greatest threat comes … from Washington politicians who refuse to relinquish the intoxicating power to borrow and spend.”

CNBC provides a worrisome context to the debt crisis, noting that “Total credit card debt stood at $986 billion in the first quarter of 2023, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of New York…Credit card balances are up almost 20% from a year ago, according to a quarterly credit industry insights report from TransUnion. Collectively, Americans owe nearly $1 trillion on credit cards. Total credit card debt stood at $986 billion at the start of 2023, unchanged from the record hit at the end of 2022, according to a new report on household debt from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.”

The Heritage Foundation summarizes Bidenomics failure: “Adjusted for inflation, the average American family has seen their annual incomes fall about $5,600 under Biden. For many families, that is an entire month’s pay.”

Illustration: Pixabay