Surprise: NY Times Says Inflation Is Still Going Fast

Didn’t they tell us that inflation was transitory? That it was no big deal? Also that it had nothing to do with the terrible policies of Biden and the Democrats? (non-paywalled version here)

Still Going Fast, Inflation Changes Drivers

America is now two years into abnormally high inflation — and while the nation appears to be past the worst phase of the biggest spike in price increases in half a century, the road back to normal is a long and uncertain one.

The pop in prices over the 24 months that ended in March eroded wage gains, burdened consumers and spurred a Federal Reserve response that has the potential to cause a recession.

What generated the painful inflation, and what comes next? A look through the data reveals a situation that arose from pandemic disruptions and the government’s response, was worsened by the war in Ukraine and is now cooling as supply problems clear up and the economy slows. But it also illustrates that U.S. inflation today is drastically different from the price increases that first appeared in 2021, driven by stubborn price increases for services like airfare and child care instead of by the cost of goods.

Certainly, the crazy government spending during 2020 did not help, but, most of the lockdowns were instituted by Democrats in Democratic states and cities. Then the crazy spending in 2021 and 2022. Who did that? And the US does not get much from Ukraine which would drive inflation and reduce goods.

The Fed aims for 2% inflation on average over time using the personal consumption expenditures index, which will be released Friday. That figure pulls some of its data from the consumer price index report, which was released two weeks ago and offered a clear picture of the recent inflation trajectory.

Before the pandemic, inflation hovered around 2% as measured by the overall consumer price index and by a “core” measure that strips out food and fuel prices to get a clearer sense of the underlying trend. It dropped sharply at the pandemic’s start in early 2020 as people stayed home and stopped spending money, then rebounded starting in March 2021.

Except, prices are already high, and are mostly not coming down.

In fact, services prices are now the very center of the inflation story.

They could soon start to fade in one key area. Housing costs have been picking up quickly for months, but rent increases have recently slowed in real-time private sector data. That is expected to feed into official inflation numbers by later this year.

That has left policymakers focused on other services, which span an array of purchases including medical care, car repairs and many vacation expenses. How quickly those prices — often called “core services ex-housing” — can retreat will determine whether and when inflation can return to normal.

Good luck with that. And the last thing we need are politicians of any party to muck around with the economy, since most of them really have no idea, as quite a few haven’t worked in the private sector in decades. The top occupation is public service/politics, followed by business (which doesn’t necessarily mean they ran a business), then law, then education. Biden hasn’t even worked in the private sector since 1972. None of them know what they’re doing, and their advisors are no better. Pumping all that cash into the economy was not a good thing.

Good thing that Inflation Reduction Act is working miracles, eh?

Read: Surprise: NY Times Says Inflation Is Still Going Fast »

High Flying Gavin Newsom “Flames” Ron Johnson On Climate Doom Or Something

People’s Republik Of California governor Gavin Newsom, who likes to take lots of fossil fueled flights and limo rides, thinks he has the dunk

Gov. Gavin Newsom Flames Sen. Ron Johnson’s Climate Crisis Spin With Just 8 Words

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) attempted to put a positive spin on global warming and California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) wasn’t there for it.

During Wednesday’s Senate Budget Committee hearing on health care costs associated with the climate crisis, Johnson tried to argue that projected rising temperatures would benefit the United States and Wisconsin because fewer people would die from the cold.

“In terms of excess deaths, a warming globe is actually beneficial,” Johnson told University of Chicago economics professor Michael Greenstone, citing Greenstone’s research that suggests cold areas will see reduced mortality but warm areas will see a major increase.

It’s a hell of a lot better than going back into a Holocene cool period (which will happen eventually)

Every single wildfire in California has been shown to be due to incompetence or being set intentionally or unintentionally. Not because it is 1.5 degrees F higher than it was back in 1850. If Gavin believes the slight warming is the fault of Mankind then why hasn’t he stopped using fossil fuels himself? And banned all his people from using them? He could ban all government employees from taking fossil fueled travel. Put up solar panels and wind turbines at the governor’s mansion.

But, remember, Doing Something about ‘climate change’ is always about forcing you to do something, not those who push this the hardest.

Read: High Flying Gavin Newsom “Flames” Ron Johnson On Climate Doom Or Something »

More Americans Support Scary Looking Rifles And Semi-Automatic Guns Ban Or Something

I’m pretty sure that our constitutional rights are not subject to the whims of voters, unless they can amend the Constitution

More voters support assault weapons ban over arming citizens to reduce violence: poll

More U.S. voters support banning assault weapons over arming citizens to reduce gun violence, according to a Fox News poll released on Thursday.

While 45 percent of those surveyed said they would encourage more citizens to carry guns to defend against attackers, 61 percent said they favored banning assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons.

Huge majorities in the poll also supported a wide variety of gun safety measures, including 87 percent who said they backed requiring background checks for all gun purchases.

Another 81 percent supported improving enforcement of gun laws and raising the legal minimum age to buy guns to 21, the poll found.

I have zero problem with background checks for all firearm purchases, including transfers from person to another. I’ve said it again and again. But, that’s not what Democrats want. They want to make the checks so onerous that citizens are denied their 2nd Amendment right, as well as track every single purchase, what is being purchased, and where it will be kept. And the same for ammo.

Ban “assault rifles”? Criminals will not care. And others can just buy non-scary rifles. The smarty pants one is how Fox slipped in the bit about semi-auto, which shows what the gun grabbers really want. Well, to start with,

How about we just enforce existing gun laws? The same people who want to raise the age to 21 also want 16 year olds to vote. The Supreme Court will have something to say if Los Federales try it.

Eight in 10 also said that mental health checks should be required for all gun buyers and that police should temporarily be able to take guns away from people who have been shown to be a danger to themselves or others.

I’m for this, but, the law would have to be very, very specific to keep government from going too far and blocking some people from legally acquiring a gun. It would definitely require a hearing in front of a judge within days, and the government should be paying for a qualified lawyer.

However, despite widespread support for such measures, only 43 percent said stricter gun control laws would make the country safer, while one-quarter said it would make the U.S. less safe, the poll found.

So, if they wouldn’t make us safer, then what’s the point?

Read: More Americans Support Scary Looking Rifles And Semi-Automatic Guns Ban Or Something »

Bill McKibben Says People Need To Say Yes To Green Energy In Our Backyards

Well, good luck with this, Bill, because, as he actually points out in this very long, meandering piece, enviroweenies/climate cultists keep saying no to it. They’re often fine if it is Somewhere Else. Remember the fight over Cape Wind, where John Kerry and Ted Kennedy, among others, were dead set against it, because it was where they sail? I’ve written many, many blog posts on the E/CCs blocking “green” energy projects around the world.

Yes in Our Backyards

I’m an environmentalist, which means I’ve got some practice in saying no. It’s what we do: John Muir saying no to the destruction of Yosemite helped kick off environmentalism; Rachel Carson said no to DDT; the Sierra Club said no to the damming of the Grand Canyon. We’re often quite good at it, and thank heaven; I’ll go to my grave satisfied by, if nothing else, having played some part in stopping Big Oil from building the Keystone XL pipeline 1,700 miles across the heart of the continent. Right now I’m deeply engaged with American colleagues in trying to stop our big banks from funding fossil fuel expansion, and rooting on friends in Africa as they battle the giant EACOP pipeline, and watching with admiration as European confreres fight plans to expand coal mines at the expense of forests and villages. In a world where giant corporations, and the governments they too often control, ceaselessly do dangerous and unnecessary things, saying no is a valuable survival skill for civilizations.

But we’re at a hinge moment now, when solving our biggest problems—environmental but also social—means we need to say yes to some things: solar panels and wind turbines and factories to make batteries and mines to extract lithium. And new affordable housing that will make cities denser and more efficient while cutting the ruinous price of housing. And—well, it’s a long list. And in every case there are both benefits and costs, all played out in particular places with particular histories. But what interests me is the search for some general principles that might make these disputes easier, at least for people of good will. I’m thinking of people like me: older white people, a class particularly used to working the system, and perhaps psychologically tilted toward keeping things the way they are.

I suggest we start in deep Blue areas, where the people who support this the most live. Bill goes on to tell the story of how an old mine in northern NY wanted to put up 10 wind turbines, and most of the locals were fine with this, but, the wacko-enviros were dead set against it, and

I wrote a piece for the New York Times saying just that (that they needed to be built, because some sacrifice needed to be made, as he describes in the previous paragraphs), and earned in the process the enmity of some of the region’s professional environmentalists (and they won the fight; there are no wind turbines). But it felt as if I’d been true to the place by saying no to one plan, and yes to another. The dump was just a stupid idea; the wind turbines, though they came with drawbacks, were a necessary one.

Well, good on Bill to back his beliefs

Right now we’re at a moment when we need to build in a way we haven’t for quite a while, maybe since the days of the New Deal and the Second World War. The consensus among scientists and engineers who study this stuff is that we need to replace about a billion machines in America alone—regular cars with EVs or e-bikes, furnaces with heat pumps. And to run them on clean power, we need to build out lots of solar panels and wind farms and battery arrays. The factories to churn these things out are going up fast, in response to the incentives in the Inflation Reduction Act. But once this stuff has emerged from the factory, it needs to go in someone’s basement, someone’s kitchen, someone’s…backyard. Transmission lines have to cross fields; railroad tracks need to be built through rights of way. Some NIMBY passion will need to be replaced by some YIMBY enthusiasm—or at least some acquiescence.

Central Park would be a fantastic place to put up solar panels and wind turbines, eh? How about Cape Cod and the Hamptons? Rehoboth Beach in Delaware, near Biden’s beach house? The White House lawn? The bay outside San Francisco and the waters of Boston and Chicago? I’m sure you can think of some other great places.

Again, this is an extraordinarily long piece, which meanders. I think Bill would have been better served really just coming straight out with his point that E/CCs need to stop saying NIMBY and accept, even, as he writes, “grudgingly”, green energy and transmission lines in their areas.

And, because this was found at Real Clear Politics, the very next linked piece is

The inhumanity of the green agenda
The ‘sustainability’ regime is impoverishing the world.

‘Man is the measure of all things’, Greek philosopher Protagoras wrote over 2,500 years ago. Unfortunately, our elites today tend not to see it that way.

In recent years, the overused word ‘sustainability’ has fostered a narrative in which human needs and aspirations have taken a back seat to the green austerity of Net Zero and ‘degrowth’. The ruling classes of a fading West are determined to save the planet by immiserating their fellow citizens. Their agenda is expected to cost the world $6 trillion per year for the next 30 years. Meanwhile, they will get to harvest massive green subsidies and live like Renaissance potentates.

I’ll leave the rest to you.

Read: Bill McKibben Says People Need To Say Yes To Green Energy In Our Backyards »

If All You See…

…is an evil fossil fueled vehicle, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Sister Toldjah, with a post on Eric “Fang Fang” Swalwell not being happy about being dinged yet again.

Read: If All You See… »

Gabby Giffords: “No More Guns. Gone.”

It’s a very interesting statement from someone who owns a gun herself, as does her husband, and is constantly surrounded by people armed with firearms who protect her

‘No More Guns. Gone’: Why Gabby Giffords Isn’t Giving Up

Gabby Giffords’ black SUV rolled through the security blockade and right to the southern entrance of the U.S. Capitol, to be greeted by a former colleague and a half-dozen current and former staffers. After quick hugs and hellos, Giffords leaned on the cane in her left hand, made her way up the slight ramp and then down through the labyrinth of back halls and passages and elevators toward a basement conference room.

It was a homecoming of sorts for the ex-Congresswoman and survivor of an assassination attempt. But she wasn’t there on Wednesday to reminisce. She was there to make the same case she has been making for the last ten years.

“I’m Gabby Giffords. I’m from Tucson, Ariz. Jan. 8, 2011, changed my life forever. I was a Congresswoman. I was shot in my head while meeting with my constituents,” Giffords said as she sat down at a roundtable of current and former lawmakers to discuss the next steps in their work to curb gun violence. “After the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, I said enough is enough. I founded a group called Giffords. We are on a mission to end gun violence now.”

Her group spends most of their time advocating for restrictions that hit the law abiding, rather than the criminal element, and their true goal is the total ban of guns from the hands of the average non-criminal American. They’ll all sit there and say “no, no, we just want common sense gun control.”

A day before Giffords returned to the Capitol, we sat down at her organization’s headquarters in Washington, a corporate-tinged space a block north of the fabled lobbying K Street corridor. A professional as always, Giffords was ready to make the case that gun laws were getting stricter, lives were being saved, and hope was in the offing during an exclusive interview with TIME. Despite a landscape that seems bleak for anyone who supports limiting the ability to buy and sell guns in this country, Giffords and its allies have been able to pass 525 state-level laws restricting access to firearms over the last decade—nothing to sneeze at in the least. Her youth-organizing program just turned five and has about 75 alumni who continue to work in their local communities. And 460 Giffords-backed candidates have been elected to state or federal office, according to the group’s accounting.

“Inch by inch. Capitals, capitals, capitals,” Giffords says in describing the incremental and far-flung set of goals.

That inch by inch thing is why Republicans cannot give in on any sort of legislation, because if you give the gun grabbers this and that, they want the other. And then some more of this and that and the other. If you gave them every bit of legislation they have demanded, they would want more, right up to the Australian solution. And Time Magazine really buries the headline at almost the end of the long article

As we wrap our interview in her office, I ask how she keeps coming back to a challenge so deeply ingrained in politics. She pauses for 12 pregnant seconds.

“No more guns,” she says.

Ambler, her aide and adviser, tries to clarify that she means no more gun violence, but Giffords is clear about what she’s saying. “No, no, no,” she says. “Lord, no.” She pauses another 32 seconds. “Guns, guns, guns. No more guns. Gone.”

It’s simple: she’s saying what she means. No more firearms for you. No more citizens with firearms to protect themselves and their families. The gun grabbers will tell you what they want if you listen.

An aide clarifies that she’s talking about Australia, where gun sales were outlawed after a mass shooting and existing weapons were purchased by the government. Giffords nods in the affirmative. It’s an idealistic goal, for sure, and one perhaps mismatched for the moment in this country. But Giffords has an answer for that: “Legislation, legislation, legislation.”

In other words, the aid realized that Giffords let the cat out of the bag. Reports show that maybe only 30% of guns were turned in after Australia passed that law, but, they do not have something like our 2nd Amendment.

Read: Gabby Giffords: “No More Guns. Gone.” »

Kids Are Depressed Because Liberals Constantly Push Doom

So many things Democrats push cause mental health problems with kids. This who trans insanity is just that, and messes with their minds. Then all the doom and gloom

Liberals keep telling young people they’re doomed — no wonder they’re so depressed

The Biden era is turning America’s youngest voters, the “zoomers,” into doomers.

They’re depressed and fearful — and their confidence in the nation’s institutions, from the police to the Supreme Court, is weakening. So is their support for Joe Biden.

Only 36% of Americans aged 18 to 29 approve of Biden’s job performance, according to a new poll by the Harvard Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics.

Biden has only himself and his fellow progressives to blame.

They’ve created a mentality of despair among young Americans, who look on as crime soars but hear nothing but a drumbeat from liberal media outlets about how bad the cops are.

The Gen Z kiddies have bought into the Progressive (nice Fascism) agenda…well, indoctrinated into it…and all they hear is that things are bad.

It’s a longer piece by Daniel McCarthy, but, he forgot one thing

From ER visits to homelessness, here are 4 ways climate change is expected to affect children

Climate change affects the weather, the air we breathe and the stability of our surroundings — and children’s health is especially vulnerable to the poor air quality, longer allergy seasons, infectious diseases and extreme heat that make climate change a public health threat.

Children’s bodies are still developing. They don’t have control of their surroundings. And kids who aren’t White, whose families are low-income or who don’t speak much English will be hit the hardest if temperatures rise, according to a new report published Tuesday by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The report encouraged parents and caregivers to educate children on climate-related health threats and to encourage children to speak up when they’re feeling uncomfortable or unwell. Here are four ways a warming planet will affect — and in some cases, already is affecting — children, according to the report.

So, doom from asthma and severe allergies, insect born diseases, homelessness, as well as learning problems and lower grades (hey, wait, which party runs the school system?). Kids are exposed to a constant litany of prognostications of doom, that everything will be horrible, that extinction is right around the corner, etc, and so on. Is it any wonder they are mental messes?

Read: Kids Are Depressed Because Liberals Constantly Push Doom »

Energy Sec. Says We Can Electrify Military By 2030

Sadly, all the GOP Senators questioning Granholm failed to ask if she’s driving around in an EV. And the other Biden appointees. And Biden and Harris. And, if not, then why are they trying to force everyone else, including the people tasked with defending the U.S., into them

Biden energy secretary doubles down on electrifying US military’s vehicle fleet by 2030: ‘We can get there’

Department of Energy Secretary Jennifer Granholm said Wednesday that she supports efforts from the Biden administration to require the U.S. military to implement an all-electric vehicle fleet by 2030, telling lawmakers that she believes “we can get there.”

Granholm’s remarks came during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing following questions from Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, who asked the Biden administration official whether she supports the military’s adoption of an “EV fleet by 2030.”

“I do, and I think we can get there, as well,” Granholm said. “I do think that reducing our reliance on the volatility of globally traded fossil fuels where we know that global events like the war in Ukraine can jack up prices for people back home… does not contribute to energy security.”

“I think energy security is achieved when we have homegrown, clean energy that is abundant like you see in Iowa,” Granholm added. “We think we can be a leader globally in how we have become energy independent.”

Question I didn’t hear asked: when our military is deployed, how do get it to our troops fighting overseas? Unless there is some monumental breakthrough, all those vehicles can’t just pull up, recharged quickly, then get back to fighting. Oh, and those battery-laden vehicles will make nice toasty fires for the troops in the winter when struck by enemy bombs.

A tank already weighs quite a bit: battery packs increase the weight, and take up a lot of space. A Honda CRV weights 3,525 lbs. A hybrid version weighs around 300 pounds more, and that’s with doing away with a spare tire. Most hybrids and EVs do away with those, due to the added weight and to free up space for the batteries.

Read: Energy Sec. Says We Can Electrify Military By 2030 »

North Carolinians Have Mixed Views On Climate Doom

Thirty plus years of spreading awareness and this is the best they can get

NC has mixed views on climate change, study finds

Less than half of North Carolinians consider climate change an issue deserving urgent action while six out of 10 believe human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels is at least partially to blame for global warming, according to a newly released poll.

About 47% of more than 1,000 state residents surveyed by High Point University in March said they considered climate change an emergency and 39% believed it was not. The remaining 14% did not offer an opinion.

As for why the planet is warming, 35% agreed that actions such as the burning of fossil fuels are mostly to blame and 26% suggested it is a mix of human and natural factors. Another 20% said rising temperatures are caused primarily by “natural patterns in the earth’s environment” while 10% said global warming doesn’t exist.

Climate scientists have identified emissions of heat-trapping pollution — primarily carbon dioxide — as the leading contributor to climbing temperatures in North Carolina, the U.S. and globally. Experts also believe that a warming atmosphere is contributing to the increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather.

Experts: “why won’t you people listen to us? We’re Experts!!!!!!”

In the new poll, which the university said has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2%, a majority (55%) of North Carolinians said they think that extreme weather events in the U.S. over the past few years are related to climate change. Less than one-third (29%) responded that there is no correlation and 16% didn’t offer an opinion.

But just 37% said they worry that they or a family member would be impacted by severe weather compared to 47% who weren’t concerned.

But, it just says “climate change’, making no distinction on causation. Do I think that weather patterns have changed because we are in a typical Holocene warm period? Yes. Do I think this is mostly Your Fault? No. Do I think it is doom? No. But, seriously, after all this time and Doomsaying, the best they could get was 35% saying it is mostly caused by humans, and in a state which is about 50-50 Democrat/Republicans.

Link to the poll here, and, it is interesting that it was taken in March, and just released April 21st. Perhaps a bit of massaging?

Read: North Carolinians Have Mixed Views On Climate Doom »

If All You See…

…is an evil gas stove, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is The Daley Gator, with a post wondering if you speak Bidenese.

I do have to laugh. She actually has a mirror in the kitchen?

Read: If All You See… »

Pirate's Cove