In case you needed a preview of what to expect during this week’s presidential election debate – hosted by CNN – we present the following…

Just seconds after Trump 2024 National Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt began to discuss CNN’s historical bias against her candidate – most specifically that of debate moderator Jake Tapper’s history of anti-Trump lies – CNN anchor Kasie Hunt “ma’am’d” her and immediately cut her mic and ended the interview…

BREAKING: CNN host @kasie CUTS OFF Trump spokeswoman @kleavittnh the second she brings up Jake Tapper spending years comparing Trump to Adolf Hitler

This is a preview of how CNN will act during the debate pic.twitter.com/BS4LWjvCz4

— Jack Poso 🇺🇸 (@JackPosobiec) June 24, 2024

Hunt attempted to defend her position in a post on X:

You come on my show, you respect my colleagues. Period. I don’t care what side of the aisle you stand on, as my track record clearly shows.

— Kasie Hunt (@kasie) June 24, 2024

Which as one might expect was greeted with even more derision on social media…

LOL – Everything she said was true – and you showed zero respect for your guest.

And please quit pretending to be fair – you’re a paid propagandist for the Democrat party. pic.twitter.com/tKG2PnC6mm

— Catturd ™ (@catturd2) June 24, 2024

Kasie says “respect my colleagues” but she is OK with her and her colleagues not respecting journalistic principles of neutrality

— Gimme3Steps (@TheSouthGAJohn) June 24, 2024

You invite people on your show and then dictate what they can and cannot say?

You are a pathetic piece of trash. pic.twitter.com/DoaGCrarqd

— Viva Frei (@thevivafrei) June 24, 2024

Stop pretending to be journalists. We all know you’re Democratic Party activists. The jig is up.

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) June 24, 2024

Your colleague @jaketapper made himself party of the story by peddling the Very Fine People Hoax among many other lies. Exposing his dishonesty and bias is not disrespect. https://t.co/G9fgwLJNzU

— Arthur Schwartz (@ArthurSchwartz) June 24, 2024

total panic

— Quoth the Raven (@QTRResearch) June 24, 2024

Meanwhile, JustTheNews reports that Hunt’s “colleague” who must be “respected” – Jake Tapper – is at the center of a defamation suit brought by a consulting company which alleges that the network and one of its reporters lied about the company’s work.

The network’s defense: CNN did not intend to harm and its language was “opinion or ambiguous.”

“Jake Tapper started his career working for a Democrat politician and he has never been able to shake the habit. Trying to run cover for Biden’s disastrous pullout from Afghanistan, he and his CNN show slimed a hero who saved the lives of those Biden put in jeopardy. Now CNN is facing a billion dollar defamation suit at the same time Tapper will be moderating the presidential debate featuring the politician he lied for. Unreal,” Dan Schneider, Vice President at conservative media watchdog Media Research Center, told Just the News in a statement. His organization reported that CNN has since deleted the TV segment under scrutiny from its website. 

The lawsuit and CNN’s defense is clearly adding fuel to the critics of the network which has faced accusations of bias. Trust in CNN has become one of the most polarizing datapoints when comparing the opinions of Democrats and Republicans, with a 96-point disparity in trust for “The Most Trusted Name in News,” according to a May 2024 YouGov poll. Americans’ overall trust in media has also declined, cratering to an all-time low last year, according to an October 2023 Gallup poll.

Former Hooters spokesman Jake Tapper is a degenerate liar who has peddled every single insane hoax fabricated by the left, and it’s insane that he has any role whatsoever in a presidential debate. https://t.co/gzrfaGBa1X

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) June 24, 2024

As Leavitt noted in a post on X:

“You cut off my microphone for bringing up the debate moderator’s history of anti-Trump lies. This proved our point that President Trump will not be treated fairly on Thursday. Yet he is still willing to go into this 3-1 fight to bring his winning message to the American people, and he will win.”

While she is likely right on the 3-on-1, we are more interested in the cocktail of drugs that will be required to keep Biden cogent and upright for the 90-minute ‘debate’…

Authored by Daniel Lacalle,

Deficit spending is not a growth tool. It is the recipe for stagnation.

The latest Congressional Budget Office (CBO) budget and economic outlook estimates show the extent of the challenges of the United States fiscal nightmare.

The CBO expects a budget deficit of $1.9 trillion in 2024, a year of alleged robust economic growth and record tax receipts. They expect revenues to reach $4.9 trillion, or 17.2 percent of GDP, in 2024, which will rise to 18.0 percent by 2027 and remain at that level until 2034.

This report’s main finding is alarming. Despite expecting no recession and rising tax revenues from 2024 to 2034, the budget deficit will explode from $1.9 trillion to $2.8 trillion by 2034.

Estimates place the adjusted deficit at 6.9 percent of GDP by 2034, nearly twice the average of 3.7 percent over the previous 50 years.

What is the problem when the CBO sees solid growth and rising revenues? Deficits are always a spending problem. By 2034, they expect outlays to soar from $6.8 trillion to $10.3 trillion, or 24.9% of GDP. Interestingly, one of the major reasons for the significant increase in outlays cited by the CBO is the soaring cost of debt. According to the report, debt swells from 2024 to 2034 “as increases in interest costs and mandatory spending outpace decreases in discretionary spending and growth in revenues.” Public debt rises from 99 percent of GDP in 2024 to 122 percent in 2034, or $50.6 trillion, to which we must add the public debt held by other entities, including the Fed. The CBO considers “debt held by the public” to be $28 trillion in 2024, when public debt is already $34 trillion. Thus, United States public debt will increase by $22 trillion in a decade.

The CBO projections prove without a doubt that there is no way in which the United States could balance the budget through revenue measures. There is no set of revenue measures that can collect $2 trillion per year in additional annual receipts. Increases in taxes would inevitably slow down investment and growth and reduce long-term potential receipts. Furthermore, even if the United States government was able to increase revenues, the likelihood of a recession in the next ten years, added to the promises of more “extraordinary” expenses in election years, would make the deficit soar regardless of any revenue improvement.

An economy that generates an annual deficit of 6 percent of GDP to achieve a mere 2 percent annual growth is on a dangerous path, even if that kind of growth is sustained. Inevitably, at the first sign of a recession, the government would spend even more.

Why should Americans be worried about this reckless pace of borrowing? Because it will mean three things for them: higher taxes, weaker growth, and the declining purchasing power of their salary and savings.

If you hail deficit spending, you are embracing impoverishment. If you defend this kind of deficit spending, you are actively supporting stagnation.

Deficit spending is not a social policy; it is profoundly anti-social. It means passing the burden of the state on to the next generation, making the unborn poorer before they see the light of day.

The next administration is unlikely to eliminate this irresponsible borrowing path if they continue to increase taxes and entitlement programs. The only way in which this path of monetary and fiscal destruction is eliminated is with pro-growth policies that lift the GDP growth trend, incentivize productivity, and promote business growth.

The combination of a sound monetary policy and pro-growth fiscal policies will help the United States maintain its leadership status and the dollar as the world’s reserve currency.

The current policy of imprudent monetary policy, disguising the rising size of government with inflationary policies, will only lead to stagnation and the loss of world reserve status.

If the next administration wants the best for Americans, it must stop the deficit bleeding and subsequent monetization through central bank policies that make citizens’ lives more expensive and their dreams of prosperity vanish.

The current budget trend leads to stagnation, a bloated government, and unacceptable taxes. If you copy the policies of France, you get the lack of growth, high debt, and elevated unemployment of France.

There is no magical revenue measure that will stop the borrowing bleeding in the United States. Monetizing debt will continue to erode the middle class and weaken the economy, as well as perpetuate inflation, the hidden tax.

The United States has tried the European way and failed.

It has delivered a debt-bloated GDP with declining consumer confidence and the destruction of the purchasing power of the currency.

Now is the time to implement sound money and responsible fiscal policies. Any other policy will fail and accelerate the decline of America.

The death toll from the Sunday terror attack on the Dagestan cities of Derbent and Makhachkala in southern Russia has risen significantly, now that further details have emerged of the religiously-inspired attack which targeted Orthodox churches and a synagogue, apparently by black-clad jihadists.

Russia’s Investigative Committee and state media announced Monday that 20 people died, including at least 15 police officers and an Orthodox priest, making it one of the biggest terror attacks in this region of the north Caucuses in decades. An additional 46 were injured.

Initial reports as news of the incident was still emerging indicated at least nine had died, mostly police officers, and that two dozen were injured. 

“This evening in the cities of Derbent and Makhachkala armed attacks were carried out on two Orthodox churches, a synagogue and a police checkpoint,” the statement said according to state-run RIA Novosti news agency.

Additionally six of the attackers were “liquidated” following large-scale shootouts in the streets, which also involved the assailants hurling Molotov cocktails to set fires. The attacks were highly coordinated given that the two cities where they unfolded simultaneously are 78 miles apart.

The Russian Orthodox Church later confirmed that its archpriest Nikolai Kotelnikov had been “brutally killed” in Derbent, at a moment celebrations for the feast of Pentecost were underway. It’s been widely reported that the terrorists broke into the church and cut the priest’s throat. 

The head of the Russian Orthodox Church was cited in the NY Times as follows:

The mayhem highlighted the long-running ethnic and religious tensions in Russia, particularly in the country’s southern Caucasus region, which includes Dagestan. Patriarch Kirill I, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, said it was “no coincidence” that the attack took place on the day Orthodox Christians observe Pentecost.

“We see that the enemy is not giving up on attempts to destroy interreligious peace and harmony within our society,” Kirill said in a statement.

This is what the #Synagogue in #Derbent looks like after the vile terrorist attack committed by the local jihadists in #Russia. pic.twitter.com/xsUSQZwDzO

— Faraz Pervaiz (@FarazPervaiz3) June 24, 2024

The same report also notes that it was been “Left unsaid was who, exactly, the enemy was. There was no comment from the Kremlin and the authorities said little about the identities of the attackers, though some state media reports said some of the gunmen may have been sons of a local official.”

Given the country is still reeling from the even bigger March 22 Crocus City Hall attack in Moscow, which killed at least 145 and wounded hundreds more, naturally suspicion has fall on ISIS-K or another radical Islamist terror group.

There are reportedly fears among the broader population that there could be more violence and terror to come, given 20 years ago this region which borders Chechnya was plagued by weekly and daily violence.

“Now there is a different Russia,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Monday. “Society is consolidated and such terrorist manifestations are not supported by society in Russia or in Dagestan.”

Illegal migrants are being provided with voter registration forms without requiring proof of citizenship, the NY Post reports.

The forms, available in every state except Arizona – which recently passed a law barring the practice on state (but not federal) forms, are used to obtain welfare benefits, driver’s licenses, and in many cases mail-in ballot voter registration forms.

There is currently no federal law requiring proof of citizenship on voter forms, though it is illegal to lie and claim citizenship in order to cast a ballot in a federal election.

So if an applicant says they are a US citizen, that’s enough to be able to register to vote.

But millions of migrants with humanitarian parole, refugee or asylum status are eligible for benefits that would bring them to the offices where voter registration takes place.

The National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) of 1993 ordered states to register voters at the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and agencies where Americans apply for public benefits — and those offices are required by federal law to hand over the registration forms along with the application papers. -NY Post

“While Biden and radical progressive Democrats give ISIS and criminals an app to literally schedule their illegal entry, Republicans must fight any chance of illegal voter registration until we can mass deport,” said Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX), who introduced the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act which was approved by the House Administration Committee last month.

Upon the approval of the SAVE Act, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said: “As President Biden has welcomed millions of illegal aliens through our borders, including sophisticated criminal syndicates and foreign adversaries, it is incumbent upon Congress to implement greater enforcement measures that secure the voter registration process and ensure only American citizens decide the outcome of American elections.”

Ryan Walker, executive vice president at the conservative Heritage Foundation’s sister group, Heritage Action, told The Post, “It is undeniable that the current structure makes it possible for illegal immigrants and non-citizens to vote — and the American people have no way of knowing how widespread the problem may be,” adding “The SAVE Act puts all of these issues to rest and gives Americans confidence that our elections are decided on a more even playing field.”

That said, the measure has yet to be scheduled for a floor vote, though one Hill source told The Post that it could come up before the August recess.

The left, of course, is livid over this election integrity effort.

The left-leaning Campaign Legal Center has opposed the SAVE Act as a “shameful” measure that will “undermine trust in the electoral process,” dismissing concerns over non-citizen voting and declaring it has not taken place “at any meaningful level.”

“It’s a fabrication being peddled, for personal and political gain, by leaders who should know better,” said Campaign Legal Center executive director Adav Noti in a statement as the House Administration Committee prepared to consider the SAVE Act.

Angry Democrats even sued Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger earlier this year for attempting to implement citizenship verification methods.

And while they may call it a fabrication, The Post further notes that federal prosecutions, state investigations and audits have shown in recent years that thousands of non-citizens are being registered.

Former Federal Electiion Commission (FEC) member and manager of the Election Law Reform Initiative at the Heritage Foundation, Hans von Spakovsky, presented multiple examples of non-Americans being caught illegally voting in races ranging from local to presidential.

“It’s a real problem, not an imaginary problem,” he told The Post.

According to Von Spakovsky, if the SAVE Act successfully amends the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), proof-of-citizenship laws would “get passed in a lot of states.”

By Eric Peters, CIO of One River Asset Management

“The 2024 deficit will account for 7% of gross domestic product while the 2034 deficit will account for 6.9% of GDP,” wrote the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) in its latest report.

That makes it easy: 7% compounded for a decade roughly doubles your money. The CBO now forecasts this year’s deficit at $2trln, a revision from its $1.5trln February estimate.

A new $95bln in aid for Ukraine, Israel and the Indo-Pacific region played a part. Over the coming decade, the legislation authorizing that aid will add $900bln in new spending, which of course will be funded with debt, that in turn will compound (the CBO expects at a 3.2% rate).

But the US is not alone. The European Central Bank said pressure on public finances across Eurozone countries required to cope with the demands of ageing populations, climate change, and higher defense spending between now and 2070 will require nations to tighten fiscally by 3% of GDP on average.

To reduce debt to the EU limit of 60% of GDP by 2070 will require nations to tighten an additional 2%. Makes it simple. 3% plus 2% equals 5% of annual fiscal tightening.

“These developments will be challenging enough in isolation, and countries will face all of them simultaneously,” admitted the ECB. “Consequently, action needs to be taken today – especially in high-debt countries facing elevated interest rates and the associated risks.”

There is literally no way Europe will make such cuts in the absence of an existential crisis. Were they to, it would almost surely cause an immediate depression and a break-up of the EU.

But still, policy makers for some odd reason feel obligated to make such statements. And on cue, Italy’s parliament approved a law paving the way for the devolution of fiscal powers to regional governments.

You see, as we approach the endgame in a multi-decade debt super cycle, all sorts of self-serving strategies will come into view, as various nations, regions, states and cities fight for survival.

Just when you thought the worst cuts in the auto industry were over as a result of overspending on EVs and extortion new contracts from labor unions, more layoffs look like they could be on their way. 

At last week’s Stellantis investor meeting, CEO Carlos Tavares said a ‘massive’ cost cutting effort would be underway, according to Click On Detroit, who says this could mean layoffs at the Auburn Hills office tower. 

The report says that Tavares visited to specifically announce his cost-cutting program targeting the building that Lee Iacocca claimed was funded by minivan profits.

Tavares is dispatching European plant managers to address issues, aiming to draw attention from his employees. He also outlined an “EV first strategy” and cost-cutting measures to compete with Chinese automakers globally.

“We have at least two plants that need a significant turnaround, at least two,” the CEO said. “By the way, when we compare to leap motor, those 30% cost-competitive edge is what I’m always talking about.”

Auto Analyst John McElroy said: “So, he’s going after the company with an axe right now to get costs down. The old Chrysler group as we know it in Auburn Hills is going to be a mere shadow of itself in just a couple of years.”

“They’re going to take a lot; we’re talking to thousands of people,” he continued. “The tower almost undoubtedly will be up for sale. Stellantis doesn’t need all that office space anymore.”

The Chrysler group, while the most profitable for Stellantis, also has the highest costs and issues. To reduce expenses, engineering is being outsourced to low-cost countries like Turkey and Morocco, signaling the old headquarters building might face a fate similar to the Renaissance Center.

Tavares says he is looking to cut 30% of costs at the company, according to the report. 

Authored by Jonathan Turley,

Will Rogers once said that “if you ever injected truth into politics, you’d have no politics.” In Wales, it appears that the government is challenging that assessment. However, if the new legislation criminalizing political lies is successful, the Welsh are likely to find themselves with the same abundance of lies but little free speech.

A proposal in the Welsh parliament (or the Senedd) would make it the first country in the world to impose criminal sanctions for lying politicians. Adam Price, the former leader of the liberal Plaid Cymru Party is pushing for the criminalization, citing a “credibility gap” in UK politics.

Astonishingly, this uniquely bad idea has received support from a key committee. Once on track for adoption, this is the type of law that can become self-propelling through the legislature. Few politicians want to go on record voting against a law banning political lies. The free speech implications are easily lost in the coverage.

The new law would make it a criminal offense for a member of the Senedd, or a candidate for election to the Senedd, to wilfully, or with intent to mislead, make or publish a statement that is known to be false or deceptive. There is a six-month period for challenges to be brought.

The law allows a defense that a statement could be “reasonably inferred” to be a statement of opinion, or if it were retracted with an apology within 14 days. If guilty, the politician would be disqualified from being a Senedd member.

The defense is hardly helpful.

It creates an uncertainty as to which statements would be deemed an opinion and which would be treated as a statement of fact. It invites selective and biased prosecutions. After all, what does it mean to accuse a politician of trying to “mislead” the public?

Winston Churchill said “a politician needs the ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month, and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen.”

It is a standard heavily laden with subjectivity and potential selectivity in prosecution. It is more likely to determine not whether lies can be told but which lies can be told. The government and the majority of the public are likely to hold certain “misleading” claims of politicians to be true or opinion while holding a harsher view of the claims of the opposition.

Consider the massive censorship system in our own country.

During Covid, you were labeled a liar, conspiracist, or racist for holding views now viewed as credible.

For example, academics joined this chorus in marginalizing anyone raising the lab theory. 

One study cited the theory as an example of “anti-Chinese racism” and “toxic white masculinity.”

As late as May 2021, the New York Times’ Science and Health reporter Apoorva Mandavilli was calling any mention of the lab theory as “racist.”

Mandavilli and others made clear that reporters covering the theory were Covid’s little Bull Connors. She tweeted wistfully “someday we will stop talking about the lab leak theory and maybe even admit its racist roots. But alas, that day is not yet here.”

Now federal agencies have stated that they believe that the origin of the virus was indeed the Chinese lab.

If this law were in place, politicians could have been charged with lying and barred from the legislature — would have only served to diminish dissenting views further in the government.

Politicians have long been accused of lying to the public.

In this country, presidents routinely lie on matters great and small. Many of those lies cost citizens dearly, from “keeping your doctor” under ObamaCare to losing your life in Vietnam. Criminalizing lies in campaigns because of the spread of disinformation or disorder is a slippery slope that vests unprecedented power in the Justice Department.

There is obviously an abundance of statements from politicians that could be deemed as intentionally misleading. Officials can then simply pick and choose which politicians they want to tar with the allegation and potentially bar from office.

The proposed law is a continuation of the assault on free speech in the United Kingdom.

A man was convicted for sending a tweet while drunk referring to dead soldiers. Another was arrested for an anti-police t-shirt. Another was arrested for calling the Irish boyfriend of his ex-girlfriend a “leprechaun.” Yet another was arrested for singing “Kung Fu Fighting.” A teenager was arrested for protesting outside of a Scientology center with a sign calling the religion a “cult.”

We also discussed the arrest of a woman who was praying to herself near an abortion clinic. English courts have seen criminalized “toxic ideologies” as part of this crackdown on free speech.

Scotland recently passed a new crime law covering “stirring up hatred” relating to age, disability, religion, sexual orientation, transgender identity or being intersex. That crime covers insulting comments and anything “that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening or abusive.”

Free speech is in a free fall after years of criminalization of speech. Generations have been shaped in the educational system to fear free speech. The alliance of government, media, and academic forces have created generations of speech phobics.

The anti-free speech movement in the United Kingdom should be a cautionary tale for every American. The tide of this movement has reached our shores and the same alliance is working to reduce the protections for free speech.

As I discuss in my new book, The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage, this international movement has left free speech in tatters in the West. Now there are law professors calling for the First Amendment to be rewritten to remove its “excessively individualistic” protections.

The free speech community in the United Kingdom has fought bravely to preserve this right against all odds. Wales is a reminder that this remains a global struggle that requires free speech advocates to unite against this rising tide.

This graphic, via Visual Capitalist’s Pallavi Rao, maps and ranks the countries with the highest and lowest doctor density (measured per 10,000 population), according to World Health Organization (WHO) estimates as of 2022.

ℹ️ “Doctors” includes generalists, specialist medical practitioners and other medical doctors not further defined. Depending on the source country, may include only practicing physicians or all registered physicians.

Health worker density in general is an important metric tracked by the UN, as part of its sustainable development goals. A 2016 WHO study found that investing and expanding healthcare workforces improves economic growth.

Ranked: Doctors Per 10,000 Population

European countries, like Belgium, Georgia, and Austria, lead the ranks by the ratio of doctors to resident population. South American countries, represented by Uruguay and Argentina, also make the top 10.

Note: Countries with 2022 data only.

Meanwhile, eight African countries have fewer than 1 doctor per 10,000 population. According to the Africa Report, medical students from the continent move abroad to complete their education, but often don’t return.

However, Cabo Verde, a small nation of 10 islands off the coast of Africa is a big regional outlier with 44.6 doctors per 10,000 population. The country has made strides in expanding healthcare services since it gained independence in 1975. In the same time, life expectancy increased from 56 to 75, and the infant mortality rate dropped from 108 to 15 deaths per 1,000 births.

A Look at the G7 Countries

Finally, here’s a quick summary at how the G7 countries do in doctor density, as per the latest estimates from the World Health Organization.

Germany and Italy lead with 42–45 doctors per 10,000 people. The U.S., UK, and France are between 31–32 per 10,000 population. Japan and Canada are significantly lower at 25–26 for 10,000 residents.

Authored by Mike Shedlock via MishTalk.com,

The EU has launched an Excessive Debt Proceeding against France. It won’t stop there.

Debt Proceedings

Please note the EU Rebukes France, Italy and Others Over Excessive Debt.

The assessments of the 27 EU states’ budgets and economies will be published by the European Commission on Wednesday, with France, Italy and Belgium among the member states to be reprimanded over their accumulated excessive new debt.

The Commission said it was satisfied that “the opening of a deficit-based excessive deficit procedure is warranted” in the case of seven countries. The group also included Hungary, Malta, Poland and Slovakia.

The EU suspended debt and deficit regulations to help countries cope with the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

The rules are now back in place and now any EU country going over debt and deficit limits run the risk of legal action.

EU’s Golden Rules

According to the reformed rules, an EU member state’s debt may not exceed 60% of gross domestic product (GDP).

Highly indebted EU countries with debt levels over 90% of GDP have to reduce their debt ratio by one percentage point annually, countries

Additionally, the general government deficit — the shortfall between government revenue and spending — must be kept below 3%.

According to the commission’s economic forecast, France is at -5.5%, Italy is at -4.4% and Belgium is at -4.4% and will breach this deficit limit in 2024.

Austria, Finland, Estonia, Hungary, Malta, Poland, Romania, and Slovakia also have deficits that are too high according to the rules. Spain is at exactly -3.0%.

Snap Elections

French President Emmanuel Macron was hammered in the European Parliamentary elections as expected in this corner, and generally elsewhere.

Winners: The Far Right

Losers: Renew Europe (Macron), and the Greens.

The response by Macron caught everyone off guard. He dissolved parliament and called for snap elections.

On June 9, I commented Marine Le Pen Set for Record Win, Macron Calls Snap French Election

Act of Trust or Act of Desperation?

Macron called for French parliament elections only, not presidential elections.

But if he gets blown out in the Parliamentary elections he will have zero chance of doing anything.

Hmm. Is this a desperate act to pin the blame on Parliament for whatever happens next? Macron himself cannot run again so why not?

Sudden Procedures

Hilarious. Le Pen appears on the horizon and suddenly the Commission opens up an “excessive deficit procedure” against France. Then they blame “excessive French power” in the EU. Is anyone fooled by this? They’re using the ECB to bend political candidates to their will. 🇪🇺 https://t.co/u1YcZiCyvB

— Philip Pilkington (@philippilk) June 19, 2024

I fail to see how this does anything but aid Le Pen in the upcoming parliamentary election.

However, if Macron is clobbered, Jordan Bardella, the leader of Rassemblement National (RN, National Rally, Marine Le Pen’s party), may emerge as Prime Minister.

An Act of Trust?

This pompous WEF puppet. 😡 Macron on his decision to dissolve parliament

“I have decided to give you back the choice of our parliamentary future through a vote..this is a serious & weighty decision, but above all it is an act of trust. Confidence in you, my dear compatriots, in… pic.twitter.com/XWqcBVvAqV

— Info Battle Maiden (@info_maiden) June 9, 2024

Yeah right.

If Macron is blasted again, he is likely to transfer the problem to RN to fix. That is Macron’s real gambit, not this BS about trust.

Macron is ineligible to run again, so he is making a calculated move. It makes sense if you think about it in these terms.

How Does the Election Work?

Politico Explains: French members of parliament are not elected on the basis of proportional representation, but instead through a complicated two-round vote across 577 constituencies where local dynamics play a big role.

France will go to the polls on June 30, with runoffs planned for July 7. In each constituency, if no candidate wins 50 percent of the vote in the first round, the top two candidates advance to the second round, as does any other candidate who got the support of at least 12.5 percent of registered voters. The candidate with the most votes in the second round wins the seat as a member of parliament.

If the far right gets a majority in the parliament, the French president would have to enter into a “cohabitation” arrangement with the National Rally and appoint a far-right prime minister. Bardella, the president of the National Rally, has said he would not seek to lead a government unless he had a majority. That presumably means he will need coalition partners — or it’s an electoral strategy to bag a big turnout.

By lead a government Politico means become Prime Minister.

It may be in the best long term interest of Bardella to leave the fiscal issues to Macron for the near future.

No one wants to take the blame for the impending crash.

Another question is how much effort Le Pen will invest in coalition talks, given her desire to keep her political capital intact ahead of the 2027 presidential election. If her party leads a government that has a bumpy ride in office, it could reduce her chances of seizing the big prize.

See how complicated this political jockeying is? It sure as hell has nothing to do with trust.

And that’s not all.

Jews for Le Pen

Please note France’s Jews Consider the Unthinkable: Voting for a Party With an Antisemitic Past

Serge Klarsfeld is a world-renowned Nazi hunter, a historian of the Holocaust and a moral authority in France who has pushed the country to reckon with its dark history of antisemitism.

That is why many in France were shocked this week when Klarsfeld defended the far-right party of Marine Le Pen, which counts among its founders a former Nazi paramilitary soldier. Klarsfeld, an 88-year-old Holocaust survivor, said that the main threat to France’s Jews now comes from the far left and that he wouldn’t hesitate to vote for Le Pen’s party, the National Rally, in the coming parliamentary elections if the alternative were a coalition of leftist parties, the New Popular Front.

“The National Rally supports Jews, supports the state of Israel,” Klarsfeld said on national television. “When there is an anti-Jewish party and a pro-Jewish party, I will vote for the pro-Jewish party.”

“I never would have imagined voting in favor of the National Rally to blockade against antisemitism,” the writer Alain Finkielkraut told French magazine Le Point this month. “The current situation is heartbreaking for the Jews of France.”

Long Term Fiscal Issues

In addition to the Excessive Debt Proceedings against many countries, every EU county has defense spending issues, climate spending issues, and demographic issues as shown in the lead chart.

The lead chart is from the ECB report Longer-Term Challenges for Fiscal Policy in the Euro Area

In the future, various longer-term challenges are likely to exert pressure on public finances in the euro area. On top of the existing fiscal burdens – as reflected in the high debt ratios in a number of euro area countries, which were exacerbated by the pandemic and the subsequent energy crisis – there are several important longer-term challenges for fiscal dynamics. This article starts by reviewing some of the most important challenges and discussing their fiscal relevance, with a focus on demographic ageing (Section 2), the end of the “peace dividend” (Section 3), digitalisation (Section 4) and climate change (Section 5). Acknowledging the uncertainties surrounding any quantification of these challenges, Section 6 then presents some tentative – purely indicative – estimates of the additional fiscal effort that could be required to ensure the long-term sustainability of public finances in the presence of such developments. The implications of digitalisation are excluded from that exercise, given the particular uncertainty that surrounds their quantification. Section 7 then provides some concluding remarks.

As you can see, it’s a mess in may areas. Here are a few of them.

Fiscal Costs of Ageing Societies

The euro area is experiencing demographic ageing. The region is witnessing a significant decline in fertility rates, coupled with steady increases in life expectancy, resulting in an ageing population. At the level of the European Union as a whole, average remaining life expectancy at the age of 65 has increased over the last two decades, rising from 17.8 years in 2002 to 19.5 years in 2022

This demographic ageing presents challenges for government finances. With the number of elderly citizens increasing relative to the working-age population, pay‑as-you-go pension systems face mounting financial pressures. Furthermore, ageing populations typically require more extensive healthcare services and long‑term care.

Fiscal Costs of the End of the “Peace Dividend”

Macron wants an EU army and more support for Ukraine. How’s that supposed to happen?

Fiscal Effects of Climate Change

Transitioning to a low-carbon economy entails significant upfront costs and policy challenges. Mitigation measures (such as investment in renewable energy infrastructure, energy efficiency improvements and other emission reduction strategies) require substantial financial resources and long-term planning. Green investment, both public and private, will be essential in order to facilitate the transition to a sustainable economy.

Cumulative Impact – Lead Chart

Achieving a government debt-to-GDP ratio of 60% by 2070 from today’s debt levels would require euro area governments to immediately and permanently increase their primary balances by 2% of GDP on average.

Moreover, additional fiscal burdens may well emerge in the medium term. For instance, the model-based simulations used in this article exclude the digitalisation gap, the long-term implications of which are still hard to grasp. Furthermore, one does not need to go back very far in time to find a large fiscal shock appearing out of the blue: the euro area’s government debt-to-GDP ratio increased by a total of 13 percentage points in 2020 in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. At the same time, the simulation of climate change is based on simplified assumptions and on the unlikely premise that limiting global warming to 1.5°C is still feasible. It also does not capture the impact of societal repercussions (such as conflict), tipping points or macroeconomic effects (such as changes to prices and productivity). This suggests that there could be substantial additional fiscal costs associated with climate change.

Hoot of the Day

To achieve a government debt-to-GDP ratio of 60 percent, EU countries will have to reduce spending or raise taxes by 2 percent of GDP, on average, every year for 46 years.

That also presumes no recessions or other emergencies in that timeframe. And this is supposed to be a serious proposal.

Let’s just say it’s not going to happen. But these clowns are likely to try, if for no other reason than punish Le Pen.

Meanwhile, Back in the States

In case you missed it, please consider Why Angry Renters Will Decide the Election, Take II

Economists say wages are now rising faster than the CPI. That’s not true for those who rent or wish to buy a house.