The First Presidential Debate of 2024, between presumptive nominees Joe Biden and Donald Trump, took place on June 27, 2024. Mainstream media (MSM) post-debate analysis and commentary featured unfavorable evaluations of both candidates. Former President Trump was accused of being dishonest and exaggerating facts. Soon after the debate began, however, expressions of concern and outright alarm started to explode across the media regarding President Biden’s mental and physical fitness for the job. From his shuffling onto the stage, to his periodic incoherent rambling, and his failure to pick up on multiple easy opportunities to counterattack his opponent, Biden simply didn’t present himself as someone capable of leading the United States on the National or International stage. Rather, he presented himself as a feeble, elderly man who, at times, struggled to formulate and appropriately sequence his ideas. Beyond some weak deflections that Biden had “a cold,” even the most Democratic-friendly pundits could not bring themselves to put much of a positive spin on Mr. Biden’s dismal performance. Many in the liberal MSM, fellow democratic politicians, a majority of the democratic base, and even democratic donors have subsequently called for him to step aside.

This begs the question, what rock have these suddenly-gobsmacked individuals been hiding under for the past year? Centrist and right-leaning media outlets have been relentlessly reporting on Biden’s cognitive and physical decline. A combination of wishful thinking, denial, moral conviction, and the belief that no other democratic candidate could defeat Trump in November 2024 all likely played a role. However, given Biden’s visible – and frequently speculated upon – mental and physical decline during his presidency, it could be argued that the democratic party has committed political malpractice in allowing Biden to continue his march, and the party’s march, toward November 2024.

Joe Has a Cold

Initially, Biden’s campaign team tried to quell chatter about his obvious frail demeanor during the debate by reporting that he had been suffering from a cold. A cold. Biden was holed up at Camp David for seven days preparing for the debate. Seven entire days. And that was the best performance he could muster? One may purport that the Democratic Party’s political machine was simply trying to sustain the pretense that Biden remains the preferred alternative to Donald Trump, who the left generally views as a narcissistic sociopath who is going to ruin democracy. But then, what about Biden’s medical team? Following his annual exam in February 2024, Biden’s physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, declared “President Biden is a healthy, active, robust, 81-year-old male who remains fit to successfully execute the duties of the presidency.” These results differed little from those Dr. O’Connor reported in 2023, when he declared Biden was “’’healthy, vigorous’ and ‘fit’ to handle his White House responsibilities.” In the days since the “debate seen and heard around the world,” a steady drip of information on the state of President Biden’s health has trickled (or leaked) out of the White House. On July 8th, ABC News reported that “An expert on Parkinson’s disease visited the White House eight times over an eight-month span between last July and March of this year, including one visit with the president’s personal physician.” The expert was Walter Reed neurologist Kevin Cannard, MD. Despite this information finding its way to the media, White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre redirected any inquiries about Dr. Cannard’s visits to Biden’s prior physical exam reports that indicated “no findings which would be consistent with any cerebellar or other central neurological disorder, such as stroke, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s or ascending lateral sclerosis, nor are there any signs of cervical myelopathy.” Further, in reply to questions as to whether Biden was diagnosed with, being treated for, or taking medication for Parkinson’s, Jean-Pierre replied, “No.”

After the MSM expressed a lack of confidence in the veracity of Jean-Pierre’s answers, she subsequently admitted on July 9th that “It was one of the three times the president has seen Dr. Cannard, each time for his physical.” Her admission came only after Biden’s personal physician, Dr. Kevin O’Connor, issued the following statement: “Dr. Cannard was the neurological specialist that examined President Biden for each of his annual physicals.” Given the signs of cognitive and physical decline that the public at large has been witnessing over the last couple of years, it makes one wonder what else Biden’s physicians may be hiding.  Hence several other questions come to mind: (1) Were Biden’s physicians “coaxed” into providing such glowing reports in the past? (2) Are Biden’s physicians simply incompetent, and should be sanctioned by the American Medical Association (AMA), or (3) Is Biden withholding his true medical records under the guise of HIPAA privacy protections.

Presidential Physicians Downplaying Medical Situations

Before anyone says, “but what about…” Drs. Ronny Jackson, Sean Conley, and Max Jacobson. Or better yet, Dr. Cary Grayson (bet you forgot about him!). Yes, there appears to be a history of physicians to the president, along with advisors and family members, concealing the true extent of presidents’ illnesses. Dr. Jackson held the title of “Physician to the President” under both Barack Obama and Donald Trump, until he stepped down “amid accusations that he over-prescribed pills and drank on the job;” allegations he denied. Reportedly, Jackson remained “part of [Trump’s] medical unit” despite stepping down.

Dr. Sean Conley, physician to President Trump at Walter Reed Medical Center, was regularly accused, especially by those on the left, of not being forthcoming about the President’s medical condition when Trump contracted COVID in 2020. Katie Bo Williams, Senior National Security Correspondent, reported that “security analysts said the diagnosis put the United States into “‘uncharted territory’ and ‘deep into the danger zone.’” Williams further noted that analysts had raised many concerns including: “That the command and control of America’s nuclear deterrent would break down. That adversaries, perceiving the United States as vulnerable and distracted, would take aggressive action against U.S. interests. That Trump would mislead the public about the severity of his illness.”

Yet this is nothing compared to accounts of Dr. Max Jacobson’s recklessly quack treatment of JFK. So alarmed were Kennedy’s regular White House physicians that they finally intervened to get Kennedy off of Jacobson’s dangerous cocktail of heavy steroids and amphetamines, fortuitously just in time for JFK to regain a more level head in advance of the Cuban missile crisis. Imagine how differently that could have played out, if not for the intervention of an ethical and competent physician.

Dr. Cary Grayson held the position of Physician to President under President Woodrow Wilson. Grayson was accused of hiding the severity of Wilson’s 1919 stroke from the American public, governmental personnel, Congress and even the president himself. Grayson was also accused of “using the office of the president of the United States as therapy of his patient.” According to Wikipedia, Wilson’s stroke left him incapacitated. “His wife and his physician controlled Wilson, and no significant decisions were made.” This ironically led to the United States’ failure to join Wilson’s very own brainchild, the League of Nations, which he had labored long and hard to conjure into existence. This led to serious repercussions just a few years later as the League, lacking US support, stood by toothlessly as Hitler dragged Europe into World War II.

Fast forward to 2024. Biden’s cognitive and physical ailments were on full display for all the world to see on June 27th. If analysts were so concerned about the national security implications of Trump’s COVID diagnosis, imagine what they must be thinking about Biden’s mental acuity and ability to lead the nation? The only question that remains is the extent to which Biden’s team is downplaying his condition. Could we already have another Woodrow Wilson/Dr. Grayson situation on our hands? If so, who is really making many of the Presidential decisions?

How did Joe Biden and the Democratic Party allow this to happen?

A recent history of selecting weak vice-presidential running mates and living in fishbowls (more on that later): According to the press at the time, Obama selected Biden as his vice president to “reassure voters about gaps in his [Obama’s] résumé,” Biden possessed something Obama didn’t – a “long record of working in Washington’s halls of power.” The Obama team needed to suppress concerns about Obama’s lack of foreign policy experience, and who better to do that than a six-term senator who chaired the Committee on Foreign Relations multiple times (2001, 2001-2003 and 2007-2009)? Biden’s “blue-collar roots and his Roman Catholic faith” were also viewed as positive attributes to attract those very important voting blocs. However, while Biden was liked in Washington at the time, many thought Hillary Clinton would have been the better choice.

2020 Democratic Party Presidential Nominee and VP Pick

The 2020 election brought a slew of aspiring presidential candidates: Biden, Sanders, Warren, Klobuchar, Buttigieg, and Yang, among others. As we all know, Joe Biden secured the nomination. During his first democratic primary debate, he promised to select a woman as his running mate, noting “There are a number of women who are qualified to be president tomorrow. I would pick a woman to be my vice president.” In the aftermath of the George Floyd killing, there was pressure from the Democratic base for Biden to not only choose a woman as his running mate, but a woman of color. Senator Amy Klobuchar quickly went from a likely pick, to not suitable. Senator Kamala Harris (CA), Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance, Congresswoman Val Demings (FL), former gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams (GA), and former national security advisor Susan Rice, all jumped to the front of the leader board. Ultimately, Biden selected Harris, a woman of Black and Asian American descent, viewed by many as a “safe” choice, and who had the support of some of the wealthiest democratic donors in one of the bluest states, California.

In August 2020, Eric Levitz, of The New York Magazine’s Intelligencer, wrote “The Pros and Cons of Kamala Harris As Biden’s VP.” He identified the above-mentioned descriptives as pros for Harris. His cons included: (1) “She just ran one of the most underwhelming presidential campaigns in modern memory.” (2) “Harris is now well positioned to win the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination in 2024 or 2028 — but not necessarily to win a general election.” Levitz continued “the fact that she ever polled so poorly amid limited national exposure — combined with the aforementioned underperformance of her campaign and her near loss to a Republican in a statewide race in California in 2010 — gives some cause for concern about her ability to carry the Democrats to victory in four to eight years.” (3) “She does nothing to help the ticket geographically.” And (4) “Her policy instincts are underwhelming (even from a non-pinko perspective).” Levitz expands on his assertion stating, “the relative moderation of the Harris campaign’s policies is less concerning than how poorly thought out many of them were. With the LIFT Act, Harris managed to construct an anti-poverty policy that was both exorbitantly expensive and useless for the very poorest people in the U.S.”

The VEEP

According to the bipartisan policy “Selecting a Vice President: Advice for Presidential Candidates,” “The vice presidential nominee may provide some electoral benefit in a particular state or with an important constituency.” NPR reporter Ken Rudin added that the ideal selection should be free of controversary, in “good-standing” in Washington, possess good speaking skills, close the gap on any political deficiencies the Presidential nominee has, know how to harness party support, and most importantly, be able to step into the role of President if needed.

Kamala Harris has been called, “the worst VP pick in 50 years” by Rich Lowry at the New York Post. Lowry reports, “As Democrats begin to realize Biden’s political weakness, with Donald Trump barreling down the pike, Harris is one of the factors — although not the main one — keeping them from doing anything about it.” As of June 28th, the FiveThirtyEight online aggregate polling site shows Harris single-handedly beating her next closest contender, and fellow Californian, Gavin Newsom, in three polls (SurveyUSA, Morning Consult, and Data for Progress) to replace Biden should he step down. That said, Harris’s chances of beating Trump are worse than Biden’s, but slightly better than Newsom (who has led California into a free-fall on many fronts: inflation, crime, homelessness, fentanyl overdoses, taxes, criminal reform, insurance regulations, etc.), Whitmer, Buttigieg, Booker, Shapiro, Klobuchar and Pritzker. It remains to be seen how Trump’s near-fatal encounter with a sniper’s bullet at a July 13th rally in Pennsylvania might change that calculus.

Speaking of Governor Newsom, the abysmal state of affairs in California led Gavin Newsom to forego a State of State address in 2023, and to release a highly produced, pre-recorded video for his “address” of 2024, which was seen by many as a Presidential campaign speech. A recent (06/2024) Public Policy Institute of California poll showed Newsom’s approval ratings had sunk to 44% among California voters, with 60% of responders stating “they felt the state was going in the wrong direction.” Many believe Newsom has “checked out” of California. His ambitions lie elsewhere, and California is suffering for it. However, for someone who has spoken about his presidential aspirations, Newsom seems shockingly unaware that his espousing of such rhetoric as “Conservatives and delusional California-bashers . . .  [and] poisonous populism on the right,” as he did in his 2024 prerecorded State of the State address, won’t translate well on the national stage. Therefore, replacing Biden with Newsom would be exponentially worse than even Harris, if one could imagine that!

Of the above-mentioned candidates, Governors Josh Shapiro (PA) and Gretchen Whitmer (MI) have leapt onto the short list of many, including George Mason University’s Jeremy Mayer, associate professor in the university’s Schar School of Policy and Government. Meyer believes the Democratic Party ultimately has the choice to “lose with Biden or give the voters someone to vote for, someone to admire, someone to be excited about.” Because at the end of the day, while many democrats agree with Biden when he says, “Donald Trump will destroy our democracy. I will defend it,” they cannot unsee and unhear what they saw on June 27th.  While Biden’s disastrous performance is still visible in the nation’s rearview mirror, insiders report that only his very small inner circle can convince him to step aside, and right now they are holding onto “a glimmer of survival/hope.” Why such hesitancy? “He [Biden] and the oligarchy believe he has a much better chance of beating former President Trump than Vice President Harris does.”

We are all witnessing what happens when woke political pandering and tokenism, not merit, gets someone the job. In contrast, in 2008, when questioned about what he was looking for in a running mate at a news conference, Obama replied, “I want somebody who can be a good president if anything happened to me . . . I want somebody who can be a good adviser and counsel to me and tell me where he or she thinks I’m wrong, not just on national security policy but on domestic policy as well.” He believed he found that and other politically prudent characteristics in Joe Biden. It is too bad President Biden did not follow former President Obama’s example in his own choice for vice president. Therefore, should the Democratic Party suddenly have an opening for the position of Presidential nominee, whichever “lucky” candidate assumes the nomination will ultimately be up to the Party. Let’s hope they choose a worthy adversary to Trump.

Fishbowl

Given the current state of affairs, it would appear the Democratic Party and its leaders have been discussing and establishing policies from inside a fishbowl while wearing rose-colored glasses, and not listening to the “outer circle” – namely the rest of America. For those unfamiliar, there is an actual debate and discussion technique, called the Fishbowl Technique. Succinctly, the technique involves the creation of an inner and outer circle. Members in the inner circle discuss a given topic, while members in the outer circle listen to the talking points and observe the behaviors and actions of those in the inner circle. It is meant to help identify familiarized and therefore, often overlooked, patterns of behavior among inner circle members. According to BetterEvaluation.org, “When the people in the middle are public officials or other decision-makers, this technique can help bring transparency to the decision-making process and increase trust and understanding about complex issues.” Wikipedia notes, “Open fishbowls are often seen as highly democratic, as participation in discussion is open to all members at any time.”

Democratic Party Policy Issues

Sadly, the Democratic Party’s has failed to take even basic steps, such as keeping a finger on the pulse of American voters’ (i.e., outer circle members) views on prominent issues such as abortion, transgender care for minors, Title IX and transgender athletes, illegal immigration, the economy/inflation, crime and healthcare. Or, if it has, the Democratic Party has shown that they give little credence to what American voters think, believe and are willing to support. Such an attitude defeats the entire purpose of the fishbowl technique, leading us to conclude that party members must be wearing rose-colored glasses, thereby thwarting the benefit of this well-known, and successful technique. After all, the alternative, “they simply don’t give a damn” about what Americans outside of their circle think, would be too crass a conclusion to make. Wouldn’t it?

As it is not the intention of this article to provide an in-depth discussion of each of these issues, a brief overview will be presented. Table 1 (below) provides a succinct summary based upon the results of various credible pollsters. In an effort to be as objective as possible, pollsters deemed “credible” were those identified as such by the aggregate polling website FiveThirtyEight (itself designated as a center-left leaning site by AllSides.com). In other words, polling sources on the left and right extremes were excluded.  

Later in this article, tables 2-4 provide information related to the economy, specifically inflation and taxes. Table 5 provides California city and county sales and use tax rates, as an example of how factors other than inflation impact one’s cost of living, and therefore the perception of how well the economy is doing. Table 6 lists the top ten states with the highest unemployment rates. Finally, Tables 7-12 provide state crime data. I encourage you to click on the links provided in the tables for more detailed descriptions and analyses of each topic.

Anyone looking objectively from outside of the fishbowl inward may find it incomprehensible that Biden, his surrogates, and other democratic leaders keep advancing policies and rhetoric that the majority of the US disagrees with. When listening to these individuals, you may think they are suffering from the disorder known as echolalia (the involuntary repetition of someone else’s words or phrases). While that is most likely not the case, a more plausible explanation is that they are trying to take advantage of the illusory truth effect, in which repeated exposure to select statements makes them easier to process (processing fluency), and once they are easier to process, they are easier to accept as true. So, if we keep telling people things that support our platform, for example, that transgender medical and surgical care of minors is medically prudent – we will get them to believe it. It doesn’t matter what the science is telling us (see the Cass Report commissioned by the English National Health Service), if that science does not support our party’s position. This is quite ironic, however, given the Democratic Party’s repeated use of the word “science” during the COVID 19 pandemic, where there was actually very little or no science to support some of the mandatory guidances.

Table 1: U.S. Polling Data on Abortion, Transgender Issues and Immigration

Transgender Care for Minors

The fact remains that the Democratic Party’s position on topics often places them outside those of other Western countries. With regard to transgender care for minors, Scotland, England, Denmark, Sweden, Netherlands, and France are all taking a step back. As one former London clinical psychologist states, “It’s reassuring that we’re going to return to a more robust, evidence-based pathway for decisions relating to these children.” It’s too bad the US Democratic Party does not do the same.

Abortion

A similar analogy exists for abortion rights. According to the Center for Reproductive Rights, of those countries that do permit abortions, the overwhelming majority have a gestational limit of 12 weeks, vastly different from what Democratic leaders are proposing. Therefore, the U.S.’s abortion policy before Roe v. Wade was overturned was outside the norm for most Western societies, and remains so following its reversal. As such, one may wonder why the Democratic Party’s stance on abortion does not align more closely with what the polls indicate most Americans actually want or believe.

Immigration

More than 80% of Americans in two different polls (Gallup 2/2024 and Monmouth University 2/2024) view illegal immigration as, at a minimum, an important or somewhat serious problem (See Table 1). Notably, roughly 1/3 of Americans polled by Monmouth University Polling Institute believe illegal immigrants are “more likely than other Americans to commit violent crimes like rape or murder.” A recent spate of crimes by illegal immigrants only serves to bolster this viewpoint. These include:

Many of these suspects were not only in the country illegally, but were also previously deported several times, and simply re-entered thanks to record-breaking levels of border crossings and lax border security under President Joe Biden. Please refer to each citation above for more details about both the victim and their assailant.

Unsurprisingly, as the number of illegal border crossings have increased, so too has the numbers of illegal immigrants who “have been convicted of one or more crimes, whether in the United States or abroad.“ See Figure 1. These individuals have previously been convicted of a wide variety of crimes ranging from homicide and drug trafficking to various sexual offenses, assault and battery, and domestic violence, to driving under the influence.

Figure 1: US Border Patrol Noncitizen Arrests (2017-2024 YTD)

Citation: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics/criminal-noncitizen-statistics

It is important to note that given the decidedly poor optics of millions of illegal immigrants crossing the border under Biden’s watch, progressive liberal think tanks are quick to conclude that despite the aforementioned highly publicized cases, their research shows no correlation between illegal immigration and an increase in crime. While the numbers may not show a difference between crime rates of illegal vs legal citizens, the fact remains that, according to the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Agency, “Criminal Noncitizen Arrests” have significantly increased since 2020. This data lends credibility to the notion that while not all people entering the U.S. illegally commit crimes, many people crossing the U.S. Border illegally “have been convicted of one or more crimes, [some of which are serious crimes], whether in the United States or abroad, prior to interdiction by the U.S. Border Patrol.”

Known or Suspected Terrorists and “Gotaways”

Even more concerning is the number of illegal entrants who were on the “known or suspected terrorist” watchlist. Figure 2 provides a summary of these figures, which include “suspected terrorists” or their affiliates apprehended at both the Northern and Southwest borders of the United States. While it is commendable that these governmental officials detained those they did, there are no reliable numbers for how many got away. US Customs and Border Protection tracks – or rather estimates – the number of “gotaways,” who are “defined as those who have been spotted by agents or via video cameras but not caught.” See Figure 3 (abstracted from data reported in the New York Post and Fox News as this data was not readily available to public access on the US Customers and Border Protection website).

Figure 2: Terrorist Screening Data Set Encounters (2017-2024 YTD)

Note: BP: Border Patrol (primarily Southwest Border). OFO: Office of Field Operations (both Northern and Southwest Borders) Citation: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics

Figure 3: Illegal Migrant “Gotaways” (2010-2023)

Citation: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/1-7-million-gotaways-have-sneaked-into-us-under-biden-more-than-in-previous-decade-combined-border-data/ar-BB1mwl1X, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-data-reveals-illegal-immigrants-eluding-border-patrol-spiked-under-biden-surpassing-predecessors

Title 8 and Title 42

In May 2023, the Biden administration allowed Title 42, the Trump era public health restriction that enabled border patrol agents to turn away migrants attempting to cross the US Border during a public health emergency, such as the COVID 19 pandemic, to expire. When that happened, Title 8 of the US Code that pertains to immigration, nationalization and citizenship, once again came into effect. An important distinction between Title 42 and Title 8 are the stricter criminal consequences associated with the latter. Simply put, under Title 42, migrants could attempt multiple illegal border crossings without fear of prosecution. However, under Title 8, such behavior carries repercussions including imprisonment and being barred from re-entry for up to five years; longer for repeat offenders. The lax provisions of Title 42 no doubt contributed to the double digit increase in recidivism rates to 25+% in 2020-2021 when Title 42 was in effect. As a result, more than a quarter of those attempting to illegally cross the US Border during that period did so more than once. See Figure 4. Note: According to US Customs and Border Protection, “Recidivism refers to the [the] percentage of individuals apprehended more than one time by the Border Patrol within a fiscal year.”

Figure 4: Recidivism Percentages (2015-2021)

Citation: https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics

Many in the MSM, and some democratic lawmakers, argue that the aforementioned numbers represent a tiny percentage of those that crossed our borders. That may be true, however, it only took 19 men to hijack four commercial planes on 9/11 to cause the travesty that ensued. As ABC-NY, the Associate Press, and CNN Wire collectively reported on 9/11/2023, “Nearly 3,000 people were killed that day, a day that will never be forgotten in the hearts of the American people.” This is not to try to paint all illegal crossers as potential terrorists, but rather to point out that it is all too easy for actual terrorists to hide in their midst, a fact that has not gone unnoticed by the terrorists themselves.

When viewed collectively, the large numbers of illegal immigrants who have committed crimes, or are on the terrorist screening list, coupled with repeated recidivism attempts, and the number of “gotaways,” is enough to give someone pause. It is high time that we start listening to the concerns of the Border Patrol. After all, they are the experts in this area. In March 2024, Border Patrol Chief Jason Owens commented, “. . . What’s keeping me up at night is the 140,000 known gotaways . . . If a person is willing to put themselves into harm’s way crossing through very remote, very dangerous conditions to evade capture, you have to ask yourself why. What makes them willing to take that risk? That’s of concern to me. What’s also of concern to me is I don’t know who that individual is. I don’t know where they came from. I don’t know what their intention is. I don’t know what they brought with them. That unknown represents a risk, a threat. It’s of great concern to anybody that wears this uniform.” If it is of concern to the experts who deal with immigration, both legal and illegal, on a daily basis, I think it should also be of concern to our political leaders. The very same individuals that are supposed to be keeping America’s best interests front and center, including safety and security, absent partisan political bickering. Unfortunately, that would appear to need transcendental intervention.

The Economy

Inflation and Tax Burden

As for the economy and inflation, many define the economy by the consumer price index (CPI)/inflation rate and unemployment rates. The inflation rate refers to the pace at which the cost of goods and services rise over time. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) functions as a common measure of inflation. It is “a weighted average of prices for a basket of goods and services representative of aggregate U.S. consumer spending.” Table 2 provides the average U.S. annual CPI from 2014-2024, abstracted from the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics website. Table 3 (reprinted sans permission from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics), details the percent changes in the CPI for all U.S. urban (city) consumers from December 2023 through June 2024. What do these tables tell us? The U.S.’s economy is slowly improving. But while gasoline and used car prices have decreased, prices for staple items like food, shelter, clothing and healthcare are still increasing, albeit at a slower rate.

A brief look into the details reveals that although the inflation rate for June 2024 (3.0%) improved significantly compared to June 2022 (9.1%), it is not nearly as low as it was in 2014 (1.6%). June’s 3.0% rate represents a 0.3% drop from May 2024, and has been attributed to national reductions in gasoline and used vehicle prices. Conversely, prices associated with more essential items like food, shelter/housing, clothing and healthcare all saw increases, not only from last month, but also from the same time period last year. Food prices rose 0.2% from May, with grocery prices increasing 0.1% and the cost of dining out increasing 0.4%.  When compared to one year ago, this represents a 2.2% increase in food costs. Similarly, shelter and housing prices increased 0.2% from May (2024) – the 50th consecutive monthly increase, representing an overall yearly increase of 5.2% from 2023. Apparel saw a 0.1% increase from May (2024), and an 0.8% from the same time last year, while healthcare rose 0.2% from May and a 3.3% increase from June 2023.

Moreover, not everyone is reaping the benefits of the recent improvement.  When you couple the CPI with the overall tax burden by state, there is a compounding effect, especially in high-tax states such as New York, Hawaii, California, and Vermont. See Figure 5 and Table 4. When you drill down further to state and local taxes, especially in many blue states like California (See Table 5 for CA tax rates), any increase in inflation and unemployment can cause a significant dent in one’s wallet. (Note: It is particularly interesting in CA that there appears to be a correlation between affluent areas and lower tax rates.) It is unsurprising then, that those living in Democratic-leaning states appear to carry a higher tax burden than those residing in Republican-leaning states (See Table 4).

In the end, examining the CPI’s buying power is where the rubber meets the road. Table 6 provides a screenshot from the calculator on the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics website, comparing how far one’s dollar goes today compared to 10 years ago. The purchasing power of $100.00 in 2014 will require $134.31 in 2024, a 34.31% increase. See Figure 6. Now, imagine if you found yourself out of a job, living in a high tax state like California. It is no wonder California’s homeless population continues to grow!

Table 2: Average Annual Consumer Price Index (2014-2024)

Citations: https://www.bls.gov/cpi/tables/supplemental-files/historical-cpi-u-202312.pdf Note: * https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm

Table 3: Percent Changes in the Consumer Price Index for All U.S. Urban (City) Consumers

Citation:  https://www.bls.gov/news.release/cpi.nr0.htm

Table 4: Top Ten States with the Overall Highest Tax Burden

Citation: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494

Figure 5: Overall Tax Burden by State

Note: Data used for WalletHub’s analysis and reporting were obtained from the Tax Policy Center, with figures current as of March 12, 2024. Citations:https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-tax-burden-of-every-u-s-state/ https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494

Figure 6: Consumer Price Index (CPI) Buying Power from 2014- 6/2024

Citation: https://www.bls.gov/

Table 5: California City and County Sales and Use Tax Rates (effective July 1, 2024)

Citation: https://www.cdtfa.ca.gov/taxes-and-fees/rates.aspx

What does all this mean? New Yorkers pay the most taxes to their state and local governments, equating to roughly 12% of their income. Californians pay the highest state and local income taxes in the nation (4.9% of their income). The residents of Maine pay the most property taxes (4.9% of their income), while those living in Washington state are subject to the highest sales and excise taxes in the nation (5.5% of their income). Refer to Wallet hub.com for a complete listing of all 50 states. Overall, WalletHub has confirmed what many Americans feel in their own wallets – “Blue states have a higher total tax burden than red states.” See Figure 7.

Figure 7: Blue States Have a higher Total Tax Burden Than Red States

Citation: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-highest-lowest-tax-burden/20494

Unemployment

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the national unemployment rate as of May 2024 was 4.1%. Figure 8 provides an illustration of its increasing trend over the last year. To the dismay of many, especially those seeking jobs, the current unemployment rate is the highest we have seen since January 2022. Similar to the tax burden, democratic leaning states also lead the nation in unemployment. Of these, the District of Columbia and California top the list, with 5.3% and 5.2% of their respective populations unemployed. (See Table 6). All one needs to do is hop on LinkedIn to find large numbers of unemployed Hollywood-related entertainment and technology workers. While not all companies are leaving the state, layoffs have in particular plagued the technology sector, a leading provider of jobs in California. Software maker Intuit, for example, just announced they will be laying off 1,800 workers, comprising 10% of their workforce, “as it prepares for the ‘AI revolution.’” Of those 1,800 impacted workers, 600 of them will be in California. Layoffs.fyi reported more than 106,000 tech sector employees have lost their job so far this year. This comes on the heels of massive layoffs last year (2023), amounting to 260,000 people. The result: an economic downturn for all of those impacted, many of whom are still out of work.

Figure 8: U.S. Unemployment Trends (6/2023-6/2024)

Note: Data current as of July 05, 2024; Citation: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

Table 6: U.S. Unemployment Rates by State for May 2024 Ranked from Highest to Lowest

Note: Data was last modified on June 25, 2024
*Higher than the national unemployment rate of 4.1%
Citations:
https://www.bls.gov/web/laus/laumstrk.htm, https://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
 https://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm,  
,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election

Before anyone argues “but . . . we had a pandemic.” Yes, we did. However, that doesn’t change the continued financial impact inflation and unemployment are having on most Americans. Any Democratic party member that claims otherwise is fooling only themselves and possibly a loyal base, as evidenced by the polls overwhelmingly favoring Trump on the economy.

Crime

President Biden, the Democratic Party and the left-leaning MSM tout US crime statistics as the best they have been in decades. Using numbers from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI’s) Crime Data Explorer website, Politifact confirms this to be true with the exception of the years 2014 and 2019. So, why do so many Americans perceive otherwise? According to an October 2023 Gallup poll, 77% of Americans “believe there is more crime in the U.S. than a year ago, and a majority, 55%, say the same about crime in their local area.” A 5% increase (28% in 2023 vs 23% in 2021) in “crime victimization,” defined as occurring when the respondent “or someone in their household has been victimized in the past year by one of seven different crimes asked about in the survey, including vandalism, car theft, burglary, robbery, armed robbery, sexual assault and battery,” likely contributes to this perception. Similar to Gallup, Pew Research (2024) reports “Both the FBI and BJS [Bureau of Justice Statistics] data show dramatic declines in U.S. violent and property crimes rates since the early 1990’s when crime spiked across much of the nation.” However, Pew also reminds us that while current crime rates are down when compared to historic crime rates, there have been spikes. “In 2020, for example, the U.S. murder rate saw its largest single-year increase on record – and by 2022, it remained considerably higher than before the coronavirus pandemic” – a fact often overlooked by many on the left.

Pew postulates that statistics may not align with the public’s perception because “The two primary sources of government crime statistics – the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) – paint an incomplete picture.” They identify three important details regarding the FBI’s crime statistics that contribute to their assertion: (1) Not all crimes are included in the FBI’s database, (2) Only crimes reported to law enforcement are counted, and (3) “Not all law enforcement agencies participate every year.” Those seeking a more detailed explanation of the nuances associated with crime statistics are encouraged to read Pew’s article.

FBI’s Crime Data Explorer

In an attempt to better understand the perceived rise in crime, a cursory examination of the FBI’s latest national and statewide statistics (2022) was performed. Nationally, the rate of property crime in the U.S. per 100,000 people decreased slightly from 2020 (1958.2) to 2022 (1954.4). Violent crime also saw a reduction from 2020 (398.5) to 2022 (380.7) per 100,000 people. However, as with most things, the devil is in the details. Using data abstracted from the FBI’s Crime Data Explorer, Tables 7 and 8 detail the states with the highest and lowest property crime rates per 100,000 people for 2020 and 2022. Tables 10 and 11 provide similar data for violent crime rates. Tables 9 and 12 compare individual state data from 2020 to 2022 to determine whether crime within each state is trending upward or downward.

Interestingly, when comparing the data from 2020 to 2022 there appears to be a trend toward worsening crime (both property and violent) in Democratic leaning states. Conversely, some Republican leaning states appear to show signs of improvement in both their numbers and rankings. Those seeking to relocate to lower-crime states may wish to consider Maine, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Idaho, while avoiding the District of Columbia, New Mexico, Colorado, Louisiana, and Arkansas. These two groups of states routinely find themselves on the best and worst ranked lists, respectively. Figures 9 and 10 provide a graphic illustration of the upward and downward crime trends in the U.S.

Progressive District Attorneys (DA’s)

To many Americans living in liberal states with progressive DA’s who have decriminalized many crimes, and seem to have a disdain for placing criminals behind bars following the killing of George Floyd, these numbers will come as no surprise. In fact, it is probably safe to say that the criminal justice reform experiments that many liberal DA’s have been conducting the last few years have resulted in one thing – an increase in crime. Crime is so bad that constituents (and voters) have passed the point of frustration, to sheer anger. Those forced to deal with the negative sequela of the liberal progressive “restorative justice” mantra on a daily basis, have seen and experienced its failure. Many of the victims are people of color – the very people these programs were supposed to help. Businesses, along with middle class and affluent neighborhoods, have also seen spikes in crime.

Criminals know when they have the upper hand. They fully appreciate that many of these liberal prosecutors and legislatures have given them a leg-up in systems that have made the concerted decision to not prosecute criminals instead of holding them accountable. California, the testing ground for many progressive liberal ideas has resulted in lawless areas, record breaking homelessness and drug abuse, unsafe tourist areas, businesses leaving the state – and along with them, jobs.

Democrat Virtue-Signaling

At best, California’s wealthy political elite (of which Newsom, Pelosi and Harris are members) are blissfully ignorant of the gaping disconnect between their daily lives and those of the vast majority of their constituents. Or at worst, they simply don’t care. They would prefer to continue their virtue-signaling with legislation that helps no one, but affirms the false image that they care about everyone.  This practice is not limited to California. Constituents of the District of Columbia, Washington, Colorado, Oregon and New York are among those who are experiencing similar struggles. When faced with criticism, the common refrain from supporters of these progressive practices is to attribute any failure to the pandemic. Everything was, and still is, the COVID 19 pandemic’s fault. They simply refuse to accept that their policies are flawed, and are contributing to the downward spiral of those states that have elected to pursue them. Until improvements in (1) the economy – falling prices on essentials and private sector job growth, (2) crime reduction – both personal and business, and (3) healthcare – accessibility and pricing, are realized by regular Americans, little positive discourse on social issues such as immigration and abortion will likely be had. After all, when Americans are struggling to hold onto their homes and pay their bills, while illegal immigrants are being given free and subsidized housing, healthcare, food assistance, in-state tuition and financial aid, and pre-paid debit cards, it is easy to understand why there is very little empathy to go around. Yes, empathy and compassion are what is needed. However, as flight attendants remind everyone on the plane, “put your own oxygen mask on first, before attempting to help those around you.”

Table 7: States with the Highest and Lowest Property Crime Rates in 2020 in Comparison to the National Property Crime Rate (per 100,00 people)

Citation: https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

Table 8: States with the Highest and Lowest Property Crime Rates in 2022 in Comparison to the National Property Crime Rate (per 100,00 people)

Citation: https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

Table 9: Top Ten States That Showed the Greatest Increase and Decrease in Property Crime Rates from 2020 to 2022 (per 100,00 people)

Citation: https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

Figure 9: Top Ten States that Showed the Greatest Increase and Decrease in National Property Crime Trends from 2020 to 2022 (per 100,000 people)

Table 10: States with the Worst and Best Violent Crime Rates in 2020 in Comparison to the National Violent Crime Rate (per 100,00 people)

Citation: https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

Table 11: States with the Worst and Best Violent Crime Rates in 2022 in Comparison to the National Violent Crime Rate (per 100,00 people)

Citation: https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

Table 12: Top Ten States That Showed the Greatest Increase and Decrease in Violent Crime Rates from 2020 to 2022 (per 100,00 people)

Citation: https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov/LATEST/webapp/#/pages/explorer/crime/crime-trend

Figure 10: Top Ten States that Showed the Greatest Increase and Decrease in National Violent Crime Trends from 2020 to 2022 (per 100,000 people)

Healthcare

As healthcare is a substantial topic in itself, I will refer you to my post, The Rise of Alternative Healthcare Delivery Models.

Apparent Democratic Platform Summary

Based upon the data reported in Tables 1-12 and Figures 1-10, it is understandable why the views and opinions held by the majority of Americans are not translating into more votes for not only Biden, but all proposed replacement candidates. Practically all polls indicate that Americans are not happy with the current state of affairs. Yet rather than taking time to listen and re-evaluate, the Democratic Party has continued to plow full speed ahead with their progressive liberal agenda. In the process, the only thing they appear to have accomplished is alienating voters. It is high time the Democratic Party stops and considers the wisdom behind these decisions. With the kind of information cited above so readily available, there is no excuse for Democrats to continue operating as if they have been living in a political fishbowl, while wearing rose-colored glasses, and ignoring the outer circle members, also known as regular Americans, they were elected to serve.

Situation One Week Post-Debate

Finger-pointing. Democratic leaders and constituents are all pointing the finger at someone else. The Biden family blamed top advisors and staffers involved in his debate preparation. Staffers blamed the debate’s host, CNN, for how the debate was conducted. Mainstream Media (MSM) outlets started encouraging Biden to step aside. The day following the debate (June 28th), The New York Times (NYT) Editorial Board called on Biden to step aside – an interesting 180 degree turn from a week prior (June 21st) when they referred to “some videos” in the media being deceptively manipulated as “cheap fake[s].” Cheap fakes are videos that “are clearly manipulated to make him [Biden] look old and confused . . . [or those that] cut out vital context to portray him in a negative light.”

Following the NYT’s request for Biden to stand down, several other newspapers followed suit: (1) Georgia’s largest newspaper, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, (2) The New Yorker, (3) The Economist, and (4) The Chicago Tribune. Each of these newspapers implored Biden to withdraw from the race if he truly cared about the Democratic Party and what was best for the nation. Unsurprisingly, this dramatic page turn by leading MSM outlets caused distress among wealthy Democratic donors and the Democratic base. Whatever narrow lead Biden had in select polls pre-debate, appeared to be eroding post-debate.

Situation Two Weeks Post-Debate

While some may have hoped that Biden would have stepped aside by now, they have had no such luck. Wealthy donors (Abigail Disney, Barry Diller and Diane von Furstenberg) decided to put pressure on Biden to withdraw by withholding any future donations. Damon Lindelof proposed a “DEMbargo,” on any future contributions until Biden stepped down. Other donors reportedly will only be contributing to down-ballot candidates. What, if any, influence have these donors had? Apparently, little to none. Rather, a Biden fundraiser replied, “There are a lot of people who think they are more important than they actually are.” Sounds like solid advice for Biden himself!

Biden’s unwillingness to heed the advice of fellow Democratic leaders, political analysts, pundits, and donors betrays his own hubris. Somehow Biden believes he is able to escape Father Time, and all the accumulation of maladies that inevitably come with aging. At this point, there is nothing anyone – the Biden family, advisors, staunch supporters or even Michelle and Barack Obama can do to turn back the clock. Unless time travel becomes available in the next week or so, the best thing Biden can do to save the Democratic Party is to step aside. Such an act would show him to be the person of character he has purported to be for the last four years. It’s time for Biden to exit gracefully, and put his support behind the best Democratic nominee. A candidate who, if they win, will listen to the wants, needs, and views of an entire nation, rather than one beholden to unpopular and extreme views – the very criticism that Democrats unfailingly level against Biden’s opponent.

In Closing

I find it interesting that many politicians, pundits and commentators seem to like to air America’s dirty laundry publicly to the world at large, especially when it involves the “other” party. In so doing, our failings and internal divisions are aired for all the global community to see, including those who wish us harm. Neither of our current two presumptive candidates, nor their respective parties, appear to care that this is happening. Both camps appear hell-bent on coercing the other side’s constituents to conform to their way of thinking. Public opinion be damned, they seem to be saying; we are going to do what we want and what we see fit. Come November 2024, each party’s polarization, divisiveness, and unwillingness to compromise and settle their differences will very likely impact not only the U.S., but the world at large. Let’s hope confidence in America isn’t lost both globally and at home. We need Americans and the world at large to remember the strengths and values that made us the great country we have always been!