Yearly Archives: 2023

The U.S. Department of Transportation said Monday it will launch a new rulemaking process to require airlines provide compensation and cover expenses for stranded passengers.

"When an airline causes a flight cancellation or delay, passengers should not foot the bill," U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg said in a statement. "This rule would, for the first time in U.S. history, propose to require airlines to compensate passengers and cover expenses such as meals, hotels, and rebooking in cases where the airline has caused a cancellation or significant delay."

The rulemaking will address compensation for passengers when there is a controllable airline cancellation or significant delay; a meal or meal voucher, overnight accommodations, ground transportation to and from the hotel, and rebooking for controllable delays or cancellations; timely customer service during and after periods of widespread flight irregularities; and it will define what constitutes a controllable cancellation or delay.

The 10 largest airlines guarantee meals and free rebooking. Nine guarantee hotel accommodations. One guarantees frequent flyer miles and two airlines guarantee travel credits or vouchers in the case of significant delays or cancellations caused by something within the airline’s control, such as a mechanical issue. No airline guarantees cash compensation when an airline issue causes the significant delay or cancellation.

The department's planned rulemaking process would make passenger compensation and amenities mandatory.

Airlines for America, a lobbying group for airlines, said its members plan to work with the government "to ensure U.S. airspace remains the safest airspace in the world while supporting robust marketplace competition that provides transparency and vast options for consumers."

"U.S. airlines have no incentive to delay or cancel a flight and do everything in their control to ensure flights depart and arrive on time – but safety is always the top priority," Airlines for America said in a statement. "We have the safest air travel system in the world because we never compromise on safety."

The group said weather is a major cause of disruptions. It said that in 2022, more than half of flight cancellations were due to extreme weather.

"Thus far in 2023, the majority of flight cancellations have been because of ATC outages and severe weather," the group said. "Carriers have taken responsibility for challenges within their control and continue working diligently to improve operational reliability. This includes launching aggressive, successful hiring campaigns for positions across the industry and reducing schedules in response to the FAA’s staffing shortages. In 2022, carriers reduced their schedules by about 15% to alleviate pressure on the National Airspace System (NAS), and U.S. airlines are currently accommodating record demand while operating 10% fewer flights than in 2019 to reduce pressure on the system."

(The Center Square) – The focus at the Wisconsin Capitol has, so far, been on sending more money to local governments across the state. Assembly Speaker Robin Vos says that’s going to change.

Vos on Friday told News Talk 1130 WISN’s Jay Weber that Republicans are working on a plan to use about $3 billion of Wisconsin’s record $7 billion surplus on tax cuts.

“My colleagues right now are working on a plan that we’ll announce probably after Memorial Day, which will focus on giving tax relief to everyone in Wisconsin who actually pays taxes,” Vos said. “If you work right now, you’re going to see a reduction in the amount of taxes that you pay. Plain and simple.”

Vos didn’t say just how much less people can expect to pay in taxes.

“Senator Le Mahieu has been out there fishing very hard for a flat tax, which I support. That is the ultimate goal, so hopefully the system will be flatter,” Vos said. “I don’t think it’s likely we’ll get a flat tax, given where Governor Evers is. But that is certainly one of the goals we are striving for. And we’ll probably have some version of flattening in the income tax proposal that we bring forward.”

Le Mahieu, the Senate majority leader, has been pushing for months to lower Wisconsin’s progressive income tax to a flat 3.25% income tax. Evers has promised to veto any kind of flat tax.

The governor has called the flat tax “a tax cut for millionaires.”

Vos on Friday said the governor would rather raise taxes on most people in the state, and call it a tax cut for others.

“What the Democrats want to do is tax the people who are hard working, and reward those who, perhaps, aren’t working through a made-up tax cut,” Vos said. “That is not what our plan is going to be.”

As for the shared revenue plan that Evers threatened to veto on Thursday, Vos said Republicans in the Legislature are willing to make some changes, but he said they will not make the changes that the governor wants.

“We’re not going to break,” Vos said. “He’s not going to bully people into his position of saying we’re going to have a massive spending increase.”

The federal government is directing U.S. Border Patrol agents to release foreign nationals into the U.S. with “Notice to Appear/Warrant to Appear” forms for immigration court in 2026.

The Center Square obtained documents provided in a packet to foreign nationals who were processed by Border Patrol agents in Brownsville, Texas, were released and later apprehended in Jackson County, 260 miles north. Highway 59 is a major human smuggling route where an Operation Lone Star Task Force is operating to interdict criminals, state officials say.

Jackson County Sheriff Kelly Janica and his deputies are key players in the task force who’ve been involved in a range of interdiction activities, from seizing stolen cars, to apprehending smugglers, to arresting other perpetrators and fugitives.

Biden administration policies have been “an unmitigated disaster,” Janica argues, but now the “federal government is involved in legalized smuggling,” he told The Center Square.

Janica contacted The Center Square to describe a recent incident his deputy encountered.

On May 2, one of his deputies noticed a silver Toyota Tundra heading north on Highway 59 with five people sitting in the bed of the truck. The deputy pulled over the vehicle believing the group to be foreign nationals being smuggled north from the border.

According to his report, he observed “multiple Hispanic passengers in the bed of the truck and multiple Hispanic passengers in the cab.”

The driver, a 36-year-old man from Humble, said he was the son of a 63-year-old man sitting in the passenger seat to whom the vehicle was registered.

The deputy asked if all the occupants in the vehicle were in the U.S. legally and the driver said they were family members from Honduras who they picked up in Brownsville, Texas, and were driving to North Carolina.

All 11 being transported had Honduran identification cards or passports and were between the ages of 5 and 73, including four men and four women each, two boys, and one teenage girl. Three were minors, ages 5, 9 and 16.

They all had manila envelopes including “Notice to Appear/Warrant to Appear” papers, which are what Border Patrol agents give foreign nationals when they release them into the U.S.

The document states, “You are an arriving alien. The Department of Homeland Security alleges that you: 1. Are not a citizen or national of the United States; 2. You are a native of Honduras and citizen of Honduras; 3. On or about May 2, 2023, you applied for admission to the United States at a Brownsville, Texas, Port of Entry; 4. You are an immigrant not in possession of a valid unexpired immigrant visa, reentry permit, border crossing card or other valid entry document required by the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

“On the basis of the forgoing it is charged that you are subject to removal from the United States pursuant to” several federal laws listed.

They were all ordered to appear before an immigration judge at a court in Charlotte, North Carolina, on Oct. 15, 2026.

The deputy contacted Border Patrol to confirm their paperwork and was told they were apprehended on April 23 and had been released pending their immigration hearing in three years.

“Border Patrol advised they would not take them and they were free to go,” the deputy said.

Janica contacted The Center Square alarmed by what he says is the Biden administration “finding a way to get people into country under the auspices of a court proceeding in three years, moving people across the country to North Carolina.”

“They said they were all family members,” the sheriff said, but “we don’t believe that for one minute.”

Under normal circumstances, if federal law were being enforced, Janica said his deputy would have arrested the driver and front passenger and they would’ve been charged with human smuggling. The reason they couldn’t arrest them is because Border Patrol said they wouldn’t come and get them; a court date in 2026 was enough to release them, he said.

“We really don’t know where they’re going. That’s just a piece of paper the federal government gave them so they don’t have to come and get them,” he said.

Janica said law enforcement expects to see more of this after the public health authority Title 42 expires on May 11. They’ll be coming “on a party bus,” he told The Center Square, “and at our expense,” meaning the taxpayers’.

He also said the federal government is “preventing law enforcement from doing their jobs.”

In a previous stop, his deputies apprehended 22 people they believed were “illegal aliens but they each had brand new U.S. passports. They were heading to Florida. They were being driven by a Mexican national who was hired by a third party funded by U.S. government to drive the 17-passenger van,” Janica said.

His deputies called Border Patrol, who said the 22 people had been apprehended and released a few days before his deputies stopped them. Border Patrol said, “they were good to go. There was nothing we could do, we had to release them.”

“How were they American citizens if they’d just come across the border?” he asked. “How did they get brand new passports?”

“It takes my residents 6 to 10 weeks to get a passport. How did they get a passport in two days? Something’s going on down there that the American people don’t know about.”

(The Center Square) – Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin are pushing a bill that would open the door for local hospitals to be fined by state regulators if they fail to comply with federal price transparency guidelines.

Sponsored by state Sen. Mary Felzkowski and Rep. Robert Brooks, the measure would also obligate state hospitals to post online standard costs for at least 300 services that can be scheduled in advance of the procedure being performed.

Violators to the proposed mandate would be subject to fines handed out by the Department of Health Services of as much as $10,000 per day, with the actual amounts being calculated based on the size of the hospital.

In seeking other co-sponsors for the bill, Felzkowski told reporters that the measure largely mirrors federal regulations already on the books. Along with Brooks, she added the bill would also help create competition across the industry, which ultimately could lead to lower prices for consumers.

With similar laws in Colorado and Texas already on the books, not everyone thinks such policy is needed in the Badger State.

Wisconsin Hospital Association President and CEO Eric Borgerding issued a statement to that effect, saying such a law would only serve to add to an already tangled web of regulations.

Republican lawmakers are asking questions about the Navy's decision to enlist an active-duty sailor and drag queen to recruit people through social media platforms such as TikTok.

Fourteen U.S. Senators sent a letter to Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro seeking more information about the Navy’s Digital Ambassador Pilot Program.

"While we understand the importance of social media for modern recruiting, we are concerned about both the promotion of a banned app and behavior that many deem inappropriate in a professional workplace," the letter said.

Fourteen Republican Senators asked for information about the program, including how much has been spent on it. They also sought data regarding the impact of the Navy’s Digital Ambassador Program and if the Navy paid influencers under the program.

The Senators further asked about the Navy's use of TikTok, an app owned and operated by ByteDance Limited, a private company based in Beijing, China. President Joe Biden signed the No TikTok on Government Devices Act in December 2022. The act required the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to develop standards and guidelines for agencies requiring the removal of TikTok from federal information technology, according to a White House memo.

"Does the Navy endorse drag shows? Where does the Navy draw the line on promotion of the personal activities of its influencers? Would the Navy enlist burlesque dancers or exotic dancers to reach possible recruits?," the Senators asked in the letter. "Such activity is not appropriate for promotion in a professional workplace or the United States military."

The letter sought a response by May 24.

U.S. Sens. Ted Budd, R-North Carolina, Tom Cotton, R-Arkansas, Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Marco Rubio, R-Florida, Mike Lee, R-Utah, Steve Daines, R-Montana, Rick Scott, R-Florida, Tommy Tuberville, R-Alabama, Eric Schmitt, R-Missouri, John Barrasso, R-Wyoming, Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, Roger Marshall, R-Kansas, Cynthia Lummis, R-Wyoming, and Markwayne Mullin, R-Oklahoma, signed the letter.

(The Center Square) – A proposal from both inside and outside the Wisconsin Capitol would let people know how much they are paying for most health care and medical procedures before they go to the doctor.

Sen. Mary Felzkowski, R-Irma, on Wednesday introduced what she’s calling the Know Your Healthcare Cost Act.

“[The plan] requires hospitals to make publicly available a machine-readable digital file that contains a list of standard charges of certain services provided by the hospital. As well as a consumer-friendly list of standard charges for certain shoppable services” Felzkowski said.

The goal, Will Flanders with the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty said, it to inject the free market into the health care market.

“Some say that the market has failed in health care, and the only solution is a nationalized system," Flanders told reporters at the Capitol. "But the truth is that a free market system has not existed in the health care industry in decades, thanks largely to the inaccessibility of information to empower consumers in their decision making. Price transparency is an important first step in altering this paradigm and restoring a sense of normalcy to our out of control health care costs.”

Flanders added that Wisconsin’s hospital costs are now fourth-highest nationally. Polls say 67% of Americans worry about unexpected medical bills, and 90% of people in Wisconsin support price transparency to better control their costs.

Felzkowski said the proposed Wisconsin law would mirror federal rules on price transparency but with what she hopes is a difference.

“Somebody put a really interesting book on my desk about two months ago, it’s called Stop Waiting for Washington. So that’s what we’ve decided to do in this state,” Felzkowski said. “I’ve been in this building for 10 years, and this was a conversation that was happening 10-years ago. And for 10 years we’ve seen no movement on helping our constituents with the high cost of health care.”

Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, a large influential business association, and other Republican lawmakers also support the plan.

“Informed health care consumers create a competitive market,” Rachel Ver Velde of the association said Wednesday. “It is vitally important for employers and their employees to have access to transparent and easily understood medical cost data.”

Sen. Julian Bradley, R-Franklin, said there are, obviously, some medical procedures or treatments for which people won’t be able to shop. He said there are plenty of procedures that can be shopped.

“That’s what this bill does. It helps bring that transparency to light, it helps bring those costs to light,” Bradley said. “When we talk about shoppable services, we’re not talking about emergency services. We’re talking about things that can be scheduled, non-emergency services procedures that you can take the time to look forward to, to get scheduled, and to make the best decision for yourself.”

The U.S. Federal Reserve Board Wednesday announced another increase to the federal funds rate, inching the target range up to 5% to 5.25%, an increase of a quarter of a point.

Wednesday’s announcement is the tenth rate hike since March 2022.

“We are prepared to do more if greater monetary policy restraint is warranted,” Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell said in a news conference after the announcement.

The Fed bases its decision largely on the health of the economy and whether the agency thinks it can withstand the economic pain of another rate hike.

“Economic activity expanded at a modest pace in the first quarter,” the group said. “Job gains have been robust in recent months, and the unemployment rate has remained low. Inflation remains elevated.”

The Feds' key interest rate was 1% to 1.25% just before the COVID-19 pandemic. In the middle of March 2020, the rate dropped to 0 to 0.25%. The federal government soon kicked off a several trillion dollar spending spree over the next two years in response to hardships during the pandemic, which were fueled in large part by aggressive lockdown policies.

Since that pandemic-era spending, inflation has soared, in particular affecting gas and food prices.

The banking sector has struggled in recent months with several bank collapses fueled in part by rate hikes. Experts fear another rate hike could worsen that situation, which is far from stabilized. The rate hike could increase fears that regional banks will go insolvent because they are less able to weather storms than bigger banks, potentially leading to a run on the depositors hoping to get their money out just in case.

The Federal Reserve board waved off those risks in its announcement.

“The U.S. banking system is sound and resilient,” the group said. “Tighter credit conditions for households and businesses are likely to weigh on economic activity, hiring, and inflation. The extent of these effects remains uncertain. The Committee remains highly attentive to inflation risks.”

Democrats raised concerns that the rate hikes amid a shaky banking environment could force an economic downturn that hurts Democrats in the next election.

"The Fed's extreme interest rate hikes risk triggering a recession, destroying jobs and crushing small businesses," U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., wrote on Twitter.

Some were more optimistic.

“The remaining question is how much the regional bank crisis and credit crunch will slow the economy,” said Gina Bolvin, president of Bolvin Wealth Management Group. “Investors should remain cautiously optimistic. Evidently Powell thinks the economy is strong enough to continue to tighten.”

(The Center Square) – Attorney General Josh Kaul argued against a motion to dismiss his challenge to the state’s century-old abortion law on Thursday.

Kaul is suing the district attorneys in Sheboygan, Dane and Milwaukee counties – the only places where abortions in the state used to be performed – to block the enforcement of Wisconsin’s 1849 law that bans abortions in every case except to save a mother’s life.

“We’ve raised a few different legal arguments. Including the Black decision. That the logic of that opinion indicates the 1849 statute is not enforceable in cases involving consensual abortion,” Kaul said after appearing in court. “We’ve also argued that laws that were passed subsequent to Roe v. Wade fundamentally conflict with the 1849 ban. Both individual laws conflict, and the category of laws that regulate lawful abortion conflict with that statute.”

In the Black decision, the Wisconsin Supreme Court wrote that Wisconsin’s law against killing an unborn baby “by its own terms it cannot apply to a mother.” But the opinion also said the use of Wisconsin’s abortion law to doctors who perform abortions “would be unconstitutional under Roe v. Wade.”

The U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe last year, and Wisconsin immediately reverted back to the 1849 law.

The district attorneys who are being sued are challenging whether Kaul has the legal standing to sue, since he is neither a doctor nor a mother who has been denied an abortion.

The judge in the case did not issue a ruling on the motion to dismiss.

Many in Wisconsin expect the 1849 law to eventually end-up before the to-be liberal-majority Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Kaul, on Thursday, said that is likely. But it will also be a long time from now.

“The unfortunate reality, and I’ve said this since we filed the case, is that the legal process takes a while to play out,” Kaul said. “We filed this case almost a year ago now, and there are still going to be several steps in this case as it moves forward.”

Americans are worried about the safety of their money in the banking system after multiple banks have collapsed in recent weeks, according to a new poll.

Gallup released the survey data, which showed that 19% are “very” worried about the safety of their money in banks and another 29% are “moderately” worried.

That means about half of Americans are concerned about the safety of their personal funds in banks, numbers that are reminiscent of the 2008 financial crisis.

“The latest readings are similar to those in 2008,” Gallup said. “In September of that year, shortly after the collapse of Lehman Brothers, which remains the largest bankruptcy filing in U.S. history, 45% of U.S. adults said they were very or moderately worried about the safety of their money. Several months later, in December, after Congress’ Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP) bailed out other banks in danger of failing, Americans were slightly less concerned about the safety of their personal financial accounts, as 41% said they were very or moderately worried.”

The poll was conducted April 3-25, after Silicon Valley Bank and Signature Bank collapsed but before news broke about the failure of First Republic, which regulators took over and sold to JP Morgan earlier this week.

The concern varies by demographic and political affiliation.

“Whereas majorities of Republicans (55%) and independents (51%) say they are at least moderately worried, a 36% minority of Democrats are,” Gallup said. “Similarly, 54% of U.S. adults with no college degree are very or moderately worried, while 36% of college graduates are. About half of Americans with an annual household income under $100,000 express worry about their money, while 40% of those with higher incomes do.”

(The Center Square) – Pennsylvania Treasurer Stacy Garrity leads a coalition of state financial officials pushing back against new federal mortgage fees they call “unconscionable.”

“This new policy makes it more expensive for people with good credit to buy houses – and that’s absurd,” she said. “Americans who have built a good credit score and saved enough to make a strong down payment should not be penalized and forced to pay more on their mortgage every single month.”

The letter, sent Monday to President Joe Biden and Federal Housing Finance Agency Director Sandra L. Thompson, includes the signatures of 33 officials from 26 states – all of whom insist the administration should roll back the modified fee structure that applies to borrowers with more favorable credit profiles.

The new rates, which went into effect Monday, raise upfront fees for borrowers with credit scores over 680 and down payments between 15% and 20%. The extra money collected subsidizes buyers with less favorable finances – part of the administration’s strategy to make homeownership more accessible for borrowers with less wealth and upward mobility.

Only mortgages backed by Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae – which included more than half of home loans taken out in 2020 – will see the fee increase.

Garrity and other critics said the backward incentive boils down to a middle-class tax hike that takes “money away from the people who played by the rules and did things right.”

In multiple media reports, housing analysts say borrowers with better financial profiles still get lower interest rates and pay less overall compared to buyers with less favorable loan terms. The higher interest rates, smaller down payments, and added cost of mortgage insurance typically eclipse any savings on up front fees in a matter of years.

In the letter, the officials shared in the administration’s goal of increasing home ownership, but said “confiscating” the money from “hardworking, middle-class American families” and using it as a “handout” goes too far.

Instead, they want to see the federal government adopt policies to reduce inflation, cut energy costs and lower interest rates – all factors that would boost discretionary income and give people more leeway to save for a down payment.

(The Center Square) – If Milwaukee wants to raise its sales tax, it’s going to have to convince voters it’s the right thing to do.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos was on UPFRONT over the weekend, and said there’s no appetite among Republicans at the Wisconsin Capitol to remove the referendum requirement for a Milwaukee and Milwaukee County sales tax increase from the new shared revenue proposal.

“I guess if there’s a counter-proposal, I’m always willing to take a look at it, but that’s certainly not where we are today,” Vos said.

Milwaukee’s mayor on Friday expressed a bit of frustration with the requirement that Milwaukee and Milwaukee County get voter approval before raising taxes.

“That’s why I said there are some disagreements. And some areas where there is still an opportunity to work on this,” Mayor Cavalier Johnson said.

Republican leaders at the Statehouse have said for months that local governments should go to local voters in order to raise taxes.

Vos, on UPFRONT, said that’s how most communities in Wisconsin get the things they need.

“That’s no different than what it is for most municipalities around the state when they go and ask permission to increase their levy for police or try to build a new school,” Vos said.

He did, however, acknowledge that the vote could fail.

“It’s certainly a possibility, which would be catastrophic for the city,” Vos said.

Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley was also on UPFRONT over the weekend.

He said if there is going to have to be a vote to raise taxes in Milwaukee County, he’d like to see it happen as soon as possible.

“It’s going to take a lot of education, as far as where we are and what we’ve done to help lower many of the costs that we have, but also what we need moving forward,” Crowley said. “We have to put it on the ballot rather quickly. At the end of the day, we want to make sure we can start collecting these revenues as quickly as possible.”

If voters would approve, the city of Milwaukee would be able to increase its sales tax up to 2%. Milwaukee County would be able to add 0.375% to its sales tax.

The Milwaukee and Milwaukee County taxes are just part of a half-billion dollar proposal to send more state money to local governments across Wisconsin.

Vos said the legislation on the plan, which will include more specifics, should be finalized sometime this week.

The FDIC took over the embattled San Francisco bank, First Republic, and auctioned it off, with JP Morgan taking over as regulators hope to fend off a domino effect in the banking sector.

“Our government invited us and others to step up, and we did,” Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase said in a statement after the purchase.

But critics point out that JP Morgan profits sizeably off the deal and argue it amounts to a government bailout.

First Republic’s collapse is the biggest bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis, when the federal government bailed out banks with billions of taxpayer dollars. In this new deal, JP Morgan took on about $92 billion in First Republic’s deposits and another roughly $203 billion in assets.

“JPM is paying about $10.6 billion, but is getting $13 billion from the FDIC, or in other words, we the taxpayer,” E.J. Antoni, an economic expert at the Heritage Foundation, said. "That means JPM already booked a profit on the deal. Another $50 billion is available from the FDIC to JPM if losses from First Republic’s assets continue to mount. To cover the existing and any future losses, the FDIC will levy a ‘special assessment’ on banks that is passed to customers.”

Dimon admitted his company “modestly benefits” in the deal.

“The service JPM is providing here is to provide a massive amount of liquidity to meet depositor’s demands,” Antoni said. “That will prevent the sale of some $30 billion in securities that First Republic had which have lost value, if sold today. If held to maturity, however, those securities will still pay their anticipated rate of return."

Other experts say comparing this to a traditional bank bailout goes too far and emphasize that stabilizing the banking sector was necessary for the sake of the broader economy. First Republic is the third U.S. bank to fail since March of this year.

Notably, the FDIC is funded by insurance premiums paid by banks, not by Congressional appropriations.

“I would not call this a bailout,” Gary Wolfram, an economics professor at Hillsdale College, told The Center Square. “It is an attempt to stabilize the banking system. The reason the FDIC was created nearly 90 years ago was to guard against ‘runs’ on banks. Individual banks hold only a fraction of their deposits on reserve with the Fed, and if we all went in to get our money you have the scene from the Jimmy Stewart movie, 'It’s a Wonderful Life.'

“While J.P. Morgan may benefit, it is taking on $92 billion in deposits that were in First Republic (as well as the loans and securities) and it is large enough that people will probably not withdraw their deposits for fear that J.P. Morgan will fail,” he added.

Antoni argues taxpayers will still foot the bill.

“The FDIC levies fees on banks which are passed on to customers. Anything, like an overdraft fee, contributes to this,” he said. “The interest rate on a loan will be slightly higher and the interest rate you get paid on your savings account will be slightly lower. This functions like a particularly regressive tax because low-income people are much more likely to pay things like overdraft fees. However, the FDIC also has an existing line of credit with the Treasury of $100 billion. Tapping into that costs the taxpayer. Additionally, when the FDIC has really gotten into trouble in the past, the Treasury has not only expanded that line of credit but simply paid for outstanding FDIC bills, meaning those dollars were never repaid.”

While calling this a bailout is up for debate, the federal government is taking the blame for fueling inflation and then hiking interest rates to compensate for inflation, which is what has put the strain on the banking sector.

“The Fed is offering an alternative to the FDIC guaranteeing all deposits as it did with the other two banks,” Wolfram said. “It is following the Swiss authorities actions with Credit Suisee. The recent swift and large increase in interest rates by the Fed resulted in a sudden decrease in the value of bond holdings of banks, such as Silicon Valley, and now it is trying to deal with the result of this. This is complicated by the massive deficits of the federal government and the Fed’s attempts to deal with inflation caused by the massive increase in the money supply (a 40% increase in M2 that started in March 2020).”

A new federal rule that would charge higher fees to home buyers with good credit to help subsidize those with poor credit goes into effect Monday.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency announced in January it would increase Loan-Level Price Adjustment fees for mortgage borrowers with higher credit scores to help keep fees lower for those with worse credit.

Director Sandra Thompson of FHFA said the plan will “advance their mission of facilitating equitable and sustainable access to homeownership.”​​

The loan-level price adjustment is a fee assessed after bankers evaluate the risk of lending them money. The FHFA rule could cost those with better credit scores thousands of dollars on their loans, effectively punishing them for paying their bills.

Critics argue the rule shifts risk costs onto borrowers with better credit and will leave taxpayers on the hook if the plan leads to major economic issues.

The rule has sparked a wide array of controversy, especially as critics point out Freddie Mae and Freddie Mac engaged in similar policies in their role in the 2008 financial crisis. That crisis put billions of dollars in financial burden on taxpayers via government bailouts.

Critics called the rule a "bailout” for those with poor credit, comparing it to student loan forgiveness.

“Rather than saddle those with scores 680 or lower with more debt, it’s far better to encourage them to re-establish credit,” Joel Griffith, an economic expert at the Heritage Foundation, told The Center Square. “Most people find themselves financially strapped at some point. A few years of consistent timely payments and debt paydown can help someone even emerging from bankruptcy attain scores at 680 or worse with a near 0% loan from FHA.”

Griffith also said the plan would drive up home prices, especially for starter homes, which are already experiencing the highest housing inflation.

Other critics argue this is part of a pattern in the Biden administration of using regulations to take from some and give to others.

“This mortgage rule is part of a pattern of Biden administration policies that force responsible consumers to subsidize irresponsible ones – from blanket student loan forgiveness that disregards those who already paid to the CFPB’s price controls on credit card late fees that would force those cardholders who pay on time to pay more,” John Berlau, director of Finance Policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, told The Center Square.

In response, U.S. Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Ariz., introduced the the Responsible Borrowers Protection Act last week. Biggs' measure would block the rule from going into effect, but will almost certainly not be passed before Monday if at all.

“The FHFA – led by a President Biden appointed director – is punishing financially responsible mortgage borrowers,” said Biggs, who has more than 30 lawmakers backing his bill. “Their agenda of equity over equality defies common sense and will endanger the stability of the housing market.”

(The Center Square) – Wisconsin’s coronavirus emergency is ending, but the state’s public health managers are continuing to urge people to get vaccinated and “take care of their health.”

Wisconsin’s Department of Health Services on Wednesday said the state will be transitioning away from its emergency footing as the Biden Administration prepares to end the national coronavirus emergency on May 11.

“The public health emergency was a trigger for federal and state funding to become available resources that aren’t normal,” DHS deputy secretary Deb Standridge said.

By remaining under an emergency, Wisconsin accessed millions of dollars that basically covered the cost of coronavirus tests and coronavirus vaccines across the state.

People in Wisconsin will now have to pay for those on their own or through their insurance.

Still, Standridge said just because the coronavirus emergency is going away, that doesn’t mean the coronavirus itself is going away.

“Stay vaccinated. Stay up to date on vaccinations,” Standridge explained. “Should [people] begin to experience symptoms, get tested. And seek medical attention if [people] think they have COVID.”

The end of the emergency also means changes for how Wisconsin tracks its coronavirus cases and deaths.

DHS’s COVID dashboard was already unavailable on Thursday.

Standridge said DHS will continue to track cases, but they will be reported weekly “if not longer.”

Wisconsin’s coronavirus cases load peaked in 2020 and again in 2022 with nearly 2,000 cases per-day. The latest update from DHS from earlier this week was 188 confirmed cases.

Wisconsin saw 14,453 people die with the virus over the past three years, including two new deaths reported this week.

(The Center Square) – In a letter to FBI Director Chris Wray, congressional members on the U.S. Select Committee on the Chinese Community Party on Wednesday expressed concerns about the FBI potentially not knowing about Chinese "police stations" operating in the U.S. They also asked Wray to provide information about the FBI's efforts to investigate Chinese transnational repression in America.

The committee received a classified briefing on March 30 after requesting information on Feb. 24. However, the briefing didn't answer their questions, prompting them to formally ask 12 questions they want answered in writing. They also expect to have another classified briefing once they receive additional information.

Rep. Mike Gallagher, R-Wisc., led a coalition of 12 members who signed the letter.

In the letter, they cite a September 2022 report published by the Madrid, Spain-based nongovernmental organization Safeguard Defenders, which explains how the PRC uses "illicit methods to harass, threaten, intimidate and force targets to return to China for persecution." The PRC does this using officers working in at least 102 "Chinese Overseas Police Service Centers" or "police stations" in 53 countries, the organization said, adding that the agents are engaging in "persuasions to return" operations designed to "intimidate and force targets to return to China for persecution."

The report cites a Chinese report on the PRC State Council Overseas Chinese Affairs Office in 2014 announcing its plans to establish 60 police stations worldwide. Since then, 46 centers have been identified in 40 countries, according to the Safeguard Defenders report. As of 2018, these offices were operating in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver in Canada and in San Francisco, Houston, Minnesota and Nebraska in the U.S.

Months after Safeguard Defenders publicized its report, the Department of Justice announced it arrested two Chinese operatives in New York City on April 17 "in connection with opening and operating an illegal overseas police station in lower Manhattan, New York, for a provincial branch of the Ministry of Public Safety (MPS) of the People's Republic of China."

The DOJ later announced that it filed at least 44 criminal complaints against Chinese nationals who were "at large" for allegedly committing crimes against American citizens or residents on behalf of the People's Republic of China's Ministry of Public Security and were operating Chinese "police stations" in New York City.

However, committee members raised concerns, saying, "According to the DOJ, the FBI did not conduct a search of the secret police station until October 2022—a month after the Safeguard Defenders report—raising concerns that the FBI was unaware of the illegal operation prior to the public reporting."

In February, the committee asked the FBI to answer seven questions about its awareness about or investigation of Chinese police stations operating in the U.S. but only received "vague information – virtually all of which could be found in public reporting – which did not address any of the questions," they said.

The committee is asking the FBI to respond to these and five additional questions in the letter in writing by May 10.

The questions ask if the FBI was aware of the Chinese police stations operating in the U.S. before the Safeguard Defender report, what steps it was taking to investigate their existence and close them, what level of resources they needed to investigate, what roles were the Chinese police stations playing in gathering intelligence information, what was the FBI's strategy for combating transnational repressions, among others.

"The threat of PRC transnational repression schemes that target U.S. citizens – primarily Chinese Americans – undermines the foundational American principles of freedom and liberty," they argued, adding that law enforcement agencies must better protect Americans from future threats.