Mexico Dips In To Fight For Remittances

Mexico is concerned that remittances from the USA might be taxed. 

Yahoo News:  Claudia Sheinbaum denounces proposed US remittance tax as ‘unacceptable’

El Paso Times: "This is worrying": Remittance tax would take money needed to support migrant families

The tax of 3.5% (and it should be more, the originally proposed 5% would have been a decent start) would hit the $64.7 billion sent to Mexico from the USA and raise two and a quarter billion dollars to the treasury, helping defray some of the costs imposed by illegals.

This was one of Trump's failures in his first term - had he pushed for, and imposed a tax on remittances then, Mexico really would have paid for the wall.

The remittance tax needs to become a law. 

Woe Canada

The Loonie Drops For Thee.

CBC: Will the Canadian dollar slip below 70 cents US?

The Canadian dollar is dropping in value  not just due to the fall in the price of oil, but to lousy economic policy choices made by the Trudeau government.

The falling Canadian dollar matches the fall in Canada's standard of living under Trudeau:

"The really sad thing is, for me and you and the rest of Canadian citizens, our standard of living has dropped 35 to 40 per cent versus the United States in the last eight years," he said.

Progressives tend to run out of other people's money, and set their nations on a path to decline and ruin.  Hopefully, Canadians pull their collective head out and vote in a better government soon.

Because Wage And Price Controls Are Such Great Ideas

So, of course, Biden is going to push for them, of course starting them out to first to be imposed on the wealthy.

The Detroit News:  Biden: Ban deductions for firms paying executives more than $1 million

This would be on top of the already existing rule that bans the deduction for amounts over 1 Million.  Or, maybe, Biden et al don't even know what the current law even is right now.  Or, they decided to push for some class warfare knowing most people don't know about the current law either.

Look, if a company wishes to pay its execs over a million dollars, that's up to them.  The company believes that those execs are providing more than their salaries back to the company as value. If they're wrong then the company's owners can fire them or revisit such salary decisions.

This may also cause top execs to go to other countries like in Europe where they can be compensated more.  So, let's get a brain drain going 'cause that will sure help the economy.  Not.

We will also note that some non-profits have also paid their top execs over $1 million as well, and since they don't pay taxes at all, one would think that would be more offensive.

On top of proposing to pass an already existing law, there's going to be even more class warfare being pushed:

Biden is going further in his calls to tax the wealthy, endorsing a new minimum tax proposal on corporations and a new tax on corporate jet travel.

 Well, get ready for more unemployed jet pilots and aircraft companies if he punishes corporations for using corporate jets to get their people to places more efficiently.

Class warfare and damage to the economy the Democrat way - great for the progressive base, not so good for anyone else.

It Would Take A Heart Of Stone Not To Laugh

So I'm LMFAO over this entirely predictable outcome.

You see, an anti-capitalist coffee shop opened in Toronto, run on good, solid, communist anti-capitalist principles.

It went pretty much exactly as you would expect it to:

The Calgary Sun: Anti-capitalist café shuts down due to lack of capital

Barely a year after opening, an “anti-capitalist” Toronto coffee shop is closing its doors due to a lack of capital.

The Anarchist — a provider of “sweet and savoury” pastries and “trendy” coffees — was founded last April as a “subversive” alternative to what it called the usual model of workers “producing wealth for their parasitic employers.

Instead, it will close permanently on May 30, according to a statement appended with the slogans “abolish work,” “people over profit,” and “land back.” The café was never able to employ more than one person, so the proprietor, Gabriel Sims-Fewer, will be its only layoff.

The Anarchist had featured a “pay what you can” option, but the café’s very lengthy FAQ page explained that the system lost them money, for which the rich were to blame.

Indeed, to no one's surprise, the good socialist nomenklatura patronizing the shop failed to pay according to their ability, and instead exercised their limousine liberal privilege:

“One of the issues with a lot of my ‘pay what you can’ oriented ideas is that the more money people have the less they’re willing to pay. I get people in designer suits paying $1 for a coffee"

Sad that, totes unpredictable, really. 

A definite pity that he didn't get some good socialist government subsidies to keep the whole thing going, or have the necessary and proper communist ability of having force to lock people in the coffee shop until he could make them pay according to his view of their ability.

As is par for the socialist course, everything but economic reality is to blame:

The café announced its demise with a lengthy screed denouncing its various enemies, including “professional class-traitors,” “Libertarians,” “the rich,” and Canada itself, which it called a “colonial death camp.”

Of course. It's always the wreckers and kulaks that are at fault when socialism collapses from its own inherent contradictions, isn't it?  

Everything but economic reality and the owner's inability to manage a business with a proper and realistic business plan is to blame. I mean if you can't get it right to generate sufficient support among the socialists in Toronto, of which their are many, to keep your anti-capitalist fever dream bean shop going,  what chance do you have?

We will note that so far Mr. Gabriel Sims-Fewer, who is clearly now possessing fewer dollars than he started with, is still living in his self-proclaimed "colonial death camp". 

One surely expects him to move to a more socialistic utopia, any day now, one that is more in accordance with his anti-capitalist principles. 

That State Surplus Is $9.2 Billion Of Your Money

Gov Whitmer of course, doesn't want this $9.2 Billion in excess state revenues  going back to the taxpayers, especially not to those who paid the brunt of it.

The Detroit News: Michigan surplus balloons to $9.2B as 'mild recession' looms

To be fair, some of it is also your federal tax money getting doled out to the states along with money borrowed and part of the federal debt that you are on the hook for paying back eventually.

After all, that surplus could be around a $900 check sent to every single Michigan resident whether taxpayer or not.  It would also be a lot higher if it went to taxpayers alone and would mean the cash back check to tax payers would be around $2,250 to each taxpayer, which is not chump change at all.

But, instead of giving it back to taxpayers, or using it to, you know, "fix the damn roads", Whitmer and the Dems want it to go to the tax-takers, of course.

On the upside, given the numbers, all Michigan citizens should see some minor tax relief as by law our state income tax due to this windfall should drop from 4.25% to 4.05% - be interesitng to see if the Democrats interfere with that existing law now that they have the state house, senate and governorship.

Of course, at the same time there is a surplus,  they are also now cheerfully predicting just a "mild recession" this year.  This means you better start battening down the hatches now as their predictions tend to be shall we say, a tad optimistic?  After all, as the saying goes, when the USA catches a cold, Michigan tends to catch the flu.

Rent Control: A Misguided Progressive Economic Policy Strikes Yet Again

Kinda hard to have sympathy for people looking to repeat the same problems of the past and having learned nothing from the past lessons.

Ignorance of economics is not supposed to be an excuse.

The Detroit News: As housing prices surge, rent control is back on the ballot

Because limiting the income landlords receive on their rentals to -- under many of the proposals and laws already passed and described in the article -- below even the rate of inflation, is really going to encourage landlords to provide new, more, and better housing stock.

Yes there are  ore tenant voters than landlord voters which is how this stuff gets through, but having landlords lose money on every tenant  is hardly going to encourage them to keep renting properties out - they will not makee up the loss in volume.

It's the same stupid progressive magical thinking, using other people's money (in this case landlords) to pay for their fever-dreams.

While one might sympathize with tenants facing higher rents in very desirable areas to live as depicted in the article, with many of those areas limiting housing development and supply by local ordinance,  what exactly did they expect?

Combine:

a) high inflation with and the cost of everything from utilities to repair materials and labor costs going up; 

b) very high demand for rental space by people with Biden bucks in their pockets bidding up the rent and investment companies (often Biden and Dem contributors and promoters of ESG theories) looking for high return;  and

c) then throw in the reality of landlords getting hosed for two years with the CDC allowing tenants to live in rental units without having to pay rent for two years with landlords being unable to evict them and getting stuck eating the costs.

 Put all that together and you get the current big increase in rental costs, courtesy of misguided progressive economic policy.  

Adding yet another progressive misguided economic policy of rent control to try to fix the prior progressive misguided economic policy brought to you by the same people is not going to make it any better.

To No One's Surprise, Democrats' Stock Trade Ban Bill Is Deader Than A Doornail

If you haven't guessed by now, it's dead because the Democrats in Congress killed it.

Rather funny how that happens, especially when the Democrat leadership is making millions off of their insider trading information in stocks.

The Intercept:  House Democratic Leadership Designed Stock Trade Ban to Fail, Negotiators Say

Democrat House Majority Leader Sten Hoyer announced there would be no vote on the bill before the midterms.

 Funny that, isn't it?  The Democrats have a clear majority in the House and could pass this legislation without any Republicans at all if they wanted to do so (as flawed as it is with many seemingly deliberate openings to still permit insider trading among Congressional members).  

But they don't, because that would cut off a major opportunity they have to enrich themselves at our expense, all the while claiming they're "for the little people" and against the rich, while becoming very rich themselves based off stock trades from insider information.

Long After The Horses Have Already Bolted And The Pigs Have Fed At The Trough

Democrats are beginning to realize their Marie Antoinette approach hasn't been a hit with most Americans.

The Detroit News: Democrats unveil bill to restrict trading by lawmakers, presidents

This is of course, long after the Nancy Pelosi stock picking method, and the wealth she has amassed from it, has become legendary, and long after she;s moved to block prior bans.

Interestingly, and not surprisingly, there's lots of push-back from the Democrats in the House and Senate who want to keep on insider trading.

Unsurprisingly, the bill itself has apparently a huge loophole to keep insider trading alive.

Hilariously, the Detroit News article states that:

Forcing a vote now has the added bonus of putting Republicans on the spot, they said.

So, the Democrats themselves are conflicted with many against the bill as it harms their economic self-interest and opportunity to make millions insider trading, yet somehow bringing it up to vote will be "putting Republicans on the spot".

Pull the other one, it's got bells on it.

That Subsidy Could Have Bought An Awful Lot of New Power Plants

The Detroit News: Germany to spend billions to tackle high energy prices

Green dreams tend to end up in power supply nightmares, don't they?

Germany plans to spend up to 200 billion euros ($195 billion) helping consumers and businesses cope with surging energy prices, particularly for natural gas, due to the war in Ukraine.

Note this doesn't actually tackle high energy prices and does nothing to address the supply issue, it merely papers over it for consumers and has the government pay for the increase that is due to lousy planning on the German government's part when it comes to energy.  It's just a lot of spent money to kick the can down the road and not address the problem.

At approximately $4 Billion per reactor in construction costs (Nuclear power plants apparently are very expensive to build but relatively inexpensive to run), that money could have built 48 Nuclear plants and had money left over for operations of them.

Pity Germany embraced outsourcing its power generation and power supplies to a rather unreliable supplier in Russia.  

Even better, remember how they smirked and outright laughed at Trump when he noted their reliance on Russian gas was a bad idea. Who is laughing now?

Since We're Already in One, I'd Say The Odds Are Pretty Good

The Detroit Free Press, ever covering for the Democrats had the following article: What are the odds of a U.S. recession in 2023?

Since we're already in one I'd say the odds are pretty much 100%.

Indeed, now Federal Reserve Chairman Powell is backing away from his statement of just 11 days ago that higher rates likely won't cause a deep recession, it doesn't look good.

Fox Business: Fed's Powell abandons promise of 'soft landing' amid inflation fight

Given Powell's previous wrong statements that inflation frrm his and Biden's monetary policies would be merely tranistory, and that he;s now abandoning his promise that he can controlinflation while creating a "soft landing", I'd say that economic reality that their actions are goign to cvause a deep recession is pretty much spot on.

Inflation and flooding the economy with dollars may make you feel pretty good initially, and Biden is trying to keep the bender going by continuing spending under the "Inflation Reduction Act" that will actually increase inflation, and spending over half a trillion in forgiving his supporters' student loans.  

But, the hangover is going to suck - and its going to hurt those of us who weren't even drinking the Democrat's Modern Monetary Theory Kool-Aid.

Well, That's Very Reassuring

The Detroit News: Powell: Higher rates won’t likely cause deep US recession

This statement is not reassuring, at all.

Remember, this is the same Powell that stated  in the not-so-distant past that the "Recent Rise in Inflation Is ‘Transitory - as inflation that proved it was not transitory at all.

Turns out it is not, in fact, transitory and it is still very much continuing.

You know, the same transitory inflation that he later admitted he was wrong about and has now been raising interest rates to try to beat down, even as the Biden administration continues to flood the economy with more government spending and more dollars into circulation?

Yes, him.

His current statement that raising rates now won't likely cause a deep US recession needs to be taken with a large block of salt, not to mention an expectation that we're about to hit a deep US recession considering his prognostication accuracy to date.

Perhaps Ingrates Are Not The Best Choices To Show Who Benefits From This Profligate Loan Payoff Giveaway

So as an election year gambit, President Biden has announced he's going to spend between $300-600 billion to forgive $10-$20 thousand of many students current federal student loans. 

This of course rewards his progressive university educated base who lack financial literacy and likely never took a personal finance class with a cool extra ten (to possibly twenty) thousand dollars in their pockets, paid for by everyone else.

Apparently, it's unfortunate that I worked and paid off my loans timely.  Had I waited, I could have gotten $10,000 forgiven - now I and all other taxpayers get to pay for those who chose or otherwise did not do so.

Of course, this is naught but an election year trick and does not fix the problem of the cost of higher education. 

It does nothing to reduce the actual cost of college, which will likely go up by around ten thousand dollars given this incentive.  Nor does it ensure future students student loans are reduced, and it may encourage people to take out even more loans hoping for further political forgiveness stunts.

But even spending $300-$600 billion is not enough for some.

The Detroit News: Who gets student loan forgiveness? Relief prompts joy, angst

Lots of stories of those both happy to get the 10k, but many ingrates claiming its not enough to pay off their debts, debts they freely entered into in return for an education that no one forced them to undertake.

Amazingly, in one case we have a lawyer -- who clearly looks like she never missed a meal in her life -- claiming the $10,000 forgiveness is not enough for people of color like her:

Dallas attorney Adwoa Asante borrowed $147,000 in federal loans to attend Emory University School of Law. She graduated in 2015 and has since paid back about $15,000. With interest, she still owes $162,000 — a debt that she says has limited her career options.

That means she's only paid around $2,200 per year -- less than $200 a month toward her debt.  Of course the debt is not going to go down much when you only pay off 10% of it in seven years.

Did anyone force Ms. Asante to go to law school?  

Anyone force her to take out student loans to go there?   

I highly doubt it.  Ms. Asante you're a lawyer, presumably you understand how a contract works.  You entered into one to borrow money, which you promised to repay, in return for an education.  You got the education so why should someone else pay for it on your behalf?

And, to top Ms. Asante, we have an illegal immigrant featured in the story,  complaining the forgiveness program won't work for her because she's an illegal and lacks a social security number - otherwise if she had a social security number she'd get the 10-20k forgiven at American taxpayer expense.

Giglio, 20, is in the country without legal permission and doesn’t qualify for federal loans because she doesn’t have a Social Security number. She won’t receive any benefit from Biden’s debt cancellation plan.

Giglio, who expects to borrow a total of $150,000 in private loans by the end of her four years studying graphic design at Suffolk University, is already paying nearly $400 a month to pay off the 12% interest on the money she borrowed to finance her first two years of school.

“It’s frustrating. It’s 10 times harder for me to go to school, to earn money," she said. "There’s no help for us.”

She's paying an estimate $150,000 to get a degree in graphic design? Who the heck thinks that's a good deal? And she can't even legally work here?  What exactly was she thinking doing that? Who the heck even gave an illegal a loan to go to university?

You know she had one heckuva an option to save money beyond choosing a cheaper school here - she could go to any other country in the world and get a cheaper education. She darn well could have gone back to Chile or Italy to do so. But for some reason she did not.  

Yep my sympathy for the ingrates complimenting in the article is someone between zero and SFA.

So a quick couple questions:

 1. If you didn't go to college, possibly because you couldn't afford it, or wanted to do something else, or didn't want to take on debt, are you happy that you'll be paying a lawyer's (and the other people in the article's)  student loans for a political stunt?

2. If you paid off your loans for your education and spent years saving and faithfully paying them off, not using the money for more fun things, making do with less and delaying gratification, how do you feel about others getting 10,000 to 20,000 in forgiveness (or about $2,000+ of the taxes you're personally going to pay this year) to try to buy votes for the midterms?

When is A Recession Not A Recession ?

“On the telescreens, almost all figures of production are grossly exaggerated or simply fabricated to indicate an ever-growing economy, even during times when the reality is the opposite.”   G. Orwell, 1984. 

Nota Bene Democrats, 1984 is not supposed to be a how-to guide, so quit using it as one, dammit.

Then one looks at a dictionary:

Why yes, two consecutive quarters of falling real GDP constitutes a recession after all.

 Although I halfway expect the dictionary definition of recession to change shortly in order to  better suit the needs of progressives much as how both racism and female have had their meanings changed recently.

Can Anyone In The Biden Administration Do Math Or Economics?

Biden has announced that the U.S. to sell up to 45 mln bbls oil from reserve as part of historic release (Reuters).

Here's why it's not going to be more than a blip in gas prices and is just plain dumb.

Prior to Covid, the U.S. field production of crude oil, wast 13 million barrels per day of crude oil before the pandemic, we are now only at 11.655 million barrels per day.

US production is now short about 1.3 million barrels per day, every day.  That means we're short about 39 million barrels per month in US production alone, so the 45 million barrel release doesn't do much at all for the worldwide market in oil, much less our own domestic market, and it just covers the shortfall in production for a month and a few days -- without addressing all the other demand factors involved nor the fact that demand isn't going to drop after that month.

The Biden administration, instead of flashily selling off a reserve meant for a national emergency, and instead of blocking oil and gas development at every turn in the US, should instead be encouraging production to ensure an actual longer term easing of prices and reduced reliance on foreign oil.

Unfortunately that goes against their greenie and Democrat policies and beliefs that oil production is bad and higher prices are a good thing, so they're not going to take steps that might actually improve the situation.

But, hey, aren't you glad there's no more mean tweets every time you fill your tank?

Lockdowns Not Only Didn't Work, They've Caused Damage That Will Take A Generation To Unravel

 Not only did lockdowns not save lives from Covid,  they did more harm than good.

The ill-conceived Lockdowns did not just impose an economic catastrophe on the lower and middle classes and affected the mental health of millions - they've likely harmed our newest generation of children.

Ed Source:  Pandemic effects may have lowered baby IQs, study says

A new study by researchers at five universities found that babies born during the pandemic may have lower IQ scores than those born before it. Babies who came into the world before the coronavirus had a cognitive score hovering around 100, according to this study. But the test scores of babies born during the pandemic fell sharply, to around 78. That’s 22 points lower than what’s considered normal.

Let's explain just how huge such a drop of 22 points from the norm is.

Let's put it this way. 

The Dems love to rag on the military and claim military members are stupid. 

Remember when John Kerry   "told college students that if "you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq."

Well, the US Army's IQ cut off for entry is around an 83 IQ (its complicated but pretty much that score when compared to the ASVAB minimum etc).  

The military already does not accept the lowest 23% of the population already.  (Insert leftists snide commentary about military members being dumb or "lowest of the low" (Yes a California Dem Teacher /city councilman made that comment) - when they're clearly not.  

In short, the average child born during the lockdowns and mandatory mask rules with an IQ of 78 is literally unable to serve in the military or indeed conduct themselves in what is becoming a more and more technological society that demands intelligence.

This is a horrific result of an ill-conceived and enacted policy and is going to have severe consequences for a very long time.

Inflation And Product Shrinkage - The Subtle Way Of Paying More For Less

Peter at Bayou Renaissance Man has a rather sobering post up about inflation - complete with the mind-boggling fact that 40% of all dollars in existence were produced in the last year alone.

40 percent.

That which can't go on forever, won't.  

The amazing question is how are we not facing massive inflation after all these dollars have been injected into the economy in such a short time?  

We're being told that inflation is a measly and practically non-existent 1.4%

How can this be?

Some of it is demand destruction preventing inflation - locking down the economy over the past year certainly slowed the velocity of money by quite a bit and chilled if not froze out the economy almost completely.  

Some of it is the money being invested into the stock market where it's raising the price of stocks by leaps and bounds and likely creating an asset bubble, and in other investments, but not entering the real world of shops and everyday prices.

Yet, in other ways inflation is already here and eating into our savings and raising prices - but in an insidious manner.  Instead of paying more for the same, you'll now pay more for less - and you'll either not be told of the switch - or be told it's good for you and the environment.

Yahoo News: Coca-Cola Debuts New Bottle Size, Recycled Packaging Strategy

The Atlanta-based company's new 13.2 ounce bottle will be introduced this month for the Coca-Cola Trademark line . . .with a nationwide rollout by the end of 2022.

The new 13.2 oz. bottle is smaller than the retail staple 20 oz. bottle and slightly larger than the 12 oz. aluminum can used by the company. In a press statement, Coca-Cola said the new bottle is "a more sippable package and reduces the use of new plastic."

Expect it to replace the 20oz in the name of reduced packaging and the environment, and I'd wager you'll pay close to, if not the same as what the 20oz bottle was going for now when you buy the 13.2 oz bottle - a third less in size for what I expect will be 20oz prices within the next year - an inflation rate as far as Coca-Cola goes that far exceeds the official 1.4% rate.

Coca-Cola isn't the only company reducing the size of its products while maintaining prices and you can expect even more of these reductions, sold as environmental awareness rather than the raising of prices, in the near future.

Brace Yourselves: Krugman Forecasts A Bright Economic Future.

This is the same Krugman who pontificated upon President Trump's election and the question of when the market will recover stated:

It really does now look like President Donald J. Trump, and markets are plunging. When might we expect them to recover?

Frankly, I find it hard to care much, even though this is my specialty. The disaster for America and the world has so many aspects that the economic ramifications are way down my list of things to fear.

Still, I guess people want an answer: If the question is when markets will recover, a first-pass answer is never.

Not a particularly good prognostication, that, and it didn't age well, at all.

So hang onto your hats, as his first-pass answer in the New York Times to a Biden win is the circumstances

suggests that Joe Biden will eventually preside over a soaring, “morning in America”-type recovery.

This may be a case of a stopped clock being right twice a day, and right on this prediction, or he may be as right as he was regarding Trump's election and the economy -- and his guess then missed it by over a mile. 

But, if we go by Krugman's track record on such things, expect a recession or a major slump shortly.

Of course, after laying out in detail all the reasons why such a recovery will have nothing to do with Biden or his policies, but due to the nature of the pandemic and recovery from it, he then states Biden and progressive policies should take full credit for it, naturally.  

He also gets lots of shots in at Trump and Republicans but after all that's expected of Krugman - a man more often wrong than not, but never in doubt.

Well, That's Is Some Spendy 9!

Went to a local gun shop, not "my" local gun shop mind you, as this one is rather out of the way typically for me, charges a transfer fee over twice that which my local gun shop charges, is known for high prices and so-so service even in normal times. 

But figured I'd look inside anyways on my lunch break.

Well, it was hopping.

New Glocks were being priced at around $799, with a few used ones in the high fives.  One Glock 19 Gen 5 and One G17 and a G43 and that was it. Other firearms were similarly on the high end of the cost index and nothing even getting down to MSRP.

Ammo, however, was where the mark-ups really got crazy.

They had 50 round boxes of 9mm fmj for $40 a box, limit 2, and 100 round boxes of Winchester White Box for $80 - limit 1.  That's $800/per thousand rounds - for WWB.  Most LGS shops by comparison have it in the $19-$24 range per box of 50.

That is the highest I've seen locally so far.  Only Cheaper Than Dirt beats that with their "we're lower than dirt" price of $59.89 for a box of 50. 

There's a lot of new gun owners out there who have no idea what normal prices for ammunition are like when we're not in the middle of both an ongoing civil disorder scenario and an election year with a candidate running on a campaign of banning guns. 

So, they're happily paying that.  Ouch.

Gov Half-Whit Goes With The Rent Is Free Crowd Yet Again

Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, Gov Whitmer extended the ban on residential evictions yet again, now through June 30.

The order is not yet even published on the Governors executive order page as she yet again announced it after normal government hours, just as it was due to expire.

It will be her 118th executive order of this year, with all but one being Wuhan-Flu related.

The Detroit Free Press: Whitmer extends freeze on residential evictions for non-payment of rent

After all, tenants not paying their rent are her kind of people and will be voting for her. Tenants have not had to pay rent since March 20.

Landlords on the other hand, still have to pay the mortgages on those properties or face foreclosure.

What's Next? How About Pay Your Damn Rent?

The Detroit Free Press: With eviction ban set to expire Thursday, landlords and tenants ask: What's next?

Having to pay your rent may just become a thing again, unless Gov Half-Whit decides to extent the eviction ban yet again tomorrow.

Or perhaps not, if the non-paying tenants get their way:

"I feel like it should go through the end of the year," Detroit resident Dana Stuckey said of Whitmer's halt to residential evictions for nonpayment of rent....Though many Michiganders are saving on fuel costs by working from home, Stuckey, 36, who used public transit, said she is using more electricity and air conditioning and had to pay to upgrade her internet service.

Seriously? That's quite the sense of entitlement she's got there.

It's not like she didn't know she needed to pay rent, and with UI kick ups and the stimulus, not to mention she is apparently still has a job where she's working from home all this time, it's rather hard to say you couldn't afford to pay, you just chose not to do so, knowing there would be no consequence form doing so.

How about no to further rent holidays?

Especially because Gov Whitmer failed to pause any foreclosure actions against those landlords who now can't pay the mortgages as their tenants aren't paying rent, letting tenants stay for a whole year rent-free at their landlord's expense is laughable. In short Gov Half-Whit is placing all the burdens on Landlords to curry favor with tenants and providing no relief to landlords while doing so.

Of course, there's more tenants than landlords in Michigan, and the tenants tend to be her backers, so expect her to extend the rent-free-living yet again.