Lake America?

 

Question: Trump changed the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America and Lake Ontario to Lake America. Does that apply only to the territorial waters of the US? If so wouldn’t it be incorrect for the new names to be affixed to the entire body of the waters? Gulf of America? Lake America? Apparently a president can unilaterally order the federal government to rename a place, and the government must comply — though the rest of us are free to ignore him. Trump’s executive order to change Lake Ontario to Lake America directed Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to update the Geographic Names Information System, the federal database that standardizes place names across agencies, within 30 days. Burgum, who clearly likes his job, rushed to comply, posting: “We’re on it, Mr. President! The places and waters that border our nation and support our economy should reflect the greatness of the United States. USGS maps our country for the world to see, and we are PROUD to implement your Executive Order to rename LAKE AMERICA.”

The reaction has been predictable. Congressional republicans said nothing, and democrats offered only their usual toothless complaints. House democrats posted “It’s too expensive to live and Donald Trump is renaming lakes.”. Chuck Schumer, working from the same playbook, said Trump should focus on lowering costs and reversing tariffs instead of renaming one of the Great Lakes. Rep. Tim Kennedy (D-N.Y.), who co-chairs the bipartisan Northern Border Caucus, said he’s “working on a bill” in response. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) plans to introduce one too, calling the order “absolutely insane” and saying she “deeply resents it.” But democrats know this is symbolic and a waste of time since republicans control both houses of Congress.

The White House and right-wing media responded predictably. One of the administration’s many spokespeople, Taylor Rogers, asked of Kennedy: “Does the congressman not love America?” That was the standard line on the right, echoed in comments like “so freaking awesome!”, “Same great lake, new AMERICAN name!”, and “I don’t care if it’s petty — in 50 years nobody will call it anything but Lake America, just like the Gulf of America.” One devotee gloated “It’s happening, and there’s nothing Canada can do about it.”

Yes they can. They can ignore the president – which is 100 percent guaranteed knowing that virtually no other country will recognize the name change. But I would just change (a la the maps depicted) just change the name within the territorial boundaries of the United States which would likely infuriate Trump even more (if that is possible).

Trump seems to forget that “Ontario” is also the name of twelve American cities, like Ontario, California. Is he going to demand they change their names too? He has probably doesn’t know – and doesn’t care – that the name isn’t Canadian and predates Canada by more than 400 years. The name comes from the Wendat word Ontari’io, meaning “the lake is beautiful, the lake is big.” Fittingly, the leader of the Seneca Nation in upstate New York chides the president saying the renaming violates a treaty more than 225 years old and shows “blatant disrespect” for the Indigenous people who named the lake in the first place. Seneca Nation President J. Conrad Seneca called for the order to be rescinded, arguing the Lake Ontario name should stand as a reflection of the Indigenous peoples in the U.S. and Canada who lived around the lake long before either nation existed. “The President cannot assert ownership over our culture or erase it through irresponsible political action.”

Oh yes he can.

I suspect that, as with the Gulf of Mexico rename, most people will just keep using the traditional name. Seventy-two percent of Americans favor keeping it, including 45 percent of Republicans. A CNN poll found Americans say by a 2-to-1 margin that Trump has “gone too far” with these kinds of changes, and a Pew Research Center poll found just 9 percent think it’s appropriate to name things after him while he’s still president. Yet he persists — including, as I’ve reported elsewhere, floating the idea of replacing Doris Miller’s name with his own on a new Ford-class aircraft carrier. The Lake Ontario rename will likely meet the same disfavor, especially since Americans generally view Canada favorably. 

Trump himself joked: “We have a gulf. We have a lake. Now all we need is an ocean. So maybe we’ll have to change the name of the Atlantic and/or the Pacific. Maybe we’ll change them both.”

I assume he was joking. But expect only the MAGA-verse to actually use these new names while the rest of the country, and the world, will simply ignore him. Just as Biden signed executive orders overturning Trump’s on his first day in office, I’d bet a dollar the next democratic president does the same.

The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City’s Annual Jackson Hole Symposium

The Fed just held its annual symposium at Jackson Hole, Wyoming — rather the event is actually hosted by the Kansas City Fed. This year’s theme was “Financial Innovation: Implications for Payments and Policy.” But you would never know it. The media, as always, fixated on the Chairman’s remarks, parsing every word as though reading entrails. But the Chairman’s actual role is only to deliver brief introductory remarks. The conference’s real substance is the invited research papers from academics and the discussions that follow.

https://www.kansascityfed.org/research/jackson-hole-economic-symposium/2026

You’d never guess that from the coverage. The conference has changed since the days when I was, for a time, important enough to be invited — and even, on one occasion, to present my own research. Back then it featured work by economists from the Fed Board in Washington and the regional reserve banks, with occasional papers by outsiders. It was held at the Jackson Lodge, near a trout stream where the kitchen would cook whatever you caught for breakfast (though grits, sadly, were missing from the menu). 

The chairman’s remarks in those days — a welcoming address, nothing more — barely registered in the news. Not anymore. This year the media fixated entirely on what Warsh had to say and ignored everything else. For anyone interested his full remarks are here:

https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/warsh20260828a.htm

It was an address that moved markets  – not the introductory chitchat about hiking trails – but his comments on the economy and his posture as chairman. There was absolutely nothing new in what he said. Yet the media treated it as major news. Even the markets reacted. After a brief rally, the Nasdaq Composite, S&P 500, and Dow Jones Industrial Average closed down 0.5%, 0.3%, and 0.1% respectively. What actually captivated the markets was this line: “While this summer’s PCE and CPI readings were better than expected, they do not tell me that underlying trends have meaningfully improved.” Traders read that as a signal the Fed is more likely than before to raise rates at next month’s Open Market Committee meeting. CME Group’s FedWatch tool now puts the odds of a hike at 62%, up from 36% just before the speech.

For the record, I doubt if the Fed raises rates in September, even though a group on the committee will push for it. If inflation doesn’t fall below 3% – which it won’t – I do think we’ll see a hike at either the October or December meeting. Warsh presents himself as an inflation hawk, but my guess is he’ll delay a rate increase as long as he can, hoping inflation recedes on its own in the months ahead. Still, I’m glad to see him steering the Fed back toward its core mandate of controlling inflation, rather than wandering into the political arena the way some of his predecessors did.

I’d guess that once Warsh wrapped up his brief remarks, the press rushed out of the room and the conference proceeded largely unbothered by reporters — with sessions on “Innovation in Tokenized Finance,” “International Experience with Payments Innovation,” and “Financial Innovation and the Future of Banking.”

And I’d guess, too, that later the attendees went out for a hike — or maybe a little trout fishing.

Israel: Our Greatest Ally?

During the recent Michigan primary, won by socialist Abdul el-Sayed, he leaned on the left’s hatred of Israel at every opportunity. In his debate with Haley Stevens, you’d have thought Israel was his opponent rather than Stevens herself. He claimed, “AIPAC is set to spend at least $3,847,990 against me. Why? Because [Haley Stevens] is more committed to the future of a foreign country than keeping your tax dollars here to provide schools and healthcare for you and your kids.” He blamed underfunded schools on Israel and its American Jewish supporters, mainly AIPAC. Healthcare too expensive? Blame U.S. support for Israel. Housing unaffordable? Blame AIPAC. “We should be using our tax dollars here to invest in healthcare and education here, rather than sending money to Israel,” he said.

The argument seems to have resonated with those on the left. But I wonder if anyone asked him whether the $3.8 billion Israel receives from the U.S. could really pay for all the ills el-Sayed listed. That $3.8 billion is a rounding error in the federal budget. More ironically, el-Sayed’s own parents are from Egypt, which receives $1.3 billion a year from the U.S. under the Camp David Accords. Some NGO and congressional estimates put the total aid to Egypt since the treaty was signed at more than $50 billion in military assistance and $30 billion in economic assistance. That could have funded a lot of schools and heathcare. So shouldn’t el-Sayed also cast blame on the land of his ancestors? Didn’t Stevens and her supporters know this? If so, why didn’t they turn el-Sayed’s own argument back on him — substituting Egypt for Israel?

I don’t begrudge AIPAC for lobbying on Israel’s behalf. Foreign governments spend heavily to influence American institutions through registered lobbyists, universities, think tanks, businesses, and other organizations — and I presume, through spies too (see Eric Swalwell and Fang Fang). But I know of no other organization quite like AIPAC: funded and staffed by Americans, for the purpose of persuading the American government that a strong alliance with Israel serves American interests. I’m no expert in geopolitics and could be wrong about that. What does trouble me, though, is the extent of the spying Israel has done in this country.

Israel has been called “America’s Greatest Ally.” I admire the country, but I’ve never thought it deserved that title — though since Donald Trump took office, the label may now be true by default. As I’ve said before, Israel is its own greatest ally and will do what it judges necessary to survive. I respect that will to survive, but I haven’t “liked” Israel since it attacked the USS Liberty in 1967, killing 34 crew members and wounding 171 more. And if Israel really is “our greatest ally,” I keep coming back to the same question: why does it spy on us so much?

In 2004 AIPAC members were caught spying for Israel. Pentagon analyst Lawrence Franklin passed classified U.S. policy documents on Iran to two AIPAC staffers, who relayed the information to Israeli diplomats. Franklin pleaded guilty and was sentenced to twelve years. The two staffers, Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman, were fired by AIPAC and indicted for illegally conspiring to gather and disclose classified national security information to Israel. Prosecutors later dropped all charges against them without any plea bargain — go figure. What is puzzling to me is why AIPAC was never required to register as a foreign agent under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. AIPAC avoids registration because it is organized and presented as a domestic American organization, without the contractual ties, foreign control, or foreign-principal status that trigger the statute. Sure. Regardless, AIPAC should be required to register as a foreign agent. Its predecessor, the American Zionist Council, was required to register.

Remember Jonathan Pollard? U.S. officials feared that some of the intelligence he handed over might be passed by Israel to the Soviet Union. It’s well documented that Israel has spied on the U.S. since the 1950s. During the Cold War, U.S. security officials ranked Israeli intelligence as the second-most active service operating on American soil, behind only the Soviet Union. A 1996 CIA report to Congress named Israel — along with, oddly enough, France — as a country “extensively engaged in espionage” against U.S. interests. Throughout the 1990s, numerous espionage allegations surfaced but rarely led to prosecution, likely due to political reasons. 

More recently, questions have surfaced about Jeffrey Epstein’s close association with Ehud Barak, the former Israeli prime minister and military intelligence commander.

All of this is well documented. The question is why do we put up with Israel’s spying? So, what would Harold do? I’d get Congress to pass a bill cutting Israeli aid every time Israel is caught spying — a “three strikes and it’s gone” ultimatum, and I’d mean it. “Friends don’t spy on friends” would be the message, and if that message didn’t resonate, I’d terminate the aid entirely. It’s only a drop in our bucket, but it matters a great deal to their security. And if the spying continued, no amount of lobbying from AIPAC or anyone else would restart the flow of funds.

Bessent Should Know Better

Bessent tries to manipulate the Treasury bond market

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who always gives off the impression that he is the smartest man in the room obviously relished the opportunity to embarrass Elizabeth Warren who criticized his propping up the Japanese yen. Warren wrote “that “American taxpayers would ultimately bear the cost if Japan were unable to repay the Department of the Treasury.” Bessent leapt at the opportunity to chide Warren on X saying: “In her latest sciolistic letter to me, @SenWarren made it clear that she knows even less about foreign exchange markets than she does about banking.” And “For a fuller explanation, I recommend Senator Warren take any entry level course in international finance for her and her staff, or l can personally give her a tutorial on Foreign Exchange for Dummies. Although I am not holding my breath, I hope her next letter will demonstrate that she has learned the difference between a currency purchase and a swap or a loan.” I wonder if Warren had to look up “sciolistic”?

Warren may be ignorant of international economics but those that do who are critical of Bessent’s forays into international currency intervention which are only short run patches for long term problems (but maybe Bessent is only worried about the short run). See “Bessent becomes the most interventionist Treasury chief in decades” https://fortune.com/2026/08/20/scott-bessent-treasury-interventionism/

Bessent presumably picked up his intervention playbook during his years working for George Soros, is now putting it to use in Washington. He first helped prop up the Argentine peso to support Javier Milei, buying the currency directly. Then he intervened using euros to bolster the Japanese yen. Now he’s turned to the Treasury bond market itself, doubling the Treasury’s buybacks of long-term bonds. (A quick primer: when Treasurys mature, bondholders roll a portion of the proceeds into new bonds, and the Treasury buys back the rest. Bessent announced the buyback pace would double.)

Why do this? The goal is to shorten the average maturity of the debt by financing more of it with shorter-term Treasurys, which carry lower yields than long-term bonds — in theory, lowering the government’s overall interest costs. How did the markets react? They dumped dollars for gold and cryptocurrency signaling that Bessent was making Treasurys and the dollar look like a less reliable safe haven. Instead of long-term rates falling, they rose. The dollar fell 0.7 percent while bitcoin jumped 22 percent. Oops.

Buybacks don’t touch the actual drivers of high Treasury rates: inflation and a ballooning federal debt. Another credit downgrade, echoing 2011, would not surprise me. Bessent himself once argued that the administration could bring down yields and lower borrowing costs for Americans the right way — by cutting the budget deficit (thereby shrinking the supply of Treasurys) and ramping up oil and gas production to bring down energy prices. He was right then. He’s wrong now. Having failed to address the underlying problems, he’s resorting to tactics meant to artificially move the market. He should know better: other Treasury secretaries have tried the same maneuver before and failed, and no one can permanently move a $31.5 trillion market.

It’s also worth remembering that his boss’s fiscal record hasn’t helped, and neither has his fixation on tariffs. When Trump declared “Liberation Day,” markets responded by selling off Treasurys, worried that foreign governments would retaliate by dumping their own holdings — and many did, shifting part of their reserves into gold instead. There’s also a factor Bessent has no control over at all: the explosive growth of AI-related corporate bonds. Economists call it “crowding out” — when government borrowing pushes up interest rates and squeezes out private investment. Here we’re seeing something like the reverse dynamic: private AI bonds are crowding out Treasurys, as investors substitute corporate debt for government debt, shrinking the pool of buyers willing to hold Treasurys and pushing their yields higher. Basically, the market is saying that AI bonds are a safer bet than Treasurys.

Despite Bessent’s intervention, 30-year Treasury yields sit at 5.3 percent and mortgage rates are above 7 percent. As one trader put it, Bessent is used to taking actions with short-run impact, while the problems he’s up against are structural and long-term. He may be trying to relive his Soros days, when he helped break the Bank of England and forced the pound to crash in 1992. But this isn’t 1992. As one market observer put it, governments that defend prices against fundamentals always lose — the only question is how much they spend before they concede.

Bessent can’t do math, either

Bessent says the United States can grow its way out of its federal debt. He should know better and probably does. But he is taking the easy way out of the Federal debt crisis by avoiding making difficult decisions. Speaking to “Squawk on the Street” co-host Sara Eisen on CNBC, he said there’s nothing magic about the $40 trillion figure and that the economy can outgrow it. Then, following the administration’s usual script, he pinned the blame for the deficit on his predecessors, saying the Trump team “inherited a mess” after the Biden administration ran the highest deficit-to-GDP ratio in history outside of a war or recession — conveniently overlooking that this administration has since added fuel to that fire with its “Big Beautiful Bill,” tariffs, and the Iran conflict.

Bessent seems to be channeling his inner Ronald Reagan, who argued the economy could outgrow the national debt through tax cuts and spending restraint that spurred growth. Reagan’s view was that the real problem wasn’t the deficit’s size but the government’s overall claim on the economy. But he still considered deficit reduction essential.

But can we really grow our way out of the debt? Not according to the math. In “America Can’t Outgrow $40 Trillion in Debt,” Peter Earle calculates that doing so would require real (inflation-adjusted) income growth of nearly 7.3 percent per year — and that’s assuming the debt itself doesn’t grow further and interest rates stay flat. Real income growth rarely approaches 7 percent, let alone sustains it annually. Even the Reagan expansion of 1983–1989 produced “only” 4.4 percent real GDP growth. Earle notes that the CBO (my former employer) currently projects real GDP growth of just 2 percent, below the long-run historical average.

So where would higher growth even come from? Population growth is slowing due to an aging population and tighter immigration policy. AI, perhaps? The CBO estimates that AI-driven productivity gains will add only about 0.1 percentage point to annual growth. Earle then assumes an exceptionally bullish alternative with AI adding 1.5 percentage points to annual productivity growth. Combined with roughly 0.4 percent labor-force growth and the economy’s existing productivity trend, the U.S. would then sustain real growth of 3.5 to 4 percent. That would be a genuine economic triumph — and still only about half of what the debt math requires.

The bottom line is that 7.3 percent annual GDP growth is essentially impossible. Even when Earle sets aside the biggest obstacles — spending restraint, entitlement reform, tax policy, and fiscal discipline generally — that number remains out of reach. So why did Secretary Bessent make the claim? Did he assume no one would fact-check it? Apparently Sara Eisen did not know enough to push back. But insisting we can simply outgrow this $40 trillion debt is flat wrong, and it suggests the secretary can’t do math.

The Ugly Exchange Between Shapiro and Kennedy Over Measles

The war of words between Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has turned acrimonious. As reported earlier, two people were reported dying from measles in Pennsylvania’s Lancaster County — the state’s first measles deaths in 35 years. Nearly 400 cases have now been reported statewide. Shapiro has suggested that Kennedy’s public skepticism about vaccine safety helped fuel the outbreak, implying the secretary bears some responsibility for the deaths. Shapiro says he personally confronted Kennedy over vaccine misinformation after the two unvaccinated residents died.

Kennedy had called the governor and offered to send federal personnel to help Pennsylvania respond to the growing outbreak. Shapiro declined, telling him the state didn’t need the assistance.

Shapiro didn’t stop there. “Shapiro then said “Unfortunately at a time where I needed the top health expert in the nation to responsibly work with us to deal with this outbreak, he instead chose to go down a rabbit hole of conspiracy theories and false claims… and blaming the previous Administration for this problem.” Of course, Kennedy is not “the top health expert in the nation.” Far from it. Shapiro also said that “I was very, very blunt with him, and I made very clear that his actions and the rhetoric that’s coming from this administration are having a negative impact on communities across America, particularly right here in Pennsylvania,” Shapiro said. “There’s real life consequences to spreading misinformation.”

Kennedy fired back, accusing Shapiro’s office of unwilling to give the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention any details about the deaths, and suggesting the deaths may have been fabricated for political purposes. He said of Shapiro: “The performance was a replay of the Democrats’ COVID playbook: fearmongering, misinformation, finger-pointing, and the weaponization of infectious disease fears for political gain.”

Politico reported that state officials confirmed that the two victims were from Lancaster County and unvaccinated, declining to say whether they were children or adults or whether they belonged to a religious community that traditionally forgoes vaccination, citing patient privacy. Also a county commissioner said that he asked for information from the coroner’s office and was told that “it currently has ZERO reported cases where measles is the immediate cause of death.” Again the county said “Due to patient confidentiality, the PA DOH will not be releasing any additional personal information about the two deceased residents from Lancaster County.” 

The nationwide vaccination rate has slipped during the Trump administration, from the roughly 95 percent needed for herd immunity down to about 92.4 percent, alongside a rise in measles cases. Kennedy maintains that the administration is rebuilding trust in the nation’s public health institutions — though the evidence suggests the opposite is happening.

Still, this is a genuinely important story to get right. Did two people actually die of measles in Pennsylvania? The coroner’s office’s statement casts some doubt, and it’s hard to see how confirming the basic facts of the deaths would violate the families’ privacy, if the deaths did occur as described. Also there are Amish and Mennonite communities in Lancaster County that have resisted vaccinations so an important question is whether the cases were in those communities that have experienced outbreak of measles in the past.

AOC the scofflaw and other thoughts

AOC the scofflaw

AOC seems to be in the news as much as Trump. Now she is freezing her eggs while the right wing press has looked at her financial disclosure form and reports that she is a student loan scofflaw. The reports are that she still has $50,000 in student debt unpaid. Here is an example headline “Ocasio-Cortez still owes up

to $50,000 in student loans after eight years earning $174,000 a year in

Congress.” This is fake news. Actually, the financial disclosure lists a range of $15,001 to $50,000 and the news reports are going with the highest number. In reality, she owes much less. In a congressional hearing in 2019, she made a student loan payment during the hearing. “I literally made a student loan payment while I was sitting here at this chair. I looked at my balance, and it is $20,237.16.” “I just made a payment that took me down to $19,000, so I feel really accomplished right now,” she said.

https://abcnews.com/GMA/News/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-makes-student-loan-payment/story?id=65536255

So this is just laziness on the part of the reporters. But if AOC still has student debt despite being in the congress for 8 years while earning $174,000 she is obviously making a statement. What that statement is escapes me. Is she telling others to ignore their debt? Occasionally she co-sponsors bills with Bernie Sanders to forgive up to $50,000 in student debt but that can’t be the reason why she still carries a balance. What was more interesting to me is that she must be awful with her finances with savings of only $66,000 after all her high earning years. No one can accuse her of getting rich while in office. No Nancy Pelosi is she. And BTW, aren’t there actions that can be taken against her like garnishing her salary? Why hasn’t she heard from the collection agencies?

Where’s the beef?

A friend of mine pointed out that the president has just lifted the tariffs on 300,000 pounds of Argentine beef for 90 days. My friend wrote “I thought of you yesterday when I read that Trump was reducing the tariff on Argentinian beef so that he can delude himself into believing that it will actually help American farmers or ranchers and lower the price of beef. So, isn’t that a direct admission that tariffs raise prices for consumers?” The answer is of course it is and thank you for the note. Trump’s border taxes are arbitrary, capricious and vindictive (see Canada). Beef growers will have a beef. Cattle ranchers and republicans from farm states were quick to condemn the decision. “You don’t put America first by putting U.S. cattle producers last,” said Justin Tupper, president of the United States Cattlemen’s Association. Trump said that the imports will be sold at 25 percent below market prices. Trump is now dictating prices? Sounds like Mamdani and his grocery store prices doesn’t it? That should make the ranchers real happy. Trump’s policies may cost the republicans the governorship, two congressional seats and a Senate seat in Iowa. Other farm states may be in play as well. Also note that the period is 90 days. I am sure that it is a mere coincidence that the 90 days will expire after the midterms. Naturally, he blamed Joe Biden: “What we are facing in America today is the direct result of a war on cattle by the previous administration.” Man up! It’s all on you now.

On board the deportation express

Did you see where the first of 20 of the1,200 illegals were deported to Liberia and five refused to get off the plane? So they were flown to Equatorial Guinea instead? The administration has agreements with 35 countries to take the illegals. Third-country deportees have, in most cases, obtained legal protection

against repatriation after U.S. immigration judges ruled they risked torture or

other abuses in their home countries. The five may regret their decision since they and 30 other deportees are being housed in a hotel under inhumane conditions. I was wondering what will the deportees do? Will they remain in the country where they were deported? Are they free to leave (and could sneak back into this country? Will they even go back to their home country? 

And how much is all of this costing? Reports are that the US has paid a staggering $32 million to five countries to accept 300 deportees. The Guardian reports that “the administration paid Rwanda $7.5m plus an estimated $601,864 in flight costs to accept just seven people – about $1.1m per individual, according to the report’s analysis of government spending data and flight records. The administration similarly paid Equatorial Guinea $7.5m to take 29 people, costing taxpayers an estimated $282,126 per person. Palau was paid $7.5m with no documented flights, Eswatini was paid $5.1m for 15 people, and El Salvador $4.76m for about 250 people.”

Not only is this fiscally irresponsible it is also immoral as the administration has struck a deal with Iran to deport 400 Iranian nationals, including Christian converts, ethnic minorities and political dissidents! I guess Trump will lower the blockade to let them get into the country.

Lake America? Life expectancy. Lindsey Clancy. South Korea.

Lake America?

Canada’s prime minister Carney is not the only Canadian official to recognize Trump’s unreliability. “Everybody knows the American president by now, he’s erratic, he’s irresponsible, and he’s not to be trusted,” said Wab Kinew, Premier of Manitoba, “And this is the person that we were supposed to make a deal with, and we’re going to make additional concessions for it. That’s why I say you can’t make a good deal with a bad person, because who’s to say it’s not going to be undone?”

The Wall Street Journal has called this “The dumbest trade war revisited.” That is putting it kindly. Trump justifies his new tariffs using Section 338 of the 1930 Tariff Act, which allows a 50% tariff on countries that discriminate against the commerce of the United States. The president says that the discrimination here is that Canada discriminated against the US when it retaliated against his tariffs on Canadian automobiles. Excuse me, but this is beyond dumb, it is beyond dumbest, it is stupid.

Trump said “On January First, 2027, Tariffs on all Cars, Trucks, both large and small, Automotive Parts, and Steel, will be increased to 50%.” Ford’s Jim Farley noted that the cost to American automakers would be $25 billion and that would “blow a hole” in the U.S. auto industry. Trump also said that we don’t need anything from Canada, forgetting about Canadian oil and energy (Ontario supplies electricity to 10 states). It also supplies the US with high grade nickel for defense and uranium for nuclear-power plants.

Ontario’s premier Doug Ford said “He can kiss my a** as far as I’m concerned.  We’re gonna go at him full-steam.” Trump countered by saying “The United States is giving serious consideration to changing the name of Lake Ontario to Lake America in that we don’t expect to be doing much business with Ontario any longer.” I’m a bit surprised he did say “Lake Donald J. Trump.”

Just about living on borrowed time

I was sad to see that Dolly Parton died. She was only 80. RIP.

Ironically, the CDC just released life expectancy data. Not surprising it has recovered from the Covid dip. The life expectancy for women is 81.4, while that for men is 76.5, demonstrating again the impact on men from living with women. The life expectancy for black women is 76.6, and for black men it is 70.3. I would guess that the low number stems from the high death rate for young black men. The CDC life tables show that if a black male reaches the age of 65, his life expectancy is 81.4. If a black woman reaches 65, her life expectancy is 84.7. Regardless, I am 81.1. So beginning December 3, I will be living on borrowed time. BTW, most writings on racial disparities in life expectancy ignore the high death rate of young black men when they list reasons for the difference between races, rendering much of what is written as basically useless. https://www.black-mens-health.com/what-is-the-life-expectancy-for-black-men

Support for Lindsey Clancy?

Lindsey Clancy killed her three children, aged 5, 3, and 8 months. She admits her guilt. So why are hundreds of women dressed in pink showing up at her trial to voice support for a baby (babies) killer? I don’t get it. Her GoFundMe account has raised over $1 million for her defense – insanity, naturally. Her attorneys argue that she suffered from bipolar disorder and a psychotic episode brought on by postpartum psychosis. Great excuses, all. But that does not excuse killing her babies. How could any woman – much less hundreds – support her? (Oops, I forgot about the millions who kill their babies in vivo rather than in vitro.) Just another example of the world – or at least part of it – going stark raving mad. If my wife were out there doing that and we had children, I would immediately file for divorce and custody of the children, including a restraining order.

What about South Korea?

While at the farm, I drove down to Pooler, GA, to visit a lifelong friend. I passed the Hyundai plant that was raided by ICE and thought about Trump’s recent spat with South Korea. Angry that the country wasn’t helping him out in his war on Iran, he ordered the Pentagon to cut the annual joint military exercises. He tweeted “These exercises are not only costly… but send a signal that is totally inappropriate and hostile, to a Country that, as long as Donald J. Trump has been President, has been unthreatening and respectful.” He is referring to that socialist paradise North Korea and his buddy Kim Jong Un. Trump also posted “I recently asked the President of South Korea if they would like to join us in the Denuclearization of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and they said, ‘No thanks!’” Trump is also at South Korea for not aggressively going forward on its trade deal last year to lower Trump’s auto tariffs in exchange for Seoul’s commitment to invest $350 billion. The president’s reaction was to raise their tariffs to 25%. South Korea has not announced details of its investment plan. But with 28,500 US troops stationed there to deter North Korea which is still technically at war with the south, it is doubtful if South Korean President Lee Jae Myung will openly defy Trump.

Did Trump ever apologize to South Korea about the ICE invasion of the Hyundai plant? He did say that he was “very much opposed” to the massive ICE raid last month at a Hyundai factory in Georgia, where hundreds of workers were arrested, shackled with chains around their hands, ankles and wrists and deported back to South Korea.

Trump’s War with Canada

Canada’s Mark Carney says, “We are at war.”

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Trump hates Canada. He has taken a longtime ally and turned it into an economic adversary. He has belittled the country by calling it the 51st state and its prime minister “governor,” imposed sweeping tariffs, and even demanded tolls on a bridge Canada financed entirely on its own. In effect, he has demanded fealty from a sovereign nation, apparently convinced that Canadians are too intimidated by American economic muscle to push back. He tore up NAFTA, replaced it with his own deal — the USMCA — and then trashed that too as it neared renewal. His trade representative, Jamieson Greer, has even floated withdrawing from the USMCA altogether. What seems clear, at least to me, is that Trump wants to dismantle the trilateral agreement entirely and negotiate separate, bilateral deals with Mexico and Canada.

Trump flexed his economic muscles by imposing tariffs on the world and dared them to retaliate. Deals were made that lowered the tariffs on some countries in exchange for their eliminating tariffs entirely on US goods. Every country agreed – except Canada which had the temerity to reciprocate. Recall Trump’s own words: “We don’t need anything that Canada has, we don’t need anything that Mexico has, but they need everything that we have.” We’ll see if that holds up. He wants Canada to surrender its sovereignty and Canadians have pushed back at every turn. He slapped a 50% tariff on their steel and aluminum and 25% on automobiles, then seemed genuinely surprised when Canada retaliated. Canadians pulled American liquor from store shelves and canceled U.S. vacations. Trump then imposed a 50% tariff on $20 billion of Canadian goods, down to items as small as hockey sticks and tongue depressors. He expected Canada to fold. Instead, Ottawa announced tit-for-tat tariffs on another $20 billion of U.S. goods — dairy, appliances, agricultural equipment, pulp and paper, and electronics. Trump, predictably, was furious at their defiance saying “Someone should get these clowns to ‘fall in line’ or, the consequences for Canada will be far WORSE!” 

That defiance came straight from the top. Prime Minister Mark Carney said Canada had been “attacked” by the new American tariffs: “You’re at war when you get attacked,” he said, adding that Canada had the reserves, the resilience, and the plan to respond. Carney noted that Canada had been willing to drop its remaining retaliatory tariffs on steel, aluminum, and autos if Washington substantially lowered its own, and to encourage the provinces to restore U.S. alcohol sales. But he said Washington’s final demands went too far — last-minute terms that would have reduced tariff relief for Canadian-made vehicles, restricted Canada’s ability to strike trade deals with other countries, and weakened protections for the French language, culture, and sovereignty. “It’s a power play,” Carney said. “It becomes a question of sovereignty.”

Ontario Premier Doug Ford — whose province is home to Canada’s auto industry — praised Carney for walking away from the deal, arguing it would have devastated Ontario’s auto, steel, and manufacturing sectors. Ford urged Canada to use “every tool in our toolbox” to fight back.

Canada and the U.S. have sparred for decades over dairy and lumber, but those disputes look trivial next to this one. They were our ally and don’t forget that Canadian soldiers fought alongside Americans in Afghanistan after 9/11. The two countries share a 5,525-mile undefended border that nearly 330,000 people and $2 billion in goods cross every single day, and roughly 800,000 Canadians live in the United States. Almost 72% of Canada’s goods exports last year went to the U.S. Trump appears to be betting that this economic dependence will force Canada to heel. So far, it’s doing the opposite — Canadians have gathered 248,000 signatures on a petition to expel the U.S. ambassador.

It looks like an attempt to break the Canadian economy in order to get his way. As Carney put it: “Last spring, I warned that America is trying to break us so they can own us, and I promised that will never, ever happen. We are keeping that promise. Canada is becoming stronger and less dependent on America.”

The irony is that the two sides appeared close to a deal. Less than two hours before new tariffs on Canadian goods were set to take effect, Trump announced a “DEAL” on social media, along with a three-day delay to let officials work out the details. Carney said negotiators had made “substantial progress.” But the talks fell apart. Carney says the U.S. made unreasonable demands, and the $900-billion-a-year trading relationship spiraled into an all-out trade war.

Carney has said flatly that “America has changed” and that the two countries will “not return to our old relationship.” Maybe not. But I’d like to think the animosity will fade and some healing can begin once Trump is out of office. I certainly hope so.

Geezers. Ossoff. National Debt. Measles.

Bill Clinton Joins the Geezer Club

Bill Clinton just turned 80, which makes him younger than both Biden and Trump, even though he left office 25 years ago. George W. Bush is also 80, and Obama, at 65, somehow looks a decade older. Our current president is 80, and Biden is 84 — old geezers, both. Maybe we’ve finally seen the last of the geriatric presidents. With the exception of Rahm Emanuel, every name floated for the next presidential race is a relative youngster.

Ossoff in 2028?

It struck me as odd that Georgia Senator Jon Ossoff, who is up for reelection, chose to take a shot at President Trump and his ever-present aide Natalie Harp. Ossoff said Trump “wants to build his ballroom and travel with Natalie on their apparently defenseless flying palace gifted by the Emir of Qatar.” I couldn’t figure out what that had to do with his Senate race against Rep. Mike Collins. The answer became clear once I saw that the prediction markets Polymarket and Kalshi have Ossoff, alongside AOC, leading the odds for the 2028 democratic nomination. The Natalie Harp remark raised his national profile and racked up millions of hits on social media — notable for a senator who has otherwise kept a lower profile in Washington than his fellow Georgian, Raphael Warnock. My guess is that if Ossoff wins reelection, he’ll be an attractive option for mainstream Democrats hoping to counterbalance the party’s socialist wing and a possible AOC candidacy.

$40 Trillion and Counting

The US national debt just hit $40 trillion. With GDP at $32.38 trillion, that puts the debt-to-GDP ratio at 124% — up from just 31.5% in 2001. Didn’t Trump promise to balance the budget? Some promise. The CBO (my old employer) now projects annual budget deficits of roughly $2 trillion. I’d held out some hope that a republican-controlled White House and Congress might show a bit of fiscal restraint. But that hope has been in vain — politicians are fiscally irresponsible regardless of party. Markets have responded to the deficit news by demanding higher yields on long-term US Treasurys. Treasury bonds once carried a premium for their safe-haven status, but that status is fading fast. With government debt flooding the market, investors are demanding a premium, which pushes yields higher.

The Concerning Uptick in Measles

I wasn’t sure what to make of the measles outbreak. Headlines describing a “grim milestone” made it sound like a major epidemic, but the actual case count is “only” 2,295. The last time US measles cases exceeded that number was 1991, with 9,643 cases, following a staggering 27,808 cases in 1990. Annual cases then dropped to just 312 by 1993, after a second vaccine dose was recommended and school vaccination programs took hold.

Is this a result of Trump and RFK Jr.’s anti-vaccine rhetoric? Both have linked vaccines to autism, a claim the scientific community rejects. But the CDC’s own webpage on vaccines and autism now reflects Kennedy’s views and has changed dramatically under this administration

(cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/about/autism.html).

Where it once stated plainly that there was no link between vaccines and autism, it now reads:

• The claim “vaccines do not cause autism” is not evidence-based, because studies have not ruled out the possibility that infant vaccines cause autism.
• Studies supporting a link have been ignored by health authorities.
• HHS has launched a comprehensive assessment of the causes of autism, including investigations into plausible biological mechanisms and potential causal links.

I wonder if the new CDC director agrees with this. Personally, I don’t know what to think. Big Pharma does not have the best track record when it comes to patient welfare. Research studies commissioned by Big Pharma are instantly suspect – I bet not a single one has results contrary to Big Phama’s dictates. I question even independent studies because we know that a large deal of research is compromised and possibly fraudulent.

But Trump is injecting (no pun intended) distrust with the MMR vaccine saying that it should be split into separate shots, even though researchers find no credible evidence to support that. Separate vaccines for measles, mumps, and rubella currently aren’t available in the US, and the idea of splitting them is daunting — it would mean six shots for children instead of two. Trump has called – somewhat irresponsibly – the combined MMR vaccine “quite lethal” and pushed for separating the three inoculations to reduce what he claims is an elevated autism risk. Kennedy, a longtime vaccine skeptic, stood beside him when he said it.

Will Black Voters Save the Democratic Party?

 

Wouldn’t it be ironic if black voters end up saving the democratic party. The same party that once held them in chains. The party of Jim Crow. The party of the segregationist South. Now that party is running scared — chased by a wave of democratic socialists threatening to overrun the establishment. The DSA’s strength is mostly confined to a few deep-blue enclaves, but they’re swinging for something bigger now: a Senate seat in Michigan. The candidate, Abdul El-Sayed, calls himself a progressive, not a socialist. His platform says otherwise.

The pattern is already clear. Every time a socialist has squared off against an establishment democrat, black voters have overwhelmingly rejected the socialist. In Michigan, the establishment candidate won the black vote by more than 30 points. Same story in New York’s congressional races and in the Wisconsin governor’s race. So the real question isn’t whether black voters back El-Sayed — it’s whether they even show up. A progressive friend of mine thinks they will. He says El-Sayed is working black churches hard, preaching his gospel. Maybe but I don’t buy it. Most black voters are practicing Christians. White socialists aren’t. That gap doesn’t close with a few church visits. Black voters don’t want the police defunded. They don’t want prisons shut down. They don’t want open borders dumping newcomers into their neighborhoods and their labor markets. They support school vouchers; the left doesn’t. They won’t vote republican either. My bet: they sit this one out and El-Sayed’s numbers barely move past his primary total.

The socialists have a diversity problem. Blacks know it and no amount of rhetoric hides it. They claim to speak for the working class and for minorities. Their membership tells a different story: DSA is roughly 80 percent white, college-educated, and earning under $60,000 a year. These are the same people lecturing everyone else about “white privilege” while trying to court the black vote. Black voters have rejected white far-left candidates before, and decisively. Ask Bernie Sanders. South Carolina buried his campaign when black voters lined up behind Biden instead.

One observer nailed it: young, white, college-educated socialists can afford their extreme positions. They don’t live on blocks screaming for more police, not fewer. They don’t need a voucher to escape a failing school. They don’t feel what weak border enforcement does to wages and public services. If the revolution flops, they retreat to the suburbs. Black Democrats don’t get that option. They live with the results.

Black voters don’t trust the socialists. The talk about uplifting the working class, centering race and equity, all of it — Black voters have heard it before and know pie-in-the-sky BS when they hear it. Malcolm X said it best: white liberals can be more dangerous than white conservatives, claiming to be allies while working to manipulate the very people they say they’re helping.

Now the DSA shows up bearing gifts. My progressive friend still thinks black voters take the bait. I don’t. I’ve bet him a dollar on it — payable November 4th. If I win, the message to the democratic party is unmistakable: the socialists just kicked out one leg of the four-legged stool propping up the democrat party. White college graduates. Coastal elites. Labor unions. Ethnic minorities. Lose black voters and democrats lose one of their most reliable constituencies and the math stops working, potentially leaving them without enough votes to win most elections, and certainly not national ones. Then the party’s only path back to national power would be to shed its socialist wing and/or hope the republicans hand them a big enough unforced error to run against. Hum.