Blog

Random thoughts #63

I was asked “How does it feel to be 80?” Well I don’t feel a day over 79.

The Knox County republican party is having a sporting clays fundraiser. I wondered if it is called the “Dick Cheney memorial sporting clays”? No way I would be around a bunch of old geysers with shotguns.

A recent poll on immigration has the headline “New Polling Finds Strong Bipartisan Support for Trump’s Immigration Policies.” It reads “Democrat politicians who are doubling down on their open-borders agenda are wildly out of touch with the vast majority of Americans—including many Democrat voters.” Actually that is quite a leap. The democrats polled, just like the republicans, want illegals who are criminals deported. I, for one, want them put in jail because I fear that once deported they will try to sneak back across the border. However, the democrats think that “the enforcement has gone too far.” They do not favor the raiding of work sites and Home Depot day workers and deporting those who are not criminals – and yes I know that if they are illegal then they have broken the law and are hence “criminals.” The majority of the republicans also wish the administration tempered its actions to mainly concentrate on the criminals. However, 93 percent of the republicans support the administration in closing the border and deporting the criminals. Question: who are the seven percent that don’t?

The administration is gloating that the economists are wrong about the tariffs. They point to the numbers on the economy and the increase in the monies from the tariffs. However, isn’t it a bit soon to crow and declare victory? Let’s wait six months and see what happens. It is not surprising that businesses are trying to absorb as much of the additional tariff costs as they can in the short run while waiting to see if the tariffs will be permanent. That cannot last forever as smaller companies and suppliers start to go out of business and larger companies find their profits and stock prices falling.

Then there is the coming increase in prices. It may be a little at first. Case in point is the 17% tariff placed on Mexican tomatoes. Yes the US growers are ecstatic. You would be too if your competitors are being priced out of the market. But the question is what impact will this have on the American consumer? It may well be that fewer varieties of tomatoes and a price increase will not be enough to cause a tomato rebellion but recall that the Boston Tea Party was over a 5% levy on tea. Will there be a Mexican Tomato Party?

To the surprise of many, the administration has restored African AIDS relief from the now vanquished USAID funds. Many republicans including Don Bacon – who announced his retirement – in the House and Susan Collins in the Senate were strong supporters of restoring the cuts. USAID has treated 4.7 million, and South Africa Central Support has treated 1 million, and the worldwide total was more than 17.8 million. Strange but the LGBTQ bunch has not seen fit to praise the president. Maybe AIDS funding is only praiseworthy if it is done by democrats.

Georgetown, a Jesuit university, has received over $1 billion from Qatar since 2005. Cornell has gotten over $1.5 billion. In total over $8 billion has gone from Arab countries into the coffers of American universities including Harvard, Stanford, the University of California, Berkeley and the University of Texas. Also, another $4+ billion has gone unreported. I am certain that the increased antisemitism on college campuses is completely unrelated to all the largesse flowing from the Middle East. Right?

AIPAC has given over $100 million to mostly republican candidates in recent elections. We all know why. But one wonders why Jewish money isn’t being used to counter the Arab influence on college campuses. The Times of Israel reports that 12 Jewish billionaires donated $27 billion to philanthropies in 2022. Of course this includes George Soros, Michael Bloomberg and Mark Zuckerberg who are busy funding democrats. A casual observation is that most of the antisemitism at college is concentrated in the liberal arts. Typically, business schools and the sciences are where most of the Jewish professors reside and those departments have less antisemitism than say gender studies or sociology.

Speaker Johnson says that there are two more Big Beautiful Bills in the works. Would somebody tell him that it would be a great idea to emulate Ronald Reagan and start sending the states block grants instead of doling it out amongst the federal agencies piecemeal? Only a small percentage of the monies budgeted actually makes it to the people. Rather it is eaten up by the bureaucracy and funds the bureaucrats rather than the citizens. It seems that the purpose of the federal government is to feed itself. That continues with this administration as has been true with the administrations in the past.

Again, it is sad that the congress is fighting over a trivial $9.4 billion in rescissions. It does indeed conjure up images of Nero fiddling while Rome burns. BTW, that story is false since the violin was not invented until 1,500 years after Nero’s death. But the image persists.

MLB Draft, the All Star Game, Taiwan war games and Chinese Rope-a-Dope

Major League Baseball just held its draft. Does anybody – other than those picked, their families, and the teams – care? Name me the first pick – I dare you. That is because college (and high school) baseball is just a spring sport whose popularity in most places is secondary to spring football. Even though MLB is my favorite sport, I did not watch its draft. However, the University of Tennessee Vols had 8 players picked the first day. Eight!

I also don’t watch MLB’s all star game. Once it was a real game – remember Pete Rose slide into home and the collision with Ray Fosse? It has become a caricature of the game, like the NFL’s all star game whose Pro Bowl is now a flag football game. Why anyone would pay to watch a flag football game is beyond me. Speaking of paying to watch nonsense, a friend of mine offered me two tickets to the baseball all star game in Atlanta. The tickets were $900! Tickets at the dugout infield were $3,000! I think we have a new definition of insanity. BTW, the game ended in a tie! The MVP was the guy who won the home run “swing off.” Can you imagine Pete Rose’s reaction?

The Taiwan War Games and Chinese Rope-a-Dope

Troops from the US, Australia, Japan and a bunch of other countries are conducting war games in Australia, training to fight the Chinese if they invaded Taiwan. The three-week Talisman Sabre exercise involves 19 nations and more than 40,000 personnel. Wow. Well it gives the military something to do and lets the troops have fun playing Audie Murphy for a while. But seriously, do you think that China will really invade Taiwan? If they somehow make it the 100 miles across the Taiwan Strait, are there going to be 40,000 troops from 19 nations waiting to greet them?

Unlike Ukraine where the Russians could amass 50,000 troops and walk across the border, the Chinese just can’t walk across the Taiwan Strait. They would first likely send missiles and aircraft to conduct bombing raids. Surely, the Taiwanese air defenses could knock down most of the missiles and the planes. If the Chinese navy attacked, they would have to face air defenders, drones, submarines and naval forces. It would be very very costly. I once likened Taiwan’s defense to that of a porcupine – an animal that is small, slow and vulnerable, except for its quills. Most predators avoid porcupines. However, bobcats and coyotes are known to attack a porcupine’s face and try to flip them over, rendering them defenseless. China would have to find that soft underbelly or else it will rattle its sword, be bombastic, threaten but ultimately not attack the Taiwanese porcupine.

But China could be doing a rope-a-dope. While it is posturing toward Taiwan it could easily reunite the parts of Manchuria and all of Siberia that it lost to the Russians way back when. Here is what one historian writes “The modern borders between Russia and China were largely established through what Chinese historians have long termed the “unequal treaties” of the 19th century. The Treaty of Aigun (1858) and the Convention of Peking (1860) transferred over 600,000 square miles of territory from Qing China to Tsarist Russia, much of it in modern-day Siberia and the Russian Far East. These agreements, signed during a period of Chinese weakness and Western imperial expansion, have never sat comfortably within Chinese historical memory.”

So if the Chinese claim Taiwan as their home territory, then why don’t they claim Northern Manchuria and all of Siberia as Chinese homelands? Putin invaded Ukraine claiming to recover Russian territory didn’t he? Well the Chinese could walk into Siberia and meet minimal Russian resistance. Russia is preoccupied with Ukraine where it has been exposed as a paper tiger. They do not have the resources, the military might or the will to counter a Chinese invasion. The vast expanse of Siberia stands as the world’s greatest repository of untapped resources, a treasure trove of strategic minerals, fossil fuels, timber and fresh water. What riches are there in Taiwan? Chip factories? Get serious. If the Chinese invaded Taiwan, the chip making expertise will vanish overnight and appear in the EU, Canada and the US.

Invading Taiwan would be foolhardy. Siberia is there for the taking. Look for China to take it. John Lonergan makes a compelling argument in “China will invade Siberia, not Taiwan” and goes as far as suggesting that the Chinese already have plans to do so. https://thehill.com/opinion/international/5379824-china-wants-to-invade-siberia-not-taiwan/

He notes that Hitler was stopped by the 22 mile English Channel and that a Chinese invasion of Taiwan would likely fail and come at a steep cost of over 10,000 soldiers, 155 aircraft,138 major ships and over a trillion dollars. Did I hear someone say “porcupine”?

The costs of invading Siberia would not nearly be as steep. China has already changed the names of its maps of six cities, including Vladivostok (Haishenwai) and Khabarovsk (Boli), one island and one mountain from the Russian names back to the original Chinese ones. I wonder if Trump will have the US maps change the names or will he be afraid of infuriating Putin? Do Chinese maps now say “Gulf of America”? The only defense that Russia has would be a nuclear threat- which China would counter. Would this be enough to deter the Chinese? I seriously doubt it.

If interested, I highly recommend reading 

https://harmoniousdiscourse.substack.com/p/the-dragons-northern-gambit-china

Who was that masked man?

Remember when Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass said that they had the situation in Los Angeles under control and no national guard or marines were needed to restore order? Thousands were clashing over ICE raids and LA mayor Karen Bass admonished President Trump for federalizing the state’s National Guard. Newsom sued Trump and said “I have formally requested the Trump Administration rescind their unlawful deployment of troops in Los Angeles County and return them to my command. We didn’t have a problem until Trump got involved.”

Well Newsom has requested federal disaster relief of the over $1 billion in damages caused during the (mostly peaceful) Ice riots. I think the word is “hutzpah.” 

Speaking of hutzpah, what about the left criticizing ICE officers for wearing masks? I don’t recall them criticizing all the pro-Hamas folk protesting Israel in all the demonstrations on college campuses. Massachusetts (where else) has introduced legislation prohibiting ICE from wearing masks while conducting enforcement actions. Democrat senators Booker, Padilla and Slotkin introduced legislation –  which has zero chance of passage – that also would prohibit ICE from wearing face masks during most enforcement operations. Slotkin said “In recent months, we have seen police, wearing hoodies and masks, make arrests that look more like kidnappings in an authoritarian country.” 

Trump retorted “They wouldn’t be saying that if they didn’t hate our country, and they obviously do. These officers are doing a tremendous job. They’re great patriots. If you expose them because of statements like have been made by Democrat and others on the left, usually mostly, I think, probably exclusively, you put them in great danger, tremendous danger.” The acting Ice director said “I’m not going to let my officers and agents go out there and put their lives on the line, family on the line because people don’t like what immigration enforcement is.” 

While states on the left are seeking to unmask ICE, states like North Carolina, Ohio, Florida and Texas are unmaking the Israel protestors. The ACLU whined saying “Arcane laws banning people from wearing masks in public are now being used to target people who wear face coverings while peacefully protesting Israel’s war in Gaza.” One leftist blog said “It means that police will have another excuse to target Black and Brown people, poor people and activists.” (You mean they now capitalize “Brown” now too?) As usual, those on the left do not see the double standard and the hypocrisy of defending mask wearing by mostly peaceful protestors who are breaking the law and not by ICE agents who are enforcing it.

BTW, when I am on my deer hunts near Eagle Pass, TX – once the epicenter of the border crisis – I noticed that most of the border agents were Hispanic. That was also true with the ICE agents I encountered. Seems like over 50 percent of the border patrol and 30 percent of ICE agents are Hispanic. I wonder about the racial/ethnic composition of the protestors. I see very few black faces. Aren’t there illegal black Hispanics – or are all of them playing baseball? I do see Mexican (and Palestinian) flags. Los Angeles is almost 50 percent Latino so one would expect the anti-ICE crowd to be mostly Hispanic. However, in New York, the protestors are mostly white. I would presume that if Latinos are protesting they are ones that are here legally. It would be seriously stupid for an illegal to be protesting, get arrested and get deported.

More evidence that Trump hates Canada

If there is one thing that President Trump has done in his tariff rampage, it is that he has made Canada blink. Remember when Ontario said that it would retaliate against the tariffs by imposing tariffs on energy that they exported to the US? Trump immediately said that he would double the already existing punitive tariffs on Canadian goods and Ontario backed down. Then Trump abruptly canceled negotiations over the tariffs when the Canadians insisted that they were going to keep their tax on digital services. Trump promised even bigger tariffs and the Canadians again said “Uncle (Sam?)”. Trump said “Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately! We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period.” Here again Trump is saying that the other country will pay the tariff which is false.

What is a bit weird is that Trump let the Brits keep their digital services tax in their negotiations. But then again Trump hates Canada and must like the Brits since British cars are subject to smaller tariffs than American cars built in Canada and Mexico. Despite all their assertions the Canadians blinked and rescinded the tax. What galls the Canadians was that this was done on July 1, Canada day. One Canadian wrote “It’s hard to celebrate Canada Day when it feels like a foreign president just rewrote our tax code from his golf cart.”

Canada’s digital services tax would be a tax on the revenues on Big Tech companies that do not have a physical location in the country. The tax was to be 3 percent of revenues above $20 million Canadian retroactive to 2022. But digital taxes are nothing new. Nineteen countries already have such a tax, yet Trump has – to my knowledge – only raised the issue in negotiations with Turkey. Countries contend that if the companies had a physical presence they would be subject to that country’s taxes. Internationals generally pay taxes where production occurs or where the sales occur. But with no physical presence, these companies do not pay taxes on their digital services revenues. I guess there could be some international agreement regarding these taxes but it is doubtful that the US would be on board, given that the majority of the companies affected are US firms. The US’ opposition is that the tax would result in double taxation. One wonder why the issue cannot be resolved by a tax credit for foreign taxes paid? But the hangup seems to be that the digital services tax is taxing revenues rather than income.

Not surprisingly the Big Tech firms have lobbied the administration vigorously to oppose the tax and Trump has complied. Yet one can also understand the frustration of the governments who see revenues earned in their country by corporations that are not taxed. But Trump’s opposition is not unique. Obama and Biden also opposed digital services taxes but only Trump has used the economic heft of the United States to force a country to not implement the tax. What remains to be seen is if Trump will insist that the other countries rescind their digital services tax in their negotiations over the tariffs. If he doesn’t it will be further evidence of his hatred toward Canada.

Suppose I was nominated to be Chairman of the Fed

Not only would I not be nominated (I am too old and too independent), the pay is lousy ($250,000), and though I loved living in DC but not at this point in my life. What would I do with my bass boat? My dog – I have a German Shorthaired Pointer and unlike Robert Parker’s Spenser’s GSP Belle, I would not keep mine in the city. My fifth wheel? My vehicles and most importantly my guns? So if nominated I would not serve – unless I could do it virtually from Knoxville.

Far be it for me to give Donald Trump advice but here goes. Much is being written on who he going to choose to replace Powell as chairman of the Fed. The media seems to think it will be either Kevin Warsh or Kevin Hassett, chair of the National Economic Council. I have written why I think that Warsh will not be chosen because he is not a yes man. He previously served on the Board of Governors and is committed to Fed independence. I like him in that he wants the Fed to return to its pre-Bernanke roots emphasizing monetary aggregates rather than interest rates. He would then run counter to Trump’s obsession with lowering interest rates. Since he would be a great choice, I doubt if Trump will nominate him.

Then there is Kevin Hassett of the National Economic Council. Hassett has demonstrated “flexibility” of thought. At first he was a defender of Jay Powell and Fed independence but lately has flipped to the dark side, joining Trump in criticizing Powell. Hassett has a PhD in economics from Penn and was once on the faculty of Columbia. He has also been a staff economist at the Fed. However, this does not make him an expert on monetary economics. Rather his interests were in tax policy.

Trump won’t be able to fire Powell and must wait until his term as chairman ends on May 15, 2026. But he doesn’t have to wait that long to put Powell’s successor in place. Board member Adriana Kugler’s term ends January 1, 2026. Trump could, and should, nominate whoever he wants as chairman to fill Kugler’s expired term. Then when Powell leaves as chairman, he can then nominate that person as chairman. Mind you, whoever is nominated will have a bruising confirmation hearing rivaling that of a Supreme Court nominee. Warsh will be the more independent choice while Hassett will be viewed as a political hack.

Regardless, I would be surprised that whoever is nominated (and it likely will not be either of these) will not chart their own course once in office to the dismay of the president. Fed chairmen take Fed independence seriously. I once served on a committee with the legendary Paul Volcker. One does not get more independent than that but even he relied on the work of the staff economists at the Fed.

But yes there is serious change that needs to be in the Fed’s William McChesney Martin Building and in the reserve bank districts. Here is what I would do. First, I would bring in new monetary economists to analyze and rebuild the fed models emphasizing monetary aggregates rather than interest rates. Second, I would encourage the president to nominate for future board positions, economists of stature whose expertise was in the critical areas that the fed studies, such as international economics. Third, I would place strong monetarists at the reserve banks but have on their staffs deregulatory minded people. Fourth, I would divide the Fed into two sections, one concerned solely with monetary policy and the second that would concentrate on regulation and the examination of the banks. I would have two separate support staffs to assist them. Although administrators love to increase their power, I would recommend that the regulatory body be spun off into a different agency or merged with the Comptroller of the Currency. Fifth, I would recommend that the congress purge the agency of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. It has no place within the Fed. Sixth, I would recommend that the Fed chair be ex officio member of the president’s cabinet. Seventh, I would recommend that the secretary of the Treasury be ex officio on the Open Market Committee. That way the administration would have a voice but not a vote at the Fed and the Fed would have a voice on the president’s cabinet. I know some purists would argue that this would infringe on the Fed’s independence. If you disagree I am open to suggestions.

More Seemingly Random Thoughts #62

Trump, says Treasury secretary Scott Bessent, “is probably the most economically sophisticated president we’ve had in 100 years, maybe ever.” Huh? Boy, does that say something about our past presidents!

Tariff stupidity = economic sophistication? Who knew?

Why doesn’t Trump meet with Powell regularly?

Can the Secretary of the Treasury be on the Open Market Committee? How about having the Fed chair on the cabinet? That would give the administration a voice – but not a veto – on the Fed’s actions.

It will be interesting to see the next FOMC vote. I bet it won’t be unanimous.

Republicans – not democrats – blocked Mike Lee’s suggestion to sell a sliver of Fed owned land (a la Thomas Sowell). Lee wanted to sell a paltry 1 million of the 640 million acres owned by the federal government. Four republican senators and 6 republican representatives threatened not to vote for the Big Beautiful bill forcing Lee to jettison his amendment. This is just another example of the difficulty in even cutting pennies from the federal budget.

National security tariffs? Wouldn’t it make more sense to lower all tariffs to zero if reciprocated on China’s competitors (Vietnam, Bangladesh, India, Cambodia) and on all our ex-allies? Instead Trump is going forward with the lunacy of imposing tariffs on everyone. He thinks American economic might will cower every nation into kissing his ring. Instead, those nations will form other alliances – often with China. Some national security strategy.

Remember that in Trump’s world, reciprocal means a 20% tariff on Vietnam while their tariff on US goods is zero.

Also remember that one reason given for the tariffs was the bizarre notion that trade deficits in goods (only) somehow imperiled national security. Then why is Trump putting tariffs on all the countries with which we have a trade surplus like Brazil? Their tariff is an amazing 50%! I seldom agree with Paul Krugman but his calling the Brazilian tariffs “megalomaniacal and evil” may be an understatement. Let’s just be kind and say that Trump is either misinformed or a liar or – in Krugman’s words – a megalomanic. One observer says that this “defies logic”. But of course no logic is involved here. Trump’s tariff letter to Brazil said that Brazilian trade barriers caused “unsustainable trade deficits” for the U.S.  Pardon me but WTF. We have a trade surplus with Brazil in 2024 of $284 million. In the first half of 2025, it is $1.67 billion. So now trade surplus = deficits? Some economically sophisticated president!

On the home front one writer made the insightful comment that only Trump could have “capitalized on and exacerbated the manifold failings of a pre-existing culture and politics derailed by identity, incoherently wooing disaffected black and Latino Americans even as he elevates whites en masse to the status of victims and demotes racial and sexual minorities to the role of oppressors (invaders, usurpers, recipients of unfair advantages)”. But as I remind you, we would have never had CRT or DEI if white people (those libs in power) did not hate white people. 

Does Justice Jackson know the constitution? She was the sole dissenter in an 8-1 decision. Even Sotomayor would not join her. This case involved Trump’s ability to fire federal employees. Not only did Jackson dissent but her dissent was amazing in its scathing tone of disapproval toward her eight other colleagues. She wrote “For some reason, this Court sees fit to step in now and release the President’s wrecking ball at the outset of this litigation. In my view, this decision is not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.”  

Seriously? “Hubristic and senseless.” Even though Sotomayor disagreed with Trump’s actions, she agreed that the case should move forward so the lower courts can decide first if the eventual layoffs break any laws set by Congress. Jonathan Turley has called Jackson’s style one of “judicial abandon”. Turley is being kind. Although some are quick to attack Jackson’s intellect, her record and history show otherwise. Jackson is very smart but is using the court as a bully pulpit to espouse her personal views rather than being true to her oath of office that pledges ““I, _________, do solemnly swear or affirm that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________, according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Jackson is 54 and may be on the court another 20 years.

Clarence Thomas is 77 and Samuel Alito is 75. Maybe it is time for both to retire at the end of the current session of the court while republicans control the White House and the senate. If the democrats come back into power – and surely they will someday – can you imagine two more justices like Ketanji Brown Jackson?

And lastly, even the calendar says WTF after Tuesday.

Doesn’t Victor Davis Hanson have a PhD?

Victor Davis Hanson has become the lettered darling of the MAGA crowd. Although I agree with some of his musings, I am not a Victor Davis Hanson fan. I find much of his commentary to be in the MAGA-apologist camp with an air of snobbish superiority. Hanson recently had a curious and rather puzzling article in Politico where he ridiculed those degreed experts – those pundits with PhDs. He ridiculed economists’ critique of Trump’s tariffs. He then, for good measure, added immigration experts, national security experts, the Middle East, NATO, Hunter Biden’s laptop, global warming, the Steele dossier and university bias. Seriously, all that is in one article. The part about economist was sheer sophistry. I was going to challenge Hanson’s analysis but my longtime friend Don Boudreaux beat me to it. Here are the links to Hanson’s article and Don’s rejoinder. I subscribe to Don’s blog, Café Hayek, and I recommend that you consider subscribing too.

Victor Davis Hanson, The Decline and Fall of Our So-Called Degreed Experts

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2025/07/04/the_decline_and_fall_of_our_so-called_degreed_experts_152996.html

And Don Boudreaux’s rejoinder

“Victor Davis Hanson Continues to Write Foolishly About Economics”

Victor Davis Hanson Continues to Write Foolishly About Economics

Yes, Victor Davis Hanson criticizes the degreed experts. Yet he has a PhD from Stanford in Classics, which of course makes him an expert on economics, political science, national security, the environment and everything else. I acknowledge that the same criticism can be leveled against me. But I gladly admit that I tend to apply microeconomics, supply and demand, and present value theory to almost everything (the hammer and nail). I have a close friend who accuses me of doing that but I tell him to “prove me wrong and I will adopt your opinion”. That does not appear to be Dr Hanson’s philosophy.

But reading Hanson’s MAGA apology pieces I am reminded of a conversation I had with my father. Dad was insisting on some point in economics and I told him he was wrong. He insisted otherwise. I said “Dad you would not argue over how Charles (my brother) does his job.” Dad said “He is a pilot and I don’t know anything about flying an airplane.” And I said “Well in this instance you don’t know economics either.”

Mamdani, Planned Parenthood and Judicial Activism

Zohran, a true Asian-African-American

Zohran Mamdani, the New York socialist who won the democrat primary for mayor put ‘Black/African American” on his application to Columbia. Undoubtedly he figured it would enhance his chances for admission. His SAT scores were below the average for the whites admitted but within the range of black applicants. Mamdani was denied admission even though his father is on the Columbia faculty. The media is having fits over it being revealed that he checked the African-American box. But in reality it is true. Mamdani was born in Uganda to Ugandans of Indian heritage. That makes him an African and since he is an American citizen, he is an African-American much like Elon Musk who was born in South Africa also is an African-American. So to quote Stevie Wonder “What the Fuss?” Mamdani also listed himself as “Asian” which makes him an Asian-African-American. All true. 

Eric Adams, the current mayor of New York who is running as an independent seized on the opportunity to say that “The African-American identity is not a checkbox of convenience. It’s a history, a struggle and a lived experience. For someone to exploit that for personal gain is deeply offensive.” That is true but it made me curious about the Ugandan experience for Indians in that country. Didn’t Idi Amin order the expulsion of the 80,000 Indians from the country? Was that the reason why Mamdani’s family came to the US? When Amin expelled the Indians, they were limited to taking with them $120 and 485 pounds of property. Wikipedia says that “some 5,655 firms, ranches, farms, and agricultural estates were confiscated, along with cars, homes and other household goods.” Hey, Eric, that sounds like a “struggle and a lived experience” to me.

Bye Bye Federal funding for abortions

The Big Beautiful Bill was the usual arranging of the deck chairs by the congress. It cut a few taxes and reallocated government largesse from those favored by the left to those favored by the right. So goodbye green subsidies, goodbye grants to LGBTQ, bye bye to all those included in the expansion of Medicaid beyond its original purpose. Also it was bye bye to the government’s funding of Planned Parenthood. Even though federal monies are supposed to not fund abortions (the Hyde Amendment), Planned Parenthood – the abortion factory – was receiving federal funds. Supposedly those funds were being used to support Planned Parenthood’s other functions, like cancer screenings and mental health counselling. However, Planned Parenthood’s main business is its 400,000 abortions a year. The BBB cuts of money to abortion clinics period, regardless of other things they do. Planned Parenthood now says that it will have to close 600 of its clinics. Good riddance. Planned Parenthood was founded by a racist geneticist for the sole purpose of aborting black babies. That is why most of its “clinics” are located in minority neighborhoods. Dollars are fungible and it is ridiculous to think that the government funding was only supporting non-abortion activities. If cancer screenings and mental health counselling are so important then I wonder if there are many (or any) Planned Parenthood “clinics” that offer only those services and do not perform abortions?

Judicial activism run amok 

I have written about judicial imperialism before with a federal judge ignoring a Supreme Court decision. Well another judge just issued a ruling issuing a nationwide restraining order invalidating that part of the BBB denying funding to Planned Parenthood. What! You mean a federal district judge can strike down a law enacted by the congress and signed by the president? Who knew? Didn’t congress pass the law to fund Planned Parenthood? Doesn’t it have the right to defund it, if it wants to? I am not an attorney but this strikes be as simply weird. If this judge in Massachusetts (where else?) is correct, then any party whose funding is cut off by and act of congress has grounds to sue to get that funding reinstated. Seriously, calling this “weird” is an understatement. Judicial activism? How about judicial insurrection.

The Return of Rosy Scenario

Way back in 1983 George Will characterized the Reagan Administration’s economic projections as a rosy scenario. That term has become synonymous with overly optimistic government projections. Well she’s back.

I have always said “prove me wrong and I will adopt your opinion.” It is now prove me wrong time with the Big Beautiful Bill. Most times when Trump does something the knee jerk reaction from the Trump haters is to oppose it while the knee jerk reaction from the MAGA apologists and those paid to lie (like the press secretary) is to support it. So we expect the left to assert that whatever Trump does is going to kill grandmothers, babies and the poor while profiting billionaires. Those on the right will contend that the same action will make America great again. Such is the case with the Big Beautiful Bill.

The analysis of the projected economic impact of the bill was virtually unanimous with the only outlier beings Trumps Council of Economic Advisors. Here outlier should be spelled outliar. Recall that the Congressional Budget Office (one of my many old employers) estimated meager growth in GDP of only 0.5% over ten years and an increase in the deficit of $430 trillion over that period if all the gimmicks were removed from the assumptions. The White House immediately blasted CBO saying that it was biased being populated by democrat hacks who hated Trump. However, CBO is headed by a republican economist appointed by the Speaker of the House and the Senate President pro tempore – both republicans. The White House spokesperson, who is paid to lie, also pooh poohed the CBO findings saying that a more accurate assessment was from the president’s Council of Economic Advisors. Their projection was a 4.6% to 4.9% increase in growth and a cut in the deficit of $2 trillion. The Council of Economic Advisers’ head, Stephen Miran made all the talk shows touting the bill. Kelly Loeffler, head of the SBA said that 1 million jobs would be created.

Well eight forecasting entities differ projecting growth from a paltry -0.1& (The Budget Lab) to an anemic 1.0% (Tax Foundation). All see significant increases in the deficit. Again, only Trumps CEA thinks otherwise. Naturally Speaker Johnson parrots the CEA saying The Council of Joint Economic Advisers predicts “a 3% growth rate in the economy, the addition of four million jobs, and for the average U.S. household to have an added $13,000 in take-home pay. “We’re giving everybody a tax cut, and that’s going to help the economy. We’re super excited about what we were able to deliver.” The Speaker added “We’re excited about the upcoming election cycle in ’26 because people will be riding an economic high, just as we did after the first two years of the first Trump administration. This time, it’s on steroids.”

Well this time it is different. Johnson can be excused for stretching the truth. It is what he has to do. Images of a pig with lipstick come to mind. Yes the Trump tax cuts in the first term led to economic growth, despite the imposition of tariffs. However, the Big Beautiful Bill doesn’t really cut taxes – except on a few piddling items – it only makes permanent the temporary tax cuts of the president’s first term. There is no new stimulation coming from the BBB that will have any significant economic impact. Also the $2 trillion in deficit reduction is wholly predicated on a 4.5% increase in economic growth which simply won’t happen despite what all the MAGA types are telling us. One modeler of the impact of the BBB noted that the CEA’s estimates were the only one that did not include the cost of financing the debt and that along with other “fantasy growth assumptions are many times higher than other estimators.” I believe this is another way of saying that the CEA’s projections are a rosy scenario.

Lastly, I do not have a lot of confidence in any of the models because of  Trump’s tariffs. How long will they be in effect? Of what magnitude will they be? All the models show that there will be a drag on the economy in the short run while only the CEA’s will contend that the tariffs will contribute to economic growth over the 10 year period. Since the estimates are over 10 years, are all the models keeping the tariffs static over the entire period? I would predict that the Trump tariffs will be temporary once their full impact is felt because the pressure will be on the president to remove them. But given the stubbornness of this president, he may be willing to keep them in place even if it appears that the republicans are going to lose congressional seats – despite Speaker Johnson’s having to endorse with a straight face the conclusions of the Council of Economic Advisors.

The monthly jobs report or how to lie with statistics

There are few things in life as certain as death, taxes and an inflated monthly jobs report. The report for June says that 147,000 jobs were added to the economy. Hooray? But the report from the Department of Labor is always wrong. After the initial report is issued, the Department starts revising it. That is because the report estimates job growth from a survey of selected employers. Consider that thus far from January through April, the Labor Department has revised down the monthly employment gains by an average of 55,000 jobs. March’s report was an additional 228,000 jobs then revised to 185,000 and then to 120,000. Historically, actual job growth is less than half of what is initially reported.

Look for the 147,000 jobs number to be significantly revised downward. Also look at the numbers within the numbers. While the Labor Department was reporting job gains of 147,000 other surveys said that for the first time in years overall private sector employment fell and that 47,000 jobs were lost at employers with fewer than 50 employees. Eighty percent of the job growth was in state and local governments. I have long contended that public sector employment should be excluded from the job figures. I believe that June’s numbers substantiate that claim. 

Thus, it looks as if the job market is weakening and may be shrinking if not stagnant making the Labor Department’s report an example of how to lie with statistics. Also consider that the revised data show that job growth last year was about 168,000 a month. Thus far it is 124,000 a month which will be revised downward. Do you think that tariffs and immigration are having an impact on the numbers? This is one of the reasons that Trump is screaming at the Fed to lower the fed funds rates – along with thinking that lowering the rate will lower government borrowing costs.

One might think that the troubling job numbers would cause Trump to back off his raising of tariffs. But no. Instead he has announced that the administration will start sending out letters informing countries of their tariff rates effective August 1. Trump said “They’ll range in value from maybe 60% or 70% tariffs to 10% and 20% tariffs. We’ve done the final form, and it’s basically going to explain what the countries are going to be paying in tariffs.” Note that the president persists on saying that the countries are going to be paying the tariffs when in fact it will be the importers. Why does the president keep telling this lie and curiously why hasn;t the media called him on it?

Is he serious about a 60% or a 70% tariff? Yes. Bet on it. What will be interesting is to see if like before, our allies are taxed higher than our enemies. Look for the tariff on Canada to be higher than that on Russia. Trump once said that his tariffs were reciprocal. I guess it is how you define “reciprocal” because the negotiated agreement with Viet Nam calls for a tariff of 20 percent on goods imported from Viet Nam and a transhipping tariff of 40 percent on goods manufactured in other countries (namely China) but shipped to the US via Viet Nam. There will be a tariff of zero on US goods imported into Viet Nam. Again Trump says that Viet Nam will pay the tariffs. So let me get this straight, we put a 20 percent tariff on them and they put a zero tariff on us. Yep that sounds reciprocal to me. The technical term for an agreement like this is called a “shakedown.”

So going forward expect job losses to continue as the tariffs kick in. Also expect immigration to have a negative effect on jobs as well. But keep in mind that the job growth numbers do not reflect all that is happening in the job market. Again government jobs should be taken out and secondly the monthly figure should be a net – that is job growth minus job loss. Consider that job losses thus far are around 59,000 a month. Also, the labor force participation rate is falling as increasing numbers are dropping out of the labor force. This means that the unemployment rate is not rising because workers who drop out of the labor force are not counted as being unemployed. That definition is those who are out of work and are looking for a job.

Consequently, the jobs added numbers being reported do not tell the whole story. Taking into account the inflated numbers from the Labor Department, the number of government jobs, the monthly job loss and the declining labor force participation rate, one can only conclude that the labor market is stagnant at best. For example, in the third quarter of 2024 total job losses equaled total jobs gained but the media only reported the jobs gained. One would also need to know whether the new jobs are high paying and if new hires are underemployed, meaning that they are working at a lesser job than for which they are qualified.

One more thing to consider, it looks like net immigration may be negative with more noncitizens leaving the country than coming into it. What impact with this have on the job market and on certain industries currently dependent upon a migrant labor force? Somehow, I don’t think a lowering of the Fed funds rate will be enough to counteract the negative impact on the economy. But Trump says we must be patient. He muses that although there will be an initial slowdown, then things will come roaring back as the tariffs will force an increase in industrial growth and production. Jobs will surge back. The economy will boom and all will be apple pie and roses. Actually for the country’s sake, I hope he is right. But if he is, then everything I know and believe about economics is wrong. We shall see.