Blog

The NCUA: A Quorum of one?

The Supeme Court decided that Trump did have the authority to fire two presidential appointees. One was a member of the Labor Relations Board while the other was on the Merit Systems Protection Board. But the Fed was explicitly excluded from the order. The court said “The Federal Reserve is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity that follows in the distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banks of the United States.” The president then said “The press runs away with things. No, I have no intention of firing him.” I guess he forgot all the threats he was making. But remember “Powell’s termination cannot come quick enough”? Then why doesn’t Trump just fire Powell and see what happens next?

There is another suit now being heard that may have implications for the Fed. It was brought by the two democrat board members of my old agency the National Credit Union Administration, Todd Harper and Tanya Otsuka. Trump fired them although Harper was appointed by Trump during his first term. The NCUA board is appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate to fill expiring terms or to a new six-year term. The board was created by the Financial Institutions Act of 1978. The Act replaced the agency’s sole administrator who served at the pleasure of the president and created a three person bipartisan board. It was intended that two board members be of the same party as the president. One person is designated by the president as chairman. The board then names one other board member as vice chair. When the board was created, Jimmy Carter appointed me as the minority (no pun intended) member along with two democrats.

It is noteworthy that when the president fired the two democrat members he did not name their replacements. Since NCUA regulations require a quorum to act, the question is whether one constitutes a quorum. Harper and Otsuka do not think so but NCUAs lawyers opine differently. Mind you, the remaining board member is a republican and likely told the lawyers to issue an opinion stating that he can constitute a quorum of one. Not surprisingly, they have done so. They cited the act creating the board which said “A majority of the Board shall constitute a quorum.” Thus, with only one board member, the chairman contends that he constitutes a majority. He is operating on that assumption and is conducting the agency’s business as a quorum of one. His lawyers also said “The departure of two of our three NCUA Board Members has led to speculation within the credit union industry and trade press about the NCUA Board’s ability to exercise authority with the presence of only a single Board Member. Please be assured that the NCUA has precedent and standing delegations of authority in place to continue performing all operational and statutory requirements under the authority of a single Board Member.” Mind you if Harper and Otsuka were still on the board, the opinion would have been different.

It is apparent that the old board was not particularly one of comity. When I and other former board members were invited to attend the celebration of the 90^th anniversary of the signing of the Federal Credit Union Act, the republican member Kyle Hauptman was not in attendance. As such he is not in the above photo taken commemorating the occasion – I am on the far right. Hauptman clearly did not agree with some of the initiatives taken when Harper was chairman particularly with respect to DEI. Although those were removed to conform to Trump’s dictates, it is clear that Hauptman would have removed them anyway. He has also ordered a review of certain regulations that he opposed and now being a quorum of one, is likely to succeed in having them changed.

Harper and Otsuka are arguing in court that the intent of the congress was explicitly to remove the administration of NCUA from serving at the pleasure of the president by creating its three person board. Moreover they contend that the 1958 case Wiener v. United States demonstrates that agencies like NCUA with a nonpartisan, multi-member expert board enjoy removal protections. This makes NCUA special in their eyes and similar to the Fed Board (and the FDIC). “Congress structured all three agencies to operate independently for good reason: a stable financial system depends on independent regulators who act free from political interference, guided by expert judgment in line with statutory mandate,” Whether the Supreme Court agrees would give NCUA the protections that some are now giving the Fed. If the court orders Harper and Otsuka reinstated then that will settle the issue regarding firing Powell – unless the administration appeals to the Supreme Copurt. Then the Supreme Court would settle the matter once and for all. 

Random Thoughts #60

Is it just me but don’t you think that Linda McMahon looks a bit like the Joker?

Kristi Noem was hospitalized for an allergic reaction. She couldn’t possibly be allergic to false eyelashes or hair extenders could she?

The Fed’s Open Market Committee met and as I expected shot Donald Trump the bird. I thought that all the name calling and bellicosity by the president would force the Fed to tell him to go pound sand. Believe me, if the Fed had lowered rates the market would have lost faith in this Fed labeling it Trump’s puppet. Just goes to show you that if you can’t be fired by this president you can assert your independence and still keep your job.

The next Open Market Committee meets July 29-30. I bet they will lower rates (the Fed Funds target rate) then.

Trump said it again. He wants the Fed to lower interest rates to reduce the cost of the national debt. So its not about stimulating growth, is it? Here is his rant: “‘Too Late’ Jerome Powell is costing our Country Hundreds of Billions of Dollars,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. “He is truly one of the dumbest, and most destructive, people in Government, and the Fed Board is complicit. Europe has had 10 cuts, we have had none. We should be 2.5 Points lower, and save $BILLIONS on all of Biden’s Short Term Debt. We have LOW inflation! TOO LATE’s an American Disgrace!” Again, Europe is cutting rates to cope with Trump’s higher tariffs and the slowing down in their export economies. Just the opposite of the situation created by Trump here. The rise in the cost of refinancing the debt was caused by Trump’s actions which have driven up Treasury bond rates. If Trump wants the cost of the debt, which will soon be over $1 trillion, to fall then he needs to eliminate his tariffs and more importantly cut federal spending. The Fed funds rate is not the reason why $11 trillion in debt is going to have to be refinancing this year at very high rates.

Tucker Carlson certainly beclowned himself for berating Ted Cruz for not knowing the population of Iran. Why is this a relevant question? Would Cruz’ position change if they had less (or more) people? What does this have to do with Khomenei getting the bomb? I am reminded of one time when I was an expert witness that the other side tried to discredit me. The attorney asked me “What is Regulation M?” Mind you the Fed has regulations from Reg A to ZZ. When I replied that I did not know, he said “Then how can you be an expert on the Fed?” That would be similar to questioning his legal expertise if he could not cite every line of Tennessee code.

The Fed reported a loss of $224 billion for 2024. The Fed pays interest on bank reserves and on its massive holdings of government securities. Prior to the runup in its balance sheet, the Fed made a profit and returned it to the Treasury. Its losses bring up an interesting question. Since the Consumer Financial Protection Board is funded out of the Fed’s earnings, shouldn’t it be shut down if the Fed makes losses? Trump ordered the agency shut down but the courts have temporarily sustained that action.

The Supreme Court just ruled that Tennessee’s ban on gender mutilation surgery for minors is constitutional. I guess “gender affirming care” sounds more sanguine but the reality is different. The left wing press called the ruling “divisive”. CNN called the ruling “a significant blow to transgender Americans” and said that ”Transgender advocates framed the ruling as a “devastating loss,” Mind you, we are talking about minors. If an adult wants to have transgender surgery, then nothing prohibits that. My guess is that the Tennessee law was the result of disclosures that Vanderbilt Hospital was performing such surgeries on children. Recall the study in the UK showed most children with gender confusion grew out of it. The study also indicated that many children with autistic spectrum disorder had gender dysphoria. Inflicting nonreversible surgery on these children is inhumane. Of course, all the court’s liberals voted against it with Justice Sotomayor saying “The court “abandons transgender children and their families to political whims. In sadness, I dissent.” Political whims? However, the question is whether the ruling is constitutional not whimsical.

Speaking of whimsical, the president just told ICE to chill on raiding agriculture, meatpacking, hotels and restaurants. Is construction next? Regardless, look for a flood of illegals to line up for jobs in agriculture, meatpacking, hotels and restaurants. The news reports that republican representatives from Trump’s farming states pressured the White House to ease off. Trump himself tweeted “FOCUS on our crime ridden and deadly Inner Cities, and those places where Sanctuary Cities play such a big role. You don’t hear about Sanctuary Cities in our Heartland!”  He also said “Biden allowed 21 million people to come into our country. Of that, vast numbers of those people were murderers, killers, people from gangs, people from jails — they emptied their jails out into the U.S. Most of those people are in the cities, all blue cities.” Somewhat surprisingly there has not hardly been a peep of criticism from the Trump haters who are caught in a quandary. They can’t applaud Trump for easing up on his deportation of illegals when they would really love to say that he is only doing this to help the dastardly Big Agriculture continue to exploit the “migrants.”

Exports, perhaps the only source of growth in the Japanese economy, fell last month. Japan’s Prime Minister Ishiba said “The series of tariff measures taken by the U.S., which accounts for approximately a quarter of global GDP and about 20% of Japan’s exports, are damaging profits of many Japanese companies, including the auto industry.”  However, Japan’s negotiators say that they cannot reach a deal because Trump’s negotiators can’t agree among themselves. It has been reported that open disagreements and confusion among Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer have made negotiations difficult – to be kind. It is said that often the three argue and debate amongst themselves while at the negotiating table with the Japanese. Trump needs them to get their act together. I still say the Japanese should threaten to dump their $1 trillion in Treasury holdings if Trump doesn’t roll their tariffs back to zero.

Would it be racist to call Trump’s insistence on Chinese tariffs “gung-ho?”

Israel vs Iran: What is Trump doing?

Did John Bolton sneak into the White House when we were not looking? How else to explain the sudden rise of the neocons at the White House with Trump being all in with Israel against Iran. Yes the MAGA apologists will point to Trump’s actions against Iran in his first term. Trump imposed tough sanctions against Iran that Biden lifted. Now in his second term Trump has reimposed the sanctions. They are export oil restrictions, a nuclear program blockade, a disruption of proxy group financing of Iran’s terrorist allies (Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis), and various economic sanctions. But the most significant action is the signaling that the United States might join Israel militarily in their war on Iran. How else do you explain the movement of another carrier group to the Middle East along with 30 fighter planes and refueling tankers to Europe? 

Trump’s increasingly pointed threats against Khomenei are intensifying. His threats have been called “bellicose.” He has intimated that the US may take direct military action and pivot away from seeking a diplomatic agreement to restrict Tehran’s nuclear program. He has called for Itan’s unconditional surrender and said that although the US knows where Khomenei is hiding that the US wouldn’t kill him, “at least for now.”

 I thought that Trump and the MAGAs like JD Vance were opposed to intervening in foreign wars? Apparently not so with this one. Yes Trump has been consistent in saying that Iran should never have a nuclear weapon. But couldn’t he just support Israel’s attempt to destroy Iran’s nuclear capacity rather than seeming to want to join them in the effort? I keep reading that only B-52s carrying bunker busting bombs can get to Iran’s nuclear facilities that are buried deep beneath the surface. Yet no one has told me why the Israeli army could not attack the facilities after they were made more secure by its air force. We did not need the B-52s to go after Hamas’ underground network and we should not need the to go after Iran’s either. Just sounds like the neocons are itching for another military involvement.

Will the MAGA faithful fall into line to kiss Trump’s ring – like they always do? Apparently not all of them. First, Tucker Carlson who is definitely not a ring kisser remains staunchly opposed to US military involvement as does Steve Bannon. Trump now calls Carlson a kook. Marjorie Taylor Greene has voiced her concerns. Although Bannon says that military involvement will cause most of the MAGA folk to get on board with the president, he acknowledges that it does have the potential to splinter Trump’s support among his base.

Trump has said repeatedly that Iran should not be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. As to ordering US involvement, Trump has been perfectly clear saying “I may and then I may not.” But it is clear that Khomenei has pledged to destroy Israel and wipe it off the face of the planet by 2040. He has called Israel a “dangerous and lethal cancerous tumor” and has expressed genocidal intentions. Calling for the complete eradication of Israel by the Irani leader is reason to incapacitate Iran and reason to topple the entire government in the hope that whatever replaces it could not possibly be worse than the current regime. Thus far Israel has assassinated or killed Iran’s military leaders and its nuclear scientists but has not targeted Khomenei – yet. 

The bottom line is that Iran must not have a nuclear weapon because the zealots running the country will use it on Israel. That threat is intolerable for any people but especially one that has experienced the holocaust, the pogroms and all the purging and terrorism of the Jewish people throughout history. That said, this is Israel’s war and its responsibility. The US military should sit this one out.

Trump vs Powell: Who’s the Numbskull?

If anything, Powell has demonstrated the pitfalls of discretionary monetary policy. Way back in the 1950s until his death in 2006, the legendary Milton Friedman argued that discretionary monetary policy was inherently destabilizing. That is the constant manipulation of policy tools by the central bank created uncertainly in the marketplace and resulted in fits and starts in investment and consumer behavior. Friedman postulated using the Quantity Theory of Money that if the central bank grew the money supply at a rate equal to the long term real rate of growth in the economy, that we would have steady growth without inflation. If the rate of growth in money were above that of the economy then there would be inflation. If it were below that we would have slower growth and rising unemployment. This was called monetarism and was in direct contrast to Keynesianism where the central bank was to manipulate interest rates to change economic activity rather than concentrate on monetary aggregates.

Needless to say, central bankers choose the fiddling around strategy rather than that suggested by Freidman. Manipulating stuff is what they do. Central bankers love to fiddle. They love to increase interest rates or decrease them. They love to be the dominant forces in the economy. It gives them god-like status. Consider that Donald Trump who loves to fling insults and belittle people is particularly incensed with Fed chair Jerome (Jay) Powell. He just called him a “numbskull” for his refusal to bend to Trump’s badgering about lowering rates (namely the Fed funds rate). Trump points to inflation staying around the Fed’s target of 2 percent (which Friedman would argue is too high) and an unemployment rate of 4.2% (again Friedman would contend is too high). 

Trump wants lower interest rates to cover for the possibility that his tariffs will lower economic growth. He keeps yelling that there is no inflation so lower rates. The Fed is less sanguine and is taking a wait and see attitude. If it lowers rates and the impact of the tariffs is inflationary, then it would have added fuel to the fire and then will be blamed for not preventing the inflation. Recall that Powell has said “Inflation is likely to go up as tariffs find their way and some part of those tariffs come to be paid by the public.” Trump points to the European Central bank’s lowering rates and wonders why the Fed doesn’t do so. The answer is rather simple. The Europeans are countering the negative impact that Trump’s tariffs will have on their economies which should be the opposite of the impact that the tariffs will have on the US economy. 

Lest we forget, Powell was given high praise during Trump’s first year. The Fed accommodated the Trump tax cuts. Employment grew. Real wages grew. The market recovered from its losses of the previous decade and Trump took all the credit. Then came Covid and the fear of a severe recession or worse. The Fed cut its Fed funds rate to zero. It bought unprecedented amounts of government securities and inflated the size of its balance sheet. It provided funds to other nations’ central banks to ward off a world wide liquidity crisis. It even loaned funds directly to state and local governments. Again most gave Powell high praise for averting economic disaster. But there were those who argued that letting the economy crash would result in self-healing, a cleansing of balance sheets and a speedier recovery. Others argued otherwise and credited the Fed from saving the economy from a depression. 

Then came the prolonged inflation resulting from the Fed’s accommodation of Biden’s profligate ways. The inflation fueled by the Fed’s actions during Covid, exploded with the Fed’s accommodation of the $2 trillion American Rescue Act, the $1 trillion Infrastructure and Jobs Act, the $300 billion CHIPS Act, and the $900 billion so-called Inflation Reduction Act. That inflation will tarnish Powell’s legacy.

Now why does Trump want Powell to “lower” rates? Initially he said it was to stimulate growth because inflation was low. However, in his speech when he called Powell a “numbskull” Trump said “If we cut our interest by 1 point, for years we save $300 billion. If we cut it by 2 points we save … $600 billion a year, $600 billion because of one numbskull that sits here, ‘I don’t see enough reason to cut the rates’ no.” Trump is wrong. The Fed’s cut of the Fed funds rate will not lower the interest rates on Treasury bonds. Instead of saying that the Fed cut is necessary to stimulate the economy, the president is mistakenly conflating the long term Treasury bond market with the short term Treasury bill market. Now he saying that the Fed should cut interest rates to lower the government’s cost of financing the growing national debt? Pardon me but this is a numbskull comment.

Of course, all this could be avoided if the Fed abandoned discretionary policy. But that will never happen. But Trump should realize that calling Powell names will likely make him – and the Fed’s Open Market Committee – dig in their heels. A recent Supreme Court decision appears to imply that Trump cannot fire Powell and the Fed’s governors. Also, the reserve bank presidents who serve on the Open Market Committee could never be fired by the president since they are not nominated by the president nor have to go through senate confirmation. So a modest suggestion would be for Trump to get off social media, harness his insults and start quietly negotiating with the Fed and its chairman about the conduct of monetary policy. But that is not his tendency. Yet what he is doing is solidifying in the market’s mind that the central bank should be independent of the executive.

Mind you, I am not excusing Powell and the Fed for what some see as missteps. Powell like then Treasury secretary Yellen had testified before congress that the Biden inflation was “temporary and would likely wane.” They were wrong. But at the time they thought they were right. The inflation was the product of policies taken first because of the pandemic and then Biden’s fiscal blowout. Taking his cue from the Bernanke era at the Fed, Powell’s Fed reacted during the pandemic by dramatically increasing the Fed’s balance sheet. It went from holding about $500 billion in securities to over $9 trillion. It has since cut that number in half but has stopped reducing it and now looks like it may start increasing it again. The Fed’s buying (mostly) government securities injects money into the economy and typically is inflationary. Thus, the increase in the Fed’s balance sheet allowed new money to finance Joe Biden’s spending splurge. Again it is easy to criticize this as rubber-stamping Biden’s policies. But from the Fed’s perspective, this injection of funds prevented the economy from collapsing into a depression. Again it is easy to criticize when hindsight is 50-50.

Yet I think that one thing has not been considered – at least not publicly.  Is the impact of the tariffs temporary? That is, let us suppose that Trump’s tariffs raise prices by 10 percent. The question is whether that 10 percent is a one time shock to the system. That is if prices rise by 10 percent will they then increase by ten percent per annum or just once? Treasury Secretary Bessent has said “Tariffs are a one-time price adjustment,” Projections are that the initial impact will be to raise the cost to US households by $1,200 which then lowers real income. Most projections (outside of the White House) show the tariffs causing inflation to rise above 3%. The question is will it stay there. So do tariffs lead to higher prices and sustained inflation or are tariffs only a short-term spike in inflation due to immediate cost adjustments and do not result in long-term, sustained inflation? As Chairman Powell has stated “It’s really hard to know how this is going to work out.” 

So Trump versus Powell. Who’s the numbskull? You decide.

A New Fed Chairman?

For reasons only known to himself the president is making noises about naming a new Fed chair to replace incumbent Jay Powell. Mind you, Powell’s term as chairman of the Fed doesn’t end until May 2026 and his term as a governor doesn’t end until 2028. That means if Trump names someone other than a sitting Fed governor, he needs Powell to resign when his term as chairman expires. If Powell elects to stay, then Trump’s announced replacement would need another governor to resign to open up a slot at the Board.

So the question is why so early? Kevin Warsh is the clubhouse favorite although I would bet that he would not be the nominee. His view of the role of the Fed is a traditional one (pre-Bernanke) and he would be no rubber stamp for the president. He would also move to return the Fed to monitoring monetary aggregates rather than its obsession with interest rates and conduct less discretionary monetary policy. Since Trump loves to talk about interest rates and favors more Fed interference in markets, Warsh would not be a logical choice (assuming Trump is logical in this instance).

Other possibilities currently bandied about are David Malpass, Christopher Waller and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. Again I would bet that none of these winds up as the nominee. Mind you whoever is nominated is going to carry the suspicion of being Trump’s toady and would face a very difficult and contentious senate confirmation process. But lets briefly look at each of the above. David Malpass has solid credentials. He was president of the World Bank, chief economist at Bear Stearns, and has held positions in the Reagan, Bush and Trump administrations. On the plus side he was a critic of all the Fed’s quantitative easing during the Obama years. He was also an advisor to Trump’s first campaign and became under secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs. Malpass is not an Ivy Leaguer – thank goodness – with degrees from Colorado College and the University of Denver. Interestingly, he does not have a PhD.

Christopher Waller is a sitting governor at the Fed. If Powell decided to stay on as a governor, Waller might be the choice although I think another governor, Michelle Bowman would be a possibility. Waller is the only governor who actually knows something about monetary economics. He had been research director at the Federal Reserve bank of St. Louis which is the only bank in the Fed system known for its study of monetary aggregates and monetary theory. Again, he is no Ivy Leaguer with a PhD from Washington State University. Waller has studied cryptocurrencies and is opposed to the United States having a central digital currency although he has expressed some support for stablecoins. Waller would be a solid choice although Trump might not nominate him since he (Waller) has been one of those on the Open Market Committee which has not heeded to Trump’s demands on lowering the Fed funds target rate.

Then there is Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent. He would face the most difficult confirmation process given his relationship with Trump. Bessent has been a good soldier and has publicly endorsed all Trump’s economic views – however dumb. Would Bessent leave Treasury for the Fed? I certainly would. He would have more independence at the Fed and no longer be tied to Trump. Maybe he should ask Janet Yellen which job was more fun. Others do not share my opinion. Someone named Neil Dutta, head of economics at someplace called Renaissance Macro Research says, “The Treasury job is probably a lot more fund that the Fed job unless you want to live in DC forever and manage a bunch of PhDs at the Fed while being a prop for a Representative’s viral prop at a hearing. I am not sure why someone like Bessent would take the job.” Excuse me, Mr Dutta but you are an idiot.

I cannot not see an upside to naming a nominee this early. The long knives will be out and this gives them a year to conduct a smear campaign. These would be the first Fed confirmation hearings on par with that of a Supreme Court nominee. If I were picking I would choose Stanford’s John Taylor or the Hoover Institution’s John Cochrane. Both would be great which means that neither would be nominated.

Budget time is wasted time

Budget time where the congressional baseball game is just as productive as any appropriations debate. But that devalues the baseball game. I would say that congress is wasting its time, but that is probably redundant.

Budget time is when congress thrashes around, pontificates, says a million words, writes one thousand page bills, yell at each other, tweaks the tax code to hand out favors and spends more borrowed money. Let’s waste a few words on the hapless hopeless morass. Even if the congress decided not to appropriate another penny but to keep last year’s budget, federal spending would grow because of the cost of living adjustments built into programs like Social Security, the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) and civilian and military pensions. In all there are over a dozen federal programs with COLAs. A modest suggestion would be to eliminate all COLAs but few if any politician has the will to do so. What about other items in the budget?

Here is basically a repeat of what I write every year at this time, only with a revision of numbers.

Last year the government spent $6.75 trillion. Of that $4.1 trillion was nondiscretionary, $1.8 trillion was discretionary and $900 billion was interest. The major components of nondiscretionary spending are Social Security ($1.45 trillion), Medicare ($865 billion) and Medicaid $618 (billion). The federal government collected $4.9 trillion meaning that if the government were to use its tax collections to pay only the mandatory components and the interest on the debt it would not have a penny for everything else. Therefore, it borrowed to fund all discretionary spending leaving a deficit of $1.75 trillion. Thus, it is literally impossible to not add to the debt unless mandatory spending programs are addressed. But congress ignores entitlement reform so the debt must grow every year, regardless of what congress is doing during budget time. Instead the congress is doing high fives on passing a rescissions package that cuts $9.4 billion in spending already appropriated.  Mind you, $9.4 billion is a rounding error in a $7 trillion dollar budget.

Nondiscretionary spending increases gobble up a growing percentage of GDP simply because the escalators increase faster than the growth in GDP. One solution is to cap the percentage of GDP allocated to nondiscretionary spending, eliminating the automatic escalators. Next, raise the full benefit age for Social Security to 70 for those aged younger than 50. Remove the limits on annual contributions to 401(k)s to allow people to increasingly fund their own retirement. Next, limit the federal budget to grow no more than the growth in previous year’s GDP. This would allow the budget to increase but not at an increasing rate. Finally, codify these suggestions into law with the provision that only if the president declares a national emergency and both houses of Congress agree with a two-thirds majority will these limits change.

A shorter term solution was suggested by the sainted Thomas Sowell who says that Federal government should sell some of its vast holdings of land currently valued at around $2 trillion. “The amount of land owned by the National Park Service alone is larger than Italy. The land owned by the Fish and Wildlife Service is larger than Germany. The land owned by the Forest Service is larger than Britain and Spain combined. The land owned by the Bureau of Land Management is larger than Japan, North Korea, South Korea and the Philippines combined.” Of course, trying to sell the land would incur the wrath of the Sierra Club, the Wilderness Society, the Rainforest Trust, the Nature Conservancy and all the rest of the environmental organizations who would lose all of their funding and would have to look for real jobs. Donald Trump has no love for these organizations so why doesn’t he follow Sowell’s advice and have a land sale?

But don’t look for congress to do any of this. Instead they give themselves high fives for clawing back a paltry $9.4 billion out of a $7 trillion budget bill. No single democrat would ever suggest cutting one penny – unless it is to the military. No single republican – not even the so called fiscal hawks – would ever suggest anything of value. Every single member of congress and every single member of any administration (who wants to keep his job) is completely totally gutless. Rather than effect real change they are all content to make the appropriate clucking sounds and keep passing the problem off to the next group of legislators and bureaucrats. Trump is not the only one saying “What me worry?”

Happy Fathers’ Day

I am banned from X. Don’t know why but they won’t let me create an account and many times won’t let me access any posts. I guess Musk didn’t like me saying that DOGE was redundant.

California senator Alex Padilla was forcefully removed from an ICE press conference. He interrupted Homeland Security’s Kristi Noem saying “I am Sen. Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary.” He was grabbed by security, forced to the ground, handcuffed and removed from the hearing. He was then released without being charged. Naturally the democrats are having a cow – and rightfully so (later on why). The democrat Hispanic caucus called for an investigation. Fellow democrat senators like Schumer, Warnock and Schiff denounced the action. On the republican side Lisa Murkowski expressed concern. The republicans were less sanguine. Speaker Mike Johnson said “It was wildly inappropriate. Democrats have been “defending lawbreakers, and now they are acting like lawbreakers themselves.” Naturally the White House was unapologetic with press secretary Karoline Levitt saying Padilla “should be ashamed of his childish behavior today.” Of course it this had happened to a republican legislator, the republicans would be spiting mad.

Noem said that she thought the senator was “an attacker.” “His approach was something I don’t think was appropriate at all, but the conversation was

great, and we’re going to continue to communicate. I’ll let law enforcement speak to how this situation was handled but I will say people need to

identify themselves before they start lunging at people during press conferences”. FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino said the agency’s personnel “acted completely appropriately” and that Padilla wasn’t wearing a security pin to identify himself.

Pardon me but Noem and Bongino are lying if they say that they did not know who Padilla was and if they are telling the truth then both should be fired. In my years on Capitol Hill I can tell you that the security personnel there pride themselves in being able to recognize and identify every legislators by sight. 

Noem and Bongino knew who Padilla was. Any statement to the contrary is a lie. That is the reason that any person from the congress should be alarmed – regardless of party. Noem and Bongino should be censured. Mike Johnson should be ashamed for not supporting his legislative colleague. You may want to condemn Padilla for showboating but you have to condemn the actions taken against him.. Mind you, I am no fan of the senator but I am aghast by the boorishness of this incident.

Did you see the headline “Anti-ICE riot funding investigated after ‘numerous high budget requests’ for paid agitators were reported”? Seems that a California firm named Crowds on Demand provides crowds for “spontaneous” protests said that it received “numerous high budget requests” to get involved with the anti-ICE riots in Los Angeles and other cities but declined to participate. I wonder why. Probably they weren’t getting paid enough. The company spokesman said that it declined to get involved because it did “not want to get close to any form of illegal activity, including violence, vandalism or blocking off roads without a permit.” Seriously.

A cargo ship with over 3,000 cars including 800 EVs is burning off the coast of Alaska. The fire started in one of the lithium batteries in an EV. The authorities are just letting it burn since trying to extinguish an EV fire is problematical. As was the case with the Los Angeles fires where hundreds of EVs were aflame, the atmosphere has all the toxins in the batteries such as hydrogen fluoride, hydrogen chloride, and hydrogen cyanide. Again, if EVs weren’t “green” they would be banned as hazardous to ones health.

The proposal by some so-called conservatives to use the DOGE “savings” to give out $5,000 checks is too stupid to comment on. President Trump said regarding the $5,000 checks “We’re thinking about giving 20% back to the American citizens, and 20% down to pay back debt.” Don’t.

The San Francisco school superintendent suggested further dumbing down their standards by allowing students to retake final exams an infinite number of times and allowing 21 as a passing grade. This is called the “grading for equity” initiative. The proposed grading approach includes allowing students to retake tests; excluding factors like lateness, effort, and participation from final grades; omitting classwork and homework from grading; and basing 100% of the grade on “summative” testing.

Also more than 200 California takers of the bar exam were moved from “fail” to “pass” after a state bar committee approved new scoring adjustments. Is this also “grading for equity”?

Pete Hegseth says that the Pentagon has contingency plans on invading Panama and seizing Greenland by force. Say it isn’t so. Do it and even I will back an impeachment of this president.

The newly named interim dean of the Terry College of Business at the University of Georgia is Dr. Santanu Chatterjee who holds the Harold A. Black Distinguished Professorship in Economics. Congratulations Dr. Chatterjee!

From UGA Today

Chatterjee named interim dean of Terry College of Business

He will begin his tenure as interim dean on June 30

Santanu Chatterjee, a professor and associate dean for graduate programsin the C. Herman and Mary Virginia Terry College of Business at the University of Georgia, has been named interim dean of the college, Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost S. Jack Hu announced Friday.

“Dr. Chatterjee is a highly distinguished scholar and teacher, and his leadership has been instrumental in expanding the impact of the Terry College through its highly competitive graduate programs,” Hu said. “I am thrilled that he has agreed to guide the Terry College during this transition. Thanks to the commitment of its faculty, staff, students and alumni, Terry has built a well-deserved reputation as one of the nation’s best colleges of business, and I’m confident Dr. Chatterjee will provide the leadership to continue its impressive trajectory.”

Chatterjee, the Harold A. Black Distinguished Professor of Economics, also serves as director of both the full-time MBA and the Master of Science in Business Analytics programs in the Terry College. He will begin his tenure as interim dean on June 30. Benjamin C. Ayers, dean of the Terry College since 2014, was recently appointed UGA’s senior vice president for academic affairs and provost.

“Dr. Chatterjee’s administrative experience and deep familiarity with the Terry College and the university provide an excellent background for him to serve as the interim dean,” Ayers said. “I greatly appreciate his valued service and look forward to Terry continuing to reach new heights as one of the nation’s top business schools.”

Terry’s full-time MBA program has achieved international recognition since Chatterjee was named director in 2014. The program was ranked the No. 1 value for the money globally by the Financial Times in both 2024 and 2025. In separate rankings, the program placed No. 11 among public business schools and No. 29 overall in the 2025 U.S. News & World Report survey. This marked the eighth consecutive year the survey has ranked the UGA MBA among the top 20 full-time programs at public universities.

Chatterjee was promoted to associate dean in 2021, with a focus on graduate program enhancement and growth. He has worked to expand interdisciplinary offerings through the creation of new dual-degree programs with the College of Engineering, the School of Law and the College of Pharmacy. He also helped develop Terry’s Pathway MBA for undergraduates in STEM majors and its 2+2 Early Admissions Program, which provides an opportunity for UGA undergraduates to secure an early admissions decision and deferred enrollment to the full-time MBA.

“I appreciate the opportunity to serve the college in this capacity and know that we are approaching this transition from an exceptionally strong foundation,” Chatterjee said. “I am excited to support our faculty, staff, students and alumni as we work together to advance the college’s mission.”

Chatterjee has earned several honors for his teaching, research and service at the college and university levels. In 2018, he was named a Josiah Meigs Distinguished Teaching Professor, the university’s highest award for instruction. He received the Richard Reiff Award for Campus Internationalization in 2021 in recognition of his exceptional contributions to global education at UGA. Chatterjee has received the George P. Swift Award for Outstanding Teaching in Undergraduate Economics three times, and he received the university’s Hugh O. Nourse Outstanding MBA Teacher Award in 2018.

Chatterjee has published extensively on economics in refereed journals and books, and he is frequently invited to present his research at national and international conferences and seminars.

Chatterjee has served the university community as a member of the University Council and its Educational Affairs, Program Review and Assessment, and University Libraries committees. He is a member of the UGA Teaching Academy and a fellow of the Southeastern Conference Academic Leadership Development Program.

Chatterjee earned his doctorate in economics from the University of Washington, his master’s in economics from Delhi University and his bachelor’s in economics from the University of Calcutta. He joined the UGA faculty in 2001 as an assistant professor in the Terry College.

No Kings?

A friend of mine just texted me about June 14^th. I thought she was referring to National Flag Day but she was referencing something called “No Kings” where the person who commands the left (its king) has proclaimed June 14^th as No Kings Day. I guess No Oligarchy Day just didn’t resonate. The King of the Left has ordered all his minions to take to the streets to protest Donald Trump. His subjects will comply. I am sure there will be millions out there partying – er protesting – with some doing their usual looting thing and maybe their burning thing while carrying homemade but pre-printed signs of organic protest. I guess there will be Mexican flags and Palestinian flags and maybe an American flag or two to be spit upon and burned. The media will play up the number of protest sites and numbers of protestors. Mind you the left’s commander-king should tell them to keep those flags at home and wear red white and blue and carry only the American flag. You know, pretend to be patriotic. But want to bet that won’t happen?

I would be disappointed if there aren’t millions in the street. Of course that number means absolutely nothing since we all know that probably one third of those in America fear and hate Donald Trump. Remember Kamala Harris got 74 million votes. The No Kings website (nokings.org) of the King of the Left, says “They defied our courts, deported Americans, disappeared people off the streets, attacked our civil rights and slashed our services. The corruption has gone too far. No thrones. No crowns. No kings.” So the King of the Left is proclaiming no kings? I guess kings on the right are not allowed.

What can I say? Wasn’t Biden king? Didn’t Biden defy the Supreme Court? What court has Trump defied? What Americans have been deported? Yes, there was that little girl who was born here who was taken out of the country when her mother was deported. But saying “Americans were deported” is a stretch. What people have disappeared? What civil rights have been attacked? What services have been slashed? I guess we have already forgotten that Biden’s term has been called the most corrupt in history. Why else would he pardon his family? Biden -like all presidents – also ruled by fiat (executive orders). Isn’t that what kings do? Those on the right had their civil rights attacked by Biden. Their institutions were raided. Banks were pressured to debank them. Has the left forgotten that the IRS harassed and the FBI raided those on the right? Who tried to keep Trump off the ballot? Who ordered the democrat AGs to sue Trump on trumped up charges. Who was the king then? Joe Biden.

All losers whine. The right whined during the reign of Biden (or whoever was running the government) and now it is the left’s turn. The only difference between the two is that the left loves a (mostly) peaceful riot, er protest. That lets apologists like Maxine Waters say with a straight face “Don’t think that somehow because they called out the National Guard there was violence. There was no violence. I was on the street, I know.” The mayors on the left let their cities burn because they claim that the presence of the National Guard is provocative. Is this nonsense their decision or is this also deemed by the King of the Left? Regards. June 14, no kings day will just be another futile attempt to oust Trump. But then the left just loves to party.

No Kings? But since this is “Pride” month, shouldn’t it be “No Queens”?

The rescissions nonsense

“Save public media?” More nonsense.

Someone asked me if I knew why federal budgets keep increasing regardless of which party is in power. I replied it was because we never vote out someone who wants to spend more. Since attacking the albatross that is the federal debt is only addressed by taxing more and/or spending less, politicians will do neither. Taxing more may get them booted from office while spending less never resonates with the electorate writ large. In fact, in Washington spending less even if spending more is unpopular. Huh? Consider the times when there were proposals to grow overall spending but at a slower pace. That is, spending will increase but at a decreasing rate. Mathematicians call that a negative second derivative. So instead of spending growing by five percent, if there is a proposal to increase spending by less, say 2 percent, then the cry will be that you are cutting the budget and inducing harm to those who will get less – or not as much. 

Legislators know this and if they do propose cuts, it will be in programs that affect relatively few of their constituents. Have you ever wondered by nationally congress polls among the least liked institutions in the country yet the re-election rate is usually 95 – 98 percent? One of the few times that the rate dipped below 90 percent was in 2010, Obama’s midterm election which was 85 percent and the democrats lost  52 seats. I would not be entirely shocked if the re-election rate in 2026 showed significant losses for the republicans if Trump’s tariffs remain in place.

A perfect example of the games the congress plays in which there is a lot of huffing and puffing, posturing, pontificating and bloviating while accomplishing very little in in today’s rescissions packages. A rescissions package is one where the congress cancels spending that has been previously approved. In that this is strictly budgetary it needs to be approved only by a simple majority vote in both houses. The first bill to be considered rolls back $9.4 billion in spending previously authorized to fund USAID, NPR and PBS. You may recall that the funding for all three was among the early DOGE targets so I won’t go into details here. The left is howling “Savd public media.” What nonsense. NPR gets only one percent of its budget from the feds while PBS gets 13 percent. So this is what all the shouting is about? From all of the whining about Trump and the congress destroying public media, NPR and PBS will do just fine without the few pennies they get from the federal government.

In a $7 trillion budget, the rescissions package is a mere rounding error. But hey, it gives the MAGA crowd something to cheer about and gives the impression however false that the republicans are doing something meaningful. Make that some republicans because some will oppose even these cursory “cuts”. Don Bacon in the house and Susan Collins in the senate oppose some USAID cuts and will oppose the bill. However, both know that regardless of their stance, there will be little likelihood of this particular bill having any impact on their congressional tenure.

Even the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget – which should know better – issued the following statement

“Enacting a rescissions package is a first step toward the major deficit reduction this country needs. We are borrowing nearly $2 trillion annually, on pace to hit record debt within a few years, and the House passed a bill to make the debt $3 trillion worse. Nonetheless, every bit of savings helps.”

Way to go guys! If the committee actually believes this, then the situation is truly hopeless. Instead of urging the congress to take meaningful steps towards addressing the debt by tackling entitlements, this statement basically tells them to keep putting on a show rather than doing something that makes a difference.