Blog

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.

The next mayor of New York

The next mayor of New York City, the center of American capitalism, will be the young socialist Muslim assemblyman Zohran Kwame Mamdani. He was born in Uganda. His father is a chaired professor of anthropology at Columbia and mother is a filmmaker. His father argues that Israel is not a true state but a settler colony synonymous with the genocide of the Palestinians. Mamdani – like his father – is a virulent hater of Israel in the US city with the highest Jewish population. He wants to defund the police in a city where 80 percent of the hate crimes are against its twelve percent Jewish population. Will Orthodox Jews be safe during his reign?

His platform includes freezing rent, building 200,000 rent-stabilized units of “affordable” housing, eliminating fares on all city buses, creating a Department of Community Safety, creating city-owned grocery stores that will pay no rent or property taxes, free childcare, distribution of baby baskets to parents of newborns (which would include diapers, baby wipes, nursing pads, post-partum pads, swaddles, books and local resource guides), raising NYC’s minimum wage to $30 by 2030, regulating delivery apps like DoorDash, GrubHub and Uber Eats, ensuring equal distribution of money and resources to city schools, creating car-free “School Streets,” expanding the Bronx pilot Every Child and Family Is Known program to address homelessness in the school system, investing in the CUNY system, renovating 500 public schools with renewable energy infrastructure and HVAC upgrades, making asphalt school yards into green spaces, proposing a 2% tax on residents earning above $1 million annually and raising the corporate tax rate to 11.5%, fighting “corporate exploration” by banning hidden fees and non-compete clauses, fighting misleading advertising and predatory contracts, limiting tax dollars given to companies under NDA agreements and funding challenges to ConEd’s price increases, resisting Trump by strengthening sanctuary city protections, ending cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and barring them from city facilities, increasing legal support for migrants, preventing personal data from being given to ICE, protecting abortion rights, increasing the budgets of the NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection and the NYC Commission on Human Rights. Whew! Did I miss anything?

Mamdani somehow thinks that all this will be paid for by the new tax hikes which he says will raise $10 billion. First, we know that is not going to happen. Most likely any tax increase will raise less. Rich people hire accountants to circumvent any increase (Harold Black’s First Law) and many will leave the city. Several have said that when Mamdani takes office, they will leave. One large grocer said that he will close his New York stores if government stores are opened. Second, $10 billion has got to be on the wildly low end of how much all this will cost. Simply look at the cost of building 200,000 new “affordable” union built housing. That is probably more than $10 billion. Third, New York’s mayor does not have the unilateral authority to raise taxes or do most of the things that Mamdani has promised. He will have to get all of this passed by the state legislature and blessed by the governor who has said “no new taxes.”

In a saner world, someone making all these promises would have been laughed out of town. One would think that voters would see all of this BS. Also one would think that only the uninformed, the less educated, the less “sophisticated” voter, the poor, the dispossessed, the homeless, those on public assistance and those in less affordable housing would vote for this bill of goods. But no. Mamdani’s support was among young college educated white voters. Naturally he fared poorly in Jewish areas of the city with his “globalize the intifada” rhetoric. Cuomo outperformed him in older neighborhoods and in neighborhoods with those without college degrees. Cuomo did better among blacks and Latinos – groups that one would have assumed a priori would be the beneficiaries of Mamdani’s largesse. As to the boroughs, Mamdani carried Brooklyn, the most populous borough with its 2.6 million residents. My youngest granddaughter lives in Brooklyn. I wonder how she voted? Cuomo carried the Bronx and Staten Island. Mamdani won Manhattan and Queens – not surprising since he represents them in the state legislature. Mamdani outperformed Cuomo among Asians and Muslims. He also did well among Latino voters. One wonders if the vote for Mamdani was not a repudiation of Cuomo and Eric Adams and due in large part to the “education” now being foisted by the socialist teachers’ unions K-12 and the liberal arts instruction in our universities?

One local politician says that Mamdani represents “the next generation of Democratic politics.” But does he? Is the next generation of democrats a bunch of socialists who promise everything but deliver nothing? We will see. Thus far only one elected democrat in New York has condemned his election. The rest including Kathy Hochul, Hakeem Jeffries and Chuck Schumer, himself a Jew, have all muttered appropriate clucking noises devoid of criticism.

New York will prove to be another lesson learned since socialism always fails. But like Dracula, socialism always rises from the dead. Socialism fits perfectly what my father would often say, “It sounds good – if you are interested in sounds.” Again, the saying of “those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it”should instead be “those who know history are still doomed to repeat it.”

I turned 80 on July 3rd and gave myself a birthday dinner with family and close friends. My family came in from California, Gray Georgia, Virginia, New Jersey, New York and Atlanta. The great Hallerin Hilton Hill, the wonderful radio talk host who is one of my dearest friends surprised me with this video. Enjoy!

https://thelifeofharoldblack.com

Happy Independence Day America!

Two hundred and forty nine years! That is 249 years of being the world’s greatest and most successful demonstration of the powers of individualism, freedom, less intrusive government, private property and initiative. Thank you, England for providing the model to the founding fathers as to what a government should not do. Thanks to the brilliance of the founding fathers (now call The Founders) of crafting the wonderful Declaration of Independence and the even more brilliant Constitution of the United States. Faced with the schisms between the abolitionists in the north and the slaveholders in the south, the founding fathers wrote a constitution that could unite the fledgling country while still laying the foundation that would ensure one day that all would truly be equal in the eyes of the law. This marvelous document would hardly have been written by today’s politicians who lack the written skills, the verbal skills, the intellect and the morality of our founders.

But “Happy Independence Day”? Not Happy Birthday? Ever wonder why we celebrate July 4 as the “birthday” of the country? Why isn’t it January 14th? Well January 14, 1784 was when the Continental Congess officially declared the sovereignty of the country. July 4, 1776 was when the Continental Congress formally adopted the Declaration of Independence. So saying the July 4 is the birthday of the country is like declaring you are 8 years old on the day you were born. That is why I call July 4 as Independence Day and I call January 14 as the country’s birthday. Disagree? Well I am used to being in the minority.

I love this country. But every time I visit my parents and brother’s graves in Atlanta I am struck by the absence of American flags in the neighborhoods through which I travel. I have also noticed when I visit my daughter in northern Virginia that I do not see American flags there even though most of the residents are dependent upon the government for their livelihood. In my neighborhood in Knoxville there are American flags galore. I have one at the entrance to my driveway and another at my boat dock. Why is that? Is it because those neighborhoods are mostly democrat and today democrat translates to being less patriotic? Pardon me if I think that is total lunacy. People of all stripes should be patriotic and love this country. Where else is there the richness of expression coupled with the abundant wealth of its citizens? Precious few countries would tolerate – or even guarantee – the protests of the left. I am reminded of the migrant who was enroute to the southern border. Asked why he was taking the long arduous journey, he replied that he wanted to live in a country that had fat poor people.

Granted, there have been times when I have disagreed with those entrusted to lead the country. There have been times in which I knew that the federal government’s actions and those of the state either by individuals or collectively were wrong. I have worked in my own small way to voice my displeasure and try to change it. But never have I stopped loving this country. Those on the extremes, especially those on the left denigrate the country and seek to fundamentally change it. They want the constitution either re-written or abolished. They want to get rid of the Electoral College. They call their opponents names, boycott their products, conduct violent (yet mostly peaceful) demonstrations, shout down opposing speakers, teach divisiveness in our public schools and universities and want to affect change that will ironically hinder their freedoms of speech and expression. Are they too dumb to see that? Apparently so or else Bernie Sanders, AOC, and their like would not have a prominent voice in today’s political world. Yet I welcome that diversity and do not want it muzzled although many would like to muzzle those like me.

This is a country with Ophrah Winfrey, Samuel L. Jackson and countless blacks making millions of dollars in entertainment, sport and in commerce and yet very few have said “thank you America.” Instead, folk like Reps. Al Greene, Jasmine Crockett and Maxine Waters, people like Al Sharpton. Jesse Jackson and Ibram X. Kendi are whining about how oppressed they are and say that they want to change the system that creates their wealth. Give me a break. Many have had their success because of the grievance lobby gravy train while others like Labron James draw attention away from their million (and often billion) dollar incomes by adopting the rhetoric of the left. Poor babies. 

I have always been amused by blacks with degrees from Harvard telling other blacks that they are victims and are being oppressed by the system. Look at all the grifters who exploit white guilt to line their own pockets with little that redounds to poorer blacks. Then there is the poverty establishment that exists only if they keep black people in need. And don’t get me started about the education-industrial complex which rather teach kids grievances rather than how to read.

My Dad often said that he would never live to see black children and white children going to school together. He said that the whites would not stand for it and would start shooting blacks to stop integration. Yes Georgia could be a violent hateful place. Yet Dad and Mom were in the first wave of black teachers in Atlanta assigned to previously all-white schools. Also little did Dad realize that his youngest son would help integrate the University of Georgia.

I have often said that the uniqueness of America is that here the descendants of slaves can be the teachers of the descendants of those who owned their ancestors. This is particularly true is a place like Gray, GA where many of my cousins are school teachers and are teaching the descendants of the plantation owners. We have all come a long way from where I once would get arrested for sitting in the front of the bus and might fear for my life if I did. Those who say we have not made progress are fools and should be ignored. Those who reject America for not always living up to the words of the founding fathers would, I guess, reject Christians for not living up to the words of the Bible. But how pure are they to their ideals – however warped?

I am glad I am here. I am glad for my heritage. I am fortunate to share in the wonders of this beautiful country. I love you America. Happy Independence Day.

Women’s soccer and Hegseth’s Re-namings 

Women’s soccer humiliated – again

Remember when the US women’s national soccer team lost 5-2 to a team of 15 year old boys? Well it happened again when the Swiss women’s team lost 7-1 to a boys team of 14 year olds and under. The Swiss women were using the match as a tune up to hosting this year’s UEFA’s Euro women’s tournament. When the US women they were rated the best in the world. Yet they lost their match to a group of boys barely reaching puberty. One of the women acknowledged the physical gap, saying that the boys were “bigger, stronger and faster.” Apparently, Swiss boys are also bigger, stronger and faster than adult Swiss women – and perhaps more talented too. If this isn’t evidence why boys should not be competing against girls (and men against women) in most sports I don’t know what is. Yet those on the left who throw female athletes under the bus in letting trans compete against them have obviously no regard for women (or girls). Notice to trans advocates: make women’s soccer teams quit playing boys’ clubs. But the Swiss think that it is helpful to continue to practice against the boys’ clubs. Their coaches say that using such matchups is a way to stress-test their team’s formations and endurance saying, “The training sessions are exhausting. But we all want to be in our best shape for this European Championship. That’s why I think it’s a good thing,” about the loss. One wonders why don’t they just get the boys’ club to identify as women and let them be the Swiss National women’s team. Wouldn’t they have a better chance at winning the championship?

NPR, that defender of women, interviewed a doctor Eric Vilain (what a last name) with the headline that “Arguments that trans athletes have an unfair advantage lack evidence to support.” I beg to differ, good doctor. I believe that 5-2 and 7-1 are considered as riots in soccer. Lack of evidence? Hardly.

Then there is the University of Pennsylvania, ironically President Trump’s alma mater – announcing that it is expunging Lia Thomas from its records. Penn is restoring the records that Thomas broke to their original holders and is sending personal apologies to any swimmers who lost to Thomas. Additionally, Penn will not allow males to compete in female athletic programs moving forward. Riley Gaines triumphs! You may recall that at the time Penn defended letting Thomas compete against the women and reveled in finally winning championships. I suggested that they simply replace all the women on the women’s teams with men. Penn’s president said “We acknowledge that some student-athletes were disadvantaged by these rules.” Really? You mean that a man who is 6’1” and weighs 160 pounds has an advantage over women swimmers? Who knew? Obviously, Penn valued winning championships more than they valued their women athletes.

The USNS Oscar V. Peterson

Pete Hegseth announced the renaming of the navy’s USNS Harvey Milk to the USNS Oscar V. Peterson. Milk was the navy vet who was a gay rights activist and was the first openly gay person elected to public office in California. He was assassinated by a fellow San Francisco supervisor in 1978. Obama’s Navy secretary Ray Mabus named the boat after Milk in 2016. Hegseth announced that he was changing the name to the Oscar V. Peterson. At first I thought he was referring to the brilliant virtuoso Canadian jazz pianist but no this Oscar Peterson was a navy medal of honor recipient killed during the Battle of the Coral Sea in 1942. (Historical note: The battle of the Coral Sea was the first naval battle where there was no exchange of shots between vessels. Rather it was fought by the planes from aircraft carriers. Coral Sea and the Battle of Midway both are must reads for those who love military history. BTW, my uncle-in-law served on a destroyer as a mechanic in the Pacific theatre. Can you imagine being below decks while a battle is raging over your heads?) But don’t you think that it would have been more appropriate to name a warship after Peterson than an oiler?

Hegseth said “We’re not renaming the ship to anything political. This is not about political activists, unlike the previous administration.” Well then what about the re-renaming of the military bases previously named for confederate generals? Isn’t the restoring of Forts Bragg, A.P. Hill, Pickett, Polk, Hood, Rucker and Lee a political action on the part of the Trump administration? BTW, aside from Lee and possibly A.P. Hill I think most historians would consider Bragg, Pickett, Hood and Rucker to be at best mediocre generals. Why not Longstreet, Stuart, Cleburne or Jackson? I think that whoever did the naming had a sense of humor and was actually insulting the confederacy.

Lastly, today (July 3) is my 80^th birthday. Every day is a great day. I tell people truthfully that I cannot recall ever having a bad day. A challenging day, yes. But bad, no. I really enjoy being me and always have. Even though I do not believe in reincarnation (in the Sikhism sense), if it does exist, I want to come back as me.

 The Supremes and Unanimity

In my class I talked about a letter writing campaign to influence a Supreme Court decision and said that Diana Ross was confused why she was getting all these letters addressed to the Supremes. It bombed. Not a single student had heard of Diana Ross and the Supremes.

The folks clamoring for the Fed’s Open Market Committee to show diversity of thought by not being unanimous in its voting must be reveling in the diversity at the Supreme Court. Although there have been a bunch of 9-0 decisions this term it seems that there have been a lot of 6-3 and 7-2 decisions as well. Clearly some of the decisions appear to rest more on political rather than judicial temperament. How else to explain the 6-3 vote on banning gender mutilation surgery of minors or the 6-3 vote for allowing parents to opt out of LGBTQ indoctrination of children in public schools? Shouldn’t those have been 9-0?

The court also ruled that “universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to the Federal courts.” Of course that vote was also 6-3. Sotomayor is beside herself contending that “no right is safe in the new legal regime” the court created in limiting the power of federal judges to use nationwide injunctions to block “plainly unlawful policies.” But does she seriously think that that is true? She also said that her conservative colleagues had threatened “the very essence of public education” by allowing parents to opt their children out of classroom instruction that they claim violates their religious beliefs. She said “next to go could be teaching on evolution, the work of female scientist Marie Curie, or the history of vaccines.” To be kind, if Sotomayor really thinks this, then she should not be on the court. She has said “There are days that I’ve come to my office after an announcement of a case and closed my door and cried. There have been those days and there are likely to be more.” Maybe conservatives should send her boxes of Kleenex. 

Justice Jackson has also been unhappy and has accused her colleagues of favoring the wealthy over the poor – an astounding comment from a justice of the Supreme Court. She said regarding one decision on the California electric vehicle mandate, “This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens.” The vote was 7-2 so does this means she is including her liberal colleague Kagan in this admonishment? The court also ruled, 6-3, that South Carolina can legally block Planned Parenthood facilities from receiving Medicaid funding. Here Jackson wrote the dissent, joined by Sotomayor and Kagan. The court also ruled in favor of the vaping industry in a case involving the FDA. The vote was 7-2. Guess who were the 2?

Justice Scalia occasionally chided Sotomayor for her lack of scholarship. Now in a rare public rebuke, Justice Barrett has said of Justice Jackson with regard to the universal injunction decision “We will not dwell on Justice Jackson’s argument, which is at odds with more than two centuries’ worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself. We observe only this: Justice Jackson decries an imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary.” Here is what Jackson wrote in her concurring dissent “It is not difficult to predict how this all ends. Eventually, executive power will become completely uncontainable, and our beloved constitutional Republic will be no more.” Remember the comity that Scalia had with Bader Ginsburg? I guess Barett and Jackson are not going to go to lunch together.

Generally the Trump administration has won some and lost some, winning more than it has lost. Naturally when one of the less liberal justices, notably Roberts or Coney Barrett votes against Trump, the right gets in full roar calling them all sorts of names. My advice is “shut up.” Show me where their decisions have been contrary to their judicial philosophy. Even Thomas and Alito have not always voted in tandem. Is the pious right going to call them “wobbly” too? Consider the ruling that let the funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau stand. Conservatives hate the CFPB whose funding is free from congressional oversight being completely funded by the Fed. The court voted 7-2 with Justice Thomas of all people not only voting with the liberals but writing the majority opinion. Justices Alito and Gorsuch dissented saying that the CFPB’s funding scheme “blatantly attempts to circumvent the Constitution.” Also Gorsuch and Alito were the only dissents in another case as well. I bet that 99.9 percent of the MAGAs disagreed with Thomas but nary a peep about his not being steadfastly pure in their eyes.

Despite all the split votes, the court issued four unanimous decisions in one day. Actually unanimous decisions were not all that rare with 42 percent decided that way. But those decisions do not make news. Consider that the court ruled unanimously that American victims of terrorism in Israel could seek legal redress against the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization in U.S. courts. 

The Wall Street Journal did the tabulations and find that Justice Kagan was in the majority 71 percent of the time. Sotomayor despite all her moaning was in the majority 62 percent, tied ironically with Justices Thomas and Alito. Chief Justice Roberts was the most in the majority followed by Justice Kavanaugh and Barrett. Surprisingly only 9 percent of the cases were decided 6-3 with the three liberals dissenting. There were 6 percent decided with Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch dissenting. Unless you think that all decisions should be unanimous or that all should be 5-4, it’s hard not to like this court. With the notable exceptions of Sotomayor and occasionally Jackson, the justices appear to be consistent in the application of their understanding and interpretation of the constitution rather than espousing their personal political views.

Actually I think the most important judicial action is not on the court’s docket. Many have been yelling “constitutional crisis” due to Trump’s actions even though Trump, unlike Biden, has yet to defy a Supreme Court ruling. But what happens when a lower court defies a Supreme Court decision? Precisely that happened when the Court issued a stay on an April 18 injunction in the case D.V.D. vs Department of Homeland Security. The lower court judge then issued an order after the Supreme Court stay acting as though the court had not thrown out his initial injunction. The Department of Homeland Security immediately said “The district court’s ruling of last night is a lawless act of defiance that, once again, disrupts sensitive diplomatic relations and slams the brakes on the executive’s lawful efforts to effectuate third-country removals.” DHS condemned the lower court’s “unprecedented defiance” of the Supreme Court’s authority. What happens next if the lower court chooses to continue to ignore the Supreme Court’s authority? Could the Supreme Court enjoin the lower court? Would the lower court judge be arrested and removed from the bench? Would the only recourse be impeachment by the congress? Then would the democrats support the impeachment? This would be a real, not and imagined constitutional crisis. This could get interesting.

Note: A lawyer friend of mine texted me”I’d like to tell those 3 to “Get outa my life, why don’cha Babe? But they all keep hanging on.” I texted back that the last line was also true “Ain’t nothing I can do about it.”

Is it now okay to assassinate scientists (and generals)?

Apparently I may be the only one who finds Israel’s assassination of Iran’s nuclear scientists and generals disturbing. When has another country wantonly targeted another country’s scientists and military heads before – even during wartime? Did we try to kill Rommel, Guderian, Kesselring or von Manstein during WWII? Did the Germans have a program to kill Patton, Eisenhower, Bradley or Montgomery? What about the scientists? Not only did we not kill them, we imported 350 of them including Wernher von Braun to build our rocket program. So is Israel’s killing of the Iranians unprecedented in history – at least on this scale?

Note: drummer f2f732403f has corrected me pointing out that we took out Yamamoto. Thank you! Its my bad especially since I have read Dan Hampton’s riveting “Operation Vengeance” an absolutely marvellous account of the brilliance of that successful undertaking in the Pacific theater. Highly recommended.

I have heard nor seen nary a peep of condemnation. The Arab countries have made sympathetic clucking noises but you can tell their hearts are not in it. It is though they feel compelled to admonish the Israelis when in fact they are probably relieved that the Iranian regime poses less of a threat to the whole region. Saudi Arabia said the attack was a “violation of Iran’s sovereignty” and that “The Kingdom underscores the need to exert all possible efforts to exercise restraint, de-escalate tensions, and avoid further escalation.” Do tell! Qatar, the site of the US air base that was targeted (but missed) by Iranian missiles said “The current dangerous tension in the region could lead to catastrophic consequences at both the regional and international levels” and that it “Regrets the deterioration of the situation with the strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities.” The UAR which really doesn’t like Iran said “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs stressed the importance of prioritizing diplomacy and dialogue to resolve disputes, through comprehensive approaches that promote stability, prosperity, and justice.” Egypt, which is the largest recipient of US aid in the Arab world mumbled “Egypt affirms its rejection of any violation of the United Nations’ Charter and international law and emphasizes the necessity of respecting state sovereignty.” Iraq, Lebanon and Oman said much the same. Again, a milquetoast pseudo-condemnation of the bombing but no mention of the targeting of the scientists.

Not only is this outrage missing from the Arab world but it is strangely missing from the leftist press. Yes there is universal condemning of the bombing by Israeli aircraft but no mention of killing of the scientists (or generals) – nine of who were killed while sleeping in their beds. I did see one rather mild statement that “targeting scientists may trigger blowback given concerns regarding legality and morality.” Wow! 

One wonders if the Iranians will now seek to assassinated Israeli civilian and military leaders. And what about the terrorists who have come in the country at the southern border? The Wall Street Journal has reported that Tehran has long supported terror operations in South America and has a pipeline of sending its spies and proxies into the continent. Iran has sent it’s operatives to Venezuela where they are given passports meaning that they can travel freely within the region. The Journal says that some 10,000 a year got Venezuelan passports. So what are all those Iranians doing? Are they just going to sit on their hands? Or are they going to try to affect some revenge on the US and Americans? I know that Trump and Hegseth have serious security but I would think that our famous scientists and prominent generals should also watch their backs.

Trump vs Powell – and Bessent?

What do you think about Federal Reserve independence? Have you noticed that for all Trump’s gnashing of teeth, name calling, threatening and cajoling that congress has been mostly silent? Powell has his regularly scheduled hearing on monetary policy on Tuesday. Trump is applying pressure on the republicans on the committee to pressure Powell to lower rates. Trump is now emphasizing the need for lower rates to reduce the cost of financing the ever increasing Federal debt. Such is easier it seems than reducing the government’s voracious appetite for spending. Trump wants the Fed funds rate to be around one percent down from the 4.3 percent where it is today. Trump is now calling Powell “dumb” and a “Trump hater.” But Powell is certainly not dumb and its hard not be a Trump hater with all the vitriol coming from the president. However, at least one of these two will continue to show class. Speaking of class, how about this from our president directed to the other governors at the Fed “I don’t know why the Board doesn’t override this Total and Complete Moron!” Does this mean that he is now applying pressure to his other two appointees, Chris Waller and Michelle Bowman? We will see.

Of course, presidents have always applied pressure on the Fed, just not so publicly. The press often cites Richard Nixon pressuring Fed chair Arthur Burns to lower rates prior to Nixon’s reelection. Others point to Lyndon Johnson calling William McChesney Martin to his Texas ranch for “consultations.” But never to my knowledge has the spat been so out in the open and so loudly profane. But hey, that’s this president. 

What will be interesting to see is how the congress-folk react to Powell and his testimony. Will he be grilled by both the republicans and the democrats? Will they support Trump in calling for a lower fed funds rate? Again once all the cajoling had the pretense of sparking economic growth to offset the projected impact of Trump’s tariffs on the economy. Trump keeps arguing that there is little inflation so prime the pump, Fed. However, inflation is still above the Fed’s target rate of 2 percent. Again many of us think that two percent is too high a target. An inflation rate of 2 percent means that prices will double in 36 years (rule of 72). That means that nominal income would have to double in order for real income to stay the same.

Mind you, the Fed is a creature of the congress. The congress can enact new legislation regarding the Fed, its composition and its goals. Why hasn’t Trump called for new legislation? Congress would probably reject such a plea because Trump is a short timer. Do we really want a republican congress to give the president control over Fed decisions in order to give that power to the next democrat president? Or should I say the next socialist (democrat) president? Can you imagine Joe Biden dictating monetary policy? That sobering thought should be enough to let Trump keep flailing away while Powell and the Open Market Committee continue to do what they do. However, whatever move the Committee makes – and I am betting it will lower the rate in July – will be met with commentators saying that Powell finally gave in, if for no other reason to shut Trump up.

But let us suppose that the fed funds rate goes down. Will this mean, as Trump keeps telling us, that we can save billions (or as Trump tweets BILLIONS!)? Not necessarily. It depends on what happens to Treasury rates. There are three categories of Treasury issues. Lowering Fed funds typically lowers Treasury bill rates. T-bills mature in less than one year and make up only 21 percent of Treasury debt. So if Federal borrowing is $30 trillion, about $6.3 trillion will be in bills. Treasury notes mature in 1-10 years. They comprise 52 percent of the debt issuance or $15.6 trillion. Treasury bonds mature in greater than 10 years and are mostly 20 year or 30 year bonds. They make up 17 percent or $5.1 trillion, The other 10 percent are Treasury Inflation Protected securities (TIPS) of 8 percent ($2.4 trillion) and Floating Rate Notes of 2 percent ($1.5 trillion). So what happens to the interest on the debt depends on what happens to the Treasury yield curve. As I write this 3 month Treasurys are 4.29%, the two year is 3.73%, the ten year is 4.29% and the 30 year is 4.85%.

Lowering short term rates may be accompanied by rising longer term rates if the markets anticipate rising inflation leaving the cost of financing uncertain. Of course the Treasury could try to move more financing to the short end of maturities thinking that usually short rates are lower than longer term rates. So why isn’t Trump yelling at Scott Bessent to start issuing more T-notes and bonds have the Fed start buying the longer term Treasury issues to drive up their prices and down their yields. So Bessent should issue more Treasury notes and bonds and less Treasury bills. Right? What would be interesting is the market reaction to such a strategy.

Bernanke’s Fed did do something similar back in 2011, called Operation Twist (trying to twist the shape of the yield curve). His Fed keep short rates near zero while buying longer term Treasurys. All this expanded the money supply and eventually led to inflation. So does Trump want the Powell Fed to mimic the actions of the Bernanke Fed that the same critics label as a failure? It is interesting that Bernanke complained about the “fiscal cliff” that the congress was rushing toward and was trying to use Operation Twist (nee qualitative easing) to help ease the country to a soft landing. There is the famous saying that “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” In this case it is repeating the same thing and expecting a different outcome.