Blog

More on Trump’s nominees

Trump has nominated Kash Patel to be FBI director. There is only one minor problem, the FBI already has a director, Christopher Wray, whose 10 year term doesn’t end for another three years. Thus, Wray has to resign or Trump will try to fire him. Since the FBI director is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate to a fixed term, there is a legal question as to whether the director can be removed by the president or must be impeached by the Senate. The answer is maybe. Trump during his first term did fire James Comey who left without resistance. Wray, who ironically was nominated by Trump to replace Comey, has not indicated whether he will step down. If he doesn’t Trump will try to fire him. If Wray resists, expect a lawsuit. But having an FBI director who is in open conflict with a president would be unprecedented.

An 1876 law stated that certain postmasters appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate could only be removed with the advice and consent of the Senate. In 1925, Woodrow Wilson fired a postmaster (Frank Myers) without Senate approval. The Supreme Court ruled that the president did have the authority to remove the official. It will be interesting to see if Wray leaves quietly or contests the Court’s 1926 decision. What happens obviously has implications for Jay Powell at the Fed who ironically was also initially appointed by Trump. BTW, don’t be surprised if Trump once more nominates Judy Shelton to the Fed, maybe even as chairman. Shelton is the type of expert that Trump likes to appoint. One that knows the agency and is critical of how it conducts its function. She is unlikely to toe the company line and would be great at the Fed. Maybe this time her nomination will get out of committee.

Surprise! Surprise! The greenies do not like Doug Burgum for secretary of the interior. Climate Power, the League of Conservation Voters, and the Wilderness Society (whose new CEO will be Biden’s Bureau of Land Management director) are all against the nomination. Not coincidentally, all three groups are funded by Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss. Trump and presumably Burgum will reverse Biden’s policies of closing federal lands to energy and mineral development, shutting down pipelines, blocking drilling and the exporting of natural gas. Wyss has put hundreds of millions of dollars into the liberal dark money network to meddle in issues in the United States. A statement from Wyss’ foundation says in part that it is “proud to fund numerous conservation organizations and their efforts to protect access to public land, preserve wildlife, and conserve 30 percent of the planet in a natural state by the year 2030.” Hum. I guess the sanctimonious democrats do not bemoan this dark money network funded by a foreign billionaire meddling in US affairs.

Why is the left against Burgum? He is a climate skeptic! Gasp!

Linda McMahan is criticized as not being qualified to be secretary of education But she is. She has been active in education issues in Connecticut having served on the state’s board of education. Her foundation has contributed significantly to education causes. I would have preferred Betsy DeVos. McMahan was given high marks in her management of the Small Business Administration (which hopefully will be on the chopping block of the DOGE). I think the opposition to McMahan is because the left are snobs and look down their noses at the WWE.

Let’s see. The left seems to be opposed to all the Trump nominees. I would have thought there would have been some praise on the diversity of the nominees. Treasury secretary nominee Bessent is gay. Patel is Indian-American. Tulsi Gabbard is Samoan. Scott Turner is black. Marco Rubio is Cuban-American. Mehmet Oz is Turkish. Janette Nisheiwat parents are Jordanian immigrants. Jay Bhattacharya is Indian. Then there are the eight women nominated to cabinet level positions including Kristi Noem, Susie Wiles and Pam Bondi. But no. The left will be critical no matter what. It whines that Trump has few blacks in his cabinet. The only nominee that seems to not draw criticism is Lori Chavez-DeRemer Trump’s pick for Labor Secretary. She is a friend of big labor. Her only opposition will be from the right and it will be half hearted. So the bottom line is that you can be a gay, female black Indian-American with Jordanian, Samoan and Turkish ancestry and the left still won’t like you if you are a Republican.

Turmoil in the Middle East, so what else is new?

The Middle East is constantly in turmoil. Israel is fighting Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and Iran. The rebels in Syria have all of a sudden decided to renew their shooting war with Syria’s allies Iran and Russia being weakened.  The rebels are advancing and are threatening Damascus. Turkey is siding with the rebels seeking to widen its sphere of influence. Assad’s ruling faction is a small minority called Alawites which are considered as disbelievers by both Sunni and Shia and were installed in power by the French in the 1920s. The rebels fighting Assad are terrorist groups and are no friends of either the US or Israel. Tulsi Gabbard, Trump’s nominee as director of national intelligence is on record as saying that Assad is not an enemy of the United States. Assad may not be an enemy but he is no friend either. He is a brutal dictator and has suppressed Christians and other minorities in Syria. During one upheaval his forces used chemical weapons killing almost 100 people. Gabbard said that reports of the attack were “100 percent fabrication” despite evidence to the contrary. It will be interesting to see how she handles questions regarding her views on Assad, of anti-intervention and her previous anti-Trump comments before her MAGA conversion.

Much of the discord in the Middle East is directly linked to the lines drawn in 1916 by Mark Sykes of England and François Picot of France dividing up the old Ottoman Empire between their countries. Their map created Palestine (Israel), Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and Saudi Arabia. In so doing, the new borders threw together religious factions into the same new country. So Christians, Jews, Sunnis, Shias, Kurds, along with other sects were put together, practically insuring discord. While it may have been logical to draw borders that minimize conflict, Sykes-Picot did no such thing. Perhaps the divisions made sense in a dividing of spoils amongst the Brits and the French after World War I so that the locals would fight among themselves rather than fighting their European rulers. But it portended eternal conflict for the residents of the Middle East. By the way, much the same is true in the creation of countries in Africa. Only time will tell as to whether the warring factions can unite, or decide to redraw country borders, or continue fighting forever.

I wonder why don’t countries that have such divisions which lead to terrorist activities and/or protests just don’t cut those areas loose? I guess that the rulers want as much land as possible and as many people to lord over than ever willingly ceding territory. A case in point is Turkey and the Kurds who the Turks label a terrorist group. Why doesn’t Turkey simply grant the Kurds their ancestral land of Kurdistan? Since Kurdistan encompasses southeast Turkey, northern Iraq, northwest Iran and northern Syria, the Turks could rid themselves of the Kurds and let Iran, Iraq and Syria deal with the problem.

In Iraq, the Shias live mostly in the south, the Sunnis in the middle and the Kurds in the north. The Iraqi Shias are aligned with Iran which is 95% Shia. Wouldn’t it make sense for Iraq to divide itself into thirds with Shia in the south, Sunni in the middle and Kurds in the north? Each area could have self rule and the country operate as a confederation, much like Switzerland. I think that one day the Sunnis who are the majority in 32 countries will unite against the Shia who are a majority only in Iran and Azerbaijan. The Sunnis and the Shia are forever at each others’ throats. Ultimately with energy independence, America could just let the two sides settle their differences without our interference. So perhaps Gabbard might be correct after all.

Fleeing Celebs and “Gender-Affirming” Care 

Remember when Ellen Degeneres “fled” the country for England? Well Whoopi Goldberg and Megan Rapinoe are threatening to “flee” to Italy. Italy? Huh? Don’t they know that the Italian prime minister is Giorgia Meloni who the leftists hate? Her party is the right wing Brothers of Italy (Meloni is a brother?) and she has been labeled a fascist. Meloni opposes same sex marriage – isn’t Rapinoe a lesbian and married to a woman? Meloni wants a naval blockade to stop illegal immigration – I thought Whoopi called such actions racist. So Italy does not make any sense at all for leftists such as Rapinoe and Goldberg. Maybe pasta and wine outweigh nationalism. However, I really don’t care where they go just as long as they go.

Tom Hanks is also leaving even though he hasn’t yet announced where. Is Jane Fonda going too? She has been whining about leaving for years. Here is a list of celebrities that have said they can’t live in Donald Trump’s America. Barbra Streisand (she likes England too), Cher (she tweeted she was moving to Jupiter – oh boy), Sharon Stone (Italy too) and Samuel L. Jackson (somewhere in Africa, that continent of openness, tolerance, and freedom). Snoop Dogg says he’s going to Canada. BTW, why is all of a sudden Snoop Dogg is on all those commercials? If he is selling, I’m not buying.

There are other “celebrities” who have announced they are fleeing as well but I have never heard of them (Amy Schumer (any kin to Chuck?, George Lopez, Omari Hardwick, Bryan Cranston, Chelsea Handler, Lena Dunham and Ne- Yo. Ne-Yo? I am sure all these and their ilk will find peace, love and happiness in their adopted new lands. Do you think anyone will miss them?

I have written before about the left’s attempt to change the meaning of words. Front and center is the Supreme Court case on Tennessee’s law that minor children cannot be maimed by gender-altering surgery and the use of puberty blockers. The left calls this “gender-affirming care”. Who thinks of these names? How can you affirm a gender that is not yours? Did you see where Sotomayor, who is not the brightest justice, said “Every medical treatment has a risk, even taking aspirin.” This was after hearing arguments that countries like Sweden and Finland have restricted such treatments due to irreversible consequences. This probably means that the fleeing celebs have probably crossed Sweden and Finland off their lists.

There has also been a firestorm over Ketanji Brown Jackson’s – whose husband is white – linking the banning of gender maiming treatments to the laws that once banned interracial marriage. Her argument involved the equal protection clause in the Constitution. Jackson said that the argument for banning treatments was similar to the state of Virginia’s arguments for banning interracial marriage. Although some have blasted Jackson as being as dumb as Sotomayor, others have agreed that there is a parallel. I am not learned enough to make a judgment. Nevertheless, I think the core question being overlooked is about whether such medical procedures should be inflicted on children, regardless of the parents’ wishes. I have no objections to adults making such decisions for themselves. But many children go through phases that they grow out of. A child insisting that he/she is of a different gender will likely grow out of it despite what the advocates say. Those children are also not likely to commit suicide if denied treatments despite what the advocates say. Surely, if a child insisted that he was a giraffe would not have an elongated neck grafted on to his torso along with tattooing spots all over his body.

Again, I was ashamed that Vanderbilt hospital was cited as a leading institution maiming children. One of its officials cited the procedures as money makers. I guess that hospital has decided to “do harm” and I hope there is a special place in hell for the gender-maiming doctors and advocates.

A climate change denier? Who me?

I have said many times that I am not a climate denier because it is obviously that the climate always changes. However, I am not in the camp that believes that climate change constitutes an existential threat. Such a claim is at best difficult to prove. First, the planet is not fragile and has the remarkable ability to heal itself. It has been said that the climate change zealots have adopted climate change as a religion. It is curious that they seemingly have rejected the planet’s innate healing ability. Second, I am not in the camp that contends that whatever change is occurring is man made. Third, I am not convinced that even if it is man made that the change will destroy the environment.

Part of my skepticism stems from the current state of climate modeling. There is a large literature authored by eminent scientists which concludes that climate change is not the existential threat that so many believe. That literature is among those labeled as “misinformation” and has been systematically suppressed. Yet it exists. Given that scientific research is as much an art as it is a science, it is healthy for it to be examined in minute detail for these findings carry much import. 

I have constructed econometric models my entire professional life. I used to give my doctoral students a set of papers confirming one hypothesis. Then I would give them a set of papers disconfirming the hypothesis. I would then ask them to critique both sets and defend which if any they believed was correct. One example was a paper I published that confirmed two competing hypotheses using the same data set. Rarely will papers use the same model, the same statistical technique, the same time frame and the same data set. That calls into question whether it is the appropriate model, the appropriate technique, the appropriate data and the appropriate time frame. Another example was as an expert witness I would critique the other side’s results. In one highly publicized case, I found that the model used by the other side employed a statistical technique that always yielded false positives. In another case, I found that I could increase the statistical probability by including variables that had no relevance to the case like the sale of firecrackers in the Hunan province of China. A third example was that the model constructed made no logical sense forcing the other side to contend that it didn’t matter if it made sense so long as it generated a high statistical probability.

Much the same can be said about climate models. Questions arise as to whether they predict backward better than forward. Researchers have found different conclusions given what time period they study. Much has been said that forecasters have a high likelihood of inaccurate forecasts two weeks out much less fifty years or more out. Consider that in a survey of 36 climate change models it was found that the models over estimated the change in the earth’s climate by 43 percent. https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/global-warming-observations-vs-climate-models.  Another paper concludes “Our work shows that the increase in climate sensitivity from the last generation of

climate models should be taken with a huge grain of salt.” Yet another paper states “And now we have way too much confidence in some very dubious climate models and inadequate data sets. And we’re not really framing the problem broadly enough to … make credible projections about the range of things that we could possibly see in the 21st century.”

I am certainly no expert on atmospheric physics but I do know that climate models tend to be overly complicated with multiple equations on the physical and chemical processes attempting to mimic the climate system. Yet the models are still crude and rudimentary. One scientist has said “We do not know much about modeling climate. It is as though we are modeling a human being. Models are in position at last to tell us the creature has two arms and two legs, but we are being asked to cure cancer. There is a good reason for a lack of consensus on the science. It is simply too early. The problem is difficult, and there are pitifully few ways to test climate models.”

Note that even though some climate grifters like Al Gore claim that there is a consensus, any empiricist knows that there is no consensus in science. For example, I have always wondered about the relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperatures. It would seem simple enough to see if carbon changed by a certain amount then how much did temperature change. We model relationships like this all the time in economics. What about in climate models? It turns out that the climate models do not reach anything close to a consensus. All models are plagued by measurement error. Models predict with a confidence interval whose ranges may predict temperature changes that go from benign to terrifying. Empirically there have been periods of rising carbon dioxide and rising temperatures and periods of rising carbon dioxide and falling global temperatures. If we happen to be in the former and not the latter then the climate alarmists can warn us of impending doom. However, one research measuring the earth’s temperature by drilling into its core, shows that the current period is actually a historically cool one rather than one with high global temperatures. There are studies that point to the sun, its axial tilt and cloud cover as being more determinant than carbon dioxide.

Yet politicians have gleefully embraced the climate is the existential threat theme. It increases their power. Not surprisingly most of the zealots are on the left, endorsing more government control over our behavior. Banning internal combustion engines, washing machines, dryers, weed eaters, lawn mowers, natural gas, fossil fuels and all the rest allow them to play God. There are two questions. First, do this policies actually reduce emissions? Second, even if they did reduce emissions how does the reduction affect the climate. A study of over 1,500 climate policies in 41 countries showed that only 63 actually reduced greenhouse gas emissions. An interesting fact is that despite countries participating in the Paris Accord, that fossil fuel use is increasing and that those countries climate emissions will exceed the Paris target by over 23 billion metric tons by 2030. Didn’t the erudite AOC say in 2019 that if we did not address climate change that the world would end in 12 years? Methinks, she could be a wee bit off (in more ways than one). 

Isn’t the earth repairing itself and will ward off any adverse effects of climate change? Who knows? Is the climate change itself is a natural occurrence? Who knows? Is the climate change manmade and can be reversed though draconian government edicts? Anyone who claims to know the truth is doing so on faith rather than on fact. That is why the climate change zealots are said to have adopted climate change as a religion. That is a religion based on faith, a particular belief in what set of results and observations are factual, and a belief in a causal positive relationship between emissions and global temperatures.

Do misunderstand me. I am glad that smokers are no longer allowed to smoke in airplanes and most indoor spaces. I am glad that we no longer see smoke belching from diesel engines. I am glad the air and water are cleaner. I am glad that we are no longer dumping our waste in minority areas. But why ban coal fired plants if today’s technology means“clean coal?” The environment is the cleanest it has been in industrial history and it is getting cleaner. I want that to continue. However, most measures undertaken today do not make a measurable difference and should be rescinded. Solar and wind energy needs to be reevaluated. Nuclear needs to be expanded. All this should be done in the name of a cleaner environment and not one due to trying to frighten little children that the earth will die if we don’t ban pizza ovens.

EVs, Tariffs and the Latino Vote

The EV industry is in trouble. There are at least 15 US companies that are in danger of failing although you would not know it driving around west Knoxville where you see a Lucid, at least three Rivians, a Hummer EV, three Tesla super trucks, two Mercedes EVs, a bunch of BMWs, a whole host of Teslas and who knows what else running around. Nationwide, not so much as Rivian was thrown a $9 billion lifeline by the Biden Administration to build a plant in Georgia. However, there is no guarantee that Rivian will even build the plant. Currently, its sales are down and it cannot sell the vehicles that it is already making. It was losing $100,000 on each truck it sells – now down to “only” $32,000 per vehicle. Rational decision makers would not build the new plant unless Rivian becomes profitable because you cannot make up losses by increased volume. If Trump takes away all the EV subsidies and the $7,500 credit, expect most of the industry to collapse leaving only Tesla. Maybe that is why Elon Musk favors eliminating the subsidy. When Denmark removed its subsidy, the sales of EVs fell 60 percent.

A stark illustration of the plight of the EV industry is that Cadillac is advertising a $339 per month lease on its Lyriq EV. Mind you, Honda wants $399 a month for its gas powered Pilot SUV. I repeat: a Cadillac Lyriq will cost you less than a Honda Pilot.

Trump first put tariffs on Chinese EVs. Then Biden upped the tariff to 100%. BYD is exploring building a plant in Mexico with an eye on the American market. Trump says that he will increase the tariff to 200% if they try to bring their cars into the US. Would it surprise you to know that the largest manufacturer of electric trucks and buses in the US is none other than BYD? Its factory is in Lancaster, California. I wonder what would happen if they started making cars at that facility?

I am not quite clear why Biden kept and then increased the tariffs on Chinese EVs. Musk has stated that it is virtually impossible for him and other manufacturers to profitably build a $20,000 EV. This is in the province of the Chinese car companies. Since Biden and his administration were so fixated on the climate as the existential threat, then why didn’t they exempt all vehicles under say $30,000 from the tariffs and give that market to the Chinese? Otherwise, with the price of EVs averaging around $60,000 only the well heeled can buy them. But again, they could lease a Lyriq.

Maybe we should call this electric dysfunction?

All the estimates of the impact of the tariffs on US households assume that demand for products will not change when the prices of the goods increase. Of course this is unrealistic because the demand for these goods is elastic not inelastic. The empirical question is to what extent will Trump’s deregulations offset the tariff price increase.

Biden pardoned Hunter. If he had any sense, he would have also pardoned the J-6 folks too.

Will Trump continue to build on his Hispanic base? The Hispanics on the border voted for Trump because of illegal immigration. Rather than embracing the newcomers with “Bienvenidos as los Estados Unidos de mi hermanos”, the Latinos voted for Trump as the illegals flooded their towns and strained their social fabric. Even in towns not on the border, Latinos voted for Trump. In Dalton, GA (the carpet capital of the world) where Latinos make up 35% of the population, Trump got 72% of the vote. Here Trump got the Latino vote because of the democrats incessant harping on abortion. Most Latinos oppose abortion. They also hate the progressive term “Latinx.”

How does one vet the migrants at the border? I presume that most of the migrants turn themselves in requesting asylum. How do you know if that request is valid? Also how do you know if that person is a criminal – presuming that they don’t have facial tattoos and tats all over their bodies? What are you going to do about all the unaccompanied children showing up at the border? Obviously, the Biden Administration has just let them loose since there are over 350,000 children now missing. 

I am an unusual college professor (now emeritus). I only know a few academics who are football fans. Most look down their noses at athletics. I was once in a poker game with other professors. One English professor was grousing about the football coach’s salary. I told him that if he could fill the football stadium giving his lectures on Chaucer and sell the TV rights, then he too could be paid $7 million.

I am a fan as long as Georgia, Ohio State or Tennessee are playing. Otherwise, not so much. Did you hear me yelling at my TV when Georgia’s Kirby Smart suddenly became Kirby No So Smart and went for a fourth and two bypassing a field goal at Georgia Tech’s ten yard line? The score would have been 7-3 Tech. Then he made the really dumb decision to go for two points when the score was 17-0 Tech. I yelled “WTF!” I hate two point conversions unless absolutely necessary. The score remained 17-6. If Georgia had kicked the extra point, it would have won 28-27 and would not have had to play 8 overtimes to finally subdue Tech. But hey, I am not being paid $13 million to coach the Dawgs. BTW, how do you spend $13 million in Athens, GA?

Then there was the Ohio State fiasco. With their all-American center (an Alabama transfer) sidelined and a rebuilt offensive line, Ryan Day and his mentor, offensive coordinator Chip Kelly decided to run the ball (with their Ole Miss transfer), mostly up the middle into Michigan’s only strength. Eschewing letting their Kansas State transfer quarterback pass to the nation’s best receiving corps even though Michigan’s all-American cornerback was out for the game, the Buckeyes kept beating their heads against the wall. They only scored a measly 10 points as their usually reliable placekicker got the yips and missed two field goals. The Buckeye nation is up in arms. Many want the coach, Ryan Day fired ignoring his 47-1 record against the Big Ten other than Michigan where he is 1-4. But if he were 4-1 against Michigan and 1-47 against everyone else, he would still be fired. The new college playoff system will save him. Despite losing to Michigan, Ohio State will be in the playoffs and Michigan will be some minor bowl of no importance. Ironically, not going to the conference championship is now likely a benefit for the team. Ohio State has an extra week to rest, to heal and to correct its mistakes. Who would have thought that the championship games would be a curse rather than a blessing? Incidentally, who would be better than Day? Nick Saban?

Tennessee defeated the pesky Vanderbilt Commodores and secured themselves a place in the playoffs. I hope they do well unless they play either Georgia or Ohio State. Some experts predict that they will play Ohio State in the first round. Will I be conflicted? No. I wasn’t even conflicted when Ohio State played Georgia in that thrilling 2022 Peach Bowl. We were invited to the Bulldog pregame reception. I was wearing my Herschel Walker jersey and someone who knew that my PhD is from Ohio State came up to me and said “Aren’t you conflicted?” I said “Who me” as I raised my jersey to reveal my Woody Hayes t-shirt.

If they are in opposite brackets, don’t be surprised to see an Ohio State Georgia final. It will be back in Atlanta and I hope to be there, wearing my Herschel Walker jersey, my bulldog cap and of course, my Woody Hayes t-shirt.

The Donald the First?

One of my dear friends has bought into the Trump dictator hysteria. Methinks she probably watches too much MSNBC because the dictator mantra defies all logic. First, if Trump is a dictator then all of his nominees would sail through the newly constituted Senate because in all dictatorships the legislature just rubberstamps the wishes of the dictator. Yet the odious Matt Gaetz failed to get the republican support he needed for confirmation, saw the light and withdrew. Does anyone really think that Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski will willy nilly bend to Trump’s orders?

The tax cuts from the first Trump administration are set to expire. What will the republicans do? Both the House and Senate tax committees will be pressured to extend all the cuts. Trump also made promises on the campaign trail to exempt taxes on tips, on overtime and on Social Security payments. If enacted, this would mean that the immediate impact will be an increase in the deficit. The budget hawks in both chambers would likely resist the increase. What would Trump do? Again all the cajoling will not likely move the House budget committee chair who has insisted that a change in the tax policy should not add to the deficit.

Next we have Trump’s tariffs. I have wondered what is the extent of the president’s authority to levy tariffs. I have the feeling that the president’s authority will be tested in the courts. The US Chamber of Commerce and several of its branches on the Mexican and Canadian borders have expressed opposition to the tariffs. Will they sue saying the president has exceeded his authority? If so, the case will likely be decided by the Supreme Court. Even though my socialist friend says that Trump’s appointees on the Supreme Court will not rule against him, she is wrong. This Supreme Court has expressed skepticism over the president’s authority and acting without the approval of the Congress – see student loan forgiveness. My friend had scoffed at the checks and balances in our government and said that the Supreme Court would rubberstamp any Trump action even if unconstitutional. Obviously, she has not paid much attention to the votes of Trump’s nominees, all of whom show streaks of independent thinking. Saying that this Supreme Court is a rubberstamp shows intellectual laziness.

What about the so-called Inflation Reduction Act? That boondoggle was passed  without a single republican vote. Trump has pledged to cancel the law which he calls the Green New Scam. Since the republicans will now control both the House and the Senate one would think that the republicans would void the act. But as a famous TV personality says “Not so fast my friend.” The act is a gravy train and billions of dollars are flowing into republican districts and states. Two examples are in Georgia where there are the $6 billion “loan” granted to Rivian to build a plant and the $7 billion for Hyundai to make electric vehicles. I am certain that Brian Kemp welcomes the grants and would oppose not receiving it. Not surprisingly the republican congressmen whose districts the plants are located do not want the loans rescinded. What about other grants, subsidies, tax credits and loans that would go to other republicans? Eighteen republicans have sent a letter to Mike Johnson asking him not to move to repeal the act. One Georgia congressman said that the entire act should not be repealed, only parts of it. He probably means those parts that go to democrat districts and states. Given the makeup of the House, if those 18 would vote against repeal of the IRA, it would not be repealed because no democrat will vote against repeal.

Thus, in the end, the left is just fearmongering with its dictator talk. It knows that a presidential dictator is not possible in this country. But the left knows that most American’s are woefully ignorant of our political system. However, expect Trump to be like all the presidents before him and test the limits of his authority by erasing most of the actions of the dictator that preceded him, one Joseph Robinette Biden.

Trump’s tariffs

Donald Trump has just thrown many of his supporters under the bus. Trump says he is going to impose 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico plus an additional 10% on China. In so doing, he has just betrayed those who voted for him because of the price inflation during the Biden years. First off, I thought all trade agreements had to come through the Congress. If a president can do this unilaterally without the consent of Congress, then Congress should take away this power. Second, tariffs raise the price of imported goods and are paid by the importer and not by the country of origin. The importer then forwards the amount collected to the Federal government. 

What happens next depends on the elasticity of demand for the good imported. If it is a final good, then the importer (say Walmart) may decide to pass anywhere between 0 to 100% on to the customer. Any amount absorbed by Walmart will then be a drag on its earnings and lower its profits adversely affecting both the company and its shareholders. If the good is an intermediate good such as aluminum, steel, or lumber the importer will incorporate that price into its final product increasing final prices.

Currently about 3 million cars are imported from Mexico a year and another million from Canada. More than $90 billion in auto parts are imported. There are some estimates that the price of cars in the United States will rise between $3,000-$5,000. Not surprisingly, Trump’s announcement was met with a fall in the stock price of the auto makers. What about all of the agricultural goods imported? They will be adversely affected as well.

Estimates vary as to the overall effect of the tariff on households between $1,000 to $3,900 in lost purchasing power. The hardest hit will be low to moderate income households who spend relatively more on consumer goods and who shop at stores that stock Chinese products, stores like Walmart and Target. Moreoever, Trump has threatened to increase Chinese tariffs by an additional 60% which will have an even greater negative impact on household real income.

The Chinese, Mexicans and Canadians won’t sit idly by. The Chinese retaliated on American goods during the first Trump administration and will do so again. So did Canada and Mexico. The new Mexican president has also said that Mexico will retaliate this time as well. Recall during the first Trump administration when he imposed stiff tariffs on Canadian lumber building costs in the United States skyrocketed causing a building slump. The housing market also suffered. The same will happen again. Most economic forecasters predict that the overall impact of the tariffs will be to raise consumer prices, lower economic growth and increase unemployment with a loss of about 400,000 jobs. All bad things.

I reported before that I had a conversation with a prominent economist who said that Trump was using tariffs as a bargaining tool to get fairer trade deals. I don’t believe him. Trump hated NAFTA and on his watch renegotiated the deal which resulted in the US-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement. Well Trump has just violated his own agreement with the tariff threat.

Trump has said that he wants to return manufacturing jobs back to the US. He must think that magically companies can instantaneously build plants and re-employ factory workers. Trump forgets that the myriad of US regulations mean that it takes up to three times longer to bring a plant on line in the US than in Mexico. Even then the labor costs in the US may make the plant not feasible.

This time Trump says that the tariffs are being used to make Mexico and Canada stop the flow of fentanyl and illegals into the country. In his last term, he used the threat of tariffs to get the Mexicans to agree to his remain in Mexico policy. It remains to be seen what will be the reaction of the Mexicans and the Canadians. The Mexican president has vowed retaliation amid the threat that the tariffs will plunge Mexico into a recession, Although my memory is a bit fuzzy, I recall that during the first Trump administration Mexico imposed $2 billion in retaliatory tariffs targeting exports from Texas and the swing states of Arizona, Michigan and Illinois. The new Mexican president is a hardcore leftist and has sworn not to back down to Trump. Although fentanyl is manufactured by the cartels in Mexico from chemicals from China, Mexican president Claudia Sheinbaum says that drugs are an American problem. It will be interesting to see who blinks first.

Regardless, Trump has thrown his rank and file supporters under the bus.

Crybabies

Why does the left have so many crybabies? Recall all the trauma counselling for workers and students because of Trump’s election? Workers were given a day off to grieve. Universities set up counselling centers and provided Legos, cookies and milk to console traumatized students and staff. Poor babies.

The crybabies are now saying that Kamala Harris should have gone on Rogan and she didn’t because – of course – it was Trump’s fault. Again, if Harris had gone on Rogan, her loss would have been even bigger. She might have even lost California and New York. The democrats likely would have lost the Senate seats in Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona and Nevada. They would have also probably lost 10 additional House seats. If she had gone on Rogan it would have been a reprise of the Biden debate fiasco and she might have been replaced by another candidate. No way she could have lasted fifteen minutes with Rogan much less three hours.

Did you see the video when she resurfaced? She looked awful. Why supporters would have aired that video is beyond me.

All of the crybaby democrat mayors and governors who say they will resist Trump’s efforts to deport illegals and resist his initiatives should have their federal funding shut off.

Did you see where the crybabies in the Palestinian American Council, Students for Justice in Palestine, and American Muslims for Palestine are planning to disrupt shopping at some malls to reject “capitalist holidays”? Way to broaden your appeal! Now please show us how wonderful the economic systems are in the Muslim world are so we can emulate them.

The crybabies have questioned Trump’s nomination of RFK, jr to be Secretary of HHS. Kennedy’s views would on others politely be considered those of a kook. However, Trump’s intent is to shake up HHS. That is clear from his nomination of Dr. Jay Bhattacharya to head the National Institute of Health. Dr. Bhattacharya is a professor at the Stanford School of Medicine and was chided by the mainstream press for providing “misinformation” regarding Covid when he wrote about herd immunity. He was also one of the authors of the Great Barrington Declaration condemning the lockdowns as causing irreparable harm. He will be great leading NIH. The same can be said for Dr. Marty Makary of Johns Hopkins to head the Food and Drug Administration. Makary is a brilliant and prolific scholar. He is an advocate of patients and has written on the volume of medical errors that may result in as many as 100,000 deaths per year. He has called into question billing practices of hospitals and medical debt and he has been critical of federal health agencies. Now he will have the power to do something about it.

For ten years I wrote articles for another news publication. During Covid, they refused to publish my piece questioning the actions of our local health department. I looked at the restrictions regarding masking, social distancing, hours of operation and noted that I could not find any scientific justification for any of those actions. My newspaper refused to publish the article. It was in the “keep them scared” camp. I quit. Trump’s nominees of Bhattacharya and Makary are learned authorities who also questioned the mainstream Covid dogma. They are precisely the type of people who will bring credibility back to the health agencies of Federal government.

What about Dr Oz to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services? I withhold judgment. Oz was a noted heart surgeon who morphed into a TV personality appearing on Oprah where he was accused by some in the medical profession of promoting non scientific treatments for personal financial gain. Trump endorsed Oz over David McCormick in the Pennsylvania senate primary resulting in the election of John Fetterman who McCormick would have defeated. Perhaps the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid is his consolation prize.

One thing is certain. The crybabies in the hidebound medical establishment are against all three nominations. With the deterioration of a once esteemed profession into DEI, transgender surgeries and wokeness, it is time to restore its reputation. Trump’s nominees can do that.

Happy Thanksgiving

We all have much to be thankful for. A look around the world tells us how unbelievably lucky and fortunate we are to be in this wonderful country. Many of our ancestral relatives live in poverty, suffer from hunger, disease and labor under tyrannical rulers. My African DNA are Congo, Mali and Cameroon. I am grateful beyond words to have been born and raised in America rather than in any of those countries. Given the choice of living anywhere in the world, I choose here. Yes there are naysayers and critics who whine that this country is racist, intolerant and corrupt. But they are wrong. The country is none of these. Some people are, yes. The country no. I have often said to critics to tell me how they would change the country, the political system and the economic system to make it their ideal. I tell them that I will not critique their vision. Yet none have complied. It is though they would rather complain. Yet they benefit from living here and reaping the rewards from a system they pretend to detest. The irony is that those who claim the country is intolerant are themselves intolerant.

Those who are socialists should know better. They can only point to some nebulous socialist ideal because socialism wherever tried has always impoverished the masses and failed. Socialism only benefits the elites and the nonproductive. Many of you are familiar with the story of the Pilgrims who true to their English tradition initially had communal farms without individual ownership of the land. It failed and the settlers abandoned common ownership in favor of private property. William Bradford, the colony’s first governor said that the communal lifestyle was “found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment … [f]or the Young men, that were most able and fit for labour and service, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense.” After every family was assigned its own parcel of land to farm, “this had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been.” A lesson never to forget.

Much has been written about what makes this country great – and yes Andrew Cuomo – America is great. I contend it is individual freedom which entails private ownership of property. The United States may well have been the first country in the world not ruled by a despot. The freedoms denied in England were ingrained in our founding documents. Some detractors want those documents discarded because they were written by a bunch of white men many of whom were slaveholders. However, the documents transcend race and gender. It would be akin to reject the Bible because it too was written by a bunch of white men. Also one must recognize that the so-called evil white men had to willingly give up some of their power when the slaves were emancipated and when women were given the right to vote. White men also ruled that segregation imposed by other white men was unconstitutional and enforced the desegregation of schools and ensured the right of blacks to vote. Evil men lusting to hold on to power would have never ceded any of that power. But true to the founding documents of this country written by white men, other white men held those principles to be sacred and provided steps to equality enabling all to pursue the American Dream. Again I am grateful.

So this Thanksgiving and every day I am thankful to be an American. I am thankful for family. I am thankful for friends. I am thankful for my ancestors whose ten distinct DNA strains flow through my blood. And I am thankful for all those who have helped me along this journey of life. Similarly I am thankful for those who have stood in my way and tried to derail my journey for they have made me stronger and more determined. Most of all I thank all of you for allowing me to share my thoughts with you. I truly wish you and yours the best of times and a very Happy Thanksgiving.