(no title)

The Supremes and transgender athletes

The Supreme Court is hearing a case related to whether males can compete against females in athletic events. Not a lawyer, I assume that the case is on the constitutionality of what the states can do and does not apply to a nationwide ban or lack of a ban. The states involved are Idaho and West Virginia which have statutes prohibiting males competing against women in women’s sports. The side arguing against the state laws claims that forbidding men from competing in women’s sports somehow violates the Constitution by engaging in discrimination on the basis of sex. Further, they argue that discriminating on the basis of “gender identity” constitutes the same thing as sex discrimination. Mind you, I think that this argument is far narrower than arguments relating to Title IX and whether men can use women’s bathrooms and shower facilities.

So is gender the same as sex. Not in my book. I may not be a biologist but it seems to me that gender today is defined socially not by biology. Anyway the left says that there are at least 72 genders and I am pretty certain that there are not 72 sexes.

Again, not a lawyer but whatever ruling comes down from the court I think it would say that it is constitutional for a state to write such laws rather than the court to mandate that all the states must do the same thing. So if California says it is okay and Georgia says that it is not okay, then both are permissible under the Constitution. By the way, it may be okay but certainly it is not fair. Men who are mediocre in men’s competition have claimed to be transgender in order to win women’s events – see William (Lia) Thomas denying women athletes success in their own events. Also it is interesting that while the NCAA ban men from competing in women’s events, it allows women to compete in men’s.

In the arguments, only Justice Jackson appears to have used the term “cisgender.” I can find no record that either Justices Kagan or Sotomayor used the term in their questioning. Here is a sample. She was asking of the West Virginia solicitor general if it was unfair for “cisgender girls”—girls who don’t claim to identify as boys—to compete in girls’ sports while also barring “transgender girls”—boys who claim to identify as girls—from competing with them. She said “For cisgender girls, they can play consistent with their gender identity, for transgender girls, they can’t.” She asked the Idaho attorney “The law expressly aims to ensure that transgender women can’t play on women’s sports teams, so why is that not a classification on the basis of transgender status?”

The response was “The question is whether the application of the law turns on transgender status, and it doesn’t. It turns on sex. The legislature did not want to exclude transgender people from sports, it wanted to keep women’s sports women-only and exclude males from women’s sports.” Jackson then responded “But with respect to two individuals, a cis woman and a trans woman, who both want to play on a team that reflects their gender identity, this law operates differently based on their sex, right?” The response was obvious. “The law does operate differently based on their sex, as your honor just said. It does not operate differently based on their transgender identity.”

Jackson is obviously trying to get both attorneys to say that gender identity is the same as one’s sex when she said “But it treats transgender women differently than cisgender women, doesn’t it?” That is why she insists on using the terms “cisgender” and “transgender.” But the attorneys – who apparently know the difference between a man and a woman – are saying that they are not the same. By the way, what about the term “sex assigned at birth”?

Again, please tell me why women on the left won’t defend (real) women athletes. They will talk about boys who transitioned before puberty should be allowed to compete with girls or males who have taken drugs to reduce their levels of testosterone to compete with women. What I want to know is if there is empirical evidence to support those claims? Are the results for boys who transitioned before puberty statistically different in competition with girls? Do males who take testosterone reducing drugs have similar outcomes as the women against whom they compete?

Regardless, I don’t think these questions are relevant in this case. I hope that the decision made by the Court would not even consider these questions but rather only address whether states should be allowed to write their own laws regarding males competing against women in women’s sports. I guess the ruling will be 6-3 in favor of the states’ rights. I would also guess that Jackson would write the dissenting opinion which should make for interesting reading. But on the slim chance that the justices rule with Jackson, then look for the formation of transgender teams to dominate women’s sports. Remember that boys’ soccer team that drubbed the women’s Olympic team?

Apparently Trump really really really wants a Nobel Peace Prize

When I read that Trump sent a letter to the Prime Minister of Norway Jonas Gahr Støre saying that he wanted Greenland because he wasn’t given the Nobel Peace Prize, I thought it was from the Babylon Bee. No. Instead the Bee said that Trump was going to disguise himself as a Muslim migrant so Europe would let him invade Greenland. That bit of parody was just as funny as the president’s letter. Only the letter apparently was no parody. Here is the letter:

“Considering your country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.”

If this were anyone else, even the most MAGA among us would say that the president is making a idiot out of himself. But of course, those who only have their lofty status because of Trump like Treasury Secretary Bessant will say “I think it’s a complete canard that there’s any kind of equivalence with the Nobel Prize.” Sure. Mind you, Trump says he is threatening the Danish protectorate of Greenland because Norway didn’t give him the Nobel Peace prize. Never mind that these are two different countries. Never mind that the Norwegian government has little if any say so in who gets the Nobel prizes. That would be like Trump deciding who gets Britain’s BAFTA award for Best Actress (actually I would not put that past him to try to do so). If Trump is mad at Norway, then why didn’t he threaten to seize its Bouvet Island instead?

Now Trump has taken a page from the playbook of Chairman XI Jinping when he raised the tariffs on our NATO allies by 10 percent for supporting Denmark and promising to increase them 25% more if they didn’t knuckle under by the end of June. The Chinese do this all the time, using economic coercion to force countries to bend to their demands. Trump’s action is probably because he remembers that in 2010 China hit trade sanctions on Norway after the Nobel Peace Prize committee awarded the peace prize to Chinese dissident Liu Xiaobo. China is a leading buyer of Norwegian salmon which ultimately forced Norway to make them some concessions. In the case of Greenland, what concessions can Norway make to Trump? Is Trump saying that if he gets the peace prize that he will stop trying to intimidate Denmark to hand over Greenland? Pardon me if I am a bit confused.

Nonetheless, it is a bit weird that the president would choose to raise tariffs to punish our allies when the tariffs punish Americans instead. Studies find that 96% of the costs of the tariffs are borne by Americans and not by the exporting country. So Trump’s solution is to have Americans pay more for European goods and services. Wow! That’ll show those Europeans! The result of the new tariffs is upset and unsettled markets. The Nasdaq promptly had its worse day since October. The dollar retreated against world markets, gold soared to a new record, and importantly for Trump, the 10 year Treasury went to its highest rate since August.

Mind you, the president wants the Fed to lower its Fed funds rate, thinking erroneously that it will lower government borrowing costs, while his pique fit is causing borrowing costs to rise. Gee, doesn’t the Fed control interest rates? No. The market determines the rates, not the Fed and the yields on Treasurys are going up as markets react to Trump’s tariffs and concern over Fed independence.

What this episode has shown is that because Trump’s trade deals are unilateral and nonbinding that he can and will change them on a whim. Markets, businesses, importers and exporters cannot plan in the face of such uncertainty about what mood the president might be in on any given day. Trump first said that the tariffs were a result of an imaginary national emergency caused by trade deficits. But in reality, the tariffs were a flexing of the US’s economic might to bend the rest of the world to its will – much like the Chinese have been doing for years. What is significant is that these latest tariffs undermine any argument that the administration will have before the Supreme Court about the use of presidential emergency powers to levy tariffs – especially these tariffs.

There is an obvious economic counter that has just been employed when a Danish pension fund, AkademikerPension, sold its entire portfolio of US Treasurys. Although it was only $100 million, the sale is significant. Anders Schelde, AkademikerPension’s investing chief said that the decision was driven by “poor [U.S.] government finances” and “not directly related to the ongoing rift between the [U.S.] and Europe. But of course that didn’t make it more difficult to take the decision.”

European investors hold over $8 trillion in US debt nearly double that of the rest of the world combined. What if they started to unload their holdings – or even threatened to do so? What then? Europeans weaponing capital markets would be more disruptive than Trump’s weaponizing of trade market. European investors dumping dollar-denominated assets and repatriating those funds in retaliation to Trump’s actions along with growing concerns that those assets may no longer be safe havens would have devastating effects on the US. The US would then have to self-finance its enormous appetite for borrowing to spend with concomitant increases in borrowing costs and inflation. You would think that the uptick in the 10 year Treasury due to threats on Greenland would send Trump a message to back off. And maybe it did because the president announced while at the World Economic Forum in Davos that he had reached an agreement with NATO and would withdraw the additional tariffs.

The question becomes whether the threat of the Europeans selling Treasurys would impact on Trump’s continued desire to project his will around toward Greenland in particular and to the globe writ large.

I am reminded of the story of the dog chasing the car. What is he going to do with it if he actually catches it? Currently, Denmark sends Greenland about $600 million a year in a block grant to fund the island’s welfare state. This is half of Greenland’s budget and about 20 percent of its GDP. It pays public sector salaries, funds free health care, pensions and municipal services. It also pays for Greenland’s airports. One third of those employed on the island work for the government. Unemployment is high. So presumably, if the US took over Greenland it would have to keep paying for these handouts to its residents. I guess AOC and Bernie would demand that we do the same for all US citizens. Hey but $600 million is a rounding error in the US budget. There is a poll that says that 76 percent of the Greenlanders do not want to be part of the US. Do you think it is because they love Denmark or do they just love the subsidies?

Economically, Greenland’s primary industry is fishing, accounting for more than 90 percent of its export revenues. What do they do in the winter? Greenland’s per capita disposable income is the lowest in the Arctic other than Russia’s and less than one third that of Alaska’s. One of my readers has sent me the perfect solution regarding Greenland. Instead of negotiating with Denmark, why don’t we just offer each of the 57,000 residents $2 million – $114 billion total – if they vote to join the US? Again, this is chump change and amounts to only 1.63% of the US budget for 2025. Greenlanders may be marching around carrying signs saying “Greenland is not for sale.” Wanna bet?

Good news or bad news?

I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is the inflation rate is 2.6%. The bad news is the inflation rate is 2.6 percent and that number does not include food or energy costs.

How quickly they forget. December’s CPI came in at 2.6%. The conservative media trumpeted that it was a win for the president. Here is one typical headline “Positive Inflation Report Delivers Economic Win for Trump.” Huh? I guess everyone has conveniently forgotten that 2.6% is still above the Fed’s target of 2 percent. Also once again after Trump got rid of all the resident number crunchers at the Department of Labor and the Bureau of Labor Statistics, we have gotten nothing but numbers that favor the president. Is that a coincidence?

Apparently, I am the only one who thinks that this is a bit suspicious. Nonetheless, the president declared that inflation was defeated and again badgered the Fed to lower the Fed funds rate even further. He said that Joe Biden (naturally) “gave us a colossal stagflation catastrophe but my administration’s rapidly and very decisively ended that.” He also said “We have very low inflation. That would give ‘too late Powell’ the chance to give us a nice beautiful big rate cut.” “If I had the help of the Fed, it would be easier, but that jerk will be gone soon.” His Truth Social tweet was “Great (LOW!) Inflation numbers for the USA. That means that Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell should cut interest rates, MEANINGFULLY!!! If he doesn’t he will just continue to be, ‘TOO LATE!'”

Good grief. Speaking of grief, the media is finally realizing that when Powell’s term as chairman ends, he can stick around for two more years when his term as a governor ends. Although odds are that he will leave, the prospect of giving Trump another Fed nominee and the possible threat to Fed independence might compel him to stay. I repeat that if I were Powell I would stay just to stick it to the president. Can you imagine Trump’s indignation and frustration? But Powell is likely pretty fed up (pun alert!) and will leave and go back to making serious dollars on Wall Street. Take this job and shove it!

Who let the dogs out?

I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that there was an election in the southern African country of Malawi and a peaceful trasition of power. The bad news is that although the ex-president left he took the office’s guard dogs with him enbroiling the nation in controversy.

The nation is divided over who gets custody of the presidential guard dogs. Guard dogs? Yes guard dogs. When the past president lost re-election he took his dogs – a Dutch shepherd and three Belgian Malinois – with him saying they were part of his personal security team. The newly elected president begged to differ and insisted that the dogs were civil servants employed by the president’s office. He demanded the return of the dogs. The ex-president refused. The new president Peter Mutharika sent 80 policemen to the ex-president’s home to get the dogs. The ex-president Lazarus Chakwera refused. Meanwhile the former president’s allies in Parliament rushed to his home to prevent the dogs’ removal. President Mutharika then would not move into the presidential palace saying his full security team wasn’t in place. The country is divided with each party supporting one or the other president. The matter is in the courts.

Speaking of presidential dogs, remember when Obama got a dog because someone told him that presidents should have one? Ted Kennedy gave him a Portuguese Water dog named “Bo” that Obama kept around until his term ended and promptly gave the dog to his press secretary. Then there was Biden’s German Shepherd Commander who was supposed have bitten Secret Service personnel at least 24 times. At least two had to get medical treatment for severe bites. Trump doesn’t have a dog and may be the first president who doesn’t even have a pet.

A new spate of minimum wage laws

I have some good news and some bad news. The good news is that we are raising your minimum wage to $16 and hour. The bad news is that you are fired.

The politicians again showed that they know exactly how much workers should be paid when they spawned a multitude of new minimum wage laws across the fruited plain with 19 states raising the minimum wage. Although it has always been a favorite of the democrats to increase dependency by increasing unemployment, this time they were joined by several republican led states. Thirty states now have minimums above the Federal minimum of $7.25 an hour. The highest is Washington state at $17.13. Hawaii’s is now $16 and Nebraska and Missouri’s are $15. Raising the minimum is always popular with 90 percent of democrats and nearly half of republicans supporting the measure. Localities in some states can raise the minimum even more. Seattle’s is $21.30 and Los Angeles set a minimum for hotel and airport workers at$30 beginning in 2028.

Since the buzzword is “affordability” raising the minimum is even more popular than before. What the increase in the minimum does is to reward those workers who can keep their jobs. Others will be terminated and there will be fewer new hirings. Not surprisingly, turnover rates also fall as workers know when they have a good thing. One of the not noticed effects is on those who are unemployed and on those who are just entering the workforce. These people will need to have job skills that merit the new wage and many don’t. That is why teenage unemployment rates are always the highest and will likely rise in the face of the increases in the minimum wage. When a subminimum is suggested for teenagers it is generally rejected. What people do not understand is that the real minimum wage is $0. Raising the minimum only increases welfare dependency as unemployment rises and labor force participation falls.

The chart below shows that over time the number of workers in manufacturing is decreasing while worker productivity is increasing. This of course mirrors what happened in agriculture. Now the increasing minimum wage prompts employers to substitute labor saving methods for labor itself. We saw that in California when the minimum wage for fast food workers was raised to $20. Workers are being displaced and menu prices have increased. There has been an increase in automation and self-service technology. Restaurants have self-order kiosks, kitchen automation software and other labor-saving technologies. Restaurants are reducing employee hours, having fewer workers per shift to control labor costs, others are letting go of staff. Some franchisees are not opening new restaurants while others are actually closing not being able to operate profitably with the increased labor costs. For example, Rubio’s Coastal Grill shut down 48 of its locations in California. Fast-food restaurants are raising menu prices for customers between 8% and 10% and many are still losing money.

BTW, all this is well known but raising the minimum remains popular among politicians and among the public. I used to ask my class how many favored raising the minimum wage and nearly every one would raise their hands – and these were business majors. I told them that once they stopped being employees and became employers they would change their minds. I then would show them graphically by plotting the demand for labor and its supply to show the increased unemployment. I would ask “Why have a minimum wage?” Often the answer would be “It prevents employers from paying a zero wage.” I then would tell that student that they need to transfer to sociology (or education). Then there are those who say that the minimum wage is to lift workers out of poverty and give them a “living wage.” I usually answer that means that those workers must currently be dead if they are not earning a living wage. Also why not really lift them out of poverty by mandating a minimum wage of $1,000 an hour? I was then told “Well they are not worth $1,000 an hour.” To which I reply “Many are not worth $15 an hour either.”

One striking consequence of minimum wages creating unemployment among the lowest skilled and least educated workers was found in an important paper by Bayer, Charles and Derenoncourt. It finds that the income inequality gap between black men and white men in 1950 is basically the same as today’s. However, among the college educated, the income gap has narrowed almost to the point of statistical insignificance. Some may point to the roles of affirmative action and DEI which researchers have previously found benefitted only well educated blacks and had little if any impact on the economic status of poorer educated blacks. That is a topic for another day. Nonetheless, increases in the minimum wage lead to an increase in dependency by closing the door to gainful employment for the less educated.

Click to access wp343_Derenoncourt_racial-inequality-labor-market.pdf

Is Trump’s blind trust blind? Somaliland. Tariff’s regulatory costs.

Just another glass house moment for the president

If the president has his assets in a “blind” trust, then how did he just buy $2 million in Netflix and Warner Bros. bonds? At least he bought the bonds after Netflix agreed to pay $72 billion for Warner Bros and HBO Max’s streaming business. But isn’t this a bit unusual to say the least? This is from the Wall Street Journal:

“Trump has made public comments about a potential Warner acquisition, saying in December that Netflix’s proposed purchase “could be a problem” because it already holds a large share of the streaming market. The deal would require approval from federal regulators. “I’ll be involved in that decision,” he said on Dec. 7, just days after the Netflix deal was announced.”

Didn’t Trump rage at Nancy Pelosi for her “success” in the stock market? Well yes. “Crooked Nancy Pelosi, and her very ‘interesting’ husband, beat every Hedge Fund in 2024. In other words, these two very average ‘minds’ beat ALL of the Super Geniuses on Wall Street, thousands of them. It’s all INSIDE INFORMATION! Is anybody looking into this???” Trump then said that he would “absolutely” sign legislation to ban congressional stock trading if it reached his desk. “Well, I watched Nancy Pelisiget rich through insider information, and I would be okay with it. If they send that to me, I would do it,”

Trump’s wealth has increased by $3 billion since he has become president. What is the saying about glass houses? Ironically, Trump’s purchases of Netflix and Warner Bros. were announced in an “ethics” disclosure form. I am waiting for the republicans in the House and the Senate to hold hearings. Just saying.

Israel recognizes Somaliland

The first country to recognize the breakaway country of Somaliland is Israel? Yes Israel and a Muslim country sitting on the Bab al-Mandab Strait that connects the Red Sea to the Indian Ocean are now officially buds. It is directly across the Gulf of Aden from the Iran-allied Houthis in Yemen. And our “peace president” played no part in it. Actually reports have it that the State Department was surprised by the agreement. This poses at last a legitimate threat to the Houthis whose leader Abdul-Malik al-Houthi called the recognition a “hostile and illegitimate act.”

Also, in addition to its strategic importance, recall the post I made a while back that Israel was talking with several African countries about relocating the Palestinians to those countries? Well Somaliland is one of them along with Libya, Syria and South Sudan.

Israeli oﬃcials argue that their recognition of Somaliland is grounded in the fact that it has an eﬀective democratic electoral system, with its own military and government acting independently from Somalia for decades. It is also free from the lawlessness and chaos embodied in Somalia which Trump calls a “hellhole, filthy, dirty and ridden with crime. The only thing they’re good at is going after ships.” Somaliland, In addition to its strategic location the country has an underutilized port and airfields with long runways. I wonder if Israel might even put a military base in the country? Regardless, this is a bold move.

Don’t forget about tariff compliance costs

The president from day one set out in a series of executive orders to reduce business regulatory costs. The White House said that during Biden’s term over $2 trillion in new regulatory costs had been imposed and the president’s actions have reduced those costs significantly. Well the White House probably omitted the increase in the cost burden imposed by trying to comply with Trump’s tariffs. Federal Reserve economists estimated that U.S. manufacturers would alone pay between $39 and $71 billion each year to comply with just content and reporting requirements in only four of Trump’s tariff actions. Mind you these are in addition to having to pay the tariffs (rather than the exporters as the president continues to assert).

https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/trade-compliance-at-what-cost-lessons-from-usmca-automotive-trade-20250718.html?s=03

Tariff compliance has always been a Rube Goldberg machine but Trump has added layer upon layer of additional regulatory minutiae to an already unwieldy mess. The Cato Institute points out that “measures imposed by the Trump administration in 2025 have made the US tariff system excessively convoluted and complex” increasing from three tariff regimes in 2017 to 20 now. By the way, here is a tariff compliance guide.

https://geodis.com/us-en/blog/goods-transportation-integrated-logistics-solutions/how-stay-compliant-us-tariffs-and-reduce

Will Trump leave NATO over Greenland?

The president keeps rattling his sword over possession of Greenland saying that anything less is unacceptable. He doesn’t appear to be joking sending vice president Vance and Marco Rubio to meet with the Danish foreign minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen and Greenland’s Premier Jens-Frederik Nielsen. The meeting did not appear to yield any tangible results with Denmark and Greenland sternly resisting the siren call of the US. Rasmussen said that “their perspectives differed” and diplomatically “We agreed that it makes sense to try to sit down on a high level to explore whether there’s possibilities to accommodate the concerns of the president while we at the same time, respect the red lines of the Kingdom of Denmark. I must say, the president has made his view clear, and we have a diﬀerent position.” Rasmussen added “Ideas that would not respect territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark and the right of self-determination of the Greenlandic people are, of course, totally unacceptable.”

Also noteworthy is that Greenland’s residents overwhelmingly do not want to be taken over by the United States. Greenland’s Premier Nielsen said “Greenland does not want to be owned by the USA. Greenland does not want to be governed by the USA. Greenland will not be part of the USA. We choose the Greenland we know today, which is part of the Kingdom of Denmark.” But that is of no concern to the president. Trump responded “That’s their problem. I disagree with him. I don’t know who he is. Don’t know anything about him, but that’s going to be a big problem for him.” The president then said that NATO should be supporting his efforts to take over Greenland. “NATO should be leading the way for us to get it. IF WE DON’T, RUSSIA OR CHINA WILL, AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN! Militarily, without the vast power of the United States, much of which I built during my first term, and am now bringing to a new and even higher level, NATO would not be an eﬀective force or deterrent – Not even close! They know that, and so do I.” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt did not turn down the heat when she said “The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal, and of course, utilizing the US Military is always an option at the Commander in Chief’s disposal.” Trump, himself, had hinted at military action, “I would, I would like to make a deal, you know, the easy way,” he said. “But if we don’t do it the easy way we’re going to do it the hard way.”

Well apparently NATO does not support the president. Quite the contrary. They are showing their support for Greenland in a most remarkable way. They are sending their military to Greenland! The Danes started sending reinforcements to the island and their NATO allies did the same. I guess the Danes were responding to Trump’s mocking Greenland’s defenses as little more than”two dogsleds.” Denmark said its armed forces were “deploying capacities and units in connection with exercise activities from today, which will result in an increased military presence in and around Greenland of aircraft, ships and soldiers, including from NATO allies, in the coming period.” Sweden, Germany, France, the UK, the Netherlands and Finland all have joined the Danes by sending forces to Greenland. Also the head of the European Commission came down solidly on the side of Denmark and not the United States.

This is a stunning development having our NATO allies sending military forces indicating to Trump that he had better think about using the US military to take over Greenland by force. Trump was not amused saying that Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Finland have “journeyed” to Greenland, for “purposes unknown,” posing a very dangerous situation for the safety, security and survival of our planet. That shakes NATO to its very foundation to have members responding with a show of force to ward off the threats of another member. Would Trump really exit NATO over Greenland?

NATO says it is offering is to help bolster Greenland’s security by handling air and sea patrols and boosting surveillance and defense and not to counter Trump’s threat. Trump is saying that he is going to send in more troops and it doesn’t matter what NATO does because he wants ownership of the country and if NATO doesn’t support him then he will slap additional tariffs on them and Greenland. “I may do that for Greenland too. I may put a tariff on countries if they don’t go along with Greenland, because we need Greenland for national security. So I may do that.” Then he actually did exactly that by putting an additional 10 percent on them still pretending that the exporters are paying the tariff saying “This Tariff will be due and payable until such time as a Deal is reached for the Complete and Total purchase of Greenland.” He then said the tariffs will increase to 25% on June 1^st.

The Europeans responded by suspending the bilateral trade agreements with the US negotiated due to the tariffs and some are threatening to retaliate by raising their tariffs – something that they have yet to do. In particular, the European Parliament has frozen the EU’s agreement with Trump and are threatening to retaliate. France’s Macron says “No intimidation nor threat will influence us.” Ulf Kristersson, the prime minister of Sweden says “we will not let ourselves be blackmailed.” Trump is attending the World Economic Forum in Davos and I am certain this will be much discussed. Right now the Europeans are rightly worried about the status of NATO and their dependency on the US for its protection against Russia. They are also worried that Trump may play his trump card by threatening to cut off all assistance to Ukraine.

As to retaliation, although the Europeans could impose reciprocal tariffs on American imports they would really get the president’s attention if they levied fines and restricted the American high tech firms, banks and service providers that are dependent upon Europe for a substantial portion of their business and profitability. Then it will indeed be Smoot Hawley redux. The president has seemingly forgotten the art of the deal and now its his way or the highway.

Meanwhile, a bipartisan congressional committee met with Danish and Greenland officials in Copenhagen (don’t you love those congressional junkets?). Delaware’s Chris Coons and Alaska’s Lisa Murkowski, both no friends of the president issued statements stating that Greenland was an ally not an asset and whose sovereignty should be respected. Murkowski and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire have introduced legislation that would prohibit the use of U.S. Defense or State department funds to annex or take control of Greenland or the sovereign territory of any NATO member state without that ally’s consent or authorization from the North Atlantic Council. It would be interesting to see how the senate would vote on such legislation and whether there would be enough votes to override a presidential veto. The chair of the Nuuk Inuit Circumpolar Council, said that it was clear “how the US administration views the people of Greenland, how the U.S. administration views Indigenous peoples, and peoples that are few in numbers.” She then said that the indigenous Inuit in Greenland do not want to be colonized again. Ouch!

Do you think Trump cares? Nope. “One way or the other, we’re going to have Greenland.”

Are you smarter than a seventh grader?

To starkly illustrate how far our education standards have fallen here is an entrance exam to Jersey City High School in 1885. It appeared in the Wall Street Journal in 1992. And keep in mind, the standards in 1992 were well above those in our schools today and this was what the seventh grader in those days was expected to know.

Sharpen Your Pencil copy Download

You Go Iowa!

I have often said that I am not a fan of charter schools if they have to adhere to the same curriculum as other schools. I firmly believe that it is the curriculum that prevents most kids from learning – see the Chicago public schools. Well in Iowa, the public charter schools are free to innovate. The state has received a $43 million grant from the federal government to support its public charter schools. Iowa’s public charter schools are authorized by the State Board of Education, tuition-free, operate under a governing school board, and are not required to adhere to state laws that govern public schools’ curriculum and instructional methods. Hallelujah!

Iowa’s governor Kim Reynolds said “Public charter schools provide yet another school choice for parents and guardians looking for the education option that’s best suited for their children’s abilities and needs. This $43 million grant recognizes Iowa as a leader in educational freedom and supports our innovative work to expand high-quality, tuition-free, public charter schools as an option for Iowa students and families.” The state’s education head said “With the support of this grant, Iowa’s dedicated educators will continue to improve, innovate and grow new learning environments that see every child, meet them where they are and provide what they need to realize their incredible potential.” I wonder what the Iowa teachers’ unions had to say about all this?

In announcing the grant Education. Secretary Linda McMahon said “A one-size fits all education system is not working for our students. Charter schools allow for innovative educational models that expand learning opportunities for students. The Trump administration will continue to use every available tool to advocate for meaningful learning, advance school choice, and ensure every student is well-positioned to succeed.” Since charter schools have been shown to dramatically increase the reading and math skills of minority children, the Trump administration is continuing republican efforts to push forward on this issue in the face of opposition from the left, the teachers’ unions and those who profess to have minority kids interests at heart.

Also Iowa is a leader in STEM education in k-12. My esteemed niece who is a renowned professor of engineering and now president of California’s Harvey Mudd College – the country’s leading science focused undergraduate institution – probably loves that Iowa has a Govern’s STEM advisory council “to ensure that every Iowa student in every geographic location and from every background has access to cutting- edge educational opportunities.”

With all these accomplishments it should come as no surprise that Iowa is the first state granted an education funds waiver meaning that the state’s funds are unrestricted. Iowa can now use the funds as it sees fit and doesn’t have to incur all the federal compliance costs. This is a step in returning education decisions to the states. McMahon said “Iowa now has the flexibility to cut paperwork and simplify a hundred percent of state activities funding streams. It can invest in proven strategies to build a world-class teacher pipeline, close achievement gaps, and open post secondary opportunities to prepare for a great career.”

I couldn’t agree more. Iowa is only the first of many more to get this waiver as part of the Trump administration’s effort to wind down the Department of Education. Of course the democrats are hopping mad. Bobby Scott of Virginia said “Congress must not sit idly by as the Trump administration makes every effort to drag students, educators, and parents back into an era where students were denied the opportunities and resources they needed to succeed.” Well what I want to know from Rep. Scott is what are the reading scores in your district? If they are at or above grade level then keep talking. If they are not then shut up.

Lastly, I would hope that the administration will grant the waivers only to those states that are actively trying to increase their students’ reading and math proficiencies like Mississippi, Arkansas and maybe Tennessee. States like Illinois, California and New Jersey should never get the waiver.

Is the president’s hold on congressional republicans slipping?

The democrats actually were able to pass some things in both the Senate and the House. Of course, they will be vetoed by the president if they ever make it to his desk. In the Senate, a resolution was passed saying that the president would have to get congressional approval for any additional military action against Venezuela. Fat chance. The vote was 52-47. Naturally every democrat voted for the resolution and they were joined by five republicans, Rand Paul (Kentucky), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Susan Collins (Maine), Todd Young (Indiana) and surprisingly Josh Hawley (Missouri). I actually thought that John Curtis of Utah would vote for the resolution too. But he didn’t.

As is his wont, the president went ballistic lashing out at the five and in particular Collins who is the most moderate of the bunch. The president posted “Republicans should be ashamed of the senators that just voted with Democrats.” He said that the lawmakers “should never be elected to oﬃce again” and the vote “greatly hampers” U.S. self-defense adding that the law the vote invoked wasn’t constitutional. Rand Paul who actually cosponsored the resolution of course disagreed saying “Meaningful checks and balances require the president’s party to stand up to and resist unconstitutional usurpations of power,” and that Republicans had given too much ground to the president, abandoning “all pretense of responsibility and any semblance of duty.”

Collins is the only one of the group up for reelection this year. Like in previous years, she is an underdog to whoever wins the democrat primary – likely Maine’s governor Janet Mills. Trump called Collins after the vote in what was described as a “profanity filled rant.” As to Trump saying that she should not be reelected Collins replied “The president obviously is unhappy with the vote. I guess this means that he would prefer to have Gov. Mills or somebody else with whom he’s not had a great relationship. I don’t know, I’m just not going to comment.” But the president knows that he needs for Collins to be reelected. No other republican stands a chance of being elected instead and despite their differences Collins has generally voted with the president. That Trump called only Collins is a bit suspicious. I think this is a ploy to actually help Collins. She can now boast of her independence from the president which should help her at the polls. Surely he should have lashed out at Rand Paul who said “Whenever I had misgivings, I’d always say ‘he’s the best we’ve ever had,’ much better than the Bushes who were war mad. I thought Trump was different so it disappoints me that he’s under the thrall of Lindsey Graham.” Yikes!

Over on the House side a three-year extension of the “temporary” COVID-19-era premium tax credits was passed. Again all the democrats voted for the measure and were joined by 17 republicans. Recall that this is the hill that both parties have decided to die on during the last session in the battle over a continuing resolution. Not surprisingly the republicans (called “moderates”) are all in tightly contested districts. Derrick van Orden of Wisconsin said “I have long opposed the damage the Unaffordable Care Act has done to our country, but I will not watch Wisconsinites lose health care because Democrats let their own law collapse.” Huh? On this one the president has been unusually quiet with the White House simply saying that he still opposes any extension of the “temporary” credits and did not consider this a personal defeat. I guess this is because he was basically in the background leaving the heavy lifting to Mike Johnson. So if anything, this is a rebuke of Johnson and not the president. Of course, the extensions will not pass the Senate and even if they did would be vetoed by Trump.

The affordability president

After calling affordability a “hoax” the president has obviously changed his tune and now probably wants to be called “the affordability president.” He has continued to insert the federal government into private markets (socialism alert!). He is trying to force price controls on the pharmaceuticals, he has asked the Justice Department to investigate meat packers for price fixing, he endorsed Bernie Sander’s bill to cap credit card interest rates at 10 percent, he has joined with Elizabeth Warren in banning investors from buying single family houses and has instructed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy $200 billion in mortgage backed securities. What’s next? Wage and price controls? And although it has little to do with affordability the president has joined with the democrats in dictating an end to stock buybacks, this time in the defense industry. Has Bernie Sanders become Trump’s economic advisor?

Note that the president ignores market solutions to all these issues and relies instead on big government interventions (more Americans socialism). As my sainted father used to say “That sounds good – if you are interested in sounds.” The question is whether any of these will really make a difference or are they just “sounds”? First, what about price controls on drugs. Won’t that make drugs cheaper? Didn’t he say that the deals with 14 drugmakers is “the greatest victory for patient affordability in the history of American health care, by far”? Hardly, the deals do not apply to the two thirds of Americans with private health insurance. Also Medicaid already receives heavily discounted prices which would not be affected. Any price decreases rest on getting the drug companies to charge other countries more for their drugs and using the money to lower the prices to the American consumer. Do you really think that is going to happen? The industry has cautioned against price controls as having an adverse impact on research and development. One industry spokesman said “This is not speculative. This is exactly what we saw happen in Europe, where they adopted price controls and drove investment and jobs and innovation out of that region.” The verdict? To quote a well known saying “I’m from Missouri.”

Second, what about the cap on interest on credit cards? This is a form of a usury law which is one of the most common laws in recorded history. It has always failed. It helps only those people with excellent credit – usually higher income people. Those people with less than perfect credit will find themselves dropped from the credit card issuer. This has happened countless times in the past and is decidedly anti-poor. It will force those with impaired credit to lenders who have to charge much higher rates due to the higher risk clientele. Usury ceilings are just another way that democrats under the guise of helping the poor actually make them worse off. Trump’s critics could say that he is endorsing such a plan because he is a racist but the bill in the Senate is sponsored by Bernie Sanders – naturally. Is anyone calling Bernie a racist? I have written on rate caps and testified on them as well. Here is one testimony before the South Carolina Senate https://www.scstatehouse.gov/video/archives.php?key=13059&part=1

I begin at minute 52:07.

Third, what about banning investors from buying single family homes? Members of both parties have been clamoring for this for years assuming that buying homes for rental somehow pricing individual households out of the market for purchase or at least making single family housing more expensive. This has been a contention by Elizabeth Warren and now Donald Trump. Here is what the president posted: “For a very long time, buying and owning a home was considered the pinnacle of the American Dream. It was the reward for working hard, and doing the right thing, but now, because of the Record High Inflation caused by Joe Biden and the Democrats in Congress, that American Dream is increasingly out of reach for far too many people, especially younger Americans. It is for that reason, and much more, that I am immediately taking steps to ban large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes, and I will be calling on Congress to codify it. People live in homes, not corporations.” If there is bill to this effect, it will pass. Politicians as different as Texas governor Abbott and New York governor Hochul and even JD Vance and Tim Walz are on board. Of the total number of housing units, the Urban Institute finds that institutional investors defined as owning 100 or more homes own about 3 percent of single family rentals. But smaller investors who own one to five houses did account for purchasing 25 percent of single family homes in 2024.

Not surprisingly, most of the homes are in areas of high demand. The question is whether the demand by the smaller investor drives the price significantly above the price willing to be paid by the individual homeowner. There are several studies on the impact on prices in buy-to-rent markets. All do show that in areas with high investor ownership that home ownership rates are lower, increases in neighborhood diversity (doesn’t Warren want this?) but also higher prices. Recently, some large investors are selling more than they are buying. In some markets, like Atlanta, institutional ownership is falling and homeownership is increasing. The relevant question then, are home prices lower now than before?

A ban on investors would also mean a reduction in the number of renters who cannot qualify for or afford a mortgage. Moreover, home construction is higher in these rental markets and would likely fall in the absence of investor purchases. But it is easy to blame institutional investors for the rise in home prices rather than the real culprits, inflation, zoning restrictions, building codes, environmental regulations, tariffs on building supplies, property tax increases, insurance and construction costs. The National Association of Home Builders say that these can add up to an additional $94,000 in the cost of a home. Does all this mean that the president favors homeownership over renting? Does he not think that some households prefer to rent over owning?

A decrease in the buy-to-rent market will reduce the number of rentals and drive up the cost of housing for renters who wish to rent a single family home rather than an apartment. Speaking of apartments, the Daily News says that there are 247,000 empty units in New York City! Do you think if those came on the market that the cost of housing in New York would decrease? Also, the president’s immigration policies have basically stopped the influx of illegals at the southern border and over 1.3 million illegals have left the country, voluntarily or otherwise. This has implications for the job market but don’t you think that there will also be an impact on the number of vacant rentals leading to a reduction in rents? We will see.

Lastly, what about that buying of mortgage bonds? Yes, an increase in demand for these bonds would raise the bond prices and lower their return but how would this lower the mortgage rates offered in the market? These bonds are composed of pools of existing mortgages whose rates are not going to be affected by the purchase. So the impact must be not on existing mortgage pools but on ones that are being packaged contemporaneously. The problem here is that the amount is only $200 billion in a market of $1.8 trillion. It is doubtful that would make a difference. However, rates did fall by 25 basis points after Trump made the announcement. Some think it is temporary while others think that the Fed should step in and start buying the bonds like it did during Covid. But if the president were really serious he would push Treasury Bessent to lower the 10 year Treasury off of which mortgage rates are linked.

Just a few American sayings

No wonder they say English is the hardest language to learn!

I noted that “fat chance” meant the same as “slim change”. I don’t know if that is a uniquely American idiom but it got me thinking. Here are some others.

Bless your heart
Happy as a clam
Clean as a whistle
Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth
Sick as a dog
Working like a dog
Hot as hell
Cold as hell
Bite the bullet

10.Sweating like a pig

11.Lipstick on a pig

12.Healthy as a horse

13.Slept like a baby

14.The proof is in the pudding

15.S— for brains

16.Have your cake and eat it too

17.Pull yourself up by your bootstraps

18.Pushing the envelope

19.Head over hills

20.Break a leg

21. It’s not my first rodeo

22. Got a burr under your saddle

23. Don’t have a dog in this fight

24. Sign your John Hancock

25. That dog won’t hunt

26. I don’t have a horse in this race

27. Bottom of the ninth

28. On first base

29. A bump on a log

30. Between a rock and a hard place

31. The whole nine yards

32. More than one way to skin a cat

33. Early bird gets the worm

34. Hurry up and wait

35. Don’t judge a book by its cover

36. Beware of Greeks bearing gifts

37. The squeaky wheel gets the grease

38. Can’t teach an old dog new tricks

39. Fly on the wall

40. Guinea pig

41. Tailgating (two very different meanings)

42. Drinking the kool aid

43. Just sayin’

44. Get off your high horse

45. “Holy cow”

46. Pull back the curtain

47. Working the graveyard shift

48. Got your goat

49. Elephant in the room

50. Walking on eggshells

51. Take a rain check

52. Table it

53. Can’t put my finger on it

54. Piece of cake

55. A fish out of water

56. Ballpark figure

57. Shoot the breeze

58. Water under the bridge

59. Put up your dukes

60. Every dog has its day

61. Spill the beans

62. Knock on wood

63. It’s not rocket science

64. Hit the books

65. I’m from Missouri

66. We’re not in Kansas anymore

67. Madder than a wet hen

68. If you don’t care

69. Worn slap out

70. Tore up

71. Might have could

72. Happy as a pig in mud

73. Fixin to

74. Til the cows come home

75. Let me let you go

76. A month of Sundays

77. Knee high to a grasshopper

78. Hill of beans

79. More than Carter’s got little pills

80. Can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear

81. Plumb

82. Hotter than blazes

83. Pretty as a peach

84. Gimme some sugar

85. Gussied up

86. Hold your horses

87. Well I do declare

88. Funny as all get out

89. Heavens to Betsey

90. Hush your mouth

91. Sho nuff

92. Well I swannie

93. Tell you what

94. I reckon

95. It’ll make you want to slap your momma

96. Oh my stars

97. Too big for his britches

98. Livin in high cotton

99. Porch lights on but nobody’s home

100. Blowing up a storm

101. Hissy fit

102. Three sheets to the wind

103. Can never could

104. Preaching to the choir

105. It’ll all come out in the wash

106. For the birds

107. Til the cows come home

108. Don’t be such a wet blanket

109. Long in the tooth

110. Green thumb

111. Plead the fifth

112. It’s a keeper

113. Go Dutch

114. Crying over spilled milk

115. Bought the farm

116. Behind the eight ball

117. Jump on the bandwagon

118. Take a raincheck

119. Cold turkey

120. Riding shotgun

121. Under the weather

122. That’s the way the cookie crumbles

123. The cat’s out of the bag

124. More bang for the buck

125. Shoot the breeze

126. A bat out of hell

127. Nosebleed seats

128. Monday morning quarterback

129. Sounds like a broken record

130. Know what I’m saying

131. Get your ducks in a row

132. Elbow grease

133. Knock it out of the park

134. My two cents

135. Hit the hay

136. A no brainer

137. The whole kit and kaboodle

138. The whole enchilada

139. Smack dab

140. Slow as molasses

141. Snowball’s chance in hell

142. Two fries short of a happy meal

143. Two bricks shy of a load

144. Bite me

145. Its in the bag

146. On second base

147. Beat me to the punch

148. Going bananas

149. Crazy as a loon

150. Mark my words

151. Hit the nail on the head

152. Cut corners

153. Cost an arm and a leg

154. Bit off more than you can chew

155. Mouth write a check that your butt can’t cash

156. A fly in the ointment

157. Kill two birds with one stone

158. Let the cat out of the bag

159. Pull one’s leg

160. Burn the midnight oil

161. Call it a day

162. Steal one’s thunder

163. Speak of the devil

164. Caught red handed

165. Once in a blue moon

166. Hold your horses

167. Go the extra mile

168. Straight from the horse’s mouth

169. Take with a pinch of salt

170. In for a penny, in for a pound

171. A penny for your thoughts

172. Cost a pretty penny

173. Like a bad penny

174. Penny wise pound foolish

176. Plug nickel

177. Play hardball

178. Home run

179. Touch base

180. Out of left field

181. Step up to the plate

182. Bush league

183. Go to bat

184. Slam dunk

185. Lay up

186. Strike out

187. Bat a thousand

188. Right off the bat

189. In the big leagues

190. Keep the ball rolling

191. Play ball

192. Brand new ball game

193. Swing for the fences

194. Throw a curve

195. Throw for a loop

196. Cover your bases

197. On deck

198. Couch potato

199. Keep the ball rolling

200. Raining cats and dogs

201. Cool as a cucumber

202. Selling like hotcakes

203. Paint the town red

204. In a pickle

205. Turn a blind eye

206. When it rains it pours

207. Barking up the wrong tree

208. Bitter pill to swallow

209. Sour grapes

210. Tough cookie

211. Throw in the towel

212. Hit the road

213. Off the beaten path

214. Take a hike

215. Break the bank

216. Bringing home the bacon

217. Time is money

218. Grinning like a Cheshire cat

219. Born with a silver spoon in your mouth

220. Feels like a million bucks

221. I’ll be a monkey’s uncle

222. Gravy train

223. Cash cow

224. Money talks

225. Hair of the dog

226. Money doesn’t grow on trees

227. Flat broke

228. Nest egg

229. Pay through the nose

230. In the black

231. Go whole hog

232. Bet your bottom dollar

233. Burning a hole in your pocket

234. Filthy rich

235. Don’t amount to a hill of beans

236. Busy as a bee

237. Albatross around one’s neck

238. As cute as a bug’s ear

239. As snug as a bug in a rug

240. As the crow flies

241. Barking up the wrong tree

242. Bee in your bonnet

243. Monkey see monkey do

244. Cat got your tongue

245. Cat’s pajamas

246. Counting sheep

247. Chickens come home to roost

248. Curiosity killed the cat

249. Dropping like flies

250. Kangaroo court

251. In a pig’s ear

252. Fine kettle of fish

253. Paper tiger

254. Pony up

255. Red herring

256. Bad apple

257. Sour grapes

258. Stool pigeon

259. Swan song

260. Top dog

261. White elephant

262. Will goose chase

263. If pigs could fly

264. More than one way to skin a cat

265. People in glass houses should throw no stones

266. Even a blind pigs can find an acorn once in a while

267. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush

268. Hold your horses

269. Up s—-t’s creek without a paddle

270. Let the horse out the barn after closing the door

271. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out

272. Bulls—-

273. Go jump in the lake

274. Bread and butter

And my grandmother’s favorite

275. He ain’t got the sense that God gave a goose