Garrison America

As of Monday, March 23, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have been deployed to fourteen major US airports ostensibly to assist with crowd control and support TSA checkpoints during staffing shortages.  We've been told that agents are primarily assisting with, rather than operating, security, and the list of locations may change.

So far, every photo or newscast I've seen shows these guys standing or walking around in improvised and mismatched non-standard fatigues, ballistic vests, sidearms and automatic weapons; sometimes wearing ICE or POLICE patches.  They're unmasked and none of them are outfitted with a name tag or visible ID.  

Compared to the law in my community - by all outward appearances - they're unprofessional and poorly groomed.  Sloppy bordering on slovenly.  Up-armed mall cops.

We're paying these guys a premium wage to chill-out and stand around at the airport while the TSA agents continue to do all the work and go unpaid. 

Meanwhile, it is a proven fact that the long lines and wait times remain unchanged.

Check-out the photo above.  A few of you will cheer it; while most will shake their heads.

Welcome to the militarization of America.  Unkempt and unprofessional too.

I'm an old man and never thought I would live long enough to witness the normalization of this nonsense during peacetime.  

Ponder that.  

Peacetime. 

Any wagers this is a dress rehearsal so you will be less alarmed when you go to vote?

I pray this isn't a condition I have to get used to....

Fact or Fantasy?

As a major voice in the American Libertarian movement the Cato Institute focuses primarily on policy analyses and independent research of contemporary topics including subject matter related to foreign policy, regulations, taxes and libertarian-influenced public advocacy.  

 

Naturally, over the last decade most anyone I'm acquainted-with who previously self-identified as libertarian have, for the most part, gone full-on MAGA.  Any of the remaining few diehard libertarians have gone underground or silent. Either way you slice it none of them are engaged in any meaningful dialogue with me anymore.  Which is too bad.  Productive dialogue lost and in some instances friendships broken is a waste.  I'm not sure how to fix or repair that condition; or if it is even worth the effort.  Time will tell and apologies for the digression.  

 

The purpose of this post is to discuss a recently-published commentary from the Cato Institute titled:  Trump's $18 Trillion Fantasy.  This article also appeared in The Dispatch on February 19, 2026 immediately preceding the recent groundbreaking SCOTUS tariff ruling.  You'll find it linked more than once in the post and I encourage you to read it at your leisure.  What follows is a summary of Cato's critique of White House claims that tariff policies have secured more than $18 trillion of new investment in the United States. 

 

They've performed yeoman's work in producing this commentary and hopefully this summary will tweak your interest in rolling-up your sleeves and engaging in some cognitive dissonance.

 

The key criticism from Cato is that a purported $18 trillion in new investment into our economy claimed by the White House is unsubstantiated and doesn't hold-up under scrutiny.  Trump's hyperbole and puffery is famous; and Cato describes the figure alternately as fantasy or a hoax correctly pointing-out that the number is nearly as large as the entire GDP of China.  Lacking any published evidence from the departments of Commerce or Treasury, or the Federal Reserve the real number, whatever it may be, is naturally much, much smaller.

 

The White House lists 132 'deals' totaling approximately $9.6 trillion; the lion's share of that doesn't come close to meeting the definition of 'new investment'.  Significantly, this figure includes previously-announced or planned technology ventures, routine and on-going business expenditures, orders already in the pipeline and vague promises lacking any enforcement mechanism.  The later are basically a verbal IOU with a promise of 'we'll see'.  

 

Foreign 'deals' are even sketchier as most of the 'pledges' lack even the creditworthiness of a verbal IOU as they come from countries unable to afford them anyway; or the respective government lacks any authority to dictate private business investment.  Previous pledges to purchase military aircraft and equipment or those that come with an implied Trumpian threat of a 'protection racket' do not count.

 

In my own view much of this is political theater intended to pacify Trump's mercurial tendencies before the Supreme Court brought-down the hammer on inconsistent acts provoked by one sole personality. 

 

On tariffs alone, Trump's claim of a manufacturing boom doesn't jibe with the continued decline of direct investment in American manufacturing which, in reality, has been falling and is continuing to fall uninterrupted.  Sure, tariffs may induce some domestic investment through protectionism; nevertheless, this comes at the cost of higher prices for business and consumers.  The math doesn't work.

 

Cato's concludes that the $18 trillion figure is a politically-motivated exaggeration used to justify a flawed and inexplicably contorted obsession with a high tariff regime that is lacking any basis in recorded economic data or accounting.

 

But don't take my word for it.  Read the the commentary in its entirety and draw your own conclusions about how much of it is fact or fantasy.

 

We've been to this rodeo before. 

 

 

If Only The Dead Could Talk

Somewhere along the line I shared that I refreshed my CCW training during COVID.

My instructor had some sage advice. Basically, she had this to say (I am paraphrasing):

If you happen to be legally carrying and someone invites you to a protest, an act of civil disobedience or a riot; run the opposite direction.  

The gist of this was in the wake of the George Floyd protests and the Kyle Rittenhouse shootings your CCW permit isn't a superpower against kryptonite circumstances.  A perfectly innocent legal carry situation is not a shield against an overzealous prosecutor.  Mounting a successful defense can drain your financial resources.  Worse case?  Worse case is always worse.  Use your imagination. 

Anyway, her words were good advice.  Prescient too.

Nevertheless, what happened in Minneapolis shows that ICE will treat the mere presence of a legal firearm as justification for lethal force.

Carrying a gun is not a crime, yet it was readily used as irrefutable proof of dangerous intent.  And now that Alex Pretti is dead and unable to contest that narrative; that’s the narrative.  

 

From the president on down the chain of command the instant narrative is this:  

Pretti was obviously a domestic terrorist and a would-be assassin.  Consequently, he deserved to die.  This was a good shoot.  

The practical upshot of this is if you are interdicted by the Federales while carrying - even legally - masked paramilitary forces without visible personal identification can and will kill you on the spot.  With the support of our government.

Judge.

Jury.

And executioner.

At this point there isn't much you can do about it; you're dead.  

Because our government has declared you guilty beforehand. 

 

Am I willing to be wrong about all of the foregoing?  You bet I am.  Yet the president has expressed a desire to impose martial law across the land.  And he usually gets around to trying to do everything he says he wants to do.  I'd also bet he'll continue to use his shadowy veiled paramilitary forces to terrorize a small blue enclave in Minnesota with only an estimated 130,000 undocumented migrants to provoke unrest.  

It's rather quiet where I live; not that counts for anything in a world where the Constitution counts for nothing....

Style Counts for Something

One of the redeeming features of Face Book is that it has facilitated the reunification of any number of us who grew-up together and came of age in the 60s and 70s.  I suppose we can thank COVID for more free time and screen time.  Add to this a milestone High School reunion only a couple of years ago.  After roughly 50 years of separation for some of us the reconnection has been a good thing.  

Plenty has changed for many of us; nevertheless, becoming reacquainted is A-OK by my standards.  FB has become our Town Square and gathering spot to share thoughts and opinions and remain in-touch. And while the pace of new friends and acquaintances may have slowed the list continues to grow.  In any event, one of those pals from the old neighborhood posted this photo on his FB page including his own words (italics) preceding it:

The Democrats saw Obama as their chosen one that would lead them into their socialistic utopia. When Trump was elected those same people realized that their utopic dreams were not going to be realized. They then started hating and attacking anything and anyone that threatened the " progress" they believed they had made politically and culturally in transfirming/destroying the USA.

 

So, their protesting and at times violence is the continuation of their deranged hatred of President Trump. If Kamala or some other person adored by their Party was directing these deportations there would be no issue no protests, no threats to Law enforcement personnel. Hypocritical in their thoughts and actions. Sad, real sad.

 

I commented with this:   

I was actually studying-up on this phenomenon this afternoon.  Under Obama, interdiction and deportation was hardly ever public and rarely involved any drama. Not even background noise. Interestingly, very close to same in the early years of the first Trump administration. I absolutely know what changed (because I took old fashioned notes).  10 guesses anyone?

 

The discussion that followed included defenses of President Trump considering everything from Trump Derangement Syndrome, generalized media bias, to perceived Face Book and iPhone (Apple) algorithm biases.   My childhood pal shared this:  I respect your research and notes Tom. Please share.  

 

So I did.  I had to cut and paste my notes from my laptop resulting in poor formatting; nevertheless editable.  They are as follows:  

Here’s a brief summary of deportations under Barack Obama (2009–2017) and Donald Trump - (both terms, including his second term starting in 2025) - focused on ICE/DHS removals/deportations by the numbers.  Note: The Trump second term is incomplete and stats both reflect that and are annotated.

 

Over the eight years (2009 - 2017) of Obama’s presidency, ICE and DHS reported approximately 3.1 million immigration removals/deportations. Highlights - FY 2012: ~409,849 deportations — one of the highest annual totals.  FY 2013: ~438,421 deportations — often cited as the highest year. 

 

Observations:

 

Deportations were high early in his tenure and declined later — partly due to changes in enforcement priorities and declining border apprehensions. Later years saw lower totals: ~235,413 in FY 2015 and ~240,255 in FY 2016

 

Obama’s approach focused more on recent border crossers and noncitizens with criminal convictions, rather than broad interior enforcement.

 

Trump Administration (2017 - 2021 & 2025 - ?)

 

First Trump term (2017–2021): DHS/ICE data shows fewer overall removals than under Obama, with around 932,000 deportations reported over those four years.

 

Second Trump administration (2025 onward): Data is less centralized, but multiple sources provide partial figures:  ICE deported nearly 200,000 people in the first seven months of 2025 alone. Some government estimates suggest combined deportations + other removals could reach ~300,000+ in FY 2025 under Trump’s enforcement surge. Public reports cite overall removals including border expulsions and voluntary departures in the hundreds of thousands by the end of 2025.

 

Observations:

 

Trump’s highest annual ICE deportation figures (e.g., ~267,000–300,000+) clearly have not surpassed Obama’s peak year totals (which were ~438,000 in 2013). 

 

The Trump administration’s enforcement in 2025 increased interior ICE arrests and targeted broader categories of unauthorized immigrants including many without criminal records. 

 

Data releases from DHS/ICE have been inconsistent, making comprehensive year-by-year comparisons harder than with historical Obama data.

 

COMPARE AND CONTRAST

 

1. Enforcement Priorities: Targeted Arrests vs. Universal Arrests

 

Obama:

Focused on enforcement priorities aimed at public safety: Serious criminals, national security threats and recent border crossers. ICE was supposed to emphasize these groups before acting on others; this constrained the agency’s interior enforcement focus.

 

Trump:

Early executive orders broadly expanded enforcement priorities to include all undocumented non-citizens as targets for arrest and removal. This resulted in enforcement shifting from a targeted, risk-based approach to a wide net aiming to arrest anyone removable under immigration law.

 

2. Criminal History Composition of Arrests

 

Obama:

A larger share of ICE interior arrests historically involved people with criminal convictions. ICE largely confined interior enforcement to those with broader public safety concerns.

 

Trump:

Recent data show a dramatic rise in arrests of people with no criminal records. Nearly 1/3 of those arrested in 2025 by ICE had no criminal history. Another report suggests tens of thousands without criminal convictions were picked up, contradicting official focus on criminals. Independent data also show a sharp shift in arrest composition, with non-criminal individuals making up a much higher share of total ICE detentions under Trump.

 

3. At-Large vs. Custodial Arrests

 

Obama:

ICE largely arrested individuals already in jail/prison (custodial arrests) via information sharing with local jails and prisons; use of at-large arrests (sweeps in communities) was more limited.

 

Trump:

ICE dramatically increased at-large arrests — apprehending people in homes, workplaces, and communities rather than primarily from jails. This shift meant broader, more public operations compared with the historically jail-linked approach.

 

4. Collaboration with Local Law Enforcement

 

Obama:

ICE cooperation with local police/jails — such as through Secure Communities — was significant but tempered by enforcement priorities and some jurisdictions’ non-cooperation.

 

Trump:

Expansion of programs like 287(g) dramatically increased the role of local police in immigration enforcement, allowing them to question and detain immigrants for ICE — a tactic scaled back or de-emphasized under Obama.

 

5. Detention Policy and Public Operations

 

Obama:

Fewer large-scale, publicized raids; enforcement often occurred in less visible ways (custodial transfers from local jails, routine immigration check-ins).

 

Trump:

Enforcement has included public raids, frequent at-large operations, and actions in “sensitive locations” that were avoided under prior internal DHS policies — including immigration court check-ins, workplaces, and neighborhoods. ICE has also faced criticism for increased detention populations and facility deaths tied to expanded enforcement.

 

6. Policy Framing and Quotas

 

Obama:

Restored a degree of prioritization to manage enforcement resources and judicial backlogs, focusing removal on higher-risk individuals in many years.

 

Trump:

Reports indicate daily arrest “quotas” and political mandates for mass enforcement, with leadership pushing ICE to meet broad arrest targets rather than focusing solely on prioritized categories.

 

Summary:

Obama’s ICE tactics centered more on defined enforcement priorities and collaboration with the criminal justice system; whereas, Trump’s approach expanded who could be targeted, expanded community arrests, and integrated local law enforcement more deeply, resulting in broader sweeps and more arrests of people without criminal records.

*Note:  The notion that I had burned about three hours time (time I will never get back) that same afternoon was a consequence of a FB post - including an eight year-old YouTube "Ride With ICE" video - from another neighborhood pal of mine.  It was thought-provoking and encouraged me to initiate some background as it didn't get anyone's interest on FB other than me and maybe one additional individual.    

 

Inasmuch as things went silent on my pal's FB page following posting my notes I added an additional comment for purposes of background (see asterisk above) on Sunday morning.  That comment, including the YouTube video, are as follows:

 

As a follow-up to my notes I posted yesterday I want to share that the inspiration for my inquiry into this subject was a post that (name redacted) put out there four days ago. 

 

In it he asked: "8+yrs ago Obama's Ice agent's were well respected heroes, just doing their job. wonder what changed?"  (Note: Video is dated August 25, 2017 making these Trump's ICE agents.  Typo?) 

 

The video is from 8 years ago and taken during the first year of the first Trump term. It's not very long so watch it to the end and then afterwards ask yourself  "what changed between Trump 1.0 and 2.0 with respect to ICE protocols and reflecting on the differences between the two Presidents and their approach to interdiction and deportation.

 

Not stirring things-up as I happen to think (name redacted) has raised an excellent point and asked a thought-provoking question.

 

 

Have you ever wondered what it's like during the life of an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent?  Phil Shuman of Fox 11, Los Angeles, takes you along for a ride on August 25, 2017.

At the time of this post's publication that thread has gone silent.  No further discussion.  The point I was attempting to make (perhaps not very clearly) was we have the same President today as eight years ago.  Almost at the same point in time of each presidential term. 

 

The clip is from the first year of the first Trump term in 2017.  Contrast that with ICE operational procedures today - the first year of the second Trump term in 2025. 

 

Are there objective differences between ICE agents and their protocol between then and now?

 

If any, what may they be?  What, if anything, changed?

 

I have some working theories about how, and why, ICE evolved between Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0 

 

You?

Get Bent

Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, recently stated that Americans should be prepared to be stopped and prove their citizenship.  Yup, she said that. 

Noem was asked by reporters on Thursday (January 15, 2026) about reports that ICE agents have stopped people in several Minnesota locales and demanded they produce proof of citizenship during immigration enforcement activities.  Many of these individuals were bonafide citizens; the Real McCoy. 

Noem described these encounters as part of targeted enforcement operations and said that officers may ask people nearby who they are and have them validate their identity.  When pressed on whether Americans should carry proof of citizenship, she indicated that U.S. citizens should be prepared to provide evidence of their status if contacted during such operations. 

  

Legal analysts note there is no general requirement for U.S. citizens to carry proof of citizenship in everyday life.  Furthermore, the Fourth Amendment limits when police can demand ID without reasonable suspicion or actual evidence of wrongdoing.   

Secretary Noem's remarks have drawn strong reactions from lawmakers and civil liberties advocates who argue such guidance risks turning routine enforcement into encounters solely for purposes of demanding ordinary citizens to produce their papers.    

I wasn't born here, yet I've led the entirety of my adult life in the country I am a citizen-of without being stopped and required to produce evidence of my citizenship status.

Arguably, it is a very low probability of an older white guy, speaking without an accent, of actually facing that possibility.  Nevertheless, if one or more masked ICE agents, without any visible identification, no body camera and carrying a sidearm along with an automatic assault rifle pull me over, stop, interrupt and in the absence of a warrant, evidence or even a whiff of suspicion of my commission of a crime and demand my papers my inclination is to tell them to get bent.

If any of you MAGA devotees reading this care to explain to me how this great nation hasn't got one foot in the grave of a police state I'm all ears.

I'm waiting... 

Protecting Union Station

Godfrey C. Danchimah Jr. (born July 21, 1969), known as Godfrey, is an American comedian and actor who has appeared in multiple venues to numerous to list.  

Bio here.

Enjoy this YouTube Short.... 

Guardians Or Gladiators?

Almost a year and a half ago I published a short post titled: Following Orders.  I was musing about how a future Trump administration might deploy the military within the country's borders.  Fast forward to the present and we're learning more about this almost every day; and while I am famous for bad predictions that post from April of 2024 was seemingly prescient.

J. Scott Applewhite / AP

I've never served in the military; consequently I can only speak as a civilian.  What I think I know is that fundamentally there are significant differences between local law enforcement officers and army national guard soldiers.

Civilian law enforcement academies and technical colleges focus on things like criminal law, civil rights, de-escalation and community engagement.  Day-to-day law enforcement includes enforcing criminal law, traffic safety, conducting investigations and community policing.  Sheriff deputies and police officers are seen as front line guardians of law and order.  And, at least where I live, they are a familiar presence as a consequence of daily interaction with the local population.

National guard soldiers receive military training including things like combat readiness, tactical operations, discipline and a military occupational specialty.  Some military police units train for law enforcement, but their orientation is different from civilian policing.  Guard units are populated by citizen soldiers who have civilian jobs or perhaps attend school while training part-time and sharpening their readiness to act when called upon by their state governor or the President.   

Nevertheless, national guard troops do serve in temporary support roles.  This can include crowd and riot control, (civil unrest events), disaster response (hurricanes, floods, wildfires), infrastructure protection (power plants, airports, hospitals) and augmenting first responders when local resources are overwhelmed.

Mostly, the guard is our federal reserve force for wartime missions and overseas deployment.  They blow stuff-up, defeat opposing forces and achieve battlefield dominance.  Soldiers are war-fighters; modern day gladiators.  

Between you and me I think having armed troops on our main streets is unsustainable for the long term.  It is an expensive short-term fix.  Furthermore, it is poor optics; if it were to happen around here the tourists would stay home and businesses would be grumpy.  The former is fact the latter is opinion.

There has been chatter on social media including people suggesting that president Trump is seeking to accomplish a couple of things; namely the normalization of military deployments to conduct law enforcement.  Secondly, provoking some kook or nutjob to commit an act of political violence thereby escalating tensions by such means that he can invoke the insurrection act, declare martial law and suspend elections.  Sounds rather conspiratorial, eh?  Inexplicably, most of my previously self-identified libertarian acquaintances have gone silent on this subject so we can save a discussion of the Posse Comitatus Act for another day.  

I happen to believe that Donald Trump eventually gets around to attempting everything he says he wants to do.  And he has repeatedly said he would consider or invoke the Insurrection Act, including in public statements in June 2025 during his current presidency.

Meanwhile, Speaker Michael Johnson's home state of Louisiana, and New Orleans in particular, boast some of the the highest murder rates in the country.  One has to wonder why Governor Jeff Landry called-up and deployed Louisiana guard troops to Washington, DC; instead of Speaker Johnson's home district?  The correct answer is political theater; nevertheless, all of this can be combustible.  See paragraph eight (above) about the president shouting Fire! in an otherwise quiet theater.

The administration is populated with pliant sycophants who will unquestionably act on the president's orders.  Therefore, the execution of sketchy orders will fall to the next line of senior military officers.

It is gonna be interesting how this unfolds.....

The Math Doesn't Work

 We're going to make a lot of money and we're going to cut taxes for the people of this country.  It will take a little while before we do that, but we're going to be cutting taxes and it's possible we'll do a complete tax cut because I think the tariffs will be enough to cut all of the income tax. 

- President Trump, April 27, 2025  

The line from the White House Information Minister, various Cabinet Secretaries and the President himself is that we are awash in tariff revenue wealth.  Millions, billions and trillions of dollars; all willingly paid by other countries.  The president has even floated the notion about creating an External Revenue Service to collect the tariffs and replacing the Internal Revenue Service in collecting income taxes.

We were at our richest from 1870 to 1913.  That's when we were a tariff country.  Perhaps the president has drawn his inspiration from 19th century America immediately before the establishment of the federal income tax.

Of course if you know your American history when tariffs were the primary source of federal revenue government was much smaller; federal spending was barely two percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP).   Nowadays, federal spending is north of 23% of GDP.  It would be impossible to rely on tariffs to meet current spending levels.  Heck, we're already running ginormous annual deficits that are slated to increase further with the passage of recent legislation. 

Tariffs (sometimes called a duty) are a tax imposed on imported goods and services.  The tariff is not paid by other countries; the US import company is required to pay the tax.  This makes imported goods more expensive to US companies and consumers. Consequently, domestic producers may benefit from reduced competition potentially protecting domestic jobs and industries.  Decreased competition may also result in domestic producers raising their prices as we have seen in the steel industry. 

In 2024 individual income taxes generated roughly $2.4 trillion in revenue to the government representing nearly half of all federal revenue.  Because tariffs apply to the narrow sector of imported goods they would likely generate only a fraction of that amount resulting in ballooning deficits.

Furthermore, because tariffs apply to imports (as opposed to broad-based income) this would result in a disproportionate economic impacts with industries relying on imported materials or components being hit the hardest.  

Tariffs also increase costs to domestic companies and consumers. 

Conversely, if tariffs replaced the income tax your wages/salary would theoretically become tax-free.  This shift would allow you to keep more of what you make.  Sound appealing?  As a trade policy tool tariffs are probably more effective than as a revenue generator.  

The economic reality is the challenge of replacing income tax revenues with tariffs would require import taxes on a scale of enormity so high as to become disruptive to consumers, business, supply chains, trade relationships and the US dollar.  They won't fix our country's  persistent problem with annual deficits or balance the budget.  The notion of issuing everyone a government check and calling it a tariff rebate is absurd.  Tax the citizenry with import duties and then return a small piece and call it a tariff dividend?  PT Barnum had a term for this so if you have a rational explanation I want to hear it.

Meanwhile, the best summation of this challenge can be found over here at the Tax Foundation.  It's a short read of only a few minutes and worth your while.  

Finally, revenues from import taxes have been growing for months, and the latest data shows that the U.S. has collected $130 billion from them as of August 15.  That is $73.8 billion, or 131.2% more, than the same time last year. But that’s still far short of the $2.4 trillion federal income taxes brought in last year.  The running totals are updated daily and can be found here at the Trump Tariff Income Tracker.  You might want to bookmark this web page so you can follow along.

Bottom line?  The math doesn't work.....

 

Drama At The Oval

Last Friday's Oval Office meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky was ostensibly intended to discuss peace negotiations concerning the Russia-Ukraine conflict and to finalize a natural resources agreement.  However the meeting devolved into a heated exchange with Trump accusing Zelensky of being ungrateful and risking global conflict by not pursuing peace with Russia.  Vice President JD Vance criticized Zelensky for discussing policy matter publicly, leading to an abrupt end to the meeting without a signed agreement.  

Naturally, the incident drew significant attention both here and abroad with numerous world leaders expressing support for Zelensky and criticizing President Trump's approach.  Leaders from countries such as Canada, Norway, Lithuania, Poland, Spain and Moldova condemned Trump's remarks and reaffirmed their commitment to supporting Ukraine against Russia's invasion.  

Given the contentious nature of the meeting, the choreographed timing of Vance's entry into the fray gives the appearance of not merely a theatrical performance, but a planned public setup.  The first thing that came to mind was the boardroom scene of the Final Episode following another lame season of The Apprentice.  I digress.

The lack of any substantive outcomes and subsequent international reaction seems to imply that the meeting had significant implications beyond just the political theater.  Precisely what they are remains to be revealed.  Is Trump ten moves ahead in a three dimensional chess match; or is he simply chaotic?  You pick.

Nonetheless, I sort of saw it coming; like a slow moving train wreck.  There were earlier signals from Secretary Hegseth,  the US joining both North Korea and Russia in the vote at the United Nations (China abstained), along with Trump's parroting of Kremlin talking points.  I shared with a couple of pals that I figured Trump was going to orchestrate things in a way that Putin would get the whole shebang in the end.  Time will tell.

Does this suggest we've signaled to the world that we're done with 70+ years of transatlantic alliances; trading all of it for an alliance with a ruthless blood-soaked gangster like Vladimir Putin and his rapidly failing Russian state?

Or was this a garden-variety Mafiosi protection racket?  Listen-up youse.  Give us your raw earth minerals, or your dry-cleaning shop, izza gonna burn down, see.

Why does Trump have a hard-on for Putin? 

Why isn't Putin being held to account?

Does Zelensky understand a bad deal is better than a good war?

Judging from the reaction in the cesspool called Face Book, the base is loving the red meat.  Of course the base has also turned a blind eye, or loves, (you pick) the forcible abduction and deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia.  Similarly, supporters of Ukraine were quick to post their own collection of cut and paste unoriginal memes.  Although I didn't note anyone volunteering to send their children or grandchildren over there to join the fight.

It's too soon and uncertain to know where this takes us.  Although for the first time this year I watched all the Sunday morning talking heads on both sides as White House spokespeople twisted them selves in convoluted knots in an attempt to explain this is ten moves ahead three dimensional chess and not simply chaos.

What I've learned over the years is that Trump means what he says and he closed the Friday drama with this:

This is going to be great television.  I will say that.

 

Thanks for reading and stay-tuned. Hardly a dull moment nowadays. 

Theater At The DOGE

I asked ChatGPT: 

How much budget savings so far from Musk's Department of Government Efficiency?

As of March 2, 2025, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), let by Elon Musk, reported the cancellation of 128 contracts recently, resulting in approximately $60 million in savings.  Since Its inception, DOGE reports terminating over 3,000 wasteful contracts.

However, analyses by external organizations have raised questions about these reported savings.  An NPR investigation found discrepancies in DOGE's claimed savings, suggesting potential overstatements. 

Additionally, data from DOGE's "Wall of Receipts" indicates that nearly 40% of the cancelled contracts are expected to yield no actual savings. 

In specific instances, DOGE identified inefficiencies in software licensing.  For example, the General Services Administration (GSA) reportedly held 37,000 WinZip licenses for 13,000 employees, leading to a claimed $9.6 million in savings after addressing the surplus.

While DOGE reports significant contract cancellations and some specific savings, external evaluations suggest that the actual budgetary impact may be less substantial than claimed.

Despite these efforts, the reported savings represent a fraction of DOGE's ambitious goal to cut $2 trillion in federal spending by July 4, 2026. 

The notion that Elon Musk and his government efficiency apparatchiks can bring down the debt is a tall order.  To be clear, I take no issue with rooting-out waste fraud and abuse; just give the chainsaw schtick and lame theatrics a rest.  

At this particular moment in time our outstanding debt stands at $36 trillion (give or take).  Closing a handful of government agencies and laying-off government workers makes for great theater but it isn't gonna get the job done.  The savings are much, much too small to achieve the stated goal. Anybody who actually believes nibbling around the edges like this will fix the real problem is engaging in what I call magical wishful thinking.

You see, just like a household budget that has gotten out of control, fixing this problem is going to require hard work and making difficult choices.  

You're probably thinking - Like what?

Like raising taxes, cutting defense spending or reforming Social Security and Medicare.  Or all of the foregoing.  These are unpopular choices for good reason.  Nobody wants to do them.  They're like going to the theater to watch a crappy production.  Nobody wants to do that.  The people demand good theater.  Bread and circuses if you will.  I might be wrong, but I happen to wonder if the current collection of clowns places a higher priority on theater and spectacle than hard work.

So, are we going to continue to be witness to the slow roll reality TV performance or get serious about fixing the real problem for the next couple of generations.

Anyone care to make a friendly wager?

How To Win Friends And Influence People

In further news, this past weekend Donald Trump gave voice to his planned Retribution Tour after he retakes the White House.

Trump has vowed to prosecute and punish his political opponents; promising the arrest and imprisonment of President Biden (and his family), Vice President  Kamala Harris, former Vice President Mike Pence, Senators Chuck Schumer, Mitch McConnell, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former Congressman Adam Kinzinger, Representatives Adam Schiff, Jamie Raskin, Pete Aguilar, Zoe Lofgren and Bennie Thompson, retired Joint Chiefs Chairman Mark Milley, an extensive list of judges, district attorneys, state election figures, local and federal law enforcement officials, National Archives employees, charity and religious organizations who aid migrants, journalists and media organizations and Mark Zuckerberg. 

Former Wyoming congresswoman Liz Cheney was singled-out for particular scorn and undeserving of due due process.  Elizabeth Lynne Cheney is guilty of treason, and Trump called for her to be prosecuted by a televised military tribunal reserved for enemy combatants and war criminals.

I know I've missed quite a few individuals and organizations who have made the enemies list which is growing by the day.  

The base loves this Roman Colosseum "feed them to the lions" stuff. Yet I'm still trying to figure-out how this makes for a successful reelection campaign strategy.  Big Fat Middle; remember?  

And suppose someone else runs on the Democratic ticket?

We're certainly living in interesting times.....

Just The Facts Ma'am

With all due regard and respect for Dragnet's Joe Friday, Thursday evening's debate was rife with inaccuracies.  I'm not talking about the typical election year hyperbole; I'm talking about intentional mistruths and outright lies.

A couple of the whoppers that stand out include:

We have a thousand millionaires in America, I mean billionaires.  And what's happening?  They're in a situation where they in fact pay 8.2 percent taxes.

- Biden

Pants on fire!  Biden is referencing a 2021 White House study concluding that the 400 wealthiest taxpayers paid an effective tax rate of 8 percent. 

Because the estimate included unrealized capital gains in the calculation the resulting effective tax rate is fallacious.  Smoke and mirrors wrong. A deception.  That is not the way the tax code works in real life.

People are taxed on capital gains only when the asset (stock, real estate, business, whatever) is sold.

According to the IRS, the top 1 percent of taxpayers (defined as income of $548,000 and up) paid taxes averaging 26%.

 

He's destroying Medicare because all of these people are coming in.  They're putting them on Medicare.  They're putting them on Social Security.  They're going to destroy Social Security.  This man is going to single-handedly destroy Social Security.

- Trump

Some of you readers may recall my own experience with applying for Medicare the summer of 2020.

My application for coverage was declined.

Yup.  Because I happen to have been born in another country; Germany in-fact.  No matter that I have been paying into the system forever and hold a valid US passport. The Social Security Administration had me classified as a non-citizen.  I was undocumented and therefore ineligible.  I can only speculate; but this was likely a bureaucratic record-keeping holdover traced to my registration for the draft in the very early 1970s.  The local draft board was somehow convinced that because I held both a US Army birth certificate and a German birth certificate my dual citizenship would entice me to flee the country and thereby circumvent any attempt at conscription and free trip to Vietnam. The fix was I had to renounce any claim to German citizenship.  After I raised my right hand and swore an oath to absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen, I was issued a Certificate of Naturalization.  As a sole citizen of the US of A my draft-dodging moment was over.  

The people over at the Social Security Administration eventually cleared-up any confusion over my citizenship status and I am covered by both Medicare and Social Security.  Happy ending to a stressful three months.

Donald Trump is a liar.  And this lie is a howler.  Sure, I know his followers believe this BS but the truth of the matter is that undocumented individuals are ineligible for both Social Security and Medicare.  

That a dazed and confused Joe Biden didn't nail Trump to the wall over this has me stumped.

The entire Thursday event over at CNN was an unparalleled shit show.