Claim Jumping

I have observed the advancement of a homegrown Wisconsin boy, Sean Duffy, from afar.  With some admiration too.  What's not to like about a lumberjack from Hayward, WI?

Indeed, Duffy was a professional lumberjack having competed in Hayward's Lumberjack World Championship on several occasions and winning multiple titles in speed climbing.  He graduated from St. Mary's College of Minnesota with a marketing degree and from William Mitchell College of Law in 1999.  In 2002 governor Scott McCallum appointed Duffy as Ashland County District Attorney where he served until 2010.

In 2010 he defeated state senator Julie Lassa for Wisconsin's 7th Congressional district; formerly held by retiring representative David Obey.  Duffy was re-elected four more times before resigning from Congress in 2019 on account of a newborn child's health complications. After leaving Congress Duffy worked for a consulting group and began co-hosting Fox Business's The Bottom Line in 2023.  

In November 2024, President-elect Donald Trump nominated Duffy to serve as his Secretary of Transportation.  Duffy was confirmed by the Senate on January 28, 2025 and immediately sworn-in.

As cabinet Secretary Duffy isn't generally associated with much of the drama and intrigue that ordinarily follows other cabinet officials.  Much of this is a consequence of a department not generally bedeviled by the culture wars, there is institutional inherited momentum in the pipeline (pardon the pun), ribbon cuttings are positive events and any project delays can be chalked-up to government bureaucracy.  Because bricks and mortar are basically boring background noise Transportation is likely the quietly safest cabinet post on the planet.  Which leads me to this:  Scuttlebutt that Secretary Duffy is taking credit for infrastructure grants signed into law by former president Biden. 

Say it isn't so.

With a modicum of digging it is quite so.

Seems Duffy is touting BUILD grants (Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development) as rebranded RAISE grants (Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity) created and funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law signed by President Biden in 2021.  

Critics note that the Trump administration has been resurrecting previously-passed legislation with new names while not always acknowledging their origin under the former guy.

Official messaging from Duffy and the Department frequently describe moving or approving grants emphasizing that the Trump administration is clearing a backlog or getting America building again of previously announced projects.  Such messaging frames the work as a fresh accomplishment by the current administration - omitting any reference to funding under Biden. 

Representative O'Brien meets with Transportation Secretary Duffy to discuss the I-69 Ohio River Crossing.  The ORX bridge involves a mix of federal, state (Kentucky and Indiana) and toll authority funding for the estimated $933 million project.  The states are pursuing $632.3 million in major federal grants, including the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act funds. 

The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act) signed in 2021 was huge; authorizing roughly $1.2 trillion in infrastructure funding much of which continues to be allocated and spent as you read this.

In the year since Trump took office not a single stand-alone infrastructure law has been passed.  Major federal infrastructure authorizations all stem from laws passed before Joe Biden left office.  

Noteworthy, is the administration has focused on regulation and permitting; pushing changes intended to speed-up infrastructure approvals by means of revising matters such as environmental permitting.  Recent rollbacks of long-standing environmental review requirements aim to reduce delays on large projects which supporters suggest accelerates infrastructure work without creating entirely new federal infrastructure spending authorizations.

Nevertheless, the current administration has not passed into law any large scale infrastructure spending of its own.  Major funding still originates from earlier bipartisan legislation enacted under former President Biden or other existing statutory authority.

It's not exactly like plagiarizing a term paper as much as it is more like stealing someone else's thunder.  Or maybe their lunch from the office break room fridge.  And much like never accepting responsibility for anything that goes awry; the administration is quick to message another's work as their own and take credit and recognition for someone else's efforts.  All in the name of benefiting from unearned achievements passed-off as their own.  

Nothing new under the sun; we've all been to this rodeo before..... 

Don't Pay Attention To That Man Behind The Curtain

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent moved to calm the bond markets yesterday after a recent selloff made mortgages and other consumer loans more expensive.

Bessent's move to increase repurchases of long-term government notes and bonds (increasing demand for them) is largely symbolic but could still help bring those costs down.

Wall Street is skeptical the relief will stick, given that the Treasury Department's purchases are quite tiny compared with the roughly $30 trillion market for government debt.

The reason any of this matters is that the bond market impacts how much it costs everyone — the government, consumers, and companies — to borrow money.  The bond market is getting squeezed from multiple directions.  It sure looks like we’re in for a spell of rising interest rates.  

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump’s unilateral war in the Middle East and de facto closure of the Strait of Hormuz is feeding inflation all the while destabilizing global security and the world’s economy.  So much winning.

Yet we have gilded statuary, a ballroom, an airborne Qatari palace, reflecting pool and a triumphal arch.

Squirrel!

President Trump Pays a Call To The Farm

Yup; the City Slicker from the Borough of Queens blew-in to Wisconsin a couple days ago and maybe got his shoes dirty.  But I doubt it. This was all for show because things have become increasingly uncertain in farmland world.  By and large, farmers continue to support the president.  Why?  Trump gets it.  The truth is not in his actual policies but in his showing-up to address their fears.  How to make farmers think he sees them; the people that live in fly-over country.

For as long as I can recall I have not held any particular fondness for the Communist Red-Chinese government.  They have raised the theft of intellectual property to an art form and have bamboozled the trade negotiators of every administration for just as long; including Trump 1.0 and now Trump 2.0 as well.

If I had a rational discussion with a Trump supporter I would hear a case that the recent troubles felt by family farmers and ranchers are simply short-term nuisances that are necessary to challenge long-standing, unfair trade practices by foreign countries; China in particular.

And I suppose that my interlocutor would likely suggest that it is only "strong medicine," such as an aggressive tariff strategy, followed-on by subsequent renegotiation that would result-in better more structurally-sound and long-term trade deals.  Fair-enough.

Yes, American agriculture is a complex subject; nevertheless, my immediate neighborhood is an almost exclusively agricultural community.  We own a farm and farm policy is of personal interest.  Consequently, and anecdotally, I hear and have some tingly sense that patience may be wearing thin. Hardly for all but certainly for some.

And I am not alone; numerous agricultural economists and trade orgs - who know more about this than I do - would argue that Trump policy-making initiatives have resulted in no small amount of financial strain for American family farms. 

Specifically, the strong medicine and its side effects include: lost export markets, rising input costs, financial instability leading to bankruptcies and dependency upon federal subsidies.  

Let's dissect each.

Mr. Trump has famously expounded-upon his love of tariffs; thusly when your only tool is a hammer every trade issue is treated like a nail.  The extensive use of tariffs - particularly Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act - has led to retaliatory measures from major trade partners, including China.  This impacts an expansive list of stuff ranging from auto parts to semiconductors.  While most certainly the president and possibly my interlocutor might erroneously persist with the notion that foreigners pay these tariffs and make us wealthy beyond belief; the truth is that import companies pay them and pass the cost on to US businesses and consumers.  Just like a sales tax, tariffs make imported goods costlier.  Another unintended and equally unfortunate outcome is loss of market share.   

For decades China has been the undisputed heavyweight champion when it came to buying American soybeans.  It is a fact that the Chinese used to be the largest buyer of our beans than the rest of the world combined.  From the end of May through November of last year China did not purchase a single American soybean, choosing to do business with other countries instead.  As a result of Trump's import taxes China responded with an imposition of their own duties along with a boycott of American beans.  Sales, along with domestic prices, plunged.  Meanwhile, American agricultural exports to Canada decreased by more than $1 billion largely as a consequence of Canadian boycotts of American products.

Farm economists now point to the acceleration of a structural shift in markets with China permanently diverting its agricultural purchases to competing nations.  Even after a handful of temporary trade truces were reached American farmers today have a significantly reduced share of the global market.

What about input costs?  The president would tell you that tariffs are intended to protect domestic manufacturing.  And while that might be a necessary and useful tool to shield boutique specialty industries; when applied in broad swaths these trade taxes increase the cost of raw materials used to manufacture heavy machinery.

Not surprisingly, manufacturers like Deere are faced with higher production costs due to tariffs on metal, microchips and other component parts which are passed on to farmers in the form of higher prices for Deere tractors, harvesters and combines.  Even Trump knows this as the administration relented and temporarily reduced the offending taxes impacting agricultural equipment from 25% to 15%. 

And then, of course, Donald Trump made a unilateral decision to go to war with Iran resulting in the closure of the Strait of Hormuz.  This set in motion a cascade of destabilizing events that have dangerous consequences for global stability, security and the world's economy.  This has spiked energy costs and disrupted the the global supply of nitrogen and urea.  Some fertilizer prices are up 47% year-over-year.  For us here in the northern hemisphere the manure hit the fan before spring planting.  What were they thinking? 

Putting-on my financial guy hat, I am now witness to a perfect storm of reduced export commodity prices and skyrocketing operational costs conspiring to squeeze profit margins.  

According to the American Farm Bureau Federation, last year, America's crop farmers lost $34.6 billion and farm bankruptcies surged to numbers not seen since 2020.  In farm states like Iowa, Nebraska, South Dakota, Minnesota and Wisconsin there is now a sharp uptick in family farm bankruptcies and foreclosures.

To cushion the gut punch from his unilateral trade war Trump has authored the distribution of billions upon billions of direct aid including a $12 billion market facilitation package and the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program. 

These payments are a lifeline to keep farmers afloat; nevertheless, they smell peculiarly of Soviet-style central economic planning.  Or garden variety welfare; you pick.

From a purely economic perspective none of these subsidies assist the local rural economy.  Almost all of it went to multinational fertilizer and seed syndicates and large corporate landlords.  Moreover, welfare payments distort market economics resulting in an unstable environment where farmers become dependent on federal intervention rather than stable global commerce.  See previous paragraph.

So when I opened with the observation that the president's visit was mostly for show ask yourself if following Mr. Trump's departure did anything change for Wisconsin farmers?

Have lost export markets returned?  Have import duties gone away?  Has the price of fertilizer, diesel or purchased and leased equipment come down?  The Strait of Hormuz might reopen tomorrow; yet because things are so horribly broken any return to normalcy will take a year or more.  That does nothing to stem the immediate rise in bankruptcies and foreclosures for family farms.  

Farmers like to joke about why they don't gamble or place wagers in the prediction markets.  They'll tell you every season already comes with enough business crippling risks to satisfy anybody's passing itch to speculate.  Ham-fisted government policy getting in the way simply exacerbates the risks.  Increasing dependency on the federal dole to mask flawed policy in both trade and war is a failed strategy by any historical measure.

Farming is hard work and unlike an IPO or private equity wealth comes slow and steady.  America's family farms are not experiencing some transitory short-term hardship; they are disappearing.  Bankruptcies were up 55 percent in 2024, 46 percent in 2025 and 70 percent already by May of this year.  It will be interesting to follow how support for the president holds-up amongst farm producers for the remainder of his term.   

Time will tell.... 

How to Learn to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb

A funny thing happened on the road to the White House.  The president who turned-up isn't the same guy as the candidate.

The US war against Iran is unpopular and becoming more unpopular as it continues; furthermore, the latest Economist/YouGov Poll also finds few Americans support deploying ground troops to the conflict.

Or do other Americans see it differently?

Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper - Dr. Strangelove

It depends-upon whom you ask.

Only 30% of Americans strongly or somewhat approve of President Trump's handling of the Iran war with 60% disapproving for a net approval of -30.

Almost all Democrats (88%) oppose the war while independents oppose it by a 3-to-1 ratio.  

But there is this: Collectively, most Republicans support the war (62%) yet there is a huge gap in support between MAGA Republicans and non-MAGA Republicans (70% support vs. 33%).  Inasmuch as there are more than twice as many MAGA supporters as non-MAGA supporters among the GOP, MAGA opinion is basically settled science.   

Furthermore, a recent CBS News poll found that 92% of MAGA Republicans expressed support for military action against Iran, compared with only 70% of non-MAGA Republicans.

Amongst my MAGA acquaintances, and mostly on account of my unwavering support for arming Ukrainians in defending their country from a Soviet invasion, I have been characterized as everything from an armchair general to a warmonger.  

Naturally, beginning three years ago and following Vladimir Putin's unprovoked assault on Ukraine these same individuals reminded me at most every opportunity that supporting Ukraine's defense was distinctly at odds with candidate Trump's America First platform.  I quote:  'No foreign entanglements', 'We haven't won anything since WWII', 'Donald Trump is the greatest patriot ever' and 'You like war too much'.    

Candidate Trump may have ridden to reelection with a pledge to avoid forever wars yet systematically blowing alleged drug-running vessels and crews out of the Gulf of Mexico, a birthday military parade, deploying the military on America's streets, Houthis in Yemen (Operation Rough Rider), 529 air strikes across the middle east, Africa and central Asia, aerial strikes against Iranian sites last summer including ISIS in Iraq, threats to take Greenland by force, masked and unidentified federal paramilitary forces killing three American citizens, a military toppling of Venezuela's government, seizure of Venezuelan oil at the point of a gun, threats against Cuba, the current Iran war and recent musings to ditch NATO suggest that America First pretty much means whatever President Trump says it is; on any given day.  My impression is it is exceedingly warlike.

I had always figured that MAGA supporters preferred candidate Trump's populist pitch while bemoaning old-school Reagan neocons and their propensity for an assertive foreign policy.  Deservedly or not it is a fact I have been derisively called a neocon; yet the polling seems to suggest that MAGA world agrees-with and, only a short fourteen months into a second term, seems to have developed a powerful thirst for Trumpian military adventurism - both domestically and abroad.  

Just as with the CBS poll, if you dig thru the data, MAGA world is overwhelmingly in favor of mounting a war with Iran; and, when specifically asked if the war counts as an America First policy, only a mere 9% of the president's loyalists say it does not.

The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute's 2025 National Defense Survey reveals that self-identified MAGA supporters were also the most supportive of all sorts of interventions in Taiwan with two-thirds supporting 'committing US forces in defense of Taiwan.'  That doesn't sound like isolationism does it?

Speaking for myself I happen to think that the Iranian Mullahs are a dangerous collection of twisted religious revanchists who would represent a threat to a peaceful world order if they had nukes and the capacity to deliver them.  I generally lose no sleep over dealing with bad actors by means of force.

Nevertheless, dealing with security threats deliberately and with forethought is not the same as impulsiveness.  And the world has no shortage of bad actors.  Most days I think the president has stepped in it this time and unleashed a cascade of destabilizing events that have dangerous consequences for global stability, security and the world's economy.  Let there be no misunderstanding, it is in my own self interest that things somehow work out for the best.  I'm also smart enough to know that five weeks into this the president's excursion is nowhere near a forever war.  Oh; and we don't have the highly-enriched stuff in our possession either.  Yet anyway.  There is that as a denouement.  

I have yet to hear what the exit strategy is.  You?

So for now I think we might be in for a stretch of rising energy costs, inflation and possibly some economic stagnation or contraction.  Only the passage of time will write the end to that chapter.

Meanwhile, there's a pile of the US population becoming grumpy over rising gasoline and diesel, increasing grocery prices due to supply chain disruptions and escalating transportation costs.  I'm beginning to believe that post-election MAGA world doesn't really care about that as much as they did a couple-three years ago.  Nobody's bitching about it at all on social media and not a single sole Trump supporter I speak with on a daily basis has yet to bring it up.  Loyalists are called that for a reason after-all.  Which is just fine; and it is perfectly OK to own what you have wrought.

It has occurred to me this might have something to do with ideological principles; dictated by whatever president Trump tells us to believe and the possibility that the beliefs of some reading this might be insincere.  Which is fine too; people are disingenuous all day long.  I understand that sometimes it is difficult to admit making a mistake.  I get it.  I make mistakes too.  Get over it.  Own it.

Or perhaps at its core the principle is to agree with the president in every respect; even if his actions contradict what he promised in order to get a voter's support.  No matter it damages their business and costs them the actual farm.  On that matter I can only speculate.

So, for any of my MAGA acquaintances reading this; if you want to call me an armchair general or a warmonger; have at it.  Throw neocon my direction for good measure.  I have a thick skin and since you're doing it from the warming glow of your device and not personally to my face I understand the context. Water off a duck's back.  Das macht nichts aus.  

Polling is science.  With growing awareness the rest of the world is learning that MAGA world likes war; and way the heck more than me.  Does MAGA like it too much?  That's hard to know as we're only fourteen months into President Trump's military adventurism.  I think we ain't seen nuthn' yet.  But I'm perfectly happy to be wrong.

I'm old enough to remember back to 1965 when a certain general famously pledged to eschew ground troops and use naval and air power to bomb the Vietnamese - Back into the stone age.  In his April 1st address to the nation it was fascinating to see and hear President Trump invoke the very same oath - verbatim.  Curious about from whom the president is taking his cues? 

A general splendidly associated with ruthless scorched-earth tactics against civilians.

Stay-tuned..... 

Guns Versus Butter

I haven't had much to say about the war with Iran.  On one hand it is easy to come down on the side of regime change or, at a minimum, defanging the regime. The Mullahs are a dangerous collection of twisted religious revanchists who would kill me in a heartbeat for simply being American, Christian or both.  Yup, I am the Great Satan.  Nuclear weapons in the hands of these gangsters is taboo.

On the other hand, my preference would have been for a President to take his case before Congress before going to war.  I am unconvinced of the clear and present danger of an immediate threat as much as I am convinced that the president would have gotten the go-ahead from Congress along with buy-in from the public.  What we got instead was more executive unilateralism.

Almost three weeks into Operation Epic Fury - the war on Iran - the President's promise of prosperity and economic growth in his second term is facing a handful of critical risks that heretofore did not exist.  Going into the new year the current economic condition was basically OK.  Notwithstanding a nonsensical tariff regimen my sense was that the president was counting on a second-term economic agenda of deregulation and tax relief to propel the economy forward.  

In the absence of a Congressional resolution supporting the war, shifting rationales for the war itself and no clearly articulated strategy to end the hostilities at this particular point in time and space there are any number of elements that might conspire to trip-up both the domestic and world economies.

The most immediate of which is the disruption to the energy supply chain.  Even an Iranian 'threat' to shipping via the Strait of Hormuz has caused oil prices to spike impacting everything from gasoline, to LNG and diesel. The domino-effect of this is a spike in inflation pressures as a consequence  higher prices for groceries (transportation and farming costs), airfares and utility pricing.

Wars costs a big pile of money; with the first week alone reported to cost us taxpayers $11.3 billion.  Even if the burn rate settles-in at $1 billion a day the implications for expanding the the federal deficit are huge.  The President and Pentagon are going to come back with hat-in-hand to ask for more money; and the resulting borrowing will crowd-out private investment and lead to calls for raising taxes.   

Iranian threats have disrupted maritime security resulting in the rerouting of shipping, higher insurance premiums and increased freight costs impacting virtually every last consumer good traveling the global supply chain. 

Economists have been setting-off alarm bells that a prolonged conflict could damage business confidence leading to a pause in hiring and capital investment.  A combination of persistently higher energy costs and depressed growth could lead to a 1970s style 'stagflation'.  Naturally, the investment market's response to uncertainty is greater volatility.

I do not believe that an air campaign alone can effect regime change much less political change. Consequently, I'm anxious to know how this gets wrapped-up before it morphs into an unintentional 'forever war'. 

Meanwhile, the resulting energy crisis and fiscal drain have very real implications to our economy, and the world economy writ-large.  The risk for shifting from an expected period of domestic growth to one of stagnation and rising living costs is quite real.

I want policy that improves your and my prosperity and general lot in life.  Along with making the world a safer place.  But what it is ain't exactly clear.  We have not been to a Trump rodeo like this before.

Lock The Clock

If you’re like me this semiannual switch between Standard Time and Daylight Saving Time is madness.  Today I lost an hour of sleep and in November after I set my clock back an hour I’ll still get out of bed in the dark to turn the coffee on.  At the end of the day I’ll pour myself a glass of Merlot in the dark.  This resetting of the clocks is messing with my circadian rhythms.

Daylight Saving Time is associated with the Western world as most countries outside Europe and North America don't observe the ritual. 

Courtesy of CNN research the notion of Daylight Saving Time has a curious pedigree.

1784 - The idea of daylight saving is first conceived by Benjamin Franklin.

1914-1918 - Britain goes on DLS during World War I.

March 19, 1918 - The Standard Time Act establishes time zones and daylight saving. Daylight saving is repealed in 1919, but continues to be recognized in certain areas of the United States.

1945-1966 - There is no federal law regarding Daylight Saving Time.

1966 - The Uniform Time Act of 1966 establishes the system of uniform Daylight Saving Time throughout the United States. The dates are the last Sunday in April to the last Sunday in October. States can exempt themselves from participation.

1974-1975 - Congress extends DLS in order to save energy during the energy crisis.

1986-2006 - Daylight Saving Time begins on the first Sunday in April and ends on the last Sunday in October.

August 8, 2005 - President George W. Bush signs the Energy Policy Act of 2005 into law. Part of the act will extend Daylight Saving Time starting in 2007, from the second Sunday in March to the first Sunday in November. 

 

In 2022, the Senate unanimously approved the Sunshine Protection Act which would make daylight saving time permanent.  The House did not pass it and then-President Biden did not sign it.  Whether the second session of the 119th Congress will pass the Sunshine Protection Act of 2025 remains to be seen.  H.R. 139/S. 29 has not passed as of this moment.  The legislation, which proposes making daylight saving time permanent, was introduced in January 2025 but has remained stalled in committee, with low chances of passing, according to GovTrack.us and GovTrack.us. 

 

As for making Daylight Savings Time permanent there is evidence that the frequency of heart attack and stroke increases around the ritual resetting of clocks twice a year.  Benefits of Daylight Savings Time enhance public safety and make better economic sense.  Proponents of Daylight Saving Time argue that most people appreciate an increase in daylight hours after coming home from work.  

Speaking for myself - I like the notion of longer, lighter evenings and a happier more prosperous United States.  I like my clock precisely where it is.   

Make it permanent. 

 

Lock the clock.

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. 

 

 

How To Blow-up The Budget

From the WSJ there is this.

According to projections from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) U.S. debt will rise to more than 100% of U.S. gross Domestic product (GDP) before the end of this year. 

Debt held by the public will balloon to more than $56 trillion by 2036 as annual deficits continue to mount, according to the latest projections from the Congressional Budget Office.  By later this year, the federal debt held by the public is expected to surpass the size of the entire U.S. economy.

The main drivers:  increased spending on entitlement programs as the nation's population ages as well as rising costs related to paying interest on the debt itself.  Republicans have taken issue with the projections, suggesting the CBO's assumptions on economic growth are too low.

Here's a closer look at the numbers, in five easy charts.

The CBO projects that the annual U.S. budget deficit will top $3 trillion by fiscal year 2036. The deficit was briefly that high when the federal government spent heavily during the Covid-19 pandemic. 

By fiscal year 2036, the deficit will hit 6.7% of GDP, up from 5.8% in 2025.

Social Security and Medicare costs will drive mandatory spending to 15% of GDP by fiscal year 2036. Mounting debt will increase spending on net interest to nearly 5% of GDP.

CBO projects a $23 trillion deficit from 2026 to 2035, up around $1.4 trillion from its last projection. Tariff revenue will only partly offset effects of the GOP’s ‘one big, beautiful’ tax law.*

Debt held by the public will surpass 100% of GDP this year and is projected to exceed 120% by fiscal year 2036.

 *Projected revenues generated by import taxes are uncertain as a consequence of the recent SCOTUS decision.

  

If Only The Dead Could Talk

Ruben Ray Martinez, a 23-year-old U.S. citizen, was killed last year by an ICE agent, with the Department of Homeland Security accusing him of having struck an ICE agent with their vehicle. However, DHS’ account of the incident was fiercely disputed by Martinez’ childhood friend, Joshua Orta, who was present during the encounter and claimed neither had offered any resistance to ICE officers’ demands.

On Saturday, Orta died in an unrelated car crash while driving in San Antonio, Texas, with his stepfather confirming his death to the New York Times on Monday.

 

If Only The Dead Could Talk

Originally reported on Wednesday by Newsweek we learned of another Immigration and Customs Enforcement connection to the shooting death of an American citizen in March of 2025.  A shooting death kept from public scrutiny until only last week.

Coincidentally, and leading up to this, a review of internal emails obtained under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) indicate that senior Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials were informed of a significant rise in reported use-of-force incidents compared to the previous year.  In this case incidents in early March alone had quadrupled year-over year.  

Now the public learns of 23-year-old Ruben Ray Martinez shot last March in South Padre Island.  ICE's involvement in the shooting was not disclosed to the public until this last week.  

According to ICE documents, the episode, which occurred around 12:40 AM on March 15, 2025, Mr. Martinez failed to follow commands to exit his vehicle. Martinez initially did not follow officers' instructions but eventually slowed to a stop after receiving verbal commands.  Agents surrounded the vehicle and told him to get out of the car before he accelerated and hit a federal agent who reportedly landed on the hood of the vehicle.  Another agent then fired multiple times through the driver's side window.  

The Department of Homeland Security described the shooting as an act of self-defense, saying the agent had "fired defensive shots to protect himself, his fellow agents and the general public" after the driver "ran over" a Homeland Security Investigation special agent.

That agent was treated and released for a minor knee injury.  Martinez is dead.

According to Homeland Security Department policy an immigration agent is supposed to use deadly force only if the officer has reasonable belief that the subject poses an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.  Furthermore, the policy specifically states that officers should avoid placing themselves in positions in which they have no other option but to use deadly force.  

In ICE's own reporting this appears another instance of ICE agents not complying with department policy concerning placement of personnel in connection to apprehended vehicles.  Haven't we seen this before?

ICE has not reported the existence of dash cam or body cam video of the incident and no known public video has come forward.  Martinez had been celebrating his birthday with a friend known since elementary school.  He was employed at an Amazon warehouse in San Antonio and had no known criminal or arrest record at the time of this post.

Some will take exception to my view on this subject but I happen to believe federal agents concealing their faces behind a mask and not wearing identification is a bad look.  They need to be up-front like law enforcement we're all accustomed-to.  A sinister look invites nothing but trouble.  Sure, a few of you will tell me about doxing of federal agents.  But you know what?  If rampant doxing was as big as you might imagine, then all law enforcement everywhere would be masked all the time.  

It's not.  

Where I live law enforcement officers wear a badge with a number, including a name tag and rank, they don't hide behind a mask and produce a business card before we part company.  They're professionals and go about their job like professionals.  They're so good at their job they never, never, ever stand in front of a stopped vehicle.  Even I know not to do this.  Your local LEOs are likely identical to mine.  But I digress and apologize for the cheap shot.

Do you know what is an even bigger bad look than masked federal agents?  

Another of our countrymen gunned-down by a federal agent.  

Naturally, there's that small handful of my acquaintances who will bask in their ghoulish reflected glory over this and crow on social media about how Martinez had it coming and it was all his fault.  Nevertheless, I figure most people reading this are standard-issue citizens who understand that federal agents shooting Americans to death is just, plain, smarmy.  It looks terrible and doesn't poll well.  

Moreover, the image of the best professional ICE agents suffer because of this nonsense.  From the top down the reputation and credibility of the entire department suffers.  If, as a consequence, agency leadership comes-across as evasive or furtive the public will take notice and the people will mutter about it.  None of this is rocket science.  Hearts and minds; it is all about winning in the court of public opinion. Appearance counts for a lot.  

So, what do we know for sure? 

Martinez is dead and cannot speak for himself.  This is conspiracy fodder.

No dash cams, no body cams, no identification or accountability for the shooter.  Unheard-of in the world of professional law enforcement this is sloppy meatball policing for sure.  If this is a deliberate policy to never leave a digital trail; that is a really bad look.  (See about conspiracy above)   

How about the boss?  Yup, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem hiding this from the public as long as she has.  Or is this just another oversize example of garden-variety incompetence?  Both looks are really bad; the former is much worse than the latter.  

Hidden from the public for a year.  Sloppy or deliberate?  Reader's Choice - you pick.  

What are they hiding from us anyway?

Fools and Lapdogs

The U.S. merchandise trade deficit hit a record $1.2 trillion last year, despite President Donald Trump’s promise to eliminate it by imposing the highest tariffs in eight decades on foreign-made products.

Thursday’s Commerce Department report represents the first full-year assessment of the president’s ambitious reordering of global trade. The persistence of the deficit in the face of steep new taxes on imports from China, the European Union and scores of other nations reflects the limits of Trump’s blunt policy tool.

As expected, the Supreme Court today nullified Donald Trump's signature economic policy this morning in a ruling that invalidated the president's arbitrary and capricious imposition of trillions of dollars of import taxes on our trading partners around the world.  

Naturally, the President's response was to be presidential and call the justices fools and lapdogs for ruling against him on tariffs.    

 

Back in August the president threatened the court stating that this ruling would: Literally destroy the United States of America. 

Well, it's happened and in the long term we're all likely to be better-off for the ruling.  Tariffs, on their own, are not likely to raise-up or destroy the country inasmuch as imported goods account for only about ten percent of our total economy.  Because we are largely a service economy tariffs don't have much direct impact on things like education and healthcare.  Manufacturing constitutes less than ten percent of the US economy.

Nevertheless, the imposition of import taxes at the sky-high levels the administration imposed are a tax on all consumers, business and manufacturers shrinking the country's Gross Domestic Product by an estimated .3 percent per year. If you put a number on that it amounts to roughly $90 billion a year in losses. That isn't insignificant but nowhere close enough to destroy America.  It just raises everyone's cost of living, jeopardizes farmers, ranchers, small business and contributes to inflation.

So where is this all going to lead us?  Too early to tell but I suppose there are companies for whom imports are a necessary part of doing business; and they're going to want a tax refund. 

Meanwhile, I guess none of us are getting the tariff dividend we were promised and the income tax isn't going to be replaced by tariff revenue.  Of course the DOGE dividend never showed-up in my checking account either.  

Money talks, baloney walks.....

Reflections

This year the NFL is expanding its international series to a record eight regular-season games across five countries: Spain (Madrid), Germany (Munich), Brazil (Rio de Janeiro), the UK (three games in London), France (Paris), and Australia (Melbourne). These games will feature match-ups in new cities, including the first-ever game in France and Australia.​ 

It is no secret the NFL wants to make their product a global brand.  People from other countries who might not even use English as a primary language are going to figure significantly in NFL marketing.  Old white guys like me need to get over it because we're not a target market. 

The NFL brand is a business and I don't think they care what the current occupant of the White House thinks about their business model. 

Why?   

The NFL wants to expand their brand beyond our borders. The NFL wants to grow profits.  The NFL is bigger than Trump. The NFL will be around long after Trump is gone.

​If I were a fly on the wall of the NFL's boardroom I'd likely learn they're tickled-silly that everyone's jabbering this week about record viewership of a halftime performance interrupted by a thoroughly forgettable game.

Sayonara

That didn’t take long at all.

Border Czar Tom Homan is arriving in Minneapolis today.

Homan is a cooler head with a steady hand who’s worked under multiple administrations and is a solid career law enforcement guy.  He oversaw and shepherded Obama's record-breaking deportation of undocumented criminals, security and terrorism suspects without the loss of any US citizen or other civilian lives as a consequence of deportation operations.

Lessee if Homan can wrangle the shitshow Bovino and Noem have unleashed on Minneapolis before any more asshat masked ICE paramilitaries kill another of our countrymen.

Meanwhile, Greg Bovino has been immediately relieved of command for unspecified legal, operational and safety reasons.    

Good riddance.  

 

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?