The Greenland Deal

Last week we learned the details of the 2026 security agreement between Greenland, Denmark and the United States.  

What it is.  It is a continuation and expansion of the 1951 Defense of Greenland Agreement.

What it's not.  It is not a full replacement or a land acquisition. 

Core points: 

• Dropping previous talk of the U.S. buying the island it respects Danish sovereignty and Greenland's right to self-determination while introducing several major new clauses that go far beyond the original Cold War pact. 

• Building-upon the existing U.S. Pituffik Space Force Base, the agreement authorizes two new U.S.bases at Narsarsuaq and Mestersvig along with expanding air, maritime and undersea operation rights across Greenland.

• Non-EU and non-NATO nations are expressly banned from holding a major stake in sensitive infrastructure, mineral rights, or opening military facilities.

• The U.S. has direct input on screening foreign investments requiring consensus before outside invests occur.

• Unlike typical treaties with renewal periods this agreement has no expiration date and applies permanently - even if Greenland eventually votes for complete independence from the Kingdom of Denmark. 

• The expanded footprint supports U.S. polar early-warning systems and a broader NATO posture in the arctic to counter Russia and China.

Score one for the good guys and NATO.  Just goes to show going about it diplomatically produces positive results.

_______________________________________________ 

As the Cold War began and the threat of nuclear attack became ever more real, the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark agreed that Greenland would host three American airbases to counter the nuclear threat from the Soviet Union. 

Read about Project Iceworm here.

What Drives Energy Prices?

It has been interesting to me to be a casual observer to some of my FB acquaintances seizing upon the president's current dilemma with a Middle East War to take a cheap shot at him over this year's rise in energy prices.  While at the same time, other of my FB acquaintances have felt it necessary to personally come to the president's defense over the turmoil in the energy markets.  As if any of this profligate use of bandwidth is going to change anything.

Both camps seem to have seized upon the superficial idea that presidents directly control the price of a barrel of oil, natural gas or refined commodities like gasoline and diesel.

As a recovering financial guy I will tell you that the President doesn't have a secret lair in the White House bunker where they can dial the price up or down for any of this. 

So, what does impact the pricing of energy?

Global supply and demand primarily.  Oil is a global commodity.  A sudden surge in global demand or interruption of supply pushes prices up worldwide.  The opposite happens with a sudden drop in demand or surge in supply.  Natural gas has increased it's share of the global energy market with the growth in trade of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG).  Nevertheless, because natural gas in North America moves through regional pipelines this build-in infrastructure restriction means that pricing remains local; not global. 

 

As for oil, geopolitics and supply chains play a critical role.  Conflicts such as wars, refinery bottlenecks, shipping interruptions and even pandemics can impact prices.

OPEC+ is a producer group that can exert substantial influence over oil prices. It meets, determines production targets and changes in output can materially affect the global supply-demand balance.  

Gasoline is more complicated.   There are four principle contributors to higher gas prices.  In May of 2026, for example, roughly 52%, of the cost of a gallon of gasoline was the price of crude oil.  Rule of Thumb:  Every dollar increase in a barrel of crude = 2.4 cent increase in the cost per gallon.  Refining and profit margin are 22%, state and federal taxes 12%, followed by distribution and marketing at 15%.  The percentages don’t add up to a perfect 100% on account of rounding, but you get my drift. 

Differences in state and local taxes, seasonal blend changes, refinery economics, transportation costs and regional supply constraints explain inequities in pump prices across state lines.  All of the foregoing elements create even more layers between the Oval Office and the pump.  The crux of the matter is there is no single government entity that sets your retail price.

Insofar as a president's impact on this it is a fact they can influence energy markets - sometimes significantly - but they cannot control them.  

Consider this. 

Sanctions and export licensing are fast-acting tools; blunt and mostly geopolitical.  Sanctions on a major producer, or easing them, can move the price of crude within days and weeks.  Same for tariffs that raise input costs or tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). 

Unlike short-term emergency fixes that offer temporary relief; policy shifts take time to affect markets.  Production tools such as leasing, permitting and environmental regulations that people argue about are slow-acting.  Federal lands and waters account for roughly a quarter of domestic oil production, so federal leasing and permitting matter; but their impact on national oil prices are neither immediate nor one-for-one.

The use of the SPR is the closest thing to a dial in a White House bunker except it's a release valve for a fixed, finite inventory; not a tool to influence long term prices.  The 2022 release - roughly 180 million barrels over several months in response to Russia's invasion of Ukraine - is a real life example.  

The SPR's impact comes from both the physical addition of supply and the market signal that additional supply is available.  But it is a short-term tool, not a way to permanently alter the underlying supply-demand balance. It is also self-limiting. The SPR is not bottomless and a big release constrains the next president's options; so it's fast but not free. 

Finally, oil is an odd duck because prices don't simply reflect immediate supply and demand. Market expectations play a role. Traders price-in what they expect supply and demand to look like in the future.  That is why even a threat to shipping through the Strait of Hormuz, an expected production cut, an anticipated refinery outage or an announcement of an SPR release can move prices before a single barrel actually changes hands. 

Blaming or thanking the current or former occupant of the White House for what you pay at the pump makes for social media click bait but does not take into account the clout of global market economics and other more nuanced influences.

Anything else is magical, wishful thinking.

Learn more here:   https://www.eia.gov/petroleum/gasdiesel/

Deficits, Debts and a Ticking Bond Bomb

A not-so-funny thing happened on the way to the accountant: by the end of August, gross federal debt had topped $40 trillion, reaching roughly $40.2 trillion—considerably sooner than many forecasts had anticipated.

The reasons are familiar: tax cuts and other provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill, the escalating and largely unbudgeted costs of Mr. Trump's war in the Middle East, and the potential need to refund roughly $166 billion in tariffs collected under an authority the Supreme Court ruled the president did not possess. The Court's decision specifically concerned tariffs imposed under IEEPA; it did not eliminate the president's other statutory tariff authorities.

Because the debt is growing and the statutory borrowing limit is $41.1 trillion, forecasters expect Treasury to run into the ceiling sometime in 2027—potentially as early as late winter. Exactly when that happens is uncertain, and hitting the ceiling is not the same thing as immediately defaulting; Treasury has extraordinary measures available once the limit is reached.

The last major bipartisan effort of this sort was the Simpson-Bowles Commission in 2010. Its plan came within three votes of the 14 needed to send it forward to Congress for consideration. Sixteen years later, no comparable comprehensive effort has taken place.

There are plenty of theories, but I should think that because tackling this issue would require difficult choices about Social Security, Medicare, defense and taxes, nobody—from the President on down the line—has the cojones to take it on.

Consequently, net interest costs are now roughly $1 trillion a year—money going to service prior borrowing rather than being available for other priorities. We are financing the financing. And before too long, the chickens will come home to roost.

Treasury Secretary Bessent has had his hands full with the 10-year U.S. Treasury bond yield reaching levels not seen in years. Japan's 10-year bond has also risen sharply, while German, French and UK bond yields have climbed. Seems plenty of countries share the problem of higher borrowing costs amid elevated debt, inflation and other fiscal pressures.

In a fit of pique, Mr. Trump continues to pressure the Fed chairman to lower interest rates. In a social media post following the August jobs report, the president said he would stop trading with countries with which the United States has a trade deficit if the Fed doesn't lower interest rates. That's a head-scratcher, eh?

At the G-20 finance meeting last week, Bessent suggested that the world is “awash in debt” and that the only way out is to “grow our way out.”

But as I pointed out in the first two paragraphs, the existing debt and additional borrowing under Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill make economic growth alone an exceedingly difficult solution for the U.S. and other highly indebted economies.

The national debt is skyrocketing under Trump 2.0, as it did during his first term. The important point isn't assigning the entire debt to one president; it's that the fiscal trajectory remains upward, with large structural deficits adding to the accumulated debt.

Meanwhile, last week Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent announced that his department would increase its purchases of longer-term Treasury securities as part of its buyback program. Treasury describes the program primarily as a way to improve liquidity in the longer-dated bond market. Theoretically, buying bonds reduces the supply available to investors, pushing their prices higher and their yields lower.

The market shrugged.

The 10-year Treasury yield rose, while longer-term yields remained elevated. The 30-year yield subsequently moved above 5.3 percent as the global bond sell-off intensified.

Some days I think that, like Mr. Trump, Scott Bessent thinks he's smarter than the rest of us. While Trump may have bamboozled a sufficiently large enough chunk of the electorate, Bessent will have a tougher time of it putting one over on the bond market.

Here's what I think the markets see:

This administration lacks the basic competence to manage its own affairs, including finances. Long-standing alliances disrupted. Tariffs applied and withdrawn on a whim. Bullying prestigious colleges, universities, technical publications and the press. Threats made regarding Greenland and Canada, attacks on Venezuela and Cuba.  And Mr. Trump's war in the Middle East, which has set in motion a cascade of destabilizing events with all manner of consequences for global stability, security, energy prices and the world economy.

Yet there are vanity projects like a ballroom, an airborne Qatari palace, a reflecting-pool fiasco and a triumphal arch.

That's what I think the market sees.

 

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.