Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Politics & Religion / Re: Trump Adminstration 2.0, Scott Bessent
« Last post by DougMacG on November 22, 2024, 08:07:42 PM »
I'm hearing of some great picks for the new Administration. But from what I read, I'm disappointed at first glance with the new Secretary of the Treasury, although I guess that decision is not final.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/09/donald-trump-cabinet-picks/76140063007/

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Bessent

His plan I hear is based on the economic plan of former Japanese leader Shinzo Abe (ah-bay) , the three arrows.

https://www.adb.org/publications/three-arrows-abenomics-and-structural-reform-japan-inflation-targeting-policy-central#:~:text=Abenomics%20has%20%22three%20arrows%22%3A,and%20expanding%20social%20welfare%20expenses.

I like the Kudlow choice or whoever he would recommend. Maybe EJ Antoni
https://www.heritage.org/staff/ej-antoni
Casey Mulligan,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casey_B._Mulligan
Dan Mitchell
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Mitchell
How about a smart, strong woman, https://www.mercatus.org/scholars/veronique-de-rugy

Thomas Sowell is 94.  Maybe he's available.

Hey Trump, are you reading the forum?
2
Politics & Religion / The Political Reframing of Education & All it Wrought
« Last post by Body-by-Guinness on November 22, 2024, 06:40:52 PM »
A wee bit of long overdue reflection from an English professor. Think it’s tepid, pulls punches, and doesn’t dive deeply enough into the arrogant pathology he’s speaking to. Nonetheless I expect he’ll be utterly excoriated in ed biz circles:

We Asked for It

Michael Clune

Over the past 10 years, I have watched in horror as academe set itself up for the existential crisis that has now arrived. Starting around 2014, many disciplines — including my own, English — changed their mission. Professors began to see the traditional values and methods of their fields — such as the careful weighing of evidence and the commitment to shared standards of reasoned argument — as complicit in histories of oppression. As a result, many professors and fields began to reframe their work as a kind of political activism.

In reading articles and book manuscripts for peer review, or in reviewing files when conducting faculty job searches, I found that nearly every scholar now justifies their work in political terms. This interpretation of a novel or poem, that historical intervention, is valuable because it will contribute to the achievement of progressive political goals. Nor was this change limited to the humanities. Venerable scientific journals — such as Nature — now explicitly endorse political candidates; computer-science and math departments present their work as advancing social justice. Claims in academic arguments are routinely judged in terms of their likely political effects.

The costs of explicitly tying the academic enterprise to partisan politics in a democracy were eminently foreseeable and are now coming into sharp focus. Public opinion of higher education is at an all-time low. The incoming Trump administration plans to use the accreditation process to end the politicization of higher education — and to tax and fine institutions up to “100 percent” of their endowment. I believe these threats are serious because of a simple political calculation of my own: If Trump announced that he was taxing wealthy endowments down to zero, the majority of Americans would stand up and cheer.

This crisis comes at a time in which colleges are ill-equipped to mount a defense. How did this happen?

Let’s take a closer look at why the identification of academic politics with partisan politics is so wrongheaded. I am not interested here in questioning the validity of the political positions staked out by academics over the past decade — on race, immigration, biological sex, Covid, or Donald Trump. Even if one wholeheartedly agrees with every faculty-lounge political opinion, there are still very good reasons to be skeptical about making such opinions the basis of one’s academic work.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
The first is that, while academics have real expertise in their disciplines, we have no special expertise when it comes to political judgment. I am an English professor. I know about the history of literature, the practice of close reading, and the dynamics of literary judgment. No one should treat my opinion on any political matter as more authoritative than that of any other person. The spectacle of English professors pontificating to their captive classroom audiences on the evils of capitalism, the correct way to deal with climate change, or the fascist tendencies of their political opponents is simply an abuse of power.

The spectacle of English professors pontificating to their captive classroom audiences on the evils of capitalism, the correct way to address climate change, or the fascist tendencies of their political opponents is simply an abuse of power.
The second problem with thinking of a professor’s work in explicitly political terms is that professors are terrible at politics. This is especially true of professors at elite colleges. Professors who — like myself — work in institutions that pride themselves on rejecting 70 to 95 percent of their applicants, and whose students overwhelmingly come from the upper reaches of the income spectrum, are simply not in the best position to serve as spokespeople for left-wing egalitarian values.

As someone who was raised in a working-class, immigrant family, academe first appeared to me as a world in which everyone’s views seemed calculated to distinguish themselves from the working class. This is bad enough when those views concern art or esoteric anthropology theories. But when they concern everyday morality and partisan politics, the results are truly perverse. In return for their tuition, students are given the faculty’s high-class political opinions as a form of cultural capital. Thus the public perceives these opinions — on defunding the police, or viewing biological sex as a social construction, or Israel as absolute evil — as markers in a status game. Far from advancing their opinions, professors in fact function to invalidate these views for the majority of Americans who never had the opportunity to attend elite institutions but who are constantly stigmatized for their low-class opinions by the lucky graduates.

Far from representing a powerful avant-garde leading the way to political change, the politicized class of professors is a serious political liability to any party that it supports. The hierarchical structure of academe, and the role it plays in class stratification, clings to every professor’s political pronouncement like a revolting odor. My guess is that the successful Democrats of the future will seek to distance themselves as far as possible from the bespoke jargon and pedantic tone that has constituted the professoriate’s signal contribution to Democratic politics. Nothing would so efficiently invalidate conservative views with working-class Americans than if every elite college professor was replaced by a double who conceived of their work in terms of activism for right-wing ideas. Professors are bad at politics, and politicized professors are bad for their own politics.

If we have a political role by virtue of our jobs, that role derives from dedicated practice in the disciplines in which we are experts. Teaching students how to weigh evidence, giving them the capacity to follow a mathematical proof, disciplining their tendency to project their own values onto the object of study — these practices may not have the direct and immediate political payoff that has been the professoriate’s reigning delusion over the past decade. But they have two overwhelming advantages.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
First, a chemist, or an art historian, really does possess authority in their subject of expertise. They can show us things we couldn’t learn on our own. This genuine authority is the basis for the university’s claim to public respect and support.

Second, the dissemination of academic values regarding evidence and reasoned debate can have powerful indirect effects. I have argued, for instance, that even so apparently apolitical a practice as teaching students to appreciate great literature can act as a bulwark against the reduction of all values to consumer preference. The scientific and humanistic education of an informed citizenry may not in itself solve climate change or end xenophobia, but it can contribute to these goals in ways both dramatic and subtle. In any case, such a political role is the only one that is both sustainable in a democracy and compatible with our professional status as researchers and educators.

It would be wrong to place the blame for the university’s current dire straits entirely on the shoulders of activist professors. While virtually all professors (I include myself) have surrendered, to at least some degree, to the pressure to justify our work in political terms — whether in grant applications, book proposals, or department statements about political topics — in many cases the core of our work has continued to be the pursuit of knowledge. The primary responsibility for the university’s abject vulnerability to looming political interference of the most heavy-handed kind falls on administrators. Their job is to support academic work and communicate its benefits. Yet they seem perversely committed to identifying academe as closely as possible with political projects.

The most obvious example is the routine proclamations from university presidents and deans on every conceivable political issue. In response to events such as the election of Donald Trump in 2016 and the murder of George Floyd in 2020, administrators broadcast identifiably partisan views as representative of the university as a whole. This trend has mercifully diminished in the wake of the disastrous House of Representatives hearings on antisemitism that led to the dismissal of Harvard president Claudine Gay and others. But the conception of the university as a vehicle for carrying out specific political ends continues in less visible ways.

For instance, recent years have seen a proliferation of high-level administrators given the task of instituting what amounts to a “shadow curriculum” of student and faculty training, the content of which is the explicit transmission and enforcement of controversial political views about race, gender, sexuality, and power. Even more unsettling has been the cloud of unknowing that has descended over the political imperatives governing faculty and administrative hiring practices.

ADVERTISEMENT
 
I will give an example from my own work as chair of several faculty search committees over the past two years. At a mandatory training session, I was told by the university’s diversity officer that I was to use candidates’ diversity statements as a means of ascertaining candidates’ racial identity. Yet at another training session, I was told that I was not to base hiring decisions on knowledge of candidates’ racial identity.

Chairing a search-committee meeting in which faculty members were openly discussing candidates’ race, I wondered aloud if what we were doing was illegal. I then received a stern email from the diversity dean telling me that it was unacceptable to raise the question of the legality of the university’s practices. I then asked what those practices were. How, in fact, does the university want us to take account of race? I never received a reply.

When I did meet with the dean, my questions were repeatedly turned aside by references to our “shared values.” But what are these values? What links the work of a professor who conceives of her job as climate activism, to a student-orientation leader teaching that the term “illegal immigration” is a microaggression, to the search committee deciding that this person from a minority group is a good candidate while that one is not? The thread is a shared commitment to a particular brand of partisan politics. If this is truly what the university stands for, if these are our values, then when we are called before our elected representatives to answer for ourselves, what can we say? Colleges have no compelling justification for their existence to give when the opposing political party comes into power. We have nothing to say to the half of America who doesn’t share our politics.

I believe administrators and professors should articulate a different set of shared values, stemming from our demonstrated expertise and commitment to high standards of evidence and argument. This expertise and this commitment are the grounds of the academic freedom by which we claim to pursue knowledge without fear of political pressure.

The good news is that these values animate what most professors, in most disciplines, do every day. The bad news is that the time to share this news with the nation is rapidly running out.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/we-asked-for-it
3
Politics & Religion / Local PD v. ICE & the Feds?
« Last post by Body-by-Guinness on November 22, 2024, 06:05:33 PM »
2nd post. Lines being drawn regarding deportation of illegals from “sanctuary cities.” Be interesting to see who blinks. My guess is few of these posers will opt to eat a harboring charge:

https://legalinsurrection.com/2024/11/denver-mayor-willing-to-use-city-police-to-thwart-ice-create-tiananmen-square-moment/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=denver-mayor-willing-to-use-city-police-to-thwart-ice-create-tiananmen-square-moment
5
Politics & Religion / The MSM, its Lies, and its Waning Impunity
« Last post by Body-by-Guinness on November 22, 2024, 04:06:22 PM »
2nd post. One of the victims of the Kavanaugh witch hunt unloads on the WaPo editor that was and is one of its prime movers, and in doing so gives us a peek behind the MSM curtain:

The Cowardice of Modern Journalism

NOVEMBER 22, 2024BY MARK JUDGE

It shouldn’t still surprise me. But it does.

Marty Baron, the “legendary” editor who ran the Washington Post from 2012 to 2021, writes about me in his 2023 memoir, Collision of Power: Trump, Bezos, and The Washington Post.
 
For almost a year, I have been calling Baron out on social media and formally requesting that he give me space in his paper to defend myself against what he wrote. Because Marty Baron is a coward, he will not answer me.

This surprises me because I grew up the son of a journalist and in the days when my father was in the game, a person was given an opportunity—usually long before publication time—to defend himself when a journalist mentioned him in a negative light. I realize, now, that I’m probably naïve and that these people are scum.

Baron recently came to mind because he just did an interview on NPR—where else? —in which he conjured the bogeyman of President Trump cracking down on the press. “I think [Trump’s] salivating for the opportunity to prosecute and imprison journalists for leaks of national security information—or what they would call national security information,” Baron told Terry Gross.

“I would expect that he would deny funding to public radio … and TV. And that he will seek to exercise control over the Voice of America and its parent company, the U.S. Agency for Global Media, as he did in his previous administration, trying to turn it into a propaganda outlet.”

Oh Marty, get bent. No one is buying the self-aggrandizing bit where you play the victim, the courageous, fourth-estate warrior who defies big government. You’re Stephen Glass with a beard.

In 2018, I was at the center of a political storm when a woman named Christine Blasey Ford claimed that I had been in the room when she was allegedly sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh in 1982, when Brett and I were 17 and in high school. The accusation inflamed the nation and upended my life. I have written about it a lot in the last six years, but as long as orcs like Marty Baron are going to mention by name in their books and articles, I’m going to respond. You can turn the page or click away, and God knows I’m tired of reliving it. But as long as I have a platform, when a fool like Marty Baron speaks my name I am going to be there to defend it.

Baron spends a good part of Collision of Power writing about the Kavanaugh nomination. He mentions me when he cites a letter that Blasey Ford had written saying that Kavanaugh “with the assistance of a friend, Mark G. Judge,” had been involved in her assault.

Had Baron read my book or any of the many columns I’ve written about the ordeal, he would know that even something as small as Ford referring to me as “Mark G. Judge” is a tell. Mark G. Judge was a byline I used when I was a younger journalist. Ford’s casual use of it in that letter suggests that someone was doing opposition research about me and Brett, not referring to someone she actually knew. It’s a small detail, maybe lost in the fact that Ford could not remember the “when” or the “where” of the alleged attack, but it is something Woodward and Bernstein would have noticed.

In my book The Devil’s Triangle, I reveal the opposition researchers Ford was working with, how the idea that she was a “reluctant witness” is a lie, and take The Washington Post apart piece by piece. Baron does not have the integrity to mention a single article I have written on the subject. He does not mention my book. He does heap praise on Emma Brown, the Post reporter who broke the Blasey Ford story. Baron writes: “The Post’s reporter, Emma Brown, had focused single-mindedly on getting the facts right and checking out Ford’s account as best she could under the circumstances at the time.”

Wrong. In The Washington Post piece published by Brown on Sept. 16, 2018, there was also no mention of Leland Keyser. Keyser was a close friend of Ford’s, who Ford claimed was present at the party where the alleged assault took place. Brown omitted Keyser from her story. Kimberly Strassel at The Wall Street Journal noticed this and asked: “Why is there no mention of Leland Keyser in the official Post piece? Why didn’t Post reporter Emma Brown mention Keyser, who according to Ford was at the party in question?”

On Sept. 22, almost a week later, The Washington Post answered. From Fox News :

“Ford, the Post acknowledged in an article by reporter Emma Brown on Saturday, had told the paper more than a week ago about Keyser and said ‘she did not think Keyser would remember the party because nothing remarkable had happened there, as far as Keyser was aware.’ But the Post did not mention Keyser specifically or Ford’s preemptive dismissal of her memory in its original recounting of Ford’s allegations, a bombshell story that has threatened to upend Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation. The story mentioned only that ‘Ford named two other teenagers who she said were at the party’ and that [t]hose individuals did not respond to messages on Sunday morning.”

In 2018 Marty Baron’s Washington Post also did a profile of a guy named Mike Sacks. Sacks, a comedy writer, talked to the paper about what it was like growing up outside of Washington, D.C., with Brett and I. There was only one problem. Mike Sacks, by his own admission, has never laid eyes on me, Brett Kavanaugh, or any of our friends.

Yes, The Washington Post ran a story detailing the misadventures of Brett Kavanaugh and me in the 1980s, sourced by a man who had never met either one of us. There was also the ridiculous hit piece about our underground high school newspaper featuring deep dives into pressing matters like which movies we watched  during those years. All of this chatter, of course, was intended to portray Kavanaugh and me as something we were not. We were smeared and set up, and Marty Baron’s paper is largely to blame.

There was a brief media maelstrom before the election when The Washington Post, owned by Jeff Bezos, refused to endorse a candidate. Baron got so upset he went on MSNBC to take it to Ali Velshi. After talking nonsense about “the wall between news and editorial” at the Post, Baron criticized the paper for not endorsing Harris. He claims that the decision to not endorse “was made by Jeff Bezos and the circumstances are highly suspect.” Nothing about Russiagate was considered suspect. Nothing about Post columnist Jennifer Rubin’s obvious mental health decline is suspect. And nothing about the reporting on me and Brett Kavanaugh allegedly drugging and gang raping girls was suspect. Marty feels that “the practices and principles” of the great paper have suffered as a result of the non-endorsement, not from its inability to do journalism.

“When [Trump] talks about his triumphs during his first term,” Baron told NPR,

“he’s cited the undermining confidence in the mainstream press—he’s called it one of his greatest successes. … It’s not the only reason the confidence in the press has declined. There are a variety of reasons. … But the big factors have been market fragmentation and the fact that people can find any site that affirms their preexisting point of view and any conspiracy theory, no matter how crazy it is, they can find somebody who says that’s true.”

Well, I know this much is true: You’re a coward, Marty. Subscriptions are down, Trump has been elected, Joe Rogan gets 10 times your audience. As Washington Post publisher and CEO Will Lewis bluntly put it, “people aren’t reading your stuff.” It’s over. Even so, my offer stands: have the balls to let me defend myself in your dying newspaper. It’s an honor thing.

https://chroniclesmagazine.org/web/the-cowardice-of-modern-journalism/
6
Politics & Religion / Strassel: The lessons from Gaetz
« Last post by Crafty_Dog on November 22, 2024, 03:57:55 PM »
Donald Trump’s pick for attorney general, former Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz, withdrew on Thursday, barely a week after being nominated. There are lessons here, ones the gung-ho Trump team could benefit from internalizing as it continues filling out key posts.


Gaetz defenders are already attempting to blame this flameout on smears, or on hard feelings over Mr. Gaetz’s ouster of Speaker Kevin McCarthy, or on Republican spinelessness. Mr. Gaetz in his withdrawal statement insisted he was “unfairly” targeted. Whatever the Trump team says publicly, it would be unwise for it to fall for those excuses privately. Mr. Gaetz’s liabilities were all his own, and it was those liabilities that burnt down his confirmation.

The biggest was obviously the recently concluded House Ethics Committee investigation into a long list of allegations against Mr. Gaetz, including (from a June committee statement) “sexual misconduct and/or illicit drug use, shared inappropriate images or videos on the House floor, misused state identification records, converted campaign funds to personal use, and/or accepted a bribe, improper gratuity, or impermissible gift.” The claims weren’t limited to the allegations of sexual trafficking previously investigated by the Justice Department.

Mr. Gaetz looks to have convinced Mr. Trump that these probes were no different from the partisan Democratic allegations and lawsuits aimed at the former president—or, as Mr. Gaetz wrote this week, his own “Steele dossier.” That claim was always ludicrous. Even if one is to buy that a broad team of career prosecutors were plotting to take down Mr. Gaetz (a plot that failed spectacularly, as they never brought charges), the House probe was conducted by Republicans and Democrats on a panel known for its reluctance to throw stones—given that its members live in the same glass House. Yet bits of the Ethics Committee report were starting to leak out, and everything pointed to its findings’ being ugly.

And so, Lesson No 1: Not all allegations against Republicans are partisan shams. That’s surely hard for Republicans to swallow in light of witch hunts against Mr. Trump and Brett Kavanaugh, but the GOP as the law-and-order party has a duty to make careful distinctions.

The Trump transition team might have also read the insider room. Republicans are well versed in defending their brethren against nonsense attacks—even their unpopular brethren. There was a reason few if any Republican members rushed to Mr. Gaetz’s defense: They know him. Congress is a close space, and most all members had seen or heard something unpleasant enough to make them suspect fire accompanied the smoke. Ergo, Lesson No. 2: Take your lead from people who know, not MAGA Twitter insurgents.

All Things With Kim Strassel
A newsy analysis of the workings of D.C. (and beyond), providing a fresh, inside track on both the overhyped and overlooked events of the week. Subscribe to newsletter here.

The name of the Trump nominations game is clearly “shakeup”—and that’s to be applauded. Few doubt that Washington is in desperate need of some rattling. But note Lesson No. 3: The Gaetz fiasco is a reminder that there remains a bright line between a candidate who is aggressive, committed and professional and one who is unthinking, partisan and a liability. Mr. Trump has chosen a solid lineup of the former, from Linda McMahon (Education) and Marco Rubio (State) to Chris Wright (Energy) and Brendan Carr (Federal Communications Commission). Mr. Gaetz was always clearly the latter—big on bravado, short on ideas and temperament. While not as discussed as the ethics question, it’s also an important reason his nomination was destined to fail.

Every politician faces a tension between party loyalty (confirming a president’s nominees) and constitutional principle. For all that Mr. Trump has rightly complained about Justice Department politicization and the need for change, his team underestimated how seriously senators take that problem and how focused they are on this vital opportunity to turn things around. They want someone serious and aggressive, but also someone who can command the respect necessary to rebuild trust among all voters in the department.

The temptation may be to pick another loud candidate made popular by catering to the base, rather than one with a true commitment—and plan—for restoring the Justice Department’s fealty to the Constitution and the rule of law. But such a pick won’t reassure senators who are truly eager to rally behind a rock star with a unanimous vote.

And of course it’s possible to tap a candidate able both to shake things up and to promote professionalism. The Republican firmament is teeming with past or current state attorneys general, former prosecutors and other legal heavyweights—many who also have knowledge and experience of the Justice Department’s structure, its problem staff, and potential barriers to reform. Mr. Trump has four short years and a lot of fixing to do. He needs an attorney general who is already sprinting on Day One.

And the country deserves it. A Justice Department that is doing its job is a department that isn’t leading every headline, that isn’t the source of nonstop drama. Starting with a drama-free nominee would be a great start toward that future.
7
Politics & Religion / Hewing the Overgrown
« Last post by Body-by-Guinness on November 22, 2024, 03:42:42 PM »
The math here has its scary elements:

How To Cut $2 Trillion Of Fat From The Federal Budget
"A goal of $2 trillion of budget savings is crucial to the very future of Constitutional democracy and capitalist prosperity in America."

QUOTH THE RAVEN
NOV 22, 2024
By David Stockman, Brownstone Institute

A goal of $2 trillion of budget savings is crucial to the very future of Constitutional democracy and capitalist prosperity in America. In fact, the soaring public debt is now so out of control that the Federal budget threatens to become a self-fueling financial doomsday machine. So more power to the DOGE of Musk and Ramaswamy. In spades!

For want of doubt, just recall this sequence. When Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980 on a call to bring the nation’s inflationary budget under control, the public debt was $1 trillion.

By the time Donald Trump was elected the first time it had erupted to $20 trillion, which has now become $36 trillion. And under current built-in spending and tax policies it will hit $60 trillion by the end of the current 10-year budget window.

Thereafter, however, soaring interest expense will ignite a veritable fiscal wildfire. On paper, the public debt would power upward unabated to $150 trillion by mid-century under the CBO’s latest projection. Yet even the latter is based on a Rosy Scenario budget model that assumes Congress never again adopts a single new tax cut or spending program and that the US economy steams along without a recession, inflation recurrence, interest flare-up, or other economic crisis during the entirety of the next quarter-century!

Of course, long before the public debt actually hits $150 trillion or 166% of GDP per the CBO’s current long-term projection, the whole system would implode. Every remnant of America as we now know it would go down the tubes.

So we need to be clear that the team of Musk and Ramaswamy is talking about savings of $2 trillion per year and relatively soon, too. We make this clarification because we see the usual clueless commentators on Bubblevision saying, “Oh, they must be talking about $2 trillion over 10 years or at least a multi-year period of time.”

But we don’t think they meant that at all because Elon’s statement on the matter at the Madison Square Garden rally was very clear, and, quite frankly, if realized over 10 years or even 5 years it would be hardly worth the bother. That’s because the nation’s fiscal doomsday machine will be accumulating interest expense so fast as to make $2 trillion of savings spread over a decade little more than a rounding error. To wit, Federal interest expense has already passed the $1 trillion per year mark, which figure will hit $1.7 trillion by 2034 according to CBO and would top $7.5 trillion per year at minimum by our calculations by mid-century.

That is, if something drastic is not done now—like a $2 trillion annual budget savings soon—America will be paying more interest on the public debt within 25 years than the entirety of the Federal budget—Social Security, defense, Medicare, education, highways, interest, and the Washington Monument—today.

So, yes, Musk surely did mean $2 trillion per year in this interchange:

“How much do you think we can rip out of this wasted, $6.5 trillion (annual) Harris-Biden budget?” Howard Lutnick, a Wall Street CEO and Trump’s transition team co-chair, asked Musk at the former president’s recent rally held at Madison Square Garden in New York City.

Without offering specifics, Musk said in response that he thinks “at least $2 trillion” in a brief moment that has since gained widespread attention online and drawn mixed reactions from budget world.

Obviously, the sprawling Federal government and its prodigious expanse of spending and debt literally defies easy comprehension and graspable solutions. After all, the current annual budget of $7 trillion amounts to Federal spending of nearly $20 billion per day and $830 million per hour. And when you talk about the 10-year budget outlook, comprehension literally fades away completely: The current CBO spending baseline for 2025-2034 amounts to $85 trillion or just shy of the annual GDP of the entire planet this year.


So based on experience we suggest building the $2 trillion case around a target year and several big buckets of savings by type. The latter can then be used to build a detailed but comprehensible plan for arraying and conveying the desperately needed house-cleaning of the Federal budget.

In that context, FY 2029 makes the most sense as a target year since it would represent the 4th and outgoing Trump budget; and also one which would give sufficient time for phasing in some of the sweeping cuts that will be needed, but not so far in the distant future as to be largely irrelevant to the here and now of fiscal governance during Donald Trump’s second term.

We’d also suggest three big buckets of savings, which we would short-hand as follows:

Slash the Fat…by eliminating unnecessary and wasteful agencies and bureaucrats wholesale.
Downsize the Muscle…by curtailing national security capacities and functions not needed for an America First policy.
Cut the Bone…by reducing low-priority entitlements and subsidies that the nation cannot afford, and which a reasonable view of societal equity does not require.
Needless to say, when it comes to the vast wasteland of the Federal budget there are innumerable ways to skin the cat. But based on our own experience of more than a half-century of familiarity with the Federal budget as both a participant and an informed observer, we judge the following mix to be the most plausible and balanced way to get to the $2 trillion of annual savings by FY 2029.

To be sure, even this relatively judicious mix is sure to ignite firestorms on the banks of the Potomac like never before, but it can be strongly justified and defended for the reasons we will lay out in several subsequent installments.

Slash the Fat: $300 billion or 15%.
Downsize the Muscle: $500 billion or 25%.
Cut the Bone: $1.2 trillion or 60%.
Suffice here to say that even the first bucket would leave them screaming to high heaven in the Swamplands of DC. But even that $300 billion savings could be accomplished only by eliminating entirely the estimated $50 billion annual cost of Biden’s misguided Green New Deal, including all EV credits and subsidies, and $150 billion per year of other forms of corporate welfare and subsidies embedded in the budget and tax code.

We will amplify the details of this $200 billion of inherent fat and waste in Part 2. But suffice it here to say that attacking the usual shock effect lists of outrageous studies, stupid foreign aid projects, or even payments to dead people, as is often used to illustrate wasteful spending, will get you barely a fractional decimal point of the savings target, as desirable as eliminating this nonsense might be in its own right.

For instance, the savings from eliminating “Dr. Fauci’s Monkey Business on NIH’s Monkey Island” from the list below would amount to just 0.002% of the $2 trillion target, while eliminating the “USAID Fund to Boost Egyptian Tourism” would save just o.0003% of the target.

Even some of the larger ideas of this sort, such as more timely elimination of dead people from the Social Security rolls, would not get you very far, either. That’s because 1.1 million Social Security recipients pass on their rewards each year, and departing beneficiaries would be receiving an average benefit currently of $1,907 per month. So one month of dead people on the rolls costs the not inconsiderable sum of $2.1 billion.

At the present time, however, that does not actually happen. The rolls are purged every month based on newly filed death certificates, and this encompasses the termination of payments to anyone who died during the month, including the last day. So the average duration on the rolls of Social Security decedents is 15 days, which computes to $1.050 billion of payments.

Thus, the average duration of dead people on the rolls might well be cut by two-thirds if the Musk and Ramaswamy team could come up with some more efficient software to monitor, report, recalculate last month’s benefits, and then terminate decedents. In turn, that means getting the dead people off Social Security 10 days faster would amount to a savings of $700 million per year or about 0.04% of the $2 trillion target. That is to say, there is undoubtedly room for efficiency improvements and elimination of outright waste and stupidity everywhere in the Federal budget, but it unfortunately adds up to rounding errors.

Stated differently, if it doesn’t “scream and bleed” politically it won’t likely make a dent in achieving the $2 trillion goal. There is just plain nothing antiseptic about slashing the Federal budget.

In this regard, it would take an average 47% cut in the current nondefense Federal headcounts of 1.343 million, including the elimination of a dozen or more agencies entirely, to achieve the balance of $100 billion of savings in the Slash the Fat category.

And that’s a comprehensive figure based on an average cost per Federal employee of $100,000 in pay per year plus $44,000 in average benefits and fringes—escalated to $160,000 per bureaucrat by FY 2029. In Part 2, we will lay out the most plausible and judicious route to the Slash the Fat category with respect to both $200 billion of corporate welfare and Green New Deal waste and $100 billion of excess nondefense payroll.

Then in Part 3, we will lay out how to cut $500 billion per year of unneeded muscle from the national security budget, followed by $1.2 trillion per year of bone from the entitlement and domestic welfare basket.

https://quoththeraven.substack.com/p/how-to-cut-2-trillion-of-fat-from?r=2k0c5&triedRedirect=true1`1`1
8
Politics & Religion / RANE: Stratfor: China has us hacked
« Last post by Crafty_Dog on November 22, 2024, 03:42:28 PM »


U.S.: China-Linked Salt Typhoon Hackers Have Been Listening to Calls, Reading Texts
Situation Report
Nov 22, 2024 | 20:35 (UTC)

What Happened

The chairman of the U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator Mark Warner, revealed new details about the China-backed Salt Typhoon hack against U.S. telecommunications infrastructure, including confirmation that the group has been able to read victims' SMS text messages and listen in on their phone calls in real-time, The Washington Post reported Nov. 21. While the massive Chinese cyberespionage campaign has been ongoing for months, Warner said only in the past week has it become clear that ''every major provider'' in the United States has been compromised in what he called the ''worst telecom hack in our nation's history — by far.''

Why It Matters

The hackers can reportedly listen to specific targets for specific times, but while investigators believe they cannot listen to past calls, they can access metadata about those calls (like who the victim contacted, how long they spoke, and the geolocation of the cellphones). The Salt Typhoon hack has so far focused on a relatively small number of targets, but the victims include several high-profile individuals, such as President-elect Donald Trump, Vice President-elect JD Vance, State Department officials and individuals working for Kamala Harris' presidential campaign. This indicates a highly targeted campaign going after specific information of strategic value, and thus poses serious national security concerns. According to Senator Warner, the records that hackers currently have access to could also help identify other people whose devices they want to target. Moreover, China could use sustained intrusions of such targets for blackmail and hack-and-leak operations, and/or to delay a U.S. response in an escalatory scenario between China and Taiwan. U.S. telecom networks remain compromised, with Chinese hackers still having access to devices. Officials say remediating the situation could require replacing ''thousands and thousands and thousands'' of pieces of equipment nationwide — a process that could prove slow, expensive and logistically challenging,

Background

On Sept. 26, reports publicly disclosed that the Salt Typhoon campaign had been ongoing for months and targeted several U.S. internet service providers, along with a small number of service providers outside the United States. The hack had reportedly compromised systems the U.S. federal government uses for court-authorized network wiretapping requests, as well as tranches of generic internet traffic. In late October, it was reported that Trump and Vance's devices had been compromised, but it was unclear at the time whether any communications data had been exfiltrated or viewed. The latest details reveal that fewer than 150 victims have been identified, mostly in the D.C. area, with hackers having access to their millions of text messages and call logs. In addition to Trump and Vance, the hackers have tapped conversations of national security officials, politicians and some of their staff.
9
Politics & Religion / FO: Indo-Aus; US-Fiji
« Last post by Crafty_Dog on November 22, 2024, 03:27:07 PM »
(4) INDIA-AUS REFUEL AGREEMENT MEANT TO BRING INDIA CLOSER: India and Australia signed an agreement for Australian tanker aircraft to refuel Indian aircraft at an Air Conference in New Delhi this week.
Australian Deputy Chief of the Air Force Air Vice-Marshal Reynolds described India as a “top-tier security partner for Australia,” and that the agreement was a “practical and tangible cooperation” as part of their Comprehensive Strategic Partnership upon signing the agreement.
Why It Matters: The agreement allows for both nations to refuel each other but Australia’s KC-30 tanker is the only aircraft with definite interoperability potential, suggesting that the intent is to bring India to the West’s aid in a Pacific war rather than bring Western forces to India. – J.V.


Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin is in Fiji negotiating agreements to station troops and weapons on the island. Austin will announce a $5 million small arms aid package to rearm the Fijian military and offer more interoperability exercises with the U.S. Armed Forces. (This is part of an ongoing effort to shore up U.S. relations in the area. Fiji was openly China-aligned until 2021. – J.V.)
10
Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Privacy
« Last post by Crafty_Dog on November 22, 2024, 03:23:56 PM »
Well, why should only the Chinese have access? , , ,
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10