Seabolt’s Public Square

We have all seen the videos of an ICE agent shooting Renee Good multiple times from point blank range and her SUV then careening into a parked vehicle. Within a couple short hours of the incident, the President, the Secretary of Homeland Security and other Administration officials mobilized the partisan machinery. They labeled Renee a “domestic terrorist” and declared – without any investigation – that the ICE agent who shot and killed her had followed the law and his training. It was a remarkable and disgusting reflex.

But it worked. Suddenly, we all began viewing the footage through a partisan prism. The MAGA faithful refracted the light to favor the ICE agent. The never-Trumpers refracted the light to favor the woman who was shot and killed. And just like that, we abandoned our critical thinking, powered down our executive function, and allowed our lizard brains to assume control.

We need to do better than that.

Two Things Can Be True at the Same Time

Today’s political climate does not allow for nuance. It allows for only two options. One is right, and the other is evil. Like lemmings, we adopt the talking points we hear on Fox News or MS Now. We ignore the gray in between because we have grown intellectually lazy and undisciplined. And we seem to have forgotten that two otherwise incongruous things can be true at the same time.

It is true, for example, that there is a difference between civil disobedience and obstruction of justice. Renee Good may have crossed that line. It is also true that obstruction of justice is not punishable by death.

It is true that Renee positioned her SUV perpendicular to the road partially blocking traffic. It is also true that there was enough room in the road for other cars to drive around her SUV.

It is true that Renee was turning her SUV to the right, away from the ICE agent who was positioned at the front left of her SUV. It is also true that the ICE agent had to quickly step out of the way.

It is true that ICE agents are allowed to defend themselves. It is also true that the ICE agent shot Renee multiple times from point blank range after he stepped out of the way.

We heard one of the ICE agents call her a “fucking bitch” just seconds after she was shot and killed. Was the ICE agent defending himself, or was he responding to her audacity in the face of his authority? I don’t know.

We will never know what was in Renee’s heart and mind when she turned the steering wheel and pressed the accelerator. We will never know what was in the ICE agent’s heart and mind when he pulled the trigger – though he at least lived to tell us about it. Both actors could have been in the wrong. And yet, I can’t seem to shake the thought that Renee should still be alive.

I Don’t Think “De-Escalation” Means What You Think It Means

In the aftermath, irresponsible speculation and punditry abounds as people try to make sense of how and why these horrific events unfolded. Much of it is just noise. However, there is one issue that I think warrants deeper examination, namely, de-escalation. Could these ICE agents have acted in a manner that de-escalated the situation and avoided bloodshed?

We should start by recognizing the difference between escalation and de-escalation. Dropping masked ICE agents into our neighborhoods – escalation. Marching armed ICE agents through our streets – escalation. Surrounding Renee’s SUV with multiple armed ICE agents – escalation. An armed ICE agent circling Renee’s SUV – escalation. An armed ICE agent screaming at Renee to “get out of the fucking car” – escalation. An armed ICE agent attempting to rip open her car door – escalation.

These were acts of intimidation and threatened violence that turned up the temperature and escalated tensions. Imagine the feelings of horror and confusion that many of us would have felt in that same situation. Our immigrant communities are already a tinder box of fear, anxiety and anger. ICE helped to set that tinder box aflame. And the Administration is fanning the flames.

“No Basis” to Even Investigate?

One of the President’s henchmen who masquerades as a DOJ “official” has publicly declared that there is “no basis” to even warrant an investigation. Really? Come on, man. When law enforcement is involved in a fatal shooting, there is almost always an investigation of some kind. The investigation might exonerate the ICE agent, or it might not. But an investigation is warranted, and the public deserves an explanation.

Other questions remain. A couple days after the incident, the Administration released cell phone footage from one of the ICE agents claiming that it confirmed the ICE agent had acted properly. I have watched the footage several times, and I cannot in good conscience reach that same conclusion. But why was the ICE agent using a cell phone to videotape the scene in the first place? With all the tax dollars being deployed to ICE, you would think we could equip ICE agents with bodycams. Local and state law enforcement do it. We should demand the same from ICE.

But this ICE agent had a cell phone in one hand that he was using to videotape the scene while he was reaching for his gun with the other hand. This reminds me of the laws prohibiting driving a car while simultaneously holding a cell phone to join a video conference. You might be focused on the wrong thing. The last thing an ICE agent should be when he is drawing his weapon is distracted. Was that consistent with his training?

And why did an ICE agent position himself in front of Renee’s SUV? Did he put himself in harm’s way by doing that? I have seen situations where law enforcement will position a patrol car in front of a stopped vehicle to prevent it from driving away. I have not seen a situation where an officer positions his body in front of a stopped vehicle. That seems risky. Was that consistent with his training?

And take a look at what was in the background when the ICE agent opened fire. The passenger was trying to get back in the vehicle. There were parked vehicles along the street. There were bystanders standing on the sidewalk watching the scene unfold. I thought law enforcement officers were trained not to shoot when innocent bystanders are potentially in the line of fire. Was that consistent with his training?

And if it was all consistent with the ICE agent’s training, then maybe – just maybe – someone ought to give the training a second look.

Again, Renee was not blameless. She put herself in a predicament. But what the ICE agents did – it seems to me – may have contributed to the violent outcome. At the very least, there should be an investigation.

We Could All Stand Some Education Here

I am not a law enforcement officer. I can’t possibly fully understand the stresses and dangers law enforcement officers face in these combustible situations. And I don’t know what law enforcement officers are trained to do in every situation. But I do know that an ICE agent shot and killed a civilian in broad daylight on the streets of one of our neighborhoods. If it was all done by the book, then show us and have the humility to acknowledge that the “book” might need to be revisited.

Over the last two months, the US has carried out 15 known military strikes on boats in international waters. The strikes occurred in both the Pacific Ocean and the Caribbean Sea. The strikes reportedly killed more than 60 individuals aboard the boats. The Administration claims these were all “narco-trafficking vessels” or “drug boats.” They claim the boats were carrying illegal drugs from Venezuela and Columbia bound for the US. The Administration labels those aboard the boats as “narco-terrorists” belonging to drug gangs and drug cartels designated as “terrorist organizations.”

On the surface, preventing illicit drugs from entering our country seems like a good idea. And combating drug gangs and drug cartels also seems like a good idea. But blowing up boats in the middle of the ocean sounds extreme. If you watch the footage of these drone strikes, it is jarring. Is the Administration doing the right and lawful thing here? The legal justification is murky at best.

The Administration Is Trying to Change the Paradigm

In the US, we traditionally view drug trafficking as a crime and its perpetrators as criminals. We rely on the DEA, the FBI, the DOJ and other law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute drug traffickers. We expect them to abide by certain constitutional and legal norms like search warrants, due process, presumption of innocence, jury trials and sentencing guidelines. Prosectors, defense attorneys, judges and juries all serve a crucial role in determining guilt and pronouncing sentences for drug traffickers. Our criminal justice system does not permit one person to serve as judge, jury and executioner. Importantly, drug trafficking generally is not considered a capital offense that could subject an offender to the death penalty.

The US also has bilateral agreements with many countries to assist in law enforcement against drug trafficking. The US Coast Guard interdicts suspected drug smuggling vessels, sometimes with assistance from other countries. There are established legal processes for intercepting suspected drug smuggling vessels and then prosecuting offenders.

The Administration is trying to change this paradigm. The Administration wants us to view foreign drug traffickers through the lens of warfare, rather than criminality. According to the Administration, foreign drug traffickers are “terrorists” to be treated no differently than members of Al-Qaeda. Through this rhetorical shift, the Administration is exercising broad wartime powers and treating foreign drug traffickers as enemy combatants. They subject these foreign drug traffickers to the swift, summary justice of warfare.

The paradigmatic shift matters. A core principle of our criminal justice system is that it is better to set nine guilty men free than it is to imprison one innocent man. This principle is not up for debate. It is embedded in the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof. The warfare calculus is different. Collateral damage like killing innocent civilians is a tragic but almost unavoidable consequence of sustained military engagements. See the war in Gaza, or the war in Ukraine, or the civil war in Sudan, or the civil war in Myanmar. The difference between the law enforcement paradigm and the warfare paradigm is significant.

The Administration Is Designating Foreign Gangs and Drug Cartels As “Terrorists”

Congress has given the Secretary of State authority to designate “foreign terrorist organizations.” There are three criteria for being so designated: 1) a foreign organization 2) engaged in terrorist activity that 3) threatens our national security. The definition of “terrorist activity” is quite broad. It is not hard to construe foreign gangs and drug cartels as engaging in “terrorist activity.”

The Secretary of State’s authority is subject to typical checks and balances. The Secretary of State must notify congressional leaders of new designations. Congress has the authority to pass a law blocking or revoking any such designation. There is a procedure for appealing to the Secretary of State to change designations. There also is a procedure to challenge designations in court.

Since February 2025, the Secretary of State has added 19 organizations to the list of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations. A large number of those are gangs, such as MS-13 and Tren de Aragua, and drug cartels, such as Carteles Unidos and Cartel del Golfo. There does not appear to be any serious debate over whether these groups ought to be designated as foreign terrorists.

We Don’t Care Much About Suspected Terrorists

Once designated as a foreign terrorist, the Secretary of Treasury may require US financial institutions to freeze assets of the organization. Those assets remain frozen until ordered otherwise by the Secretary of Treasury, an Act of Congress, or a Court. This is a powerful tool.

There is nothing in the law that gives the President explicit authority to order military strikes on designated foreign terrorist organizations. Even after 9/11, President Bush sought congressional approval to prosecute the war on Al-Qaeda, to deploy troops to Afghanistan, and to deploy troops to Iraq. The US also appealed to the international community before and during those deployments. The current President did not do any of those things here before ordering military strikes on alleged drug traffickers.

Designating foreign gangs and drug cartels as “terrorists” certainly helps the Administration in the court of public opinion. Once someone or something is labeled a “terrorist”, many of us just don’t care as much about their rights or even their lives. Many of us view terrorists as less than human. We need to get them before they get us. This is particularly true for those of us who lived through 9/11. But they are human. And we are supposedly the torchbearers of liberty and democracy. Labeling someone as a terrorist alone does not justify the use of deadly military force.

Congress Is Missing in Action Yet Again

Regardless of how we feel about terrorists, allowing the President to order military strikes without the requisite legal authority is a slippery slope. Previously on this blog, I wrote about the President’s authority to order strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. War! What Is It Good For? – Welcome to Seabolt’s Public Square. I explained how the War Powers Resolution Act authorized the President to deploy the military for discrete missions. This authority is limited to a 60-day period and is subject to oversight by Congress.

The Administration claims its military strikes on drug traffickers are not subject to the War Powers Resolution Act. They think they can order these military strikes without any oversight by Congress. The Administration claims it received a “legal opinion” confirming its position. However, the Administration refuses to release the legal opinion claiming it is classified. To be clear, the legal authority supporting the Administration’s position – if there is any – is not classified. While the legal opinion might contain classified information, the Administration can redact that information and still disclose the legal authority. The Administration’s lack of transparency is concerning.

Without disclosing the legal opinion, it is unclear what authority the President was exercising when he ordered these military strikes. The US Presidency is a position of limited authority. That is, every official act undertaken by the President requires a grant of authority under the Constitution or an act of Congress. Without such a grant of authority, the President is acting illegally. Moreover, the Constitution does not permit the President to deploy our military without congressional oversight. Congress has a constitutional imperative to oversee the President’s deployment of military assets. Congress must do more here.

There Are Rumblings in the International Community

There is increasing opposition to these military strikes in the international community. The Venezuelan government has responded by mobilizing its military. United Nations officials have condemned the strikes as human rights violations and extra judicial killings. These rumblings should concern us.

The US Supreme Court granted the President immunity from prosecution for acts committed in his official capacity. However, this immunity only applies in domestic courts. It does not apply, for example, in the International Criminal Court. Numerous world leaders have been indicted in the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the like. See recent examples of Vladimir Putin (Russia), Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel), Rodrigo Duterte (Philippines), Omal al-Bashir (Sudan).

Some might think the international community would not dare bring criminal charges against a sitting US President. That certainly would have been the conventional wisdom before this Administration. This President, however, has bucked convention, particularly on the international stage. The President has spent much of his second term sticking his thumb in the eye of the international community. His form of foreign diplomacy is not diplomacy at all. The President derides foreign leaders, he ignites trade wars, he withholds foreign aid, and he threatens nuclear weapons testing. Now the President is deploying military assets arguably in violation of international law. Despite the restraint world leaders might show publicly, there are many who would like to see this President knocked down a peg or three. There are others who fear where this is all going. One might argue that a sitting US President has never been more politically vulnerable on the international stage.

If our feckless Congress continues to sit this one out, we can expect to hear more and more outrage and objection from the international community. This is particularly so if the President continues to order more military strikes. Those words will eventually evolve into action. Congress should handle this business in-house before others try to handle it for us.

On behalf of my Mom. My sister Marcella and her family. Me and my family. My aunt Gini and my Dad’s other siblings. Thank you for being here to honor my Dad and to comfort my family.

Children are in part a reflection of their parents. And in part a response to their parents. I am a reflection of and a response to my Dad.

Dad Always Carried A Pocketknife

I am a reflection of my Dad.

My Dad always carried a pocketknife. The holidays were the high season for pocketknives. My Dad was always ready for a well-taped package so he could offer his pocketknife. When he did, he would invariably explain that a dull knife is more dangerous than a sharp knife. The reasoning being that with a dull knife, you have to really bare down on it to cut. When you do, the chances of you slipping and cutting yourself increase. Marcella and I would glance at each other with a grin. We had heard it 100 times.

When I was growing up, a pocketknife was a rite of passage for a young boy. My Dad gave me a Kamp King pocketknife when I was eight years old. My Mom bought most of the gifts in our family. But the Kamp King was a gift from my Dad.

Now I’m not a terribly sentimental person. And as an adult, I don’t carry a pocketknife. But my Kamp King came with me to college. It came with me to law school. It came with me to my first job and has followed me throughout my career. In fact, for the last 29 years, it has sat prominently in the top drawer of my desk. It is in my pocket today.

It is covered in patina and character, a testament to 46 years of loyal companionship. I don’t use it much anymore. It is a memento more than a tool. A reminder of my Dad. A reminder of where I came from. A reminder of how much a simple gesture can mean between a Dad and his son.

Dad Loved Coaching

I am a reflection of my Dad.

My Dad was my first coach. He played catch, threw batting practice, and kicked a soccer ball with me. He coached my soccer team for several years. My Dad also coached Marcella’s softball and soccer teams. Dads in the 1970’s didn’t know much about soccer, but it was all the rage with us kids. My Dad dutifully studied soccer. He read books. He attended coaching clinics. My Dad even befriended and recruited a couple of Scottish fellas to help train us. He came to practice with new drills and new ideas. We formed a whole soccer community and created lifelong friendships at the soccer fields at 12 Mile and Drake. It was great fun.

Fast forward 40 years. I have coached all three of my kids in sports. Soccer, softball, baseball. I made a spectacle of myself doing the Daddy-Daughter dance at my daughters’ recitals. It wasn’t just the practices, rehearsals, and games, though. It was the rides to and from. The long trips for tournaments and competitions. The adventures along the way. We made great memories. None of this happens without the example set by my Dad.

The Image Of Dad With Tears In His Eyes Stuck With Me

I am a response to my Dad.

We didn’t have a lot of money growing up. But we always had a roof over our heads, food on the table, clean clothes, and a warm bed to sleep in. It turns out that I was a pretty good soccer player. I made my first travel soccer team when I was ten years old. I trained with my new team for a couple weeks leading up to the first game.

On the morning of the first game, my Dad woke me up early. He was sitting on the edge of my bed with tears in his eyes. We couldn’t afford it, he told me. He had tried, but he just couldn’t make the numbers work. My Dad was devastated. He apologized to me choking back tears. I choked back my own tears and told him it was ok. In that moment, I was more worried about my Dad than I was about travel soccer. Parents sometimes think their kids don’t know, but they know. I knew.

The story ended well enough. A short while later, my Dad’s best friend caught wind of it and wouldn’t have it. He gave my Dad the money so I could play travel soccer. My Dad was a very proud man. This was perhaps the only person on earth from whom my Dad would accept this kind of help. But that image of my Dad sitting on the edge of my bed with tears in his eyes stuck with me. I remember it vividly.

My Dad did nothing wrong, mind you. He was a tireless worker who provided for his family the best he knew how. He still managed to provide us with opportunities that he didn’t have. Which is what we all try to do for our children. His dad had never watched him play sports growing up. My Dad didn’t miss a game.

When I offer my children an opportunity that I didn’t have, it is not a critique of the man. It is a tribute to him. I get it, Dad. I paid attention. I will try to do better.

Dad Thought Log Cabins Were A Sign You Had Arrived

I am a reflection of my Dad.

Since I was a young boy, my Dad always spoke in glowing terms about log cabins. The look of knotty pine, the warm feel, the up north scent. In my Dad’s eyes, a log cabin was one of the ultimate signs that you had arrived. When I graduated from law school in 1996, my parents rented a log cabin in upstate New York. My Dad was in awe of it. He walked me through every inch of every detail in that log cabin.

Fast forward to 2009. Janis and I bought a vacation home on the west side of the state. It sits on about ten acres of woods. You can’t see it from the main road. It has a two-track dirt driveway that meanders through the woods for about 200 yards until it happens upon the home. And yes, it is a log cabin.

Most every year, my parents would ask to visit the cabin once or twice. Of course, we always said yes. It wasn’t only for us and our kids. It was for my Dad. To let him know that I had arrived. It always made me feel so proud and so happy that they could enjoy it.

Dad Made Dancing Cool

I am a reflection of my Dad.

My parents loved to dance. They spent a decade or so in a Polish dance group (we aren’t Polish). They spent another decade or so in an Irish dance group (we are Irish). But my favorite was watching them do the Madison.

Back in the 1980’s, sock hops were a thing. People of my parents’ generation would dress up, gather at a local hall, and relive their glory days from the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. My Mom would wear a blue poodle skirt, a black sweater, and a black leather jacket. My Dad would wear pegged jeans, a black t-shirt and a matching leather jacket. I would look at them and think to myself, “My God. I think my parents used to be cool.”

There would be contests at these sock hops for best-dressed and best dancers. And my parents would win, like all the time. I got to see my parents do the Madison a few times, and I always loved it. They were so smooth, so in-sync. My Dad would lead, and my Mom would follow effortlessly. It was mesmerizing.

Fast forward to 1998, the year Janis and I got married. Couples’ dances in the 1990s were pretty boring. Boy’s hands on girl’s hips, girl’s arms around boy’s neck, awkwardly swaying back and forth. Janis and I wanted to do something different. Like my parents, Janis has an adventurous spirit. So we took dance classes in the months leading up to our wedding. We learned how to swing to a Harry Connick Jr. song. I don’t know that we would have won a contest, but we were pretty good. My Dad was the one who had made it cool.

Dad Did Not Have A Chance To Go Back To College

I am a response to my Dad.

My Dad was a highly intelligent man. Curious mind, quick study, excellent problem solver. But he didn’t have a college degree. After high school, my Dad moved to California to live with his brother for a spell. He took some classes at UC-Riverside, but it didn’t stick. He eventually enlisted in the Air Force. By the time his four years of service had ended, he was married and had his first child. My Dad had bills to pay and hungry mouths to feed. So going back to college wasn’t in the cards for him.

My Dad had learned computer science in the Air Force, and that became his vocation. In the 1960s, computer science was a new frontier. Over time, more and more college grads entered the field. My Dad eventually found himself surrounded by college grads with a growing number of MBAs. Of course, my Dad was every bit as capable as the college grads, perhaps more so, and he knew it. The military trains soldiers in ways that civilian colleges and universities can’t match. But he didn’t have that piece of paper. Not having that piece of paper hindered my Dad a bit, though the hindrance was probably more imagined than real.

Marcella and I, we saw how our Dad wrestled with not having that piece of paper. But we are in part a response to our Dad. I got two pieces of paper. Marcella got three. And not just any pieces of paper. But pieces of paper that travel, that open doors, that give us credibility in our fields.

My Dad was at times a cautious man. I was not so cautious. When I applied to law school, I picked five good schools. When I told my Dad about the schools, he told me I should apply to a back-up school. He wasn’t being critical of me. My Dad just didn’t want me to be disappointed if I didn’t get in. He thought I should have a Plan B. But I’m not a Plan B guy. I’m a Plan A guy. My Dad had told me throughout my childhood that I could do anything I set my mind to. Well, those five schools were what I had set my mind to. It was too late to change the rules on me. So I told my Dad, “If I don’t get into one of those schools, then I don’t want to go to law school.” End of conversation.

Of course, I did get into one of those schools. But that was an occasion when my Dad got a glimpse into my mindset. A mindset that he helped to shape and mold. His fears were not my fears. Again, this is not a critique of my Dad. This is just part of our evolution as a family. This is what I learned from him. Whenever I face and overcome my fears, I honor my Dad. My accomplishments, large and small, are a tribute to my Dad.

Mom And Dad Were Married For 60 Years

I am a reflection of my Dad.

My parents married on November 7, 1964. Dad was 20, Mom was 17. My Mom dropped out of high school to marry my Dad. My Mom gave birth to their first child on September 7, 1965. Mom was 18, Dad was 21. He was still in the Air Force. As my Mom says, they didn’t have two nickels to rub together. It was a different time.

My Mom and Dad defied the odds and were married for over 60 years. In my entire life, I have never seen a person so utterly and unconditionally devoted to a person as my Mom was to my Dad. My Dad could do no wrong in her eyes. And please make no mistake about that sweet little Irish lady. She is a grizzly bear who will rip your face off if you cross her husband or her cubs.

My parents set an unmatched example of love, devotion, and faithfulness. Marcella and her husband Jim were high school sweethearts, like my parents. They went to Marcella’s prom in 1983. They have been married for 38 years. Janis and I have been married for 27 years. We are a living testament to our parents’ love, devotion, and faithfulness.

Pull Up A Lawn Chair, Dad

I want to thank you all again for being here to honor and remember my Dad. If I told him about the number of people who came to pay their respects, he wouldn’t believe it.

I had lunch with my Mom a few weeks before he passed. We talked about my Dad a bit. Mom told me that Dad had been beating himself up over some comment he made to me several years before. When she told me what the comment was, I didn’t recall it. It didn’t stick to me like my Dad had imagined. My Dad was always too hard on himself. I told Mom to tell Dad to text me about having coffee.

I saw my Dad a week before he passed, but we never had a chance to grab that coffee. If we had, I would have told him a few things.

Dad, the things you beat yourself up about, I don’t remember them. Whatever it was, I’m over it.

If there is anything to forgive, Dad, anything at all, I have long since forgiven you.

And that heavy load you’ve been carrying on your shoulders all your life, Dad. Well you can put that down now. It doesn’t serve you anymore.

And the race you’ve been running for the last 81 years, Dad. Well someone forgot to tell you that it’s a relay race. You aren’t running the race alone. It’s time for you to hand the baton to me, Dad. I will take it from here. Like any good teammate, I will pick you up.

So take off your running shoes, Dad, and put on your sandals. Put on your Bermuda shorts, your favorite Hawaiian shirt, and your beach hat. Don’t forget your pocketknife. Pull up a lawn chair on the porch of the cabin and grab a cup of coffee. Save a seat for Mom. And rest easy.

It’s time for you to rest easy, Dad.

I love you.

Prior to the 1980s, the national debt tended to grow at a moderate pace. We experienced spikes in deficit spending during WWI, the Great Depression, and WWII. Otherwise, the national debt remained under control. This all changed starting in the 1980s. The government passed significant tax cuts and substantially increased our military spending as part of the Cold War. Deficits exploded, and the national debt began to climb exponentially. Aside from surpluses in 1998-2001, the government has run significant and growing deficits for the last half century. The national debt eclipsed GDP starting around 2013. Today the national debt sits at 120% of GDP. So why did it all change?

The Government Adopted A Policy That Was Too Good To Be True

In 1974, economist Arthur Laffer introduced a new economic theory. He posited that the government could increase tax revenue by lowering tax rates. This was counter-intuitive. Laffer explained that if the government lowered tax rates, taxpayers would spend their tax savings on food, clothing, housing, etc. This would create multiples of economic activity which would grow the economy and increase the tax base. Laffer reduced his theory to a curve in the shape of an inverted U, known as the Laffer Curve. The top of the inverted U represents a theoretical tax rate where the government optimizes tax revenue and economic growth.

Politicians could not resist Laffer’s theory. They could give their constituents tax breaks and still increase tax revenue. It was pure genius. In the 1980s, President Reagan ran to daylight with Laffer’s theory. You might remember trickle-down economics, which is a first cousin of the Laffer Curve. President Reagan gave wealthy people disproportionately high tax breaks. He claimed the wealthy would spend their tax savings, and it would “trickle down” to the working class. Except it didn’t work. The rich got richer. The working class didn’t receive much benefit. The income gap widened. Our deficit exploded.

President George W. Bush took a similar gamble on Laffer’s theory in the early 2000s. So did our current President during his first term. The deficit grew both times. And not by a little, but by a lot.

Our Government Never Misses An Opportunity To Miss An Opportunity

There are two fundamental reasons why Laffer’s theory did not work in practice. First, the government overestimated the amount of economic activity that tax breaks would generate. It is not as simple as just lowering tax rates and watching the tax revenue pour in. We have to strike a delicate balance. The tax savings need to stimulate enough economic activity to offset the government’s loss in tax revenue. And no one knows where the inflection point is. No one. It is all theory.

In fact, each tax bracket probably has a different optimal tax rate. Someone making $50,000 per year will spend their tax savings differently than someone making $500,000 per year. Dollars spent on food and clothing have a different economic impact than dollars spent on vacations and stocks. We need to account for these and other variables when identifying an optimal tax rate. But no one has figured out how to do it reliably. No one.

Second, every time our government has relied on Laffer to justify tax breaks, it has failed to adequately curb spending. The government has spent our money as if it had already collected a windfall. When the government didn’t reap the windfall, it went ahead and kept spending our money as if it did. The government exercised no fiscal discipline.

Our Government Loses The Irony Of Bobby Bonilla Day

Bobby Bonilla was a great hitter in the Major Leagues from the late 1980s through the 1990s. A switch hitter, he could hit for power and average. He spent his best years with the Pirates but also had productive seasons with the Mets, Orioles and Marlins. He was a World Series Champion, six-time All Star, and three-time Silver Slugger. Baseball fans know Bobby Bo best for the contracts he struck with his former clubs. The Orioles pay Bonilla $500,000 every year through 2028. The Mets pay him $1.19 million on July 1 of every year through 2035. Mets fans ironically celebrate July 1 as “Bobby Bonilla Day.” The irony is that Bonilla retired in 2001. He hasn’t swung a bat in the Major Leagues for almost 25 years. But he is still getting paid.

Our government rigorously follows the Bobby Bonilla model. It pays a whole roster of players that haven’t swung a bat or thrown a pitch in years, even decades. Covid? Still paying for it. The financial crisis? Still paying for it. The war on terror? Still paying for it. The government does not pay off anything it finances these days. It just keeps refinancing the debt by issuing new treasury bonds. Our children and grandchildren will have to pay our debts, and they will garner absolutely no benefit from doing so. They will just be lighting money on fire.

Remember this the next time you hear some policy wonk say deficits are not inherently bad. This is a rhetorical trick. The problem does not arise from a single deficit in isolation. The problem arises when the debt grows exponentially. When the national debt is larger than the economy and grows faster than the economy. When the government continues to make interest-only payments for programs and assets it retired 25 years ago. No rational person would do any of these things.

The Administration And Congress Are Doing The Same Thing Now And Expecting A Different Result

Within the past few weeks, the Treasury Secretary testified at a congressional hearing about the Big Beautiful Bill. A Congressman asked if he could name any economist who thought tax breaks in the BBB would reduce the deficit. The Treasury Secretary quipped, “yes, Art Laffer.” Cute but unpersuasive.

The great majority of economists agree that the BBB will increase deficit spending and will grow our national debt. The explanation is the same as it was 45 years ago. The Administration and Congress overestimate how much economic activity the tax breaks will stimulate. And they continue to spend way more money than they take in. There is no reason to believe it will be any different this time. It truly is the definition of insanity.

Case in point, the President has a council of economic advisers. The council recently published an analysis claiming that the BBB will reduce the deficit by trillions of dollars over time. Buried in the analysis, the council projects that GDP will grow by a whopping 4.6-4.9% for four consecutive years from 2026-2029. To put this in context, GDP has grown by an average of 3.19% over the last 50 years and 2.2% over the last 25 years. We had a spike in GDP growth in 2021 coming out of Covid because GDP had shrunk dramatically in 2020. We have not had a four-year run like the council projects since the 1960s. Projecting GDP growth of 4.6-4.9% for four consecutive years is reckless. This is the President’s penchant for “like never before” hyperbole translated into numbers. And it is the only way the numbers work in the Administration’s favor.

Stop The Insanity

Einstein famously regretted the role he played in enabling the Manhattan Project. He had grave ethical concerns about the invention of the nuclear bomb and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. We can say the same about Laffer and his infamous curve. Laffer developed a powerful economic theory. Then he entrusted it to a species of politicians who are genetically predisposed toward economic exploitation. He is not the Einstein of economic theory; he is the Oppenheimer. He is not a folk hero; he is the architect of our nation’s financial ruin.

Proponents of the BBB are committing economic atrocities in Laffer’s name. They implore us to ignore what we plainly see with our own eyes. They wave their hands in front of our faces like Sith Lords. You don’t see huge deficits … you don’t see huge deficits … They defy common sense. They forget their own history. And they expect us to do the same.

And please remember the government is spending our money. If we don’t like the way they spend our money. If we find it irresponsible. Or if we have grown tired of paying for ballplayers who retired 25 years ago. Then that’s the end of it. No excuses. Full stop. The Administration and members of Congress have to go.

My Ancestors Fled War Torn Ireland

My grandmother on my mother’s side came from County Cork, Ireland. As a young girl, her father, my great grandfather, brought her by ship across the Atlantic Ocean to the USA. It was a tumultuous time in Ireland. Irish Catholics had lived under oppressive British rule for generations. The Irish fought their War of Independence against the British in 1919-1921. Irish Catholics and Irish Protestants fought a Civil War in 1922-1923. This led to partitioning between the Republic of Ireland, which is independent, and Northern Ireland, which is part of Great Britain. Many Irish emigrated to the USA during this time.

The USA did not accept the Irish with open arms. The Irish faced discrimination, religious persecution, and harmful stereotypes here in the States. Still, coming to the USA had more appeal than remaining in war torn Ireland. My great grandfather took my grandmother back and forth between Ireland and the USA multiple times. Each time, he brought more family with him. My grandmother had multiple scars on her shoulder from being inoculated each time she entered the country.

My grandmother passed away when I was just eight years old. I never had a chance to ask about her life in Ireland or her life as an immigrant. I would have liked to hear Grandma tell her story. Still, sometimes, when I take a deep breath, I feel her Irish immigrant spirit well up inside me. I carry a tremendous sense of responsibility to those who came before me. Those who sacrificed for future generations. I stand on their shoulders. How different my life would have turned out if my great grandfather had made different choices. I honor his sacrifices with hard work and devotion to my family, which is his family.

Some Fled The Collapse Of Economic And Social Orders

I have a friend who grew up in the Soviet Union. He hailed from what is now known as Azerbaijan. He was in Moscow when the Soviet Union fell. Violent conflicts erupted in Azerbaijan. Russian officials told him he could not stay in Moscow. But he could not return to Azerbaijan either due to the violence. He eventually found his way to the USA. He was just a teenager.

Once in the States, my friend drove a taxi for a while to make ends meet. He eventually got a steady job and went about the hard work of creating a new life. Today he owns and runs a multi-million-dollar manufacturing company. He employs hundreds of workers. He made something out of nothing. An astute businessman with a keen intellect, he is also kind, compassionate and generous. A devoted husband and father who created better circumstances for his children and their children. A self-made man in the truest sense.

Some Fled Genocide

I have another friend who was born in Cambodia in the 1970s. Cambodia had its civil war in the early 1970s. The ruthless Khmer Rouge regime led by Pol Pot assumed control of Cambodia at the end of the civil war. Between 1975-1979, the Khmer Rouge arrested, executed and buried more than 1.3 million Cambodians. It was genocide. There were mass graves in various locations around Cambodia. These became known as the “killing fields.”

My friend was an infant at the time. Khmer Rouge murdered her father. Her mother embarked on a harrowing trek through the jungles of Cambodia. She carried her infant daughter and had two other small children in tow. If the Khmer Rouge had captured them, they surely would have been executed. Miraculously, they made it out and eventually found their way to the USA. Today, that infant is a grown woman who owns a successful business and has a wonderful family.

Let’s Not Forget Where We Came From

Many of us have stories like these, though we sometimes lose touch with them. The vast majority of people who emigrate to this country come looking for a better life. An opportunity. The American dream. Many flee unimaginable circumstances. Poverty. Starvation. Persecution. Oppression. Torture. Gang violence. Civil war. Genocide. As with my great grandfather, they emigrate to the USA as a matter of survival.

These origin stories are uniquely American. We should celebrate them. No other country on earth has such a rich tradition of people overcoming long odds and beginning anew. For those of us lucky enough to know our origin stories, we should jealously guard them. Cherish them. Study them. Learn from them. Pass them on. They help explain who we are and where we came from. They give us a sense of pride, belonging and resilience.

Images Of Violence Used To Turn Our Stomachs

In November 1999, Elian Gonzalez’ mother took him on a boat in Cuba bound for Florida. The boat sank. All but three people on the boat drowned. Elian’s mother drowned. Elian survived. Two fishermen found Elian floating on an inner tube in the middle of the ocean and rescued him. Elian was six years old.

An international custody battle ensued. The US granted Elian temporary status to remain in the country. Elian’s uncle, who lived in Florida, wanted Elian to remain in the States. Elian’s father wanted him returned to Cuba. The courts eventually ruled that Elian should return to his father in Cuba. The INS then raided the uncle’s home to recover Elian. The picture above captures the moment INS found Elian. INS agents wore combat gear. They were armed to the teeth with weapons drawn. Elian’s uncle held him. Elian cried in horror.

The incident gained international attention. The picture won a Pulitzer Prize. The public cried foul. The situation did not require an armed confrontation. The uncle had availed himself of the legal system. He was not a rogue actor. Elian had suffered enough trauma. We did not need to inflict further trauma on the boy.

We Should Not Normalize Violence On Our Streets

In the 26 years since Elian Gonzalez incident, we seem to have grown immune to scenes of violence like this. We see similar pictures and videos today. It doesn’t turn our stomachs anymore. Today, INS agents enter peaceful communities wearing masks and armed with all manner of weaponry. Seemingly compliant targets get wrestled to the ground and zip-tied. Many then get deported to prisons in countries known for torture and human rights abuse. It all seems barbaric at times. Have we not evolved beyond this?

I understand that some illegal immigrants are violent criminals. We should offer no quarter to violent criminals. I also understand that INS agents can find themselves in dangerous situations. They should protect themselves, and we should respect their service. But the vast majority of illegal immigrants, including many being hunted and deported right now, are not violent criminals. They are not rapists or murderers or gang members. They are poor people fleeing bad circumstances and looking for a better life. What happened to our compassion?

And I also understand that we need to strengthen and enforce our immigration laws. We should expect immigrants to come here legally. If they come here illegally, INS can and should deport them. But these people deserve some basic human decency and dignity in the process. They are not animals, and we are not savages. Have we forgotten our origin stories?

And let’s not fool ourselves into believing that this violent behavior only extends to illegal immigrants. The violence is happening in our neighborhoods in front of our children. Even as I write this, the Administration is working to redefine birthright citizenship. It is considering how to de-naturalize some of our friends and neighbors. The Administration is not stopping with illegal immigrants. What will we do when they come for us?

Our President ordered an historic attack on Iran last weekend. It came as a surprise to the whole world. There were no leaks. Our military deployed B2 stealth bombers and fighter jets to Iran. They dropped multiple bunker busting bombs and launched Tomahawk missiles with expert precision on three Iranian nuclear facilities. They flew in, unloaded their munitions, and flew out before Iran knew what hit it. No U.S. casualties. Not a single defensive shot fired. By all counts, it was an awesome display of military might and execution.

In the aftermath, some have questioned whether the President is really antiwar. Others have questioned whether the President had the authority to order these strikes without congressional approval. Still others wonder whether the strikes were worth it.

Our President Is Not A Warmonger

The President is a lot of things, but a warmonger is not one of them. He has opposed military conflicts throughout his public life. He did not deploy interventionist foreign policies during his first term. The President campaigned on promises of ending the Russia/Ukraine war and the Israel/Palestine war. He has not succeeded in ending those wars, but not for lack of trying. The President’s brand of diplomacy at times seems needlessly combative and even misguided. But he presses on, confident in his ability to end the wars.

We heard the interview where the President exclaimed that Israel and Iran “don’t know what the fuck they’re doing.” I tend not to judge F-bombs, lest I be judged. But this particular F-bomb actually caused me to empathize with the President. It struck me as a spontaneous and authentic expression of anger, frustration and bewilderment. The President knows that wars typically end in a treaty or some other diplomatic solution. He has trouble comprehending why these countries don’t skip the bloodshed and jump straight to the deal.

Congress Has A Constitutional Role In The Deployment Of Our Troops

The Administration and its supporters claim that the President has plenary authority over the deployment of our troops. They seem to think Congress does not have a role in overseeing military matters. They are wrong.

Under our Constitution, Congress has the power to declare war. To raise and support armies. To provide and maintain a navy. To provide for the common defense of the United States. And to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. The President is the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. There is, by design, natural tension between Congress and the President when it comes to military matters. This is what checks and balances are all about. But those who claim the President has plenary authority over the military, to the exclusion of Congress, are wrong.

The President Had Authority To Order Limited Strikes On Iran

On the other side, members of Congress claim the President did not have authority to order strikes on Iran. They claim the President needed to seek congressional approval first. They are also wrong.

In 1973, Congress passed the War Powers Resolution in response to public outcry over the loss of life in Vietnam. Congress passed the Resolution with a bipartisan 2/3 majority, overriding the President’s veto. The Resolution limits the President’s power to commit our troops to armed conflict without congressional approval. The President must report to Congress within 48 hours of sending our troops into battle. He should consult with Congress “in every possible instance” before deploying our troops. The President must withdraw our troops within 60 to 90 days if Congress does not authorize the use of force.

Several Presidents have claimed that the Resolution limits the President’s military authority in an unconstitutional manner. Nevertheless, Presidents have issued over 130 reports to Congress pursuant to the Resolution. Congress has authorized troop deployments multiple times, including Lebanon (1983), the Persian Gulf (1991), Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2002). At the same time, most every President since 1973 has deployed troops without first seeking congressional approval. See for example Yugoslavia (1999), Libya (2011), Syria (2017). Each time, we debate the limits of Presidential and Congressional authority in military matters. This is not new. But there is a correct answer. The President has authority, even under the Resolution, to deploy troops for discrete missions without first seeking congressional approval.

All Points Bulletin For The House Speaker’s Spine

I try very hard to maintain my objectivity on this blog. But the House Speaker is testing my patience. Case in point, the House Speaker recently stated that he thinks the War Powers Resolution is unconstitutional. I understand why the President might take this position. The Resolution limits the President’s ability to act unilaterally, as it should. But a member of Congress? Keep in mind that the Resolution is itself an act of Congress passed by a bipartisan super-majority. Congress passed the Resolution to help fulfill its constitutional duty to check the President’s use of military power. The House Speaker wants Congress to abandon this duty and endow the President with unbridled authority over the military. This is reckless and irresponsible. It would increase the threats that our uniformed men and women already face.

No self-respecting Congressperson should ever cede her/his authority to check the President’s use of military power, regardless of party loyalty. No self-respecting Congressperson should ever cede her/his role in our constitutional construct. But I am not here to accuse the House Speaker of self-respect. He abandoned his post and his oath long ago. The House Speaker forgets our history (think Vietnam and Afghanistan) and will doom us to repeat it. He no longer demonstrates the ability to think for himself or to speak truth to power. The House Speaker has allowed and even enabled the President to neuter Congress at every turn. He is the President’s lapdog. A useful idiot whom the President will euthanize (figuratively speaking) when his usefulness expires.

The Political Hackery Continues

Back to Iran. In the days since the strikes, debates have raged about the extent of damage done to Iran’s nuclear facilities. The Administration initially claimed the strikes “totally obliterated” the three nuclear facilities. Someone (illegally) leaked a preliminary assessment suggesting the strikes set back Iran’s nuclear program by only a few months. This caused quite a stir. Preliminary reports from Israel and the International Atomic Energy Agency suggest more extensive damage. Members of Congress can’t agree about the damage assessment – and they received the exact same briefings.

We should not rely on what politicians tell us about the damage assessment. They continue to reveal themselves as political opportunists first, honest brokers almost never. They so focus on discrediting their opponents that they forget about their own credibility, or lack thereof. The Defense Department has experts in assessing battle damage. Those experts need several weeks to make a final assessment. We should listen to those experts, not politicians. I expect the damage assessment will be something more than a few month setback and something less than total obliteration. Time will tell.

ABC – Always Be Closing

In the meantime, the strikes were severe enough and impactful enough to get Iran’s attention. Within 24-hours of the strikes, Iran and Israel entered a cease fire, albeit a fragile one. We should not understate the significance of this development. Iran is the world’s leading sponsor of terror. Yet even as Iran’s parliament chants “death to America,” these strikes put Iran in a highly vulnerable position. And Iran’s leaders know it. This is a unique moment in history. The President has a singular opportunity to extract meaningful and enforceable concessions from Iran. He can effect lasting change to Iran’s nuclear program and to its sponsorship of terror. The President deserves credit for creating this moment. Now the deal maker-in-chief needs to close the deal and avoid further military involvement.

The Administration deployed approximately 4,000 National Guard and 700 Marines to Los Angeles. This was in response to violence that erupted during “No Kings” protests. While not commonplace, there are instances in our history where state and federal leadership have deployed the U.S. military on our own soil to keep the peace. 1967 riots in Detroit. 1992 riots in Los Angeles. 2020 riots following George Floyd’s murder. In some instances, state governors deploy National Guard assets. In other instances, the governor asks the President to step in and assume command. In this instance, the California governor and the Los Angeles mayor did not ask for the President’s help. They claim they could have managed the situation on their own. But the President chose to act anyway. This is unusual.

We do not live in a police state. Our laws generally do not permit the President or the Defense Secretary or anyone else to deploy the U.S. military on our own soil. So let’s explore under what circumstances our leadership can deploy the U.S. military at home.

Governors Have Limited Authority To Deploy The National Guard

At the outset, let me state clearly that I have nothing but respect for the members of our U.S. military, past, present and future. We live under the freedom they secure. They are brave, and they are patriots. My issue is not with the men and women of our military. My issue is with the manner in which our nation’s leadership is choosing to deploy our military at home.

During the Civil War and Reconstruction, the federal government used the U.S. military extensively for federal law enforcement purposes. It was an extraordinary time. But even during such an extraordinary time, the people and our elected representatives were concerned about military overreach and abuse. In 1878, Congress passed the Posse Comitatus Act. Posse Comitatus is Latin for “power of the country.” The Act generally prohibits the U.S. military from acting as “posse comitatus” in domestic law enforcement.

There are some narrow and specific exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act. For example, governors can deploy the National Guard to maintain order during riots, protests, or other situations that threaten public safety. We call this type of deployment “State Active Duty.” In these deployments, the governor commands the National Guard, and the state funds them.

The President Has Limited Authority To Deploy The National Guard On Our Home Soil

The President can assume command or deploy the National Guard in limited circumstances at home. Here, the President invoked a particular law, 10 USC §12406. There are three circumstances under this law where the President can deploy the National Guard on our home soil. First, when the United States is invaded or in danger of invasion by a foreign nation. Second, when there is a rebellion or danger of rebellion against the authority of the federal government. Third, when the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States. Here, the President deployed the National Guard “to temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions.”

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the President’s deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles. The Court found the President had determined that ICE needed assistance from the National Guard to execute immigration policy. The Court further found that the President’s determination was entitled to deference. It did not matter that the Court might have made a different determination. As long as the President had a good faith basis for his determination, the Courts would not interfere. It is not unusual for Courts to give the President some deference on matters involving the military or national security.

Deploying The Marines On Our Own Soil Is Chilling

Importantly, the issue on appeal dealt only with deployment of the National Guard. It did not address the deployment of Marines. So we can expect further guidance from the Courts on this point. By its terms, the law cited by the President applies only to the National Guard. It does not mention any other branch of the Armed Forces. Nevertheless, the President’s Executive Order goes beyond the National Guard and ends with a broad directive. “In addition, the Secretary of Defense may employ any other members of the regular Armed Forces as necessary to augment and support the protection of Federal functions and property in any number determined appropriate in his discretion.” When the Defense Secretary deployed 700 Marines to Los Angeles, he did so pursuant to this broad directive.

I believe this statement in the Executive Order exceeded the law. I further believe that the Defense Secretary’s deployment of Marines for domestic purposes violated the law. It is important that the Courts address this issue and clearly delineate the limits of presidential authority. We should not normalize the deployment of military assets on our home soil.

The President Did Not Rely On The Insurrection Act

You may hear some discussion of the Insurrection Act, which is another exception to the Posse Comitatus Act. Under the Insurrection Act, the President can deploy the U.S. military on our home soil to put down a rebellion or insurrection. Invoking this Act requires a Presidential proclamation instructing the insurrectionists to disperse before deploying military personnel. The President did not issue such a proclamation. The President also did not cite the Insurrection Act in his Executive Order. In my view, the Insurrection Act is irrelevant unless and until the President invokes it.

My How We Contort Ourselves To Justify Our Selective Outrage

Many of us have reacted emotionally to the violence in Los Angeles. We see it all over social media. The rioters gave up their rights when they started damaging property. The illegal immigrants gave up their rights when they crossed the border illegally. We don’t need to care if the President deploys our military against “others,” even on our home soil. Right?

And so it begins. We ignore the clear line in the law. We back up and draw a new line. Until the President crosses that line. Then we back up some more and draw another new line. Until the President crosses that one. We keep backing up and drawing new lines until eventually our heals are hanging over the edge of a cliff. We have nowhere else to go. For all our Second Amendment torchbearers, the right to bear arms is not just to protect us in our homes. It is to protect us against an oppressive and militarized government. Most every militarized government in history began with a seemingly benign act of executive overreach. We should not back up an inch.

Numbers fascinate me. Always have. My inner-geek manifesting itself. Numbers are unemotional. They behave in predictable ways. Numbers have a unique combination of perfect memory and no memory at all. They give the same answers, regardless of who asks. Numbers are incapable of hubris, or shame, or guile. Like a Vulcan on Star Trek, numbers don’t care about our feelings.

When it comes to the Big Beautiful Bill (BBB), we hear vastly different numbers coming from D.C. One government agency claims the BBB will result in an additional $2.4 trillion in deficit spending. Another government body claims the BBB will result in a $6.7 trillion positive variance. This is a $9.1 trillion swing. Wildly different numbers supposedly answering the same question. How can this be? What numbers should we believe?

All Budgets Are Wrong. Some Are Useful.

A budget is only as good as the inputs. If we make incorrect assumptions, or misapply formulas, or ask the wrong questions, then the budget isn’t useful. Congress has engaged in budgeting for more than two centuries. While the budget has increased in complexity, the basic exercise remains the same. Estimate tax revenue based on a certain set of assumptions regarding tax rates and economic activity. Estimate expenditures from different government agencies and programs. Then subtract expenditures from revenue. It is complex, but it is not complicated. After more than 200 years of budgeting, we might think Congress had gotten pretty good at it. Yet here we stand with a $9.1 trillion disagreement.

Beware Of Budgets With Big Swings In The Out Years

When the federal government publishes a budget, it includes a ten-year forecast of revenue and spending. In my opinion, we should focus on years 1-2 in the budget. We should not ignore years 3-10, but we should not rely on them too much either. As a general matter, a budget becomes less reliable the further out it goes. This is intuitive. We can predict what might happen in years 1-2 better than we can for years 3-10. At some point in the out years, we substitute informed budgeting with educated guessing. It becomes more guess and less educated the further out we go.

In the context of federal budgets specifically, the underlying tax and spend policies can change in two-year increments. We have congressional elections every two years. We have presidential elections every four years. When the balance of power flips from one party to the other, policies change. These policy changes can impact tax rates, or loopholes, or economic growth, or discretionary spending, or social welfare programs. We have mid-terms in 2026. If the balance of power flips in the House or Senate or both, policies impacting the federal budget will change.

The CBO Provides A Conservative Analysis

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) reports that the BBB will add $2.4 trillion in deficit spending over ten years. This is on top of $21 trillion in deficits already projected over ten years. The $2.4 trillion includes an increase in deficit spending of $485 billion in 2026 and $536 billion in 2027. This is just over $1 trillion in increased deficit spending in the first two years alone. Per the CBO, increases in deficit spending moderate in the out years but never turn positive. We continue in the wrong direction throughout the ten-year period.

It is en vogue for politicians who do not like the CBO’s analysis to accuse it of partisanship. The House Speaker and other proponents of the BBB have adopted this approach in recent days. When members of Congress criticize the CBO, keep in mind that the CBO is itself a congressional agency. Congress created the CBO in 1974. The CBOs primary purpose is to provide objective, nonpartisan information to support the congressional budget process. Congress sets the CBO’s priorities. Congress gives the CBO its assignments. So when members of Congress point their bony fingers at the CBO, they are pointing at themselves.

CBO reports tend to be sterile and dry. No color. No advocacy. Just cold, hard numbers backed by extensive analysis and 50 years of experience. The CBO does not make policy recommendations. It provides data and analysis so Congress can make policy recommendations. The CBO’s methodology is to conduct a baseline analysis that assumes current tax and spend law will remain in place. It then analyzes how proposed law, like the BBB, would impact those baselines and reports the difference. The CBO discloses its methodology and assumptions. It has teams of experts dedicated to analyzing the impact of policy on revenue and spending.

The OMB Engages In Advocacy, Not Reporting

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) often serves as a foil to the CBO. The OMB reports to the President and assists in executing the President’s agenda. Unlike the CBO, the OMB is partisan by design. OMB reports read like advocacy pieces, full of colorful adjectives and adverbs and occasional name-calling.

The OMB claims the BBB will result in a $6.7 trillion positive variance to deficit spending. The OMB has two big areas of disagreement with the CBO. First, the OMB claims the CBO’s baseline assumes the 2017 tax cuts will expire at the end of this year. This is true. The CBO has to make this assumption. The tax cuts will in fact expire at the end of this year under existing law. The point of the CBO’s analysis is to understand how changes in the law, e.g., extending tax cuts, impact the deficit. The answer is, per the CBO, extending the tax cuts grows the deficit.

Second, the OMB claims the CBO did not adequately account for increases in tariff revenue. This is misleading. The CBO analyzed the BBB. Tariffs are not part of the BBB or any other proposed legislation. The CBO performed a separate analysis of certain tariffs and found they could generate as much as $2.8 trillion over ten years. (As you know from other posts, I believe US companies and consumers will pay the vast majority of this $2.8 trillion. If I’m right, it will be the largest tax increase in our history.) However, neither the Administration nor Congress has adopted a policy that would support those numbers.

More to the point, we have no idea where the Administration’s tariff policy will land. The Administration chose to implement tariffs through executive action, rather than legislation. This leaves the tariffs exposed to attacks in Court, or legislative action, or future executive action. If the Courts uphold the President’s tariff authority, another party could take control of Congress beginning in 2027. That party could adopt legislation reversing the tariffs and returning to free trade policy. Or the next President could reverse the tariffs with the stroke of a pen in 2029. Presidents frequently begin their terms by reversing the predecessor’s executive action. In short, including tariff revenue when considering the BBB seems dubious.

Wharton Tells It Like It Is

The Penn Wharton School of Business has modeled the BBB. They have updated the model throughout the summer, as recently as June 10. Wharton reports that the BBB will result in $2.8 trillion in additional deficit spending over ten years. When accounting for dynamic effects like GDP growth, this number actually increases to $3.2 trillion. Wharton reports increases in deficit spending of $614 billion in 2026 and $561 billion in 2027. This is over $1.1 trillion in additional deficit spending during the first two years alone. Per Wharton, increases in deficit spending moderate in the out years but never turn positive. In short, Wharton’s analysis is much closer to the CBO than the OMB.

Proponents of the BBB like to remind us that extending tax cuts can spur economic growth. This is true, but it is the wrong question. The correct question is whether extending tax cuts will spur enough economic activity and generate enough tax revenue to offset cuts. Wharton says no.

We Should Return To First Principles

The CBO, OMB and Wharton have approached the BBB very differently. The OMB makes more aggressive assumptions about tariffs and economic growth. The CBO and Wharton make more conservative assumptions. When it comes to budgeting, conservatism is the better approach. If we outperform the budget and have a surprise surplus, great. We can use it to help reduce our debt to a reasonable level. The real trouble comes when we count on the money and then under-perform. That is a recipe for uncontrolled deficit spending.

The OMB and Wharton also disagree about what will happen in the out years. The OMB thinks GDP will explode in the out years, thus, turning the tide on deficit spending. Wharton’s analysis shows otherwise. In truth, Congress and the Administration are just kicking the can down the road. They don’t want to make unpopular decisions, however necessary to secure our financial future. They refuse to do the pesky work of governing by reducing deficit spending. They move money around. They play shell games. But the deficit keeps growing. Now they insist it will work itself out if we just let them add trillions more to the deficit. This is a sucker’s bet. The deficit will not work itself out. Congress and the Administration need to address deficit spending now. Not in 2026 or 2027 or 2034, but now. We can’t afford to keep kicking the can down the road.

We should all call our congressperson and insist that they reduce deficit spending immediately.

I grew up listening to a lot of rock anthems. Boston’s More Than A Feeling. Heart’s Barracuda. Rush’s Tom Sawyer (or almost anything else by Rush). Great songs that belonged in open air stadiums.

At Detroit sporting events, we have a ritual with Journey’s rock anthem Don’t Stop Believin’. We recognize the song from the first bar. We all rise to our feet. In the first verse, there is a lyric that begins “Just a city boy.” Then the DJ turns the volume down. The crowd erupts to finish the lyric, “born and raised in south Detroit!” Then the volume goes back up, and we keep singing. It is a great tradition.

The Grand Illusion

But here is a little secret that most people outside my beloved hometown don’t know. There is no such place as south Detroit. If we go to Hart Plaza – which is city center – and face south, we look across the Detroit River directly into Windsor, Ontario, Canada. In fact, Detroit is the only place in the continental United States where we look south to Canada. If we follow the Detroit river to where it turns south, we head toward what we call “downriver.” South Detroit does not exist.

Now I don’t blame Journey for this bit of misinformation. They probably didn’t know any better. And here in Detroit, we welcome the positive exposure and a reason to cheer. But it still causes me to wonder what else have we learned wrong from song lyrics. I sure hope School House Rock got it right.

You Ain’t Seen Nothing Yet

I have a similar concern when it comes to politics. Except I don’t think it is quite as innocent and harmless as a rock anthem. So much of what we hear from politicians and government officials just isn’t so. Politicians calculate, obfuscate and even fabricate for political gain. The disingenuous reign supreme. They run the virtuous through a threshing machine.

Take our U.S. Attorney General, for example. Earlier this year, she announced the DEA under the current Administration had seized more than 21,000,000 fentanyl pills. This sounded like a notable accomplishment for law enforcement. Except the AG had just begun to dazzle us with her knack for numbers. She went on to claim that seizing 21,000,000 fentanyl pills equated to saving 21,000,000 lives. I understand the symmetry, but the equation did not seem right to me. My spidey sense was tingling.

A couple days later, the AG updated her figures. The President had not saved a mere 21,000,000 lives, but had saved 119,000,000 lives through the seizure of fentanyl pills. Now I was incredulous. But the AG still wasn’t done.

A couple days later, during a cabinet meeting, the AG updated her figures once again. This time, she declared the President had in fact saved 258,000,000 lives. Before making this statement, she looked at the camera and said, “are you ready for this, media?” Even as she said it, the AG knew people would find her figures hard to believe.

You Really Got Me

Here are some real statistics. Approximately 77,000 people in the U.S. died of fentanyl related causes in 2023. This is a horrific statistic. Even one life lost to fentanyl is too many. Still, I hope we all agree that 77,000 does not equal 21,000,000. Or 119,000,000. Or 258,000,000.

Here is another real statistic. The total population of the United States is about 340,000,000. Again, the fentanyl crisis is very real and very serious. But 2/3 of our population were not at risk of a fentanyl overdose last year.

The AG’s figures had no reasonable basis in fact. They were made-up. If true, the AG’s figures would have meant that the President had eradicated the fentanyl crisis (and then some). But that is not the case at all. The fentanyl crisis rages on. The AG’s figures trivialize the real lives destroyed by fentanyl and do a disservice to those combating the fentanyl crisis.

Won’t Get Fooled Again

I don’t know which possible explanation for the AG’s behavior is worse here. That the AG was naive enough to believe her figures. Or that the AG thought we were naive enough to believe her figures.

And it isn’t just the fact that the AG spewed facially inaccurate numbers. It is the fact that she told the lie on three separate occasions. It is the fact that she embellished the lie each time. It is the fact that the lie was at least 3,350 times bigger than the truth. It is the fact that she had time to think between lies, and she still went through with them. It is the fact that she gave the camera a cheeky smirk. This is the top prosecutor in the country. I don’t know how we can reasonably believe anything she says. I don’t know how we can take her seriously.

Notably, this story ran for just a couple days and did not garner all that much attention. The Administration throws so much new material at us every day that no one issue receives the attention it deserves. It turns out that flooding the zone, as some call it, works. We can’t keep up.

The Song Remains The Same

One reason I started writing this blog is because I lost faith in what the government tells us. So I eliminate the middle man, and I go straight to source material – like studies, legislation and court opinions. I have found over and over that politicians and government officials simply do not shoot us straight. If they support something, they embellish (or fabricate) the good news and hide the bad. If they oppose something, they do just the opposite. But no one seems to offer an honest assessment.

And I do mean to pick on the AG. Hers is the most ridiculous example I have heard in recent memory. But the problem is not limited to the AG, or to the Administration, or to any one party. It is endemic throughout the governing class. Presidents. Vice Presidents. Department secretaries. Agency heads. Representatives. Senators. Spokespeople. They tell some whoppers. We judge the truth of their statements – not from critical analysis – but from our own biases and prejudices. We stop at the headlines but don’t drill into the story. We don’t step back and consider whether what they are saying really makes sense.

I’ve Seen All Good People

In every other aspect of our lives, honesty and integrity matter. We teach our children honesty and integrity. We expect it from our friends and neighbors. We demand it from our co-workers. But we would not trust most of our elected officials to house sit our plants.

There are some good people in politics. People who tell the unadulterated truth. People worthy of respect. People we would want our children to emulate. Identifying the good people requires careful discernment. Too often we abdicate our responsibility to ascertain good from bad, right from wrong. We vote along party lines even when we know our own candidate is a scoundrel.

I say we should break this cycle. Partisan politics be damned. We should elect good people to represent us. People of high character. People we admire. We should vote for honesty and integrity above partisanship. Virtue above party. We get the government we deserve.

Budget discussions continue to dominate Washington, D.C. Senators are pushing back on the Big, Beautiful Bill and making noise about requiring real progress on the deficit. It remains to be seen whether these Senators will take a principled stance. I am not holding my breath.

In an earlier post, we discussed our government’s addiction to debt. I thought we might pause here to consider that addiction more closely.

We Are On An Unsustainable Path

Recall that our national debt stands at about $36.6 trillion. In 2024, our gross domestic product (GDP) was about $29.1 trillion. This is a proxy for the size of our economy. So our national debt is 26% bigger than our entire economy. This is bad. For reference, when the Greek economy collapsed in 2009, its debt to GDP ratio was 115%. The EU’s debt to GDP ratio is approximately 81%. Again, the U.S. stands at 126%.

Our GDP grows at a rate of about 2.5-3% per year. In recent history, our deficit spending has averaged about 6-6.5% of GDP per year. This means that our national debt is growing faster than our economy, so the gap continues to widen. This is not just bad. It is unsustainable. As another point of reference, the EU expects its members to keep deficit spending below 3% of GDP.

Congress Cannot Balance A Household Budget

To put this into context, imagine a household earning $100,000 per year. That same household spends 106% of what they earn every year, so they assume $6,000 in credit card debt. The next year, the household receives a 3% raise, so it now earns $103,000. But it continues to spend 106% of what it earns, accumulating another $6,000 in credit card debt. After the second year, it now has a total of $12,000 in credit card debt.

This pattern continues for 35 years. At the end of 35 years, the household earns a healthy $200,000 per year. But they continue to spend 106% of what they earn, which is now $12,000 in credit card debt per year. Over the years, they have accumulated about $250,000 in total credit card debt. And they don’t have any assets or any savings because they outspent their income all along.

The Numbers Are Bigger, But The Math Is The Same

This is essentially what our federal government has done. The income represents our GDP, and the accumulated credit card debt represents our national debt. When the government raises the debt ceiling, they have maxed our their credit card and they want to open a new one. Except they never pay off the old one. They just roll it over and continue to spend more than we earn. So we can never make up any ground.

As should be obvious, this is unsustainable. The U.S. will eventually have to live within its means. We can do it voluntarily or it can be forced upon us. We should choose to do it voluntarily. The involuntary path is quite messy and onerous. See Greece in 2009.

Creditors Will Eventually Say Enough Is Enough

Speaking of reckonings, let’s consider U.S. treasury bonds. Treasury bonds are the vehicle through which the government borrows money to pay for deficit spending. It is the government’s credit card in the analogy above. When interest rates on ten- and thirty-year treasury bonds rise, that means two important and related things have happened. First, the market has lost confidence in the U.S.’s ability to service its debt. Second, the market has decided to charge the U.S. a higher interest rate going forward to account for the additional risk. When people talk about bond markets sending negative signals or getting wobbly, this is what they mean.

There is an inflection point out there when bond holders will say enough is enough. The market will eventually clap back. No one knows exactly where the inflection point is. But when we hit it, trouble will follow fast and furious. In my opinion, we entered dangerous territory when our debt eclipsed our GDP, which happened around 2012. Since then, every time our government raises the debt ceiling, it is rolling the dice. Every time our government adopts deficit spending greater than 3% of GDP, it is rolling the dice.

We Need Serious Policy

To maintain trust with the markets long term, I think our government needs to adopt some policies. Put a cap on the debt. Put a cap on deficit spending. Do the hard work of balancing the budget now and stop kicking the can down the road. Provide a real plan for reducing the debt starting now, not in five or ten years. Continuing to raise the debt ceiling and to spend more than we earn without any discernible policy is beyond irresponsible. It is a game of craps. And the house always wins.