Category: Congress

Portland, Oregon

Three years ago (June 2022) I accepted an invitation to speak at the Western Economic Association meeting in Portland Oregon because it provided the opportunity to visit with my family. My daughter and her two kids live near Seattle and my son and four of his five kids live in Vancouver Washington across the Columbia River from Portland. My daughter and her kids came down to Portland for the occasion and we have a wonderful dinner together in the city.

Serious crime peaked in Portland that year with 95 homicides.  We were also aware of the unsightly presence of the homeless sleeping on sidewalks. Since then serious crime has rapidly declined, with homicides falling to half that number in 2024. President Donald Trump has repeatedly described Portland as “war ravaged” and a “hotbed of violent protest activity”.  He has directed the Secretary of War, Pete Hegseth, to deploy troops to protect Portland and ICE facilities from groups like Antifa which he refers to as “domestic terrorists”. Antifa, by the way, is not an organization but rather a term to describe those fighting fascism.

“Trump on Saturday said he had authorized the use of “full force” if needed to suppress protests targeting immigration detention centers.  Oregon has responded by suing the Trump administration, arguing that the deployment of the National Guard to Portland is “unlawful”. The lawsuit, filed on Sunday by Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield, called the move “provocative and arbitrary”, and said it “threatens to undermine public safety by inciting a public outcry”. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cddmn6ge6e2o

Federal Judge Karin J. Immergut, a Trump appointee during his first term, blocked Trump’s activation of 200 state Guard troops, then issued a second ruling stopping the administration’s workaround—sending troops from Texas and California instead.

In a letter from my Senator, Tim Kaine, he stated that “President Trump issued an executive order directing Secretary Hegseth to establish new “specialized units” within the National Guard, explicitly trained and equipped to address “public order issues” and available for rapid nationwide deployment. While the National Guard already maintains reaction forces under the command of state governors, this order blurs the line between military support and domestic law enforcement and raises unresolved questions about chain of command, federal authority, and compliance with the Posse Comitatus Act. By creating a framework that could allow federal authorities to bypass governors and insert Guard units into local jurisdictions, the order heightens concerns that the Trump Administration is seeking to normalize the use of the military in routine public safety functions and expand such deployments beyond Washington, D.C. into other U.S. cities.”

We are surely used to Trump’s many lies, so why have I given so much space to lies about Portland? While addressing the strangely assembled Admirals and Generals at the Marine Corps Base in Quanitico on September 30, Trump suggested that his deployment of the military to American Cities could provide a training ground for our “enemies within.” These uses of our “defense” forces against our own people is unprecedented and totally against American law and practice.

President Trump said Monday that he may invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy federal troops to Portland, calling ongoing protests there a form of “criminal insurrection.” The Insurrection Act permits the federal deployment of troops in extreme cases. Surely the courts will block him.

Week after week Trump has chipped away at our constitutional protections. After each “small” step into autocracy is absorbed, he takes another. He has fired the Inspector Generals, who are meant to provide a guard rail of oversight against government abuses of power, and violated the customary autonomy of the Justice Department by instructing the Attorney General to go after his “enemies,” (not just Comey). What might be next? And where (and how) will it end?

Immigration

what is the problem and what should be done?

The United State—a nation of immigrants—is the most prosperous nation in the world because of the freedom of its residents to innovate, work hard, and seek out what the public wants to buy (i.e. to profit). Many of the founders of our most successful companies (e.g., Google, Tesla, Panda Express, Uber, WhatsApp, eBay, Stripe, PayPal) are first generation immigrants. Immigrants are drawn to America because it offers such opportunities, thus we tend to attract the best and brightest. “Immigrants from hell”

Along with the clear benefits of immigration, it poses challenges and some costs as well. The internal migration of people within a country as new jobs or tastes result in people moving into new homes and neighborhoods produces most all the same issues as immigration of foreigners from abroad. We live in communities and have rules (even laws) for our rights and those of our neighbors. What we do effects then and vice versa.

Before moving back to Crystal/Pentagon City in Arlington Virginia, we lived in a 64 home (two acres each) community in Bethesda Maryland with a convenient reflecting very ridged rules for what we could and could not do on our property in order to preserve its natural wooded environment. This is what we were buying. But over some decades more and more families with children moved in with different tastes and desires (e.g., basketball hoops visible from the road). Many community discussions were held, and some rules were adjusted but it required a lot of community discussion.

Our immigration laws are inadequate. We need more immigrant workers and entrepreneurs and better border control, i.e., we need more legal immigration and better control of the illegal sort.  Laws to give immigrants legal status are inadequate and not consistently enforced. “illegal aliens” In 2013 a bipartisan bill to address these problems (The Border Security, Economic Opportunity, and Immigration Modernization Act of 2013) passed the Senate by 68-32 in favor but sadly failed to pass the House. Quoting from Wikipedia:

“If enacted, the bill would have made it possible for many undocumented immigrants to gain legal status and eventually citizenship. It would have increased border security by adding up to 40,000 border patrol agents. It also would have advanced talent-based immigration through a points-based immigration system. New visas were proposed in this legislation, including a visa for entrepreneurs and a W visa for lower skilled workers.[6] It also proposed new restrictions on H1B visa program to prevent its abuse and additional visas/green-cards for students with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) degrees from U.S. institutions. The bill also included a $1.5 billion youth jobs program and repealed the Diversity Visa Lottery in favor of prospective legal immigrants who are already in the United States.”

Refugees pose a special challenge (e.g. Afghans who worked for the US or international bodies and are thus suspect to the new Taliban government) as do the “guest” seasonal workers in California’s farmland. If Congress is up for serious work they should get to it.

Police state

Congress has struggled for decades to adopt a workable immigration and border security policy. Several reasonable proposals have been advanced over the past several decades but never crossed the finish line. We need more immigrants but of the legal sort. But getting the balance right is not easy.

The path for legal immigration should be widened while border enforcement and workplace employment of illegal residents should be made more difficult. More judges are needed to process refugee applicants much more quickly. How tighter rules are implemented matter. The Trump administration’s current approach is wrong and contrary to American norms. It’s as if he is leading the country step by step to a coup. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/06/11/immigration-arrests-ice-raid-masks/

Trump’s Chainsaw

I assume that I approve of many of Trump’s cuts or closers. But how can I know? His executive orders do not include or are not preceded by a discussion of the issues involved and the pros and cons of alternatives, as is customary in free societies.  As our government is supposed to reflect the will of the people, it is essential that “the people” debate the desirability of polices and their adoption. In the end they need to be accepted by us as desirable or at least OK. My goal is a federal government limited to powers granted in our constitution, delivering only those services that are wanted and doing so as well and efficiently as possible.

But Trump takes a different approach.  Lindsey Halligantold Trump that the Smithsonian needs to remove “improper ideology”. He’s ordered her to do it. https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/power/2025/04/21/lindsey-halligan-smithsonian-executive-order/.

Of course we want our museums to reflect our history accurately. But the many controversies about historical facts and their implications have been publicly and transparently debated by historians for decades. It is quite proper to review such representations. Trump’s executive order stated that Halligan “will consult with Vice President JD Vance to ‘remove improper ideology’ from Smithsonian properties.”

The first question is: What is improper ideology, exactly?

The second: Who is Lindsey Halligan, Esq.? (Washington Post above)

The established process of review, appropriate to a free society, has been replaced by a top-down order typical of autocracies.

The point here is that the manner and process of review and reform appropriate to a free society is discarded in the top-down orders of an autocrat.

Some of Trump’s orders reveal enough to know that I oppose them. Trumps tariff proposals reveal a lack of understanding of trade, quite aside from the rules established by the World Trade Organization (WTO). Trump condemns countries with trade surpluses with the US. These are irrelevant—as it is the US trade deficit with the rest of the world that matters—if anything. My trade deficit with Safeway is irrelevant.

Not only is Trump’s reciprocal tariff calculation laughable for its many errors, but other policies directly counter the presumed purpose of his tariffs (though who really knows what that is). His unlawful deportation attempts and cancelling student visa has produced a sharp fall in foreign visits to the US (foreign students studying here has many other benefits for the US as well). These are US exports, generating the money needed to pay for our imports. Why would he do this? This was later reversed, and the student visa reestablished. Or doesn’t he even understand what he is doing? His targeting for deportation those critical of him or Israel is a frightening attack on our First Amendment rights.

His tariff threats, on again, off again, actually seem unrelated to trade objectives. They seem to be bargaining chips for other objectives, whatever those might be. Their unpredictability itself is inflecting damage to our trade and investments. It is a very different (autocratic) approach to trade agreements than provided by the WTO.

Trump’s bargaining style re tariffs may well produce good results six months or a year down the line. But the cost has been the alienation and isolation from our traditional allies (not in our interest), and economic damage in the interim. More alarming it has strengthened China’s world leadership, driving many into closer alliance with it. The proper question is whether his approach or the traditional working though the WTO would have produced better results.

Education, whether in schools or the public square, is vital in free societies. Closing the Wilson Center was a big mistake in my view. I attended many very informative presentations there, often with Abdul Fitrat, former governor of the central bank of Afghanistan (DAB). But most of our think tanks, also presenting excellent and important seminars, are private. Trump wants to dictate what schools teach and what parents must allow or can opt out of for their children. His demands are being challenged in court. What the state can require, and parents can choose, is a challenging issue. Our traditional and more effective approach to its resolution is via public debate—not executive order.

Our cultural scene (opera, ballet, theater, etc.) is an important aspect of a flourishing society. It is quite proper to debate the extent to which our government should help finance it, but not its importance for a healthy, flourishing society. From the settlement of hunter-gatherers into tribes, such culturally binding activities have flourished. I recently watched a very painful film “A Day in the Life” of a woman (former violin player) working seven days a week to remove the rubble left in Dresden after WWII. Anyone contemplating war should examine what was left after previous wars before starting a new one. After the war, Dresden was occupied by the USSR. Interestingly the Russians set up theaters and concert halls to display the richness of Russian culture.

In the US our cultural events are largely financed by the private sector. The Kennedy Center is a federal building and the only U.S. national cultural center. The federal government covers facility operations, maintenance, security, and capital improvements, as the Center is a federal building and national memorial. About 20% of its annual operating budget is paid by the government. The government is not allowed to fund any of its performance activities and costs. Though he has never set foot in the Kennedy Center, Trump replaced its board with his friends and made himself chairman. ???

I strongly opposed Trump’s shut down of USAID, for example. https://wcoats.blog/?s=usaid. I worked for USAID in Iraq and with it in Afghanistan and other post-conflict counties. Their role was vital. The closing of USAID harms American interest.

Let me add one more example of a USAID activity. Its support of the G-17 in Serbia provides one of many examples. In the late 1990s an IMF collogue from Serbia (former Yugoslavia) pulled me aside to explain the group of center-right, free-market economists from Serbia that he was part of—they called themselves the G-17. He explained that the National Endowment for Democracy and USAID helped organize and fund seminars at which G-17 members could discuss the policies they wanted to support and how to achieve them.

“During the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, [Yugoslavia’s President Slobodan] Milošević was charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) for war crimes connected to the Bosnian War, Croatian War of Independence and Kosovo War. After resigning from the Yugoslav presidency in 2000 amidst demonstrations against the disputed presidential election, Milošević was arrested by Yugoslav federal authorities in March 2001 on suspicion of corruption, abuse of power, and embezzlement.] The initial investigation faltered, and he was extradited to the ICTY to stand trial for war crimes.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87.

In the turmoil following Milošević’s replacement, Jimmy Barton (Chief National Bank Examiner of the United States, Retired) and I entered Belgrade on 9/10/2001 (I think—I am no longer sure of the date) to singing and dancing in the streets. As we met with the new government officials, they often gave us their G-17 card with the apology that they had not had time to get new official cards. Thank you EFD and USAID.

Trump also claimed to shut down the Millenium Challenge Corporation, the best foreign aid program we have ever had. He has withdrawn from several international organizations and agreements, and angered our friends and allies, further isolating the US. These are not in American interests.

During his 2024 presidential campaign, Trump promised no more wars. In his first 100 days in office, he threatened to invade Panama and Greenland and to annex Canada. He has started bombing Yemen without Congressional authorization. He continues to support and help finance Israel’s wars in Gaza, West Bank, Lebanon, and Syria. He has withdrawn the US from many international organizations and agreements. We are increasingly isolated with fewer and fewer friends. The US voice in the world no longer carries its earlier weight—all of which has made China stronger and more influential.

To repeat, the longer-run outcome of all this may well be good for us all. There is no knowing that at this point. But the real question is whether good results achieved in this way are better than if achieved via public debate and normal diplomacy?

The courts are increasingly challenging Trump’s disregard for law and due process. What I want to emphasis is that Trump’s autocratic actions via executive orders is very different from our usual public debate over policy seeking as much public understanding and common ground as possible. Such public debate is important for what a policy (or goal of an agency) should be. The internal efficiency with which that policy is implemented is a separate issue and something that a DOGE might well help achieve.

In a letter to U of Chicago alumni, its President Paul Alivisatos stated “As the broader higher education compact is reordered, we should not fear change for its own sake. There is reform to be had—and great opportunity to improve and to achieve more. Yet, how a period of reform unfolds can also cause enormous damage; federal and political overreach and intervention without regard to due process produces profound damage…. We have important interests at stake at this moment, as well as a set of obligations that we must and will honor.”

Trump’s executive order dictates are not an appropriate approach to reforming the scope of government.

Econ 101: How much should we tax the rich?

Should the wealthy pay more taxes than the rest of us? Of course, no one disagrees with that. But how much more? Based on 2022 tax year, the latest available, the top 10% of income earners (those with adjusted gross income above $178,661) paid 72% of the total of $2.1 trillion taxes collected. Is that too much or too little or about right. The bottom 50% of income earners (less than AGI of $50,339) paid 3.0%. What is a “fair” distribution of the tax burden and/or an economically efficient distribution? Corporate income taxes raised $0.42 trillion that year and should really be abolished in our globally trading world.

I have written earlier (many times actually) that I support abolishing all income taxes (personal and corporate) and relying fully on consumption taxation. While it can be challenging to determine where things are produced, there is no question about where we consume them. But while waiting for that miracle to happen, how much more should higher income people pay in taxes than lower income people?

Fair Tax Act of 2023
Replacing Social Security with a Universal Basic Income

My sense of fairness (and economists norm for tax neutrality) says that the tax rate should be the same for everyone. In other words, if your income is twice mine, you should pay twice the tax. If all income taxes and welfare payments were replace with a Universal Basic Income for all and flat consumption tax (VAT) the result would be mildly progressive tax rates on income.

A note on Social Security: it is not a saving plan in which what you saved is there to pay out to you when you retire. https://wcoats.blog/?s=social+security

Econ 101: Budget Cuts

What criteria should guild when to cut some program’s budget? We must first get beyond the fact the any cut will result in having less of something. If it is inefficiency or corruption that we give up—good riddance. But usually, it will be something that has some value. That does not necessarily mean that the cut should not be made.

Consider this example from my in-tray today:

“The Trump administration has made drastic cuts to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that threaten to impact weather forecasting and other key services provided by the agency. 

In the wake of the wave of dismissals this week, lawmakers and former officials raised concerns about potential damage to services ranging from extreme weather responses to efforts to prevent objects from colliding in space.” “The Hill: Energy – Environment – NOAA cuts”

What should be considered when making such a decision is what other services were prevented by directing these resources to NOAA activities rather than alternative uses. Even if the government just increases it overall budget, the added taxes or borrowing will have alternative uses.

You will immediately understand the issue when you consider your own household budget. Your income is limited (unless you give up some leisure to work more hours). You might gain some pleasure spending more on X, but you can only do so by giving up some Y. If you benefit more from the extra X than you lose giving up Y, then you should do it. It passes the cost/benefit test of maximizing the benefit of your given income.  

In short, the fact that cutting the budget of some agency will cut some of its services is an incomplete argument for not cutting because if fails to take account of the rest of the cost/benefit assessment of the resulting reallocation of resources.

Such budget decisions are generally debated in Congress as it approves the government’s budget. It’s an imperfect process, like most of life, but it allows all views and pros and cons to be heard and considered. A body like Musk’s DOGE might be appropriate for evaluating the efficiency with which services are performed (perhaps proposing better information processing systems) and detecting corruption, but not for evaluating the desirability of such services themselves.

USAID

“When Marco Rubio testified during his confirmation to become Secretary of State, he said that one of the things that frustrated him the most about the U.S. Agency for International Development was that it didn’t ‘brag’ enough to show other countries ‘what the United States is doing to help their societies.’

“The comment followed years of praise from Rubio for the billions of dollars in lifesaving aid that USAID distributed overseas to boost America’s image and counter the influence of rivals such as China.”  “Washington Post: Marco Rubio on USAID”

From my own experience, I agree with Rubio. After retiring from the International Monetary Fund in 2003, I had a contract from USAID from May 2004  – Sept 2005 to help the Central Bank of Iraq establish financial markets important for monetary policy as well as its capacity to formulate and implement monetary policy. Under this contract I reported to and was supervised by the US Treasury. I have also worked closely with USAID banking supervision contractors (BearingPoint and Deloitte) in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo, and South Sudan, all post conflict countries. They did an outstanding job, and I am sure that I was well worth the money I earned as well.

Quite aside from the insanity of suspending payments and projects in midair, wasting millions of dollars (and lives) in the process, the proper question of our government is whether these projects (or which of these projects) serve American interests and do so more effectively than would alternative uses of the same money. “As Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said, ‘Every dollar we spend, every program we fund, and every policy we pursue must be justified with the answer to three simple questions: Does it make America safer? Does it make America stronger? Does it make America more prosperous?’” “State Department: Implementing the president’s executive order on reevaluating and realigning United States foreign aid”

A proper answer to those three objectives should take a long run perspective. America is safer and more prosperous when the rest of the world (our trading partners) is also more prosperous. We are stronger when we have earned the rest of the world’s respect and cooperation. USAID, by providing humanitarian and development assistance to other countries, gains their respect and gratitude, which promotes their cooperation. When President John F Kennedy established the USAID in 1961 he made this case calling it American soft power. Following Congress’s adoption of the Foreign Assistance Act in September1961, Kennedy consolidated several foreign aid agencies into the USAID in order to improve coordination and efficiency.  It is fair to ask whether this is the most efficient way of packaging these activities and coordinating them with other departments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLzwsc3XGNA

USAID has missions in over 100 countries. Congress authorizes USAID’s programs in the Foreign Assistance Act, which Congress supplements through directions in annual funding appropriation acts and other legislation. As an official component of U.S. foreign policy, USAID operates subject to the guidance of the president, Secretary of State, and the National Security Council.

Of USAID’s total budget of almost $8 billion in 2001 and $34 billion in fiscal 2024 (less than 1% of total federal budget), one third goes to public health and the rest to disaster relief, and economic and government capacity building. Its programs to treat HIV and malaria have saved millions of lives, largely in Africa, over the last two decades. It played a major role in implementing George W Bush’s “President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) which saved over 25M lives globally. “State Department: About US PETFAR” It played an important role in ending smallpox and increasing global literacy.

When I asked several USAID staff what they considered the agency’s greatest successes they sighted South Korea which is now a major US trading partner, and Columbia which has risen from a failed state to a secure middle-income country and a major US trading partner. But we can no longer access the details of these programs as USAID’s website was taken down February 1.   

Those lives saved, plus the technical assistance in governance, infrastructure, and building stronger economies has raised incomes in these countries and their sales to and purchases from the US and other countries abroad (trade). As the U.S. benefits economically from these stronger economics, American citizens are also kept safer.  With stronger economies comes stability for citizens to live peaceful, prosperous lives, turning away from the perils of extremism and increasing security on the ground. Thus, American aid has not only gained respect, good will, and cooperation from the aid recipients but increased trade, income, and security in the US as a result. In a statement made by then U.S. Senator Marco Rubio, he highlighted that six of the United States’ ten largest trading partners had graduated from assistance provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). In a 2015 Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, for instance, Rubio said USAID “not only is doing what is right, but we are also furthering our national interests.” “Washington Post: Marco Rubio USAID”

The mean average managed foreign assistance disbursed in the fiscal years 2001 to 2024 by USAID was $22.9 billion in inflation adjusted to 2023 dollars; 2023 was an exceptional year because of an extra $16 billion of funds for Ukraine. America’s military budget over this period was almost $850 billion dollars per year. Since 9/11, the United States has spent an estimated $8 trillion on wars and counterterrorism efforts globally. This figure includes direct military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and other countries, as well as related costs like veteran care and interest on borrowed funds to finance the wars. Over 7,000 American servicemen died in these wars and deaths many multiples of that were suffered by our allies and our enemies over that period. Total Defense Department expenditures over this period were $14 trillion compare with USAID’s expenditures of 0.6 trillion with many lives saved and almost none lost. The State Department’s annual budget ranged from $50 to $60 billion over the same period. Soft power is clearly a bargain for the American taxpayers seeking a safer, stronger, more prosperous America. Why does President Trump want to shut it down?

Not all projects have been successful in achieving their objectives. But many claims of waste and corruption are not supported by facts:

“In 2025, the Trump administration accused USAID of ‘wasting massive sums of taxpayer money’ over several decades, including during Trump’s first presidency from 2017 to 2021. The administration highlighted a list of twelve projects, totaling approximately $400 million—less than 1% of USAID’s annual budget—dating back to 2005. Among the examples cited were $1.5 million for LGBT workplace inclusion in Serbia, $2.5 million to build electric vehicle chargers in Vietnam, $6 million for tourism promotion in Egypt, and ‘hundreds of millions of dollars’ (the largest item) purportedly allocated to discourage Afghanistan farmers from growing poppies for opium, which allegedly ended up supporting poppy cultivation and benefiting the Taliban. Fact checkers found that these claims were largely false, ‘highly misleading,’ or wrong.” “Wikipedia: United States Agency for International Development” 

For another example, claims that USAID funded major media organizations like Politico or BBC News were false. Payments were for subscriptions or grants to independent media projects, not direct funding of news operations. 

But neither USAID nor any other government agency is perfect. Some functions should be eliminated and others automated or streamlined and oversight strengthened. But in order to properly review its programs and operations most operations should continue until a broad consensus is achieved on what reforms are desirable how they can must efficiently be executed. For functions that survive: “’The end goal is replacing much of the human workforce with machines,’ said a U.S. official closely watching DOGE activity. ‘Everything that can be machine-automated will be. And the technocrats will replace the bureaucrats.’”  “Washington Post: DOGE Musk goals” These are worthy goals.

This “convinced Democratic lawmakers and financial columnists, who have long promoted the analogy between citizens and consumers, that DOGE could be a good idea. ‘Streamlining government processes and reducing ineffective government spending should not be a partisan issue,’ announced Congressman Jared Moskovitz (D-FL) when he joined the DOGE caucus in December. ‘If Doge can actually unleash digital reform in the US government, and in a non-corrupt manner, that would be an unambiguously good thing,’ Gillian Tett wrote last month in the Financial Times.”   “Speed-up-the-breakdown”

But suddenly suspending programs and payment while undertaking a review is the wrong approach. To take but one example, Trump’s foreign aid freeze is having unintended effects in Latin America, including halting programs aimed at stopping the flow of fentanyl. Trump has vowed to impose tariffs unless Mexico stops the trafficking of fentanyl, a major killer of young adults in the US, but the aid freeze has halted funding that Mexican authorities rely on to destroy clandestine labs, Reuters reported. Countries across Latin America are scrambling to respond to the cuts, which have dealt a blow to humanitarian programs designed to slow migration to the US — which Trump has also promised to crack down on — as well as conservation efforts in Brazil and coca eradication in Peru.

USAID’s budget and the projects it finances generally arise from the recommendations of USAID Missions in the countries it operates in accordance with the development objectives captured by the respective Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS) created in concert with the host government and civil society. Almost two-thirds of its employees are locally employed staff, many from the upper echelons of the political and social classes of that country, which means stronger ties and partnerships for USAID and the host country government political figures. Some of these local staff go on to join the host country government as Members of Parliament, establishing connections between the USG and the host country government that are unmatched in terms of influence. USAID operates with an understanding of the local institutions and culture that is deep and strongly influences the projects it recommends. These recommendations are reviewed and vetted by multiple entities, including USAID regional bureaus, the State Department Office of Foreign Assistance, the Office of Management and Budget, and by the House and Senate Foreign Affairs and Operations Committees.  These oversight tools include USAID answering inquiries sent directly to regional USAID Bureaus by individual members of Congress  and through the Congressional Notification process, where every USAID project and dollar is reviewed through Hill briefings and questioning of USAID officials by Congress for its approval, which has full oversight of their execution, and gives Congress the ability to place “holds” on funding preventing obligations of funds to take place before answering their inquiries.

As with other government agencies USAID’s operations are reviewed by an independent Inspector General. USAID Inspector General Paul Martin was officially fired on February 11, one day after his office issued a critical report warning that nearly $500 million in food was about to go bad due to President Donald Trump’s freeze on the agency. Rather than the announcement coming from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the current acting director of the USAID, it was announced by the White House Office of Presidential Personnel. Martin’s office published a six-page report the day before that argued that the recent pause on foreign assistance programs and the slashing of USAID staff has prompted ‘risks and challenges’ to the safeguarding and distribution of the $8.2 billion in humanitarian assistance. Among other things confidence in America health aid in many cases was shattered by its sudden suspension thus undermining its benefit to the US.

“One U.S. official credited Rubio with pushing for the 10,000-person agency to keep on the job roughly 600 staffers as essential workers instead of the 290 suggested by some Trump officials.” .”  “Washington Post: Marco Rubio on USAID”  Whether that is the right number or not (i.e. the staff needed to perform the functions that best serve American interests) the sledgehammer being swung by DOGE is not the right, and certainly not the cheapest, approach to determining it.

Conclusion

The government does more than is best for the country and many programs should be ended or reformed. Freezing them in order to undertake a review is the wrong approach. Lasting positive reforms must be a careful consultative process. The debate over a big bang vs a more gradual approach following the collapse of the Soviet Union is illuminating. Anyone who thinks they can work with a “blank slate” is a fool. Such an approach has never been successful.

The USAID has generally been very successful and should not be “shut down.” To date the DOGE approach has done harm to American standing, safety and prosperity and reduced taxpayer safeguards of who their money is spent rather than strengthened them. The USAID website has been removed thus eliminating the transparency of its operation to public scrutiny. The USAID’s Inspector General has been fired thus eliminating independent oversight, though the Supreme Court may overturn this executive action. The overall approach of DOGE to reform with worries about conflicts of interest is doing more harm than good.

Checks and Balances

Americans have flourished under the freedoms and rules of community life provided by a government with limited enumerated powers that are divided between legislative, executive, and judicial branches to provide checks and balances against abuse of power and a civic culture of mutual respect. As a result, America itself has flourished. In 1900 median American income, valued in 2024 dollars was approximately $18,000 and 40% of the population lived in poverty. In 2024 median American income was $80,020 and 11.1% lived in poverty.  

The share of government spending (Federal, state and local) in the US was approximately 5.5% in 1900 and 37.5% in 2024. Following WWII GDP growth rate declined as government spending rose as a share of GDP. During the 34 years from 1950 – 1984 GDP growth averaged 3.5% per annum while over the next 34 years from 1984-2019 average annual growth rate fell to 2.5%. But the lower growth rate also reflects the burden of increased regulation.

The incoming Trump administration is claiming, with good justification, that the slowing of economic growth reflects excessive government spending and regulation. It has assigned Elan Musk and his new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to reduce Federal government spending and counterproductive regulations.

Some government programs violate or at least stretch its powers as enumerated in the Constitution.  Some regulations fail to pass the cost/benefit test and thus reduce incomes. To identify waste and fraud, DOGE employees have been given access to confidential employee and or beneficiary data bases. “Late Friday, a federal judge in Washington declined to block DOGE access to Labor Department data but expressed concern about young DOGE staffers who ‘never had any training with respect to the handling of confidential information’ accessing ‘the medical and financial records of millions of Americans.’ And on Saturday, a federal judge in New York temporarily blocked DOGE staff from accessing sensitive payment systems at the Treasury Department, citing the risk of ‘irreparable harm.’

“After the New York ruling, Musk defended DOGE methods, tweeting that his team had sought to add routine information to outgoing Treasury payments to help spot fraud — “super obvious and necessary changes” that “are being implemented by existing longtime career government employees, not anyone from @DOGE.”   “Washington Post – DOGE and Musk goals”

 I support modernizing administrative systems to improve government employee’s productivity (i.e. reduce the number of employees needed for a task) and I support eliminating functions that exceed government’s enumerated powers or do not serve a clear need that can only be met by government, and I support eliminating regulations that fail cost/benefit criteria. Examining these functions and systems and associated databases are surely part of such a careful determination.  But what if Musk and Trump have other objectives such as driving out or punishing their enemies?

“The Trump administration is giving hints it may ignore a federal judge’s ruling restricting Elon Musk and his associates in DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency, from accessing the Treasury Department’s critical payment systems. In his decision, U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer warned about the ‘disclosure of sensitive and confidential information and the heightened risk that the systems in question will be more vulnerable than before to hacking.’ Vice President JD Vance responded to the ruling by writing on social media that ‘judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.’ Elon Musk also called for the judge to be impeached.”   “Democracy Now – constitutional crisis Trump admin hints it will ignore judge’s ruling to block Musk from Treasury records”

Trump has been issuing executive orders that ignore Congress’s authority (such as the adoption of tariffs, and impounding congressionally authorized expenditure). A federal judge in Rhode Island, John J. McConnell Jr., has ordered the Trump administration to immediately restore federal funds that were frozen under a controversial directive. This followed evidence that the administration failed to comply with a prior temporary restraining order (TRO) issued in January, which prohibited freezing federal grants and assistance programs. The funding freeze, initiated by a memo from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), affected programs tied to the Inflation Reduction Act and bipartisan infrastructure law, as well as initiatives like Head Start and health research grants.

While the legality of Trump’s executive actions in these areas is doubtful, its wisdom is totally lacking. Collective (i.e. government) action requires broad consensus which is obtained by public discussion in which all views are aired. Cutting off programs and expenditure in the middle of existing contracts bound to be harmful to those involved and to generate public outrage quite unnecessarily. It’s probably illegal as well as just bad policy.

Each administration has the right to put managers in place who support its programs. But the pure execution of administrative functions is not, or should not be, a partisan matter. In the earlier years of our republic working for the government was often a way of rewording family or party members. The resulting quality of the services performed was often poor.

The Pendleton Civil Service Reform Act, signed into law by President Chester A. Arthur on January 16, 1883, marked a turning point in U.S. federal employment practices. It was enacted to dismantle the corrupt “spoils system,” which awarded government jobs based on political loyalty rather than merit.

  • The act required certain federal positions to be filled through competitive examinations, ensuring that candidates were selected based on their qualifications rather than political connections.
  • It prohibited the firing or demotion of employees for political reasons and banned mandatory political contributions (known as “assessments”) from federal workers.
  • The act established the Civil Service Commission to oversee the implementation of merit-based hiring and enforce its provisions.

Initially, only about 10% of federal jobs were covered, but presidents were allowed to expand its reach. By 1980, over 90% of federal positions fell under its protections. President Trump intends to roll back such protection to make more political appointment. Is this to insure that he can appoint managers committed to the faithful execution of his policies? Why then have many of his cabinet appointments been so unqualified to care out their responsibilities? An even bigger question is why the Republican controlled Congress has silently approved their appointments and why have they remained silent in the face of Trump’s many violation of law?

Kash Patel, Trump’s nominee to head the FBI, has publicly outlined plans to go after individuals he perceives as part of the “deep state,” including journalists, Democrats, and former Trump allies. Trump has asked for the names of all FBI agents who work on the investigation of his violations of the law and he threatens to fire them. This sound more like an administrative coup than putting a strong team in place to “make America Great again.”

To take one example of executive actions that undermine rather than serve America interests, consider his strong support of Israel’s war against Palestinians, which even goes beyond Biden’s “blank check” support for Israel. After his threats to Mexico, Canada, Greenland, and Panama, he now plans to take control of Gaza, displace its two million Palestinian residents, and transform the area into a U.S. owned resort-like destination. In interviews, Trump described Gaza as having the potential to become “the Riviera of the Middle East” and suggested relocating Palestinians to neighboring countries like Jordan and Egypt, citing safety and redevelopment needs. He emphasized that Palestinians would not have a right to return under this plan, claiming they would be resettled in “better housing” elsewhere. Thus, Trump would join Israel’s ethnic cleansing of Palestinians directly.

On February 11, when meeting with Trump at the White House, Jordanian King Abdullah II was told that Jordan risked billions of dollars in U.S. foreign aid that Amman receives every year if he did not back Trump’s Gaza displacement plan and admit millions of displaced Palestinians. Later Trump softened but did not withdraw his threat.

Trump has taken a number of other measures that signal his supporters will be exempt from the law. He pardoned approximately 1,500 people connected with the Jan 6 attack on the capital. “Rod Blagojevich and Eric Adams got off because they played the Trump card. Is that how justice now works in America?  “Trump-Rod Blagojevich-Eric Adams lawfare corruption pardon”

“In a further jaw-dropping move…, Trump issued an Executive Order that suspends the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for 180 days, giving a greenlight to megabanks on Wall Street and other U.S. corporations to bribe officials in foreign countries to get business deals approved.”  “Trump gives the greenlight to Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase to return to bribing foreign officials”

To express his anger at what he considered disloyalty by former Trump administration officials such as Mike Pompeo, Brian Hook, John Bolton, and Mark Esper, Trump terminated their security protection.

All of these reflect Trump’s willingness to punish those who cross him. This provides a possible explanation for why Republicans have remained silent in the face of Trump’s violations of Congress’s laws and quietly approved unqualified cabinet appointments. They are afraid of his retribution.

So what do we do about DOGE’s freezing projects and payments and accessing confidential data bases. Is it for good or evil?

Checks and balances should be supplemented by independent inspectors and auditors. But Trump recently fired 17 Inspectors General from various federal agencies. All members of DOGE given access to confidential data should receive security clearances. Edward Coristine, a 19-year-old member of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), launched an image-sharing website called tesla.sexy in 2021. The site featured custom “shitposting” web addresses that redirected to content hosted on his platform. Some of these URLs referenced inappropriate and illegal content, including child sexual abuse material and racist themes.  He was recently appointed as a senior adviser to the State Department’s Bureau of Diplomatic Technology without a security clearance!!!

I am perplexed. I would like DOGE to identify waste and fraud and help reduce the scope of government and make what remains more efficient and effective. Understaffing air traffic control under Biden didn’t work out so well for the 67 people who died when a helicopter crashed into a passenger plane at Reagan National. Proper government functions should be properly performed.  But I do not want it to become a weapon of a thin-skinned bully punishing those who oppose him. Among other things the president should not be able to remove oversight inspectors or otherwise weaken independent scrutiny.

The latest on Social Security Benefits

If no changes are made to the Social Security law: “Starting in 2034… Social Security will only have enough money to pay 79% of its promised benefits.” “Day of reckoning for Social Security draws closer”  The system promises a given pension upon retirement (a defined benefit) that is financed by a given payroll tax. It is not a pool of saving that is drown down at retirement. It is pay as you go. “Saving Social Security”.

This financial problem results from the fact that Americans are living longer and thus receive their SS pension for more years if there is no change in the retirement age. Moreover, the growth in the population has slowed so that the ratio of workers (i.e. those paying the tax financing the pensions of the retired) to retirees has fallen from approximately 3.3 in 1970 to 2.9 in 2020. It is projected to fall further to 2.0 by 2030.

The system must and will change, the only question is how. Legal immigration could be increased to increase the number of workers. The wage tax could be increased. Retirement age could be increased (20% voluntarily work after retirement already). As people live longer many choose to work longer for more than just the extra income. Pension benefits could be indexed to inflation rather than to wage growth (which has been greater than inflation). But more recently I have proposed replacing Social Security and other safety net programs with a Universal Basic Income for every man, woman and child without exception. Such a remake of our social safety net would have several very good features. “Replacing Social Security with a Universal Basic Income”

The Houthi’s and Us

After almost a decade of trying to end Saudi Arabian bombing of the Houthi government in Northern Yemen, President Biden has ordered multiple American bombing attacks on Northern Yemen because of Houthi attacks on ships sending arms to Israel in support of its genocide in Gaza. You might need to read that sentence again to get all its parts.

The first point is that once again the U.S. Constitution’s requirement that the Congress must authorize war before the President can launch one, has been violated. And why did Biden think it necessary to bomb Yemen? Because the Houthi attacks were interfering with our shipment of weapons to Israel in support of Israel’s vicious murder of Palestinians by bombing and starvation. “The group’s official spokesman reiterated that attacks on vessels transiting the Bab el-Mandeb Strait toward the Suez Canal will continue until “Gaza [receives] the food and medicine it needs.” That shouldn’t be hard to accomplish.

Even if the US Congress authorized the American bombing of Yemen, it would be bad policy for the U.S., for the Palestinians, and for Israel. “Weighing additional US responses to Houthi Red Sea attacks” America’s interest should be peace and prosperity for all in the Middle East (and all the world). Supporting Israel’s genocidal war in Gaza does not serve that goal and makes the U.S. complicit in Israel’s genocide. Moreover, Europe’s relative silence and the silence of any of us to Israel’s inhuman war in Gaza (including Biden, Trump and Nikki Haley) makes them all complicit. “War in Gaza exposes European philosophy ethically bankrupt”

The march toward the aridification of Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank is too unbelievably savage to spell out. Such a fate should not be wished on any people. “Unfolding genocide as ever single person in Gaza goes hungry” “Israel’s Netanyahu its Cromwell”

But this war, following a century of Zionist mistreatment of Palestinians in their homeland, is destroying Israel. “Israel is facing existential threats from inside and out-there’s one solution” Israel is committing suicide. To survive, Israel must become a secular democratic state that give equal rights and fair treatment to all who inhabit it. “One state solution for Palestine/Israel”

U.S. leadership is failing once again and is waning. The lust for war by the hawks has overpowered American self-interest once again. War with Iran can’t be far behind. Taiwan can wait (a bit).  “Gaza and Yemen sound death knell for US led rules based global order”