Last Rites For LIV Golf?

I have written about the LIV Golf Tour several times in these pages over the four years it has been in existence.

LIV was formed in 2022 with financial backing by the Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund which is the sovereign wealth fund for that nation.

LIV offered players big signing bonuses to join its tour as well as no-cut events in which every player was guaranteed a portion of a purse that was significantly larger than most PGA events.

LIV ultimately attracted high profile names to its tour including Bryson DeChambeau, Brook Koepka, Jon Rahm, Patrick Reed, Cameron Smith, Dustin Johnson and Phil Mickelson among others.

From the outset, it was difficult for me to figure out what the Saudis saw as the end game in all of this so that they would see a return on what looked liked a couple of billion dollars of investment.

Was the expectation that they were going to force a merger with the PGA Tour where they would get a large share of the equity or a big pay off through some type of legal settlement?

This has usually been the outcome when other upstart professional leagues (AFL, ABA etc) set out to compete with established pro circuits.

However, it was difficult for me to see there was enough money in the game to justify the high upfront payments that LIV was paying to its players.

I predicted that LIV was likely to be a failed enterprise due to the fact that while it may have talented players, it appeared that it did not have a good path for distribution of the product.

Content my be king. However, distribution is the kingdom.

Think of the traditional music or movie business. You could have the greatest song or film (content). However, if no one had the ability to hear the song on a radio station or see the film in a movie theater (distribution) it meant nothing. 

LIV started with no tv deal the first season. LIV gradually improved its tv deals but almost no one watched anyway. Attendance at the international events drew pretty well but the U.S. events struggled. 

If no one is watching your product, you have a hard time attracting sponsors for tv and tour events.

I suggested at the outset that if LIV was not able to convince any of the big name, big spending PGA Tour sponsors such as FedEx, Schwab, RBC, AT&T. Coca Cola etc. to spread some of their money around to LIV it was not likely to live.

It never happened.

I wrote this in "Will The LIV Golf Tour Live?" as the new golf tour was just getting started four years ago.

If sponsors decide to start spreading their marketing dollars to include LIV, the PGA Tour is going to have problems.

However, until that happens, LIV's prospects are not good.

As for LIV's players, I hope they got the money upfront and have good investment advisors to invest the money for their futures.

Their future in golf is likely to be irrelevant going forward.

Some of these guys may have (or could have) been kings of the game.

However, the fact is that they don't rule the kingdom.

And those who control the majors and PGA Tour do right now.

Saudi Arabia and LIV want a piece of that kingdom.

LIV may get some type of monetary settlement from the PGA Tour in the end.

Perhaps a couple of LIV events will be incorporated into the PGA Tour when this is all over.

The PGA Tour may lose its tax-exempt status due to the scrutiny it will be under.

The charities that the PGA Tour supports may end up with less.

However, I will be shocked if an independent LIV Golf Tour exists in three years time.

I am not betting on LIV living long term.

All that I wrote four years ago was pretty much on target. 

However, my prediction on how long LIVE would last was off by a year.

Why? 

I could not conceive that the Saudis would pour as much much money into a failing enterprise as it did before pulling the plug.

The Saudis invested a reported $6 billion into LIV since its inception as it was never able to build any other sustainable revenue sources.

Last week, the Saudis said they would stop funding LIV at the end of the current season.

Even rich Middle Eastern oil sheiks apparently have their limits.

Source: https://www.wsj.com/sports/golf/liv-golf-pga-tour-bryson-dechambeau-3abf7b85

The Saudis will have spent that $6 billion on the venture while apparently having nothing to show for it.

There was no monetary settlement.

There was no merger.  There was a lot of talk and negotiating but no deal was consummated.

The PGA Tour did restructure and established a for-profit entity as a holding company for the tour events that still benefit charities as a tax-exempt entity.

The PGA Tour did attract additional capital investors that solidified its financial position and gave its players the ability to become equity owners.

Top tier PGA Tour players saw tournament purses grow for so-called Signature events with limited fields that gave them more opportunity to fatten their bank accounts.

Brooks Koepka and Patrick Reed saw the writing on the wall and left LIV earlier this year and have found a path back to PGA Tour status.

Other star players such as DeChambeau, Rahm and Cameron Smith now face a more painful road back.

As I pointed out four years ago and repeated above,

"I hope they got the money upfront and have good investment advisors to invest the money for their futures."

These were the reported financial penalties associated with the eventual reinstatement of Brooks Koepka to the PGA Tour.

Source: Google AI Overview

Bear in mind, this was a one-time "preferential" deal offered to former major champions earlier this year.

DeChambeau and Rahm did not take the PGA Tour up on the offer.

This would suggest that the road back to the PGA Tour for those two and others who bolted to LIV will be very painful indeed.

There is a lot of resentment that PGA Tour regulars carry because of the defections of their fellow players to LIV.

That is particularly true for DeChambeau and Rahm.

Bryson joined an antitrust lawsuit against the PGA Tour that cost millions and millions of dollars in legal fees to defend.

Rahm was not in the original group that went to LIV but joined for the 2024 season when LIV was already showing signs that it might fail or be forced to merge with the PGA Tour.

As a result of the timing of Rahm's defection, LIV and the Saudis were infused with a new sense of optimism that undoubtedly extended the entire drama by at least another year over what it should have,

PGA Tour players and the PGA Tour Board will not forget either instance when considering the futures of DeChambeau and Rahm.

Newly appointed PGA Tour CEO Brian Rolapp told The Wall Street Journal recently that plenty of people at the PGA Tour have "scar tissue" regarding everything to do with LIV, the lawsuit and the defections. All of these will factor into how painful the road back will  be for individual players.

You also have to wonder about the future of Yasir Al-Ramayyan, the head of the Saudi Arabian Permanent Investment Fund, who was the mastermind and catalyst for LIV Golf. 

Al-Ramayyan stepped down as the Chairman of LIV on April 30. 

Yasir Al-Ramayyan
Source: https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/newcastle-united-told-pif-funding-33863040

Could his PIF duties also be at risk? I can't imagine the Saudi royal family is happy at the loss of $6 billion. Then again, it is just a drop in the oil bucket considering where oil prices are today.

In the aftermath of the loss of the Saudi PIF funding, LIV stated that there were developing a "strategic path forward" searching for new investors.

Perhaps LIV can find someone with money to burn to continue its golf tour in 2027.

I probably have a better chance of beating Scottie Scheffler in a $5 Nassau bet on the golf course.

The best strategic path forward for LIV right now appears to me to be this.

Created by Grok

The Waiting Game

The United States-Iran War has become a waiting game.

Who is more willing to wait out the other?

Iran is betting that President Trump will cave in the face of rising gas prices, poor poll numbers and the specter of losses in the upcoming mid-term elections.

For the regime leaders it is there only real chance to survive.

Trump is wagering that continuing the naval blockade on Iran will prevent oil from being shipped for needed revenue and prevents imported goods from arriving in ports in Iran. That combination will slowly strangle the Iranian economy.

Trump is signaling he is willing to wait it out with a long term naval blockade where the collapsing economy in Iran will bring forth the death knell of the Iranian regime and its nuclear ambitions without dropping another bomb.

Source: https://nypost.com/2026/04/29/world-news/trump-orders-aides-to-prepare-for-extended-blockade-on-iran-report/

Iran is assuming that Trump will act like every other American politician and bend to popular pressure fed by the media and Democrats to find an exit path and move on.

To be clear, Trump is not like any other politician.

He is not immune from popular pressure but, as I have written before, the word that best describes Trump is INDEFATIGABLE.

This is what I wrote about the Indefatigable Donald Trump in 2019.

Say what you want about Donald Trump but the thing that sets him apart is that he is not afraid to take action. He is not afraid to face criticism. He is unrelenting. He persistently works to achieve his objectives. There is no quit in him.

There has been no politician like him in my lifetime. Perhaps that is because he did not spend a lifetime as a politician. Perhaps that is because he doesn't really need the job. Perhaps that is because he is an arrogant egomaniac. I don't know why he does what he does.

What I do know it that he is indefatigable. He relentlessly pushes his agenda forward. That, more than anything, defines who he is and why he should never be underestimated. That is also why the Democrats and liberal media despise and fear him so much.

We can now add Iran to that list among others.

Trump has proven to be even more indefatigable as we saw him confront and and shoulder all of the legal attacks after the 2020 election not to mention the multiple assassination attempts.

Despite everything, he was unyielding, persistent and tireless in winning election to the Presidency once again.

I am not sure any other man (or woman) in the world could have done it.

Trump may ultimately decide to find a graceful way to exit the Iran situation.

However, that won't occur until he has exhausted every other option to get what he wants from Iran.

Iran is underestimating him if their strategy is to wait for him to fold.

Time is merely a self-imposed constraint on Trump. It only matters if he listens to his critics, pays too much attention to the polls or is bothered by a temporary blip in the price of oil.

Trump is not going to be on another ballot and the only thing that he cares about right now is how his legacy will be remembered. I doubt that he wants it be defined as he left Iran with the ability to make a nuclear weapon after all he has been through in confronting the Iranian regime.

It is also worth noting that Trump is known to use time compression as a negotiating tool. Trump likes to use leverage to create pressure on the other side and then add in time deadlines to compound the pressure.

At the same time, Trump is also willing to walk away quickly from any deal that he does not like.

In this way Trump makes sure that time is on his side. Trump is not one to let time control his plans.

On the other hand, time really is critical to Iran in these negotiations.

Time is not on the side of the Iranian regime right now.

Iran's economy is closely approaching a death spiral.

Source: https://hotair.com/ed-morrissey/2026/04/29/death-spiral-irgc-near-tipping-point-n3814414

If Iran hasn't hit its economic "death spiral" yet, it's not for lack of trying – by the US, and especially by Iran's regime.

The war and the naval blockade have sent Iran's economy into a collapse, the Wall Street Journal reported a couple of hours ago. Those factors alone have put more than a million people out of work as inflation rages and supplies can no longer meet demand. The IRGC has gone on a spending spree to contain the political damage, but as anyone could predict, that has made the situation even worse. Military dictator Ahmad Vahidi now has to hope he can outlast Donald Trump's strategic patience ... and that it's not already too late:

 Inflation over the last year in Iran has hit 73.5%

The IRGC has no other choice than to print money to try to keep a lid on the popular unrest and be able to pay the people who are the enforcers in the regime.

It promises to get worse as it now takes 1.8 million rials (the national currency) to buy $1 of U.S. currency.

One year ago the dollar was worth 600,000 rials . It has lost 2/3 of its value in 12 months.

47 years ago, when the radical Islamist theocrats took over, it was 70 rials to the dollar.

It is no different with the Euro which is the other major trading currency for Iran.

The exchange rate was 50,000 Euros to Rials at the beginning of the year.

99.996% of the Iranian currency has been eviscerated since the Islamic regime took control of the country.

The economic situation in Iran means that the clock is ticking faster and faster if you are the regime.

How does the economy function going forward and how does the IRGC maintain control?

Domestic trust is long gone with the ruthless killings and failing economy.

You have no currency convertibility.

Who is going to be willing to import anything into Iran with the prospect they will not be paid?

Russia and China might but most other trading partners (including their Mideast neighbors) arenot going to be there for them any more.

No food, medicines, technology, machinery or other critical items of daily living coming in.

The Black Market will become the economy.

It is a matter of time before the regime will lose control over prices, logistics, payrolls, and most importantly, loyalty.

Is the military and the IRGC (the ideological military strongmen) going to remain loyal to the leadership with no promise of being paid with anything that has stable value? 

A wheelbarrow full of rials is not going to buy very much.

When those who you rely on to protect you stop getting paid in anything but worthless paper, there is a good chance their loyalty may not be what you think it is.

How does the regime retain control with no viable currency, no supply chain and no muscle for support?

They can't.

If you have ever bought a Persian or Oriental rug you may be familiar with how Iranians view negotiations.

Stretch the time and talk when negotiating.

Shift terms.

Wear the other side down over time.

Get the other side to the point that they have invested so much time in the deal they will finally accede to a deal you are willing to take.

However, in this case, time is not on the side of the Iranians.

The Iranian economy will continue weakening with every day they cannot sell their oil, the rial weakens, and they cannot import the basic goods they need.

We will have to wait and see who wins The Waiting Game.

It will likely also determine who history will record as the winner in all of this.

Trump will win if he is as INDEFATIGABLE in this as he has been in the past.

This will also make the Iranian people a winner.

The Iranian regime will win if they merely survive.

And the Iranian people will continue to suffer.

It's For The Children

It's for the children.

There is no line that is used more in justifying more government spending than attaching children to it.

That is particularly true for education spending.

We are constantly told if there was just more money we could make sure no child was left behind.

Never mind that we are now spending over $1 trillion annually on public K-12 schooling.

In D.C., spending is almost $32,000 per year, It is $31,000 in New York.

Credit: https://x.com/StephenMoore/status/2049223389789724933

This narrative is repeated over and over particularly by Democrats and the teachers' unions.

So is the claim that Republicans do not care about education.

In my home state of Ohio the personal income tax was enacted beginning in 1972 based on the primary argument that it was necessary to support education spending and alleviate local property tax burdens.

It is still incredible to think that Ohio somehow survived from its founding in 1803 for 169 years without the necessity of an income tax.

The state lottery was enacted in 1973 once again with the argument that is was necessary "for the children".

Ten years later, as it became apparent that all of the lottery money was not finding its way to education spending as advertised, the legislature earmarked all lottery profits for education.

In 1987, this earmark to education was made permanent as voters approved a constitutional amendment making lottery profits a continuing supplemental revenue stream for education.

Over the years, $34 billion in lottery profits have been transferred to support primary, secondary, vocational and special education in Ohio. 

$1.5 billion was transferred to education from lottery profits in fiscal 2025 alone.

In total, $11.5 billion was provided to Primary and Secondary Education in the 2025 Ohio state budget.

This compares to $1.2 billion in 1975.

State spending on education is up almost 10-fold since 1975.

At the same time, public school enrollment has fallen from 2,243,000 in 1975 to 1,665,000 in 1975---a 25% decrease.

School boards around the state of Ohio argue that they need to increase local taxes to support schools and children because state funding has been inadequate.

A 10-fold increase in overall state funding, which is  a 14-fold increase on a per capita student basis, is inadequate when inflation is 6x over the same period?

At the same time, despite a 25% decrease in student enrollment, the number of teachers in Ohio public schools has increased from 104,926 to 111, 646 over the last 50 years.

The numbers of administrators and student support personnel has grown even more.

What the Democrats and teachers' unions are correct about is that primary and secondary education is receiving much less of the budget pie in Ohio than it did in prior years.

This is undoubtedly true in almost every other state as well.

In 1975, primary and secondary education spending consumed 40% of state general fund expenditures.

In 2025, only 26% of the state budget went to schools.

Higher education spending took an even bigger hit--from 14% of the state budget in 1975 to a mere 7% in 2025.

For context, the size of the state's general fund budget increased 15-fold over this period.

Where is all of the additional state spending going?

Human Services.

Most specifically, Medicaid.

In 1975, the state of Ohio spent $1.1 billion on Human Services of which $359 million was for Medicaid.

In 2025, Ohio spent $23.9 billion on Human Services of which $20.6 billion went to Medicaid.

In 50 years overall spending on Human Services was up 20x.

Spending on Medicaid increased 57x!

State spending on primary and secondary education increased 10x.

What does all of this tell me?

The education lobby should not be looking for the taxpayers to provide more money.

State revenues have increased substantially.

The problem is that Welfare (Medicaid in particular) has devoured an enormous share of state spending over the last 50 years.

Democrats and the teachers' unions should be supporting reforms to social programs such as Medicaid and food stamps to free up more money for education.

However, this would put two large liberal constituencies at odds.

It is much easier for them to demand that the taxpayers pay more and tell everyone that Republicans don't care about children and education because they won't automatically vote for every tax increase that Democrats ask for.

It is also interesting to consider the fact that liberal Democrats today are having far fewer children than conservative Republicans.

A few stats that back that up.

Conservative women have more children than Progressive/Liberal women.

Source: https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-growing-link-between-marriage-fertility-and-partisanship

Extremely conservative men have 4 times the kids as extremely liberal men.

In fact, 60% of extremely liberal men have NO children.

Almost half of liberal women have never had a child.

Only 1 in 8 newborn babies born today has a father who is a Liberal.

Link: https://x.com/MichaelARothman/status/2047286558735343896

Considering all of the above, how could it be said that Republicans don't care about education?

By and large, they are the ones that have a real interest in education because conservative Republicans are the ones that have children.

Do the Democrats care about education in the same way?

Is it really "for the children?".

Or is their main interest keeping the teachers' union happy and making sure the education establishment can turn kids from conservative families into future Democrat voters?

We The People?

In my last blog post I debunked the argument that the United States is neglecting spending on social programs and education in favor of defense.

I thought I would delve a little deeper into the issue by providing some historical context to the issue of spending on social programs and how far the priorities of the federal government have shifted since the Founders first established the framework of governmental responsibilities.

Consider the wording of the United States Constitution.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The preamble to the Constitution lists five significant priorities in order "to from a more perfect Union".

 Our founders specifically stated that they wanted to "establish Justice", "insure domestic Tranquility", "provide for the common defense", "promote the general Welfare" and "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity".

Of these five priorities, note that four of them have strong verbs attached. They wanted to establish justice. They wanted to insure that there is domestic tranquility.  They wanted to provide for the common defense. They wanted to secure the Blessings of Liberty.   There seems to be no doubt that they saw all of these as the most important national priorities.

However, when it comes to the general welfare, they only wanted to promote it. There is no mention of establishing it, or insuring it, providing for it or securing it. They also did not say anything about individual welfare. They referred only to the general welfare.

This seems to suggest that when they referred to general welfare they were considering those things that would be generally available to all. They were not considering items that would make some people winners and other losers at the hand of the federal government.  

What are items of general welfare? Roads, post offices, the coining of money, standard weights and measures and the regulation of international and interstate commerce are specifically mentioned in Article 8 as is the erection of forts, dockyards and other needful buildings.

You could probably also consider the national park system, public health programs, public transportation and other broad-based programs available to the public at large to clearly be within the spirit of promoting general welfare.

Public education would also be included in general welfare but this was clearly considered to be a state and local function at the time that the Constitution was written. This continues to be primarily a state and local responsibility today despite efforts by the federal government to assert itself on the issue.

How much of the federal budget is spent on defense, justice, police and internal security and other programs that benefit the population at large today?  Less than 1/3 of the budget is spent on what the Constitution established as the big priorities.  

In 1945, we spent 97.6% of the budget on these items.  In 1960, we spent about 75% on these priorities. As late as the early 1990's, we still spent the majority of the federal budget on these government roles.

Direct payments to individuals now account for over 69% of all federal expenditures in the federal budget. In dollars, that was $4.85 trillion out of $7.01 trillion in total spending in the 2025 federal budget.

In other words, we are spending over twice as much on these "special interest" payments as we do on defense, justice, roads, research, national parks and everything else that is for the overall "public interest"---combined!

If Defense spending (arguably the one function of the federal government that is probably most essential) and interest payments are excluded, direct payments to individuals account for 94% of all federal spending.

What are "payments for individuals"? These are federal government spending programs designed to transfer income (in cash or in kind) to individuals or families.  This includes Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veteran's Benefits, Welfare, Food Stamps and Student Loans.  

It does not include salaries to government workers or the military as these are considered to be payments in return for services provided.  Therefore, "payments for individuals" effectively represent what amounts to the redistribution of income from one person to another with the federal government serving as the middle man.

These are not outlays for the common defense, the common good, public works or public safety. These are government payments that are intended to benefit select individuals based on their age, their income, their health or any one of a number of other distinctions.

Where is this money being spent and who is receiving it?

Social Security and Medicare account for 65% of it.  However, $1.9  trillion is being spent on direct or indirect forms of welfare---Medicaid, food stamps, disability, public assistance, housing assistance, unemployment assistance and student loans.

This chart shows the breakdown of payments of individuals in the 2025 federal budget.

By comparison, in 1975 the federal government spent just $155 billion on outlays for payments to individuals in the federal budget. 

The various forms of welfare (Medicaid, unemployment, food stamps etc) have grown from $63 billion to $1.9 trillion (an increase of 30x between 1975 and today.

The chart below shows the increases in the major categories of payments to individuals in the federal budget between 1975 and 2025 in comparison to total spending, population, GDP, inflation and the Defense budget.

As you can see, there has been a massive increase in spending on social programs since 1975.

Medicare and Medicaid are both up over 80x in the last 50 years. 

Looking at these numbers who can honestly believe that more government money and regulation in the healthcare market has done anything but make healthcare more expensive for everyone?

I am not suggesting that all of these programs are ill-considered or bad. After all, Social Security and Medicare are there for everyone. Workers pay into these programs and deserve a return on their "investment" without someone drastically changing the rules on them just as they near retirement.

However, we all need to look in the mirror and ask ourselves how we have allowed what began as well-meaning social safety net programs to reach the point that they now account for over 2/3 of federal spending?

At the same time, direct payments to individuals represented 92.6% of total receipts for the year.

If you add the $970 billion of interest paid on the federal debt in 2025 to the $4.8 trillion in payments to individuals. it equals almost $600 billion more in spending than total receipts.

Everything else that the federal government is spending money on (defense, law enforcement, justice system, public health, public transportation, national parks, the post office etc), and which our Founders specifically established as federal government priorities, would not even exist without annual borrowing. 

Even worse, collections of individual income taxes and payroll taxes only amounted to $4.4 trillion in the for the year. This means that the $4.8 trillion in "payments for individuals" in the federal budget are not even being covered by the $4.4 trillion in "payments from individuals" in taxes. You could call it redistribution but more is being redistributed than is being taken in.

What began as a social safety net has become a societal noose around our necks!

We could.not have moved much further away from the federal government framework established in the Constitution.

I don't believe that our Founding Fathers would believe it.

Is there anyone who still believes in what "We the People" means anymore?  

It seems clear that the people we have been electing for the last couple of generations don't.

We The People? 

The reality is that everything now is about Me, Me, Me.

All of the data on federal government spending is taken from Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal 2025 Historical Tables.

Never Enough No Matter How Much It Is

A common narrative of the Left is that we do not spend enough on social spending in the United States.

We should spend more on education, healthcare, welfare, food programs and the homeless.

At the same time, it is stated we spend too much on defense.

Consider the recent statement of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Link: https://x.com/MarcoFoster_/status/2045880876081262625

We are hearing this refrain even more now as President Trump attempts to silence Iran's "Death to America" chants and the regime's threat to the safety and security of the world.

Here is Elizabeth Warren complaining about the cost of military spending and claims that Trump will be gutting health care, housing, climate and education programs to do it.

Leftists in California are working to put an issue on the November ballot in California to impose a "one-time" wealth tax on billionaires that they say will raise $100 billion to fund Medicaid, K-12 education and food programs.

However, as I noted in a previous post, 50% of the $2 trillion of billionaire wealth targeted by the proposal has already left the state. Theses individuals will also no longer pay income, sales and use and property taxes in the state going forward.

Consider as well the fact that in the last decade, while California's population grew less than 1%, the number of state employees grew by 25% and total state spending increased by 48% AFTER INFLATION!

What will California do next when the wealth tax money runs out and those high earners are now in Florida and Texas?

Quite simply, there is never enough spending to satisfy Liberals.

How much is the United States spending on social programs compared to defense?

At the federal level, 61% of all spending is on Social Programs.

12% is spent on Defense. 

In fact, interest on the federal debt (14%) now exceeds the money spent on defense.

75% of all federal spending is now directed to social programs and interest on the federal debt.

Elizabeth Warren also claims that military spending is the highest in history.

That is true in nominal terms.

Of course, that could be said about any item in the federal budget.

The true measure is how much is being spent as a % of how much the nation's economy is producing (GDP).

The fact is that spending on Defense as a % of GDP is essentially at the lowest level it has ever been.

It is only 1/3 of what it was in the 1960's.

On the other hand, spending on Social Programs has almost tripled as a % of GDP over the same period.

Credit: https://x.com/psitako/status/2046513083384729678

If we include state and local government spending along with federal spending, the tax dollars used to support education and social programs becomes even more pronounced compared to defense spending.

Only 8% of government spending is being used for military purposes.

Almost 2/3 is being spent on social programs or education.

Source: https://x.com/LeighWolf/status/2046041550765842937/photo/1

In total, $7 trillion will be spent this year on various social welfare and education programs in the United States.

Let's put that in context.

That is more than the GDP of every country in the world except the United States and China.

Top 15 Countries By Gross Domestic Product, 2026
Source: https://www.worldometers.info/gdp/gdp-by-country/

It is $1.5 trillion more than the entire German economy.

It is almost $3 trillion more than the entire economy of India which has a population of 1.5 billion people.

On a per capita basis, the United States spends almost 7 times more on education and social programs as India's entire economy produces.

 

The United States needs to spend more on social programs?

$39 trillion of federal debt (and growing) with annual debt service costs of well over $1 trillion annually (and growing) suggests that we are already spending well more than we can afford and we have been doing it for a long, long time.

We should cut defense spending to fund more social programs?

Consider the fact that defense spending could be cut to ZERO and the United States would still have a $1 trillion federal spending deficit.

The lesson to remember here is that for the Left it is never enough.

And it will never be enough no matter how much it is.

The Land of Oz

I recently returned from a trip in which I spent more than a month in Australia.

A decade ago I visited Sydney, Australia for a few days with Mrs. BeeLine and we thoroughly enjoyed our time there. At that time we decided we wanted to go back for a longer period and see more of the country.

The opportunity arose this year for us to go on a 32 day cruise that circled the entire continent and also visit all of the major cities of Australia---Sydney, Brisbane, Darwin, Fremantle, Perth, Albany, Adelaide and Melbourne among others were on the itinerary.

Here is a map of Australia that also compares its size to that of the United States.

Source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Australia_%E2%80%93_U.S._area_comparison.jpg

We missed Cairns due to an approaching tropical cyclone which we would refer to as a hurricane in the States.

A few photos of the major cities in Australia that I took on the trip.

Brisbane

Perth

Melbourne

Sydney

Australia is sometimes referred to as "Oz." 

That clearly came about from its close phonetic relationship to Aus or Aussie. However, Aussies are also famous for shortening words. A few examples---Service stations are "servos", barbeques are "barbies", the city of Fremantle is referred to as "Freo" by locals. 

However, I think Oz also fits because Australia is a magical place. It is distant from almost everywhere  else on earth. You see animals and creatures you don't see anywhere else and it is blessed with beautiful and diverse topography.

Australia is also blessed with friendly, intelligent people of good humour who are a pleasure to be with.

I have found that they also follow American culture and politics very closely.

A decade ago, when I first visited Australia, the 2016 Trump-Clinton presidential race was in full swing. Invariably, when an Aussie found out I was an American, they asked what I thought about the race.

I eventually asked someone why they were so interested in the outcome. The answer--- we rely on the United States for so much of what we have, including our defense. We worry about China. It is important to us that the United States is safe and in good hands and we have a counter-balance to China.

My sense was that a lot has changed in Australia in the last 10 years. Australia has moved further to the Left over the years.

As with many liberal governments around the world, the Labour Party under Prime Minister Anthony Albanese has embraced allowing many more immigrants into the country.

Credit: https://www.reddit.com/r/aussie/comments/1mcwi9i/australia_net_overseas_migration_by_prime/

The majority of this immigration is coming from India, China, the Philippines and other Asian countries.

Credit: https://auspropertyunpacked.com.au/the-main-source-countries-of-australian-migration-inflow/

Australia only had a population of approximately 26 million in 2020.

If you are bringing in 1 million immigrants within a couple years you can be sure that it is going to have an effect of the social fabric of the country.

I saw this first hand in going by a day care and seeing a school day trip in Melbourne where the majority of students were clearly not native Australians.

Of course, there was no other country in the world that seemed to go as overboard in its reaction to Covid as did Australia.

Melbourne has the dubious distinction of having been locked down during Covid with more cumulative days than any other city in the world.

Masking was required throughout Australia with a fine of $200AU for non-compliance.

Those who chose to not take the Covid vaccine were subjected to travel restrictions, loss of their job and other penalties.

It did result in Australia having one of the highest vaccine compliance rates in the world.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

However, it did not stop the Covid virus from infecting Aussies.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

I still find it amazing that almost all of the Covid cases in Australia did not occur until AFTER a large percentage of the population had been given the vaccine.

Before that, there were almost no cases of the virus.

Australia clearly comes down hard on prioritizing group responsibilities over individual rights.

In Perth, our guide shared that Australia is now using traffic light surveillance cameras to also check whether occupants of the vehicle are wearing their seat belts or the driver is in contact with their cell phone.

She shared that she was recently fined $400AU for not having the seat belt over her shoulder (she was otherwise hooked up) as she reached into her pocket to get something out.

Her son received a $1200AU fine for having his cell phone in his lap even though he was not using it.

Australia also has a significant case of the WOKE virus and political correctness.

For example, almost everywhere we went for talk it seemed important for the presenter to recognize the First Nations people of the country at the outset.

It was said that these indigenous people (Aboriginal and others)were native to Australia for 30,000, 45,000, 60,000 years (we heard various numbers) before any Europeans discovered the continent. 

There is even an Aboriginal flag that is flown that was designed in 1971.

Credit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Aboriginal_flag

It is always said that the Australian people owe a debt of gratitude to these First Nations people.

Yes, we all owe a debt of gratitude to those who came before us. We have stood on their shoulders as we have advanced.

However, it seemed to me the biggest debt of gratitude is owed to the convicts from the U.K. who built a good part of the foundation of the functioning society of Australia that followed.

Those First Nation people had not even invented or developed a wheel in those 30,000+ years before the Europeans arrived.

Australia was principally built and developed into the society it is today by people that were considered the dregs of society by the UK. That is why they were banished to the far side of the world to never return.

Who deserves more credit in what Australia has become?

Australia is also rich in natural resources today but in the interests of the environment and concerns about climate change this concern has resulted in them refusing to use these assets for the benefit of its people.

There are vast coal resources but they refuse to burn it for energy.

Instead, they mine it and sell it to China so they can burn it. Does that make any sense if you believe man-made global climate change is real?

They have oil reserves but refuse to drill for their own use.

Australia had 8 operating refineries 25 years ago. They now have 2. 

And there was just a massive fire at one of them.

80% of Australia's fuel needs must be imported and most comes from South Korea, Singapore and Malaysia.

Even worse, Australia is at the end of the oil and gas supply chain.

Any disruptions in supplies and Australia will be the last in line. Australia is facing thar reality right now.

In Tasmania they used to cut timber, make wood chips and convert it into paper at a manufacturing plant on the island.

They have shut down the plant but now ship the wood chips to Japan to make the paper---and then import the paper back.

By the way, I thought Tasmania was the biggest surprise of the trip. It is a beautiful island state blessed with miles of oceanfront property, abundant natural resources and fertile soil.

Tasmania

Australia also bought back the government license to the fisherman in Eden, Australia who harvested abalone in the surrounding ocean waters in order to protect the natural resource. The fisherman now lives in a house the size of a hotel overlooking the bay from the money he received. 

The abalone are safe and secure but it is not clear if Australia will be in the future.

I saw it time and time again in Australia.

It is important to be responsible for our environment and natural resources.

However, it is also important that your society can independently sustain and support itself. That is doubly important when you are an island nation far removed from much of the rest of the world.

When I first visited Australia a decade ago I believed it was the first country out of the 40 or so I have visited that I could see myself living in if I had to leave the United States.

I still believe the combination of the people, language, culture and climate make it an attractive option.

However, the political trends in Australia are troubling for someone who values freedom, individual rights and economic realism.

I love Australia and its people.

I hope they can find their way.

At the same time, I returned to the United States believing more than ever that we are the last great hope for freedom in the world.

And that in itself always hangs perilously depending on the results of the next election. 

Useful Until You Aren't

Eric Swalwell was elected to Congress in 2012 from a district southeast of Oakland at the age of 31 just six years after graduating from law school.

He was considered a protege of Nancy Pelosi who appointed Swalwell to the prestigious House Intelligence Committee in just his second term.

During Donald Trump's first term Swalwell became popular with the mainstream media who would have him on often to criticize the President.

His position on the Intelligence Committee gave him credibility to amplify suggestions that Trump was in collusion with the Russians.

Swalwell repeatedly "suggested that Trump acted in Russia's interests or as a "Russian asset," challenging Trump to disprove the claims by releasing tax returns, detailing meetings with Vladimir Putin, or explaining financial ties to Russia."

Swalwell's star within the Democrat party rose due to his "attack dog" role regarding Trump.

After January 6, 2021, Swalwell was named by Pelosi to be one of the managers of the impeachment proceedings against Trump.

Swalwell had deep, deep ties with the Democrat establishment.

He ran for the Democrat Presidential nomination in 2024.

Swalwell was also running for Governor of California this year and was placing first or second among Democrats in polling for the upcoming primary. 

All of this was true despite the fact that it came to light in 2020 that Swalwell had been very close to a woman, Christine Fang, in the 2011-2015 period who turned out to be a Chinese intelligence agent.

Some even suggested that there might have been some type of romantic relationship involved as there is evidence that Fang was involved in "honeypot" operations with at least two other politicians.

Whether of not Swalwell had a sexual relationship with Fang, it has become very apparent over the last week that he was involved in a a number of sordid affairs with women over the years.

This is despite the fact that he is married with three young children under the age of 10.

It all broke out into the open with this story by CNN.

Source: https://www.cnn.com/2026/04/10/us/eric-swalwell-sexual-misconduct-allegations-invs

Another woman went public earlier this week who said the Swalwell drugged and raped her in a hotel room and there are reports that more women are ready to come forward.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/woman-says-eric-swalwell-drugged-raped-choked-thought-died-rcna331693

It did not take long for Swalwell to drop out of the California Governor's race and his congressional seat was well.

Why did all of this come out now?

This is especially true as there have long been whispers about Swalwell's sordid relationships with women.

Politico reported that all of this had been talked about in D.C. for a long time.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2026/04/13/influencers-allegations-eric-swalwell-00869517

The broad contours of Swalwell’s alleged behavior, if not the specifics, did not come as a surprise to many working in and around politics, especially in Washington. The 45-year-old cable news darling and Trump antagonist had developed a reputation for unsavory and sometimes unwanted behavior toward women. Those warnings were shared in whisper networks but rarely traveled outside the circle of political insiders.

Apparently it was also well known in his hometown of Dublin, California going back to the time he was first elected to Congress.

However, this "journalist" was obviously not interested in investigating or reporting the real story.

 

That was the case even when Swalwell was pontificating on Capitol Hill about the importance of respecting and believing women.

Swalwell said "trust women, they will get it right".

Running for Governor he said he would not tolerate violence against women.

How about this one from Swalwell?  Yikes!

That tweet really did not age very well.

It is not hard to see why Swalwell decided to forget about his political career.

He apparently has much bigger concerns right now--among them how is he going to make a living and how is he going to stay our of prison?

However, the question remains why did this all came down now?

How could the fall of this rising star come so suddenly?

Swalwell was in Congress for 13 years. He ran for President. We are less than two months from the California gubernatorial primary.

Why was none of this voiced before?

The answer may lie in the polling we were seeing recently for the gubernatorial primary in California.

California switched to a non-partisan "jungle primary" contest in 2010 in which all contestants compete in a single primary with the top two vote getters moving on to face off in the general election.

It was designed with the idea of having two Democrats receiving the most votes in the primary and boxing out Republicans entirely from the general election.

Ironically, it was this process that allowed Swalwell to defeat a 40+ year Democrat incumbent when he first won office.

However, recent polls showed that the two Republican candidates were leading in the polls for the June primary as a crowded list of Democrats were diluting the party's votes.

A Berkeley IGS poll in mid-March revealed a possible worst-case scenario for the Democrats in California.

The "jungle primary" might result in two Republicans advancing to the general election with the Democrats completely frozen out.

This would guarantee a Republican governor would be elected in November.

Source: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/2h95684f

There were simply too many Democrats in the race splitting the Democrat vote.

None of the candidates seemed to be willing to drop out on their own despite the five alarm fire that might engulf the Democrats in the nations's largest state.

However, who of the five leading Democrats do you try to force out?

It would be a bad look to try to force out the two Hispanics (Becerra and Villaraigosa) or the woman (Porter).

You also would not want to make billionaire Tom Steyer mad because Democrats need his money.

That leaves the young, white guy Swalwell. Not many Democrats care about this demographic.

I am sure Pelosi and others tried to convince Swalwell to step aside with future promises. 

However, this is a guy who already ran for President and is right at the top of the Democrats in the polls.

He has to have a pretty, big head by now.

Why would he step aside?

In the end, the Democrats do not abide anyone who does not play ball.

If there were whispers about Swalwell's antics the Democrat establishment KNEW FULL WELL the truth.

They had the goods on him. It gave them the power to do with him what they pleased.

Swalwell was taken out and a stern warning was also given to any other Democrats who might step out of line in the future.

This is how the Democrat party operates and how they can deliver 100% of the votes, 100% of the time.

No individual can be allowed to threaten the power of the party or the agenda they are pushing.

We saw the same thing with the coronation of Joe Biden in the 2020 Democrat primary to thwart Bernie Sanders from gaining the nomination.

It was repeated in 2024 when Biden was pushed out after his feebleness became so apparent in the debate with Trump.

Biden had to go to save the party and the agenda.

It is not dissimilar to the way the Mafia, a drug cartel or the Iranian regime operates.

Loyalty to the organization comes before everything else.

You are useful if you are attacking Trump and provide an example of a young, athletic looking guy that might appeal to young men and women voters.

Then all of a sudden it is clear to everyone you are nothing but a useful idiot.

There is only one thing that matters to the Democrat party.

It is about retaining their collective power for their own benefit.

Everything else is secondary to that. Most particularly, the people that are supposed to represent.

If Eric Swalwell did not know that before, he does now.

As for the rest of us, how can you trust anything that the Democrats tell us seeing this playbook used over and over again?