A Builder At Heart

There continues to be complaints by Democrats and the liberal media about President Trump's plans to build a ballroom addition as part of a new East Wing of The White House.

This is despite the fact that the old East Wing has already been demolished, construction is ongoing and  an attempted assassination of the President at a less than secure hotel ballroom in Washington, DC is fresh in everyone's mind.

A lawsuit by those who oppose the White House renovation is moving forward even though the Department of Justice made a request for the plaintiffs to drop the lawsuit.

 

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/27/trump-ballroom-whcd-doj-lawsuit.html

I wrote about the ballroom project and dispelled many of the myths about it in a blog post last August just before construction began.

One of the biggest myths was that Trump was wasting taxpayer dollars.

The fact is that it is all being paid for by Trump and private donors.

The White House cannot currently host any more than 200 for a dinner or other gathering.

It does not have any rooms that can accommodate anything larger.

Large state dinners require the construction of a temporary tent on the premises.

The tent look is not exactly in keeping with what you would expect from the nation's executive mansion.

On the other hand, the new Ballroom looks spectacular and can seat up to 1.000.

I also pointed out that none of the improvements were going to benefit Trump in any meaningful way.

The ballroom and the attendant facilities will not be completed until the final few months of his term (expected completion is late 2028) even if everything stays on schedule.

Trump is doing all of this to benefit future occupants of The White House and the nation. 

He is looking at this as a legacy project that will be an asset to the country that will last well beyond his time on earth.

All of the controversy was put into better perspective for me recently as I read a book written by the Chief Usher of The White House, J.B. West, who served from the time of FDR until Nixon.

This was the man charged with running White House operations, its maintenance and any construction projects, for six Presidents. 

In the book he recounts many controversies dealing with changes to the The White House buildings and grounds during his tenure.

The East Wing was not even added to The White House until shortly after World War II began when the primary objective was the need to build a bomb shelter on the grounds. The East Wing was built over it to to disguise the bomb shelter and provide additional office space needed for the war effort.

The East Wing that was demolished to make way for the new Ballroom was hurriedly constructed in less than nine months largely to disguise a bomb shelter.

It was almost one hundred years old and from all reports was in need of much repair.

This makes it of "historical significance" to never be touched again?

You can be assured that the Ballroom will sit above a much improved and secure bomb shelter and much more when it is completed.

West also shared the story of how Harry Truman wanted to construct a balcony directly above the South Portico of The White House.

This was intended to protect the portico below from the elements as well as allow the First Family direct access to a porch area above.

Truman wanted a nice area to sit in the evening overlooking the Washington Monument as well as removing awnings that he intensely disliked which were used to keep the sun and weather from the lower portico.

This is what the South Portico looked like before the Truman balcony was added.

Credit: http://www.tysto.com/floor2/truman-balcony.htm

Truman's idea was met with a storm of criticism, which according to West, included "a hullabaloo through the entire country about that balcony and how it would destroy America's heritage." They called it 'Truman's folly".

The Fine Arts Commission in D.C. (who advise and approve architectural plans for the nation's capital) refused to approve the change.

Truman said, "The hell with them; I'm going to do it anyway" he told West and others.

He did it and shortly after replaced the chairman of the Fine Arts Commission who was the biggest critic of the project.

This is what The White House looks with the Truman Balcony today.

Credit: https://drpence.wordpress.com/2014/07/03/upstairs-at-the-white-house/

It seems like a big improvement to me. What did the Fine Arts Commission know?

You can appreciate it even more if you are standing on that balcony as the President or First Lady. 

What a view!

Credit: https://www.whitehouse.gov/gallery/independence-day/

Trump was a little smarter about the Ballroom project. He got the Fine Arts Commission (all Trump appointees) to approve the project so he did not have to say "to hell with them" like Harry did.

Trump was also smarter in that he put his own money behind what he wanted to do and lined up private donations to fund the project rather than rely on congressional funding.

A common theme that runs through the West book is the ongoing problem of finding money to fund the improvements and enhancements that the President and/or First Lady needed to fund their projects. The last thing any of them wanted to do was to go to Congress for the funds.

That was true even when Jackie Kennedy undertook her Rose Garden project and the major revamp and renovation of The White House she undertook during the term of her husband. No funds were forthcoming from the Kennedy fortune to put into any government property. Kennedy money apparently was only used to benefit the Kennedys.

Most projects were funded with creative accounting or having it paid out of another executive branch budget.

Say what you want about Trump but he has been willing to use his own money or find private donations for improvements to The White House.

He did it for the rework of The Rose Garden in which he replaced the grass in the middle with pavers to make the space more functional for large crowds.

Updated Rose Garden where women and others no longer have their shoes sink into wet grass

He also recently used his own funds to pay for redoing the West Wing Colonnade walkway from decades-old flagstone to a flame-finished, non-slip charcoal black granite.

Here is President Trump and King Charles walking on the newly installed walkway that Trump paid for with his personal funds.

Source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/i-spotted-king-charles-telling-off-mic-comment-directly-after-donald-trump-s-speech/ar-AA21VQhZ

I continue to be amazed at the antagonism and animosity that President Trump engenders no matter what he does.

When it comes to renovations and improvements at The White House it seems that he has not been alone.

There seem have been plenty over the years that would like to see the President's house frozen in time based on some "historical significance" or "heritage" argument.

Preservationists must like the days when everyone lived in tents, nights were only lit with candlelight and there was an outhouse at the back of The White House.

Thank goodness we have a President who is more concerned with making the future better than living in the past.

There is nothing that shows that more graphically than the renovation that Trump recently did to the bathroom that adjoins the famous Lincoln bedroom at The White House.

This is the bathroom that Trump inherited to begin his second term.

Does this look like anything fit for the Executive Mansion in the year 2025?

I have stayed in run down motels with better facilities.

Credit:https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/nation/2025/11/01/lincoln-bathroom-trump-white-house-renovation/87035396007/

It looks like it had not been touched since Winston Churchill stayed in the Lincoln Bedroom on visits during World War II.

Here is the recent Trump renovation.

Credit: https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/nation/2025/11/01/lincoln-bathroom-trump-white-house-renovation/87035396007/

Credit: https://www.usatoday.com/picture-gallery/news/nation/2025/11/01/lincoln-bathroom-trump-white-house-renovation/87035396007/

I rest my case.

Trump is just not the President.

He is a builder at heart with a lot of vision for making things better.

As an added bonus, he also is willing to bring his checkbook.

Keep Your Eyes On The Size Of The Pie

We constantly hear from Liberals in the United States that it is not fair that the Top 1% have so much income

We are told they have too great a share of the national income.

The 1% should pay more in taxes.

We would all be much better if we were more like Europe or another country.

Let's take a step back and put the issue in context.

In 2024, it took $650,000 of income to put you in the Top 1% in the United States.

Let's compare that to some European countries.

Would the United States really be a better place to live if it was more like Europe?

Granted, there is more so-called income inequality today in the United States than in Europe.

I pointed that out in an earlier blog post on that subject in February titled "Income and Wealth Inequality"

It is true that the United States has more income and wealth inequality than European countries that have adopted stronger socialist welfare states than the U.S has.

However, the actual gap has not really changed much in the last 45 years between the United States and these other countries.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/economic-inequality

You also have to take into account the relative differences in the amount of income and wealth there is to divide between various countries.

The size of the pot of income and wealth also matters.

For example, Czechia has a Gini coefficient of .33 which is the top income equality score in the world.

However, Czechia's GDP per capita is almost $30,000 less than the United States.

There is a big difference in being in the bottom half of income earners in 'equitable' Czechia compared to living in the so-called 'inequitable' United States.

The size of the income pot matters a great deal.

The numbers above show that it is clearly better to be in the top 1% in the United States than in other countries.

However, the same can be said for every other group as you go down the income ladder because of the fact that the income pie is so much larger in the United States.

You really see that by comparing the United States 1% to some other countries in the world.

  

The fact is that a high percentage of the United States population would qualify for the top 1% in many countries in the world.

You can be sure that the people from many of these countries who want to immigrate to the United States are not concerned about "income inequality" in the United States.

They want a piece of that larger income pie for themselves and their family.

That includes those who might be 1% earners in countries like Australia and Canada who see the potential difference in their income potential in the United States.

You can put all of this in further context by looking at the 1% income level from a state level perspective.

It took $1.2 million of income to break into the Top 1% of earners in Connecticut.

West Virginia has the lowest threshold---$420,000.

However, that is still almost twice the level of income to qualify to be in the top 1% as you will find in much of Europe, Australia and Canada.

All of this reinforces the conclusion that I made in my earlier post this year on income equality.

The most important thing is to keep your eyes on the size of the pie.

We should not ignore the issue of income inequality in public policy discussions but our time would be much better spent working to make the economic pie bigger rather than worrying about how to slice it.

The bottom line is that we are in this together in this country.  President Kennedy said it best 60 years ago when he said, "A rising tide raises all boats".   

The reality is that when the rich do better it follows that everyone generally does better.  If the rich become poorer, we all most certainly will become poorer.  

We need to start recognizing that if the 1% and 99% work together we will get much more than 100% in the end. 

If we pit the 99% versus the 1%, it is guaranteed that we will get much less than 100%.

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.