Compromise Needed On Time

In December I wrote a blog post asking where President Donald Trump would come down on the time question between Standard and Daylight Saving Time?

I noted that in the past he had made favorable statements about making Daylight Saving Time permanent as well as promoting the idea of staying with Standard Time full-time.

As of last week President Trump apparently has determined that it is a "50-50 issue" where there are legitimate arguments on both sides.

As a result, he says it is hard to get excited about changing Daylight Saving Time as it now exists.

Source: https://www.axios.com/2025/03/06/trump-daylight-savings-time-change-march-2025

Since the annual DST change is now upon us, I thought I would republish what I wrote just a few months ago.

I also want to suggest again that since it is a 50-50 issue the best approach that President Trump could take with the issue is suggest a compromise.

Move the standard clock forward by 30 minutes and be done with the time changing every year.

There are many issues in this country that are in need of compromise.

President Trump, why can't we start with time?

Both sides get half of what they want.

However, everyone gets rid of the thing they hate the most about the issue---the time changes we have to go through twice a year.

It is called the "Art of the Deal".

My blog post and all the details on the subject from last December follows if you are wondering whether a 30 minute change is feasible.

 Where Does Trump Stand On Time?

(originally posted December 16, 2024)

Where does Donald Trump stand on time?

Last week the President-elect stated that he would work with Republicans to eliminate Daylight Saving Time( "DST").

However, in 2019 Trump suggested that he would sign a bill ("The Sunshine Protection Act") sponsored by Senators Marco Rubio and Rick Scott and Representative Vern Buchanan of Florida that would make Daylight Saving Time permanent.

The Sunshine Protection Act has been introduced in each of the last four sessions of Congress but has never been able to get the necessary support to pass.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunshine_Protection_Act

There are strong constituencies on both sides of the time issue.

Advocates of DST argue that it results in decreased crime, less frequent traffic incidents, longer evening outdoor recreation hours and reduced energy consumption.

Those who favor standard time claim it is more beneficial to our health as it better matches the natural circadian cycle of humans. It provides a better opportunity to take advantage of increased exposure to beneficial morning sunlight. It provides a safer environment for children going to school and for early morning worker commutes. The farming community also generally favors standard time as much of their work is done in the early morning hours.

However, going to standard time year round would push sunrise times in much of the country before 5:00 am in June. I am not sure how popular that would be.

Source: https://x.com/KOCOdamonlane/status/1868130056104513675

The only thing that most everyone agrees on is that they don't like changing their clocks two times a year and would prefer one time for the whole year.

My first memory of DST is when I was about 5 years old.  We lived just outside of Akron, Ohio and my grandparents lived in Cleveland. Cleveland was on DST but Akron was not so there was always a lot of discussion about what time is was whenever we planned a visit.  Even to a 5 year old that was very confusing.

This confusion reigned across the United States in the 1950's and 1960's because each locality could adopt, start and end DST as it wanted to.  In fact, on one bus route between West Virginia and Ohio, passengers had to change their watches seven times in 35 miles.  In Iowa, 23 different pairs of DST start and end dates were in effect in one year.

All of this chaos finally led Congress to pass a law in 1966 establishing set rules for observing DST nationally. This law established DST as the national standard beginning on the last Sunday of April and ending on the last Sunday in October-exactly six months in duration.  However, it permitted any state to exempt itself from DST by passing a state law. 

This was later amended to allow any state to make this distinction based on time zones in the state.  This resulted in Indiana (part Eastern and Central time) to split between standard and daylight time until the state finally went to DST uniformly in 2005. Right now Arizona and Hawaii are the only states that do not observe DST.

The law was later amended for DST to begin on the second Sunday in March and end on the first Sunday in November. We are using it the majority of the year.

Therefore, it is already difficult to understand why DST is not considered the standard and rename Standard Time Daylight Lost Time?

Congress once before passed a law to make DST permanent back in 1974 but the law was repealed before it went into full effect. due to public opposition.

The Emergency Daylight Saving Time Energy Conservation Act enacted year-round daylight saving time for a two-year experiment from January 6, 1974, to April 7, 1975, but Congress later ended the experiment early on October 27, 1974, and did not make it permanent due to unfavorable public opinion, especially regarding concerns about children walking to school and waiting for school buses on dark winter mornings.

You can see why those dark winter mornings are a concern if DST would be in effect year around by considering the sunrise times on January 1 in various major cities if that became a reality.

Source: https://www.foxweather.com/lifestyle/permanent-daylight-saving-time-9am-sunrise-winter

Source: https://www.foxweather.com/lifestyle/permanent-daylight-saving-time-9am-sunrise-winter

Source: https://www.foxweather.com/lifestyle/permanent-daylight-saving-time-9am-sunrise-winter

Permanent Daylight Saving Time would see large portions of the United States see over 100 days each year where the sun did not rise until after 8am.

Credit: https://x.com/bnkwupt/status/1853173071051739261

Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) stated she will work with anyone to make DST permanent in response to Trump stating he was in favor of eliminating it.

However, you have to wonder whether her constituents in Seattle will support her when they realize they will not see the sun until 900am in the dead of winter and after 8am for one-third of the year?

A YouGov poll last year on the issue of Daylight Saving Time found that a large majority of Americans wanted to eliminate the changing of clocks every year.

62% would like to see the changing of clocks eliminated.

Source: https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/etwjvohrxx/Daylight_Saving_Time_Toplines_Crosstabs.pdf

Of those who wanted to eliminate the time changes each year, Daylight Saving Time was the preferred option over Standard Time by a 50%-31% margin.

Source: https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/etwjvohrxx/Daylight_Saving_Time_Toplines_Crosstabs.pdf

Where does Trump stand on time?

It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out as there are strong opinions on both sides.

The only clear consensus is people do not like changing their clocks.

Considering all of the above, if I were Trump I would attempt to work out a compromise solution.

Why not consider permanently adjusting all of the time zones forward by half an hour? That buys some extra daylight at the end of the day but would not disrupt the morning to the extent it is with the hour time change.

For those who think that is not possible, 30 minute offsets are being used in other parts of the world.

For example, India, the most populous country in the world, uses a 30 minute offset. Both Newfoundland and Venezuela in the Western Hemisphere are also on 30 minute offsets.

Source: https://www.timeanddate.com/time/time-zones-interesting.html

A compromise on time sounds like it has potential to be in the spirt of "The Art of the Deal" that Trump is famous for.

Is there any place left for compromise among us?

Can we start with our time?

Speaking The Language

Last week President Trump signed an executive order designating English as the official language of the United States.

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-executive-order-english-official-language/

"A nationally designated language is at the core of a unified and cohesive society, and the United States is strengthened by a citizenry that can freely exchange ideas in one shared language," the executive order reads.

The order also states that "Agency heads are not required to amend, remove, or otherwise stop production of documents, products, or other services prepared or offered in languages other than English."

I have always found it incredible that English had never been designated as the official language of the United States before now.

That is especially true when it is considered how many other countries in the world have done so.

For example, countries as diverse as India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda. South Sudan and Belize all have designated English as an official language.

There are actually 57 other countries besides the United States that designate English as the (or an) official language.

Source: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/map-countries-speak-english-guide-wonderful-world-english-ekise/

The United States has also been in a distinct minority in not having any official language.

The failure of the United States to do so is even more perplexing when U.S. law requires that in order to become a naturalized U.S. citizen it is required that an applicant must meet an English language proficiency requirement.

These are the requirements as listed in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Policy Manual.

There is an exemption to the language requirement but it is generally only available to those age 50 or over who have resided in the United States for many years.

For example, someone 50 years or older must have resided in the United States for at least 20 years to qualify for this exemption.

What sense does it make to require proficiency in English as a requirement for naturalized citizenship but it has not been the official language of the United States?

Just another instance of President Trump applying common sense to the issues surrounding us.

In looking at recent polling it appears that his common sense approach is speaking the language of the voters.

Atlas Intel was the most accurate pollster in the 2024 Presidential election.

They recently surveyed positive and negative opinions on a number of politicians.

Notice that Trump right now has a higher opinion score than Barack Obama.

Trump is +2. Obama is 0.

Every other Democrat is no better than -5.

Kamala Harris is -16, Gavin Newsom is -24, Joe Biden is -25 and Hillary Clinton is -29.

What is even more striking in the survey results is the positive opinion that J.D. Vance has developed over time with the American people.

You many recall that right after President Trump selected Vance to be his VP nominee the Democrats and mainstream media created a narrative to portray both Trump and J.D. as "weird".

https://apnews.com/article/kamala-harris-trump-vance-weird-c54d506d1f533ee7aa455f7b500322c5

As voters have gotten to know Vance they have determined that was nothing but fake news.

Voters who see Vance positively has improved by 22 points since July.

His net approval has improved from -13 to +3.

Voters are seeing nothing weird about J.D. Vance.

One thing that was weird was the fact that English was not the official language of the United States.

It is weird no more thanks to President Trump.

Ukraine War + 3

We have passed the three year mark for the Russia-Ukraine war.

In my view it is a war that should have never occurred.

There is no doubt that Vladimir Putin is a very bad person.

However, at the same time, it was foolhardy for the Biden administration and the Europeans to provoke Putin to invade Ukraine by the noise that was being made about Ukraine joining NATO in the lead up to the conflict.

This was clearly a red line that Putin could not allow the West to cross over.

Ukraine borders Russia and the Ukrainians cozied up to the West in recent years that included possible NATO membership. The Biden administration was not doing anything to suggest that Ukraine would not be welcome to join NATO.  Putin viewed this as a threat to his security as much as the United States would if Canada or Mexico were talking with China about a mutual defense package.

For those unfamiliar with the geography, here is a map that puts that part of the world into better perspective.

Source: https://www.tripsavvy.com/maps-of-eastern-europe-4123431

Estonia and Latvia, which border Russia, are already NATO members.

However, Ukraine would be of the most strategic value to Russia as it is their gateway to the Black Sea (they had already annexed Crimea during the Obama administration which did nothing to stop the Russians) and it also shares the largest border with Russia in Eastern Europe.

Here is a full list of all the former Eastern European bloc countries that used to be in the Soviet realm that are now in NATO.

Source: https://x.com/i/grok?conversation=1894451198968685006

For context, it should be remembered that when the Soviet Union collapsed and discussions were underway about the reunification of Germany, there were suggestions made to the Russians by U.S. Secretary of State Baker and German's Foreign Minister that NATO would not expand eastward by one inch.

No treaty was signed to that effect but the Russians look at it as a breach of a gentlemen's agreement when NATO expanded so greatly in later years.

If you were Putin would you not feel at least somewhat threatened by all of this?

Jeffrey Sachs, is a noted liberal global economist who worked extensively in Russia on their post-communist transition.

Sachs recently made this statement before the EU Parliament that clearly points to the NATO issue as the cause of the Russian invasion.

He points the finger clearly at Jake Sullivan, Biden's National Security Advisor for bad judgment all the way around on the Ukraine situation.

Link: https://x.com/thinking_panda/status/1893608891872874796

It should also not be forgotten that Ukraine was part of the Soviet Union until 34 years ago. Ukraine was also part of the Russian Empire beginning in the late 18th century under czarist rule until the Bolshevik revolution occurred and that empire collapsed in 1917. 

Ukraine attempted to assert its independence in the succeeding years but was ultimately partitioned in the 1930's between the Soviet Union and Poland. When you add it all together Ukraine has actually been aligned with Russia for about 200 of the last 240 years.

The war has continued for three years almost solely because the United States wanted it to continue and was willing to pay for it.

Hundreds of billions of dollars have been sent to Ukraine to fund the war effort and to also prop up the government bureaucracy. The United States has even paid for the pensions of Ukraine government employees.

Yes, the United States wanted to assist Ukraine in defending itself. However, the United States was most interested in using this war to weaken Russia militarily and financially in a proxy war.

The human cost has been enormous for both countries.

Precise casualty numbers are difficult to come by because both countries do not want the actual numbers to be revealed for the effects it would have on the morale of the citizens of both countries.

However, a conservative estimate puts total casualties at over one million with a least one-third of that total being deaths.

These are huge numbers when you consider that the combined populations of Russia (144 million) and Ukraine (44 million) are about half of the United States.

By comparison, the United States lost 58,000 (44,000 killed in action) in the Vietnam War.

By any realistic measure, this was not a war that Ukraine could win.

It lacks the manpower, war material and money to defeat Russia.

Three years of war has proven that.

Ukraine will only be able to prolong the effort if the United States and Europe agree to keep providing  war material and money to Ukraine. It will only be able to win if the U.S. and/or Europe also start providing troops as well.

However, how many citizens in the United States and Europe are willing to send their sons and daughters to Ukraine to participate in the beginning of World War III?

There will almost certainly be none among the liberal elites who so vociferously supported the Ukraine war from the beginning.

All of this is why Donald Trump is working hard to end the killing and the conflict and broker a peace agreement.

It looked like Trump was making progress until Ukraine President Zelensky showed up at the White House on Friday and seemed to make it clear he was not interested in a peace deal at all.

I have a lot of respect for the courage Zelensky showed in standing up to Putin and the job he did in rallying his country and the free world to the Ukrainian cause.

However, we are three years into this war and it is evident that Urkaine (even with an enormous amount of support by the U.S. and Europe) is not going to expel Russia from eastern Ukraine and re-take Crimea.

Ukraine had previously agreed to a deal to give the United States an interest in mineral rights in Ukraine, in return for past and continued military and financial support while a peace deal was negotiated.

Zelensky was invited to the White House to sign that deal. However, at the White House Zelenskyy backtracked Zelensky and insisted to Trump and Vance that Ukraine needed security guarantees from the U.S. as well.

Trump has been clear from the start that he would not commit U.S. troops on the ground in Ukraine which is what Zelensky was asking for.

Scott Jennings of CNN summed it up well.

Link: https://x.com/stillgray/status/1895711060935721023

There is no bigger friend of Zelensky and Ukraine in the U.S. Senate than Lindsey Graham.

Graham is no longer supporting Zelensky and believes he should resign after the way he behaved in the Oval Office.

When you have lost Lindsey Graham on Ukraine you know you are playing a losing hand.

 

Link: https://x.com/WallStreetMav/status/1895571311923204115

What really does not make any sense at all is that by agreeing to the mineral deal with Trump, Zelensky would have effectively gotten a security agreement. This would give the United States an economic interest in Ukraine to defend. 

It would act as a natural deterrent to Putin and Russia. It would also have provided the United States with a stronger rationale to intercede in Ukraine in the future if Russia violated any peace agreement.

It was a master stroke of negotiation and strategic thinking by Trump that seems lost on Zelensky, the Europeans  and most everyone else.

How will it all end?

Zelensky has no other option than to make peace with Trump and also agree to pursue peace with Putin.

The Europeans have neither the money, the war material or the stomach to take on Putin and continue the war without the United States.

This is evident in polling on the issue that shows a steady decline in support for the war and an increase in those who want a negotiated peace that includes Russia ending up with control of some parts of Ukraine.

Source: https://x.com/AndreasSteno/status/1895772278815637538

I made the following prediction two years ago in a blog post "Losing Even If They Win" when the war had only been going on for only a  year.

The tragedy in all of this is that when all is said and done in this war it is hard to believe that Russia will not end up retaining Crimea and be in control of some of the Donbas region of Ukraine that borders Russia. This region was generally controlled by Russian separatists groups even before the Russian invasion. The people in this region also principally speak Russian.

 

Unfortunately, my observation two years ago looks like it will be close to any final resolution. In fact, the final lines drawn will likely favor Russia more than it would have two years ago or, sadly, if the negotiated peace deal that Turkey was helping to negotiate in the Spring of 2022  had been implemented early in the conflict.

Far worse is the question of what Ukraine will look like as a country in the future with so much blood and treasure spilled as a result of poor judgments and decisions by Joe Biden, Jake Sullivan and their European counterparts.

When we see the final resolution will we see that anything has been truly achieved?

Source: https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/havelock_ellis_108440

It is especially true in the case of the Ukraine War.

Trump Watch---February 28, 2025 Edition

There is so much going on with the Trump administration I thought I would begin a periodic blog post feature that highlights major items going on with Trump along with commentary from time to time when it is appropriate.

Merry Christmas!

The Trump agenda is being implemented so swiftly and in a such a sweeping manner in so many areas that his supporters have started saying that every new day feels like Christmas.

All will be well as long as a Happy New Year follows.

Trump and the Media

We are once again hearing the narrative that Trump is attempting to be a dictator and is dismissive of many in the media who are covering him.  The argument is made that Trump is restricting access to him from the media as an authoritarian would.

However, compare Trump with Biden when there were rarely any unscripted interactions with the media and, when he did meet with the press, it appeared the questions were often pre-arranged. 

Consider the number of questions that Trump has taken in the first month compared to Biden, Obama and Trump's first term.

Could any President be more transparent?

The Gold Card

President Trump announced this week that he plans to offer a "Gold Card" that would allow those who want to immigrate to the United States the opportunity to receive a Green Card for permanent residency with a pathway to citizenship. 

The most common path for citizenship for Green Card holders is through naturalization after maintaining a continuous relationship in the U.S. for at least five years and being physically present in the country for at least half of that time.

Source: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-gold-card-eb5-visa-5-million-immigration-oligarch-cbs-news-explains/

A Gold Card could be obtained by payment of $5 million to the U.S. Treasury and being able to pass a strict vetting process.

The Gold Card would replace the EB-5 visa that is currently in place that provides the opportunity for wealthy non-U.S. citizens to gain permanent residency. However, that program has been subject to abuse and fraud at times. It also does not require a payment to the U.S. Treasury as Trump's plan does. It just requires a commitment to invest $1 million in the United States and commitment to create or preserve 10 full time jobs for American workers.

Clearly, the objective of the Gold Card is to get high net worth individuals into the country who can bring capital and entrepreneurial skills to fuel the economy and create jobs for Americans.

According to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, there is a reported waiting list of 250,000 for EB-5 visas currently. Less than 10,000 EB-5 visas have been typically issued in recent years.

I doubt that all of the 250,000 on the waiting list have $5 million for a Gold Card. However, even if it was only 50,000 initially that would still bring in $250 billion per year. 

Trump threw out the idea that 1,000,000 Gold Card recipients could generate $5 trillion.

That is far-fetched considering the limited number of eight-figure millionaires in the world. (I figure you would have to have at least $10+ million to consider spending half of that on a Gold Card)

Current estimates by Grok suggest there are no more than 500,000 8-figure millionaires in the world outside of the United States.

However, I like where Trump is going with this.

In my view, this approach should be married with the Talent Tariff idea (credit to Scott McNealy) I wrote about in January that would create an auction method to replace the H-1B and other employment based visas. This might then be called a Silver Card that also could potentially provide a pathway to a Green Card to complement the Gold Card at a lower cost for needed skills and occupations.

We also need a guest worker program similar to my Red Card proposal that would provide work visas but would not provide any pathway to citizenship.

I have already heard some Democrats decry the idea of allowing wealthy individuals the opportunity to enter the country by stating that it was "unfair" to allow them to cut into the line ahead of those who have been waiting patiently to come into the country.

Isn't it interesting that they did not have similar concerns as millions and millions of illegal immigrants poured across our border the last four years?

Elon Musk and DOGE

I continue to be amazed at the anger and animus directed at Elon Musk engendered by his small DOGE team pulling back the covers and looking at various aspects of the federal government's systems and spending.

Why are so many concerned about a little transparency that has been sorely lacking for years when it comes to these issues?

Of course, this week you would have thought that Musk asked each federal employee to write a PhD dissertation when he simply asked each employee to provide five bullet points on what they did last week.

The request was primarily intended just to verify if there was living, breathing employee behind the government email address who was even checking their email.

It is reported that only 1 million government employees out of a reported 2+ million (not including unformed military personnel) on the federal payroll completed the task.

Some Department and Agency heads (Department of Defense, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA etc) told their employees they did not have to comply because they have rigorous chain of command structures in place already.

That is understandable. However, what is the excuse in departments like Education, EPA, HHS and the like?

What is really absurd is the amount of time being spent by those resisting a request for 5 minutes of time to document their existence and work.

Senate Minority Leader does not think any good business operator would manage their operations this way.

However, this is exactly what Elon Musk did when he acquired Twitter.

When he made a similar request at Twitter he found that about 80% of Twitter employees spent most of their time writing rules on what content could not be posted on the platform and then censoring the content that did not conform.

Most of it did not add any value to Twitter. In fact, it was the direct antithesis of what a platform that was originally formed to foster communication, the exchange of ideas and free speech was supposed to be about.

Musk let go of 80% of the Twitter staff in his first months of ownership and the platform did not miss a beat. In fact, X is better than ever as a result.

What was going on at Twitter is very much similar to what is going on in a number of federal agencies such as the Department of Education and the EPA.

Thousands of employees are primarily involved in writing rules and regulations that Americans are supposed to follow. Thousands of employees are also involving in policing all of those rules and regulations that they have promulgated. Most of those also have no direct legislative authorization.

The Department of Education employs 4,400 people. The EPA has over 16,000 full time positions. 

Is all of what they do really, really necessary?

Who says we could not get the same results in education and the environment with 80% less employees?

I don't know. However, I do know that if the question is never asked, and the agency heads are not challenged, we will never know.

It also bears keeping in mind that Kamala Harris spent $1.5 billion and had a campaign staff of 1,200 compared to Trump's staff of 300 and about $350 million in spending in the 2024 election.

Did all those extra staff and spending make Kamala a winner?

President Trump and Elon Musk come from a different world than those who populate D.C.

A final point in all of this is the differential in pay between federal employees and other working Americans.

Generally speaking, federal employees make, on average, 60%-80% more than Americans overall.

Source: Grok3

Federal worker pay is skewed higher, in part, because there are more white collar jobs and more college-educated workers working for the government.

However, it should not go unnoticed that the people paying the bills are making less than the people overseeing the bureaucracy that is making the rules.

I am not sure that it makes a whole lot of sense to be protesting very much about anything that DOGE is doing when you consider the imbalance the bigger picture reveals here.

It might be time for some people to accept a different reality than they are used to.

For now, the American people are strongly supportive of what DOGE is doing.

A Harvard/ Harris poll this week.

It is naive to believe that many federal employees are going to get on the Trump Train.

After all, Kamala Harris got 91% of the vote in the District of Columbia and in the adjoining suburban counties, which are heavily populated with federal workers, saw Trump only garnering an average of 29% of the vote.

However, it might prove to be a poor career choice to stand directly in front of it..

LIV Golf---Merge or Die?

LIV golf has just started its fourth season.

Shortly after the LIV golf tour kicked off as a competitor to the PGA Tour in 2022 I wrote a blog post ("Will The LIV Golf Tour Live") assessing its future prospects.

I understood that LIV had the backing of Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund (PIF) which is the sovereign wealth fund of that oil rich nation. The main objective of the PIF is to diversify the petrodollars coming into other endeavors.

I also recognized that LIV was attracting some big names to its tour by offering huge guarantees for PGA Tour players to defect. 

A lot of money was thrown around by LIV and the Saudis to attract big names like Phil Mickelson, Dustin Johnson, Brooks Koepka and Bryson DeChambeau at the outset of the tour.

Those players were each estimated to get money guarantees of over $100 million.

Jon Rahm was brought into LIV in 2024 with an estimated financial package of $300 million.

From the outset it has been difficult for me to understand the financial model that the PIF was using to justify all of this 'investment".

This is what I wrote about LIV golf in July, 2022.

It is tough for me to figure out what is the end game for the Saudis.

If they are investing a billion dollars or more in a fledging golf tour they undoubtedly expect a return on that investment.

They clearly have to expect that the PGA Tour will ultimately pay them off someway (through a legal settlement) or some type of merger will eventually occur that allows them a return on the money they are putting into this.

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

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

As I saw it in 2022, LIV had two big problems.

1) Where was LIV going to go to get the big sponsorship deals to rival what the PGA Tour had? This is a big source of revenue for the PGA Tour. If LIV could get some of these dollars to flow their way they would have a chance. Without it, it was hard to see how it would survive on its own.

FedEx, AT&T, RBC, Coca-Cola and all the corporate sponsors are the ultimate key to all of this.

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.

Almost three years later LIV has not been able to attract any large sponsors. 

2) Would LIV be able to secure a tv deal to showcase the talents of its players? If not, the players would become increasingly irrelevant due to lack of media exposure.

LIV may have guys who can play the game but it is going to be difficult to get and sustain an audience.

At a minimum, LIV needs a tv deal which it does not have right now. They then need to get people to watch it.

The reality is that the "kingdom" of golf revolves around the four major championships and the PGA Tour. If you are not playing in these events it is going to be hard to maintain relevancy as a competitor.

The LIV players are going to be irrelevant in the golf kingdom despite the fact they are getting paid a lot money by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

Brooks Koepka won the PGA Championship in 2023 and Bryson DeChambeau won the U.S. Open last year but for the most part LIV golfers are invisible due to lack of tv exposurse.

LIV did secure a tv deal with the CW Network the last two years but the ratings were abysmal compared to the PGA Tour's numbers. For example, fewer than 100,000 viewers watched Jon Rahm win the 2024 individual championship.

A new tv deal was secured for 2025 with Fox where tournaments will be seen on either the Fox or Fox Sports 1 or 2.

However, the tv ratings are no better this season,

Ratings for the first event in Riyadh were embarrassingly small.

Only 54,000 average viewers watched the final round in Saudi Arabia.

How should we view the first batch of LIV Golf Fox TV ratings?

Well, it depends on what you think about LIV Golf.

Let’s start with what we know. According to multiple sources and as first reported by the Twitter account @YeahClickClack, coverage of LIV Riyadh’s final round on FS1 and FS2 drew audiences of 54,000 and 31,000 average viewers, respectively. According to the same Twitter account, Thursday’s opening-round coverage from Saudi Arabia on FS2 drew 12,000 average viewers.

By comparison, the PGA Tour drew almost 3,000,000 viewers for the final round of the WM Phoenix Open. 

LIV did better with its second tournament in Australia but the ratings are still a fraction of the PGA Tour's.

However, it should be noted that the live coverage was on air very late in the United States Eastern time zone.

What really tells the story of where LIV golf stands is the recent news out of the UK that reported LIV's revenues for 2023 for its non-U.S operations. These represent about half of LIV's events.

Sportcal.com reports that LIV only generated $37 million in total revenues in 2023 and had a net loss of almost $400 million.

It also reports that the Saudi PIF has "invested" close to $4 billion into LIV.

Source: https://www.sportcal.com/financial/liv-golf-hits-the-rough-in-2023-financials-with-non-us-revenue-below-par/

LIV Golf’s UK arm published its financial accounts for the 2023 calendar year this week which are relevant for the entirety of the tour’s non-US business. The highlight – or lowlight – is an overall loss of $395.94 million, $152.2 million more than the $243.7 million loss it made a year prior.

The Saudi Arabian Public Investment Fund (PIF) sovereign wealth vehicle has now piled close to $4 billion in investment into the LIV Golf breakaway tour, but losses at the sports property are continuing to mount.

LIV golf is four years into this and has almost no major sponsors, little revenue and almost non-existent tv ratings after spending $4 billion.

They have a handful of golf superstars but hardly anybody sees them play.

The exception is the Adelaide tournament which has drawn well in Australia but that is not enough by itself to justify the PIF investment.

To put into perspective how horrendous the LIV revenue numbers are, consider the fact that Scottie Scheffler, the leading money winner of the PGA Tour in 2024, apparently made more money last year ($102 million) than LIV's total revenue,

Source: https://www.sportico.com/personalities/athletes/2025/scottie-scheffler-pga-tour-golf-earnings-2024-1234827982/

You may recall that it has been almost two years since LIV and the PGA Tour announced a proposed merger.

Source: https://en.as.com/other_sports/why-has-the-pga-tour-liv-golf-merger-taken-so-long-and-when-will-it-happen-n/

However, the two have still not reached any definitive agreement despite a lot of talk.

The PIF must be getting impatient in seeing losses pile up month after month.

The PGA Tour should be in a much better negotiating position than it was in 2023.

However, there is little doubt that the sponsors and fans of the PGA Tour are also getting impatient for some form of reunification of the game's top players.

That is probably a big reason that we saw both sides meet recently with President Trump in an attempt to bring the parties together.

Source: https://www.reuters.com/sports/golf/trump-meets-tiger-woods-part-pga-tour-liv-golf-talks-2025-02-20/

It looks to me that LIV golf must merge soon...or DIE.

LIV golf (the Saudi PIF fund) is too motivated to find a way to get a return on their money to allow it to die right now.

The PGA Tour is also intent on getting some of that Saudi money infused into the PGA Tour.

After all, money talks.

It will be a shock to me if a definitive merger agreement of some sort is not announced by the two parties in the very near future.

Stay tuned.

What Did You Do Last Week?

Elon Musk, in his capacity as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), issued a directive for all federal employees on Saturday to email their weekly accomplishments by Monday night, or else face resignation. 

This is the email.

President Trump had earlier asked Elon to ramp up his DOGE efforts.

Elon Musk explained one of the reasons that he made the request at the direction of President Trump was a simple pulse check to see how many employees are out there and actually functioning.

For perspective, this is the same thing that Musk did after he purchased Twitter and it is also a common practice in other service industries after a change in management.

However, the American Federation of Government Employees thinks it is "cruel and disrespectful" for federal employees to justify what they are doing for their paycheck and the American people.

The AFGE represents 800,000 federal government workers.

When the AFGE says that Elon Mush has not performed one single hour of honest public service in his life they seem to be disregarding all that he is doing with DOGE right now for which he is not being paid one cent.

Shouldn't they also recognize the fact that Musk is almost certainly the nation's largest taxpayer who just so happens to be paying for the salaries of those federal government employees?

All of this raises the question as to why do government employees have the right to unionize in the first place?

It is important to remember that there is no real legal or economic reason for the very existence of a public sector union in the first place.  In fact, liberal Democrat luminaries in the 1930's such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Fiorello LaGuardia were opposed to public sector unionism for the simple reason that it threatened the broad needs of the citizenry.  That is why it was illegal for most government employees to unionize until well into the 1970's.  

Fred Siegel of The Manhattan Institute wrote about how liberals were once skeptical of public-sector unionism in The Wall Street Journal a few years back.

In the 1930s, New York Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia warned against it as an infringement on democratic freedoms that threatened the ability of government to represent the broad needs of the citizenry. And in a 1937 letter to the head of an organization of federal workers, FDR noted that "a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable."

The historical basis for unions in the private sector is based on insuring a balance of power to insure that workers receive a reasonable share of profits and work in safe and sanitary conditions. Governments don't make profits to share. They only levy taxes. 

In addition, has anyone ever heard of a government worker working in a sweat shop? They also work in a monopoly situation meaning that if they provide poor service, or no service, or go out on strike, there is no corresponding power by the consumer to go elsewhere as there is with a private sector business that is unionized.

Private sector unions are also balanced against equity owners who have a natural incentive to push back on union demands. In the public sector no such tensions exists. More often than not the elected officials on the other side of the bargaining table are incentivized to give in to the unions for their own political survival. Democrat politicians in particular know that they would often not have been elected (nor will they be reelected) without that public sector union money flowing into their campaign coffers.

Why did the Democrats change their views about public sector unions? In a word, MONEY.

Beginning in the early 1960's the Democrats decided that the political advantage of having the political and fundraising power of these unions behind them outweighed any concerns about taxpayers and the broader citizenry.

We are now at the point that half of all union members in the United States are public employees.

Moreover, one-third of government employees are union members compared to only 6% in the private sector.

Source: https://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2024/02/union-membership-in-us-workforce.html

What we are seeing in Washington, D.C. with the unhinged reactions by federal bureaucrats to the simplest questions and requests for information about how our money is being spent shows just how deep the swamp is.

The size and shape of the federal bureaucracy and the money that is flowing to it has created a fundamental imbalance between those who work for the government and the taxpayers who support it.

This is evident in national personal income rankings in which Washington, D.C. leads all 50 states on that measure.

Remember that this also takes into account a large number of people who live in poverty in D.C.

Source: https://www.voronoiapp.com/economy/The-Median-Income-in-Every-State-Adjusted-for-Cost-of-Living-1585

This is further evidenced by the fact that four of the top seven richest counties in the United States are all suburbs of Washington, D.C.

Source: https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/richest-counties-in-the-us/

Washington, DC has no manufacturing base. It does not make rocket or electric vehicles as Elon Musk does. It does not grow crops. It has no oil wells or coal mines. It does not produce computer chips or other high tech items. It produces almost nothing that creates value in a traditional economy. Yet, its residents have the highest per capita income in the country! What more is needed to know that something is seriously amiss in our country?

Washington is largely a gigantic redistribution machine today. Money comes in one end from one group of people and it goes out the other end to another group of people. Money and wealth have been created in Washington because of the bureaucracy that runs that machine.

All of this speaks to a fundamental imbalance between those who work for the federal government and those who pay for it.

The DOGE effort is simply to try to bring some balance to the system.

The reaction we are seeing clearly shows how difficult a task that is.

I don't know if DOGE will be successful in seeing to it that the needed balance is restored to the system.  

All I know is that it has to occur if we are to survive as a country in the long term.

A system in which the takers end up with more than the makers will eventually fail. We can control the consequences or we can face the chaos when it crumbles. The choice is ours.

Is asking he question "What Did You Do Last Week?" cruel, disrespectful and out of touch?