Will We Ever See Truth and Justice?

The disclosures that were made over the last week by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard that President Barack Obama, the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, the Director of the CIA John Brennan and others conspired to create a false intelligence narrative that tied Donald Trump's election in 2016 to Russian collusion was in the headlines.

This was clearly done with the intent of undermining the Trump presidency before he even was sworn into office.

Source: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-russiagate-evidence-directly-point-to-obama-doj-decide-criminal-implications-gabbard

The biggest claim by Gabbard is that Obama himself directed his key intelligence officials to manipulate the intelligence with the objective, in Gabbard's words, to "unsurp" a duly elected incoming President.

This was after the intelligence agencies had presented a report right after the election that concluded that there had been no evidence that the Russians favored Trump or had colluded with him in his election.

It did not take long for a group of hand-picked intelligence analysts to produce a new assessment that reached a different conclusion and was disseminated to the media a month after Trump was elected.

Gabbard is saying that all of this was done at the direction of Barack Obama.

The efforts by Obama and his team laid the groundwork for what would become a Trump-Russia collusion investigation that consumed most of Trump's first term and substantially hampered his Presidency. 

It remains to be seen whether the DOJ will actually find any grounds to indict Obama or any of the others with a crime for what they did to Trump.

We have already seen the U.S. Supreme Court rule last year in Trump v. United States that former presidents are generally considered immune from criminal prosecutions related to acts during their term of office.

The ruling establishes a three-tier framework:

Absolute immunity for core constitutional duties for actions involving presidential duties established in the constitution such as issuing pardons, appointing officials and conducting foreign affairs.

Presumptive immunity for other official acts within the president’s authority. For example, this includes overseeing the intelligence operations of the United States. This would be a high bar for prosecutors to overcome in this case as Obama can just claim he sent the intelligence people back to make sure that Trump was not colluding with Russia. His argument will be that he did not specifically direct them to create the false intelligence narrative. 

No immunity for private or unofficial acts.

In that it would undoubtedly be almost impossible to prosecute Obama for any actions he took against Trump while he was President, I believe Trump's best move would be to preemptively pardon Obama. This allows Trump to take the high road but it still sends a message to the public that Obama was complicit in the conspiracy.

Let the DOJ focus their efforts on Clapper, Brennan, Comey and the others who might have been involved in a conspiracy to undermine and delegitimize Trump's lawful election in 2016.

The question that remains is what criminal charges could be brought here?

Many mention that those involved here were engaged in "treason" but there is a very specific and limited definition in federal law for that crime.

18 U.S.C. § 2381 says, “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or imprisoned and fined, and incapable of holding any U.S. office.”

I don't see how a charge of treason could bring a conviction based on the legal definition in the federal statute.

If proven, the actions involved here are certainly egregious and did great harm to confidence in our democracy and government institutions but does not seem to rise to being at war with the United States or giving aid and comfort to our enemies.

A more likely crime that might be charged in this case is attempting to overthrow and put down the duly elected President through promoting the dissemination of false intelligence reporting. This could be considered as seditious conspiracy.

18 U.S.C. § 2384 defines the crime of seditious conspiracy as  "If two or or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

If Obama's associates were charged with this crime it would be the ultimate irony as this is the same statute that a number of the high profile actors in the January 6th, 2021 protests at the U.S. Capitol were charged and convicted of.

It is important to keep one other fact in mind as you follow the reporting of this story.

Democrats and the media are trying to dismiss the charges that Tulsi Gabbard has levied here by saying that it has been previously known and accepted that the Russians had tried to influence the 2016 election.

This generally consisted of attempting to disrupt and sow discord about the democratic process rather than favoring one candidate or another.

Gabbard affirmed this but her evidence indicates that there was nothing more to Russian involvement in the election than causing overall mischief. Obama and the others ignored this finding and used fabricated intelligence (including the discredited Steele dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign)  suggesting that Trump was a tool of the Russians and had colluded with them to get elected. 

In fact, the intelligence that Gabbard released this week makes clear that there was no evidence that Russia preferred Trump or did anything to directly assist him let alone collude with him in the election.

In fact, I wrote a blog post in April, 2017 ("The Real Russian Scandal") when the Russia, Russia, Russia scandal was at its height and argued that nothing in the argument that Putin wanted Trump to beat Hillary made any logical sense. That was true for the simple reason that Russia's economy was so dependent on high oil prices.

And isn't money the largest motivator in the world?

For example, in 2016, 50% of Russia's federal budget revenues came from oil and gas sales and 68% of the country's exports are related to oil and gas.

This is what I wrote over eight years ago in that blog post.

Of the two candidates running for President, which of the two candidates was more likely to initiate policies that would lead to increased oil and gas prices?

Was it the candidate who wanted to build the Keystone pipeline, lift the Obama moratoriums on drilling on federal lands, lift the restrictions on new drilling technologies, rescind Obama-era EPA rules on drilling and coal and end the excessive regulations of fossil fuels?

All of these positions of Donald Trump would serve to lower oil and gas prices by increasing U.S. and global supply.

Hillary Clinton's policies would have done the exact opposite. In fact, she was on record during the 2016 campaign as saying that "we need to move away from coal and all the other fossil fuels as energy sources".  That was about the same time she was saying she would put all of the coal workers in the United States out of work. She might have thought those statements were in her own self-interest in order to play to her liberal left base of voters. However, it could not have been further from our nation's economic self-interest.

At the same time, if you were sitting in Vladimir Putin's chair, wouldn't those positions be music to your ears? What could be better for Putin than a U.S President who wanted to exorbitantly raise the prices of fossil fuels in order to make green energy projects more viable?

As we watch what may come of the Tulsi Gabbard intelligence disclosures there is one more question that I think everyone should keep in mind.

What was the real reason that the President of the United States and his people were so intent on undermining or discrediting the next President?

Why would they do what they did?

Why would they risk their careers on all of this?

What was their real motivation?

What were they really hiding?

What were they so afraid of with having Donald Trump sit in the Oval Office that they would go to these extraordinary lengths to subvert and undermine our democratic process?

I wrote a blog post on that subject in 2018 titled "Mendacity and Misdirection' where I suggested that everything about the Russian Collusion story made no sense.

It looked to me to be misdirection to hide their own misdeeds that they feared that Trump would unearth.

Everything involved here looks to me like an attempt at misdirection to take the focus off of Obama, Clinton, the Democrats and the FBI. Their objective is to point their finger at Trump and the Russians so that no one is pointing the finger at them.

I was in law school at the time of Watergate.

If Watergate showed us anything it is that the cover-up always seems be worse than the original crime in Washington.

Watergate began with a bungled robbery of the Democratic National Committee offices by former CIA operatives in an attempt to gain access to DNC files and wiretap the offices. There was never any proof that I saw that Richard Nixon knew about the plans for the original break-in. However, he did get involved in attempting to cover-up his campaign's involvement after the fact. It finally led to his resignation

Does any of that sound familiar?

However, Watergate is nothing compared to what possibly occurred in this case. This is a million times worse.

We may have had the FBI and Department of Justice being weaponized to attempt to force a duly elected President from office. The scary thing is that it could very well have been done to simply cover-up their own mendacity and misdeeds.

There is undoubtedly much more that we have yet to learn.

It took a long time for the truth to come out about Watergate and that was with a determined press who desperately wanted to find Nixon guilty of a crime.

It is ironic that the media today is doing everything in its power to aid in the misdirection. There is little interest in finding the truth.

It should give all Americans great concern.

We can only hope that truth will prevail and that Lady Justice really has the blindfold on when it does. 

It does often take a long time for the truth to come out.

Perhaps we are getting closer to finding out in this case.

However, finding out the TRUTH and seeing justice prevail are two different things. 

Sadly, it is unlikely that we will ever see the justice we should see.

We may have to just be satisfied in finding out the truth as to why all of this was done.

This and That---July 23, 2025 Edition

A few random observations, charts and factoids to provide some context on what is going on in the world.

Space Launches

If you don't think that Elon Musk has single-handedly saved the United States space program consider this graphic.

The United States would be far behind China today if not for Elon.

The accomplishments of SpaceX are even more impressive when you consider the payload mass that has been placed in orbit so far in 2025.

Over 90% of all payloads among all countries that have been reported as placed into orbit this year have been done by SpaceX.

Source: https://x.com/dpoddolphinpro/status/1940088062588969387

Diversity of Opinion

People of the political left like to refer to conservatives as authoritarians who are close-minded and not willing to consider diverse views and opinions.

However, research into diversity of thought between liberals and conservatives actually indicates it is those on the left who coalesce around a very fixed set of opinionswhereas the right diverges widely.

This graphic speaks volumes.

Source: https://bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjso.12665
Credit: https://x.com/kevinnbass/status/1946871154683027965

This may be why high profile Democrat Rahm Emanuel (former Chief of Staff to President Barack Obama) who was on Megyn Kelly's show recently stated (jokingly?) that he needed to go into a witness protection program after he stated that a man could not become a woman.

Link: https://x.com/MegynKellyShow/status/1947618455785521653

Education as a Participation Sport

The Democrats are trying to make the Trump administration's cuts and reorganization of the Department of Education a big deal.

Look at this graphic and try to make the case that the education system of the United States has been improving since the Department of Education was established in 1980.

Credit: https://x.com/BrentAWilliams2/status/1944748764117242263

Yes, the graduation rate has improved. However, SAT scores have gone down at the same time.

It appears that many students are just being given a piece of paper for showing up in some form for 12 years of education.

Education has become like youth sports. Everyone gets a trophy no matter what the performance has been.

The Hollowing Out of the American Economy

There is no better graphic to show how the American economy has changed over the last 35 years than this comparison of the top employer in each state in 1990 vs. 2025.

Credit: https://x.com/dailydirtnap/status/1944788330769424452

Many high-paying working class jobs were lost as we allowed our manufacturing base to be outsourced to China and other countries.

The reality is that no value is created in an economy until something is manufactured, created or built. Most everything beyond that value creationis merely transferring that wealth among the rest of society that are providing services or one type or the other.

How long can you sustain a society where health care is the largest employer? Where does the money come to pay for the doctors, nurses and technology?

The same can be said for hospitality, retail or professional services.

This is the key principle behind Trump's tariff strategy.

You simply cannot outsource the foundation of an economy.

We have done it for the last 35 years but it is not sustainable over the longer term.

Fair Weather Fan?

Are you a fair weather fan?

What is your perfect combination of temperatures, humidity and cloud cover?

The website myPerfectWeather.com allows you to put in your inputs and provides a map of the most desirable places for that weather in the United States.

For example, if you are looking for daily high temperatures of between 60 and 85 degrees, a dew point of less than 60 degrees and less than 50% cloud coverage it is hard to beat the California coast.

This map indicates the places I have lived most of my life have some of the most uncomfortable weather that exists. It is either too hot, too cold. there is too much humidity or too many cloudy days.

It must have something to do with where I was born. The area around Akron, Ohio appears to have the most uncomfortable weather you can find.

Credit: https://x.com/US_Stormwatch/status/1944880629814059096

If you are willing to live with temperatures in the 50 degree to 80 degree range with everything else remaining the same a big swath of the country opens up for you weather-wise including much of North Carolina.

Credit: https://x.com/US_Stormwatch/status/1944896030153302424

Take advantage of perfect weather when you can! 

Are The Ads Mostly A Lie?

Over the last decade we have become accustomed to seeing advertisements depicting mixed-race married couples with children to sell their product.

Source: https://www.newson6.com/story/5e363cc12f69d76f620597b9/adorable-star-of-cheerios-commercial-hails-from-oklahoma

Source: https://www.newson6.com/story/5e363cc12f69d76f620597b9/adorable-star-of-cheerios-commercial-hails-from-oklahoma

This ad for Cheerios that aired during the 2013 Super Bowl was one of the first that made a point of highlighting a multi-race married couple and a biracial child named "Gracie".

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J_M2qa4xh0

This is the real life family of "Gracie" who was played by Grace Colbert in the ad.

(child on the right in the photo).

 

Source: https://www.newson6.com/story/5e363cc12f69d76f620597b9/adorable-star-of-cheerios-commercial-hails-from-oklahoma

It seems the advertisers want to cover all the bases in one ad.

Has there been a better acting gig the last few years than to be a cute biracial child?

In fact, it seem it has become rare to ever see a white married man and woman with 2.2  children in a any tv ad.

The fact is that there are some successful mixed race marriages involving a Black man and white woman and three happy children in the family.

However, it is extremely rare if you look at the data.

First of all, mixed race marriages have increased in the United States but they are still rare.

This is portrayed as common place in advertising.

What are the actual numbers?

Only 7% of the 63 million married couples in the United States are mixed race.

63% of married couples in the United States are both white.

6% of married couples are both Black.

12% of married couples are both Hispanic.

Biracial children living in family unit with a married man and woman is even rarer.

Most are aware of the extraordinary number of out of wedlock births among African Americans.

 

70% of all births of Black children are born out of wedlock according to the most recent CDC data.

The comparable number for Whites is 27%.

For Asians it is 12%.

In 1940, the out of wedlock birth rate for Blacks was 15%.

However, what I recently found interesting is that the out of wedlock birth percentage when a Black father and White mother are involved is an astounding 97%!

The out of wedlock percent for a Black father and Hispanic mother is 95%. 

With a Black father and Asian mother it is 85%.

The overall out of wedlock percentage of a biracial child with a Black father is 92%.

This data is contained in a study that was published in 2015 involving birth trends, family structure, economic stability, paternal relationships and emotional stability of biracial children with African American fathers.

Those numbers make the 70% percent out of wedlock percent for Black children look good.

Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/393060433/92-Absent-Black-Fathers-with-Biracial-Children

This is an excerpt from an article that summarized the findings of the study.

Source: https://x.com/Rothmus/status/1946606747856015487

The study did find that in 20% of the situations involving the out of wedlock births of a Black father and White mother, a marriage eventually did occur.

That is a much better number than occurred with the out of wedlock births to Asian and Hispanic mothers with a Black father.

In fact, in only 1% of the cases involving an out of wedlock birth of a child to a Black father and Hispanic mother does the couple end up getting married!

Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/393060433/92-Absent-Black-Fathers-with-Biracial-Children

Consider all of the above when you see the next advertisement that showcases a happy and prosperous biracial family enjoying the product that the advertiser has spent millions of dollars in producing and placing the commercial.

Those families do exist somewhere.

However, the data would suggest that the happily married couple with biracial kids might be akin to finding a black swan.

The advertising might want us to believe that these children are living an idyllic life with a loving mother and father. However, the data in the study suggests most are living with a single mother on welfare and a father who is not present and not supporting the mother and child financially

.

H.G. Wells went so far as to refer to advertising this way which could possibly be said about these families with biracial children in tv commercials.

I would not go that far in that I was in charge of corporate marketing and advertising for a Fortune 500 company at one time in my career. 

However, it should be kept in mind advertising is about creating an aspirational view of what the world should look like rather than the reality of what it really is.

The flood of biracial commercials we have seen over the last decade when compared to the actual data does make it clear that there is more theater than reality and more art than science behind these ads.

Transformative Trump

How did Trump win in 2024?

That is a question that a lot of Democrats ask.

Pew Research recently released the most complete analysis I have seen of the voting shifts in major demographic groups between 2020 and 2024 to propel Trump to a second term as President.

Quite simply, Trump defeated Kamala Harris in 2024 by gaining votes among groups who have traditionally supported the Democrat party.

Trump did the same when he beat Hillary Clinton in 2016 primarily by scoring huge advantages with working class white voters who had historically been the base of the Democrat party.

Trump won in 2024 by building on that base and gaining further support with minority and young voters who have also been reliable Democrat voters in the past.

Trump gained the most with minority voters in 2024.

Hispanic voters shifted to Trump by over 17 points between 2020 and 2024.

Asian voters shifted by 16.5 points.

Black voters moved to Trump by 14 points compared to 2020. 

The shift was generally greater with Men than Women but the trend was true for both genders.

Black men had the largest shift to Trump of any key group of voters---almost 22 points.

However, Black women also moved to Trump with a shift of almost 9 points.

Hispanic men shifted to Trump by 19 points. Hispanic women were not far behind at 17.3 points.

(Click on image to enlarge)
Source: https://www.liberalpatriot.com/p/a-final-comprehensive-look-at-how

A lot is made of Trump's base being heavily comprised of white, non-college voters.

This has been a major source of support for Trump since he entered politics.

That group remained firmly in Trump's corner between 2020 and 2024 but he did not grow much more support in this group than he had already.

Trump picked up less than 2 points with this group in 2024 compared to 2020.

On the other hand, Trump made major inroads with younger voters.

18-29 age voters shifted nearly 14 points to Trump.

Age 30-44 voters moved 12 points to Trump.

College graduates also moved 6 points towards Trump in 2024.

The only major key groups that shifted away from Trump between 2020 and 2024 were White Women (0.7 shift to Harris) and Women Age 65+ who moved to the Democrat by 6 points.

Men Age 65+ largely cancelled out the senior women by moving to Trump by 5 points.

Another interesting finding in the Pew Research is that Trump would have even won the 2024 election if the turnout was even larger than it was.

This contradicts the argument that we often hear is the Republicans need to suppress the vote to win.

Source: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/26/2024-election-turnout-trum-00426544

Donald Trump is working to achieve a lot of transformational policies in his second term.

However, the transformation that Trump has caused between the political parties in the United States is remarkable in itself.

One of the most interesting trends in American politics over the last 30 years has been the shift we have seen in party identification between college and non-college educated voters.

College educated voters tended to be Republicans a generation ago.

Non-college educated voters were likely to vote Democrat.

These previous norms have completely flipped in the Trump era.

In fact, the more education someone has the more likely they are to vote Democrat.

Since Trump arrived on the scene, the working class have largely abandoned the Democrat party concluding a trend that started with Ronald Reagan.

In 2024, Trump and the Republicans have made further inroads with minority and younger voters leaving the Democrats in a vulnerable position looking forward.

There were a lot of Republican officeholders who did not believe in Trump in his first term. He struggled to get majorities in Congress to support his agenda.

That is no longer the case. It is amazing to see how Trump's legislative agenda has moved through Congress with the small majorities the Republicans have.

Trump has become the Republican party.

Donald Trump has been a truly transformative political figure largely through his force of personality.

It remains to be seen whether the shift in voter support he has been able to attain will be sustainable for the Republican party at large after he has left the political scene.

One also has to be aware of the vagaries of the political environment and the ease in which the attitudes of voters can change in a short period of time.

Trump is seeing this right now in his polling numbers as the Jeffrey Epstein files have taken over the headlines and stores about ICE rounding up illegal immigrants are sensationalized by the media.

We saw it earlier with the hysteria when Trump first announced his tariff strategy.

This is graph from Rasmussen where you can see voter reactions to these stories in Trump's  approval numbers.

If you look deeper at the polling data, Trump's approval with Republicans is as strong as it has ever been.

These voters are pleased to see Trump carrying out his agenda on immigration, the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill and all the rest.

In fact, CNN just released a poll yesterday that confirms a Quinnipiac poll from earlier this week that shows that Trump's approval with Republicans has actually increased despite the Epstein File saga.

LInk: https://x.com/ThePatriotOasis/status/1945840125277065303

However, the same is not true with Independents who are more susceptible to current media narratives.

Rasmussen and Quantus Insights are both showing Trump's is underwater by a net -17 points with Independents right now.

Six weeks ago Trump was -11 points.

Source: https://x.com/QuantusInsights/status/1945953186730098953

Keep in mind that Trump's overall approval is largely going to be driven by the views of Independent voters at this time.

He cannot do much better with GOP voters than he is doing right now.

He cannot do much worse with Democrat voters.

This snapshot from a YouGov poll this week graphically shows that.

It is still to be determined whether Trump will permanently transform the political parties in the United States for the longer term.

However, there is no denying how transformative Trump has been since he first came down that escalator at Trump Tower 10 years ago.

There has not been anything like it in my lifetime.

Georgia On My Mind

Major League Baseball's All-Star game was held in Atlanta last night.

Atlanta had originally been awarded the 2021 game but MLB moved the game out of Georgia in a decision made in April, 2021 due to Georgia passing a voting integrity law. 

The new law put tighter restrictions on voter id, mail-in voting, absentee voting and prohibited the distribution of food and water to those standing in line to vote. At the same time the new law liberalized the rules for in-person early voting that is less susceptible to voter fraud.

Critics argued that this new law would suppress voter turnout.

Joe Biden called the Georgia law an "atrocity" and "Jim Crow in the 21st Century".

Source: https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/2021/04/02/mlb-all-star-game-atlanta-moved-georgia-voting-law/7066061002/

 

MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred explained the decision this way in 2021.

“I have decided that the best way to demonstrate our values as a sport is by relocating this year’s All-Star Game and MLB Draft,” commissioner Rob Manfred said then. “Major League Baseball fundamentally supports voting rights for all Americans and opposes restrictions to the ballot box.”

Four years later the All-Star game was played in Atlanta last night.

The voting integrity law in Georgia that MLB was protesting in 2021 is still in effect.

What about those "values" that MLB was demonstrating in 2021 by moving the All-Star game?

What about the voting restrictions that were supposed to result in fewer people voting?

Georgia saw record voter turnout in 2024 when we were told that the new law would suppress turnout.

A big reason is that the new law significantly expanded early voting opportunities across the state.

Source: https://www.ajc.com/politics/georgia-voters-set-a-new-turnout-record-at-almost-53-million-in-2024-election/ZRE5Y6ZLBNCUBL54MZOMWGDIF4/

In 2020, before the new law, 4,999,960 votes were cast in the Presidential election.

In 2024, after the so-called voting restrictions were in place, 5,250,905 votes were cast for President.

After the "restrictive" voting integrity law was in place, voting turnout increased statewide by over 5% between 2020 and 2024.

Voting turnout also increased in the state's largest county, Fulton County, in which 62% of the population is comprised of minorities (42% Black, 8% Hispanic, 8% Asian, 4% other minority groups).

Where was the voter suppression?

The same is true looking at voter turnout in Georgia in the 2018 gubernatorial race (pre-voting integrity law) and 2022 race (post-law).

Voter turnout was also higher in 2022 than 2018.

Voter turnout in 2018 was 3,939,409. Voter turnout in 2022 was 3,964,926.

Major League Baseball never gave a good reason why their values would not allow them to play the All-Star game in Atlanta in 2021 but there was no problem in doing so in 2024 even with the same law in place.

However, when you play the cancel culture game and argue that a voting integrity law is going to suppress voter turnout, you look pretty ridiculous when it does not prove to be true.

Here's hoping that this should be another lesson for those in the sports world that they should quit trying to play politics and just play the game we are paying to see on the field.

A Budget Surplus?

BUDGET. SURPLUS.

Two words that you almost never see together when it comes to the federal government.

It has been 24 years since the federal government had an annual budget surplus.

Over the last 10 years the federal government has averaged a budget deficit of $120 billion per month.

Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MTSDS133FMS

Most of the time the only monthly surplus we have seen will be in April when final payments for the previous tax year and first quarter estimated taxes for the current year are due.

The other common months where we might see a surplus are June, September and January which are the other months that estimated taxes are due.

However, we have not seen a monthly surplus for the month of June in 10 years.

Until June, 2025.

 

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/video/2025/07/11/u-s-government-reports-budget-surplus-of-27-billion-vs-20-point-5-billion-deficit-estimated.html

The budget surplus came as a huge surprise to economists and government observers.

To put the number in context, consider the federal government deficits for the previous four years.

June, 2025.    $26 billion surplus

June, 2024.    $71 billion deficit

June, 2023.    $228 billion deficit

June, 2022.    $89 billion deficit

June, 2021.    $174 billion deficit

There was almost a $100 billion improvement in the federal government's fiscal situation between last June and this June.

How did that happen?

The media has highlighted a surge in revenue from tariffs in most stories involving the monthly surplus.

Source: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/07/11/treasury-posts-unexpected-surplus-in-june-as-tariff-receipts-surge.html

The revenue coming in from tariffs is confounding the predictions of many economists.

The tariffs thus far have also not caused the inflation that the same economists predicted would occur.

The actual Truflation inflation index is about half of what it was at the beginning of the year.

However, tariffs are only part of the reason for the monthly surplus.

If we compare the financial data that is in the U.S. Treasury Department's Monthly Treasury Statement we see that receipts for the month improved by $60 billion compared to June, 2024 and outlays declined by $37 billion.

Only $21 billion of the $60 billion of increased receipts is due to customs duties. The remainder is largely due to increased individual income tax receipts.

The reduction in total outlays was also significant. We don't often see year over year decreases in federal spending under any circumstances.

$32 billion of the $37 billion in reduced outlays compared to the previous year appears to be due to timing shifts since June 1 fell on a weekend. The remaining difference appears to be primarily due to lower outlays in the Department of Education regarding student loan debt. The Biden administration apparently had recorded a cost of $74 billion in June, 2024 for estimated student loan costs (presumably for student loan forgiveness) that was not done in 2025 by the Trump administration.

You can compare June, 2024 to June, 2025 based on data in the U.S. Treasury Department's Monthly Treasury Statement.

Note that this graphic was taken from the June, 2024 Monthly Treasury Statement which reflects a $66 billion deficit. The June, 2024 deficit was later revised to $71 billion deficit as shown in the June, 2025 statement.

A federal government surplus for a single month is hardly anything to get overly excited about.

Even considering last month's surplus the federal deficit was $1.9 trillion over the last 12 months.

Source: https://www.crfb.org/blogs/12-month-rolling-deficit-19-trillion-june-2025

However, if you look at this chart closely, you can see that the deficit has been trending down since Trump took office.

It is a start.

Tariffs are helping but much more has to be done on the spending side if the federal deficit is to be brought under control.

What will help the most in reducing the deficit is if we can get economic growth such that tax receipts growth is consistently outpacing the growth in outlays.

This would then allow the annual federal deficit as a % of GDP to get to a more manageable 3% of GDP compared to the 6% range it has been at recently.

Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFSGDA188S

However, to do this it will require that tax receipts out pace outlays by about three percentage points per year for the next five years.

It is unlikely that economic growth alone can accomplish this goal so there has to be some sort of serious spending restraints to avoid fiscal disaster.

Of course, that is easier said than done when we look at what is going on in Washington, D.C.

A good example is the shock and angst we saw reported in the media late last week over layoffs that took place after 1,300 State Department employees were dismissed in a reorganization of the department.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/trump-administration/veteran-us-diplomats-baffled-mass-layoffs-state-department-rcna218433

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5396900-trump-rubio-state-department-layoffs/

Link: https://x.com/ralakbar/status/1943787864501653651

Such reorganizations and layoffs often happen in the private sector due to a changing competitive and technological environment.

Just last week Microsoft announced that it was laying off 15,000 employee due to AI with only a fraction of the media coverage the government layoffs received.

There were no tv cameras at Microsoft headquarters filming the "moving scene" as those employees left work for the last time.

Source: https://www.timesnownews.com/business-economy/industry/microsoft-cuts-15000-jobs-amid-ai-pivot-tells-employees-invest-in-your-own-ai-skilling-excerpt-article-152265387

 

Layoffs and terminations almost never happen in government. However, when was it decided that a government job was a lifetime paycheck?

For example, the State Department had 57,000 employees in 2007 and it reported 80,214 on its payroll recently.

Has that much changed in the world the last 20 years that requires 23,000 more State Department employees to do the business of diplomacy?

The 1,300 dismissals is but 1.6% of the total number of employees at the State Department.

If this number can't be cut what can?

For one month we can sit back and soak in the beauty of these two words---Budget Surplus.

However, enjoy it while you can.

You can rest assured that there are many, many more months (and years) ahead where Budget Deficits will rule the day until there is a fundamental shift in the way Washington, D.C. operates.

A Solution To So Many Problems

A new Zillow study reported this week that the United State has a record housing shortage of 4.7 million units.

Source: https://thehill.com/business/5393272-housing-shortage-growing-zillow-analysis/

This is despite a boom in the number of new housing units having been completed in the post-Covid pandemic era.

Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/COMPUTSA

How is this possible since U.S. births have been declining rather significantly since 1990?

Birth in the USA by Age of Mother

There should be more than enough housing units available,

All of the housing shortage is due to immigration---most particularly, illegal immigration.

The current housing shortage is a direct result of the Biden administration allowing 10 million illegal immigrants to enter the country in the previous four years and millions more who entered under both Democrat and Republican administrations in the previous 40 years.

In fact, there has never been a higher share of foreign-born people living in the United States.

We have now surpassed the level of immigrants we had when Ellis Island was at its height in the late 1800's and early 20th century.

Where is the housing shortage most acute?

Is it a coincidence that it is in cities that have a large population of illegal immigrants which also consider themselves to be "sanctuary" cities?

Top 10 Metro Areas with the Largest Housing Deficits
Source: https://thehill.com/business/5393272-housing-shortage-growing-zillow-analysis/

Immigration has undoubtedly also had a large impact of the affordability issue with housing.

Too much demand. Too little supply.

Higher interest rates have also been a factor in all of this caused by the inflation in the aftermath of the money printing that went on during Covid.

Today it takes a median income earner in the United States 39.7% of income to afford the average mortgage payment, taxes and insurance.

The long term norm is 29%.

After the housing crash of 2010-2012 it was as low as 22%.

Source: https://x.com/nickgerli1/status/1940474306758095283

The immigration laws were established to provide order for our society. The laws were considered necessary to provide for the entrance of an established number of immigrants annually that could be assimilated without disrupting and degrading the experience of U.S. citizens and others who are rightfully here.

The compounding effects of uncontrolled immigration is the reason that the immigration laws were put on the books in the first place.

When the law is ignored or not enforced, chaos is sure to follow due to the compounding effects of large numbers of people the society is not prepared for.

Adding too many immigrants, too quickly,  puts added pressure on the social order if those immigrant numbers outpace the ability to integrate and assimilate them into the general population.

Too many immigrants puts too much strain on our resources. It puts unnecessary strain on everything in our society---our housing, our water, our sewer systems, our roads, the electric grid, our infrastructure and our environment. It contributes to congestion and urban sprawl.

Add to this what it does to increase the financial strain on our schools and our health system , not to mention our law enforcement and justice system.

As population increases through births or legal immigration we have the time to make the necessary additions to housing and infrastructure due to the population increase.

That is not the case with illegal immigration. 

Do you want to know a big reason that we have housing shortages, our health systems are strained, traffic is snarled and our schools are suffering?

Look first at illegal immigration and it provides a lot of answers.

What I don't understand is the liberals incessantly complaining about the need for solutions for housing affordability, health costs, urban sprawl and education funding.

An answer for these problems is right in front of them and the Democrats do not seem to able be able to grasp the simplest solution.

In fact, Mayor Karen Bass of Los Angeles recently announced that she is joining with other Democrat mayors in the LA area to take the Trump administration to court for its "unlawful" immigration enforcement activities.

It is unlawful to enforce the law?

That is an interesting legal argument.

What was unlawful was allowing all of the illegal immigration to begin with.

Don't Get Escheated

Escheat is the legal term used to describe the "right" of the government to take ownership of unclaimed property.

The concept of escheat is that property always has a recognized owner. If unclaimed, that ownership passes to the state or federal government as custodian if no other claimant to ownership exists or is readily identified. In the U.S., each state jurisdiction has its own laws and regulations governing escheat rights and related matters.

In most states, the escheated property is held in custody in perpetuity with no time limit for a claim to be made by the rightful owner.

In a handful of  states, if no claim is made for the escheated property within a certain period of time , the state takes final ownership of the property.

I became familiar with the law of escheat when I was the Corporate Director-Taxation for a Fortune 500 company. My department was responsible for filing the unclaimed property reports for the corporation each year.

You would be surprised at how many checks that a Fortune 500 company writes that do not get cashed in a year---payroll checks, employee reimbursements, dividend checks, checks to vendors, customer credits, etc.

Other common examples of escheated property are rent and utility deposits and bank and brokerage accounts which have no activity over a period of time.

Escheat exists so that the corporation, bank or other entity that previously owned the property does not get to retain the property if unclaimed. Ownership transfers to the government for "safekeeping" until it is claimed.

Generally, payroll checks that are not cashed must be turned over to the state after one year.

Bank checks usually have a dormancy period of 3-5 years before they must be reported as unclaimed as is also the case with dormant bank accounts.

Here is the list of the dormancy rules in each state before unclaimed funds are required to be escheated to the state.

Source: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/escheat.asp

Why have I decided to write about the obscure topic of escheat when there are so many other subjects of interest these days?

My home state of Ohio just passed a new budget law that includes $600 million of funding for a new stadium for the Cleveland Browns that will be paid for out of the unclaimed property fund of the state.

Source: https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2025/07/01/gov-dewine-signs-off-on-using-unclaimed-funds-for-browns-stadium-future-ohio-projects/

The new law also allows other athletic and cultural projects in the state to tap the fund for up to 25% of their cost in the future.

Another $1.1 billion has already been allocated in the budget for other yet to be determined projects beyond the $600 million for the Cleveland stadium.

Instead of merely acting as a safekeeper of the unclaimed funds, the state of Ohio will now transfer this money to the athletic and cultural projects fund after 10 years of custody with the state.

What I found most interesting in all of this is the fact that the state of Ohio currently has almost $5 billion in its unclaimed property fund.

Ohio has a population of about 8.5 million individuals who are age 18 or older according to the 2020 census.

This means that there is on average almost $600 per capita in unclaimed funds for every potential taxpayer in the state.

$5 billion is also more than half of the $9.5 billion in state income tax revenues Ohio collected in the 2024 fiscal year.

Any way you cut it, that is a LOT of unclaimed money.

Predictably, a class action lawsuit has already been filed to block the state from accessing these funds.

Source: https://www.cleveland.com/news/2025/07/legal-battle-erupts-over-ohios-plan-to-seize-unclaimed-money-for-new-browns-stadium.html

The legal question to be decided is whether the 10 year grace period to claim the escheated property held by the state is sufficient to withstand an argument that it violates due process and the right of citizens to avoid having the government taking their property without just compensation.

If you live in Ohio my suggestion is to visit the website from the Department of Commerce Division of Unclaimed Funds soon where you can search the database of unclaimed funds before the 10 year grace period closes.

This is the website.

I actually saw that I have four small amounts of unclaimed funds in my name. 

I suggest googling "unclaimed funds website" for the state you live in.

There is also a website managed by the National Association of State Treasurers that allows you to search more broadly over many U.S. states and Canadian provinces.

That website is MissingMoney.com.

Don't get escheated out of what is rightfully yours.

Someone might want to build a stadium with your money!