Category Archives: economy

Looking for the Truth?  Hand Me Your Spyglass 

Posted on by
Reply

As is our custom, we are turning the CNN’s Daniel Dale and his team of fact searchers when President Trump entertains his supporters with another State of the Union, uh, speech.  He spoke for 107 minutes, including all of the overboard partisan applause.

Daniel and his truth sleuths were turning things around even as the president shouted, pointed, insulted, and performed.  Here’s the result:

Fact check: Trump makes false claims about the economy, elections and crime in State of the Union

By CNN staff

President Donald Trump made numerous false or misleading claims in his State of the Union address on Tuesday night.

Many of them were long-debunked falsehoods familiar from his rallies, interviews and social media posts. These include various lies disparaging the fairness of US elections, his false claim that he ended wars that were never actually wars or never actually ended, and his fictional “$18 trillion” figure for supposed investment in the US over the past year.

The subject on which he was most frequently inaccurate was the economy. Among other things, Trump overstated the performance of the economy during this presidential term to date, overstated the inflation he inherited from the Biden administration, used highly misleading figures when discussing gasoline prices, and wrongly asserted, twice, that foreign countries are paying the tariffs that are actually being paid by US importers.

Here is a fact check of some of Trump’s remarks:

Economy and inflation

Fact check: Trump falsely claims US has secured ‘$18 trillion’ in investments

Trump repeated his regular false claim that he has secured $18 trillion in investments in the US since returning to office, saying, “In 12 months, I secured commitments for more than $18 trillion pouring in from all over the globe.”

The $18 trillion figure is fiction. As of the night of Trump’s address, the White House’s own website said the figure for “major investment announcements” during this Trump term was “$9.7 trillion,” and even that is a major exaggeration; a detailed CNN review in October found the White House was counting trillions of dollars in vague investment pledges, pledges that were about “bilateral trade” or “economic exchange” rather than investment in the US and vague statements that didn’t even rise to the level of pledges.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Fact check: Trump’s misleading claims on gasoline prices

Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Trump claimed gas prices are “now below $2.30 a gallon in most states, and in some places, $1.99 a gallon.” But no state had an average gas price on Tuesday below $2.37 per gallon, according to AAA; only two states had an average below $2.50 per gallon. And while there are some individual gas stations selling gas for below $2 per gallon, they are scarce; Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis for the firm GasBuddy, said during the speech that the firm found just four stations across the country below $2 (aside from special discounts) out of the roughly 150,000 stations the firm tracks, so about 0.003% of the total.

Trump could fairly say gas prices have fallen during this presidency. They have declined from a national average of $3.12 per gallon on his inauguration day in January 2025, according to AAA, to a national average of $2.95 per gallon on Tuesday.

In addition, Trump claimed, “And when I visited the great state of Iowa just a few weeks ago, I even saw $1.85 a gallon for gasoline.” We don’t know what Trump saw, but the average price for a gallon of regular gas in Iowa on the day of the January 27 speech was $2.57, according to data published that day by AAA – and Patrick De Haan, head of petroleum analysis for GasBuddy, told CNN at the time that GasBuddy found just four stations in the state selling for $1.97 per gallon (aside from special discounts) out of 2,036 total stations the firm tracks, so 0.19% of the total.

Trump was fact-checked on this subject by an attendee at the Iowa speech he was referring to. When he spoke of gas in Iowa being $1.95 or $1.85 per gallon, someone in the crowd shouted, “No, $2.63,” according to CNN reporter Steve Contorno, who was on scene. Contorno saw that the gas station right outside the venue where Trump spoke was selling for $2.69 per gallon.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Fact check: Trump falsely claims he inherited record inflation

Trump falsely claimed that when he gave his previous address to Congress early last year, he had “just inherited … inflation at record levels.” He added a bit later that former President Joe Biden and his congressional allies “gave us the worst inflation in the history of our country.”

Trump didn’t inherit the worst inflation in US history, and Biden never had the worst inflation in US history. The year-over-year inflation rate in Biden’s last full month in office, December 2024, was 2.9%, and the rate in the month in which Trump took over partway through, January 2025, was 3.0%; the most recent rate, for January 2026, is 2.4%. The rate did hit a 40-year high, 9.1%, in June 2022, but that was far from the all-time high of 23.7%, which was set in 1920. Regardless, the rate then fell sharply over Biden’s last two-and-a-half years in office.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Fact check: Trump touts declines in a smattering of grocery prices, but overall grocery prices are up

Trump accurately touted declines in the prices of a small number of grocery products or product categories during this presidency to date, mentioning eggs, chicken, butter and fresh fruits. But he did not acknowledge that overall grocery prices are up an average 2.1% since January 2025, nor that far more grocery products have gotten more expensive during this presidency than have gotten cheaper.

Trump also said, “And even beef, which was very high, is starting to come down significantly.” The average price of beef and veal did decline in January compared to December, by 0.9% (or 0.4% using seasonally adjusted figures), but it was still 15% higher than it was in January 2025.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Fact check: Trump’s baseless claim about the economy

Trump claimed that he inherited a “stagnant economy” from the Biden administration and that it is now “roaring like never before.” Though there is no firm definition of “stagnant” or “roaring,” the facts don’t corroborate the suggestion that he has presided over a massive economic boom since returning to office in January 2025. The US economy grew 2.2% in 2025, which was lower than in any year of the Biden presidency; there was 2.8% growth in 2024. (The fall 2025 government shutdown likely reduced growth in late 2025.) The unemployment rate, meanwhile, increased from 4.0% in January 2025 to 4.3% in January 2026.

The total number of jobs added in 2025, 181,000, was by far the lowest since 2020, the year the Covid-19 pandemic hit; about 2.52 million jobs were added in 2023 and about 1.46 million were added in 2024.

The year-over-year Consumer Price Index inflation rate did fall from 3.0% in January 2025 to 2.4% in January 2026, and Trump certainly has some other positive data points to cite. But his story about taking the economy from deceased to scorching is just not supported by the overall numbers.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Fact check: Trump falsely claims foreign countries are paying his tariffs

Trump repeated his regular false claim that tariffs are “paid for by foreign countries.” In fact, tariff payments are made by importers in the US, not foreign countries, and those importers often pass on some of their costs to consumers. While foreign exporters may sometimes drop their prices to try to keep their products competitive, various analyses have found that the overwhelming majority of the costs of the tariffs Trump has imposed this term are being covered by a combination of US businesses and US consumers.

In an analysis released in February, officials at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York wrote, “We find that nearly 90 percent of the tariffs’ economic burden fell on U.S. firms and consumers.” The nonpartisan federal Congressional Budget Office wrote in a February report that “the net effect of tariffs is to raise U.S. consumer prices by the full portion of the cost of the tariffs borne domestically (95 percent),” from a combination of price hikes by US businesses that are importing tariffed products and price hikes by US businesses that are facing less foreign competition because of the tariffs.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Fact check: Trump’s claim that more Americans are working today than ever

Trump repeated his regular claim that there are more people working today in the US than ever before. That’s true, but the claim needs context: the number of people working tends to rise over time because the US population tends to rise over time. Economists say there are far better measures of the health of the labor market.

The employment-population ratio, which measures the percentage of the population that is employed, is down slightly this presidential term so far, going from 60.1% in January 2025, the month Trump returned to office, to 59.8% in January 2026. The unemployment rate, which measures unemployment as a percentage of the labor force, has increased, going from 4.0% in January 2025 to 4.3% in January 2026; it hit a four-year high of 4.5% in November before easing. The labor force participation rate, which measures the percentage of the population that is employed or actively looking for work, has been almost unchanged, ticking down 62.6% in January 2025 to 62.5% in January 2026.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Taxes, government programs, and the budget

Fact check: Trump’s claim he passed largest tax cuts in American history

Trump once again claimed that the sweeping domestic policy agenda that he signed into law last summer contained the largest tax cuts in American history. But that is not actually the case.

The so-called big, beautiful bill made numerous permanent and temporary changes to the tax code, including eliminating taxes on tips and overtime, giving additional tax relief to senior citizens and parents of young children and allowing companies to deduct certain investments more quickly. The tax cuts amount to $4.8 trillion, or 1.3% of the nation’s gross domestic product (GDP), over a decade, according to the latest Congressional Budget Office analysis, released earlier this month.

However, the bill is not the largest tax cut in history, experts said. It ranks seventh in terms of share of GDP since 1918, according to Chris Towner, policy director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a nonpartisan watchdog group. The largest was former President Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax package, which cost 2.9% of GDP over four years. (Looking at revenue changes as a share of GDP is a common way to assess the size of tax cuts because it shows the changes relative to the size of the economy. It allows for comparisons across time despite shifts in inflation and population, for example.) Similarly, the Tax Foundation, a right-leaning think tank, found that the bill is the sixth largest tax cut since 1940, in terms of share of GDP.

From CNN’s Tami Luhby

Fact check: Trump already broke his promise to always protect Medicaid

Trump promised to “always protect” Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. But he has already broken that promise on Medicaid, making big cuts to the safety net program last year.

The “big, beautiful bill,” which Trump signed into law last summer, slashed more than $900 billion in federal funding over 10 years for Medicaid, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The CBO estimated that the law’s Medicaid provisions would increase the number of uninsured Americans by 7.5 million in 2034.

Among the law’s most impactful provisions are requirements that certain able-bodied Medicaid enrollees ages 19 to 64 work, volunteer, attend school or participate in job training for at least 80 hours a month. The mandate, the first of its kind, also applies to parents of children ages 14 and older.

In addition, low-income adults enrolled through the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion provision will have their eligibility reviewed more frequently and will have to pay up to $35 for certain care. Plus, many enrollees will face more paperwork and verification requirements, which could make it harder for some to apply for and maintain their benefits.

Medicaid enrollees could also face other changes, since states would receive less federal funding for the program. This could force some states to eliminate certain benefits or tighten enrollment, among other alterations.

From CNN’s Tami Luhby

Fact check: Trump falsely claims he achieved no tax on Social Security

Trump again falsely claimed that he eliminated taxes on Social Security, one of his key campaign promises in 2024.

“With the great ‘big, beautiful bill,’ we gave you no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and no tax on Social Security,” he said during his State of the Union address on Tuesday.

The massive domestic policy package that Trump signed last summer did create an additional, temporary $6,000-per-year tax deduction for individuals age 65 and older (with a smaller deduction for individuals earning $75,000 per year or more). But as the White House itself has implicitly acknowledged, millions of Social Security recipients age 65 and older will continue to pay taxes on their benefits – and that new deduction, which expires in 2028, doesn’t apply to the Social Security recipients who are younger than 65.

From CNN’s Tami Luhby

Fact check: Trump’s false claim on balancing the federal budget by ending fraud

Trump baselessly claimed that eliminating fraud in federal programs would balance the federal budget, saying, “If we’re able to find enough of that fraud, we will actually have a balanced budget overnight. It’ll go very quickly.”

The annual budget deficit far exceeds the estimated amount of money the federal government loses to fraud each year.

A first-of-its-kind estimate that the federal Government Accountability Office released in 2024 found that between $233 billion to $521 billion is lost to fraud annually. But the federal budget deficit came in at just under $1.8 trillion for the most recent fiscal year, which ended in September, according to the Treasury Department – more than triple the highest estimated fraud total.

From CNN’s Tami Luhby

Fact check: Trump’s false claim that payments to service members came from tariffs

Trump said, “Every service member recently received a warrior dividend of $1,776,” then added, “We got the money from tariffs and other things.” But these one-time payments did not come from tariffs. Rather, as CNN’s Haley Britzky reported in December, “a senior administration official said the $2.6 billion cost of the bonuses was being taken from $2.9 billion in extra funding for basic allowance for housing, or BAH, payments appropriated by Congress in July.” The funding was part of Trump’s big domestic policy bill and marked for “improving the quality of life for military personnel.”

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Immigration and foreign affairs

Fact check: Trump falsely claims a Charlotte killer ‘came in through open borders’

Trump lamented the murder last summer of a refugee from Ukraine, Iryna Zarutska, who was killed on public transit in Charlotte, North Carolina. But Trump added a false claim that the alleged killer had migrated to the US, saying Zarutska “had escaped a brutal war only to be slain by a hardened criminal set free to kill in America – came in through open borders.”

In reality, the man charged with first-degree murder over the killing was, according to all available evidence, from the US. The Charlotte Observer has reported that the man’s Facebook page said he was born in Charlotte and attended high school there, and the newspaper has interviewed his American mother.

The Observer published its own fact check on Tuesday night noting Trump’s claim was not true.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Fact check: Trump falsely claims that Biden allowed ‘11,888 murderers’ to enter US as migrants

While criticizing the Biden administration’s border policies, Trump repeated his regular claim that the Biden administration allowed 11,888 murderers to enter the US as migrants – saying, “They were murderers, 11,888 murderers. They came into our country.”

Trump was inaccurately describing federal data. The Department of Homeland Security and independent experts have noted that the figure it appears Trump was referring to when he uses the “11,888” number is about non-citizens who entered the US not just under Biden but over the course of multiple decades, including during Trump’s own first administration. They were convicted of homicide at some point, usually in the US after their arrival, and are still in the US while being listed on Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s “non-detained docket” – which includes people who are currently serving their prison sentences, not roaming free as Trump has also claimed.

Fact check: To attack Harris, Trump falsely describes new stats on immigrants and homicide

By Daniel Dale, CNN

Former President Donald Trump is wildly distorting new statistics on immigration and crime to attack Vice President Kamala Harris.

Trump falsely claimed Friday and Saturday that the statistics are specifically about criminal offenders who entered the US during the Biden-Harris administration; in reality, the figures are about offenders who entered the US over multiple decades, including during the Trump administration. And Trump falsely claimed that the statistics are specifically about people who are now living freely in the US; the figures actually include people who are currently in jails and prisons serving criminal sentences.

“Kamala should immediately cancel her News Conference because it was just revealed that 13,000 convicted murderers entered our Country during her three and a half year period as Border Czar,” Trump wrote in one post on Friday, the day Harris visited the southern border in Arizona. Harris “allowed almost 14,000 MURDERERS to freely and openly roam our Country,” Trump wrote in another Friday post. They “roam free to KILL AGAIN,” he wrote, escalating his rhetoric, on Saturday.

Facts First: Trump’s claims are false in two big ways. First, the statistics he was referring to are not specifically about people who entered the country during the Biden-Harris administration. Rather, those statistics are about noncitizens who entered the country under any administration, including Trump’s; were convicted of a crime at some point, usually in the US after their arrival; and are now living in the US while being listed on Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s “non-detained docket” — where some have been listed for years, including while Trump was president, because their country of citizenship won’t let the US deport them back there. Second, that ICE “non-detained” list includes people who are still serving jail and prison sentences for their crimes; they are on the list because they are not being held in immigration detention in particular.

The new statistics, released by ICE in a letter to a Republican congressman this week, said there were 425,431 total convicted criminals on the non-detained docket as of July 21, 2024, including 13,099 people with homicide convictions.

The statistics have been deployed by Trump and various Republican lawmakers and right-wing commentators as alarming evidence of Harris’ supposed mismanagement of immigration policy. But in addition to exaggerating her role on the file — she was never actually “border czar” — much of the chatter has inaccurately described what the statistics show.

A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees ICE, said in a Saturday email: “The data in this letter is being misinterpreted. The data goes back decades; it includes individuals who entered the country over the past 40 years or more, the vast majority of whose custody determination was made long before this Administration. It also includes many who are under the jurisdiction or currently incarcerated by federal, state or local law enforcement partners.”

It’s not clear how many of the 13,099 people with homicide convictions on ICE’s non-detained docket as of July 21 are currently incarcerated in jails and prisons. Regardless, John Sandweg, an attorney who served as acting director of ICE during the Obama administration, said in a Saturday interview that it is “100% false” to say all the homicide offenders on the non-detained docket entered the US during Harris’ vice presidency. Sandweg added: “These are individuals who undoubtedly entered the United States over a long period of time. … A lot of them have probably been on the list for 20 years, where the US has just been unable to deport.”

CNN could not immediately find public statistics on how many people with criminal convictions were on the non-detained docket during Trump’s presidency. But there are public statistics from just before and just after his presidency — and those statistics, which we’ll discuss later in this article, make clear that Trump, too, presided over a non-detained docket that included hundreds of thousands of people with criminal convictions.

A Supreme Court decision requires ICE to release some offenders

Trump’s posts left open the impression that the homicide offenders on the non-detained docket had foreign homicide convictions but were nonetheless allowed to cross the US border and live freely in this country. In reality, public data makes it clear that the overwhelming majority of people with criminal convictions on the non-detained docket were convicted in the US, as Sandweg and Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, which supports immigration, both told CNN.

Why aren’t these people in immigration detention if they have been convicted of a crime as serious as homicide? Under a 2001 Supreme Court decision, the US government is not allowed to indefinitely keep someone in immigration detention after they have been ordered removed from the country. So if someone has served their criminal sentence for homicide and then is ordered to be removed from the US, but their country is uncooperative with the US on immigration and won’t take them back, they must be released in the US — usually after no more than six months in immigration detention.

“Let’s say you have a Russian who was convicted of homicide. There’s nothing we can do there,” Sandweg said, given how Russia simply won’t accept the deportation. “There comes a point where you just have to release them.” He added that this doesn’t mean the person is “completely free” — people on the non-detained docket often have to check in with ICE or be monitored electronically — “but there’s just no more legal authority to continue the detention.”

Sandweg added: “ICE, of course, is not willy-nilly saying, ‘Okay, people convicted of murder, you’re not a priority.’ … We have a guy convicted of homicide, our strong preference is not to release them onto the streets.”

Reichlin-Melnick, who noted Saturday on social media that the non-detained docket includes people in jails and prisons, wrote on social media on Friday that “anyone on ICE’s non-detained docket with a homicide conviction has likely been in the country for decades, served a full criminal sentence, and can’t be removed because they’re from a country which restricts US deportations.”

Reichlin-Melnick continued: “There are others on ICE’s non-detained docket who have serious criminal records who, after serving their time, managed to win some form of protection and relief from removal. They are now here legally, but remain on the docket and are required to check in with ICE periodically.”

The list of convicted criminals on the non-detained docket includes both people who crossed the border illegally and people who came to the US legally, such as with a visa or green card, and then committed a crime and were placed in removal proceedings or were given a removal order.

What the numbers show

The non-detained docket is not a new creation of the Biden-Harris administration. In fact, there were hundreds of thousands of people with criminal convictions on the non-detained docket during the Trump presidency, too.

A reporter for Fox News, the right-wing outlet whose reporting on these statistics Trump repeatedly promoted on Friday, noted Friday evening on social media that “not all of these criminals entered during the Biden admin, as some are claiming” and that “some of these criminals go back many years across multiple administrations.”

A previous official federal report said there were 368,574 total convicted criminals on the non-detained docket as of August 2016, under the Obama administration, about five months before Trump became president. And another federal document said there were 405,786 total convicted criminals on the non-detained docket as of early June 2021, less than five months into the Biden-Harris administration. Again, the July 2024 number was 425,431 total convicted criminals.

In other words, the list grew about 10% between August 2016 and June 2021 — a roughly five-year period that included the four-year Trump administration — and then grew about another roughly 5% in the three-plus years under the Biden-Harris administration between June 2021 and July 2024.

Because official information on people on the non-detained docket with criminal convictions has only been released sporadically, with dates that don’t line up with the start and end dates of presidential administrations, it’s not possible to say how much of the increase happened under the Trump administration versus how much happened during the final months of the Obama administration and the first months of the Biden-Harris administration.

Regardless, there’s no basis for saying, as Trump kept doing Friday, that all of the people on the docket with homicide convictions came in during the Biden-Harris administration — and the numbers show “the docket certainly grew under the Trump administration,” Sandweg said. (He added that, to be fair, Trump faced the same stubborn issues with uncooperative foreign countries as other presidents.)

The crimes committed by people on the non-detained docket in July 2024 ranged from the most serious offenses, like homicide and sexual assault, to “gambling,” “liquor,” and “obscenity” offenses. The conviction categories with the highest number of people on the non-detained docket were “traffic offenses” (77,074), “assault” (62,231), “dangerous drugs” (56,533) and “immigration” (51,933).

CNN could not immediately find public data on the number of people with homicide convictions specifically who were on the non-detained docket in past years, including during the Trump administration.

It is clear that the total number of people on the non-detained docket, including people without any criminal conviction, has spiked during the Biden-Harris administration. (There are numerous reasons that people can end up on the docket; we won’t get into those here.) ICE says the docket jumped from roughly 3.3 million in the 2020 fiscal year, the last full fiscal year under Trump, to roughly 6.2 million in the 2023 fiscal year.

Harris critics are entitled to cite this real increase. Her presidential opponent, though, is criticizing her dishonestly.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Fact check: Trump makes unsupported claim about migrants from prisons and mental institutions

Trump also claimed of migration to the US under Biden, “They poured in by the millions and millions – from prisons, from mental institutions.”

He was vaguer here than he usually is; in many other speeches, he has claimed that foreign countries have deliberately emptied their prisons and mental institutions to send undesirable citizens to the US as migrants. But his Tuesday phrasing still left open the impression that some massive number of former prisoners and people from mental institutions had entered the US under Biden. He has never provided any corroboration for such claims.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Fact check: Trump falsely claims he ended eight wars

Trump repeated a familiar false claim about his role in foreign affairs: “My first 10 months, I ended eight wars.” While Trump has played a role in resolving some conflicts (at least temporarily), the “eight” figure is a clear exaggeration.

Trump explained during the speech that his list of supposed wars settled includes a war between Egypt and Ethiopia, but that wasn’t actually a war; it is a long-running diplomatic dispute about a major Ethiopian dam project on a tributary of the Nile River. Trump’s list also included another supposed war that didn’t actually occur during his presidency, between Serbia and Kosovo. (He has sometimes claimed to have prevented the eruption of a new war between those two entities, providing few details about what he meant, but that is different than settling an actual war.) And his list included a war involving the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda, but that war has continued despite a peace agreement brokered by the Trump administration in 2025 – which was never signed by the leading rebel coalition doing the fighting.

Trump’s list also included an armed conflict between Thailand and Cambodia, where fighting temporarily erupted again in December despite a peace agreement brokered by the Trump administration earlier in 2025.

One can debate the importance of Trump’s role in having ended the other conflicts on his list, or fairly question whether some have truly ended; for example, killing continued in Gaza after the October ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, and Trump said in the speech, “The war in Gaza, which proceeds at a very low level; it’s just about there.” Regardless, Trump’s “eight” figure is obviously too big.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Fact check: Trump’s claim about what Iran has said about nuclear weapons

Trump said of Iran, “We are in negotiations with them; they want to make a deal, but we haven’t heard those secret words: ‘We will never have a nuclear weapon.’”

We don’t know what representatives of Iran’s government have said during the closed-door negotiations. However, Iranian officials have repeatedly said in public comments that they will never have a nuclear weapon. In fact, on Tuesday afternoon before Trump’s address, Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi posted on social media platform X: “Our fundamental convictions are crystal clear: Iran will under no circumstances ever develop a nuclear weapon; neither will we Iranians ever forgo our right to harness the dividends of peaceful nuclear technology for our people.”

In a speech to the United Nations General Assembly in September, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian said, according to a translation on the UN website, “I hereby declare once more before this Assembly that Iran has never sought and will never seek to build a nuclear bomb.”

Trump is of course entitled to be skeptical of Iranian leaders’ words about the country’s nuclear intentions, as many others around the world have been for years. But Trump’s claim here was about their words, not their actions.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Fact check: Trump’s inaccurate claims about NATO

Trump repeated his claim that before he prodded NATO members to spend more on defense, the US was “paying for almost all of NATO.” That’s an exaggeration. NATO figures show that in 2016, the year before Trump took office the first time, US defense spending made up about 72% of total NATO defense spending; in 2024, the year before he returned to office, it was about 63%. Both figures are big, of course, but “almost all” is a stretch” – and the US contributes a smaller percentage to NATO’s own organizational budget. Under an agreed formula, the US provided about 16% of that budget at the time Trump returned to office in 2025. When he took office in 2017, the US was contributing about 22% of the budget.

In addition, Trump touted NATO members’ 2025 commitment to spend 5% of gross domestic product on defense-related and security-related spending by 2035 – including at least 3.5% of GDP on the “core” defense requirements that were covered by the previous target of 2% of GDP – saying they agreed “to pay 5% of GDP for military defense, rather than the 2% which they weren’t paying … Now they’re paying 5 (percent) as opposed to not paying 2 (percent).”

But most NATO members are not yet meeting the new higher target, which, again, they have given themselves a decade to meet. NATO estimates show that just three members, Poland, Lithuania and Latvia, were at or above 3.5% in core defense spending in 2025, though they may be joined by others in 2026.

“It’s absolutely not true that the Allies are currently ‘paying 5%’ on hard defense, and even by 2035 they’ve only committed to 3.5%, in terms of their defense budget conventionally-understood. As of mid-2025, *no* Ally is spending 5%, in fact not even 4.5%,” professor Erwan Lagadec, who leads the NATO and European Union studies program at George Washington University’s international affairs school, said in a January email.

Lagadec added: “In 2025 the U.S. was ‘only’ at 3.2%, *down* from 2014 in terms of ratios to GDP (the only country in that situation). Hence the case can be made that the U.S. is now the ‘laggard’ going ‘in the wrong direction’; although of course the fact that the U.S. was spending a lower ratio in 2025 than 2014 on defense could be seen as a sign of success, i.e. the outcome of the other Allies doing more.”

Trump’s claim that “they weren’t paying” when the target was 2% needs context. Although most NATO members were not hitting the 2% target as late as 2023, a majority hit the target in 2024; NATO figures show that 18 member countries were at or above 2% out of 31 countries subject to the target.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Elections and crime

Fact check: Trump’s multiple false claims about US elections

Trump made a rapid-fire series of false claims about US elections while calling on Congress to pass a bill requiring voter identification and proof of citizenship when registering to vote.

Trump falsely claimed, “Cheating is rampant in our elections. It’s rampant.” It’s simply not; all evidence suggests fraud makes up a minuscule percentage of votes cast. Trump referred to “crooked mail-in ballots”; the incidence of fraud is also tiny with mail-in ballots, though experts say it is slightly higher than with in-person voting, and there is no basis to categorically describe them as “crooked.”

He suggested that a Republican elections bill called the SAVE America Act would completely eliminate the use of mail-in ballots, but it wouldn’t. And Trump said, “They have cheated, and their policy is so bad that the only way they can get elected is to cheat.” That is a lie, as Democrats, like Republicans, are elected all the time in free and fair US elections.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Fact check: Trump claims he inherited ‘rampant’ crime, but it was very low by historical standards

Trump claimed that he inherited “rampant crime at home” from the Biden administration. There is no firm definition of the word “rampant,” but crime was very low by historical US standards at the time Trump returned to office in January 2025.

“The US violent crime rate in 2024 was the lowest since 1969 and the property crime rate was the lowest since 1961. Moreover, murder in the US fell at the fastest rate ever recorded in both 2023 and 2024 and was down 25 percent from 2020 levels,” said crime data expert Jeff Asher, co-founder of the firm AH Datalytics.

Murder spiked nationally amid the turmoil of the early stages of the Covid-19 pandemic, under both Trump in 2020 and Biden in 2021. But even before the decline in violent crime in the second half of Biden’s presidency and in the first year of Trump’s second presidency, crime rates were nowhere near what they were in the early 1990s and at various points of the 1970s and 1980s.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Fact check: Trump’s two false claims about crime in Washington, DC

Trump claimed that after his takeover of law enforcement and deployment of the National Guard in Washington, DC, last summer, the capital is “now one of the safest cities in the country.” That’s not true. Nor is his claim that the capital has “almost no crime anymore,” as a cursory glance at public data or police press releases shows; more than 1,300 crimes were reported in the last month.

Asher told CNN in a February email: “DC crime fell substantially in 2025 but it was not anywhere near the safest city in America.”

Of the 50 largest cities tracked by Asher’s Real-Time Crime Index, he said, “DC had the 9th highest murder rate and 12th highest violent crime rate in 2025 of the 50 largest cities in the Real-Time Crime Index.” Trump’s intervention happened in August; in the period running from August through December 2025, Asher said, “DC had the 18th highest murder rate and 17th highest violent crime rate.”

“Even in the post-intervention period, DC’s murder rate was more than 5 times higher than San Diego and San Jose and roughly 3 times higher than cities like San Francisco, New York, and Seattle,” he said. And he added that crime in the capital was “falling considerably” prior to Trump’s Guard deployment, and continued to fall after the deployment, “in a way that is hard to determine the impact of the deployment itself.”

Trump could have accurately said the capital has had some prolonged recent stretches without a murder; the Washington Post reported that it began the year with a highly unusual three-week period with no homicides. But that stretch ended January 21.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

Fact check: Trump’s unproven claim on fraud in Minnesota

Trump repeated his claim that Somali residents of Minnesota have committed $19 billion in fraud, saying: “There’s been no more stunning example than Minnesota, where members of the Somali community have pillaged an estimated $19 billion from the American taxpayer. We have all the information, and in actuality, the number is much higher than that.”

It’s possible this “$19 billion” figure will be proven true, but nothing close to that figure has been proven to date.

In December, a federal prosecutor, Joseph Thompson, claimed that “half or more” of $18 billion in federal funds billed by 14 Medicaid services in Minnesota deemed at high risk for fraud – and now under a third-party audit ordered by Gov. Tim Walz – might be fraudulent.

But $9 billion is not $19 billion, Thompson didn’t say all of the possible fraud was committed by Somali residents, and Walz’s administration challenged Thompson’s claim.

One Walz administration official said in December that they had “evidence of tens of millions of dollars in fraud to this point,” not $9 billion; Walz himself said, “You should be equally outraged about $1 or whatever that number is, but they’re using that number without the proof behind it.” And Thompson – who resigned in January amid tension with the Trump administration over its handling of an ICE officer fatally shooting Renée Good – made clear at the time that the “half or more” comment was an early estimate rather than a firm number.

From CNN’s Daniel Dale

                                                -0-0-0-

 

What’s the Matter With Missouri? 

Posted on by
Reply

A century ago, Emporia Kansas newspaper editor William Allen White wrote an editorial called “What’s the Matter With Kansas,” a scathing column reacting to a populist takeover of Kansas government.

Here in Missouri, the pending loss of a third NFL team and the uncertainty about retention of one of our major league baseball teams, coupled with memories of other pro sports teams we’ve lost (two major league baseball teams and two NBA teams) have sparked some to think, “What’s the Matter with Missouri?

Let’s be clear at the outset of this discussion that there’s a lot that’s RIGHT about Missouri. There’s always something wrong about Missouri politically, depending on where you stand. But let’s not forget what is right as we look at what’s the matter with our state today.

One of Missouri’s biggest problem is that it’s too proud of our cheapness. Expecting the promotion that we are a low-tax state will produce steady economic development significant enough to make a major impact on our economy does not seem to be borne out by the realities.

If all of the tax cuts or eliminations we have seen in the past several years really worked, our metro areas would be economic giants in the Midwest. Our smaller cities would be centers for mid-corporate expansion and our even smallest communities might not be withering. Missouri would not be in danger of losing another seat in the U. S. House of Representatives, not because we are losing population (as is easy to say) but because other states are growing faster.

One of our biggest problems is that we are satisfied to be mediocre. But it can be argued that thinking economic growth springs from being a low tax state is questionable if low taxes are consistent with being the progressive state that excites potential investors.

US News’ most recent ranking of the states puts us 31st out of 50 in many categories. Our highest rankings are in fiscal stability and “opportunity,” where we are 11th (more on that in a minute).  We’re 18th in natural environment. Our economy ranks 25th.   After that—well…..

33rd in education

37th in infrastructure

43rd in health care

43rd in crime and corrections.

39th in teacher salaries, according to the MNEA.

World Health Review says we are among the states with the highest rates of homelessness—one dismaying factor that describes our economy, the numbers increasing 22% in the last five years, 39% more than in 2013 and 78% more than in 2018. People don’t flock to Missouri to become homeless.  This is a home-grown problem that includes many people with mental health issues. Speaking of which—

Mental Health America uses seventeen criteria to rank us 36th  in mental health and well-being—40th among adults.

Digging deeper into “opportunity,” US News ranks us 14th in equality and in affordability. But we are only 34th in economic opportunity.  And what does that mean? “It takes into account a state’s poverty rate, prevalence of food insecurity, and median household income as wellas he level of income inequality among residents… These four comprehensive metrics are indicators of more than just economic opportunity in a given state; they intersect with employment, stability and health – affecting the quality of life of a state’s population,” says the survey.

In health care, we are 28th in low obesity rate, 34th in low suicide rate, 39th in public health, 39th in low infant mortality rate and overall mortality rate and 44th in low smoking rate.

We don’t want to drag this out so we’ll let you read the 50 states report by US News and you can explore why its surveys do not rank us better.  Best States | U.S. News State Rankings and Analysis

States are far more than their sports teams. Once we look beyond the glitz and glamour of the coliseum and look at what should make us a great place to live, we find a grittier and less attractive view. To think that the things that drag us down will be improved by reducing the financial ability to lift them up seems to this layman’s eyes false economy.

We cannot escape the shortcomings that short-change ourselves if our big selling point is that we have low taxes. The exciting visuals of sports teams quickly fade when people look at the quality of real life and that quality is not improved by continued diminution of resources to improve it.

This is a campaign year and, of course, a tax cut is a favorite way of pleasing voters. Candidates, however, might want to focus on how income tax elimination will make Missouri better than 31st and how it will elevate our low standing in personal categories and whether paying sales taxes on a plumber’s visit makes us a place to which significant numbers of people and businesses want to move. Sooner or later, it will become clear that our drive to be a state known for its tight-fistedness won’t perform much economic magic.

Useless arguments about “tax and spend liberals” versus “don’t tax and can’t spend conservatives” won’t solve what’s wrong with Missouri, and as great as our state is in float streams and tourist attractions, there’s plenty the matter with it that we can overcome if all of us recognize that WE are responsible for being 31st or 43rd or—-pick a number as long as it’s in the 30s or 40s.

The first gubernatorial inauguration I covered was that of Warren Hearnes when he became the first Missouri governor elected to two consecutive four-year terms. He said on that clear but chilly January day, “To do and be better is a goal few achieve. To do it, we are required to make sacrifices—not in the sense of shedding our blood or giving our lives or the lives of those we love,  but sacrifice in the sense of giving of a part of those material things which we enjoy in abundance. A great people will sacrifice part of that with which they have been blessed in order that their children might be better educated, their less fortunate more fortunate, their health better health, their state a better state.”

What’s the matter with Missouri?  When have any of our recent leaders laid down this kind of challenge to all of us?  Would we accept it if they did?

Failure to issue that challenge….and a failure to respond to it is what’s the matter with Missouri.

Donnie and Nico

Posted on by
1

“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun,” said Chairman Mao as he led his armed struggle/revolution in the 1930s.

Today we have an impulsive, petulant short-attention span child with a pistol who has invaded Venezuela and kidnapped its president and his wife and brought them to our country to face American criminal charges.  As is usually the case with Trump, there is little indication that any kind of long-term thinking went into this scheme. He says the United States is going to “run” Venezuela but it is clear there is no plan in place to do so.  There are no planeloads of diplomats in Caracas developing a transition plan, no one sent in to calm an uncertain and certainly angry population.

Secretary of State Rubio tried to clarify to a minor degree that we do not plan to “govern” Venezuela only to have Trump double down that we are going to “run” the country. The Washington Post, citing two White House Sources say a personal grudge might be a factor in Trump’s actions. Suggestions had been made that Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Machado should be put in charge of the country. Trump showed no interest in the idea?  Why?  Because Machado accepted the Nobel Peace Price last year. And we all know that Trump for reasons that only he cannot understand stood no chance anyway.

The Prize Committee cited her “tireless work promoting democratic rights for the people of Venezuela.”  She had her detractors including a faction that disagreed with her support of Trump’s oil embargo.

So who IS in charge now?

Vice-President Delcy Rodriguez Gomez has been sworn in as acting president. She has declared the country deserves peace and dialogue, not war and is offering cooperation with the United States.  On Saturday however, after the kidnapping, she had a different tone, calling the kidnapping “barbaric” and saying she still considered Maduro the leader of the county.  Time and circumstances, however, bring a reality to things. She’s a lawyer and a diplomat who has been Vice President since 2018.

She seems to have put forth somc contradictory messages. On her social media channels Sunday, she said Venezuela wants to develop ‘balanced and respectful international relations…based on sovereign equality and non-interference. She called on Washington to agree with a program “oriented toward shared development, within the framework of international law.”

At the same time, she ordered police “to immediately begin the national search and capture of everyone involved in the promotion or support for the armed attack” by the United States.”

President Trump’s gunboat diplomacy leaves so many questions unanswered.

What does that look like, his plan to run Venezuela, apparently with no interest in “balanced and respectful international relations” and shared development within the framework of international law?” Unfortunately those are not things Trump respects.  Will our miliary take the place of the police and other security forces?  How long will it take them to become as well-versed as the existing Maduro loyal miliary, police, and security establishment?  And how much blood will be shed in gaining military control of the country?

(For that matter we have not heard the human cost of the arrests of the Maduros, or the building damages caused by the raid and whether this county will rebuild the damaged properties.)

Who will the United States install as it military governor, or whatever the title might be?

One would think that a true leader would have these things decided and in place within hours after turning a country upside down.  But not our impulsive child-president with a pistol.

There is precedent for this kind of thing but we haven’t heard Trump justify the Maduro arrest by citing the arrest Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega exactly 36 years earlier, to the day.  Noriega’s dictatorship had been supported by the U.S. government that had paid him large sums to fight drug trafficking, and to keep an eye on Cuba. He fell out of favor by pushing for Panamanian Independence. There also were suggestions he was taking bribes to let drugs reach our country. President George H. W. Busch sent in American troops to topple the regime. He spent 20 years in an American prison for drug trafficking, and seven years in France for money-laundering. He was returned to Panama with a 60-year term for murder, corruption, and embezzlement.  He was 83 when he died in 2017.

The trial arguments will be fascinating. Whether they are similar to the Noriega is something we want to see.  The idea of snatching the president of another country, and putting him on trial for violating the laws in a another nation will be an interesting discussion point and one that the United States Supreme Court will have to parse.

If we can arrest Maduro, can we enforce our speed limits on British roads?  Can a French person who shoplifts an American product in Paris be prosecuted here?  Can the president of a foreign country be charged under American law for exporting a product that is legal in his county to meet a growing demand that product in the United States?

By the way—-what happened to the Fentanyl excuse?  Now all of the talk from Trump is about Venezuelan oil.

Associated with that question is this: Can a President of the United States be prosecuted here or anywhere, for failing to reduce the demand for Maduro’s product, in effect sanctioning by inaction its use?

When did Venezuela’s drug captains become more important than the Columbian Drug Cartels that dominated our drug concerns for so long?  Trump has indicated Colombia, Cuba, Greenland, Iran, and Mexico are potential targets of someone who agrees that power comes from the barrel of the gun.  He drools over Greenland, especially, which has never been a threat of any kind to us.

I probably could cook up more questions but I’ll leave that to you.  But here is another one?

If we’re going to run Venezuela, why not make it a 51st state?  If we want Greenland for its rare earths, why would not Venezuela and its oil be the new star on our flag?

Our cynical self has peeled around my shoulder and suggested we would rather have Greenland and Canada because Venezuela has brown people in it, and Canada and Greenland people are white.  But, “We’ll worry about Greenland in about two months,” the child with a gun said on Air Force One.

In the meantime, the spotlight is off the Epstein papers for a while.  That’s okay. When it swings back, there will be a huge volume of material sifted from the most recently studied papers.

Finally, this note on this topic—Maduro is a bad guy.  But is violating international law and other standards the answer to the problems he caused?

And how should NATO respond when his guerillas hit Greenland

Have at it folks.  The box below would welcome you comment and concerns.  We are, after all, in this world box together.

 

 

The Border War

Posted on by
1

I might not be considered a loyal Missourian—

because I don’t give a hoot on which side of the state line the Royals and the Chiefs play.  If I’m going to drive three hours to get to a game in Kansas City, what’s another ten or fifteen minutes on Interstate 70?  A game is a game wherever it’s played.

I long ago thought the Missouri-Kansas sports rivalry thing was stupid. The pre-war Civil War ended more than 150 years ago and to liken two teams of big guys trying stomp on each other, or two teams of tall guys jamming a ball into a metal circle has any significance to the universe is insane.

The great sports columnist Heywood Hale Broun wrote in the forward to his wonderful book, Tumultuous Merriment;

“The actual importance of the contest is immaterial to both spectators and players once the period of magic has begun.  The level of excitement is subconsciously chosen by those present and after a time exists beyond their control. It is only harmful when, like some lingering germ from a tropical paradise, it darkens the future.  All of us should play as if life and honor depended on it, and all of us should cheer as if it were Lucifer State versus Angel U. in the arena; but at game’s end all of us should recognize that paradise was neither won nor lost. None of us should emulate those middle-aged men who stare glumly into the bottom of a highball glass when they think of a shot that failed to drop in the last second of some long-ago basketball game.”

In other words, the game is what is important and it is important only within the time of the game. Attaching any importance outside that period is a waste of time.

So, then, is all of the anguish about economic advantage of one place over another unimportant within the entirety of an economic area.  And that should be what we are talking about here because the metropolitan cities and counties form their own economic area regardless of rivers and streets. Why there continues to be a counterproductive economic civil war within that area is beyond my understanding.

It’s not a case of whether the teams play on one side of the Missouri River or the other. The river as a boundary is a manmade abstraction as are state lines. The grass is the same color on both sides. Drive down Stateline Road. One side is in Jackson County, Missouri. The other is in Wyandotte County, Kansas.  If you drive north, you’re in Missouri.  Drive south and you’re in Kansas.  The difference is a white line about six inches wide in the pavement..

The Chiefs and the Royals are still going to be “The Kansas City Whatevers” regardless of which side of a manmade line on which they hold their contests.

Get over it.

For years, Missouri and Kansas have waged an economic war, giving tax breaks to snatch this or that business from the other side only to have the other side a few years later offer tax breaks to get the company back.

If one state or the other is economically ahead, it can’t be by very much.

This silliness almost became—and maybe should have become—academic in 1855, the days of the pre-war border war, when pro-slavery Westport resident Mobillion McGee decided the chances of Kansas entering the Union as a slave state would be improved if the Missouri boundary line was shifted to the east a few miles, thereby putting more pro-slavery voters in Kansas. He and newspaper publisher Robet T. Van Horn convinced the legislatures of both states to agree to the scheme.  But a young man they hired to seek congressional approval went to Washington, fell in love, married and left on an extended honeymoon, during which time enthusiasm for the plan cooled and it was never carried out.

Their idea has some validity today, not in redrawing the boundary lines for slavery but in considering territory on both sides of the lines as a single economic entity. Such a move would take, as happened in 1855, legislative approval from both states to form an economic district that would jointly pursue economic development mutually beneficial to the broader area.

Call it the McGee Enterprise Zone in which rivalries would not be recognized and the economic power of two states will be combined for greater development, the value of which would be shared by both.

It won’t be simple to organize such an entity. But doing so could end decades of unproductive rivalry resulting from unnecessary adherence to manmade lines. A battle between Lucifer State and Angel U is okay in the three hours of a game. But the game does not last for more than 150 years and neither should the parochial man-made rivalry between Kansas and Missouri.

Build stadiums wherever negotiations lead them to be built. It’s all still the Kansas City area and in the end we should be glad they don’t move to Nashville.

 

An Open and Shut Case

Posted on by
Reply

The Associated Press reported earlier this week that Governor Kehoe’s latest pitch to keep the Kansas City Chiefs in Missouri goes back to the original plans for the Truman Sports Complex, as the area that contains Kauffman and Arrowhead Stadiums on the eastern edge of Kansas City.

Kehoe told the AP there’s no talk of building an ultra-expensive completely domed stadium, but there might be another way to enclose the present Arrowhead Stadium.   The leases the Royals and Chiefs have on the Jackson County Sports Complex expire in about five years, a pretty short time in stadium-building scenarios.

His concept has assumed immediate importance with a report by Pete Mundo of KCMO radio that the Chiefs have put out a request for proposals to design a new stadium near the Kansas Speedway. Mundo says the move does not mean the Chiefs have decided to move to the Kansas side. In fact he says his “gut” tells him they’ll stay on our side.

Kansas officials are not commenting and Chiefs owner Clark Hunt says the team is still negotiating with both sides.

But the story raises the stakes in the discussions.

Missouri officials well remember the failure of the legislature in the late 1990s to react favorably to a proposal to put a major automobile race track near Kansas City International Airport.  The Kansas Speedway opened just across the state line in Wyandotte County Kansas and opened in 2001, triggering considerable development in the area.

World Sports Network estimated seven years later that the track already had generated $243 million a year in economic benefits to the area.

The idea of a covering for Arrowhead is not new. The original designs for the complex in the 1960s included a covering for both stadiums.

The rolling roof system would be on tracks that could move a covering over the playing fields for inclement weather.  The stadiums would not be heated or air conditioned under that system but rain and snow would not be a factor.

The idea came from architect Charles U. Deaton, an innovative thinker born in New Mexico who never got a college degree. He became a certified architectural engineer after personal studies of industrial design, structural engineering, and  architecture. He designed board games in addition to structures and held several patents for furniture and interior lighting designs—and for designing board games. He worked in St. Louis for a time before moving to Denver, where practiced until his death in 1996.

The original plans were for a facility much like Busch Stadium II in St. Louis, where both baseball and football games could be played. But Deaton convinced Chiefs GM Jack Steadman the dual stadium concept would be better.

If you want a more detailed description of the philosophy behind his designs, go to the KC Yesterday web page.

Deaton’s idea of the rolling roof was scrapped during the construction process—practicality time, and cost were factors. The Chiefs played their first game in Arrowhead in 1972. The Royals played their first game in their new home on April 10, 1973. Twenty years later it was renamed for Royals’ owner Ewing Kauffman.

Kehoe is not recommending a return to Deaton’s original but now outdated design. He cites more modern stadium architecture that he think would work at far less cost—-and the incredible costs of new stadiums is a huge factor.  Jackson County voters rejected the extension of a local sales tax to finance an $800 million overhaul of Arrowhead and construction of a two-billion dollar ballpark and ballpark village (as it’s called in St. Louis) downtown.

Missouri and Kansas now are in a heated competition for the two teams and legislatures in both states have authorized millions of dollars in one form or another to provide the new facilities.

What Kehoe is suggesting is something similar to what he saw in Frankfurt, Germany when he attended a Chiefs-Dolphis game in 2023 at Frankfurt’s Deutsche Bank Park, a 100-year old soccer stadium that has been overhauled many times and now sports a cable-supported flexible, translucent fabric covering that can be opened or closed.

The Governor plans to meet today with the new Jackson County Executive, Phil LeVota, who also is talking to the Chiefs.  The Chiefs aren’t reacting yet to the Kehoe suggestion but they have said they’d invest $1.l5 billion into the project if they decide to stay on our side of the state line. Another Kansas City (Missouri) election could be held next year.

For what it is worth, the view of the situation from the height of our hill is that this entire decades-long war for economic development in the Kansas City area has gone on too long.  Somebody needs to develop a solution to it.

And we are as qualified as anyone to do that….and we will, on Monday.

(Photo credit: KC Yesterday/Jackson County Historical Society, Stadiowelt, Trip Advisor)

 We are Victims of Trump’s Absurd Tariffs

Posted on by
Reply

—-and I am furious.

(My monthly guest column on the editorial page of the Jefferson City News-Tribune addressed this topic yesterday but of necessity it was much shorter and somewhat less candid, perhaps because I had lowered the steam pressure after starting on this version.)

There must be a reason why the highly-praised Wharton School that President Trump attended has never invited him back as a speaker. I wonder if anyone has investigated to find out who wrote his papers for him or even took tests for him.

His favorite course must have been Bankruptcy 101 and he must have slept through class every day the word “tariff” came up. The graduation program for his class does not list him for any honors and just has his name among all of the other graduates.

Stop me before I tell you what I really think.

Here is a story some nice people in a gentle English town. Stay with us. By the time we are finished the story will be about a person in a big American town who puts the “bully” into the ;political phrase “bully pulpit.”

(The phrase began with Theodore Roosevelt, one of the four faces on Mt. Rushmore, a monument he thinks he should—something even less possible than him winning the Nobel Price for Peace.)  TR used the word “bully” as an adjective for “wonderful” or “superb.”

Sorry about that. We have wandered off the path.

Grasmere, a village of about 4,500 people in England’s Lake District, has been known for decades as the home of numerous poets, writers, artists, philosophers and other notables.

Poets William and sister Dorothy Wordsworth described it as “the loveliest spot that man hath ever found.”

William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge (The Rime of the Ancient Mariner) are considered the founders of English Literature’s “Romantic Age.” Coleridge is said to have “muttered stanzas” of the Rime” while walking about the countryside nearby. The Wordsworths lived for a few years in Dove Cottage, where Coleridge also lodged for a time.

The Dove Cottage is still there as is The Swan, an inn where William sometimes dined with the famous poet Walter Scott.

More recently, Gordon Matthews Thomas Sumner had a home there. The world knows him better as the musical artist, Sting.

Perhaps better known than the poets, philosophers, and other notables who have lived there is Beatrix Potter, who gave the world Peter Rabbit and his friends. She also lived in the Lake District.

It was a coolish, dampish English day when we were there and we didn’t get to spend as much time as we wished, but that’s a penalty we paid for trying to hit some of the highlights of three countries—England, Wales, and Scotland in two weeks.

We had our lunch at the Grasmere Tea Room, ate outside on that pleasantly cool afternoon. I think we had Paninis, having a desire to break from fish and chips (we call them French Fries here). But we had been warned of interlopers that we were told were particularly aggressive that day—Jackdaws, a relative of crows and ravens. They liked to snatch food from tables.

Grasmere is, as is the case with many European communities, an old place, one where a 200-year old building is still relatively new.  We have avoided describing it as “picturesque” because we imagine the locals have heard their town referred to that way and it has become cloying to them.

And “quaint” is a condescending word, too, so we didn’t use it.  We liked Grasmere. It’s one of several small places we visited that we’d like to return to, despite the Jackdaws.

To the ancient Celts, Jackdaws were sacred birds that nested in church steeples, symbolic church guards. Like their Crow and Raven relatives, they are considered quite intelligent. We kind of thought the one perched on the back of a chair about twenty feet from our table was scheming to poach some of our lunch. But we kept a sharp eye on it and never let it have a chance.

What has all of this to do with Trump’s politically silly and nationally-damaging tariffs? We have vented about this in earlier posts but this time it’s personal.

Our excellent tour guide, Charlie Reader, gave us something else for which Grasmere is widely known.

We each got a couple of hand-wrapped gingerbreads. And we loved them.

More than 170 years ago, Victorian Cook Sarah Nelson began making gingerbreads in her 17th century home, using her “secret recipe” (that is still secret).  Grasmere Gingerbreads are a cross between a cake and what the English call a biscuit—a cracker to us.

Sarah’s secret recipe now is guarded by Joanne and Andrew Hunter, third generation owners of the business which still operates from Sarah’s house. I wish we had known of the gingerbread house before we left the town—and had the time to visit it.  But bus tours being bus tours, we had to be on our way after lunch.

The BBC has provided some looks at Sarah’s story and the wonderful products she created.

Bing Videos

Bing Videos

When we got home, I decided to secretly order a dozen of these gingerbreads to be delivered to our home each month. It was going to be a surprise Christmas present for Nancy but the surprise fell though when Diane Gallagher (probably) called from Grasmere and Nancy answered the phone. “There’s a lady from Grasmere on the phone asking for you,” she announced before listening to the conversation. Diane was calling to confirm the order.  The first order came in the tin you see here. Subsequent orders have come in hand-wrapped paper packaging and are refills for the tin.

Each month we have looked forward to finding our little package by our front door about the 10th of each month.  But on September 5, we received a note from Diane announcing the package had been shipped three days earlier but she understood “there have been delays at Customs and your parcel is due for delivery today.”

Then she wrote:

We believe the delays are because the US Government has now abolished the exemption for any parcel under a value of $800 from import duties.  This may mean that you will be liable for import duties on delivery of the parcel.  We are still trying to find out exactly what this will mean in monetary terms, but have reason to believe that for the next six months there will be a flat fee of $80 per parcel being sent from the UK. 

Eighty dollars on a $30 package!!!

This is the results of Donald Trump’s ill-advised removal of the “de minimis” exemption for small packages from foreign countries. Packages worth less than $800 were exempt from tariffs until August 29 when he decided even the smallest item would cost a lot more.

The Universal Postal Union says postal deliveries from around the world to the United States dropped by EIGHTY PERCENT within two weeks after our economic genius President scribbled his name on the bottom of his executive order.

We were supposed to take delivery on Wednesday, September 10. Instead we got a “reschedule” notice from UPS telling us, “UPS is preparing your package for clearance. We will notify you if additional information is needed.”

Diane told us it would be okay to refuse to pay the duties. Afterward the company could tell the UPS to destroy the parcel and the amount remaining on our order would be refunded.

The order from Grasmere was held up for the better part of a week before it cleared customs in Louisville, Kentucky (why Louisville, we don’t know), and was to arrive at our house on Wednesday, September 10.

We decided to pay the duty because the folks in Grasmere had produced the gingerbreads and had shipped them to us in good faith but we decided to have them hold onto the rest of our funds until our country regained this small part of its sanity and allows something so benign as Grasmere Gingerbread to be shipped to Missouri without a duty or a tariff that our President is unable to admit punishes his own citizens.

Trump says his tariffs will force foreign manufacturers to build factories in this country. I am quite sure that Joann and Andrew Hunter are not going to establish a gingerbread manufacturing plant in this country because of this petty policy.

But if you are accumulating evidence of how idiotic Trump’s tariff policy is working, we offer this observation as a good example.

We are puzzled by the whole tariff/duty business even more because while we were waiting for our gingerbreads to trickle through the customs bureaucracy, we found a book on our doorstep that we had ordered from a company in Delhi, India.  It took only ten days from the day I ordered it for it to arrive. I ordered the book on September 5. The company in Delhi gave it to FedEx on the tenth and five days later it was on my doorstep. Clearly, somebody in the customs office was asleep at the switch.

The gingerbreads?  They were mailed on September 2, three days before the book was ordered and eight days before the book was shipped.

On Friday, September 25, we got a notice from UPS:

The status of your package has changed.

Exception Reason: The customs clearance has failed and the shipment is abandoned

UPS told us on September 10 that the package was being prepared for clearance. We were to be notified if more information was needed.  We were not notified of anything until the message that Grasmere Gingerbread package apparently is such a threat to our national security that it would be dangerous for it to be shipped from Louisville, Kentucky where it has been losing its freshness for three weeks.

We got a new note from from Diane;

On 18th September we asked UPS to destroy the parcels that had not cleared Customs, but it appears that this has not yet happened for all parcels.  As well as the severe delays through Customs, it appears that parcels valued at less than £20 are incurring import duties of just under $70, which is just not viable.  For these reasons, our directors have taken the decision to suspend shipping to the US and Canada temporarily. 

I am very sorry about this. 

UPS told us:

Exception Reason: Package cannot clear due to customs delay or missing info. Attempt to contact sender made. Package has been disposed of.

Amazing. After all these months, UPS told us the reason UPS apparently could not get a straight answer from the customs people about the reason—it’s either “customs delay” or it’s “missing info.”  What missing info?   We are unlikely to ever learn why there was a delay and what information was missing in this shipment that wasn’t a problem earlier.

It’s a little package of a dozen Gingerbreads, for God’s sake!!!

It’s disgusting. But our president has taken “disgusting” to unprecedented levels in so many things.

I have notified Diane of our sincere apologies for the embarrassment this administration is. I wish we could go back to that beautiful part of our world to do it in person—-

—because he is creating so many things to apologize to the world for.

Is it too late for Wharton to ask for its diploma back?

(photos by BP. Gingerbread by the Grasmere Gingerbread Co., videos from the BBC)

Is He Just Joshing Us?  

Posted on by
Reply

“Joshing,” as in “teasing,” or “joking with” others.

Senator Josh Hawley recently proposed the federal government issue $600 tariff rebate checks per person—a family of four getting $2,400.

Such a deal he has for us!

What makes no sense is that in true Trumpian fashion, he is blaming President Biden for the perceived necessity for the checks. “Americans deserve a tax rebate after four years of Biden policies that have devastated families’ savings and livelihoods,” Hawley said as he announced his plan, and suggested, “My legislation would allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump’s tariffs are returning to this country.”

Now, hold on a minute. He’s spouting totally misleading statements that rely on public ignorance of how tariffs work.

We are going to un-ignorance any of you who think other countries are paying the United States big taxes, the tariffs of which President Trump is so proud. They are not.  WE are the ones taking it in the billfold. Britannica.com makes it easy to understand:

Let’s review how tariffs work.  First, neither a foreign company nor its home country pays any additional tax when it brings products here. United States companies buying the products are the ones paying a tax (the tariff) to Customs and Border Protection at the port of entry. They pay the foreign manufacturer the price of the goods and then they pay an additional amount to CBP before the products are released to them.

And how do those companies recover that extra fee, including the tariffs President Trump seems to arbitrarily set?  As the illustration shows, they make you and me pay more for our Korean refrigerator, our Canadian steel, our Chinese fireworks, Indonesian shirts, etc. We already are seeing some stores post signs telling customers how much more items cost because of the President’s tariffs. He’s intimidates some companies into not doing that. But he can’t scare all of them.

Therefore, Hawley’s proposal would have the federal government give us a rebate check to offset some of the extra money that we are paying for foreign-made products because of the Trump tariffs and we will use that money to buy more products with inflated costs because of the tariffs.

This is an economic program based on the Menard’s rebate system.

So, when Hawley says, ““My legislation would allow hard-working Americans to benefit from the wealth that Trump’s tariffs are returning to this country,” he is indulging in nothing short of verbal sleight of hand. There is no money “returning to this country.” It is here already and WE will pay it. In effect, he proposes putting some money in our right-hand pocket after the Trump tariffs take money out of our left-hand pocket.

Six hundred dollars might not come close to reimbursing us for our tariff-increased out-of-pocket expenses in the purchase of a new car, or the accumulated costs of less costly things we buy throughout the year.

And how much will this gracious gesture cost our debt-ridden federal government? How much of the tariff-raised money that could go toward reducing the Trumpian increase in our national debt will instead be sent back to us as a fake bonus?

A few days ago the census bureau put our national population at 342,201,496.

In our calculations, we probably are over-simplifying the math and the subtleties of who would be eligible for a rebate. We don’t know, for example how many of those 342.2 million people are criminals, mental patients, gang members, and drug-sellers from south of the border who wouldn’t be eligible to receive anything and, if the administration has its way, won’t be here to collect a check anyway. But just by multiplying the population number by 600, we could up with a total expenditure of $205,320,897,600. That’s $205.3 BILLION of our own money that will be returned to us.

Missourians (our population of 6,282,690) would receive $3,769,614,000 of their own money back.  The best thing that can be said for the deal is that it’s better than the Menard’s rebates that you only get if you buy something else later.

HOWEVER all of us might not get one of these checks if Congress falls for this scheme—your vigilant observer for example.

Hawley has told listeners to Steve Bannon’s podcast that  Trump’s tariffs are “on track to raise over $150 billion this calendar year alone,” well short of the calculated total above. But that shortfall can be adjusted because Hawley says it won’t go to those who supported Trump’s favorite punching bag, Joe Biden. “You’d give it to our people,” he said. “The rich people don’t need it…All those Democrat donors of Wall Street, all these fund guys, who all hate the tariffs…We ought to give a portion back to our working class blue-collar voters who powered the Trump revolution, who got this president into office multiple times, and who are the backbone of this nation.” Multiple times meaning “two.”

Get out the hip boots, folks. It’s awfully deep in here.

I’m not saying I supported Joe Biden in 2024, thus becoming disqualified under this  Hawley/Trump frequent flyer program. It’s just that you will never find my lip prints on the presidential ring.

Pro-Trump blue collar folks will be rewarded for their loyalty but anti-Trump blue collar workers won’t be rewarded? We suppose he knows how to separate a red blue-collar worker from a blue blue-collar worker.  Perhaps he’ll use the people from ICE who are widely respected for their skills of discerning who gets hauled off to God knows where, largely based on physical appearance, to determine awardees.

This pinpointing of disloyal blue collar workers and keeping the Washington bureaucracy (what’s left of it, anyway) from sending checks to undeserving garbage men, grave diggers, and gas station operators should keep the total outlay below the amount we just computed.

And remember, this scheme just gives us back our own money that otherwise would be used for such things as building more wall in the Southwest where we are still waiting for the first check from Mexico that Trump promised would pay those costs, reimbursing this country for all those miles of fence.

This country is more than $30 TRILLION in debt. Where will it find the money for Hawley’s warm and fuzzy give-back plan? You and I will provide it by paying for Trump’s tariffs, as we have provided the money for the wall Mexico will pay for.

So far he hasn’t tied tariffs on Mexican products to the recovery of fence costs.

While thousands of his constituents have to deal with cutbacks in the food stamp program, the school meal programs, safety net reductions, cuts in disaster aid, attacks on disease prevention and control, and friends and relatives hauled away by masked hooligans in ICE outfits, he’s going to load up on a souvenir airplane, build a ballroom where even more of his friends can pay a lot of money to be in the same room with him, and gather as many other shiny tchotchkes that catch his eye. And he and Hawley hope to take our minds off of his meat-cleavering of programs that serve the people at large by giving us back a few hundred of the bucks it’s costing us to buy any of the myriad of things made somewhere else that they are making us pay more to buy.

Blaming President Biden for all of the broken promises or created problems of this administration as well as giant increases in the federal debt has become a misleading Republican whine that is beyond tiresome. Liars might figure, but figures don’t lie. And the figures show Trump stands balding head and shoulders above Biden and Obama when it comes to running up the national debt.

A study by consumeraffairs.com shows the Biden administration increased the national debt by $6.17 trillion while the first Trump administration drove it up by $8.18 trillion. (The Obama administration, ran it up by $8.34 trillion, but it took him eight years.) The calculations show Biden increased the national debt by 21.7 percent. Trump hiked it by 40.43% and some analysts say his Big Ugly Bill will add $2.5-3.8 trillion more.

Last we heard, Hawley hadn’t attracted any supporters, particularly others in his party, many of whom think the tariff revenues should be used to reduce the national debt or at least to retard its growth.

Next thing you know, Trump will be demanding the Nobel Prize for Economics—as he also wants it for Peace achieved through international bombing and national cruelty.

Let’s wait and see how Hawley figures out a way to get this dead bird to fly. Just remember, it’s our money that you and I might someday get back, not dollars paid by any foreign government or foreign manufacturer.

Six hundred dollars that we can use to pay tariff-inflated prices on other goods..

Maybe it’s not so different from Menard’s rebate system after all.

Liars Figure

Posted on by
Reply

—especially when they don’t like the truth that figures tell.

When the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported job growth figures well under those our president had been bragging about or boasting did not, in fact, materialize, he killed the messenger, another indication that he cannot tolerate people who tell the truth.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported only 73,000 jobs had been created nationally in July, a third month that the numbers came up short of what had been promoted or predicted.  The department, as it has done at times in the past, adjusted previously-announced figures for May and June substantially lower than originally reported. And our President—with no evidence the bureau was not being accurate with the adjustment—fired the director.

Trump hasn’t liked Director Erika McEntarfer anyway and has accused her of faking employment numbers last year to make Kamala Harris look good. He claims the July job figures are the latest thing “rigged in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad.”  He says he will hire someone “much more competent and qualified” to take McEntarfer’s place.

We wonder which “more competent and qualified” FOX news anchor he will pick to replace McEntarfer, who has a doctorate in economics from Virginia Tech and was an economist in the Census Bureau’s Center for Economic Studies during Trump’s first term. Before that, she worked in the Treasury Department Office of Tax Policy. During the Biden presidency she was with the Council of Economic Advisors as a senior economist. The Republican-controlled Senate showed its confidence in her with a confirmation vote of 86-8 for  directorship in early 2024.

What seemed to pull Trump’s cork was that  revision downward of numbers from May and June and a paltry 73,000 new jobs reported in July. The original report for May calculated only 19,000 new jobs were created. The original report for June calculated 144,000 new jobs but was revised downward by ninety percent to only 14,000.  The new three-month total is 106,000, well below the original report just for June.

The outlook for much improvement is gloomy.  Coresight Research forecasts 15,000 stores will close this year. That’s added to the 7,325 closed last year.

From various sources we have put together a list of store chains shutting down big parts of their holdings:

Walgreens 500 this year, 1200 by end of 2027.

Advanced auto Parts 727 by mid-year.

Macy’s 150 stores through 2026.

Family Dollar  370 this year (600 last year)

CVS  300 stores already closed.

Big Lots  500-700

Joann Fabrics  all stores

Forever 21 all locations

Rite Aid  200 in fourteen states

Denny’s Restaurants 100 this year; 50 last year

Red Robin  70

Foot Locker  More than 400 by 2026

Dollar Tree  30

7-11  440 (out of more than 13,000 locations)

And none of those figures look at the jobs that are lost because workers are shipped off to some mysterious location and there hasn’t been time for Medicaid recipients to replace them in the face of threats to take away their benefits if they don’t work.

Political cowards do not accept bad news and often have a tendency to look for scapegoats rather than flaws in their own policies.  Leaders look for ways to turn bad news around. Cowards kill messengers. Leaders do not fear truth to power; they welcome its challenges to be better.

Trump claims the national economy is booming because of his policies. The numbers say otherwise. His solution is to fire someone who looks at the numbers and tells us truths he doesn’t want us to hear—.

—as is the case with Federal Reserve Chief Jerome Powell, who won’t embrace the rosy picture Trump paints of the economy. He lies awake at night—-maybe we should put some punctuation in there so it more accurately reads, “He lies, awake at night”—because he lives in his own world where truth is kept under mental lock and key, and he cooks up new insults and threats to throw at those who have the courage to stand up to him.

When will this country, particularly those who have so easily shrunk from their responsibilities to the people at large, reach a tipping point with him?

 

Here We Go Again

Posted on by
1

We’ve seen this scenario played out before. Republicans cut some taxes and the economy goes into the toilet soon after with the state having reduced its ability to fund programs that people rely on during economic downturns, especially lower-income Missourians.

The national economy isn’t in the toilet (yet, perhaps), but Congress has approved President Trump’s budget that will harm thousands of Missourians.  At the same time, Governor Kehoe is thinking about signing the bill eliminating some taxes that will produce revenues.

He already has vetoed hundreds of millions of dollars from the budget approved by the legislature, citing concerns about state finances in the fiscal year that is  newly underway.

We must be missing something. This doesn’t seem to add up to us. On one hand, there is concern that the state can afford the things the legislature approved and on the other hand there’s—

Wait a minute.

Aren’t we on the same hand?

Finger one: Cut the budget because of uncertainty of state finances, much of it caused by federal cuts in some important programs.

Finger two: Cut Missouri taxes to reduce total revenues even more?

One estimate is that the tax cuts reduce program funding by about a half-billion dollars at a time when not-so-beautiful bill in Washington eliminates a lot of federal money coming here.

To be sure, there are some good things in the bill he plans to sign.  A capital gains tax reduction will be welcomed by many who have capital gains but that’s one reason the liberal-leaning Missouri Budget Project isn’t a fan of the bill.   The MBP says five percent of Missouri taxpayers will get eighty percent of the benefits.

But it’s not all for the high-rollers. The Circuit Breaker property tax program will increase the income levels of people eligible for it, a change that will affect almost 200,000 households. The state sales tax is being lifted for diapers and women’s hygiene products. And there are some other things the MBP admits are badly-needed.

The conventional Republican wisdom is that if you reduce taxes, the infusion of those moneys into the general economy will generate more revenues to offset the taxes. We can’t say that we have noticed significant improvements in the economy when the legislature reduces Missourians’ taxes.

We are in sympathy with the stated reasons for lowering these taxes but we wonder if freezes are more protective of the overall well-being of state services than cuts at this time.

For more than fifty years we have listened to all kinds of people complain about the lack of money for schools, health and mental health, prisons, law enforcement, housing, nutrition and a host of other issues.  This scenario is kind of like the old saying, “Everybody talks about the weather but nobody does anything about it” except the talk about taxes also includes doing something about them.

Sometimes though, it is best to heed the phrase-altered advice, “Don’t just do something. Sit there.”

To be honest, we admit having no grasp of the subtlety of economics that one probably needs to understand the rationale for these cuts.  We only took one economics course in college. Everything else we know about the economy is reflected in our utility bills and grocery prices. And in our taxes.

Jim Mathewson, who served in the legislature from Sedalia and was the President Pro Tem of the Senate for eight years, a record that will never be broken in this unfortunate era of term limits, said several times, “People don’t remember that you cut their taxes. But they sure remember when you raise them.”

It’s a nice bill today but the people who remember it are the ones who won’t benefit, especially those hit with the federal cuts.  One thing we’ll watch is to see whether there’s a political fallout in state politics that will be anywhere the fallout being predicted at the national level.

 

Cartoon Man/Man as Cartoon

Posted on by
Reply

Editorial cartoonists occupy a unique position in American journalism.  They can comfort. They can interpret. They can inform. They can provoke.

They can capture a moment in our national existence in a way that is memorable. They can show in their work things we mortals grasp for words to express.  Steve Burns, a Pulitzer-Prize winning children’s book author, works for the San Diego Union Tribune.

A few days ago, he captured an image of the American economy that is not what our president promised in his campaign it would be. “Stocks Down,” he called it.

It’s the most creative illustration I have seen of our president and the times he has brought down upon us.

Burns’ cartoons are syndicated nationally by Creators Syndicate.

We hope he can do another portrait someday of our president that reverses the lines, not because we want him to succeed but because we want our nation to prosper no matter what he eventually does to it.

Hats off to Steve Burns who uniquely captures this moment for our nation.

(Image credit: Creators Syndicate March 14, 2025)

-0-