Trick or....More Tricks?

 

Just some random observations while waiting for more tricks and fewer treats.

_  I wrote months ago that tariffs were a bad idea and we best be prepared for an extended conflict with Iran and their proxies.  And a lot of people, people more credentialed and qualified than yours truly said the same thing.  But Trump and his merry band of fools, only pay attention to those who agree with them.  So here we are and the Republicans are about to get a ‘whuppin’ and America is about to get a big dose of Democratic Socialism.

_  What’s going on in France and other parts or Western Europe was inevitable. They are experiencing a perfect storm of socialist economic policy outcomes, uncontrolled immigration and irrational energy policies.  Les poules sont rentre’es au poulailler.

_  One of the largest United Methodist Churches in the country has voted overwhelmingly to leave the UMC.  Losing the Highland Park Methodist church is just one more blow to a once proud mainline denomination.  It’s probably too late, but perhaps a serious reading of Matthew 28:18-20 would be a step in the right direction.

_  The WNBA has joined the clueless cabal of radical feminists and neutered males who run most entertainment and media organizations.  They are in a big hole and just can’t stop digging.

_  I am not particularly worried about Artificial Intelligence.  Real Intelligence seems to be rapidly diminishing.  So, we clearly need someone or something to tell us what to do, which for the most part, we should have known all along.

_  However the mid-term elections turn out, the one thing we can count on is that the Federal government will do nothing to reduce our ever-increasing budget deficits and rapidly escalating national debt.  When the day of reckoning finally comes, America then is going to look a lot like Europe now. 

The Federal Deficit: Why Taxing the Wealthiest Americans More Is Not Enough.......The Fiscal Reality Behind Proposals for More Government Spending

Few issues in American public policy generate as much debate as taxation, government spending, and the role of federal programs in improving the lives of citizens. Proposals to expand health care, education, housing assistance, and welfare programs are often accompanied by calls for higher taxes on the wealthiest Americans. Supporters argue that those with the greatest financial resources should contribute more to fund national priorities.

However, an essential question deserves serious consideration: Even if the federal income taxes paid by the top 1% of earners were doubled, would that additional revenue be enough to eliminate the federal budget deficit? The numbers indicate that it would not. Furthermore, expanding government programs without identifying sufficient, sustainable funding would increase the gap between federal revenues and expenditures unless other spending or revenue policies changed.

The Size of the Federal Budget Problem

According to the Congressional Budget Office's February 2026 projections, the federal government is expected to spend approximately $7.4 trillion in fiscal year 2026 while collecting approximately $5.6 trillion in revenue. That leaves a projected annual deficit of roughly $1.9 trillion. Actual results may differ as economic conditions and federal policies change. Source: Congressional Budget Office.

In other words, the federal government is projected to spend substantially more than it collects in revenue. The shortfall is not a minor accounting discrepancy that can easily be corrected by increasing taxes on a relatively small segment of the population. It is a structural fiscal challenge involving the size and growth of federal expenditures, the revenue collected to finance them, and the increasing cost of servicing accumulated debt.

This distinction matters because the deficit represents the difference between all federal spending and all federal revenue. A policy that raises revenue can reduce the deficit, but it eliminates the deficit only if the additional revenue, combined with any other budgetary changes, closes the entire gap.

What If We Doubled the Taxes Paid by the Top 1%?

Federal income tax data provide a useful way to evaluate this question.

For tax year 2023, the top 1% of individual income tax filers paid approximately $823 billion in federal individual income taxes, according to data compiled by the Tax Foundation from IRS statistics. That represented 38.4% of all federal individual income taxes collected that year. Source: Tax Foundation, Federal Income Tax Data.

Consider a hypothetical scenario in which those taxpayers paid twice as much in federal individual income taxes as they did under the existing tax system. Assuming the additional amount could be collected in full, with no changes in taxpayer behavior or the economy, the government would receive approximately $823 billion in additional annual revenue.

Compare that figure with the projected $1.9 trillion federal deficit:

• Additional annual revenue: approximately $823 billion.

• Projected annual deficit: approximately $1.9 trillion.

• Remaining annual deficit: approximately $1.1 trillion.

• Share of the deficit covered: approximately 43%.

Even under this simplified scenario, doubling the top 1%'s federal individual income tax payments would leave more than half of the projected deficit unresolved.

These figures are illustrative rather than a formal tax-policy forecast. The tax data are for 2023, while the deficit estimate is for fiscal year 2026. Moreover, the calculation concerns individual income taxes, not every type of federal tax paid by high-income households. A real policy change could also affect income, investment, deductions, and other taxpayer decisions.

Nevertheless, the comparison illustrates the scale of the challenge: A substantial increase in taxes on the highest-income taxpayers, by itself, would not eliminate the federal government's projected annual deficit.

The Implications for Expanding Health, Education, and Welfare Programs

This arithmetic has important implications for proposals to increase federal spending on health care, education, housing assistance, food assistance, and other social programs.

Many of these programs address legitimate public needs. Access to medical care, educational opportunity, and assistance for financially vulnerable households are important policy considerations. The fiscal question is not whether these objectives have value; it is how they should be funded and whether the proposed funding is sufficient to cover their costs.

If the federal government already faces an annual deficit approaching $1.9 trillion, and a hypothetical doubling of the top 1%'s individual income tax payments still leaves a deficit of approximately $1.1 trillion, then new spending commitments cannot be assumed to pay for themselves.

Unless additional revenue or spending reductions offset the cost, every additional dollar of federal spending increases the deficit by a dollar relative to what it otherwise would have been. The government must then finance the additional shortfall through borrowing.

For example, a new federal health care or education initiative costing $200 billion annually would require $200 billion in additional annual funding to avoid worsening the deficit, assuming no offsetting savings or other revenue effects. If it were financed entirely through borrowing, it would add to the government's financing needs.

The same principle applies to permanent expansions of existing welfare programs. A program that requires annual appropriations or ongoing benefit payments creates a continuing fiscal obligation. Policymakers must therefore consider not only the initial cost of a proposal but also its long-term trajectory, including population growth, inflation, eligibility changes, and administrative expenses.

Borrowing Today Creates Obligations for Tomorrow

Deficits do not simply disappear at the end of a fiscal year. When the federal government borrows to cover the gap between spending and revenue, it adds to the outstanding national debt.

That debt carries interest costs. Money used to pay interest is money that cannot simultaneously be used for public services, tax relief, infrastructure, or other priorities. As debt accumulates and interest expenses rise, the government can face increasing pressure to borrow even more to meet its existing obligations.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that annual deficits will rise from approximately $1.9 trillion in 2026 to $3.1 trillion in 2036 under its February 2026 baseline. It also projects that debt held by the public will increase from approximately 101% of gross domestic product in 2026 to 120% in 2036. These are projections based on specified assumptions, not guarantees of future outcomes. Source: Congressional Budget Office.

This outlook suggests that the challenge extends beyond finding enough revenue for any single new program. The government must also address the longer-term relationship between existing commitments, rising interest costs, economic growth, and the revenue available to finance public services.

A More Complete Approach to Fiscal Responsibility

A credible discussion of expanding government services should begin with a complete accounting of their costs and funding sources. Several approaches are available, and they need not be mutually exclusive.

First, policymakers can evaluate proposed tax increases, including increases affecting high-income taxpayers and other sources of revenue. The relevant question is how much additional revenue a policy would actually generate after accounting for economic effects and taxpayer responses.

Second, Congress can examine existing spending programs to identify inefficiencies, duplication, improper payments, and expenditures that do not achieve their intended objectives. Potential savings should be estimated carefully rather than assumed to exist in amounts sufficient to solve the deficit.

Third, lawmakers can evaluate the effectiveness of proposed health, education, and welfare initiatives. Programs that improve outcomes or prevent more expensive problems later may provide substantial public value. Their merits should be considered alongside their costs, measurable benefits, and long-term budgetary effects.

Finally, policymakers should distinguish between temporary spending and permanent commitments. A one-time expenditure presents a different fiscal challenge from a program that creates recurring obligations for decades. Permanent benefits require durable funding rather than optimistic assumptions about future tax receipts or economic growth.

These considerations apply regardless of political party or ideology. Any proposal to increase federal spending should identify how the additional expense will be financed and explain how it affects the overall budget.

Conclusion: Good Intentions Must Be Matched by Sustainable Funding

The federal deficit is too large to be understood as a problem that can necessarily be solved by asking a single group of taxpayers to pay more. Available data illustrate why: the top 1% of income tax filers paid approximately $823 billion in federal individual income taxes in 2023, while the projected federal deficit for fiscal year 2026 is approximately $1.9 trillion. Even doubling the former amount, under a simplified hypothetical calculation, would leave a deficit exceeding $1 trillion.

That does not establish that tax increases on high-income Americans have no role in deficit reduction, nor does it prove that every proposed social program is unjustified. It demonstrates something more specific and important: Taxing the top 1% more, even dramatically more, is not by itself a complete solution to the federal government's fiscal problem.

Proposals to expand health care, education, and welfare programs should therefore be accompanied by transparent cost estimates, credible funding plans, and an assessment of their effects on the deficit and national debt. Where new spending is not matched by sufficient additional revenue or offsetting savings, the fiscal gap grows.

A responsible debate about America's future must consider both the benefits government programs seek to provide and the resources required to sustain them. The central question is not simply whether a program is desirable or whether the wealthiest Americans should pay more taxes. It is whether the nation can finance its existing obligations and its proposed new commitments without allowing deficits and debt to grow to increasingly difficult levels.

VOTERS

 

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard." - H.L. Mencken

When it comes our politicians and big government, the American people always lose.  We are like the drunk guy hanging over the side of the crap table at two in the morning making different bets and mostly losing until he’s broke.  We jump on one band wagon after another.  We may not switch parties, but when things aren’t going our way, we choose to support candidates whose only qualification is that they really hate the other side and promise to solve all our problems.  And if they have a nice smile to go along with it we’re hooked.

The reality is that “the game” is rigged.  One side is as bad as the other, but we pick the side we perceive  to be less bad for us.  And when we can’t stand the results any longer, we place a different bet.  But it’s the same game.  Change candidates, switch parties, get more involved or less involved.  It doesn’t matter.  Big government is big business.  The voters may be customers, but they are not investors.  Career politicians, entrenched government bureaucrats and special interest groups are the ones who stand to gain the most and they are the ones who ultimately decide what the voters (customers) receive

And they know how to play the game.  They understand that it must go in cycles.  Conservatives get to win for awhile and then progressives get their turn.  Test the waters now and then with far left or far right ideas but pull back if they cause too many problems.  Never allow enough people to get so angry that they might turn over the gaming tables and burn down the palace.  Make sure everyone wins just often enough to keep coming back to the tables and losing.  And, by all means, don’t ever offer the customers “term limits”.

Fast Talkers and Slow Listeners

 

Maybe this is just me being a grumpy old man, but are people talking faster now than they used to?  I readily admit that my hearing is not what it used to be.  That’s why I wear hearing aids.  Mine are not cheap and can be adjusted to address almost every sound… except rapid speech.   

So what’s happened? Why are people talking so much faster these days?  Is it smart phones, too much texting, social media, fear and anxiety, bad parenting, the food we’re eating, the water we’re drinking…what could be causing so many people to talk like auctioneers?  The truth is there is no evidence that people are talking faster these days than they did in the past.  There are some studies indicating that people talk less than they used to, but not faster.

Personally, I am a slow speaker, always have been.  My word rate used to be 120-130 words per minute.  I am probably closer to 110-115 now.  130 to 150 is considered a good conversational or public speaking rate.   Above 170 is considered fast and quite a few people, especially younger ones, do tend to talk fast.  I expect those of us who grew up around slow talking Texas country folks, developed those slower speech patterns early on and it stuck with us. Even now I notice that younger people that have that “country” influence speak slower and usually with a thicker Texas accent.  In metro areas the accents seem to have melted away as the rate of speaking has increased.

But, the fact of the matter is that it takes longer for old people to process the words they hear into words they can understand.  As we Boomers have aged, we inevitably became “slow listeners”.  Words get lost in translation when they arrive too fast for our worn out brains.  It’s why some of us now turn on subtitles when watching television.  In a crowded noisy restaurant we pretend to know what someone is saying even when we’re only catching every other word that’s coming out of their mouth.  And if you’re trying to understand a fast talking woman who has a soft or high-pitched voice, she might as well be speaking Swahili.

The good news for “slow listeners” is there are some new technologies which can slow down rapid speech. The bad news is that they are very expensive and it’s new technology.  Eventually they will get better and more affordable, just… not….soon….. enough…… for…… some…… of………… us. 

Still Undefeated

One of my favorite songs is “September 15th” by Pat Metheny and Lyle Mays.  It’s from one their earliest albums, maybe their first, “As Falls Wichita, So Falls Wichita Falls.” That song and another one, “Farmer’s Trust”, will break your heart when you watch the movie “Fandango”.

September 15^th also happens to be my birthday.  When one gets to a certain age, birthdays are no longer a big deal.  Getting out of bed every morning and standing on one’s own two feet is a big deal.  Remembering names and places and what happened a month ago or twenty years ago is a big deal.  

I am blessed that I can still do meaningful work and even get paid to do it. I have a wonderful wife and a comfortable place to live.  She has not taken my car keys away yet and I can still break a sweat without ending up in the ER.  But “the decline” is inevitable.  One may still workout, but strength and endurance no longer respond as they once did.  Less becomes more, and more soon becomes impossible.  You pay the price for one more try at something you used to enjoy.  You are an old person now and everyone knows it…including you. Age may be just a number, but it’s a number that represents something…the passage of Time. And make no mistake, Time is still undefeated.

But you must not give up. While there is life to be lived, live it as best you can.  The clock is ticking and the game is almost over.  If you belong to Christ, you know that the end is just the beginning and you were not created only to live in this body for a moment and then be gone forever.  

FORE

 

“They call it golf because all the other four-letter words were taken”- anonymous, angry golfer

 

I was never a very good golfer.  At least not by my definition of a good golfer.  When I really worked at it, I got down to an 11 handicap, but mostly I was more like a 15. I could hit the ball a long way, occasionally I could find it.  On and around the greens I might as well have been wearing boxing gloves and using a pool cue. 

And I didn’t particularly care for the “social” aspects of golf.  I always felt there were five types of guys on the golf course.  The hail-fellow-well-met types who were either trying to sell you something or persuade you to visit their church.  There were the gamblers who had all kinds of made-up bets going on and wanted your money.  And there were those guys who just needed a friend and once they opened their mouth you immediately knew why they had none.  Perhaps the worst were the little groups who always played together and acted like they owned the course.

The last type were guys like me who preferred to be left alone or if they played along with someone they played fast and seldom spoke.  I called them the independents and for me they were the best company you could have while playing golf.  You might know their first name and maybe, if you happened to play with them often enough, they might tell you more at which point you were obligated to tell them more.  But if they were true independents, it was very little and not very often and you both understood that was for the best.

Four years ago, my back finally wore out.  Lower lumbar stenosis and a slipped disc.  Surgery was discussed but the spinal specialist encouraged me to try some PT, modify my activities and learn to live with it.  Surgery was the last resort.  Golf was a hard NO.  With a lot of trial and error including some bad PT along the way, I’ve finally gotten back to a reasonably good place with my back.  I am never going to be who I used to be. But past a certain age, none of us are.

Recently, I had to admit that I missed golf. I had written it off and even when I got to the place where I might be able to play again, I said no.  I just didn’t want to play “old man golf”.  And besides the best part of my game was gone.  The “long ball” was history.  I didn’t think my short game would ever be good enough to make up for the lost distance.  So, I just didn’t want to play anymore and convinced myself that I couldn’t even if I wanted to.

But something changed.  Another birthday is coming and I am absolutely an “old man”.  I still work full-time and workout almost every day, albeit not the way I used to.  I write, I read and still do some chores around the house and yard, but not much else these days.  And I miss hitting and chasing that damned little white ball. I never really considered myself “a golfer”.  I did not have, nor did I want to be part of a regular foursome who were on the course every weekend and sometimes during the week.  I wasn’t interested, nor good enough to play in tournaments.  But mostly I was one of those independents, and we are just too far outside the norms to ever be considered real golfers.

So, I started hitting a few wedges around our place out in the country.  Got some plastic practice balls and begin making full swings.  It was ok.  Finally, the other day I decided to go the driving range and hit some real golf balls. The first few shots were ugly.  But I made a couple of adjustments, remembering what did and did not work when I swung a golf club.  And I actually began to hit some decent shots.  Finally got to the driver and hit the ball very well.  I decided to stop before pushing it too far.  All in I probably hit only 30-35 balls.  Not a serious practice session by any means.  But the back seems to be no worse for wear and the golf bug is back.  

I need to continue working on “my game” before going back on the course.  I don’t expect to shoot in the 80’s again.  I may not even break a 100 for a while.  But when I do get back on the course, it will be my best version of “old man golf” and at this season of life that’s good enough for me.

The Bureaucrat Who Cried "Wolf"

 

Ok, the jury has returned and we have the verdict: Fauci is a “tool” and I mean that in the worst possible way.  But let’s be honest, there are plenty of other people who should share the blame for the wave of totalitarian government control that ended up making the Covid pandemic even worse, and make no mistake it was horrible enough on its own. 

As one who has had Covid twice and probably had it in Jan-Feb 2020 before it was identified, I can confirm it’s no fun.  But I was fortunate.  The first time back in 2020, assuming it was in fact Covid, for me it was a long-drawn out flu-like event.  Never as severe as a really bad flu, but lingered and would just not go away.  The second time was in 2021 with vaccine on board, and it was mostly a bad cold.  It came around again in 2023 and if I hadn’t been tested, I would have just thought it was a head cold.

As an older person, on the advice of my GP, I started getting a flu shot in my 50’s.  At 60 we added a pneumonia shot.  Having had some rough experiences with bronchitis in the past it was an easy call for me to take the Covid shot.  Stupidly, I didn’t get around to taking the RSV shot and got hit with it in the winter of 2024. It eventually became severe bronchitis which eventually turned into “walking” pneumonia and a trip to the ER.  Much worse than anything I’d experienced with Covid.  So I have since got the RSV jab, it’s a one-time deal and there is no reason older folks shouldn’t get it.

I am otherwise a very healthy old man; workout daily, eat right, get my rest and still function at a relatively high level.  But, like most senior citizens my immune system isn’t what it used to be and I can’t ignore that reality.  When there is a flu outbreak and a lot of people are getting sick, I tend to wash my hands more frequently and maybe do more fist bumps than handshakes at church.  I don’t like crowds in general so maintaining my personal space is the norm for me which works out well when some nasty bug is going around.  I used to be a guy that challenged cold weather.  Shorts and a windbreaker unless it was very cold and windy.  Not these days.  It’s best to avoid getting too cold so I dress appropriately warm when it’s cold outside.  In other words, I try to use some common sense.  Get vaccinated when it’s clear that the risks of not getting vaccinated outweigh the risks of taking the vaccine.  Wash your hands, especially during flu season.  Take a multi-vitamin.  Get your rest.  Do the basics.

My concern now is that our political polarization has spilled over into health and medicine.  I personally know older conservatives who refused to take the Covid vaccine and paid a big price, some the ultimate price.  There were those who went out of their way to act as if Covid was just another flu bug, don’t worry about it.  Of course, some dodged the bullet but many did not.  Then there were those who followed all the guidelines to the letter and were first in line for the vaccine.  They fussed and fumed at the deniers and those who advocated alternative ways of treating Covid. 

I confess to wearing the mask in places where the majority were wearing masks.  I just didn’t want to be that guy, especially if someone got Covid and believed that somehow I might have contributed to it.  There was a lot of social pressure to abide by masks-wearing, distancing and following the arrows on the floor in the grocery store.  Those mavericks who broke all the rules are now nodding their heads and saying we knew it was all B.S. but you chumps just rolled over and bought it.  I admire stubborn independence and tend toward it myself, but draw the line where it causes others to be more anxious and stressed-out in difficult situations.

So now we have parents not vaccinating their kids for the stuff we’ve been vaccinating kids against for decades.  How many more proven “best practices” will be ignored because some whack-a-doodle political hack or internet influencer claims that now it’s bad for us? When the “experts” and the elites and the mainstream media keep getting it so wrong for so long on so many “existential threats”, eventually they become the little boy who cried wolf.  One of these they may actually be telling the truth, but by then no one will be listening…and the wolf will be real.