The world is a dangerous place. And every now and again we are reminded that it is a truly blessed and prosperous nation that has the time and political attention span to worry about some of the inane crap that we worry about…or more aptly, the pretend issues we invent in our politically charged national life that shouldn’t be issues at all. We have the greatest economy in the world yet other countries are taking advantage of us? We are the safest country on earth yet we are being “invaded”? We have the freest exchange of ideas on the planet yet free speech is under attack? Hyperbolic rhetoric has real life repercussions. Since last I posted, we have had protests against overly-aggressive deportation efforts, the mobilization of troops in California by President Trump against the wishes of that state’s governor, an assassination of an elected official in Minnesota, and the bombing of Iran by the United States. Set against the backdrop of these occurrences, it seems rather nonsensical that we worry so much about who uses which pronouns or which company seeks to be more inclusive. If the world feels a bit more chaotic now – more so than during race massacres and riots of our past, world wars and the Holocaust, the dropping of atomic bombs – perhaps it's more than because we forget history. Perhaps it’s because our baseline level of political stress is set to a 7 out of 10 by leaders of both parties who fan the flames instead of cool the temperature. Our national discourse looks like a classroom of rowdy children after the teacher has stepped out of the room. Chaos and order are two opposite extremes. Chaos is the job of nature; order is the job of government. Good government is the teacher in the room. It is there to provide stability, safety, and an environment conducive for each citizen to reach his or her full potential, whatever that potential may be. It hasn’t the luxury of ever leaving the room. But it has. American government has gone out for a smoke, and it isn’t clear when it will be back. And worse yet, before it went out for a smoke it deliberately riled the citizenry into a frenzy, violating its core responsibility. It has turned up our collective temperatures. Depending on which news channel you watched, you saw either peaceful protestors exercising their right to protest against excessive federal government deportation efforts or you saw paid agitators that warranted a president calling up the national guard over the objections of a state’s governor. You either cringed or cheered hearing one of President Trump’s chief advisors threaten the suspension of habeas corpus and suggest federal agents go to Home Depots and 7-Elevens to round up illegal aliens looking for day work. You either cringed or cheered at Secretary Kristi Noem saying DHS and the military were staying in Los Angeles “to liberate this city from the socialists and the burdensome leadership that this governor and that this mayor had placed on this country and what they have tried to insert into the city.” And you saw your news channel of choice argue the exact opposite point of view than they did for the January 6th riot. Depending on your moral code of citizenry you saw the assassinations in Minnesota as a vile act that has no place in our society or perhaps you sat at your keyboard, revved up by years of vitriolic rhetoric, and you typed horrific things about how those lawmakers deserved it. There’s a special arrogance in sitting in safety, lobbing verbal bombs, and allowing others to clean up your mess. There’s a special madness in not caring about who gets shot, unjustly imprisoned, or has their lives turned upside down by your irresponsible rhetoric. And there is a special coerciveness in saying things you don’t believe knowing full well that, because you say them often enough, good people who are just struggling like hell to get by will take it for gospel truth and repeat it. This weekend we saw our military men and women risking all. We saw them execute flawless 37 hour flying missions under the most immense pressure while their families awaited their safe return. Whether or not you think the bombings in Iran were the right decision, can we agree that these are the missions for which our military signed up, not for being trotted out for a parade or sent into one of our own cities to restore the order that would have existed in the first place had our federal government stuck to deporting criminals where caught instead of day laborers where sought? Because the world is a dangerous place is precisely why government should save its political capital for real problems, not pretend ones.

Last fiscal year, our federal government took in $5 trillion dollars but spent $7 trillion. It spent 40% more than it had available to spend, and it did so without being at war or in economic recession. Our leaders – be they Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Conservatives, Liberals, or Moderates – collectively violated their fiduciary responsibility to the American taxpayer. Any business owner or executive knows that there is waste in his or her organization. But he or she also knows that it is a small percentage of the company’s total expenses. Chasing that waste to reduce or eliminate it is a valuable exercise, time and resources permitting. But it rarely moves the needle. An extra body or two on the payroll may be unnecessary but it’s the salaries of the 100 people that are needed that comprise payroll expense. The two percent scrap factor in the manufacturing process can be improved but it’s the necessary 98% that makes up cost of goods sold. The personal letter run through the postage meter may be theft, but the thousands of legitimate things mailed make up true postage expense. And this is what DOGE represents to me. It is a worthwhile exercise if done thoughtfully and constitutionally, but it is still chasing pennies on the periphery. Today I want to talk about the dollars, not the pennies. The federal government’s budget is composed of two distinct categories – discretionary spending and non-discretionary spending. Non-discretionary, the stuff we have to pay, is by far the largest. It accounts for over $5 trillion. It includes our Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid obligations, each accounting for around $1.5 trillion. It includes the interest on our debt of just over $1 trillion. Of the discretionary spending – the things the President can suggest and Congress can choose to appropriate – half, or almost $900 billion, currently goes to defense. So, if one assumes no consensus can be achieved on materially changing the scope of entitlement programs, that leaves just $950 billion, or 14% of the budget, for the two parties to argue over. The real problem isn’t the waste on the margins. It isn’t even that $950 billion in discretionary spending. It’s the larger issue that we spend $7 trillion a year on things Congress has appropriated, yet raise only $5 trillion in revenue. How did we get here? Well, at a high level (and to oversimplify because sometimes by so doing it reveals the answer) it is because the two parties have different priorities and spend lavishly on those priorities. One party believes that government’s role should be more expansive, while the other believes in the supreme virtue of cutting taxes. And make no mistake, while we still have debt to service, tax cuts are government spending. In a vacuum and in theory, both the Democrat and Republican policies on the economy and government spending can work. The Democrat view of government providing more for its citizens, with the requisite increases in taxes, can work. After all, the Scandinavian countries, with their average tax rates exceeding 50%, consistently rank in the top happiest countries in which to live. Conversely, the Republican notion of lower taxes with citizens doing more for themselves (and hopefully being benevolent to those among us in need) can also work. I know as a Conservative which of these models I prefer. What cannot work, though, is relatively low tax rates and high government spending. But this is exactly what we currently have in the United States and is why we have $37 trillion in debt, having amassed much of that in times of peace and economic expansion. With this much debt, how can any federal politician that honors his fiduciary responsibility think that lowering taxes before we again have surpluses is a good idea? Honoring the fiduciary responsibility would be to generate surpluses to start paying down our debt. Thinking we can get back to surpluses by just looking at either reducing spending or increasing revenue is wishful thinking. And hope is not an economic strategy. Just like replacing tax revenue with tariff revenue isn’t a net pickup. It's just shifting the burden. The problem with American politics is that we govern in increments of two and four years, never having enough time for the benefits of any one political philosophy to bear fruit. The perhaps clunky analogy I use is from my years as a CFO of food manufacturing companies. We lived and died by how well or poorly we purchased ingredients, items like chocolate and almonds. From those years, I know that it takes five years for a cocoa tree once planted to bear fruit and five to twelve years for an almond tree to do the same. Now suppose a land owner decided to plant a cocoa tree but dug it up in year four to plant an almond tree because he found out he could get more for almonds than for cocoa. And to further strain this analogy, suppose that this same land owner changed his mind again four years after that, digging up that almond tree because cocoa prices were again on the rise. He would never own a tree that bore fruit and would never turn a profit. That would make no sense, right? But this is precisely what American voters do by routinely swapping the party in the majority and it is precisely why politicians trying to enact their policies 100% to the exclusion of their opposition’s ideas will never bear fruit for the American people. The land owner in my analogy has no choice; that space can hold but one tree. It’s all or nothing, one way or the other. But in public policy, we do have a choice. We can compromise so that the arc of public policy moves forward predictably. The alternative is a pendulum swinging ever more wildly from side to side when the party in the majority changes, as it always will. My Republican friends argue that you can achieve more tax revenue on lower tax rates because lower taxes spur the economy. I believe this is theoretically true, but we and our policies have to be in power long enough for those benefits to be achieved. We know from history that we won’t stay in power long enough. We have had 47 American presidents and party control has changed 28 times. One economic downturn, even if having nothing whatsoever to do with the actions of the president, and the American people will return the other party to office. And the policy pendulum will swing hard back the other way. So total idealism to our party’s policies is not a luxury we have; we’ll incur the deficits of lower taxes now without the benefits later on. Conversely, Democrats argue that the government should provide more for its citizens and those seeking citizenship. Depending on how progressive the Democrat, we could even be talking about universal basic income or healthcare. The progressives could push through things like that by party-line vote when they are in charge. But again, someday conservatives would regain control. And their first order of business will be tax cuts and trying to repeal any additional entitlements given. What we are doing creates an unsustainable economic arc that leads to more debt and less national strength. Any party enacting a “big, beautiful bill” by party-line vote – whether it is Republicans on taxes and immigration or Democrats on healthcare – is doing a disservice to our country because they are forgetting that the other side will be in the majority again someday. And that other side will chip away at that big, beautiful law, leaving the American people with more legislation and more debt. And do we really need more of either? How about instead, we do a big, beautiful bill that unites the most progressive and most conservative in opposition but garners the votes of the other 70% of both chambers. Wouldn’t that be fun, especially if that same 70% had the guts to overturn any veto to give us all a much-needed civics lesson in how this is all supposed to work! And lastly, it would do us all well to remember that we are still the largest economy in the world and the greatest nation on the planet, even if our leaders have taken to telling us otherwise. And we aren’t the biggest and the best because of them, but rather because of us. And we’ve done it not by getting farther away from the lofty moral ideals of our founding, but by trying to perfect them.

Thirty-two minutes, that is how long it takes to read the United States Constitution and its 27 amendments. Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution dictates that upon assuming his or her duties, the President of the United States will take an oath, simply but weightily saying, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” President Donald Trump has now taken that oath twice. I feel, before I go any further, this piece needs a disclaimer. So I awkwardly insert it here. I am not a never-Trumper. I do not have Trump Derangement Syndrome. I look for things he has done correctly, and I wish him well because his success is indeed our success. But I do agree with what the incredible Peggy Noonan wrote in her recent piece. “He’s a fearless man with bad judgment. He lacks internal calibration.” It is often this lack of calibration that gives many pause. And pause is not derangement. Disclaimer over. Given that President Trump has now taken the oath of office twice, it is understandable that many people, including me, are concerned that in an interview this week with Kristen Welker of NBC, President Trump responded, “I don’t know,” when Welker asked him, “Don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as President?” I want to be as fair as possible, so I watched the entire uncut interview. In so doing, one could make the case that the President was referring in his answer simply to the matter of deportations and not the overarching responsibility. So let me give that answer the interpretation most favorable to the President. But here is where I won’t give the President the benefit of the doubt. When asked by Welker whether he was truly considering running for a third term, President Trump responded, “So many people want me to do it. I have never had requests so strong as that. But it’s something that to the best of my knowledge you’re not allowed to do. I don’t know if that’s constitutional that they’re not allowing you to do it or anything else.” Mr. President, let me help you. Amendment XXII, Section 1, of the document you took an oath to preserve – a document that takes one half hour to read – says, “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice.” Do I wish for the sake of clarity that it also made clear that no person shall serve more than two terms? I do. But the intent is clear. A person taking his oath to preserve the Constitution seriously would answer the question Welker posed plainly with, “No, I will not seek a third term nor serve beyond this term because I am precluded from so doing by our Constitution.” That answer places country above person. Any other answer, for any other purpose, says that a person or a particular agenda is more important than the country. And that, in and of itself, is disqualifying. It speaks directly to fitness for office. And his supporters defending him on this topic, or using the now tired mantra of “he is just joking,” is both unacceptable and enabling. It unnecessarily teases Constitutional crisis at a time when crisis, real or perceived, is everywhere. It is a needless strain. I wonder if it ever crossed the minds of our founders that it may be necessary to insert the word “read” into the oath of office, or if they would have just assumed that to preserve, protect, and defend it, the occupant of the office would have felt an obligation to have read the Constitution. If one did read the Constitution, one would see some other interesting things. Its first article is about the Legislative branch. Not only is it foremost, it takes up 11 minutes of the 19 it takes to read the main body of the Constitution. It gives Congress, not the President, the authority to “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts, and Excises.” It gives Congress, not the President, the authority to “regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” It gives to Congress, not the President, the authority to “establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” And it gives to Congress, not to the President, the authority and responsibility to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution” all powers vested in the “Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Laws duly passed, not Executive Orders, govern our land.  The Executive appropriating the duties of the Legislature is unconstitutional. Declaring flimsy national emergencies to do so is violative of the intent of the National Emergencies Act. And if the President has not read the Constitution, perhaps Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Leader John Thune should. And they should wrest their authority back from an overreaching Executive. And the nine justices of the Supreme Court, or at least the seven that still seem capable of looking at the merits of a case, should stand ready to do their part. Process matters. If not because it is the right thing to do, if not out of legal necessity, then because there will always be a next guy with whom you may completely disagree. And you’ll want constraints on his ability to act. The Constitution is not a pesky annoyance standing in the way of progress; it’s a guardrail protecting our future.

My blog has been quiet this week and not for lack of things to talk about. I have a dozen pieces in the works, all on important topics. But I am notoriously useless during professional golf’s Masters Tournament. This is my favorite week of the year without exception or hyperbole. And besides, all our troubles and challenges will still be here tomorrow.   The Masters is the surest and most predictable indicator of spring, more reliable than a turn in the weather or of a page in the calendar. The lush green grasses and blooming pink azaleas seen on our televisions or streaming devices are the first signs of spring that many of us see. Those sights every April have buoyed spirits. They have even inspired people to take up the game in the first place. Three-time Masters champion Nick Faldo never picked up a golf club until he turned on his parent’s new color television and saw the majesty of Augusta National.   As a kid growing up in New Hampshire it was no different. The Masters ushered in spring. And I cherished sitting with my Dad and watching. Dad was an avid watcher of all things sports. He wasn’t a drinker but he did have an occasional beer watching a game. There were the Heineken years and then, later, the Miller Lite years. And the reward for grabbing one for him out of the fridge was always that I got to take just a tiny little sip. Two of my most enduring memories of all the sports I consumed with my Dad both come from April 1986, coincidentally. I was 13. The first was the night Roger Clemens struck out a record 20 batters. We listened to it on the radio and I sat on the stool of my Dad’s favorite chair as we ticked off every strikeout. The second was Jack Nicklaus’ improbable Masters win at the age of 46, the last of his record 18 major wins.   Beyond being golf’s first major of the year, beyond being a harbinger of spring, there must be other reasons this tournament and this golf course mean so much to so many. Certainly, there is tradition behind it. Certainly, there are iconic shots – Tiger’s chip in on 16, Phil’s shot from the pine straw on 13, Bubba’s hooked wedge out of the woods on 10. And there are iconic images – Jack’s putter raise on 17 or Hideki’s caddy bowing in respect to the course while putting the pin back in after his man won. And there are the iconic voices and iconic calls – Jim Nantz’s “a tradition unlike any other” or Verne Lundquist’s “in your life, have you seen anything like that?” But what else?   Full disclosure, I have been fortunate enough to play Augusta National, both the par 3 course and the full course. It is the only thing I have ever done in my life that exceeded the expectations I inevitably build up in my head before doing something to which I am looking forward. I was on property for 10 hours and I was shaking the entire time. It was magical. I have stood in the spots where the iconic shots were taken and shaken my head at how impossible they were to pull off. I stood in front of the display case that houses the one club left behind by each champion, marveling at how worn out some of the grips were. I can attest that truly no blade of grass is out of place and everything is meticulous, down to the perfect 45-degree angles and spacing between the shoe horns that sit in front of each locker.   The green jackets (members of Augusta wear green sports coats) get a lot of things right. Not everything, but a lot of things. Like most private golf clubs, and our country as a whole, it took entirely too long for men of color and women to enjoy its privileges. And I still think they got it wrong when they didn’t disqualify Tiger Woods in 2013 for a bad drop and signing an incorrect score card. But there is so much they get right that is instructive.   The Masters is a meritocracy.  It invites the best players in the world to compete. But once qualified, each player is an equal. Unlike other tournaments that introduce players on the first tee listing their accomplishments, making some players appear more than and others less than, at the Masters every player, regardless of length of resume, is introduced the same exact way. A three-time Masters winner was introduced this week with the expression, “Fore please, Phil Mickelson now driving.” And a first-time amateur was introduced just as simply. “Fore please, Hiroshi Tai now driving.”   At the Masters, they respect their elders and recognize their contributions toward paving the way. The tournament begins with a champions dinner bringing back all the winners who can attend. The first shots of the tournament are taken by the honorary starters, past champions who are the elder statesmen of the game. And winners get a lifetime exemption to play, allowing them to say when it is time to hang it up. Some of the great moments every year are when one of those men receives their last ovation coming up 18.   At the Masters the tournament recognizes that though we have a commitment to honor those that came before, our most important obligation is to investment in our future. Their Drive, Chip, and Putt competition brings 7-15 year olds from all over the country to compete. Akshay Bhatia, a past finalist in that competition, played in his second Masters this year. In addition, several amateurs are invited to play in the Masters, honoring the tradition of cofounder Bobby Jones who was one of the great amateurs of all time. Many of these amateurs stay right on property during the tournament, in the crow’s nest of the clubhouse. The past is nothing if we don’t invest in and provide opportunities for our future.   The green jackets understand that how fans comport themselves is as important as how the players and members do. Bad behavior is met with expulsion. Phones are not allowed. Enjoy the moment; don’t video it. Be present. Fans can set their chairs up in prime locations, leave to get a sandwich, and know that their spot is still going to be there when they return. Try that at the Waste Management Phoenix Open where drunks shout, taunt players and throw beer cans onto the course. Act the fool at Augusta and you’re out.   Food is cheap. At Augusta your tickets might be expensive and your credit card may melt at the merchandise tent but your pimento or egg salad sandwich will be really good and only cost you $2. Everybody has to eat and everyone should be able to do it without breaking the bank.   The grounds are pristine and they are revered. And it is because they are pristine that they are treated with respect and care by visitors. Our speck of earth, whether our backyard, our favorite golf course, that national park we visit, or the whole of the earth itself should be treated with that degree of reverence and care.   At Augusta they know that it is okay to expect more than is expected elsewhere. It’s okay to say that here you will wear pants. It’s okay to say here you won’t wear that sweater with the obnoxious writing. It’s okay to say here you will not be seen peeing on the course. There are many places with lower standards. Go there.   And it is precisely because of these higher standards that the Masters’ patrons are the best galleries in golf. They are knowledgeable. They cheer good golf and sincerely moan for a bad break or a just-missed shot, regardless of their feelings about the individual golfer. They don’t taunt or tear down; they celebrate and lift up. They empathize, seeing in one, all of us. They know winning is hard and not all hard work is rewarded. They see both men on the final green, cheering the winner but feeling for the one who came so close.   So, what will I remember from the 89th Masters? Of course, I’ll remember that Rory completed the career grand slam. I’ll remember his emotional walk afterwards, the face of that 7 year-old dreamer almost visible in that grown man’s face. I’ll remember Justin Rose’s master class in class. Gutted though he must have been having lost his second Masters in a playoff, he hung back allowing Rory and his caddy to celebrate the moment and then warmly congratulated Rory on the enormity of the accomplishment. Rose knew his loss was bad for him, but Rory’s win was good for golf. I’ll surely remember both shots Rory hit into the 15th hole on the weekend. They are as close to perfection as golf allows. I’ll remember 65-year-old Fred Couple’s eagle on 14. I’ll remember simple moments too, like Scottie Scheffler sitting on the pine straw under the magnolias on 18 while awaiting a rules official. In the midst of the challenge of the moment, he calmly sat cross-legged playing with leaves…childlike in a good way.   And I’ll remember what was missing, Verne Lundquist’s voice covering the 16th hole. Another bit of the past falls away.

Ronald Reagan, in his presidential farewell address, touted the accomplishments of the American economy during his time in office by saying, “American industry became more competitive and at the same time we summoned the national will to knock down protectionist walls abroad instead of erecting them at home.”   Today, some thirty-six years later, another Republican president is telling us that protectionism through tariffs is the answer. Tariffs are terrible policy. They are inflationary, acting like a regressive tax that hurts those at the lower end of the economy the most. They do something good government should never do – pick winners and losers. They stifle competition and innovation. And they make the world a more dangerous, less predictable place.   President Trump was elected to a second term largely because Americans were tired of years of post-pandemic, high inflation. He promised to bring down prices and make it a little easier for people to get by. But those who need the most help getting by are exactly those that will be hurt the most by tariffs. I think by now we all know that the country the tariff is imposed upon doesn’t pay the tariff to U.S. Customs and Border Protection, nor does the foreign manufacturer. Instead, the importer here in America does, passing what it can on to the consumer through increased prices. Clearly that is inflationary. Reagan described inflation as “the cruelest of all economic exploitations of the poor and the elderly.” He was correct; inflation acts like a regressive tax, hurting those at the bottom end of the economy the most.   A regressive tax is a tax in which the more money subject to taxation, the lower the rate becomes. The example I think about is social security tax, in which an employee pays 6.2% of their wages up to a cap of $176,100 in wages. That means that an employee earning $50,000 pays 6.2% on all their wages whereas someone earning $10,000,000 pays 6.2% only on the first $176,100 in wages. That millionaire’s $10,918.20 in social security tax equates to an effective tax rate of just 0.1%.   So why do I say that tariffs are a regressive tax? Well, let’s look at those same two Americans. The first already spends all of his income on goods and services during the course of a year, and perhaps even goes out onto his credit cards a bit. That means all of his income is already spoken for, so any increase in the cost of goods because of tariffs (or inflation) means he necessarily has to consume less goods. Our millionaire, on the other hand, most likely spends just a fraction of his income within the course of the year, saving and investing a large percentage of it. So while the goods he buys are also subject to cost increases due to tariffs, there is no potential reduction in the amount of goods he can consume. His savings and investments might be marginally decreased, but that’s all.   Americans fundamentally believe in fairness. And regressive taxes or anything that operates like them such as tariffs are fundamentally unfair. Income tax, on the other hand, is fundamentally fair. We may strongly dislike that there is waste in government or disagree on what services should be provided by government, but fundamentally I believe that Americans see a progressive tax code as fair. After all, the government’s revenue system should be designed with a veil of blindness; the designer should build the system not knowing whether he will be the school teacher or the tech billionaire, and build a system that is fair to both.   I recently saw a chart that showed American individual income compared to the rate of US tariffs from the 1930’s (the repeal of the ill-conceived Smoot-Hawley tariffs) through today. Certainly there are other contributing factors, but it is remarkable how income has grown as tariffs have decreased. Free, efficient markets unleash earning potential.   The argument proffered for imposing tariffs is that it will bring back a golden age of American manufacturing. There are many problems with that argument, not the least of which is one that I as an owner of several manufacturing business over the last 30 years can personally attest; hiring enough manufacturing labor in this country is very difficult. In fact, today only 8% of our non-farm employment is manufacturing. Eighty-six percent is in the service industry and those jobs pay on average far more than manufacturing. Then there is the uncomfortable truth that 100% of us can benefit from lower priced goods but only a small percentage would benefit from more domestic manufacturing jobs. When the average consumer goes to Walmart for a window fan, the choice of an American made one or a foreign made one - with or without a premium due to tariffs - is typically an easy one.   The other argument for tariffs is that we have large trade deficits with many countries. We are the largest economy on the planet and we are voracious consumers. It just may take the world to satisfy that appetite. So I don’t understand the concern here. We have surpluses in some sectors and deficits in others. Consumers go where they get the best bang for the buck. That is free markets. And it is good.   So what about the effect of tariffs on the American business community? Well in the short run any of us as a business owner might want protectionism so that our products are more desirable than a foreign competitor’s. But market forces determine which businesses flourish and innovators typically succeed. And here is another uncomfortable truth - friction of some sort is a prerequisite for innovation. No innovation ever occurred without the force of need or incentive of reward. And a market in which a company is shielded from competition provides neither friction nor incentive. Companies without competitors don’t need to innovate to retain customers, so they rarely will.   Even if tariffs were the correct tool to encourage businesses to bring manufacturing back to America, business executives would need to believe that those policies would be in place for long enough to make the cost of transition worth their investment. How in good conscious, knowing the capriciousness of this president, could they spend the capital to bring manufacturing back to the US when it is just as likely that the current administration isn’t convinced of its own course or that the next administration will have divergent views. Most business leaders will understandably take a wait and see approach. This uncertainty, in and of itself, has sizeable economic and opportunity costs.   Our president is too cavalier in his assessment that there may be short term discomfort because of his policies. Too many Americans and too many small businesses are too close to the line between success and failure. And they were promised things would get a little easier, not a lot harder.   So what of the impact to our country itself? We have already seen, in just the few months that President Trump has been threatening tariffs, that specific industries and companies have lobbied the government for exemptions and special treatment. Enter the lawyers, the lobbyists, the special interests, the businesses seeking to weaponize tariffs against their competitors, and all the accompanying potential for corruption. It is precisely this potential for corruption – and government picking the winners and losers – that made an income tax a far more predictable and fair measure of raising revenue for our federal government.   To those who say some industries are a national defense priority and need tariff protection, I would say okay perhaps some of that makes sense. But where is the line and who draws it? I would also encourage them to take a breath. First, we have allies (if we don’t scare them off). And second, have a little bit of faith in us. Before WWII we were making 3,000 planes a year. By the end of the war, we made over 300,000 with a bomber being produced every 63 minutes! And then there is how quickly we scaled up medical device and vaccine production during the Covid pandemic. We don’t need to make everything here to make everything we need in an emergency.   Frankly I think part of the desire to manufacture more goods at home is a kneejerk reaction to the disruptions caused by the Covid pandemic. Certainly, we had disruptions. But employees were sitting at home and not standing on plant floors, regardless of the country in which the particular business was situated. Perhaps a wiser path forward, instead of wasting time and resources on tariffs and building more plants here at home, might be to smooth out the supply chain with more predictable foreign policy, spend hard on educating our children, and invest more in infrastructure for shipping, ports, and greener ships and trucks.   What gives me the most pause about tariffs, or any policy that lacks consensus, is that political party control will change before we ever get to the long-term benefits envisioned by the policy. We will bear the short-run disruption for nothing. This is particularly concerning with tariffs as they take no time to implement, but because of retaliatory tariffs, they take years to unwind. This is why, as Reagan eluded to, taking steps to tear down unfair tariffs is a far better course than retaliating or imposing tariffs of our own.   Consumer spending is almost 70% of America’s GDP. And the single biggest driver of consumer spending is consumer sentiment. If consumers feel bullish on our economy, they spend. If they feel bearish, they don’t. Often this creates a self-fulfilling prophecy whereby feeling bullish leads to strong economic results where none were warranted and feeling bearish causes the very recession we were worried about. Tariffs are bearish. Disruption is bearish. Uncertainty is bearish. And because tariffs are collected on spending, not income, less consumer spending means less government revenue. It just makes little sense and risks jeopardizing our soft landing.   My last point on the domestic policy side is that there is no doubt part of the administration’s desire for these tariffs is to make it easier for them to extend the Trump tax cuts or to even reduce income taxes further. But at the risk of sounding a liberal, this lowers fair progressive taxes by increasing unfair regressive taxes. It switches where the burden is placed, picking winners and losers.   So we have talked about the effect of tariffs on the individual, on businesses, and the country. All that is left is to discuss the global ramifications. For the record, I am an unapologetic capitalist and globalist. I believe free markets are efficient and efficient markets ultimately lift everyone up. And because history has shown us that economic change usually precedes social change, free markets influence the world in the direction of freedom, justice, and human rights. Oppressed citizens of other countries exposed to western culture typically drive changes for the good in their countries. And Americans buying goods manufactured in other nations create economic opportunities for citizens of those nations that, among other things, keeps us safe (because those with economic opportunity are less likely to be radicalized) and limits illegal immigration (because those with a good life don’t risk all in search of a better one). Certainly, there are countries that are bad actors. China’s state-owned enterprises and penchant for stealing intellectual property is unfair competition. And even among good actors there are trade issues to be addressed. For example, the EU is a harsher regulator than we are. But part of the solution to these issues cannot be to impose scurrilous tariffs on our friends. It simply isn’t what one does to their neighbors. The EU was our largest trading partner last year, in both directions. What good can be achieved by putting tariffs on them and driving them into the arms of other trade partners?   With our current foreign policy, tariff threats, backing away from alliances, and general unpredictability, our allies are having conversations without us. They are forming alliances that don’t include us. And what is worse, our allies and our competitors are starting to open channels of communication for the first time in years. Yesterday, it was reported that China, Japan, and South Korea have begun economic talks for the first time in 5 years to explore freer trade between them. The impetus for these talks…the uncertainty of US trade policy and pending tariffs.   There is an interesting thing about a bully. They behave as if no one will have the guts to punch them in the nose. But invariably someone does, and the bully shrinks away. It seems the entirety of the global community, be it our neighbors, our allies, or our trade competitors, all stand ready to punch us in the nose with retaliatory tariffs. What good are tariffs if they are matched? It adds no net revenue for anyone, yet it consumes resources for all to administer.   Some say all this tariff talk is for show. It is our President’s way of negotiating. His intention is to close borders, restrict the flow of fentanyl, and ensure the eight percent of workers we do have in the manufacturing sector have access to good jobs. These are all laudable goals. But just how far can tariffs go to accomplish those goals when the other party at the negotiating table can simply reciprocate?   The last warning I would give on trade is that the US currently benefits from the US dollar being the global currency. Fifty-four percent of global trade is invoiced in USD and 59% of currency reserves are held in USD. But with the formation of new economic alliances, the increase in our government using financial sanctions, and a perception of increased political uncertainty, will that last? If it doesn’t, having $36 trillion in debt looks even scarier if we ever have to borrow in a currency we can’t print. President Reagan said something else in his farewell address. He said “…watch closely. And don’t be afraid to see what you see.” I am watching closely, and to me it appears that tariffs are needlessly protectionist, will inflict short-term pain without ever seeing the long-term benefit, and are designed in part to shift the burden to those who can least afford it.

The difference between effective and ineffective leadership lies mostly in asking the question, “And then what?” Every decision we make has consequences, both intended and unintended. Effective leaders think about, and address, the repercussions before they arise.   I’ve thought about this while watching our local and national officials wrestle with the issues of our day. Higher taxes are bad. Agreed. But is encouraging more casino gambling in New Hampshire really the best answer to closing the budget gap? Borders should be secure. Agreed. But once secured will our legal immigration system properly align with the workforce needs of our economy? Government waste is bad. Agreed. But in a two-party system how do we determine which government programs are actually a necessity and then properly audit them? War is bad. Agreed. But what does the future look like if an aggressor is rewarded or we cede control of NATO and back out of alliances?   And then there’s the current debate on transgender participation in sports, use of shared facilities, and parental rights. I hear the concerns regarding safety and fairness in sports as well as safety and comfort in shared facilities. And I share those concerns. Though I do think some of the safety discussion about shared facilities makes an assumption about transgender people that confuses being different with being dangerous. I also find it telling that we don’t talk about the safety in sports or shared facilities of those born female who identify as male or the potential danger to transgender people using facilities that do actually correspond with their birth gender. Those observations aside, it seems we are on the path to bar transgender females from participating in female sports and using female shared facilities. But there are nearly two million transgender Americans, and the rate of those so identifying is increasing. So I ask, and then what?   The Declaration of Independence laid the bold foundation that all of us, endowed by our Creator (not by our government), have the unalienable right to pursue happiness. All of us. Not just those with whom we agree. And not just those who we understand. And if those words of the Declaration aren’t enough, the 14th amendment to the Constitution makes crystal clear that we are all guaranteed equal protection under the law. So can the answer to questions surrounding public shared facilities and taxpayer-funded sports really be to say to two million people and growing, “You’re on your own; figure it out”? Or is it just possible that we have an obligation to think about how to structure those moving forward? Excluding, without thinking about solutions, is not leadership.   I remember as a young teenager sitting in religion class at Trinity High School watching the “Eyes on the Prize” series about the civil rights movement in America in the 1950s and 1960s. I remember thinking – how could anyone have ever been on the wrong side of that issue. Decades from now we will be judged by young, idealistic eyes on how we handle every issue of our day. How will those eyes see us?   Some say the Democratic party has gone too far with identity politics. I agree. They sometimes celebrate our differences too much and our similarities not enough. They sometimes behave as if somewhere in our governing documents is a guarantee that the pursuit of happiness should be easy or can be done at the expense of another’s happiness.   Conversely, my fellow Republicans sometimes behave as if differences shouldn’t exist at all and that those who are different should stay out of the way. They sometimes behave as if the majority’s will must be done. Well it mustn’t, because America is a republic not a democracy. And I thank God for that distinction, because the virtue of a republic is that it seeks to protect the rights of any minority from the will of any majority, no matter the enflamed passions of the day.   These are complex issues with no easy answers. But we can’t skip the questions. Our leaders don’t have the luxury of enflamed passions. They must be thoughtful, deliberate, forward-looking, and serve all. So give me the answer to the question “and then what?” And be consistent about it. If New Hampshire can say that parents have the absolute right to all information from schools regarding their child, can it really then say parents don’t have an absolute right to decide with their child and their child’s doctor what proper courses of treatment may be for that child? It seems to me we pick and choose when we believe in certain rights, be they individual, parental, or state. And we spend an inordinate amount of time trying to tell people what to do with their own bodies. There is a special kind of arrogance in that.

I met President Joe Biden once. It was after his vice presidency and before his decision to run for president. I told him that, as a Republican, I disagree with most of his political beliefs. But I thanked him for his service to our country and told him how much I respected that service. His expression grew serious. He took his right index finger and jammed it repeatedly into the center of my chest saying, “Good. I’m glad you’re a Republican because we need good people on both sides of the aisle.” I listened to him speak for two hours later that night. I walked away convinced this was a good man. President Donald Trump is right…President Biden was a terrible president, the war in Ukraine should never have happened, and other nations should pay more toward their, and the common, defense. But the conversation cannot end there. The collapse of the Soviet Union left thousands of nuclear weapons in Ukraine. In 1994, the United States entered into a trilateral agreement with Ukraine and Russia by which Ukraine received security assurances, including pledges to honor its territorial integrity, in return for giving up what was at the time the third largest nuclear arsenal on the planet. That agreement was violated in 2014 when Russia annexed Crimea. It was further violated in 2022 when Russia invaded Ukraine. The idea of promises kept isn’t the only reason the fight in Ukraine is ours. It is ours because unchecked aggression doesn’t usually stop at your neighbor’s door. Eventually it will find yours. In the meantime, it leads to global instability. And the 20th century showed us the costs of waiting too long to address a madman. War leaves destruction and lack of financial opportunities in its wake, which can create a dangerous breeding ground for all sorts of ills including radicalization. War is expensive in both blood and treasure. And in fact, the war in Ukraine is now responsible for over a million casualties, millions of displaced people, and hundreds of billions of wasted dollars. In a time of heightened inflation, havoc was wreaked on the global supply chain and the world food supply. And our sanctions on Russia, though necessary, further drove them into financial and military alliance with our other adversaries. And lastly, who do you think ends up paying to rebuild war-ravaged areas like Ukraine and Gaza? We do. All of these reasons are why we should have used every tool at our disposal to stop the invasion of Ukraine. But President Biden left two powerful tools on the sidelines in the lead up to the Russian invasion of Ukraine – his ubiquitous Ray-Ban sunglasses and Air Force One. He should have landed Air Force One, the very symbol of American might, on the main runway in Kyiv, emerged from that plane with his Ray-Bans on, done his best octogenarian jog down the aircraft stairs, given a waiting President Zelenskyy a bear hug, and in front of the gaggle of assembled reporters, said, “Mr. Putin, don’t you do it!” And like many Americans were doing in early 2022, perhaps the President should have worked remotely for a time, leaving the symbol of America parked on the main runway as a reminder of our figurative presence. That would have been the Reaganesque brave, risky part. And for the cooling, cautious part, the work of diplomacy, he should also have been very clear behind the scenes, with both our friends in Ukraine and our foe in Russia, that NATO membership for Ukraine was off the table. In that moment, the world needed America’s action. Instead, it got public service announcements from the Biden administration that an invasion was imminent. Not surprising, I suppose, from a man notoriously weak on foreign policy. Remember as Vice President he was the “don’t go” vote on the raid that successfully killed Osama bin Laden. That same timidity was on full display in the three weeks that led up to the Russian invasion. “And there we are, and now we go on.” These are the wise words I hear in my head whenever I find myself relitigating the past, like I am now, instead of focusing on what we do moving forward. The words belong to retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. He said them after a case on which he worked hard to convince his fellow justices, yet still found himself in the minority. It was his way to remind himself there was nothing more he could do and that his focus must shift to the future. So let me heed his words and move from the past to the present. The United States is in an interesting moment. Our political leaders, rightfully so, are hesitant to ever see US boots on the ground. We have instead opted to use financial tools to affect the actions of malign state actors. We have sanctioned and sanctioned, leaning on the might of our banking and financial systems. And though those sanctions have weakened actors like Russia and Iran, they have also served to further force our adversaries together. After all, if sanctions preclude a nation from selling its goods to certain nations or buying goods from others, it goes where it can…the other nations so sanctioned. As a result, countries like Russia, Iran, and North Korea become even more reliant on one another. And countries like China seek to capitalize upon that. In an environment where you’re driving your enemies closer together, you better have friends. The United States has great friends, but those friends have increasingly seen an America that concerns them. Our politicians no longer operate on a belief that politics ends at the water’s edge (the idea that both parties should show a united front on foreign policy). Our time horizons, already short at a four-year presidential term, seem to have grown shorter with more dramatic shifts in policy from day to day. The idea of America First has gained huge momentum. And now they find America in a second term of President Trump’s erratic behavior and transactional deal making. Right or wrong, he has pulled the US out of the Paris Climate Agreement, the World Health Organization, and the United Nations Human Rights Council. He has frozen foreign aid. The result of all of this can only be more conversations amongst our allies occurring without us in the room. And now I have the song “The Room Where it Happens” by the brilliant Lin-Manuel Miranda stuck in my head. Speaking of the room where it happens. This past week saw an unbelievable scene in the oval office. One man campaigning for 2028 and two others losing focus and letting emotion rule the day. The meeting was salvageable until Vice President Vance got involved, poking a war-tired and proud man in Zelenskyy who was already being coerced into signing away some of his countries mineral rights and reminding a man with an out-sized need for praise and flattery in President Trump that he had not yet been thanked. Queue the trainwreck. Queue our allies meeting without us over the weekend. Queue the wasted days and needless more death before the agreements are inevitably signed. Vince Lombardi, one of football’s greatest coaches, left us with many famous quotes that apply to life and industry just as much as they do to football. And one, “Praise in public; criticize in private,” can even apply to foreign policy, or at least it should. We should praise our allies in public and leave speaking hard truths to them for private. Oh what may have happened Friday had those three men in the oval seen the virtue in that Lombardi line. In front of those cameras Zelenskyy should have been effusive in his thanks to the American people for their support and the President for his invitation. He should never have challenged Vance or relitigated the start of the war. President Trump should have been effusive in his talk of Ukrainian courage. And he never should have demanded a friend further supplicate himself in front of cameras. I would also argue that the opposite of Lombardi’s approach is needed when dealing with adversaries. We should criticize our adversaries publicly – “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall” – and praise or appease them privately when the softening stroke of diplomacy is needed. The United States got it backwards this week. President Trump, egged on by Vice President Vance, eviscerated an ally in public and commiserated with an enemy, saying Putin was unfairly dragged into the Russia hoax. He treated the invaded as a party to be toyed with and the invader as a party who had equally suffered. What does it say about a nation, our nation, when our current leader says more flattering things about the leaders of Russia and North Korea than he does about our friends? What does it say about us when our neighbor’s house is on fire and we condition our help? America First is President Trump’s mantra. And there is indeed virtue in ensuring we are strong, safe, and prosperous before all else. America First doesn’t worry me. America alone does, because no nation, not even the greatest nation on earth, can flourish alone. In this moment, the success of our financial warfare has brought our enemies closer together. We are only a few years removed from the world watching as we withdrew from Afghanistan, leaving those that helped us to suffer the consequences. And now our friends see our behavior as erratic, conditioned, and less fervent. It’s a bad recipe. Anyway, in foreign policy as in life, the keys to success are showing up, keeping your promises, and knowing when to wear a good pair of Ray-Bans.

There is so much going on in the world of politics. But today I really want to take my monthly break from posting about that to instead reflect a bit on life.   John Prine was an amazing songwriter. One of my favorite songs of his is “Speed of the Sound of Loneliness.” In that song there is a life lesson of a line. It is, “You come on big when you’re feeling small.”  Such a simple truth. We, all of us, tend to come on big when we are feeling our smallest, our most insecure.   Think about it.   That man at the bank yelling at the bank teller – is he really that mad about the bank’s check clearing policy or could it be he is scared because his balance is so low and his need so great?   That bully in the schoolyard – could it be he is imitating similar behavior that is directed toward him at home?   That airline passenger that handles almost everything poorly – is it because travel makes her so anxious or because her mind is already at the other end of the journey where a dying relative or the unknown of a new job awaits her?   That parent obsessively directing small tasks such as the yardwork or the cleaning out of the garage – is it because the bigger things in life feel so much out of his control?   That spouse that says that awful, time-stopping thing during the argument – did it happen at the very moment she herself felt hurt the most or in the moment she saw her own shortcomings laid so clearly bare?   That amazing comedian – could the humongous-ness of that performance be born of a coping mechanism that helped him deal with the pain of his childhood?   That person refusing what seems to others to be the simplest of requests from a police officer – is it because he too often has been targeted or made to feel less than or has heard the horror stories of another’s experience?   And for that matter, that police officer who forgets her training or uses too much force – could it be because that high-speed pursuit or the unknown of what may follow it leaves her fearing for her or her partner’s life or because the weight of a thankless, stressful job has finally become too much?   Or even that president, the most powerful man on the planet – is he his nastiest when asked a question by a reporter that he can’t answer or when something has been said about him that makes him feel slighted?   I’m not excusing, condoning, or justifying bad behavior.  And I’m not absolving people from their personal responsibility over their actions or freeing them from the need to control their worst instincts.  But I am saying this song lyric, that so simply and accurately describes one of the complexities of human nature, does provide some insight into why it happens.  And in the knowing, we can effect a change, both within ourselves and in our interactions with others.   Within myself, it has helped me to dial back my own reactions in those moments when I too am feeling small. And in the moments when I don’t manage to dial it back in time, it has helped me get to “I’m sorry” just a little quicker.   Within my interactions with others, the older I get, the more examples of this phenomenon I tend to be able to identify and, so, the more I try to observe others gently.  Often ascribed to Viktor Frankl is the quote, “Between stimulus and response there is a space. In that space is our power to choose our response. In our response lies our growth and our freedom.” Indeed.   So the next time you see a reaction that seems too big, instead of ratcheting up the tension even more, maybe try to find a way to help the person feel less small in that moment.

It’s hard to succeed in big things if you can’t succeed in the small ones. And last week the United States Congress proved that point. The President of the United States of America addressed a joint session of Congress on Tuesday. Like him or not, agree with him or not, he is the office. And the office was addressing Congress. Representative Al Green, Democrat of Texas, interrupted the speech. He stood, waved his walking stick at the President, and yelled his thoughts on potential cuts to Medicaid. When it became clear this was going to be a sustained disruption, Speaker Mike Johnson did the right thing. He admonished Green. He asked Green to sit down, giving him the chance to avoid escalation. And when Green chose not to comply, Johnson properly had him removed from the chamber. Johnson showed no pleasure in the move, unlike many other Republicans in the chamber. Our Vice President’s reactions and facial expressions made him look ever the weasel, and some congressional Republicans acted more like over-served hockey fans than leaders, singing “Na na na na, hey hey, goodbye.” I’m not naive to the frustration this particular President can illicit. I’m not naive to the fact that much of what the President said that night would have been more at home shoveled out of a wheelbarrow instead of read off a teleprompter. But the office was addressing a co-equal branch of government. And the office is deserving of every respect that can be shown it. By all means, if one disagrees with him, find a microphone after the speech. After. Now to be clear, decorum left that building long ago and leadership of the chamber enforces the rules not by wearing a veil of blindness but rather with a weather eye as to whether there is a (D) or an (R) after the offender’s name. In 2009, Congressman Joe Wilson, Republican from South Carolina, shouted “You lie!” at President Barack Obama. Wilson apologized that very night, yet a Democrat-led Congress still passed a resolution of disapproval a few days later. President Biden endured almost constant heckling during his 2024 State of the Union, and at one point Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican from Georgia, engaged in a sustained verbal sparring match with him. Yet, Speaker Johnson let that go without ever rising to remind members that they are “directed to uphold and maintain decorum in the House.” And a Republican-led House did not censure her. Now both sides use visual aids in the chamber, from MAGA hats to buttons to handheld signs to printed t-shirts. It’s like they’re at a football game instead of in the hallowed halls of government. Even when members weren’t being inappropriate Tuesday night, they still got it wrong. Could Democrats not find one thing in the President’s remarks for which to clap? And as for Republicans, the last time I saw that many people risking tennis elbow from overzealous, fawning applause it was video of North Koreans clapping for Kim Jong Un. President Trump has taken executive overreach to new heights at the expense of the role of the Legislature, so perhaps a more tempered response from Republican legislators might be prudent. This brings us to the vote to censure Green. He said he was ready to accept any punishment that came his way. The language of the censure was factual and innocuous. And Democrats have positioned themselves in the Trump era as the party protecting norms of behavior and our institutions. Surely, then, the vote would be unanimous for censure. Except it wasn’t. It was 224-198 along party lines. Ten Democrats, to their credit, did find their way to a yes vote. But our New Hampshire representatives, Chris Pappas and Maggie Goodlander voted that yelling and waving a walking stick at the office of the Presidency is okay. A unanimous vote would have said decorum matters. It would have said this is behavior we don’t need to see again regardless of which party is at the podium. It would have said two wrongs don’t make a right. And it would have been a political master class on the part of the Democrats, realizing their base wouldn’t hold it against them and the rest of us might have been pleasantly surprised. It would have said it’s time to get back to work on issues that affect the daily lives of Americans. It would have said we can succeed in the small things. Instead, 198 representatives gave the behavior a pass and dozens of them stood in the well with Green to sing “We Shall Overcome.” So much for accepting the punishment. In 2026, when we Granite Staters are inundated with ads from Representatives Pappas and Goodlander touting their bipartisanship, I hope we will remember votes like this one that placed party loyalty over both country and propriety.

Clichés typically become clichés because they are fundamentally true. As someone who fancies himself a bit of a writer, I spend most of my time avoiding their use. But not today. A penny saved is a penny earned. Federal government spending is filled with waste, bloat, fraud, and well-intended programs that have become ineffective, redundant, or no longer match our priorities. The desire to eliminate these things from government is good, so long as we remember that the ends don’t justify the means.   The devil’s in the details. Many a great idea has failed on poor execution. Enter DOGE, the Department of Government Efficiency. Enter Elon Musk and his merry band of disruptors. Bulls in a china shop. My issues with DOGE and Elon Musk are many. Some are of style, some are of substance, some are constitutional, and many center upon the scary unknowns of unintended consequences. I’m also not quite sure that these extra-governmental actors – this crowdsourced group of unvetted techies without proper security clearances – are benevolent, acting with nothing but noble, laudable goals. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.   Birds of feather flock together. I don’t care for brash people that have little regard for long-established norms of behavior and seem to have little regard for the impact of their actions on others. It shows in small and in large ways. In small ways it shows in wearing a t-shirt and ball cap in the oval office, in the presence of the President, while addressing the assembled media. The oval is a temple of our government and the decisions made in that room are far too important for casualness in any form. In larger ways it shows in Musk’s Trumponian use of demagoguery and hypocrisy. He is an unelected, unconfirmed actor, yet he has the gall to offer a lecture on how unelected bureaucrats have separated our government from the will of the people. He now is an unelected bureaucrat. And for a man who has amassed so much of his wealth from government subsidies and government contracts, his rantings on excessive government spending ring more than a bit hollow.   Thomas Edison found a thousand ways not to make a lightbulb. Musk by his nature isn’t the right man for this job. He is brilliant and successful, to be sure. But he, and the tech giants that formed the backdrop behind President Trump at the second inaugural, built their companies and their fortunes by being disruptors. They go hard, move fast, throw a lot of things at the wall, and when they fail along the way, they build another rocket, push out another software fix, or buy a competitor that does it better. Failure to them is a success. But established government doesn’t have the luxury of failing. It is charged with ensuring our citizens and corporations act responsibly, our food is safe, our medications are unadulterated, and, at the most extreme, that our towers don’t come down at the hands of terrorists. It has not the luxury of getting it wrong, not once. Because when it does, there is typically a body count. And for that reason alone, a disruptor mentality is dangerous. Instead, a methodical approach to cost cutting is warranted in government.   Throw the baby out with the bathwater. Methodical isn’t how Musk is operating. There’s waste in that agency. Grab the chainsaw prop. Don’t surgically go through it and eliminate the parts that don’t work, are wasteful, or downright scandalous.  Instead, shut down the whole of it. Wait to see what breaks that may have been necessary after all, and put something new in place to address that. It is the chaotic equivalent of setting all traffic lights in the country to blinking yellow to see if traffic signals are really necessary.   Haste makes waste . Some of DOGE’s work will be stopped by courts, and surely all of it will be reviewed by courts. The taxpayer may ultimately pay to have those agency signs put back on those buildings, pay for violating notice requirements to federal workers under union contracts, and pay for the flippancy and potential illegality of tweets such as “failure to respond will be taken as a resignation.”   A wolf in sheep’s clothing? In a position that should demand no conflicts of interest, real or perceived, Musk is poorly cast. The drain-the-swampers rail against the establishment, the elite, and those they believe have masterminded some sort of world control. Yet they seem to have no concerns with Musk gaining more power. He is the richest man on the planet. He controls one of the largest means of communication in X, means of space travel in Space X, satellite communication in Starlink, and is launching a new digital payment system. Wouldn’t it be prudent, then, to have concerns about him having access through his DOGE team to the federal government’s payment system, social security files, and IRS files? Certainly, if one had ulterior motives, there is no better setup than this. The quarter billion dollars of his own money spent to help elect President Trump could end up being the single greatest speculative investment in history.   Pick your battles. So far, DOGE targets seem largely chosen for show. Chief among these is the federal workforce. Total federal spending per year now totals just under $7 trillion. DOGE’s focus on the federal workforce would have you believe it is a huge percentage of that annual expenditure. But total payroll and benefits for all federal employees is estimated to be just $384 billion, or less than 6%. So why the focus right out of the gate? Could it be because it nicely aligns with the “Drain the Swamp” shtick.  We currently have 3 million federal employees including the post office. Though it has fluctuated over the years, it is interesting to note that 60 years ago we were already at 2.8 million. Over those same years, though, it is the number of government contractors, like SpaceX, that have actually grown.   What goes around comes around. The critical fault in the idea of DOGE is one of my biggest frustrations with the Trump administration in general. That is that they assume they will be in charge in perpetuity and what they put in place will remain in place.  But we know that won’t be the case. The American voter is finicky and has a distorted view of the president’s ability to affect the economy. Economic downturns happen and both Republicans and Democrats have been tossed out on the answer to that dreaded question – “Are you better off today than you were four years ago?”  In fact, with the 47 presidents we have had in our nation’s history, party control of the White House has changed 27 times. The Democrats will right their ship . They will capitalize upon and organize around the blowback from the Trump administration overreaches. They will win again in two or four or six years. And it may well be President Trump’s behavior that will hasten the Democrat return.   What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. When the Democrats do recapture the White House, they will build further, as each successive president seems to, on the toolkit of unilateral executive action. They will rehire the wrongly terminated. They will bring back those who took payouts to leave. They will restart programs and redeploy assets. And the money the taxpayers spent to get rid of things under President Trump will get added to the money taxpayers spend to restart those things. And so we will have spent more money and lost years of institutional knowledge and progress, for nothing. We will have endured all the short-term disruption without ever realizing the long-term benefits.   We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it. But perhaps worse than never realizing the long-term benefits is the ill-advised plan that the Trump administration is considering to distribute to taxpayers a portion of what DOGE “saves.” It is a version of the same mistake President Trump made in his first term with the excessive COVID payments that began our horrible run of inflation. It is mortgaging our future to buy support. It is populism run amuck; it is not conservatism. Even if these DOGE savings were real and not undone when Democrats regain control, there wouldn’t be money available to return to taxpayers.  Firstly, we have an almost $2 trillion annual deficit, meaning we spend $2 trillion more than we raise in taxes each year. DOGE would have to save us $2 trillion before there was any money to talk about. That simply isn’t possible without cutting Social Security and Medicare. But even if it were possible, true conservatism would advocate putting that money toward our $36 trillion debt before giving it back to taxpayers. Then we can debate tax rates in future years if savings do materialize.   You reap what you sow. Lastly, there is the biggest potential danger of this DOGE endeavor…success. I can almost see the 60 Minutes segments five, 10, and 20 years from now. The unintended consequences. A demoralized and trimmed FBI, government watchdogs eliminated, personal data of all Americans on the laptop of a 2o year old DOGEr, what could possibly go wrong? The real dangerous impacts of these rushed DOGE decisions may not be seen for years after President Trump leaves office. Others will be blamed for the lapses. And make no mistake, our adversaries will capitalize on any holes created by DOGE.   Guardrails are an interesting thing. They usually aren’t put in place until after an accident happens the first time. If you take a close look at one, you can usually see where they have been hit and patched. Those scuffs and patches tell you that a similar accident happened again, and the guardrail did its job. Removing a guardrail invites the original accident that you had learned from, to reoccur. And when it reoccurs, all that is left is evaluating the costs – lost lives, installation expenses, removal expenses, more lost lives, lawsuits, and the inevitable reinstallation expenses.   He who laughs last, laughs best. I started this piece by saying the idea of eliminating waste, fraud, and inefficiency is a good thing. So how do we do it right? Fraud is the easy one because all of us besides the fraudsters agree on eliminating it. But you need federal employees to identify it and prosecute it! Hopefully we don’t fire them all. The rest of government spending is a bit trickier because we live in a politically divided country, meaning we don’t all agree on what is or isn’t necessary government spending. Further, advocates of a specific expenditure are typically too protective of it to allow even a sensible discussion around eliminating waste, inefficiency, or redundancy. And the vitriol in our public debate has made us all inherently distrusting of one another. So, process matters. Transparency matters. Real and lasting change that survives change in party control must be done by consensus or surely it will be undone. We must first set up a DOGE that garners trust and credibility, remembering that 50.8% of the electorate voted for someone other than President Trump. It must first be constitutional. So there are three options. The first option is that Congress could authorize a new department in a bill signed into law by the President. The head of this agency should be confirmed by the Senate and all persons with access to sensitive data should be vetted to receive the relevant security clearance. The second option is that advisors to the President, such as Musk, could make recommendations to the President of things that should be looked at and the President could direct his confirmed agency and department heads to do the actual work involved. Congress with the power of the purse and with its oversight role would still need to be involved. The third option would be a commission, much like the Social Security Commission in the 80’s, appointed by the President for a short, specified period to review options. That commission should include bipartisan elected officials. And to encourage results, the members should not be Elizabeth Warren and Ted Cruz, but rather sensible middle grounders. But here again, Congress would have to enact any recommended changes through legislation. Each of these options has drawbacks but each is better than the current DOGE. Regardless of the option chosen, it must work in a methodical, surgical way that realizes its actions will have real and serious consequences that will disrupt lives. And we as citizens must realize we won’t be 100% happy with the results because, again, we as a people don’t completely agree on the role of government. Imagine if the Trump administration did this the correct way, sharing credit with Democrats and adding a much-needed mantle of magnanimity. It might just get a Republican elected president in 2028 instead of a whiplash back to the left.

I will get back to politics and policy soon enough. The potential topics are endless and important. But lately I’ve been thinking quite a bit about kindness and the little things.   A few years ago on a trip to San Antonio, I rode in a tourist boat along the Riverwalk. I craned my neck, looking all about, as we tourists do. And I almost missed it.   A little girl sat next to her grandmother on the end of an otherwise empty, parked boat. And as other boats passed by, she excitedly jumped up to wave at the passersby. She smiled broadly, undeterred by her two missing front baby teeth. But all the craned-necked tourists seemed to miss her wave. She slumped down in her seat, discouraged, burying her face into her grandmother’s shoulder.   But with the perseverance of a child, she jumped up again to wave just as enthusiastically at the next boat to pass…my boat. I am thankful that my craning back to the right coincided with her wave. I am thankful I cast aside my normal introvertedness to wave back to her just as enthusiastically. Because instead of slumping back down into her grandmother’s side, the girl jumped up and down, waving and smiling even more broadly, as if that were possible. And because of that exuberance, everyone on my boat then noticed that adorable little girl. Waves, contagious, flew from every passenger in every seat.   That small moment has stayed vividly with me ever since. I’m not sure why. But I crack a smile each and every time I think of that cute little kid, her genuine reaction to being noticed, and all the people waving back. Contagious joy over the simplest of moments. It truly is the little things that matter.   But that moment has also made me think a lot about what would have happened had no one waved back to that little girl that day, if boat after boat of passersby failed to notice her. I believe that the accumulation of the little things, positive or negative, can affect how another person feels about this life’s journey. The accumulation of the metaphorical waves back received or waves back never received can make all the difference to how another feels about life, the world around them, and their worth in it.   I am blessed that my ledger falls more toward the accumulation of good than bad. But for all too many, the accumulation swings the other way.   As I sit here now, I recall something else, a phrase written on a dish towel that hangs in my mother’s kitchen. It reads, “In a world where you can be anything, be kind.” I fail all too often, but I will try harder to help others accumulate the metaphorical waves back. It’s important. Perhaps the most important thing we can do.

On the morning of January 20, 1993, in his last hours as president, George H.W. Bush sat down at his desk and penned a letter to the man that beat him, incoming President Bill Clinton.  It was an amazingly gracious letter ending with, “Your success now is our country’s success.  I am rooting hard for you.”  I’m not sure what made me think of that just now.   I have a love for both old buildings and American history.  When the two collide and I find myself standing in a building where American history came to life, well that’s a religious experience for me.   Whether with an old building or our American form of government, I often find myself musing who is more important, the builder or the caretaker.  Usually, I concede it’s both equally.  The greatest of caretakers will struggle to overcome a poorly built building or a poorly conceived system of government.  But equally true, the most magnificent of structures or of governments can come crashing down at the feet of the wrong caretaker.   Our system of government is a magnificent structure.  It is majestic and gilded, made of the strongest polished rock and glittering gold.  Under the finest of caretakers, we have flourished and marched toward more perfect union.  And under the worst of caretakers, we grew tarnished with cracks of separation threatening our foundation.  A worthy caretaker will tell you America is a “shining city on a hill” and an unworthy one will tell you it’s “a garbage can”.   To those that are thinking I’ve watched too many Aaron Sorkin shows in my time, you’re not wrong.  What I wouldn’t give for a real-life Republican version of Jed Bartlett or Andrew Shepherd right now.  We should aspire to more.  Our leaders should again be among the smartest, most well-read.  They should surround themselves in government with people they know to be even smarter than they.   The irony is that the only thing a great caretaker and an awful one share in common is the people that hire them.  Whether it’s building owners or voters, too often the decision is made by opening their wallets, looking at the contents, and deciding from that which candidate to hire, all other factors be damned. I know these are the musings of a blessed man.  I have the time and means to consider such topics.  It’s been 30 years since I’ve known the feeling of raiding my penny jar to get to the next payday or doing math to see if I had enough gas money to complete a road trip.  But I do know those feelings and know that having to worry about them leaves little room for other considerations.  So while I may question the judgement of my fellow voters at times, I never question their motives.  People are doing their level best with the information they have to pick a candidate, often the lessor of evils, that best matches their own experiences, circumstances, and needs.   And in this presidential race, we are indeed faced with a remarkably difficult decision, a choice between a man that lacks the character (and is more populist, protectionist, and autocratic than he is conservative) against a woman whose values have apparently not changed even though she would have us believe most of her policies have.  What a choice.   I’m not sure what will happen November 5th.  The Republican in me hopes no matter who you vote for at the top of the ticket, you will vote Republican down the rest of the ballot as an insurance policy.  The American in me simply prays that, whatever the outcome, we’ll do four things.   First, we’ll accept the results knowing in our hearts that American elections are free, fair, and legitimate in all material respects.  Saying otherwise without evidence, beyond being dangerous, is an insult to the hundreds of thousands of poll workers that freely give their time to ensuring it.   Second, we’ll roll up our sleeves and work together on the great issues of the day, doing our level best to be good caretakers even, and especially, when our leaders aren’t.    Third, in future elections we’ll expect more from our potential leaders.  Words matter.  Hyperbole has real consequences.  Saying false things on repeat creates division where it need not exist, wastes taxpayer dollars on needless investigations, and consumes legislative energy solving problems that don’t exist.  Telling people what is wrong with their lives and who is to blame is demagoguery, not leadership.  Defending the indefensible is cowardice.  And following the party line 100% of the time is not thinking critically enough.   Fourth, we’ll be reminded by those who would risk everything to come here that America is still great.   I am rooting hard for us.