First, Happy Mothers’ Day.
Trump Promised To ‘Drain the Swamp.’ He Did the Opposite.
By John Stossel, Reason, May 8, 2024.
Excerpt:
In 2020, then-President Trump said he was succeeding: “We’re draining the Washington swamp!”
But it’s not true.
“He made government bigger,” Economist Ed Stringham says in my new video. ‘That’s going in the wrong direction. Looking through a list of agencies, every single one I could see, there were more employees after his presidency than before.”
Trump added almost 2 million jobs to the federal workforce.
The most stunning number here is the 2 million jobs number. I haven’t fact-checked it. Is it true?
US Is Losing In Ukraine. Blame China, Says Blinken.
by John V. Walsh, antiwar.com, May 9, 2024.
Excerpt:
At the close of his recent trip to China, on April 26 while still in Beijing, Sec. of State, Anthony [sic] Blinken, made an extremely bellicose statement to the press. Blinken’s words marked a new phase in the narrative to prepare the American and European public for more conflict with China. As Caitlin Johnstone has reminded us, “Before they drop the bombs, they drop the narrative.” What, then, is the narrative that Blinken dropped?
In his statement, Blinken tells us that the US has “serious concern” over “components” from China that are “powering” Russia’s war with Ukraine. He goes on to say that China is the top supplier “of dual use items that Moscow is using to ramp up its industrial base, a defense industrial base…” It is widely accepted that the US is losing its Ukraine proxy war. Blinken now informs us that the US-installed Ukrainian regime is losing because China is aiding Russia. Blaming China is nothing new in the argot of the West, but here it is put to a new use, as an excuse for yet another embarrassing defeat for the US.
Blinken lists “machine tools, microelectronics, nitrocellulose” as key components that China provides to Russia. But “dual use items” is an ill-defined and malleable category. Potentially, every item of trade can be subsumed under the term. For example, if Russia imports Chinese machine tools to make cars, then it can readily be claimed that they are being used to build tanks. Or if Russia imports nitrocellulose to make fingernail polish, it can be charged that the chemical is being used for gun powder or explosives. So, when the US demands that China stop “indirect” support for Russia’s war effort, it is ultimately demanding that China cut off all trade with Russia.
Blinken offers no evidence that such “dual use” items are responsible for the drubbing that its Ukraine proxies are taking. And China has no obligation to curtail its commerce with Russia. As with India and other genuinely sovereign nations which continue to trade with Russia, China is not bound by the edicts of the United States.
Jones Act Exacerbates US Ferry System Struggles
by Colin Grabow, Cato at Liberty, May 7, 2024,
Washington responded by rebidding the contract and changing its law so shipyards outside the state could compete to build the vessels. That, however, has meant delays in the acquisition process, mounting frustration among ferry users, and the ongoing exchange of barbs over the new propulsion system.
But this controversy misses the bigger picture. Washington’s chief obstacle to cost‐effectively acquiring new ferries isn’t rooted in technology but protectionism. One only needs to look across Washington’s international border to see why.
In late 2019, only two months after Washington announced its plan to purchase new hybrid electric ferries, Canadian ferry operator BC Ferries ordered four vessels with the same technology from a European shipbuilder. All four were delivered before the end of 2021. Featuring a capacity approximately one‐third that of the vessels sought by WSF (450 passengers and crew and 47 vehicles versus 1,500 passengers and 144 vehicles), the ferries cost about $38 million each—less than a sixth of the new WSF ferries’ estimated price.
I don’t have my usual 4 highlights this week. I got a bad cold on my return trip from Dallas last Saturday and have been sick or low-energy for most of the week. But I’m back!
READER COMMENTS
Richard W Fulmer
May 12 2024 at 11:32am
I can find sources that claim that the number of federal civilian employees increased by an average of 0.9% during each year of Trump’s presidency and other sources that show the headcount on day Trump entered office was the same as that on the day he left. Here’s the St. Louis Fed’s take:
All Employees, Government (USGOVT) | FRED | St. Louis Fed (stlouisfed.org)
My first thought was that perhaps Dr. Stringham included military personnel in his headcount, but that appears to have held steady throughout Trump’s term in office as well.
As usual, there are enough numbers out there to support any story.
Richard W Fulmer
May 12 2024 at 11:39am
What’s weird is that the Fed’s graph shows 23 million civilian employees while every other source I can find puts the number at one tenth of that, or about 2.3 million. Clearly, I’m missing something. If the latter number is correct, it’s very unlikely that Trump doubled the number of employees.
Richard W. Fulmer
May 12 2024 at 12:55pm
The numbers work if the Fed graph is showing headcount for all levels of government and not just federal. If that’s correct, and there are “only” 2.3 to 2.9 million federal employees (depending upon the source), then Dr. Stringham’s numbers must be way off.
Jon Murphy
May 12 2024 at 2:07pm
I think that figure includes both full-time/part-time employees, military, and contract workers. See this article by Paul Light at Brookings which cites the same 2 million figure: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-true-size-of-government-is-nearing-a-record-high/
Craig
May 12 2024 at 4:16pm
Difficult to tell where one should draw the line. I could make the argument that employees for Lockheed Martin may as well be counted as government employees. With respect to Brookings numbers when I see contract I think in terms of say a federal building outsourcing cleaning services or a company like KBR Services.
Not saying Brookings is wrong or right, but just for purposes of expounding here a bit further we can look at BLS data.
Dec 2016
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_01062017.pdf
On page 7, Table B-1 there is government employment broken out by federal, state and local.
Federal = 2.804mn seasonally adjusted, 2.824mn seasonally adjusted and that federal number is broken out a bit further to break out postal workers.
Dec 2020
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_01082021.pdf
On page 36, Table B-1 the same break out exists. Federal = 2.908mn seasonally adjusted, 2.922 not seasonally adjusted. Again that figure is broken out so that one can isolate employment with the postal service.
Of course one can ask whether or not this includes the military and if it doesn’t include the military would that also exclude the US Army Corps of Engineers? With respect to the US Army Corp of Engineers I would equivocate. The TVA? I would tend to believe employees for TVA would be included.
Ahmed Fares
May 12 2024 at 4:20pm
Unlike the US which is a naval power, Russia is a land power and could easily defeat the combined forces of Ukraine and NATO. Fighting Ukraine alone is a struggle.
Modern war is based on a “hammer and anvil” approach, with air power coupled with ground troops. If the enemy bunches up to resist, they’re hit with air power. If the enemy doesn’t bunch up, the ground troops destroy them with overwhelming firepower. The Taliban found that out the hard way, which is why they went to ground and resorted to guerilla warfare.
What happened in the war with Ukraine is that the US flies AWACS over the Black Sea and feeds ISR information to the Ukrainians. When a Russian fighter is over Ukrainian territory, the Ukrainians are informed. They turn on their radars, fire their anti-aircraft missiles, then turn their radars back off again. As such, the Russians have not been afforded the advantage that air power would give them, so they’ve had to fall back on attritional trench warfare. Even then, given that most deaths come from artillery, the Russians have an advantage of ten-to-one in shells fired. This is made worse recently by the Russian use of glide bombs, which keep their jets safe. It’s estimated that Ukraine is suffering 10,000 casualties a week.
In the event that NATO was to enter the war, those AWACS would be brought down on day one. Russia has the best air defense systems in the world.
ISR (Intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance)
Flying just outside Ukraine, NATO’s sentinel planes warn of Russia’s battlefield moves
Ahmed Fares
May 12 2024 at 4:39pm
For a more in-depth analysis, this article is a good read:
All Seeing Eye: Can Russia Break Through The West’s ISR Overmatch?
Craig
May 12 2024 at 5:15pm
“Unlike the US which is a naval power, Russia is a land power and could easily defeat the combined forces of Ukraine and NATO.”
NATO and NATO without the US vaslty outnumbers Russia
“Fighting Ukraine alone is a struggle.”
I understand your point that ISR assets out of theater help Ukrainians in a way that allows Ukrainians not to announce their presence and to avoid targeting. But if Russia could beat NATO conventionally they’d target that AWACS. They don’t because they can’t beat NATO. Indeed Macron noting introduction of French soldiers and Hakeem Jefferies noting it sees Russia conduct drills with tactical nukes. Why? Because Russia can’t beat NATO conventionally.
Ahmed Fares
May 12 2024 at 6:23pm
The use of tactical nukes is to minimize Russian casualties. It’s the same reason you haven’t seen any big arrow moves by the Russians.
Jon Murphy
May 12 2024 at 6:06pm
Like Craig, I am skeptical of your claims. A quick Google search finds that the US alone has a bigger army than Russia, and the combined NATO forces make it about 3 times as large as Russia’s army. Of course, numbers aren’t everything, but given the NATO forces are far more technologically advanced, better funded and supplied, and have more willing soldiers (less likely chances of desertion and the like), I have a hard time believing that Russia would “easily defeat” NATO.
I mean, let’s not forget that Russia had a large section of its own mercenary military march virtually unopposed from Rostov to Moscow (about 700 miles) in open rebellion. Such an act doesn’t exactly spell “competent” to me.
Furthermore, nothing in your link suggests that Russia “has the best air defense systems in the world.” Given it has been unable to stop Ukrainian missle and drone attacks on some rather significant targets, I’m not fully on board with your assessment.
Ahmed Fares
May 12 2024 at 6:43pm
A German tank brigade with no tanks.
How can Germany deploy a tank battalion without any tanks?
Jon Murphy
May 12 2024 at 7:04pm
Just to be clear, are you claiming that NATO is over reporting its military by 300%?
Ahmed Fares
May 12 2024 at 7:57pm
Just to be clear, I was referring to NATO fighting in Ukraine, which is why I mentioned Russia as a land power. It’s one thing to have troops, it’s another to get them and their weapons to the battlefield intact.
The nature of warfare has changed greatly in the last few years. A $10-million main battlefield tank can be destroyed with a cheap drone costing $35,000. Same for artillery pieces, radars, etc. The Russians have been churning out these cheap Lancet drones and destroying all those weapons Ukraine has received.
Jon Murphy
May 12 2024 at 8:04pm
Given NATO is not fighting in Ukraine (just supplying equipment), then yes, even 1 soldier can defeat an army of 0.
nobody.really
May 14 2024 at 4:58am
Not sure what to tell Washington State about its waterfront transportation problems. Maybe they should consult Palm Springs? Though that city’s land-locked, they have a lot of experience with aging fairies.
Comments are closed.