DO YOU FEEL ME YET!?

 

Shed No Tears For Fired Federal Workers

​

When the Trump administration announces the next round of government layoffs, the wailing, the gnashing of teeth, the sob stories will be deafening. For what? A bunch of overpaid, underworked bureaucrats?

Estimates about how many jobs have been cut so far differ. The press claims DOGE has eliminated around 100,000 federal jobs. Challenger, Gray & Christmas says 62,530 were let go in January and February. But the Bureau of Labor Statistics recorded a net loss of only 6,700 federal jobs in February.

Whatever the case, Donald Trump wants big numbers. The Department of Education already said it will chop its workforce in half. Veterans Affairs says it is targeting 80,000 workers.

The White House is currently reviewing plans for a second wave of layoffs after getting recommendations from Cabinet officials.

Terrible, right?

Wrong. Consider the context missing from every one of these sky-is-falling stories:

                              ALL THE NEWS FIT TO PRINT

This is just a haircut.

• There are 2.4 million federal workers, which means that eliminating even 200,000 is a tiny 8% trim. (Southwest Airlines recently announced a 15% cut in its workforce.)
• Under President Joe Biden, the non-military federal workforce grew by 140,000. DOGE hasn’t even managed to get the workforce back to where it was before Biden’s spending spree.

Job cuts of this magnitude aren’t unprecedented. Just the overheated coverage is.

• In Bill Clinton’s first term in office, he shed more than 330,000 federal workers. There were no protests and virtually no media coverage.

Federal workers are overpaid and overprotected.

• Nearly a third of federal workers are unionized, compared with less than 7% in the private sector. As a result, managers have found it almost impossible not only to fire workers but to give them anything less than perfect performance ratings. One Government Accountability Office report said that 99.5% of them got a “fully successful” rating or above. More than a third were given the highest rating of “outstanding.”
• The average salary for a federal worker now tops $100,000, and benefits average more than $40,000 a year. The Congressional Budget Office last year found that federal pay and benefits are 5% higher than the private sector.
• And, as anyone who has ever had to deal with a government worker knows, they are not as productive as their private-sector counterparts.

Layoffs are a fact of life.

• In the first two months of this year, private employers laid off nearly 160,000 workers. Last year, the tech industry alone shed 150,000 jobs.
• Several major companies have already announced layoff plans for the year, including Starbucks, Chevron, JPMorgan Chase, Kohl’s, Meta platforms, Southwest Airlines, and CNN.

The federal government has no choice.

• In just the first two months of this year, the federal government ran up $436 billion in deficits, on the way to what’s expected to be $1.9 trillion for fiscal year 2025, and interest payments on the national debt have topped $150 billion.
• No one in their right mind thinks this is sustainable, and no business faced with losses on this massive a scale would not be cutting deeply into its labor costs.

What matters isn’t who gets laid off, but who gets rehired.

• The economy has added a net of 276,000 jobs in the first two months of this year, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The unemployment rate is unchanged, the average number of weeks unemployed is lower than it was in December.
• As the Office of Personnel Management correctly observed, “The way to greater American prosperity is encouraging people to move from lower productivity jobs in the public sector to higher productivity jobs in the private sector.”

The reason all this is such a shock to federal workers is that they assumed that their gravy train would go on forever. They don’t deserve anyone’s sympathy.

OPS ... SOMEONE PUSHED THE BUTTON AND SAID IT WAS ME

 

Biden Autopen Actions ‘Non-Delegable’ and ‘Invalid,’ Legal Analysis Finds

THE GHOST OF JOE BIDEN

The pardon authority is the president’s alone and cannot be delegated, according to a legal analysis by The Heritage Foundation’s Oversight Project. 

The watchdog group—which first conducted an analysis of former President Joe Biden’s White House use of autopen—released a memo late Monday night on the matter, bringing the numerous acts of clemency into question. 

“Every leftist who shrieked, whined, and moaned about defending democracy is a complete hypocrite if they are not outraged by the antidemocratic action on the scale of presidential actions enacted by people who were never elected to anything,” Oversight Project Executive Director Mike Howell told The Daily Signal Tuesday.  

Howell added, “The pardons are as valid as a $3 bill.”

The legal analysis came after President Donald Trump, based on the Oversight Project’s investigative work, said he would nullify the pardons. 

Pardons included members of Biden’s family, members of the House Jan. 6 committee, former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci, and former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. Mark Milley.

“If President Biden’s non-delegable official actions were not his own, then they are invalid,” the analysis says. “Start with the Constitution. Multiple Constitutional provisions, like the pardon power, vest those powers solely in the president. In those cases, the president affixing his signature is his execution of the acts as president.”

The use of the autopens occurred amid broad speculation about whether Biden had enough cognitive capacity to carry out the job of president. 

An early 2024 Justice Department report by special counsel Robert Hur—regarding Biden’s handling of classified information—found Biden had “diminished faculties” during the counsel’s interview. Biden’s own Democrat Party eventually forced him off the 2024 ticket during last year’s election. 

Howell predicted the end of the Democrat Party, which he said will meet its demise “defending terrorists, transgenders, and autopens.”

“If we have autopen, we don’t really need them anyway,” Howell said. 

The use of autopen is not new for presidents and staffers, but has traditionally been for minor or routine proclamations. 

Howell stressed that after the John F. Kennedy assassination, the 25th Amendment was enacted to ensure a process is in place if an incapacitated president is not able to serve. In this case, the autopen was misapplied, Howell said. 

“This was a device used as a workaround of the 25th Amendment,” Howell said. 

Based on a 2005 Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel finding, it’s permissible to use autopen signatures for legislation. The Oversight Project contends the DOJ was wrong in its conclusion. 

Nevertheless, the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel 2005 opinion states, “We are not suggesting that the president may delegate the decision to approve and sign a bill, only that, having made this decision, he may direct a subordinate to affix the president’s signature to the bill.”

The Oversight Project analysis adds, “Thus, the Biden administration’s use of the autopen may well have been contrary even to the most permissive interpretation of the law.”

The Oversight Project’s memorandum examines the Biden administration’s use of the autopen to exercise “non-delegable presidential power to issue clemency in light of President Biden’s deteriorating mental state throughout his Presidency.” 

The memorandum says, “This apparent use raises concerns about: whether President Biden personally authorized each official act; whether or which unelected staff controlled the autopen device; and whether they acted with his approval. These concerns are amplified by substantial public evidence of President Biden’s cognitive decline during his term.”

  

GRIFTER SHOPPING FOR GIFTS

GRIFTER ON THE RUN WITH TAXPAYER SECURITY ... OR PERHAPS SEARCHING FOR ANOTHER GRIFT?

Spare a thought for Hunter Biden, the grifter who’s run out of grifts.

Hunter Biden, facing financial difficulties and a lack of income, is unable to pursue a lawsuit against Garrett Ziegler. His art sales, which relied on his father’s influence, have plummeted since Joe Biden left office. Hunter’s memoir sales have also declined, leaving him with limited prospects for income generation.

In a court filing, Hunter claims he’s “millions of dollars” in debt — so broke, he can’t afford to keep pursuing his lawsuit against Garrett Ziegler for putting much of the content of his infamous laptop on the internet.

Part of Hunter’s woes came from the LA fires torching his rental home, but the far bigger issue is that his income has slowed to a trickle.

A HUNTER BIDEN WORK OF ART .... NO STERO-OPTICS OF WINGED HORSE ... PEGAUS ... HUNTER ON THE RUN

What will Hunter's next career be? 

Wow: Now that the “big guy” is no longer in the White House, suddenly no one wants to buy Hunter’s art.

Buyers used to line up to shell out tens of thousands on Hunter Biden originals; Democratic donor Elizabeth Hirsh Naftali reportedly bought $42,000 worth in 2021 before Joe appointed her to a spot on the Commission for the Preservation of America’s Heritage Abroad in July 2022.

Buyers were supposed to be kept anonymous to avoid blatant pay-to-play, but Hunter’s own art dealer testified that the first son knew who bought up to 70% of his pieces.

It sure seems like that was the entire point, and the buyers knew it, since according to Hunter’s court filings, he sold 27 pieces at an average cost of about $54,000 (so reasonably priced!) in “the 2 to 3 years prior to December 2023” but only one piece since.

Odd: What changed in 2024 that might have tanked the sales of these glorious examples of artistic genius? 

Oh, right: Joe Biden’s out of power, forever. 

Hunter can no longer peddle his father’s influence to leverage deals or land lucrative make-work positions he’s not qualified for. 

last name (and everything it implies) no longer adds “value” to his art.

Even his memoir stopped selling.

He’s fresh out of income-generating prospects, unless filming yourself smoking crack while driving becomes a highly sought skill among employers. 

Don’t feel too bad for the guy: While the wealth he gained while his father held power may have been fleeting (hookers and blow are expensive), he still has the umbrella pardon Dad gave him on the way out the door. (The whole family got them!)

Heck, that means Hunter will do no time if he actually spills the beans on the whole Biden clan’s shady dealings — which, when we think about it, could be a best-seller.

Wouldn’t it be something if Hunter Biden’s final moneymaker was coming clean?

SOVEREIGN WEALTH FUND OR FINANCIAL DISNEYLAND

TRUMP'S SLU$H FUND ... A THORN ON THE ROSE BUSH OR AN ALTRUISTIC GIFT?

​y

​

WALL STREET TICKER SYMBOL: MAGA-USA

In his February 3 Executive Order, President Trump directed his minions to begin planning for establishment of a “Sovereign Wealth Fund” that he originally touted in a speech to the Economic Club of New York last September. The fund would be on the order of $2 trillion, investing in things like manufacturing hubs, defense, and medical research. The order states:

It is the policy of the United States to maximize the stewardship of our national wealth for the sole benefit of American citizens. To this end, it is in the interest of the American people that the Federal Government establish a sovereign wealth fund to promote fiscal sustainability, lessen the burden of taxes on American families and small businesses, establish economic security for future generations, and promote United States economic and strategic leadership internationally.

THE DETAILS ARE ALWAYS IN THE FINE PRINT

How Donald Trump's proposed "Sovereign Wealth Fund" (SWF) differs from other Federal Government-established funds in its use of taxes, particularly regarding stewardship by unelected or elected officials without personal stakes, let’s break it down based on available information and general principles of government funds. Since the specifics of Trump’s SWF are still emerging as of March 15, 2025, with only an executive order issued on February 3, 2025, directing a plan to be developed within 90 days, we’ll compare the proposal’s stated intent and potential mechanisms to existing federal funds.

Trump’s Sovereign Wealth Fund: What We Know

Trump’s SWF, as outlined in his executive order and public statements, aims to "maximize the stewardship of our national wealth" for American citizens, with goals like promoting fiscal sustainability, reducing tax burdens, ensuring economic security, and advancing U.S. economic leadership. The fund is intended to invest in "great national endeavors" (e.g., infrastructure, manufacturing, or even acquiring assets like TikTok). Unlike traditional federal funds, which often allocate tax revenues directly to specific programs (e.g., Social Security, Medicare), Trump has suggested funding this SWF partly through tariffs—essentially taxes on imported goods—and possibly by monetizing existing U.S. government assets (valued at $5.7 trillion, per White House statements). Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has indicated the fund could be operational within 12 months, leveraging a "combination of liquid assets" and other national resources.

Comparison to Other Federal Funds

Federal funds like Social Security, the Highway Trust Fund, or various discretionary spending programs are typically financed through taxes (payroll, gas, income) and managed by elected officials (Congress) or unelected appointees (agency heads) under strict legislative oversight. These funds have defined purposes—retirement benefits, infrastructure maintenance—and their stewards don’t personally profit from outcomes, though they face political accountability. The key differences with Trump’s SWF proposal lie in its funding, governance, and flexibility:

1. Funding Mechanism: Taxes vs. Tariffs and Assets
   • Traditional Federal Funds: Most rely on broad-based taxes (e.g., income or payroll taxes) collected and allocated via Congressional budgets. For example, Social Security uses payroll taxes, directly linking revenue to benefits, with surpluses held in Treasury securities.
   • Trump’s SWF: Emphasizes tariffs as a revenue source, which are taxes on consumers and businesses passed through import costs, not direct levies like income taxes. Trump has also floated "other intelligent things" (campaign remarks) and Bessent mentioned monetizing federal assets (e.g., land, property, or even Bitcoin holdings). This shifts the tax burden indirectly and introduces a novel approach—using asset sales or profits rather than annual tax appropriations—potentially bypassing typical Congressional funding cycles.
2. Stewardship and Oversight
   • Traditional Federal Funds: Managed by agencies (e.g., SSA, FHA) under laws set by Congress, with unelected officials executing policy but accountable to elected representatives. There’s no personal "skin" in the game beyond job performance or political pressure.
   • Trump’s SWF: The executive order tasks Treasury and Commerce (led by appointees Scott Bessent and Howard Lutnick) with designing the fund, but details on governance are TBD until May 2025. Critics (e.g., posts on X) speculate Trump and allies like Elon Musk might exert outsized influence, though no evidence yet supports this beyond rhetoric. Unlike other funds, the SWF’s investment focus suggests a board or managers (possibly unelected) with discretion over profit-seeking ventures, raising questions about accountability if Congress isn’t directly appropriating funds annually.
3. Purpose and Flexibility
   • Traditional Federal Funds: Narrowly defined (e.g., Medicare pays healthcare claims). Stewards operate within legal constraints, and outcomes (e.g., solvency) don’t personally enrich them but affect public perception and elections.
   • Trump’s SWF: Aims for broader, profit-driven goals—investing in markets, infrastructure, or companies (e.g., TikTok)—with returns potentially offsetting taxes or funding national projects. This resembles sovereign wealth funds in Norway or Saudi Arabia, where profits accrue to the state, not individuals. However, the lack of clarity on profit distribution (e.g., tax relief vs. reinvestment) and the fund’s independence from annual budgets could make its stewards less tethered to voter scrutiny than, say, Social Security trustees.
4. Personal "Skin" in the Outcome
   • In both cases, stewards lack direct financial stakes—officials don’t pocket profits or lose personal wealth if funds fail. For traditional funds, political consequences (e.g., voter backlash over Social Security cuts) provide indirect stakes. For the SWF, the stakes might be more reputational for Trump’s administration, tied to economic promises (e.g., "creating wealth" per his Oval Office remarks). The difference lies in perception: some fear the SWF could become a political tool (e.g., X posts suggest Trump/Musk control), though this remains speculative without a governance model.

Key Distinctions

• Tax Usage: The SWF’s reliance on tariffs and asset monetization diverges from the direct, broad taxation of other funds, potentially shielding it from typical budget debates but raising costs indirectly via trade. This could make it feel less like "taxpayer money" to the public, even if it’s still a tax in economic terms.
• Independence: If funded outside Congressional appropriations (e.g., self-sustaining via investments), the SWF might operate with less democratic oversight than funds requiring annual votes, though Congress would likely need to authorize its creation long-term.
• Risk and Reward: Unlike entitlement funds, the SWF’s investment strategy introduces market risk, with stewards deciding winners (e.g., TikTok) without personal loss, similar to other funds but with higher stakes if mismanaged, given the U.S.’s $36 trillion debt and lack of surpluses.

Critical Perspective

The U.S., unlike oil-rich nations, runs deficits ($1.9 trillion projected for FY 2025), not surpluses, making a traditional SWF model tricky. Tariffs alone (2% of 2023’s $4.4 trillion federal revenue) won’t match Norway’s $1.7 trillion fund. Monetizing assets sounds innovative, but selling public land or borrowing against it risks long-term costs for short-term gains—stewards might prioritize flashy wins (e.g., TikTok) over stability, with no personal downside beyond political fallout. Traditional funds, while bureaucratic, are more predictable; the SWF’s ambition could either be a bold pivot or a fiscal gamble, depending on execution.

In short, Trump’s SWF differs in its unconventional funding (tariffs/assets vs. broad taxes) and potential for less Congressional control, but like other funds, its stewards lack personal financial risk—only political or reputational consequences vary. Full details await the May 2025 plan.

Let’s dive into how tariff funding works, especially in the context of something like Trump’s proposed Sovereign Wealth Fund (SWF), since that’s where your earlier question was headed. Tariffs are essentially taxes on imported goods, and they’ve been a tool governments have used for centuries to raise revenue, protect domestic industries, or influence trade. Here’s a clear breakdown of how they function as a funding mechanism, with some real-world grounding as of March 15, 2025.

What Are Tariffs?

A tariff is a tax imposed by a government on goods entering its borders. Think of it like a toll booth for international trade—importers pay the fee to bring in stuff like steel, electronics, or clothes from abroad. The U.S. Customs Service collects these duties at ports, airports, or border crossings, and the money flows into the federal Treasury’s general fund unless earmarked otherwise.

• Types: Tariffs can be specific (a fixed dollar amount per unit, e.g., $5 per ton of steel) or ad valorem (a percentage of the good’s value, e.g., 10% on a $100 widget). Trump’s administration has leaned toward broad ad valorem tariffs, like the proposed 10-20% on all imports and 60% on Chinese goods.
• Who Pays: Technically, the importer (e.g., a U.S. company like Walmart) pays the tariff to Customs. But in practice, they often pass the cost on to consumers through higher prices or absorb it by squeezing suppliers—economics isn’t a straight line here.

How Tariffs Generate Revenue

When tariffs are collected, they become part of federal revenue, just like income or payroll taxes. Historically, they were a primary U.S. revenue source—before the income tax in 1913, tariffs funded up to 90% of the federal budget. Today, they’re a smaller slice, but still significant:

• 2023 Example: The U.S. collected about $88 billion in customs duties (2% of the $4.4 trillion total federal revenue), per Treasury data. Trump’s earlier tariffs (e.g., 25% on steel, 10% on aluminum in 2018) boosted this from $34 billion in 2017.
• Scale Potential: Trump’s 2025 proposal—10-20% on $3 trillion+ in annual imports—could theoretically raise $300-$600 billion yearly, assuming trade volumes hold (they often don’t, as we’ll see). A 60% tariff on China’s $400 billion in exports to the U.S. could add another $240 billion, though retaliation and smuggling complicate this.

The revenue isn’t “free money”—it’s a tax on economic activity. Unlike income taxes hitting your paycheck, tariffs hit goods, so you feel it at the store (e.g., a $500 TV might jump to $550).

Tariff Funding for a Sovereign Wealth Fund

Trump’s idea is to funnel tariff revenue into an SWF instead of the general Treasury pot, where it typically mixes with other taxes to fund everything from defense to Medicare. Here’s how that could work:

1. Collection: Importers pay tariffs on goods—say, $400 billion from a 10% tariff on $4 trillion in imports (adjusted for trade shifts).
2. Allocation: Instead of Congress doling it out via appropriations, the SWF gets this cash directly (or a portion) under an executive framework, possibly set by Trump’s February 2025 order. Details are pending, but it might bypass annual budget fights.
3. Investment: The SWF uses the funds to buy assets—stocks, infrastructure bonds, or even TikTok—aiming to grow the pot. Norway’s $1.7 trillion SWF, funded by oil profits, is a model: it invests globally, earning 6-7% annually.
4. Returns: Profits could reduce taxes, fund projects, or sit as a national nest egg. Trump’s pitch is “wealth for Americans,” though who decides what “wealth” means (tax cuts? bridges?) is murky until May 2025’s plan.

Realities and Limits

Tariffs sound like a cash cow, but they’re not a magic bullet. Here’s why:

• Trade Response: Higher tariffs often shrink imports as companies reroute supply chains (e.g., post-2018, China’s U.S. exports dropped 16%). A 20% tariff might not yield 20% more revenue if trade falls 30%.
• Cost Pass-Through: The Congressional Budget Office estimates 70-80% of Trump-era tariff costs hit U.S. consumers—$1,300 per household annually by 2020. So, it’s a tax, just not one you see on a W-2.
• Retaliation: China slapped tariffs on U.S. soybeans in 2018, tanking exports from $12 billion to $3 billion. A 2025 tariff war could shrink the revenue pie.
• Scale: Even $500 billion yearly (optimistic) is a fraction of the U.S.’s $6 trillion budget or $36 trillion debt. Norway funds its SWF with oil surpluses; the U.S. has deficits ($1.9 trillion projected for 2025).

Compared to Other Taxes

• Income Tax: Direct, progressive (rich pay more), and stable—$2.2 trillion in 2023. Tariffs are regressive (hit lower-income shoppers harder) and volatile.
• Payroll Tax: Funds specific programs (Social Security, $1.2 trillion). Tariffs are flexible but lack that earmarked trust.
• Sales Tax: Local, broad-based. Tariffs target trade, so they’re narrower but global in scope.

Tariff Funding in Action

Imagine a 10% tariff on a $100 Chinese-made phone. The importer pays $10 to Customs. That $10 might go to the SWF, which invests it in, say, a U.S. factory. If the factory profits, the SWF grows, maybe cutting your taxes later. But the phone’s price jumps to $110, and if China retaliates, U.S. exporters (e.g., farmers) lose markets. The funding works, but it’s a balancing act—revenue vs. economic ripple effects.

For Trump’s SWF, tariffs are a bold pitch: tax foreigners’ goods, not Americans’ wages, to build wealth. Yet, economists (e.g., on X) argue it’s still Americans paying via prices, and the U.S.’s deficit means it’s borrowing to seed this, not banking surpluses like Qatar. It’s less about new money and more about redirecting tax flows with a market twist—details will tell if it’s a game-changer or a gimmick.