Tag Archives: spending

Reviewing Harvard’s Federal Funding

Posted on by
Reply

The Trump administration has begun reviewing Harvard University’s $9 billion in Federal funding. The question I have is how badly does Harvard need any Federal funding?

Harvard’s endowment is some $53.2 billion as of last year, and the school got a 9.6% return on its endowment’s investments last year. That allowed its endowment to grow by nearly 5% year-on-year despite disbursements from the endowment.

Harvard claims $6.4 million in annual operating expenses as of last year, and it spent $749 million in scholarships and its own grants for its students.

With all of that, I ask again, how badly does Harvard need Federal funding? The school’s endowment doesn’t seem to be doing much more than collecting dust, investment returns, and net growth, while the school collects billions of average citizens’ tax money for its programs. Given that, why should citizens of Iowa, or Montana, or Utah—or New York, or Illinois, or California—pay for Massachusetts-domiciled Harvard’s spending decisions?

My answer: Harvard has little to no need for taxpayer monies.

A Cost of the Left’s Obstructionism

Posted on by
Reply

This one is our national debt and the interest due on it.

• the average interest rate on debt will exceed the economic growth rate by 2045, sparking the beginning of a debt spiral
• Federal debt held by the public will rise from 100% of GDP in FY2025 to 156% of GDP by 2055
• annual deficits will grow from 6.2% of GDP in 2025 to 7.3% of GDP by 2055

The obstructionism of the Left and their Progressive-Democratic Party isn’t even centered on principle, only on anti-Trumpism and anti-Republicanism and anti-Conservatism.

Potentiating the economic disaster that our debt and associated interest payments portend, those things would accumulate into the loss of the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency. That, in turn, would feed back negatively into our economy, forcing it onto the vagaries of foreign currencies and currency exchange rates.

This is why the DOGE-led spending cuts must be enacted into law by Congress. This is what the Left’s and their Progressive-Democratic Party’s obstructionism will cost us.

Money Saved or Wasted?

Posted on by
Reply

Amanda Bennett, ex-previous head of USAGM, is upset with Kari Lake’s (the new head of the US Agency for Global Media) characterization of the $150 million the agency is expected to spend over the next several years on its lease of a new (relative to USAGM’s prior digs) office building.

The prior building that USAGM occupied for a very pretty penny was rundown and rapidly failing further, so Bennet negotiated a good deal for the new office building, and she’s justifiably proud of the deal she got. As far as that deal goes.

The government didn’t lose money [as Lake claimed], it saved—a lot. We estimated that savings over the 15-year lease—including the free rent and millions in cash incentives—would total more than $150 million.

But the USAGM has long been a Leftist propaganda arm, thoroughly deviated from its ROC of passing along factual information, objectively, to other nations, especially those whose governments seek to prevent such data from getting to their subjects.

My question for Bennett, then, is this: how much money would the Federal government save if those $150 million weren’t spent at all and USAGM eliminated from the government’s books?

As the kids like to say, Madam, get real.

A Simple Enough Solution

Posted on by
Reply

Even if it isn’t necessarily politically easy to implement. But the political impediment is merely a lack of political courage in the same politicians who natter on about how expensive and abused is the system in question. I’m writing here about our nation’s Medicaid system.

Medicaid is broken, and Republicans in Washington and in state capitals have an opportunity to fix it. President Trump has pledged to protect the program, in part by cutting waste, fraud and abuse. The House budget target would reduce the growth of federal Medicaid payments over the next decade from $2 trillion to $1.2 trillion. That is a good start. Medicaid wastes enormous amounts of taxpayer money as states use it to reward politically powerful healthcare providers.

Instead of making this sort of namby-pamby tweaks around the edges, and masquerading putative reductions in growth as cuts, the simple enough solution is this.

Take the Medicaid-centered Federal transfers to each State in the current year as the baseline, and convert that amount to a block grant with no strings attached, other than the State must spend the block money on its Medicaid program. Then, each subsequent year transfer the Medicaid block grant, similarly without strings, reduced further each year by 10% of that baseline amount. In a short few years (I’ll leave the third grade arithmetic to the reader, rather than insult his intelligence), the block grants will reach $0.00, and the Federal government will, quite properly, be out of this aspect of the State’s business.

Notice that this solution also does not touch the heart of our nation’s Medicaid system, which is each State’s responsibility. On the contrary, it moves the system entirely into the States’ individual purviews, giving each State complete control over its own Medicaid program, free of Federal touching.

What Makes a Match?

Posted on by
Reply

In a Wall Street Journal article centered on the possibility of Germany acquiring its own nuclear weapons, the news writer had this remark:

[W]ith warheads in the low hundreds, neither the British nor the French arsenals are a match for Russia’s nearly 6,000 warheads.

This comparison is silly. How many targets does Russia face? How many targets in Russia do the UK or France, or potentially Germany, face, whether individually or together?

The match is whether the Europeans have enough warheads and delivery systems to survive an initial Russian attack targeted on those systems, to launch against targets in Russia (and Belorussia and Kaliningrad, since Russia has deployed tactical nuclear weapons there), to relaunch against targets necessitated by systems failures, and to launch again against additional targets in successive waves. Especially that last, since Russian doctrine, inherited from Soviet doctrine, specifies that nuclear war is winnable and that it will be won by successive waves of nuclear attacks rather than a single spasm of everything launched.

It may be that low hundreds are insufficient for that, but it’s unlikely that 6,000 are necessary.