Claims that US President Donald J. Tr$mp is in cognitive decline have recently circulated. We asked AI (Perplexity) whether this could be true.

PROMPT: Act as a gerontologist. Evaluate concisely any convincing evidence that can be adduced suggesting that US President Donald J. Tr$mp is suffering from cognitive decline. For each item, offer rebuttal evidence that questions the assertion. Limit the answer to 300 words or less.

Read the reply

An acquaintance on another web platform suggested that paying with cash benefits local industry — the example was restaurants — than paying by credit card.

We asked Perplexity.ai.

What is the annual profit to USA banks and card processors for credit card services, including interest on "the float" and margins on service fees?

Perplexity replied:

Annual profit to U.S. banks and card processors from credit card services is driven by three main sources: interest on revolving balances ("the float"), service fees (late, annual, etc.), and transaction-related margins (interchange and processing fees).

Here’s a breakdown of the key figures and profit drivers, based on the latest available data:

1. Interest on Revolving Balances ("the float")

Interest income is the primary source of credit card profitability, accounting for about 80% of banks’ credit card profits.

In 2022, U.S. banks earned $105 billion in interest charges from credit cards.
In 2023, this figure included an additional $25 billion in profit from increased APR margins, bringing total interest income to around $130 billion.

The average APR margin (the difference between what banks charge and their funding cost) reached a record 14.3 percentage points in 2023, contributing to these high profits.

2. Service Fees (Late, Annual, Over-limit, etc.)

Fees make up about 15% of credit card profitability.

Late fees, annual fees, and other usage charges are concentrated among "revolvers" (cardholders who carry a balance).

Annual fees alone generated $6.4 billion in 2022, more than double the $3 billion in 2015.

Late fees and other service charges add several billion more, but the precise annual total is not specified in the search results.

3. Transaction Margins (Interchange, Assessment, and Processor Fees)

Interchange fees (paid by merchants to issuing banks) totaled $126.4 billion in 2022.

However, the transaction function is slightly negative for banks overall because rewards and other expenses outpace interchange revenue.

Payment processors (e.g., Visa, Mastercard) and networks earn additional revenue from assessment and processor fees, typically 0.13%–1.0% of transaction value.

Visa’s net income in Q1 2025 was $5.1 billion on $9.5 billion in revenue, reflecting high profitability. Mastercard’s 2024 net income was also substantial, with operating margins near 58%.

Credit card processing fees cost merchants 1.5% to 3.5% of each transaction, with a significant portion going to banks and networks.

4. Total Market Size and Profitability

U.S. credit card transaction volume was $5.6 trillion in 2023.

Credit card issuers (banks) have the highest profit margins of any U.S. industry, with major issuers like JPMorgan Chase reporting profit margins of 28–32%.

Visa and Mastercard’s profit margins are even higher than issuing banks, with

Mastercard’s adjusted operating margin at 58.4% in 2024.

Key Insights

Interest on revolving balances is the dominant profit driver for banks, accounting for roughly four-fifths of credit card profit.

Interchange and processing fees are massive in aggregate, but much is offset by rewards and expenses; the net transaction margin for banks is slightly negative.

Visa and Mastercard, as card networks, generate billions in profit annually with very high margins, but their revenue is distinct from issuing banks.

Total annual profit to U.S. banks and card processors from credit card services is well over $100 billion, primarily from interest and fees, with additional billions in network and processing profits.

We followed up, asking:

What proportion of credit card sales revenue remains in the community and what proportion goes to national banks and service providers?

Perplexity replied:

The majority of credit card sales revenue leaves the local community and is captured by national banks and service providers, with only a small proportion remaining with local financial institutions.

Breakdown of Revenue Flow

1. Card Issuer Share (National vs. Local)

National banks issue about 68% of primary credit cards in the U.S., down from 76% in 2020.

Credit unions and community banks issue roughly 13% of primary cards (8.3% credit unions, 5.1% community banks as of 2023), with the remainder issued by regional or other banks.

This means that for every $100 in credit card sales, about $68 is routed through national banks, $13 through local/community institutions, and the rest through other issuers.

Interchange fees—the largest portion of processing fees—go to the card-issuing bank, so this split directly reflects where most fee revenue lands.

2. Processing and Network Fees

Processing fees (1.5%–3.5% of each transaction) are split among the issuing bank (largest share), card networks (Visa, Mastercard, etc.), and payment processors.

Card networks and processors are almost exclusively national/global companies, so their share of the revenue leaves the local community.

3. Merchant Retention

The merchant (local business) keeps the remainder after deducting processing fees, typically about 96.5%–98.5% of each sale, depending on the card and processor used.

Howexver, the fees paid (1.5%–3.5%) are almost entirely distributed to national banks and service providers, unless the card is issued by a local credit union or community bank.

Estimated Proportions (table) •=column break
Recipient * Approximate Share of Credit Card Sales Revenue • Notes
Local/community banks & credit unions •13% of card-issuer-related fee revenue • Only if the card is issued by a local institution
National banks & service providers • 87% of card-issuer-related fee revenue • Includes most interchange, network, and processor fees
Local merchants (after fees)• 96.5%–98.5% of gross sale • But 1.5%–3.5% of each sale is lost to fees

If a customer uses a card from a national bank, nearly all fee revenue leaves the community.

If a customer uses a card from a local bank or credit union (about 13% of the time), that portion of interchange revenue stays local.

All network and processor fees go to national/global firms, regardless of issuer.

Key Points

Most credit card fee revenue (about 87%) goes to national banks, card networks, and payment processors.

Only 13% of card-issuer-related fee revenue stays in the community, reflecting the share of cards issued by local institutions.

The vast majority of the sale (over 96%) remains with the merchant, but the fee portion is almost entirely extracted by national or global financial firms unless the card is issued by a local bank or credit union.

In summary:

The overwhelming majority of credit card sales revenue that is deducted as fees goes to national banks and service providers, with only a small fraction (about 13%) remaining in the community through local card issuers.

We asked the Web, "How much did the US airstrikes this week in Iran cost the US?"

The Web answered:

Cost of US Airstrikes on Iran (June 2025)

Summary of the Operation

The US airstrikes on Iran this week, codenamed "Operation Midnight Hammer," targeted three major Iranian nuclear sites: Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The operation involved seven B-2 stealth bombers, which deployed 14 bunker-buster bombs, and a submarine that launched over two dozen Tomahawk missiles. In total, about 125 US aircraft were involved, including bombers, fighters, tankers, and support planes.

Estimated Direct Costs

According to detailed breakdowns and defense analysts:

Munitions:
14 GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs at $5 million each: $70 million
30 Tomahawk missiles at $2 million each: $60 million

Flight Hours:
Seven B-2 bombers flew a 37-hour round trip at $170,000 per hour, totaling: $44 million
Total Direct Cost Estimate:
$174 million for the initial US airstrikes, covering munitions and bomber flight hours.
"Operation Midnight Hammer... estimated cost is $174 million, broken down as follows: 14 GBU-57 bombs at $5 million each ($70 million), 30 Tomahawk missiles at $2 million each ($60 million), and seven B-2 bombers flying a 37-hour mission at $170,000 per hour ($44 million). This figure excludes costs for support aircraft, personnel, and logistics, which could increase the total."

Additional Considerations
The $174 million estimate does not include costs for support aircraft, logistics, or personnel, which could raise the total further.
The operation was a single, high-profile strike rather than a sustained campaign, so ongoing costs remain limited unless the conflict escalates.
Broader US military expenditures in the region, including support to Israel and regional security postures, are much higher but not directly attributed to this specific strike.

Conclusion

The US airstrikes on Iran this week cost an estimated $174 million in direct operational expenses, primarily for munitions and bomber flight hours, with the total potentially higher when factoring in full support and logistics.

---

Read more...

(And it's only Wednesday!)

(May 5) at a meeting to announce that Washington, D.C., will host the 2027 National Football League draft, Pres. Tr$mp confirmed that he suddenly decided to announce he was reopening Alcatraz because the word sounded strong.

“It represents something very strong, very powerful in terms of law and order, he said, adding "Our country needs law and order. Alcatraz is uh, I would say the ultimate, right? Alcatraz. Sing Sing and Alcatraz, the movies.... Nobody's ever escaped from Alcatraz and just represented something, uh, strong having to do with law and order. We need law and order in this country. And so we're going to look at it. Some of the people up here are going to be working very hard on that, and, uh, we had a little conversation. I think it's gonna be very interesting. We'll see if we can bring it back. In large form, add a lot. But I think it represents something. Right now, it's a big hulk that's sitting there rusting and rotting, uh, very, uh, you look at it, it's sort of, you saw that picture that was put out. It's sort of amazing, but it sort of represents something that's both horrible and beautiful and strong and miserable, weak. And it's got a lot of it's got a lot of qualities that are interesting. And I think they make a point.”

—As quoted by H.C. Richardson

In an NBC News interview as reported in the Wall Street Journal (a well known bastion of wild-eyed, left-wing liberalism), President Trump was asked if noncitizens are entitled to due process under the Fifth Amendment. He responded that he was unsure and would defer to his lawyers.

The Prevaricator of the United States has apparently forgotten that on January 20, only a little over three months ago, upholding the Constitution was PRECISELY what he promised 330 million people he would do.

The Constitution consistently uses the word "person" and never "citizen" to identify those inhabitants of the nation who are to be ruled by law and not subjected to arbitrary and capricious treatment. The point of this dictionary choice was to assure that the government or its agents could not choose whom to prosecute for spurious reasons.

The text of the Fifth Amendment (partial, Due Process Clause) reads as follows:
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, "
and concludes that in addition no person shall be
"... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

The guarantee of due process for all PERSONS requires the government to respect all rights, guarantees, and protections afforded by the U.S. Constitution and all applicable statutes BEFORE the government can deprive any PERSON of life, liberty, or property. This guarantee is being violated daily by the current administration, and there can be little doubt that innocent persons will be swept up in the fervor.

Due process essentially guarantees that a party will receive a fundamentally fair, orderly, and just judicial proceeding . While the Fifth Amendment only applies to the federal government, the identical text in the Fourteenth Amendment explicitly applies this due process requirement to the states as well.

One need not be a lawyer to understand any of this, and the idea that having good lawyers like those whom Trump regularly praises (e.g., Apr 18, 2019 — "I've had a lot of great lawyers, like Roy Cohn.") might enable one to skirt the law betrays the intent of a criminal mind.

The arrest and deportation of potentially hundreds of thousands of persons not only without trial but without due process of any kind is more akin to totalitarian regimes than to what Americans have experienced for 250 years — with exceptions, of course, mostly in the case of ethnic minorities. No one is arguing that actual criminals have a right to remain, but the use of dragnets has been anathema in US legal practice for generations.

He is displaying traits that mark one as an ignoramus, a liar, an illiterate or a fool, or perhaps — as ever more writers are suggesting — he is drifting into a senility in which his worst traits predominate.

—Ed.

Read more in the Wall Street Journal

Pres. Tr$mp's view and understanding of science is akin to that of Pope Urban VIII, the pope who persecuted Galileo Galilei during the famous Galileo affair that culminated in Galileo's trial and condemnation by the Roman Catholic Inquisition in 1633. In such a world, to be inquisitive or to promote independent learning runs the risk of punishment.

Similar outcomes in socioeconomic policy and foreign relations are to be expected from this aggressive cabal of the ignorant, who manifestly know little of society or history and seek only raw power for their own self-interest.

One might well ask how knowing less can achieve more.

Sidenote: 1975 film Galileo starring Topol et al. is excellent.

Sources (Warning: Partial paywall; scroll down for content.)

White House - Jun 2 2023 - Both India and China have now landed autonomous spacecraft on the "dark side" of the moon.

We await the announcement that "many scientists" at Tr$mp University have identified a flotilla of alien spacecraft that are hovering out of site behind the moon while "the Chinese" are constructing a landing base for them.

Our affiliated future-reporting team at Smoldering Stump Gazette is following the story.


FUTURE UPDATE: White House - July 14 2025 - The presence of Indian and Chinese equipment, possibly of military design and intent, on the dark side of the Moon, which is forever turned away from earth, giving them a platform from which they might launch an attack on the USA at any time, is of increasing concern to forward-looking military minds like those of Pete Hegseth and Tulsi Gabbard.

Both of these countries, whom our valiant leader Donald J. Tr$mp has called collectively the "Asian menace," have planted their facilities near the Moon's south pole. The distance between the Indian Chandrayaan-3 landing site (69.37°S, 32.35°E) and the Chinese Chang'e-4 landing site (45.4446°S, 177.5991°E) on the Moon is approximately 1,891.24 kilometers.

The President was quick to note that both sites' names begin with "chan...," noting that "many people are saying" there is a deep connection between the superficially distinct programs," which are purportedly scientific in nature. He also pointed out that neither nation's announcement of its landings mentioned God. (Ed. note: The President did not in fact use the bigly words "superficially" or "purported" in his speech.)

Lunar background

MAGA supporters and believers in pseudoscientific myths appears to be significant, with several overlapping characteristics between the two phenomena. For example, MAGA supporters and pseudoscience adherents both demonstrate belief-dependent realism, where understanding is based on faith rather than empirical observation. This manifests in the MAGA movement through unwavering devotion to Trump despite contradictions or controversies.

Read more about this...

White House - Jun 2 2023 - Both India (2019) and China (2023) have now landed autonomous spacecraft on the "dark side" of the moon.

UPDATE:
White House - Mar 20 2025 - China has also (2023) landed a spacecraft on the far side of the moon. The presence of Indian and Chinese equipment, possibly of military design and intent, on the dark side of the Moon, which is forever turned away from earth, giving them a platform from which they might launch an attack on the USA at any time, is of increasing concern to perceptive, forward-looking military minds like those of Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard and Pres. Donald Tr$mp.

Complete story...

Just for kicks, I ran the following question through a new AI search engine* I've been evaluating:

"What is the general opinion among economists worldwide of the effect of tariffs on both international trade and national economics?"

It evaluated 52 sites devoted to economic topics and answered as follows. (Ed. note: Be sure to read the comments, where the author links some other experiences with AI, starting with the widely cited ChatGPT.)

"The general opinion among economists worldwide regarding the effect of tariffs on international trade and national economics is largely negative. Here are some key points:

### Impact on International Trade
- **Disruption and Retaliation**: Tariffs often lead to trade disruptions as countries retaliate with their own tariffs. This can create a cycle of tit-for-tat measures that reduce global trade volumes. For example, when the U.S. imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, China retaliated with tariffs on U.S. exports, affecting industries like agriculture and manufacturing.
- **Increased Costs and Prices**: Tariffs raise the cost of imported goods, which can lead to higher prices for consumers and businesses. This inflationary effect can reduce the purchasing power of consumers and increase production costs for businesses. A study found that tariffs on washing machines led to an aggregate increase in consumer costs of over $1.5 billion.
- **Supply Chain Disruptions**: Many modern industries rely on global supply chains. Tariffs can disrupt these supply chains, forcing companies to find alternative suppliers, which can be costly and inefficient. For example, tariffs on steel and aluminum increased input costs for downstream industries, leading to a net decrease in manufacturing employment.

### Impact on National Economics
- **Reduced Economic Growth**: Tariffs can slow economic growth by reducing trade volumes and increasing costs. A study estimated that tariffs could reduce U.S. gross domestic product by 0.6%. Another analysis found that reversing the 2018–2019 tariffs would increase U.S. output by 4% over three years.
- **Job Losses**: While tariffs may protect certain domestic industries, they can also lead to job losses in other sectors. For example, tariffs on steel and aluminum led to a net decrease in manufacturing employment, as the benefits of increased production in protected industries were outweighed by the consequences of rising input costs and retaliatory tariffs.
- **Inflation**: Tariffs can contribute to higher inflation rates, as businesses pass on the increased costs to consumers. This can erode consumer purchasing power and lead to a weaker economy. For example, tariffs on Chinese goods were almost fully passed through to U.S. import prices, resulting in higher consumer costs.
- **Uncertainty and Investment**: The uncertainty surrounding tariffs can deter business investment and job creation. Companies may delay or cancel planned investments due to the unpredictability of trade policies. This can have a negative impact on long-term economic growth and productivity.

### Exceptions and Specific Cases
- **Short-term Gains for Protected Industries**: In some cases, tariffs can provide short-term gains for specific domestic industries by reducing foreign competition. However, these gains are often outweighed by the broader negative effects on the economy.
- **Strategic Protectionism**: Some economists argue that tariffs can be used strategically to protect nascent industries or to address unfair trade practices. However, this approach is controversial and can still lead to retaliation and trade disruptions.

Overall, the consensus among economists is that tariffs generally have a negative impact on both international trade and national economics, leading to reduced growth, higher prices, and increased uncertainty."

It would seem that only a government whose intent was to foment such negative impacts would instigate a large program of tariffs, whether functional of punitive.
One might almost conclude that the objective was to weaken the national economy so as to create anxiety leading to acceptance of even more expanded government control — including non-economic aspects of society — as a "remedy" for the very issues the tariffs might have caused. Who woulda thought?

* The search AI was kimi.ai, another Asian import this week. Fast (time on task < 30 seconds), comprehensive (reviewed 52 sources), and created a comprehensive bibliography of annotated sources complete with key passages used in the report, but with less elegant output than some I've explored. I've omitted the bibliography here. My current favorite for content development is Perplexity.

Next, I asked Kimi to translate the report into Spanish. It did so and produced the text in under 30 seconds. I speak Spanish well and was able to verify the content as essentially the same, but with adaptations to Spanish writing style and vocabulary; I indeed had to look up or confirm only a couple of words, which were superior to the way I would have translated the text. You can read it below.

Finally, I revised the query, this time in Spanish, asking the program to give special attention to relations among Canada, the US and Mexico. Kimi expanded the sources to 62 and replied in < 30 seconds again, this time with most of the same structural points but also with comparative statistics germane to the current dialog among the three countries.

In recent weeks, I've begun to use this technique to prepare factual elements of written work for various publications I work on. My position is that as long as the work is factual not interpretive, identified as AI-sourced, and reviewed by a human, the time saved in literature reviews and fact searching enables one to improve one's product. The risk, of course, is that some users will pass the results off as their own research, including those students who suddenly are writing term papers with knowledge and sophistication beyond their years.

I am impressed with Kimi overall. Of course it's not on par with an analysis by Tucker Carlson or the Very Large Brain; but thank God for that.



En español, sin formato.
La opinión general entre los economistas de todo el mundo sobre el efecto de los aranceles en el comercio internacional y la economía nacional es predominantemente negativa. Aquí hay algunos puntos clave:
Impacto en el Comercio Internacional
Interrupción y Retorsión: Los aranceles a menudo provocan interrupciones comerciales, ya que los países responden con sus propios aranceles. Esto puede crear un ciclo de medidas de represalia que reduce los volúmenes de comercio global. Por ejemplo, cuando Estados Unidos impuso aranceles a los productos chinos, China respondió con aranceles sobre las exportaciones estadounidenses, afectando industrias como la agricultura y la fabricación.
Aumento de Costos y Precios: Los aranceles aumentan el costo de los bienes importados, lo que puede llevar a precios más altos para los consumidores y las empresas. Este efecto inflacionario puede reducir el poder adquisitivo de los consumidores y aumentar los costos de producción para las empresas. Un estudio encontró que los aranceles sobre las lavadoras llevaron a un aumento agregado en los costos para los consumidores de más de 1.500 millones de dólares.
Interrupción de Cadenas de Suministro: Muchas industrias modernas dependen de cadenas de suministro globales. Los aranceles pueden interrumpir estas cadenas de suministro, obligando a las empresas a encontrar proveedores alternativos, lo cual puede ser costoso e ineficiente. Por ejemplo, los aranceles sobre el acero y el aluminio aumentaron los costos de insumos para las industrias downstream, lo que llevó a una disminución neta en el empleo manufacturero.
Impacto en la Economía Nacional
Reducción del Crecimiento Económico: Los aranceles pueden ralentizar el crecimiento económico al reducir los volúmenes de comercio y aumentar los costos. Un estudio estimó que los aranceles podrían reducir el producto interno bruto (PIB) de Estados Unidos en un 0,6%. Otra análisis encontró que revertir los aranceles de 2018-2019 aumentaría la producción estadounidense en un 4% en tres años.
Pérdida de Empleos: Aunque los aranceles pueden proteger ciertas industrias domésticas, también pueden llevar a la pérdida de empleos en otros sectores. Por ejemplo, los aranceles sobre el acero y el aluminio llevaron a una disminución neta en el empleo manufacturero, ya que los beneficios de un aumento en la producción en las industrias protegidas fueron superados por las consecuencias de los costos de insumos más altos y los aranceles de represalia.
Inflación: Los aranceles pueden contribuir a tasas de inflación más altas, ya que las empresas trasladan los costos aumentados a los consumidores. Esto puede erosionar el poder adquisitivo de los consumidores y llevar a una economía más débil. Por ejemplo, los aranceles sobre los productos chinos fueron casi completamente trasladados a los precios de importación de Estados Unidos, lo que resultó en costos más altos para los consumidores.
Incertidumbre e Inversión: La incertidumbre que rodea a los aranceles puede desalentar la inversión empresarial y la creación de empleo. Las empresas pueden retrasar o cancelar inversiones planeadas debido a la imprevisibilidad de las políticas comerciales. Esto puede tener un impacto negativo en el crecimiento económico a largo plazo y en la productividad.
Excepciones y Casos Específicos
Ganancias a Corto Plazo para Industrias Protegidas: En algunos casos, los aranceles pueden proporcionar ganancias a corto plazo para ciertas industrias domésticas al reducir la competencia extranjera. Sin embargo, estos beneficios a menudo son superados por los efectos negativos más amplios en la economía.
Proteccionismo Estratégico: Algunos economistas argumentan que los aranceles pueden utilizarse estratégicamente para proteger industrias nascentes o para abordar prácticas comerciales desleales. Sin embargo, este enfoque es controvertido y aún puede llevar a represalias y interrupciones comerciales.
En resumen, el consenso entre los economistas es que los aranceles generalmente tienen un impacto negativo tanto en el comercio internacional como en la economía nacional, lo que lleva a un crecimiento reducido, precios más altos y mayor incertidumbre.

If "those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it," what can be said of those who actively destroy history?

The destruction of the Library of Alexandria some time before 650 AD (accounts vary) is universally cited as the greatest cultural outrage in history. Scholars will wonder what was lost until the end of time.

The role of the US in stopping a fascist takeover of the world in 1945 — no matter how one feels about the methods ultimately used — might have been an equal inflection point in human history. Tragically, some of the lesser fascists — along with their less vindictive, authoritarian fellow travelers — have been able to hide in the dark holes of their minds for 80 years, ready to emerge whenever the population might become sufficiently confused to restore them to power.

Now certain officials in the USA, believing in their own innate right to rule, are engaged in a pathetic attempt to belittle those who they believe have less value than their own self-exalted status. They are frantically trying to destroy evidence of anything that portraiys anyone or any event with whom or with which they do not personally identify as having played no meaningful role in the nation's history. Anyone who would have the country adopt a more honest view of its past and present unjust actions is also to be forgotten, along with anything that suggests the nation has ever strayed from the path of righteousness they ascribe only to themselves.

The salient example is the removal of photographs of the B-29 that carried the atomic bomb to Hiroshima in 1945. This is apparently due to the inconsequential fact that bomber pilot Paul Tibbets name the ship for his mother Enola GAY, and that's all it took for the insane Tr$mpian masters of purity to axe it.

In the case of the Pentagon documentation cited here, one notes that Tr$mp's musky DOGE fanboys are likely too focused on creating trippy algorithms to know the difference between adjectives like "gay" and surnames like "gay" — as in, "look, Bigballs, they're spelled the same, so they must be the same thing." All this would pathetically comical if it were not so destructive.

It remains to be seen whether light or darkness will prevail. One hopes that somewhere in the bowels of the Pentagon are a few honest men and women who will remember the path to the past. One hopes that others will take up the cause, making their own copies of "disappeared" items and publishing them randomly hither and yon.

Among other topics, neither the Pentagon nor the White House has commented on any reports suggesting that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is gay.

https://apnews.com/article/dei-purge-images-pentagon-diversity-women-black-8efcfaec909954f4a24bad0d49c78074

After Washington Post 6 March 2025 — "Due to a DOGE*-driven spending freeze on federal credit cards, some offices can’t pay phone bills, the employee said, while one office was forced last week to cancel three disability hearings because the staff could not use charge cards to pay for interpreters who speak foreign languages or American Sign Language. One claimant has a terminal illness, and another is in danger of losing their house, the employee said. No new hearings have been scheduled.

"Meanwhile, a DOGE-led campaign to cancel contracts deemed “wasteful” across the government is also hurting Social Security. The agency lost a contract that paid for medical experts to testify at disability hearings, the employee said, along with another contract for mold removal from offices.

"The elimination of the entire civil rights office is causing further chaos and uncertainty; the staff there was responsible not just for processing discrimination cases, but for obtaining office equipment for blind employees — accommodations that are required under federal disability law. No one has explained who will be taking over this type of work, employees said.

"As the agency prepares for a mandated return to in-office work, space constraints in some offices have left supervisors to consider assigning employees to work at desks in supply closets, the worker said.

“'It’s just chaos, people are terrified, and no one knows anything, including our supervisors,' the employee said.

"Another employee said they were briefed on a call last week in which managers received instructions to come up with cuts of half the agency’s staff and the same number of contractors by the end of March. Word of reductions on that scale spread throughout the agency, the employee said. In an internal announcement, Dudek said staff cuts of 50 percent were inaccurate, causing still more confusion.

"For his entire nearly 30-year career at SSA, one employee said, changes came slowly and were accompanied by a barrage of information explaining to staff exactly what was being altered and why. However, since DOGE took hold, changes have come so fast that they are impossible to follow, the employee said.

“'No one really knows what they’re doing, no one has answers, and at some point something is going to break.'

“'Morale is in the toilet, (one) employee said. 'We all know what DOGE wants to do, which is just break us, so they can privatize us.'"

* DOGE is the so-called Dept. of Government Efficiency created by Pres. Donald Trump and his major politcal donor-sidekick Elon Musk.

Source

If you're feeling that, you know, "big gub'mint," might not be the problem behind recent price surges, you're not alone.

The average royalty and lease costs for oil producers extracting petroleum from government lands have recently increased. As of 2025, the minimum royalty rate for oil and gas production on federal lands is 16.67%, up from the previous rate of 12.5%25. This change was implemented as part of the Biden administration's efforts to generate more revenue for taxpayers and better reflect the value of public resources.

In addition to royalties, oil companies must now pay higher fees for leasing federal lands:
Minimum bid price: Increased from $2 per acre to $10 per acre. Annual rental rates: Now start at $3 per acre for the first two years, increase to $5 per acre for the next six years, and then rise to $15 per acre afterwards. Bonding requirement: Increased from $10,000 to $150,000 per lease.

It's worth noting that royalty rates on state and private lands are often higher than federal rates, typically ranging from 12% to 25%1. For example:
• Texas has the highest royalty rates at 20-25%.
• Royalties in the Permian Basin (Texas-New Mexico) and North Dakota Bakken Basin range from 18-20%.
• Many western states charge royalties of 16.67%.

These changes aim to ensure a fair return to taxpayers for the extraction of public resources and to cover potential cleanup costs. The government projects that these new rules will result in approximately $1.5 billion in increased costs for fossil fuel companies between now and 2031.

Supporters of Big Oil will blame these fees for the high price of retail gasoline, etc. However, the profit motive remains the main driver behind short term pricing.

Bottom line, for every dollar received by the actual property owners of public land (just to be clear, that's the public), The producers take 83.3%. The 15% increase in royalties & leases under the Biden administration will amount to about $1.5 billion.

At the same time, based on recent data, oil companies have been earning substantial revenues from oil extracted from public lands, with significant profit margins.

Here are the key details:

Industry revenue for oil drilling and gas extraction in the US reached an estimated $488.5 billion in 2025, growing at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 10.6% over the past five years.

Profit margins for the largest companies in the industry are considerable:
The top company had a profit margin of 25.2% in 2025, with revenues of $31.26 billion and profits of $7.86 billion.
The second-largest company had a profit margin of 22.8%, with revenues of $26.26 billion and profits of $5.98 billion.
The third-largest company had a profit margin of 14.0%, with revenues of $23.02 billion and profits of $3.23 billion.

Specifically for public lands, revenues from oil and natural gas leases on onshore federal lands totaled $4.202 billion in fiscal year 2019, representing 86% of total federal revenues from these resources.

The oil and gas industry has maintained strong profitability despite fluctuations in oil prices. From 2014 to 2023, the industry saw a 7% rise in net income, even with an 18% drop in oil prices. Cue recording, "nice work if you can get it."

It's important to note that these figures represent the overall industry, including both public and private lands. The profitability of operations specifically on public lands may vary depending on factors such as royalty rates, lease costs, and production levels.

And there you have the facts behind "drill, baby, drill."

Yesterday in W. Washington, regular gas was $4.29.


(Footnotes omitted. ––RC)

If current plans are fulfilled, California's famed Yosemite Valley will be the site of an enormous memorial to the nation's once and only savior. The plan is to rename El Capitan, the 3,000 foot monolith that greets visitors who enter the Valley via the western gateway and carve a relief reminiscent of Mt. Rushmore into its southward face.

El Trumpitán

There are two competing designs. The other shows only the subject's face with a height of approximately 730' (222.5 meters) or 9x the height of the bust of George Washington at Mt. Rushmore.

The larger concept includes a full length necktie and certain historic details, making the overall height of the memorial almost 3,000 feet (914 meters), which many people are saying would never be surpassed.

Asked now the memorial would be created, lead designer Thorsten Pablum, a descendant of the creator of the Mt. Rushmore national memorial best known for his seminal work, 57 foot "Ode to Trump" statue in New York's Central Park, said that the AI tools Trump plans to develop soon, perhaps to be released in just days, would make the whole thing possible.

Pablum added that he expects to bring the project to completion in at very reasonable cost, not to exceed the rest of the federal budget for the target years 2046/7, when the President --or whatever high(er) office he then holds -- will be able to enjoy the view from the new Trump Tower Yosemite across the valley.

Controversy

Asked about the impact on the natural environment, Pablum admitted that the project would change the monolith forever, causing some Yosemite traditionalists to argue against the creation of the monument.

"We would have to lower the summit by about 100 feet to allow us to fully style the Leader's signature hairdo" he said, adding "and, of course in the full-size design we would be staining the rock to define the president's clothing. The hardest part will be to carefully stain the stripes of the necktie, which is an epic feature everyone loves."

"However, if you're going to honor the man who wanted to bring egg prices down, you have to break some rocks," he quipped.

When asked about how the nation would pay for the memorial, the White House pointed out that instead of reducing taxes the money could be better spent on the memorial, which at the current rates should retire any debt incurred not later than the year 2325, in time for the 300th anniversary of Trump's second inauguration.

Today's geographical analysis — by an actual PhD geographer: Fearless Leader's idea of incorporating "Canada" into the USA might not have the results he imagines.

A quick search of the WWW asking: "If Canadian provinces were states in the USA, which USA party would prevail in each?" — coupled with living within 150 miles of the Frozen North for about 40 years — can be summed up as follows.

First important fact not considered by the Very Large Brain: Canada is not a unitary state; it is a federation of (historically 10 now 11) provinces. Canada extends about 3,049 miles from St. John's, Newfoundland to a point at the intersection of Alaska, NW Territories and the Arctic Ocean, compared to 2,724 from Miami to Seattle or 2,696 from Bangor ME to San Diego or 2,613 from San Diego to Honolulu, with comparable differences in landforms, climate and society. (Of course I left out the 5,158 miles from Honolulu to Bangor, reasoning no one would choose that trip.)

Second: Based on the political leanings and characteristics of Canadian provinces, if they were to become U.S. states, most would likely lean Democratic. However, there would be some variations across provinces:

Quebec: Likely Democratic, but with a unique political landscape. Quebec's politics revolve around nationalism vs. federalism rather than a traditional left-right divide. The province's strong support for public healthcare and progressive policies aligns more closely with the Democratic Party.

Ontario: Strongly Democratic. As Canada's most populous province, Ontario's urban centers and generally liberal attitudes would likely translate to Democratic support.

British Columbia: Likely Democratic. The province's urban areas and environmental concerns align more with Democratic policies.

Alberta: Potentially Republican. Alberta's conservative leanings and focus on oil and gas industries might make it more receptive to Republican policies. However, it would still be more moderate than many current Republican states.

Saskatchewan and Manitoba: Leaning Democratic, but potentially competitive. These prairie provinces have a mix of rural and urban populations, which could lead to closer races.

Atlantic Provinces (New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador): Likely Democratic. These provinces generally support social programs and have a history of voting for liberal parties.

Territories (Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut): Likely Democratic, given their significant Indigenous populations and reliance on government services. (Note that the combined population of these territories barely sums to the 125,000 required by the Constitution for statehood.)

Third: It's important to note that Canadian political ideologies don't directly translate to the U.S. two-party system. Many Canadian conservatives would be considered moderate Democrats in the U.S. context. Additionally, about one-third of Canadians describe themselves as "political orphans" who find all parties too extreme, indicating a significant centrist population.

Overall, if Canadian provinces became U.S. states, they would likely add a substantial Democratic-leaning bloc to American politics, potentially shifting the balance in favor of the Democratic Party. Of course, many voters would retain their Canadian perspectives, possibly leading to a structural realignment of the continent's politics, and since only about 1/3 of US voters appear to be dyed-in-the-wool Trumpistas, one imagines that the current administration would have some 'splaining to do.