Notes

The DOGE play is much ado about nothing. It will not stop us from getting to where the government can no longer borrow enough to fund its spending, including the ever-rising share of interest payments. At that point, we will be staring in the face the threat of Weimar-era hyperinflation, confronting our political leaders with the need to suddenly do something serious and substantive. The curtain will come down on the political theater.--Kling

***

Capitalism is based on companies competing for the favour of consumers with better goods and services, but unfortunately many companies choose instead to compete for the favour of politicians to get subsidies, tariffs, regulatory benefits, and bailouts so that they do not have to worry about consumers.--Norberg

***

Great book title: A Tyranny for the Good of its Victims:

***

Notes (others)

Very interesting, if true:

A period of dedicated rest after learning improves memory.

For offline waking rest to be comparable to post-learning sleep in terms of its effect on recall, the key is to make your breaks as similar to sleep as possible. No music. No screens. No chatting with friends.

Just quiet downtime, preferably with your eyes closed, or if that’s not possible, doing something mindless. Taking a walk. Looking out the window.

Or even exercising. A study published in Psychology of Sport and Exercise found that exercising after learning significantly improves memory, recall, and retention.

In fact, a study published in Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health in 2023 found that just six to 10 minutes of moderate to vigorous exercise can improve your working memory and significantly improve higher-level cognitive skills like organization, prioritization, and planning – regardless of when that exercise session takes place.

***

We all want clean air and water, don’t we? The only problem is that there has never been any such thing.

Any one of us could make the air in his own home cleaner by installing all sorts of costly filters, and we could eliminate many impurities in water by drinking only water that we distilled ourselves. But we don’t do that, do we? We think it is too costly, whether in money or in time.

Only when we are putting costs on other people do we go hog wild like that. Making us pay is one way to make us think.--Sowell

***

In an executive order last week, President Trump directed White House security advisers to draw up a national resilience plan for critical infrastructure that shifts more responsibilities to the state and local level.

About a week earlier, the Department of Homeland Security cut about half of the federal funding, or $10 million, to the Multi-State Information Sharing and Analysis Center, which shares threat intelligence among states.

***

USAID

Kim Strassel is one of the WSJ's very able editorialists. She recently wrote an article on USAID, its history, the attempt to fix it, and the validity of the attacks on those efforts. There's no real reason to revise it so I've pasted it here in its entirety for anyone who missed it.

Dismantling USAID

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Monday announced an end to his review of U.S. Agency for International Development programming, resulting in a cancellation of 5,200 contracts, or some 83% of USAID programs. The headlines covering this “culling” and “purge” of USAID works, suggest a ramshackle process that is already resulting in vast “human costs” and “unnecessary deaths.” Much of the frenzy stemmed from a memo blasting the cuts as a recipe for disease and destabilization, drafted and shared by a USAID employee, Nicholas Enrich (who was then put on leave). Media outlets admitted they couldn’t verify Enrich’s warnings of “death and disability,” though that didn’t stop them from publishing. If only they’d put the same effort into researching the administration’s USAID review, presented in detail in court documents filed in response to litigation against the foreign-aid pause. Those papers present an orderly evaluation, complete with notice and procedures, clear objectives, levels of oversight, and a process for waivers or exemptions. It’s unclear if this State review is emblematic of Donald Trump’s efficiency drive in other agencies—or an anomaly. Yet it’s a strikingly different view of proceedings than that generally supplied by the press. Here’s what the documents show: Timing: Trump on Day One issued an executive order requiring a 90-day pause on new foreign-development assistance in order to evaluate it for efficiency and realign it with his objectives. Rubio four days later issued a stop-work order on existing awards (not just new ones). The review began Jan. 27, and over the ensuing weeks, State issued waivers to allow money back to critical missions, including AIDS and other global health programs, refugee assistance, and narcotics, peacekeeping and antiterror operations. Rubio on March 10 announced the completion of his six-week review, beating the Trump deadline. Process: Court documents note that each award was examined on “an individual basis and through a multi-step process.” USAID’s Deputy Administrator Pete Marocco explained in an court attestation that policy staff initially reviewed every grant/program—including information about the recipient, dollar amounts, subject matter and description of the project—to determine whether it aligned with Trump’s foreign-policy priorities. These recommendations for cuts were reviewed by a senior policy official. The ensuing lists were then reviewed by Marocco, who factored in whether a program might still be worthwhile based on broader “institutional and diplomatic equities”—say, the “location of the project or the general subject matter.” Final termination recommendations were reviewed and finalized by Rubio. The Secretary of State’s Monday announcement that he was retaining nearly 1,000 programs (and folding them into the State Department) shows the cuts weren’t blanket. Details: Throughout this process, court attachments show, employees were provided timelines, technical guidance on how to handle the pause, as well as FAQs addressing obscure government-process questions. Documents also explained the perimeters of waivers and the procedure for asking for exceptions. Reviewing staff received guidance on judging programs against Trump priorities. An intriguing side note: The documents direct questions to State Department offices—not anyone from the Department of Government Efficiency. Obligations: Contrary to media reports, the government isn’t bailing on obligations; guidance allows for payment of “legitimate expenses incurred” prior to Rubio’s stop-work order, and State says it is also working with counterparties on disputes. The government also hinted that one reason for the initial hard stop on continuing projects was to pre-empt a flood of demands, since “grant recipients frequently submit payment requests before they are due,” and moreover “recouping” money sent improperly “would be extremely difficult.” That puts in a new light a federal judge’s orders that USAID pay out for “work” up to Feb. 13 (in litigation that continues). What’s left: State hasn’t released a list of the programs that were cut or kept. DOGE and the White House already gave Americans a glimpse of the more ridiculous or counterproductive USAID projects (a transgender opera in Colombia; DEI initiatives in Ireland and Serbia; nonprofits linked to terror groups), which presumably are gone. Critics are now warning the cuts could include health initiatives for malaria, tuberculosis or AIDS, for instance—yet they don’t know that, and Rubio’s decision to offer waivers for these during the review suggest they could be among the 1,000 kept. The final measure ought to be the value of the programs retained, not the number of those axed. (And 1,000 distinct foreign-aid programs is still a lot.) The law: Rubio’s review might be complete, but the saga isn’t. The Trump administration has been sued numerous times over USAID and its foreign-aid freeze. In his recent decision ordering the administration to pay recipients through mid-February, Judge Amir Ali claimed Trump had an obligation to spend funds Congress provided for USAID—though didn’t go so far as to insist it revive programs it has now canceled. The case seems to be shaping up as one of several centered on “impoundment”—a president’s ability to delay or cancel spending—now barreling toward the Supreme Court. No doubt this review and realignment contained some bumps and flubs. The Trump administration is the first to tackle a government resizing of this magnitude, so everything is new. The State Department’s decision to shut down many programs—and Rubio’s decision to fold USAID programs into the State Department—will also infuriate those who want programs on auto-pilot. But the impression that media and Democrats are deliberately building—that the process has no rational basis beyond “destroying” government and “firing” everyone—simply isn’t true. Trump campaigned on a change in foreign aid, won and is now—going by the State Department review—methodically implementing big changes that align with his vision. Agree or disagree with that vision, but don’t suggest it doesn’t exist.