Reminder that the National Parks could run at a huge profit

by philg

It’s peak tourist season here in the U.S. Also, Americans are fighting because we want a vastly larger and more powerful government than can be funded with the taxes that we’re willing to pay. Here’s a reminder that our National Parks could be run at a huge profit if we charged the same prices that the Chileans and Navajo charge for similar experiences.

From two years ago… What if our National Parks charged Navajo prices?

We’re still charging less than 1/25th of what the Chileans charge (assume a 15-day vacation for four European visitors who currently buy an $80 annual pass) and stuffing the National Park Service full of $billions in general tax revenue (collected from the working class who already have had to pay for the deferred or forgiven student loans of the gender studies graduates). Americans assume that it is impossible for an entity to turn a profit after receiving, for free, some of the world’s most valuable land. The idea that this entity must be forever propped up by tax revenues collected from those who will never see any of this land is accepted uncritically.

I’m not sure how disturbed I should be by this, but it looks like Donald Trump has been thinking along the same lines. WSJ:

Full post, including comments

WSJ: Open borders make the U.S. rich and also Social Security is going broke faster than expected

by philg

Happy Independence Day for those who celebrate our traitorous rebellion against legitimate British rule and a total tax burden of 2 percent of income, not a penny of which the British ever spent outside of North America (the Brits spent a huge amount of treasure defending the white immigrants from Native Americans who objected to being replaced via white immigration).

Since a country is defined primarily by its people, let’s take a look at two perspectives on low-skill immigration today. Both perspectives are from the same newspaper, one from when Joe Biden was still running for reelection on the basis of what the media reported to be his perfectly sharp mind. The second is a recent piece, published during the Trump Dictatorship v2.0.

June 2024, Wall Street Journal:

Immigration Is Behind the Strong U.S. Economy

The U.S. population is aging, and millions of baby boomers retire each year. We can expect that absent immigration, we would have a decreasing working-age population and shrinking employment for decades to come—especially considering the low fertility rate. … immigrants help the economy in a few other ways. First, immigrants are more likely to be of working age than their U.S.-born counterparts, so they can help support American retirees through their labor and taxes. Second, immigrants bring innovation that helps the economy grow.

June 2025, Wall Street Journal:

Social Security’s Potential Insolvency Date Moves Up One Year

With an aging U.S. population and a smaller share of American workers who pay into it, Social Security could become unable to pay full retirement and disability benefits in 2034, one year earlier than reported last year, the program’s trustees said Wednesday. … The report also said that Medicare’s hospital-insurance trust fund would be able to pay 100% of benefits until 2033, three years earlier than projected in last year’s report. At that stage, the fund’s reserves would be depleted and the income going into the program would be able to pay 89% of total scheduled benefits.

We had four years of open borders under the Biden/Harris/WhoeverWasActuallyInCharge administration and at least 10 million migrants who enriched us economically as well as culturally. We had SARS-CoV-2, a virus that killed nearly 1 million over-65 Americans who were, according to #Science, otherwise in perfect health and would have been collecting Social Security and Medicare for 10 additional years. Despite these massive tailwinds, Social Security and Medicare are running out of money faster than expected?

I wonder if this changes the calculation of the optimum time to begin drawing on Social Security. Traditionally, healthy people are told to wait until age 70, three years beyond Full Retirement Age (67 for those born in 1960 or later), in order to maximize the payout. But if benefits are likely to be cut in 2034, it might be smarter for a 67-year-old in 2025 to begin taking Social Security right now.

See also “Immigration does not solve population decline” (Aporia):

The thing is: immigrants age too. This means that while immigration can definitely reverse population decline, it can’t do much for population aging. Assuming immigrant age-structure and fertility remain constant, the difference in the working-age share of the population in 2060 between zero net migration and 2019 levels of migration in the United States is… 2% (57% vs 59%).

The good news for those who believe that working age migrants will solve all of our fiscal problems: “Kilmar Abrego Garcia brought back to US, appears in court on charges of smuggling migrants” (ABC). Also “Ohio man hid horrific role in 1994 Rwanda genocide to enter US, arrested after years on the run: DOJ” (New York Post). Imagine the taxes that Vincent Nzigiyimfura, admitted to the U.S. at age 49 and currently aged 65, will be paying after he serves the 30 years in prison that our wise government overlords are currently attempt to impose on him.

Loosely related, residents of Westfield, Maskachusetts who appear to have a personal stake in Social Security benefit levels hold a whites-only “No Kings” protest:

Also, it is never appropriate to conduct a fiscal analysis when considering immigration. If you’re not a hater you have to support open borders. Sticker on a mailbox outside a coffee shop in Boise, Idaho, yesterday:

Love has no borders.

Full post, including comments

What’s in the latest 870-page spending bill passed by Congress?

by philg

I think that I found the full text of the One Big Beautiful Bill recently passed by Congress, but I can’t figure out what is in it. Has anyone here dived into this Tolstoy-scale document? I assume that whatever we read about this in the media is a lie. For example, we’ve been told that the bill cuts taxes so I assume that tax rates will either be the same or maybe increased, at least via inflation (every year with inflation means more fictitious capital gains taxes are owed and also more taxpayers ensnared by the Obamacare NIIT). We’ve been told that the bill cuts Medicaid so I assume that Medicaid spending will increase and that the eligibility expansion during Coronpanic will be maintained at least for another year or two (at which time the expansion can be extended by another act of Congress; I refuse to believe that an expanded welfare state can ever be shrunk because Americans who get accustomed to free stuff are going to be forever dependent on that free stuff).

One area where I’m confused relates to the Medicaid fight. The states that want to put everyone on Medicaid, e.g., California, are richer than average. These same states have a majority of their population agreeing with the idea that inequality is bad. Why wouldn’t they therefore be delighted to use state funds to keep everyone and his/her/zir/their brother on Medicaid? Even more confusing, California says that it is “cruel” for Trump and the Republicans to “cut” Medicaid (meaning that spending actually increases but not as much as hoped/dreamed?) while also cutting Medicaid spending at the state level. Medicaid cuts bad when Republicans do it (X, June 27, 2025):

Medicaid cuts good when California Democrats do it (nytimes, same exact day):

Health care is a human right, but only if federal taxpayers are covering it? It is not a right if Californians have to fund it with their own money?

Another recent fun news item from California, in which Democrats eliminate environmental protections established by Ronald Reagan (nytimes):

As governor, Ronald Reagan, a Republican, signed the environmental act into law in 1970 at a time when his party was much more aligned with environmental protections than it is today. It reflected a consensus among the state’s leaders over the need to protect a vast array of wildlife and natural resources — forests, mountains and coastline — from being spoiled by rising smog, polluted waterways, congestion and suburban sprawl.

Full post, including comments

New York Times says that “slut” is not an English word

by philg

Happy International Whores’ Day, a month late, to those who celebrate. Vaguely related… let’s look at #Truth from the New York Times vs. what the stuffy academics at the Oxford English Dictionary have to say about the word “slut”:

From Orwell’s 1984:

“You haven’t a real appreciation of Newspeak, Winston,” he said almost sadly. “Even when you write it you’re still thinking in Oldspeak. I’ve read some of those pieces that you write in the Times occasionally. They’re good enough, but they’re translations. In your heart you’d prefer to stick to Oldspeak, with all its vagueness and its useless shades of meaning. You don’t grasp the beauty of the destruction of words. Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year?”

Winston did know that, of course. He smiled, sympathetically he hoped, not trusting himself to speak. Syme bit off another fragment of the dark-coloured bread, chewed it briefly, and went on:

“Don’t you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it. Every concept that can ever be needed, will be expressed by exactly one word, with its meaning rigidly defined and all its subsidiary meanings rubbed out and forgotten. Already, in the Eleventh Edition, we’re not far from that point. But the process will still be continuing long after you and I are dead. Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there’s no reason or excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It’s merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control. But in the end there won’t be any need even for that. The Revolution will be complete when the language is perfect. Newspeak is INGSOC and INGSOC is Newspeak,” he added with a sort of mystical satisfaction. “Has it ever occurred to you, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?”

Circling back to International Whores’ Day, it seems that Sean “Diddy” Combs has been found guilty of “transporting people for prostitution”. This is exactly the activity to which Snoop Dogg, one of our official heroes, has freely admitted (example in which he describes a bus that went from state to state). If Combs is sentenced to prison while Snoop Dogg is the official ambassador for the LA Olympics how can we square that with any concept of justice?

Full post, including comments

Will California’s high-speed rail line be vulnerable to drone-based jihad?

by philg

Assuming that they can get their hands on $100 billion (or maybe $200 billion, or maybe $300 billion) in federal tax dollars, Californians will eventually have a high-speed rail line (the groundbreaking ceremony was 10.5 years ago). In light of recent drone attacks within Russia and Iran, the question for today is whether the fancy new train will be a sitting duck for jihadis. From the Wall Street Journal:

From the BBC:

Maybe anti-drone defense systems could be built around U.S. airports and an airplane should be safe from low-tech attack at 30,000′, but how would a 500-mile rail line conceivably be secured? California has already experienced jihad from Syed Rizwan Farook, born to immigrants from Pakistan, and Tashfeen Malik, a legal immigrant from Pakistan (they killed 14 of their neighbors/coworkers with guns and had hoped to kill more, but their pipe bombs failed to explode). By the time the high-speed rail is finally ready presumably the knowledge of how to build suicide drones will be far more widespread. A drone can fly from a few miles away, park itself on the ground between the rails a few minutes before the train is due, and detonate when its camera sees the train rolling over it, thus derailing the train. All of this can be fully automated with no need for radio communication back to an operator. The tracks don’t move so the lat/long of the landing spot can be preprogrammed. Nothing drives over these tracks except high-speed trains and, therefore, the “detect a train” logic need not be sophisticated.

(Of course, I continue to be mystified as to how Californians can simultaneously say (a) they hate inequality, and (b) they want all of this federal money rather than seeing it spent in poorer-than-average states. Why don’t they want federal money spent in ways that reduce inequality?)

Maybe the answer will be a grid of sensor-equipped poles arranged along the entire route? They can use radar and optical cameras to look for aerial drones and also drones that crawl over the ground. But given that a drone can pop up from a shipping crate just a minute before a train is due and land 30 seconds before a train is due to pass, how can surveillance alone be effective? Californians didn’t object to a year or two of lockdown and school closure in exchange for a perceived higher level of security from Covid so maybe they would also accept a security corridor for a few miles on either side of the track in which humans are forbidden to enter. On the other hand, a clever jihadi could perhaps make a drone that looks like an animal of some kind.

Note that the same question can be asked about a lot of U.S. infrastructure. We have open borders by design, including to people who say that they hate the United States (an application for asylum is based on a fear of being harmed in some other country, not on any kind of affection for or loyalty to the U.S.). What stops a foreign power from sending a few hundred soldiers over as asylum-seekers and having them quietly build attack drones? The foreign power could guarantee that their asylum application will be accepted by publishing a list of the soldiers’ names and saying “All of the people on this list are sentenced to death due to their political opinions.” Anyone under a definitive sentence of death for a political point of view meets U.S. asylum criteria, right? “Membership in a particular social group” is also a slam-dunk and “LGBTI” is considered a “group” so the foreign power could make sure that its army gets into the U.S. by publishing a list of soldiers’ names and saying “All of the men on this list were discovered at a gay bathhouse and, therefore, are sentenced to death if apprehended.” From a USCIS training document:

Full post, including comments

Drug dealers and the police agree that the C8 Corvette is awesome

by philg

Happy National Corvette Day to those who celebrate.

Here’s a heart-warming example of Americans with different perspectives coming together and finding common ground (Road & Track):

“Florida Highway Patrol Adds C8 Chevy Corvette to Patrol Car Fleet”

The C8 Corvette was seized from a drug dealer, and now will be used for community outreach — as well as enforcing traffic laws.

(Photo from the FHP’s Facebook post.)

In the same spirit, let me post some rainbow images that I hope everyone can celebrate for the end of Pride (until Omnisexual Visibility Day on July 6). These are from yesterday at Shoshone Falls in Idaho:

Full post, including comments

Being LGBTQ+ is a sign of mental health and also it is possible to plan a career in providing mental health services to the LGBTQ+

by philg

We’re coming to the end of Pride Month and there won’t be any additional 2SLGBTQQIA+ celebrations until July 6 when we celebrate Omnisexual Visibility Day (i.e., nearly a full week without a Pride-oriented holiday). Here’s a conundrum from X:

In one of the replies, the taxpayer-funded school notes “Damien will be returning to Brooklyn College this fall for a master’s in mental health counseling, aiming to become a therapist specializing in affirming, trauma-informed care for LGBTQ+ clients.” In other words, we are informed that (1) identifying as LGBTQ+ is not a sign of mental illness, and (2) it is possible to rely on a lifetime income stream from the poor mental health of people who identify as LGBTQ+.

Some images in case the above tweets are memory-holed:

Full post, including comments

Why are car insurance liability minimums so low?

by philg

Happy National Insurance Awareness Day to those who celebrate. (And Happy Pride to everyone else.)

From a friend in the Boston suburbs:

My kids got hit by a Haitian immigrant. The car is totaled. I am talking to his insurance company and they tell me, yeah so he is only insured up to $10,000 (damage to third parties).

(His teenagers were driving a minivan and weren’t hurt, fortunately. The migrant hit them from behind so his car would have needed to go through two empty rows of seats before reaching the children in the front seats.)

It turns out that the noble enricher was overinsured by Maskachusetts standards:

State governments love to regulate. They have a structure in place for requiring car insurance. Why are these limits set ridiculously low? It would be almost impossible to crash into someone else’s car and do less than $5,000 in damage. Things are complicated to some extent by the “no-fault” idea, but wouldn’t it make more sense to have minimum insurance set at the average cost of a car, e.g., if a driver hits a parked car and there is no doubt whose fault it is, or at the average cost of repairing a house after a car hits it?

How much damage was done by the Haitian whose presence in the U.S. makes all of us better off?

Progressive said they would pay $11k for the totaled [2012] Sienna and said they would arrange for me to come and sign papers. They called back and said that MA law requires that they run a check on me before issuing me any checks to make sure I don’t have any outstanding child support. It would then be deducted from my settlement

Even hitting a 13-year-old car did damage more than 2X the minimum! Separately, note that the tragic car destruction could have been a welcome payday for a family court entrepreneur. Finally, note the astounding value of a 13-year-old minivan!

Related:

Full post, including comments