Category: Government

Maryland fails to reassess a Montgomery County house after it was bulldozed

by philg

Today we begin our celebration of Public Service Recognition Week, in which we “honor the people who serve our nation as federal, state, county, local and tribal government employees.”

In writing the post about my mom’s 25th high school reunion, I noticed that Zillow in 2025 displays our old family homestead, which was bulldozed in 2012…

Zillow still shows the crummy 1953 Cape Cod house in which we grew up (address above) and lists the mansion’s 1,603 square feet of space (we also used the basement, though, and a screen porch that was glassed in and maybe isn’t included). However, it was bulldozed within hours of being sold in 2012 and the Indian immigrants who purchased it built a McMansion in its place.

What I didn’t notice until more recently was that the Zillow page indicates that my parents’ old house wasn’t reassessed despite having been bulldozed and replaced by a vastly-more-valuable McMansion:

Montgomery County, Maryland is run by Democrats who would be the first to tell you how much smarter they are than Republicans. Ditto for the state government, which I think might be responsible for assessment. The house next door, 6409 Dahlonega, was bulldozed and its assessed value went up from $382,000 in 2006 to $1.7 million in 2007 (today at $2.2 million). My parents’ old house would have brought in more than double the current property tax over the past 13 years if it had been assessed at market rates.

(Incidentally, the people who built the magnificent edifice at 6409 Dahlonega are no longer paying property, income, or, when the time comes, estate taxes to Montgomery County/Maryland. They moved to Clearwater Beach, Florida towards the tail-end of coronapanic.)

These data shatter my preconceptions about government, which I thought was a well-oiled machine for collecting maximum taxes. Maybe there is some rule in Maryland or in Montgomery County that prevents a reassessment after a bulldozing, but I don’t know what it would be.

Anyway, let’s celebrate the property tax assessors of Maryland for their hard work, even if trees obscured their view of the old 1,600-square-foot cottage that was replaced by a hulking McMansion.

Very loosely related…

Full post, including comments

When a rogue president defied the Supreme Court

by philg

I think that we can all agree that our democracy would be at an end if a president were to defy the Supreme Court. Has it ever happened? I asked ChatGPT. Here are some snippets:

In the early 1930s, FDR removed the U.S. from the gold standard and invalidated gold clauses in both public and private contracts. These clauses had allowed creditors to demand payment in gold, insulating them from inflation.

The Supreme Court heard several consolidated cases, the most famous being Perry v. United States, which challenged the government’s abrogation of gold clauses in government bonds.

There was press speculation that FDR might defy the Court if it ruled against him, especially since the stakes were so high for the administration’s economic agenda.

In a narrow 5-4 ruling, the Court upheld the government’s position, essentially avoiding a constitutional crisis.

Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes wrote the majority opinion in Perry v. United States, holding that while the government’s action was technically unconstitutional, the plaintiff had not suffered a legally redressable loss.

Yes, Franklin D. Roosevelt did prepare a contingency speech in the event that the Supreme Court ruled against him in the 1935 gold clause cases, particularly Perry v. United States.

The speech was drafted in anticipation of the Supreme Court potentially striking down his policies on invalidating gold clauses.

In this prepared address, FDR was ready to assure the public that he would not allow the economic system to collapse, even if it meant ignoring the Court’s ruling. The draft included language that strongly implied he would defy the decision.

According to historical sources, including William Leuchtenburg’s writings and Henry Morgenthau’s diaries, the speech essentially framed any contrary Court ruling as a threat to national survival, and FDR positioned himself as the defender of the people’s economic security over rigid constitutional formalism.

Here’s a paraphrase of the key idea from that draft speech:

If the Supreme Court were to rule that the government must repay debts in gold, then the administration would have no choice but to protect the nation’s economy by refusing to comply—suggesting a potential constitutional crisis.

Henry Morgenthau Jr., FDR’s Treasury Secretary, kept detailed diaries. In entries from January 1935, he discusses FDR’s draft speech and concerns about the Supreme Court decision. These diaries are held at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and are available digitally. Look for entries in January–February 1935 regarding the gold clause litigation.

Secondary source: Franklin D. Roosevelt and the New Deal, 1932–1940 by William E. Leuchtenburg:

“[FDR] had even prepared a radio address for the evening of the day the Supreme Court ruled, asserting that the government would defy the Court if it invalidated the gold policy. But the Court, by a narrow margin, spared him the necessity.”

Full post, including comments

Racial equity in the world of IDs

by philg

The credentialed white elites of the Northeast used to say that Black people weren’t smart enough to get ID. Now, after remarkable progress toward racial equity, they’re saying that it is they themselves who aren’t smart enough. REAL-ID will supposedly be required soon for getting through TSA. Maskachusetts began issuing REAL-ID in March 2018 (source). Folks in MA agree that Floridians are stupid and that Florida doesn’t run its state government properly, which is perhaps why Florida wasn’t able to begin issuing REAL-ID until January 1, 2010 (i.e., more than 8 years prior to MA; source):

I can’t figure out why physical ID cards are required. Wouldn’t it make more sense to do retina scans and have your ID looked up based on that? I don’t see why this is different, from a privacy perspective, than forcing people to get a picture taken and a plastic card issue. Is it that, in theory, the government could scan our retinas from a distance and track everyone who walks around a city? Privacy-oriented folks could simply wear mirrored glasses.

Some data from “Real ID deadline is weeks away and most states aren’t fully compliant yet” (CBS):

As of last week, New Jersey had the lowest compliance rate in the nation — just 17% of its state-issued IDs are Real IDs. Pennsylvania reported 26%, while Washington and Maine tell CBS News they are at 27% compliance. New York reports 43% compliance, and California has reached nearly 55% compliance. [Maskachusetts was at 57%]

For comparison, the CBS article notes that Florida is “virtually 100% compliant” and Texas is at 98% (both scores achieved without either state taxing personal income).

Full post, including comments

Federal government weighs in on a 15-year-old pupusa dispute (Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia)

by philg

Our energetic government employees have been vilified for inefficiency (most recently by the notorious DOGE), but the example of Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia shows that federal workers can be very energetic indeed.

CNN:

Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran national, entered the US illegally sometime around 2011, but an immigration judge in 2019, after reviewing evidence, withheld his removal. That meant he could not be deported to El Salvador but could be deported to another country. A gang in his native country, the immigration judge found, had been “targeting him and threatening him with death because of his family’s pupusa business.”

(“could be deported to another country” is inconsistent with what Democrats on X and Facebook are saying, i.e., that the noble Abrego Garcia had the right to permanent residence in the U.S.)

ChatGPT, regarding the value (in 2025 dollars) at stake in this deadly dispute:

​In El Salvador, pupusas are a beloved and affordable staple. Typically, a standard pupusa costs between $0.25 and $1.00 USD, depending on factors like ingredients, size, and location.

A federal employee, in other words, determined that a gang member who didn’t like a pupusa ten years earlier (maybe the gang prefers panes rellenos?) was lying in wait for Mr. Abrego Garcia to return to El Salvador so that he could be executed. Therefore, Mr. Abrego Garcia could stay safe in the U.S.

(It’s unclear to me why Mr. Abrego Garcia is safer in Maryland than in El Salvador. The murder rates in Baltimore and Washington, D.C. are more than 20X higher than in El Salvador. The border was fully open for four years and any Salvadoran, including cornmeal-hating gang members, could enter the U.S. and stay permanently temporarily (latest extension by the Biden-Harris administration, oddly in conflict with the fact that the State Department rates El Salvador as safer for American travelers than France or my beloved Sweden (see below).

Additionally, Mr. Abrego Garcia would be at risk in Maryland from his wife, with whom he apparently has a history of physical violence (ABC). Suppose that she has availed herself of her 2nd Amendment rights during Mr. Abrego Garcia’s sojourn in El Salvador? He returns to Maryland as a hero to all Democrats and is promptly filled with lead by the wife.

Surely the United States is now home to far more non-imprisoned violent Salvadorans than El Salvador itself (which successfully exported nearly all of its violent criminals to the U.S. and then imprisoned the rest).)

I’m at a loss to understand how Americans imagine that our English-speaking government workers are capable of sorting out what happened in a pupusa exchange 15 years ago.

Separately, here’s a hero of climate change alarmism:

According to Maryland Sen. Van Hollen, we’re in a “climate crisis” exacerbated by a “climate emergency.” What’s the right thing to do in that situation? Tap into a lake of Jet A and fly roundtrip to El Salvador without first making any appointments (nytimes):

It wasn’t possible to meet via Zoom or phone?

Full post, including comments

Should the USPS launch an authenticated voice and text service?

by philg

The phone system has become useless, with seemingly 90 percent of calls and texts being from scammers (SMS: “Hi”). The USPS is losing money and trying to justify its existence as a sink for taxpayer dollars. What if the USPS launched a competing voice/text/email service in which every participant was authenticated? People could sign up by going to a Post Office and showing an ID or by receiving a PIN code at their regular physical mailing address. Instead of giving your phone number to a bank or doctor’s office, you’d give your USPS “RealNumber” and then the institution could contact you without getting lost in the tide of spam. Because the security would be guaranteed to be as good as physical letters carried by USPS, medical records could be exchanged via this service instead of by FAX(!). This would be a good way to receive bills because they wouldn’t get buried in the daily tide of spam.

Inevitably, of course, someone would start spamming within this system, but USPS could kick spammers out much more easily and durably than other services (the spammer couldn’t sign up again without getting an ID in a different name and getting a new residential or business address where mail was being received in that name). On the third hand, the USPS makes nearly all of its current revenue by delivering spam (unsolicited mail) so maybe they wouldn’t be able to resist selling the right to spam everyone in the system.

As others have noted, USPS could also start a bank as post offices in many other countries have done (taking advantage of their many physical locations). Then the authenticated bills received via the RealNumber could be paid directly.

Readers: Does this idea make sense?

A recent Facebook post of mine:

Why can’t pig butchers be more specific? Text today: “Hi, Monica. This is Linda. Do you have time to take care of my pet? I need to go on a business trip for a few days and I hope you can help me. I will treat you to a seafood dinner when I come back”. Who says “pet” in this context? And “seafood”? That’s a supermarket section, not a colloquial dinner plan. Is there some language in which the above umbrella terms would make sense in a text message or conversation? If so, which one?

Related:

Full post, including comments

If consumption taxes and carbon taxes are good, why are tariffs bad?

by philg

We’re informed by America’s expert class that Donald Trump’s tariffs, money paid to the government when an item from overseas is purchased for use here, are disastrous.

We’ve been informed for 30 years by America’s expert class that consumption taxes, such as sales taxes, airline ticket taxes, gasoline taxes, etc. are good. In fact, one way to make America better would be to have a European-style 20 percent value-added (consumption) tax, i.e., money paid to the government when an item from overseas is purchased for use domestically (and also when a domestically produced item is purchased). Trump’s 10 percent general tariff plus California’s 10 percent sales tax rate (varies a bit by city/county) comes pretty close to the European average of 22 percent consumption tax (VAT).

Our elites also say that what would really deliver us the paradise on Earth to which we are entitled is a carbon tax. We consume too much, especially of transportation, and the result is epic CO2 emission. A consumption tax, especially for things that have to be transported long distances, would go a long way to healing our beloved Spaceship Earth. A tariff, of course, isn’t a laser-targeted carbon tax, but it is most certainly better than no tax at all for plastic being made in China and then shipped across the wide Pacific Ocean.

Finally, we’ve been told by experts for at least 20 years that we are undertaxed (our structural annual budget deficits certainly lend some credence to this theory!). The government needs more revenue of all kinds so that it can do great things for us.

Trump’s tariffs may simply be a prod to negotiating lower tariffs and non-tariff barriers in other countries to U.S. exports. But even if they were to be applied long-term, based on everything that elites and progressives have previously said, shouldn’t they be a positive for both the U.S. and for the world? Why the hysteria from Democrats when higher tax rates, carbon taxes, and more government revenue are precisely the things that they’ve been asking for?

A neighbor’s house this morning, below. Why wouldn’t a progressive celebrate discouraging the importation of a gas guzzling Porsche 911 like the one in the photo (daily driver parked on the street because the homeowner’s garage is presumably full with the valuable cars). This homeowner could have used a nudge in the direction of a planet-healing domestically produced Chevrolet Bolt instead.

The whole situation is almost as confusing to me as climate change alarmist Senator Mark Kelly’s switch from Tesla to pavement-melting gasoline-powered Chevy Tahoe. Trump has seemingly delivered almost everything that elite progressives have asked for and yet they’re forecasting a doom spiral.

Related:

  • “Trade, Firms, and Wages: Theory and Evidence” (Amiti and Davis 2011), in which economists from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, Queers for Palestine University (a.k.a. “Columbia”), and NBER, found that high tariffs boosted wages for workers “at import-competing firms”
  • “There’s a Method to Trump’s Tariff Madness” (New York Times! Guest essay by a young history professor): “They are the opening gambit in a more ambitious plan to smash the world’s economic and geopolitical order and replace it with something intended to better serve American interests. … it seeks to improve the United States’ global trading position by using tariffs and other strong-arm tactics to force the world to take a radical step: weakening the dollar via currency agreements. … some sort of reset of the economic order probably makes sense for the United States.” and then the more familiar NYT perspective… “But the slash-and-burn approach of the Mar-a-Lago Accord isn’t the answer. For one thing, it is hard to find an economist outside of Mr. Trump’s inner circle who thinks it is a good idea. But even if, despite all the chaos it will unleash, the United States eventually prospers as a result, we will have traded away the core economic and political values that make America truly great. … The most valuable asset of the United States is not the dollar but our trustworthiness — our integrity and our values. If the world envisioned by the Mar-a-Lago Accords comes to pass, it will be a sign that not only our currency but our nation has been devalue” (My rating for this last sentence: Completely FALSE! Our most valuable asset is the entire continent that we stole from the Native Americans! As a thought experiment, imagine if the roughly 350 million Americans lived on the territory of Sudan. How rich would we be?)
Full post, including comments

Department of USPS Efficiency

by philg

We sent out a Christmas card that was postmarked West Palm Beach, December 23, 2024. The destination was Brooklyn. It was returned as undeliverable (my friend moved) on March 18, 2024, nearly three months after being mailed. An opportunity for DOGE?

If the USPS were eliminated completely, I wonder if Amazon or UPS would replace it by installing a print-on-demand system for creating junk mail in their existing trucks. The trucks would go from house to house, as they already do now for packages, and drop junk mail, plus the occasional first class communication, on doorsteps. If the junk mail printer also stuffed everything privately into an envelope maybe this could replace mailing physical documents in most cases, e.g., medical bills and bank statements. The bank would pay UPS/Amazon to print out the statement right at the point of delivery.

Separately, the folks in West Palm Beach were stamping outgoing mail with a snowman. The most recent snowfall in Palm Beach County was January 19, 1977 (that was the only snowfall on record, though I guess we could attribute the lack of snow since 1977 to Climate Change).

Related:

Full post, including comments

Have Americans of color been enjoying a cleaner environment?

by philg

“E.P.A. Plans to Close All Environmental Justice Offices” (NYT):

An internal memo directs the closure of offices designed to ease the heavy pollution faced by poor and minority communities.

Mr. Zeldin’s move effectively ends three decades of work at the E.P.A. to try to ease the pollution that burdens poor and minority communities, which are frequently located near highways, power plants, industrial plants and other polluting facilities. Studies have shown that people who live in those communities have higher rates of asthma, heart disease and other health problems, compared with the national average.

Last month, Mr. Zeldin placed 168 employees who work on environmental justice on leave, but this week a federal judge forced him to rehire dozens of them after finding that the action had no legal basis. Several E.P.A. employees said they were bracing for many of those people to again be eliminated, as the agency and others prepared for widespread reductions in force.

As president, Mr. Biden emphasized the need to address the unequal burden that people of color carry from exposure to environmental hazards. He created the White House Office of Environmental Justice and directed federal agencies to deliver 40 percent of the benefits of environmental programs to marginalized communities that face a disproportionate amount of pollution. The E.P.A.’s Office of Environmental Justice, which was created by the Clinton administration, significantly expanded under Mr. Biden.

The Trump administration has now erased all of that.

The EPA spends $11 billion every year. Apparently, roughly 40 percent of that has been going to government-identified “marginalized communities” (there are experts assigned to determine which communities have been marginalized?). There are hundreds of EPA employees, at least, working on “environmental justice”. Yet the New York Times journalist couldn’t find any evidence to cite regarding Americans of color (e.g., a lavishly paid Chinese-American school superintendent in the Boston exurbs who claims to be “a person of color”) experiencing any benefit as a consequence of this huge effort.

Is there any evidence that Americans are experiencing more environmental justice as a result of 10+ years of government effort in this direction? If one aspect of the environment is not being crowded, I would think that urban Americans have experienced less environmental now that low-skill migrants have been dumped into their neighborhoods (never into the neighborhoods of the elite advocates for open borders).

Full post, including comments

Robinson goes to war

by philg

Incredibly, the U.S. military decided that it didn’t need to waste every possible dollar every day. The Army will now do some primary training of helicopter pilots in the Robinson R66 (rebranded the “TH-66 Sage”) at a civilian flight school in Marianna, Florida, a one-hour drive from Ron DeSantis’s house in Tallahassee. An R44 would probably make better economic sense, but the idea of a piston-powered aircraft is apparently too terrifying for America’s bravest heroes.

See “Crew Training International and Helicopter Institute awarded U.S.Army FAA Part 141 Helicopter Flight School Pilot Program” (March 6, 2025)

Related:

the airspace (Marianna at the top center; note the magenta color for the airport, which indicates that there is no control tower):

Full post, including comments

Taxpayers vs. the Community Engagement Specialist

by philg

A heart-wrenching story from the NYT, “Government Workers Who Have Lost Their Jobs Worry About Their Housing”:

After losing his job at the U.S. Forest Service, Cameron McKenzie was worried about finding a new job. But first, he had a more immediate concern: How was he going to pay the mortgage?

He’s done the math — finding another job in the environmental sector could take months — and keeping up with the nearly $2,700 monthly payment on his three-bedroom home in Blairstown, N.J., will be a challenge, if not impossible. “Even on unemployment,” said Mr. McKenzie, 27, who worked as a community engagement specialist, “I’m not going to be able to make my mortgage payment.”

Mr. McKenzie’s termination was among thousands of federal job cuts, part of a purge of the work force under an executive order signed by President Trump.

It’s the New York Times, so it is important to stress that the “community engagement specialist” profiled happens to be a member of the 2SLGBTQQIA+ community:

Mr. McKenzie, who worked at the U.S. Forest Service, said he and his husband are planning to list their New Jersey home — which his husband first purchased in 2022 for $215,000 — in May, when there’s more greenery to make it more attractive to potential buyers. Though they used to split the mortgage payments, Mr. McKenzie took on the task when his husband started law school. He estimated that around half of his $87,000 salary was going toward the payments and a construction loan the couple took out to cover renovations.

Who else is profiled in the article? “a single mother with three children” working as a “a health insurance specialist” and “Nathan Barrera-Bunch, who was a management analyst at the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs … staying in Washington might not be feasible. It all depends, he said, on whether his fiancé, who still works for the federal government, can keep his job and if Mr. Barrera-Bunch can find a new one.”

In other words, the NYT apparently couldn’t find a single fired federal employee who was in a heterosexual partnership of some sort. Nor could they find an example of children growing up in a two-parent household.

Let’s circle back to Mr. McKenzie. If his cash compensation was $87,000 per year it seems fair to assume that he was costing taxpayers $250,000 per year (salary, benefits, pension, office space, etc.). What does a “community engagement specialist” do that justifies 100 percent of the personal federal income tax of perhaps 20 median-income families being harvested (i.e., for those 20 families, not a penny of their tax dollars can be used to deliver other services to them)?

I tried to answer my own question and found these slides from the Forest Service that include contributions from two community engagement workers. Here are some samples:

The white male cares about social justice, but is hogging this position that pays 2-3X private sector wages and thereby preventing a Black trans female from enjoying it? Only a white male can understand “Recreation Equity”, apparently:

Taxpayers keep funding DEI and yet don’t get any diversity, equity, or inclusion. The folks who get paid to achieve DEI aren’t discouraged by their long track record of (paid) failure:

Whiteness is to blame, it seems, but the white people won’t give up their unearned jobs and fat government salaries:

Critical Race Theory is not being funded or applied by the government, except in the minds of paranoid MAGA:

Full post, including comments