We had another assignation a few days ago. A speaker on a college campus was killed by a shooter some 150 yards or more away. The man killed had said that the number of shooting in the US was the price we pay for the second amendment. He thought it was worth the price in order to keep the amendment and allow people to have access to guns. I wonder if when he said that he realized he would be one of those sacrificed, and if he had, would he have changed his mind. He probably had received death threats so he must have realized that there was a possibility that he would become one of the victims. The only thing I can say is that he thought the price was worth it even though he knew there was a possibility that he would be one of those shot and killed. I believe a majority of the people in the US hold that same opinion. They know there is a possibility they will be shot, but want to maintain the right to own and carry guns. I don’t see any reasonable possibility of getting that law changed, but there may be a slight majority at this time who favor more strict gun laws. Stricter gun laws may help some, but would not eliminate gun ownership to any great extent. Many, if not most, of the shooters would have qualified for gun ownership regardless of the proposed stricter gun laws. There is just no accurate and reliable way to predict who is going to become a shooter and who is not. It would be a fair statement to say that elimination of ownership of guns to any particular group would reduce the amount of gun violence, for the simple reason that the fewer people who have guns will in theory reduce the number of shootings. As I said, I don’t see that there will be any substantial changes in gun laws or that there will be any substantial reduction in gun ownership and shootings in the US. But stricter gun laws would help. However, it seems that majority of the population agree with the last victim and believe the shootings are the price to pay for the second amendment and allowing citizens to own and possess guns.
Trump and Putin had their meeting in Alaska. They met and talked for a few hours, then appeared on a stage together and each made a statement. They took no questions from the press. And that was it. Putin spoke for eight minutes, Trump spoke for three minutes. Putin gave a short history starting with the cooperation between the two countries during world war two. He encouraged cooperation between Russia and the United States. He reviewed how they were formed allies with hopes they could become allies in the future. He said he and Trump had reached an agreement and he would abide by it. When Trump spoke, he disagreed. Trump said they had agreed on some points, but not on some of the major issues, and that they had no deal. He stated that he would present his report of the meeting to Ukraine and NATO and it would be up to those parties to decide what to do. Trump and Putin agreed they should meet again soon for more talks. They both said that they had made some headway and looked forward to the next meeting.
It is hard fo tell what headway they made. Neither said what issues were agreed on, and Trump did not say what issues they were unable to agree on. I thought Putin looked very unhappy when Trump said there was no deal, after Putin had said there was an agreement. it
Trump seems to have reached the conclusion that there is no point in Ukraine continuing the fight. They don’t have the troops or supplies to prevent Russia from advancing and gaining more ground. He believes the war will eventually stop with Ukraine agreeing to terms similar to the terms offered now by Russia. He thinks it is time to make that agreement now to prevent unnecessary future losses. But he emphasized that it is up to Ukraine to make that decision. The US is only a meditator.
Trump and Putin are planning to meet in Alaska next week. The main goal of the meeting appears to be the Trump wants to get a clear understanding of Putin’s position on the war with Ukraine. I am not optimistic that he will be able to do that. In the past he has misunderstood what Putin’s intentions were. I don’t expect this meeting to go any different. Putin seems to be very adept at keeping his position private. He says he wants peace. Trump hears that, but does not pay close attention to what Putin says after he says he wants peace. He chooses his words carefully. He wants peace, but at a very high price. A price Ukraine and the West is not at this time ready to pay. At this time, I don’t see that they are anywhere close ending the war. There will be a time in the future when one or the other will run out of recourses and will to continue. When that happens, they will be an agreement, but not until then. But it does not appear that either side is nearing that point. My hope is that Trump will come away from the meeting with a better understanding of Putin and why he is conducting the war the way he is. Putin wants to achieve his goals, and wants peace after he achieves those goals. That is not something that Trump appears to understand.
The big fight in Washington now is over the budget bill. Congressmen are debating whether the bill as it now stands will result in a deficit and increase the national debt. I don’t know what such a bill would look like or what it would. contain. I do know that last year the deficit was 1.8 trillion dollars. That, according to virtually all economists is too high and should be reduced. The bill contains spending reductions and also tax cuts. Proponents of the tax cuts claim tax cuts will stimulate business and increase total amount of tax revenue in the future. They got that theory partly from John Maynard Keynes. He said tax cuts would stimulate business activity. He also said that increased government spending would stimulate business activity. He added that both tax cuts and increased government spending would produce a budget deficit and result in an increase in the national debt. Keynes was never was able to come up with a solution as to how to reduce the debt caused by tax cuts and the increased spending. So far, as far as I know, no one else has come up with a satisfactory solution. One proposal is to cut spending and increase taxes. Doing that would slow down business activity and the economy. The result would be austerity. Another possibility is for the economy to grow so much the tax revenues increase. This has occurred in the past. It could again but is difficult to predict. That is the result that those who want to cut taxes want to achieve.
A lot of research is being done now on why people behave as they do. Why do we have the personalities and personality traits that we have. The current thinking by scientists who do research is this field believe that behavior is from 30 to 60 per cent inheritable. Researchers have been able to identify specific genes that cause certain types of behavior and personality traits. I believe that having more knowledge about the reasons for some of our behaviors and traits will be beneficial. Knowledge of traits we have based on our DNA would help us know how to deal those traits. It would also help in understanding and dealing with other people. It has always been somewhat of a mystery why we like or dislike certain people. The thinking now by researchers is we tend to like to dislike people more because of their behavior and traits than anything else, and that many of those behaviors and traits are based on DNA and are inherited. This knowledge may change our understanding and interacting with other people, and help us understand ourselves.
The president gave his state of the union speech to congress a few days ago. I had it on and listened to all of it. It was interesting. He covered s lot of ground. Most people I know did not watch it at all and most of those that did only saw or heard a small part of it. I won’t go into the details of the speech. Most people that are interested have information about it and have already formed their opinions about the president and what he said.
Instead I will give my opinion of the state of the union. To sum it up in a word I would say its state is unstable. People and worried and concerned. Families who have a family member who works for the federal government are very concerned about that person’s potential loss of employment. People in education are worried about federal cutbacks in aid and grants leading to loss of employment. That applies to other fields that rely on federal funding. There are also vast numbers if people who arr concerned about the effect tariffs may have on their employment, and of cost of living increases resulting from the tariffs. Other people are concerned about loss of exports because of tariffs imposed by other countries on us. The blowback has reached congress, and congressmen are expressing concern over this issues and the results they will have on the people in their districts, and, in turn, on their own chances of reelection. Congressmen also have concerns about their own possible future loss of employment. I don’t know how this will all work out. I just know that there is a lot of concern and uncertainty in the country. I think unsteady is a good word to describe the state of the union.
It is almost time for congress to pass another budget. Discussions and maneuvering have already begun. Last year our deficit was $1.8 trillion. Our national debt is about $36 trillion. The total net worth of people in the US is about $140 trillion. We have about 750 billionaires in the country. Their net worth is about $6.22 trillion. Those are some very large numbers. But looking at and comparing the relative value of the numbers tells me that we are not in good financial shape. The budget, deficit, and national debt are much larger than they should be.
When I analyze those number I come to two conclusions. We need to raise taxes and we need to cut spending. Both of those are necessary. If we don’t do those things we will have severe problems in the not too distant future. The revenue and expense numbers are just too far apart to maintain a healthy economy. The numbers need to be brought closer together, and that will require some drastic changes.
It has been just over a month since in the inauguration. Things have been going about as expected, with a lot of noise and bold statements. The surprise to me is the amount of change, upheaval, and disruption I see. I did not foresee all these executive orders, firings, and all the changes that are being purposed and planned. If all of it is successful we are going to see major change in our government structure and operation. The results of this process are unknown. It is difficult to look ahead and see what the results will be. Much of it will depend on decisions made by the Supreme Court in the upcoming legal challenges. We were in a somewhat similar situation in the thirties when the New Deal programs went before the court. Many of the programs, such as social security, were upheld. Our government changed greatly as a result of those times. I believe we are looking at the same possibility now. We may be looking at major changes. We go through major changes periodically.
The people driving these changes argue that our federal government is too large and the size of it holds back the economy. They point to our annual deficit ($1.7 trillion in 2024) and a too large national debt ($36 trillion). In 2024 the government borrowed 27% of the money it spent. In 2020 the number was 40%, and in 2009 the number was 48%. The numbers change as our economy rises and falls, and as interest rates change. When interest rates are high, it costs more to borrow to pay interest on the national debt. The items in the budget that represent 85% if the government expenses are social security, medicare, interest on the national debt, defense, health, and income security. Any meaningful and substantial reductions in expense would have to come by reducing expenses and services in these budget items.
The argument from the other side is that the size of government does not need to be reduced. They argue that taxes should be raised on the wealthy to cover the annual deficit and reduce the national debt. There are economists and experts on both sides of that argument. Some say raising taxes would harm the economy and would not reduce total revenue from taxes. Others say raising taxes would increase revenue without damage to the economy. The argument goes on.
In this years election the reduce the size and expense of government and reduce taxes side won. The winning margin was small, fewer than 150,000 thousand voters changing their votes in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin would have changed the outcome of the election. A relatively small number of votes has made a lot of difference.
I just finished watching the electoral college vote count. The count and the process went smoothly. The count took about thirty minutes, and was uneventful with no surprises. A year or more of campaign, confusion, debate, and celebration all consolidated and summed up in a thirty minute reporting and counting of votes in a cut and dried process. I checked on the popular vote totals. Trump got 49.9 per cent of the votes. That means he is a minority president, and more than half of the voters voted against him. That is not a stunning or overwhelming victory. It means the country is about equally divided on what kind of government it wants and in what direction it wants to go. The Senate and House are about equally divided also. More evidence of a split and division in the country.
As I look around the country I see about half the country looking for a change in direction. They want a smaller government with less government control and regulations, a more secure southern border, an end to the wars in Ukraine and Palestine, more jobs, a smaller deficit, and slower growth or reduction in the national debt. I also see the other half predicting a collapse, failure, a probable loss of democracy, and beginnings of an oligarchy or authoritarian government. That is a pretty big division and split in expectations.
As for me, I don’t agree with any of those thoughts or predictions. My expectations are that the country will continue on about as it has, with the average person noticing little change in their lives. Our economic cycle will continue as it is. This year should see growth, but there is a possibility of a recession starting later this year or next year. That possibility is always present, but there are signals now that make it more probable than usual. With congress split the way it is, I don’t see any possibility of any major legislation being passed. The senate still requires sixty votes to bring legislation to a vote. I don’t see that changing. No radical legislation will pass that hurdle. The House is so divided it will be difficult to get anything passed. The republicans have a slight majority, but they are divided. Any bills passed in either chamber will require bipartisan support.
I don’t see any major change in the next four years. There will probably be a recession, but having a recession within any four year period is not unexpected. That is part of our business cycle. We will continue to have inflation and a decrease in the standard of living, with most of the country struggling financially. That is one thing the election results will not change. That is not good news, but it is not collapse either. I don’t agree with the people predicting either doom or substantial improvement. One big problem is that we are entering a period of energy and other shortages. That is something we will have to live with. It will not be easy. Our expectations will have to change.
The electoral count is now over. Next will come the inauguration and a new administration. We will see how it works out.
Homelessness is a problem in the United States. Many factors are mentioned as contributing factors, but the most often mentioned causes are a housing shortage, and the rising cost of housing. Some reports show that an estimated fifty percent of homeless have jobs, but housing they can afford is not available. Housing values have risen substantially in the last years, and that combined with a housing shortage has resulted in an increase in homelessness. The homelessness is centered to a greater extent in parts of the country that have the highest home values.
The federal government through HUD funds housing by making loans and by providing grants to cities for funding. That program should get additional funding.
City zoning and housing regulations are also partially responsible for the lack of inexpensive housing. Those laws and regulations should be managed to allow for needed inexpensive housing to be constructed and maintained.
Mental illness and addiction are also factors that contribute to the high numbers. The institutional system that house the largest number of mentally ill is the prison system. They are held there and medicated, receiving virtually no other care. When they are released from prison, they go back on the street as homeless. Our federal and state governments should increase funding for care of the mentally who are unable to work. Childhood mental illness also should get additional funding.
Homelessness in the United States can be substantially eliminated but it will require governments on all levels to change their laws, rules, and regulations to allow for inexpensive housing to be built. Action should be taken through government agencies to provide loans and grants for funding. In addition to that, funding should be increased for the prevention and treatment of mental illness, particularly for children. This can be done, be it requires willingness to take the necessary action.
harben post 
