First he disapproved of it. Now he approves of it. What changed? At The Japan Times Francis Tang reports on the now-approved acquisition of U. S. Steel by Nippon Steel:

U.S. President Donald Trump has announced a “partnership” between Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel, with press reports indicating that this signals the approval of a takeover of the iconic American company by the Japanese steelmaker.
“I am proud to announce that, after much consideration and negotiation, U.S. Steel will REMAIN in America, and keep its Headquarters in the Great City of Pittsburgh,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post Friday.

“This will be a planned partnership between United States Steel and Nippon Steel, which will create at least 70,000 jobs, and add $$14 Billion to the U.S. Economy,” Trump continued, while adding the investment will occur in the next 14 months.

Neither Trump nor the White House elaborated on the structure of the deal. Nippon Steel and U.S. Steel also described the transaction as a partnership. Japan’s Nikkei and other local media reported the deal as an acquisition.

Is the only thing that has changed the cosmetics of the deal?

Bob Tita and Lauren Thomas report at the Wall Street Journal:

Nippon Steel received a conditional green light from President Trump to take control of U.S. Steel under what he described as a partnership.

Key aspects of the deal still need to be ironed out. But Trump’s announcement signaled that the Tokyo-based company could eventually enter the American steel market and make the big investments envisioned when it reached a $14.1 billion deal to take over U.S. Steel.

Trump defined the agreement as a partnership, spurring some confusion at the companies on Friday afternoon, according to people involved in the deal talks. Both Nippon and U.S. Steel were seeking more guidance from the administration about how much ownership Nippon could ultimately gain.

In a post on Truth Social Friday, Trump said the partnership between the two companies would result in at least 70,000 jobs and add $14 billion to the U.S. economy. The bulk of that investment will occur in the next 14 months, the post said.

To my eye this acquisition is an unalloyed good. It means that U. S. Steel’s operations and processes will be modernized, something that was direly needed and for which I saw no prospect were the company to be acquired by a U. S. competitor, and that more of the steel used in the U. S. will be produced in the U. S. I’m still curious about what has changed. The reporters seem to be as puzzled about that as I am.

I’m seeing an astounding number of premature reactions to news stories in the opinion pieces of the last few days. IMO it’s grossly premature to try and make any intelligent observations about the second Trump Administration’s first budget. Assuming that something ultimately passes the Senate and returns to the House for reconciliation, the prospect that bill will be identical to what was passed by the House is nil.

Furthermore, I think there’s a tremendous dearth of alternative proposals. I know they don’t like Trump or the Republicans. What do they think should be done differently?

The U. S. fiscal situation is tremendously different from what it was in 2009 let alone in 2017 or even 2021. The public debt is now over 100% of GDP and, although we no longer believe there a “cliff” at that point, it still is believed that impedes economic growth.

Although it’s not as terrible as it was in 2020 the federal deficit is going down again

and there’s no real prospect for that ending. With all of the Sturm und Drang over DOGE the amount of federal spending it managed to cut was miniscule relative to the need. The message there is clear: the U. S. economy is addicted to spending more than we have.

The only thing that Republicans seem to be able to agree on is cutting taxes while Democrats all seem to agree that more government spending is necessary. I think that only much more narrowly tailored tax cuts are warranted and that we should limit our spending to what is truly necessary in terms of defense spending and welfare spending and I’ve made proposals for both.

You might be interested in these interviews of three Washington, DC rabbis about the murders of two employees of the Israeli embassy by Brian Bennett at Time. Here’s a snippet from one of them:

On the personal level, just like any other Jewish person in DC, in this country, it’s scary to think that we’d be targeted for being in a Jewish space. As a rabbi, I’m showing up in Jewish spaces on a regular basis. I’m publicly identified as Jewish. So that’s scary.

There’s also feelings of anger. This is the natural outgrowth of hateful rhetoric that we’ve been seeing from all kinds of different groups in this country. Jews know from our history that hateful rhetoric leads to hateful action. You see that playing out last night.

As a rabbi, I’ve got this added burden of trying to make meaning of this moment. I’m not sure what meaning there is. It’s pretty senseless. It’s pretty painful. I can say with confidence that violent political action is not going to move us toward peace. It’s not going to heal anything. That’s the one thing I’m clear on. I’m not clear on a lot else, to be honest.

There’s a lot of similarity among the three reactions. All are, obviously, saddened, shocked, and horrified.

But there are other similarities as well. None wants to talk about the situation in Gaza and all question the sincerity of the Trump Administration’s approach to antisemitism.

I agree with the editors of the Washington Post:

It now seems that, for a considerable time, Biden might have lacked the stamina and cognitive capacity the job demands — and that his family and closest aides concealed this from the public. Their apparent decision to put personal loyalties ahead of their duty to the country must be reckoned with. A legal mechanism should be considered to ensure that this doesn’t happen again.

The people closest to Biden could hardly have avoided observing his infirmity — indeed, the actions they took to hide it indicate that they knew all too well. Early issues surfaced in the 2020 campaign, when he had memory lapses, including forgetting the name of one of his closest advisers and the opening lines to the Declaration of Independence. A Democrat interviewed by Tapper and Thompson who was involved in making Zoom videos of Biden speaking to constituents during the pandemic lockdown said that, after watching hours of mostly unusable footage, they concluded he was incapable of doing the job.

Such observations then became more frequent. “Since at least 2022,” Tapper and Thompson write, “he has had moments where he cannot recall the names of top aides whom he sees every day. He can sometimes seem incoherent. He is increasingly prone to losing his train of thought.”

“By late 2023,” the authors say, “Biden’s staff was pushing as much of his schedule as possible to midday, when Biden was at his best.” Even in small groups, the president often read from notes or a teleprompter.

This suggests that Biden might have been too impaired to responsibly lead the United States. The country was fortunate not to have experienced a late-night crisis that he would have had trouble handling. It would be folly to count on such luck in the future.

concluding:

Ideally, Congress would create a sober, bipartisan commission to investigate ways to maintain transparency about the president’s health, mental and physical.

Perhaps some objective cognitive testing should be required, in addition to a physical examination, with the results made public annually.

Officials in both parties have a responsibility to enable their voters to select standard-bearers who are up to the job. In the case of the former president, top Democrats turned a blind eye to Biden’s limitations — until the debate made that problem impossible to ignore and activated their political survival instincts.

In a democracy, the voters, when selecting a commander in chief, need to be discerning, to elevate candidates who have the stamina and the smarts to serve. Four years later, they can assess that person’s ability to take on another term. If problems arise between elections, then White House officials and Congress must be counted on to act responsibly.

I question whether a “sober, bipartisan commission to investigate ways to maintain transparency about the president’s health” or “objective cognitive testing” are possible but they do raise some difficult questions about the events of the last year or so. Would President Biden have been elected at all had those been applied to candidates for the presidency in 2020? When did President Biden become incapable of handling the responsibilities of the presidency?

Section 4 of the 25th Amendment to the Constitution is:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Note that there’s nothing about incentives there. It is assumed that the Vice President, “principal officers of the executive departments”, and members of the Congress are high-minded individuals, motivated exclusively by the law and the common good. While that’s something to which we should aspire, I doubt it has ever actually been the case. Furthermore, no consequences apply should they fail to exercise those responsibilities.

Time and old age eventually catch up to all of us. Together I think all of the above make a very good argument for setting an age limit on when an individual may run for president. I suggest 70. That would be clear and objective.

You might be interested in this description of a novel weapon developed by the Ukrainians from Christopher M. McFadden at Interesting Engineering:

The Ministry of Defense of Ukraine (MOD) has officially authorized the KRAMPUS, a domestically developed thermobaric-armed unmanned ground vehicle (UGV). Intended for use in offensive and defensive operations, the UGV can also be armed with reactive thermobaric launchers for use by the Ukrainian Armed Forces.

According to the Ukrainian MOD, the KRAMPUS is compact in size and weight and can be carried on the bed of a pickup truck, minibus, or trailer. The UGV is also very quiet thanks to its silent electric motors and a tracked chassis.

See the picture at the link. Here’s its firepower:

At the UGV’s business end, the integrated thermobaric system is designed to deliver devastating close-quarters firepower. Upon triggering the warhead, the system disperses a fine aerosolized fuel cloud with a diameter of approximately 7 to 8 meters (roughly 23 to 26 feet).

According to MILITARYNYI, within 0.2 seconds, the vaporized mixture is ignited, producing a high-temperature fireball reaching up to 4,532°F (2,500°C). This ignition results in extreme thermal damage and a powerful overpressure wave that “neutralizes personnel” in enclosed or fortified spaces.

Its tactical use is not quite clear to me. It appears it would be most useful where enemy troops are packed closely together. Sounds pretty horrifying.

Chicago’s City Hall is being investigated by the federal Department of Justice over Mayor Brandon Johnson’s hiring practices. Cate Cauguiran reports at ABC 7 Chicago:

CHICAGO (WLS) — The U.S. Department of Justice is opening up a civil rights investigation into the city of Chicago, it said in a letter to the mayor’s office on Monday.

The DOJ is specifically looking into the city’s hiring practices.

This comes after Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson’s remarks at the Apostolic Church of God in Woodlawn on Sunday prompted a barrage of social media posts calling for an investigation.

This adds a little more texture:

Johnson’s office released a statement on Monday afternoon, saying, “Mayor Johnson is proud to have the most diverse administration in the history of our city. Our administration reflects the diversity and values of Chicago. Unfortunately, the current federal administration does not reflect either. We are aware of the letter issued by the Department of Justice, but are awaiting the official receipt of the letter. Our Corporation Counsel will review it at that time.”

The mayor’s office released a demographics breakdown of the office. It’s 34.3% Black, 30.5% White, 23.8% Hispanic and 6.7% Asian.

That demographic breakdown bears little resemblance to anything—it’s certainly not the demographics of the City of Chicago. Hispanics and Asians are underrepresented if anything.

Mayor Johnson’s remarks remind me of what used to be said about the Ford Model T: any color you want as long as it’s black.

I should add that the demographic breakdown is inherently misleading. It is deliberately divisive. Neither Hispanic nor Asian are a race, an identity, or anything else other then a politically motivated census category. If Irish-Americans, Italian-Americans, etc. were broken out of the “white” category, the United States would have stopped having a white majority a century and a half ago.

Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen pounds nineteen and six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds nought and six, result misery.

Charles Dickens, David Copperfield
 
I’m writing this, not because I think that the regular readers here do not understand it, but because the readers somewhere else where I comment clearly do not understand it.

For workers who receive a wage 6.2% of your gross wages up to $176,100 is deducted from your pay. Another 6.2% is what is referred to as the “employer’s contribution”, a payroll tax. That money is added to your account maintained by the Social Security Administration. Once upon a time Social Security’s total revenue exceeded its outlays. That is no longer the case. Most recently, for example, Social Security revenues were around $1.2 trillion while Social Security Retirement Income outlays (that’s what most people mean by “Social Security”) were $1.6 trillion and the difference was deducted from the “Social Security trust fund”. Where did the missing $400 billion come from?

It came from the Treasury Department. From what are called “general revenues”. Since the federal government is operating at a substantial deficit, in effect we borrowed it. Yes, Social Security adds to the deficit. When the accumulated differences between Social Security revenues and Social Security outlays over the last 90 years reaches zero Social Security will be insolvent. That is expected in 2036. That is what is generally meant by “Social Security insolvency”.

By law that means that SSRI benefits will be reduced to whatever the system can pay on an ongoing basis. I (along with at least one regular reader here) think the outrage over that will be sufficiently great that the federal government will continue to pay promised benefits even after Social Security insolvency.

Over the years I’ve made various proposals for extending the cliff of Social Security insolvency including eliminating Social Security max and subjecting all wage income to the tax and raising the age of full Social Security retirement age to 80 (that’s consistent with the original structure of the plan) indexed to life expectancy. I should also mention that I’m one of those poor benighted souls who think that Social Security’s problem is not that it’s a Ponzi scheme but that its original assumptions have not held true and have been abandoned.

Let’s start here. At Time Charlotte Alter does a preview into the Democrats’ analysis of why they lost the 2024 election:

Democrats could dismiss Trump’s first win as a fluke. His second, they know, was the product of catastrophic failure—a nationwide rejection of Democratic policies, Democratic messaging, and the Democrats themselves. The party got skunked in every battleground state and lost the popular vote for the first time in 20 years. They lost the House and the Senate. Their support sagged with almost every demographic cohort except Black women and college-educated voters. Only 35% of Democrats are optimistic about the future of the party, according to a May 14 AP poll, down from nearly 6 in 10 last July. Democrats have no mojo, no power, and no unifying leader to look to for a fresh start.

and

Over the past two months, I’ve spoken to dozens of prominent Democrats, from Senators to strategists, frontline House members to upstart progressives, and activists to top DNC officials, in an effort to figure out how the party can chart its way back. I asked them all versions of the same questions. How did they dig this hole, and how can they get out of it? What ideas do Democrats stand for, beyond opposing an unpopular President? How can they reconnect with the voters they’ve lost? Who should be leading them, and what should they be saying? In other words: What’s the plan?

Many of these conversations made my head hurt. Democrats kept presenting cliches as insights and old ideas as new ideas. Everybody said the same things; nobody seemed to be really saying anything at all. But in between feeble platitudes about “showing up and listening” and “fighting for the working class” and “meeting people where they are,” a few common threads emerged.

Those “threads” include:

• branding
• messaging
• mismatch between what most Americans believe and party orthodoxy
• generational issues

Now let’s turn to an editorial from the Chicago Tribune on the gap between what the mayor is saying and what’s actually happening in Chicago:

We’re halfway through Mayor Brandon Johnson’s term, and the city the mayor described in a series of recent interviews to mark the milestone hardly resembles what we see.

We agree with the mayor that Chicago is a great American city, made so by the people who live, work, play and love here.

But in many other respects — a transit system that continues to perform unacceptably, public schools that cost too much and do a poor job of teaching our children, violent crime levels well above peer American cities and a local economy needlessly deprived of the dynamism that produced our uniquely beautiful skyline — Chicago is ailing.

For all the unfair shots ideologically motivated critics take at the city, Chicagoans who’ve grown up here and made adult lives here know something has gone wrong these last two years. They’ve seen what this city looks and feels like when things are going well. And, judging from Johnson’s rock-bottom public-approval numbers, many of them have concluded he’s a big part of the current problem.

The job of mayor is tough no matter who’s in the office, but Chicago could be doing so much better with a different brand of leadership — and, really, a wholly different philosophy — than Johnson has brought to the fifth floor.

Let me offer a few suggestions.

First, we’ve got to produce more of what we consume. Until that happens governments, whether federal, state, or local, can’t tax more or borrow more without producing inflation. Taxing is another way of saying “reduce the private sector’s ability to spend or invest and increase deadweight loss”. If the Democratic orthodoxy is that we must produce less, other priorities will be doomed to failure. Fortunately, the “abundance doctrine” being promulgated by some progressives suggests that they are getting that message. Whether anything will come of it is another story.

Second, if you are more interested in identifying and expelling heretics than you are in making converts, you will have a perennially shrinking caucus.

Third, the results you produce have got to be what you are promising and what the people want. It makes little difference how benign your intentions. And how vile your opponents are makes little difference if they’re producing the results that the people want.

President Joe Biden has been diagnosed with “aggressive” metastatic prostate cancer. My heart goes out to him and his family.

According to the American Cancer Society the incidence of prostate cancer per 100,000 population rises with age:

While that’s still far from a certainty, it’s yet another reason that we should avoid electing men over 70 to the presidency.