I will readily admit that I have never really understood my parents’ finances. 65 years ago our family income was around $17,000—a tidy sum at that time. It put us in the top 5% of households. Digging into their tax returns (they saved everything) I saw that nearly 20% of their income came from rents and dividends. That’s quite a bit of dividend income. The balance came from my dad’s law practice.

Adding to the confusion I have learned that my parents regularly got lines of credit with their bank, secured by the properties and equities they owned, something like a home equity line of credit today. I assume that was their strategy for maintaining liquidity for their ordinary expenses back in those days when credit cards were not nearly as omnipresent as they are today.

One thing I learned about which I had not been aware was that my dad continued his grandfather’s dairy business for more than 20 years after his father and grandfather’s deaths. My grandfather, then my great-grandfather died within months of each other.

The other story the Sunday “talking heads” programs were talking about was the arrest of Milwaukee judge Hannah Dugan by the Department of Justice. Sarah N. Lynch and Andrew Goudsward report at Reuters:

WASHINGTON, April 25 (Reuters) – U.S. officials arrested a Wisconsin judge on Friday and charged her with helping a man in her court briefly evade immigration authorities in an escalating dispute between President Donald Trump’s administration and local officials over immigration enforcement.

In a criminal complaint, the U.S. Justice Department said Hannah Dugan, a Milwaukee County circuit judge, hindered the immigration agents who showed up to arrest the man without a judicial warrant outside her courtroom on April 18, and that she tried to help him evade arrest by allowing him to exit through a jury door. Agents arrested the man, Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, outside the courthouse after he left with his lawyer.

Although he thought the DoJ’s arrest of Judge Dugan excessively harsh, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie had a succinct reaction to the arrest: “What was she thinking?”

Not cooperating with federal officials is one thing but actively impeding them is something else again. IMO it was not a smart move and the reaction of the DoJ undoubtedly was, to quote Voltaire, to encourage the others.

The editors of the Washington Post are dissatisfied with the peace plan the Trump Administration has been promoting to end Russia’s war against Ukraine:

The Russian military’s deadly missile and drone strikes against Ukrainian civilians on Thursday were brazen — even to President Donald Trump, who has been pushing Ukraine to accept a peace deal favorable to Russia. “Vladimir, STOP!” Trump warned President Vladimir Putin in a social media post.

This should help the U.S. president see why Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky does not want to discuss any peace deal until Russia stops bombarding his country. More important, Trump should reconsider the uneven proposal that he has demanded Zelensky accept. As it stands, the deal would largely reward Putin for his unprovoked war against a smaller neighbor. The battle lines would be frozen in place, meaning Russia would keep control of the nearly 20 percent of Ukrainian territory it seized with its February 2022 invasion — though Ukraine would not formally cede sovereignty. What’s more, the United States would implicitly recognize Putin’s 2014 seizure of Crimea, although Ukraine would not have to do so. Though it’s true that Ukraine should be expected to consider such terms, Russia — the aggressor in this conflict — also needs to make concessions.

They propose their alternative:

In a more perfect world, Trump would then demand that Putin restore Ukraine’s pre-2022 borders by withdrawing Russian troops, end support for the separatist militias operating in Ukraine’s eastern regions, agree to a European military force for monitoring compliance in Ukraine’s border regions, disavow any further territorial claims on Ukraine, agree to pay reparations for the damage to Ukrainian cities and infrastructure, and immediately return all prisoners of war and the Ukrainian children who were illegally abducted into Russia.

Trump could promise that, once all these steps were taken and verified, the United States would begin talks on easing some of the sanctions crippling the Russian economy. This sanctions relief would come in phases, and sanctions would return in the event that Russia violated any part of the peace deal. The International Criminal Court might be persuaded to suspend its indictment of Putin if the Ukrainian children were returned. The United States, Ukraine and Russia could begin talks about the future status of Crimea.

which they concede is a non-starter for Russia.

I would ask the editors a series of questions:

• Is Ukraine in a stronger position now than it was last year at this time?
• Was Ukraine in a stronger position in April 2023 than it was in April 2024?
• Was Ukraine in a stronger position in April 2022 than it was in April 2023?

which I would answer “no”, “no”, and “yes”, respectively. April 2022 was the time of the so-called “Istanbul Communiqué”. In that communiqué US, Ukrainian, and Russian negotiators came up with a framework for negotiations to end the war. They were that Ukraine could apply for EU membership, maintain neutrality, limit the size of its military forces, end its attempts to join NATO, forbid foreign military bases, and Western countries (including the US and UK) would act as guarantors of the agreement. Ultimately, the US and UK persuaded Ukraine to reject the deal. Since then things have only gotten worse for Ukraine.

Although I believe the US should continue to offer military aid to Ukraine, I would suggest that at this point it is very unlikely that Ukraine will be in a better bargaining position in April 2026 than it is now. I would also suggest that Russians’ willingness to put up with a poor economy and with military losses should not be underestimated. Russia has had a lousy economy for most of the last 200 years and the Russians are no strangers to casualties in war (6 million military casualties in World War II, 2 million World War I, 70,000 in the Russo-Japanese War, .5 million in the Crimean War, .5 million in Napoleon’s invasion)

What the US should not do is offer troops. Every wargaming of US-Russian direct conflict has resulted in a nuclear exchange and nuclear war would be disastrous not just for Russia and the United States but for Ukraine as well (Ukraine would likely be the first target).

I’m curious as to why no one is proposing that other countries, say, Poland or the UK provide troops in the war? Are they afraid that would provoke the Russians into using nuclear weapons as much as would the direct involvement of the United States?

In the absence of that I sincerely wish that the WaPo’s editors would offer their plans for concluding the war other than the one they acknowledge is a non-starter.

With the death of Pope Francis, I have lived through seven papacies (Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis). The next will be my eighth.

I thought that Francis was a very good man but, honestly, not the right pope for the times.

The Church is going through significant challenges at present. In the developed world the pews are empty or, at least, emptying. That is not new. When I worked in Germany nearly 50 years ago the only people attending Mass were a handful of old women and me. And that was in a traditionally Catholic part of Germany.

Here in the United States many Catholics are leaving the Church. In some cases they feel they were driven away by a hierarchy too eager to defend priests for their abusive activity. In other cases Americans are disheartened because they see the Church as too conservative; in others they see it as too liberal.

The Church is being persecuted in China and Africa. Francis’s strategy for China was accommodation which I doubt was the right one.

I suspect the next pope will be Italian, a reversion to mean. We’ll see.

The Sunday “talking heads” programs seemed to have settled on the story of Kilmar Abrego Garcia as the most significant of the day with ABC, CBS, and NBC all featuring stories that in one way or another connected to it. To my eye the facts of the case appear to be:

Kilmar Abrego Garcia is a Salvadoran national
He has resided in Maryland for the last 14 years
He has never requested asylum
He has a family in Maryland
The Trump Administration deported him to El Salvador where he was incarcerated with MS-13 gang members
The Trump Administration says their action was under the Alien Enemies Act
The Trump Administration says Mr. Abrego Garcia was departed to El Salvador via “administrative error”
The Supreme Court has gently rebuked BOTH the district court judge who ordered the Trump Administration to return Abrego Garcia to the United States and the Trump Administration, requesting the Trump Administration “facilitate” his return

The contested facts of the case appear to be

Abrego Garcia is a member of MS-13
His wife filed a protective order against him for domestic violence

It has also been asserted that he has engaged in human trafficking.

The BBC summary of the facts of the case confirm all of the above.

There are several things that irritate me about the ABC, CBS, and NBC coverage of the story. First, there appears to be an implicit assumption that there is a generalized right immigration where no such right exists. Second, the words “due process” are frequently thrown around without acknowledging that there is no unitary due process but, rather, due process can be a lot of different things under different circumstances. It seems to be used synonymously with “individualized hearing” but not only is that not the definition of due process but Congress can change what the due process in different cases pretty much at will.

Nate Silver provides a pretty good commentary on the matter.

I honestly don’t understand why Democrats are pursuing this so assiduously. To my eye it appears to be a losing issue. Mr. Abrego Garcia is unlikely to be allowed to remain in the United States even if he is returned from El Salvador for an individualized hearing.

I’ve had writer’s block for a while but there are a few topics I wanted to talk about so we’ll see how far I get.

A few days ago my wife asked me when I thought the first resignation/firing of one of President Trump’s cabinet members would come. I said “within a month”.

To cast your mind back during President Trump’s first term there was considerable turnover among his appointees. I suspect this term will be little different in that respect.

The most obvious candidate for dismissal is Secretary of Defense Hegseth but, although he’s skating on thin ice, I doubt he’ll be the first to go. We’ll see what happens but Homeland Security Sec. Noem’s losing her purse with her passport, ID badge, etc. is not a particularly good look under the circumstances. I suspect she’ll be able to weather the kerfuffle.

So, those are my questions. When will the first resignation/dismissal come and who will it be?

On Thursday I visited my primary care provider and he prescribed a new pharmaceutical for me. I started taking it that evening. By Friday evening I was experiencing symptoms far worse than those the new drug was intended to deal with.

One of the problems with being me is that I’m not the average patient. My body is built differently than others’ and behaves differently than, apparently, those of most people. I have been on a low-fat and low-sodium diet for the last 60 years. I’ve never smoked, taken recreational drugs, or drunk much. My consumption of red meat is about a third that of the average American’s. I eat 1,800 or fewer calories per day (and have for decades) and (until recently) walk 5-7 miles per day. I was diagnosed with a chronic pain condition 30 years ago which, after an unproductive two year course of medical treatment I have managed by maintaining an extremely regular schedule, taking the occasional NSAID or drink of alcohol, and meditation. I’m no longer taking the NSAIDs or drinking.

I have what are called “paradoxical reactions” to pharmaceuticals. Painkillers either do nothing for me or produce pain. Anti-nausea drugs may make me throw up. And so on. That seems to be familial—my closest relatives have the same experience.

Consequently, looking at the drug side effects under “rare side effects” is sensible for me and, sure enough, what I was experiencing was a possible side effect of the new drug. The immediate care practitioner I consulted prescribe an antibiotic and a steroid for me and instructed me to follow up with my PCP in no uncertain terms. The next day after being unable to reach my PCP I spent a half day waiting in the emergency room, ultimately seeing a physician. The physician concurred with my decision to stop taking the new drug, suggested I avoid the steroid, and prescribed a different antibiotic for me. I’m taking that now.

I’m scheduled to see my PCP tomorrow. I may fight the original diagnosis. I don’t think that’s what’s wrong with me. I no longer have the symptom for which I originally sought care.

I don’t fault my PCP. I think he’s doing the best he can.

Here’s William Galston’s take on what should be our belated response to China’s actions:

Over the past decade, our manufacturing output has stagnated, as has the sector’s productivity. And in some respects, our manufacturing sector’s decline affects our national security. As we learned during the pandemic, the U.S. is highly dependent on other countries, including China, for drugs and other essential medical supplies. Nor can we hope to keep pace with China’s rapidly growing navy without regaining our lost shipbuilding capacity. Further, as we’ve seen since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, our defense industrial base has weakened dangerously since the fall of the Soviet Union. But the remedy for these ills is a set of targeted policies, not a global trade war. The chainsaw isn’t an appropriate tool for restructuring the international economic order any more than it is for reforming government.

Antagonizing our friends around the world is a poor strategy for solving the heart of our trade problem—our asymmetrical relationship with China. Xi Jinping suppresses purchasing power and social benefits for his country’s citizens while subsidizing exports, allowing Chinese products to undercut those produced in other industrialized countries. China then uses the proceeds from artificially elevated export sales to direct investment to favored industries and new technologies while funding a massive military buildup.

In response to prior U.S. efforts to stem this flood, Chinese manufacturers have relocated significant production to countries such as Vietnam, whose cooperation the U.S. will need if it hopes to shut off this Chinese escape valve. Any way you look at it, imposing huge tariffs on every country with which the U.S. has a bilateral trade deficit makes no sense.

He changes the subject quite a bit so you’ve got to be able to “read around” his frequent digressions but the conclusion is inescapable. Reducing our trade with China is in our national interest. The risks of not doing so are simply too great. We can still afford to subsidize trade with our “friends”. I put “friends” in quotes because I genuinely believe we have no friends. We have clients and we have adversaries but no friends.

I’ve been off my game for a little while. This post isn’t taking the form I had originally intended because Noah Smith has said most of what I wanted to say:

The only possible solution way for China’s rivals to match it in size is to gang up. And in this case, what “gang up” means is to form a free trade zone amongst each other, with zero trade barriers between them.

If the U.S. had zero trade barriers with Europe, Japan, Korea, India, and the countries of Southeast Asia, those countries wouldn’t become exactly like one huge “domestic” market. There would still be language barriers, geographic distance, exchange rate fluctuations, and national regulatory differences that end up accidentally restricting trade. But it would go a long way toward allowing American manufacturers — and European, Japanese, Korean, Indian, and Southeast Asian manufacturers — to attain the sort of economies of scale and supply-chain networks that China enjoys within its borders.

Basically, to balance China, you’d need to start thinking of “Non-China” as a single vast economic entity.

He goes on to emphasize the importance of imposing tariffs on intermediate goods as well as primary ones. Just to give one example Sun Pharma has 30% of the U. S. pharmaceutical market and 2/3s of Sun’s active pharmacological ingredients are imported from China.

As to the claim that we are starting a trade war, here’s your trade war for you:

Between 2000 (when China gained permanent most favored nation trading status and 2009 (China was admitted to the WTO at the end of 2001) China has dumped cheap subsidized manufactured goods on the U. S. market and we have suffered more then 5 million casualties—relatively highly paid manufacturing jobs lost here.

We are making the Chinese Communist Party rich through our trade policies and the CCP is polluting the air and the oceans. Its government-sponsored hackers are endangering every U. S. company or government agency. It is surveilling our military cites with observation balloons and drones.

While controlled by the CCP China is not a good global citizen and we should take the steps we must to end our support for that. Given their subsidies, import quotas, and eagerness to raise tariffs that may goes as far as embargo. We really have little choice.

I am under no illusions. Such actions will make us poorer than might otherwise be the case. That is better than the alternatives.