Pun Salad

Another instance of what I've called the "DC Shuffle"

Step 1: Make stuff more expensive via taxes/tariffs.
Step 2: Offer 'rebates,' paid for with borrowed money that will need to be repaid in the future.
Step 3: Act like what you're doing is a sign of patriotic fervor, rather than economic illiteracy. https://t.co/fbUGEj8qcL pic.twitter.com/5uZyR2aIK3

— Nick Gillespie (@nickgillespie) August 8, 2025

None dare call it "trickle down economics."

In related news, George Will offers us Five ways to stop the onrushing debt disaster. All long shots, alas.. (WaPo gifted link)

However, I note from reading that lecture (link above) that Mankiw considers "large tax increases" to be the "most likely outcome."

Also of note:

• 

  Never enough. Way back in 2012 I reported on reading Never Enough by William Voegeli, Amazon link at your right. Voegeli concentrated on welfare-state programs, but his argument is easily (and unfortunately) generalizable, especially when I read this from Jonathan Turley: Massachusetts Teachers Demand New Wealth Tax.

  I have long opposed wealth taxes based on both constitutional and practical grounds. When Elizabeth Warren pushed her own wealth tax, I noted that the high starting income or wealth levels would likely be lowered with time if Congress were ever allowed to cross this constitutional Rubicon. The Massachusetts Teachers Association (MTA) is now demanding an amendment to the state constitution to tax the “wealth of the richest 1%” to pay for free public college. Previously, the state passed a constitutional amendment to place a 4 % tax on income above $1 million. This would add a new wealth tax to that earlier “Fair Share Amendment.”

  As I (tirelessly) say: when Progressives use the phrase "fair share", it always simply means "more". And, as Voegeli noted, there's usually an implicit "never enough".

• I mostly admire the headline. Robby Soave explains Why Trump Can't Make the Epstein Story Kill Itself.

  […] it's worth keeping in mind two things. First, Trump has actually been remarkably consistent on the Epstein issue. During the 2024 presidential campaign,  Trump maintained that releasing the files was not a particularly high priority and that he was worried about maligning innocent individuals whose names happened to be associated with the disgraced financier and sexual predator. It was Trump's prominent surrogates—Patel, Vance, Dan Bongino, and others—who made rigid commitments to release information on Epstein's alleged clients. And it was Bondi who claimed, after taking office as A.G., that she was in possession of a client list and would be releasing it. It's those people who are being hypocritical about this, not Trump.

  Moreover, Trump is not exactly wrong! As independent journalist Michael Tracey has exhaustively documented on his Substack, hyperbolic claims about Epstein's supposed clients are routinely exposed as false: Many of the alleged victims lacked credibility and recanted their accusations. People who are obsessed with the Epstein story don't like hearing this, but while Epstein was undoubtedly a sexual abuser and a creep—and Ghislaine Maxwell facilitated his predatory behavior—there simply isn't compelling evidence of a larger conspiracy involving many other powerful people whose names have been hidden from the public. By some measures, the Epstein story resembles other recent sex-based moral panics, like campus sexual assault and sex-trafficking, in which a kernel of a true idea (i.e., more could be done to stop sexual assault at elite colleges, or poor immigrant women are sometimes forced into compromising sexual situations), is embellished and overdramatized (i.e., campuses are literal hunting grounds, children are constantly being kidnapped and sex-trafficked at airports).

  I love a good yarn about the moral depravity of politicians, but I think it's unlikely that we will see any credible scandals out of this.

• Amtrak delenda est (a continuing series). Cameron W Ewine writes on Amtrak's Free Pass: Why "Value" Isn't an Excuse for Endless Subsidy.

  When it comes to federal subsidies, few programs enjoy the kind of persistent political immunity that protects Amtrak. As the new administration aims to implement spending cuts and create entire departments focused on government efficiency, such as the aptly named Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), it’s worth turning attention to long-standing drains on taxpayer dollars.

  Advocates for Amtrak insist that America's passenger rail service should be judged not by profitability, but by its purported "value." Jim Mathews of the Rail Passengers Association recently authored an article and an op-ed arguing that Amtrak should not be viewed as a transportation company but rather as a public utility. He contends that just as we don’t ask the Air Force or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to turn a profit, we shouldn’t demand it from Amtrak either.

  But this argument rests on selective legal interpretations, fuzzy math, and a dangerous disregard for market discipline.

  "Other than that, though, it's fine."

• Dave's Review of Modern Thought. His recent essay on Mankeeping is a gem.

  Recently the New York Times published an article headlined:

  Men: Why Are They Such Idiots?

  Not really! Although that is the gist of the article. The actual headline is:

  Why Women Are Weary of the Emotional Labor of ‘Mankeeping’

  "Mankeeping" is a word invented by Angelica Puzio Ferrara, a postdoctoral fellow at Stanford University, who co-authored a research paper titled "Theorizing Mankeeping: The Male Friendship Recession and Women’s Associated Labor as a Structural Component of Gender Inequality."

  Basically what this paper says, if I understand it correctly as both a man and an English major, is that heterosexual males these days don't have enough male friends (the "male friendship recession") and as a result they have to rely on women to tend to their emotional and relationship needs, and this "mankeeping" is A LOT OF WORK for women, and they are TIRED OF IT.

  Well, I've already quoted too much. And since you are an intelligent and curious reader, I'm sure you've already clicked over to Read The Whole Thing, and you didn't make it to this paragraph.

Recently on the book blog:

This is an impressively researched, detailed look at the 1986 destruction of the Space Shuttle Challenger, which took the lives of its crew: Dick Scobee, Michael Smith, Judy Resnik, Ron McNair, Ellison Onizuka, Greg Jarvis, and New Hampshire's Christa McAuliffe. The author, Adam Higginbotham, examines the lives of the people involved, nut just the astronauts, but relevant NASA personnel, contractors, and (eventually) accident investigators. The (very mistaken) decision to launch Challenger after freezing weather degraded the effectiveness of the O-rings that were supposed to seal the solid rocket booster joints is meticulously described, and how the judgment of the Morton Thiokol engineers was overruled by NASA bureaucrats.

It is a horrifying story all by itself. It is bookended on one end by the story of the Apollo 1 launchpad fire in 1967, which killed Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee. And on the other end, a very brief retelling of the 2003 loss of the shuttle Columbia on re-entry, which killed astronauts Laurel Clark, Ilan Ramon, Michael P. Anderson, Rick Husband, William McCool, Kalpana Chawla, and David Brown.

It is an obvious, trivial fact that manned space travel is risky. But Higginbotham persuasively shows that all these deaths were avoidable. These 17 astronauts were, essentially, victims of the pressures of politics and bureaucracy. A major driver of the shuttle program was the need to "do something" post-Apollo: keep the budgetary money flowing to NASA and contractor facilities and personnel across the country. It's also hard to avoid the obvious PR gimmickry of the "Teacher in Space" effort. (And, although there's no evidence that it killed anyone, NASA's efforts of ensuring a "diverse" crew were pretty blatant.)

I was wondering how (or if) Higgenbotham was going to deal with a particularly nasty rumor: that the White House pressured NASA to launch on January 28, 1986 in order for Reagan to mention it in his State of the Union address scheduled for that evening. He does, briefly, noting that the most prominent advocate of this theory, Senator Ernest Hollings, pushed it with no evidence, and drew an angry rebuttal from William Rogers, head of the investigatory commission. (Higginbotham does occasionally express his contempt for the Reagan Administration, notably for the "star wars" effort. Easy to ignore.)