I thought the story of him saying this was apocryphal. And I guess you could say they wrote it for him, but he had to agree to delivering it on camera.
I don't care that it was 25 years ago - fuck that guy.
Feb 8, 2026
Today's Belle
Well said. But don't forget who we're dealing with. This is the SmarmSpace Gang. They will not behave honorably. Any loophole - real or imagined - will likely be pursued and exploited.
18 U.S. Code § 592 - Troops at polls
Whoever, being an officer of the Army or Navy, or other person in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, orders, brings, keeps, or has under his authority or control any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held, unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; and be disqualified from holding any office of honor, profit, or trust under the United States.
This section shall not prevent any officer or member of the armed forces of the United States from exercising the right of suffrage in any election district to which he may belong, if otherwise qualified according to the laws of the State in which he offers to vote.
Whoever, being an officer of the Army or Navy, or other person in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States, orders, brings, keeps, or has under his authority or control any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held, unless such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both; and be disqualified from holding any office of honor, profit, or trust under the United States.
This section shall not prevent any officer or member of the armed forces of the United States from exercising the right of suffrage in any election district to which he may belong, if otherwise qualified according to the laws of the State in which he offers to vote.
= Loophole
Today's Rich
Immigrants - people here legally are otherwise - are better for the US economy than Republicans.
And always remember, there was a workable proposal for real Immigration Reform on the table ready for Congress to take it up, haggle it out, and vote it into law in the summer of 2024, but Trump jumped in and told the dog-ass Republicans to throw it out so he'd have an issue to run on.
First, we got "They're eating the dogs - they're eating the cats."
And now we've got roving gangs of masked thugs raiding daycare centers and hanging out in Home Depot parking lots, hunting down anyone who looks a bit too brown - and killing people who pose absolutely no threat to anyone.
None of us should trust any politician too much, but damn - you can trust Republicans about as far as you can spit a bowling ball.
Immigrants’ Recent Effects on Government Budgets
Today, the Cato Institute published “Immigrants’ Recent Effects on Government Budgets: 1994–2023,” a study on the fiscal effects of immigrants—legal and illegal—that builds upon the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) fiscal effects model. The paper, which I coauthored with Michael Howard and Julián Salazar, is the first to analyze three decades of federal, state, and local government budgets to determine how immigrants affected the total US government debt and deficit.
In this paper, we wanted to accomplish two main things:
1) Provide the first-ever assessment of the total net fiscal effect of all immigrants from 1994 to 2023, rather than a one-year snapshot or forward-looking projection like many other studies. We wanted a sufficiently long period to assess claims like those by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, asserting that immigrants have already sucked us dry.
2) Provide the clearest explanation for the mechanisms driving the fiscal effects of immigration on government budgets.
Immigrants Have Reduced the Deficit Every Year
Every year since 1994, when data collection began, immigrants have paid more in taxes than they received in benefits from the federal, state, and local governments. The fiscal benefits have continued to rise, reaching their highest level ever in 2023.
The fiscal surplus from all immigrants from 1994 to 2023 was $14.5 trillion, compared with a deficit of $48 trillion without immigrants. That means that immigrants cut deficits by nearly a third in real terms over the last three decades.
Why the Average Person Is Fiscally Positive
How can immigrants be so fiscally beneficial when the country overall is running such extreme deficits? The answer is that a big part of the US budget is pure public goods—primarily the military and interest payments on past debt accrued before the immigrants came—which don’t scale with population growth. These are essentially fixed costs or sunk obligations that the United States will have to cover whether immigrants come or not.
The figure below shows how, in most years, tax revenue exceeds the costs of providing benefits—that is, everything that requires scaling with population growth. Thus, immigrants will be fiscally positive so long as they are at least average in their revenue creation and benefits received. In fact, immigrants are significantly better than average in both aspects of the fiscal equation.
Immigrants Pay More Taxes, Receive Fewer Benefits
Immigrants pay more in taxes than the average person. This is counterintuitive because they have lower hourly wages, but because they work at much higher rates (the blue line), they end up with higher per capita incomes (the gray line) and pay more in taxes than their share of the population predicts (the dotted line). Thus, immigrants have been better at generating revenue for the government than the average person.
Are their tax revenues overwhelmed by the costs they impose? Here’s everything the federal, state, and local governments spent money on over the last 30 years in per capita dollar amounts. Immigrants did not create significantly higher costs for any items and saved the government enormously in two areas: old-age benefits and education costs.
Immigrants cost less as retirees: First, the savings on old-age benefits are not because immigrants are significantly less likely to retire. Instead, it is because they are far less likely to receive a government pension, since they were less likely to have government jobs and thus less likely to receive expensive government pensions. The main reason, though, is that they were simply barred from applying for Social Security and Medicare because they either arrived too late in life to earn the necessary qualifying work history, or they are here illegally or in a temporary status and ineligible for that reason.
Immigrants cost schools less: Immigrants arrive in the United States at the average age of about 25, meaning that the United States gets workers without having to pay to educate them. Even though they are more costly when in school—due to bilingual education needs—they are much less costly overall because they are so much less likely to be in school. The result is that immigrants cost the US education system about half as much as the US-born population.
Immigrants aren’t big welfare users. The savings on education aren’t lost in the welfare state. Immigrants are much more likely to be in poverty but use roughly an average amount of what we call “needs-based” assistance. That includes traditional welfare, food assistance, Medicaid, refundable tax credits, and unemployment insurance. The entire reason for this disconnect between poverty rates and welfare use rates is that many immigrants are here illegally and so are ineligible to apply for welfare in most states. This conclusion, that immigrants use welfare at the same rate as the US-born population, matches the Trump administration’s conclusion in 2018.
Here is the full picture of spending and taxes for immigrants from 1994 to 2023. Immigrants—legal and illegal—paid more in taxes every single year than they received in benefits, broadly defined, and the gap has grown over time.
Immigrants Don’t Cause Deficits
Here’s another way to look at our main conclusion. Immigrants accounted for 14 percent of tax revenue and 7 percent of government spending from 1994 to 2023. Even if the government had not spent a dollar on immigrants, while somehow still getting all their tax revenue, the US government at all levels would still have run a $20 trillion deficit. Immigrants are not to blame for government deficits. Indeed, they reduced the deficit by about $14.5 trillion.
We use the highest-quality data available for this report and the best methods for this type of analysis. Although there are undoubtedly methodological finer points that can be debated, these broad conclusions are inescapable:
1. The average additional person is fiscally positive because pure public goods are such a big portion of the budget.
2. Immigrants generate more tax revenue. Immigrants’ employment rates are well documented. The correlation between income and taxes is well established.
3. Immigrants use fewer benefits. The effects of status-based limits on welfare and entitlements are clearly apparent in numerous data sources. The savings from education are indisputable, as immigrants are less likely to be enrolled in school.
Since these effects are not driven by the absence of immigrant retirees, we shouldn’t expect our conclusion to reverse after tracking a specific cohort of immigrants over time. Indeed, when we do follow the cohort that entered from 1990 to 1993, we find that after three decades, the cohort was still paying far more in taxes than they received in benefits, and that the fiscal gains had grown over time. In total, this cohort reduced the deficit by $1.7 trillion.
Our paper also concludes:
- Without the contributions of immigrants, public debt at all levels would already be above 200 percent of US GDP—nearly twice the 2023 level and a threshold some analysts believe would trigger a debt crisis.
- Even low-skilled immigrants—those without bachelor’s degrees—reduced the debt by $2.8 trillion.
- Immigrants in all categories of educational attainment, including high school dropouts, lowered the ratio of deficit to gross domestic product (GDP) during the 30-year period.
- Illegal immigrants likely reduced the deficit by at least $1.7 trillion.
- Even including the second generation, who are mostly still children who will become taxpayers soon, the fiscal effect of immigration was positive every year, reducing the debt by $7.9 trillion.
Concluding Thoughts
Overall, the main conclusion of our paper is that there is nothing systematically wrong with US immigration policy regarding the fiscal effects of immigrants. There is nothing unsustainable about the US immigration system. We could have scaled immigration as it existed without burdening government budgets. For years, nativists in Congress and the administration have wrongly claimed that immigrants are behind the growth in debt and that the US immigration system allows foreigners to take advantage of Americans’ generosity. Our data completely repudiates this view. Immigrants are subsidizing the US government.
The best way to balance the budget is to reduce spending—particularly on wealthy retirees—but rather than hinder our efforts to control deficits, immigrants are helping.
You can read the entire study here: Immigrants’ Recent Effects on Government Budgets: 1994–2023
Operation Dildo
ICE and CBP officers are going to be drinking spit and eating boogers for a good long time.
Bill-n-Hill
(partly cribbed from The Other 98% on FB)
By planting their flag on “public or nothing,” the Clintons flip the script and force Republicans to explain why secrecy suddenly matters more than the disclosure they've spent 10 years demanding.
The Clintons' stance is not just a valid claim to the moral high ground - it's a trap. The more they insist on testifying in public, the more obvious it becomes that the real panic is on the right, where Trump’s orbit brushes up against names and records that have never fully seen daylight.
But this is how you turn years of right wing Clinton obsession inside out. If Republicans refuse public testimony, they look like they're protecting Trump, the tattered remnants of his DOJ, and all the members of The Epstein Class, rather than pursuing the truth and seeking justice for the surviving victims.
The Clintons' stance is not just a valid claim to the moral high ground - it's a trap. The more they insist on testifying in public, the more obvious it becomes that the real panic is on the right, where Trump’s orbit brushes up against names and records that have never fully seen daylight.
By embracing an open hearing, they are effectively daring Comer and his allies to keep shielding a system that's covered in fingerprints of Trump and the entire Epstein Class.
And to be sure, if Bill Clinton is guilty of any shitty thing, then he has to burn along with the rest of them.
But this is how you turn years of right wing Clinton obsession inside out. If Republicans refuse public testimony, they look like they're protecting Trump, the tattered remnants of his DOJ, and all the members of The Epstein Class, rather than pursuing the truth and seeking justice for the surviving victims.
If they cave and allow it, they risk an on-camera beatdown that ties the unreleased files, the stalled transparency law, and Trump’s own connections into one long, unedited narrative that damns their very existence.
Fiat justitia ruat caelum
Let justice be done though the heavens fall
Feb 7, 2026
Just Checking
I'll never run for office. I haven't been elected to anything since high school a thousand years ago, and it's extremely unlikely that I'll ever be eligible for membership in The Epstein Class - not that I'd want to be. Like Groucho said, "I would never join a club that would have me as a member."
But it pays to check small things.
I believe I'm in the clear.
Maybe I should reconsider running for elected office. My lack of scandalous luster makes me boring and non-threatening enough to win, and at my age, I'll fit right in.
Feb 6, 2026
C'mon, Pete
Some of what Hegseth objects to:
Scout Oath:
On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country. To obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
Scout Law:
A Scout is:
TRUSTWORTHY
Tell the truth and keep promises. People can depend on you.
LOYAL
Show that you care about your family, friends, Scout leaders, school, and country.
HELPFUL
Volunteer to help others without expecting a reward.
FRIENDLY
Be a friend to everyone, even people who are very different from you.
COURTEOUS
Be polite to everyone and always use good manners.
KIND
Treat others as you want to be treated. Never harm or kill any living thing without good reason.
OBEDIENT
Follow the rules of your family, school, and pack. Obey the laws of your community and country.
CHEERFUL
Look for the bright side of life. Cheerfully do tasks that come your way. Try to help others be happy.
THRIFTY
Work to pay your own way. Try not to be wasteful. Use time, food, supplies, and natural resources wisely.
BRAVE
Face difficult situations even when you feel afraid. Do what you think is right despite what others might be doing or saying.
CLEAN
Keep your body and mind fit. Help keep your home and community clean.
REVERENT
Be reverent toward God. Be faithful in your religious duties. Respect the beliefs of others.
U.S. ready to cut support to Scouts, accusing them of attacking 'boy-friendly spaces'
The century-old partnership between the U.S. military and Scouting could be coming to an end.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is planning for the military to sever all ties with Scouting America, saying the group once known as the Boy Scouts is no longer a meritocracy and has become an organization designed to "attack boy-friendly spaces," according to documents reviewed by NPR.
In a draft memo to Congress, which sources shared with NPR but which has not yet been sent, Hegseth criticizes Scouting for being "genderless" and for promoting diversity, equity and inclusion.
The military has provided support to the Scouts for more than 100 years, assistance that was formalized in 1937. But in one memo, Hegseth says, "The organization once endorsed by President Theodore Roosevelt no longer supports the future of American boys."
The proposal calls for the Pentagon to no longer provide medical and logistical aid to the National Jamboree, which brings in as many as 20,000 scouts to a remote site in West Virginia. It also states that the military will no longer allow Scout troops to meet at military installations in the U.S. and abroad, where many bases have active Scout programs.
A source told NPR the documents were being prepared at the Pentagon to communicate Hegseth's decision to Congress, but that they had not been sent yet. The source requested anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss the documents.
In response to an inquiry from NPR, the Pentagon sent a statement attributed to "a War Department official" saying they wouldn't comment on "leaked documents that we cannot authenticate and that may be pre-decisional."
Scouting America released a statement saying the organization is proud of its long affiliation with the military and will work to continue it.
"Scouting is and has always been a nonpartisan organization," the statement read. "Over more than a century, we've worked constructively with every U.S. presidential administration — Democratic and Republican — focusing on our common goal of building future leaders grounded in integrity, responsibility, and community service."
Congress requires the Pentagon to support the scouting program's Jamboree, a gathering of thousands of young scouts held every three or four years. The U.S. military lends trucks, ambulances and medical teams, and puts on aviation and skydiving demonstrations, all at no cost to the Scouts. For the military, it's both a training exercise and an opportunity to recruit highly motivated, civic-minded kids.
But the law includes an exemption: the Secretary of Defense can withhold support if he determines providing it would be "detrimental to national security."
Drafts of a report to Congress obtained by NPR show Hegseth invoking that clause — accusing Scouting America of fostering "gender confusion."
His memo to the House and Senate Armed Services committees argues the Scouts have strayed from their mission to "cultivate masculine values." It also claims that with international conflicts and a tight budget, sending troops, doctors and vehicles to a 10-day youth event would harm national security by diverting resources from border operations and protecting U.S. territory.
President Trump, the honorary leader of Scouting America by nature of his elected office, praised the crowd at the Jamboree in West Virginia in 2017. "The United States has no better citizens than its Boy Scouts. No better," the president told the crowd. He pointed out that 10 of his cabinet members were former Scouts.
Hegseth was never a Boy Scout, and has said he grew up in a church-based youth group that focuses on memorizing Bible verses. Last year, as a Fox News host, he complained about the Scouts changing their name and admitting girls back in 2018.
"The Boy Scouts has been cratering itself for quite some time," Hegseth said. "This is an institution the left didn't control. They didn't want to improve it. They wanted to destroy it or dilute it into something that stood for nothing."
What Hegseth says about the Scouts echoes his moves at the Pentagon, cutting DEI programs and firing some senior female and African-American officers, while suggesting diversity hires weaken the organization.
A draft memo to top Pentagon leaders about Scouting America, which was also shared with NPR, picked up on that theme. "Scouting America has undergone a significant transformation," the memo states. "It is no longer a meritocracy which holds its members accountable to meet high standards."
NBC first reported in April that the Pentagon was considering breaking with Scouting America, citing sources familiar with the move. In a statement to NBC, Sean Parnell, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said, "Secretary Hegseth and his Public Affairs team thoroughly review partnerships and engagements to ensure they align with the President's agenda and advance our mission."
Banning Scout troops from meeting on military bases in the U.S. and overseas troubles Kenny Grant. He's a retired Army Staff Sergeant who served as a sniper in Iraq and is the parent of three Scouts — two girls and a boy. Because of his military service, his family has moved frequently.
"We went from Louisiana to Alaska. From Alaska to Germany. From Germany to Texas," he said. But at every military base there was a Scout troop that could help ease the transition to a new home. "We don't have to say a word to them, let them go see the other kids, and they'll be immediately integrated in."
Grant was surprised by the proposal to cut all Pentagon ties with the Scouts.
"It's gonna be kind of harsh the way I say this… It's kind of like they don't care about us more than they care about their perceived message. Scouting… It probably is not a perfect organization, but … I can't even say how vast their benefits are, especially for military families."
Scouting has long been a part of military recruiting efforts. As many as 20 percent of cadets and midshipmen at the service academies are Eagle Scouts, according to statistics from Scouting America. Moreover, enlistees who've earned Eagle get advanced military rank and better pay. That practice would end.
The potential impact is causing friction at the Pentagon. In one memo sent to the department's Undersecretary for Policy Elbridge Colby, Navy Secretary John Phelan warns the proposed new policy might be "too restrictive." Up to a third of the Navy's officers in training, he writes, have some scouting background.
"Passive support to Scouting America through access to military installations and educational opportunities aboard said installations serve as a crucial recruiting and community engagement tool for the [Navy]," Phelan wrote in the memo, which NPR also viewed. "Prohibition of access could be detrimental to recruitment and accession efforts across the department."
Whether Hegseth's argument — that supporting the Jamboree and allowing Scout troops on military bases harms national security — will pass muster with Congress is unclear. But the statute also requires the report be submitted "in a timely manner." Planning for next summer's Jamboree is already well underway.
Included in the documents NPR reviewed is a draft letter to the head of Scouting America, informing him that the Secretary has disapproved the use of DoD personnel and equipment for the Jamboree - detailing what will not be available. It concludes, "You have our best wishes for a safe and successful National Scout Jamboree."
Calling His Bluff
Jagoff Congress Critters like James Comer seem to think their job is to make life shitty for people, and get a good video clip for DumFux News.
As Clintons prepare to answer questions about Epstein, Trump balks
Republican Rep. James Comer opened a door that has long been closed. His party might come to regret the decision.
It’s never been altogether clear why Rep. James Comer, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, launched a crusade to get Bill and Hillary Clinton to testify as part of his panel’s Jeffrey Epstein investigation. But the Kentucky Republican did it anyway, even issuing first-of-their-kind subpoenas to compel the Democrats’ testimony.
When the Clintons resisted the cheap, partisan tactics, Comer upped the ante, scheduled a contempt hearing and set the stage for a possible criminal process. The former Democratic president and former secretary of state, left with little choice, ultimately acquiesced.
There’s still some question about how the next steps will unfold, though Hillary Clinton sent an interesting rhetorical shot across Comer’s bow on Thursday morning. “For six months, we engaged Republicans on the Oversight Committee in good faith,” she wrote online. “We told them what we know, under oath. They ignored all of it. They moved the goalposts and turned accountability into an exercise in distraction.”
“So let’s stop the games,” Hillary Clinton added. “If you want this fight, @RepJamesComer, let’s have it — in public. You love to talk about transparency. There’s nothing more transparent than a public hearing, cameras on. We will be there.”
The hapless committee chairman hasn’t yet responded, but in the meantime, there’s also a larger context to all of this. The New York Times reported that no former president has ever been compelled to testify to Congress under subpoena, and Comer has set a precedent his party might ultimately come to regret.
Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told the Times that “like all powers of Congress or any other branch, these are powers that can be abused. We’re living in a period of spectacular abuse of power.”
That’s true, though it’s also true that now that the door is open, others can walk through it.
Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, told the Times: “There’s no question that Oversight Democrats will want to speak to Donald Trump and others. That is a precedent that has now been set by Comer and House Republicans.”
It was against this backdrop that NBC News’ Tom Llamas reminded the incumbent president: “Democrats are already saying if you bring President Bill Clinton and he has to testify, we’re bringing President Trump.” Before the anchor could finish his question about this, Trump interjected.
“Well, I think they might say that, you know? But they’ve already brought me. See, I’ve been brought,” the president replied. “They had me indicted, many, many times. Many, many times.”
Like so many of the president’s comments, this didn’t make any sense at all — congressional Democrats had nothing to do with the many criminal charges Trump has faced — though the response suggested he’s not at all eager to answer questions about Epstein, even if subpoenaed in future years, and even if the Clintons cooperate.
Watch this space.
With all the shit the Republicans have been piling on the Clintons for 35 years, they must believe the Epstein files thing is either just the latest thing they can use to embarrass them with, or to distract and deflect - "it's really all about Slick Willy!!!"
It's like they don't know who they're fuckin' with.
I expect not to be surprised if Bill and Hillary end up doing their thing via Questionnaire, or if Comer decides he really doesn't want to risk what happens if he opens that can of worms in public, and calls the whole thing off.
Republican Rep. James Comer opened a door that has long been closed. His party might come to regret the decision.
It’s never been altogether clear why Rep. James Comer, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, launched a crusade to get Bill and Hillary Clinton to testify as part of his panel’s Jeffrey Epstein investigation. But the Kentucky Republican did it anyway, even issuing first-of-their-kind subpoenas to compel the Democrats’ testimony.
When the Clintons resisted the cheap, partisan tactics, Comer upped the ante, scheduled a contempt hearing and set the stage for a possible criminal process. The former Democratic president and former secretary of state, left with little choice, ultimately acquiesced.
There’s still some question about how the next steps will unfold, though Hillary Clinton sent an interesting rhetorical shot across Comer’s bow on Thursday morning. “For six months, we engaged Republicans on the Oversight Committee in good faith,” she wrote online. “We told them what we know, under oath. They ignored all of it. They moved the goalposts and turned accountability into an exercise in distraction.”
“So let’s stop the games,” Hillary Clinton added. “If you want this fight, @RepJamesComer, let’s have it — in public. You love to talk about transparency. There’s nothing more transparent than a public hearing, cameras on. We will be there.”
The hapless committee chairman hasn’t yet responded, but in the meantime, there’s also a larger context to all of this. The New York Times reported that no former president has ever been compelled to testify to Congress under subpoena, and Comer has set a precedent his party might ultimately come to regret.
Members of Congress don’t necessarily think that is a good thing; they want the ability to bring in former presidents when they are relevant witnesses and may have something meaningful to say. And Mr. Comer’s move was a rare power play by a Republican lawmaker at a time when the G.O.P.-led House and Senate have ceded much of their power to the White House.
But his accomplishment also amounted to a remarkable use of government power to target a political adversary — the kind seen more often in autocratic societies where a peaceful transfer of power is not a given because leaders fear ending up in prison after leaving office. And it was one that some experts said further chipped away at the country’s democratic norms.
Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, told the Times that “like all powers of Congress or any other branch, these are powers that can be abused. We’re living in a period of spectacular abuse of power.”
That’s true, though it’s also true that now that the door is open, others can walk through it.
Rep. Robert Garcia of California, the top Democrat on the Oversight Committee, told the Times: “There’s no question that Oversight Democrats will want to speak to Donald Trump and others. That is a precedent that has now been set by Comer and House Republicans.”
It was against this backdrop that NBC News’ Tom Llamas reminded the incumbent president: “Democrats are already saying if you bring President Bill Clinton and he has to testify, we’re bringing President Trump.” Before the anchor could finish his question about this, Trump interjected.
“Well, I think they might say that, you know? But they’ve already brought me. See, I’ve been brought,” the president replied. “They had me indicted, many, many times. Many, many times.”
Like so many of the president’s comments, this didn’t make any sense at all — congressional Democrats had nothing to do with the many criminal charges Trump has faced — though the response suggested he’s not at all eager to answer questions about Epstein, even if subpoenaed in future years, and even if the Clintons cooperate.
Watch this space.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)