Category: Quick Analysis

For many years, conservatives and “free market” economists have complained about the ever-expanding “Administrative State.” At the same time, those on the left have relied more and more on bureaucrats at various federal agencies to issue more and more regulations and restrictions on a variety of private industries, including oil refining, gas production, agriculture, and even fishing, usually in the name of increased safety or to control prices.

Since the early 1980’s, one tool used by a variety of government agencies responsible for the ever-expanding web of regulations is the US Supreme Court decision in Chevron USA v. Natural Resource Def. Council, 467 US 837 (1984).  Briefly stated, the case involved a challenge to regulations promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency regarding air pollution controls mandated for manufacturing and oil refining plants and factories. In Chevron, the Court held that “[a]n agency, to engage in informed rulemaking, must consider varying interpretations and the wisdom of its policy on a continuing basis. Policy arguments…should be addressed to legislators or administrators, not to judges. The EPA’s interpretation of the statute here represents a reasonable accommodation of manifestly competing interests and is entitled to deference.”

The rationale for the Court’s decision was explained in this way; “[T]he Administrator’s interpretation represents a reasonable accommodation of manifestly competing interests and is entitled to deference: the regulatory scheme is technical and complex, the agency considered the matter in a detailed and reasoned fashion, and the decision involves reconciling conflicting policies”, the Court wrote in Chevron. “Judges are not experts in the field, and are not part of either political branch of the Government…[w]hen a challenge to an agency construction of a statutory provision, fairly conceptualized, really centers on the wisdom of the agency’s policy, rather than whether it is a reasonable choice within a gap left open by Congress, the challenge must fail. In such a case, federal judges-who have no constituency-have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do.” (Citations omitted.)

For the past 40 years, this “Chevron deference” has been granted to a variety of determinations made by every regulatory agency of the federal government.  To paraphrase the substance of this deference, “they’re the experts – they know better.”

Recently, the Supreme Court has heard arguments in two cases which give the Court the chance to revisit the Chevron deference, and perhaps modify or overturn that standard.  But to understand this rule and the necessity of reversing this precedent, a review of history is necessary.

The ascension of the modern bureaucratic state was documented by the eminent Political Scientist, James Q. Wilson.   “There was no dispute in Congress that there should be executive departments, headed by single appointed officials, and, of course, the Constitution specified that these would be appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate”, Wilson wrote in The Rise of the Bureaucratic State.  “The original departments were small and had limited duties. The State Department, the first to be created, had but nine employees in addition to the Secretary. The War Department did not reach 80 civilian employees until 1801; it commanded only a few thousand soldiers. Only the Treasury Department had substantial powers—it collected taxes, managed the public debt, ran the national bank, conducted land surveys, and purchased military supplies. Because of this, Congress gave the closest scrutiny to its structure and its activities.” 

According to Wilson, “[a]fter 1861, the growth in the federal administrative system …reflected a new (or at least greater) emphasis on the enlargement of the scope of government. Between 1861 and 1901, over 200,000 civilian employees were added to the federal service…[b]y 1901 there were over 44,000 civilian defense employees, mostly workers in government-owned arsenals and shipyards. But even these could account for less than one fourth of the increase in employment during the preceding 40 years.” 

In the 1930’s, “[t]he New Deal was perhaps the high water mark…[n]ot only did various sectors of society, notably agriculture, begin receiving massive subsidies, but the government proposed, through the National Industrial Recovery Act (NRA), to cloak with public power a vast number of industrial groupings and trade associations so that they might control production and prices in ways that would end the depression. The NRA’s Blue Eagle fell before the Supreme Court—the wholesale delegation of public power to private interests was declared unconstitutional. But the piecemeal delegation was not, as the continued growth of specialized promotional agencies attests.”

Wilson’s analysis continued; “For many decades, the Supreme Court denied to the federal government any general ‘police power’ over occupations and businesses, and thus most such regulation occurred at the state level …(however), [w]hat clearly was within the regulatory province of the federal government was interstate commerce, and thus it is not surprising that the first major federal regulatory body should be the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), created in 1887… the ICC…became the principal example of federal discretionary authority.”

Wilson then detailed the current state of these ever-growing regulatory agencies; “Either in applying a vague but broad rule (‘the public interest, convenience, and necessity’) or in enforcing a clear and strict standard, the regulatory agency will tend to broaden the range and domain of its authority, to lag behind technological and economic change, to resist deregulation, to stimulate corruption, and to contribute to the bureaucratization of private institutions…[r]egulatory agencies are slow to respond to change for the same reason all organizations with an assured existence are slow: There is no incentive to respond. Furthermore, the requirements of due process and of political conciliation will make any response time-consuming.”

Most important to our analysis of the challenge which has been brought to the Chevron deference, Wilson presaged the basis for the current controversy; “The operation of regulatory bureaus may tend to bureaucratize the private sector. The costs of conforming to many regulations can be met most easily—often, only—by large firms and institutions with specialized bureaucracies of their own. Smaller firms and groups often must choose between unacceptably high overhead costs, violating the law, or going out of business. A small bakery producing limited runs of a high-quality product literally may not be able to meet the safety and health standards for equipment, or to keep track of and administer fairly its obligations to its two employees; but unless the bakery is willing to break the law, it must sell out to a big bakery that can afford to do these things, but may not be inclined to make and sell good bread.” (Emphasis in original.)

The application of the Chevron deference over the past 40 years has only encouraged this trend towards more and more regulations and bureaucratic rule-making, all in the name of vaguely worded policy objectives.  As Wilson described, federal agencies have promulgated so many rules, a small business has no chance of fully complying with these usually costly instructions, and turn a profit.

But this state of affairs is far from hopeless.

As described by Reuters,  “[I]n Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo…petitioners challenge regulations of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) which impose a per diem fee on vessels to pay for the individual they are required to carry on trips to monitor compliance with fisheries rules under the Magnuson-Stevens Act (MSA).”  This case was consolidated with Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, [also] a challenge to the per diem fees imposed by the NMFS on vessels to pay the cost of the observers the NMFS sends out to monitor the health of fisheries.” 

From the oral arguments held on January 17 of this year, it is obvious that the Supreme Court intends on addressing the continued application of the Chevron deference.  As the discussion was described in the SCOTUSblog, “[t]he fishing companies (asked) the justices to weigh in on the rule itself but also to overrule Chevron. Roman Martinez, representing one group of fishing vessels, told the justices that…[u]nder the Chevron doctrine…even if all nine Supreme Court justices agree that the fishing vessels’ interpretation of federal fishing law is better than the NMFS’s interpretation, they would still be required to defer to the agency’s interpretation as long as it was reasonable. Such a result, Martinez concluded, is ‘not consistent with the rule of law.’”  

Justice Neil Gorsuch made an argument that echoed the concerns expressed by James Q. Wilson. “he was less concerned about businesses subject to changing regulations, observing that the companies ‘can take care of themselves’ and seek relief through the political process. Instead, Gorsuch pointed to less powerful individuals who may be affected by the actions of federal agencies, such as immigrants, veterans seeking benefits, and Social Security claimants. In those cases, Gorsuch stressed, Chevron virtually always works for the agencies and against the ‘little guy.’”

Indeed.  Justice Gorsuch has also expressed concerns regarding federal agency overreach in the past.  In his concurring opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Department of Labor,    (where the Court found that the Department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration [OSHA] did not have the authority to mandate that private employers with more than 100 employees must require their employees to receive the Covid-19 vaccine),   Gorsuch wrote “the national government’s power to make the laws that govern us remains where Article I of the Constitution says it belongs – with the people’s elected representatives. If administrative agencies seek to regulate the daily lives and liberties of millions of Americans…they must at least be able to trace that power to a clear grant of authority from Congress.”

As Justice Gorsuch reasoned, “[s]ometimes lawmakers may be tempted to delegate power to agencies to ‘reduc[e] the degree to which they will be held accountable for unpopular actions’…[i]f Congress could hand off all its legislative powers to unelected agency officials, it ‘would dash the whole scheme’ of our Constitution and enable intrusions into the private lives and freedoms of Americans by bare edict rather than only with the consent of their elected representatives.” (Citations omitted).

Herein lies the heart of the issue. 

Over the years, Congress has delegated increased authority to a plethora of federal agencies, each more specific in its focus and jurisdiction.  Many of these bureaus address technical and specialized issues beyond the expertise of Members of Congress and Judges, necessitating some level of trust in their judgments.  However, the “hands off” approach taken by the Courts since the inception of the Chevron deference has allowed these bureaucracies to establish rules that effectively, if not always intentionally, favor large corporations, who are the only ones who can afford to follow these ever-expanding regulations.  As James Q. Wilson put it, a small bakery cannot compete with a large bakery, or as Justice Gorsuch states, federal agencies end up working against the “little guy.”

The small fisheries who are challenging the National Marine Fisheries Service cannot afford the cost of carrying a government compliance officer on their ships, while larger fishing companies can easily bear this cost.  If the Courts continue to apply the Chevron deference, the judges would have no choice but to endorse the actions of the NMFS, and drive small scale fishermen out of business.

Further, if the Supreme Court continues to follow the Chevron deference, Congress will be encouraged to continue ceding their powers to unelected and increasingly unaccountable bureaucrats.

Perhaps the Court will not overturn the Chevron deference it its entirety.  But it is certain that a major modification of this doctrine is on the way.

Judge John Wilson (ret.) served on the bench in NYC.

Illustration: Pixabay

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) contends that controlling information through data manipulation, content restriction, and bot sharing on social media is key to modern cognitive warfare, according to a report published this week by the Jamestown Foundation. Freedom-loving people, and the governments they select to represent them, can no longer ignore the national threat emerging from the mass manipulation of TikTok and its parent company ByteDance by the CCP. The Chinese leadership uses the platform to serve its own malevolent purposes. 

TikTok, which is controlled by ByteDance and ultimately answerable to the CCP, is not the equivalent of its Western social media rivals. The CCP has the ability to leverage the platform directly while TikTok has no practical or legal means to resist its pressure. The Jamestown report analyzes the CCP’s capability and intent and concludes that the social media platform is “Controlled by ByteDance and ultimately answerable to the CCP… TikTok has become a powerful tool to influence mass sentiment. While harder to prove that it has influenced the views of tens of millions of monthly active users in the United States due to the opacity of the platform’s recommendation algorithm, certain preconditions for doing so are clearly met,” it points out. The report also argues that the company needs to be separated from the CCP itself to protect US national security. It is unlikely to occur under the Biden Administration.

ByteDance is located in China, has its own party committee, and is closely linked the party-army-state apparatus. Those ties come with numerous obligations and are subject to strong coercive state power. The CCP uses its influence to manipulate narratives and information to damage and weaken its adversaries and to achieve strategic advantages, according to the report. TikTok aids the CCP by manipulating its users on a mass scale. Jamestown Foundation experts also say that it is conceivable that other Chinese apps, including mobile games and e-commerce platforms, are also involved in manipulating American public opinion according to the CCP’s preferences. There are also indications that TikTok may have acted illegally, according to the report, in its “handling of users’ data” and how it “conducted other malicious activities, such as tracking journalists.”

Unlike the United States, China’s security apparatus can compel cooperation using extralegal coercion. Like other companies, ByteDance is under the CCP’s strict whole-of-society surveillance and control mechanisms and enforced using the state’s intelligence apparatus. The report points out that ByteDance has signed a strategic cooperation agreement with the Ministry of Public Security and integrated its cyber police into their platforms to censor content. ByteDance has gone beyond passive collaboration and offered to work with numerous PRC agencies. It prioritizes material in a specialized review queue and directly reports material deemed “inappropriate” to the cyber police. 

How far does the reach of China’s control extend? (Call it a coincidence, however, while writing this article my computer was attacked, apparently, and access to the Jamestown Foundation website blocked with a message that I was “not allowed” to access the site.) 

Inside China, Bytedance has no choice. It must conform to China’s national security laws in place since 2014. Company documents reveal that moderators were told to censor political speech in livestreams and punish those who harmed “national honor” while padding feeds with content from “shadow accounts” operated by company employees posing as regular users. The updated 2021 Data Security Law goes further and mandates a centralized system for data security, with a global reach affecting PRC companies and their overseas subsidiaries, to assess and monitor security risks. 

Western intelligence services say the extent of China’s reach is comprehensive, but not fully known as agencies continue to uncover new intrusions and methods of operation. The CCP employs a complex approach to global information control. According to the Jamestown report, “The CCP has the intent and capability to, as well as a history of, manipulating narratives and the information environment to support its objectives. A clear strategy aims to shape public opinion and suppress information that could challenge the Party’s narrative.” The CCP today maintains an elevated role and coordinates closely with the People’s Liberation Army. “The State Council’s News Center and Douyin have jointly signed a cooperation memorandum to optimize short video dissemination for state-owned enterprises and promote the Belt and Road Initiative through creating positive public opinion,” it adds.

CCP efforts to influence the information environment, the report notes, include the selective shadow banning of content that portrays the PRC negatively and the posting of content that portrays the PRC positively. A document from The Network Contagion Research Institute, entitled “A Tik-Tok-ing Timebomb: How TikTok’s Global Platform Anomalies Align with the Chinese Communist Party’s Geostrategic Objectives.”, December 21, 2023,that analyzed hashtags on Instagram and Tiktok concludes that TikTok “systematically promotes or demotes content on the basis of whether it is aligned with or opposed to the interests of the Chinese Government.” With TikTok’s 170 million users in the United States alone, the CCP is using the platform as a megaphone to target American citizens and manipulating opinion to favor China’s perspective. 

In a January Marxism Research Net article entitled, “Xu Chengfang: Research on the Laws of Ideology Construction Under the Conditions of Long-Term Ruling of the Communist Party of China,” , a researcher at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences emphasized that platforms like TikTok should “subconsciously complete the questioning of the negative propaganda of the West” and that TikTok in particular should create an “awakening.” Congress and the American people should be asking why the CCP needs to maintain its ability to coerce and control TikTok and the long-term implications for US national security.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.

Photo: Pixabay

Russian President Vladimir Putin is playing a multilayered game entrapping many of his country’s youth groups in a growing militarization sweeping across the nation. These Kremlin-sponsored paramilitary groups appear ready to assume a more active role in Russian politics this spring under the strict guidance of the state. Last year the Russian government allocated 19 billion rubles (about $204.8 million) for one youth organization alone, with 10 billion rubles allocated to developing the movement throughout Russia’s regions and 4 billion rubles to the central party apparatus. 

It is not the first time a “cult of personality” was employed to build support for a Russian leader. Just over one hundred years ago the “Young Pioneers,” a Soviet youth group, was founded under Lenin’s rule. By 1924 it counted 161,000 among its ranks. In the five decades after its formation the “Vladimir Lenin All-Union Pioneer Organization” amassed a following of over 25 million. Under Putin, its main successor is known as the “Movement of the First” (MOF) group. It claims June 22, 2022, the hundredth anniversary of the Young Pioneers, as its date of formation. 

The MOF is fully-funded and considered more radicalized than earlier Leninist organizations. Despite Kremlin claims reported in Kommersant.ru, that the group’s goal is to simply help foster creativity among today’s young Russians, there are indications MOF is working to help restore the Soviet Union to its former glory and, eventually, to help expand it to include areas once recognized as part of the Russian Empire. Last week on March 18, Russian citizens, including MOF and members of other similar youth groups, gathered in Red Square to celebrate Putin’s re-election victory with “aggressive chants” heard among a “sea of young, smiling faces, reflecting the growing militarization of Russian culture,” says Richard Arnold in a March 25 Eurasian Daily Monitor article. The tagline on MOF’s website calls its members “pioneers of the motherland.” The movement’s self-proclaimed values are “to be with Russia, to be human, to be together, to be on the move, to be first” and familiar platitudes to “strong families” and “service to the Fatherland,” he adds. 

The MOF and other separate youth structures, such as Yunarmia  (Youth Army) and the Russian Union of School Children, replicate Russia’s management of paramilitary groups with some military analysts suggesting they provide a confusing and layered picture with potentially divided loyalties among Russian citizens. MOF is the “tip of the spear” according to one Russia watcher, who points out that Putin gives them special attention at rallies in Moscow. TASS says that at the MOF’s Congress in Moscow in early February, Putin greeted the 3,000 MOF delegates and at the closing ceremony declared the group is almost five million strong and “That’s a huge  army!”

MOF’s size will continue to grow, according to Arnold. It already has a council in every region of the Russian Federation, including occupied areas of Ukraine. Like its forerunner, the Young Pioneers, today’s Russian youth blur the line between practicing soft skills that can help them on the battlefield, as well as in everyday life. They restore national war memorials, run marathons and other physical competitions, and learn first aid skills. “Another more blatantly militarist action began in February in anticipation of the 79th Victory Day, Russia’s annual celebration of Nazi Germany’s defeat,” says Arnold. The MOF created an event called “Victory Classic.” It aims to institutionalize military historical memory, promote “respect for the Motherland,” and ensure “the safeguarding of traditions” among various youth groups. It is enlarging the event that was held in 2023. By building inter-group connections, the Kremlin is creating an intricate web of organizations rather than replacing structures. Putin appears to be replicating the proliferation of similar groups in paramilitary groups in other fascist systems found throughout history.

“It seems that the Movement of the First is here to stay and will socialize an angrier, more militant generation,” argues Arnold. What remains uncertain is the response of these various groups should there be increased political conflict among the leadership in Moscow. In a crisis, Russian youth may present a challenge as groups divide their loyalties among different political leaders. Although strong now, MOF and other youth groups may present a serious challenge to Putin and other Russian leaders in the future.

Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Department

The heroic accomplishments of America’s soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines would not have been possible without the tools they need.  Those weapons come from the nation’s defense industrial base, the “arsenal of democracy.”

Imagine the aftermath in World War II if the U.S. was unable to rebuild its Pacific fleet after the devastation of the Pearl Harbor attack, or the tanks, planes and artillery required to repulse the armies of Nazi Germany and Japan.

Events over the last few years have revealed that asset to be inadequate to the needs of both the U.S. and its allies.

The Department of Defense is clearly worried. Recently, it published what can best be described as an anguished warning.

“The defense industrial base is facing serious challenges, and now is the time to help those businesses before it is too late,” noted David Norquist, president and chief executive officer of the National Defense Industrial Association and the deputy secretary of defense from 2019 to 2021, He explained that “The United States is seeing the return of great power competition and can no longer outpower its adversaries on size alone as it once did…The United States was simply bigger than Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and the Soviet Union. We had a larger economy, and we could show up late to the fight, producing volume and eventually getting around to victory; it would just take us a little while…China now has an economy similar to the U.S. and a larger population.”

From 2016 to 2022, the Defense Logistic Agency lost about 22%, or 3,000 vendors. Small businesses accounted for 2,300 of those losses. Overall, the Department of Defense lost 43.1% of its small businesses in the same timeframe. 

A Heritage study outlines a key challenge: “Not only have manufacturing and key industrial processes moved overseas, but—even worse—they have moved to China, America’s chief rival. The U.S. is in a ‘new Cold War’ with China even as the two countries’ economies are deeply intertwined.”

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) has weighed in on the looming crisis.

“…an appropriately-sized industrial base is essential to the United States’ ability to supply and equip its military forces. In addition to supporting current military needs, the resources available must be able to accommodate future demand. This latter requirement makes surge capacity—the ability to quickly expand output in response to sudden upticks in demand—an important dimension of broader industrial capacity. If the Defense Industrial base too small, it will be unable to supply all of the materials, products, and services necessary to accomplish U.S. strategic objectives, and the military may lack the ability to execute its assigned missions…an appropriately-sized industrial base is essential to the United States’ ability to supply and equip its military forces. In addition to supporting current military needs, the resources available must be able to accommodate future demand. This latter requirement makes surge capacity—the ability to quickly expand output in response to sudden upticks in demand—an important dimension of broader industrial capacity. If the Defense Industrial base too small, it will be unable to supply all of the materials, products, and services necessary to accomplish U.S. strategic objectives, and the military may lack the ability to execute its assigned missions,”

CRS found that “Some analysts and policymakers have argued that the current capacity of the industrial base is insufficient for the demands of great power competition. As Seth Jones of the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) framed the problem in a 2023 study: The U.S. defense industrial base is not adequately prepared for the competitive security environment that now exists. It is currently operating at a tempo better suited to a peacetime environment. In a major regional conflict—such as a war with China in the Taiwan Strait— the U.S. use of munitions would likely exceed the current stockpiles of the U.S. Department of Defense, leading to a problem of ‘empty bins.’”

Reversing the downturn in capacity would require reversing tax and regulatory policies that have chased American manufacturing offshore.  Reducing the difficulty of working with federal agencies would go a long way in encouraging smaller firms to build capacity to fulfill defense contracts would also be a major step forward.

Photo: DoD

The bizarre progressive policies of releasing vicious criminals, maintaining a weak foreign policy, promoting hyperinflationary actions, encouraging racial division, and eliminating border safeguards have a common theme.

Those concepts are certainly and provably irrational. Since the onset of “defund the Police” and “no cash bail,” crime has risen dramatically. As America has followed the path of “leading from behind,” Russia has invaded Ukraine, Hamas has slaughtered innocents in the Middle East, North Korea has resumed full missile and nuclear arms testing, and China has pressured its neighbors. Despite electing a black president and mayors of color in major American cities, race relations have been pushed back decades due to allegations that America is a racist nation.  Since most border controls were relaxed or eliminated, millions, including human traffickers, drug cartel members, and assorted individuals endangering national security have crossed into the U.S., bankrupting cities and states.

Behind all of those ideas is common ideology, and an equally common goal: the delegitimizing of America’s current form of government and its economic system.

President Obama famously stated that he desired to “Fundamentally transform” the country. Barely anyone in the media dared to ask,” transform it into what?” or even, what problems required drastic alteration. The U.S. had the most powerful economy.  It was, at the time, the planet’s sole superpower. Racial relations were at an all-time high. Crime was largely under control.

To the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, however, none of that mattered. Far above the physical safety of the citizenry in their own communities, ending racial issues, the prosperity of families, or even the national security of the country as a whole loomed the objective of transforming America into a government based on socialist principles, dominated by a vastly empowered central authority controlling most facets of daily life. 

A clear example can be seen in the environmental policies pursued by progressives.  Most of the solutions they propose to the challenges they discuss in this area have little to do with the issue itself, but everything to do with ending capitalism.  It is another example of irrationality.  It is clear that socialist societies are far worse stewards of the planet than their capitalist counterparts.  As pointed out by Foundation for Economic Education, in a comparison of East Germany’s environmental actions as opposed to its western counterpart:

• In 1989, the GDR emitted more than three times as much CO2 for each unit of GDP than the Federal Republic (West Germany).  In 1988, the GDR emitted 10 times as much sulphur dioxide per km2 as the Federal Republic. Almost half of the GDR’s major rivers were biologically dead in 1989 and 70 per cent were no longer allowed to be used for drinking water. Nearly half of the GDR’s residents received no clean drinking water.

Similarly, Science Direct found that “On a national scale, we found that North Korea experienced 6.7, 17.8, and 20.6 times greater amounts of nitrogen dioxide (NO₂), sulfur dioxide (SO₂), and carbon monoxide (CO) per unit primary energy supply (PES) than South Korea from 2005 to 2018.”

But to Progressives in the U.S., capitalism is bad for the planet and should be replaced by socialism.

To the left, America’s leadership role across the globe is unacceptable. That is why they oppose adequate defense budgets and favor Washington’s enemies over its friends. Despite their stated support for gay and women’s rights, they favor appeasing Iran, the worst offender of those concepts.  Despite their self-description of being humanitarian, they have vigorously favored Hamas over Israel. 

Progressive leaders fully realize that their policies cannot standup to examination, and so they quickly label opponents with absurd labels, crying “racist” or “climate denier” to anyone who dares to use facts during a debate.

What is the true condition of the American economy? 

Despite the rosy forecast being portrayed by the White House and its media supporters, there are deeply troubling facts that cannot be ignored.

The National debt stands at an unprecedented and unmanageable $34 trillion. Upon Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20, 2021, the total federal debt was $27,751,896,236,414.77. The President claims he addressed that by cutting the deficit by $1.7 trillion. A 2023 CNN analysis tells a different story. “Biden’s boast leaves out important context. It is true that the federal deficit fell by a total of $1.7 trillion under Biden in the 2021 and 2022 fiscal years, including a record $1.4 trillion drop in 2022 – but it is highly questionable how much credit Biden deserves for this reduction. Biden did not mention that the primary reason the deficit fell so substantially was that it had skyrocketed to a record high under Trump in 2020 because of bipartisan emergency pandemic relief spending, then fell as expected as the spending expired as planned. Independent analysts say Biden’s own actions, including his laws and executive orders, have had the overall effect of adding to current and projected future deficits, not reducing those deficits.”

The current White House has actually taken actions that dramatically increase deficit spending and the national debt.  A prime example was the mislabeled $2 trillion stimulus package, which was less about infrastructure than providing a very big bone to environmental extremists within his party.

Biden also alleges that he done well in addressing employment. A House Budget Committee analysis tells a different story.  : Nearly 72 percent of all job gains since 2021 were simply jobs that were being recovered from the pandemic, not new job creation. In fact, when looking at today’s economy compared to pre-pandemic levels, employment is up only by 3.7 million. On the other hand, prior to the pandemic, job creation under the prior administration was 6.7 million—3 million more jobs than the current President. Further, Wages Are Not Keeping up with Biden’s Inflation Crisis. Real wages are down over 5 percent since President Biden entered the Oval Office.

The Independent Women’s Forum explains the issue: “Cumulatively, somewhere around 13.5 million jobs have been added since January 2021. However, most of those were recovered jobs in that they returned after pandemic closures and restrictions came to an end. Across industries, people were rehired when their shuttered workplaces were reopened or after remote workers began to return to their offices. According to congressional analysis, that amounted to a whopping over 70% of the jobs in 2021.”

In addition to all that, some of the jobs have been government employment. The Wall Street Journal reports that “Public-sector jobs at the federal, state and local level have risen by 327,000 positions so far in 2023, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. That is approaching one-fifth of all new American jobs created in the first eight months of the year. In contrast, public-sector jobs accounted for 5% of employment growth during the equivalent period last year. Government agencies have boosted funding for new hires and have dangled richer perks. This year’s growth in public-sector jobs represents the highest share of overall U.S. payroll gains since 2001, when the government hired masses of workers focused on public safety after the 9/11 terrorist attacks” 

Lately, the White House has claimed “success” in fighting inflation, The current inflation rate is 3.4%, But that snapshot view masks the true problem. Cumulative inflation under President Biden grew is at 17.1 percent. A family of four is paying $15,133 per year, or $1,261 per month, more to purchase the same goods and services compared to the day President Biden took office. This a problem substantially created by his Administration, a result of his attack on affordable energy. Imagine visiting your doctor for a fever, which jumped from 98.6 to 102.  He tells you not to worry even though you are now at 105, but its ok because it’s going up more slowly!

Just as the national debt and government spending have exploded, so too have the problems faced by families. The Heritage Foundation summarized the impact in four statistics: Real disposal income per capita has reduced 7.5%, home ownership affordability is down 36.3%, credit card debt is up 38.7%, and monthly savings are down 79.3%.

A CNET report from the Federal Reserve on Household Debt and Credit noted that “In August, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York released its Household Debt and Credit Report for the second quarter of 2023 with one particularly eye-popping statistic: Americans had surpassed a combined total of over $1 trillion in credit card debt. Three months later, the balance had already gone up an additional $48 billion.”

A recent Fortune article noted that “A new report by Bankrate found that 35% of U.S. adults carry credit card debt from month to month, up from 29% last year and 46% of credit cardholders carry debt from month to month on at least one card, up from 39% last year.” 

Far more rapidly and far more intensely than most believe, the planet’s economy and politics will be altered by space technology. We conclude our publishing of key portions of the National Space Intelligence and the National Air and Space Intelligence Center’s vital report on Competing in Space.

ELECTRONIC WARFARE

China likely is developing jammers to target a wide range of satellite communications supporting government and military operations. Chinese military exercises regularly incorporate jammers against satellite communications, spacebased radars, and satellite navigation systems, such as GPS.

Russia views electronic warfare as essential to gaining and maintaining information superiority and has fielded ground-based electronic attack systems to counter communications, radars, and GPS.

GROUND SITE ATTACKS

Potential adversaries can target space services with terrestrial weapons to include cyber, electronic warfare systems, or physical attacks that target supporting space-enabling ground infrastructure.

MULTI-DOMAIN WARFARE

Space technologies are critical enablers of modern warfare. Through satellites far above the traditional battlefield, space-enabled actors can collect, transmit, and relay data crucial for achieving military advantages and expanding multi-domain warfare over great distances. Satellites provide nations new means to target and deliver munitions, conduct information operations to influence civilians and service members, and control their military forces nearly anywhere in the world. The emergence of counterspace weapons has introduced methods to deny military and civilian use of space services. China and Russia view space capabilities as essential for winning future conflicts. In 2015, both countries began significant military reforms to modernize their use of space and counterspace assets. Today, China’s Strategic Support Force and Russia’s Space Forces are integrating space and counterspace capabilities into military operations and exercises, expanding personnel training and testing for space-enabled systems, and refining delivery of targeting data to precision weapon systems.

COUNTERSPACE WARFARE

Counterspace attacks against U.S. and allied satellites can have profound effects on global and national security that increase the risk of unintended escalation into military conflict. Attacks against space systems and services could result in major failures of critical, spaceenabled infrastructure, such as emergency services and power grids, and cripple a military’s ability to detect and defend against distant threats. Chinese military academic writings stress the necessity of “destroying, damaging, and interfering with the enemy’s reconnaissance…and communications satellites” to “blind and deafen the enemy.” In both September and October 2022, a Russian Foreign Ministry official at the United Nations stated “quasi-civilian” commercial satellites used for military purposes “may become a legitimate target for retaliation.”

ORBITAL BOMBARDMENT

Delivery of space-to-ground weapons, also called orbital bombardment, could prevent reliable missile warning and complicate defense engagements. In July 2021, China conducted the world’s first fractional orbital launch of a hypersonic glide vehicle, traveling the furthest distance (~40,000km) and flying the longest (100+ minutes) of any Chinese land attack weapon test to date.

RISKS IN THE SPACE ENVIRONMENT

Imagine if a fly colliding with your windshield could destroy your car. Space debris smaller than a fly can cause catastrophic damage to spacecraft. As launch activity, satellite breakups, and unsafe use of space continues, the risk of spacecraft colliding with debris will continue to grow. Global space monitoring networks are currently only capable of tracking debris larger than 10 cm, leaving the overwhelming majority of space objects untracked. As of December 2022, just 32,290 of an estimated 130 million objects in Earth’s orbit have been catalogued. In early 2021, International Space Station (ISS) operators discovered a sizable hole in the station’s robotic arm created by untracked debris, which highlights the danger these hidden objects can pose. Kinetic anti-satellite weapons have the potential to create substantial amounts of debris. China’s 2007 anti-satellite missile test created the largest single-collision debris field ever, with over 3,000 pieces of trackable debris. Multiple spacecraft, including the ISS, have maneuvered to avoid the debris. Russia’s 2021 anti-satellite missile test generated over 1,500 pieces of trackable orbital debris and potentially hundreds of thousands of smaller objects.

Planned mega-constellations of hundreds or thousands of satellites will complicate spacecraft tracking, signal interference mitigation, and collision avoidance. China’s planned Xingwang satellite internet constellation, just one of many prospective mega-constellations, could operate up to 28,000 satellites in low Earth orbit.

International norms have not kept pace with the dramatic evolution of space use over the past several decades. Despite the substantial increase in new space operators, technologies, and spacecraft, the international community has not achieved consensus on major norms, rules, or principles governing activities in space since the 1970s. China and Russia continue to endorse a draft treaty on weapons in space, though it fails to address a variety of anti-satellite weapons and lacks meaningful verification mechanisms.

Debris from space missions can threaten people and places on Earth. Launches over populated areas drop debris and toxic fuel on roads and people’s homes. Reentry of large, uncontrolled space objects into Earth’s atmosphere must be monitored to understand the risks to people worldwide.

Similar to adversarial electronic warfare operations, inadvertent signal interference from satellites or ground systems can degrade or deny satellite services. While the International Telecommunications Union regulates frequencies to avoid interference, conflicts between systems using the same frequencies can disrupt space services and require costly or complicated changes to satellite operations.

DEEP SPACE EXPLORATION

Spacefaring nations are once again taking significant steps beyond Earth’s immediate orbit. Deep space exploration promises substantial rewards: scientific breakthroughs for prestige and technological advancement; economic windfalls from resources on asteroids, the Moon, and other celestial bodies; and even potential strategic advantage in specialized orbits or high value locations. Organizations around the world have proposed over 50 deep space missions in the coming decades, with more than a dozen countries planning to visit the Moon, Lagrange points, other planets, and beyond. China and Russia both have multiple planned robotic missions to the Moon, including the jointly-developed International Lunar Research Station on the lunar surface in the 2030s. China’s plans also include its first crewed Moon mission in the 2030s and several robotic scientific missions to Mars, asteroids, and deep space. Russia’s plans include its own crewed Moon mission in the 2030s and robotic scientific missions to Venus, Mars, and deep space.

Moon

Between 2018 and May 2023, China, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, South Korea, and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) launched lunar scientific missions; China landed its lunar far-side rover in 2019 and completed a separate sample return mission, Chang’e-5, in 2020. After returning the sample to Earth, Chang’e-5 transited to the L1 Sun-Earth Lagrange Point in 2021, and in early 2022, became the first spacecraft to enter a stable distant retrograde orbit around the Moon. In late 2023, India’s Chandrayaan-3 became the world’s first spacecraft to successfully land near the lunar south pole

Lagrange Points

Lagrange points, areas where gravity between two celestial bodies is balanced, allow spacecraft to expend considerably less fuel to remain in stable positions over long periods of time. These regions are uniquely valuable for long-term missions, such as surveillance, space environment monitoring, or data relay, in deep space. China operates its Queqiao relay satellite at the L2 Earth-Moon Lagrange point to communicate with the Yutu-2 lunar far-side rover and Russia operates the Spektr-RG deep space telescope at the L2 Sun-Earth Lagrange point.

Resource Exploitation

Countless celestial bodies beyond Earth have vast resources that could fundamentally change resource scarcity and humanity’s role in outer space. Helium-3 deposits on the Moon may offer a safe, non-radioactive source of nuclear energy in the future, and massive rare metal deposits on nearby asteroids could supply manufacturers in many industries here on Earth. Lunar and Martian soil can be processed into cement for permanent structures, like long-term human habitats, while water and oxygen in the soil can be used for life support and rocket fuel production.

Asteroids

In 2020, Japan successfully returned the second asteroid sample ever collected, following the 2010 return of its previous asteroid sample mission.

EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES AND MISSIONS

Researchers worldwide are developing novel technologies with the potential to dramatically improve and alter future space capabilities over the next twenty years. The convergence of technologies like artificial intelligence, 3D printing, and robotics will enhance and expand nations’ capabilities to perform a wide range of complex missions throughout space. Many of these technologies could have both peaceful and military applications.

Novel Propulsion

Innovative propulsion methods for launch vehicles and spacecraft, such as ecofriendly propellant, nuclear and electric propulsion, and solar sails are being designed and tested to minimize ecological damage on Earth, improve satellite performance, and enable new, long-duration missions

PRESERVING SPACE ACCESS

Our future will be defined by innovations in the space domain. We will increasingly value satellites and the services they provide to improve our local communities, grow our economies, advance scientific progress, and keep us safe. However, space developments will continue to introduce new challenges to global security and prosperity. The expanding utility of space systems has extended the boundaries of conflict and exacerbated the world’s vulnerability to dangers in the space environment. Actors seeking to challenge international order will have access to systems capable of devastating and lasting impacts on our progress on Earth and in space. As humanity expands its space presence, understanding the threats and risks of operating in space will be fundamental to preserving access and peaceful competition for generations to come.

Illustration: NASA

Aircraft dramatically changed commerce and warfare early in the 20th Century. The world will be even more profoundly altered by space technology. We continue our publishing of key portions of The National Space Intelligence Centers’ major report, “Competing in Space.”

INCREASING SURVEILLANCE

National, commercial, and academic ventures worldwide are developing and proliferating increasingly sophisticated space-based remote sensing capabilities and space observation sensors. The growing number and variety of these sensors offer greater access to a wide range of data for characterizing systems, events, and facilities. As these capabilities become more commonplace, activities around the world and in space will become more difficult to conduct without being observed.

Monitoring Earth

China operates over 300 remote sensing satellites with diverse sensors, improving the Chinese military’s ability to observe U.S. aircraft carriers, expeditionary strike groups, and deployed air wings. Russia operates some of the world’s most capable individual remote sensing satellites; however, Moscow operates only a limited number of these systems compared to the U.S. and China. China and Russia have further plans to improve, expand, and diversify these capabilities, which will enhance their ability to readily monitor and target emergent events, force deployments, and sensitive ground locations. Both countries also seek to use space for early warning of ballistic missile launches. Russia has maintained satellites for this purpose since the 1970s and China has recently started developing these capabilities.

As evidenced by the Russia-Ukraine conflict, commercial remote sensing satellite firms are greatly expanding the public availability of highquality satellite imagery. In January 2023, the U.S. Department of the Treasury sanctioned a Chinese commercial satellite company, its Luxembourg-based subsidiary, and a Russian company for supplying satellite imagery that enabled Wagner Group, a Russian paramilitary organization, to conduct combat operations against Ukraine

Monitoring Space

China and Russia maintain networks of diverse sensors to search for, track, and characterize space objects, a capability fundamental to conducting counterspace operations. These countries bolster their respective networks with data from global academic and civilian space monitoring networks, like the Russian-led International Scientific Optical Network and the Chinese Academy of Sciences’ future SiTian network, to more frequently track a greater number of space objects

DENYING SPACE

As our world grows increasingly dependent upon space services, potential adversaries are developing technologies and fielding terrestrial and space-based counterspace weapons capable of destroying satellites, disrupting space services, and degrading support infrastructure on the ground. China and Russia view the U.S. as overlyreliant upon space for military and information superiority. Seeking asymmetric advantages in future conflict, both countries are designing, testing, and demonstrating counterspace weapons to deny, disrupt, or destroy satellites and space services. They often mask or conceal these activities to avoid international condemnation. The dual-use nature of some spacecraft technologies makes counterspace tests or hostile activity difficult to detect, attribute, or mitigate. For example, sensors to inspect other satellites and robotic arms for servicing other satellites support peaceful missions, but can also be used to target or attack spacecraft.

ANTI-SATELLITE MISSILES

More than 2,700 of the original 3,000 trackable debris objects from China’s 2007 anti-satellite missile test remain in low Earth orbit. The Chinese military routinely trains with an operational variant of this ground-based missile. In 2013, China launched an object on a ballistic trajectory to an altitude of 30,000km, suggesting it may have a missile capable of destroying satellites in geostationary Earth orbit. ANTI-SATELLITE MISSILES In November 2021, Russia destroyed a Sovietera satellite in low Earth orbit using Nudol’, a mobile, ground-based missile. This test generated over 1,500 pieces of trackable debris and tens of thousands of lethal but nontrackable objects. In 2018, a MiG-31 with a large missile slung beneath the aircraft was observed by the public at a Russian test site. The weapon may be related to the Burevestnik air-launched anti-satellite missile, which will be “capable of destroying targets in near-space.”

DIRECTED ENERGY WEAPONS

China has multiple ground-based laser systems of varying power levels that could blind or damage satellite sensors. By the mid-to-late 2020s, Beijing may have higher-power systems capable of damaging satellites.

Russia has several ground-based lasers that could jam and blind satellite sensors. Beginning in 2018, Russia deployed Peresvet – a laser system designed to mask missile deployments by blinding satellite sensors – to five strategic missile divisions. Russia likely will field more powerful lasers in the mid-to-late 2020s.

The Report Concludes Tomorrow

Photo: Space X

Just as the industrial revolution changed the world’ economy and the way wars were fought hundreds of years ago, space technology is altering the way humanity works, prospers, and, yes, fights wars.

If America is to survive and thrive, it must successfully utilize space.  The National Space Intelligence Center and the National Air and Space Intelligence Center have produced a landmark report, “Competing in Space.”  We reproduce key portions of that vital work.

Every day, billions of people rely on spacecraft orbiting hundreds and thousands of miles above Earth. Complex satellite constellations support the world’s finances, transportation, and agriculture, providing essential services that transcend international borders and touch the lives of virtually every person on Earth. Major disruptions to satellite services would cause significant, perhaps irreparable, damage to 21st century life. Space systems have transformed international competition and conflict. Over 80 countries own satellites and many of these countries consider access to space systems and services as important contributors to their national security and military power projection. The U.S.’s key competitors, China and Russia, both operate hundreds of space systems to strengthen warfighting capabilities, boost spheres of influence, and position themselves as leaders in the international space community. At the same time, both of these competitors are developing counterspace capabilities capable of degrading or destroying space systems critical to civilian infrastructure and military operations. Space promises humanity boundless capabilities, resources, and achievements. However, the world’s increasing space use has made the inherent risks and vulnerabilities apparent. This publication identifies those capabilities, trends, and dangers that constitute the present and future of our space-integrated lives.

Everyday Life

Space services are key enablers of industry, critical infrastructure, and international trade. Navigation satellites provide precise timing references for banks, stock markets, and national power grids, as well as positioning data for cell phones to operate and for trucks, airplanes, and cargo ships to find their way around the world. Remote sensing satellites enable timely warning and monitoring of weather events and natural disasters, and perform mapping and tracking functions for agriculture, environmental protection, resource management, and city planning. Communications satellites supplement terrestrial communications networks and offer people, particularly those in remote or conflict regions, access to telephone, television, and broadband internet.

NATIONAL SECURITY

Space services are also key enablers for national defense and military operations. Remote sensing satellites allow tracking and monitoring of adversary installations and movement of forces. Navigation satellite constellations, like the U.S.’s Global Positioning System (GPS), provide critical positioning, navigation, and timing data to improve the effectiveness of guided munitions and deploying forces worldwide. Communications and relay satellites securely transmit data to military forces, particularly in remote regions inaccessible by traditional terrestrial communications. Ballistic missile early warning satellites serve as the initial alarm for detecting ballistic missile launches and are a critical part of national missile defense architectures.

Space Operations

Several of the world’s advanced spacefaring nations operate launch vehicles, satellites, and ground-based support infrastructure. Our key competitors, China and Russia, have developed launch vehicles capable of reaching all orbits, substantial satellite constellations for remote sensing, navigation, and communications, and networks of ground sites to launch, control, and support their spacecraft.

COMPETITORS’ SPACE PARTNERSHIPS

China and Russia offer launch and satellite services to other countries. Partnerships like these offer non-spacefaring nations the benefits of space use without the expense of developing their own space support infrastructure. China particularly incentivizes its space partnerships by offering technical exchanges, satellite services, and even production of complete satellites at little initial cost. Beyond, or in lieu of, monetary payments, China and Russia can use these opportunities to garner geopolitical influence and bolster scientific prestige. As part of broader efforts to improve military force capabilities and technological innovation, China and Russia are increasingly integrating civilian, commercial, and academic space expertise into military programs. This was evident in early 2023 when the U.S. issued sanctions and export controls against Chinese and Russia companies for providing satellite imagery support to Russian military operations in Ukraine. Both countries also pursue collaboration with academic and civil organizations abroad to enhance scientific research and expand space surveillance capabilities outside their respective borders.

SPACE GROWTH

Since the first edition of “Competing in Space,” the number of active satellites in space has more than tripled, from 1,880 to 7,096 at the end of 2022. While plans for massive mega-constellations made up of hundreds or thousands of satellites cause projections to vary widely, some estimates indicate the number of satellites in orbit may exceed the tens or even hundreds of thousands by 2032. Increasing commercial availability of launch services and production of small satellites that are cheaper, less complex, and faster to develop are propelling this growth. These factors enable some launch providers to send over a hundred satellites into low Earth orbit on one launch vehicle; for instance, India launched a foreign record of 104 satellites at once in early 2017.

The Report Continues Tomorrow

Photo: NASA

The scope of Democrat attempts to gain an illicit advantage in the 2024 election is breathtaking.

The latest maneuver comes from Democrat Colorado judges, appointed by Democrats, to keep Trump off the ballot. The decision was based a series of dubious allegations. The first baseless premise is that the one-day riot at the Capitol was an “insurrection” similar to the Civil War. The concept that a portion of the 14^th Amendment, designed to prohibit former Confederates from holding office, is applicable to Trump is absurd. Further, there is no convincing evidence that Trump was responsible for the trespass into the building.

The Colorado decision is merely the latest example.

Democrats have diligently worked to prevent ballot security measures from being enacted.  As the Biden Administration has flooded the nation with illegal immigrants, attempts to get them to vote will be a major challenge.

In New York City. In 2021, NPR reported that New York City wanted to allow 800,000 noncitizens to vote in local elections. The measure was struck down in court.

Act for America reports that “The concept [of non-citizen voting through lax security] is not new. Only 5 states feature citizenship status on their drivers license or state issued identification card including Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, and Wisconsin…Unfortunately, only the State of Alabama requires a legal form of identification that also requires proof of citizenship and they do not accept inferior forms of ID to vote in their state. This leaves us with 49 States that DO NOT have any security as it relates to proof of citizenship to vote. We are relying on the honor system, without oversight and accountability. 49 states allow inferior forms of identification at the polls that do not verify citizenship status, including Employee ID Cards, Student ID cards, a Fishing License, Bank Statements, Credit Cards with or without a photo, social security cards, and other absurd forms of identification.”

A Townhall analysis quoted  Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.) warning that Biden wants to turn illegal migrants into Democrat voters— hence the reason the administration is looking the other way at one of the worst border crises of U.S. history. “The Biden administration has done this intentionally. [Department of Homeland Security] Secretary [Alejandro] Mayorkas has done this intentionally. For what reason? Everybody asks me all the time. I think that ultimately they hope to turn all these illegals into voters for their side,” Johnson said. “It sounds sinister, but there’s no other explanation for what’s happening down there. It’s an absolute humanitarian and now national security crisis — catastrophe really — and they could reverse it overnight if they wanted to, but they don’t.”

In prior elections, Democrats have sought to ignore existing ballot laws. Just one example: American Military News notes that Republicans are backing an appeal in a federal lawsuit seeking to overturn an Illinois law that allows mail-in ballots cast on or before Election Day to be counted up to 14 days afterward.

The use of election workers to engage in Democrat-oriented partisan activities is a growing problem. A Daily Signal review that “A nonpartisan organization that trains election workers from across the country is now being run by two liberal voting activists—one who previously worked for the nonprofit that distributed hundreds of millions of dollars of Mark Zuckerberg’s election grants during the 2020 elections. The grants were supposedly to “help” local governments run elections, but most of the money went to election offices in Democrat-run localities. Meanwhile, most board members of the National Association of Election Officials, commonly known as The Election Center, are current or former elections officials from heavily blue counties. “Left-wing activists want to insert ‘progressive’ groups into our election machinery, making partisan actors a permanent part of how we count ballots in all future elections,” Hayden Ludwig, director of public policy research at conservative advocacy group Restoration of America, told The Daily Signal.”

The results of all of this are obvious. In June, a Rasmussen poll revealed that “A majority of voters continue to suspect widespread election fraud, and expect cheating at the ballot box to influence the 2024 presidential election…54% of Likely U.S. Voters believe cheating is likely to affect the outcome of the next presidential election, including 30% who think it’s Very Likely.”

Illustration: Pixabay