So, we are talking about the national debt.

The fault is Congress. They keep authorizing "borrowing" for new projects. Some would say "pet" projects. Or even "social" projects.

One "peeve" I have is that social security and Medicare are "pyramid schemes". They rely on future workers to pay for the current beneficiaries. Everyone knows that there are less and less workers these days.

Another "peeve" I have is "FRAUD". One party (I will not mention which one) wants benefits paid to illegal aliens. This is of course illegal, yet they don't care. And it is financially irresponsible. I note that there is lots of FRAUD elsewhere. Some say if eliminated, there would be no debt.

I had a glimmer of hope when Elon Musk found lots of "waste" in government. We all know that it is there. The gist is that Congress said you can't cut that.

Our current president has a novel idea. He has invested heavily in our "Sovereign Wealth". One day, he will sell those investments and pay down a lot of the debt with the proceeds. I am hopeful.

To reign in congress, we need Constitutional Amendments. I know that Congress will not do it.

It should be noted that the "states" or the "people" can convene a Constitutional Convention in order to amend the Constitution.

I suggest two of them.

- Congress shall spend funds via this formula. Income less interest on the debt less 1% of the debt = funds available to spend. (This will reduce the debt if followed.)

- Existing programs shall have a well-defined income source. If said programs runs out of funds, the program stops. PERIOD. Congress can define another well-defined income source of course. This in effect eliminates "borrowing".

FRAUD is already illegal. Enforcing the law will eliminate FRAUD.

Many states have a balanced budget clause in their state constitution. There is no debt allowed. (The US would have to pay down its debt before adopting this clause - a problem Congress does not want to solve.)

By MarkSHoyle (Bolo) on Wednesday, May 13, 2026 - 07:09 pm: Edit

I got the idea that states should have two (2) Lt Governors...
Which would serve as their Senators (back to the old ways)....
Paid by the state and if they support something that harms the state, the Governor can replace them.....
Make them actually work for those who voted for them....

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Wednesday, May 13, 2026 - 08:37 pm: Edit

I definitely think senator should be elected by state legislatures, not the people. That is how the founding father set it up. There would be no such thing as "unfunded mandates" which are programs that the Feds requires the states to pay for.

Trump has launched a massive fraud program for Medicaid and put Vance in charge. Vance told states if they did not cooperate he would block them from getting any Medicaid funds. That would of course go to the courts in a heartbeat. The point is that one party regards government programs not just as vote buying but as crony funding. Those Somalia Learing Center fraudsters funneled millions in fraud dollars back to state and local politicians who somehow found no fraud when they investigated. Oh, yes, Jessica will point out that they found SOME fraud, but a punk kid with a video camera found 50 times more in one long weekend.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Wednesday, May 13, 2026 - 10:20 pm: Edit

It essentially worked that way before the 17th Ammendment. Orginally Senators were "chosen by the Legislature".

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Wednesday, May 13, 2026 - 11:26 pm: Edit

The 17th amendment was passed with the addition of Connecticut on April , 1913. (The active function being 3/4 of the states.)

The theory appears to be that the various state legislatures were corrupt, and that having direct election of Senators by “The People” would be an improvement…

By Carl-Magnus Carlsson (Hardcore) on Thursday, May 14, 2026 - 12:07 am: Edit

Here is an interesting case study about ww2 bombing of V-1 launch sites, hunting Iraqi Scuds and the current campaign over Iran.

https://open.substack.com/pub/secretaryrofdefenserock/p/square-peg-in-a-round-hole-airpower?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=2eui7k

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, May 14, 2026 - 04:23 am: Edit

The 17th Amendment was a mistake but really has noting to do with this topic.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Thursday, May 14, 2026 - 10:06 am: Edit

Over a 38 hour period, Russia attacked Ukraine with 1567 drones and 56 missiles. Ukraine shot down or suppressed 1473 drones and 41 missiles.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Thursday, May 14, 2026 - 11:41 am: Edit

SVC

1) "most tax cuts... actually increase revenue" I've heard this from some politicians, but haven't found primary research to support it. My research says that some posit this to be the case, but it doesn't actually work in the real world.

2) "wind and solar equals gasoline at $9 a gallon" My research shows otherwise. It used to be true, but even a shallow dive disagrees. Would you consider Scientific American to be an unbiased source? "Even without subsidies, renewable energy is staying competitive with power from gas and coal"

3) "Fossil fuel fade" I think that I didn't frame my statement well. The easy and cheap fossil fuels will "fade" making the average cost of Fossil Fuels increase. And as renewable electricity cost drops (and electrical storage improve) fossil fuels will lose share due to pure economic reasons. That "shale oil" isn't as cheap & "sweet" as Texas crude that basically just burst out of the ground (see The Ballad of Jed Clampett) with little effort.

4) "invested heavily in our "Sovereign Wealth"..." What? I must have been too busy blowing whistles at ICE, spiking trees & reading Marx here in Goshen KY (sarcasm) to have heard that. Can you give me some examples?

5) "massive fraud program for Medicaid" IIRC many large fraudsters got pardoned by a recent administration. Rick Scott, Lawre3nce Duran, Philip Esformes, Joseph Schwartz, Judith Negron, Salomon Melgen, John Duncan Fordham, Robert Harshbarger... Let me be clear ANYONE, rich connected guy or Somali immigrant, that commits fraud sho9uld be imprisoned and made to pay restitution. Pardons should not allow fraudsters to keep the money they stole.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Thursday, May 14, 2026 - 11:45 am: Edit

Over time, Ukraine has gotten better at killing / suppressing Russian drone and missile attacks, while at the same time scaling up production of drones as well as increasing the range of its drone and missile attacks.

Russia has not shown any history of demonstrable superior innovation or technological superiority in the field of smart weapons. Neither have the hypersonic weapons been decisive.

If Russia is not careful, they could end up getting decisively defeated by Ukraine, if this war continues for years.

By Randy Green (Hollywood750) on Thursday, May 14, 2026 - 12:39 pm: Edit

Mike G, I think a better indicator for #2 would be, what does the market say? Are renewables being added to the grid at a higher percentage than fossil fuels? I would think that most of the subsidies have been taken away by now, so at that point, if the renewable percentage of power is still increasing, then is that because it is now economical to do so?

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, May 14, 2026 - 02:09 pm: Edit

Mark
1. Doesn't take much effort to prove I'm right.
2. Competitive is a vague term and Scientific American is playing fast and loose here. Is $9 competitive with $5? Not in my book. It takes subsides to be equal.
3. The stuff we're drilling now really isn't that much harder than the stuff ten years ago. Fifty years ago, yeah. The "proven accessible reserves" is equal to current production, doesn't count hard to get stuff.
4. Not my statement, no idea.
5. Fraud needs to be stopped. Fraud in government programs is approaching half a trillion a year, a nice chunk of the 2 trillion deficit. "both sides do it" is not an excuse. I'm sure you support jailing Minnesota fraud as much I oppose pardons for any fraudsters. I presume neither of us supported all of those pardons for murders, rapists, and pedophiles two years ago.

By Dana Madsen (Madman) on Thursday, May 14, 2026 - 07:00 pm: Edit

1. There is a lot of info, research, articles, commentary on the Laffer curve. It was the idea backing the Reagan tax cuts in the early 80's and all major tax cuts since then. The majority of economists will agree on the basis of the idea, depending on viewpoint they may disagree on how big the effect is or whether the crossover point has already been reached.
2. I don't buy Steve's $9 / gallon statement as current truth, I'd happily review a link. EV / solar efficiency is increasing much faster each year than any improvements in ICE engines. Also, what are they comparing, a heavy 3 row electric SUV vs Honda Civic at 50mpg. Do we compare a cheap/light EV vs F250.
Either way, I got my 71 car out today for the summer and need to head to the gas station after going around the block. Need to feed the 455 and get my 10.5 mpg.
3. So far as cheap and easy oil has been consumed, technological innovation has allowed access to new fields that weren't drillable before at not much higher a price. Inflation adjusted the average price of oil over the last 10 years isn't that bad compared to prices 70 years ago in the 50s.
4. Last year Pres. Trump demanded (or asked nicely) for shares in public companies in exchange for previous investments under Biden's Chip's act. One example is Intel which a year ago the US got $8.9 billion of stock or about 10% of the company for paying out the remainder of the Chip's acts grants. The stock price of Intel has increased substantially in value over the last year. So the treasury is currently sitting on a $40 or $50 billion paper gain there, sell the shares and collect the money, or let it run and see if tech stocks double again. Write a bunch of options and protect the downside risk?
5. no comment on US medicare/gov fraud.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Thursday, May 14, 2026 - 08:27 pm: Edit

1. I don't care what a bunch of fuzzy brained leftie academics in their ivory towers "feel" tax cuts/increases do. I looked at actual budgets and economic activity boosts. I don't support further tax cuts/increases but will note (again) that REVENUE is all that matters, not RATES.
2. I don't see what EV data has to do with renewables. EVs are in the end burning coal. What EVs do isn't relevant. Power generation is all we need to consider, and the technology isn't really improving much. Beyond that, renewables aren't reliable or we'd already be using them. If you need more power for the new AI data center, you can build a hydrocarbon plant or you can build a hydrocarbon plant AND and solar/wind farm and run the hydrocarbon plant when the renewable isn't working, which is more than half the time.
3. See my most recent comments which covered this. The cost of recovery went up a few decades ago but not recently and the proven accessible reserves aren't going to cost much more.
4. Not my part of the argument.
5. Let's leave this one be as too political to handle here.

We need to get back to MILITARY stuff.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, May 15, 2026 - 12:17 pm: Edit

Britain has propelled howitzers to Ukraine. Some were cannibalized for parts. These are proving more effective than Russian systems and are highly effective with automated fire control.

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, May 15, 2026 - 12:18 pm: Edit

My point is that renewable energy is increasing in efficiency to the point that NOW it is roughly comparable to fossil fuel electrical generation.

As the tech gets better I'm betting it becomes cheaper and basic economics takes over,

Note that large scale battery storage is already being implemented to smooth power supplies. So charges up on windy sunny days, draws down on calm dark nights.

Wiki has a decent review of the data (but, wiki has issues at times) "Cost of electricity by source"

By Mike Grafton (Mike_Grafton) on Friday, May 15, 2026 - 12:22 pm: Edit

US Energy Administration:

"As of early 2026, U.S. power plant growth is dominated by solar (55% of new capacity) and wind (26%), with battery storage growing exponentially (24 GW planned for 2026) to manage intermittency. While natural gas remains the largest source of electricity (43% in 2023), its growth is slowing, and coal capacity continues to decline."

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Friday, May 15, 2026 - 01:02 pm: Edit

Claims that renewables are not competitive may be in the process of going out of date.

It's still fair to say that they can't currently replace fossil fuels. For one thing, a windless night won't produce wind or solar.

One advantage I haven't seen any discussion above is lower vulnerability to the types of drone campaigns that are causing enormous destruction in Russia.

Today it's the Ryazan refinery that is aflame. The refinery represents roughly 5% of Russia's refining capacity.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, May 15, 2026 - 03:13 pm: Edit

To be fair, the U.S. energy industry is more complicated than what Mike and William have presented.

Coal is still significant in the equation, plus nuclear energy is expanding:

Google :

Quote:” Key Nuclear Developments (As of early 2026):Active Construction & Projects: TerraPower’s Natrium reactor is under construction in Wyoming.Advanced/Small Modular Reactors (SMRs): X-energy is developing four Xe-100 reactors at the Dow Chemical plant in Texas.Industry Expansion: Meta has partnered with TerraPower to deploy up to 8 Natrium reactors (totaling 2.8 GW to 4 GW) as early as 2032.Restart Projects: The DOE is supporting the restart of previously retired nuclear plants, such as the Crane Clean Energy Center in Pennsylvania.Recent Completion: Vogtle Unit 4 in Georgia entered commercial operation in 2024, marking the completion of the latest large-scale AP1000 reactors.”

As always, this was prepared by Google AI. Not all information may be accurate.

Y.M.M.V.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Friday, May 15, 2026 - 05:54 pm: Edit

The difference in growth rate or percentage of capacity isn’t directly reflective of comparable cost. Renewables are slowly getting better, fossil fuel slowly more expensive, they haven’t met yet. The future is going to be better and worse in unpredictable ways.

Solar farms are vulnerable to drone attacks, you just use a frag warhead instead of incendiary.

Wind turbines can be destroyed by shaheeds quite easily.

Remember that I was an engineer in oil and gas back when terrorists became a thing. Being an engineer the gas company and the military both assigned me to do a study of how to protect oil and gas infrastructure. The answer is, you can’t.

By William Jockusch (Verybadcat) on Friday, May 15, 2026 - 06:10 pm: Edit

I have zero doubt that wind turbines can be destroyed by drones. I assume it's easy.

However, I rather suspect they don't suffer enormous fires when that happens. And they certainly aren't going to cause "oil rain" throughout the city.

Furthermore, solar panels have got to be less vulnerable.

By Jeff Wile (Jswile) on Friday, May 15, 2026 - 08:11 pm: Edit

Google:

Question: do solar panels get less effective over time?

Answer:” Yes, solar panels do lose effectiveness over time, primarily due to natural wear and tear from weather and exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light. However, this process—known as degradation—is very gradual.Key Facts About Solar Panel DegradationDegradation Rate: The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) estimates that solar panels degrade by about 0.5% to 0.8% per year.Long-Term Output: Because the drop in efficiency is so small, a standard panel will still operate at about 80% to 90% of its original capacity after 25 years.Not Just "Use": Panels will still naturally degrade simply from being exposed to the elements. Conversely, if a solar panel is left completely unused and stored in a box, it will not experience environmental degradation and will maintain its effectiveness.Temperature Sensitivity: In addition to long-term degradation, solar panels temporarily lose efficiency on extremely hot, sunny days. They are rated for peak performance at 72°F (22°C); for every degree the panel itself goes above this, you can see a slight drop in daily production.Performance WarrantiesTo protect your investment, most premium manufacturers provide 25-year performance warranties. These guarantee that the panel's power output will not drop below a specific threshold (typically around 90% after 10 years and 80% to 82% after 25 years).Factors That Accelerate DegradationWhile natural degradation is inevitable, several environmental factors can speed up this process:Thermal Cycling: Dramatic shifts between hot and cold temperatures.Humidity: Long-term exposure to damp heat and freezing temperatures.Heavy Loads: Physical stress from severe weather like wind or heavy snow.Dirt and Debris: While not "degradation" in the mechanical sense, accumulated dirt, bird droppings, and shade will block sunlight and temporarily reduce effectiveness.You can consult the EnergySage Buyer's Guide to easily compare the efficiency and degradation rates of different panel brands side-by-side.”

The problem is scale ability.

A loss of 0.5% to 0.8% on a single panel is relatively insignificant.

The same rate of loss for 10,000 panels or 100,000 panels (not inconceivable for solar panel farms across the nation in many states) has a cumulative impact.

Worse, as the panel farms age, the loss rate approaches 18 to 20% for solar panels aged 25 years.

By Ryan Opel (Ryan) on Friday, May 15, 2026 - 10:53 pm: Edit

The US military is planning on installing microreactors at a number of US instalations. They plan to start building in 2028 and be operational in 2030.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, May 16, 2026 - 02:38 am: Edit

I don't really care if windmills cause fires or not. The point is that any power generation is vulnerable to enemy attack. Oil is perhaps more vulnerable because of the bulk storage. Natural gas usually just flows from the well to the furnace (or a cryogenic plant) but oil is stored in huge flamable tanks.

Solar farms are highly vulnerable. A drone flies over and detonates a fragmentation warhead. Fast moving bits of metal wreck solar cells and chew up the wiring pretty quickly.

By Steve Cole (Stevecole) on Saturday, May 16, 2026 - 04:26 am: Edit

Move the renewable energy chat to technology please.