Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Our mission here
is simple. Take a mountain of information articles,
research your notes, and find the core insights.
We cut through the noise to get you well -informed,
fast, all tailored just for you. And today, we're
diving into a really interesting stack. We've
got recent news reports focusing on political
events and reactions, detailed analysis on the
federal budget and economic projections, and
some surprising data points on demographic shifts
across the US. Think of this deep dive as your
shortcut to understanding some of the most complex,
interconnected stories shaping the country right
now. We're going to pull out the most important
facts, highlight surprising connections you might
miss looking at these pieces individually, and
give you the context to see the bigger picture.
It's quite the journey through this material.
Yeah. OK, let's unpack this stack and start where,
well, a lot of the headlines have been recently,
the ongoing situation in Los Angeles. Right.
So when you look at the history of major urban
unrest, it typically runs its course in about
a week. Our sources note that if what's happening
in L .A. were purely a spontaneous response,
its duration wouldn't be entirely outside the
norm. But there's a suggestion in the material
we reviewed that this unrest isn't purely organic.
One perspective argues it's been largely manufactured
for political theater purposes. And if that's
the case, it might help explain why it seems
to be continuing longer than you might otherwise
expect. What's really fascinating here is the
gap between the narrative you might hear and
what's reported on the ground. Exactly. While
some portray L .A. as a hellscape, the observable
evidence suggests confrontations have been largely
peaceful, relatively few, and confined to a pretty
small part of the city. Yeah, we even heard from
readers who live there who reported like minimal
impact where they are. Right. And that brings
us to the claim that order was restored thanks
to federal forces. But the reality, according
to the analysis we have, seems different. It
does. The Marines, who were mentioned in some
reports, apparently haven't actually been deployed
for this mission. They're reportedly undergoing
additional training. The National Guard was deployed
around 2000 troops, but their role is limited
described as glorified security guard duty, and
crucially, The material points out that normal
order was almost entirely restored before these
troops even arrived. Which is a key point. And
that limited role for the troops ties directly
back to the fact that the Insurrection Act hasn't
been invoked. Right. For context, this is a rarely
used federal law that would allow the president
to deploy military troops domestically for law
enforcement. Exactly. And without invoking it,
the armed forces deployed have very restricted
powers. So this situation looks less like a full
scale federal takeover to quell unrest. and maybe
more like an effort to get the appearance of
being tough without taking on the significant
risks. Like the potential political disaster
if civilians were harmed, right? The sources
bring up comparisons to historical tragedies
like Kent State. Yeah, it seems like a move calculated
perhaps for offics more than actual law enforcement
action by the military itself. And on the legal
side, Governor Newsom and the California attorney
general did seek an immediate emergency injunction
to stop the Trump administration from sending
troops. What happened with that? Well, a U .S.
district judge, Charles Breyer, heard the arguments,
but didn't grant the injunction immediately.
He gave the administration until Thursday to
file briefs. So a decision should be coming soon
after that. OK. And what about the cost of this
deployment? Ah, yes. The acting controller of
the Department of Defense estimates it at $134
million. $134 million. But there was a striking
detail highlighted in the sources. That this
estimate somehow doesn't seem to cover basic
necessities like food and shelter for the troops?
You're odd. It is. And that's a point being made
visually on social media with images circulating.
The material notes that visual evidence can be
particularly impactful in shaping public perception.
So depending on where you get your information,
you might be seeing that $134 million cost and
thinking about how those tax dollars are being
spent. Or maybe you're seeing images of troops
lacking basic supplies. It's quite the contrast.
OK, so shifting from the specifics on the ground,
it's pretty clear this is being actively leveraged
in the political arena. Oh, absolutely. Speaker
Mike Johnson, for instance, is using the events
in LA to push for the quick passage of what he
calls the one big beautiful bill. Right. Framing
it as providing essential funding needed to secure
our nation's borders and supporting IC agents
against illegal aliens and the radical left.
Strong language there. Very. But the analysis
we reviewed expresses, well, quite a bit of skepticism
about this push, describing it as hot air. Why
is that? Well, the skepticism comes from the
assessment that there's very little chance the
Senate will just quickly ram through a multi
-trillion dollar budget bill because of the current
headlines around immigration policy clashes.
Makes sense. By the time the Senate is likely
ready to act on a comprehensive budget, the situation
on the ground in LA will probably have shifted
anyway. Exactly. Looking at Senate reactions
more broadly, though, most Republicans appear
to be supporting the administration's actions,
which are characterized in the analysis as A
pseudo crackdown. You saw Senator John Kennedy
reportedly said the president had no choice and
Senator John Cornyn felt Trump needs to restore
order, claiming plenty of precedent for the National
Guard deployment. Although it's interesting,
the sources we looked at described this specific
type of National Guard deployment, you know,
under these circumstances without the Insurrection
Act as unprecedented. So a bit of a clash there
on the precedent. It is. The stack of material
also highlighted a few individual senatorial
reactions that really stand out. Let's talk about
those. OK. First, there's Senator Tom Cotton.
You might remember about five years ago, back
in June 2020, he wrote that controversial op
-ed, arguing for using the military against civilians
to restore order. Right. That caused a huge uproar,
led to resignations at the New York Times, I
recall. It did. And what's the takeaway here?
According to the analysis, it suggests it shows
how the Overton window has moved. Meaning? What
was considered outrageous then is less so now.
Pretty much. What was seen as an extreme suggestion
five years ago using the military domestically
like this. Well, something resembling it is actually
happening now with apparently far less public
outrage. Wow. One source even pointed out that
the Wall Street Journal recently ran a slightly
updated version of Cotton's original piece without
obvious repercussions. It really does highlight
a shift in what's deemed acceptable public discourse
or action. OK, who else? Another notable reaction
came from Senator Mark Wayne Mullen. Ah, yes.
When asked about Governor Newsom, he offered
a quote about Newsom sucking at being number
one at being a terrible governor. Which is quite
a sentence. It is. As the material points out,
that's pretty convoluted phrasing. The use of
multiple negatives arguably means he ended up
saying Newsom sucks at being bad. Implying he's
good. Technically, yeah, it's maybe a minor point,
but it does raise an interesting question about
clarity, you know, and precision in political
communication, especially when you're trying
to land a criticism. Fair enough. Then there's
Senator John Fetterman, a Democrat. His comments
have sounded, well... somewhat different from
the typical Democratic responses. Yeah, he condemned
actions like setting cars on fire and assaulting
law enforcement as anarchy and true chaos. Which
is strong language. It is. The sources speculate
a little bit on influences, even mentioning a
dinner he had with Steve Bannon. But the main
point being made is that framing the situation
as anarchy and true chaos might reflect a particular
viewpoint that seems a bit at odds with reports
suggesting more contained, though still serious,
incidents. One source just noted that anyone
calling this anarchy and true chaos probably
hasn't seen actual anarchy and chaos. Generally,
though, Democrats seem to be taking a stance
against both Trump -specific actions and against
non -peaceful protest. Governor Newsom has warned
that lawbreakers will face full prosecution.
And LA Mayor Karen Bass imposed a curfew. She
did, although it's worth noting that her curfew
is in a small downtown area about 10 miles away
from where the main violence occurred. Hmm. Which
leads the sources to wonder about her specific
goals. Is it purely for safety? Or maybe also
sending a message that the Democratic Party strongly
opposes non -peaceful demonstrations? Could be.
The analysis suggests that given her age, she's
likely not positioning herself for her next political
job in the same way someone like Newsom might
be. So her motives could be more centered on
governance or just signaling the party stance.
And speaking of that curfew, there's a practical
detail the material flagged. Oh yeah. If it's
still in place through Friday, how will it impact
traffic for the Dodgers game? The game ends well
after the 8 p .m. curfew starts and the stadium
is right near the edge of that zone. Ah, exiting
that area could get pretty complicated for fans.
Good point. Getting back to Governor Newsom for
a second, he appears to be actively using this
situation, not just for California, but maybe
to raise his national profile for a potential
2028 presidential run. The material points to
several examples. Yeah, one example cited is
that rather surreal Star Wars themed video he
posted on X. It featured stormtroopers and a
computer voice reading his tweet like Emperor
Palpatine. I saw that one reader even commented
that they do a better Palpatine impression. That's
a fun detail from the sources. He also gave an
address aiming for a statesman like tone, quoting
Justice Brandeis, urging peaceful protest and
positioning himself as resisting Trump. But what
the sources argue Governor Newsom really wants
from the Trump administration is to be arrested.
That's the suggestion. He's reportedly continued
to publicly challenge and dare the White House,
while the analysis thinks Trump probably won't
take the bait. But with him, you never know.
Exactly. An arrest would become a huge badge
of honor for Newsom among his base, right? Totally.
It might even lead to jokes like that old one
about Rudy Giuliani. With Newsom, every sentence
has three parts. A noun, a verb, and my arrest.
Okay, switching gears slightly within this political
landscape, Representative LaMonica McIver of
New Jersey has actually been arrested and formally
indicted. And this was by an interim U .S. attorney,
Alina Habba, who previously worked for Trump.
That's right. Now, federal indictments usually
have a very high success rate, often well over
90 percent. But the analysis we saw suggests
this case might be an exception. Why is that?
Well, Several arguments are presented. One, that
the prosecution could be politically motivated.
Two, there's a legal question about whether her
alleged actions even rise to the level of a federal
crime, even for a private citizen. And three,
her status as a member of Congress offers some
protection under the speech and debate clause.
So the thinking is the government's odds of getting
a conviction aren't that strong. That's the consensus
from the sources. There's even speculation the
case might just be quietly dropped after making
headlines. Meanwhile, McIver is expected to use
this indictment for fundraising, maybe become
a cause celebre on the left. Could she leverage
this into a political promotion like Newsom seems
to be trying? Well, opportunities in New Jersey
seem limited right now. Governorship looks locked
up. Senate seats aren't open. The sources mention
maybe a Democratic cabinet post or even being
considered as a ticket balancing VP candidate.
But. Her short time in the house, just nine months,
is seen as a pretty weak resume for VP. Yeah,
that's probably fair. It's also important, I
think, to broaden our view beyond just LA. These
largely peaceful anti -ICE protests have spread
nationwide, right? They have, popping up in around
two dozen cities, including places you might
not immediately think of like Columbus, Dallas,
Las Vegas, Louisville, Nashville, San Antonio,
San Diego. It's not just concentrated in traditionally
liberal areas. And why is that wider spread relevant?
Because while voters often say they dislike demonstrators,
they tend to dislike instability and unrest even
more. The analysis observes that blame for instability
often falls on the party in power. Something
Lyndon B. Johnson might have had thoughts on
as the source notes. Indeed. Finally, within
this whole climate of political tension and reaction,
there is Donald Trump's upcoming birthday parade
this Saturday, described in one source as a kind
of triumph of the will reenactment. And nationwide,
no King's demonstrations are planned in response,
including a big one in D .C. Right. Trump has
reportedly warned of using very heavy force against
anyone who disrupts his birthday plans. But,
well, the sources recall his approach in L .A.,
speaking loudly, but maybe carrying what looks
like a smaller stick, at least for now. OK, let's
shift gears completely now. Moving from the political
events to the details of the federal budget,
specifically looking at that one big, beautiful
bill act recently passed by the House. Right.
And the core insight from the analysis of this
bill based on the release data is that despite
its framing, it's projected to significantly
add to the federal deficit, especially in the
near term. Now, the Congressional Budget Office,
the CBO, they provide nonpartisan analysis and
scoring of legislation, right, projecting cost
and impact. Exactly. And the CBO scoring of this
bill, according to our sources, highlights how
many of the supposed spending cuts and revenue
increases within it are actually temporary or
described as illusory. Illusory, meaning not
real. Pretty much. The argument presented is
that the bill wasn't primarily designed for long
-term fiscal responsibility. Instead, the structure
seems aimed at maximizing short -term political
benefits and giving the appearance of fiscal
action, even if the long -term picture looks
worse. The data visuals we looked at were pretty
stark, weren't they? They were. Charts showing
projections for huge near -term deficit hikes
under current law. And if the changes in this
bill were made permanent, the deficit hikes are
huge in all years. One chart even had that provocative
title, Spending Cuts, What's Spending Cuts? So
the overall forecast based on this analysis,
where are we heading? Towards 8 % of GDP full
employment deficits. That's a significant level,
a really significant level. And what about tariffs?
Do they help? The sources note that tariffs currently
in place could narrow the deficit slightly, but
the phrase used was just by a bit. The estimate
is still a seven point three percent deficit
to GDP ratio, even with permanent tariffs. Wow.
So this level of deficit spending, it raises
pretty big concerns about the long term sustainability
of U .S. debt levels. Definitely. And it's compounded
by the country's low national savings rate, meaning
we're heavily reliant on global capital flows
to finance all that debt. And there's an argument
presented that if the U .S. pursues more isolationist
trade policies, it could potentially undermine
global confidence in U .S. debt. Which could
lead to higher interest rates needed to borrow
money. Exactly. And higher interest rates directly
impact the cost of the debt itself. Right. The
CBO projections shown indicate the net interest
burden, basically. The cost of servicing the
debt is expected to rise steeply. In fact, one
source even questions whether the CBO's own interest
rate projections might be too good to be true.
given the path of spending and debt. Yeah. So
the takeaway here seems to be that regardless
of the political rhetoric, the underlying fiscal
picture painted by this analysis is one of significant
and potentially unsustainable increases in debt.
Okay. Moving from the national balance sheet
to, well, people. Population dynamics. Our stack
also included material on demographic trends,
both globally and within the U .S. Right. Globally,
the striking trend noted is declining fertility
rates in most developed countries, particularly
sharp declines seen in East Asia. And the projection
for China is rapid population decline in the
coming decades. Yeah, quite dramatic. Here in
the U .S., migration patterns continue to show
the South leading in population growth. Looking
at data over the past couple of decades, 2003
to 2024, the South had a year -over -year growth
rate of plus 1 .4 percent. Ahead of the West
at plus 1 .0 percent, the Midwest at plus 0 .9
percent, and the Northeast slowest at plus 0
.8 percent. And drilling down into what drives
that growth gives more insight. The South is
growing robustly across all components. Natural
growth births minus deaths, domestic migration,
meaning people moving from other states, and
international migration. But the Northeast and
the West actually show negative net domestic
migration. That's right. More people are moving
out of those regions to other states than are
moving in. Now, this outward movement is offset
by natural growth and international migration,
so they still grow overall. But the Northeast
has the highest rate of people moving away to
other states. And the Midwest. Interesting case.
It has the lowest rate of natural growth among
the regions, but it benefits from both positive
domestic migration and international migration.
OK, now here's where the demographic section
got particularly fascinating, I thought, bringing
in correlations with political leanings based
on state level data from 2023 and 2024. Yeah,
this was really interesting. There's a strong
positive correlation in our value of point seven
five, which is quite strong, statistically speaking,
very strong between how Trumpier a state is measured
by the twenty twenty four Trump vote share and
its total fertility rate. So the more a state
voted for Trump in twenty twenty four, the higher
its fertility rate tends to be. Exactly. The
average total fertility rate for Trump states
was one point seven two compared to one point
four nine for Harris states. Put simply Trumpier
the state. higher the fertility. And there was
a strong negative correlation noted too, right?
R equals negative point eight zero. Yeah, also
very strong. Between how Trumpier a state is
and the median age at first marriage. So a negative
correlation means as one goes up, the other tends
to go down. The more a state voted for Trump.
The lower the median age at first marriage tends
to be. The average age for Trump states was 28
.4 compared to 30 .3 for Harris states. So Trumpier
the state, younger the age at first marriage.
These correlations just based on the data offer
a really compelling though obviously not causal,
look at how demographic and cultural trends seem
to align with political divisions across the
country. Absolutely. And this connects back to
some of the reader feedback we received specifically
about the New Jersey primary. Right. One reader
highlighted what they saw as a disconnect between
the current zeitgeist, which they felt once wholesale
change candidates like, you know, Bernie Sanders,
Trump, maybe even Elon Musk. Right. Those kinds
of figures. And candidates who are more work
within the margins change this program by five
percent types. And that reader's local union
chapter, a university professor's union, actually
endorsed a candidate described as the leftiest
and most strident, which sparks some reflection
in their notes about, well, the nature of unions
or maybe union leaders who are professors. Interesting.
So this perspective, combined with that fertility
and marriage data we just discussed, it might
hint at deeper cultural or ideological currents,
influencing both political preferences and these
underlying demographic trends across the U .S.
It really might. OK, so rounding out our look
at recent political news, voters in New Jersey
did head to the polls for their primary elections.
The results were largely as expected. Yeah, Mikey
Sherrill, a Democrat, and Jack Ciattarelli, Republican,
will face off for governor in November. That's
set. Mikey Sherrill's Democratic primary was
actually closer than Ciattarelli's Republican
contest. She won with 34 % against two mayors
who got about 20 % and 16%. Which led one source
to wonder if New Jersey Democrats tend to prefer
representatives over mayors, given how that played
out. Could be. Jack Ciattarelli, on the other
hand, won the Republican primary decisively,
with almost 68%. But while Ciattarelli's margin
was wider, the analysis notes this doesn't necessarily
mean he has greater overall enthusiasm heading
into the general election compared to Sherrill.
Right. The Democratic primary was just more competitive.
Plus, you have to remember, New Jersey is a reliably
blue state. True. Significantly more votes were
cast in the Democratic primary, around 800 ,000,
compared to the Republican primary, which was
about 450 ,000. And Mikey Sherrill is described
as a Fairly boring moderate. The assessment is
this makes her unlikely to turn off Democratic
voters, even if she doesn't, you know, ignite
huge enthusiasm. And an unenthusiastic vote counts
the same as an enthusiastic one, right? Exactly.
So Cheryl is presumed to be the favorite, although
there isn't any general election polling available
just yet. Now, this would be Ciattarelli's second
try for governor. He lost by just three points
to Phil Murphy last time. Pretty close. It was.
And one argument reviewed suggests Ciattarelli
could win this time. He's got greater name recognition
now, more experience, and he's facing a non -incumbent.
About the counterpoint. Well, Phil Murphy, though
relatively unpopular, managed to win re -election
last time, even while his party held the White
House, which is something a New Jersey Democratic
governor hadn't done since the LBJ era, apparently.
That's a strong point. Also, Ciattarelli didn't
have to contend with being associated with an
unpopular Trump administration during the last
election cycle because Trump wasn't in office
then. That could be a factor this time around.
We also got some interesting color on the primary
from readers in New Jersey. One felt it was a
stealth election with low turnout, saw a few
yard signs, but lots and lots and lots of mailed
flyers. And get this detail from that same reader.
None of the flyers came from official campaigns.
They were all from independent PACS political
action committees, many with really obscure names.
The reader joked about getting mail from New
Jersey citizens for wonderfulness. Huh. It really
highlights the huge role of outside money in
campaigns now, even at the state level. Another
reader discussed the potential split of the union
vote and mentioned their local union. The university
professors one endorsed the candidate described
as the leftiest and most strident, which again
sparked some interesting thoughts about dynamics
within specific unions or maybe professors and
leadership roles. And a final reader described
Cheryl as just fine, characterizing her as that
work within the margins type. politician. Contrasting
her with candidates who seem to tap into that
desire for wholesale change we mentioned earlier.
Right. This reader expressed hope that Chattarelli
is similarly mismatched for the current political
mood, or maybe that the whole burn it all down
sentiment might fade a bit by November. We'll
see. Looking ahead on the political calendar,
Virginia has primaries next week, followed by
New York City. Always more material coming in.
Never stops. Wow, OK. We've really covered a
lot of ground in this deep dive today from the
complex situation unfolding in Los Angeles and
all the layers of political maneuvering around
it Through representative MacGyver's indictment
and the ins and outs of the New Jersey primary
and then into that broad national picture of
the federal budget deficit Yeah, and those truly
fascinating correlations in US demographic trends
Our mission, as always, was to extract the most
important nuggets from this stack of sources,
giving you a clearer, more connected picture
of these different stories without feeling overwhelmed
by information overload. We've seen how specific
events connect to national political strategies,
how legislative details impact the economy, and
how those underlying demographic forces might
correlate with political leanings and maybe shape
the future. So what does all this mean for you
thinking about the country right now? Yeah, here's
a final provocative thought for you to consider
building on everything we've just explored. Given
the sharp political reactions to unrest we've
seen, the significant increases projected for
the national debt based on recent legislation
and those notable demographic correlations with
political alignment. How might the competing
visions for the country's future actually grapple
with these intertwined economic and social realities?
How does that desire for wholesale change versus
work within the margins politics play out against
a backdrop of a rising debt burden and these
really distinct regional demographic shifts?
Something to keep mulling over as you observe
the news.