In my experience, a great number of Americans tend to think of economists as either ivory tower pedagogues or unrealistic ideologues, while classifying business executives as practical and down-to-earth. Both government and business have number-crunchers, but government numbers’ types are usually economists while business prefers accountants. One reason for this is likely because public policy economics and business economics differ in their basic structures and aims.

In business, an individual or a business provides a good or service to another individual or organization for a defined price. If the revenues from those prices do not cover the operating costs of the business, sooner or later the business must cut costs, raise prices, go bankrupt, or be bought by another business.

In government, a department, agency, or commission provides a service for the public, for which the Treasury provides reimbursement from funds appropriated by Congress to provide that service. While government may buy goods, those goods are bought for use in providing a service. At least, they’re supposed to be, although one might question whether multi-million-dollar DHS productions of Kristi Noem on a horse constitute a public service, even if it turned out that she was riding into the sunset.

In business, the goal is to make a profit, hopefully by providing a solid product or useful service, but in practice any cost-cutting that’s not illegal is allowable, particularly where it comes to wages, and it’s left to the consumers to determine whether they want to pay for the product. Of course, from the beginning of human history, businesses have attempted to corner their market so that the only choice buyers have is to pay an exorbitant price or do without. This was and is known as “free market economics.”

Not surprisingly, that hasn’t changed, which is why the U.S. government ended up regulating business, and why businesses complain about excess government regulation and continue to push for government to be run like a business.

So when politicians talk about running government like a business, voters should be wary. For example, Trump sold himself as a practical businessman. In his case, practicality has primarily translated into amassing funds by shifting costs onto others, failing to fully pay subcontractors, and using his office to enhance family-related businesses on an unprecedented scale. That doesn’t even include trying to gut social programs to finance a war that he promised he wouldn’t ever get us into.

His rhetoric and that of others tend to ignore the fact that failure of government to rein in business excesses in seeking to maximize profits results in more people who need to rely on government income and medical support because they can’t make a living wage on what businesses are paying.

And,so far, I’ve seldom ever heard an accountant consider such economic considerations, and any economist who points them out is considered unrealistic and anti-commerce by those who think government should be run like a business.

The good news (of sorts) is that I once again successfully managed to get our federal and state tax forms completed and filed, albeit with the assistance of tax software.

The bad news is that certain aspects of it took a lot longer because of the trend toward going “paperless.” As a writer I have a lot of varied small expenses, and a great many of them I pay by check, the remainder by credit card. My bank used to send me monthly copies of my checks. I sorted out the ones for business and filed them. Except my bank went paperless and no longer provides copies – which means I have to sort through bank statements and print out copies, except that some businesses convert the checks electronically, so that there’s no real way to get a copy of those checks. Another bank now charges $3 a month to provide a monthly paper statement for a non-interest-bearing checking account.

Add to that that because we no longer have a Staples—or any other office supply business – within 60 miles, I have to order office supplies online, and that also means that I have to print out the receipts myself.

The outfit that maintains the website bills electronically, and that means I have to print out those bills as well… and so it goes. Everywhere I look, there’s pressure to “go paperless,” which may be fine for the companies involved, but it shifts the printing costs and time to me, and I don’t see any corresponding reduction in the prices charged by the companies going paperless. I do notice, in general, that their profits are increasing.

All of this is an acceleration of a trend that likely started more than sixty years ago when gasoline “service stations” (which then used to pump the gas, clean the windows, and check the oil) transitioned to self-service stations.

More and more grocery outlets are offering self-checkout options, as is Home Depot, which are really a choice between standing in line or doing the work of a checker yourself. Some fast-food restaurants now “offer” electronic ordering or ordering through an “app.”

While companies and providers all tout the convenience and cost savings of going “paperless,” and checking yourself out, it seems to me that they’re the ones getting the majority of benefits, while the rest of us do more and more of what they used to do and pay higher prices to boot.

In practical terms, Iran is a theocratic equivalent of the Third Reich, except it has far greater internal control than Hitler and his minions could ever have dreamed of. Iran is governed by an absolute autocrat, whose rule is enforced strictly and often violently by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

Over more than 40 years, the IRCG has established itself as not only an armed social control force, but also as an independent military/paramilitary force of more than 90,000 men with its own independent ground, naval, and air units, as well as the elite Quds Force, which is responsible for “extraterritorial operations,” essentially organizing and supporting all the Iranian guerilla proxy groups across the Middle East. The IRGC also has the ability to call up another 500,000 men. At present, the IRGC Navy is now Iran’s primary force exercising operational control over the Persian Gulf, serving as a de facto coast guard, which suggests that the Strait of Hormuz is unlikely to be opened to oil tankers any time soon.

While the “regular” Iranian armed forces (the Artesh) are theoretically independent, and the Artesh is primarily the force assigned for national defense, the regime has continually embedded ideological and political representatives within the Artesh to ensure loyalty to the Supreme Leader.

In addition, because of various sanctions and embargoes, most of Iran’s military hardware is domestically manufactured, and Iran became an exporter of arms by the 2000s, particularly of missiles and drones, many of which have gone to Russia for use against Ukraine. The Iranian drones are far easier and less expensive to manufacture than the vast majority of weapons being used by U.S. forces against Iran.

The U.S. has so far lost three F-15 fighters (if to Kuwaiti air defenses) at a replacement cost of $90 million per jet. A single Patriot (MIM-104) missile, specifically the advanced PAC-3 MSE variant, costs approximately $4 million to $5 million per interceptor. A newly produced Patriot battery, including radar, control station, and 5–8 launchers, costs over $1 billion. Even “cheaper” U.S. missiles can cost $1-3 million each.

By comparison, Iranian Shahed drones, which are so slow that high tech systems have trouble detecting them, each cost from $20,000 to $50,000 or less. In addition, Russia is now building more sophisticated Shahed drones and has ramped up production enough that it conceivably could export them for Iranian oil.

So… what happens when the U.S. runs through all its expensive and lethal weapons?

A short war? Really?

Although Trump and Bondi hope that “Operation Epic Fury” will fade their faults and overshadow all the domestic unrest, the fact still remains that two peaceful protesters were killed by ICE agents in Minneapolis. A disabled woman was dragged from her car even though she wasn’t part of the protests and was on her way to a medical appointment. She is a U.S. citizen, but she was removed so violently that her shoulders were injured, possibly permanently. None of the ICE agents have been investigated, let alone charged in any of these incidents.

As a follow-up, the disabled woman attended the most recent State of the Union Address as a guest of her Congresswoman and was arrested for disturbance even though she said nothing and bore no signs and did nothing to create a disturbance.

Yet Attorney General Pam Bondi has charged thirty-nine protesters for disrupting a service in Minneapolis at a church where one of the pastors was an ICE official, even though no one was injured or hurt. Bondi claimed that the protesters “attacked” a house of worship and stated that if any such protests occurred again, “we will find you, arrest you, and prosecute you.”

Contrast the reaction to a peaceful protest against a pastor who is an ICE official with the lack of Department of Justice response to the killings and violence perpetrated in Minneapolis by ICE agents.

Disturbing a church service merits charges against 36 protesters and three media types who were trying to report on the protests, but ICE killings and violence against peaceful protesters doesn’t merit investigation and charges?

What does that tell you not only about ICE, but also about the power of the religious right in the United States?

Another stunning Department of Homeland Security revelation surfaced this week. Last year, Corey Lewandowski, one of DHS Secretary Noem’s top aides, entered the cockpit of a government jet uninvited during the post-take-off period, when entry to the cockpit is legally restricted, complaining because Secretary Noem’s blanket had been left behind when the crew and passengers, including Secretary Noem, had to switch aircraft for mechanical reasons.

The crew notified Lewandowski that he could not remain in the cockpit during climb-out, and Lewandowski left. Later in the flight, Lewandowski asked who should be fired because Noem’s blanket had been left behind, and the pilot in command took the responsibility. Lewandoski fired him, but the agency had to reinstate the pilot because, at Noem’s destination, there was no one qualified to fly the aircraft back to Washington, D.C.

So, not only did Noem’s people try to fire a pilot for leaving a blanket behind, but no one apparently considered the ramifications.

Apparently, Kristi Noem can’t even hang on to her own blanket and then had an aide break federal aviation rules to complain before going on to fire someone else for either her forgetfulness or that of her staff.

Over a blanket, yet?

And this is the woman in charge of the Department of Homeland Security?