On January 14, a “war powers resolution” went down to defeat in the US Senate on a 50-50 vote, with vice president JD Vance breaking the tie.

The resolution, which would have required US president Donald Trump to at least casually mention to Congress that he planned more military misadventures in Venezuela before, rather than after, launching such misadventures, was a half-hearted half-measure, but somehow only half of US Senators could bring themselves to go even that far.

Let’s go over the way things are supposed to work:

The US Constitution assigns the power to declare war to Congress, not to the president.

If the president attacks another country without such a declaration, it’s not a war, it’s just a crime  — a “high crime” legally meriting and ethically requiring that president’s impeachment and removal from office.

Unfortunately,  presidents have been getting away with such crimes on a routine basis since the end of World War 2. The list is too long to fit in an op-ed, but a few high points include Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan.

Those conflicts weren’t wars, at least so far as US law was concerned. They were criminal acts carried out by lawless presidents with the acquiescence — and often co-conspiracy — of Congress.

Toward the end of the Vietnam fiasco, Congress passed (and overrode Richard Nixon’s veto of) something called the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

Nixon’s veto message claimed that the Resolution included “unconstitutional restrictions” on his power to kill as many people as he pleased, when and how it pleased him to kill those people.

What it actually included was an unconstitutional — absent ratification by 3/4 of the states’ legislatures —  repeal of the Constitution’s Article I, Section 8 assignment of the power to declare war solely and exclusively to Congress.

The Resolution supposedly gave the president wiggle room to engage in illegal military operations if he  got congressional “authorization” or made up a “national emergency,” and as long as he subsequently bothered to tell Congress about it.

Why would Congress (a notoriously power-hungry body) try so hard to give up its power to declare war? Because if there’s anything a politician hates more than he or she loves power, it’s being held responsible for the consequences of exercising that power. By trying to give up its power, Congress thought it could also rid itself of culpability.

The Senate had one job to do. It wasn’t an especially hard job, it wouldn’t have had any great effect (even if it passed the House, Trump would have vetoed it), and it didn’t even meet the bare minimum constitutional standard.

And yet 50 Senators, and the vice-president acting as president of the Senate, couldn’t bring themselves to get that one little tiny, insignificant job done.

One more confirmation of Lysander Spooner’s observation:

“But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Photo by Ron Clausen, Creative Commons 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication

A quick headline roundup from the last couple of weeks:

“US Electric Grid Heading Toward ‘Crisis’ Thanks to AI Data Centers” (Common Dreams, January 2)

“US electricity grid stretches thin as data centers rush to turn on onsite generators” (tom’s HARDWARE, January 5)

“America’s Biggest Power Grid Operator Has an AI Problem — Too Many Data Centers” (Wall Street Journal, January 12)

Panicky political proposals to address the looming specter of grid failure under the strain of powering massive computer facilities, which in turn power massive artificial intelligence operations, range from charging data centers higher rates per kilowatt-hour to just plain banning the installations.

The only instance of helpful innovation I’m seeing from the political establishment comes from US Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) who, Reason‘s Joe Lancaster reports, wants to exempt “in-house” utilities  from federal regulatory red tape through legislation called the DATA Act.

Simply put, if Meta or Microsoft wanted to build their own generators, run its own power lines, etc.,  they’d save a lot of time and money … as long as their profane power sources didn’t burden the “grids” used by other energy production entities to serve other consumers over long distances.

It’s a great idea — and it’s an idea that would benefit everyone, not just data center operators.

As my kids might say (if they bothered themselves with such issues rather than just plugging their bazillion game consoles into the wall and ignoring such things while raising my electric bill) “grids are SOOOOOO 20th century.”

The idea of running power lines all over God’s green acre made a certain amount of sense in the 1930s.  It makes no sense at all now.

When Congress created the Tennessee Valley Authority to bring electricity and other benefits that largely rural area of 80,000 square miles, and the Hoover Dam likewise generated electricity to serve far-flung metros in the west, generating significant amounts of energy, at reasonable costs, required large, expensive installations.

Once those installations were up and running, actually getting the power to homes, factories, etc. was a matter of stringing lines on poles and building out additional infrastructure (sub-stations, pole transformers, etc.).

Benefit: Everyone can flip a switch or turn a knob or plug an appliance into the wall and voilà! Power!

Costs: Running those lines and maintaining that infrastructure is expensive. Those lines and that infrastructure are vulnerable to everything from wind to lightning to drunk drivers to intentional sabotage, and their increasing interconnectedness just increases that vulnerability. Everyone is always one blown transformer or downed line or computer malfunction away from living in the 19th century for a little while (or perhaps having their houses burned down by a wildfire).

Even as those costs continue to rise — without additional benefit — all the talk seems to be of how to maintain the grids, how to improve the grids, how to maintain the grids.

Why?

As Rita Mae Brown points out, “insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results.”

Along with the increase in grid-related problems, there’s been a corresponding increase in power generation solutions that don’t require large, expensive, centralized generation and sprawling grids to carry the energy.

Rooftop solar and backyard wind have advanced to the point where many, maybe even most, homes could function without  “grid” connections at all.

The increasing safety and decreasing size of nuclear reactors make it possible to generate and distribute power at neighborhood, rather than regional, scale.

The only real beneficiaries of continued reliance on centralized generation and large-scale “grids” are the utilities which operate those power plants and those grids. They’re holding us back from what could be an era of cheap, clean, reliable energy.

It’s time to give up our grid addiction and pull our lips off the centralized utility teat. If we wise up and do that — possibly starting with passage of the DATA ACT — energy production and distribution can finally advance into the  21st century.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

In a Truth Social post, US president Donald Trump says he’s “immediately taking steps to ban large institutional investors from buying more single-family homes,” and will call on Congress to legislate those steps. He promises more details in his coming address to the World Economic Forum.

Absent those details, it’s impossible to know if his proposal will make it past the courts, or whether Congress is likely to buy in.

But of course the biggest question is whether banning home purchases by the likes of Blackstone, American Homes 4 Rent, and Invitation Homes would truly make housing more affordable for Americans.

Short answer: It wouldn’t.

Why?

A lot of the negative response from economists (some of them admittedly affiliated with those institutional investors or related businesses) centers around the fact that large investors — those who own more than 100 homes — own only 2% of US housing inventory. The proposed ban just wouldn’t have much of an effect because that sector just isn’t very big.

Another piece of the consensus response is that institutional investors are better equipped to manage RENTAL property efficiently and uniformly on a large scale. No matter what the market in buying houses does, there will always be people with good reason to rent rather than buy — they expect to move in the near future, they haven’t yet socked away enough for a down payment, etc. Fewer homes available to rent means higher rents and thus less affordable housing.

For me, a lot of the problem comes down to what economists call “time preference,” though.

People with “high time preference” want the benefit of their work or investment quickly, even if that benefit may be smaller than they’d get from waiting.

People with “low time preference” are willing to wait.

In the housing market, contractors might be said to have “high time preference.” When they build a house, they want to sell that house (ideally, have already sold it prior to building it), bank the profits, and move on to the next house.

Institutional investors have deeper pockets, other profit centers, and an eye on long-term profit — “low time preference.” They can afford to pay the “high time preference” contractor to build 100 houses and not worry about going broke waiting on those houses to sell or rent out.

So, what happens when the institutional investors get shut out of the single-family residence market? Contractors have to either build “on spec” and hope the homes sell, or take single jobs versus large-scale projects, charging a higher price per home because they don’t enjoy economy of scale savings from ordering enough material for 100 homes at a time.

When government shoves its nose into markets, the supposed beneficiaries usually end up losing. Politically connected businesses pocket more money. Government bureaucrats enjoy more power. Everyone else pays through the nose. Politicians’ assertions of contrary motivation just add insult to injury.

To figure out who benefits from Trump’s proposal,  note that it targets SINGLE-family residences.

Institutional investors in MULTI-family residences would enjoy a windfall as shortages of single-family homes pushed disappointed home buyers and desperate tenants into apartments — and drove up rents to boot.

I can’t help but notice that one large institutional investor in multi-family residences — boasting “some of the most coveted residential properties in the world” — is called The Trump Organization. Go figure.

Thomas L. Knapp (X: @thomaslknapp | Bluesky: @knappster.bsky.social | Mastodon: @knappster) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY