For anyone unfamiliar, the eponymous "crises" in the title are NOT about the evil orange man who is bad - Notes on the Crises is a political economy newsletter started a few years ago by Nathan Tankus to comment on the intersecting global economic disasters triggered by the Covid-19 pandemic.
Nathan is a @TracingWoodgrains style "truth neurodivergent" not a wingcucked political hack. He's just a big giant dork who does things like FOIA request the minutes from all US Federal Reserve Board meetings from 1967-1973
Nathan looks like this, and I would believe almost anything that he writes, because it is backed by powerful neurodivergent spirits.
When he writes about the COBOL code in the treasury department, I'm confident he's talking to beardy old men who write and maintain that code.
I would also like to clarify some confusion on social media. The issue with understanding and grasping a COBOL system is not knowing COBOL, as a programming language, in the abstract. Nor is it, god help me, something that AI can "do" because you fired one of these chatbots up and got some code that could compile when you asked "write me some COBOL code". The issue is understanding the specific physical limitations of the system, the way that it interacts with the "Business Logic" of the code and a million other contextual factors.
There is specific code which tells you where to direct specific payments in specific ways and the structures, and why they are structured the way they are, requires deep contextual knowledge. This is "business logic". The entire issue with COBOL and why it has been such a struggle to maintain it is that COBOL systems (both private and public) developed for decades with very little documentation, have a million different path dependent coding choices. Mar Hicks 2020 article in Logic Magazine "Built to Last" is worth a read on this topic.
This is what I meant yesterday when I referenced that 30 different COBOL systems at Treasury had developed their own "dialects" and they launched Payment Application Modernization (PAM), which among other things, unified them. What they unified was the business logic of those systems (as well as likely other factors, most notably the physical architecture of the systems they ran on). Part of me wishes they didn't modernize with PAM because those 30 different and distinct systems would have been more secure from their infiltration. PAM processed 4.7 trillion dollars of payments in 2024.
It's also true that some similar issues can emerge with other more recent programming languages and the way "business logic" emerges if a mission critical IT system developed using a more recent programming language. But COBOL is unique; after all it's literally "common business-oriented language". So while knowing the COBOL programming language is better than not knowing it, it does not make that much of a difference with these young Musk programmers mucking about.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
In part 1 he tries to whip the audience in a frenzy about a constitutional crisis by essentially lying about the contents of the ICA. When he says :
"That statute established a process to freeze appropriations for certain particular, specified reasons for 45 days while the President notifies congress of his desire for the appropriations to be rescinded. If congress does not pass a law rescinding the spending, the president is obliged to follow through on that congressionally mandated disbursement. Thus the ICA's "rescission" power is extraordinarily limited. Which is likely why the Trump administration did not try to use it."
The implication is not that the ICA sets out a second power for the president, allowing them to temporarily defer spending for an agency or expenditure, but rather that this power doesn't exist:
"Deferrals are authorized only to provide for contingencies, to achieve savings made possible by changes in requirements or greater efficiency of operations, or as otherwise specifically provided by law." 2 U.S.C. § 684(b).
He doesn't share the content of the first memo (hint: because he's a wingcucked political hack that's wasting your time) but this is the language that's supposed to be the core of the biggest constitutional crisis in the history of the treasury??:
"This temporary pause will provide the Administration time to review agency programs and determine the best uses of the funding for those programs consistent with the law and the President's priorities. The temporary pause will become effective on January 28, 2025, at 5:00 PM. Even before completing their comprehensive analysis, Federal agencies must immediately identify any legally mandated actions or deadlines for assistance programs arising while the pause remains in effect. Federal agencies must report this information to OMB along with an analysis of the requirement. OMB also directs Federal agencies to pause all activities associated with open NOFOs, such as conducting merit review panels. No later than February 10, 2025, agencies shall submit to OMB detailed information on any programs, projects or activities subject to this pause. Each agency must pause: (i) issuance of new awards; (ii) disbursement of Federal funds under all open awards; and (iii) other relevant agency actions that may be implicated by the executive orders, to the extent permissible by law, until OMB has reviewed and provided guidance to your agency with respect to the information submitted. OMB may grant exceptions allowing Federal agencies to issue new awards or take other actions on a case-by-case basis. To the extent required by law, Federal agencies may continue taking certain administrative actions, such as closeout of Federal awards (2 CFR 200.344), or recording obligations expressly required by law"
This is clearly written to be in the bounds of the deferral clause of the ICA. A judge can challenge it but this isn't some out of control constitutional crisis.
He does something equally tendentious in part 4 where he now pretends like every action taken by DNP at treasury has to be statutorily approved. OMB's memo + DOGE's appointments is then alluded to be another constitutional crisis/putsch . But the legislative proposals he links to for DNP are about expanding Treasury's operational authority over other agencies, or expanding their access to data that's not at treasury. This is because of course, DNP at treasury isn't controlled the way he heavily alludes it is.
Here's how the Bureau of the Fiscal Service writes about itself:
I guess I don't get it. He's fat and a liar? And you're in love with him or something?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I just don't trust Nathan's speculation on what they're doing. You said he was a truth nerd so I thought it might be interesting, but it's just someone's boring neuroses wearing a Westlaw terminal for a suit.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
But you know, it'll probably be fine, 25 year old brocoders are known for their restraint and good sense and Musk is a v responsible overlord.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You sound like Yudkowsky but for money.
Some people can live 59 seconds till midnight or whatever all the time, but I'm pretty sure nothing ever happens
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context