I Believe (Joel K. Douglas)

Should we consider limits on executive pay for companies that don’t pay workers livable wages?

Let’s first consider executive compensation to set the stage for our discussion.

The Economic Policy Institutepublished that in 2021, companies paid CEOs nearly 400 times more than a typical worker. These CEOs made seven times more than the top 0.1% of the top-paid salaried workers. The article details approaches to limiting CEO pay to reduce income inequality without damaging the broader economy. 

Shifting gears to public opinion, searching “CEO pay vs. worker pay” on Google returns many articles advocating the same solution: To combat income inequality, we must limit executive compensation.

On the one hand, capping CEO pay could free up resources that could be distributed to lower-level employees, thereby fostering a more equitable workplace. On the other hand, this blanket statement overlooks the complexities of corporate finance and the competitive market for executive talent, which can be crucial for a company’s success.

There are a couple of business arguments for limiting executive pay.

A study of Chinese firms by the National Institutes of Health found a strong correlation: as executive pay increases, a company’s likelihood of investing in future innovative activities decreases. To increase short-term profits, executives might choose to cut risky R&D efforts, which could reduce innovation in the long term. The bottom line is high compensation packages do not guarantee future innovative success.

Further, Harvard Business Review published findings that many companies neglect to consider company performance when developing executive compensation, resulting in high executive compensation even in low-performing companies.

Are these strong enough reasons to limit CEO pay?

Before we jump to conclusions, we haven’t asked the right question yet.

* The decisive issue is not whether the American people should limit executive pay.

There might be business arguments for individual companies to choose to limit executive pay, but it’s not a public opinion decision. A corporation might decide to self-impose limits on executive compensation to invest more in innovation or tie executive pay to current and future company performance.

* The decisive issue is not the disparity between CEO salaries and worker salaries.

America needs good executives. Sound executives can substantially improve the profitability of their companies. Some have exceptional vision to see the future of the business. Companies need profitability now and survival going forward to continue to pay workers and grow their business in lean years. Allocating all available financial resources solely to worker salaries in the short term may reduce a company’s long-term resilience and adaptability.

Corporations need to grow revenue to pay higher worker salaries. As a part of increasing revenue, they need to develop capability. Growing capability means expanding infrastructure, hiring skilled workers, and potentially increasing efficiency or parts availability. All these things cost money. Every growth initiative needs to be led by a great leadership team with a strong executive.

If corporations need to attract these leaders with more pay, that’s a decision appropriate for that organization. If corporations need to invest in their business for growth, that’s the right decision. Legislating limits to what any American can earn stifles competition and growth. 

The decisive question is this:

* Should we consider limits on executive pay for companies that don’t pay workers livable wages?

Let’s establish that many companies pay outstanding wages. Executives who lead these companies pay their workers top dollar to compete for the best talent in their industry. No taxpayer dollars subsidize wages at these companies.

However, some businesses fail to pay workers a living wage. TheEconomic Policy InstituteCompany Wage Tracker considers 66 retail and food service firms. It identifies that two-thirds of the companies on the tracker pay most of their workers poverty-level wages. The tracker also specifies what the companies pay their CEO, and executive salaries are very high as compared to worker pay.

The American people have to subsidize these worker wages with taxpayer-supported social programs. A University of California, Berkeley study published in 2015 titled The High Public Cost of Low Wages highlighted four programs:

* Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) - healthcare

* Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) - household income assistance

* Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) - household income assistance

* Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) - food stamps

The study found that the American people contribute $200 billion per year to these programs (converted to 2023 dollars). The study further found that more than half—56 percent—of combined state and federal spending on public assistance goes to working families.

A The Wall Street Journalarticle America Pays a High Price for Low Wages published in April 2023, stated:

Liberals like the EITC because it reduces absolute poverty, and conservatives like it because it attaches a work requirement to welfare.

The author, Michael Lind, states that the EITC “makes taxpayers pay to rescue workers whose work does not pay enough.” You can read his work, titled Hell to Pay: How the Suppression of Wages Is Destroying America, published by Penguin Random House.

Low wages are an anchor on society. When businesses pay salaries less than the living standard, social programs rise to supplement business wages. This condition is detrimental to the free market, as companies that should either fail or improve due to competition instead survive with assistance from the American taxpayer. The taxpayer should supplement no business wages. People work to earn a living. Individual workers earn a substandard living when businesses fail to pay suitable wages. In this case, other workers, through their taxpayer dollars, give them extra money to survive. 

Workers passing money through the government to pay their fellow workers is ridiculous.

Some might contend that subsidies for low-paying companies are crucial for businesses operating on thin margins and the larger economy by keeping unemployment rates low.

Are these businesses sustainable? What’s the societal cost of supporting companies that do not pay livable wages?

In sum, there is a strong case for limiting executive compensation in companies that do not provide their workers livable wages. While executive talent is undeniably valuable, the cost of income inequality, compounded by taxpayer subsidies for low wages, tips the scale in favor of regulatory measures.

Should we consider limits on executive pay for companies that don’t pay workers livable wages?

So long as businesses pay wages that enable workers to secure their needs, we should support competition and innovation. For these companies, executive compensation should be whatever that company deems appropriate in their competitive market.

Otherwise, it may be time to rethink how we approach executive compensation.

Thanks for considering my perspective.

May God bless the United States of America.

The spirit of giving is deeply ingrained in the close-knit community of the Air Force’s 321st Missile Squadron. Now former members are raising money and starting a college scholarship endowment at Laramie County Community College to honor one of their fallen, 1st Lt. Blake "Moose" Woockman. 

On the afternoon of June 29, 2017, I met Blake Woockman. That morning, I had become the commanding officer of the Air Force’s 321st Missile Squadron. The squadron is known as the “Greentails.” While a part of the Army Air Corps stationed in the South Pacific during World War II, the squadron painted their B-24 tail flashes green to distinguish their bomber aircraft from the other Jolly Roger squadrons.

Blake sought me out to personally explain why he had missed his annual physical fitness test. He included Kyle Martinez in the meeting because Kyle managed the unit’s fitness program. He wanted me to know that it wasn’t Kyle’s fault that he had missed his fitness test.

Blake told me he had a minor cough that a doctor said was pneumonia and was on antibiotics to kick it. He didn’t want to take his fitness test (which included running a mile and a half as fast as possible) with pneumonia. He wanted a high or even a perfect score on the test. I agreed healing before he took his test was appropriate.

That was the last day I spoke with Blake Woockman.

Long story short, Blake’s pneumonia wasn’t bacterial. It was fungal, and the antibiotics weren’t helping. About a week after our conversation, he went back to the doctor, and they sent him to a specialist because he hadn’t gotten better. Another week later, he was in the ICU. It was too late when the docs figured out what was wrong. Blake passed away on September 16, 2017, during transit to Arizona to receive specialty medical care.

I only spoke with Blake in person one time, but I’ll never forget him. He was the shining example of Americans who volunteer to serve the nation. Humble. Positive. Brilliant. Superb weapon system operators who put the team above themselves. Young Americans who take personal responsibility for their actions and strive to improve the unit.

The Greentail Heritage Room didn’t have a name at the time. The squadron named their Heritage Room the 1st Lt. Blake “Moose” Woockman Room. The plaque in the room has a picture of him and his surviving spouse with these words:

We dedicate the 321st Missile Squadron Heritage Room in the memory of our brother, Blake Woockman. A consummate officer and faithful wingman, Blake brought a smile to everyone he met with his unwavering positivity and sincerity. Blake was the person we all strive to be; the kind of man you take pride in calling your friend. Generous and kind to a fault, his aptitude and attitude were second to none. We will miss you and will keep you always in our memory.

Rest easy Greentail.

About a month ago, two former squadron members, Mike Wilson and Austin Rodemaker, approached me. They are establishing a local community college scholarship named the Blake Woockman Greentail Memorial Scholarship.

Details about the scholarship:

Students of Laramie County Community College (LCCC; Laramie County, Cheyenne, Wyoming) will be eligible to apply. The scholarship will be open to veterans, active duty, reserve, or national guard US military members who are seeking any degree and attending either full-time or part-time. Students must have and maintain a 2.5 grade point average to qualify.

Mike is the most motivated person I know. He is now the commanding officer of Office of Special Investigations (OSI) Detachment 804 at Vandenberg Space Force Base, California.

Austin has a remarkable gift for selflessness. He knows how to work with people and situations to achieve the best outcomes. He is now the leader of a nonprofit foundation and a board member of another.

The spirit of giving back is deeply ingrained in the ethos of the Greentails and the community we serve. Blake Woockman's life was a testament to this spirit of service, and in his honor we aim to continue this tradition. The Blake Woockman Greentail Memorial Scholarship isn't just a memorial; it's an ongoing commitment to foster education, leadership, and community service.

Fundraising is well underway. Your generous donations can make a tangible impact on the lives of aspiring students from the military community, giving them the financial support they need to achieve their educational goals.

To donate, please contact Austin Rodemaker at the Laramie County Community College Foundation at arodemaker@lccc.wy.edu. Or give me a ring or an email and I’m happy to help.

Greentails continue to inspire with their courage, compassion, and leadership. I am proud to have served with them all.

May God bless the United States of America.

As an alternative to raising the minimum wage, how about we give small businesses that pay livable wages tax credits? We should reward the many great American businesses that pay livable wages.

These businesses would be more profitable, and this approach would reduce the need for social programs.

Wo…

What would be the worst-case outcome of the ongoing United Auto Workers (UAW) and looming Kaiser Permanente strikes?

What would be the ideal outcome?

To conceptualize the labor dispute situation, we must first identify the stakeholders. When we understand the stakeholders and their motivations, we can think about ways ahead.

The first stakeholders are…

* The workers

They want more pay and better benefits. They put in arduous labor for their product and deserve to be respected and well compensated.

Workers need job security in the long term to keep providing for themselves and their families. In the context of the labor dispute, job security means the workers need to be able to keep their jobs. The corporations must be successful to stay viable long-term and continue to need workers.

* The unions

We need to separate the unions from the workers. Though the unions represent the workers in negotiations, they are not themselves the workers. The unions are separate companies that earn their living from union dues paid by the workers. The union representatives partner with the workers but don’t work for the corporations.

This unique arrangement is notable because the unions may achieve significant raises for the workers, and the raises aren’t sustainable in the long term for the corporations in the event of a downturn. The workers could be laid off, but the union representatives still have jobs. The unions don’t intend to break the corporations, but their task is first to achieve raises for workers. If they consider the corporations at all, it’s a secondary concern.

In the case of the UAW strike, the UAW union now seeks a minimum 30% raise for the auto workers, as well as a 32-hour work week with 40-hour work week pay. UAW represents 46,000 employees at General Motors, 57,000 at Ford, and 43,000 at Stellantis.

The Kaiser strike could be the “largest ever health care worker strike in the United States.” The union representing the Kaiser employees seeks better pay and benefits, as well as increases in staffing. Kaiser employees say the COVID pandemic highlighted the lack of staffing across the healthcare industry, and they need more support.

The workers and the unions represent one side of the negotiating table. The other side starts with…

* The corporations

The automakers are public corporations. Kaiser is a privately held medical nonprofit institution. This distinction is interesting because the automakers have a fiduciary responsibility to act in the best interest of their shareholders, while Kaiser does not.

The automakers have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders. The Securities Exchange Act of 1934 required directors and officers of publicly traded corporations to act in the corporation’s and its shareholders’ best interests. However, corporations have no requirement to act in the best interest of the workers. 

In contrast, Kaiser is a nonprofit institution. The Kaiser Foundation Health Plan CEO in 1997 said, “Unlike a for-profit, the nonprofit is not obligated to balance fiduciary responsibility to shareholders with responsibility to patients.” 

The contrast between the two types of institutions, highlighted by the difference in fiduciary responsibility, is fascinating. What’s the impact on the shareholder if the corporations give too much in negotiations and the labor agreement isn’t sustainable in the long term? If profits stagnate due to the labor agreement, does that mean the corporation failed to honor its obligation to the shareholder? Or would higher worker pay incentivize workers to be more efficient and result in higher profits?

The fiduciary responsibility is a definite wrinkle in the situation. Corporations are legally obligated to act in the shareholder’s best interest, not the worker’s.

In the Journal of Law and Social Change, Volume 10, Haig Panossian advocates for fiduciary consideration of workers. He wrote:

However, just as a common goal of profit maximization has led to different classes of stock being successfully protected by the same fiduciary duties, it is likely that workers' shared interests in job security, safe working conditions, and fair wages will also allow them to feasibly be protected by fiduciary duties extended to them as a group.

Another consideration for the corporation is modernization. The automakers need to invest in infrastructure and modernize equipment while remaining profitable to move to changing production lines. Automakers need the capability to transition to increasing production of electric vehicles, depending on the market's future potential (EV sales have lagged expectations). A labor agreement needs to enable the automakers the capability to invest in this changing market.

Just as the unions represent the workers, another stakeholder represents the corporations. They are…

* The executives

The executives guide the corporation to profitability and long-term success. One of the principles executives consider is payroll-to-revenue ratio. A good guideline for many businesses is a 15-30% payroll-to-revenue ratio. 

Let’s look at General Motors (GM).

*Note* Below are hypothetical calculations based on some assumptions! The analyses include the available published data and assumptions when data was not available.

GM’s lowest recent annual revenue was $105,000,000,000 (Billion) in 2009. GM’s highest recent annual revenue was $156B in 2022. Since 2009, GM’s annual revenue has exceeded $150B in five years. 

GM employs 155,000 workers, 92,000 of whom are in the United States.

If GM had a payroll-to-revenue ratio of 15% (and assuming annual revenue of $150B), payroll would be $22.5B. Divided by 155,000 workers, GM would pay an average of $145,000 per employee in salary, health care, pension or 401K contributions, and other benefits. At a payroll-to-revenue ratio of 16%, GM would pay $154,000 per employee, at 17%, $164,000. At 20%, GM would pay an average of $193,000 per employee.

Comparably.com says GM’s median salary is $135,000. Adding an assumed $25,000 for healthcare and other benefits results in a median salary package of $160,000 annually. One could reasonably guess GM’s payroll-to-revenue ratio is 15-20%. A pay increase at the UAW desired 30% level would mean a median salary package of $208,000 annually. 

Based on UAW representing 46,000 GM workers and UAW’s desire to achieve a minimum 30% raise, the payroll-to-revenue ratio of UAW-represented employees would be slightly above 20%.

In a “down” year where GM earns an annual revenue of $120B, assuming all 155,000 workers averaged $208,000 yearly, the payroll-to-revenue ratio would be 27%.

Executives need to consider other factors in addition to payroll and revenue. Another principle executives have to consider is profitability. GM made just under $10B in profit in 2022. In the same year, GM paid profit-sharing bonuses of just over $500 million to workers at $12,750 per worker.

Assuming all 46,000 UAW workers made the new median income of $208,000 per year, the new proposed salary level would represent an additional $2B annual cost to GM. In a down year, this could significantly cut into corporate profits.

*Note* Above are hypothetical calculations based partly on assumptions!

Some might say the workers should get the majority of the profits. They are a big part of the team and deserve to be paid. In theory, this is a noble statement. In practice, the corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to return these profits to the stockholder. Corporations exist to deliver profitability to shareholders. Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman wrote in 1970:

There is one and only one social responsibility of business — to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits.

Executives must ensure long-term viability and profitability for stockholders, taking into account payroll and revenue.

The workers, unions, corporations, and executives are not the only stakeholders. There are two more. First is…

* The corporate stockholders

Stockholders have no role in the corporation’s performance, but if corporate profitability falls, the stock price falls. As stockholder confidence wanes, the long-term viability of a corporation comes into question.

The Impact of Strikes on Shareholder Equity, a study published in the Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 1986, by Cornell University, found strikes reduce the stock value of a corporation by roughly 4%. At a value of $45B, a 4% loss in the value of GM represents a loss of $1.8B.

Another component of stockholder equity is that shareholders currently support worker rights. In an extreme example, Starbucks’ shareholders recently sued the corporation, claiming labor concerns violated the corporation’s fiduciary responsibility to shareholders by threatening operations and reputation. 

This support for worker rights affects shareholders and reverberates throughout the nation.

And the final stakeholder…

* The American people

The final piece of this muddy picture is the American people. We depend on the goods and services the automakers and healthcare companies provide. A prolonged strike could significantly impact the economy and the lives of millions of Americans.

The American people support unions and labor activities. We depend on the goods and services the automakers and healthcare companies provide.

In sum:

Workers want more pay and better benefits.

Union representatives represent the workers in their negotiations for more pay and benefits but have little regard for the corporation.

The corporation has a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders but no obligation to its workers. Corporations need resources to invest in infrastructure and modernization.

Executives need to maintain the long-term viability of the corporation and deliver profitability for stockholders.

As stockholder confidence wanes, the long-term viability of a corporation comes into question. Shareholders currently support worker rights.

The American people support unions and labor activities. We depend on the goods and services the automakers and healthcare companies provide.

What would be the worst-case outcome of the ongoing United Auto Workers (UAW) and looming Kaiser Permanente strikes?

There are two terrible outcomes of the labor disputes.

The first would be an agreement between the corporations and workers that isn’t sustainable in the long term. Everyone loses in that case. The corporation loses because it fails to exist. The executives lose. The shareholders lose as the stock value plummets. The workers lose their jobs. The American people lose.

A second would be a prolonged labor dispute. The automakers have already started laying off workers at supply plants. The American people support laid-off workers with taxpayer dollars funding unemployment benefits. A prolonged labor dispute results in significant economic damage to the corporations and the country. This scenario could lead to job losses, higher prices for goods and services, and a decline in the quality of life for millions of Americans.

What would be the ideal outcome of the ongoing United Auto Workers (UAW) and looming Kaiser Permanente strikes?

The ideal outcome would be a fair negotiated agreement for workers and the corporations. This outcome would mean that workers receive a fair wage and benefits package while the corporations can remain profitable and continue to invest in their businesses.

Workers, and the unions on their behalf, should negotiate for wages to be 25% of annual revenue. The agreement should also include provisions to address workers' concerns, such as staffing levels, working conditions, and job security. The contract should also include provisions to protect the long-term viability of the corporations, such as investment in infrastructure and modernization.

In short, the agreement should be fair to all stakeholders, including workers, the corporation, shareholders, and the American people.

This proposal supports innovation and competition as executives and workers share a goal to increase revenue. It aligns the interests of workers and shareholders, as both groups benefit from increased revenue. As the businesses succeed, workers make more money. As businesses have lean years, workers keep their jobs.

Workers should negotiate for recurring pay slightly below the 25% revenue mark, with quarterly bonuses paid to meet the 25% revenue mark. Though the concept is similar to profit sharing, salaries would be revenue-based, not profit-based.

Thanks for considering my perspective.

May God bless the United States of America.

Do government officials, such as a school board, have the right to restrict a student’s education in the school library?

Do parents have the right to dictate their child’s education?

New York, 1975.

An activist group named Parents of New York United compiled a list of books they deemed offensive due to “anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-Semitic, and just plain filthy” speech (Pico, 1982 at 857). The school board stated, "[i]t is our duty, our moral obligation, to protect the children in our schools from this moral danger as surely as from physical and medical dangers."

Students objected and filed legal action on First Amendment grounds for free speech against the school board. Though the school board reversed their decision and restored the books to the library, the case went to the US Supreme Court anyway.

The Supreme Court deliberated the merit of the free speech argument in light of precedent. They looked at previous cases such as West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624 (1943), which considered whether a student could be forced to participate in the pledge of allegiance. That case found:

Boards of Education . . . have, of course, important, delicate, and highly discretionary functions, but none that they may not perform within the limits of the Bill of Rights. That they are educating the young for citizenship is reason for scrupulous protection of Constitutional freedoms of the individual, if we are not to strangle the free mind at its source and teach youth to discount important principles of our government as mere platitudes.

And Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S. 589 (1967), which found "students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding."

In the end, the court was divided. Four justices voted in favor, with two concurring in part, while four justices voted against. This split decision favored the students on the grounds of First Amendment rights within school libraries. On the other hand, it also supported the school board's authority to prepare students for citizenship and to uphold the values intrinsic to being American.

On the grounds of First Amendment rights in a school library, the court found for the students.

Judge Sifton’s opinion stated, "political views and personal taste [were] being asserted not in the interests of the children's wellbeing, but rather for the purpose of establishing those views as the correct and orthodox ones for all purposes in the particular community."

A school board removing a student’s right to exercise their First Amendment right to free speech, demonstrated by learning from multiple viewpoints, is not permissible. School authorities cannot take away books simply to limit exposure to the political views or societal viewpoints they contain.

On the grounds of a school board’s authority, the court found for the school board.

In the ruling the court strongly supported a school board’s responsibility to prepare students for citizenship and preserve the values that make us all Americans. They found school boards may remove books deemed “educationally unsuitable or pervasively vulgar”.

Although the Pico case sheds light on the tension between students' First Amendment rights and a school board's authority, it's just one facet of a broader debate on educational rights. Another pivotal case, Wisconsin v. Yoder, introduces an equally compelling dimension: the extent of parental rights in determining their child’s education.

The boundaries of educational content, especially in school libraries, are a contentious subject. While the courts upheld students’ rights in the Pico case, the Wisconsin v. Yoder case demonstrates that parental rights also hold significant weight in the eyes of the law. Many parents and educators might have deeply-held beliefs and concerns that challenge the court's viewpoint on student rights.

As an opposing view, the Wisconsin v. Yoder case underscores the question: don’t parents have the right to dictate their own child’s education? What if a parent disagrees with the court’s ruling? Some believe their child shouldn’t be exposed in a school library, or anywhere else, to topics such as sex education, race relations, and LGBTQ+ rights. They argue that these subjects are not core purposes for schools, and that they should have the ultimate say in preventing their child's exposure to them.

Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972), supports parental rights. This case looked at the right of Amish parents to remove their children from public schools for religious reasons, even though the state required school attendance until age 16. The Court sided with the Amish parents, ruling that their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion was more compelling than the state’s interest in educating their children.

Proponents of home schooling use Wisconsin v. Yoder as a precedent for parents being able to dictate their own child’s education. Further, courts have repeatedly found for home education as a viable pathway to citizenship.

Part of America is a choice. We can choose to tolerate others expressing rights with which we disagree. Or we can choose to isolate ourselves from others and preserve our own dignity. America is too broad in population and diverse in background to have agreement on everything.

Individual rights and institutional authority in education are no different.

We ought to allow students to exercise their First Amendment right to free speech and read the books they feel compelled to read.

Thanks for considering my perspective.

May God bless the United States of America.

Today marks a year of weekly editions, the 52nd edition of “I Believe.” I’d like to thank you for reading. I learn a great deal from writing every article, and I hope you learn from reading (or now listening to!) them.

The name of this publication is “I Believe” because I believe in America. This journal isn’t just a history lesson. America has some big problems, and we need to think through options to address them. Many essays have recommendations for what we should, or at least could, do to improve the nation. We need real solutions to make tangible improvements, and the way to arrive at real solutions is to think through potential options.

America was the first essay in this publication. I learned a great deal about America this year, and I failed to include some key points, so I’m re-writing it.

I believe in America.

I believe in our America, born at war, that threw off the chains from its oppressive British government. For more than 3000 days we fought for freedom from the King’s oppression. We were farmer citizens who fought “Redcoats” (we didn’t fight the British because we were still British) because we were jailed for speaking out against the king. We were forced to house and feed soldiers without our consent and with no pay. We were forced to practice the official religion of the government. We were forced to pay taxes to the king with no representative for discourse. We were prohibited from trading with other nations—everything had to go through the King’s coffers.

The historic Gadsden Flag, yellow with a rattlesnake, portrays one of the nation’s earliest mottos, “Don’t Tread on Me.” It was a motto of our unity. A unified call for protection from tyranny. From Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Franklin, Founders touted the statement, “Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”

The United States of America is not perfect. There are stories of injustice for every example of someone rising to greatness. Slavery. A sitting US Vice President who killed a man. A civil war fought over slavery. Suppression of women’s rights. We fought foreign wars to overthrow governments, killing thousands to protect US business interests. And that was all before 1900.

But America is more than our history of achievements or failures. It’s more than the people or the land.

America is an ideal.

We are all created equal, and we can all become great.

We don’t all start from the same starting line, but we all share opportunity. Some Americans grow up in safe neighborhoods and attend high-performing schools. Others grow up in trailers or project housing. It’s not easy for either group, but even the kids who grow up in trailers can achieve their view of greatness.

Many Americans who come from humble beginnings dream of buying a house in a safe neighborhood with a good school for their kids, and they achieve their dream. They can heat the home and put food on the table. Some realize far beyond their expectations. Even refugee immigrants can start their own companies and become billionaires.

Your societal class at birth does not decide your endpoint. Even self-educated Americans can hold our highest office. Consider President Lincoln, the epitome of the self-made leader. With little formal education, he ascended to the highest office, a testament to the unyielding power of self-belief and perseverance.

“I happen, temporarily, to occupy this big White House,” Lincoln told the 166th Ohio Regiment in the summer of 1864. “I am a living witness that any one of your children may look to come here as my father’s child has.” *Taken from Excerpt from Soul of America, by Jon Meacham

Changing your social class in America is difficult, but it is possible.

These stories of aspiration and success against all odds inspire us. They should also prompt us to action. To uphold equality, we must work tirelessly to dismantle structural barriers. We must invest in policies that level the playing field:

* Improving educational opportunities.

* Making college education more affordable.

* Reforming the criminal justice system.

* Ensuring equitable access to healthcare.

* Creating economic policies that uplift the impoverished.

We take pride in the fact that greatness can sprout from any circumstance in America. But it’s not enough to celebrate the exceptions. We must create a society where success is not an anomaly for the disadvantaged but a tangible possibility for all.

We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

These aren’t just words. They are the foundation of the nation:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

These immortal words from the Declaration of Independence aren’t a gift from the government. They are humanity’s inherent rights.

Life isn't within the power of government to bestow. Regardless of our spiritual convictions or the absence thereof, we stand united in the truth that life precedes the authority of man-made institutions.

Nor does liberty or the ability to pursue happiness come from a ruling body. These are not concessions handed to us; they are our birthrights. People create governments to secure these rights. The Constitution echoes this purpose in its preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Constitution is not a grantor of liberty but its guardian. We have the privilege to demonstrate personal liberty for the duration of our lives. Freedom of speech and expression. Freedom to worship in the manner we choose, even if we choose to reject religion. Freedom to vote for our elected representatives. Freedom to choose to serve the nation or not.

Our rights are not the offering of a government. Our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inherent to our human condition.

Our democracy. Not “democracy.”

It's pivotal to delineate our governmental structure: we don’t operate under a pure democracy. We are a democratic constitutional republic. As stated in our Constitution,

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union: a Republican Form of Government…

The distinction isn’t semantics.

Pure democracy can devolve into the tyranny of the majority. If we had a pure democracy, our rights would change with the changing political party in power. Our republic, with its representative democracy, defends against momentary passions, securing rights in the long term. For instance, consider the public debates and legislative battles over issues such as healthcare, immigration reform, or climate change. In a pure democracy, these decisions would be made directly by popular vote, marginalizing the voices of others. However, in our constitutional republic, we elect representatives to deliberate on our behalf. This system ensures we hear diverse voices, allowing minority groups and less-populated regions to influence national policies.

In times of intense polarization, as we’ve witnessed recently, our republican structure is tested but proves its resilience. It frustratingly encourages coalition-building and compromise, often requiring leaders to reach across the aisle to advance policies. It’s a living, breathing system that shapes our daily lives, protects our rights, and continues to adapt to the will and needs of the people, albeit not without challenges and debate.

This condition is not a recent phenomenon. Our founders knew this to be true. In the revered 1787 Federalist Paper No. 10, future President James Madison wrote of factions in America. These groups, ignited by their passions, had the potential to inflame societal division, especially if their objectives encroached upon the liberties of others.

Madison's words resonate with enduring truth:

Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires.

To extinguish liberty to quell factionalism would be as absurd as renouncing air to extinguish fire, disregarding that it’s also essential for life. Though it may fuel factions, liberty is the lifeblood of a vibrant, free society.

Liberty enables factions to survive. But removing liberty violates a self-evident right that is the basis for what it is to be American.

As a result, we face a perpetual challenge: liberty, the heart of the American ethos, creates the existence of factions. Factions, in turn, cause profound disagreement.

However, in our republic, liberty is sacred. It allows us the privilege of personal expression, the right to dissent, and the duty to respect divergent exercises of these same freedoms by others, however contentious they may be.

So we navigate the delicate balance, knowing that America relies on the liberty that empowers personal freedom while simultaneously creating division. This relationship demands our active engagement to respect and fight for the liberty of others, even when — especially when — they oppose our own views.

Liberty is the cloth of our republic. The intricate balance between personal liberty and national division creates a resilient, enduring, free society.

I believe in America. I can see a united America despite our current divisions. America isn’t just land or a collective of individuals. It’s an ideal that resonates through the ages—liberty, opportunity, resilience.

We share harsh truths. Though we fall short of the ideal, we press on. We drift apart and come together again because we all believe in the American ideal.

We are all created equal, and we can all become great.

We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We believe in our republican democracy.

May God bless the United States of America.

How will we unify America and achieve our grand vision?

It’s not enough to say why we believe in the American ideal. Though inspirational, it’s a broad brush vision that lacks decisive substance. A united America is only achievable when we set the cornerstones to support the structure.

We need a framework for the vision. To frame our discussion, let’s reconsider our American ‘why.’ Our vision is threefold:

We are all created equal, and we can all become great. We take pride in the fact that greatness can sprout from any circumstance in America. But it’s not enough to celebrate the exceptions. We must create a society where success is not an anomaly for the disadvantaged but a tangible possibility for all.

We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Our rights are not the offering of a government. Our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inherent to our human condition. We establish a government to secure these rights.

We believe in our constitutional republican democracy. Liberty is the cloth of our republic. The intricate balance between personal liberty and national division creates a resilient, enduring, free society. America relies on the individual liberty that empowers personal freedom, even while that individual liberty creates division. This relationship demands our active engagement to respect and fight for the liberty of others, even when — especially when — they oppose our views.

The unanswered question is: how? How will we unify ourselves and achieve our vision? We need to look at the commonality of our statements.

Individuals from all backgrounds must be able to achieve their view of the American dream. Individuals need to be able to demonstrate the personal liberty inherent to our human condition. Individuals elect representatives who, on their behalf, advocate for their interests at the local and national levels. We form a government to secure these rights.

If we form a government to secure our rights as individuals, we need to establish rules for individuals to achieve their goals. It’s not enough to develop rules that only support businesses. When our policies fail to work for everyone, it’s not enough to rely on other Americans for assistance. If Americans have to rely on the aid of others through social programs or other means, our efforts to help individuals failed.

When we unite to set the cornerstone with the premise that individuals must be able to succeed, we will achieve our vision. Not by focusing solely on businesses. Not by passing assistance from other taxpayers through the government.

How would we set the ground rules for both individuals and businesses to succeed? Likewise, what changes would we make with a standard that social programs represented a failure for individuals to advance?

To unify America, we must recognize that a pro-business approach isn’t inherently wrong. Nor is reducing poverty through social programs. Neither conservatives nor progressives who advocate for these approaches are out to destroy the nation.

First, a pro-business approach does benefit both business owners and workers. Business owners need the incentive to take personal risk and put in the effort to establish and maintain their business. America needs a strong business culture. Further, growing worker wages relies on increasing revenue. This culture benefits individuals who, for one reason or another, don’t have their own business. These individuals need jobs.

Conservatives are not out to destroy America.

Pitting business owners against workers divides us. We need policies that support individuals who own businesses while at the same time supporting individual workers.

Second, social programs do reduce poverty. A business-first approach doesn’t reduce poverty for all. We don’t all start from the same starting line; some have insurmountable disadvantages.

Progressives who advocate for these programs are not out to destroy America.

Both approaches focus on something other than the premise that individuals must succeed to achieve the American ideal. Rules that support businesses first fail to meet the needs of all workers. Likewise, rules that support individuals with additional benefits from taxpayer dollars fail to meet their needs.

Our ‘how’ to achieve our breathtaking vision of the American ideal is straightforward. Rather than focusing our efforts primarily on businesses or social programs, we must focus first on individuals.

If we are to achieve our grand vision by enabling success for individuals, what would we do to set the ground rules that allow individuals to provide for their own needs?

We could raise the minimum wage with constraints that support leveling the playing field for businesses in a way that also supports state’s rights. As a viable alternative to this approach, we could achieve a similar goal by incentivizing companies that pay higher wages with tax breaks that increase business revenue. And we could consider modifying the fiduciary responsibility of businesses to include the business, the shareholders, and the workers. Achieving this goal would additionally reduce the need for taxpayer-funded social programs.

We could improve the ability of young Americans to buy homes in safe neighborhoods. Young Americans need to be able to compete with those who are buying homes as investment properties. This approach sets young generations on solid financial footing early, promoting stability for individuals.

We could promote educational and job training programs achievable for all, even the 100 million working-class Americans who don’t graduate from college. We could enable those who do attend college to be able to pay for their own education.

We could support policing that focuses on serving individuals first, promoting dignity and respect for everyone regardless of race or background. We can do this while maintaining the integrity and dignity of our proud officers.

We must continue to support individuals expressing their right to demonstrate their liberty, such as the right to speak freely or bear arms for protection. We must solidify the right of every American of sound mind to make their own healthcare decisions.

How will we unify America and achieve our grand vision?

Our ‘why’ is threefold: We are all created equal, and we can all become great. We all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We believe in our constitutional republican democracy.

To achieve this vision and unify America, we must focus on the foundational bedrock of the nation: the individual.

May God bless the United States of America.

If we’re serious about reducing carbon emissions, we need to address a significant source of emissions: wildfires.

What do we think causes more carbon emissions, thinning trees from the wilderness landscape or letting them burn?

Wilderness fires release significant carbon emissions. Scientists at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), and the University of Chicago analyzed greenhouse gas emissions from just California wildfires in 2020. They found California's wildfires that year ranked as the state's second-leading source of carbon emissions, thereby counteracting the progress made by decreases in emissions from other sectors.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Forest Service states that “overgrown forests, a warming climate, and a growing number of homes in the wildland-urban interface” increase wildfire risk. The National Forest System (NFS) estimates between 5 million and 11 million acres need immediate attention across the western United States. Many other agencies and groups share a stake in the wildland fire mitigation strategy, such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, The Nature Conservancy, the Intertribal Timber Council, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of Land Management.

Of the nearly 13 million acres across ten forest landscapes identified in the Wildfire Crisis Strategy, NFS plans to treat around 1.3 million acres through 2026. After 2026, there has yet to be a currently identified plan for treatment. Future administrations will have to consider funding for the remaining treatment needs. The NFS plan states, “In coordination with other Federal agencies, Tribes, States, and other landowners, the goal remains to treat 20–40 percent of these landscapes.” The plan further states, “the Forest Service and our partners are still well short of the resources necessary to complete the work called for in the Wildfire Crisis Strategy.”

As a nation, we must consider at least three questions regarding the mitigation of wildfires and reduced carbon emissions.

* Are we committed to reducing carbon emissions?

Wildfires counteract the progress made by decreases in emissions from other sectors. In other words, if we take steps that we think will cut emissions, such as incentivizing electric vehicles and other measures, but fail to mitigate the impact of wildfires, what do we accomplish?

Suppose we decide we are committed to reducing carbon emissions. Does it logically follow that we would apply social and legislative pressure to support activities such as mechanical thinning and logging of forests? Consider Bureau of Land Management activities. A Google search for “BLM logging” yields several returns similar to:

A legal challenge to the commercial logging of…has prompted the U.S. Bureau of Land Management to delay two timber sales there and to put off related fuels-reduction work aimed at reducing fire danger…. - Shaun Hall, Rogue Valley Times, June 7, 2023

Environmental groups aiming to protect the environment and threatened species, such as the spotted owl, are inadvertently increasing carbon emissions by taking legal action against federal agencies responsible for forest treatment. This legal action delays forest fuel reduction efforts, leading to more intense wildfires when that fuel ignites.

There is no easy solution. The wilderness firefighters have a valid perspective, and so do the environmental groups. As a result, the question “Are we committed to reducing carbon emissions?” doesn’t have a simple answer. If the answer is ‘yes,’ we need to increase thinning of national forests. This answer would mean accepting some damage to soil and habitat.

* If we are committed to reducing carbon emissions, would we justify using taxpayer dollars to reduce the emissions that result from wildfires?

Old-growth forests have the most valuable trees, both from a wood product standpoint and a carbon reduction standpoint. Removing the financial incentive for logging companies to take the most valuable trees off the landscape could necessitate taxpayer dollars to incentivize the companies to perform mechanical thinning. Mechanical thinning removes small trees, deadfall, and other smaller objects, but it is not profitable.

Logging makes money. Mechanical thinning costs money.

Suppose we restrict logging companies’ financial incentives by barring the take of the most valuable wood, and we still want to reduce forest fuel to mitigate the impact of wildfires. In that case, we must pay for thinning with taxpayer dollars. As noted above, the Wildfire Crisis Strategy identifies that “the Forest Service and our partners are still well short of the resources necessary to complete the work called for in the Wildfire Crisis Strategy.”

When we commit to reducing the fuel load of our forests and perform the treatments, the results are long lasting. The fire risk could go down for decades, depending on fuel type.

* How will we pay for it?

Suppose we are committed to reducing carbon emissions, and we choose to primarily mechanically thin and not log wilderness areas (except in overgrown regions). How will we pay for the mechanical thinning and other necessary forest treatment?

The Wildfire Crisis Strategy states the forest areas in question would “receive an investment of $131 million in fiscal year 2022 from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.” This funding is well below the level necessary for treatment that would significantly mitigate the impact of wildfires.

In contrast, the federal budget directs orders of magnitude more funding to other climate and clean energy sources. The March 9, 2023 fact sheet providing details of the federal budget outlines:

The Budget provides $16.5 billion to support climate science and clean energy innovation, proposing $5.1 billion to fund a broad portfolio of research to improve understanding of our changing climate and inform adaptation and resilience measures across multiple agencies, including the Department of the Interior, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Commerce, National Science Foundation, and others.

Suppose we make substantial gains in reducing carbon emissions through changing energy production sources, improving heavy industry emissions, and streamlining transportation but fail to mitigate wildfires. In this scenario, we would make little progress towards reducing carbon emissions.

The reality of the situation is, of course, murkier than this analysis. Carbon emissions from wildfires are challenging to separate from emissions from other sources, as highlighted by UC-Irvine professor Steven Davis:

Analyzing the amount of carbon dioxide released during wildfires is difficult for Earth system scientists for a variety of reasons. Rugged, smoke-enshrouded terrain hampers satellite observations during a combustion event, and space-based measurements are not at a sufficiently fine resolution to reveal details of CO2 emissions. Models used to simulate fuel load, fuel consumption and fire efficiency work well under ordinary circumstances but are not robust enough to represent extreme wildfires, according to the researchers.

But no matter the view of this muddy situation, Dr. Davis also found wildfires are setting records for carbon emissions:

Steven Davis, UCI professor of Earth system science, led a study of carbon dioxide emissions from forest fires in recent decades. In a paper in the journal Science, he and his colleagues shared some shocking findings. “According to our measurements, boreal fires in 2021 shattered previous records. These fires are two decades of rapid warming and extreme drought in Northern Canada and Siberia coming to roost, and unfortunately even this new record may not stand for long,” he says.

To reduce carbon emissions, we must mitigate the impact of wildfires. If we don’t reduce the effects of wildfires, carbon emissions from wildfires overcome any gains we make in other carbon emission reduction areas.

To mitigate wildfires, we need to reduce the fuel load across our national forests and other timbered regions. This reduction will improve wilderness firefighters’ ability to contain wildfires.

To reduce the fuel load across our forests, we must thin our forested regions mechanically.

Mechanically thinning forested regions is not profitable. As a result, we will have to use taxpayer money. If we refuse to use taxpayer money, we could make the treatment of forested regions possible by approving logging.

We must move taxpayer funds for mechanically thinning forests from climate science or other experimental efforts to wildfire mitigation. While climate science is essential, we can’t ignore the immediate need to mitigate wildfire emissions.

May God bless the United States of America.

Thanks to Bill Casey, wilderness firefighting living legend, for his time and perspective out in the mountains! At 78, you’re an inspiration to us all for still carrying your heavy ruck.

Could we create a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program to incentivize builders to build small, affordable homes?

My grandfather and great-grandfather built my grandparents’ first house. It was a short distance down the lane from the ranch house. My grandparents were 18-year-old newlyweds; they would go on to be married until he passed away nearly 50 years later.

The house was two used chicken coops they pushed together. One chicken coop became a room for sleeping, the other for daily activities. It was cold in the winter and hot in the summer.

If you’ve never been inside a chicken coop, allow me to explain that they are not a structure you would want to live in. Chickens are not clean animals. They explore every inch of their nesting area, leaving droppings along the way. They are dirty and dusty. They bring in bugs of both the microscopic bacterial variety and the visible insect variety.

In short, you would prefer not to live in a used chicken coop. What’s more, in the 1940s, when my grandparents were married, there was no such thing as a pressure washer. Of course, they could scrub the floors, walls, and ceiling with soapy water. Maybe they had some money for paint, but if their first house was two chicken coops, they might not have had paint.

Even the ranch house itself wasn’t significant. It was a two-bedroom, one-bath house. My grandfather had a younger brother still living at home, along with my great-grandfather and great-grandmother. Given the choice to live in a two-bedroom house with your new spouse, brother, and parents, you might choose to live in a chicken coop house, too.

My grandparents went on to raise three children. He became the president of a small industrial manufacturing company, as well as a cattle rancher. She became a church pianist and organist. At different times, they owned two nice houses and had a hardworking, comfortable life.

But they started their lives together in a chicken coop house. That meant they didn’t have the burden of debt from renting an apartment while trying to save money to buy a home.

Small houses are a great way to build equity and save money to get a head start on financial security for the rest of your life. And America needs more of them.

Problem: The lack of small, affordable homes is both a market failure and a social issue that affects the well-being and financial health of young American generations.

Builders don’t make many ‘starter’ homes anymore. Factors such as land and material costs and regulatory fees encourage builders to build larger homes to recoup profits. Housing prices have grown four times faster than household income since 1960. The median cost for a house in 1960 was $11,900, while the median income in 1960 was $5,600. Those 1960s houses were smaller compared to today’s standards, but similar houses aren’t available anymore.

We need to incentivize builders to build small houses again--600 to 1000 square foot homes or condos with one or two bedrooms and one bath, a sitting room, and a kitchen. We don’t need to build these as investment properties; we need to develop them as homes that young Americans can buy for their first home. (And we need to give first-time homebuyers the one-time opportunity to buy a home at a 3% interest rate to put them on solid financial footing for the rest of their lives).

How are we going to do this? We need builders to compete. Competition drives innovation. Innovation drives change.

How would we create competition for home builders to build small homes?

Intent to achieve: America needs a healthy supply of move-in ready homes for first-time homebuyers that cost less than $150,000.

The median cost for a house in 1960 was $11,900, while the median income in 1960 was $5,600. So, the median cost for a home in the 1960s was approximately twice the median income. The median household income in 2022 was $74,580. $150,000 is twice the current median household income.

What’s our path? We need to create a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program for home builders to compete to drive innovation in the starter home market.

SBIR programs are federal government grant programs that encourage small businesses to compete to engage in research and development (R&D) with the intent of commercialization. SBIR is highly competitive and promotes firms to explore their technological potential. The programs provide the incentive to profit from innovation through commercialization. The SBIR model succeeds in several industries by offering grants or contracts to small businesses to carry out research and development with commercial potential. An SBIR program can kick off the competition by pushing the envelope. Continued SBIR programs keep driving innovation.

One approach won’t solve all housing problems. Systemic problems require systemic fixes. An SBIR program geared towards building small, affordable homes must be part of a significant push to improve innovative construction materials, energy-efficient designs, affordable building techniques, and modular or prefabricated homes. We must further partner with state and local governments to ensure supporting planning and administration, such as permitting and zoning, to achieve beneficial long-term results.

There’s already an existing SBIR grant program that could apply to building small, affordable homes in rural America. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) sponsors an SBIR grant program for Rural and Community Development. The Request for Applications (RFA), Topic 8.6, pg 19, identifies:

The objective of the Rural and Community Development topic area is to improve the quality of life in rural America by creating and commercializing technologies that address important economic and social development issues or challenges in rural America. Projects must explicitly discuss the specific rural problem or opportunity that will be examined and how the proposed science-based technology will successfully address the problem or opportunity.

The USDA RFA further states:

The applications need not be centered on agriculture but may be focused on any area that has the potential to provide significant benefit to rural Americans. USDA seeks a balanced portfolio that appropriately mixes high risk, high reward innovations with new applications of existing technologies.

USDA anticipates applications will be due next year by September 17, 2024.

USDA needs to expand its scope and earmark some of this SBIR money specifically for small, affordable homes in rural America.

What about urban areas? America could convert empty lots and warehouses, no-longer-used parking lots, and dilapidated housing into small, affordable housing. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development can lead the way.

Unfortunately, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development does not sponsor an SBIR program.

We need legislative action to establish an SBIR program that earmarks funds for small, affordable housing in urban areas under the US Department of Housing and Urban Development.

We must tailor the SBIR model to the construction industry. For instance, an SBIR Phase I award could fund the conceptualization of affordable small home designs, and Phase II could support the building of prototypes. We must reward the most innovative designs and the use of already available materials such as reclaimed shipping containers or other previously used materials.

We need federal, state, and local governments to be on board. We need officials to fast-track zoning and permitting.

We must implement rules to ensure these homes are sold to owner-occupiers, particularly first-time homebuyers, to prevent them from being snapped up by investors.

Could we create a Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program to incentivize builders to build small, affordable homes?

SBIR for small, affordable houses could be part of a systemic solution to the systemic problem of small, affordable housing that impacts the well-being and financial health of young American generations.

May God bless the United States of America.

How do Americans regard John Locke’s principle of self-ownership?

Across the political spectrum, Americans believe in an individual’s right to own themselves, their property, and the product of their labor. Conservatives might interpret self-ownership in terms of economic freedom and property rights. Progressives might focus more on personal liberties and rights in healthcare, reproductive rights, and freedom of expression. Libertarians might interpret self-ownership as the right to make decisions about one’s body, privacy, and personal life without coercion or control by the state.

Though we express this belief differently, we all believe in John Locke’s fundamental concepts of life, liberty, and property.

And we express this belief by voting.

Englishman John Locke (1632-1704) was a philosopher and physician. He is the original source of individualism and, therefore, American theory.

Locke penned his most influential works late in the 17th century. He wrote his seminal Two Treatises of Government (1689) while exiled in the Netherlands. Locke’s two treatises:

* Locke first refuted the concept of the divine right of kings.

* Locke then outlined modern representative democracy. He argued for social contract theory, positing that governments exist with the consent of the governed and must protect the natural rights of life, liberty, and property.

Locke’s influence extended beyond philosophy into political theory, education, and theology. His ideas on religious tolerance were particularly forward-thinking for his time, advocating for the separation of church and state.

Locke’s ideas became fundamental to the American Revolution and the creation of the United States Constitution.

Locke’s broad ideas are, in essence, an outline of the US Constitution. From Two Treatises of Government, they include:

* First, a foundation of natural rights, which Locke defined as life, liberty, and property. These ideas heavily influenced Thomas Jefferson when Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, where he famously wrote about “unalienable rights,” including “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”

* Second, our government exists as a social contract wherein the representatives serve with the consent of the governed. This concept underpins the Constitution’s provision for a government that derives its power from the consent of the governed.

* Third, we prevent institutional tyranny through the separation of powers. Our Constitution structure includes a system of checks and balances among the government's legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

The structure of our republican representative democracy, which flows from our Constitution’s structure, flows from Locke’s theories.

Servants of the nation swear allegiance to our Constitution. Because Locke’s theories outline our Constitution, national servants (elected officials), intentionally or not, believe in John Locke’s ideas: natural rights, representatives serving their constituents, and preventing institutional tyranny.

If we as a nation structure our society based on Locke’s theories, do we support Locke’s theory of property as a natural right? Jefferson changed it in the Declaration of Independence to the pursuit of happiness. Jefferson broadened the scope of natural rights to a more holistic view of what it means to live a free and fulfilling life. By the time of the American Revolution, thinkers like Jefferson interpreted enlightenment ideas to emphasize not just material wealth and property but broader human well-being and fulfillment concepts. “The pursuit of happiness” reflects this more comprehensive enlightenment thought, focusing on individual fulfillment in a more holistic sense.

In contrast, Locke’s original premise was that everyone owned property. He argued that property is a natural right stemming from an individual’s right to own themselves and the product of their labor. According to Locke, people own themselves, and when a person works on something from nature, their labor is mixed with the resource, making it their property. Following this line of reasoning, since we possess ownership over ourselves, we inherently direct the autonomy of our bodies and maintain the right to make choices that serve our interests.

The government cannot grant natural rights; natural rights are inherent in the state of nature. The transition from natural rights to civil society, as Locke posits, involves individuals consenting to form a government. Citizens consent to governance with the understanding that the government’s primary role is protecting these natural rights.

Locke’s philosophy transforms at the transition point of joining natural rights and civil society. His principles become not just about individual rights in isolation but about how these rights are essential in the formation and functioning of a modern democratic society. This broader context is crucial in understanding Locke’s enduring influence on American political thought.

Because Jefferson changed the term “property” to “pursuit of happiness,” do Americans believe, like Locke did, that we own ourselves?

Yes. Americans believe in an individual’s right to self-ownership.

Conservatives might interpret self-ownership in terms of economic freedom and property rights. They emphasize the importance of individual responsibility and the freedom to pursue financial success without excessive government intervention.

Progressives might focus more on personal liberties and rights in healthcare, reproductive rights, and freedom of expression. They often advocate for a role of government ensuring individuals have the resources and opportunities to exercise their rights fully, viewing self-ownership as a matter of property and economic freedom but also of personal autonomy and social justice.

Libertarians stress the importance of individual autonomy in all aspects of life, advocating for minimal government intervention. They might interpret self-ownership as the right to make decisions about one’s body, privacy, and personal life without coercion or control by the state.

In sum, Americans believe in an individual’s right to self-ownership.

No matter the group you associate with (if any), the logic is that if we don’t own ourselves, we are not free to pursue our life goals, find happiness, and seek personal fulfillment. In American culture and legal understanding, this concept has evolved to include various aspects of personal autonomy, such as freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, and the right to privacy. We see these rights as integral to an individual’s ability to pursue their version of happiness.

Further, American voters believe in an individual’s right to self-ownership. Right now, American voters are expressing this belief by voting for other Americans to have the right to make their own healthcare decisions. John Locke’s theory of self-ownership, 319 years after his death, keeps winning elections. 

Conservatives, progressives, and libertarians alike believe in Locke’s theory. And why shouldn’t we? Locke’s ideas formed our national system. Though the Constitution framers didn’t adopt the language verbatim, we believe in natural rights, the social contract that exists between our representatives and the consent of the governed, and keeping in check the tyranny of the institution just in case the institution tries to tell us we can’t make decisions in line with our natural rights.

How do Americans regard John Locke’s principle of self-ownership?

Across the political spectrum, Americans believe in an individual’s right to own themselves.

The diverse interpretations of self-ownership across the political spectrum — from conservative to progressive and libertarian—highlight this concept’s dynamic nature in shaping American policy and law. Locke’s self-ownership principle will likely continue playing a critical role in American political discourse.

Further, we don’t just say we believe in Locke’s principle. American voters believe in an individual’s right to self-ownership and, by extension, the right to make their own healthcare decisions in line with this natural right.

May God bless the United States of America.

Collectivism is a social and political philosophy that emphasizes the importance of the common good — what’s best for society.

If collectivism sounds good, why did American founders reject it?

Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778), writing a century after John Locke, is the foundational Western philosopher of collectivism. Rousseau starkly contrasted John Locke’s individualism (see John Locke: Ownership of Self, from last week).

While both critiqued the absolute authority of monarchs, Rousseau, in his 1762 The Social Contract, introduced the general will, which posited the community and not the individual was the basis of political legitimacy.

Rousseau’s main points: 

* General Will: Rousseau’s concept of the general will is central to his philosophy. Rousseau theorized that legitimate political authority doesn’t come from individual consent but from the “general will” of the people. Rousseau theorized the general will is about the common good – what’s best for society. 

* Social Contract Theory: Rousseau’s social contract theory differs from Locke’s in its orientation to an individual’s relationship with the state. Rousseau saw the social contract as an agreement between individuals to form a collective body, after which individuals surrender their rights to the general will for the common good. In contrast, Locke’s social contract represents individuals agreeing to form a government that protects their natural rights (life, liberty, and property, which Thomas Jefferson expanded to the pursuit of happiness). 

* Freedom and Autonomy: Rousseau saw true freedom as adherence to the general will. In Rousseau’s view, when one aligns with the general will, one is not being coerced but is instead participating in self-legislation.

* Natural Human Goodness and Corruption by Society: Rousseau posited that humans are naturally good, and society’s structures corrupt this innate goodness. 

John Locke’s ideas, not Rousseau’s, outline our US Constitution. But even though we didn’t structure our Constitution using Rousseau’s ideas, America hasn’t ever been able to wholly refute them either. On the surface, Rousseau’s argument seems beneficial. We might hear it described by some with a positive spin as “a rising tide lifts all boats.” It implies that policies or actions that help the greater good will benefit everyone, not just a specific group. Sometimes this is true. 

If collectivism sounds good, why did American founders reject it?

A key point of divergence is the term “general will.” Rousseau argued that the general will of the people, as opposed to the sum of individual wills, represents the true interest of the community.

James Madison and many founders of America wholly disagreed. They feared collectivism could suppress individual rights and lead to a tyranny of the majority.

Madison, writing Federalist No. 10, urged protecting the individual from the collective. He used the term majority twelve times in the short essay. He outlined that dividing power between groups protects the rights of individuals from the majority or general will of the people. This division of power included checks and balances at the federal level, power divided between states and the federal government, and a representative form of government rather than a direct democracy. 

In sum, Rousseau’s concept of the general will represents the common good – what’s best for society. While this sounds good, this same concept can potentially oppress the individual. 

Though American founders didn’t agree with Rousseau’s views as he wrote them, we should consider a couple of points about collectivism.

First, Rousseau’s theory that the general will is about the common good — what’s best for society — is sound when we acknowledge that the common good is preserving our rights as individuals. 

Sometimes, Americans try to take a collectivist approach and strip rights away from other Americans, such as the right to demonstrate free speech by some who would wear different clothes or read different books than others. Eventually, this gets resolved. Issues often get resolved in favor of the individual rather than the majority (represented by the government.) This process is not straightforward or swift. For example, the history of civil rights in the United States illustrates that protecting individual rights for marginalized groups requires prolonged legal and social struggles.

The crux of the matter regarding Rousseau’s general will begs the question—who decides what’s best for society? 

When we give the majority, represented by the government, the power to strip rights away from some individuals, we give the majority the ability to strip rights away from us all. When we fight for the rights of other Americans to maintain their right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, including the right to make decisions that support those rights, we retain our own rights. 

Second, individualism fails when individuals collectively fail. When individualism fails, society calls for collectivism.

This dilemma is the strongest argument in support of Rousseau’s theories. For instance, a US Federal Reserve study from 2018 titled, Are Millennials Different?, found young American generations have lower average earnings, fewer assets, and a different financial landscape compared to what previous generations experienced at similar stages in their lives.

These conditions faced by young American generations have individualists and collectivists posing solutions. A Roosevelt Institute position paper from 2015 titled Rewriting the Rules of the American Economy outlines various approaches to redirect the American economy. The paper includes ideas such as strengthening unions, raising the minimum wage, and awarding government contracts only to corporations that meet high labor standards. 

While some might disagree with the proposals, these are individualist ideas. They are not collectivist policies. Individuals need to be able to succeed economically. We must pay workers high enough wages so they can provide for their own needs from the effort of their work. This premise supports individualism. If we can’t set conditions enabling individuals who go to work every day to have heat in the house and food on the table, the call for collectivist approaches will get louder. Collectivist approaches might be Universal Basic Income and more debt transfer from Americans into the federal deficit.

We don’t need to agree with all of the Roosevelt Institute’s ideas to recognize that the call for solutions results from real economic challenges.

Conservatives and progressives alike can build consensus around raising American workers’ wages. Improving the ability of individual Americans to provide for themselves strengthens our individualism society. Higher wages for workers reduce the need for social programs. Higher wages preserve American’s ability to demonstrate their rights to liberty.

Suppose we are going to set conditions that enable Americans to provide for their own basic needs, help individual self-motivated Americans to be great no matter their upbringing, and reduce the social program taxation burden on the American taxpayer. In that case, we must enable individual Americans to succeed economically.

If collectivism sounds good, why did American founders reject it?

Because collectivism can suppress individual rights and lead to the tyranny of the majority.

If we want to maintain the individualism that is the foundation of America, we need to enable individuals to succeed.

May God bless the United States of America.

Because Americans, like twelve black men in Arkansas in 1919, endured hardship, and individuals like President and Chief Justice Taft dedicated themselves to the constitutional rights of all Americans, more Americans today have the opportunity to be great.

We must dare to be great, and we must realize that greatness is the fruit of toil and sacrifice and high courage. — William H. Taft

Elaine, Arkansas, 1919. Black American sharecropper farmers were unsatisfied with the cotton crop payments they received from plantation owners who monopolized local agriculture during the Jim Crow era. The farmers met at a local church with the Progressive Farmers and Household Union of America to consider joining to seek higher revenues. 

Union organizers arranged for armed individuals to surround the church and protect the farmers during the meeting. The individual who fired the first shot is unknown. A white security officer from the Missouri-Pacific railroad died in the encounter, and a white deputy sheriff was wounded. 

The following day, the local Phillips County, Arkansas, sheriff organized a posse to round up the black individuals. The posse turned into an armed mob of “500 to 1,000” white individuals, both locals and individuals from surrounding states. The mob took matters into their own hands, indiscriminately killing their black neighbors. The Governor of Arkansas requested support from the then Department of War (now Department of Defense), who sent 500 troops to restore order.

In restoring order, the troops locked local black residents in enclosures until their white neighbors vouched for them. 

The event became known as the Elaine Massacre. Five white individuals died. The official death tally of black Americans by the sheriff was 26. Historian Griffin Stockley estimated the black American death toll between 100 and 200. In On the Laps of Gods: The Red Summer of 1919 and the Struggle for Justice That Remade a Nation, Robert Whitaker estimated the number of black Americans who died at 856. 

The sheriff brought charges against twelve black men for the deaths of the five white individuals. A mob surrounded the courthouse during the trial, shouting that if the judge didn’t sentence the men to death, they would lynch them. After deliberating for less than ten minutes per man, the jury found them guilty; Judge J. M. Jackson sentenced them to death.

The ongoing legal battles lasted several years. Among other procedural shortfalls, the state had denied the twelve men access to defense lawyers. No matter, the US Supreme Court and different lower courts denied their appeals on multiple occasions. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) lawyers finally won an appeal, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. 

After serving as President of the United States, William H. Taft was appointed Chief Justice of the Supreme Court by President Warren G. Harding. Taft oversaw the Moore v. Dempsey (1923) case involving the twelve black men. The lawyers of the twelve argued the state had denied the plaintiffs due process and the appeals failed to correct the deficiencies of the initial trial. 

In the unanimous decision, the justices ruled federal courts had the authority to review state court decisions if the state denied defendants a fair trial. The justices further found the state refused the twelve individuals their Constitutional rights. This ruling now helps protect individual rights against mob justice and racial prejudice​​.

The twelve won their Supreme Court case, but the state case wasn’t over. The high court ordered a retrial. Instead, the Arkansas governor commuted their sentences, and Arkansas released the twelve men on parole. 

President and US Supreme Court Chief Justice Taft’s quote again - “We must dare to be great, and we must realize that greatness is the fruit of toil and sacrifice and high courage.”

We should piece this statement apart.

We must dare to be great…

As a legal scholar and dedicated national servant, William H. Taft chose words with intention. His background in law and governance influenced his precise and deliberate use of language. His use of the term “must” suggests a sense of obligation or imperative. This word reflects Taft’s understanding of leadership and public service responsibilities, implying that striving for greatness is necessary for society and one’s purpose.

Greatness is the fruit of toil and sacrifice…

High levels of success are not the result of luck or talent. Success is the outcome of persistent effort and the endurance of hardship and failure.

Taft’s perspective underscores the value of commitment and perseverance in pursuing ambitious goals.

And high courage.

Taft’s views of race were complex and racially biased. In 1906, he supported Jim Crow laws and expressed beliefs that African Americans were not ready to use the vote effectively. He described black Americans as “not having the mental stature of manhood.” 

Despite his racial views, Taft as Chief Justice believed all Americans had constitutional rights. Many Americans at the time, who accepted that black Americans couldn’t eat in the same restaurant, use the same water fountains, and use the same bathrooms, disagreed.

Taft and the Supreme Court justices of his court demonstrated courage to set the legal precedent that, despite their distaste, black Americans had the same constitutional rights as white Americans.

It was not courageous of Taft to think lowly of black Americans. That was cowardice.

It was courageous of Taft’s court to accept their views of race were wrong, and demonstrate the fortitude to transcend personal biases to uphold broader principles of liberty and equality.

We won’t all achieve society’s view of greatness. We don’t all start from the same starting line. The fastest, strongest, or smartest don’t always win the race. Time and chance happen to everyone. Some choose not even to compete.

Some are unwilling or unable to make the effort or sacrifice. A sick child or sick parent might be a higher priority.

Some willing to make the effort might face nearly unsurmountable challenges because of their circumstances. Growing up in poverty presents challenges most don’t overcome. 

However, individual Americans decide their potential in life, not by choosing where to end up but by choosing when to quit. This decision is not due to the status of your birth. And even if we don’t achieve society’s view of greatness, we can be great for our communities and those we love around us. We can be great by choosing to help others.

Because Americans, like twelve black men in Arkansas in 1919, endured hardship, and individuals like President and Chief Justice Taft dedicated themselves to the constitutional rights of all Americans, more Americans today have the opportunity to be great.

May God bless the United States of America.

Americans believe in free speech. We share a social contract that assures every individual the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What happens when these cherished principles intersect with the realities of corporate responsibility and societal norms?

Should Americans boycott companies that enable the distribution of offensive speech?

How should companies that champion First Amendment rights above all else position themselves?

The 21st Century is one of “Managing for Stakeholders.” The task of executives is to create as much value as possible for stakeholders without resorting to tradeoffs. Great companies endure because they manage to get stakeholder interests aligned in the same direction. — R. Edward Freeman

Americans have the right to boycott companies for any reason of their choosing. These reasons might include political donations, treatment of employees, stances on social issues, and other policy positions.

R. Edward Freeman, Ph.D., American philosopher and Elis and Signe Olsson Professor of Business Administration at the University of Virginia Darden School of Business, pioneered modern Stakeholder Theory in Business. Stakeholder Theory has profoundly impacted business ethics and corporate social responsibility practices.

Stakeholder Theory posits that a firm should “create value for all stakeholders, not just shareholders.” These stakeholders include employees, customers, the broader community, and shareholders. In A Stakeholder Approach to Strategic Management, Freeman and John McVea outline decisive factors businesses must consider, including integrating stakeholder equity into the firm’s purpose to achieve survival. Towards this aim, business executives must establish and share their firm’s core values and invest in the relationships that will ensure long-term success for their organization.

Imagine a social media company facing backlash for allowing offensive speech on its platform. Applying Stakeholder Theory, the company's executives would need to evaluate how this speech impacts all stakeholders. For employees, it could create a hostile work environment; for users, it might foster an unsafe online community; for advertisers, it could associate their brands with harmful content, and for shareholders, it might lead to financial losses due to consumer boycotts.

You can watch Dr. Freeman’s entertaining TedX Charlotte presentation, “Business is about Purpose,” here.

Thomas Donaldson and Thomas Dunfee, in their work Ties That Bind: A Social Contracts Approach to Business Ethics, considered social contract theory for economics. The book’s introductory analogy is a handshake between business partners, symbolizing a contract. Donaldson and Dunfee identify fairness, respect for others, and integrity as fundamental business principles. They further identify challenges, such as cultural differences, that lead to varied business expectations. 

The social contract is an intriguing construct, especially in the context of business and consumer relations. This theory posits that just as citizens can hold their government accountable in a social contract, consumers have a parallel right to hold businesses accountable. When businesses fail to uphold ethical standards or societal values, consumers can perceive this as a breach of the implicit social contract.

In short, businesses must balance the interests of all stakeholders, and stakeholders (like consumers) have the right to hold companies accountable when they fail to do so.

For example, when a company engages in practices that are harmful to the environment, consumers may respond with boycotts. Donaldson and Dundee use Shell Oil as a case study in their book. This action is not merely a market choice; it's a form of holding the company accountable for violating the implied ethical agreement that it would operate in line with the American social contract.

This business-consumer social contract might seem at odds with other strong American views. The social contract of America, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence, assures every individual the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Embedded within this concept of liberty is our cherished freedom of speech. This poses a challenging question: How do we reconcile a business’s responsibility to its stakeholders with the protection of free speech, particularly when the speech is objectionable?

Freedom of speech is part of the national consciousness and legally protected by the First Amendment. This freedom is championed by media companies as a fundamental right that allows for the free exchange of ideas, opinions, and information.

Our first question. Should Americans boycott companies that enable the distribution of offensive speech?

Freedom of speech represents protection from the government. Freedom of speech is not protection from consequences and judgement from fellow citizens. Further, Americans sometimes cross a line of acceptable speech. We might call this speech objectionable, or hate speech at its extreme. Hate speech has no clear definition across America.

When Americans cross this line, our national social contract comes into play. If media platforms fail to consider their consumers and allow what many consider is hate speech on their platform, consumers vote with their dollar and leave. If media platforms fail to consider their fellow corporations who pay them for advertising space, those corporations might judge the media company is untrustworthy and pull advertising dollars.

In this context free speech is a philosophical issue as much as a legal one.

If free speech is a philosophical issue in the realm of a social contract wherein consumers have the right to hold companies accountable for a failure to maintain civil discourse, Americans could boycott companies that enable the distribution of offensive speech.

However, Americans also have a responsibility to respect the rights of others. The intricate balance between personal liberty and national division creates a resilient, enduring, free society. America relies on the individual liberty that empowers personal freedom, even while individual liberty creates division. This relationship demands we respect and fight for the liberty of others, even when they oppose our views.

Where’s the line between our right to boycott speech we don’t agree with and our responsibility to respect the rights of others?

Speech that calls for violence against others clearly violates the social contract as this speech disregards the lives and liberty of others. To uphold this social contract Americans should work to influence social media platforms to ban groups that have demonstrated a history of violence. We must take all calls for violence as a legitimate threat to others. Likewise, words enabling other criminal acts, such as human trafficking, pedophilia and other heinous activities, must be eliminated. These activities are threats to the lives and liberty of others, and those who support or enable this speech violate the American social contract.

However, when individuals or groups use social media platforms for offensive language that doesn’t call for violence and the group has no history of violence, we must tolerate their behavior. Using offensive language doesn’t violate anyone else’s rights. Those who would be offended can demonstrate their right to speech by responding, or they can demonstrate their right to refuse to learn from viewpoints with which they don’t agree and direct their attention elsewhere. Those who support the safe but objectionable views of others support the American social contract.

The American social contract extends to private companies. Businesses must balance the interests of all stakeholders, and stakeholders (like consumers) have the right to hold companies accountable when they fail to do so.

Our second question. How should companies that champion First Amendment rights above all else position themselves?

Let’s consider Dr. Freeman’s Stakeholder Theory again. Companies need to integrate stakeholder equity into the firm’s purpose to achieve survival. Freeman identifies many stakeholders, including customers, government, shareholders, owners, employees, and others. Social media platforms that seek to integrate stakeholder equity across this diverse group should take the American social contract into account—every individual has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Media companies themselves only offer a platform. They are not the source of offensive speech. Social media companies that fail to ban threats to life and liberty are perceived to break our social contract and have no protection from individual Americans who could choose to boycott their brand. However, lacking calls for violence or a history of violence, social media platforms that enable free speech support our social contract.

Media companies should build equity among stakeholders by enabling individuals the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. When speech calls for violence, or the group has demonstrated a history of violence, platforms must block these groups. If they fail to do so, consumers will boycott their brand. For anyone claiming a loss of First Amendment rights for these groups, consider—these groups could create their own platforms. Existing media platforms don’t owe anyone the right to post anything of their choosing.

However, if a social media platform fashions itself a defendant of free speech, speech that doesn’t call for violence must be tolerated. Some of the users will be criticized as “snowflakes, elitists, woke, misogynists, trolls, or fascists,” among other names. There will be calls from both sides to deplatform the other.

Though the two sides might fail to admit their commonality, they both share a belief that their freedom of speech is part of the American social contract. Removing one group’s ability to speak freely threatens a loss of free speech for us all.

Americans believe in free speech. We share a social contract of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Should Americans boycott companies that enable the distribution of offensive speech?

Speech that calls for violence against others clearly violates our social contract. Americans should work to influence social media platforms to ban groups that have demonstrated a history of violence.

When individuals or groups use social media platforms for offensive language that doesn’t call for violence, we have a responsibility to tolerate their behavior.

How should companies that champion First Amendment rights above all else position themselves?

Social media platforms that seek to integrate stakeholder equity should take the American social contract into account—every individual has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Freedom of speech is part of our national social contract.

When speech doesn’t threaten the lives and liberty of others, removing one group’s ability to speak freely threatens a loss of free speech for us all.

May God bless the United States of America.

Can we send the US military to secure the southern border?

First, some background.

March 26, 1790. President George Washington (no party affiliation) signed the Naturalization Act into law. This law laid the groundwork for future US citizenship and immigration laws and reflected the racial and social biases of the time. It excluded Native Americans, indentured servants, enslaved people, free black residents, and Asians from eligibility for naturalization.

March 3, 1875. President Ulysses S. Grant (R) signed the Page Act. The Page Act represented the first ban on immigration into the US. The Page Act banned immigration for three groups: forced labor, felons, and Chinese women due to stereotypes of immorality.

May 6, 1882. President Chester Arthur (R) signed the Chinese Exclusion Act. This law was the first significant law implementing immigration restrictions based on nationality and race in the United States. Though the Page Act banned Chinese women, the Chinese Exclusion Act banned all Chinese laborers for ten years. Congress extended the ban until 1943. 

* A note from the National Archives: “In 2011-2012, Congress condemned the Chinese Exclusion Act and affirmed a commitment to preserve civil rights and constitutional protections for all people: the Senate unanimously passed Senate Resolution 201 in 2011; and the House of Representatives unanimously passed House Resolution 683 in 2012.”

El Paso, Texas. 1904. The first national border patrol agents, a small group of horse-mounted officials called Mounted Guards or Chinese Immigration Agents, began patrolling the US-Mexico border from El Paso to California. The US Border Patrol was born, though not established formally.

January 16, 1919. Nebraska became the 36th state to ratify the 18th Amendment to the US Constitution, banning the production, transport, and sale of alcohol nationwide. Americans refused to comply with the restrictions. As Mexico had no limitations on alcohol, alcohol and drug smuggling dramatically increased from Mexico into Texas.

May 24, 1924. President Calvin Coolidge (R) signed the Immigration Act, also known as the Johnson-Reed Act. The Immigration Act significantly restricted all immigration into the United States. This law established national origin quotas, drastically reducing immigration from Eastern and Southern Europe and virtually excluding immigrants from Asia. The quotas were based on a percentage of each nationality’s population in the US as of the 1890 census and favored immigrants from Western and Northern European countries.

May 28, 1924. President Coolidge signed the Labor Appropriation Act of 1924. This law formally established the US Border Patrol in response to the need for more rigorous control and monitoring of US borders in light of the stricter immigration policies outlined in the Immigration Act.

August 4, 1942. US and Mexican representatives signed a bilateral agreement to create the Bracero Program. In response to labor shortages during World War II, the two countries agreed to temporarily import Mexican agricultural laborers (braceros) into the US for work in agriculture and railroad maintenance. On July 13, 1951, President Truman (D) signed Public Law 78, formalizing and extending the Bracero Program. Public Law 78 governed Mexican laborers’ transportation, housing, and working conditions, aiming to regulate and protect the workers involved in the program. The Bracero Program ended in 1964.

October 3, 1965. President Lyndon B. Johnson (D) signed the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965. It aimed to allow “those who can contribute most to this country – to its growth, to its strength, to its spirit” to enter the nation. The act abolished the national origins quota system and focused on reuniting immigrant families and attracting skilled labor to the United States. This law led to major demographic shifts in US immigration.

November 6, 1986. President Ronald Reagan (R) signed the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. This law offered legalization to millions of undocumented immigrants while also implementing measures to strengthen border security and imposing sanctions on employers who hired undocumented workers.

November 25, 2002. President George W. Bush (R) signed the Homeland Security Act of 2002. This law established the Department of Homeland Security. It reorganized various federal agencies to better coordinate efforts for national security and emergency response, especially in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The act significantly impacted US immigration and border security policies.

Some keynotes to summarize the above.

Over time, the nation’s immigration policies have trended towards the equal treatment of all attempting to immigrate. The US has not opened its borders to all, but immigration has changed from a skin color-based system to a system intended to attract skilled labor.

Conservatives and progressives alike have offered immigrants the opportunity to move to or stay in America.

There’s another trend in the history. No Congress or President has supported open borders.

Only President Reagan (R) and the 99th Congress of 1986 offered legalization to undocumented immigrants who entered the country illegally. Of that event, Wyoming Senator Alan K. Simpson (R) noted that President Reagan “knew that it was not right for people to be abused,” and “anybody who’s here illegally is going to be abused in some way, either financially [or] physically. They have no rights.”

Presidents and Congress support legal immigration. Over time, immigration has trended towards a merit-based system wherein the nation accepts skilled labor over others. This approach aims to attract individuals who can contribute to the economy and society, aligning immigration policy with national economic and workforce needs. Both legislative actions and executive policies have increasingly emphasized skills, qualifications, and economic contributions as crucial factors in the immigration process.

No President or Congress has supported open borders because undocumented immigration leads to abuse of immigrants and strains community resources, including healthcare, education, and law enforcement. Though undocumented immigrants often take low-wage jobs, contributing to sectors like agriculture and construction, and do pay taxes, the immigrants are not able to benefit from their tax contributions. Illegal immigrants pay sales and property taxes (directly or indirectly through rent). Additionally, many contribute to Social Security through payroll taxes but cannot draw Social Security.

The most significant limitation for undocumented immigrants is that, though they do pay taxes, public resources such as hospitals and government agencies can’t plan and allocate resources due to the undocumented population’s uncertain status and number.

Demand for border crossing and transporting illicit goods into the US, transiting land, air, and sea, is strong. On MeatEater, Inc. podcast Episode 391: Border Patrol, Steve Rinella and crew hosted US Border Patrol officials Richard J. Fortunato, Charles Trust II, and James Searl to discuss border security. They share a fascinating discussion of US Customs and Border Protection law enforcement activities and highlight that if the incentive to transport goods and people is high enough, smugglers will push the envelope to find ways to move goods.

Now to the crux of the matter. 

What are the most effective and humane strategies to solidify our borders against illegal entry?

First consideration: Send troops to the border for law enforcement

Many presidential candidates preach they will send troops to secure the border. With exceptions including border disputes such as during the 1846-1848 Mexican-American War, the 1835-1836 Texas Revolution, and the 1910-1920 Mexican Revolution, no sitting US president has deployed significant military forces to the border. 

And for good reason. Once we establish national borders, border security no longer represents a military conflict. It legally becomes a law enforcement activity, and US military forces have law enforcement limitations inside the United States. Four sections of US Code apply to military operations and the southern border.

The first significant limitation to military forces performing a law enforcement function inside the United States lies in US Code Title 18, Subsection 1385 - Use of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force as posse comitatus:

Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army, the Navy, the Marine Corps, the Air Force, or the Space Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.

Title 18 § 1385 first came into law as the Posse Comitatus Act. On June 18, 1878, President Rutherford B. Hayes (R) signed this act into law, prohibiting the use of military forces for law enforcement unless explicitly authorized by Congress. This act is now the cornerstone of utilizing military troops in domestic law enforcement activities on US soil.

The second area applicable to a president attempting to use military forces to support border law enforcement is US Code Title 10. US Code Title 10 governs the organization and conduct of military forces. This section of US law both indirectly and directly impacts border activities. 

Indirectly, Title 10 limits law enforcement activities by the military. It outlines that the military’s involvement in law enforcement is supportive and will not infringe on the responsibilities of civilian law enforcement agencies. Military forces may support civilian law enforcement but will not directly perform civilian law enforcement activities. Under Title 10, the military may provide logistical assistance, technical support, and surveillance.

Directly, Title 10 § 275 restricts direct participation by military personnel in law enforcement activities, such as search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activities, unless authorized by law. These are law enforcement activities and are not appropriate for military members. 

Title 10 places another direct limitation on a president who would send troops to the border. Military members serve in one of three components: the Active Duty component, the Reserves, and the National Guard. Active Duty and Reserves components operate under Title 10 authority for all activities. However, the National Guard may operate under Title 10 or Title 32. 

Under Title 10, National Guard members are federally funded and under federal command, typically for missions outside their home state or federal missions outside or inside the United States. In this status, they are subject to the president’s orders and integrated into the regular armed forces.

Under Title 32, National Guard members remain under the command of their state governor but can receive federal pay and benefits. This status is employed for domestic missions within the member’s home state, such as disaster response or civil disturbance control.

When a president activates a National Guard member for a federal mission, such as a wartime mission, that member falls under Title 10 authority. When a state governor directs a National Guard member for a state mission, the member falls under Title 32 authority. This distinction is important because, without Congressional authorization, a president cannot activate forces for a federal mission and then give those forces to a state governor for direction. If there is no federal wartime mission at the southern border, National Guard members supporting border operations fall under the command of the governor of those states, not the president. 

Our final US Code limitation on military members supporting border operations falls in US Code Title 50, Subsection 1809. US military forces are generally restricted from collecting intelligence against US citizens due to legal and constitutional protections. Provisions of Title 50 and the related Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act guide defense agencies in heavily scrutinizing intelligence collection against US citizens. Some foreign actors engage in illicit activities on the border, and some US citizens engage in illegal activities. Under certain conditions, such as drug trafficking, defense officials may permit intelligence collection against US persons. 

What are the most effective and humane strategies to solidify our borders against illegal entry?

We have a long history of attempting to navigate the complex issue of immigration and border security. President Washington signed a law guiding naturalization and immigration, and we are still dealing with the issue today.

Our first option to address security at the border, sending the US military to act against smugglers and illegal immigrants, doesn’t seem very tenable for both legal and practical reasons.

More options next week exploring technological, legal, and humanitarian strategies. I look forward to you joining me.

May God bless the United States of America.

Are the people crossing the southern border refugees? What can we do about that?

There’s some additional context we didn’t address last week. What’s the difference between an immigrant and a refugee, and why is the difference significant?

Immigrants choose to relocate to another country. They move voluntarily, seeking better living conditions, economic opportunities, and family reunification. Immediate threats to their safety do not drive their move. To achieve the ability to relocate, they apply for visas or residency permits. They must meet specific criteria the destination country sets, including financial stability, employment, family ties, or skills. Immigrants have no international legal protections.

Refugees flee their home country due to persecution, war, or violence. Escaping threats to their lives or freedom compels them to leave. International law protects refugees. This law obligates host countries to provide certain rights and not return them to a country where they face severe threats to their life or freedom. They receive assistance from governments, international organizations, and nonprofits in their resettlement process, including help with housing, language training, employment, and access to social services.

The United States Senate approved the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees with no senators objecting under Record Vote No: 317 on October 4, 1968. The United States declared two grievances when it ratified the treaty, one related to taxation of the refugees and the other associated with Social Security.

President Lyndon B. Johnson (D) ratified the treaty on November 1, 1968.

The 96th Congress passed the Refugee Act of 1980 to further codify our commitment to refugee law. President Jimmy Carter (D) signed the act into law on March 17, 1980. This law authorized the President, in consultation with Congress, to set an annual ceiling on the number of refugees admitted to the US. It further led to the creation of the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) within the US Department of Health and Human Services to oversee the implementation of refugee resettlement programs.

We have some illegal immigration at the southern border. But mostly, we have a refugee challenge.

Many individuals from Central and South America who come to the US border flee their countries due to violence, threats from gangs, political instability, or persecution. The US accepts some of these individuals as refugees. While many seek asylum, the US doesn’t grant all asylum seekers refugee status. The refugee determination process involves individual case assessments, and outcomes vary by individual. The number of refugees the US accepts per region per year changes with each presidential administration.

The United States committed to adhering to the laws and principles outlined in the agreement by agreeing to and ratifying the Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees. These principles are:

* Non-Refoulement: The US agreed to ensure that refugees are not expelled or returned to countries where they face threats to their lives or freedom because of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion.

* No Penalties for Illegal Entry: The US agreed not to penalize refugees for their illegal entry if they come directly from a territory where they faced threats to their lives or freedom and they present themselves without delay to the authorities.

* Access to Courts: The US agreed that refugees should have access to the courts on par with nationals.

* Right to Work: The US agreed that refugees have the right to work and to the same treatment as nationals regarding employment laws and conditions.

* Welfare Access: The US agreed refugees should have access to social welfare equivalent to that of nationals of the host country.

In sum, the immigrant and refugee difference presents a multifaceted issue. While there is illegal immigration, much of the border crisis involves refugees. These are people fleeing extreme violence, persecution, or political instability, primarily from Central and South America.

This complex mix of illegal immigration and legitimate refugee movement presents unique challenges. On one hand, there is a need for robust border security to manage unlawful entry. On the other, there is a US-ratified refugee treaty commitment that protects and provides assistance to those who qualify as refugees under international law.

We need a nuanced approach that goes beyond the black-and-white classification of migrants and illegal immigrants and recognizes the grey reality of individuals arriving at the border. In essence, our response at the border needs to balance enforcing immigration laws with our obligations towards those seeking refuge from life-threatening situations.

Another point to consider is the distribution of refugee resettlement across states. Let’s consider the period from 2011 to 2022. During this time, seven states consistently emerged as primary destinations for refugees. Some states, specifically Florida and Washington, were among the top destinations in less than half of these years. No other states appeared on the list.

Depicting the data on a map is enlightening. The map clearly shows this issue isn’t a blue-state or red-state issue. This is a geography issue.

Refugees enter the US and then settle in their state of arrival, which means border states have more refugees. It further highlights the southern border receives more refugees than the northern border. The darker colors on the map indicate more refugees made those states a place of permanent residence.

We need to take some of the refugee burden off US border states.

Further, when we reject refugees legally, they still come into the country. Illegal entry across borders increases, along with human trafficking and other illicit activity. According to the Cato Institute, the US Border Patrol “recorded 41 percent more successful illegal entries in fiscal year 2019 than in 2016 and was on pace for 47 percent more through four months of 2020.” These refugees still settled in the US but with unknown numbers and locations. Undocumented and uncertain numbers of individuals then challenge state and local governments by making it difficult to plan and provide necessary services for residents and refugees.

The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) leads refugee and immigration activities. Inside DHS, US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) leads the refugee admission process, including conducting interviews and determining refugee status. Other DHS agencies, including Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), play significant roles in managing border security and immigration enforcement.

Last week, we considered whether it was appropriate to send US military troops to the border for law enforcement. That option wasn’t tenable for both legal and practical reasons. However, there is no limitation on sending US forces to the border for humanitarian assistance.

Second consideration: Send troops to the border for humanitarian assistance

We need to increase DHS’s capacity to manage the refugee status at the southern border. We do need strong security measures against illegal entry. At the same time, we must provide humanitarian aid and support for refugees at the border, including healthcare, shelter, and legal assistance. Turning away all refugees only increases illegal entry. Instead, we need to make our process systematic and efficient.

We need to increase this capacity in a manner that takes some of the burden off US border states—processing refugees and allowing them to settle at a place of their choosing and with no assistance results in the majority of them settling in a border state. Additional states could help our border states rather than letting Texas, California, and New York absorb them all.

Though DHS leads refugee and immigration activities, the US military can provide nearly instant capability to address the issue. The military frequently engages in humanitarian and disaster relief operations domestically. This mission area in the Department of Defense is called Defense Support of Civil Authorities (DSCA). DSCA includes rescue operations, medical assistance, and logistical support. DSCA may further include disaster relief, emergency management, and other forms of assistance where the military’s capabilities are beneficial. The key aspect of DSCA is that it supports civilian authorities and the military acts in a supporting rather than a lead role.

Led by DHS, DoD could help establish semi-permanent refugee and immigration processing centers on the border, while also providing logistical assistance to refugees to take them beyond our US border states to settle.

This approach achieves several goals. It addresses immediate humanitarian needs and proposes a more equitable distribution of refugees nationwide. It alleviates the disproportionate impact on border states and contributes to a more systematic and efficient refugee processing system.

It encourages refugees and immigrants alike to attempt to enter the country legally. It dissuades human trafficking and other illicit entry into the country, giving unambiguous indications to law enforcement agents that other attempts to enter the nation are unlawful.

In sum, this approach aims to encourage legal entry, reduce illicit activities, and ease the operational load on border states, thereby addressing both humanitarian needs and border security concerns.

What are the most effective and humane strategies to solidify our borders against illegal entry?

Immigrants choose to relocate to another country. Refugees flee their home country due to persecution, war, or violence. The immigrant and refugee difference presents a multifaceted issue. While we have illegal immigration, much of the border crisis involves refugees.

On the one hand, we need robust border security to manage unlawful entry. On the other, the US ratified a refugee treaty, committing to protecting and providing assistance to those who qualify as refugees under international law.

And we need to take some of the refugee burden off our US border states.

To achieve our multifaceted goal, we need to increase the Department of Homeland Security’s capacity to manage the refugee situation at the southern border. We need to augment this capacity in a manner that takes some of the burden off US border states. By leveraging the Department of Defense’s support of civil authorities role, we can improve medical assistance, logistical support, and disaster relief on the border. We can then support our border states by distributing refugees more equitably nationwide.

Next week, strengthening border security measures by reducing the demand for migration. I look forward to you joining me.

May God bless the United States of America.

Our last three articles/podcasts established conditions allowing for the legal and orderly movement of goods and people across the border.

In devising legal conditions supporting these activities, we created unambiguous indications that other movements across the border are illegal.

We need to stop the illegal movement of goods and people across the border. When there are legal options to move goods and people, there’s a high likelihood that other movements are illegal. These illegal movements are human traffickers, weapons smugglers, and drug runners.

How would we address these illegal movements?

Over the last month, we’ve considered effective and humane strategies to solidify our borders against illegal entry.

First, we looked at the history of naturalization and immigration and national immigration policy.

We have a long history of attempting to navigate the complex issue of immigration and border security. President Washington signed a law guiding naturalization and immigration, and we are still dealing with the issue today.

Over time, the nation’s immigration policies have trended towards the equal treatment of all attempting to immigrate. The US has not opened its borders to all, but immigration has changed from a skin color-based system to a system intended to attract skilled labor.

There’s another trend in the history. No Congress or President has supported open borders.

We are against open borders because undocumented immigration leads to abuse of immigrants and strains community resources, including healthcare, education, and law enforcement. What can we do about it?

We considered our first option to address our southern border: sending the US military to act against smugglers and illegal immigrants. That option wasn’t tenable for legal and practical reasons. You can catch up here:

Next, we needed more context. We considered the difference between an immigrant and a refugee and why the difference is significant. Immigrants choose to relocate to another country. Refugees flee their home country due to persecution, war, or violence. The immigrant and refugee differences present a multifaceted issue. While we have illegal immigration, much of the border crisis involves refugees.

On the one hand, we need robust border security to manage unlawful entry. On the other, the US ratified a refugee treaty, committing to protecting and providing assistance to those who qualify as refugees under international law.

And we need to take some of the refugee burden off our US border states.

The map clearly shows this issue isn’t a blue-state or red-state issue. It’s a geography issue.

To achieve our multifaceted goal of managing the refugee situation at the border, we need to increase the Department of Homeland Security’s capacity to manage the refugee situation at the southern border. We need to augment this capacity to take some of the burden off US border states. By leveraging the Department of Defense’s support of civil authorities role, we can improve medical assistance, logistical support, and disaster relief on the border.

Further, we can support our border states by distributing refugees more equitably nationwide.

If you missed it, here’s a link:

Third, we considered approaches we could use to address the underlying reasons for the refugee movement to the southern border. No matter the effort we make to enhance security measures at the US southern border, if we don’t stop the flow of refugees to the border, we will continue to have security challenges.

We must intervene with partnerships, building cooperative relationships with regional countries to address challenges jointly. We must develop and implement solutions that address economic challenges, reduce violence, and support political stability to achieve progress. Challenges in the region are deep-rooted and complex and require a long-term commitment from the US and its partners. Short-term measures are insufficient to create lasting change.

Focusing on economic development and security assistance will reduce the appeal of illegal activities and protect economic gains. When combined with respecting the sovereignty and self-determination of our southern neighbors, both efforts support political stability, laying the groundwork for further partnership to build strong, resilient societies in Central and South America.

We need to consider a Plan Colombia approach that we can adapt to other countries while avoiding excessive militarization or human rights concerns. Further, this adapted Plan Colombia approach must include regional cooperation among Latin American countries, not just bilateral partnerships with the US. Initiatives that foster collaboration on cross-border issues can address trafficking, migration, and economic integration.

A region with economic opportunity and security will encourage refugees to stay rather than move to the US southern border.

You can read or listen to the details here:

In sum, we have considered the history and context of the situation and walked our way through an often-called-for approach, sending the US military to the border, and found it not practical. However, just because one option isn’t suitable, we keep going.

We established how to support the systematic and efficient legal processing of immigrants and refugees in a way that supports our border states by distributing refugees more equitably nationwide. This legal and systematic approach is both orderly and humane.

We established how to set conditions that would result in fewer refugees traveling to the border. It’s a long-term commitment that won’t show results immediately. However, our partnership with Colombia demonstrated the approach is achievable.

There’s still a missing piece.

Despite our efforts to make refugee processing legal, orderly, and humane and our efforts to reduce refugees fleeing their home countries, we will still have illegal entry into the US. And we will still have illicit transit of weapons out of the US that support violence in Central and South America.

Because we set conditions allowing for the legal and orderly movement of goods and people across the border, we created unambiguous indications that other movement across the border is illegal.

And we need to stop the illegal movement of goods and people across the border. There’s a high likelihood these illegal movements are human traffickers, weapons smugglers, and drug runners.

To address these illegal movements, we must consider improving security along the border.

Tightening security along the border requires enhanced security measures, political will, and continual commitment.

Of course, we need enhanced border security and surveillance. We need more border patrol law enforcement officials, and they need state-of-the-art equipment. Border patrol officials, already doing great work, need outstanding training and resources to excel at their jobs.

We need officials to engage with border communities in policy development and implementation. We must educate communities about legal immigration to reduce misinformation.

We need enhanced physical and electronic security measures. We need redundant systems operating in different electromagnetic spectrums, such as Doppler radar and infrared, to supplement physical security barriers. We need persistent electronic surveillance systems. We need people to respond to alarms in a prompt timeline. We need enhanced human and systems intelligence. (Specific technological capability details omitted due to their sensitive nature.)

But we need to do more if we are serious about securing the border. When the incentive to smuggle goods and people is lucrative, criminals will find ways to defeat law enforcement.

American citizens smuggling weapons across the border defeat walls with hidden compartments in vehicles. They disassemble weapons and ship them in pieces, only to be reassembled south of the border. Drug smugglers dig tunnels, pay bribes, and leave caches for partners to find. Human trafficking guides, or coyotes, hide their victims in vehicle compartments and the terrain of unmonitored areas. They watch border patrol officials and find any patterns they can exploit.

We need political will to commit long-term to border security.

Solutions to some of these problems are going to be politically unpopular.

Let’s give an example. If we are serious about reducing weapons smuggling, we need to consider stricter gun control laws. US weapons destabilize and increase violence in Latin America. Violence in Latin America causes refugees to flee Latin America and move to the US. Therefore, US weapons leaving the US result in refugee movement across the southern border. In addition to stopping the flow of refugees to the border, we need to take care of our own business and stop the flow of weapons headed south.

In 1792, Congress passed a law that every citizen would arm themselves to provide national protection. Every household had to account for their weapons. In the early days of the nation, we had stricter gun control laws than today.

However, if we are serious about reducing refugees fleeing violent acts committed in Central America with US weapons, we need to find the political will to stop the movement of weapons across the US border. If gun registration isn’t a politically acceptable answer, we need to find an answer that is acceptable.

Just one example. It’s an easy example to cite and a tricky problem to address. It highlights that border security isn’t just about enhancing security measures. It involves political will, policy, community engagement, and international relations.

How would we stop the illegal movement of goods and people across the border?

We need systematic and efficient legal processing of immigrants and refugees alike at the border in a way that supports our border states by distributing refugees more equitably nationwide. This legal and systematic approach must be orderly and humane.

We must set conditions that would result in fewer refugees traveling to the border. It’s a long-term commitment that won’t show results immediately. But history demonstrates the approach is achievable.

Because we set conditions allowing for the legal and orderly movement of goods and people across the border, we created unambiguous indications that other movement across the border is illegal. There’s a high likelihood these illegal movements are human traffickers, weapons smugglers, and drug runners.

A significant piece of the puzzle is the border itself. There, we need enhanced security measures, political will, and continual commitment.

Solutions to some of these problems are going to be politically unpopular. Border security isn’t just about enhancing security measures. It involves political will, policy, community engagement, and international relations. But we must find acceptable answers if we are committed to US border security.

May God bless the United States of America.

The ideal path to managing the challenges at the US border is proactively addressing the conditions leading to the influx of refugees.

What approaches could we use to address the underlying reasons for the refugee movement to the southern border?

Two Roosevelts left indelible marks on US policy in Central and South America.

In the 1904 Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine, President Theodore Roosevelt (R) outlined a new assertive interventionist policy towards Latin America. He called for the US to intervene with an international police presence to correct instability and chronic wrongdoing by our southern neighbors.

Roosevelt’s doctrine led to a series of military interventions and occupations collectively known as the Banana Wars. To protect US business interests and attempt to restore political and economic stability in the region, the US invaded Cuba in 1906, 1912, and 1917. We invaded Nicaragua in 1909 and 1912, Mexico in 1914 and 1916, Haiti in 1915, and the Dominican Republic in 1916. Many of these invasions became occupations into the 1930s.

The US fought several of these conflicts over US business interests and control of banana plantations. All told, the US occupied six southern neighbors over 30 years. Major General Smedley Butler, twice awarded the Medal of Honor for his actions in the Banana Wars, was the most highly decorated US Marine Corps officer of the time. Following his retirement, he described himself as a “racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.”

In December 1933, President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) declared the US would no longer participate in armed intervention to attempt to govern other nations. FDR’s policy became known as the Good Neighbor Policy. The policy improved trade relations with Latin American countries and helped form an alliance among Western Hemisphere nations during World War II.

There’s no causal statement one could make that FDR’s policy improved the long-term stability of Latin American and South American nations. Attributing the long-term stability of an entire region to one policy is overly simplistic. However, we can conclude that the Teddy Roosevelt Corollary damaged relations and promoted instability. Its imperialistic and patronizing approach disrupted local governance, supported authoritarian regimes, and created uncertainty and conflict.

Fast forward to today.

The ideal path to improving the situation at the US border is not to try and do what we are already doing, just better. Even if we make staggering improvements and initially reduce undocumented movement across the border by half, but we don’t make long-term improvements, what would we have accomplished?

The ideal path to managing the challenges at the US border is proactively addressing the conditions leading to the influx of refugees.

Enhancing security measures at the US southern border doesn’t address the decisive issue: the continuous movement of refugees toward the border. No matter the effort we make to enhance security measures at the US southern border, if we don’t stop the flow of refugees to the border, we will continue to have security challenges.

What’s the best way to reduce this flow of refugees across the US southern border? We need to reduce the demand for refugees from Central and South America to flee their homes.

In sum, to address border security, we need to tackle the root causes prompting refugee migration in the Americas.

We need a comprehensive approach examining economic instability, violence, and political turmoil in the Americas. Latin America is diverse. A multi-dimensional approach is essential. This approach should comprehensively tackle economic, social, and security challenges while being tailored to each country’s unique needs and conditions.

As was the case during Teddy and Franklin D. Roosevelt’s time, we have various options.

* We could do nothing and try to stop the flow of refugees across the border.

We could focus on border control without addressing the root causes of migration. While it might offer short-term success, more is needed to resolve the reasons refugees flee. Worse, this option may lead to a recurring or escalating crisis as the fundamental issues remain unaddressed.

* We could intervene with force.

Military force can bring immediate but temporary solutions. This approach risks destabilization, potential backlash against perceived imperialism, and long-term consequences that may worsen the initial problems.

Neither of these options seems fruitful.

* We could intervene with partnerships.

We could build cooperative relationships with regional countries to address the challenges jointly. The ultimate goal would be to achieve long-term solutions by addressing the root causes of instability and striving towards sustainable regional improvement. There’s a potential role for international and regional organizations, such as the United Nations, the Organization of American States, and other regional entities, to coordinate and support efforts to stabilize the region.

The most sustainable approach seems to be the third option - intervening with partnerships. To achieve progress, we must develop and implement solutions addressing economic challenges, reducing violence, and supporting political stability.

First, we need to address economic challenges in the region.

The United States implemented the Marshall Plan after World War II. The Marshall Plan is the shining example of an international policy that effectively addressed economic instability, violence, and political turmoil.

Following World War II, Europe was devastated. Our European partners faced economic ruin, political instability, and social upheaval. The risk of economic collapse and the potential spread of communism were significant concerns for the United States. Further, the US desired strong trade partners from allies it had in Europe.

At the beginning of the Marshall Plan, Will Clayton recognized the plan benefited America on the grounds of business interests. Newsweek described Clayton as “the principal architect of American post-war foreign economic policy.” Clayton founded the largest cotton brokerage firm in the world. Speaking of the Marshall Plan, he stated:

Let us admit right off that our objective has as its background the needs and interests of the people of the United States. We need markets--big markets--in which to buy and sell. - Will Clayton 1947 telegram to George C. Marshall

Democrats and Republicans alike have called for a Marshall Plan for Central America. Of course, post-WWII Europe and Central America are not the same. Many oppose a taxpayer-funded Marshall Plan applied to Central and South America because the conditions for the two regions are not similar enough to see dramatic benefits. They claim governance institutions in Central America are weak, and widespread violence further weakens the region’s stability.

Despite this opposition, efforts to address economic challenges in the region are already underway. Different presidential administrations take varied approaches. In an effort to reduce refugee migration, President Trump (R) froze $550M in taxpayer-funded aid for Central America that Congress authorized in 2017 and 2018, and an additional $450M in aid in 2019 when refugees kept moving to the southern US border. This year, Vice President Harris’ (D) Call to Action for Northern Central America announced she had organized $4.2B in private sector funding for Central America. The Harris-led initiative involves commitments from the private sector rather than direct funding from the US taxpayer. It’s an interesting model wherein investment from the private sector helps fund the achievement of public goals (such as addressing the root causes of migration).

Both approaches face significant challenges in leadership and the political landscape. In the short term, accountability with taxpayer dollars is appropriate. Any taxpayer-supported program must have robust monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to assess the effectiveness of interventions, allowing for improvements over time. Further, raising private investments to increase partner capacity also protects against the misuse of taxpayer funds. In the long term, systemic changes such as improving governance, education, and economic development may take a decade or more to develop.

Any funding approach needs to address fundamental economic push factors of migration, such as poverty and lack of employment opportunities. Tailored economic policies and initiatives should create jobs, promote entrepreneurial ventures, and stabilize local economies. We must implement educational programs and vocational training to equip individuals with the skills to succeed in their local economies. We must support initiatives promoting transparency, accountability, and protecting human rights.

Improving long-term economic conditions in Central and South America should reduce refugee migration as the countries have more economic resilience.

In addition to improving economic conditions in the long term, we need to help reduce violence in the region.

A component of reducing violence is building robust institutions. Federal, state, and local law enforcement efforts serve to protect Americans. Ioan Grillo, author of Blood Gun Money: How America Arms Gangs and Cartels, outlines a contrast between the US and Latin America:

But it is not those guns in civilian hands that make the difference between the United States and Latin America—it is institutions. Most Americans are not safe from a cartel storming their home to kidnap them because they have an AR-15. They are safe because the police and federal agencies have been hammering organized crime for decades. In Mexico, you see what a cartel hit squad looks like, and it is not something that you can stop on your own if they come for you, even if you have a bunch of guns.

In addition to providing support for Latin America for economic programs, we need to provide support and expertise for federal and local law enforcement programs to enable the people of Latin America to protect themselves.

Plan Colombia is a strong example of successful law enforcement and economic assistance. Significant funding for the Plan Colombia program started in 2000 with bipartisan support. The program focused on counternarcotics and counterterrorism. From 2000 to 2021, the US provided Colombia $12B in security and economic development aid, with very positive results. In 2015 alone, US exports to Colombia exceeded $15B. According to the US Global Leadership Coalition, homicides in Colombia were cut in half, while kidnappings and terrorist attacks declined by 90%. The US is now Colombia’s largest trade partner.

Rather than a Marshall Plan approach to Latin America, we need to consider a Plan Colombia approach that we can adapt to other countries while avoiding excessive militarization or human rights concerns. Further, this adapted Plan Colombia approach must include regional cooperation among Latin American countries, not just bilateral partnerships with the US. Initiatives that foster collaboration on cross-border issues can address trafficking, migration, and economic integration.

As a military force example, Representative Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) advocates for US military force against the cartels. Crenshaw is himself a former Navy SEAL wounded in action during his third deployment to Afghanistan. Opponents state Crenshaw’s recommendations violate the sovereignty of, and threaten war with, our neighbors. In an interview with Grillo last week, Crenshaw identified that military intervention didn’t necessitate unilateral action by US forces and instead could include partnership and training with other national military forces. This option is tenable if partner nations reach out for training and assistance.

There’s another component of reducing violence in Latin America: US weapons.

Drug cartels pay Americans to smuggle weapons out of the US. Three relevant quotes from Grillo in Blood Gun Money:

Of the 16,343 firearms that Mexico submitted to the ATF [the US Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives] for tracing in 2018, 70.4 percent were definitively confirmed to have been made or sold in the United States.

Between 2014 and 2017, almost half, or 45 percent, of the firearms that Honduras submitted to the ATF for tracing were confirmed to be made or sold in the United States.

Honduras [is the] home of the biggest number of refugees arriving at the southern U.S. border.

US weapons destabilize and increase violence in Latin America. Violence in Latin America causes refugees to flee Latin America and move to the US. Therefore, US weapons leaving the US result in refugee movement across the southern border.

In addition to stopping the flow of refugees to the border, we need to take care of our own business and stop the flow of weapons headed south.

Economic development and security assistance work together. Economic development reduces the appeal of illegal activities. Security assistance protects economic gains. When combined with respecting the sovereignty and self-determination of our southern neighbors, both efforts support political stability, laying the groundwork for further partnership to build strong, resilient societies in Central and South America.

A region with economic opportunity and security will encourage refugees to stay rather than move to the US southern border.

What approaches could we use to address the underlying reasons for the refugee movement to the southern border?

No matter the effort we make to enhance security measures at the US southern border, if we don’t stop the flow of refugees to the border, we will continue to have security challenges.

We must intervene with partnerships, building cooperative relationships with regional countries to address challenges jointly. We must develop and implement solutions that address economic challenges, reduce violence, and support political stability to achieve progress. Challenges in the region are deep-rooted and complex and require a long-term commitment from the US and its partners. Short-term measures are insufficient to create lasting change.

Focusing on economic development and security assistance will reduce the appeal of illegal activities and protect economic gains. When combined with respecting the sovereignty and self-determination of our southern neighbors, both efforts support political stability, laying the groundwork for further partnership to build strong, resilient societies in Central and South America.

A region with economic opportunity and security will encourage refugees to stay rather than move to the US southern border.

May God bless the United States of America.

America is an ideal. We have equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We believe liberty is more final than death.

Believing we've achieved this ideal makes you inherently conservative. If you see the ideal as unmet and strive towards it, you're a progressive.

Like conservatives, progressives believe in the American ideal. Some philosophy guides conservatives. We spent the last couple of weeks exploring Edmund Burke’s conservative approach.

There is no one progressive philosopher. But even if progressives don’t have an underlying philosophy, they still have an ethos.

The ethos of progressives is to make progress toward the American ideal. This ethos centers around several fundamental principles, including:

* Social Justice: Progressives advocate for fairness and equality in society. They focus particularly on marginalized groups.

* Economic Reform: They promote policies that address income inequality. They advocate for fair wages and support social programs.

* Inclusive Democracy: They support broad voter participation and fight against voter suppression.

* Educational Equity: They push for equal access to quality education.

* Diplomacy: Progressives advocate for diplomatic solutions in foreign policy.

In two other areas, progressives take notable approaches.

First, they often rely on a government approach to achieve goals. Progressives view government as an intermediary between businesses and the public, often advocating for regulations and policies that they believe protect the greater interest. They see taxation as a fundamental tool for funding government operations and services. They see the government as having a positive role in providing public services and ensuring social responsibility.

Second, progressives focus on pragmatic solutions.

One of the first great progressives was President Theodore Roosevelt (R).

All Americans burned coal in the early 20th century to heat their businesses and homes. Coal was the lifeblood of America. Apartments, hotels, restaurants, trolleys, mills, and manufacturers all needed heat from coal. Millions of Americans relied on coal for heat and industry.

May 12, 1902. The United Mine Workers of America began the Coal Strike of 1902. One hundred forty-seven thousand miners in Pennsylvania stopped work. They demanded better working conditions. They wanted higher wages and shorter working hours. The strike threatened the nation’s coal supply during a harsh winter.

On the side opposite the miners, a group of mine owners, bankers, and railroad owners refused to negotiate with or even recognize the union. The mine owners hired 5,000 security men for a private police squad and took action to intimidate the workers. The Pennsylvania state legislature authorized this Coal and Iron Police to enforce company interests. For a nominal payment of $1 for each man, the state Governor signed their police commission.

But the strike hung on. Americans formed coal lines to get their daily allotment. Some call it the most significant strike ever.

Violence ensued from both sides. Incidents of arson and property damage rose. Seven men died. Pennsylvania Governor William A. Stone activated 3,000 National Guard troops in July to restore order. By October, he had activated the whole Pennsylvania National Guard, 8,750 soldiers.

Enter President Theodore Roosevelt. He was a man of action and wanted the American people to have the coal they needed for the winter. He asked his Attorney General, Philander Knox, what he could do. It turned out Roosevelt could act as a strikebreaker and send the military to force the workers back to work. Four presidents before Roosevelt had done so.

That’s worth noting again. Four Presidents before Teddy Roosevelt sent American soldiers to break a strike by forcing men back to work or taking over their jobs. The government siding with industry and threatening violent force against workers doesn’t encourage warm labor relations.

Knox told Roosevelt that, besides being a strikebreaker, he had no other power to end the strike.

Roosevelt rejected Knox’s counsel. He wanted a more balanced approach to labor relations.

Roosevelt took a progressive approach to labor relations. Instead of using military force to break the strike, Roosevelt sought a mediated solution. He established the Anthracite Coal Strike Commission. Roosevelt appointed Judge George Gray to lead the commission to study workers’ complaints and find common ground.

There was plenty of pushback against Roosevelt’s position. Critics argued that he overstepped presidential power. Many stated that the government had no right to intervene in private business affairs.

A tense October arrived. The weather turned colder. On October 3, the President called the mine owners, workers, and mediators to a meeting at the White House. Roosevelt recognized the union, but the mine owners rejected negotiation. Roosevelt believed he had failed. The Pennsylvania governor sent the National Guard to dig coal in the mines, but the soldiers didn’t know how to mine coal. The strike continued.

Frantic political maneuvering ensued. Meetings in smoky rooms and behind closed doors found progress. Finally, mine owners and coal miners agreed to arbitration.

The miners agreed to go back to work as part of the agreement to negotiate. The coal mines reopened on October 23, 1902. The strike lasted 163 days. The commission continued to act as a go-between. It studied and recommended changes in wages and working conditions that all parties accepted. The miners didn’t get all their demands, but they got significant improvements in wages and work conditions.

In sum, President Roosevelt rejected a heavy-handed approach to American labor. He found a solution for the Coal Strike of 1902 that laid the foundation for progressivism.

Progressives view the government as a go-between representative for the people. An intermediary. In the early 20th Century, Roosevelt championed the Square Deal, advocating for fairness and equality across American society. And progressives continue to move toward the American ideal, from Roosevelt’s time to today.

Progressives led constitutional amendments and civil rights legislation to secure the right to vote for women and minority groups. These efforts make the American democratic process more inclusive and fair.

They champion laws to protect consumers from unsafe food and drug products and unfair business practices. Progressive reformers pushed for regulatory bodies to protect consumers.

They advocate for public education and reform to make education more equitable and accessible. They commit to education as a tool for social improvement and individual empowerment. Progressive philosopher and educator John Dewey argued that education prepares individuals to participate fully in a democratic society, fosters critical thinking, and promotes a sense of community and social responsibility.

Progressives advocate for labor rights, leading to laws that regulate work hours, child labor, and workplace safety. These initiatives improve the living and working conditions of the American working class.

If conservatives seek to conserve the American ideals of enlightenment liberalism, then:

American progressives seek to progress the American reality toward the ideals of enlightenment liberalism.

America is an ideal. We all have equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We believe liberty is more final than death.

But we aren’t perfect yet.

If you believe in conserving the institution of the American ideal, you’re a conservative.

If you see the ideal as unmet and strive towards it, you're a progressive.

You can believe in conserving the American ideal and believe in progressing toward it at the same time.

May God bless the United States of America.

What is American conservatism?

Edmund Burke is the father of philosophical conservatism. His ideas laid the foundation for conservative philosophy, particularly in the United States. He advocated preserving established institutions and societal norms, balanced by a cautious approach to reform and adaptation.

Born January 12, 1729, Burke was an Irish statesman and philosopher. His ideas and writings through the American and French Revolutions significantly influenced the development of conservative thought in both America and Europe.

Burke’s principles:

* Respect for Tradition and Established Institutions

Burke believed that traditions and institutions develop organically over generations and embody the collective wisdom of society. He argued that these traditions should be respected and preserved, as they provide stability and continuity.

Respect for tradition underpins many of his other principles, such as skepticism of radical change and the importance of gradual reform. This principle has had a lasting impact on conservative thought, emphasizing the value of continuity, respect for historical context, and the cautious evolution of societal norms and structures.

American conservatism's adherence to originalism in judicial interpretation reflects Burke's respect for historical traditions. The conservative focus on protecting Constitutional rights like the right to bear arms reflects Burke’s principle of safeguarding established freedoms. The preference for states' rights over federal authority aligns with Burke's skepticism of centralized power, which advocates for a balanced, decentralized governance structure.

* Prudence and Caution in Change

Burke advocated for cautious, gradual change rather than abrupt or revolutionary transformations.

He believed that society’s established institutions and practices evolved and embedded us with the collective wisdom of past experiences. He did not oppose change outright. Instead, he argued for an incremental approach, allowing society to adapt and manage unintended consequences.

For example, conservatives typically advocate for market-based solutions in healthcare, such as Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and private health insurance options. This approach reflects a belief in established market mechanisms and a cautious approach to government intervention.

* Skepticism of Radicalism and Utopian Ideals

Burke was skeptical of radical political ideologies and utopian schemes, warning against the dangers of overthrowing established systems in pursuit of ideological goals.

In response to what many Americans saw as police brutality and the subsequent “Defund the Police” movement, conservatives saw a radical and utopian ideal that risked destabilizing an essential institution that, on the whole, protects individual Americans and their businesses.

* Practical Approach to Politics

Burke was pragmatic. He believed we should base political decisions on practical experience and specific circumstances rather than abstract principles or ideological dogmas.

Burke’s pragmatic views transcended political party thinking. In his 1770 Thoughts on the Cause of the Present Discontents, Burke wrote that a political party was (paraphrased for modern language) a group of people working together to advance the national interest based on their agreed-upon principles.

He advocated for pragmatic approaches. Many conservatives approach environmental policy by focusing on practical solutions that balance economic growth with environmental protection.

Now for some early American context. In the face of the American Revolution, Burke didn’t argue against progress. Burke sought to address the practical and political missteps of the British government and expressed that England should pursue conciliatory measures with the colonies. Burke was not against change.

For example, Burke was against the taxation of the American colonies. His advocacy for the colonies’ right to self-taxation demonstrated his respect for societal autonomy and skepticism of overarching authority. He gave two speeches, the second in March of 1775, advocating for the right of the American colonies to tax themselves and guide their affairs. Burke believed allowing the colonies to govern themselves would encourage them to remain united with England.

King George rejected this notion.

The American Revolution began a month later, on April 19, 1775, at the North Bridge in Concord, Massachusetts. On that day, the first American colonists fired on British troops, referred to as “Redcoats,” because of their red coats.

Along with Burke’s conservatism, another philosophical movement came into play in early America.

Burke’s conservatism drew from European society. European conservatism sought to preserve monarchies, aristocracy, and traditional social hierarchies, viewing them as stabilizing societal forces.

The American foundation had no aristocracy. As a result, the American foundation oriented towards a different philosophy. In a democratic republic where no monarchy or entrenched aristocracy existed, the principles of individual liberty, limited government, and the protection of private property led societal thought.

Enter John Locke’s Enlightenment liberalism, the foundation of American documents. Locke’s philosophy became the strong outline of the US Constitution.

In Two Treatises of Government, Locke’s broad ideas include:

* We believe we all have natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

* Government exists as a social contract wherein representatives serve with the consent of the governed.

* To prevent tyranny, we divide government power to include a system of checks and balances among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.

The structure of our constitutional democratic republic, which flows from our Constitution’s structure, flows from Locke’s theories.

In the American context, Burke’s views contrasted and complemented Locke’s.

In combination, American principles weave threads of both Edmund Burke’s conservatism and John Locke’s liberalism. Burkean conservatives and enlightenment liberals don’t agree on all matters. Burke’s emphasis on preserving traditions and cautious reform countered Locke’s advocacy for radical individualism.

However, there is much common ground. So much common ground that today in America conservatism and individualism are nearly synonymous.

Burkean conservatives protect and promote individual freedoms, particularly those influenced by John Locke’s liberalism. Burkean conservatives advocate for limited government and divided power, a philosophy outlined by Locke. Burkean conservatives argue that individuals should take responsibility for their own lives, successes, and failures, rather than relying on government assistance or intervention. This principle is consistent with Locke’s views of the natural right of individuals to own themselves and the product of their labor.

Burke’s pragmatism and Locke’s revolutionary vision created a rich, complex foundation for American political thought. The two philosophies underscore our unique political evolution, where respect for historical institutions coexists with a commitment to individual liberty and democratic governance.

Stated another way:

American conservatism seeks first to conserve the American ideals of enlightenment liberalism.

American conservativism intends to preserve the principles of the American foundation, particularly the emphasis on individual liberty, limited government, and the protection of private property.

America owes allegiance to no man. There is no monarchy to preserve. There is no king. America is an ideal. Servants of the nation swear their oath to support and defend the Constitution. Therefore, American conservatism must seek to preserve the institution of the Constitution and not even a political party.

Pulling on the thread further, we can conclude that American conservatism must seek to preserve the people’s natural rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Representatives must strive to serve the nation’s interests instead of purely their interests, and must maintain a balance of power to protect the people from both the tyranny of the government and the tyranny of the majority.

What is American conservatism?

American conservatism represents the combined philosophies of Edmund Burke and John Locke. It incorporates respect for tradition, prudential governance, and individual liberty. It is a philosophy that values the wisdom of the past, seeks cautious progress in the present, and seeks a vision for a stable, prosperous future.

As we look ahead, American conservatives face the challenge of adapting these enduring principles to the evolving needs of a diverse and dynamic society.

The future trajectory of American conservatism lies in its ability to balance its foundational ideals with the realities of this changing world. It must navigate the complexities of modern governance while upholding the principles of limited government, individual rights, and respect for established institutions.

May God bless the United States of America.

We need to conserve the American Dream. It motivates and shapes the American spirit.

All Americans should be able to decide their own potential. They must be able to achieve this through effort and dedication, regardless of where they were born.

In at least two areas we can use conservative principles to achieve our goal. We need to increase wages. And we need to create a healthy supply of move-in ready starter homes.

Last week, we examined the philosophy of Edmund Burke. He's the father of conservative thought. Burke stressed the value of tradition and experience in political decision-making. He advocated for evolutionary rather than revolutionary change. His skepticism of radical ideologies underscored a pragmatic approach. This approach balanced reform with preserving established systems.

But Burke was not averse to change.

In the face of the American Revolution he didn’t oppose progress. Burke understood that rigidly clinging to the status quo could lead to greater upheaval. In his view, balancing tradition with reform was vital to uphold core principles.

Note the stark irony in Burke’s situation. Burke sought to conserve the British Empire through practical change. Burke didn't intend allowing the American colonies self-governance as a concession. He saw it as a strategic move to preserve the larger structure of the empire. Burke saw that rigid, unjust traditional policies would only fuel rebellion. His approach was conservative at its core—an attempt to maintain the status quo by adapting it to new realities.

Burke's insights are particularly relevant to conserving the American Dream.

What do future generations of young Americans have to hope for, if not for the American Dream? It’s a symbol of a better life for all Americans, no matter their background.

Last October, The Wall Street Journal revealed just a third of Americans believe the American Dream is still alive. Ten years ago, more than half said yes. Stagnating wealth and shorter life expectancy weigh on our thoughts.

We need to save the vision. Preserve it. Conserve it. No matter your choice of words, Americans born from any walk of life should be able to decide their own potential.

Conservatism’s goal isn’t preserving the past. We owe nothing to previous generations. Conservatism’s goal is conserving the institution into the future. And part of the institution of America is the American Dream.

Conserving the American Dream

What is the American Dream? How can we conserve it?

The American Dream symbolizes equal opportunity to achieve success and prosperity. This success requires hard work, determination, and initiative. The vision often includes elements like financial security and home ownership.

The American Dream is of utmost importance in our national ethos and identity. It's intertwined with values like individualism and the pursuit of happiness. It's a motivator and a defining element of the American spirit.

It’s absolutely essential to conserve the opportunity for all Americans to succeed through their own means. In at least two areas we can address challenges to the American Dream. Those two areas are wages and housing.

The American Dream and Wages

From US Census Bureau data published in 2021, “In 2020, there were 37.2 million people in poverty.”

But we have a conundrum. If it were easy to end poverty we would already have done so.

We could mandate wage increases, but doing so threatens some businesses. Businesses need to grow revenue to pay higher wages.

Or we could address the problem by giving small businesses a tax incentive. This would grow revenue. Program guidelines would require them to pay higher wages to qualify. And we have an existing program to use.

A study titled Minimum Wages and Poverty: New Evidence from Dynamic Difference-in-Differences Estimates by the National Bureau of Economic Research offers insight. Dr. Richard Burkhauser and colleagues analyzed the impact of increasing the minimum wage. They identified:

The poor performance of past minimum wage increases in curbing poverty can be explained by two important factors. First, most working-age individuals … living in poor families are not employed and even fewer are steadily employed…. Second, minimum wage increases may cause adverse employment effects among some low-skilled workers.

Dr. Burkhauser found we need to expand the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) program:

In contrast to the minimum wage, expansions in … the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) may be more effective … to deliver income to the families (households) of the working poor than the minimum wage.

We could pair the small business tax incentives with EITC.

Conservatives created EITC with broad bipartisan support. It's a social program designed to benefit low- to moderate-income working individuals and families. The program particularly helps those with children. Studies find the program significantly increases workforce participation. It reduces poverty, stimulates the economy, and reduces income inequality. To qualify, individuals must meet income thresholds, have a valid Social Security number, and meet other criteria. This includes working a qualifying number of hours.

Conservative President Reagan (R) saw EITC as a way to help families without increasing their dependency on direct welfare. One of Reagan’s highest priorities in his second term was passing the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Along with cutting taxes, the act significantly expanded EITC. Expanding EITC was Reagan’s most significant domestic policy achievement. He said EITC was “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.”

EITC is not a silver bullet. EITC is a social program. Instead of people getting enough money from their jobs, taxpayers give money to the government. The government then uses it to pay those who qualify. The ideal scenario is for workers to earn enough to support their families without additional aid.

Key takeaways from the proposal:

We should incentivize small businesses to pay workers higher wages as an alternative to a social program.

* Companies should receive a tax credit if they pay wages that allow workers to be self-sufficient. This incentive would make these companies more competitive. And it would reduce the need for taxpayer-funded social programs.

* Companies failing to meet this wage threshold would not qualify for the tax credit. This lack of competitive edge could lead to business failure. As a result, many businesses would offer livable wages.

You can read or listen to the entire proposal in the piece titled “Earned Income Tax Credit and Small Business Taxes”. It's available here:

The American Dream and Home Ownership

Home ownership is a central component of the American Dream. It represents stability, financial security, and a personal stake in the community. Further, home ownership is the decisive element of generational financial stability.

In recent years, established markets have skewed the home ownership market. They've turned housing into an investment opportunity. In 2022 investors purchased between 25% and 35% of all homes. Individuals investing in the housing market reduce housing available for first time homebuyers.

Further, housing supply has not kept up with population growth. In other words, since 1970 the supply of housing is going down.

Homeowners have the right to do as they wish with their property. However, reduced housing availability threatens the American Dream for millions. We need to address housing supply to conserve the American Dream.

We need to take a conservative approach and reduce home construction regulatory barriers. We must ease zoning laws, streamline the permit process, and cut bureaucratic hurdles. Home builders build larger, more expensive homes in part to overcome these challenges. These larger homes are difficult for first-time homebuyers to purchase. We need more starter homes.

And we need to make small changes to existing programs to increase starter home supply. To achieve this goal we need to incentivize business competition. The winner of the competition would build starter homes. This approach must aim to preserve the American Dream's aspect of home ownership.

Our benchmark: America needs a healthy supply of move-in ready homes for first-time homebuyers. Those homes should cost less than $150,000.

An idea to incentivize home builders to build smaller homes in both rural and urban America is to use the nation’s existing Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program. Adapting the SBIR model to the construction industry will boost innovation in starter homes. It will reward the most innovative designs. It will further reward the use of readily available materials. This incremental change to the SBIR program will increase the supply of small homes.

You can read or listen to more about this idea in the piece titled “Small, Affordable Homes.”:

We need to conserve the American Dream. It motivates and shapes the American spirit.

All Americans should be able to decide their own potential. Regardless of where they were born, they must be able to achieve this through effort and dedication.

In at least two areas we can use conservative principles to achieve our goal. We need to increase wages. And we need to create a healthy supply of move-in ready starter homes.

Sticking to rigid, unjust traditional policies may not fuel rebellion. But doing nothing could be even worse, erasing a core tenet of what it means to be American.

May God bless the United States of America.

The American Dream is part of the institution of America. How would we enable young Americans to progress toward the American Dream?

Two weeks ago, we considered steps conservatives could take to preserve the American Dream. They involved low government and business-first approaches to address wages and home ownership.

In addition to conserving the vision, we need to enable Americans the ability to realize it. Americans born from any walk of life should be able to decide their own potential.

Let’s have a quick refresher about Progressives and the American Dream.

Progressives view government as an intermediary between businesses and the public. They advocate for regulations and policies that they believe protect the greater interest.

Progressives seek:

* Equality of Opportunity. Progressives intend to create conditions where everyone has a fair chance to succeed. They strive to address systemic inequalities in education, healthcare, and employment.

* Social Justice. A vital element of the progressive vision is the pursuit of social justice. They advocate for the rights and welfare of marginalized and disadvantaged groups.

* Economic Reform. Progressives believe the government should regulate the economy to ensure fair outcomes.

January 11, 1944. President Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) delivered the year’s State of the Union address to Congress. America was fighting in the Pacific and European theaters in World War II. Few American households remained untouched by military service or homefront support. Americans looked forward to getting their sons home.

Against this backdrop, FDR called for a second Bill of Rights for all Americans. He aimed to extend the promise of the American Dream to every citizen.

In the address, FDR called for several expanded rights for Americans. Among them, he included:

* “The right to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing, and recreation…”

* “The right of every family to a decent home…”

Before we move on, we need some common understanding of FDR’s statements. We need to think more to clarify — what is a right?

The Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University studies rights. In the Journal of Ethics - Volume 3, Winter 1990, Claire Andre and Manuel Velasquez state that:

A right is a "justified claim" on others. For example, if I have a right to freedom, then I have a justified claim to be left alone by others. Turned around, I can say that others have a responsibility to leave me alone. If I have a right to an education, then I have a justified claim to be provided with an education by society.

A great example that highlights negative and positive rights in the same paragraph.

A negative right protects individual liberty. In the example above, a negative right is a justified claim to be left alone. Our right to free speech is a negative right. Our speech is protected from the government. You can’t be jailed for speaking against the government. The government takes no action to give us free speech. A negative right requires others to do nothing to ensure your rights.

In contrast, a positive right requires someone to take action to provide us with the right. There are two ways to look at positive rights.

The example above highlights the first way to look at positive rights. It identifies a right to education as an entitlement. If we have a right to education, Americans are responsible for providing other Americans with education.

We should not look at rights as entitlements. This way of looking at positive rights is divisive. Considering positive rights this way means you can choose to do nothing and still be given rights. Believing you have a right to education as an entitlement implies that your fellow Americans have a responsibility to give you an education.

However, the second way of looking at positive rights is helpful. We must consider that no one has a right to anything they aren’t willing to work for.

The second way to view positive rights is as an obligation for Americans. Not for the rights themselves but for societal conditions, stated as:

We must create an environment that empowers our fellow citizens. They must be able to actively pursue and attain their own rights.

Americans have no right to education. But Americans have a right to rules that enable them to pursue their education.

Americans have no right to healthcare. But Americans have a right to access to healthcare. They also have a right to make their own healthcare decisions.

And back to FDR’s points:

Americans have no right to free resources for food, clothing, and recreation. But Americans and their families have a right to wages above the poverty level.

Americans have no right to decent housing. But Americans have a right to rules that support home ownership for those who qualify. And at a level attainable in the current market.

Progressives view the government as a mediator. It ensures fairness and addresses systemic disparities. They emphasize equality of opportunity, social justice, and economic reform.

In this light, we need to consider progressives and the American Dream.

Two weeks ago, we considered conservative approaches to preserve the American Dream. They had low government involvement. They prioritized business-first perspectives to address wages and home ownership.

Now, we consider progressive approaches. These will enable Americans to make progress toward the American Dream. We will address the same areas—wages and home ownership.

Progressives and Wages

Poverty is a drain on society. Reducing poverty leads to a healthier workforce. It also leads to a better educated one. It reduces crime rates and spurs economic growth. According to US Census Bureau data published in 2021, a little more than 37 million Americans live in poverty.

Employers who pay low wages burden the American taxpayer. They force the taxpayer to care for others through social welfare programs. The American taxpayer subsidizes these businesses. They do this by paying dollars that the companies should pay themselves.

Chief Justice Charles E. Hughes wrote the majority opinion for the US Supreme Court case West Coast Hotel v. Parrish in 1937. Hughes noted a similar problem in the challenge to a minimum wage. He said, "What these workers lose in wages, the taxpayers are called upon to pay. The bare cost of living must be met .... The community is not bound to provide what is in effect a subsidy for unconscionable employers.”

A tool to address poverty for working Americans is to raise the minimum wage above the poverty level. In Minimum Wages and the Distribution of Family Incomes, published in the American Economic Journal in 2019, Dr. Arindrajit Dube found:

There is robust evidence that minimum wage increases over the past 30 years have boosted pretax-and-transfer incomes at the bottom of the income distribution.

And further found that after raising minimum wages:

Policies like cash transfers, SNAP, and tax credits are better targeted to raise incomes for those at the very bottom of the income distribution.

There are challenges with addressing poverty using the minimum wage as a tool. Some young Americans work part-time jobs, and their pay rate is set at the minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage for part-time workers could threaten their job opportunities. What’s more, the cost of living varies broadly across the country. A Federal standard for a minimum wage is inappropriate. Finally, the minimum wage lacks political consensus.

Instead of raising the static minimum wage, we could address the issue with legislation such as this:

Employers shall pay full-time wages representing a rate no less than the poverty level plus 50%, assuming the worker and three dependents, for that locality.

This proposed legislation addresses the difference between full-time and part-time workers. It would set a minimum rate of full-time worker pay high enough to lift their family above the poverty level. And because the rate of pay is based on locality, it would take cost of living differences into account. Finally, it addresses the need for more political consensus by identifying a rate of pay based on the poverty level rather than a static number. You can read more about this idea here:

In addition to raising wages, we need to set conditions enabling more young Americans to buy starter homes.

Progressives and Housing

Home ownership is the decisive element of generational financial stability. To strengthen economic security for young Americans, we need to address home ownership.

We need to increase the supply of starter homes. In Conserving the American Dream, we noted that the housing supply has not kept up with population growth. Since 1970, the supply of housing has been going down. We need a market-based solution to increase supply.

On January 26, 2024, the Wall Street Journal published two articles detailing challenges young Americans face when buying a starter home. As a result of these challenges, the age of first-time buyers is increasing. Parental assistance to children for help with a downpayment is more common. In short, the starter home market is unaffordable for young Americans.

We need to increase the supply of housing for first-time homebuyers. And we need to set conditions to help young Americans buy starter homes.

Young Americans need to be able to secure their financial future early in adulthood. Our young generations need the ability to purchase their first home at a low interest rate.

We need legislation supporting a first-time homebuyer benefit of a 3% interest rate. We need to combine this interest rate with a US Department of Housing and Urban Development loan, which requires a 3.5% down payment.

After their one-time use, if a family wants to purchase a more expensive home, that’s their decision. If they want to own the asset, they own the risk and higher interest rate that comes with the asset. This plan also needs to disqualify private equity or investment firms. We need to specify single-family homes, single-unit duplexes, apartments, etc.

You can read the details here:

All Americans should be able to decide their own potential. They must be able to achieve this through effort and dedication. It doesn't matter the station of their birth.

Americans don't have the right to free resources for food, clothing, and recreation. But Americans and their families have a right to wages above the poverty level.

Americans have no right to decent housing. But Americans have a right to rules that support home ownership for those who qualify. And at a level attainable in the current market.

We can use progressive approaches to achieve our goal in at least two areas. We need to increase wages. And we need to set conditions enabling favorable terms for first-time homebuyers.

In short, we must enable young Americans to progress toward the American Dream.

May God bless the United States of America.

Even if we call something by a different name, that doesn’t make it true. The bedrock of America is liberty. We’re all liberals!

Abraham Lincoln liked to tell a profound truth with a simple analogy. The analogy is recounted in REMINISCENCES OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, copyright 1885, pg 242.

In the story, someone asks a boy how many legs his calf would have if he called its tail a leg. The boy replies, “Five.”

The boy’s answer prompts a quick response that calling the tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg. The point, Lincoln highlighted, was that it’s still a tail, regardless of what it's called.

Calling something by a different name doesn’t change what it is.

And the reality of Americans is that even if you call us by different names, we’re all liberals.

“Liberal" and "liberty" share the same root word. It’s the Latin word "liber," which means "free." The shared etymology reflects the core value that underpins liberal thought.

Liberals believe in liberty. The bedrock of America is liberty. To expand on that thought:

Liberals believe in natural rights. We believe we inherently possess certain rights by virtue of being human. Governments don’t create these rights. In America, we believe in the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Liberals believe the primary role of government is to safeguard these rights. A foundational idea in liberal thought is social contract theory. We prioritize individual freedoms and limit government power to protect our rights. We created a Bill of Rights and made other Constitutional Amendments to achieve this purpose.

Liberals believe we need to protect ourselves from tyranny. Liberal philosophy advocates for separating government powers as a safeguard against tyranny. We are a democratic republic instead of a pure democracy to protect ourselves from both the tyranny of the government and the tyranny of the majority. At the individual level, we believe in the right to protect ourselves.

Liberals believe in the rule of law. We emphasize laws apply equally to all and are made through a transparent, democratic process. We see the rule of law as essential to prevent arbitrary rule and protect individual rights. Without the rule of law as a critical institution, society would become a war of all against all. Keeping the peace requires laws and law enforcement.

Liberals believe in negative and positive rights. Liberals believe in negative rights — justified claims to be left alone. Freedom of speech is an example of a negative right. Liberals believe in positive rights — rights requiring someone to act to provide us with the right. Infrastructure and defense are examples of positive rights the government acts to provide. The concept of infrastructure is embedded in the idea of the social contract. We expect the government to use public resources to provide basic services essential for collective well-being and economic development.

Liberals share similar views regarding economic principles. Economic freedom is a critical component of the liberal tradition. We believe in free markets, the right to private property, and limited government intervention in personal financial affairs.

Liberals believe in cultural and social liberty. These rights include the freedom of speech, religion, and association. This is a belief fundamental to a liberal society. We believe individuals have the right to make personal choices that affect their lives and well-being. Henry David Thoreau described this as the right to "march to the beat of a different drummer.”

Do we all agree with every philosophical point of liberalism? No. Most of us don’t study and don’t even want to study the philosophy. Individuals may not align perfectly with every tenet of liberalism, but the foundational principles lay out American society.

Across parties, there is much room for common ground. The basic principles of liberty, equality, individual rights, and representative democracy are widely shared across our political spectrum. These principles form the bedrock of American political culture. We enshrined them in our founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

At their core, American conservatives and progressives alike share a commitment to liberal principles.

American conservatives are liberals. They emphasize limited government, individual freedom, and a free-market economy. These principles are classical liberal philosophy. Conservatives advocate for preserving individual liberties and rights, upholding the rule of law, and maintaining a system of government that restricts the state's power over the individual—all fundamental liberal ideals.

American progressives are liberals. They seek to expand rights and freedoms to include social and economic equality. This is a liberal principle. Progressivism also stems from liberal foundations, particularly the belief in democratic means to improve society and protect the rights of all citizens.

In sum, conservatives and progressives are liberals. Liberals believe in liberty. Both groups promote an America where individuals are free to pursue their own version of happiness, even if their approaches to achieving this vision differ.

Abraham Lincoln's analogy enlightens a fundamental truth: calling something by a different name doesn’t change what it is.

Call both groups what you will, but American conservatives and progressives alike are liberals. We believe in liberty.

Core liberal principles—a belief in natural rights, individual freedom, economic liberty, the rule of law, and protection from tyranny—unite us.

We have competing views on how to best achieve our vision. At the same time, our shared foundation will bridge our divides.

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript AI generated from the audio version:

I was on BlueSky this week, which is a social media capability similar to Twitter.

I saw a thread that an American individual and some Europeans were commenting on how America's democracy is flawed.

The American posited that the Constitution is part of the problem for American democracy.

I totally agree with his take that our Constitution outlines that we aren't a pure democracy.

Because we're not a pure democracy.

The foundation of America is not democracy.

The foundation of America is individual liberty.

Our Constitution wasn't a mistake.

It didn't outline that we're not a pure democracy because the founders messed it up.

James Madison even wrote Federalist Paper No. 10, outlining how representative democracy with divided power protects individuals from the tyranny of government and from the tyranny of the majority.

A pure democracy doesn't protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority.

That's why we're not a pure democracy.

And I didn't want to write an entire article about it because people think I'm crazy that I write an article about how America is not a democracy.

America is a democratic republic.

We're not a pure democracy.

It's not an accident.

So, to the gentleman on BlueSky, I just wanted to leave a note.

We didn't mess it up.

We're not a pure democracy.

We are a constitutional democratic republic that protects liberty over democracy.

Does the state have a duty to provide resources for individual capability?

Let’s set the stage with some background.

June 21, 1788. New Hampshire ratified the US Constitution. With New Hampshire’s ratification, the Constitution became legal. The Constitution included this verbiage in the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to…promote the general Welfare…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The writers expanded the thought in Article 1, Section 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes…to…provide for the…general Welfare of the United States.

As ratified, the Constitution did not include the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments.) James Madison introduced that series of amendments during the First Congress in 1789. President Washington sent 12 amendments to the states for consideration; the states ratified ten of these 12. The two amendments that were not ratified dealt with congressional representation and pay.

December 15, 1791. With Virginia’s ratification, the Bill of Rights took effect. The Bill of Rights focused on negative rights. It restricted government action to protect individual freedoms rather than mandate the government provide specific services.

There is one positive right in the Bill of Rights. The Sixth Amendment outlined the government would provide legal representation for those accused of crimes.

Let’s fast forward 95 years to…

The 1880s. The majority of the writings of Thomas Hill Green were published after his death. Green was a British philosopher and liberal idealist. His work sparked a significant change within liberal thought. He advocated for an expanded role of the state to ensure not just negative liberty (freedom from interference) but also positive liberty (the capacity to act and fulfill one's potential.)

Green posited the state had a duty to promote the common good. To fulfill this duty, Green outlined the state has an obligation to provide resources and opportunities for individual capability.

Let’s move forward again to…

February 3, 1913. Wyoming ratified the Sixteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. They are the last of the three-fourths of states needed for ratification. The 16th Amendment granted Congress the power to levy an income tax without dividing it among the states or basing it on the United States Census.

This amendment enabled the federal government to fund programs and services that can be seen as fulfilling positive rights, such as Social Security and Medicare.

Let’s highlight that event again. The 16th Amendment to the Constitution fundamentally changed the premise of rights in America. Yes, we still have a right to protection from the government, or negative rights. But the 16th Amendment added positive rights. It enabled the government to act in the best interest of the people.

Now that we have a common perspective on the transition from negative to positive rights, we can get to our question.

Does the state have a duty to provide resources for individual capability, as Green posited?

We need to break this question down.

First, what is the ‘state’? In Green’s context, the state is the government. Let’s establish that in and of itself, the government has no money. Dollars in use by representatives of the American people, either elected representatives or government workers, are assets of the American people. The state is the American people.

Second, what’s the implication of the term ‘duty’? In the context of Green's philosophy, duty implied the state had moral and ethical obligations to act in the best interests of its citizens. But duty implies a second consideration here—is individual capability infrastructure? Let’s consider both.

First, moral and ethical obligations must have a standard. Absent a defined standard, we have no obligation requirement to pursue. Whereas we have personal opinions of a moral or ethical standard, these opinions aren’t the same across America. As an example, a progressive might apply a personal standard to create a government program to distribute resources to support single mothers. At the same time, a conservative would deem this an irresponsible use of public funds. Instead, the conservative might advocate for a local nonprofit to fill this need.

We have no defined statutory obligation that we must love our fellow Americans. Laws can mandate actions or prohibit behaviors, but they can’t drive care. Laws can encourage behaviors consistent with caring for and supporting one another, such as through community service or incentives for charitable donations. But they can’t compel feelings.

We have to eliminate ethical and moral obligations from consideration. Ethical and moral obligations originate from caring for each other. But the state can’t make us love each other.

Let’s return to our second ‘duty’ consideration—is individual capability infrastructure?

To answer our question, we need to ask—what is infrastructure? We traditionally understand infrastructure in terms of physical structures like roads and bridges. But infrastructure encompasses more than this narrow view.

Infrastructure is physical, such as transportation (roads, railways, airports) and communications (internet, telecommunications). It’s social, such as schools and hospitals. Economic infrastructure facilitates trade, investment, and the efficient flow of goods and services. Infrastructure is energy, such as supporting defense, agriculture, and heavy industry. Infrastructure is worker training. Businesses have a vested interest in a skilled workforce.

In short, infrastructure is national capability. It’s physical and conditional. Infrastructure makes society function.

Now that we have established capability as infrastructure, we can get back to the crux of the matter. Does the state have a duty to establish and maintain infrastructure supporting society?

The clear answer to this question is ‘yes,’ the state has a duty to support national infrastructure. Infrastructure leads to capability. National capability is cumulative individual capability.

Let’s simplify our logic.

Does the state have a duty to establish and maintain infrastructure supporting society?

Yes.

Is national capability infrastructure?

Yes.

Is a skilled and capable populace national capability?

Yes.

Therefore, does the state have a duty to provide resources for individual capability?

Yes.

In pictorial form:

An obvious question as to whether the state has a duty to provide for individual capability is…how? We can examine that question at a later date.

But, the crux of the matter, the decisive element, is not how. There is more than one acceptable approach.

The decisive element is a skilled and capable populace integral to national capability.

May God bless the United States of America.

Big infrastructure projects benefit Americans. These projects increase individual capability. Combined individual capability generates national capability.

Last week, we established the state has a duty to provide resources for individual capability.

An obvious question is…how should the state provide these resources? Should we create handout programs supporting individual Americans?

The passage of the 16th Amendment in 1913 empowered America to build big infrastructure. Congress could fund larger and more ambitious projects. The infrastructure projects following the passage of the 16th Amendment and their capability included:

* The Federal Aid Road Act of 1916. This act built the foundation for today’s interstate movement of goods and services. The American economy relies on this movement every day.

* Construction of the Hoover Dam began in 1931. This project transformed the American Southwest. The dam provided regional flood control, water irrigation, and hydroelectric power. Today, the dam supports power in California, growth in Las Vegas and Phoenix, and agriculture in the southwest.

* The Tennessee Valley Authority, established in 1933, improved a part of America severely affected by the Great Depression. The TVA addressed flooding and electricity and improved the economy in the Tennessee Valley. The TVA developed a series of hydroelectric dams and later expanded into coal and nuclear energy production. By later supporting the Manhattan Project, the TVA laid the groundwork for the bedrock of America’s national security.

* The 1936 Rural Electrification Act supported home and business electricity for millions of Americans in rural areas. Nebraska Senator George Norris (R), now considered by some to be America’s Greatest Senator, described the need for the act as giving rural Americans a ‘fair chance.’ This project today supports light and heat in houses and businesses across America.

In sum, big infrastructure transforms the American landscape. It fosters national economic growth. It supports American energy. It lays the groundwork for national security. It enables individual Americans to have the energy they need for life. These projects are investments in the foundational capabilities that enable individuals to thrive.

Infrastructure is capability. Big infrastructure benefits individual Americans. Individual capability generates national capability.

There’s another component of generating national capability through supporting individuals. Individuals have a lead role and responsibility to be active participants in the infrastructure. Setting conditions to empower access to infrastructure maximizes their individual potential.

That’s an interesting word: potential.

Potential is an energy word. A ripe apple hanging from a tree has potential energy. When it falls from the tree, its potential energy becomes kinetic energy.

Just like an apple has potential energy, individuals have potential. Individuals realize their potential through effort and commitment.

Back to the apple metaphor. The collective of the American people, embodied by the state, builds the apple orchard. The state plants and cares for the trees. The trees need water and sunlight. Good soil conditions. Insect mitigation. When conditions are right, the trees bear fruit.

The apples are individuals. Under good conditions, the apples grow and ripen. If conditions aren’t great, the apples may still form and grow, but they won’t be great apples.

Apples need a great orchard to be great. Likewise, individuals and communities need effective policy, accessible education, and equitable infrastructure to realize their full potential. Collective individual capability enhancement fuels national growth, security, and competitiveness.

Let’s consider a case study.

The infrastructure for this case study is human capital — the knowledge, skills, and abilities of people. Human capital is foundational infrastructure similar to bridges, roads, and dams. This infrastructure supports the national capability that underpins and enhances the nation's overall capability.

February 2024. Arlington, Virginia. The Arlington Community Foundation published Arlington’s Guarantee Pilot Evaluation Report. The website refers to the pilot program as “unconditional cash for families in need.”

For the pilot evaluation, the Arlington Community Foundation randomly selected 200 low-income working families in the county. The foundation gave these families $500 extra dollars per month, every month for 18 months. We’ll call this group the participants. The foundation studied the effects of the extra income and compared this participants group against a control group that didn’t receive additional funds.

**Note** The Arlington Community Foundation acquired all necessary funding from private donors, business donations, faith communities, and other foundations. They used no public dollars for the study. The foundation offered individual coaching to participants.

The study (pg 18) found that above and beyond the additional $500 per month, the participant group’s median monthly income grew by 36%. As in, not including the $500 per month, the participant group income grew. At the same time, the control group’s income only grew by 9%.

When the participant group had more money, they also made more money from their work.

It’s a fascinating scenario. The participant group had more time because they had more money. They didn’t have to work overtime or work multiple jobs to meet basic needs. The participants used their extra time to pursue professional credentials and job training. They went to school. They bought better clothes for job interviews. More than half of the participants made progress toward achieving career development goals.

The study gave the participant group the opportunity to connect to the infrastructure. Given the opportunity, the group invested in their own human capital.

The bottom line: when given the opportunity and coaching to connect to the infrastructure (in this case, education), the individuals realized some of their potential.

One could look at the logic of this study and conclude that we should create a broad program similar to this pilot everywhere.

But that’s the wrong conclusion. This pilot program was a success, but it’s treating individual apples instead of the orchard. Instead, this program represents a failure of Americans to be able to work one job and make enough money to live out of poverty.

Americans don’t need handouts to connect to the infrastructure. But they do need conditions that support connecting themselves. They need heat in the house and food on the table with the money they make from one job. And they need the opportunity for self-improvement. Working multiple jobs just to put food on the table for their kids takes away the ability of Americans to seek professional advancement.

Let’s get back to our premise. The state has a duty to provide resources for individual capability. How should the state provide these resources? Should we create handout programs supporting individual Americans?

Big infrastructure programs demonstrate results. National economic growth. Stronger American energy. National security.

Big infrastructure programs also demonstrate that Americans will connect themselves to infrastructure when given the opportunity. When given the opportunity to move goods across states, American businesses jump at the chance. When we need flood control for agriculture and resources for national security, Americans are ready. When electricity is available, rural Americans connect themselves to electricity.

The state doesn’t need to give handouts.

Just like an apple orchard, Americans need to be able to connect to big human capital infrastructure. Job training. Education. Professional qualifications.

To be able to connect to this infrastructure, Americans need the means to be able to have enough time to develop professional skills. They need heat in the house and food on the table from the money they make with one full-time job.

May God bless the United States of America.

What is the philosophical basis for education and public funding?

The context of this piece is the premise that Americans need to be able to connect to big human capital infrastructure. Job training. Education. Professional qualifications.

Individuals and communities need effective policy, accessible education, and equitable infrastructure to realize their potential. Enhancing collective individual capability fuels national growth, security, and competitiveness.

The infrastructure in question is human capital — people's knowledge, skills, and abilities. Human capital is foundational infrastructure similar to bridges, roads, and dams. This infrastructure supports the national capability that underpins and enhances the nation's overall capability.

To set the stage for this experiment, my voice is my own. The other voice for this piece is Ava, the name of the ChatGPT voice. Brilliant ElevenLabs Text To Speech created the voice. I edited Ava’s responses so they were shorter and more focused.

Joel: What is the philosophical basis for advancing your education?

Ava: Advancing education can be explored through multiple lenses, including personal growth, societal contribution, and the pursuit of truth.

Philosopher John Dewey emphasized education's role in fostering critical thinking, creativity, and personal fulfillment. This perspective aligns with the concept of self-actualization in Abraham Maslow's hierarchy of needs, suggesting that education can help individuals achieve their highest potential.

From a societal perspective, education is crucial for cultivating informed and responsible citizens. It equips individuals with the knowledge and skills necessary to contribute positively to society and to participate effectively in democratic processes. Plato, in his work The Republic, argued for the importance of education in creating a just society. He highlighted its role in preparing leaders and citizens who can contribute to the common good.

Philosophically, the pursuit of education emphasizes the intrinsic value of knowledge and the intellectual fulfillment that comes from understanding the world.

Joel: That’s a very utopian view of education, and I don’t disagree with the point. But utopian ideals lack teeth. Is the philosophical basis for education not the right to own yourself?

Ava: The concept of self-ownership, or the idea that individuals have the right to control their own bodies and lives, is indeed another philosophical basis for furthering education, albeit from a different angle. This perspective is grounded in libertarian and classical liberal philosophies, which emphasize individual autonomy, freedom, and rights.

Philosophers like John Locke and Robert Nozick have argued for the principle of self-ownership, which asserts that individuals own themselves and, by extension, have the right to the fruits of their labor and the freedom to pursue their own happiness. Education empowers individuals by enhancing their autonomy and ability to make informed decisions about their lives.

Education enables individuals to develop their capacity, make autonomous choices, and engage in the exercise of their freedoms. With education, an individual can better assert control over their life trajectory, make choices that reflect their values and interests, and resist coercion.

Additionally, furthering education can lead to greater economic independence and self-reliance, aspects that are closely tied to the concept of self-ownership. With higher levels of education, individuals are often better positioned to secure employment, achieve financial independence, and contribute to society in meaningful ways, thereby exercising their self-ownership through economic means.

Joel: I’m familiar with John Locke. He is the source of individualism and, therefore, American theory. He’s the philosopher who advanced the principles that became the US Constitution. Who was Robert Nozick?

Ava: Robert Nozick (1938–2002) was an American philosopher and prominent figure in political philosophy, ethics, and epistemology. He was a professor at Harvard University and is best known for his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, published in 1974 by Blackwell Publishers.

Anarchy, State, and Utopia argued for a libertarian minimal state limited to the narrow functions of protection against force, theft, fraud, and enforcement of contracts.

Nozick's libertarian philosophy is grounded in the principle of self-ownership, where individuals have the right to control their own bodies, actions, and the fruits of their labor. He argued against the redistribution of wealth by the state on the grounds that it violates individuals' rights.

Joel: What would Nozick have thought about the state ensuring people have a right to access to education?

Ava: Consistent with his libertarian views, Nozick would likely see education as a private good that individuals should obtain through their own efforts and resources or through voluntary exchanges and agreements.

Nozick championed a minimal state, strictly limited to protecting individuals' rights to life, liberty, and property. This minimal state is contrasted with a more expansive state that might engage in redistributive policies or provide a wide range of public services, including education.

Based on Nozick's libertarian principles, he would likely oppose any system that funds public education through compulsory taxation, seeing it as a form of redistribution that infringes on individuals' rights to their property. He argued that redistributive policies violate the principle of self-ownership and entitlement theory, which holds that people are entitled to their holdings (e.g., income, property) if they have acquired them through just means.

While Nozick might oppose state-mandated funding for education through taxation, he could potentially support voluntary efforts to provide educational opportunities. This could include private schooling, scholarships funded by private donations, or community-funded educational initiatives, so long as participation and funding are voluntary and do not involve coercion by the state.

Joel: So, Nozick would be against the entire public American university system? What was Nozick's background before he taught at Harvard?

Ava: Before Robert Nozick became a prominent figure in philosophy and a professor at Harvard University, he had a diverse educational and professional background that shaped his intellectual development.

For his higher education, Nozick attended Columbia College, where he earned his Bachelor's degree in 1959. He then went on to pursue graduate studies at Princeton University, where he completed his Ph.D. in philosophy in 1963. His doctoral dissertation focused on decision theory, which already hinted at his interest in the foundations of rational choice and ethical decision-making.

After receiving his Ph.D., Nozick took up a position at Princeton University, where he started his academic career. He remained at Princeton for a short period before moving to other academic institutions. Before his tenure at Harvard, he also taught at the University of Virginia and Rockefeller University. These positions allowed him to develop and refine his philosophical views, particularly in political philosophy, ethics, and epistemology.

At this point in our conversation, I became annoyed by the logic break.

Joel: He taught at publicly funded institutions as well as private?

Ava: Yes, Robert Nozick taught at both publicly funded and private institutions throughout his academic career.

The University of Virginia is a public university and one of the places where Nozick taught early in his career. The University of Virginia is known for its strong commitment to liberal arts education and has a significant history as it was founded by Thomas Jefferson in 1819. Teaching at a public institution like the University of Virginia would have given Nozick insight into the operations and values of publicly funded higher education in the United States.

Nozick's experience across these diverse academic settings—public and private—contributed to his broad perspective on education, research, and intellectual inquiry. However, it's important to note that while Nozick argued philosophically against certain roles of the state, including extensive public funding for services like education, his professional career did intersect with publicly funded institutions.

Joel: Would he have made it to Harvard had he not taught at UVA? I find it ironic that he would use a publicly funded resource for his own career and then later criticize public funding for others.

Ava: The perceived irony of utilizing publicly funded platforms while critiquing certain aspects of public funding and state involvement in individual lives is not unique to Nozick. Many intellectuals and academics work within publicly funded institutions, contributing valuable research and teaching that benefits society at large, even as they might critique aspects of those very systems.

Joel: Let’s dig a little deeper. Does Harvard receive public funding through grants, awards, etc?

Ava: Yes, Harvard University, like many private universities in the United States, receives public funding in the form of grants, awards, and other financial support, primarily for research purposes. These funds can come from various sources, including federal government agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Defense (DoD), and other entities. This funding supports a wide range of research activities across disciplines, including but not limited to medical research, science and engineering, public policy, and the social sciences.

While Harvard's operational budget is significantly supported by its endowment, tuition fees, and private donations, federal and state research grants are a crucial component of the university's research ecosystem.

:-|

Joel: Okay, let's redirect our conversation. Nozick believed in enforcing the social contract. Americans have a social contract wherein we believe we share the inalienable right to pursue happiness. If someone requires education to pursue happiness, do we not inherently believe in contributing to others' ability to pursue happiness by supporting educational institutions?

Ava: Robert Nozick's views, particularly as presented in Anarchy, State, and Utopia, provide a unique perspective on the concept of the social contract and the pursuit of happiness. While Nozick does argue for the enforcement of contracts and the protection of individual rights as central functions of the state, his interpretation of the social contract significantly diverges from the idea that this necessarily includes a duty to redistribute funds to ensure everyone's ability to pursue happiness through education or other means.

Nozick's Entitlement Theory of Justice suggests that the redistribution of funds for social welfare programs, including publicly funded education, is unjust if it infringes upon individuals' rights to their property. According to Nozick, unless individuals voluntarily choose to contribute their resources for the benefit of others, compelling them to do so through taxation constitutes a violation of their rights.

In essence, while Nozick deeply values the pursuit of happiness, his philosophical stance does not inherently support the idea of redistributing funds for education or other means of enabling this pursuit as a state-enforced obligation.

Joel: I didn't mean to imply a redistribution of funds. I mean Americans, by virtue of being American, choose to willingly give some funds to enable others to achieve their pursuit of happiness at some level. What would Nozick think of this position?

Ava: Robert Nozick would likely view the position that Americans choose to willingly give some funds to enable others to achieve their pursuit of happiness as a reflection of individual autonomy and voluntary association. As long as these contributions are not compelled by the state and respect the principles of individual rights and consent, they could be seen as consistent with his philosophical framework. This perspective underscores the distinction between voluntary acts of support and charity, which are compatible with libertarian principles, and compulsory redistribution, which is not.

Ava isn’t getting my point. The contributions are compelled by the state. They’re called taxes. But we do choose to pay them.

Joel: Ava, here in America, we elect representatives. Our representatives choose to, on our behalf, fund public institutions to enable others to achieve their inherent right to pursue happiness. Every state in the union has a public university. Therefore, we as individuals choose to fund public institutions. Further, this means our commitment to education isn't compulsory; it's voluntary.

Ava: Your argument posits an interesting perspective on the democratic process and the funding of public institutions in the United States, including education. This view suggests that because Americans elect representatives who make decisions on public funding, including for education, this process is essentially a form of collective voluntary choice rather than compulsory imposition.

Of course, conversing with a large language model has no end. You type, and it writes back. And Ava is not the esteemed Dr. Nozick.

Individuals and communities need effective policy, accessible education, and equitable infrastructure to realize their potential. Americans need to be able to connect to big human capital infrastructure. Job training. Education. Professional qualifications.

Enhancing collective individual capability fuels national growth, security, and competitiveness.

Human capital infrastructure — people's knowledge, skills, and abilities- is foundational infrastructure similar to bridges, roads, and dams. This infrastructure supports the national capability that underpins and enhances the nation's overall capability.

In our democratic republic, we elect representatives to act on our behalf. These representatives choose to fund public institutions to enable others to achieve their inherent right to pursue happiness. Every state in the union has a public university.

Therefore, we as individuals choose to fund public institutions to enable others to achieve their inherent right to pursue happiness.

May God bless the United States of America.

Two weeks ago, we asserted that Americans need to be able to connect to big human capital infrastructure. Job training. Education. Professional qualifications. Further, we posited that building collective individual capability fuels national growth, security, and competitiveness. We concluded that individuals collectively need effective policy, accessible education, and equitable infrastructure to build national capability.

Last week, we determined that ‘We the People’ collectively choose to fund public institutions to enable others to achieve their inherent right to pursue happiness. This includes education. We make this choice by electing representatives to act on our behalf. Representatives in every state in the union fund a public university. We concluded that this voluntary funding to enable access to education fulfills part of our social contract.

Now for the week's question: should we fund Women’s Studies programs at public universities?

Women’s Studies programs and other diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) study programs attract controversy. They challenge traditional narratives by reevaluating history and society. They question established power structures and advocate for systemic change. These challenges spark disagreement among those who perceive them as an attack on cultural values.

Now that we understand the controversy, we can ask some questions to orient ourselves on the basis of Women’s Studies.

Joel: Ava, how should we introduce our debate on Women’s Studies?

Ava: Joel, let’s start with the philosophy of the foundation of America, our Declaration of Independence.

Our shared philosophy asserts the equality of all individuals. It states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The emphasis on equality and the right to pursue happiness supports the need for education to address historical inequalities. Achieving equality of opportunity means identifying inequality.

Joel: And we weren’t perfect. We should recognize the canyon between the philosophy and the history. The founders signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776. In 1790, President Washington signed the Nationality Act into law. The law established citizenship guidelines to include only white male property owners. It excluded women, nonwhite persons, and servants.

Today, we are better, but we still need to improve. With diligent effort, we continue to strive towards equality of opportunity. Much work remains.

This dichotomy between philosophical ideal and reality highlights the importance of understanding and addressing systemic inequalities. We say we believe in equality. It’s a foundational premise of America.

But we can’t say we believe we are all created equal and, at the same time, ignore deficiencies. To identify shortcomings in women’s rights, we have to look for them. To look for them means we have to study women’s rights.

Ava: At the same time, there are detractors of Women’s Studies.

Some debate the academic rigor and practical value of Women's Studies programs. Critics question the impact of these programs on students' career prospects and overall contribution to the workforce. They argue that the discipline doesn’t provide practical skills.

Critics argue that Women's Studies programs are ideologically driven and lack objectivity. They suggest that focusing on gender equity and social justice introduces bias in research and teaching.

Resistance to Women's Studies is sometimes rooted in broader political or cultural opposition to feminism and social justice movements. Critics see the discipline as promoting a particular political agenda.

Joel: Let’s look at Women’s Studies through the lens of the purpose of education for individuals.

Education for individuals builds capacity for personal responsibility.

Education fosters self-reliance. It teaches individuals to think critically, solve problems independently, and make informed decisions. It encourages self-sufficiency. It enables individuals to rely on their abilities and judgment in navigating personal and professional challenges.

Education empowers individuals by providing them with the knowledge and skills necessary to improve their circumstances and achieve their goals.

We can further examine education through the lens of national capability.

Education builds a nation's capability to establish favorable world conditions.

Education contributes directly to economic development and global competitiveness. It drives innovation, productivity, and economic growth. Diversity of thought achieved through education contributes to national security by developing citizens who can engage with complex global issues.

Do Women’s Studies programs achieve these aims?

Ava: Women’s Studies programs promote ethical reasoning, enabling students to navigate complex moral landscapes and make conscientious decisions. They empower individuals to recognize systemic barriers and personal agency. They foster personal responsibility in understanding, interacting with, and seeking to change the world.

Those who study Women's Studies programs enter various fields, from public policy and education to business and law. They contribute diverse perspectives that drive innovation and address complex societal issues.

Joel: Women’s Studies sound abstract. Do you have any concrete examples?

Ava: Sure. Let’s examine how Women's Studies scholars contribute to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM). STEM fields face skilled labor shortages. Women’s participation helps address these gaps, ensuring that the most capable minds contribute to advancements in technology and science, irrespective of gender.

At the same time, research by Women’s Studies scholars highlights systemic biases in STEM education and workplaces. The March 2024 State of Girls and Women in STEM report from the National Girls Collaborative Project finds that women comprise 48% of the workforce but only 35% of the STEM workforce. Minority women make up less than 10% of the STEM workforce.

These same scholars help develop solutions to mitigate the problem. Advocates work to increase the representation of women in STEM fields. They help develop mentoring programs, scholarships, and awareness campaigns. Initiatives like Girls Who Code and the Society of Women Engineers benefit from the input of individuals knowledgeable in gender studies. They aim to inspire and support young women and girls to pursue STEM careers.

University programs sponsor Women in STEM Conferences and Women’s Mentor Programs to assist women in navigating challenges in the academic and industry workforce.

Joel: The push to improve women’s participation in STEM fields began in earnest in the 1960s. Between 1966 and 1977, researchers asked 5,000 schoolgirls to draw a scientist. Less than 1% of them drew a scientist who was a woman. In 1985, that number rose to 33%. In 2016, 58% of schoolgirls drew a female scientist.

In 1970, women comprised 8% of the STEM workforce. Diligent effort improved our capability over time.

The biggest argument in favor of Women's Studies and DEI programs hinges on whether we have a self-sustaining solution to the cycle of underrepresentation. These programs offer a self-reinforcing cycle of recruiting more brilliant individuals to generate capability, regardless of gender or background.

Education, empowerment, and leadership cultivate a society that drives capability.

Not diversity for the sake of diversity. Diversity as a source of strength and innovation.

Let’s simplify the rationale for Women’s Studies, still using STEM careers as an example.

* Brilliant people of any gender bring great capability to STEM fields.

* For many societal reasons, women historically participate in these fields at a lower level than men.

* Women’s Studies programs make measurable improvements to increase women’s participation in STEM. These efforts increase the total number of brilliant people in STEM. More involvement in STEM by brilliant individuals generates increased national capability.

Therefore:

Education in fields that challenge and expand our understanding of gender and society increases the nation's overall capability and global competitiveness.

Our pursuit of equality and liberty is an ongoing endeavor. We believe in the ideal, but we aren’t perfect yet.

We can’t say we believe we are all created equal and, at the same time, ignore deficiencies. To identify shortcomings in women’s rights, we have to look for them. To look for them means we have to study women’s rights.

Women's Studies and other diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs are essential to our national toolkit. We're actively cultivating a capable and innovative workforce poised to lead on the global stage.

There are arguments against Women’s Studies and other DEI study programs. But the results speak for themselves.

To increase national capability, we need to identify and engage brilliant people in areas where they can demonstrate their talents.

May God bless the United States of America.

Has capitalism failed the housing market?

We need to examine the decisive points that lead us through some philosophy to consider capitalism’s impact on housing affordability and supply.

Ultimately, our goal should be to achieve an adequate supply of homes, resulting in a median home price of two times the median household income for that area.

Capitalism and Housing

Scottish Economist and Philosopher Adam Smith speaking on capitalism in 1776:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership of production and operations for profit. Central tenets of capitalism include wealth accumulation, competitive markets, private property, and the recognition of property rights. Private citizens control property and act in their self-interest to gain economic prosperity. Production, distribution, income, and prices are determined mainly through markets rather than governments.

Capitalism drives significant economic growth and innovation and increases standards of living. However, it can also lead to exploitation and economic inequality. Capitalism proponents assert that the most efficient use of resources occurs when individuals make decisions based on market signals without government influence.

The American housing market thrives on capitalism, but the system is a double-edged sword.

Capitalism undeniably demonstrates the ability to drive progress and meet consumer demand. It benefits America’s housing market through innovation, efficiency, and investment opportunities. The drive for profit encourages innovation and efficiency. Capitalism supports a robust real estate market. Markets allow individuals to invest in property, contributing to personal wealth and economic growth.

However, capitalism also leads to systemic challenges in the housing market. It creates affordability challenges and widens income inequality. In many urban and desirable areas, housing prices have escalated beyond the reach of middle- and lower-income families.

Moving from Adam Smith's capitalist ideals, which highlight market-driven self-interest, to John Locke's philosophical stance, we encounter a compelling case for governance that honors and protects natural rights, including the essential need for housing.

The Role of Government in Capitalism

John Locke, the foundational philosopher of the US Constitution, championed a government that actively preserved property rights. He viewed these rights as more than just material possessions. They extended beyond physical holdings to include individual liberty and the fruits of one’s labor. His vision extended beyond debates about regulation.

Regarding property, Locke, in his Two Treatises of Government, 1690, said:

The great and chief end…of men’s…putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.

In essence, Locke believed individuals consent to government to preserve their property—not just physical possessions but life, liberty, and personal estate. Protecting these elements justifies government within society. Some might argue his focus on property rights disregards the needs of those who may not have property or the means to acquire it. However, Locke’s premise was that everyone owns property, even if that property is owning yourself.

Locke’s view of property rights relates to today’s affordable housing challenges through his understanding of the government’s responsibility. We have a duty not only to protect these rights but also to create conditions under which citizens can secure their own properties, which in a modern sense includes affordable housing.

Securing basic needs allows individuals to pursue prosperity and stability. These can’t be achieved without heat in the house and food on the table, and you can’t put food on the table without a home to put it in.

Therefore, the people who lead government must address the broader economic conditions that enable individuals to acquire and enjoy property. These conditions include access to affordable housing, fair market practices, and the protection of investments.

The Current State of the Housing Market

The housing market has become untenable. The challenges aren’t an inherent failure of capitalism. They’re a symptom of market-driven systems operating with added government influence but without sufficient intervention to address societal needs.

Government officials at many levels, including cities, counties, states, and the federal level, levy additional housing rules on builders. Many of these requirements are strongly beneficial, such as plumbing, electrical, and personal safety standards. Other requirements, such as zoning, increase housing costs. All combined, the requirements represent government interference that increases the cost of building housing.

The impact of increased building costs is a reduced supply of affordable housing, which has been decreasing since 1960. Builders build bigger homes to recoup their costs. Figure 4-6 below shows a long-term trend in housing production per capita, with a notable decrease in the construction of single-family homes. This downturn in housing is especially pronounced during economic recessions, as evidenced by the gray bars. The data suggests that in our regulatory environment, market-driven production alone doesn’t meet the population's housing needs.

The supply of first-time homebuyer houses is especially low. Figure 4-7 below presents a stark visual representation of the declining trend in the construction of smaller single-family homes since the 1970s. As these homes are often more affordable for first-time homebuyers and lower-income families, the sharp decrease from nearly 40% of homes to just over 5% signifies a shift away from affordable housing. This shift isn’t just a reflection of consumer preference. It indicates market and policy failures.

Adam Smith, the capitalist philosopher, identified we can’t ask builders to build more inexpensive, smaller homes for first-time homebuyers out of the goodness of their hearts. We have to appeal to their self-interest. Building smaller homes has to be profitable.

The government's role, in the Lockean sense, needs to evolve to address the challenges presented by the housing market. The decline in affordable housing isn’t a market outcome. It’s a central concern for policy intervention.

Counterarguments

Critics argue that government regulations like zoning laws and building codes inherently disrupt market efficiencies. However, we need more than unchecked capitalism to ensure equitable access to housing. Targeted government intervention, informed by Locke's principle of protecting property rights and individual liberty, can help correct market failures without undermining overall market efficiency.

Another common critique is that merely increasing the housing supply does not address the deeper issues of market greed and speculation, which can continue to drive prices up, outpacing increases in supply. This argument overlooks the role of targeted policy measures in shaping the type of supply that comes to market. By incentivizing the construction of affordable housing through tax credits, grants, and revised zoning regulations, government action can ensure that increased supply directly addresses the needs of low- and middle-income families.

A more philosophical critique posits that capitalism is inherently unjust, leading to inequality and prioritizing profit over human needs. While capitalism does have its flaws, it is also the driving force behind innovation and economic growth. The issue is not capitalism itself but how it is regulated and directed. By aligning capitalist incentives with societal needs, such as creating affordable housing, we can retain capitalism’s strengths while mitigating its weaknesses.

Proposal

We have examined capitalism's double-edged sword and recognized the duty of government officials to safeguard an individual's rights, including the fundamental right to secure necessary resources. With this common understanding of the philosophy, we can answer our question: Has capitalism failed the housing market?

No, capitalism has not failed the housing market.

Capitalism can’t fail the housing market because it’s an economic system. It’s not accountable to anyone, and no one directs capitalism. It doesn’t aim to achieve housing for low- and middle-income individuals; the goal of a capitalist system is to enable individuals to act in their interest. The success of capitalism—economic growth, innovation, and increased living standards—orients us to keep capitalism for the housing market.

We need to work through the market and increase the supply of homes for low- and middle-income families. In simple economic terms, as the supply of an item rises relative to the demand for that item, the price in the market will decrease. In a capitalist market, the approach to reducing the cost of houses for first-time homebuyers is to increase the supply.

As an example, imagine there are only a few slices of pizza left, and everyone wants one. The price will be high because everyone wants a slice, and they are willing to pay more to get one. But if the kitchen suddenly makes more pizzas, there will be enough for everyone. The price will come down because there's no longer competition for the limited slices. This is similar to what happens in housing. When there are fewer houses available than people who want them (or low supply, high demand), prices go up.

As the latest Congressional Research Service US housing supply report implies, the supply of first-time homebuyer houses is too low. Home prices are unaffordable for low- to middle-income families. The report mentions some ideas, like grants, to reduce the challenges of building new houses. These challenges could be things like permits, zoning laws, or other regulations that make it more expensive or time-consuming to build.

The CRS report identifies other possibilities, such as tax credits for first-time homebuyers and setting goals to increase the supply of building materials. But the reality is those items aren’t direct indicators of affordability for first-time homebuyers.

The direct indicator of housing affordability is the ratio of median household incomes and home prices. The median household income in 1960 was $5,600, and the median cost of a home was $11,900. We need to measure our progress to achieve that 2:1 standard.

In addition to current efforts to increase the supply of affordable housing, we need to set a goal. We need to achieve an adequate supply of homes, resulting in a median home price of two times the median household income for that area.

Has Capitalism failed the housing market?

Capitalism is an economic system. The system drives economic growth and innovation and increases our standard of living.

No, capitalism has not failed the housing market. The goal of a capitalist system isn’t to make housing affordable. The goal is to enable individuals to act in their self-interest.

But while capitalism hasn’t failed per se, it has created a scenario where intervention is necessary to safeguard individual rights. This includes the fundamental right to secure housing.

To enable Americans the ability to secure their own needs, we need to set and measure progress toward a goal. That goal is a median home price of two times the median household income for that area.

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript.

America is torn by division. The battle for the nation's soul rages on, touching every aspect of society. An intense struggle over American culture and individual rights unfolds, fueled by deep-seated disagreements over social reform. Voices on both sides of the spectrum argue passionately. We are a society at a crossroads.

The political scene is characterized by unprecedented divisiveness. Disenfranchised communities rise against an entrenched power of elites, demanding fairer economic practices. The fire for change is a response to growing economic disparities and widespread inequality fueled by rapid technological advancements.

The media landscape has transformed, with new technologies amplifying voices like never before. This enables the media to reach new audiences. Information—and equally, misinformation—spreads at breakneck speed, influencing public opinion and shaping the national dialogue.

Immigration is a hot-button issue, igniting debates on assimilation, employment, and cultural impact. These discussions often veer into prejudice and nativism, challenging politicians and their constituents to confront the nation's values head-on.

Amid the turmoil stand two presidential candidates, both former Presidents, who have managed to alienate significant portions of their party. Their candidacies test the limits of political loyalty and ideological purity.

Of course, the subject is the 1892 US Presidential election.

America has always had culture wars.

Today, we fight over various issues: economic concerns, wealth inequality, immigration, and individual liberty. These are broad themes in American history. The 1892 contest between presidential candidates Grover Cleveland and Benjamin Harrison shares similarities with today. Here are a few parallels:

Economic Concerns and Wealth Inequality

The late 19th century Industrial Revolution saw rapid industrialization and businessmen looking to gain power and wealth on the backs of American workers. The nation experienced significant economic growth alongside marked inequality and labor unrest, with stark disparities in wealth and power between the industrial elite and the working class. In a book of the same name, Mark Twain coined the late 19th-century period the Gilded Age, meaning it was beautiful on the surface but corrupt underneath. At the time, this led to intense debates over economic policy, particularly tariffs.

In contrast, today, we are experiencing rapid digital advancement. The Digital Revolution has reshaped the economy through information technology, automation, and artificial intelligence. These changes have increased productivity but also raised concerns about job displacement and the skills gap. Similar to the Gilded Age, we have significant economic inequality. The wealth gap has widened, with a substantial portion of wealth concentrated in the hands of a relatively small number of individuals, particularly those with ties to the tech industry and other high-growth sectors. Movements advocating for economic justice, workers' rights, environmental sustainability, and social equity are pressing for systemic changes.

Immigration

The 1890s was one of America’s peak immigration periods. Millions arrived from Europe, fleeing economic hardship, religious persecution, and political turmoil. Immigrants fueled the nation's industrial boom, providing the labor force that powered factories, built railways, and transformed the American economy. At the same time, Americans feared damage to society, the economy, and national identity. Many immigrants spoke no English. Concerns about assimilation, competition for jobs, and cultural impact led to nativist sentiments and calls for restrictions on immigration.

Today, people migrate to America for many reasons—seeking better economic opportunities, fleeing persecution or conflict, or joining family members. Debates center on issues of illegal immigration and border security, especially at the southern border. Americans question the impact of immigration on jobs, wages, and social services.

Individual Liberty

Individual liberty was central to the political and social debates of the late 19th century. The culture war burned bright.

Passage of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (ratified in 1868) granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including formerly enslaved people. The 15th Amendment (ratified in 1870) enabled voting rights regardless of "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." However, the Gilded Age witnessed the rise of Jim Crow laws in the Southern states. These laws created a broad system of racial segregation and discrimination. Literacy tests, poll taxes, and other discriminatory practices disenfranchised Black Americans.

Senator Aaron A. Sargent (R) introduced a proposed Constitutional Amendment to secure women’s right to vote in 1878. Congress didn’t pass the Amendment for 41 years. Tennessee’s ratification in 1920 incorporated it into the Constitution. Opponents claimed a woman’s place was in the home, and women lacked the education to be informed voters. Some opponents feared that giving women the right to vote would radically change society and cause a breakdown in marriage and families. Finally, fearmongers spread talk of a decline in societal morals, which they said would lead to the degradation of the social order.

Culture wars, indeed. Today, we still fight over the culture of America. Our fight over individual liberty includes education, such as who gets to decide whether a child can read certain books in school that might offend someone else’s parents. But it also includes the right to freedom of speech and expression, such as whether the government can dictate what clothes someone can’t wear. We even fight over the role of technology in shaping societal norms, such as the impact of social media on democracy and privacy, the ethical implications of artificial intelligence, and the digital divide's effect on educational and economic opportunities. But the age-old fights remain. Today, women have the right to vote but not the right to make their own healthcare decisions.

Both the Gilded Age and the Digital Age reveal the recurring themes of America's struggle with economic disparities, the challenges of technological advancement, and the continuous evolution of societal values. These parallels underline the cyclical nature of history, where each new era brings challenges, debates, and opportunities for growth and reform.

The contrast between both periods identifies the same issues. They present themselves in new ways, but the fight is the same. One hundred thirty years later, we can draw lasting conclusions about the divisiveness surrounding the 1892 election.

First, working Americans deserve the ability to decide their own fate. This personal responsibility directly derives from the ability to have food on the table and heat in the house. We shouldn’t support Americans on social welfare programs because we shouldn’t HAVE to support Americans on welfare programs. Americans need to make enough money from their labor to care for themselves.

At the same time, not all businesses are the same. A hard and fast rule to raise the minimum wage would disproportionately impact retail and food service industries, which have a high percentage of low earners. In addition to raising the minimum wage, we need to give small businesses that pay livable wages tax credits. This would reward the many great American businesses that pay livable wages, raise wages for workers, and reduce the need for social welfare programs.

Second, immigrants didn’t destroy America. Immigrants became Americans because that’s what all immigrants become. Immigrants come to America because they want to be Americans. They don’t come to America intent on destroying her. We don’t support open borders because undocumented immigration leads to abuse of immigrants and strains community resources, including healthcare, education, and law enforcement. But we have no reason not to support legal immigration. At the same time, we can address security along our southern border with decisive measures.

Third, instead of the Gilded Age fight over a woman’s right to vote, we fight over a woman’s right to make her own healthcare decisions. Just like we enshrined a woman’s right to vote in the Constitution with the 19th Amendment, we must enshrine her right to make her own healthcare decisions. Every competent American adult should have the right to make his or her own healthcare decisions. We must further restrict the government’s knowledge of individual healthcare decisions in the same Amendment. The government deciding someone’s personal choice is an unparalleled insult to individual liberty and clearly violates founding American principles. We can have our own opinions of the ethics, but the government has no place in the matter.

The biggest lesson we can learn from the one hundred and thirty years since the 1892 election is that the American system is resilient. Our democratic republic will sway in the winds of the 2024 election. We will continue to progress toward the American ideal, and we will never be perfect. No matter the victor this year, the American ideal will fight on.

May God bless the United States of America.

We are endowed with radical freedom, but this freedom is inherently linked to societal obligations and responsibilities.

Where is the line between personal liberty and our obligation to society?

What about when others disagree with our healthcare decisions?

We are Condemned to be Free.

Jean-Paul Sartre (1905–1980) was a French existentialist philosopher, playwright, and novelist. He saw first-hand two world wars and the German occupation of France during World War II. Sartre’s philosophy explored the nature of existence, freedom, consciousness, and the human condition. He described himself as an anarchist; the only cause he believed in was human freedom.

The central concept of Sartre’s philosophy was the existentialist view that individuals create their own meaning in an indifferent universe. He believed in radical freedom and the inherent responsibility that freedom enabled. He disavowed belief in a deity. As an atheist he posited individuals are free to make their own choices and create meaning in a world that does not provide meaning.

But he also posited that we are condemned to be free. This freedom is not liberating. It’s a prison of condemnation because it comes with weighty personal responsibility for our choices and their consequences.

For Sartre, the absence of a predetermined purpose meant that each person must define their essence through actions. This freedom is inescapable. The responsibility it entails can feel burdensome, as individuals cannot blame their circumstances, society, or a deity for their choices and outcomes. They are fully responsible for defining their own existence.

Sartre could have been a libertarian if not for his belief in social responsibility and the collective struggle for justice and equality. He strongly rejected authoritarian structures and traditional societal norms. He did not advocate for anarchism as a governance structure; he was more of a socialist.

In sum, Sartre was, in part, a radical individualist. But his blend of existentialist thought, atheism, and commitment to social responsibility make him a complex philosophical figure.

Individualism and social responsibility seemingly contradict. Let’s keep digging into this unique nature of individual freedom.

There’s another concept that intersects with existentialist thought…to explore it, let's head to the American West.

Ride for the Brand!

Ride for the Brand is a phrase from the American West originating from cattle ranching culture. It embodies loyalty, dedication, and commitment to a group or cause. It refers to a cowboy's loyalty to the ranch owner or the "brand" of cattle he worked for.

The saying is widely known in the West. It symbolizes standing by your commitments, working for the greater good of the community or organization you're part of, and upholding the values and principles that define it.

Possibly the earliest written reference to Ride for the Brand is Western writer Zane Grey’s 1934 novel Code of the West. The Code of the West isn’t a set of laws; it’s a social contract. Those who broke the code became social outcasts. This social contract, underpinned by unwavering loyalty to one's commitments, was crucial in shaping social norms and expectations.

Ride for the Brand isn’t an ethos of blind loyalty. It’s a duty to uphold your commitment to a community or group's collective values and goals.

The American West’s “Ride for the Brand” demonstrates how individual freedom and social commitment coexist. We make choices, and those choices come with obligations. By riding for the brand, we commit to honoring our obligations.

We all make choices, either willingly or by the station of our birth.

Our choices represent individual freedom. Some choices are forced on us. Our parents and grandparents choose our place of birth. Our elected representatives choose other societal conditions on our behalf. We choose to pay taxes, to obey laws, and to respect the rights of others. Though we don’t explicitly make every one of our choices, they are our choices nonetheless.

These choices come with obligations.

Edmund Burke, the world’s decisive Conservative philosopher, said we have “obligations to mankind at large, which are not in consequence of any special voluntary pact.” Burke recognized that even if we didn’t explicitly choose the station of our birth, we still have obligations resulting from those choices.

We commit to honoring our obligations. We make commitments to ourselves, our communities, and our society. These commitments represent our social contract.

Here’s a mind map that graphically represents our text.

Our commitment to radical freedom is a component of the social contract. So are our societal obligations and the consequences of our choices. Our loyalty and collective values, expressed by our unspoken law to ride for the brand, are a part of our social contract.

While we each have the personal freedom to define our existence, we do so within a social framework that levies responsibilities and consequences. Our individual choices echo through our social structures, impacting others. They influence and are influenced by our collective values and commitments, much like our duty to ride for the brand.

Let’s have a concrete example…

Measles Vaccinations

Measles is a highly contagious viral disease. It’s so contagious that up to 90% of people near an infected area can become infected if they aren’t vaccinated. Measles stays in a room for up to two hours after the infected person leaves. You can catch measles just by entering this room in those two hours.

Dr. Peter Hotez, co-director of the Center for Vaccine Development at Texas Children’s Hospital, says, “For every 10,000 children infected with measles, 2,000 will be hospitalized; 1,000 will develop ear infections with the potential for permanent hearing loss; 500 will develop pneumonia; and 10 to 30 will die.” Possible long-term effects of measles include memory loss, seizures, and blindness; these effects can emerge as long as eight years after infection.

Babies are a genuine concern. You can’t vaccinate a child until they are 12 months old. Michael Mina, MD, PhD, assistant professor of epidemiology at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, identified that before the vaccine, measles was “likely associated with at least half of all childhood deaths from infectious diseases.”

But there’s good news! There’s a really good vaccine to protect against measles infection. Two MMR shots are 97% effective at preventing measles infection.

Unfortunately, as of a week ago, 17 states here in America have measles outbreaks.

In sum, we’ve established measles as a highly contagious viral disease that is preventable by the individual choice to be vaccinated. When enough people are vaccinated in a community, the entire community will be disease-free. Let’s consider a philosophical case study of public schools, existentialism, and loyalty to our communities.

Do you have a radical freedom right to refuse the vaccine? Yes. You can do so on whatever grounds you prefer, the most common being a religious exemption. You absolutely have a right to make your own healthcare decisions. The government should have no say in the matter.

At the same time, if you choose to use public resources such as schools, this choice violates our social contract. You can’t refuse to adhere to public safety standards and, at the same time, use public resources. This personal choice echoes through our social structures, impacting others.

If you choose to participate in social structures such as sending your kids to public schools, you have to ride for the brand. When you make the choice, you take on the responsibility. Doing so upholds the collective values and goals of your community.

Alternatively, you have a right to refuse to participate in society. There are Supreme Court cases that establish your precedent to home school for religious reasons. Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) supports parental rights. In the case, the high court ruled that a parent’s First Amendment right to free exercise of religion was more compelling than the state’s interest in educating their children. Courts have repeatedly found home education a viable pathway to citizenship.

There’s another consideration here: the role of government officials. Do officials first have a responsibility to protect the rights of individuals? Or do they first have a duty to uphold the public interest, including public safety? Yes, and yes.

Government officials are responsible for protecting America's bedrock—individual liberty. There is no higher obligation.

But when individual choices infringe on the rights of others, officials have a duty to protect the individual rights of the people. When individuals make choices that endanger others, they violate our social contract. Just as officials are responsible for maintaining individual rights, they have a responsibility to conserve the institution. In this case, we are still protecting the rights of individuals to make their choice. But if they choose to threaten public safety, they shouldn’t also be able to choose to use public resources.

There is no higher principle than individual liberty. No matter your belief in a deity, individuals are inherently free to make their own choices and create meaning in the world.

At the same time, this freedom comes with weighty personal responsibility for our choices and their consequences.

We are condemned to be free.

When we choose to participate in society, we must honor our social contract and commit to upholding our community’s collective values and goals.

We ride for the brand.

May God bless the United States of America.

Some grow frustrated with our progress in convincing Russia to leave Ukraine. We could take deliberate steps to increase our negotiating strength.

Just as a thought experiment, a case study—should we enforce a blockade of Kaliningrad?

June 24, 1948. Joseph Stalin, the Soviet leader during World War II, directed a blockade of all supplies going into West Berlin, Germany, by road, rail, or river. Despite controlling the surrounding territory, the Soviets could not stop air transit into and out of the isolated city.

The US and our allies responded to the Soviet blockade by airlifting all supplies for two million people into and out of West Berlin for the next 322 days. Planes brought coal for heat and electricity, as well as oil and gas. They brought food, coffee, medicine, raw materials for clothing, and other essentials. Planes even brought candy, highlighting a human touch during political tensions. At the peak of the Berlin Airlift, a plane filled with supplies landed in Berlin every 45 seconds.

May 12, 1949. The Soviets stopped the blockade due to the demonstrated American and Allied commitment to West Berlin. This airlift foreshadowed the enduring geopolitical tensions that would characterize the Cold War. It highlighted the enduring importance of resilience, innovation, and international cooperation in the face of adversity.

A key point here is that, even if it failed, the Soviets illustrated that a blockade is an acceptable strategy to exert negotiating pressure on America and our Western European partners.

The other key point is that the Soviet blockade failed due to determined American and Allied commitment.

The legacy of the Berlin Airlift echoes across the modern geopolitical landscape, particularly in the face of continued Russian ambitions to exert influence beyond its borders.

February 24, 2022. Russian forces directed by Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine. The invasion drew widespread international condemnation and led to a series of sanctions against Russia.

Two years later, in a statement on February 23, 2024, American President Biden reiterated that Russian aggression in Ukraine is a threat to all of Europe and the rest of the world, including the United States.

The same day, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III outlined America’s goals for Ukraine. He stated that as a global coalition, we intend to:

Ensure that Ukraine has the capabilities that it needs to defend its people from Russian aggression, and

Take back its sovereign territory

Secretary Austin III highlighted, “This historic coalition has committed more than $87 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since the start of Putin's war—including 15 U.S. allies that, as a percentage of GDP, contribute more to Ukraine's capability needs than the United States.”

Unfortunately, the sanctions and aid supplied to Ukraine have not resulted in Russian forces leaving Ukraine. Russian forces are entrenched. Forcibly removing them from Ukraine is a challenging task.

How might we reinforce our negotiating position with Russia?

Successful negotiation starts from a position of strength. This strength relies on strategic preparation and a superior Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement, or BATNA. Roger Fisher, William Ury, and later Bruce Patton introduced the BATNA concept in their 1981 book Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In.

A strong BATNA means having a robust and viable plan that can be executed if negotiations fail. This ensures negotiation isn’t the only path to achieving your objectives, thereby reducing desperation and improving leverage.

Strength in negotiation also comes from assessing and influencing the other party's BATNA. Understanding and weakening the other party's alternatives enhances your position.

Our BATNA is a stronger North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), improved already by enhanced military readiness (Steadfast Defender 24 exercises), new memberships (Finland and Sweden), and increased defense spending. That’s not to say we aren’t committed to Ukraine. Our commitment to our partners highlights our resolve to uphold the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.

We can assess Russia as desiring a frozen conflict. In a frozen conflict, active, large-scale military hostilities cease, but the nations don’t agree to peaceful terms. These conflicts often linger indefinitely, with sporadic outbreaks of violence. This would enable Russia a degree of control and influence over the contested area without the full costs of war. Russia currently has frozen conflicts in areas of Moldova and Georgia.

One strategy to enhance our negotiating leverage against Russia would be to enforce a blockade of Kaliningrad.

Kaliningrad is strategically important to Russia. It’s Russia’s only deep-sea port that remains ice-free year-round. It serves as a critical military and logistical hub.

Kaliningrad is physically separated from the rest of Russia. It borders open water or a North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) nation on all sides. Its unique geographical position—isolated from the Russian mainland and surrounded by NATO members and the Baltic Sea—renders it particularly vulnerable to blockade strategies. This isolation is a leverage point in negotiations. Russia acts nervous about Kaliningrad’s isolation. In June 2022, Russia claimed Lithuania blockaded Kaliningrad when Lithuania began enforcing European Union sanctions that were a result of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

There’s another relevant geographic feature in the region. The Suwalki Gap is a strategically significant stretch of land approximately 60 miles long, located on the border between Poland (a NATO member) and Lithuania (also a NATO member). This narrow corridor is strategically important because it is the only land connection between the Baltic States of Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and the rest of NATO. It separates Belarus, a Russian ally, and Kaliningrad. Securing this stretch of land would be paramount to maintaining the integrity of NATO's eastern flank.

Kaliningrad isn’t a Russian city. Its real name is Königsberg. Königsberg was a Prussian (German) city for 700 years before being annexed by the Soviets after World War II. Kaliningrad has a complex identity that distinguishes it from other Russian cities. This historical and cultural distinction complicates Russia's claims over the territory.

Implementing a blockade of Kaliningrad would apply pressure that Russia could not easily ignore. The strategy would require careful planning, support, and coordination among NATO allies and a readiness to manage potential escalatory responses from Russia. As a permanent member of the United Nations (UN) Security Council, Russia would veto the blockade if it were brought to a vote there.

The ultimate goal of the blockade wouldn’t be to escalate hostilities. It would be to bring Russia to the negotiating table with a genuine interest in coming to an agreement to end the blockade of Kaliningrad. Our bargaining chip? Russian forces leaving Ukraine.

The blockade of Kaliningrad could serve as a tangible demonstration of NATO's capability and willingness to impose significant costs on Russia for its aggression in Ukraine and elsewhere.

The biggest risk of enforcing a blockade of Kaliningrad? A blockade is a deliberate act of war. An act of war against Russia in a NATO nation risks increasing the likelihood of expanding the war to include all of NATO.

Back to our question. Should we enforce a blockade of Kaliningrad to reinforce our negotiating position with Russia?

We should consider a perspective from one of NATO’s newest members, Finland. Finland shares an 835-mile border with Russia.

Recent remarks from Finland’s new president emphasize “a Finnish approach” to the Russian situation, i.e., “cool, calm, and collected, but determined.” This perspective highlights the importance of a levelheaded approach.

Another point regarding a determined approach: our NATO partners supported operations in Afghanistan for 18 years alongside America. Just like their support, our commitment to Ukraine and our NATO partners isn’t a short-term event.

Over the long term, patient diplomacy and economic partnership are more decisive than military operations.

That’s not to say we aren’t ready to take decisive action. Blockading Kaliningrad is a viable course of action to increase pressure on Russia without resorting to full-scale conflict. However, as it directly impacts their regional security, we would require strong consensus with our NATO partners. It's their backyard, and their willingness to support the strategy is essential for its legitimacy.

The imagined scenario to blockade Kaliningrad would be a drastic measure. It carries significant risks and challenges. It would be an act of war.

A blockade of Kaliningrad would be possible but dangerous.

History doesn’t predict future events, but looking back at the Soviet blockade of West Berlin offers a lesson: the Berlin blockade didn't win the day; patient determination won.

Diplomacy, strong partnerships, and continued economic support to Ukraine and our partners in Europe are more decisive than immediate incendiary action.

May God bless the United States of America.

We show our commitment to the American ideal when we interact with each other with grace and dignity. From 18th-century debates on language to the recent tragedy in Baltimore, we don’t need to speak the same language to respect the rights of others and thank each other for our service.

What’s America’s official language?

On January 9, 1794, a group of German-Americans in Virginia petitioned the 3rd United States Congress to print federal laws in both English and German so that they could better understand them. In January 1795, the House voted against it, and the bill died.

The vote on the House floor was 42-41. For at least two hundred years after the bill’s defeat, a myth persisted that Congress nearly changed the official American language to German. That was never the case.

In fact, the official American language was never in doubt.

America doesn’t have an official language.

November 17, 2000. At 22, fresh out of college and a brand new commissioned officer in the armed forces, I set off on my first cross-country trip across America. Following my officer graduation ceremony, I was orders-in-hand with 10 days to make it to my California coast training base. With a couple of days to spare, I made a detour to go home through rural Missouri to visit my parents and future wife. After the visit, a buddy and I linked up just outside St. Louis to travel the rest of the way together. At that point I hadn’t been outside of rural Missouri many days of my life.

We traveled through Oklahoma, the Texas panhandle, New Mexico, and Arizona without incident. At the California border, the inspection agent took the apple I was going to eat for a snack–no outside fruit allowed. Just outside of Los Angeles, I stopped at a gas station to fill up. I had heard the traffic in LA could be rough and I didn’t want to run out of gas stuck in traffic. The attendant spoke no English, and I spoke no Spanish. No worries, though. We figured out a way for me to pay for the gas and a Coca-Cola.

At the time I thought someone who lived in America should speak English. Now, that’s not important to me. 

Since that day, I served with many Americans who raised their hand to volunteer to serve their nation—and not just in the military. Also at the State Department, brilliant bilingual members of the DoD Education Activity (DoDEA), the CIA, NSA, Peace Corps, USDA, and on and on.

They all spoke English, but many of their parents did not or spoke it poorly. But their parents had sought out America’s inherent individualism, and their children served our nation as thanks. That man at the gas station outside of LA, and many others like him, raise children who serve our nation with distinction.

My personal experiences highlight that even though Americans don’t share a common language, we can respect the individual liberty of others. This principle is echoed in a series of Supreme Court rulings that have addressed language rights in American society.

Several fascinating US Supreme Court cases deal with language and the rights of non-English speakers in America.

In the first, Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), the high court blocked a Nebraska law that banned teaching languages other than English to schoolchildren. Mr. Meyer, who taught German in a Lutheran school, was convicted under the law. He appealed his conviction. The court took up the case and found the law violated his right to teach German and the individual liberty of parents to control their child’s education, protected by the 14th Amendment.

At the time, the Nebraska law sought to prevent schools from teaching German. The law intended to “promote civic development by inhibiting training and education of the immature in foreign tongues and ideals before they could learn English and acquire American ideals.”

In the majority opinion, Justice James C. McReynolds stated that “mere knowledge of the German language cannot reasonably be regarded as harmful.”

Our summary so far: America has no official language, and it is unconstitutional to prevent teaching even the youngest Americans a language other than English.

November 22, 2008: I was headed into Iraq to link up with a US Marine Corps unit for several months. Before my trip downrange, I stayed a couple of days at Camp Buehring, Kuwait, 15 miles from the Iraqi southern border. I was at Camp Buerhring for some final training on technical systems used by British and American forces. I couldn’t get the training in the US because we didn’t have expertise with the British equipment.

Our young British instructor spoke with an indecipherable, thick English accent. He kicked off the training session by telling jokes.

At first, none of the Americans in the room understood anything he said. The Brit kept telling jokes.

After a couple of minutes, some of the Americans started to laugh at the jokes. Eventually, everyone in the room was howling! The instructor was really funny!

That’s when the British instructor started the training session. He said he could tell when all of us started to understand his accent because we would laugh at the jokes.

Even speaking the same language doesn’t mean we understand each other.

A second captivating US Supreme Court case involving language was Lau v. Nichols (1974). In 1971, San Francisco, California, schools integrated and absorbed more than 2,800 Chinese-American children who were not proficient in English. The public school system refused the children supplemental English language education and taught classes only in English. As a result, the children were unable to participate in the educational programs provided by the schools. The students appealed their plight to the high court.

In the unanimous decision, the court ruled that a school district has the duty to provide supplemental language instruction for students who speak a language other than English. The court found the San Francisco school district violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and denied students the opportunity to participate in the public education program. The Court reasoned that simply treating students the same regardless of their language needs did not ensure their equal access to education.

Building on our summary, America has no official language, and it is unconstitutional to prevent teaching even the youngest Americans a language other than English. However, the American people have a duty to teach students English when there is a language barrier preventing equal access to education.

Fast-forward to June 29, 2017. I had the privilege of leading a military squadron as its commanding officer. A full one-third of the squadron members were either first- or second-generation immigrants. All the squadron members spoke English, but some had a strong accent. Many squadron members were bilingual. We operated distributed technical systems and communicated with radios and telephones. The added communication enhancement of body language was often not available.

We had some communication challenges, but we all shared a commitment to each other and our mission. Despite our challenges, we achieved the highest levels of security, safety, and operational readiness compared to any squadron over those two years. No matter our place of birth, we were all Americans, providing combat capability for the nation.

Yes, we had language barriers, but everyone was part of an exceptional team.

A final US Supreme Court case involving language was Plyler v. Doe (1982). The case challenged a Texas statute that withheld state funds from local school districts needed to educate children who had not been legally admitted to the United States. The statute further authorized school districts to deny enrollment to these children.

Justice William J. Brennan Jr. wrote the majority opinion. He stated, "By denying these children a basic education, we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our Nation."

Several states have subsequently challenged the ruling, including California in 1994, Illinois in 2006, and Alabama in 2011. Plyler v. Doe is crucial for language rights in that it ensures access to education for non-English-speaking students, many of whom are immigrants.

This access is critical for learning English and fully participating in American society.

Early in the morning on Tuesday, March 26, 2024, a container vessel crashed into the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore. Eight construction crewmen working to provide national capability through infrastructure support were thrown into the water; only two of the men survived. The Associated Press identified the men were from Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore addressed the families in Spanish following the incident, saying, “Estamos contigo, ahora y siempre,” or, “We are with you, now and always.” His choice of language reflects an understanding that our commitment to each other is deeper than a language barrier. His address was a nod to our multilingual heritage, showing that Americans speak many languages.

Being American isn’t about speaking one language. America represents embracing the principles of individual liberty and accepting the personal responsibility to give back to the nation.

We debate our language and what it means to be American. 18th-century legislative debates continue into contemporary challenges and tragedies. We are reminded of the liberty, dignity, and pursuit of unity in diversity that define us.

America doesn’t have an official language. Because we were a British colony, we used English in government and to meet the practical need for a common language.

America is a melting pot of many cultures. Legal immigrants come to America seeking opportunity and individualism. At the same time, many of these immigrants speak poor, or no, English.

Our highest court has repeatedly shown dignity in ensuring Americans have the right to individual liberty, no matter their language.

Echoing the court, we show our commitment to the American ideal when we interact with each other with grace and dignity. We don’t need to speak the same language to respect the rights of others and thank each other for our service.

May God bless the United States of America.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free subscriber!

Mostramos nuestro compromiso con el ideal estadounidense cuando interactuamos entre nosotros con gracia y dignidad. Desde los debates sobre el idioma del siglo XVIII hasta la reciente tragedia en Baltimore, no necesitamos hablar el mismo idioma para respetar los derechos de los demás y agradecernos mutuamente por nuestro servicio.

¿Cuál es el idioma oficial de América?

El 9 de enero de 1794, un grupo de germano-americanos en Virginia solicitó al tercer Congreso de los Estados Unidos que imprimiera las leyes federales tanto en inglés como en alemán para poder entenderlas mejor. En enero de 1795, la Cámara votó en contra y el proyecto de ley no prosperó.

La votación en el pleno de la Cámara fue de 42-41. Durante al menos doscientos años después de la derrota del proyecto de ley, persistió el mito de que el Congreso casi cambia el idioma oficial americano al alemán. Eso nunca fue el caso.

De hecho, el idioma oficial americano nunca estuvo en duda.

América no tiene un idioma oficial.

El 17 de noviembre de 2000. A los 22 años, recién salido de la universidad y como un flamante oficial comisionado de las fuerzas armadas, emprendí mi primer viaje a través de América. Tras mi ceremonia de graduación como oficial, tenía en mano órdenes con 10 días para llegar a mi base de entrenamiento en la costa de California. Con un par de días de sobra, hice un desvío para ir a casa por el Missouri rural para visitar a mis padres y a mi futura esposa. Después de la visita, un amigo y yo nos encontramos justo fuera de St. Louis para viajar juntos el resto del camino. Hasta ese momento, había pasado muy pocos días fuera del Missouri rural.

Viajamos a través de Oklahoma, el panhandle de Texas, Nuevo México y Arizona sin incidentes. En la frontera de California, el agente de inspección se llevó la manzana que iba a comer como merienda, no se permiten frutas del exterior. Justo fuera de Los Ángeles, me detuve en una gasolinera para llenar el tanque. Había escuchado que el tráfico en LA podría ser complicado y no quería quedarme sin gasolina atascado en el tráfico. El empleado no hablaba inglés, y yo no hablaba español. Sin embargo, no hubo problema. Encontramos una manera para que pudiera pagar la gasolina y una Coca-Cola.

En ese momento pensaba que alguien que viviera en América debería hablar inglés. Ahora, eso no me parece importante.

Desde ese día, serví con muchos estadounidenses que levantaron la mano para ofrecerse voluntarios para servir a su nación, y no solo en el ejército. También en el Departamento de Estado, miembros bilingües brillantes de la Actividad Educativa del DoD (DoDEA), la CIA, la NSA, el Cuerpo de Paz, el USDA, y así sucesivamente.

Todos hablaban inglés, pero muchos de sus padres no lo hacían o lo hablaban mal. Pero sus padres habían buscado el individualismo inherente a América, y sus hijos sirvieron a nuestra nación como agradecimiento. Ese hombre en la gasolinera fuera de Los Ángeles, y muchos otros como él, crían a hijos que sirven a nuestra nación con distinción.

Mis experiencias personales destacan que, aunque los estadounidenses no compartamos un idioma común, podemos respetar la libertad individual de los demás. Este principio se refleja en una serie de fallos de la Corte Suprema que han abordado los derechos lingüísticos en la sociedad estadounidense.

Varios casos fascinantes de la Corte Suprema de EE. UU. tratan sobre el idioma y los derechos de los hablantes no angloparlantes en América.

En el primero, Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), el alto tribunal bloqueó una ley de Nebraska que prohibía enseñar idiomas distintos al inglés a los escolares. El Sr. Meyer, quien enseñaba alemán en una escuela luterana, fue condenado bajo esta ley. Apeló su condena. La corte tomó el caso y encontró que la ley violaba su derecho a enseñar alemán y la libertad individual de los padres para controlar la educación de sus hijos, protegida por la 14.ª Enmienda.

En ese momento, la ley de Nebraska buscaba prevenir que las escuelas enseñaran alemán. La ley pretendía "promover el desarrollo cívico inhibiendo la formación y educación de los inmaduros en lenguas e ideales extranjeros antes de que pudieran aprender inglés y adquirir ideales americanos."

En la opinión mayoritaria, el juez James C. McReynolds afirmó que "el mero conocimiento del idioma alemán no puede considerarse razonablemente como dañino."

Nuestro resumen hasta ahora: América no tiene un idioma oficial, y es inconstitucional prevenir la enseñanza a los estadounidenses más jóvenes de un idioma distinto al inglés.

El 22 de noviembre de 2008: Estaba en camino a Irak para unirme a una unidad del Cuerpo de Marines de EE. UU. por varios meses. Antes de mi viaje al campo, me quedé un par de días en el Campamento Buehring, Kuwait, a 15 millas de la frontera sur de Irak. Estaba en el Campamento Buehring para recibir un entrenamiento final en sistemas técnicos utilizados por las fuerzas británicas y estadounidenses. No pude recibir el entrenamiento en EE. UU. porque no teníamos experiencia con el equipo británico.

Nuestro joven instructor británico hablaba con un acento inglés grueso e indescifrable. Comenzó la sesión de entrenamiento contando chistes.

Al principio, ninguno de los estadounidenses en la sala entendía nada de lo que decía. El británico seguía contando chistes.

Después de un par de minutos, algunos de los estadounidenses comenzaron a reírse de los chistes. ¡Eventualmente, todos en la sala estaban aullando de risa! El instructor era realmente gracioso.

Fue entonces cuando el instructor británico comenzó la sesión de entrenamiento. Dijo que podía darse cuenta de cuándo todos comenzábamos a entender su acento porque nos reíamos de los chistes.

Incluso hablar el mismo idioma no significa que nos entendamos entre nosotros.

Un segundo caso fascinante de la Corte Suprema de EE. UU. involucrando el idioma fue Lau v. Nichols (1974). En 1971, las escuelas de San Francisco, California, se integraron y absorbieron a más de 2,800 niños chino-americanos que no dominaban el inglés. El sistema escolar público se negó a ofrecer a los niños educación suplementaria en el idioma inglés y enseñó las clases solo en inglés. Como resultado, los niños no pudieron participar en los programas educativos proporcionados por las escuelas. Los estudiantes llevaron su situación ante el tribunal superior.

En la decisión unánime, la corte dictaminó que un distrito escolar tiene el deber de proporcionar instrucción lingüística suplementaria para los estudiantes que hablan un idioma diferente al inglés. La corte encontró que el distrito escolar de San Francisco violó la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1964 y negó a los estudiantes la oportunidad de participar en el programa de educación pública. La Corte razonó que simplemente tratar a los estudiantes igual independientemente de sus necesidades lingüísticas no garantizaba su acceso equitativo a la educación.

Basándonos en nuestro resumen, América no tiene un idioma oficial, y es inconstitucional prevenir enseñar a los estadounidenses más jóvenes un idioma diferente al inglés. Sin embargo, el pueblo estadounidense tiene el deber de enseñar inglés a los estudiantes cuando existe una barrera lingüística que impide el acceso equitativo a la educación.

Avanzando rápido al 29 de junio de 2017. Tuve el privilegio de liderar un escuadrón militar como su oficial comandante. Un tercio completo de los miembros del escuadrón eran inmigrantes de primera o segunda generación. Todos los miembros del escuadrón hablaban inglés, pero algunos tenían un fuerte acento. Muchos miembros del escuadrón eran bilingües. Operábamos sistemas técnicos distribuidos y nos comunicábamos con radios y teléfonos. A menudo, el enriquecimiento de la comunicación a través del lenguaje corporal no estaba disponible.

Tuvimos algunos desafíos de comunicación, pero todos compartíamos un compromiso mutuo y con nuestra misión. A pesar de nuestros desafíos, logramos los más altos niveles de seguridad, protección y preparación operativa en comparación con cualquier otro escuadrón durante esos dos años. Sin importar nuestro lugar de nacimiento, todos éramos estadounidenses, proporcionando capacidad de combate para la nación.

Sí, teníamos barreras lingüísticas, pero todos éramos parte de un equipo excepcional.

Un último caso de la Corte Suprema de EE. UU. relacionado con el idioma fue Plyler v. Doe (1982). El caso impugnó una ley de Texas que retenía fondos estatales de los distritos escolares locales necesarios para educar a niños que no habían sido legalmente admitidos en los Estados Unidos. La ley también autorizaba a los distritos escolares a negar la inscripción a estos niños.

El juez William J. Brennan Jr. escribió la opinión mayoritaria. Afirmó: "Al negarles a estos niños una educación básica, les negamos la capacidad de vivir dentro de la estructura de nuestras instituciones cívicas y cerramos cualquier posibilidad realista de que contribuyan de la menor manera al progreso de nuestra Nación."

Varios estados posteriormente impugnaron la sentencia, incluidos California en 1994, Illinois en 2006 y Alabama en 2011. Plyler v. Doe es crucial para los derechos lingüísticos ya que asegura el acceso a la educación para los estudiantes que no hablan inglés, muchos de los cuales son inmigrantes.

Este acceso es crítico para aprender inglés y participar plenamente en la sociedad estadounidense.

Temprano en la mañana del martes 26 de marzo de 2024, un buque contenedor chocó contra el Puente Francis Scott Key en Baltimore. Ocho obreros de construcción que trabajaban para proporcionar capacidad nacional a través del soporte de infraestructura fueron arrojados al agua; solo dos de los hombres sobrevivieron. The Associated Press identificó que los hombres eran de México, Guatemala, Honduras y El Salvador.

El gobernador de Maryland, Wes Moore, se dirigió a las familias en español después del incidente, diciendo: “Estamos contigo, ahora y siempre”. Su elección del idioma refleja un entendimiento de que nuestro compromiso mutuo es más profundo que una barrera lingüística. Su discurso fue un reconocimiento a nuestra herencia multilingüe, mostrando que los estadounidenses hablan muchos idiomas.

Ser estadounidense no se trata de hablar un solo idioma. América representa abrazar los principios de la libertad individual y aceptar la responsabilidad personal de contribuir a la nación. Agradezco a los trabajadores por su compromiso.

Debatimos nuestro idioma y lo que significa ser estadounidense. Los debates legislativos del siglo XVIII continúan hasta nuestros días, enfrentando desafíos contemporáneos y tragedias. Nos recuerdan la libertad, la dignidad y la búsqueda de unidad en la diversidad que nos definen.

América no tiene un idioma oficial. Por haber sido una colonia británica, usamos el inglés en el gobierno y para satisfacer la necesidad práctica de un idioma común.

América es un crisol de muchas culturas. Los inmigrantes legales vienen a América en busca de oportunidad e individualismo. Al mismo tiempo, muchos de estos inmigrantes hablan poco o nada de inglés.

Nuestro tribunal supremo ha mostrado repetidamente dignidad al asegurar que los estadounidenses tengan el derecho a la libertad individual, sin importar su idioma.

Haciendo eco de la corte, mostramos nuestro compromiso con el ideal estadounidense cuando interactuamos entre nosotros con gracia y dignidad. No necesitamos hablar el mismo idioma para respetar los derechos de los demás y agradecernos mutuamente por nuestro servicio.

Que Dios bendiga a los Estados Unidos de América.

We often hear that land doesn’t vote; people do.

How about a different perspective?

Land doesn’t have rights, but land endows rights.

What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?

We often hear that “land doesn’t vote; people do.” This phrase highlights the humanity of our democratic republic. The adage emphasizes rights of the individual and the collective power of the electorate to shape governance and policy. But, the viewpoint oversimplifies the intertwined relationship between people and the soil.

Land doesn’t have rights, but land endows rights. Geographical boundaries and birthplaces shape individual rights, demonstrating the enduring influence of the land on our legal and societal frameworks.

The Latin Jus soli, or the right of the soil, is a cornerstone of our legal and societal frameworks. It grants individuals a national identity rooted in their birthplace.

Our Constitution establishes rights granted to all Americans by the soil, including rights of citizenship, representation, and national service.

This connection between land and individual rights becomes especially clear when we consider the legal foundations of citizenship in America. Citizenship’s roots grow into this concept of the soil.

Citizenship

Citizenship in America is founded on jus soli, the right of the soil, and jus sanguinis, the right of blood. The right of the soil carries into the right of blood.

Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1870 to Wee Lee and Wong Si Ping. The couple were not American citizens and had no path to citizenship; they returned to China when Wong was eight.

In August 1895, at the age of 24, Wong made a return trip to San Francisco with papers certifying his identity and legal standing as a citizen born on American soil. US customs official John H. Wise denied Wong’s entry on the grounds of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the 1880 Angell Treaty between the US and Qing Dynasty China, which recognized America’s ability to restrict Chinese immigration. Wise ordered Wong deported.

Wong appealed the decision and remained on shipping vessels for several months off the coast of California. In 1897, the US Supreme Court heard his case. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the court found Wong to be an American citizen on the grounds of the 14th Amendment’s first clause: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

During deliberation, the court found Wong was born in the US. Further, though his parents were subjects to the Emperor of China, they were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.” The court affirmed that Wong was subject to US jurisdiction at birth and thus a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark upheld the principle of the right of the soil for determining citizenship. It firmly clarified that children born in America to foreign citizens are US citizens, even if their parents have no allegiance to America. The Supreme Court's decision established a broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It ensured that the vast majority of children born on American soil are entitled to citizenship, regardless of their parents' nationality. Though the fight for equal treatment of Asian Americans continued well past Mr. Wong, this ruling has had a lasting impact on immigration and citizenship policies.

Jus soli grants citizenship to all born on US soil and carries through blood. The right of blood extends the right of citizenship across borders, allowing children born abroad to American citizens to inherit their citizenship. This dual foundation reflects a comprehensive understanding of national belonging—rights rooted in the physical land of America that reach through the blood to extend the inalienable rights to those born to American parents worldwide.

Just as jus soli grants citizenship, it also confers the right to participate in our democratic republic. This extension of rights from the land empowers us as participants in the national discourse.

Representation

The 14th Amendment is not the earliest affirmation of the right of the soil in the Constitution. The first reference to the premise that soil endows citizens with rights is earlier than even the Bill of Rights.

Specifically, Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution identifies, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…”

This section was later amended by the 12th Amendment after some drama in the 1796 and 1800 elections. It forms the basis of the Electoral College, which grants individuals the right to representation in national elections. By ensuring that residents' votes in each state contribute to the national outcome of presidential elections, the Electoral College grants them a meaningful role in the democratic process.

The Constitution achieves this by guaranteeing that every state has a certain number of electors, regardless of population. This system grants "rights" or influence to regions, paralleling how jus soli grants citizenship rights to individuals born on US soil.

Just as the right of the soil grants citizenship, it also guarantees that each geographic state has a say in national elections. Because land doesn’t vote, the Constitution extends this guarantee to the voters in each state.

“Land doesn’t vote; people do” is a misconception. The statement overlooks how the Electoral College system carefully balances geographic diversity and population. The system allocates votes in a manner that accounts for geographic distribution, thereby preventing larger population states from completely dominating national elections. It also supports the underlying principle of our democratic republic—every vote is an expression of an individual's choice, and all states have a voice in national elections.

In short, land doesn’t bestow on Americans the right to vote; it grants people from each state influence in national elections, no matter how small the state. Elected representatives from all states ratified both the US Constitution and the 12th Amendment. Therefore, every American agreed with the premise that each state has a voice in national elections.

The influence of land on rights extends into the highest offices of national service, reinforcing the critical role that birthplace plays in determining who may lead the nation.

National Service

Serving the nation in any capacity is a privilege. Serving in the highest office is a privilege only available to those who are endowed with the right of the soil.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President.” If you weren’t born on US soil or with the right of the soil carried into the right of blood, you are ineligible for the nation’s highest office.

The founders included the natural-born citizen requirement to ensure the President would have the deep-rooted allegiance to the United States that only the right of the soil bestows. They believed the requirement would reduce the risk of foreign governments having control over the nation.

Eight Presidents had parents, or both parents, who were not born on US soil. They range from Andrew Jackson, whose parents were both immigrants, to Donald Trump, whose mother was an immigrant. But all Presidents have been natural-born citizens, either born on US soil or to US citizens abroad in an official capacity.

National service is a distinguished honor, especially when it involves leading the country. Only those granted citizenship by the right of the soil or the right of the soil through the blood are eligible. This precedent safeguards the presidency from foreign influence, ensuring the President's loyalty lies firmly with America.

Now for our question: What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?

Birthright citizenship isn’t a legal formality. It’s a fundamental cornerstone of American democracy and identity. It ensures that every person born on American soil is a part of the nation's fabric, endowed with the rights and responsibilities that fortify our collective future. Overturning the precedent would lead to a future where many are isolated, disenfranchised, and alienated from the civic body.

Attempting to repeal birthright citizenship would disregard the strong precedent that allegiance to America is gained through the right of the soil.

Some argue that we should repeal birthright citizenship to preserve national identity and ensure we grant citizenship only to those with a provable connection to the United States. But national identity and unity come from commitment to the American ideal, not from repealing birthright citizenship.

Some argue for the repeal of birthright citizenship because children of non-citizens place an undue economic burden on American taxpayers. They cite the costs of public education, healthcare, and other social services. This perspective overlooks the long-term economic contributions of immigrants and their children, who stay in America for generations.

Finally, proponents of repealing birthright citizenship argue it would enhance national security and more effectively control immigration. In fact, it would lead to stateless individuals inside the country, creating a marginalized group that's more vulnerable to radicalization and exploitation. Individuals born on American soil have a clear and immediate stake in the country's future, promoting societal integration and cohesion.

Throughout our discussion, from citizenship to national representation and service, we see a consistent theme: soil bestows rights on Americans.

Our Constitution firmly establishes that we are tied to the soil and the soil through blood. Birthright citizenship is crucial for American identity and the health of our democratic republic.

The Constitution grants individuals rights of citizenship, representation, and national service based on the soil. These rights underscore the importance of soil—whether a specific place of one's birth or the geographic boundaries of states—in defining what it means to be American.

National identity and unity come from shared values and commitments to the American ideal.

What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?

Attempting to repeal birthright citizenship would disregard the strong precedent the Constitution establishes: namely, jus soli imprints allegiance on Americans.

May God bless the United States of America.

The Rise and Fall of an Industrial Giant

The lack of tariffs on foreign steel led to the downfall of American steel. We watched as plants closed and people lost their jobs amid a significant decline in the domestic industry's global competitiveness.

Augustus Wolle founded the Saucona Iron Company in 1857 in Saucon Valley, Pennsylvania. The company moved to Bethlehem in 1861 and rebranded as Bethlehem Steel Corporation in 1903 under Charles Schwab’s presidency. Schwab elevated the company to new heights, making it a manufacturing juggernaut instrumental in shaping American infrastructure. Bethlehem Steel became the largest munitions supplier for the Allies during WWI and produced more ship tonnage than any other US company in WWII.

Bethlehem Steel was foundational to constructing American icons. The company's steel formed the backbone of 80 percent of the New York skyline, including landmarks like the Empire State Building, George Washington Bridge, Madison Square Garden, and Rockefeller Center. Landmarks outside New York included the Golden Gate Bridge, Hoover Dam, and the US Supreme Court Building. Throughout the 20th Century, Bethlehem Steel exemplified American industrial leadership.

The landscape shifted in the 1970s and 1980s as cheaper steel imports from emerging markets, including China, began flooding the US market. Asian governments subsidized their steel production, and their imports were priced lower than American steel. Bethlehem struggled to compete due to its older plants, higher labor costs, and stricter domestic environmental regulations compared to those in emerging markets. The company faced layoffs and plant closures.

Globalization intensified in the 1990s with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the prospect of China joining the World Trade Organization. By 2001, unable to innovate or modernize, Bethlehem Steel filed for bankruptcy. In 2003, International Steel Group Inc. acquired the company. Pennsylvania redeveloped the former Bethlehem Steel site into a mixed-use facility featuring a casino, museum, and cultural center.

Today, Bethlehem Steel's legacy continues to inform ongoing discussions in America regarding trade policies, national security, and our economic future, particularly in debates concerning tariffs with China. This history serves as a critical lesson in the consequences of unprotected industries and the importance of thoughtful trade policy.

Current Debates on Tariffs and Environmental Policy

Tariffs are traditional tools for protecting domestic industries, but they also have the potential to address global environmental challenges.

The Wall Street Journal on April 17 reported that President Biden intended to significantly increase tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum products. The proposed tariffs, which would more than triple the current rate to 25% from 7.5%, are part of a broader strategy to protect domestic industries. This move follows the tariffs imposed by President Trump’s administration, further fueling the ongoing debates on trade policies and the steel industry.

There is strong concern about Chinese manufacturing goods flooding the market. To attempt to kickstart its economy, China is pushing cheap goods onto other countries. On April 19, WSJ reported that in the past year, “China exported 95 million metric tons of steel…a sum that exceeds estimates for total U.S. steel consumption in all of 2022.” Experts liken this surge to the early 2000s, which cost the US around two million manufacturing jobs.

We consider tariffs vital to maintaining US manufacturing jobs, capability, and competitiveness. However, another critical aspect often overlooked in discussions about tariffs is the economic cost of climate change.

We debate the cause and impact of climate change, but we can’t debate that it is happening. Some argue that man-made emissions from activities such as burning fossil fuels are the primary cause. They emphasize human activity's impact on increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Others contend that natural phenomena like wildfires and volcanic eruptions are more influential.

No matter your opinion of the cause, the effect is proven. The Earth is warming.

To connect the discussion on tariffs and climate change, we need to make a couple of assumptions. An assumption is a premise or starting point accepted as true for the purposes of argument or investigation.

First, we assume that humankind burning fossil fuels causes a buildup of greenhouse gases, which warms the Earth. The scientific community widely supports this position.

Second, we assume that imposing tariffs on imported goods from countries with less stringent environmental regulations could incentivize these countries to adopt cleaner, more sustainable manufacturing practices. Historical precedents in environmental economics show that economic incentives drive substantial policy changes and technological innovations in manufacturing.

These assumptions allow us to explore the potential that tariffs, traditionally seen as instruments of economic policy, can also be strategically used to encourage stricter global environmental standards.

Proposed Solutions and Global Cooperation

Climate change has a high cost to American taxpayers in real US dollars.

The January 2022 Deloitte Economics Institute report, The Turning Point: A New Economic Climate in the United States, found that inaction on climate change could “result in economic losses to the US economy of $14.5 trillion (in present-value terms) over the next 50 years.” Preventative measures like tariffs could be economically beneficial in the long run compared to the costs of climate inaction.

Starting in the 1960s and 1970s, America exported manufacturing jobs overseas, often to countries with less stringent environmental practices. Jack Welch and General Electric (GE) were at the forefront of this movement, leading the American push to offshore jobs to maintain a competitive edge. As more American companies joined the trend, it eroded US manufacturing capability and inadvertently contributed to the increase in global greenhouse gas emissions.

That was our moment to save Bethlehem Steel. Instead, we chose to export our manufacturing base overseas. Had we implemented protective tariffs during the 1960s and 1970s to level the playing field for American manufacturers, some of those jobs would have stayed here. Those companies would have had better environmental practices, potentially reducing overall global emissions. Instead, when we sent manufacturing abroad to countries with little or no environmental regulations, we increased the level of greenhouse gases in the global environment.

Tariffs today could still make a difference and influence environmental policies abroad. Imposing tariffs on goods produced with poor environmental standards encourages sustainable manufacturing practices worldwide. They would reduce the market for goods made with poor practices.

These proposed tariffs aren’t intended to be punitive. By setting higher standards for imported goods, we aim to elevate global manufacturing processes to promote a cleaner, more sustainable manufacturing sector worldwide.

Strengthening environmental standards through tariffs helps combat climate change and boosts the competitiveness of American businesses. By ensuring that foreign manufacturers meet high environmental standards, we level the playing field for American companies that already adhere to strict regulations. This dual benefit of protecting the environment while leveling the playing field for American businesses is a point on which both political parties can agree.

As an additional benefit, working with global partners to establish this standard would make American businesses more competitive at home and abroad. The effort would keep more jobs here at home.

Challenges and Mitigation

We can mitigate the approach's downsides, but higher tariffs will cause short-term economic adjustments. Countries affected by the tariffs could respond with retaliatory tariffs. Tariffs generally lead to higher prices for imported goods, which are passed on to consumers. Determining and monitoring the environmental standards of manufacturing practices in other countries can be challenging. These tariffs could strain diplomatic relations, especially with major trading partners.

The long-term benefits of sustainable economic growth, reduced climate impact, and improved global health far outweigh these initial challenges.

We should have saved Bethlehem Steel and American manufacturing in the 1960s and 1970s. Instead, we exported our manufacturing overseas.

When we sent manufacturing abroad, companies chose to make goods using poor environmental practices.

Climate change has a high cost to American taxpayers in real US dollars.

We missed our chance to save American manufacturing and environmental health with tariffs. But the best time to build a future that values economic prosperity alongside environmental integrity is now.

We shouldn’t increase tariffs on Chinese steel because it’s Chinese. We should increase tariffs on all manufacturing goods that aren’t made to the same environmental standards as American goods.

May God bless the United States of America.

Is America supporting Ukraine’s fight against Russia, acting in our self-interest? Or should we stop funding the effort in Ukraine?

Philosophy

Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, published in 1651, presented his views on social contract theory. During this period, England experienced significant upheaval. The English Civil War raged, with factions fighting over monarchy power, religious discord, and social upheaval. The instability and violence ultimately led to the trial and execution of King Charles I in 1649.

In this context, Hobbes developed a philosophy based on a rather bleak view of human nature. He viewed humankind as competitive and posited individuals primarily act in their own self-interest. Hobbes asserted individuals make choices that they perceive maximize their advantage or benefit, even at the expense of others.

Hobbes outlined individuals live in constant fear of violence, leading to a life that is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." This conceptual framework explained why he believed sovereigns were necessary—to impose order and prevent the war of all against all. In Hobbes’ view, individuals are driven by rational self-interest. They agree to form a social contract and establish a sovereign to escape this perpetual conflict and ensure their own survival.

Hobbes’ choice of title is fascinating. He named his views on the social contract theory Leviathan in reference to a biblical sea monster from Hebrew texts. In the Book of Job, written about 2000 BC, the Leviathan is a powerful creature that only God can subdue. In the Book of Psalms, the Leviathan waits for God to feed it.

Hobbes used the Leviathan to symbolize the absolutist state. To maintain peace and order, the state must have supreme power, like the Leviathan. This power was necessary to prevent the anarchy of human nature from leading society into disorder and violence. His metaphor emphasized his argument about the nature of human beings and the structure of society, advocating for a strong central authority to achieve a peaceful and stable social order.

Modern theorists apply Hobbesian principles to international relations.

In War and Change in World Politics, published in 1981, Robert Gilpin draws on Hobbesian realism. In contrast to Hobbes, who conceptualized individuals and their interests, Gilpin considered nations. Individuals join to develop coalitions, and these coalitions have interests. When the coalitions are nations, the nations create international partnerships to advance their interests. These international partnerships represent a Leviathan.

Therefore, from a Hobbesian perspective, nations are primarily concerned with their own survival and power. They act alone and with partner nations to create favorable conditions and gain and maintain freedom of action and influence. These nations form coalitions and international partnerships not out of altruism but as a strategic effort to enhance their own strength, stability, and interests.

In summary, to ensure security in a world of Hobbesian realism:

* Nations must take independent action: Nations act autonomously to safeguard and promote their own interests.

* Nations act through partnerships: Nations engage in alliances to bolster their strength and stability, enhancing their strategic position globally.

These principles apply to America funding Ukraine’s effort to defend itself against Russia’s invasion. By funding Ukraine, America acts both independently and through partnerships to enhance our own strength, stability, and interests.

America Acts Independently for Ukraine and the American People

By funding Ukraine’s effort to defend itself, America acts to enhance our own security and stability. America is compelled to act because Russia funds violent extremism against America. Supporting Ukraine directly reduces Russia’s capacity to sponsor this extremism, thereby increasing security for the American people.

Today, Russia and Russian groups sponsor violent extremism in Africa and the Middle East. Ambassador and Director of the Wilson Center Mark Green identified, “The sub-Saharan region has seen a significant rise in extremist violence, accounting for more than 40% of global terrorism-related deaths in 2022.” Twenty-one years ago, violent extremism was the cause of the most deadly attack on US soil in our history.

Svante Cornell, PhD, co-founder and Director of the Institute for Security and Development Policy, testified before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, US House of Representatives in 2017. He summed up Russia’s aims with regard to America:

Russia's main aim is to undermine U.S. leadership in the world, and when insurgents and terrorists contribute to this goal in one way or another, Russia has no problem with coordinating with them, supporting them, and, of course, manipulating them.

In response to these threats, the US strategically chooses to support Ukraine. This support reflects a broad commitment to stabilize international relations and secure our own domestic interests. We deter further Russian aggression to maintain regional stability, which is crucial for the security of the American homeland. Reducing Russia's capability to sponsor extremism strengthens the global order that discourages states from undermining each other's security.

Violent extremism threatens US security. Russia sponsors violent extremism. Therefore, Russia threatens US security. America must act on its own to counter Russia’s aims.

In Hobbesian terms, the absence of a world government results in global anarchy and compels states to ensure their own security. Russia's sponsorship of violent extremism is an attempt to exploit this anarchy, weaken its adversaries, and alter the balance of power in its favor to gain back the influence it lost when the Soviet Union dissolved.

US support for Ukraine deters further Russian aggression and maintains regional stability. This helps secure the American homeland by reducing Russia’s capability to sponsor extremism that could threaten our interests. It also strengthens a global order that discourages states from undermining each other’s security.

America Acts Through Partnerships to Protect the American People

No single nation can unilaterally maintain global stability.

International alliances serve as parallels to Hobbes's Leviathan. This modern-day Leviathan acts as a super-sovereign power that imposes order in the international system and prevents descent into chaos and violence. America acts with and supports our international partners to maintain the Leviathan that promotes global stability.

Hobbes viewed the Leviathan as an all-powerful sovereign that could impose order and prevent the natural state of war among humans. In modern international relations, no single nation is a global sovereign; coalitions such as NATO are collective Leviathans. These alliances aggregate the power of individual states to form coalitions that act to maintain peace and stability on a broad scale.

NATO, in particular, was established in the aftermath of World War II, primarily as a means of deterring Soviet aggression in Europe. Its role has evolved to include crisis management and cooperative security. This evolution shows how NATO imposes order and prevents conflict through a strategic balance of power.

In February, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III highlighted this international coalition has “committed more than $87 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since the start of Putin's war—including 15 U.S. allies that, as a percentage of GDP, contribute more to Ukraine's capability needs than the United States.”

Russia threatens partners in our international alliances. Russia conducts cyber attacks and disinformation campaigns against America and our NATO partners. Russia also poses physical threats to partner NATO nations, including issuing physical threats against border nation Finland, NATO’s newest member. Putin claims to threaten our NATO partners in order to “neutralize threats connected to the latest expansion of NATO.”

NATO and other international alliances act to impose order in the international system and prevent chaos and violence. America acts through these partnerships to serve our own interests and increase security and stability for Americans.

Our commitment to Ukraine, which is not a NATO member, is a commitment to our NATO and other European partners. By supporting Ukraine, we support the international system that our alliances influence.

Arguing that we shouldn’t support Ukraine because it isn’t a NATO member and its security has nothing to do with our security overlooks our commitment to our partners. Our NATO partners supported operations in Afghanistan for 18 years alongside America. Did our security in Afghanistan impact theirs? Likely not. But they honored their commitment to America, and we need to do the same. Further, if Ukraine were a NATO member, we would already be at war. Funding Ukraine’s efforts against Russia requires significantly less treasure in money and blood than military operations.

And…The US Constitution

Another question we should ask regarding our commitment to Ukraine is what the US Constitution says about security. From the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to…provide for the common defense

America exists as a nation to provide security for the American people, among other reasons. It’s literally part of the reason each group of people, organized as a state, agreed to form the Union of the United States.

Alexander Hamilton, writing Federalist Paper No. 23, explicitly justified the logic of the Constitution and outlined the purpose of the Union. Its primary goals included defending the member states, maintaining peace within the country and against external threats, regulating commerce with other nations and between states, and overseeing our interactions with other countries.

The Constitution specifically tasks elected representatives with providing for the common defense and overseeing interactions with other nations. This mandate can be linked directly to contemporary foreign policy decisions. We support Ukraine’s defense in order to deter Russian aggression, stabilize the region, reduce threats to European allies, and protect the American people.

The Constitution's dedication to common defense is a modern implementation of the Hobbesian principle for a strong authority to ensure security and peace. This authority maintains international order and prevents broad regional instability.

Hobbesian philosophy views human nature as a state of anarchy and violence. His Leviathan represents a powerful symbol of order and stability.

No single nation can unilaterally maintain global stability.

To gain and maintain security for the American people, America must act on its own and within international coalitions to create this Leviathan.

Russia sponsors violent extremism, which threatens the American people.

Russia attacks our international alliances, which threatens international order and the security of the American people.

We don’t support Ukraine at the expense of the American people. We support Ukraine to protect the American people.

Is America supporting Ukraine’s fight against Russia, acting in our self-interest?

These efforts are in our own self-interest to maintain global order and minimize violence.

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript.

For those who would argue we should secure our own border first, here’s a link to a four-part series on US southern border security:

Чи підтримує Америка боротьбу України проти Росії, бо це відповідає її власним інтересам? Чи слід нам припинити фінансування цих зусиль в Україні?

Філософія

Томас Гоббс у своїй праці "Левіафан", опублікованій у 1651 році, виклав свої погляди на теорію суспільного договору. Протягом цього періоду Англія пережила значні потрясіння. Громадянська війна в Англії була на піку, фракції боролися за владу монархії, релігійні розбіжності та соціальні заворушення. Нестабільність і насильство врешті-решт призвели до суду та страти короля Карла I у 1649 році.

У цьому контексті Гоббс розробив філософію, засновану на досить похмурому погляді на людську природу. Він вважав людство конкурентоспроможним і стверджував, що особи переважно діють у власних інтересах. Гоббс стверджував, що люди роблять вибір, який, на їхню думку, максимізує їхні переваги або користь, навіть за рахунок інших.

Гоббс окреслив, що особи живуть у постійному страху перед насильством, що призводить до життя, яке є "самітнім, бідним, підлим, жорстоким і коротким". Цей концептуальний каркас пояснював, чому він вважав, що суверени необхідні — щоб нав'язувати порядок та запобігати війні всіх проти всіх. На думку Гоббса, особи керуються раціональним егоїзмом. Вони погоджуються укласти суспільний договір і створити суверена, щоб уникнути цього вічного конфлікту та забезпечити власне виживання.

Вибір назви Гоббсом є захоплюючим. Він назвав свої погляди на теорію суспільного договору Левіафаном на честь біблійного морського чудовиська з єврейських текстів. У Книзі Йова, написаній близько 2000 року до н.е., Левіафан є потужною істотою, яку може підкорити лише Бог. У Книзі Псалмів Левіафан чекає, коли Бог його нагодує.

Гоббс використав Левіафана для символізації абсолютистської держави. Щоб підтримувати мир і порядок, держава повинна мати вищу владу, як Левіафан. Ця влада була необхідна, щоб запобігти анархії людської природи, яка могла б привести суспільство до безладу і насильства. Його метафора підкреслювала його аргумент про природу людей і структуру суспільства, виступаючи за сильну центральну владу для досягнення мирного і стабільного суспільного порядку.

Сучасні теоретики застосовують принципи Гоббса до міжнародних відносин.

У книзі "Війна та зміни у світовій політиці", опублікованій у 1981 році, Роберт Гілпін використовує реалізм Гоббса. На відміну від Гоббса, який концептуалізував індивідів та їхні інтереси, Гілпін розглядав нації. Індивіди об'єднуються для розвитку коаліцій, і ці коаліції мають інтереси. Коли коаліції є націями, нації створюють міжнародні партнерства для розвитку своїх інтересів. Ці міжнародні партнерства представляють Левіафан.

Отже, з гоббсіанської точки зору, нації перш за все турбуються про власне виживання і владу. Вони діють самостійно і разом з партнерськими націями, створюючи сприятливі умови та забезпечуючи та підтримуючи свободу дій і вплив. Ці нації формують коаліції та міжнародні партнерства не з альтруїзму, а як стратегічне зусилля для посилення власної сили, стабільності та інтересів.

Підсумовуючи, для забезпечення безпеки у світі гоббсіанського реалізму:

Нації повинні діяти незалежно: нації діють автономно, щоб захистити та просувати власні інтереси.

Нації діють через партнерства: нації вступають у союзи, щоб зміцнити свою силу та стабільність, покращуючи своє стратегічне положення у світі.

Ці принципи застосовуються до фінансування Америкою зусиль України захищати себе від вторгнення Росії. Фінансуючи Україну, Америка діє як незалежно, так і через партнерства, щоб підсилити власну силу, стабільність та інтереси.

Америка діє незалежно заради України та американського народу

Фінансуючи зусилля України захистити себе, Америка діє, щоб підсилити власну безпеку та стабільність. Америку змушують діяти, оскільки Росія фінансує насильницький екстремізм проти Америки. Підтримка України безпосередньо зменшує здатність Росії спонсорувати цей екстремізм, тим самим збільшуючи безпеку для американського народу.

Сьогодні Росія та російські групи спонсорують насильницький екстремізм в Африці та на Близькому Сході. Посол та директор Вільсонівського центру Марк Грін вказав, що «регіон підсахарної Африки зазнав значного зростання екстремістського насильства, що становить більше ніж 40% від загальносвітових смертей, пов'язаних з тероризмом у 2022 році.» Двадцять один рік тому насильницький екстремізм став причиною найсмертоноснішої атаки на території США в нашій історії.

Сванте Корнелл, доктор філософії, співзасновник та директор Інституту політики безпеки та розвитку, свідчив перед Комітетом з закордонних справ Палати представників США у 2017 році. Він підсумував цілі Росії щодо Америки:

Основна мета Росії — підірвати лідерство США у світі, і коли повстанці та терористи якимось чином сприяють цій меті, Росія не має проблем із координацією з ними, підтримкою їх і, звичайно, маніпулюванням ними.

У відповідь на ці загрози США стратегічно обирають підтримку України. Ця підтримка відображає широке зобов'язання стабілізувати міжнародні відносини та забезпечити наші власні внутрішні інтереси. Ми стримуємо подальшу російську агресію, зберігаючи регіональну стабільність, яка є життєво важливою для безпеки американської батьківщини. Зменшення здатності Росії спонсорувати екстремізм зміцнює глобальний порядок, що стримує держави від підриву безпеки один одного.

Насильницький екстремізм загрожує безпеці США. Росія спонсорує насильницький екстремізм. Тому Росія загрожує безпеці США. Америка має діяти самостійно, щоб протидіяти цілям Росії.

У гоббсіанських термінах, відсутність світового уряду призводить до глобальної анархії і змушує держави забезпечувати власну безпеку. Спонсорство Росією насильницького екстремізму є спробою скористатися цією анархією, ослабити своїх противників та змінити баланс сил на свою користь, щоб повернути вплив, втрачений після розпаду Радянського Союзу.

Підтримка США Україні стримує подальшу російську агресію і зберігає регіональну стабільність. Це допомагає забезпечити безпеку американської батьківщини, зменшуючи здатність Росії спонсорувати екстремізм, який міг би загрожувати нашим інтересам. Це також зміцнює глобальний порядок, що стримує держави від підриву безпеки один одного.

Америка діє через партнерства для захисту американського народу

Жодна нація не може одноосібно підтримувати глобальну стабільність.

Міжнародні альянси виступають як паралелі до Левіафана Гоббса. Цей сучасний Левіафан діє як надсуверенна сила, що нав'язує порядок у міжнародній системі та запобігає занепаду в хаос і насильство. Америка діє разом і підтримує наших міжнародних партнерів, щоб підтримувати Левіафана, який сприяє глобальній стабільності.

Гоббс розглядав Левіафана як всемогутнього суверена, який міг нав'язати порядок і запобігти природному стану війни серед людей. У сучасних міжнародних відносинах жодна нація не є глобальним сувереном; коаліції, такі як НАТО, є колективними Левіафанами. Ці альянси об'єднують силу окремих держав, щоб сформувати коаліції, які діють, щоб підтримувати мир і стабільність на широку масштабу.

Зокрема, НАТО було створено після Другої світової війни, перш за все як засіб стримування радянської агресії в Європі. Його роль еволюціонувала до включення управління кризами та кооперативної безпеки. Ця еволюція показує, як НАТО нав'язує порядок і запобігає конфліктам через стратегічний баланс сил.

У лютому міністр оборони США Ллойд Дж. Остін III підкреслив, що ця міжнародна коаліція “надала більше ніж 87 мільярдів доларів допомоги в галузі безпеки Україні з початку війни Путіна, включаючи 15 союзників США, які, як відсоток від ВВП, вносять більший внесок у потреби України у спроможностях, ніж Сполучені Штати”.

Росія загрожує партнерам у наших міжнародних альянсах. Росія проводить кібератаки та кампанії дезінформації проти Америки та наших партнерів по НАТО. Росія також становить фізичну загрозу партнерським націям НАТО, включаючи фізичні загрози проти прикордонної країни Фінляндії, найновішого члена НАТО. Путін стверджує, що загрожує нашим партнерам по НАТО, щоб “нейтралізувати загрози, пов'язані з останнім розширенням НАТО”.

НАТО та інші міжнародні альянси діють, щоб нав'язати порядок у міжнародній системі та запобігти хаосу та насильству. Америка діє через ці партнерства, щоб служити нашим власним інтересам та збільшувати безпеку та стабільність для американців.

Наша зобов'язання щодо України, яка не є членом НАТО, є зобов'язанням перед нашими партнерами по НАТО та іншими європейськими партнерами. Підтримуючи Україну, ми підтримуємо міжнародну систему, яку наші альянси впливають.

Твердження про те, що ми не повинні підтримувати Україну, тому що вона не є членом НАТО, і її безпека не має нічого спільного з нашою безпекою, ігнорує наше зобов'язання перед нашими партнерами. Наші партнери по НАТО підтримували операції в Афганістані протягом 18 років разом з Америкою. Чи вплинула наша безпека в Афганістані на їхню? Швидше за все, ні. Але вони виконали своє зобов'язання перед Америкою, і ми повинні зробити те ж саме. Більше того, якби Україна була членом НАТО, ми вже були б у стані війни. Фінансування зусиль України проти Росії вимагає значно менших витрат грошей і крові, ніж військові операції.

І... Конституція США

Ще одне питання, яке ми повинні задати щодо нашого зобов'язання перед Україною, це те, що Конституція США говорить про безпеку. З преамбули:

Ми, народ Сполучених Штатів, з метою… забезпечити спільний захист

Америка існує як нація, щоб забезпечувати безпеку для американського народу, серед інших причин. Це буквально частина причини, чому кожна група людей, організована як штат, погодилася сформувати Союз Сполучених Штатів.

Олександр Гамільтон, пишучи Федералістський нарис № 23, явно виправдав логіку Конституції та окреслив мету Союзу. Його основні цілі включали захист членських штатів, підтримання миру всередині країни та проти зовнішніх загроз, регулювання торгівлі з іншими країнами та між штатами, а також нагляд за нашими взаємодіями з іншими країнами.

Конституція конкретно доручає обраним представникам забезпечувати спільний захист та нагляд за взаємодіями з іншими націями. Це завдання може бути прямо пов'язане з сучасними рішеннями зовнішньої політики. Ми підтримуємо оборону України, щоб стримувати російську агресію, стабілізувати регіон, зменшити загрози для європейських союзників та захистити американський народ.

Прихильність Конституції до спільного захисту є сучасним втіленням гоббсіанського принципу сильної влади, яка забезпечує безпеку та мир. Ця влада підтримує міжнародний порядок та запобігає широкій регіональній нестабільності.

Гоббсіанська філософія розглядає людську природу як стан анархії та насильства. Його Левіафан представляє потужний символ порядку та стабільності.

Жодна нація не може одноосібно підтримувати глобальну стабільність.

Щоб здобути та підтримати безпеку для американського народу, Америка має діяти самостійно та в рамках міжнародних коаліцій, щоб створити цього Левіафана.

Росія спонсорує насильницький екстремізм, який загрожує американському народу.

Росія атакує наші міжнародні альянси, що загрожує міжнародному порядку та безпеці американського народу.

Ми не підтримуємо Україну за рахунок американського народу. Ми підтримуємо Україну, щоб захистити американський народ.

Чи підтримує Америка боротьбу України проти Росії, діючи у власних інтересах?

Ці зусилля відповідають нашим власним інтересам з підтримання глобального порядку та мінімізації насильства.

Нехай Бог благословить Україну.

Do you know where your beef comes from?

Cattle wear earrings. They’re not decorative; their primary purpose is to assist ranchers in managing and aiding their herds. The earrings have unique patterns of numbers or letters, allowing ranchers to identify individual cattle.

On April 26, 2024, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) passed a final rule requiring animal agriculture producers to use electronic identification eartags for cattle and bison. Electronic identification tags don’t store any information on their own. Rather, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology allows readers and data systems to quickly scan the tags and build comprehensive location and animal health profiles.

USDA calls their earrings Official Identification (Official ID). When the April 26th rule goes into effect, cattle and bison over 18 months of age and all dairy cattle moving across state lines must have electronic identification earrings. Previously, USDA allowed both metal and electronic identification tags. Other smaller classifications of cattle, such as rodeo stock, will require electronic identification. The entire rule can be reviewed here if you are interested in the specifics.

With the rule change, USDA intends to strengthen animal disease traceability (ADT) “to help quickly pinpoint and respond to costly foreign animal diseases.” Traceability is “one of the best protections against disease outbreaks…that allows for quick tracing of sick and exposed animals to stop disease spread.”

Animal Disease Traceability achieves two goals.

* ADT helps achieve a safe food supply.

ADT enables animal health officials at federal and state levels to quickly locate and quarantine potentially diseased or exposed animals. Quicker response times to disease outbreaks prevent potentially contaminated meat from entering the consumer market.

Traceability in beef markets is exceptionally difficult. Figure 7, below, taken from USDA Economic Research Service Report Number 830, depicts the complexity of beef commodities. Electronic tags facilitate real-time data access across the supply chain, enhancing responsiveness during disease outbreaks.

To make the figure more relevant, we need to keep in mind that there are 92 million cattle in the US. Cattle move in a near-constant state between these various locations. There are cow-calf operators, stockers, feedlots, and processing plants across the country. On average (based on a conservative assumption of three movements per lifetime), approximately 285,000 cattle move to a new location in the US every day.

ADT helps achieve a second goal.

* ADT helps keep markets open.

Disease outbreaks shut markets down.

During the 2001 Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) outbreak in Britain, officials initially responded slowly, and animals passed the highly infectious and sometimes fatal FMD through markets. Eventually, Britain shut down all animal markets to attempt to contain the disease spread. During the outbreak, Britain slaughtered more than six million cattle and sheep. The total cost of the outbreak exceeded $17 billion US dollars, expressed in today’s dollars. The new USDA rules could prevent such a scenario in the US by enabling quicker disease response.

The benefits of this new rule are clear. Further, its implementation presents two big opportunities for the future of American agriculture: individual consumer choice and improved ranch management.

Individual Consumer Choice

Consumers must have the knowledge and freedom to choose products and services that align with their values and needs.

Economist and philosopher Amartya Sen won the 1998 Nobel Prize for Economics. He outlined a capability approach to humanity, detailed in his 1999 book Development as Freedom. Sen posits that true economic development comes from enhancing individual capabilities and choices, not just GDP growth.

For Sen, capability refers to the opportunity to achieve well-being. Freedom encompasses the real choices individuals have to select from these capabilities.

We can debate the attainability of Sen’s ideas, such as transparent, ethical markets. However, the premise that knowledge enables consumer freedom is relevant to our discussion. His theory establishes consumers need to be able to evaluate how well products align with their ethical beliefs, health requirements, or personal preferences. When possible, markets should empower consumers to have sufficient information to make choices that reflect their values and needs.

Let’s apply Sen’s ideas to our question: Do you know where your beef comes from?

To meet Sen’s ideal, consumers need the capability and freedom to choose beef that aligns with their values and needs. In this case, capability is the knowledge of the beef's characteristics and origin, and freedom is the ability to choose based on this knowledge.

Today, unless consumers make a deliberate effort to buy beef directly from a source (such as from a ranch), they don’t have the capability to choose beef that aligns with their needs and values.

As an example, let’s assume climate change is important to you, and you want to buy beef from companies that do not source beef from deforested Amazon rainforests. Two-thirds of deforested land in the Amazon becomes cattle pasture. The vast majority of rainforest beef goes to China, but the same companies that send this beef to China also deal in beef in the US. You want to stop supporting these companies.

So, you arm yourself with the right knowledge by researching the companies that support deforestation. And then go to the butcher or grocery store, and…you end up buying the steak that looks the best.

Because of the packaging, you don’t and can’t know where that animal came from. The package only has a USDA grade and a price label.

The April 26 USDA rule marks a significant step towards improving traceability from farm to table. Other USDA departments must support this initiative and extend traceability to include detailed labeling. The labeling needs to detail meat sourcing and production practices so consumers can choose products that align with their needs and values.

The second opportunity the new rule enables is improved ranch management.

Improved Ranch Management

Farmers and ranchers compete for profits primarily in either the wholesale commodity market or the specialty beef market.

Beef intended for the wholesale commodity market commands small profit margins. In total, at an average steer dress weight of 885 lbs., the meat packer might generate $2603 ($294.20/100wt) per carcass that grades USDA Choice, or $2546 ($287.65/100wt) per carcass that grades USDA Select, plus the value of by-product such as hides, approximately $100 (11.28/100wt), per the May 3, 2024 National Daily Cattle & Beef Summary. This value represents all grass, water, fuel, and infrastructure costs to raise beef. These small profit margins dictate high throughput at large meat processing facilities. Further, a White House 2021 report found that “four large conglomerates control approximately 55-85% of the market for pork, beef, and poultry, and these middlemen were using their market power to increase prices and underpay farmers.” Due to ongoing price pressures and the meat packer monopoly in the US, meat packers have historically engaged in practices such as price fixing and limiting payments to ranchers.

In contrast, consumers pay premium prices for beef with desirable attributes. For example, wholesale commodity sirloin steak brought $6.75/lb. in April 2024, whereas grass-fed direct-to-consumer sirloin steak brought $13.42/lb. A farm or ranch operation raising beef with preferred credible attributes commands higher market prices and improves ranch profitability.

Because of a lack of traceability, most ranchers have to compete against high-volume producers in the wholesale commodity market when they could be competing in the specialty beef markets instead.

Traceability from birth to beef would further allow ranchers to share information to improve their operational efficiency. As cattle move through stages in the supply system, little or no information is relayed back to the previous rancher. Ranchers don’t know the answers to even simple questions, such as whether cow X or cow Y birthed a calf that graded US Choice. A traceability system from birth to beef would improve management practices for ranchers across the nation, making US markets more competitive.

Traceability would improve profitability for ranchers and bring more funds to their rural communities.

The new USDA electronic identification rule strongly benefits America. It helps officials respond quicker to disease outbreaks.

It helps achieve a national safe food supply.

It keeps agricultural markets open.

But…do you know where your beef comes from?

USDA needs to go further and expand traceability from birth to beef.

This traceability would empower individual Americans with the capability and freedom to choose beef that aligns with their needs and values.

It would further improve ranch management and profitability, bringing more funds to rural communities.

USDA doesn’t have to achieve this goal alone. Entities such as blockchain-driven agriculture cooperatives could strongly assist. USDA has to change the rules to make the effort possible.

May God bless the United States of America.

Last week, we examined the goal of traceability in beef markets. Traceability helps ensure a safe food supply and keeps markets open.

Further expanding traceability from birth to beef empowers individual choice and supports American ranchers.

USDA doesn’t have to achieve this goal alone. Blockchain-driven agricultural cooperatives could play a crucial role in achieving these goals. As the demand for traceable and sustainable beef grows, blockchain technology and Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) offer transformative solutions for American ranchers.

How could a blockchain-driven Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) revolutionize cattle ranching?

What is Blockchain-Driven?

Imagine a group of bookkeepers who work for different companies. The companies recently formed a partnership. They don’t have much history working together, and each company's survival depends on getting its portion of the revenue from the partnership. Record keeping and transparency are vital pieces of their joint venture.

To ensure each company gets its correct share of the profits, they bring their bookkeepers together in one office. They record all transactions on a large whiteboard on the wall. The bookkeepers arrive and leave at the same time every day, ensuring that everyone can see and verify their records and everyone else's.

That’s blockchain in a nutshell.

In industries where partnerships are critical and trust must be built from scratch, blockchain provides a secure, transparent system for transactions without a central authority.

The bookkeepers working in one office where they can see each other's work mirror the decentralized nature of blockchain. In blockchain, all participants (nodes) in the network have access to the entire ledger. They can independently verify the ledger’s accuracy and the validity of new entries.

The whiteboard represents the blockchain ledger, a cryptographically encoded digital record of all transactions executed and confirmed by the network. The ledger is visible to all parties at all times.

The bookkeepers opening and closing the office together symbolize the consensus mechanism used in blockchains. Like all bookkeepers agreeing to open and close the office, record keepers in blockchain technology must gain consensus before a new block can be added to the chain.

The nature of blockchain ensures that all transactions are openly recorded on the ledger and accessible to all involved parties. This helps prevent disputes and ensures that each party receives their due, per the agreement.

Blockchain provides a framework for fairness, transparency, and security in joint ventures without needing a trusted third party. Applications such as supply chain management, financial services, and other sectors where joint ventures are common can benefit from blockchains. One structure that benefits from blockchain technology is a DAO.

What is a DAO?

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) operate through smart contracts, like automated agreements coded into a blockchain. When predefined conditions are met, these programs automatically execute actions (like payments). This ensures that all participants adhere to the rules without the need for intermediaries like lawyers or banks.

DAOs aren’t governed by a single entity like a CEO or Board of Directors. They operate in a distributed manner across a network of computers. Members of a DAO collaboratively discuss and democratically vote on the rules governing their interactions and the organization's operations. Computers then automatically execute these agreements, mitigating the risks of centralized corruption and avoiding single points of failure.

When agreed-upon business conditions are met, the computer executes specified actions without human intervention. This means the organization can run efficiently and consistently without bureaucracy.

All transactions and rules in a DAO are recorded on the blockchain, making them fully transparent and easily auditable by anyone in the partnership. This transparency builds trust among participants and can make organizational decision-making more accountable and fair.

Essentially, DAOs represent a new approach to organizing collective efforts. By harnessing blockchain technology, DAOs ensure operations are democratic, transparent, and efficient. They represent the potential to usher in a new era of partnership management. Implementing blockchain through DAOs could radically streamline cattle ranching in America.

What is Cattle Ranching?

Cattle ranching involves raising cattle for beef. It requires experts in animal husbandry, pasture management, veterinary medicine, and nutrition. Ranchers must understand and respond to environmental conditions such as weather patterns, soil health, and water availability. They also need expertise in sustainability, market fluctuations, trade regulations, and economic policies to be profitable and make sound decisions.

Further, national cattle ranching is a segregated operation. Figure 7, below (also shown last week), taken from USDA Economic Research Service Report Number 830, depicts the complexity of beef commodities.

An important note about the diagram: most cattle ranchers don’t operate in more than one sphere. Cow-calf operators are not also stockers. Stockers don’t run feedlots, and feedlot operators don’t slaughter and process animals. Each segment of the ranching industry is largely segregated from the next.

Enter the possibility of blockchain-driven Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) revolutionizing cattle ranching.

Let’s take a simple example: A large operation cow-calf operator in Wyoming with excellent genetics, a stocker in Kansas, and a processing agent in Missouri agree to form a partnership. They all want to realize the increased profit potential of the direct-to-consumer market for high-quality, pasture-finished beef. They need to share ownership from birth to beef to achieve their aim. But they individually don’t have the resources to do it alone.

The cow-calf operator needs the partnership because she doesn’t have enough grass to feed her calves year-round. The stocker agrees because he doesn’t have many cows to have calves, but he has outstanding overwintering forage. The processing agent agrees because he thinks there’s more profit potential than in the beef commodity market. The processing agent runs a USDA-inspected facility, so the beef will have a final USDA grade and be sellable to restaurants and grocers. They find a restaurant customer for the finest cuts, the Golden Ox in Kansas City, which overlooks the historic Kansas City stockyards. The rest of the cuts will go to local area butchers.

They agree to establish a DAO. They all agree that Ethereum is a good blockchain platform because of its widespread use and robust support for smart contracts. The calves each have their tag number registered on the blockchain, and the processing agent agrees to maintain the blockchain information post-processing.

They agree that each of them will earn one token, or share, for each calf they transfer to the following individual. So, the Wyoming producer earns a token when a calf arrives in Kansas, and the Kansas producer earns a token when the calf arrives at the processing facility. This arrangement promotes responsibility and ensures each participant is invested in the health and quality of the cattle as they pass through the supply chain.

The total revenue is continually divided by the number of tokens, paying out the total. Over time, their revenue increases because they compete in the lucrative direct-to-consumer beef market instead of the wholesale beef commodity market.

Three ranchers agreeing to a DAO partnership grows into ten, then fifty. It keeps growing and Americans start to expect traceability from birth to beef.

By forming a DAO, the ranchers leverage blockchain technology to:

Track and Verify Genetic Quality and Handling: From the calf's birth through its growth at the stocker to its processing, all data can be recorded on the blockchain. This includes genetic information, health records, feed type, and USDA beef grade.

Automate Revenue Sharing: As each participant adds value (e.g., the cow-calf operator providing calves, the stocker raising them, the processor handling slaughtering and packaging), they receive tokens representing their contribution. Smart contracts automatically calculate and distribute revenue based on the number of tokens each member holds, ensuring fair compensation.

Access Data in Real Time: All parties can access the blockchain ledger to see each animal's status, location, and health. This transparency helps in planning and management.

Maintain Compliance and Quality Assurance: The processing agent maintains blockchain records post-processing, which adds a layer of compliance and quality assurance. Restaurants and butchers purchasing the beef can verify its USDA grade and trace its entire history, a significant selling point.

There are some downsides to setting up the DAO. For example, the DAO partnership maintaining ownership of the animals from birth to beef means the cow-calf producer won’t be paid for two years. Producers would have to accept the technology and arrangement. Regulatory environments for blockchain technologies aren’t the same across the nation. Consumers would need to accept the technology as proof of the quality of the product.

Even with the challenges, there is significant upside to cattle ranchers competing in the lucrative direct-to-consumer beef market instead of the wholesale commodity beef market.

Blockchain-driven DAOs are a way to enhance transparency, increase efficiency, and open up new markets for ranchers.

Traceability from birth to beef enables individual Americans with the capability and freedom to choose beef that aligns with their needs and values.

Traceability further improves ranch management and profitability, bringing more funds to rural communities.

Entities such as blockchain-driven agriculture cooperatives will drive innovation in cattle ranching.

May God bless the United States of America.

“Drain the swamp” is a metaphor likening the government to a swamp that needs to be drained to remove undesirable elements.

But who’s the swamp? It’s not the people, and characterizing it as such is political theater. Most Americans who work in government want to make life better for other Americans.

The real swamp is the self-serving rules—government working for itself, not the people. We need to drain this swamp.

The Chevron Doctrine

In March 2018, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) enacted a rule requiring fishermen to pay for at-sea monitors in the New England groundfish fishery. The intent was noble: to enhance the fishery's sustainability.

Fishermen did not object to the observers. No one is more invested in the sustainability of fisheries than those who rely on them. Both NMFS and the fishermen aim to improve the resource's sustainability.

However, as private small businesses, the fishermen opposed the financial burden of paying for regulatory observers. These observers weren’t aiding the fishermen with their jobs. Regulatory observers are a governmental function; if they are truly necessary, taxpayer dollars should fund them.

Said another way: if it’s not vital enough to justify taxpayer funding, the government should not be involved.

The fishermen challenged the NMFS rule in court, arguing that the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act didn’t direct the fishermen to foot the bill for regulatory observers. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia gave the initial ruling, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit gave a second ruling. Both courts sided with the NMFS, upholding the rule on the grounds that the agency's interpretation of the rule was reasonable. The courts applied the Chevron deference, a principle stemming from the US Supreme Court's Chevron USA vs. Natural Resources Defense Council decision.

Under the Chevron doctrine, courts defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute that it administers, provided the interpretation is reasonable.

The fishermen appealed the ruling. The US Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and in January 2024, the high court heard arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo. The court should weigh in this summer, and many experts believe the US Supreme Court will overturn or severely weaken the Chevron deference.

Despite being under the radar, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo has the potential to become one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions in decades. The decision could reshape US Executive Branch regulatory authority and administrative law. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency relies on Chevron deference to interpret and enforce environmental laws. Department of Health and Human Services enforces provisions of the Affordable Care Act using the Chevron doctrine. The Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board use Chevron deference to implement and enforce labor laws.

In short, every federal agency uses Chevron to interpret statutory mandates to guide national affairs. Chevron allows agencies to create laws, bypassing the legislative process and overstepping constitutional boundaries. Chevron also limits the judiciary's role in checking and balancing the executive branch's power. The court’s deference to agency interpretations precludes them from thoroughly reviewing whether those interpretations align with congressional intent or constitutional principles.

Overturning Chevron would strongly benefit Americans. It would promote federal agencies to work for the people and not for themselves, and it would restore the balance of power intended by the Constitution.

Making Federal Agencies Work for the People

Federal agencies are meant to serve a public purpose.

But a reality of government is that once you create an organization, its primary purpose becomes to sustain itself. While not necessarily bad, the primary purpose of a federal agency is not to preserve itself. It’s to serve Americans, even at the expense of itself.

No federal agency makes rules that make life for itself more difficult, even if those rules would benefit Americans. Federal agencies aim to be more efficient and fulfill their mandate. Sometimes, this means at the expense of Americans.

An example? It would be much better for America if the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) installed solar panels on the endless landscape of federal parking lots rather than our fine American wildlife lands. But BLM intends to install solar panels on nearly a million acres of public lands, threatening wildlife habitat and natural beauty.

Congress did pass Public Law 116-260, authorizing the executive branch to support solar technology and its use on public lands. However, the law also states the executive branch must…“reduce and mitigate potential life cycle negative impacts of solar energy technologies on human communities, wildlife, and wildlife habitats.” The terms “reduce and mitigate” are ambiguous, but the best way to mitigate adverse impacts on wildlife is to leave the land undisturbed.

Putting solar panels atop parking lots would cost more and be less efficient, but it’s better for America than removing wildlife habitat.

Overturning Chevron would require federal agencies to follow the exact language of congressional laws more closely rather than interpreting ambiguous statutes in a way that expands their regulatory scope. This would lead to agencies being more accountable to Americans. Agency actions would have to align more directly with the legislation passed by elected officials. This alignment would ensure agencies operate within their designated boundaries, prioritizing public interest over bureaucratic agendas.

Further, without Chevron deference, agencies would need to provide more rigorous justifications for their rules, making their decision-making processes more transparent. This transparency could enable better public scrutiny and participation in the regulatory process, enhancing democratic governance.

Restore a Balance of Power

The US Constitution, inspired by philosopher John Locke, established a democratic republic with a balance of power divided between three branches instead of a monarchy. Chevron throws off the balance by enabling executive branch agencies to make laws. If one of those branches can make and execute laws and appoint justices to sit on the courts that defer to that branch, the President becomes a king.

America owes allegiance to no king.

Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution states that all legislative powers reside in Congress, reinforcing the premise that agencies should not legislate from the executive branch. Further, the judiciary's role is to interpret the law independently without deferring to the executive branch’s interpretations.

This principle is decisive to our national identity, as the foundation of America is individual liberty.

In Federalist Paper No. 47 (1788), James Madison outlined the idea that power concentration in the hands of a few threatens individual liberty. Madison continued the premise in Federalist Paper No. 51 (also 1788). It builds on Federalist 47 by stressing the need for each branch to have both the constitutional mechanisms and personal incentives to check the powers of the others.

Despite these clear national guidelines, the judicial branch currently defers to the executive branch to decide what the legislative branch intends in legislation. This gives the executive branch the authority to make and enforce laws (through interpretation).

Overturning Chevron restores the Constitutional balance of power. Congress makes laws, the executive branch executes them, and the judicial branch interprets ambiguous laws. This balance of power protects against government tyranny.

We need to drain the swamp. The swamp isn’t the people who work in government; it's the overreaching regulations that serve agencies rather than the people.

Federal agencies need to work on behalf of the people, not the agency.

This balance of power is a decisive tenet of our democratic republic. One that we need to restore.

May God bless the United States of America.

How might we change the premise of Social Security to make it fully funded, more equitable, and sustainable indefinitely?

Social Security is societal insurance, not an individual retirement plan. It’s intended to protect individuals against income loss due to retirement, disability, or death. It supports disabled individuals, survivors, and children and reduces poverty.

Social Security protects taxpayers across American society. Without Social Security, millions would face poverty, straining families and state and local governments, increasing inequality, and destabilizing the economy.

But Social Security isn’t without its problems. It relies on a larger future generation funding the current generation of older Americans. This model is projected to run out of full funding between 2034 and 2037 for the Boomer generation. With the Millennial generation larger than Gen X, the shortfall might right itself during the Gen X retirement period.

We need to explore innovative solutions beyond increasing taxes, reducing benefits, or expanding the workforce. How about we explore an approach so simple that it would be a radical, permanent solution?

Before we begin, we need to establish an objective to guide our mental efforts.

To ensure each future generation has access to the social insurance program, we must orient the program to be:

* Fully funded by the individual, not the following generation

* Funding achievable by an individual in their earnings lifetime

* Sustainable, such that the program will incur no government debt and weather future changes in population growth

This is achievable.

What if the American people invested $100,000 in every newborn, purchasing a 65-year government bond on their behalf that guaranteed a 3.5% annual return?

Then, throughout each individual’s lifetime, both the individual and their employer would contribute to Social Security taxes, repaying this investment. This structure would mirror the existing Social Security tax system.

The individual would have access to the funds when they reach 65 years old. The fund would project to pay out 30 years of benefit to age 95 at a fixed monthly rate.

The government would incur no permanent debt with this approach.

Let’s consider the feasibility of this proposal. If America invested $100K at a baby’s birth and the trust grew tax-free and returned a 3.5% annual return, the $100K would grow to $935,670 when the baby turned 65.

If we wanted that money to last until the individual reached age 95, that $935K would pay $2600 per month, or $935,670 spread across 360 months. $2600 per month is $31,200 per year, which is above the 2024 federal poverty level of $30,000 for a family of four. The average Social Security check today for retired workers is $1915 per month, a figure published in April 2024.

Let’s break it down piece by piece.

Equitable Access and Personal Responsibility

The premise of this approach is equitable treatment and personal responsibility. Every American, irrespective of background, would contribute to and benefit from the fund equally, eliminating disparities from unequal lifetime earnings. Each participant would receive the same initial investment, with repayment terms identical for all. No generation would be responsible for supporting another.

Ultimately, this model aims to balance the collective security of traditional social insurance with the individual responsibility of personal investment.

Once the individual returns the initial investment to the American people, the individual should no longer owe Social Security taxes. Their additional income could be redirected towards other financial goals, such as saving for retirement or investing. This would accelerate financial security as individuals approach retirement, providing more flexibility in financial planning.

Projects 30 years of Benefit with No Permanent Government Debt

In 2020, 33% of the US population was older than 65, and only 0.6% was older than 95.

Projecting benefits to age 95 ensures the program plans for the vast majority of Americans. Those who survive past 95 would continue to receive their benefits. Individuals receiving benefits past 95 is achievable because most don’t survive to that fine old age.

Because Social Security is a social insurance plan and not an individual retirement plan, the funds not paid out to individuals would remain in the Social Security fund.

This is not different from Social Security today.

Access to the Funds

Adjusting the age of funds distribution, similar to Social Security today would result in modest changes to the monthly payment.

If individuals chose to take early distributions at age 62, the payout would change to $2,362 per month.

If individuals chose to wait to take distributions at age 70, the payout would change to $3,118 per month.

Funding Achievable by an Individual

A worker repaying their $100K investment back to the American people is achievable.

Let’s assume a worker works for 40 years by the time they reach 65. At the current Social Security tax rate of 6.2%, that worker would need to earn $806,451 to repay $50,000 in Social Security taxes over their lifetime.

To achieve this lifetime earnings mark in 40 years, the worker would need to have an average annual wage of $20,161.29.

This is a simplified model that assumes consistent earnings over the entire career without interruptions and no change to the Social Security tax structure.

Individual Benefit Clearly Outweighs the Cost

The benefits of this model are exceedingly strong for the individual because the American people made the initial investment at birth. The timing of the contribution is such that the fund can grow for decades before the individual makes their individual retirement account investments.

Repaying the American people’s $100K investment would result in a monthly payment of $2600 to the individual.

If the individual lives 3.2 years past 65, they would receive more than their Social Security contribution.

Further, many individuals will repay their Social Security investment early in their careers and stop paying Social Security taxes. They can then focus the remainder of their retirement planning on their individual accounts.

The proposal has risks, including changes in economic conditions, varying bond yields, and the impact of these factors on the proposed payouts.

The transition from the current model to this sustainable model would require strong political consensus to gain public and political support for such an overhaul.

How might we change the premise of Social Security to make it fully funded, more equitable, and sustainable indefinitely?

To ensure each future generation has access to the social insurance program, we need to reorient the program.

We must make it fully funded by the individual and not the following generation. Individuals need to be able to easily repay the American people’s investment in their earnings lifetime. The program needs to be sustainable, such that it will incur no government debt and weather future changes in population growth.

These goals are achievable, and using this model would ensure future Americans would enter retirement more financially secure.

May God bless the United States of America.

Piece originally published at American Thinker on May 24, 2024, here.

Let’s begin the process of registering an agricultural product on a blockchain as a capability demonstration for agricultural cooperatives!

Let’s pick up where we left off with agricultural blockchain cooperatives by addressing a couple of listener questions.

1. With this blockchain partnership, how does the rancher or farmer expect to be paid?

The rancher needs to be paid in US dollars. While cryptocurrency is a form of payment, ranchers and farmers run their operations in dollars. The blockchain tokens do have a value, but their role in the agricultural cooperative is verification of quality and traceability, not payment. The tokens also automate the amount of payment that goes to each rancher in the cooperative based on the number held by each rancher.

This system's advantages include transparency. Each transaction and token exchange is recorded on the blockchain, providing a clear history of ownership, responsibility, and quality. Further, payments are automated and distributed based on the smart contracts, significantly reducing administrative overhead and the potential for human error.

Ranching and Blockchain Pathways Separate from US Dollar Payments

In the diagram above, agricultural operations are colored in red. These steps cover the physical handling of cattle from birth through different phases of growth and finally to processing.

Blockchain operations are shaded in blue. These include the creation of tokens and registering detailed data such as tag numbers, health data, and genetics on the blockchain. Tokens are awarded as cattle progress through various stages, attributing a digital value to the efforts of each contributor.

US dollar payment operations are shaded in green. After the beef is processed and sold, the revenue generated is distributed among participants based on the tokens they hold. Using tokens as a measure of contribution ensures that each participant is fairly compensated according to their role in the value chain. This arrangement links the blockchain-tracked contributions directly to financial rewards.

Agricultural and blockchain operations run concurrently. Once both operations conclude and the beef is sold to buyers, producers receive payment in US dollars.

This hybrid model leverages the strengths of blockchain for data integrity and traceability while maintaining the usability of conventional currency systems for easy commerce and trade.

2. And a follow-up question: don’t the tokens cost money to acquire and use?

Yes, blockchain tokens do have a monetary cost.

For some examples, one Bitcoin (BTC) token is around $67,000 USD, one Ethereum (ETH) token is approximately $3,800 USD, one Solana (SOL) token is approximately $170, one Polkadot (DOT) token is approximately $7 USD, and one Cardano (ADA) token is around fifty cents.

Further, different blockchain systems offer different capabilities.

Bitcoin is primarily used for monetary transactions and as a long-term store of value. Its network is robust and secure, though it lacks the flexibility for complex smart contracts. Because of this, it would not be a good choice as an agricultural cooperative token.

Ethereum offers comprehensive smart contract functionality that supports a wide range of decentralized applications, making it foundational in decentralized finance (DeFi). If a producer found the cost acceptable, it would be a good choice for an agricultural cooperative. Ethereum's capabilities would allow for detailed tracking, verifiable traceability of produce, and automated financial distributions, making it a strong candidate if the cooperative can manage the associated costs.

Solana is an Ethereum competitor. It offers fast transaction speeds and lower costs, making it ideal for high-frequency trading and decentralized applications that require rapid state changes. Solana supports smart contracts and decentralized applications, making it a viable choice for agricultural cooperatives that prioritize speed and efficiency.

Polkadot supports the use of several token types across various blockchains through a central relay chain. For agricultural cooperatives, Polkadot allows for the customization of blockchain features to suit specific needs like supply chain management and financial transactions. Polkadot's scalable architecture ensures that as a cooperative grows, the system can handle increased transaction volumes efficiently. Each Polkadot parachain can process transactions independently, transferring any type of data or asset across chains, aiming to solve scalability issues that currently affect Ethereum.

Cardano is another Ethereum competitor. It offers advanced security and sustainability features, aiming to provide more advanced and efficient smart contract capabilities. Cardano supports smart contracts and decentralized applications.

You can start to see the benefits and disadvantages of each blockchain type. Polkadot seems to be a good place to start because of its customization ability and reasonable cost. But because of its advanced security features and low fees, let’s not rule out Cardano for a cooperative concerned with data integrity.

If we are going to register an agricultural product on a blockchain as a capability demonstration, we need an agricultural product. And we are in luck, as I happen to have some hop plants to use for the capability demonstration.

About Hops

Hops are the flowers of the hop plant Humulus lupulus. They are used primarily to bitter and flavor beer while imparting floral, fruity, or citrus flavors and aromas. Brewers add hops to beer to balance the sweetness of the malt and contribute additional flavors and aromas. The hop plant is a vigorous, viney, climbing, herbaceous perennial. Hops growers train the hops to grow up strings or on horizontal trellises.

The first written use of hops in brewing was recorded in the 9th century. Traditionally, hops were grown in regions of Germany, the Czech Republic, and England, but now the United States, particularly the Pacific Northwest, has become a major hop-producing area.

Strong winds are detrimental to growing hops (and really any plant). Wyoming is known for strong winds. To protect my hops, I'm growing them in a greenhouse structure. The planting date was May 17, 2024. The plants get water from a custom-built drip water system.

I’m growing three varieties of hops: Cascade, Chinook, and Super Alpha. Each has different characteristics.

Cascade Hops

Cascade hops are one of the most popular hop varieties in craft and home brewing. They are known for their distinct floral, citrus, and grapefruit character. Originating in Oregon in the 1950s, Cascade was the first commercially successful American hop variety that came from the USDA breeding program. Cascade hops are used in a wide range of beer styles, particularly American Pale Ales and India Pale Ales.

Chinook Hops

Chinook hops were developed in Washington State and released in 1985. Known for their piney, spicy bouquet, and robust flavor, they are often used in the brewing of American-style Pale Ales, IPAs, and Stouts. Chinook hops are excellent for adding considerable bitterness. Their distinct aroma profile allows them to be used as a late addition to the boil or in dry hopping to enhance the beer’s aroma.

Super Alpha Hops

Super Alpha is a New Zealand hop variety developed in the 1970s. It is noted for its clean bittering properties and a complex mix of lemongrass, pine, and herbal notes. Super Alpha hops are particularly well-suited for Lagers, Pale Ales, and IPAs where a clean, sharp bitterness is desired. Their vibrant, aromatic lift complements other ingredients.

Each of these hop varieties brings a unique set of characteristics to the brewing process. They allow brewers to experiment with a range of flavors and aromas to create distinct and memorable beers.

This hops environment supports plant health and offers a consistent framework for our blockchain experiment.

Future Episodes

In future episodes, we will:

* Set up the blockchain environment and begin the registration process for each hop variety.

* Openly discuss the successes and failures of the blockchain and the growing process.

* Discuss the specific blockchain platform chosen for this demonstration and rationale.

* Integrate real-time data from our hops into the blockchain for live tracking and management.

The capability demonstration's intent is to understand how we can practically apply blockchain innovation to enhance agricultural practices and cooperative management.

Stay tuned!

May God bless the United States of America.

This is week 2 of considering…can I register an agricultural product on the blockchain without paying a dedicated blockchain team to help?

We are now in the second week of our capability demonstration to register hops on the blockchain. Last week, we conceptualized how to integrate agriculture and blockchain operations, considered the advantages and disadvantages of different blockchain platforms, and identified our agricultural test bed product.

Agriculture producers interested in directly marketing their product to a specific market benefit from traceability to verify their product’s quality. Blockchain offers an opportunity for traceability. This test will consider: can I register an agricultural product on the blockchain without a dedicated blockchain team to help?

Considering both capability and cost, we narrowed our initial test bed of blockchain tokens down to two: Polkadot and Cardano.

Polkadot supports the use of several token types across various blockchains through a central relay chain. For agricultural cooperatives, Polkadot allows developers to customize blockchain features to suit specific needs, such as supply chain management and financial transactions.

There is a downside to Polkadot: the cost of securing a parachain slot. Winning a slot can be expensive, depending on the demand and the strategic importance of the slot duration. Costs can range from hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars in equivalent DOT, making it a significant barrier for smaller projects or startups. Agricultural cooperatives might be able to handle the cost, but individual producers would not.

Cardano offers advanced security and sustainability features, aiming to provide more advanced and efficient smart contract capabilities. Cardano supports smart contracts and decentralized applications. Its smart contract capabilities can handle agricultural traceability, such as recording detailed data about animal or plant care, harvest, and distribution.

Cardano also has downsides. Its user base is smaller than more established blockchains like Ethereum. With a smaller user base, there’s less support and features. And while Cardano is rolling out scalability solutions, those aren’t all in place yet.

A compelling feature of both Polkadot and Cardano is their test net environments. These test nets are essential for experimentation, learning, and validation before deploying solutions on the main net. Test nets allow developers to test blockchain applications for free. This is particularly beneficial for startups and individual developers. These test nets provide a safe environment to experiment and make mistakes without the risk of losing funds or impacting the business.

The intent of this capability demonstration is to understand how we can apply blockchain innovation to enhance agricultural practices and cooperative management.

But we have bigger aims.

Our overall intent is to give agricultural producers another avenue to market their products directly to their customers rather than competing in the wholesale agricultural commodity market. Agricultural producers who use blockchain traceability can provide undeniable proof of the quality, origin, and methods used to produce their goods. For consumers increasingly concerned about these factors, this level of transparency builds trust.

This approach has the potential to return more profits to the agricultural producer. It can eliminate middlemen, cutting fees and commissions out of the supply chain. It can help verify the quality and origin of products, enabling producers to justify premium pricing. Consumers are often willing to pay more for products that are guaranteed to be fresh, organic, sustainably sourced, non-GMO, or free-range, which often carry higher price tags.

Traceability offers consumers a directly sourced, high-quality, fresh, and local product. Consumers can access blockchain data to confirm that the product is directly sourced without intermediary tampering or repackaging. They can see exactly who is responsible for their food production. This fosters a direct connection with the farmer or producer, enhancing trust and supporting local economies.

We are going to start with a test net. Before we can begin interacting with the Cardano test net and deploying smart contracts, we need to set up the development environment.

Set Up The Development Environment

To set up the development environment, we need to install Node.js and the Node Package Manager (npm). These are tools for blockchain development and network interaction. Node.js is a runtime environment that allows us to run JavaScript, and npm is its package manager, which facilitates the installation of libraries and tools. The npm repository has a vast array of libraries and tools to enhance blockchain development.

Node is available for Windows, macOS, or Linux. I’ll be installing the version for macOS…

No problems with installation. The Mac terminal verifies success. A quick “Hello, World!” command reporting back to the Terminal verifies that Node is working.

We also need to install the Cardano Command Line Interface (CLI) to interact with the Cardano blockchain. We can download it from the official Cardano repositories. I’ll spare you the setup, which includes downloading XCode and Homebrew. I will note that installing programming software always feels like I will break something.

Next, we need to become familiar with Plutus.

The Plutus Playground

Plutus is a smart contract platform for Cardano. It’s based on the programming language Haskell. Haskell is a purely functional language, which means that it treats all computation as the evaluation of mathematical functions. Here’s a simple example of a Haskell function:

-- This function adds two numbers add :: Int -> Int -> Int add x y = x + y

You can find more resources and tutorials on the Plutus Platform GitHub page or through the Cardano developers portal.

With some configuration effort, I get a simple “Hello, Haskell!” command to work.

My goal is to get to the Plutus Playground. This test environment should allow us to test Cardano smart contracts.

But I hit a snag. Plutus was a platform maintained online by Cardano, but they’ve stopped. To run Plutus, I have to set up on my local machine. I may not even need Plutus to do what I need.

I told you I would share both successes and failures. I expect failures. No test is a failure, because even if you don’t achieve your goal, you learn something that didn’t work.

Blockchain traceability for agriculture has to be achievable for individual agriculture producers or it won’t gain mainstream adoption. I’ll get there.

It’s not uncommon in my social circle to discuss Constitutional matters. Many of us swore oaths to the Constitution and remain committed to that ideal.

I recently had a friend posit that we should repeal the 12th Amendment. It’s a fascinating topic…

The 1800 Election

On February 17, 1801, following a protracted and contentious 1800 election, the US House of Representatives of the 6th Congress resolved a tie for the office of President between Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. After a grueling 36 rounds of ballots, the House chose Jefferson as the third President of the United States. He served in the office from 1801 to 1809.

In the 1800 presidential election, the total number of possible electoral votes was 138. Therefore, candidates needed 70 electoral votes to win the presidency. Sitting President John Adams won 65 votes. Both Jefferson and Burr won 73 votes, enough ballots for each to win the Presidency outright. This deadlock threw the election into the House of Representatives.

This was only the fourth national Presidential election. There were 36 rounds of ballots and backroom negotiations, and the House of Representatives, rather than the vote, decided the presidency.

The original Constitution did not account for political parties and allowed voters to cast two votes for President, with both votes carrying equal weight. The candidate with the most votes became President, and the runner-up became Vice President. The event demonstrated electoral framework shortfalls and led to the ratification of the 12th Amendment in 1804. The new text outlined:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President…

The Amendment refined the electoral process by requiring electors to cast separate votes for President and Vice President, aiming to prevent future electoral impasses and delineate between the top two offices.

Teams of Rivals

In contrast to the 1800 election, parties today nominate only one person for the Presidency through a series of primaries and caucuses leading up to their respective national convention.

My friend posits we should repeal the 12th Amendment to the US Constitution so that the vice president will be from the opposing party and encourage the parties to work together. This divided relationship occurred in the 1796 election. President Adams had his political rival, Jefferson, as his Vice President.

The 1796 to 1800 Adams-Jefferson partnership was not a high-functioning executive team. However, President Lincoln later took this exact approach and saved the Union.

In her book Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, Doris Kearns Goodwin discusses how Lincoln appointed political adversaries to key positions in his administration. Lincoln believed the nation would benefit from the collective talents and strengths of the best minds, even if they had previously opposed him. During America’s most divisive period, he put preserving the Union above all other priorities and didn’t care what political party helped achieve that aim.

Lincoln’s humility gifted him with the ability to harness a wide range of ideas and perspectives, crucial for navigating the complex political and military challenges of the Civil War.

The 12th Amendment Today

The 12th Amendment is still relevant today.

In the 2020 election, Presidential candidates Trump and Biden needed at least 270 out of 538 electoral votes to win the office. President Biden won 306 votes, and President Trump won 232 votes. But it was closer than the final tally suggests.

Three states had razor-thin margins that could have theoretically shifted the outcome:

* Georgia (16 electoral votes) - Biden won by 12,670 votes, a margin of 0.23%.

* Arizona (11 electoral votes) - Biden won by 10,457 votes, 0.3%.

* Wisconsin (10 electoral votes) - Biden won by 20,682 votes, 0.63%.

These states collectively have 37 electoral votes. All told, less than 44,000 votes in these three states swung the office to President Biden. If they had flipped in favor of Trump, neither candidate would have achieved the 270 electoral vote majority required to win outright. Both candidates would have had 269 electoral votes, resulting in a contingent election as outlined by the 12th Amendment.

In such a scenario, the election would have been decided by the House of Representatives, where each state delegation casts one vote. The 12th Amendment specifies this process, which becomes critical when no candidate secures a majority of the electoral votes. At the time, Democrats controlled the House of Representatives of the 117th Congress.

But that wasn’t the makeup of the state delegations.

On January 6, 2021, the day of the mob desecration of the US Capitol Building and immediately following the start of the 117th Congress, the composition of state delegations in the House of Representatives was as follows:

* Democrat-majority state delegations: 22

* Republican-majority state delegations: 26

* Evenly split state delegations: 2 (Georgia and Pennsylvania, which had an equal number of Democratic and Republican representatives)

This means that, in the event of a contingent election in the House of Representatives, the Republican-majority state delegations would have had the advantage, as they controlled 26 state delegations compared to 22 controlled by the Democrats, with two delegations evenly split.

Would that have made a difference in the 2020 election?

The Vote

America is not a pure democracy. We are a democratic republic. Pure democracy threatens individual liberty. Liberty is the foundation of the Constitution. The founders designed America as a democratic republic to protect individual rights and prevent the tyranny of the majority by mediating public decisions through layers of divided power. This structure balances the will of the majority with the rights of the individual, ensuring a stable and just governance system. We try to be a democracy without the problems of democracy.

The founders, in their wisdom, passed the 12th Amendment after the 1800 election. Their aim was clear: to ensure that every vote, every voice, counts. This amendment was a crucial step in minimizing House of Representatives intervention in future presidential elections, paving the way for individual American votes to hold more weight.

We try to be a democracy that protects individual liberty, including the right for individual votes to count.

Should we repeal the 12th Amendment?

It would create more teams of rivals, which could enrich the executive branch with diverse ideas and solutions from across the political spectrum.

It would lead to divisiveness in the executive branch and challenge the smooth operation of government unless managed with exceptional humility, skill, and integrity.

A President who puts America above party could make it work. May we all hope for leaders with the wisdom and courage to put the nation first.

May God bless the United States of America.

Last week, I found myself in the middle of a discussion centered on Presidential obligation and authority. The subject was the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the semiautomatic firearms bump stock ban on the grounds that the Trump administration had overstepped its authority. One passionate advocate emphasized that the executive had a responsibility to protect the greater good, while others said that the ban required congressional action.

Does the Presidential Oath of Office imply a duty for US Presidents to act in the interest of the greater good?

On July 26, 1948, President Harry S. Truman signed Executive Order 9981, desegregating the US military. More than one million black Americans proudly fought in every theater of operations in World War II, only to return home to face segregation across America. Truman, who himself had grown up with white supremacist views in Missouri, was profoundly disturbed by the treatment of these veterans. He expressed his disgust, stating, “My stomach turned over when I learned that Negro soldiers, just back from overseas, were being dumped out of army trucks in Mississippi and beaten.”

EO 9981 helped set the stage for later broad desegregation during the Civil Rights Movement. It was a major policy change by the executive branch. It used the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief to enforce principles of equality and non-discrimination within the armed forces.

Two sections of the executive order are compelling for our discussion. The first reads…

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, by the Constitution and the statutes of the United States, and as Commander in Chief of the armed services, it is hereby ordered as follows…

The Constitution endows the Presidency with both authority and duty. The President holds the authority to lead and execute the federal government's directives and the duty to uphold and enforce the laws and principles delineated in the Constitution.

By referencing the Constitution in the executive order, President Truman made a clear statement that his actions were within the scope of his powers. This responsibility stems from the President's oath of office, which commits to 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.' This oath is a testament to the President's commitment to the law and the principles it upholds.

The second notable section states…

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin.

The executive order echoes the Constitution. The Constitution mandates that all branches of government operate consistently with principles of equality of treatment and opportunity.

These broad principles are found in the Preamble as a mandate to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” They are reinforced by the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Furthermore, Article II, Section 3 identifies the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” mandating enforcement of laws in a manner consistent with the Constitution's principles of equality and justice.

Truman signed Executive Order 9981 for the greater good, but it clearly had a constitutional authority and duty component. This is just one example of how a President can use their authority to act for the greater good.

However, another critical aspect of the order was the applicability of the location. Truman ordered equal treatment of all inside the US military. As Commander in Chief, he had the authority to direct desegregation in the services. Outside the executive branch, he didn’t have the ability to order desegregation for all. That feat took overcoming heated resistance and was only achieved 16 years later when Congress finally passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Let’s apply this conceptual philosophy to our question. Does the Presidential Oath of Office imply a duty for US Presidents to act in the interest of the greater good?

Yes and no. The Presidential Oath of Office explicitly binds the President to uphold and defend the Constitution and to execute their duties faithfully. This oath grants them authority to govern where this authority applies, primarily within the executive branch. However, it's important to note that it doesn't extend the President's authority to direct actions outside the executive branch. This is a critical aspect of the Presidential role.

How about an example?

Consider taxpayer money: Our taxes fund various government activities, including awarding contracts and grants to companies. Suppose the government awards a contract to Company X, which then hires a worker at poverty wages. Due to these low wages, the worker qualifies for government assistance programs to meet basic needs like food on the table and heat in the house.

The American people end up paying twice for this worker: once through the payment to Company X under the government contract and again through social welfare programs because Company X pays the worker insufficient earnings to meet these basic needs.

This dual payment represents an irresponsible and wasteful use of funds by the executive. Careless and wasteful use of taxpayer dollars violates Constitutional principles. The Constitution compels the President to faithfully execute the law, which includes managing resources effectively and preventing wasteful spending.

But the President can’t direct companies to pay wages that would prevent workers from qualifying for social programs, and companies won’t do it out of the goodness of their hearts.

The President could sign an executive order directing executive federal agencies to award contracts or grants only to companies that pay all employees wages above the social program level. This order would ensure that government funds are used responsibly and prudently and reduce government spending on social programs for low-income workers.

This approach ensures workers can earn enough to support themselves without needing supplemental government assistance, representing an appropriate use of government funds. It would reduce government spending on social programs for low-income workers. Higher wages could increase consumer spending, boost the economy, and promote sustainable economic growth.

The President should have the authority to sign this order. They aren’t compelling companies to pay higher wages. A company can choose to withdraw from competing for government funding. The executive is directing their branch of government to allocate the funds issued by Congress responsibly and prudently.

Counterarguments that some jobs are entry-level positions that don’t justify wages sufficient for Americans to have food on the table and heat in the house are empty. That is an argument to support social programs.

Americans should not subsidize companies that benefit from taxpayer funding and pay low wages.

The ideal solution is for Congress to pass laws to help Americans succeed as individuals and eliminate the need for broad social programs.

Does the Presidential Oath of Office imply a duty for US Presidents to act in the interest of the greater good?

Yes, the Oath implies these duties but gives the President limited power to execute them.

The President can still innovate and act inside their authority for the greater good.

May God bless the United States of America.

Universal Basic Income pilot studies prove the concept works, and advocates say we should support it.

Is Universal Basic Income a silver bullet solution to societal issues or a band-aid on deep wounds?

What is Universal Basic Income?

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a financial policy proposal under consideration by many municipalities across America. Under UBI, the people of a municipality, acting through the government, provide regular, unconditional payments to all citizens regardless of income or employment status.

The premise of UBI is to ensure a minimum standard of living and reduce poverty and inequality. UBI programs intend to simplify welfare systems, reduce bureaucracy, and provide economic security for the lowest-income earners.

On June 22, 2024, in the LA Times, writer Rebecca Plevin reported, “More than 200 guaranteed-income experiments have popped up nationwide over the last four years in response to the pandemic, as well as racial injustice and widening economic inequality.” In a separate piece published June 26th, Business Insider identified a couple of residents of St. Louis, Missouri, sued the City of St. Louis over objections to its taxpayer-funded UBI program.

How is UBI funded?

Universal Basic Income (UBI) proposals are funded through various mechanisms. Common funding sources include:

* Private contributions. Funding for some pilot programs, such as those used for Arlington’s Guarantee Pilot Evaluation conducted in Arlington, Virginia, were from private sources. The Arlington Community Foundation acquired all funding from private donors, business donations, faith communities, and other foundations. They used no public dollars for the study.

* Taxes. Proponents often pose income taxes, consumption taxes, or new forms of taxes such as a carbon tax or wealth tax for UBI funding.

* Reduction of Existing Welfare. Some proposals suggest funding UBI by streamlining or eliminating current welfare programs and redirecting those funds into the UBI pool.

* Other sources might include natural resources such as Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend. They might also include investment funds owned by the state or from sources like surplus revenues.

UBI Programs Work

So many municipalities are considering UBI because the pilot programs prove it works. Americans aren’t irresponsible with money, or lazy, or stupid. They use the money to gain skills and get better jobs, move into safer neighborhoods, buy shoes and coats for their kids, and heat their houses. They go back to school and get degrees and certifications.

They work MORE with the extra funds, not less. And the work they do is more meaningful.

Or, to be more correct, Americans with enough money live stable, productive lives.

With so much decisive information proving UBI works, I should be arguing for UBI, right? But I’m not going to.

UBI is a Symptom, Not a Solution

Proponents of UBI argue that the programs reduce poverty, simplify welfare, reduce the cost of administering welfare, reduce income inequality, and have still other benefits. They write passionate pieces that convey how UBI programs help those most in need. I don’t disagree with their position.

Though I often write about problems, including low worker wages and how we might address housing challenges, that’s not my decisive effort.

I write about America. I believe in the principles that formed America and in individual liberty. I believe that given the right conditions, individuals will succeed on their own.

UBI programs demonstrate that America is at a crossroads. They are symptomatic of deeper structural issues rather than a solution to them. UBI programs demonstrate that conditions in America are such that individual Americans aren’t surviving on their own. The system is broken. More people than ever are working multiple full-time jobs to survive. Buying housing is out of the question for many. For the first time since the end of the Great Depression, more 18- to 29-year-old adults live with their parents than on their own. UBI programs highlight that the problem is so dire that some would give others money for not even working.

UBI programs are a Progressive response to poverty. I’m not a huge fan of Progressive solutions to move money when there are other options.

It’s not that I’m anti-government. Government is necessary. It provides a means for individuals to combine resources and generate essential services that individuals cannot achieve on their own, such as infrastructure, defense, and education. Without government, we have no interstate market access, no roads for transit, and no financial system to support trade between individuals.

At the same time, government is inherently wasteful. One of the most studied examples that highlights this phenomenon is the US military’s tooth-to-tail ratio, or the ratio of combat effects forces to support forces. At no point in the last 150 years has the military had more than 28% of combat effects forces, with 72% support forces. These support forces have familiar names such as Human Resources (HR), finance, maintenance, and logistics.

All government entities have support forces, and this same principle applies. Larger government waste isn’t studied the same way outside the Department of Defense. But even if the percentages are somewhat different, the point is the same: Funneling money through the government results in the majority of that money being absorbed by support functions. The support is necessary, but it reduces the money that can be directly applied to the problem.

The American people paying government officials to provide a service benefitting multiple Americans is a good use of resources. Yes, the government still gets this funding, but the intent is to provide the service, and the government can achieve the intent.

The American people paying government officials to send their money to an individual living in poverty doesn’t make sense. They just wasted 70% of it funneling it through the bureaucracy. Americans need to earn sufficient money from their work, and the rules need to support wages high enough for individuals to succeed. The intent the government can achieve is to make the rules work for individuals.

As we grapple with UBI and the broader role of government in America, we can revisit the wisdom of historical figures who navigated similar crossroads.

Edmond Burke is the world’s most renowned Conservative philosopher. Just before the American Revolution, Burke sounded a strong call for systemic change to conserve the integrity of the British Empire. He urged King George to address the British government's missteps and expressed that England should pursue conciliatory measures with the colonies.

Burke knew that saving the British Empire meant change.

King George rejected Burke’s counsel, and America was born at war.

If we are going to save the American dream, we can’t say the system is working and bury our heads in the sand.

If Americans can’t succeed as individuals, they will increasingly turn to social programs. America is built on individual liberty, not collective social programs.

When the American people pay tax dollars to fund the government, the decisive effort of those dollars needs to set conditions for individuals to succeed.

Individuals can succeed when they have heat in the house and food on the table from working one full-time job while still being able to go to school at night to expand their skills. They need to be able to buy a house and feed their family on one income. Single mothers need to make enough to pay for childcare so they can go to work and still feed their kids.

To support this individual capability, we need leaders who work for the American people, not just for businesses and not for the government.

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript.

Last week, the US Supreme Court addressed the issue of presidential immunity during official acts, and many people were very upset about it.

Many hysterically claimed the court weighed in favor of conservatives and ruled the court gave the president unchecked power. Media sources said it was a “Blueprint for Dictatorship.”

Should we charge every president with a crime when they leave office?

During the Global War on Terror, the US killed about 4700 suspected or alleged terrorists with drone strikes. The majority of those drone strikes occurred during President Obama’s tenure.

The harsh truth of those drone strikes is that President Obama acted in accordance with what he believed was his duty. All presidents are bound by oath to act…

And will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

On May 22, 2013, the Brookings Institute reported that former US Attorney General Eric Holder said some of those drone strikes killed American citizens. Those Americans were suspected terrorists and were internal enemies of the state.

However, President Obama ordered, and the military conducted, the strikes against American citizens in violation of several Constitutional principles. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The killing of American citizens without a trial or any form of judicial process directly violates this fundamental right. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to a trial. Executing American citizens suspected of terrorism without a trial denies them this constitutional right.

In Hobbesian terms, the absence of a world government results in global anarchy and compels states to ensure their own security. Violent extremism threatens US security. The president has a duty to maintain regional stability, which is crucial for protecting the American homeland.

Should we have charged President Obama with crimes when he left office? No. He had immunity for the conduct necessary to support his Constitutional duties.

How about FDR and Heart Mountain?

During World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent through Executive Order 9066. Conditions in the camps were brutal, with inadequate housing, poor sanitation, and limited medical care. The forced removal of Japanese Americans from their homes without warrants or cause and the confiscation of their property violated the 4th Amendment. Detaining the Americans without charges or a fair opportunity to contest their detention in court violated their right to Habeas Corpus (Article I, Section 9).

We now consider the internment of Japanese Americans one of the most egregious violations of civil liberties in American history. The event demonstrates the importance of protecting constitutional rights, especially during times of national crisis.

Would we today charge FDR with crimes?

One could argue that both Obama and FDR acted in what they believed was the nation’s best interest. But what about clear cases of corruption?

How about President Warren G. Harding, who transferred control of the Teapot Dome oil field in Wyoming to Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall? Private oil companies then paid Fall bribes equivalent to about $6 million today. Though Harding didn’t get any money, what role did he play in the event?

Or Ulysses S. Grant and the Whiskey Ring Scandal? The ring involved bribing Treasury Department officials to underreport the amount of whiskey produced, reducing owed taxes. The conspirators then shared the defrauded taxes amongst themselves. Only President Grant’s testimony on behalf of his personal secretary and friend, General Orville Babcock, saved Babcock from conviction for his participation in the ring.

More than one president could have been subject to criminal charges for their actions. Are presidents above the law? No. But we have treated them with immunity.

Back to the matter at hand.

We can judge whether President Trump’s acts on and around January 6th were official duties, and the courts will weigh in in the coming months. I doubt the courts will turn fast enough to judge his role in the mob desecration of the US Capitol Building before the election. The real jury of whether the mob attempted to overthrow the republic will be the American people on November 5th.

However, regarding immunity, America has demonstrated for many years that presidents have immunity during official acts and have presumptuous immunity for even unofficial acts. The Supreme Court’s decision only affirms how we have acted since our earliest years.

America is an imperfect democratic republic. Presidents make tough choices, and we need to elect people of high character.

Presidents from either party must be able to act to preserve, protect, and defend the republic without fear of being charged with a crime when they leave office.

May God bless the United States of America.

Do national leaders have a duty to enhance the welfare of citizens?

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 BC) was a Roman statesman, orator, lawyer, and philosopher widely regarded as one of the Roman Republic’s greatest orators and writers.

During the late Roman Republic, extreme wealth disparity tore the social fabric of Rome. Conquests brought immense wealth, but only to a few elite families. This wealth disparity led to struggles between the plebeians (the people) and patricians (the aristocrats) over land, political equality, and access to resources.

For much of the republic, soldiers were typically small landowners. As wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, aristocrats increasingly bought up this resource. Soldiers became landless men. Commanders promised the soldiers care and stability, and soldiers became more loyal to their commanders than to the republic.

Powerful and ambitious leaders like Pompey, Julius Caesar, and Crassus rose. These men formed an unofficial political alliance that historians call the First Triumvirate to challenge the republic’s governance structures. Their rivalries and personal armies led to a series of civil wars.

Political corruption ensued. Politicians bought offices and votes, eroding the principles of Roman governance and public trust. Influential individuals exploited the largely unwritten and tradition-based Roman Constitution, pushing its boundaries to achieve their ends and ultimately breaking constitutional norms.

The assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BC led to more civil wars. Octavian (later Augustus) prevailed in these conflicts and became the first emperor of Rome in 27 BC, marking the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire.

In this turbulent context, Cicero championed the potential of philosophy to improve governance and society. He believed in applying philosophical concepts pragmatically to address Rome’s challenges. His work, De Re Publica (On the Republic, written around 54-51 BC), explored the nature of Roman government and proposed an ideal state structured around a balanced mix of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. This mixed system, he argued, would prevent tyranny by dividing power among the people, the senate, and a monarch, ensuring no single group could dominate.

Cicero discussed the importance of setting a moral example and leading by that example to foster unity and ethical behavior among citizens. He posited public leadership as a service to the nation and not a means to accumulate personal gain, power, or wealth. Leaders are the guardians of the state’s traditions and must strive to enhance the welfare of its citizens.

Cicero's republican philosophy balanced moral integrity, the rule of law, and the distribution of power. His philosophy later significantly influenced John Locke and Enlightenment Liberal thought and, therefore, the US Constitution.

It’s been almost 2100 years since Cicero penned his theses, but much of his philosophy is still relevant today. Sufficiently dividing power between groups weakens each group, preventing them from robbing individuals of their liberty. National service is a privilege and not a means to achieve personal gain. National leaders must strive to enhance the welfare of citizens, not to strengthen their own political party.

Recently, Project 2025 has sparked debate over its vision for America’s future. Their work, Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise, claims to advance “positive change for America” towards “the drive to make our country better.”

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington, D.C. think tank, is leading the effort. We shouldn’t be against think tanks positing ideas. American leaders need to care about America, not party; good ideas come from many sources. The balance between liberal and conservative thought is a cornerstone that makes America great.

America needs strong liberal leaders to advance progress toward the opportunity for all Americans to be born from nothing and achieve greatness. After all, one of the foundational beliefs in America is that we are all created equal and have the inherent right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Throughout our history, we have fallen short of this stated goal, and we need liberal leaders to advance our progress toward it.

America needs strong conservative leaders to conserve the institution that is the structure of our constitutional democratic republic. Conservatives advocate for limited government and divided power, a philosophy outlined by Cicero and Locke. They argue that individuals should take responsibility for their own lives, successes, and failures rather than rely on government assistance or intervention. This principle is consistent with Cicero’s and Locke’s views of moral integrity and the natural right of individuals to own themselves and the product of their labor. We need strong conservative leaders to preserve the institution that is the American Republic.

So, I have no heartburn with the Heritage Foundation or other think tanks proposing ideas, many of which are outlined in Project 2025.

My problem with Project 2025 is that it’s poorly done. As a conservative playbook, it falls short. It needs to reorient towards the decisive effort of American conservatism and focus on preserving the American institution.

Here’s an example…

Page 4 of the report outlines Project 2025's Promise #1: Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children. The first sentence of the section is…

The next conservative President must get to work pursuing the true priority of politics—the well-being of the American family.

This is an admirable goal. It echoes back to Cicero’s position that leaders must strive to enhance the welfare of citizens.

Unfortunately, the reader can’t make it past that same page without reading about fatherlessness and the terms “woke progressivism” and “woke culture warriors.”

This continued effort to participate in a perceived culture war is unproductive. The premise of individual liberty is that if you have the right to individual liberty, so does everyone else, even if they express it in a manner objectionable to you. Leaders need to stop focusing on culture wars and focus on governance.

Further, focusing on culture wars detracts from the goal of improving the well-being of the American family. And we severely need to enhance the well-being of the American family.

What’s the one thing that, more than anything else, promotes families to have economic and, therefore, community and emotional stability? Is it whether a woman can make decisions about her property? Which books are available for a child in a school library? The tax status of my local church? Which bathroom a teenager can use? No. None of these.

More than any other factor, families need to be able to heat their houses and put food on the table. To have rooms to heat and tables to put food on, families need the opportunity to buy a home.

One of our nation’s best presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, was a conservative who championed a square deal for the American people. And we need a conservative approach to our housing market challenge.

We aren’t going to achieve stability through homeownership for families with government programs. Government programs build government housing, and individuals don’t get to own government housing.

Instead, we need leaders to work through the market to make homeownership attainable for families. We need to enable first-time homebuyers the opportunity to buy homes at a low interest rate so they can have stability in any financial environment. Families need to be able to purchase these homes with the earnings from one full-time job to have the stability of a parent at home.

This is just one example of a conservative approach to pursuing the true priority of national leadership—the well-being of the American family. This most decisive family support element needed the center-stage spotlight in Project 2025.

From the Cicerean philosophy of the ancient Roman Republic to John Locke's ideas that underpin the US Constitution to the legacy of the great conservative President Teddy Roosevelt, it is evident that national leaders have a duty to enhance the welfare of their citizens.

We need to stop focusing on culture wars and focus on governance.

Homeownership is the decisive governance element that would improve the stability of American families.

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript.

I strongly condemn the assassination attempt on President Trump. We have radical disagreements across America, but political violence is reprehensible.

I invite you to read Financial Security for Young Americans for more about homeownership for young Americans and a pitch to support first-time homebuyers.

I invite you to read or listen to Small, Affordable Homes to consider how we might work through the market to expand the availability of homes for first-time homebuyers.

I invite you to read or listen to Has Capitalism Failed the Housing Market to consider a national leader’s duty to work through the market.

I invite you to read or listen to Progressives for more details about the great conservative President Teddy Roosevelt.

Last week, we introduced Project 2025's first stated goal: "Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children." This week, we'll expand on that thought.

How could we improve the well-being of the American family while promoting interwoven, overlapping communities?

Presidential Perspectives on Homeownership: A Pillar of American Values

The conservative fourth President of the United States, and the primary author of the US Constitution, President James Madison: The Freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of Republican liberty. In modern verbiage, we might paraphrase this by saying, ‘The property owners of the country would be the best protectors of Republican liberty.’

The liberal transformative thirty-second President of the United States, and a central figure in guiding the nation through the Great Depression and World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt: A nation of homeowners, of people who own a real share in their land, is unconquerable.

The GI Bill

On June 22, 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 into law. The bill passed both the House and Senate unanimously and became commonly known as the GI Bill.

The GI Bill enabled veterans returning home from World War II to access higher education, job training, and home ownership. By 1951, eight million veterans used the benefit to advance their education, and another two and a half million used it to buy a home, farm, or business.

The bill reshaped social, economic, and educational landscapes in post-WWII America. It led to unprecedented levels of college attendance and homeownership among veterans of working-class backgrounds. The surge in educated and financially stable individuals contributed significantly to the growth of the middle class and the expansion of the US economy in the decades following the war.

The GI Bill demonstrated that the government could successfully act through the capitalist housing market to set conditions that would prompt housing market growth.

Owning a home became synonymous with the American Dream. It symbolized stability and a better future. The increase in homeownership shaped the cultural landscape of America, promoting values centered around family, home, and community.

***Note*** The 1950s was a time of extreme racism and unequal treatment of Americans. We should not return to the American culture of the 1950s.

In sum, with the GI Bill, government leaders acted through the capitalist housing market to set conditions to spur housing market growth. How did the capitalist housing market respond?

The Capitalist Housing Market Responds

The capitalist housing market responded by building homes for first-time homebuyers. Let’s look at an example.

Following World War II, America faced a severe housing shortage. Millions of veterans came home needing housing, adding sudden and intense demand to the housing market. During the war, construction materials and labor were redirected toward the war effort, significantly reducing residential construction. Young Americans were having babies at a high rate, birthing a generation we call the Baby Boomers.

Through this storm, families struggled to find suitable shelter. Some lived in boxcars, chicken coops, and large iceboxes.

Enterprising business leaders recognized the potential for profits in the housing market and sprang into action.

On August 2, 1947, Levitt & Sons broke ground for Levittown, New York, the first of three Levittowns they developed. Levittown and similar projects gave rise to the American suburbs and promised homeownership for working-class Americans who could not have dreamed of homeownership before the war.

The influence of Levittown extended beyond veteran communities. Builders across the country adopted the Levittown model, improving housing availability and making homes more accessible and affordable. The construction boom created jobs that benefited communities nationwide, improving the standard of living for many Americans. The demand led to innovation in building technology and practices, reducing costs and increasing the speed of construction.

New housing rules gave Americans new economic benefits. Before the new Veterans Administration (VA) and Federal Housing Administration (FHA) initiatives, first-time homebuyers had to put down an average of 58% of a home's purchase price to secure a mortgage (source: Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 204 and 236.) With the new rules in place, Levitt & Sons could qualify veterans for mortgages with no money down.

Over time, the GI Bill, Levittown, and similar initiatives shaped the American landscape and made homeownership a central element of the American Dream. National leaders expanded housing availability through the GI Bill and other initiatives, causing homeownership rates to soar by 20% from 1940 to 1960. Homeownership brought stability to many Americans of that generation.

Could we apply the GI Bill model to improve the well-being of American families and promote interwoven, vibrant communities? How might we incentivize young generations to protect American liberty and contribute to their communities?

There’s another personal piece relevant for context here.

I once returned home from fighting in a combat zone. I rotated out of theater, flew back to Baltimore, stayed overnight, and had my first bourbon in months. The next day, I flew the rest of the way home. I came home to my wife and one-year-old, and to a house we had purchased with the assistance of a GI Bill loan. The GI Bill cemented our stability and community reintegration.

In the months I was gone, I had forgotten parts of American culture. Everything was shockingly different—the cars, music, beautiful farms and ranches, churches, and communities. It was good to be back in America.

It’s not just veterans who make America great. Americans make America great.

Veterans serve their country with distinction, and so do other Americans. They volunteer at arts and theater events, nonprofits, and churches. They help keep neighborhoods safe and respond to fires and crashes. They volunteer their time and talents to improve their communities. Just as the GI Bill provided veterans like me with crucial support, extending homeownership benefits to Americans who serve their communities could strengthen our national fabric.

Should we incentivize civilian service with housing benefits akin to the GI Bill for veterans to enhance the well-being of American families and build cohesive communities?

There would be many specifics to iron out. How many years of community service would qualify? How would we verify that individuals met their commitments? Would all nonprofits qualify?

I’m inclined to believe that the vast majority of people are good, and we need to extend benefits to first-time homebuyers simply because it’s the right thing to do for American families and, by extension, the country. Too many presidents from both parties across our history share the same opinion to believe in random chance.

However, part of the legislative process is communication and deliberation between parties. We should have frank discussions about how to strengthen American families while benefitting communities.

Let’s tie this all together.

Government leaders from both parties have demonstrated that we can act through the capitalist housing market to set conditions to spur housing market growth. The housing market has demonstrated that it responds to these initiatives.

Americans make America great, and many Americans serve their communities.

We can encourage Americans to serve their communities with homebuyer benefits to improve the well-being of American families and promote interwoven, vibrant communities.

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript.

Some more Presidential Perspectives on Homeownership

President Thomas Jefferson: The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

President James Madison: The Freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of Republican liberty.

President Calvin Coolidge: No Greater contribution could be made to the stability of the Nation, and the advancement of its ideals, than to make it a Nation of homeowning families.

President Herbert Hoover: [Homeownership makes] a more wholesome, healthful and happy atmosphere in which to bring up children.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt: A nation of homeowners, of people who own a real share in their land, is unconquerable.

President George W. Bush: To give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will…widen the ownership of homes and businesses…preparing our people for the challenges of life in a free society.

President Barack Obama: We’ll make owning a home a symbol of responsibility, not speculation — a source of security for generations to come, just like it was for my grandparents.

To receive new written and audio posts, consider becoming a subscriber.

We can debate whether we call ourselves a democracy, a republic, or a democratic republic. We can debate Social Security, wages, housing programs, small business taxes, our energy grid, border security, and whether to support military programs.

But we can’t debate that the foundational premise of America is individual liberty. From liberty comes personal responsibility. And if you have a right to individual liberty, so does everyone else. Even when we disagree with how others express that right.

Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing. -- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was a philosopher and economist known for his writings on logic, economics, and ethics. He is regarded as “the most influential English language philosopher of the nineteenth century.” His philosophical work laid the groundwork for the way we now think about personal freedom and liberty.

Mill wrote several journals on topics ranging from the scientific method to happiness and reality. But his most compelling philosophical thinking concerned the contradiction between individual liberty and the good of society, for which he used the term utilitarianism.

His essay On Liberty is a cornerstone of liberal thought. It advocates for individual autonomy free from societal and governmental intrusion, except in cases where an individual’s choice harms others. Mill's ideas on freedom of expression, such as freedom of speech, equality, and moral progress, continue to influence contemporary discussions on civil rights and public policy.

Two years after publishing On Liberty, he wrote Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism suggests that the best action for society is the one that maximizes utility, generally defined as that which produces the greatest well-being for the greatest number of people.

The tension between individual liberty and utilitarianism is a notable philosophical challenge.

Proponents of liberty consider personal freedom to be sacred. For example, Patrick Henry's famous 1775 speech was part of a debate on whether America should seek peace with Britain or pursue independence from British tyranny. His speech ended with the memorable words, "Give me Liberty, or give me death!"

On the other hand, proponents of utilitarianism believe that we have an ethical and moral responsibility to pursue the greatest good for society. According to utilitarian principles, if an action can improve the happiness of the majority, it should be pursued. This can clash with the principle of protecting individual liberty, especially when the majority's pursuit of the greater good infringes on the liberty of individuals.

Mill’s notable contribution wasn’t the two philosophical theories alone. Patrick Henry made his fiery statement before Mill was born, and Jean-Jacque Rousseau championed the concept of the greater good a century before Mill.

Mill’s significant contribution was resolving and connecting the two philosophical theories. He argued that protecting individual liberty leads to the best outcomes for society as a whole. Expressing individual liberty promotes intellectual and moral developments that won’t happen if individuals don’t have the freedom of action to make those decisions. From individual liberty, one derives personal responsibility.

Let’s follow Mill’s line of reasoning from Chapter 3 of On Liberty. If we let society or our environment dictate our life choices, we're just mimicking others and not really thinking for ourselves.

When we choose our own path, we engage ourselves. We observe, plan, and make decisions. We develop skills and talents to the extent that we rely on our own logic and intuition.

What we do isn’t the only thing that matters; it's what kind of person we become by doing it. By choosing our own path, we utilize our intellectual and emotional capacity and shape our character and identity at the same time.

This autonomy fosters critical thinking and decision-making skills. Conforming to societal expectations stifles personal growth and reduces our contributions to society.

In short, a life led by individual liberty cultivates effective, wise, and morally sound individuals.

Then, in Chapter 4, Mill drops the hammer. He asks: what is the rightful limit to an individual's sovereignty over themselves, and where does society's authority begin?

He discusses a logic sequence invoking a philosophy similar to the American Western principle, “Ride for the Brand.” Society isn’t based on a formal contract, but living in society requires each person to follow certain rules toward others. If an individual shows insufficient consideration for others without violating any constituted rights, the offender may then be justly punished by public opinion, though not by law. Therefore, an individual should be free to act and face the consequences.

If we are free to act and face the consequences, then no one has the right to tell another that they can’t do what they choose with their life. Each person is most interested in their well-being, and our direct interest in others is trivial in comparison.

If others have little direct interest in our choices, then public opinion on individual conduct is as likely to be wrong as right since it reflects some people's opinions on what they think is good or bad for others. Many people see conduct they dislike as an injury to themselves and resent it, as a bigot may resent others' beliefs. Moralists teach that their conduct is right because they feel it to be so, applying personal feelings as moral laws. This approach leads the public to enforce personal preferences as societal norms, ignoring individual freedom.

Therefore, public interference in personal conduct denies others individual freedom. It stifles liberty and self-determination. Society's role should be limited to preventing harm to others, not imposing conformity to its preferences. Respect for individual liberty is essential for a just and progressive society.

So, according to Mill, we cannot have personal responsibility without liberty. If we take away liberty, we lose accountability and responsibility in society. Therefore, government and society have a duty to ensure individual liberty as the basis for humanity.

American presidents support Mill’s philosophy. Here are some quotes…

If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen.

Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing.

It is time to restore the American precept that every individual is accountable for his actions.

Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.

Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.

There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect.

Okay, so that’s all one president, namely our 40th President, Ronald Reagan. If John Stuart Mill was the preeminent liberal thinker of the 19th Century, Reagan sounds pretty liberal to me. Of course, we misuse the term. All Americans are liberals.

Reagan sounds like a liberal because he sought to conserve the American democratic republic, which is based on Enlightenment liberalism. Conserving the liberal democratic republic makes you a liberal.

We need to restore conservatives to align with the American institution again.

Give me liberty or give me death means “Give us all liberty!” All Americans have the God-given right to liberty.

Liberty is the right to make decisions about our own property, including our bodies. This means the right for adults to make decisions for themselves and their children about their healthcare. Even when other people disagree with those choices. Applying personal morals to dictate someone else’s choices violates our right to individual liberty.

Liberty is the right to speak and expose ourselves and our children to ideas. Many of these ideas are found in books. If you don’t want your children exposed to these ideas in schools, you have a right to homeschool your child. Applying our personal beliefs to governance violates the individual liberty of others.

Liberty is your right to burn my flag. I find this act personally detestable. If I told you I didn’t support your right to burn my flag, wouldn’t that be telling you I thought you didn’t deserve your right to individual liberty?

Liberty is freedom of religion. Liberty is freedom from religion.

Liberty is our elected leaders adhering to Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution, which states that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them…against domestic Violence.” Attempting to nullify votes from states in the Union and then attempting a violent overthrow of the proceedings at the US Capitol violates individual liberty. We are the United States because the citizens of each state agreed to form the union. A part of that agreement was that each state would have the right for their vote to be counted. Refusing to recognize the vote from states and refusing to transfer power peacefully directly leads to domestic violence and violates individual liberty.

I call on conservatives to realign themselves, ourselves, with the foundational premise of America. The Almighty gave us all our right to life and liberty, and inherent in that gift is our right to make decisions to benefit ourselves, free from the rules of others in society or government.

We can debate whether we call ourselves a democracy, a republic, or a democratic republic. We can debate Social Security, wages, housing programs, small business taxes, our energy grid, border security, and whether to support military programs.

But we can’t debate that the foundational premise of America is individual liberty. From liberty comes personal responsibility. And if you have a right to individual liberty, so does everyone else. Even when we disagree with how others express that right.

May God bless the United States of America.

To receive new posts, consider becoming a free subscriber.

In principle, we should be against Social Welfare programs.

And maybe ‘against’ isn’t the right word. It's not that we're ‘against’ social programs. We can’t love our country and not love our countrymen. So, we’re not against Americans who need social programs. We're not against the social programs themselves, even though we acknowledge their inefficiencies, because they still manage to help our fellow Americans.

But if half of American families rely on social programs, that means the rules designed to enable individual Americans to succeed have failed.

We are ‘against’ social programs because the goal is for Americans to succeed as individuals and not need social programs.

Florence Owens Thompson was born Florence Leona Christie in 1903 in Indian Territory, now Oklahoma. A mother of seven children, Florence struggled to support her family during the Great Depression after her husband died of tuberculosis in 1931. To survive, she traveled with her children and other relatives as migrant farm workers from Oklahoma to California, picking cotton and other crops.

In March 1936, Florence and her family were traveling on US Highway 101 in California towards Watsonville. She intended to work in the lettuce fields of the Pajaro Valley. However, their car broke down near a pea pickers camp in Nipomo.

A photographer, Dorothea Lange, found her there. Lange was working for the Resettlement Administration (later the Farm Security Administration) and was concluding a month-long photography trip when she came across Florence and her family in the camp. Lange took several photographs of Florence and her children.

Florence became an iconic figure of the Great Depression through the photograph that became known as “Migrant Mother.” Lange described the encounter:

I saw and approached the hungry and desperate mother, as if drawn by a magnet. I do not remember how I explained my presence or my camera to her, but I do remember she asked me no questions. I made five exposures, working closer and closer from the same direction. I did not ask her name or her history. She told me her age, that she was thirty-two. She said that they had been living on frozen vegetables from the surrounding fields, and birds that the children killed. She had just sold the tires from her car to buy food. There she sat in that lean-to tent with her children huddled around her, and seemed to know that my pictures might help her, and so she helped me. There was a sort of equality about it. (From Lange's "The Assignment I'll Never Forget: Migrant Mother," Popular Photography, Feb. 1960).

Personal accounts of the day since 1936 reveal some irregularities in the reporting. Nonetheless, the image became one of the most enduring symbols of the Great Depression, highlighting the intense struggle and enduring spirit of countless Americans during that time. The photographs were published in newspapers and magazines nationwide. They became a symbol of the plight of migrant workers and the desperate conditions faced by many Americans. This exposure helped draw attention to the need for aid and led to increased government action to support the destitute workers and social programs nationwide.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) enacted numerous social programs as part of his New Deal, a series of reforms enacted during the Great Depression to address widespread economic hardship, unemployment, and social strife. These programs included union protection programs, the Social Security Act, programs to aid tenant farmers and migrant workers, banking reform laws, emergency and work relief programs, and agricultural programs. The programs helped lift the nation out of the depths of the Great Depression.

At the same time, the New Deal had downsides. Some downsides were obvious, as they excluded or marginalized black Americans, women, and other minority groups. Further, the programs were expensive and led to significant increases in government debt.

Other downsides are less obvious. The New Deal created a dependency culture wherein individuals and communities rely more on government assistance than on self-reliance or local and state initiatives. This dependency stifles innovation and the motivation for self-improvement.

The New Deal also shifted American expectations of government permanently. Before FDR, Americans had a laissez-faire view of government. After, intervention in the economy and individual lives was more acceptable.

Today, government intervention in individual lives is a near expectation.

The US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Human Services Policy released data analyzing social program participation in January 2023. That study found:

* Half of American families with children receive benefits from social programs.

* Nearly 30% of individual Americans receive benefits from the programs.

Those are pretty high numbers. There are 330 million people in the US. If 30% of them receive social program benefits, that means 99 million Americans receive social program benefits. And let’s repeat the first one again. Half of American families with children receive benefits from social programs.

The study suggests that a substantial portion of the population depends on government assistance. We can view this dependency in different ways. First, as a necessary support system that helps stabilize and provide for families in need. Second, as a potential issue where too large a portion of the population relies on government aid. This is unsustainable and indicative of broader economic problems.

Both can be true at the same time. It's not that we're ‘against’ social programs. We can’t love our country and not love our countrymen. So, we’re not against Americans who need social programs. We're not against the social programs themselves, even though we acknowledge their inefficiencies, because they still manage to help our fellow Americans.

But if half of American families rely on social programs, that means the rules designed to enable individual Americans to succeed have failed.

In principle, we should oppose social programs, but not because we don’t love the people who need them to survive.

We should be against social programs because if half of American families need them, that means we have a systemic failure of the system.

Let’s consider an example, highlighted by a statement I hear often, “That job isn’t worth paying someone well to do it. They need to pull themselves up, move on, and find a better-paying job. And they need to get off the government dole.”

To make our example easier to follow, let’s call this job “dishwasher.”

If we judge, and the rules support, that the dishwasher job isn't worth paying someone a decent wage to do it, they might go to night school, move on, and find a higher-quality job. But in the meantime, they get social program dollars. When we make rules that don’t enable all individuals to succeed from their work, we open the door for social programs.

When a job consistently pays wages that aren’t enough for workers to sustain themselves without additional government aid (like food stamps, housing assistance, or healthcare subsidies), the employer relies on taxpayer dollars to supplement their employees’ incomes. These rules allow businesses to maintain profitability by offloading some of the true costs of labor onto the American people.

Let’s stay on our logic train. The first dishwasher does move on and finds a higher-paying job. Then the second dishwasher finds a better-paying job. And the third, on and on.

But, the business owner fills the dishwasher job as a low-paying job and continues to fill it as a low-paying job year after year, making it a permanently funded taxpayer-subsidized job.

If half the jobs in the country don’t pay well enough for American families to thrive without social programs support, we end up with…half of American families that need social programs.

Every year, the dishwasher receives money from their fellow Americans in the form of social program dollars that help them put food on the table. The person washing the dishes changes, but the American people keep paying for the dishwasher anyway.

Some might say the taxpayer is subsidizing low-skill Americans and not the business. However, the point remains—it isn’t appropriate for taxpayers to subsidize workers, businesses, or the government at all.

This is a systemic problem. We perpetuate many jobs as low-wage, not because they inherently must be low-wage but because the system encourages low wages.

Further, the cook only makes $2 more per hour than the dishwasher, because if the American people will subsidize the dishwasher, why not the cook too? When there’s no upward pressure for higher wages for dishwasher jobs, there’s no wage pressure for other jobs.

This creates a cycle in which individual workers may advance to seek better opportunities, but the systemic problem remains the same.

The first part of the systemic problem is Americans aren’t succeeding on their own with the business rules we have in place now. We cut business taxes, but without a drive to raise wages along with the tax cuts, those dollars don’t trickle down to workers. Trickle-down economics doesn’t work.

The second part of the systemic problem is that funneling money through the government is inherently wasteful. The majority of that money is absorbed by administrative functions. Government programs perpetuate themselves. Government agencies don’t intend to eliminate themselves—they want to be functional. Lifting Americans out of poverty with social programs doesn’t work, or at least doesn’t work very well.

The American people paying government officials to send their money to an individual living in poverty doesn’t make sense. They just wasted 70% of it funneling it through the bureaucracy. Instead of the government acting as a bloated middleman, Americans need to earn sufficient money from their work, and the rules need to support wages high enough for individuals to succeed.

We need leaders to make the rules work for individuals. We don’t need rules that work just for businesses, and we don’t need rules that work for the government to support more Americans to get social program dollars. One helps businesses; one helps the government. Neither helps the American family.

I recognize and value the role of social welfare programs in supporting vulnerable populations.

But our broader goal should be to reform the system to promote independence and reduce dependency. We need to address the root causes of why half of American families with children need social programs.

America is an individualist nation. We need to prioritize policies that enable personal responsibility and self-sufficiency rather than giving businesses tax cuts or expanding inefficient, burdensome government assistance programs.

Individualism can only thrive if we set conditions that enable individuals to succeed.

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript.

Raising the minimum wage is a crude way to improve resources for American families. It’s not a great mechanism because it’s too politically divisive, but establishing a minimum full-time wage representing a rate no less than the poverty level plus 50%, assuming the worker and three dependents for that locality might work.

I invite you to read Horses and Sparrows to consider that idea.

A way to improve resources for American families and support small businesses at the same time would be to give businesses tax cuts once they prove that none of their workers needs social program support.

I invite you to read or listen to Earned Income Tax Credit and Small Business Taxes for that idea.

Amending the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require directors and officers of publicly traded corporations to act in the best interests of the corporation, its shareholders, and its workers would give workers a seat at the wages table.

I invite you to read The Future of Work: A Stakeholder Approach to consider that idea.

Systemic problems require systemic solutions. It’s been nearly a hundred years since the advent of FDR’s social programs lifted the country out of the depression. We won’t fix the system overnight, and it will take more than one approach working together.

Last week, we discussed the inherent limitations of social welfare programs and their effects on American families. But we overlooked some essential philosophy: the principle of non-contradiction, which guides our understanding of truth and reality.

The principle is simple. You can’t ‘be’ and ‘not be’ at the same time. Said another way, you can’t stand on both the beach and a mountaintop at the same time. You have to choose one or the other.

We use this principle every day, and it applies to governance. We can’t support policies that allow some businesses to pay unsustainable wages while simultaneously opposing social programs designed to mitigate the consequences of low incomes.

Aristotle was the first to systematically explore and defend the principle of non-contradiction in his work, Metaphysics, written around 350 BC. The tome explored the foundations of reality, existence, and being. Aristotle emphasized that without non-contradiction, distinguishing between truth and fiction becomes impossible and leads to absurdity.

He argued that if we deny this principle, we blur the lines between what is true and false, making reality both true and false simultaneously. It would destroy the foundation for debate or discourse. If all contradictions are true, then we would have to logically accept unsound arguments as true. This would effectively mean everything is true, and nothing is true. Aristotle stated, “Without the principle of non-contradiction, we could not know anything that we do know.”

Aristotle’s philosophy directly influenced one of America’s most revered leaders, President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln’s leadership exemplified the practical application of non-contradiction.

President Lincoln strongly agreed with Aristotle’s principle of non-contradiction. Before his service as president, Lincoln was a lawyer. He was known for his clear reasoning, persuasive arguments, and ability to simplify complex legal issues.

During the Civil War, Lincoln’s approach to leadership demonstrated the principle in action. In an 1862 draft titled Meditation on the Divine Will, Lincoln wrote, “God can not be for, and against the same thing at the same time.” He argued that the union couldn’t sustain itself half-slave and half-free; it must be one or the other. He believed in a clear, non-contradictory stance in policy and morality.

Additionally, Lincoln had a strong focus on labor and the value of one’s work. This influenced his opinion on freedom for black Americans. There were limited social programs in Lincoln’s time. But Lincoln believed in the value of labor inside the capitalist structure. In his work Fragments of a Tariff Discussion, Lincoln wrote that at creation, the Almighty said, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.’’

In the same piece, he wrote that the goal of government, or “a most worthy object of any good government,” is to ensure that each worker receives a livable share of his work, or “each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible.”

He was committed to fairness and justice within the economic system. Free workers had a right to pursue prosperity as a product of their work, and enslaved workers had both a right to freedom and a right to pursue prosperity through their work.

Some claim Lincoln didn’t lead the fight for labor rights, and we didn’t fight the war over slavery. In fact, Lincoln led the fight for the right of enslaved workers to be paid at all.

Lincoln’s commitment to non-contradictory principles in governance echoes the Constitution, itself a non-contradictory legal framework.

The foundational principles of fairness and equality embedded in American governance and the legal philosophy of the US Constitution support Lincoln’s view that workers should be paid a livable share of wages. From the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to…establish Justice…(and)…promote the general Welfare, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The Preamble’s objectives create a framework for laws that support citizens’ economic well-being. From Lincoln’s perspective, maintaining a union meant conserving a system in which laws aligned with the fundamental values of fairness and equality.

The Constitution derives the premise that individuals have the right to pursue a prosperous livelihood from the concept of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Though not legally binding, the Declaration philosophically informs the Constitution. Individuals earning a living from their work is part of their pursuit of happiness and liberty.

Lincoln’s non-contradictory logic applied to modern labor suggests that if a government commits to the welfare of its citizens, it can’t simultaneously endorse policies that undermine individual economic security. This translates into an employer’s responsibility to pay fair wages and a government duty to regulate that standard.

The government’s role, therefore, is to ensure that the economic system operates without contradictions that would undermine the ability of Americans to live prosperously. To repeat Lincoln’s words again, “To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government.”

The constitutional framework as a non-contradictory legal system sets the stage for addressing tough policy challenges, including our debates over wages and social programs.

If we reject the premise that every American should be paid a decent wage for their labor because we judge that some jobs aren’t worthy of those wages, there’s another source of possible income for individual Americans: taxes paid by the American people.

I’m not going to outline an argument in support of social programs. I will say that if government leaders fail to fulfill their duty to regulate decent wages, individual Americans first need to be able to earn a living.

Obviously, there’s a failure in the system, because half of American families depend on social program support.

These social programs benefit the neediest Americans, and we love our countrymen. But social programs aren’t the preferred method for individuals to earn a living and pursue happiness.

Social program money doesn’t give individuals the dignity and pride of earning a living and supporting their families from their work. Government housing robs families of the opportunity to feel the accomplishment of buying a home. Buying groceries with food stamps or WIC vouchers results in Americans who feel shame at the checkout. Funneling money through the bureaucracy wastes the majority of it instead of ensuring it reaches families in need.

To be clear, many Americans earn good wages and don’t need social program support. America has never been more prosperous. Few of us have no clean water or access to electricity. The vast majority of Americans have never set foot on a dairy and still have butter for their toast. Many business owners pay good wages to all their workers.

The one hundred million Americans who receive benefits from social programs need help, but most of them don’t need social programs. They need to earn a decent wage from their jobs, regardless of their skill level or education.

Back to the law of non-contradiction.

We can’t support policies that allow businesses to pay unsustainable wages while simultaneously opposing social programs designed to mitigate the consequences of low incomes.

When we fail to fulfill our duty to ensure the system works to pay all workers decent wages for any job, we perpetuate a system that incentivizes social programs.

That’s just the reality. We can’t stand on top of the mountain and stand on the beach at the same time.

May God bless the United States of America.

There’s another side to the wages debate we didn’t examine last week. We outlined we can’t support policies that allow some businesses to pay unsustainable wages while simultaneously opposing social programs designed to mitigate the consequences of low incomes. But it’s a complex dilemma, and that statement only captures part of the muddle.

Let’s consider another aspect. If businesses don't increase revenue, they can't raise wages.

The Philosophy of Wages

Three weeks ago, we learned about John Stuart Mill in the piece, On Liberty. Mill (1806-1873) was a philosopher known for his writings on logic, economics, and ethics. He was the most influential English language philosopher of the nineteenth century, and his philosophical work laid the groundwork for the way we now think about personal freedom and liberty.

Mill was not only a brilliant philosopher. He was also a luminary economist. He promoted fairness and the welfare of workers, supported cooperative movements and women’s rights, and believed in social justice. Mill provided a theoretical framework that continues to influence contemporary economic thought.

His treatise Principles of Political Economy (1848) is considered one of the most important works in the history of economics. Just as Mill outlined that individual liberty is essential for a just and progressive society, he refined existing theories of economic production, distribution, and exchange. He integrated economic theory with broad social themes, arguing for economic policies that considered the welfare of cultures. His basis of an economic framework that considered social and ethical factors was revolutionary in his time.

Mill's most important contribution to economics was his theory of the wage fund. He analyzed the impact of economic growth, productivity, and capital availability on wages. He tied wages conceptually to revenue, aligning both with broader economic activity.

Let’s take a minute to gain a common understanding of wages. Businesses generate revenue through the sale of goods or services. Business leaders use part of this revenue to pay wages, but wages aren’t the only expenditure. Businesses have to build and maintain infrastructure, including physical facilities and technological systems they use to operate. They have to pay taxes. They need to make their product and expend revenue to generate raw materials, manufacturing, and logistics. They have to conduct research and development to improve their offerings.

A business's ability to maintain healthy wage levels depends on revenue being high enough to support their other costs. In lean years, wages that are too high threaten financial stability. This can lead to a business failing to invest in infrastructure to modernize and compete with new businesses. It could cause a loss of talent due to wage freezes, reductions, or layoffs. It could reduce the ability to move into new markets, slowing growth and strangling the business. Every time a business fails to achieve one of these marks, one of its competitors does. If it misses too many, it dies.

Due to this constraint that high wages threaten business growth and survival in lean years, one principle business leaders consider is their payroll-to-revenue ratio. For many businesses, a good guideline is 15-30%. In fat years, wages may only be 15% of revenue. In lean years, wages could be 30% or more.

In the long run, businesses can only afford to raise wages if they can increase their revenue. If the business needs to raise wages by 10%, it needs to grow revenue so the payroll-to-revenue ratio is still in a healthy range.

Mill's theory of the wage fund was a simplified model of how wages are determined. In Principles of Political Economy, he outlined wage levels and the impacts of economic factors such as population and capital. Mill’s wage fund concept suggested that at any given time, there is a fixed amount of capital available to pay wages. This fund is influenced by the total revenue and the number of workers available, meaning wages are determined by the division of this fund among the workforce. In Mill’s theory, all the workers were paid the same.

While Mill's theory is no longer accepted in its original form, it is still helpful to understand how wages are determined. Businesses don’t generate the same revenue every year, and there’s no fixed fund for wages. Some workers make more than others. As noted, businesses now think of the payroll-to-revenue ratio, not a fixed fund.

Mill revised his economic theory to a more flexible understanding of capital and wages. But Mill’s theory that wages are a component of revenue and a critical component of business viability survived even in its original form.

This theory explains why raising the minimum wage to a federal family-supporting livable wage level is politically divisive. Raising the minimum wage so it’s functional for families in high cost of living areas threatens some businesses and weakens others.

If businesses don't increase revenue, they can't raise wages.

The Wages Dilemma

Let’s reiterate the dilemma that’s been building for the last two months.

* Americans need to be able to prosper. This aspect of our dilemma is non-negotiable. No matter what actions we take, if American individuals and families can’t prosper, we have failed. A component of prosperity is livable income.

* We can’t support policies that allow some businesses to pay unsustainable wages while simultaneously opposing social programs designed to mitigate the consequences of low incomes. We have to either support higher wages or support social programs.

* Funneling American taxpayer dollars through the government to aid needy Americans leads to significant administrative overhead costs, diminishing the funds actually reaching those in need. For instance, administrative costs account for approximately 30% of total expenditures within private healthcare companies. In the military, bureaucratic expenses consume 70% of allocated funds due to extensive logistical and support structures. Based on these examples, we will assume that government bureaucracy absorbs 40% of the funds intended for social programs. More than one layer of bureaucracy, i.e., money that passes through both federal and state levels, cuts taxpayer dollars even more. These government functions aren’t inherently evil. They have familiar names, like Human Resources (HR), finance, building and grounds maintenance, and logistics.

* If businesses don't increase revenue, they can't raise wages. Taking across-the-board action, such as raising the minimum wage to a federal standard for all areas, threatens business vigor and viability. As a result, this approach is politically untenable.

All combined, it’s a tough problem.

It’s easiest to politically avoid the problem and hide the real cost of sustainable wages in the federal deficit. This avoidance gives rise to social programs. That’s why half of American families with children receive benefits from social programs, and 99 million Americans receive social program benefits.

We aren’t going to avoid the problem, though. Let’s transition to a mental exercise to think about how we could approach a solution.

A Mental Exercise

Nicholas: Hi, I’m Nicholas. I’m a 37-year-old married parent of three daughters. I work full-time, and my wife works part-time to support our childcare needs. We file our taxes jointly. All combined, we will make $60,000 this year.

Nicholas and his family qualify for a social program called the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). EITC is designed to benefit low—to moderate-income working individuals and families, particularly those with children. It aims to reduce poverty, incentivize work, stimulate the economy, and reduce income inequality.

President Ford (R) signed the program into law in 1975. President Reagan (R), President George HW Bush (R), and President Clinton (D) significantly expanded it. President Reagan (R) said EITC was “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.”

Since Nicholas and his wife have three daughters, file their taxes jointly, and make less than the threshold of $66,819 for 2024, they will qualify to get taxpayer social program benefits in the amount of $6,819 this year when they file their taxes.

Now for a tough question: How much does it cost the American taxpayer to give $6,819 to Nicholas and his family? Assuming the factor we mentioned earlier, that bureaucracy absorbs 40% of funds, this $6,819 is 60% of the total. The government absorbs the other 40%, or $4,546.

Adding the sums together results in…a cost to America of $11,365 to give Nicholas and his family $6,819.

There are approximately 84 million families in America. Of these, 42 million, or half, get social program dollars. Many of these Americans don’t even know they get social program support because it’s hidden in their tax filing and hidden again in this year’s federal deficit.

Assuming these 42 million families all got a similar benefit, $11,365 multiplied across those families totals $477,330,000,000 of the federal deficit. Almost a half trillion dollars a year.

A Proposed Solution

Is there a path around this problem? Yes.

There are only two sources for an American worker to get money. One is the government, which represents funneling the American people’s money through bureaucracy. We just covered how efficient this approach is.

The other is their work. But government livable wage mandates threaten business vigor and viability, making this approach politically untenable. Since raising the minimum wage to a family-supporting livable wage isn’t going to politically work, we have to reorient our perspective and approach the problem with new eyes.

Let’s also remember that to raise wages, businesses need to grow revenue.

So how would we grow business revenue, allowing us at the same time to mandate higher wages? Where would this additional revenue come from?

Let’s go back to our common understanding of wages. Businesses generate revenue through the sale of goods or services. Business leaders use part of this revenue to pay wages, but wages aren’t the only expenditure.

Businesses have to pay taxes. Make a mental note to remember that.

Also, systemic problems require systemic solutions. There’s no silver bullet that will solve the problem. We need to take more than one approach.

The Earned Income Tax Credit table for 2024 shows that the minimum wage for a married worker claiming no children to be above the social program threshold is $12.27 per hour. The figure is based on the EITC-threshold $25,511 income divided across 2080 hours or a 40-hour week for 52 weeks. For a married worker claiming one child, that minimum wage rises to $26.93. Married with two children is $30.14. Married with three children is $32.13.

These figures make sense because if someone is married but claims no children, both Americans can work. $12.27 an hour multiplied by two people is $24.54 an hour combined. That’s what a living wage is.

One child means one of the parents needs to be at home, or if not at home, they have to pay for childcare, which costs one entire income. A second child costs more, but not much more than the first, and a third child costs a little less than the second.

It’s pretty obvious that the minimum wage must be at least $12.27 per hour. There is no better definition of ‘minimum’ than a rate ensuring that if someone works, the American taxpayer doesn’t have to subsidize wages through government assistance. This minimum wage means that, at a minimum, it supports an individual to stand independently. I have no sympathy for businesses that offer poverty wages and let the American taxpayer pick up the tab.

Now we arrive at our dilemma.

How do we cover the difference between $12.27 an hour and $26.93 an hour when the family chooses to have children? America needs to grow. Just as a shrinking business is a dying business, a shrinking nation is a dying nation. So we need to incentivize young Americans to have children.

We also need to generate business revenue to raise wages.

If we refuse to help businesses generate this revenue, 42 million American families will receive social program benefits, which will cost the nation almost a half trillion dollars a year.

The Proposal

We need to reduce the tax burden for small businesses that pay wages sufficient to keep Americans off social programs by 10% across the board and target specific industries with even more significant tax breaks. Businesses need to prove in their annual taxes they paid wages above social program levels to qualify. This approach would help businesses generate the revenue to pay wages sufficient to enable workers to provide for themselves and reduce the national need for poverty programs.

We might need a more significant tax credit for certain sectors, such as retail and food service businesses. These businesses might need a 25% tax break to incentivize paying higher wages. We need to phase in the tax credit over time. This design would give businesses more time to adjust to the higher cost of paying livable wages.

With this approach, less social program dollars get funneled through the government, reducing waste.

Worker wages go up.

Businesses keep more of their revenue, so they can pay higher wages.

I’m personally having a hard time finding a downside.

Views of Others

Some will say this is just a subsidy for businesses instead of individuals. This proposal is different from a trickle-down approach. It saves the American taxpayer half a trillion dollars a year that don’t get funneled through government bureaucracy. And for a business to get the money, the dollars have to actually get to the workers.

Some will say that instead of giving businesses tax cuts, we should raise the minimum wage across the board to a livable wage. That becomes a complex political issue that ends up in gridlock. This gridlock means nothing is done and Americans don’t have the money they need to live without social program support. Trying to raise the minimum wage to a functional level keeps 42 million American families on welfare programs.

Some will say it’s not enough incentive for the business, and the 10% tax break doesn’t cover the entire cost of the wage difference. That will be true for some businesses. But it’s part of a systemic solution. It will make some businesses more competitive, and other businesses will copy them so they can also be more competitive. We don’t need a social program to support all businesses. We need a program to make businesses compete for the benefit of the American worker.

Some will say the taxpayer shouldn’t support the workers at all. They should gain skills to justify raising their own wages. The premise of this argument is short-sided. When people have to work multiple full-time jobs to put food on the table, they don’t have time to improve their skills. This cycle just keeps 42 million American families on welfare programs.

We need to incentivize businesses to pay higher wages.

If businesses don't increase revenue, they can't raise wages.

To achieve our goal, we need to help businesses grow revenue. Without higher revenue, mandated wage hikes threaten business survival.

We need businesses to pass this expanded revenue on to their workers.

To achieve our goal, we need to reduce the tax burden for small businesses that pay wages sufficient to keep Americans off social programs by 10% across the board and target specific industries with even more significant tax breaks. To qualify, businesses need to prove in their annual taxes they paid wages above social program levels. For a business to get the money, the dollars have to actually get to the workers.

May God bless the United States of America.

Can beer and the NFL unite America?

What a ridiculous question.

Team Colors and Community Ties

Recently, I was in my local grocery store early on a Saturday morning, wearing a Kansas City Chiefs hoody, though I now live in the Mountain West region. It’s August, but many mornings are cool year-round when you live at 6200 feet elevation.

For those of you unfamiliar with the Chiefs, they are a professional American football team. I was born in Kansas City and grew up watching Chiefs games. As a kid, my favorite players were Christian Okoye and Derrick Thomas. There were enough fans in my town that church let out early when the Chiefs played the first game on Sunday so everyone could be home by kickoff.

While shopping this particular Saturday morning, a woman I didn’t know passed and remarked she hated my sweatshirt. The comment might elicit a negative response in many scenarios.

I gave the obvious response, “Thank you!” The Chiefs have won three of the last five Super Bowls, played in another, and have the world’s biggest pop star on our side (that would be none other than the illustrious and acclaimed singer-songwriter Taylor Swift). Chiefs’ colors attract some attention. I followed the stranger’s challenge by predicting Bo Nix and Sean Payton would make our division tough this year. I’m less than two hours north of Denver, and most people who comment on my team colors are Denver Broncos fans.

She laughed and said she was a Dallas Cowboys fan. After sharing her thoughts on her team, she went about her shopping way.

In my experience, that’s a pretty normal encounter with fellow NFL fans. I’ve come to understand that if I’m going to wear team colors, I will meet other fans who expect I’m current on events, and I will share brief conversations with strangers about the league. If you’re going to wear Chiefs colors, you need to know the Las Vegas Raiders took us out behind the woodshed and bloodied our mouths on Christmas Day last year, Russell Wilson is now with the Pittsburg Steelers and not the Broncos, Bo Nix won the starting Broncos quarterback job, and the Los Angeles Chargers brought in Jim Harbaugh to right the ship.

Many of these conversations start with a pseudo-challenge or feined insult. But they end up with smiles and fist bumps, even when we root for rival teams.

May we strive for the same in all of our encounters. We have differences, but we should emulate the respect NFL fans share for each other, even when we root for rivals. Part of that respect is how we interpret intent—we need to orient our perspective to assume others mean us no ill will. And part of that respect is that we mean no ill will towards others.

Humans are inherently social animals; we support and are supported by our communities. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle extensively explored this notion.

Philosophy of Society

Aristotle (384 to 322 BC) was a Greek philosopher and scientist. He is one of Western philosophy's most important founding figures, and philosophers still study his works today. At a time when the world had few texts for education, Aristotle created texts that we still use 2000 years later. His ability to systematically explore and document various fields formed the cornerstone of Western education and encouraged critical thinking across diverse disciplines.

Aristotle studied under Plato and later tutored Alexander the Great. His writings cover many subjects across philosophy, politics, and science.

Aristotle’s concept of the "social animal" is foundational to his philosophy. He posited humans inherently form communities to survive. He detailed this concept in his work Politics, which explored society's origin, structure, and purpose.

He declared,

Man is by nature a social animal; an individual who is unsocial naturally and not accidentally is either beneath our notice or more than human. Society is something that precedes the individual. Anyone who either cannot lead the common life or is so self-sufficient as not to need to, and therefore does not partake of society, is either a beast or a god.

Society is natural, and humans are inherently driven to form social bonds. Society exists primarily to enable citizens to live a good and virtuous life. Happiness can only be developed within a community. Every person has a role to fulfill, contributing to the common good and supporting individual development and well-being.

Individuality and Community

Let's use Aristotle's logic that flourishing comes from living well within a community to conduct a thought experiment that examines individuality and community:

Humans have a duty to support our communities if society precedes the individual, and we can’t survive outside of it. This interdependence defines human social structures.

If we must support society at the individual level, humans from varied backgrounds must be able to support their community. Individual liberty is the means to express our contribution to society.

Liberty is necessary for human development. Liberty enables us to make choices, leading to personal growth. We all require individual liberty because individuality promotes vibrant and supportive communities.

To secure liberty for ourselves, each of us has the duty to ensure liberty for others. We are all a part of humanity. Some would strip rights from others. One day the bell will toll for us. When one of us loses our rights, we all lose.

Acknowledging that others will make choices, we must accept that some will be different from our own. Embracing differences fosters a tolerant and resilient society.

To willingly accept others making different choices, we must build mutual respect for those choices. We cultivate this respect through shared experiences and consensus-building.

One way we share and build consensus is to engage in communal activities, such as drinking beer together. These shared moments allow us to bridge differences, understand new perspectives, and reinforce our communal bonds.

Presidential Perspectives

We don’t need the fermented grain and hops liquid we know as beer, but we need the community we gain by sharing beer. We build consensus by forming communities.

A quote from President Abraham Lincoln:

I am a firm believer in the people. If given the truth, they can be depended upon to meet any national crisis. The great point is to bring them the real facts, and beer.

Beer represents community, and we need community.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt, on the occasion of signing the repeal of prohibition, said:

I think this would be a good time for a beer.

FDR highlights a great point. When is a good time for a beer?

Classrooms and Communion

We can’t confine the philosophy of individuality and community to classrooms or sports rivalries. It extends into our personal lives.

In September 2017, I led a squadron that stood watch over America day and night, ready to provide decisive effects at all times worldwide. It was our privilege to provide combat capability for the nation.

That same month, one of our teammates passed away. Most of the squadron traveled to the member’s small hometown for the funeral, with support from our sister squadrons for the watch.

We arrived the day before the funeral to attend the visitation. Due to the small town, I expected a small gathering. I was mistaken. When we arrived, dressed in Service Dress Uniform, we were greeted by more than a thousand people who had traveled from neighboring communities for the service. The Catholic Church was full, with a line stretching out the door and around the block. The crowd made way and welcomed the squadron past the line.

The family had reserved the squadron the front two rows of the beautiful church. Ushers led those who wished to share in the Sacrament of Communion to the priest. I wanted to participate in Communion, but being Protestant, I crossed my arms over my chest to demonstrate I could not participate in the ceremony as a Catholic.

The priest looked at me with unmistakable grace, made the sign of the cross on my forehead, and prayed for me and the squadron. I have seldom felt such love and unity in our shared grief as I did during his prayer for us.

We helped lead the ceremony the next morning. The squadron carried the body to the grave, stood at attention, saluted the flag during Taps and the gun salute, and cried in place.

At the request of the deceased member’s father, the squadron remained behind at the gravesite following the service. We pinned our combat “wings” on the casket and shared a beer.

The father said he had wanted to travel to his son’s duty location to have a beer with his son and his military friends, but he never got the chance. He brought out several coolers at the gravesite to share that beer with us alongside his son.

I know we didn’t all have the same views. The squadron was a melting pot. We had long-established Americans, immigrants, men and women, LGBTQ members, and kids who grew up from Brooklyn to rural Nebraska. We had only one commonality—we all raised our hands to volunteer to serve, and it was our privilege to provide combat capability for the nation.

That September morning, we set aside our differences to share a second communion over a beer. No priest stayed to say a prayer. Instead, we told stories about the fallen with his parents at a gravesite in America’s heartland.

Can beer and the NFL unite America?

Beer and the NFL alone can’t help fix societal issues. But they represent a seed of shared experiences that bridge divides and strengthen community bonds.

Instead of asking if beer and the NFL can unite America, let’s rephrase the question.

Should we orient our perspective to assume strangers don’t mean us ill will, even when our views are opposed?

Should we intend no ill will towards others, even when we disagree with their choices?

Should we set aside our differences, respect the individuality that strengthens our communities, and share communion?

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript.

Today marks the 52nd consecutive week, or year, of I Believe's audio version. In addition to researching the topics, I’ve learned a ton about audio editing and production.

I recorded the first audio version with the built-in computer microphone in one take. Because I didn't use or even have audio editing software, I couldn’t edit any portions of the audio that weren’t good.

But I knew it was important to start. I knew I would be unsatisfied with the quality, and I would make it better. Much of my professional life has focused on innovation through relentless process improvement, which may be the most critical lesson ingrained in Air Force Weapons School students. I may no longer study or teach there, but you don’t forget those lessons.

After a couple of episodes, I started using a decent dynamic microphone. I learned to use professional audio software, Adobe Audition, to enhance audio sections and reduce background noise and unwanted sounds. I created, changed, and recreated a podcast intro. The introduction is 12 seconds long because I personally hate watching a video and wasting precious minutes listening to a prolonged introduction.

I discovered ElevenLabs technology, which opened up a world of audiobook voices as storytellers. I audio-dubbed my voice and recorded two podcasts in which my voice spoke foreign languages, including Spanish and Ukrainian, along with the English version. My audiobook characters give extra variety to each episode and help highlight alternating points of view.

If you only read the articles, thank you. I invite you to try out the audio version. The varied voices bring extra clarity to the sometimes complex topics. You can subscribe at Substack, where you will get a written and audio version on the same screen, or to Apple Podcasts and Spotify podcasts. Or enter your email below.

This week, we consider whether CEOs should take a big bonus even if they don’t intend to pay one to their employees.

We’ll explore perspectives from two seemingly opposed philosophers to guide our thoughts. First, Ayn Rand, a staunch advocate of libertarian principles who champions individual rights and achievements. And then John Rawls, whose commitment to justice, equality, and fairness challenges us to consider the welfare of society's least advantaged.

And now, an introduction to the dilemma.

Hi, I’m Neil.

Thirty-two years ago, I took out a personal loan from my local bank and started my own business. For a couple of years, it was just me. My wife helped with the books in the evening. The business was going pretty well, but I always needed help.

Hiring employees was really scary. Still is sometimes. I was always worried that the business would have a bad year and I wouldn’t be able to pay someone. And I wanted to pay everyone a good wage so they could have a proud living. I don’t view paying good wages as just the business’s responsibility. I view it as my responsibility. I started the business, and it’s a part of me. I take pride in being a small business owner.

We aren’t as small now, though. We expanded a couple of times, and last year, we hired our 42nd team member. The business is doing really well!

This year is a year for celebration. My daughter is graduating from college, and my son is getting married. My wife and I wanted both of our kids to take ownership of their lives, so we told them if they wanted to go to college, they needed to make good money choices and figure out a way to pay for it.

We are really proud of the people they have become, and we want to pay off our daughter’s student loan and send our son and his bride on a Tahiti honeymoon.

We make a comfortable living from what I pay myself out of the business, but we don’t show off. At the same time, my shop supervisor tells me the employees always want better raises.

I want to take a big bonus this year to pay for my kids’ school loan and honeymoon. I should be able to do that, right?

After 32 years of dedication and personal sacrifice, Neil’s question about taking a substantial bonus isn’t about the money. It’s about our duty as individual creators and our responsibility to others.

Ayn Rand and John Rawls are seemingly opposed philosophers who can guide our debate.

Ayn Rand's Objectivism

Ayn Rand (1905-1982) was a Russian-American writer and philosopher best known for developing a philosophical system called Objectivism. She was born in Saint Petersburg, Russia, and moved to the United States in 1926, where she established herself as a screenwriter and novelist.

Rand's philosophy of objectivism concerns reality, reason, ethics, and structure. It strongly supports the idea that we have a moral right to the fruit of our labor. Through this lens, a business owner or CEO’s decisions about compensation are extensions of their personal liberty and responsibility to themselves as individuals. Rand highlighted that:

Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

Rand (and Random House) published Atlas Shrugged in 1957 to highlight the principles of objectivism. In this fictional work, she explores the world’s creators—innovators, artists, scientists, and industrialists—going on strike against a society that increasingly demands their goods and services while demonizing their success. She argues for the greatness of the individual and the service that individuals provide to society through progress. Society benefits most when individuals can pursue their aspirations without undue interference.

If society benefits when individuals can pursue their interests, acting in one’s rational self-interest is a moral duty to fulfill one's potential. Individual achievements create value and advance human knowledge and civilization. Success and money incentivize individual achievement.

CEOs, business owners, innovators, artists, scientists, and industrialists strive for individual greatness and advance society by doing so. We should not demonize them for their success and the prosperity their success brings.

John Rawls' Theory of Justice

On the other hand, there’s John Rawls.

John Rawls (1921-2002) was an influential American philosopher widely regarded as one of the most important political philosophers of the 20th century. Rawls is best known for his work in political philosophy and his theory of justice as fairness. He pursued an academic career at Harvard University for almost 40 years.

In his great work A Theory of Justice, Rawls outlines two principles of justice. The first is the right to fundamental liberty. The second principle of justice, which he called the Difference Principle, states that the basic structure of society should offer advantages for everyone and that positions of authority or opportunity should be achievable by anyone under conditions of equality of opportunity. To provide advantages for everyone, Rawls advocated that we should structure society to benefit even our least advantaged members.

In other words, we have to work harder to give the disadvantaged a better chance of success.

Rawls argued that while inequality can exist, our structure should benefit society's least advantaged members. This can mean, for example, that higher earnings for CEOs should somehow contribute to better wages or working conditions for lower-level employees. This principle doesn't mean everyone is offered the same choices. Rawls emphasized "fair equality of opportunity," which means we should level the playing field so that individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds have the same opportunity to achieve prosperity as those from more privileged ones.

Practical Implications for Neil

Let’s combine Ayn Rand’s Objectivism and John Rawls' theory of justice to address Neil’s dilemma of taking a big CEO bonus.

Rand’s philosophy would support Neil’s right to claim the CEO bonus as a reward for his contribution to the company's success. As the long-dedicated individual creator, leader, and risk-taker, he has a moral duty to enjoy the fruits of his labor. In Rand’s view, the bonus isn’t simply justified; it’s morally proper for him to claim it. Neil created value that benefits stakeholders by sustaining and growing the business. It would be ethically wrong for Neil to not prosper as a result.

Rawls’ philosophy is more aspirational and challenging. Rawls would emphasize that any economic inequality, like a large bonus for the CEO, needs to benefit the least advantaged members of the company. This doesn’t mean that the CEO shouldn’t take the bonus, but it should be structured so it doesn’t harm others, particularly the most vulnerable. For Neil to justify the bonus, he needs to pay livable wages to all his employees. The bonus shouldn't come at the cost of necessary expenditures to improve employee welfare or job security.

Further, Rawls' philosophy stresses that the conditions allowing Neil to earn the bonus should be part of a fair and transparent system of compensation and advancement available to all employees.

Let’s combine the philosophies. There’s “a” way to look at the bonus through both lenses. Namely, Neil should implement company policies that promote both individual achievement (aligned with Rand’s values) and the well-being of all employees (aligned with Rawls' values). This interpretation could mean ensuring bonuses are part of a structured compensation plan that includes employee performance incentives, promoting a culture of meritocracy and fairness.

But that’s the wrong focus. The decisive effort is not the money, despite how many articles we see about the financial disparity between CEOs and workers. The commonplace worldview might focus on the monetary bonus, but that view is a shortsighted interpretation of Rawls’ philosophy.

Instead, we should consider the bonus through the combined lenses of achievement and opportunity. Neil started the business and put in the work and risk for 32 years. If an employee wants a big CEO bonus, shouldn’t they have the opportunity to do the same thing Neil did?

Rawls’ second principle of justice and equality of opportunity suggests that everyone should have the opportunity to undertake similar risks and start their own ventures. Doing so could potentially earn them similar rewards.

In other words, employees shouldn’t necessarily have the opportunity to receive the same financial bonus. They should have the opportunity to start their own business and work for 30 years, also earning their CEO bonus.

That said, Neil isn’t off the hook. Rawls’ philosophy does require commitment from Neil. He should foster a business environment encouraging his employees to develop entrepreneurial skills. He should provide opportunities for them to lead projects or spin-offs, promoting a competitive innovation mindset within the company. He should offer a merit-based reward system to reward employees who demonstrate long-term investment and risk. Then, other employees also see a pathway to significant achievement based on their contributions.

Neil should go further to achieve the exceedingly high intent of Rawls’ philosophy. When he started his business, he probably had or needed a mentor, so he needs to be one. Neil can help employees acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to excel in their current roles or to prepare for entrepreneurial ventures. Mentorship supports employee individual growth, aligning with Rand’s principles of personal excellence and self-interest.

He might need to consider offering a partnership as a business spinoff to grow his own business. Offering partnership opportunities to employees encourages a sense of ownership and responsibility, advancing innovation and commitment. This initiative exemplifies Rawls' principle of opening up high-reward positions to all capable and interested employees, not just the higher echelons.

Neil needed seed money that he got from a personal loan, but his employees might not have the opportunity to get a personal loan. Providing seed money for rigorously thorough employee business ideas fosters an entrepreneurial spirit within the company, driving innovation and potentially new business opportunities. This action supports Rand’s view that investing in one’s ideas is a pathway to personal and financial success.

Neil should offer assistance with tuition for relevant study programs. By supporting further education, Neil invests in his employees' intellectual and professional growth, benefitting both the employees and the business. Education can lead to more innovative ideas and improved business practices, boosting the company's competitiveness and market position. This effort would further support Rawls' principle of opening up high-reward opportunities to all capable and interested employees.

Neil might also sponsor an employee to start a business spinoff and let other employees move to this partner location, setting them off on the right foot. Employees who feel valued and see clear paths to advancement are more dedicated and motivated. These initiatives help create a company culture where everyone, not just Neil, feels responsible for the business's success.

At first glance, the philosophies of Ayn Rand and John Rawls appear opposed, with Rand championing the sovereign individual and Rawls advocating for a society structured to lift the least advantaged. But they’re not opposed; they’re complementary.

Integrating Rand’s emphasis on individual achievement with Rawls’ focus on equitable social structures yields a holistic approach to address both personal success and societal fairness.

Neil should take the bonus and feel no guilt. He has a moral right to the fruit of his labor. As a society, we should not demonize our creators—innovators, artists, scientists, and industrialists—for their success. Individual achievements create value and advance human knowledge and civilization.

At the same time, Neil should lead initiatives to enable his employees to achieve the same success. To the best of his ability, he is responsible for making sound decisions and paying livable wages while offering long-term stability. He further needs to lead initiatives to enable everyone to have the opportunity to start their own business and work for 30 years, also earning their CEO bonus.

This effort is Neil's big commitment. He needs to be a mentor and partner, potentially offer the opportunity to get seed money, offer tuition assistance for relevant studies, and sponsor partner spinoffs. These are not small commitments.

We spend too much time focusing on society's inequality. We do need to improve wages to help our fellow Americans, especially from our fine working class, but the world always has inequality. Instead, our decisive focus must be tangible approaches to helping the most disadvantaged lift themselves. This is our real commitment to our inherent right to pursue happiness.

May God bless the United States of America.

Here we are, celebrating our second anniversary. One hundred and four weeks in a row. Hooray for us!

I believe in the institution of the American democratic republic and its foundational ideals of individual liberty and personal responsibility. I aim to strengthen the American philosophy that the Almighty grants us all freedom of choice. Freedom of choice is the opportunity to struggle and overcome. President and Chief Justice William Howard Taft said, “We must dare to be great, and we must realize that greatness is the fruit of toil and sacrifice and high courage.”

I also know we have problems to overcome. And we need to address them. We can’t love our country and not our countrymen.

Our biggest challenge is Americans from all classes having food on the table and heat in the house. You can’t put food on the table without the money you get from your work to buy food. And you can’t heat your house unless you have one.

Fighting for food on the table and heat in the house means fighting against a moving bureaucratic machine with rules set to benefit the economic system and corporations. Those rules might benefit the elite, but they exclude individuals. Politicians from both parties feign like they want to address the problem. They take the advice of economists, who recommend funneling taxpayer money through the bureaucratic machine to fund “temporary” social welfare programs. The economists claim that once the system is working, we won’t need social programs anymore. Those temporary programs become permanent. The system perpetuates itself, and today, half of American families depend on social programs.

I can’t think of a worse design. Instead of setting conditions to enable Americans to succeed, we set conditions to benefit the elite and the bureaucratic machine.

Over the last two years, we’ve considered many ideas to enable Americans to succeed. Many of those pieces present ideas to address wages for all classes of American workers and problems in the housing market.

Addressing these two challenges will improve Americans’ lives more than anything else. There are no silver-bullet solutions. It’s a complex system that requires a systemic approach to address several areas.

Let’s get started with our first step: restoring institutional legitimacy.

Restore Institutional Legitimacy

The American people award money to companies through grants and contracts.

A simple overview of this process is the government collects taxes and allocates that money to federal agencies to spend—this is the federal budget. Those agencies purchase goods and services by requesting companies compete to win contracts. If a company wins a contract, the government purchases its goods or services. The companies win awards by being the lowest acceptable bidder.

In some cases, those companies are competitive to win an award because they pay wages less than the social program threshold. But the American people don’t know that.

Then, the American people give those same workers taxpayer money through social programs, even though they already gave the company the funds to pay their workers.

If we asked the American people whether a company should receive precious taxpayer money and then pay poverty wages, I’m confident the answer would be ‘no.’

We would say ‘no’ because it’s an illegitimate use of taxpayer funds.

So, the first step in enabling Americans to succeed is to restore the legitimacy of taxpayer spending. A company either needs to be on board with the American people, or the American people should leave that company behind. In other words, if a company wants to enjoy the benefit of federal contracts, it needs to commit to paying every individual in the company a wage above the poverty level. 

We need to codify this standard first by Executive Order and then in law:

No agency shall award any federal dollars to any entity (including any company, subsidiary, or company that operates on property supported by federal dollars or any entity that sells a product to the people of the United States) that pays workers wages below the poverty level plus 50%, assuming the worker and three dependents, for that locality.

You can read more about the idea in Double Taxation.

The Executive Order isn’t just about wages. It would make businesses that pay good wages more competitive for awards and enable the government to award legitimate winners. It would represent a legitimate use of taxpayer dollars.

Next, we need to pull wages up by investing in the infrastructure of human capital—the knowledge, skills, and abilities of American workers.

Revitalize Talent to Pull Wages Up

Human capital is foundational infrastructure similar to bridges, roads, and dams. This infrastructure supports the national capability that underpins and enhances the nation’s overall capability.

Human capital represents a key piece of the market. It’s the training and preparation of individuals. We can’t say there’s a market failure in job training but no market failure in wages. A failure in one area leads to a failure in the other. If low wages indicate a problem in human capital, then a problem in human capital means a problem in wages.

Our lack of relevant training for the working class degrades our ability to drive world markets. Our high schools (and many university programs) don’t teach students lessons directly applicable to the job market. This lack of relevant education further undermines our economic competitiveness and social cohesion. Companies need knowledgeable and experienced professionals to help them innovate.

The need for more relevant worker training is an infrastructure deficiency. We build roads and bridges to enable citizens and businesses to move goods and provide services. Businesses have a vested interest in the infrastructure that is a skilled workforce. Government should invest in education and infrastructure to create higher-quality jobs, making work more valuable.

To increase the capability of American workers and pull wages up, we need to ensure that education and training systems are responsive to the market’s needs. When there’s a surplus of some skills and a shortage of others, wages reflect that imbalance. Addressing this requires improving our educational institutions and reducing barriers that prevent workers from acquiring new skills, without needing a college degree.

By allowing students to learn about real-world problems and develop potential solutions, we can help them develop the skills they need to innovate and succeed in the workforce.

To achieve this goal, we need to:

Create a network of training and education innovation hubs. With support from local communities, we need to use the nation’s community college infrastructure as an initial base.

Partner with academia to enable students with no education beyond high school to acquire training and professional certifications upon completing the programs.

Partner with businesses to create relevant and engaging educational materials.

You can read more about the idea in Reskilling America: A New Plan for the 21st Century Economy.

In addition to pulling wages up, we need to help small businesses generate revenue so they can pay higher wages.

Generate Small Business Revenue to Increase Wages

If businesses don't increase revenue, they can't raise wages.

Businesses generate revenue through the sale of goods or services. Business leaders use part of this revenue to pay wages, but wages aren’t the only expenditure. Businesses have to build and maintain infrastructure, including physical facilities and technological systems they use to operate. They have to pay taxes. They need to make their product and expend revenue to generate raw materials, manufacturing, and logistics. They have to conduct research and development to improve their offerings.

A business’s ability to maintain healthy wage levels depends on revenue being high enough to support its other costs. In lean years, wages that are too high threaten financial stability. This can lead to a business failing to invest in infrastructure to modernize and compete with new businesses. It could cause a loss of talent due to wage freezes, reductions, or layoffs. It could reduce the ability to move into new markets, slowing growth and strangling the business. Every time a business fails to achieve one of these marks, one of its competitors does. If it misses too many, it dies.

Due to the constraint that high wages threaten business growth and survival in lean years, one principle business leaders consider is their payroll-to-revenue ratio. For many businesses, a good guideline is 15-30% of revenue. In fat years, wages may only be 15% of revenue. In lean years, wages could be 30% or more.

In the long run, businesses can only afford to raise wages if they can increase their revenue. If the business needs to raise wages by 10%, it needs to grow revenue so the payroll-to-revenue ratio is healthy.

In addition to the reality of wages and revenue, small businesses face steep challenges. They are less able to generate revenue than large corporations. They operate on a smaller scale. They have less access to capital, market power, and regulatory influence. They use less infrastructure than large corporations and put less stress on that infrastructure. They have a smaller physical footprint, require fewer resources, and generate less strain on public services like roads, utilities, and waste management. Many are owner-operated and can't pay themselves poverty wages.

To enable small businesses to pay higher wages, we need to help them generate revenue. So we need to give them tax incentives to raise wages. At the same time, we have a public responsibility to make sure those dollars get to the workers. Giving small businesses a tax incentive to pay higher wages will only keep Americans off social programs if those small businesses actually pay livable wages. To receive the tax incentives, small businesses need to prove they paid their workers livable wages.

To achieve this goal, we need a tax incentive for small businesses:

We will reduce the tax burden for small businesses that pay livable wages by 10% across the board and target specific industries, such as retail and food service, with even more significant tax breaks.

You can read or listen to this idea in If Businesses Don’t Increase Revenue, They Can’t Raise Wages

And Earned Income Tax Credit and Small Business Taxes.

Whereas small businesses need more revenue to raise wages, large corporations have access to greater revenue sources. Because they have different capabilities, they should have different requirements.

Achieve Livable Wages

We need to encourage businesses to strive for profits and ensure they pay their workers a wage that lifts them above the poverty level. We also need to keep business taxes low, as low business taxes spur investment in America. We need to make sure workers benefit from America’s great business environment. We need strong corporations to strive for profits.

As with small businesses, we have a public responsibility to ensure individuals can survive without social programs. Americans can earn money from two sources: their work or the government.

Choosing to allow corporations to pay low wages means choosing to support social programs.

We need to legislate a fair corporate minimum wage that adjusts automatically over time and takes the cost of living in different areas into account:

Publicly traded corporations shall pay full-time wages representing a rate no less than the poverty level plus 50%, assuming the worker and three dependents, for that locality.

From a business competition perspective, this levels the playing field in urban and rural America. The above requirement is locality-based. A federal poverty threshold benefits businesses in more expensive urban areas by requiring companies in low-cost rural areas to pay the same wages as businesses in more costly areas. This federal approach would hurt business activity in less expensive rural America.

From a states-rights perspective, it allows states to influence the cost of living in their state through appropriate locality pay. Different areas have different costs of living. For instance, the cost of living in Manhattan, New York, is very different from that in Manhattan, Kansas.

From a legislative perspective, it is more feasible than taxing the rich but still provides income to American workers. It doesn’t require legislative updates as living costs across the nation rise.

It saves the American taxpayer by reducing the need for social programs. It is not a tax proposal and does not impose a tax burden on the American people.

You can read more about the idea in Horses and Sparrows.

So far, we’ve addressed restoring the legitimacy of the government spending taxpayer dollars, improving the infrastructure of American human capital, and two initiatives to improve Americans’ ability to put food on the table. Now they need a house to put that table in.

Increase the Supply of Homes

John Locke’s great philosophy became the foundation of the US Constitution. He identified people agree to be governed to preserve their property; that is the chief role of the institution. Everyone owns property, even if that property is owning yourself.

To preserve property, we need to create conditions enabling citizens to secure property. Securing basic needs allows individuals to pursue prosperity and stability. You can’t put food on the table without a home to put the table in.

The economic principle of supply and demand strongly influences the housing market. In simple economic terms, as the supply of an item rises relative to the demand for that item, prices in the market will decrease. But the housing market has become untenable. Housing per capita has decreased since 1970, and the supply of first-time homebuyer houses is especially low.

The government needs to set conditions to reverse this trend, but it can’t do so by building government housing. If the government were the lead agent to provide housing for Americans, would everyone get a trailer to live in? That would be ridiculous. The government must work through the market. Building homes must be profitable. If it’s not, builders will find other work.

We need to work through the market to increase the supply of homes for low- and middle-income families.

Working through the market to increase supply means improving the profitability of builders who build small homes.

The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program is the best government mechanism to incentivize small businesses. SBIR programs are federal grant programs that encourage small businesses to bring desired products to market. SBIR is competitive and provides the incentive to profit from innovation through commercialization.

There is already an SBIR grant program that, with minor changes, could be used to build small, affordable homes in rural America. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) sponsors an SBIR grant program for Rural and Community Development.

Rural and Community Development aims to improve the quality of life in rural America by creating and commercializing technologies that address critical economic and social development issues or challenges. The applications need not be centered on agriculture but may be focused on any area that has the potential to significantly benefit rural Americans.

The Executive Branch must direct USDA to expand its scope and earmark some of this SBIR money specifically for small, affordable homes in rural America.

In urban areas, America could convert empty lots and warehouses, no-longer-used parking lots, and dilapidated housing into small, affordable housing. The US Department of Housing and Urban Development can lead the way. Unfortunately, the US Department of Housing and Urban Development does not sponsor an SBIR program.

We need legislative action to establish an SBIR program under the US Department of Housing and Urban Development that earmarks funds for small, affordable housing in urban areas.

We must implement rules to ensure these homes are sold to owner-occupiers, particularly first-time homebuyers, to prevent them from being snapped up by investors.

You can read or listen to this idea in Small, Affordable Homes.

And in Has Capitalism Failed the Housing Market?.

Increasing the supply of affordable housing will help with housing in the long term, but young Americans still living at home don’t need help with housing eventually. They need help now.

Set Young Americans on the Path to Financial Success

Young Americans don’t just need more housing. To strengthen financial security for young Americans, we need to start by addressing home ownership.

Young Americans need to be able to secure their financial future early in adulthood. This means our young generations need to be able to qualify to purchase their first home at a low interest rate.

We need a first-time-homebuyer incentive of a 3% interest rate, and we need to combine this low interest rate with a US Department of Housing and Urban Development loan, which requires a 3.5% down payment.

After their one-time use, if a family wants to purchase a more expensive home, that’s their decision. If they want to own the asset, they own the risk and higher interest rate that comes with the asset. This plan further needs to disqualify any private equity money or investment firms from receiving these terms. We need to specify single-family homes, single-unit duplexes, apartments, etc.

The initiative’s point isn’t for someone to purchase a commercial building and rent out all but one apartment. That’s an investment.

The initiative aims to improve the financial stability of young Americans. To achieve that goal, all young Americans must be able to take advantage of it.

This proposal benefits young Americans who attend college and those who take up trades. It benefits young Americans who grew up in trailers and suburbs, as well as young Americans in rural and urban America.

You can read more about the idea in Financial Security for Young Americans.

In sum, we need a systemic approach to addressing our biggest challenge: Americans having food on the table and heat in the house. You can’t put food on the table without the money you get from your work to buy food. And you can’t heat your house unless you have a house.

There are no silver-bullet solutions. It’s a complex system. Over the past two years, we’ve considered many ideas. Some were eliminated after more thought, and some weren’t possible. Six big ideas have survived.

We need to restore institutional legitimacy when spending taxpayer dollars.

We need to invest in the infrastructure of human capital to pull wages up.

We need to help small businesses generate revenue so they can pay higher wages.

We need to ensure workers benefit from America’s great business environment and achieve livable wages.

We need to work through the market and increase the supply of homes for low- and middle-income families.

We need to strengthen financial security for young Americans, starting with addressing home ownership.

Addressing our challenges with these ideas will make life better for Americans.

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript.

Fall in the mountains is a beautiful time. I’m going elk hunting. I’ll see you in a couple of weeks. Maybe three.

This week, we explore a pivotal economic question inspired by Milton Friedman. Do higher wages cause inflation, or are they a tool for economic stability?

It's important to remember that supporting low wages inherently means supporting social programs. So, should we raise wages for the lowest earners, or should we allow the bureaucracy to manage the funds? If we choose to raise wages, does this lead to increased inflation?

This question forms the basis of our discussion today and is the first of two key inquiries related to Friedman’s economic theories.

Milton Friedman

Milton Friedman (1912 to 2006) was a highly influential American economist, statistician, and leading proponent of the Chicago School of Economics. He taught economics at the University of Chicago for over 30 years and advised Presidents Nixon and Reagan on economic policy. In 1976, he won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for his achievements in economics. In the 1970s, during a period of severe economic stagnation and high inflation known as stagflation, Friedman gained notoriety by disproving prevalent economic theories that did not consider stagflation possible.

We remember Friedman for his strong belief in free-market capitalism and skepticism of government intervention in the economy. He argued that the primary responsibility of a business is to be profitable and return value to stakeholders. In doing so, these stakeholders would have the resources to make decisions and achieve autonomy consistent with their values. He believed that the role of government in the economy should primarily be to increase the money supply at the same rate as the potential growth of gross domestic product (GDP) and to otherwise not interfere. Increasing the money supply at a rate faster than economic growth only increases inflation without driving economic growth.

During Ronald Reagan's presidency, Friedman’s advocacy for free-market principles significantly influenced supply-side economics. Supply-side economics became commonly known as Reaganomics. Core aspects of Reaganomics included significant business tax cuts intended to stimulate investment and economic growth by increasing the after-tax return on investment.

Reaganomics reduced government regulation. Friedman argued this effort would eliminate inefficiencies and encourage entrepreneurship. To address inflation, Reaganomics intended to control the money supply, a direct application of Friedman’s monetary theory. Finally, the push for reduced government spending reflected Friedman’s skepticism about the government's role in the economy. He advocated for a system where market forces could operate with minimal government interference. These policies intended to reduce government influence in the economic sector, enhance individual freedom, and promote economic growth.

Reaganomics, while aimed at economic revitalization, also increased poverty and inequality. Reagan himself expanded some social programs. We’ll remember that as related to the theme for next week.

This nuanced outcome leads us to Friedman's dichotomy: the economist who disavowed government solutions to economic problems also recognized the necessity of addressing poverty.

Friedman’s Dichotomy

Friedman famously disavowed government solutions to economic problems. In An Economist’s Protest (1975), he wrote:

I think the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem and very often makes the problem worse.

But in an interesting twist, Friedman recognized that some lived in poverty, and we had a shared duty to alleviate that poverty. In Capitalism and Freedom (1962), he wrote:

We might all of us be willing to contribute to the relief of poverty, provided everyone else did. We might not be willing to contribute the same amount without such assurance.

Friedman’s dichotomy, which states that government solutions don’t improve problems while recognizing the need for government solutions to address poverty, raises two inherent questions.

* Friedman spent much of his professional career addressing the causes of inflation. We often hear others say that we can’t raise wages because doing so would drive inflation. Do higher wages cause inflation?

* If government intervention inherently makes problems worse but is needed to address poverty, then government intervention is necessary in either case. If government intervention is necessary regardless, why wouldn’t we use the government to make rules supporting the individual rather than funneling money through the bureaucracy?

First is the inflation question.

Wages and Inflation

Several factors cause inflation. These include demand-pull inflation, cost-push inflation, and monetary inflation.

In simple terms, think of these as inflation being caused by three separate forces. In the first, demand pulls prices up. For the second, costs push prices up. The third involves devaluing money, so you need more to buy something, which looks like prices are increasing.

First, demand-pull inflation. As summarized by Forbes, “Demand-pull inflation is when growing demand for goods or services meets insufficient supply, which drives prices higher.”

When demand exceeds supply, prices rise because some people are willing to spend more to outcompete others. This is a significant driver in today’s housing market. Because demand exceeds supply, and some are willing to spend more to outcompete others for a house, prices rise dramatically.

However, unlike the housing market, increased wages for low-income workers don’t increase demand-pull inflation because workers don’t have more money. There are two sources an American can get money. One is their work. The other is the government, which represents the American people’s money. If wages rise for low-income workers, they might get more money from their labor and less from social program support, but the total resources available are roughly the same.

Ultimately, the net effect of higher wages on demand-pull inflation is negligible.

Second, cost-push inflation. A University of California - Los Angeles (UCLA) study examined The Concept of Wage-Push Inflation: Development and Policy. Daniel Mitchell and Christopher Erickson led the effort. An excerpt:

Wage-push inflation…was associated with powerful, aggressive unions pushing wages up. In its simple form…costs go up which hapless employers are forced to pass through as price increases. The price increases trigger compensatory wage increases by unions and the cycle repeats…Few economists ever subscribed to such a simplistic view which suggested that the process occurred indefinitely without regard to economic circumstances. Nonetheless, popularizing the simple view was seen as advantageous to elements of the business community….

In cost-push or wage-push inflation, the costs of production increase (like raw materials or wages), and businesses pass these higher costs onto consumers in the form of increased prices.

But arguing against higher wages using a wage-push inflation argument negates the reality that if employers can’t, or refuse to, pay higher wages to control costs, they push the true cost of that labor onto the American taxpayer. If your business model requires you to pay poverty wages to maintain competitive prices, it’s not sustainable.

Ultimately, arguing that higher wages push prices higher is an argument in favor of passing the actual cost of wages onto the taxpayer. Wages indeed represent a business cost. The business, not the taxpayer, is responsible for paying for the cost of its labor.

The third type of inflation to consider is monetary inflation. When the total supply of money in the economy exceeds the country’s economic growth, this decreases the value of money and leads to higher prices. The stark rise in inflation following COVID was caused by government officials generating excess money that was not offset by productivity growth.

Dr. Friedman studied monetary inflation. He believed that the role of government in the economy should primarily be to increase the money supply at the same rate as the potential growth of gross domestic product (GDP) and not interfere otherwise. Increasing the money supply at a rate faster than economic growth only increases inflation without driving economic growth.

Higher wages don’t drive monetary inflation. Monetary inflation is a government phenomenon that is not associated with wages.

In sum, higher wages don’t drive demand-pull inflation.

Further, wages above poverty levels are irrelevant to the argument for cost-push inflation.

Finally, higher wages don’t drive monetary inflation.

So, higher wages don’t affect any of the inflation drivers. It seems that businesses paying higher wages doesn’t impact inflation after all.

Counterarguments

Higher wages can disproportionately impact small businesses, which operate on tighter budgets than large corporations. This is true, especially in the short term.

To mitigate the impact on America’s small businesses, we can offer tax incentives to small businesses that pay higher wages to help offset the increased labor costs. We can provide access to training to improve business efficiency and help small businesses manage higher wages without sacrificing profitability.

Retail and hospitality, which traditionally rely on low-wage labor, might be particularly vulnerable to wage increases. Higher labor costs could lead to higher service prices, potentially reducing consumer demand.

We should offer more tax incentives to small business service industries to keep low-margin small businesses competitive with large corporations.

Further, higher wages would lead to increased consumer spending, stimulating economic growth. This increase in demand could offset the impact of higher costs on businesses. Higher wages would also lead to lower employee turnover and higher productivity, offsetting some of the costs of higher wages for businesses.

Critics argue that higher wages might squeeze the margins of small businesses, leading to job cuts or business closures. Proponents argue for a different perspective. They suggest that a dynamic economy, spurred by increased consumer spending, small business tax relief, and dedicated support, can more than offset the initial challenges associated with rising wages. This approach addresses small businesses’ immediate financial concerns and promotes long-term economic growth and stability for individuals, reflecting Friedman’s advocacy for a robust and adaptable market economy.

Milton Friedman’s dichotomy, which states that government solutions don’t improve problems while recognizing the need for government solutions to address poverty, raises two inherent questions.

Friedman spent much of his professional career addressing the causes of inflation. We often hear others say that we can’t raise wages because doing so would drive inflation. Do higher wages cause inflation?

Higher wages don’t drive demand-pull inflation. If wages rise for low-income workers, they might get more money from their labor and less from social program support, but the net effect of higher wages is negligible.

Livable wages are irrelevant to the argument for cost-push inflation. Arguing that higher wages push prices higher favors passing the actual cost of wages onto the taxpayer. The business, not the taxpayer, is responsible for paying for the cost of its labor.

Finally, higher wages don’t drive monetary inflation. Monetary inflation is a government phenomenon that is not associated with wages.

It seems like businesses paying higher wages doesn’t impact inflation after all.

Next week, we can consider our second question: If government intervention inherently makes problems worse but is needed to address poverty, then government intervention is necessary in either case. If government intervention is necessary regardless, why wouldn’t we use the government to make rules supporting the individual rather than funneling money through the bureaucracy?

May God bless the United States of America.

Did the American Founding Fathers support the Electoral College?

Days at elk camp are long. We rise in the wee hours of the morning and hike with headlamps through the mountains in the dark to be where we think elk will be at first light. At the end of the day, we wait where we think the elk will be at last light and hike out with headlamps. We meet at camp at night to share our experiences, food, and drink. Success in the field probably means your group is the last to return to camp, but no one sleeps until everyone returns.

Over food and drink, we catch up. Several camp veterans won’t have seen each other in a year or more. We share pictures of kids and talk about life changes.

We chat generally about anything. We rarely talk about religion, but we talk about God and existence. And we talk about politics.

We don’t all agree on every topic, and there are some strong disagreements. But we accept each other's views, communing over beer and food. We know that the next day, the person you share your disagreement with will help you carry out a heavy load, and they’ll wait for you to return to camp to go to sleep.

A topic at camp this year was representative government. One of the hunters lives in a rural area in a populous eastern state dominated by city politics. He expressed frustration because the city negates the state's interest in the rural area.

The issue at hand is a critique of “winner-take-all” state election systems. In a winner-take-all system, the candidate who receives the majority of the popular vote in a state wins all of that state's Electoral College votes. If cities vote differently than rural areas, the city still dominates the state’s electoral choice. States prefer this approach as it gives their preferred candidate the maximum advantage. In 1800, only two states had a winner-take-all system. By 1836, all states except for South Carolina used a winner-take-all system. Today, all states except for Maine and Nebraska use a winner-take-all system.

For all the critique of the Electoral College, a winner-take-all system equally undermines the democratic principle of one person, one vote. It distorts the national popular will. Those who argue that “land doesn’t vote, people do” often still support a state winner-take-all system, negating the rural influence in their own state. The result of both winner-take-all and the Electoral College is to amplify the power of swing states.

Because there’s nothing new under the sun, this issue has been hotly debated since America was born at war and by none other than the brilliant primary framer of the Constitution and later President James Madison.

August 23, 1823. A letter from James Madison to US District Judge George Hay

James Madison was the primary framer of the US Constitution and a driving force behind the 1787 Constitutional Convention, which created the structure of the American government. His detailed notes from the convention are the most complete of any delegate.

Following the convention, Madison wrote 29 of the 85 Federalist Papers to explain the Constitution and convince states to ratify it. When the states refused to ratify the Constitution without explicit protections for American individual liberty, Madison was the primary author of the Bill of Rights. These amendments protect the liberty of citizens and states.

In short, Madison was central to the creation and ratification of the Constitution. He served the nation as a Congressman, Secretary of State, and was later the fourth President of the United States, serving in that capacity from 1809 to 1817. He was a staunch advocate for states' rights and a rational pragmatist. He recognized that while a states’ rights approach has strong merits, there are practical limits that sometimes necessitate federal intervention.

At the Constitutional Convention, Madison recommended using the national popular vote to decide the office of President. He stated that "the people at large was…the fittest" to choose the executive. But his perspective changed over a lifetime of national service.

In an 1823 letter to George Hay, Madison discussed a potential Constitutional amendment: district-based voting to select Presidential Electors instead of the current Electoral College system. He reflected on the 1787 Constitutional Convention's difficulty in determining a method to elect the President. He acknowledged the compromise that led to the Electoral College system, which was influenced by the need to balance the interests of small and large states and strongly influenced by slave states. He mentioned that the compromise agreement became necessary due to time pressure and the long deliberative process.

Madison suggested that the Electoral College was an imperfect solution.

Towards the end of the letter, Madison outlined his proposal:

Electors should be chosen by districts… If no candidate achieves a majority… the President should be chosen by a joint ballot of both Houses of Congress

Madison’s proposal identifies that each voting district should cast its own vote for the president. Instead of the winner-take-all system or the current Electoral College system, voting districts should each have their vote counted.

In the letter, Madison also doesn’t explicitly discuss the concept of a direct national popular vote for electing the President. Instead, he focuses on the mechanics of the Electoral College and the potential benefits of district-based voting. Madison critiques the current Electoral College system, particularly emphasizing the shortcomings of the winner-take-all approach and the disproportionate influence it can grant to smaller states or individual electors.

Madison’s discussion is more about improving the representational fairness of the Electoral College rather than advocating for a shift to using the national popular vote directly for electing the President. He suggests reforms that would make the Electoral College better reflect the diverse preferences across different regions of the states, aligning Electoral College outcomes more closely with popular vote distributions within those states. His proposal aims to balance the representation of smaller and larger states and address the issues that arise when a few electors or a small number of densely populated areas can determine the majority of electoral votes for an entire state.

As a strong supporter and advocate of a democratic republic and states’ rights, Madison grew to recommend not abandoning the flawed Electoral College but making the system more closely represent the vote of the populace.

So, Why do we have the Electoral College?

Slavery shaped the structure of the Electoral College during the Constitutional Convention of 1787 due to the significant political and economic divisions between slave-holding and free states.

Slave-holding states were concerned about their political influence under a direct national popular vote system. The South had large populations, but a significant portion of those populations were enslaved individuals who had no voting rights. In a popular vote system, these states would have less voting power than the more populous free states if the president were elected purely by the popular vote of free citizens.

To reach a compromise, convention delegates agreed on the Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted three out of every five slaves as people for congressional representation and taxation. The Electoral College agreement gave Southern states more electoral power than they would have had if slaves were not counted at all.

The Electoral College was also a means for Southern states to influence presidential candidates. Under the compromise agreement, these states could push candidates to consider Southern interests, particularly the preservation of slavery, to seek support from Southern electors.

Right or wrong, the Electoral College helped maintain the union of the states by giving each state—regardless of North or South, large or small—a proportionate influence in the electoral process. It also perpetuated slavery.

Did the American Founding Fathers support the Electoral College?

The American Founding Fathers supported a democratic republic and representative government.

At the Constitutional Convention, James Madison himself recommended using the popular vote to determine the president. But the Founding Fathers could reach no such agreement. The Electoral College was a compromise that became necessary for slave-holding states to agree to the method of selecting a President.

Madison had a different recommendation after serving as Congressman, Secretary of State, and President.

We should keep the Electoral College districts, but instead of a winner-take-all system that disregards the one-person, one-vote principle, we should tally each voting district’s vote individually.

It's a compelling idea from one of America’s greatest leaders, who dedicated his lifetime in service to the nation.

May God bless the United States of America.

Supporting low wages inherently means relying on social programs.

Milton Friedman, the famous Nobel laureate economist, presented a dichotomy. He argued that government solutions don’t solve problems and often make them worse, yet he also recommended government solutions to address poverty.

Last week, we explored the first of two questions about this dichotomy. We determined that higher wages don’t cause inflation, so there's no inflationary reason not to pay livable wages. Resolving the inflation question leads us to reconsider the government's role in economically supporting individuals. Without inflationary concerns, there’s less reason not to support livable wages.

This week, we explore our second question by having an AI-enabled discussion with the late Dr. Friedman. That question is:

If government intervention inherently makes problems worse but is needed to address poverty, then government intervention is necessary in either case. If it's necessary regardless, why wouldn’t we use the government to make rules supporting the individual rather than funneling money through the bureaucracy?

Since government intervention is necessary to address poverty caused by low wages, we should prioritize policies that directly support individuals by promoting livable wages instead of relying on bureaucratic social programs that perpetuate dependency and inefficiency.

Dr. Friedman and I don’t agree on everything. His work suggests he viewed the economic system as more important than the individual. I agree with his premise, but I'm against dependency on social programs. When wages are too low, we throw money at the bureaucracy—giving some of that money to other people, and the machine eats the rest.

I recognize the importance of the economic system. I believe individuals having heat in the house and food on the table is more important than the system itself, and I recognize that a healthy system is the best way to achieve that goal.

Let’s get started with an introduction to Milton Friedman.

Milton Friedman

For those who didn’t get a chance to listen to last week’s piece, Milton Friedman (1912 to 2006) was a Nobel laureate and a leading figure in the Chicago School of Economics. He significantly influenced national economic policy, particularly during the 1970s stagflation and into the era of Reaganomics.

His economic brilliance at the University of Chicago led to advisory roles for Presidents Nixon and Reagan. He shaped modern economic thought by advocating for free-market capitalism and minimal government intervention. His theories laid the foundation for supply-side economics, widely known as Reaganomics. Reaganomics promoted major tax cuts, reduced regulation, and controlled the money supply to stimulate growth and curb inflation.

Reaganomics was a solution for its time but increased poverty and inequality over the long term. Forty years of stagnating wages point to a diseased system. Reagan himself expanded some social programs.

Friedman was a brilliant and accomplished economist with a conservative flair. But he presented a fascinating dichotomy. Despite his advocacy for minimal government, he proposed a government-administered solution to address poverty.

Let's explore this intriguing contradiction in more detail.

Friedman’s Dichotomy

Friedman disavowed government solutions to economic problems. In An Economist’s Protest (1975), he wrote:

I think the government solution to a problem is usually as bad as the problem and very often makes the problem worse.

At the same time, Friedman recognized that some lived in poverty, and we had a shared duty to alleviate that poverty. In Capitalism and Freedom (1962), he wrote:

We might all of us be willing to contribute to the relief of poverty, provided everyone else did. We might not be willing to contribute the same amount without such assurance.

This dichotomy begs a question:

If government intervention inherently makes problems worse but is also needed to address poverty, then government intervention is necessary in either case. If it's necessary regardless, why wouldn’t we use the government to make rules supporting the individual rather than funneling money through the bureaucracy?

Friedman was skeptical about governmental influence on the economy but pitched a social program to reduce poverty. Instead of advocating for a minimum wage for the lowest earners, he had another idea: a Negative Income Tax (NIT). NIT embodied a practical resolution to Friedman’s dichotomy—in his view, an attempt to minimize government interference while addressing poverty.

Negative Income Tax

So, what exactly is the Negative Income Tax?

As theorized by Friedman, NIT was a system intended to replace various welfare programs by providing direct financial assistance to individuals below a certain income threshold. He introduced this idea as a more efficient and less bureaucratic alternative to traditional welfare systems.

Under NIT, anyone with earnings below a certain income threshold would receive governmental supplementary pay to boost their income to a specified minimum level, ensuring a basic standard of living. This support would provide enough to meet basic needs without discouraging work.

Unlike welfare programs that cut benefits once an individual reaches a certain income level, NIT would gradually phase out as the individual’s income rises. This design was meant to avoid the "welfare trap" that discourages beneficiaries from earning more because they would lose benefits at a rate that negates the value of working.

Friedman theorized that NIT would reduce the need for a large bureaucracy to administer various welfare programs since the existing tax system could be used to distribute the negative income tax. It would further incentivize work by allowing individuals to keep a portion of their earnings along with the tax benefit.

Let’s look at a couple of examples for clarity.

In our first example, assume an individual earns $30,000 annually. Under our NIT program, the income threshold is $50,000, and the negative tax rate is 50%. The individual would receive no other benefits like food stamps, housing vouchers, or other forms of direct aid. The difference between the individual’s income and the threshold is $20,000. Applying the negative tax rate, the individual would receive a supplemental payment of $10,000 from the government. This would increase their total income to $40,000, bridging part of the gap between their actual earnings and the threshold while providing an incentive to earn more without losing all benefits.

In the second example, assume the individual has no income at all. Again, they receive no other benefits like food stamps or housing vouchers. The difference between their income and the $50,000 threshold is the full $50,000. With a negative tax rate of 50%, the government would provide this individual with a payment of $25,000. This amount represents the guaranteed minimum income level under this NIT system, ensuring every individual has at least $25,000 in annual income, regardless of their actual earnings. This setup was designed to provide a safety net that discourages poverty without disincentivizing additional income generation through employment.

You can watch Friedman discuss the Negative Income Tax here:

NIT may sound similar to Universal Basic Income (UBI), but they take different approaches to income support. UBI is unconditional money, theorized to provide all individuals with additional funds regardless of their income level or employment status. Instead of moving low earners to a suitable income level, UBI intends to create a universal safety net. Further, UBI programs lack conditions tied to receiving the benefit; they do not depend on income, employment, or other criteria.

NIT also resembles another social welfare program: the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) program, which President Reagan significantly expanded. However, EITC targets working individuals and families—particularly those with children—and aims to incentivize work. NIT was broader and designed as a general income supplement for all individuals, potentially replacing other forms of welfare. NIT would provide a basic income guarantee regardless of work status, though the benefit would decrease as income increases.

As Friedman originally envisioned, NIT would replace existing social welfare programs, streamlining support into a single system to reduce bureaucracy and administrative overhead. In contrast, EITC operates alongside other social welfare programs such as food stamps and housing vouchers.

Friedman's NIT was a bold proposal aimed at reducing poverty while minimizing government intervention. But how does this theory hold up in the context of our modern economy?

Social Program Relevance for Today

Now, let's add some relevance to our discussion of social welfare programs.

Supporting low wages inherently means relying on social programs.

Individuals have two sources of money: their work or the government, which represents the American people’s money.

We have a systemic job skills and wage problem. There are approximately 84 million families in America. Of these, 42 million, or half, receive social program dollars. Many of these Americans don’t even realize they're getting social program support because it’s hidden in their tax filings and again in this year’s federal deficit.

Half of American families need social program support because wages are too low. My question for Friedman would be: when would you argue to raise wages instead of supplementing the wages businesses pay with social program funds? Would it be when 75% of families need government support? 90%?

A key piece of the market is the training and preparation of individuals. We can’t say there’s a market failure in job training but no market failure in wages. A failure in one area leads to a failure in the other.

At what point does the scale of reliance on social programs to supplement wages indicate a fundamental problem in the market itself?

The Interview

To think about our questions, I fed ChatGPT with Friedman's writings and asked it to answer as if it were Dr. Friedman for an interview.

Joel: If we told American high school students that they have a clear path to prosperity through specific training opportunities and provided them with the means to pursue this training, most would likely seize the opportunity.

Friedman: Absolutely. It's crucial to inform high school students about effective training paths that lead to prosperity. If they know that specific skills are in demand and that acquiring them will lead to better job prospects, most would take advantage of these opportunities. It's essential that educational programs align with market demands and remain accessible, ensuring students are equipped for the evolving job market.

Joel: But of course, the job market doesn’t do that, and sometimes these Americans end up with misaligned job skills and low wages. Don't low wages indicate a failure in the market?

Friedman: Low wages can indeed indicate a mismatch between the skills workers have and those that are in demand. However, I wouldn't necessarily call it a market failure. Markets are dynamic and adjust over time. The key is to ensure that education and training systems are responsive to the needs of the economy. When there's a surplus of certain skills and a shortage of others, wages will reflect that imbalance. Addressing this requires improving our educational institutions and perhaps reducing barriers that prevent workers from acquiring new skills.

Joel: But you’re against government intervention, even though people need to be able to have food on the table and heat in the house.

Friedman: While I advocate for minimal government intervention, I recognize that a safety net is necessary to support those who are truly in need. The challenge is to provide assistance in a way that doesn't create long-term dependency or distort market incentives. Programs should be designed to help individuals get back on their feet and become self-sufficient, rather than fostering reliance on government support.

Joel: Didn’t you propose a social program that became the Earned Income Tax Credit? This program perpetuates government dependency today because half of American families receive benefits from it.

Friedman: I proposed the Negative Income Tax as a more efficient alternative to the myriad of welfare programs. The idea was to simplify the system, reduce administrative costs, and provide direct assistance to those below a certain income level without discouraging work. If a significant portion of the population relies on programs like EITC, it suggests deeper economic issues such as inadequate education, lack of opportunities, or policies that inhibit economic growth. The goal should be to address these root causes rather than viewing the assistance program itself as the problem.

Joel: If government intervention is necessary regardless, why wouldn’t we use the government to make rules supporting the individual rather than funneling money through the bureaucracy?

Friedman: My preference is always for solutions that minimize government intervention and maximize individual freedom. If intervention is necessary, it should aim to empower individuals rather than expand bureaucratic systems. Direct support mechanisms, like the Negative Income Tax, are designed to help individuals without the complexities and inefficiencies of a large administrative apparatus. By simplifying the process and reducing bureaucracy, more resources can reach those in need, and individuals retain the freedom to make their own choices.

Joel: What do you think about a system in which businesses receive tax incentives after they prove they pay wages above the poverty line?

Friedman: Providing tax incentives to businesses that pay higher wages could be a market-friendly approach to encouraging better compensation. It rewards positive behavior without imposing mandates that might lead to unintended consequences like reduced employment opportunities. However, it's important to consider the potential for manipulation and ensure that such a system doesn't create distortions or unfair advantages. The best solutions typically involve creating a healthy economic environment where businesses naturally compete for workers by offering better wages and conditions.

Joel: Dr. Friedman, thanks for the chat. Do you have any final thoughts?

Friedman: Thank you for the engaging discussion. In closing, it's important to remember that economic policies should aim to enhance individual freedom and responsibility. By fostering a vibrant, competitive market and ensuring opportunities for all to participate, we can address many of the challenges we face. Government interventions, when necessary, should be carefully designed to support—not replace—the mechanisms that allow individuals to improve their own circumstances.

While Dr. Friedman and I agree on the importance of a healthy economic system, we differ on how to best support individuals within that system.

Reflecting on Government Intervention

If government intervention is necessary regardless, why wouldn’t we use the government to make rules supporting the individual rather than funneling money through the bureaucracy?

Friedman was a brilliant economist, but we don’t agree on everything. His work suggests he viewed the economic system as more important than the individual. In his view, paying wages higher than the market dictates distorts the system. He would rather preserve the market and use the tax system to pay for social programs.

I agree with his premise about the importance of a healthy economic system, but I'm against dependency on social programs. When wages are too low, we throw money at the bureaucracy—giving some of that money to other people, and the machine eats the rest. Friedman viewed social program support as temporary, but trickle-down economics has demonstrated it doesn’t work. It doesn’t improve the financial position of low earners; they stay on social programs.

I’m not against Americans who need social programs. I'm not against the social programs themselves, even though we acknowledge their inefficiencies, because they still manage to help our fellow Americans. But if half of American families rely on social programs, the rules designed to enable individual Americans to succeed have failed.

I recognize the importance of the economic system. I believe individuals having heat in the house and food on the table is more important than the system itself, and I recognize that a healthy system is the best way to achieve that goal.

Of course, the wage problem is systemic and doesn’t have a simple solution. Systemic problems require systemic solutions.

We won’t be able to eliminate social programs, but we need to address low wages, social program dependency, and the problems that cause them.

Since government intervention is necessary to address poverty caused by low wages, we should prioritize policies that directly support individuals by promoting livable wages instead of relying on bureaucratic social programs that perpetuate dependency and inefficiency.

May God bless the United States of America.

A one-size-fits-all approach to both small businesses and large corporations isn’t appropriate.

We need to legislate livable wage requirements for large corporations and give small businesses that pay livable wages tax incentives.

The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits

In September 1970, the New York Times published an article by Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman titled The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits.

Friedman wrote the article responding to the growing public and academic interest in corporate responsibility regarding environmental issues, civil rights struggles, and consumer protection. His controversial perspective dismissed social, ethical, or environmental concerns unless they directly contributed to profit. Others argued that businesses should consider broader stakeholder interests, including employees, communities, and the environment.

Friedman's premise was that the business of business is business. He emphasized that diverting from pursuing profit is equivalent to spending someone else’s money—shareholders, employees, or customers—for purposes that hadn’t been mutually agreed upon. He likened this spending of other people’s money to taxation without representation.

Friedman argued that a business's primary responsibility is to increase profits, and corporate executives should focus solely on maximizing shareholder value within legal and ethical boundaries. He posited that corporate social responsibility blurs the lines between the private and public sectors.

Let me repeat that.

Friedman believed businesses, particularly corporations, should maximize shareholder value and profits. Any deviation toward social justice or environmental concerns is outside a business’s fundamental responsibility unless it directly contributes to profitability. Instead, he asserted that the public sector—or government—should fulfill these societal roles. Addressing and managing social justice and general welfare issues falls under the umbrella of public responsibility.

Friedman posited that we should not blur the lines between corporate and public responsibility. Famous economists tell it like it is: there’s corporate responsibility and public responsibility.

If the business of business is business, and the responsibility of corporations is to increase profits, then what is public responsibility?

Government of the People, By the People, For the People

On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln gave a short speech to dedicate the battlefield cemetery at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The Gettysburg Address became the most quoted speech in history. It ends with the words, “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

The concept of government for the people binds our public responsibility. Lincoln conveyed that governance derives legitimacy from its ability to represent and serve the people, an idea rooted in the US Constitution. The Constitution is the agreement the American people and the states in the Union made to form a government.

Let me emphasize again that the people and states willingly chose to form a government, and they further chose that elected representatives would use the ratified Constitution as its governing document.

The Preamble states the purpose and intent of the document. It includes the words:

We the People of the United States, in Order to…establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility… (and) promote the general Welfare…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Let's expand on the verbiage in the Preamble just a bit.

We've already touched on the first words, "We the People." Lincoln referred to this as government of the people, by the people, for the people. The purpose of government is to serve the people. Friedman later referred to this purpose as the responsibility of the public sector.

So we could rephrase that portion of the Preamble to “It is the responsibility of the public sector and our elected representatives to…”

Next, we address “establish justice and insure domestic tranquility.” Last week, we discussed the concept of justice in the context of Plato. Justice is fair and equal treatment under the law, individual liberty, and the equitable distribution of resources that enable individual opportunity.

Justice creates a society where individuals fulfill their roles and contribute to the state's overall well-being. Addressing inequality reduces societal tension, maintains social order, and fosters a peaceful society.

Justice enables people to work and command a livable wage. It’s the equitable distribution of resources like education, healthcare, and housing that allows people to work and earn a good living. Access to resources gives everyone a fair chance at economic success. Achieving justice ensures domestic tranquility.

Justice isn’t a handout. Government shouldn't continuously redistribute wealth. Instead, we need to create a fair system where opportunities for housing, fair pay, health, education, and economic advancement are accessible to all. Justice is the government setting conditions and rules that enable individuals to achieve success.

With a shared understanding of justice, let’s build on our statement. We can expand it and say: “It is the responsibility of the public sector and our elected representatives to…create a society that strives toward individual opportunity and equitable distribution of resources…”

Now, we can move on to “promote the general welfare.”

The general welfare is the well-being of citizens. This requirement identifies a responsibility to create conditions that improve the quality of life for all Americans.

Our final expanded statement can be: “It is the responsibility of the public sector and our elected representatives to…create a society that strives toward individual opportunity and equitable distribution of resources… to enhance the well-being of Americans, and to achieve these goals we establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

This language juxtaposes Friedman’s view of corporate and public responsibility. The business of business is business, and corporate responsibility is to increase profits. The business of the public realm is to set conditions and rules that ensure individual success through legislative and regulatory means.

Corporate profit is essential for economic growth. The goal of corporations is to earn profits.

Public responsibility counterbalances the corporate drive for profits. It ensures economic progress contributes to the well-being of citizens and not just corporations. The institution is to maintain a balance between the corporate market and individual justice.

How would this institution of public responsibility achieve this balance?

Why do we treat small businesses like publicly traded corporations?

Like much of economic theory, Friedman’s argument focuses on the role of large corporations in maximizing profits. But there's an apparent disconnect when we apply this framework to small businesses.

Small businesses operate on a smaller scale than corporations. They have less access to capital, market power, and regulatory influence. Despite these differences, policies and expectations often treat them as equal players in the same market.

This leads us to our question: Why do we treat small businesses like publicly traded corporations?

Shouldn't small businesses with fewer resources have more support and different requirements than large corporations? Let's consider two obvious ways small businesses differ from corporations and why they should have different requirements.

First, small businesses use less infrastructure than large corporations and put less stress on that infrastructure, so they shouldn't have the same infrastructure tax requirements. They have a smaller physical footprint, require fewer resources, and generate less strain on public services like roads, utilities, and waste management. While corporations provide goods and services to the public, they also heavily utilize infrastructure—which is a business cost, not a socialized public fund. Businesses are responsible for their operating costs.

Second, many small businesses are owner-operated and can't pay themselves poverty wages. They face the reality of needing a house to heat and food to put on the table. They should get tax cuts to incentivize higher wages, whereas we should have a livable minimum wage standard for corporations. Large corporations have more resources and greater financial capacity; a minimum wage standard for corporations ensures workers are compensated fairly and can contribute to the economy. Tax incentives for small businesses and wage standards for corporations seek a competitive balance.

However, public responsibility still needs to achieve a goal. All Americans need justice, which means food on the table and heat in the house. Furthermore, a second intended outcome is to reduce reliance on social programs by ensuring sufficient wages. Giving small businesses a tax incentive to pay higher wages will only keep Americans off social programs if those small businesses actually pay livable wages. To receive the tax incentives, small businesses need to prove they paid their workers livable wages.

The business of business is to maximize profits. The business of the public realm is justice and the welfare of America. We need to encourage businesses to strive for profits, and we need to ensure corporations pay their workers a wage that lifts them above the poverty level.

We don't need a complex law. We need to legislate a fair corporate minimum wage that adjusts automatically over time and takes the cost of living in different areas into account:

Publicly traded corporations shall pay full-time wages representing a rate no less than the poverty level plus 50%, assuming the worker and three dependents, for that locality.

And for small businesses, we need a tax incentive:

We will reduce the tax burden for small businesses that pay livable wages by 10% across the board and target specific industries, such as retail and food service, with even more significant tax breaks.

Another benefit of treating small businesses differently than corporations is that it makes them more competitive. A visit to downtowns across America tells a common story about how big-box stores drove small retailers out of business. Large corporations leverage economies of scale to offer lower prices that small businesses can’t match, leading to a decline in local economic diversity. This phenomenon has reshaped downtown areas, resulting in economic blight and decreased community cohesion. We’re not going to put publicly traded corporations out of business, but we need to make small businesses more competitive.

A one-size-fits-all approach to both small businesses and large corporations isn’t appropriate.

The business of business is to maximize profits.

The business of the public realm is justice and the welfare of America. Justice is food on the table and heat in the house.

We need to legislate livable wage requirements for large corporations and give small businesses that pay livable wages tax incentives.

May God bless the United States of America.

I am against socialism.

If we oppose socialism, we must champion individualism.

Supporting individualism means we have a duty to enable every individual to succeed.

Milton Friedman (our subject of the last two weeks) wasn’t the only renowned economist of the 20th century whose ideas continue to influence US economic policy. Friedman was influential, no doubt. From the 1980s to the early 2000s, his emphasis on monetary policy, central banks controlling inflation, and the belief in free markets became the mainstream approach to economic management in many parts of the world.

But John Maynard Keynes is the father of macroeconomics. Each economist’s prominence fluctuates with the economic conditions of the time.

Since we considered our questions using Friedman’s ideas as a guide last week, we’ll start with Keynes this week.

To appreciate Keynes ideas, we need to explore the foundational concept of justice articulated by the ancient philosopher Plato. Plato’s justice provides a foundational understanding of societal roles and responsibilities.

Plato and Justice

Plato (427 to 347 BC) was a Greek philosopher and one of the most influential figures in Western philosophy and culture. He was a student of Socrates and taught Aristotle. The three form the foundational trio of ancient Greek philosophers whose ideas have shaped much of Western thought.

Plato founded the Academy, one of the world’s first universities. Many of his writings come from his time teaching there. He wrote in dialogue style, using stories to convey ideas.

His still-influential The Republic explores the “soul of a nation and an individual.” Its central theme is justice—how to create a society where individuals fulfill their roles and contribute to the overall well-being of the state. Plato divided society into three classes: rulers (philosopher-kings), warriors (auxiliaries), and producers (farmers, artisans, etc.). Each class has its specific role, and society achieves justice when each class fulfills its responsibilities.

It’s worth repeating: we achieve justice when each individual fills their role. Justice means individuals should be treated fairly and equally under the law, but it also means society upholds individual liberty for all. Justice for all means society strives toward individual opportunity and equitable distribution of resources like education, healthcare, and housing. While Plato didn't discuss modern concepts like public education or healthcare, we can extend his emphasis on each person fulfilling their role in today's context. Ensuring access to education and housing allows individuals to develop their abilities and contribute to society, aligning with Plato's vision of justice.

Justice includes education and housing. Justice enables people to work. Let’s consider an example from today’s America with a question:

Can you work and command a good living from society if you can’t access proper education and suitable housing? No.

Do the American people, acting through our elected representatives, sponsor and fund education and training, and control the conditions to shepherd the housing market? Yes.

Are we really saying it's the individual's fault if they can't secure a good job due to a lack of education and training or afford a home in our absurdly inflated market?

It’s a challenging question that John Maynard Keynes thought about a lot. Plato envisioned a just society where each individual fulfills their role for the common good. Similarly, Keynes argued that when the market fails to provide opportunities for individuals to contribute, it becomes the government's responsibility to step in. Both perspectives highlight that a society thrives when members are empowered to reach their potential.

John Maynard Keynes and Government Spending

John Maynard Keynes (1883 to 1946) was a British economist and the father of macroeconomics. More than any other economist, his ideas profoundly influenced modern macroeconomic theory. He is best known for developing Keynesian economics, a school of thought that advocates for active government intervention in the economy, particularly during recessions, to manage aggregate demand and maintain full employment.

In simple terms, this idea suggests that the government should help the economy during tough times, like recessions, by boosting spending to keep people working and ensure there's enough demand for goods and services.

Recent real-world examples of Keynesian economics are the government responses to the 2008 financial crisis and COVID-19. The economy was in trouble. The government injected stimulus funds by increasing spending, offering financial aid, and giving money to businesses and individuals. The goal was to boost demand to get people to buy things and keep people employed, helping the economy recover faster.

Keynes believed governments should actively manage economic cycles. He argued for deficit spending during depressions and recessions—borrowing money to finance public projects, infrastructure, and social programs. And he argued for government austerity during healthy periods. He claimed deficit spending would jump-start the economy, and once the economy recovered, the government could reduce spending and pay down the debt. During World War II, Keynes argued for funding the British war effort and that it was better to prioritize winning the war and maintaining the economy than to worry about balancing the budget.

Keynes understood that markets don’t always self-correct. People can’t just "work harder" to succeed. His solution was clear: when the private sector can’t provide enough jobs or income, the government has a responsibility to step in and keep the economy running by spending on public projects, infrastructure, and social programs.

He argued that when the market isn’t working, people need support. This support helps the individual and stabilizes society as a whole.

And he argued for government intervention as a temporary measure for use during periods of economic crisis. His central idea was that government should stimulate demand and create jobs when the private sector couldn’t. His goal was to jump-start the economy so that individuals could find employment and earn a good living once conditions improved.

In The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936) he wrote: The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury.

Keynes argued that work should be the primary source of income for individuals. He believed the government should correct the market failures of too few good jobs. He argued the government should invest in education and infrastructure to create higher-quality jobs, making work more valuable. He supported a livable minimum wage as a means to distribute wealth fairly.

He wrote: The outstanding faults of the economic society in which we live are its failure to provide for full employment and its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth and incomes.

Keynes did not advocate for permanent dependency on social programs. He argued for government intervention when the market failed to provide full employment and fair wages. His writings emphasized temporary government support, focusing on creating the conditions for self-sufficiency by addressing market failures.

In short, Keynes believed in setting rules that supported individual success. He advocated for government intervention in challenging times and for governments to pay off their debts in good times.

Though a couple thousand years apart, Plato’s philosophy and Keynesian economics agree on many points.

Plato and Keynes Intersect

Let’s break down Plato’s philosophy.

We achieve justice when every individual fulfills their role in society.

Society suffers if individuals cannot fulfill their roles due to a lack of opportunity, education, or resources.

Every individual must be able to contribute according to their abilities.

But what happens if you can't work to your potential due to a lack of education and training?

If you can’t access these resources, you can’t fulfill your role in society.

You’re stuck trying to survive, worrying only about basic needs like heat in the house and food on the table.

This condition is injustice because individuals are denied the opportunity to contribute and thrive.

And we examine Keynesian economics.

Work is the primary source of income for individuals.

Government must invest in education and infrastructure to create higher-quality jobs and make work more valuable. Plato argues that these are the same tools individuals need to fulfill their roles in society.

If the market doesn't provide adequate employment opportunities or wages, the government has to set rules for livable wages.

The intent is to create conditions for self-sufficiency, which reduces dependency on social programs and aligns with Plato's idea of enabling individuals to fulfill their societal role.

To lighten the mood and offer a fresh perspective, let’s introduce Jessica, insightful comedian, to share her thoughts on the state of our economic policies.

Jessica: Hey folks! Let's dive headfirst into the circus we call life, shall we? You ever notice how everyone has the ultimate fix for all our problems? It’s like being at a potluck where everyone brings their “world-famous” casserole. You've got the kale enthusiasts over here, chanting, “Kale will save us all!” Sure, Brenda, because nothing says “solution” like bitter leaves that taste like freshly mowed lawn.

Then Aunt Karen rolls in with her legendary tofu surprise. Surprise! It still tastes like disappointment. Listen, Karen, tofu wasn’t on anyone’s wish list unless that list is titled “Things That Pretend to Be Food but Aren’t.”

And speaking of solutions, let's talk about Uncle Sam’s idea of help these days. Handing out cash without any real support is like giving someone a spoon when they’re drowning. “Here, maybe you can paddle your way out!” It’s like tossing a life jacket to someone in a desert—thanks, but that's not really addressing the problem, is it?

Now, let’s chat about paychecks. You ever open yours and think, “Is this a typo or a cruel joke?” You work like a dog all week, and your bank account’s like, “Better luck next time!” It’s like ordering a steak dinner and getting served a single crouton and a side of air. “Enjoy your meal!” Oh, I will, once I find it.

We’re setting the bar so low, it's a tripping hazard. People celebrating that they can afford rent this month like they've won the lottery. “Yes! I get to live indoors for another 30 days!” Congratulations, you've achieved the bare minimum required for survival. Next up: dreaming about affording that extra guacamole at the burrito place.

Life shouldn’t be about just scraping by. It should be about thriving, reaching for the stars, and maybe snagging a moon rock or two. And let's be honest, who doesn't want a slice of cake to celebrate the little victories? Cake is essential, people! It's the edible high-five.

At the end of the day, we need to stop serving the same bland policy porridge and start whipping up a recipe that actually tastes good. Can we please retire the economic microwave dinners? I'm tired of peeling back the plastic to find half-cooked ideas and freezer-burned promises.

So let’s roll up our sleeves and cook up a feast where everyone’s invited, the portions are fair, and nobody leaves hungry—or hangry, for that matter. Because success isn’t about handing out snacks to keep people quiet; it's about giving them the ingredients to bake their own gourmet creations.

Thanks for tuning in, everybody! Remember, individualism isn't just about surviving—it's about giving people the tools to thrive and maybe, just maybe, a chance to have their cake and eat it too. Who’s up for dessert?

The Reality of Economics

The reality of economics is people don’t run on hope.

Jessica's witty observations highlight how quick fixes and handouts fail to address the root causes of economic hardship. Systemic solutions empower individuals.

People need a house to heat and money to put food on the table. This benefits the individual and society writ large. The proof of this statement is that liberal and conservative economists alike recommend social programs to alleviate poverty. They know if people don’t have enough money to survive from their work, the other source is the government.

But instead of thinking about how to make social programs work better, we need to think about how to eliminate the need for social programs.

We can make the rules work for individuals without hurting small businesses. We can pay for things like improving education to enable individuals to succeed.

If we refuse to do those things, we choose to pay for social programs.

Some argue that social programs lead to socialism. But socialism emerges when individualism fails.

I am against socialism.

If we oppose socialism, we must champion individualism.

Supporting individualism means we have a duty to enable every individual to succeed.

May God bless the United States of America.

This didn’t push to the podcast hosts; reaccomplishing.

—

I am against socialism.

If we oppose socialism, we must champion individualism.

Supporting individualism means we have a duty to enable every individual to succeed.

Milton Friedman (our subject of the last two weeks) wasn’t the only renowned economist of the 20th century whose ideas continue to influence US economic policy. Friedman was influential, no doubt. From the 1980s to the early 2000s, his emphasis on monetary policy, central banks controlling inflation, and the belief in free markets became the mainstream approach to economic management in many parts of the world.

But John Maynard Keynes is the father of macroeconomics. Each economist’s prominence fluctuates with the economic conditions of the time.

Since we considered our questions using Friedman’s ideas as a guide last week, we’ll start with Keynes this week.

To appreciate Keynes ideas, we need to explore the foundational concept of justice articulated by the ancient philosopher Plato. Plato’s justice provides a foundational understanding of societal roles and responsibilities.

Plato and Justice

Plato (427 to 347 BC) was a Greek philosopher and one of the most influential figures in Western philosophy and culture. He was a student of Socrates and taught Aristotle. The three form the foundational trio of ancient Greek philosophers whose ideas have shaped much of Western thought.

Plato founded the Academy, one of the world’s first universities. Many of his writings come from his time teaching there. He wrote in dialogue style, using stories to convey ideas.

His still-influential The Republic explores the “soul of a nation and an individual.” Its central theme is justice—how to create a society where individuals fulfill their roles and contribute to the overall well-being of the state. Plato divided society into three classes: rulers (philosopher-kings), warriors (auxiliaries), and producers (farmers, artisans, etc.). Each class has its specific role, and society achieves justice when each class fulfills its responsibilities.

It’s worth repeating: we achieve justice when each individual fills their role. Justice means individuals should be treated fairly and equally under the law, but it also means society upholds individual liberty for all. Justice for all means society strives toward individual opportunity and equitable distribution of resources like education, healthcare, and housing. While Plato didn't discuss modern concepts like public education or healthcare, we can extend his emphasis on each person fulfilling their role in today's context. Ensuring access to education and housing allows individuals to develop their abilities and contribute to society, aligning with Plato's vision of justice.

Justice includes education and housing. Justice enables people to work. Let’s consider an example from today’s America with a question:

Can you work and command a good living from society if you can’t access proper education and suitable housing? No.

Do the American people, acting through our elected representatives, sponsor and fund education and training, and control the conditions to shepherd the housing market? Yes.

Are we really saying it's the individual's fault if they can't secure a good job due to a lack of education and training or afford a home in our absurdly inflated market?

It’s a challenging question that John Maynard Keynes thought about a lot. Plato envisioned a just society where each individual fulfills their role for the common good. Similarly, Keynes argued that when the market fails to provide opportunities for individuals to contribute, it becomes the government's responsibility to step in. Both perspectives highlight that a society thrives when members are empowered to reach their potential.

John Maynard Keynes and Government Spending

John Maynard Keynes (1883 to 1946) was a British economist and the father of macroeconomics. More than any other economist, his ideas profoundly influenced modern macroeconomic theory. He is best known for developing Keynesian economics, a school of thought that advocates for active government intervention in the economy, particularly during recessions, to manage aggregate demand and maintain full employment.

In simple terms, this idea suggests that the government should help the economy during tough times, like recessions, by boosting spending to keep people working and ensure there's enough demand for goods and services.

Recent real-world examples of Keynesian economics are the government responses to the 2008 financial crisis and COVID-19. The economy was in trouble. The government injected stimulus funds by increasing spending, offering financial aid, and giving money to businesses and individuals. The goal was to boost demand to get people to buy things and keep people employed, helping the economy recover faster.

Keynes believed governments should actively manage economic cycles. He argued for deficit spending during depressions and recessions—borrowing money to finance public projects, infrastructure, and social programs. And he argued for government austerity during healthy periods. He claimed deficit spending would jump-start the economy, and once the economy recovered, the government could reduce spending and pay down the debt. During World War II, Keynes argued for funding the British war effort and that it was better to prioritize winning the war and maintaining the economy than to worry about balancing the budget.

Keynes understood that markets don’t always self-correct. People can’t just "work harder" to succeed. His solution was clear: when the private sector can’t provide enough jobs or income, the government has a responsibility to step in and keep the economy running by spending on public projects, infrastructure, and social programs.

He argued that when the market isn’t working, people need support. This support helps the individual and stabilizes society as a whole.

And he argued for government intervention as a temporary measure for use during periods of economic crisis. His central idea was that government should stimulate demand and create jobs when the private sector couldn’t. His goal was to jump-start the economy so that individuals could find employment and earn a good living once conditions improved.

In The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money (1936) he wrote: The boom, not the slump, is the right time for austerity at the Treasury.

Keynes argued that work should be the primary source of income for individuals. He believed the government should correct the market failures of too few good jobs. He argued the government should invest in education and infrastructure to create higher-quality jobs, making work more valuable. He supported a livable minimum wage as a means to distribute wealth fairly.

He wrote: The outstanding faults of the economic society in which we live are its failure to provide for full employment and its arbitrary and inequitable distribution of wealth and incomes.

Keynes did not advocate for permanent dependency on social programs. He argued for government intervention when the market failed to provide full employment and fair wages. His writings emphasized temporary government support, focusing on creating the conditions for self-sufficiency by addressing market failures.

In short, Keynes believed in setting rules that supported individual success. He advocated for government intervention in challenging times and for governments to pay off their debts in good times.

Though a couple thousand years apart, Plato’s philosophy and Keynesian economics agree on many points.

Plato and Keynes Intersect

Let’s break down Plato’s philosophy.

We achieve justice when every individual fulfills their role in society.

Society suffers if individuals cannot fulfill their roles due to a lack of opportunity, education, or resources.

Every individual must be able to contribute according to their abilities.

But what happens if you can't work to your potential due to a lack of education and training?

If you can’t access these resources, you can’t fulfill your role in society.

You’re stuck trying to survive, worrying only about basic needs like heat in the house and food on the table.

This condition is injustice because individuals are denied the opportunity to contribute and thrive.

And we examine Keynesian economics.

Work is the primary source of income for individuals.

Government must invest in education and infrastructure to create higher-quality jobs and make work more valuable. Plato argues that these are the same tools individuals need to fulfill their roles in society.

If the market doesn't provide adequate employment opportunities or wages, the government has to set rules for livable wages.

The intent is to create conditions for self-sufficiency, which reduces dependency on social programs and aligns with Plato's idea of enabling individuals to fulfill their societal role.

To lighten the mood and offer a fresh perspective, let’s introduce Jessica, insightful comedian, to share her thoughts on the state of our economic policies.

Jessica: Hey folks! Let's dive headfirst into the circus we call life, shall we? You ever notice how everyone has the ultimate fix for all our problems? It’s like being at a potluck where everyone brings their “world-famous” casserole. You've got the kale enthusiasts over here, chanting, “Kale will save us all!” Sure, Brenda, because nothing says “solution” like bitter leaves that taste like freshly mowed lawn.

Then Aunt Karen rolls in with her legendary tofu surprise. Surprise! It still tastes like disappointment. Listen, Karen, tofu wasn’t on anyone’s wish list unless that list is titled “Things That Pretend to Be Food but Aren’t.”

And speaking of solutions, let's talk about Uncle Sam’s idea of help these days. Handing out cash without any real support is like giving someone a spoon when they’re drowning. “Here, maybe you can paddle your way out!” It’s like tossing a life jacket to someone in a desert—thanks, but that's not really addressing the problem, is it?

Now, let’s chat about paychecks. You ever open yours and think, “Is this a typo or a cruel joke?” You work like a dog all week, and your bank account’s like, “Better luck next time!” It’s like ordering a steak dinner and getting served a single crouton and a side of air. “Enjoy your meal!” Oh, I will, once I find it.

We’re setting the bar so low, it's a tripping hazard. People celebrating that they can afford rent this month like they've won the lottery. “Yes! I get to live indoors for another 30 days!” Congratulations, you've achieved the bare minimum required for survival. Next up: dreaming about affording that extra guacamole at the burrito place.

Life shouldn’t be about just scraping by. It should be about thriving, reaching for the stars, and maybe snagging a moon rock or two. And let's be honest, who doesn't want a slice of cake to celebrate the little victories? Cake is essential, people! It's the edible high-five.

At the end of the day, we need to stop serving the same bland policy porridge and start whipping up a recipe that actually tastes good. Can we please retire the economic microwave dinners? I'm tired of peeling back the plastic to find half-cooked ideas and freezer-burned promises.

So let’s roll up our sleeves and cook up a feast where everyone’s invited, the portions are fair, and nobody leaves hungry—or hangry, for that matter. Because success isn’t about handing out snacks to keep people quiet; it's about giving them the ingredients to bake their own gourmet creations.

Thanks for tuning in, everybody! Remember, individualism isn't just about surviving—it's about giving people the tools to thrive and maybe, just maybe, a chance to have their cake and eat it too. Who’s up for dessert?

The Reality of Economics

The reality of economics is people don’t run on hope.

Jessica's witty observations highlight how quick fixes and handouts fail to address the root causes of economic hardship. Systemic solutions empower individuals.

People need a house to heat and money to put food on the table. This benefits the individual and society writ large. The proof of this statement is that liberal and conservative economists alike recommend social programs to alleviate poverty. They know if people don’t have enough money to survive from their work, the other source is the government.

But instead of thinking about how to make social programs work better, we need to think about how to eliminate the need for social programs.

We can make the rules work for individuals without hurting small businesses. We can pay for things like improving education to enable individuals to succeed.

If we refuse to do those things, we choose to pay for social programs.

Some argue that social programs lead to socialism. But socialism emerges when individualism fails.

I am against socialism.

If we oppose socialism, we must champion individualism.

Supporting individualism means we have a duty to enable every individual to succeed.

May God bless the United States of America.

What does it mean to vote?

You voted for me to go to war in Iraq

A little more than ten years ago, I had a conversation with a woman who strongly opposed the war in Iraq. By then, the war was hugely unpopular. Iraq wasn’t a threat to American sovereignty. They didn’t have weapons of mass destruction ready to rain down on our allies. They maybe didn’t need a new form of government and certainly didn’t want America to help them get there.

Since I had carried a rifle in Iraq, I thought she could cut her lecture short. After some more minutes of lecture, I got frustrated. I should have kept quiet, but I made the situation worse by saying, “You voted for me to go to war in Iraq.”

Of course, that got her going again. Not everyone appreciates that I’m a truth-teller. But it was absolutely true.

Voting in our democratic republic is a willful act to transfer our personal autonomy to a representative.

At the individual level, voting on Election Day is our attempt to choose representatives to whom we delegate further choices. We may or may not vote for our chosen candidate, but a candidate will win. At the end of the vote tally, we know our elected representatives.

That elected representative will then assemble and cast further votes on our behalf.

Because we delegate our vote to an elected representative, their vote becomes ours.

You voted for me to go to war in Iraq because our delegated representatives in the House and Senate passed the Authorization of the Use of Military Force for Iraq in October 2002. Even if your preferred candidate didn’t win, you still have an elected representative. Even if your elected representative voted against using military force in Iraq, the House and Senate still passed the measure.

The choices our elected representatives make become our choices. Since we are accountable for the outcomes of our choices, it is our duty to hold our leaders and power structures accountable for their character and decisions. We may delegate our authority, but we can’t delegate our responsibility.

Representation and voting are a central premise to our democratic republic. They are so crucial that America was born at war, fighting for the right to representation.

Thomas Paine and the American Revolutionary War

The Revolutionary War wasn’t just a fight for independence from British tyranny. It was a fight for representation. In the Declaration of Independence, American founders identified several disputes with British rule related to representation. These included…

King George III refused to approve laws in the public's best interest. He refused to pass laws that would give more people representation in government, even though we were willing to give up other rights in exchange. He suspended colonial legislatures and declared he had the power to make laws for them. He dissolved representative assemblies that opposed his policies. He refused to call new elections after dissolving assemblies, leaving the people without representation.

In short, we fought for our right to decide our future through elected representatives.

In 1776, at the dawn of the seven-year war that we fought for independence and representation, British-born philosopher, writer, and revolutionary figure Thomas Paine wrote Common Sense. Paine had moved to the American colonies in 1774 and penned ideas central to the debates surrounding independence from Britain.

Common Sense advocated giving people the power to elect their representatives. Paine saw voting as the core of a new social contract—an idea that resonated with the American colonists who were denied representation in British governance.

This new social contract included a government that derived its authority from the consent of the governed rather than from hereditary monarchy or divine right. His social contract redefined the relationship between the people and their government. It advocated for government based on the people's will, established through free and fair elections. It required representation, wherein elected officials act on behalf of the citizens.

Unlike monarchies, where rulers are not accountable to the people, Paine’s social contract promoted the idea that all citizens are politically equal and government officials are accountable to the electorate. It rejected hereditary rule and argued that no one has a natural right to rule over others simply by birth. He called for breaking these systems and establishing a republic where people chose leaders based on merit and public trust.

Last, he viewed government as a safeguard for liberty and believed the role of government should be to protect the liberty of its citizens. He viewed the government’s role as safeguarding individual freedom rather than imposing control or oppressing the populace.

When we vote, we exercise a fundamental right to shape our government based on our choices. Voting is our opportunity to hold our government accountable. Today, voting is a modern form of delegating decision-making to a representative—a concept that aligns with the principles Paine advocated for in Common Sense.

Paine would remind us that just because a system has been in place for a long time doesn’t make it right. He would challenge us to hold our leaders and power structures accountable and urge us to vote to prevent abuse, ensure accountability, and secure the freedom and security he believed were the ultimate purpose of government.

Paine and the American Revolution laid the foundation for our right to representation, but the story of personal freedom doesn't end there. Let’s fast forward to the 20th century and Jean-Paul Sartre, who logically joined individual liberty and personal responsibility.

Paine advocated for our right to choose our government. Sartre challenged us to embrace the weight of those choices in an indifferent universe. Though separated by time and context, both thinkers converged on a sobering idea: our actions—or inactions—define ourselves and our society.

Jean-Paul Sartre, Radical Freedom, and Personal Responsibility

The existential philosophy of radical freedom by Jean-Paul Sartre reverberates with the act of voting.

Sartre believed in radical freedom—the idea that individuals are free to make their own choices in an indifferent universe without a predetermined purpose. He famously said we are "condemned to be free" because our freedom comes with heavy personal responsibility.

Every person defines themselves through their actions. We can’t blame external forces for our choices and outcomes—we are entirely responsible.

Tied to this notion of personal responsibility, voting in our democratic republic directly means we are accountable for the outcomes of choices our representatives make on our behalf. We delegate our authority to elected officials, but we can’t delegate the responsibility for the consequences of their decisions.

This philosophy is starkly relevant in the context of modern voting. Let’s consider some examples. First, a disillusioned voter who decides not to vote. They might think their single ballot won't make a difference. Sartre would argue that the choice to withhold their vote is still one for which they're entirely responsible. By choosing to refuse to vote, they accept any outcome as their choice because they gave up their voice and power to influence change.

Then there’s the individual who votes strictly along party lines without holding their own party accountable. Defaulting to the status quo is still a choice we make. Elected officials swear an oath to the Constitution; some violate their oath. We're responsible for the consequences of electing leaders who subvert their oath to the Constitution or don’t align with American values.

Individuals create meaning through their actions, and we shape the future of our society through the choices we make at the ballot box. We are responsible for those choices.

Voting, then, is more than just a right—it’s an exercise in radical freedom. We are condemned to it and responsible for the leaders we elect and their policies. While heavy, the burden of that responsibility is essential to the functioning of a free society.

In sum

Representation is so essential America was born at war over it. At imminent peril, we pledged to each other our Lives, Fortunes, and sacred Honor for the right to vote.

I don’t believe in political parties. I believe in America.

Individual liberty and personal responsibility are the foundation of the nation.

Liberty is the right to participate in choosing our representatives. The choices our elected representatives make become our choices.

With liberty comes responsibility. Since we are accountable for the outcomes of our choices, it is our duty to hold our leaders and power structures accountable for their character and decisions.

You are accountable for the choices of your elected representatives.

I am accountable for the choices of my elected representatives.

As an American who swore my oath to support and defend the Constitution for nearly my entire adult life, including days carrying a rifle on foreign soil, I will vote for the Constitution.

As a daughter's father, I will vote for her future to have the individual liberty and personal responsibility that comes with making her own healthcare decisions.

I believe in individual liberty. I will vote for the right of states to protect their interests. I will vote for the right of states to have their votes counted. I will vote against any measure that threatens the individual liberty of any American.

I believe in personal responsibility. I will vote for leaders who uphold the rule of law and against any leader who does not.

May God bless the United States of America.

I believe in America— Conceived in liberty, Born at war, Founded on the promise that we are all created equal. Endowed by our Creator with the gifts of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. We pledged to each other Our lives, Our fortunes, Our honor. From the beginning, the Almighty declared, “In the sweat of your face, you shall eat bread.” By the work of our hands, we shape the means To warm our homes, To fill our tables, To keep the promise of plenty. And though— If we were angels, We’d need no government, We are not angels. We need governance that holds justice close, That shields the weak, And serves the people it protects. Joel K. Douglas

What an emotional week for the country—and not just because of the election. This week, I talked with some fired-up cattle producers who believe federal agencies overstepped their authority. May we all be gracious in our interactions.

Many Americans fear for their ability to forge the means to achieve heat in the house and food on the table. There’s no quick fix for this systemic problem. Systemic problems require systemic solutions. Over the last year, we spent almost half of our effort thinking about how to improve the economy for families across America. This was the decisive effort of the year. We need governance to serve the people and set conditions that enable individual Americans to work and succeed.

Some fear for the security of our borders. At the same time, we recognize the benefit and talents legal immigrants bring to America. Even if we disagree with the premise that drastic changes are necessary to secure our borders, the perception of doing nothing leaves a foul taste in the mouths of Americans. We spent an entire month posing a multi-pronged approach to address border security in an efficient and respectful manner.

Some fear for their liberty or the liberty of others. If we give the government the power to take individual liberty away from any group, we give the government the power to take away our liberty. Inherent in the inalienable right to life is the right to make decisions about ourselves. We may have opinions and personally disagree with others’ choices, but government interference with individual choice violates liberty. No legislative body can support liberty better than stating that men and women of able mind have the right to make their own healthcare decisions. We must protect each other’s rights to ensure our own.

Some fear for the integrity of the institution that is our democratic republic. Few attain the privilege of swearing an oath to the Constitution, and we need to hold those who violate their oath for personal gain accountable. Government exists to serve the people. Any leader who serves themselves is a disgrace to the nation. Too many serve proudly and take this oath as almost a condition of their lives to allow us to water down the commitment of others.

If we were angels, we would need no government

These challenges are not new. Principal framer of the Constitution and later President James Madison outlined the inherent difficulties of governance in Federalist 51.

He addressed setting conditions for governance to secure liberty and justice for Americans.

He helped establish a system of separated powers, ensuring each branch holds the others accountable. The premise is that individual Americans must have the liberty and justice to succeed on their own merits. Government has two aims: securing liberty and justice for individuals and then controlling itself.

Liberty is the freedom to choose how you will live and act, within a framework that respects the same rights for others.

Justice is fairness, ensuring that social and economic structures benefit everyone, even the least advantaged, while correcting wrongs under the law.

Madison famously wrote, ‘If men were angels, no government would be necessary.’ He emphasized our duty to prevent one group from oppressing another. Stated another way, we need to set conditions enabling individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds to have the same opportunity to achieve prosperity as those from privileged ones. This is the essence of justice. Madison verbatim states we must “guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other.”

Our fears today reflect the same fundamental concern: how to preserve liberty and justice when human nature is flawed.

The fundamental bedrock of America is that we are conceived in liberty. No matter our group, we must protect each other’s rights to ensure our own. America demonstrates she will go to war for liberty.

The ambitious promise of America is justice for all. No matter our upbringing or whether we live in urban or rural America, we need to have heat in the house and food on the table. Individuals need to be able to achieve these necessities through the effort of their work.

In sum, the government exists to ensure liberty and justice for all.

I believe in America. Some are worried about our future, but I am not.

The “Father of the Constitution,” James Madison, expressly stated the primary purpose of the document was first individual liberty and justice, and then control of the government. America bows to no king.

The system Madison and others put in place is resilient.

America will continue to strive for liberty and justice. Just as America was born at war, fighting for liberty, Americans will rise against any group that threatens their inherent rights.

Our challenges today are of liberty and justice, but again, I don’t fear for our future—I know we will overcome them.

May God bless the United States of America.

If we are going to have meaningful discussions, we need to realize that there are legitimate points on both sides of issues.

I advocate for dissenting points of view in operational and leadership matters. Dissent drives innovation. Even when we disagree with a position, failing to present it drives groupthink. Groupthink stifles growth.

Discussions about military governance and leadership have to balance civilian oversight with the military’s singular purpose: to protect the nation by achieving national objectives through precise and purposeful application of force.

Should the President dismiss senior military officers who have served honorably?

A “Warrior Board” to Recommend Removal of Unfit Officers

On November 12, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) published an exclusive article titled, Trump Draft Executive Order Would Create Board to Purge Generals. The Journal received an advance copy of the draft order from an undeclared source. If signed, the order intends to focus military brass “on leadership capability, strategic readiness, and commitment to military excellence.”

The proposed executive order would create a board of retired senior military personnel to review three—and four-star officers and recommend the removal of any deemed unfit for leadership.

On November 13, the WSJ Editorial Board wrote an opinion piece titled Why Trump Wants Hegseth at Defense. The piece rightly identified the nation’s legitimate security issues and stated that military brass needs to be able to focus on their responsibilities and not their political allegiance. The Editorial Board flatly stated the order “would be a mistake that smacks of politicizing the officer corps.”

Critics worry that the order could lead to uncertainty among high-ranking officers. They are concerned that political or ideological alignment would overshadow merit as the criterion for leadership. The same day as the editorial, military.com quoted an unnamed 3-star Army General, who stated, “It could be very hard to do our job if we have to constantly be making sure we're appeasing someone on a political or partisan level.”

This concept of a board to identify and remove unfit leaders isn’t without precedent. Supporters of the draft order point to General George C. Marshall’s plucking boards in 1940. Those boards aimed to streamline leadership and prepare the Army for the high demands of World War II.

Marshall’s approach was driven by his conviction that effective leadership could make or break the Army’s ability to face a global conflict. It was controversial but ultimately successful.

General George C. Marshall and the US Army 1940 Plucking Boards

The great General George C. Marshall became Chief of Staff of the US Army in September 1939. On his first day in office, Germany invaded Poland to kick off World War II.

Twenty years earlier, during World War I, Marshall had observed professionally unfit officers command units with poor results. Military historian Forrest Pogue wrote that Marshall was “haunted by recollections of the droves of unfit commanders” (George C. Marshall, Memoirs of My Services in the World War, 1917-1918 (Boston, 1976), 175-76). Pogue further wrote that Marshall believed he was preparing the Army for war and that it was his duty to the nation to select the right officers for the job. He needed to reform the leadership cadre and ensure the Army was ready for World War II.

Marshall’s plucking boards consisted of six retired officers. They were intended to eliminate officers unfit for command and high rank. He believed swift action was necessary to promote a dynamic set of leaders that would innovate and handle the scale and technology of modern warfare. He recognized that the quality of commanders was crucial as the Army grew and faced more complex missions.

Marshall’s controversial approach prioritized capability over tenure. It aimed to instill a merit-based system that could better adapt to the urgency and unpredictability of wartime demands.

The newly promoted officers played crucial roles in World War II and contributed to American success. The “plucking board” initiative created a more lethal fighting force. Marshall’s boards promoted officers who would go on to shape history. Among them were Dwight D. Eisenhower, the future Supreme Allied Commander Europe and 34th President of the United States; Joseph W. Stillwell, who later commanded all US forces in China, Burma, and India; Omar N. Bradley, the commander of US ground forces during the D-Day invasion at Normandy; and Carl A. Spaatz, the future commander of Strategic Air Forces in the Pacific and the first Chief of Staff of the Air Force.

As Army Chief of Staff, General Marshall conducted his boards using authority delegated by Congressional legislation and existing military regulations. The Selective Training and Service Act of 1940 included provisions that allowed for the rapid expansion and restructuring of the Army as the nation prepared for involvement in World War II.

Advocates for a modern plucking board note the success of Marshall’s approach. Marshall’s review boards retired some senior officers early and selected junior officers with great potential to lead their units to achieve national objectives.

The success of Marshall’s boards highlights how effective civilian oversight, exercised through delegated authority, can transform military leadership. This authority is enshrined in the Constitution, which mandates a framework for civilian control over the military.

The Constitution and Civilian Oversight of the Military

The Constitution establishes civilian control over the military through multiple provisions. These ensure that the armed forces remain accountable to elected leaders rather than independent military authority.

Article II, Section 2 designates the President, a civilian official elected by the people, as the “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States.” This gives a civilian elected official the highest military authority and ensures that the military is subordinate to the civilian government rather than acting independently.

At the same time, the Constitution seeks checks and balances. Article I, Section 8 grants Congress the power to raise and support armies, declare war, regulate military forces, and “to make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.”

Congress exercises this power through its legislative authority by enacting nearly all laws now codified in United States Code Title 10. These laws serve as the framework for organizing the Department of Defense and each branch of the Armed Forces—the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force, and Space Force. Additionally, Congress oversees the Coast Guard, which operates under the Department of Homeland Security during peacetime and can be transferred to the Department of the Navy during wartime or by presidential direction. These laws cover a comprehensive range of military operations, including pay grades, enlistments, commissions, promotions, retirements, training, education, recruitment, and honors. This legal structure underscores the essential role of civilian oversight in guiding military standards, ensuring accountability, and keeping the Armed Forces aligned with the nation’s democratic principles and strategic goals.

This framework supports a democratic republic by placing military authority under civilian oversight, preventing military dominance over the government, and protecting against potential abuses of military power.

As Commander in Chief, the President certainly has the authority to direct or conduct boards to review senior officer promotions. The President further has the authority to delegate the conduct of these boards to the service chiefs.

At the same time, Congress has the Constitutional responsibility to control the environment in which officers are raised to senior positions.

Through its structure, the military serves the people as an instrument of national capability directed by civilian leaders. This alignment preserves our democratic republic by ensuring military influence is a part of the elected government and our principles.

With this understanding, the military’s ultimate purpose is to protect and defend the United States, our Constitution, and its people while supporting national interests. The Constitution demands a lethal military under civilian control.

A Continuation of Policy With Other Means

In On War, Carl von Clausewitz famously described war as “a continuation of policy with other means.” Clausewitz was Prussian, and wrote ‘mit anderen Mitteln’ in the original German. He elaborated that we conduct war to compel the enemy to submit to our will. War combines military force simultaneously with other influences, such as diplomacy, to attempt to achieve political objectives.

In short, wartime operations are diplomacy combined with violence.

Military units do not conduct diplomacy.

Therefore, military officers and the units they command aim to achieve efficient violence in service to national objectives.

Since military officers and their units are tasked with achieving efficient violence in service to national objectives, any review of an officer’s conduct must prioritize their capability to fulfill this mission. Other considerations, such as schools attended, advanced academic degrees, and administrative marks, should be secondary. Military leadership should be assessed based on alignment with the Constitution’s mandate to achieve effects supporting national security goals under civilian direction. Military leaders must ensure their units apply force with precision and purpose.

1940 and President Franklin D. Roosevelt

There’s one more question we should ask regarding the proposed boards: Why did President Franklin D. Roosevelt choose to stand aside and not participate in General Marshall’s plucking boards?

FDR didn’t write about the boards, but he trusted General Marshall explicitly.

Roosevelt recognized that diplomacy was not the military component of influence, and he needed to focus on diplomacy. Separating diplomatic and military responsibilities avoids politicizing military decisions while maintaining strategic focus.

FDR focused on diplomatic efforts worldwide, leaving the Army in Marshall's competent hands. Roosevelt engaged in navigating the US response to the growing threat of World War II. He prioritized diplomatic efforts to support the Allies (such as the Lend-Lease program) and prepare the nation for possible involvement in the war.

Roosevelt trusted Marshall to manage the Army's internal restructuring. FDR respected Marshall’s expertise and gave him considerable autonomy to prepare the military for the growing global conflict. Marshall convened the plucking boards under existing Army regulations and legislation, making them a professional and administrative matter rather than a political one.

By allowing Marshall and his boards to operate independently, Roosevelt ensured the process focused on military effectiveness rather than politics.

In Sum

General Marshall’s plucking boards were controversial but successful. They were instrumental in preparing Army leaders for World War II.

The Constitution establishes civilian control over the military. As Commander in Chief, the President has the authority to review and dismiss officers for poor performance. At the same time, Congress is responsible for passing legislation supporting an environment that raises officers to be who the nation needs.

Military officers and their units have a mandate to support and defend the Constitution by achieving efficient violence in service to national objectives.

The military’s strength lies in its unity of purpose, where everyone focuses on the mission. Political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic should never distract from the ultimate goal: to apply force with precision and purpose in service to our nation.

Senior officer review boards could make sense if they focus on enhancing military effectiveness, ensuring leaders are equipped to support national objectives through precision, readiness, and lethality in the profession of arms. To best achieve this goal, the President should delegate the authority and responsibility of conducting the boards to the service chiefs and leave the task of diplomacy for themselves.

May God bless the United States of America.

Should we deport illegal immigrants en masse? What options do we have?

Situation

On November 21, 2024, Dara Lind, a Senior Fellow at the American Immigration Council, wrote a fantastic piece published in the New York Times titled, What ‘Mass Deportation’ Actually Means. Ms. Lind superbly outlines the legal and logistical challenges of such a venture. She states:

“Deporting one million people a year would cost an annual average of $88 billion, and a one-time effort to deport the full unauthorized population of 11 million would cost many times that — and it’s difficult to imagine how long it would take.”

There are several severely complicating factors. There aren’t enough beds or departing flights to achieve mass deportation. Few other nations will accept deportation flights from the US. Past efforts to deport illegal immigrants have been good for political publicity but largely unsuccessful.

Further, all persons in the US, not just citizens, have rights. The Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution provides protections to all persons in America, not just American citizens. It states:

No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law

In addition to Constitutional protections, there are other additional legal considerations. The US is a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention. This agreement obligates signatory members to provide asylum to individuals fleeing persecution based on race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees, ratified by the US in 1968, strengthens these protections.

Last, section 208 of the Immigration and Nationality Act outlines that eligible persons physically present in the United States or at a port of entry may apply for asylum.

Illegal immigrants have the right to present their asylum argument to an immigration court. Nearly 4 million immigrants are waiting for the courts. These courts are insufficiently resourced.

In short, every state in the union agreed that immigrants have rights. Edmund Burke, the philosophical father of conservatism, asserted that a nation has a solemn duty to uphold its agreements, honoring them across generations. This commitment to personal and national responsibility is a cornerstone of America.

Edmund Burke and Honoring Our Agreements

Edmund Burke, Irish statesman and philosopher, was born on January 12, 1729. He is the father of conservative philosophy. His ideas and writings during the American and French Revolutions significantly influenced the development of conservative thought in both America and Europe.

Burke emphasized personal responsibility and respect for tradition and established institutions as cornerstones of his philosophy.

Burke believed traditions and institutions evolve naturally over time, carrying the collective wisdom of generations. These institutions are essential for stability and continuity and should be preserved and respected. This respect for tradition shaped his skepticism of abrupt, radical change and his belief in the importance of gradual reform. His ideas have had a lasting influence on conservative thought. They highlight the value of continuity, historical context, and careful, incremental progress in societal norms.

In American conservatism, principles like originalism in judicial interpretation demonstrate Burke's respect for tradition. Similarly, the focus on protecting Constitutional rights aligns with Burke’s commitment to preserve established freedoms and the institution that upholds them.

The Constitution’s choice of the word “person” and not “citizen” in the Fifth Amendment underscores the framer’s intent to extend protections to all individuals under US jurisdiction.

Burke would view this amendment as part of the collective wisdom of our founders. Due process protections embodied in the Fifth Amendment align with his belief that laws and institutions are shaped over time to reflect enduring principles of justice and fairness.

Conservatives and progressives alike have offered immigrants the opportunity to move to or stay in America legally. At the same time, no Congress and President has supported open borders. There is no national agreement to support open borders because undocumented immigration leads to abuse of immigrants and strains community resources, including healthcare, education, and law enforcement.

Interim Summary

Mass deportation of illegal immigrants has been largely unsuccessful. These efforts are hugely expensive. We have a Constitutional obligation to honor immigrant rights to due process of law. However, there is a political desire by politicians and voters alike to deport illegal immigrants en masse.

So, what can we do? Let’s think through some options.

Option 1: Do Nothing

Our first option is to maintain the status quo. We could allow undocumented immigrants to remain in the United States without significant changes to current policies. Before we write this option off as untenable, we need to think about it.

This approach would rely on existing immigration laws and enforcement to address undocumented immigration on a case-by-case basis. It has some positive aspects. Proponents advocate that it avoids the massive costs of mass deportation and saves billions in taxpayer dollars. It prevents overburdening already overwhelmed immigration courts. It supports human rights, aligns with the Constitutional protections of due process, and reflects our commitment to international treaties. It maintains economic stability as immigrants contribute to various sectors of the economy, particularly agriculture, construction, and service industries.

Critics argue that failing to address illegal immigration undermines the rule of law and sows distrust in the government’s ability to enforce immigration laws. Undocumented immigration strains communities that continue to face challenges related to healthcare, education, and law enforcement. And this option fails to enable comprehensive immigration reform, leaving millions in legal limbo without a clear path to citizenship.

Let’s be clear—this option has strong advocates. The American Immigration Council outlines that instead of spending $88 billion every year on mass deportation efforts, we could “Build over 40,450 new elementary schools…and construct over 2.9 million new homes in communities around the nation.”

However, this argument is a fallacy. The comparison misleads us by framing deportation costs as a trade-off with other priorities. It implies that federal funds are interchangeable. But federal spending doesn’t work like a household budget. Money from one category can’t be redirected to another. This oversimplification ignores how government spending and resource allocation work.

Frankly, the biggest problem with pursuing this option is the perception that voters told their representatives to do something, and the representatives didn’t. It would look like the name of the option—doing nothing. It would leave a foul taste in the mouths of many Americans.

In sum, this option risks destabilizing institutions and eroding public trust. Doing nothing fails to address the underlying causes of undocumented immigration, perpetuating current challenges indefinitely. It kicks the can down the road for future generations, leading to longer-term challenges. It widens political extremes, creates gridlock, and polarizes public opinion.

All considered it may not be the best choice. Let’s move on to another.

Option 2: Efficient Enforcement and Employer Accountability

Our second option is efficient, targeted immigration enforcement to safeguard the nation while addressing the root causes of undocumented immigration. This approach would combine targeted enforcement of threats, streamlined immigration processes, and stronger accountability for employers who exploit undocumented labor.

The keynote of this approach is efficient enforcement. There are 330 million people in America and an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants. That means undocumented immigrants make up around three percent of the total population in America. These immigrants are not all in the same place.

So, finding undocumented immigrants by searching for them is inefficient and costly. We will not achieve efficient enforcement by looking for undocumented immigrants.

Rather than spending huge resources looking for all undocumented immigrants, this option would focus resources on removing individuals who pose security threats or commit serious crimes. The biggest difference between this approach and the “Do Nothing” option is what we won’t do.

We won’t sweep employers to search for illegal immigrants. We won’t bog down the legal system with immigrants who don’t commit violent crimes and don’t pose security threats. We will avoid broad, indiscriminate methods of searching for undocumented immigrants who don’t pose problems to the nation.

Instead, we will emphasize removal of individuals who pose security threats or commit serious crimes. We need to rush these individuals to the front of the legal line, conduct their hearings to meet our Fifth Amendment obligations, and deport them. Focusing on genuine security threats and due process demonstrates accountability, restoring public confidence in immigration enforcement.

This approach allocates resources more effectively. It avoids the immense costs and logistical challenges of simultaneously searching for and deporting millions of individuals.

At the same time, we need to address the root causes of undocumented immigration. Immigration courts need more funding and staffing to handle the nearly four million pending cases. Tools like remote hearings and other digital solutions could help expedite case processing while ensuring due process to honor our obligation outlined in the Fifth Amendment. Expanding immigration court capacity could help streamline the process.

And we need to toughen enforcement on employers who hire illegal immigrants. If immigrants can’t find work, this will reduce the demand for many to come to America. To achieve this goal, we need steeper fines and criminal charges for repeat offenders. We should conduct public awareness campaigns to remind businesses of their legal obligations and the consequences of ignoring them. Finally, we need whistleblower protections with robust enforcement to encourage employees to report illegal hiring practices without fear of retaliation. To address potential labor shortages, industries could work with policymakers to create or expand visa programs that legally fill gaps in sectors like agriculture and construction.

This option has downsides. Some political factions may view targeted deportations as too lenient, pushing for broader, more visible enforcement actions. Strict employer enforcement of hiring undocumented immigrants could lead to labor shortages in agriculture, construction, and hospitality. Business interests and lobbying groups may oppose stricter accountability. Increasing funding for immigration courts and conducting workplace audits would require substantial investment.

But overall, it’s a tenable option. Let’s consider another.

Option 3: Conduct Mass Deportation of Undocumented Immigrants

Our third option is to pursue mass deportation of all undocumented immigrants in the United States.

This approach would require an unprecedented scale of enforcement to locate, detain, and deport the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants across the country. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other agencies would need to significantly expand to conduct large-scale raids, workplace inspections, and community sweeps. We would need massive investments to house individuals awaiting deportation.

We would have to pay for transporting millions of individuals to detention centers, court hearings, and eventually to their home countries. We would need to dramatically expand immigration courts to process cases quickly. This would likely require thousands of additional judges, attorneys, and support staff.

All told, these requirements drive the reason for the $88 billion annual price tag.

Proponents advocate that this option demonstrates a firm commitment to enforcing immigration laws and addresses illegal entry. If successful, it could reduce demand for public services like healthcare and education in some communities. Proponents support this option because it’s visible. The sight of raids, detentions, and removals implies a perception of strong leadership and accountability. It signals to voters that the institution is upholding immigration laws.

Opponents cite the staggering annual costs. This option also faces the logistical impossibilities of beds, transportation, and cooperation from other nations. These factors make deporting 11 million people impractical, even with expanded resources.

The biggest downside of this option is simple: the government just isn’t good at getting things done on this scale. Even if the most efficient military subset had all the legal protections and resources to fight a known enemy hiding in the population, they couldn’t do it. We tried in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq for 48 years combined and couldn’t achieve it. What makes us think we can achieve it here?

Mass deportation would require unprecedented coordination across federal agencies, state and local governments, and international partners. The sheer logistical complexity—finding, detaining, processing, and deporting 11 million people—is far beyond what the government has successfully managed in the past.

Immigration courts are already overwhelmed with nearly four million pending cases, and detention facilities are stretched thin. Adding this burden would lead to drastic inefficiency, mismanagement, and massive delays.

In short, expecting the government to execute this option effectively is unrealistic.

Those who say that we should deport as many undocumented immigrants as possible are missing a huge point—the immigrants we can find at their workplace and home aren’t the problem. The threats are hiding elsewhere. And if we tie up our resources with the immigrants trying to make an honest living, we are going to miss the dangerous criminals and security threats. This option is dangerous for America.

All told, this doesn’t seem like a good option. Let’s move on.

Option 4: Expand Asylum Opportunities

Our fourth option is to focus on asylum as a legal pathway for law-abiding, non-threatening undocumented immigrants. This option emphasizes the humane and lawful treatment of individuals seeking protection.

This approach involves strengthening the asylum system to address legitimate claims while simultaneously reducing the strain on immigration courts and other resources.

This option may seem like a throwaway, but it is not. The last president to offer undocumented immigrants asylum while toughening requirements for employers was President Ronald Reagan.

Reagan and the 99th Congress of 1986 offered legalization to undocumented immigrants who had entered the country illegally. Of that event, Wyoming Senator Alan K. Simpson noted that President Reagan “knew that it was not right for people to be abused,” and “anybody who’s here illegally is going to be abused in some way, either financially [or] physically. They have no rights.”

We could increase funding and staffing for asylum officers to handle cases more efficiently. We would need dedicated asylum courts to address claims separately from other immigration cases, reducing the overall backlog. We could strengthen initial screening processes at the border to ensure that we identify individuals with valid asylum claims early.

The biggest downside of this option is that many voters would perceive it as a betrayal. Expanding asylum would be viewed as prioritizing undocumented immigrants over enforcing immigration laws. Voters who demanded stricter enforcement would feel ignored or even deceived. Voters who expect visible actions to reduce undocumented immigration would see this option as leniency disguised as reform. It would fuel distrust in government promises and policies.

For this reason, this viable option is likely untenable.

What’s Our Best Option?

None of our choices is perfect. Option 2: Efficient Enforcement and Employer Accountability, seems to be the most suitable.

It’s politically acceptable, as voters could hear the stories of the US deporting criminals and security threats. It’s the most achievable. It doesn’t represent a huge financial expenditure to achieve our goals.

Of course, any option needs to be combined with efforts to strengthen border security and reduce the demand for undocumented immigrants to come to America while at the same time supporting legal immigration.

We’ve already spent considerable effort discussing improving border security. First, we need to set conditions allowing for the legal and orderly movement of goods and people across the border. This will create unambiguous indications that other movement across the border is illegal. There’s a high likelihood these illegal movements are human traffickers, weapons smugglers, and drug runners.

We need enhanced security measures, political will, and continual commitment on the border itself.

Further, we’ve already considered how to reduce the demand for undocumented immigrants to leave South America. We need a Plan Colombia approach that strengthens economic partnerships while avoiding excessive militarization or human rights concerns. This adapted Plan Colombia approach must include regional cooperation among Latin American countries, not just bilateral partnerships with the US. Initiatives that foster collaboration on cross-border issues can address trafficking, migration, and economic integration.

In Sum

Should we deport illegal immigrants en masse? What options do we have?

We covered four distinct options.

Doing nothing risks destabilizing institutions and eroding public trust. It fails to address the underlying causes of undocumented immigration, perpetuating current challenges indefinitely.

Conducting mass deportation of all undocumented immigrants is prohibitively expensive and unachievable. Further, if we tie up our resources with this group, we will miss the dangerous criminals and security threats. This option is dangerous for America.

Offering expanded asylum, as President Reagan did, would alienate voters who expect visible actions to reduce undocumented immigration. They would see this option as leniency disguised as reform. It would fuel distrust in government promises and policies.

All told, our best option is efficient enforcement and employer accountability.

It safeguards America by focusing on reducing criminal activity and security threats. It’s politically acceptable, as voters could hear the stories of the US deporting criminals and security threats. It’s the most achievable. It doesn’t represent a huge financial expenditure to achieve our goals.

It’s the option we should pursue.

May God bless the United States of America.

This Week’s Theme: Unenforceable Ideals

This week, we explore three unenforceable ideals—situations where two conflicting truths can’t coexist.

First, we draw parallels between Prohibition and illegal immigration, highlighting the government’s struggle to control the demand for goods and services.

Second, we examine the logical inconsistency of supporting stricter climate change regulations while opposing overturning Chevron deference.

Last, we address the contradiction of prioritizing military effectiveness while excluding women from combat roles.

Let’s begin with the story of Mabel Walker Willebrandt and her fight to enforce Prohibition.

The First Lady of Law

In 1921, President Warren Harding appointed Mabel Walker Willebrandt to the office of Assistant Attorney General of the United States. The appointment made Mabel the highest-ranking woman in the US government in the 1920s. Among her other duties as Assistant Attorney General, Ms. Willebrandt was charged with enforcing the Volstead Act, or National Prohibition Act. Congress passed the Volstead Act to enforce the 18th Amendment to the Constitution, which attempted to ban the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors.”

Ms. Willebrandt recognized that enforcing Prohibition through raids on speakeasies and small-time bootleggers was ineffective. She described this as “like trying to dry up the Atlantic Ocean with a blotter.” Instead, she enforced the Volstead Act with a two-pronged effort: addressing tax evasion and targeting major criminal enterprises.

Her first effort, addressing tax evasion, was successful. During her service, Willebrandt argued more than 40 cases before the Supreme Court. One of the most decisive was United States vs. Sullivan (1927). In that case, Willebrandt argued, and the high court agreed, that illegal income was taxable. Because illegal income was taxable, failing to declare income from illegal operations was tax evasion and a felony offense.

Since illegal alcohol sales generated untaxed income, US vs. Sullivan gave the federal government the authority to investigate and prosecute these operations under tax laws. This effort weakened the finances of organized crime. Willebrandt used the precedent set by US vs. Sullivan to prosecute powerful gangsters such as Al Capone for federal tax crimes.

Her second effort, targeting major criminal enterprises, was less effective. It required coordination across multiple federal and state agencies, which often lacked resources and cooperation. Criminal networks adapted faster than enforcement efforts, developing new smuggling routes and distribution systems that outpaced government responses.

Willebrandt’s second effort failed because Prohibition lacked broad public support. In other words, Americans wanted to drink, and no effort by the federal government was going to reduce the demand for alcohol. Although the government found some success in raiding production facilities and intercepting smuggling operations, these initiatives amounted to a game of Whac-A-Mole. As soon as one network was dismantled, another rose in its place.

The failure of Prohibition enforcement is a story about human behavior and governance: government attempts to restrict supply without addressing demand fail. Banning alcohol supply didn’t stop demand; it fueled a thriving black market. Speakeasies became social hubs, and even law-abiding citizens began to view Prohibition as government overreach, fueling resentment toward enforcement.

If we can’t turn off the demand for an item, no government effort to restrict supply will stop it.

This concept also applies to undocumented immigration. Addressing illegal immigration is a complex challenge that, like Prohibition, requires coordination among federal, state, and local agencies, each with competing interests and limited resources.

The most significant hurdle is the strong demand for undocumented labor. Many immigrants risk their lives to come to the United States because they believe they can find employment opportunities. Some employers hire undocumented workers because they may accept lower wages and work under conditions that others refuse.

If businesses face real consequences for hiring undocumented workers, the incentive to cross the border illegally would diminish. By enforcing laws that require employers to verify legal residency, we address the demand side of the issue.

Attempting to control illegal immigration solely through border enforcement is like playing a game of Whac-A-Mole—without reducing the demand for undocumented labor, these efforts are unlikely to succeed.

We can’t advocate for removing undocumented immigrants while opposing requirements for employers to hire legal residents. Turning off the demand for undocumented labor is a critical first step toward resolving illegal immigration.

Alternatively, we have another option. We don't have to shut off the immigrant pipeline for businesses. By expanding immigrant work programs and accepting more legal immigrants, we can align immigration policies with the economy's labor needs. This approach addresses the demand for workers legally, supporting businesses while upholding the rule of law.

The second unenforceable ideal from this week is the inherent logic fallacy of supporting stricter rules for climate change while opposing overturning Chevron deference.

The Second Unenforceable Ideal: Climate Change and Overturning Chevron Deference

Let's consider the inherent contradiction of supporting stricter climate change regulations while opposing the overturning of Chevron deference.

On November 25, 2024, the New York Times “The Morning” email discussed climate change regulations. Advocates for robust environmental regulations push for limits on pollution from automobiles, power plants, and factories. They support expanding access to renewable energy and reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Opponents are concerned about the economic impact of stringent regulations and favor a more measured approach.

That morning’s email posited the new administration plans to repeal pollution limits on automobiles, power plants, and factories and expand access to federal oil and gas drilling land. Many of these regulations were established through federal agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes—a process enabled by Chevron deference.

This discussion isn’t about the merits of specific climate policies. It’s about governance and how laws are made and enforced.

The decisive juncture is not the potential repeal of these regulations. It’s Chevron deference, which the Supreme Court overturned on June 28 of this year. Established by the Supreme Court in the 1984 case Chevron USA vs. Natural Resources Defense Council, the Chevron doctrine held that courts should defer to a federal agency’s reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statute that the agency administers.

Under Chevron deference, federal agencies had been empowered to interpret vague or broadly written laws, effectively creating law without direct congressional approval. The judiciary then deferred to these interpretations, limiting its role in checking executive overreach, alignment with congressional intent, or constitutional principles. While this allowed for faster policy implementation, especially in complex areas like environmental regulation, it also concentrated legislative power within executive branch agencies. The practice bypassed the legislative process, blurred the separation of powers, and weakened constitutional governance.

This violated the Constitution. Article I, Section 1 states that all legislative powers reside in Congress. Allowing agencies to legislate through regulation concentrated power in the executive branch. Chevron deference undermined the legislature’s responsibility to fulfill its constitutional duty.

Article III outlines the judiciary as the independent interpreter of the law. Further, in the precedent case Marbury vs. Madison (1803), Chief Justice John Marshall established, “It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Chevron deference stripped the judiciary of its authority to conduct checks and balances.

America owes allegiance to no king, and this principle of divided power is fundamental to American liberty.

Overturning Chevron requires Congress to pass meaningful bipartisan legislation rather than the watered-down ambiguity that federal agencies use to create de facto laws.

Again, this isn’t about climate change regulations; this concept applies to all regulations. When the executive branch changes, the country shouldn’t drastically change directions. Federal agencies need to adhere to Congressional legislation, and overturning Chevron deference helps restore the nation to constitutional footing.

We can’t oppose overturning Chevron deference while resisting a new administration’s ability to change agency rules. When agencies have broad interpretive power, regulations change dramatically with each administration, leading to policy instability. Upholding the constitutional separation of powers ensures that laws remain consistent unless altered by Congress.

To achieve lasting and effective climate policies, we should support legislative action that clearly defines regulations and goals. This approach respects the Constitution and provides stability, regardless of changes in the executive branch.

Our final unenforceable ideal this week is the inherent contradiction in claiming to prioritize the military’s ability to achieve decisive effects while excluding women from combat roles.

Viper 72 is ‘Winchester’

On April 13 of this year, Iran launched a series of missile and suicide drone attacks against Israel. Iran’s attack was an operation designed to overwhelm Israel’s air defenses. The US condemned the attack and assisted Israel in shooting down the vast majority of missiles and drones.

The nation awarded Major Benjamin Coffey and Captain Lacie Hester the Silver Star for their actions as ‘Airborne Mission Commanders’ that evening. As the command team aboard their F-15E Strike Eagle, they led their squadron that evening to shoot down 70 Iranian drones and three ballistic missiles headed towards Israel. The award is especially significant for Captain Hester, who became the Air Force’s first woman and the tenth woman in the Department of Defense to win the Silver Star.

The Strike Eagle is a complex weapons platform that delivers precision firepower while operating in demanding combat environments. Its advanced systems integrate radar, electronic warfare capabilities, and air-to-ground or air-to-air munitions. The Strike Eagle is a cornerstone of modern air superiority and interdiction missions.

Captain Hester is a weapons system officer (WSO) on the platform. Aboard the Strike Eagle, the pilot and WSO have some interchangeable capabilities. The pilot’s primary duty is to fly the jet. The WSO primarily manages the complexity of coordinating with other assets, identifying targets, and selecting suitable munitions. A WSO’s role is critical to the platform’s mission success. They operate the advanced radar, sensor, and targeting systems that guide the aircraft’s weaponry, enabling precision engagement of air-to-air and air-to-ground threats. They are the tactical brains of the operation.

That’s just Captain Hester’s role on her own platform.

As Airborne Mission Commanders, Major Coffey and Captain Hester take on responsibilities beyond their platform. They are the squadron mission lead, coordinating an entire air mission in real-time. They oversee multiple aircraft, synchronize their actions, and ensure every asset is in the right place at the right time to achieve mission objectives.

Major Clayton Wicks was monitoring a command and signal frequency that evening. Of the event, he said, “A message comes across that just says … Viper 72 is ‘Winchester,’ which means they are out of missiles. They have no bullets left. … That was the first time I was like, ‘Oh my gosh. Command and control can’t keep up with the amount of missiles that are being shot and things that are happening. And that’s the only message they got across.”

In the middle of the chaos, Captain Hester was the tactical brains for the squadron to achieve national objectives.

In addition to the challenges, Coffey and Hester’s platform that evening expended all missiles, engaged suicide drones with their guns at “extremely low altitudes,” and landed with a live, still dangerous missile that had failed to launch.

Coffey and Hester demonstrated what the military values: decisive effects. Achieving efficient violence under extreme conditions is the essence of operational success. Captain Hester’s actions were groundbreaking not because of her gender but because they exemplified leadership in combat.

Some women, like some men, are not suited for combat roles. If we need to strengthen requirements for service members to serve in some units, we should do so. There are men who won’t meet those requirements either. But blanket rules stating that women are not suited for combat roles do a disservice to America. If the military’s mission is to achieve decisive effects, then disqualifying half the population from contributing at the highest levels undermines that mission.

We can’t claim to care about the military’s ability to achieve decisive effects while excluding women from combat roles. The contradiction subverts our claim that we value results over diversity. If we are to value results, we need to value results. We don’t need to make special rules to select women for decisive positions. When given the opportunity, they rise to the challenge. But if we make rules that exclude them, we weaken our ability to achieve decisive effects.

Unenforceable Ideals

Unenforceable ideals are contradictions in which two things cannot be true at the same time.

We can’t be ‘for’ taking action to remove undocumented immigrants while at the same time ‘against’ requirements for employers to hire legal residents. Turning off the demand for undocumented labor is the first step to resolving illegal immigration.

We need to support employers’ requirements to hire legal residents. Or we could approach the solution from another direction. We could help businesses, expand work programs for immigrants, and accept more legal immigrants.

We can’t oppose overturning Chevron deference while also opposing a new administration’s ability to change the rules. If we support limiting presidential power as outlined in the Constitution, Chevron deference is incompatible. When the executive branch can use Chevron deference to make laws, those laws will change with every new administration.

We need to support the premise that the people’s representatives make the law, not federal agencies.

We can’t claim to care about the military’s ability to achieve decisive effects while excluding women from combat roles. The contradiction subverts our claim that we value results over diversity. If we are to value results, we need to value results.

We need to value the ability for the military to achieve results. That means maintaining rules that enable women in combat roles.

May God bless the United States of America.

Last week, I analyzed Air Force Captain Lacie Hester’s Silver Star to highlight a contradiction. We can’t claim to value the military’s ability to achieve decisive effects while categorically excluding women from combat roles. I concluded that if we intend to value results over diversity, we should be ready to welcome any capable individual—male or female—who can help achieve efficient violence in support of national objectives.

This week, I’m pushing that logic a step further. If women belong in combat roles, do they also belong on the most elite and demanding ground combat teams? Let’s test our commitment to results-based standards and challenge ourselves to rethink how we select, train, and deploy our nation’s most specialized warfighters.

If the central premise is that results matter more than diversity, then the standards driving ground combat roles must be no exception. If a woman can meet those standards and enhance mission success, excluding her would weaken, not strengthen, our ability to achieve decisive effects. At the same time, forcing either men or women into ground combat positions without the qualifications to succeed directly threatens our ability to achieve national objectives.

Let’s explore.

Captain Marsh and a Cup of Coffee

In 2008, I was an Air Force Captain attached to 1st and 2nd US Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF and II MEF) under the Multi-National Forces West command structure in Iraq.

My role in Iraq was to enhance combat capability with special technical tools. My bosses were Marines, and my customers were primarily the Marines and Special Operations Forces (SOF) Task Forces. I developed strong relationships with my customers, identified technical tools they needed to support their missions, and integrated them into their operations. We developed some tools in-house and integrated others with support from national agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and National Security Agency (NSA).

My work area was tucked away behind some armed Marines who kept watch day and night over the area, and it was right next to the SOF Task Force coordinator. The Task Force coordinator was a US Navy Sea, Air, and Land Captain (commonly known as a Navy SEAL). For those unfamiliar with different service ranks, an Air Force Captain is a relatively junior officer rank, while a Navy Captain ranks just below Admiral, a senior officer rank. No matter, though, he and I had a good relationship. Let’s call him Captain Marsh.

Captain Marsh had an attraction rarely found in the area—he had acquired a coffee maker and had some supply of ground coffee. I didn’t want to overstay my welcome, but I did need to determine when the Task Force might need support. So, every so often, I would tell my small team that I was “going to talk to the SEALs.” Captain Marsh would fill me in on relevant upcoming operations, and I might have a cup of coffee.

Captain Marsh’s coffee pot attracted more than just me. Other senior officers would visit, and I would hear snippets of their conversations. On one of these visits, a Marine Corps Colonel and Captain Marsh shared insight that challenged my assumptions.

Their conversation centered around the role of women in ground combat. Captain Marsh mentioned that Muslim women couldn’t freely talk with men. In many traditional Muslim societies, culture and religion restrict interactions between unrelated men and women. These norms dictate that women avoid direct communication or physical proximity with men who are not family members. For women in conservative communities, speaking with male strangers is inappropriate and brings social repercussions.

These cultural differences posed significant challenges during military operations, particularly when teams needed to gather intelligence or conduct searches. Without female team members to bridge the gap, mission-essential information from local women was inaccessible.

If a team needed to question a woman, they needed a woman to do so, which drove a requirement for women on ground combat teams. Later I learned that as a result of this requirement, the Marines established Task Force Lioness, which attached women to ground combat teams to provide support.

Five years later, at a training event in San Diego, I heard more to the story. The Navy SEAL commanding officer at Naval Amphibious Base Coronado also brought up the value of women in ground combat roles in Iraq.

This second story was that when women were attached to SOF teams, they couldn’t be decorations just because they were necessary for intelligence gathering—they had to be active team members. Female team members provided perimeter security during operations. The women were armed and applied lethal force when necessary. They also played a crucial role in stopping runners, going so far as to crash their vehicles into escaping vehicles to ensure mission success.

Both commanding officers emphasized the extraordinary bravery the women demonstrated. The women often put their lives and health at immediate risk, sometimes more than the men, to achieve objectives. In critical moments, their decisive action proved integral to mission success. The respect the officers had gained for the women was evident.

If asked, in the context of the environment we operated in at that time, whether women should be on SOF teams, I know the answer they would give. Both senior leaders shared the same opinion.

Still, regardless of operational needs or cultural advantages, inclusion in ground combat teams hinges on meeting the grueling physical and mental standards required of every member. The first and most fundamental of these is the individual physical requirement.

Individual Physical Requirements

There are domains of society in which there are absolutely no gender barriers. Only results matter. In these areas, individuals succeed or fail based solely on their ability to achieve results.

Due to the physical requirements, the National Football League (NFL) is a prime example that is not so dissimilar to Special Operations Forces (SOF). In the NFL, winning and money are the only outcomes that matter.

Women are not barred from playing in the NFL, but there are no female players. If a woman could compete and win at the necessary level, an NFL team would sign her to a contract. While women are not prohibited from playing, the competitive nature ensures that only those capable of performing at the highest level make the cut—regardless of gender.

The same principle applies to ground combat SOF teams. The stakes are higher than a football game, but the premise remains: meeting the standard matters more than who is meeting it. If a woman can perform to the required level—carry the same load, endure the same physical stress, and contribute to mission success—there is no logical reason to exclude her.

At the same time, just as there is no reason to add a player to an NFL team who doesn’t contribute to winning games, there is no reason to force the integration of women into specialized ground combat roles. Books like Kill Bin Laden: A Delta Force Commander's Account of the Hunt for the World's Most Wanted Man vividly depict the grueling conditions SOF operators endure in war. Very few men can survive and operate in these conditions; the vast majority cannot. It’s possible that some women could likewise survive and operate. But forcing either men or women into these positions without the qualifications to succeed directly threatens our ability to achieve national objectives.

The inherent tension arises from the Department of Defense's (DoD) integration of women into combat roles, which officially started in 2013 and has continued for the past 11 years. Last month, the new nominee for Secretary of Defense stated women have no place in combat. Critics worry that as we adjust to accommodate women, we chip away at the qualities that make America’s ground combat units extraordinary. They fear a loss of unit cohesion, a decline in physical performance, and a less capable fighting force. In their view, when we soften the edges to expand eligibility, we erode the team’s razor-sharp ability to operate under the harshest conditions.

They cite a 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, which concluded that putting women in combat risks the lives of entire units for the sake of career opportunities. It found, “Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.”

They further highlight a 2015 Marine Corps Force Integration Plan assessment that found all-male units conducted movements faster and were more lethal than mixed-gendered units. They further had healthier, more physically resilient Marines. That study found differences in individual performance. For example, “When negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top.”

They posit that since the DoD directive to integrate women into combat roles, senior officers have reduced individual standards to increase participation. This view is supported by a mass email titled “Careerism, Cronyism, and Malfeasance” in the US Army Special Warfare Center and School sent through Special Operations Command in 2017.

These findings and fears are real. Many of them are rooted in firsthand studies and historical assessments. Still, they don’t capture the entire picture. While effective operations demand brute strength and raw speed, they also hinge on capabilities like cultural insight, intelligence access, and specialized skills that women can bring to the fight. In complex irregular warfare environments, overlooking these advantages means missing critical opportunities to achieve decisive effects.

So There’s the Rub

Direct accounts from SOF operators confirm that decisive action by women has proven integral to mission success. In some environments, their participation is essential. Not every combat role demands the rare physical endurance required for months-long operations in remote mountains. Perimeter security, intelligence gathering, and other specialized tasks are equally vital.

Further, if some missions require female operators, women must consistently train and serve alongside men, developing the trust and cohesion that define effective teams. While women may not meet the grueling physical demands required of some ground combat roles, the same is true for most men. What matters is finding those who can excel—whether they pilot AC-130 gunships, crew CV-22 Ospreys, or secure a perimeter as part of a SEAL team. These are combat positions. Some of these are ground combat roles.

At the same time, if throwing a pack over a Marine Corps wall obstacle translates into faster, more lethal units, we should add that and other necessary requirements to the positions in question. After reassessing what matters for mission success, we should train and hold both men and women to that standard. Those who qualify earn their place.

Rather than making blanket rules that exclude women from ground combat roles, we need policies that prioritize lethal effects. That means defining standards based on actual mission needs, not arbitrary quotas, and applying those standards evenly. Anyone who meets them should be welcomed.

If we intend to value results over diversity, we must follow through. Our standards must reflect what it takes to achieve national objectives, and we must embrace those who can meet those standards—regardless of gender.

May God bless the United States of America.

Can we raise wages to fully fund Social Security?

Social Security is societal insurance, not an individual retirement plan. Its purpose is to protect society by ensuring a basic level of income security, particularly for the elderly, disabled, and survivors of deceased workers. It is a safety net to prevent poverty and economic distress in vulnerable populations. This fosters societal stability. Unlike a private retirement plan, Social Security pools contributions from the workforce to provide collective support, shielding America from the dire effects of widespread poverty that harm the economy as a whole. However, stagnant wages undermine this system. They limit revenue growth and increase dependency on government programs. Addressing stagnant wages is vital to ensuring the sustainability of Social Security and fostering financial independence.

Now that the election is over, the conversation about fixing Social Security has gained momentum. On the December 8th NBC News Meet the Press, President-elect Trump said he didn’t plan to cut Social Security. 

At the same time, Social Security is underfunded, and the program’s failure to provide full benefits is imminent.

We can’t bury our heads in the sand and pretend the problem will resolve itself. According to the Social Security Administration Annual Trust Fund report, “in 2023, the (Old-Age and Survivors Insurance) Trust Fund’s cost of $1,237.3 billion exceeded income by $70.4 billion.” At the same time, the “(Disability Insurance) Trust Fund’s income of $183.8 billion exceeded cost by $29.0 billion.” For those of us trying to do public math, the total shortfall was $41 billion. Let’s remember that figure for later.

The timeframe of 2034 to 2037 coincides with the time when all the Boomers reach retirement age. The size of the Boomer generation significantly exceeded the Gen X generation, and Social Security funding can’t keep up. Because Social Security revenue is lower than needed during this timeframe, the first Americans who could lose part of their Social Security benefits are the Boomers. Social Security benefits wouldn’t have to be eliminated; they could be reduced to distribute the available funds accordingly. The Social Security Administration estimates it could pay about 79% of benefits to retirees in 2034.

In principle, there are three approaches to addressing the deficiency, each with its trade-offs. First, we can increase revenue. Second, we can cut benefits. Third, we can increase the size of the working population.

You can rename these approaches any way you’d like. As an example, instead of saying we need to increase revenue, you can say we should raise or eliminate the Social Security tax cap. For 2024, the tax cap is $168,600. Employees and employers each contribute 6.2% of wages toward Social Security up to this income cap, totaling 12.4%. Any earnings beyond $168,600 are exempt. Advocates for this approach claim if higher earners pay Social Security taxes on earnings above $168,600, it could boost the funds available for the program. Critics say raising or eliminating the tax cap illegitimately increases taxes on a population that won’t see a proportional increase in their benefits. This creates tension between the goals of funding Social Security and maintaining a balance in tax equity.

As another example, instead of saying we need to cut benefits, you can say we should increase the retirement age. This approach means individuals would need to work longer before becoming eligible for benefits. By raising the age threshold, the proposal would reduce the total amount paid to beneficiaries over their lifetimes, as they would have fewer years to draw benefits. Advocates of this idea argue that it reflects increased life expectancy, aligning the system with modern demographics. Critics highlight that the life expectancy for the bottom half of earners has not risen since 1983, and they are the individuals who need Social Security the most.

Of course, fully funding Social Security is a systemic problem with no silver bullet solution. We need to compromise on both ends of the spectrum. But we should still consider new ideas.

I propose we consider something other than the proposals we commonly hear. Instead of focusing on cuts or caps, we should address the root cause of the issue: stagnant wages.

Higher wages directly increase Social Security revenue through larger payroll tax contributions.

Higher wages reduce the need for Social Security and other social programs. They make individual workers more financially resilient if we do have to cut benefits. Further, fewer taxpayer dollars are funneled through the bureaucracy, which means less waste.

Higher wages empower individuals to achieve greater financial independence. This fosters long-term economic stability for workers.

First, let’s look at how we can increase revenue by raising wages.

Higher Wages Increase Social Security Revenue

Raising wages directly increases Social Security revenue by increasing payroll tax contributions. Employers match worker wages dollar for dollar. These funds are the primary source of Social Security revenue.

Social Security taxes represent a percentage of earnings. When workers earn more, they contribute more to the program.

Let’s consider the non-starter idea of raising the minimum wage across the board. An Economic Policy Institute fact sheet from 2021, titled “Why the U.S. needs a $15 minimum wage,” identified raising the minimum wage would “lift pay for 32 million workers—21% of the U.S. workforce.” We can address why this idea is a non-starter in a minute, but let’s consider the financial impact on Social Security.

If 21% of the workforce earned higher wages, an immediate effect would be a significant boost to Social Security payroll tax contributions. The Institute estimated that a $15 minimum wage would generate $107 billion in higher wages.

12.4% of worker wages goes to Social Security, 6.2% from worker wages, and 6.2% from employer contributions. 12.4% of $107 billion is $13.26 billion.

Social Security’s shortfall was $41 billion this year. Raising worker wages to $15 an hour would reduce the shortfall to $28 billion.

However, raising the minimum wage is a non-starter because businesses can’t raise wages without increasing revenue. Taking broad action, such as raising the minimum wage to a federal standard for all areas, threatens business vigor and viability nationally, making this approach politically untenable.

For example, a $15 federal minimum wage might be too low in high-cost-of-living areas, viable in some areas, and overwhelm small businesses in lower-cost rural areas. Businesses must generate sufficient revenue to support higher wages, and a one-size-fits-all mandate doesn’t account for regional differences. Even if it’s a potential solution, it’s not achievable if we can’t gain consensus.

Instead of mandating raising the minimum wage, we need to increase small business revenue and incentivize businesses to pay higher wages. We could reduce the tax burden for small businesses that prove they pay wages above social program levels. This approach would help businesses generate the revenue to pay higher wages, reduce the national need for poverty programs, and increase funding to shore up Social Security.

Beyond increasing Social Security revenue, raising wages has a compounding effect on the broader economic system. When workers earn more, their reliance on government assistance programs like the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) decreases. This reduces the financial strain on taxpayers and minimizes the inefficiency of funneling the American people’s money through the bureaucracy. Let’s look at how higher wages decrease the need for social programs and drive efficient use of public resources.

Higher Wages: Financial Resilience and Reduced Government Waste

Let’s establish a fundamental truth: the government owns no assets. It has no money of its own. Every dollar spent by elected representatives or government workers is an asset of the American people. When government officials spend money, they allocate resources that belong to the citizens they serve.

Social programs, then, pass money from one individual to another through layers of bureaucracy that waste at least 30 to 40 percent of those resources. We should inherently oppose a system where half of American families rely on this inefficiency to survive. Even though we can’t love our country and not our countrymen, this system reflects a failure to achieve financial resilience across society.

Workers who earn livable wages achieve financial resilience and don’t need government assistance programs such as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) or Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). One immediate benefit is that more financially resilient workers can better absorb cuts if they are necessary. Financial resilience means workers have the capacity to adapt to unexpected costs.

Further, raising wages reduces reliance on social programs, which means less of the American people’s money is funneled through the bureaucracy. Less taxpayer money eaten by the government means less waste and more efficient use of public funds.

For example, EITC is designed to supplement the incomes of low-wage workers, effectively subsidizing employers who pay below livable wages. By increasing wages, fewer workers qualify for EITC, reducing government payouts while businesses pay true labor value.

The money not spent on social programs could then be redirected to fiscally responsible efforts, such as balancing the budget, paying off the national debt, and strengthening social security.

Let’s consider the drastic impact this proposal could have on national finances. In 2023, on just these two programs, the nation spent $57 billion supplementing worker wages through EITC and $112 billion supplementing low wages through SNAP. $169 billion combined.

If higher wages led to only a 20% reduction in reliance on these programs, $34 billion of American taxpayer funds would be available to help balance the budget. This figure exceeds the necessary funds to eliminate the Social Security shortage for the year, albeit in a different money bucket. If we could reduce social program expenditures by half, we could save $85 billion annually.

Opponents of this approach argue that workers need to justify their higher wages with more productivity. This is a valid point. Some jobs and employees generate higher revenue for their employers and inherently command higher wages.

But we should consider—even if it’s true that some jobs pay low wages, does that mean it’s the taxpayer’s responsibility to pick up the tab? There’s no valid argument to justify any employer offloading labor costs onto the taxpayer. Use any example you would like—dishwasher, janitor, burger maker. Even if a business thinks it’s a low-wage job, under no circumstance should it be a taxpayer-funded one. If a business doesn’t think a janitor is an important job, they should go a month without one and see if they change their mind. When businesses pay wages below social program thresholds, those jobs become taxpayer-funded.

Beyond saving taxpayer dollars, higher wages allow Americans to escape the cycle of government dependence and build financial resilience. When individuals can rely on their earnings to meet basic needs and save for the future, they gain stability and resilience in their personal lives and can contribute to the broader economy.

Higher Wages Foster Financial Independence

Higher wages enable workers to build greater financial security and resilience. Workers can save more for emergencies, invest in their future, and rely less on safety nets.

How would we reduce the reliance on programs like Social Security without paying workers livable wages that enable them to put food on their tables, heat their houses, and save for the future?

When they don’t make livable wages, workers go to the lower-cost grocery store to put food on their tables. Except there isn’t one. They go to the same grocery store as everyone else and use SNAP benefits.

To find a house to heat, workers might move their family into a cheaper apartment. Except those don’t exist, either. Those are government housing units.

If workers can’t put food on their tables and heat their houses without government assistance, how would we reduce their dependence on Social Security and other safety nets?

If we don’t address the root cause—low wages—programs like Social Security will remain essential as a retirement benefit and a lifeline for daily survival. Reducing reliance on Social Security means ensuring workers can build financial security through livable wages, personal savings, and access to private retirement options.

We need to set conditions enabling workers to be independent from government programs to meet basic needs. Workers must be able to afford food, housing, and utilities without inefficient taxpayer-funded government assistance. Livable wages create the foundation for financial independence. With higher wages, workers can save more for emergencies and strengthen their retirement options on their own.

Some doubt higher worker wages would achieve these goals, but Universal Basic Income pilot studies prove them wrong. Americans aren’t irresponsible with money, lazy, or stupid. They use extra money to gain skills and get better jobs, move into safer neighborhoods, buy shoes and coats for their kids, and heat their houses. They go back to school and get degrees and certifications. They work MORE with the extra funds, not less, and the work they do is more meaningful.

Americans with enough money live stable, productive lives and can save money for their futures. They are less dependent on Social Security and all other social programs.

In Sum

We need to shore up Social Security funding. We have few choices: increase revenue, cut benefits, or expand the working population.

I propose we consider something other than the proposals we commonly hear. Instead of focusing on cuts or caps, we should address the root cause of the issue: stagnant wages.

Higher wages directly increase Social Security revenue.

Higher wages reduce the need for Social Security and other social programs. They make individual workers more financially resilient if we do have to cut benefits. Further, fewer taxpayer dollars are funneled through the bureaucracy, which means less waste.

Higher wages empower individuals to achieve greater financial independence. This fosters long-term economic stability for workers.

Fixing Social Security is achievable, and higher wages directly address the root cause of the issue.

May God bless the United States of America.

I Am and the Burning Bush

This is not a religious piece. But stick with me for a minute.

I grew up attending small country churches. As a young boy, I asked my mother, “Who made God?”

She had the answers. No one made God. God has always been and always will be—the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. Of course, this answer was not satisfactory to me. As a boy and now, my limited human capacity to understand infinity, quantum physics, and whether all time and space can exist simultaneously demonstrates I will never really be able to comprehend the nature of God. But I still try and understand.

The story that sticks with me most about the existence of God is the story of Moses and the burning bush. If you’re unfamiliar, here’s a quick version.

Moses was tending a flock of sheep near the mountain of God when he noticed a strange sight. A bush was on fire, but the fire wasn’t destroying it. He was curious and approached the bush to investigate.

As he approached the bush, God called out to him. God told Moses that He had seen the suffering of His people in Egypt and would deliver them from slavery.

God gave Moses a mission: He was to go to Pharaoh, convince him to release the slaves, and lead them out of Egypt. Moses pushed back. He doubted. Still trying to shirk his duty, Moses asked what name he should give when others questioned who sent him.

God answered, “I AM WHO I AM.” And, “Say this to the people of Israel: ‘I Am has sent me to you.’”

The story isn’t compelling to me because God spoke to Moses. It’s not compelling because the bush didn’t burn up. It’s not compelling because of the subsequent exodus and lack of faith demonstrated by humanity that doomed a generation. It’s compelling because only once in the Judeo-Christian tradition did a human ask God His name. Moses is the only one to explicitly ask God His name and receive a direct answer. And God didn’t answer the Almighty, the Creator, or the Ancient of Days. God answered, my name is ‘I Am.’

No human making up a name for God would have thought to call the Almighty ‘I Am.’ … Names signify identity but always depend on something external to the individual. No one names themselves. However, God has no ‘other’ to provide a name. God exists outside the framework of creation and human conventions. So, when asked for a name, the only possible response is “I Am.”

Of course, the 3,500-year-old story doesn’t erase the questions about the existence of God. Because tomorrow is Christmas Day, I’d like to approach national belief from another angle. The source of love for others is God. Whether you believe God exists or not, the question of how we live and treat each other remains.

God commanded us to love each other. But even if God doesn’t exist, should we not love our countrymen?

Loving one another isn’t just for the good of others. It’s for our own good. Said another way, loving each other brings us more benefits than it gives to others. And nowhere is this love better demonstrated than in the national goals enshrined in the Preamble to the Constitution.

Love and the Constitution

The Preamble to the Constitution outlines the document’s purpose. Without the Preamble, the rest of the Constitution loses all meaning. The Preamble provides the foundation, outlining the reason the Constitution exists. Its aspirational and nearly unattainable goals are the greatest expression of brotherly love ever written by mankind outside a spiritual text. It outlines…

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Let’s look at it piece by piece. The nation’s guiding document outlines a national purpose to achieve six highly aspirational goals: Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty. America strives to achieve these six goals to secure the benefits for ourselves and others. The nation’s first goal…

Union

Our first national goal is to preserve the union. Our union is a union of states and individuals who live in those states. Like any marriage, partnership, or community, there is no lasting union without love.

In the context of union, love isn’t about affection. It’s commitment, sacrifice, and a willingness to work through differences. A union can’t thrive without the shared understanding that we are stronger together than apart. Without love and commitment for each other, the cracks in the union fracture and lead to collapse.

The closing line of the Declaration of Independence states, “And for the support of this Declaration…we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.” This line underscores the essence of union later found in the Constitution—a bond forged by shared goals and sacrifice. The signatories committed themselves to one another and to the union of states. They understood that achieving something greater than themselves required sacrifice and a willingness to stand together, even at the cost of losing the war and everything they had.

Union isn’t the absence of conflict or failure. It’s the shared responsibility of both. It doesn’t mean agreement; it means shared ownership of the outcomes, good or bad. We are a union, united in success and united in failure.

This is the heart of any lasting union. No matter success or failure, states and individuals pledge themselves to one another, not out of convenience but out of love, honor, and shared purpose. Without this kind of commitment, no union can endure.

The nation’s second goal is…

Justice

Our second goal is to establish justice. Loving each other enables justice for ourselves and others. It’s not just for the good of others. It’s for the good of ourselves.

Justice is the foundation for a society where individuals can fulfill their roles and contribute to the nation’s well-being. The founders outlined justice as a collective responsibility because it depends on the systems we build as a nation, not just individual action. It requires institutions that ensure fairness while empowering individuals to pursue their potential.

Justice means that people should be treated fairly and equally under the law. It also means that society strives toward individual opportunity and the equitable distribution of resources like education, healthcare, and housing. It encompasses fair opportunities in criminal justice, voting rights, and workplaces.

Justice is not a handout program. While it’s a national responsibility to establish conditions for justice, it’s an individual responsibility to rise to greatness. No one American can tell another what’s important to them, and our opinions change as we age and have different life experiences. Further, the American dream isn’t about material possessions. It’s about having the opportunity to pursue your dreams and live a fulfilling life.

These dreams have shared themes. An environment of justice enables people from humble beginnings to buy a house in a safe neighborhood with a good school for their children. Justice enabled self-educated President Lincoln to ascend from nothing to the nation’s highest office in arguably our greatest time of need. He remarked, “I am a living witness that any one of your children may look to come here as my father’s child has.” Justice makes the American Dream possible for anyone willing to strive for it.

Justice ensures stability and opportunity. These conditions benefit everyone, including those who feel far removed from the injustice others face. Justice encourages progress. When we empower others to succeed, society becomes more prosperous. Innovation, ideas, and contributions come from every corner of society and lift us all economically and culturally.

Justice isn’t charity—it’s opportunity. Justice isn’t favoritism—it’s fairness. Justice isn’t abstract—it’s the foundation of progress. Loving each other enables justice for ourselves and others. It’s not just for the good of others. It’s for the good of ourselves.

Our nation’s third goal is…

Tranquility

Our third national goal is to ensure domestic tranquility. Tranquility means a society built on order, stability, and mutual respect.

Loving each other supports order and stability. Respect for one another makes compromise possible and conflict resolvable. Without it, rebellions, riots, and civil unrest rise, undermining national unity and success.

Tranquility requires effort from every individual and institution. … When we succeed, we resolve our differences with grace and dignity and are stronger together.

Tranquility was not assured in the years between the Articles of Confederation (1781–1789) and the Constitution.

Take Shays’ Rebellion (1786–1787) as an example. It began as an uprising of farmers in western Massachusetts, many of whom were Revolutionary War veterans. These farmers faced land foreclosure and imprisonment for unpaid debts. They felt betrayed by a system they had fought to defend. Led by Daniel Shays, they took up arms, closed courts, and attempted to disrupt government operations.

The rebellion revealed a dangerous flaw in the Articles of Confederation: individual states didn’t have the capacity to maintain order, and a weak federal government offered no support. The national government lacked the power to raise an army or enforce laws. This left states like Massachusetts to handle conflicts alone. The rebellion exposed the risks of a fragile union and demonstrated that the nation itself was at risk without tranquility.

Shays’ Rebellion directly influenced the drafting of the Constitution. The framers understood that tranquility had to be actively ensured through a stronger federal government capable of addressing domestic challenges while respecting state and individual sovereignty. That’s why “insure domestic Tranquility” became one of the six core national goals outlined in the Preamble.

Tranquility is a deliberate national choice to maintain collective peace, stability, and order. Peace comes from respect. Respect comes from love. Loving each other benefits us individually because it maintains stability and order.

Tranquility alone isn’t enough. We have to safeguard it, which leads us to our next goal. Our fourth national goal is…

Defense

Our fourth national goal is defense or mutual protection. If tranquility ensures domestic order, defense preserves that order and extends it to support America and her interests inside and beyond our borders. Defense is a deliberate choice to create conditions where freedom and stability thrive.

Loving each other supports protection because a united people are better equipped to ensure their survival and power. When a nation defends its interests, it does so out of love for its citizens and a commitment to the opportunities they seek to secure.

Nations have no choice but to ensure their survival and protect their interests. To guard the safety and security of the American people and our allies, we act alone and with partner nations to create favorable global conditions. These efforts protect freedom of action and influence.

Coalitions and international partnerships enhance security and contribute to global stability. These partnerships are strategic efforts that strengthen stability and set conditions for individuals to pursue their interests. By pooling resources, sharing intelligence, and projecting power, nations achieve together what none could achieve alone. When we protect our allies, we strengthen ourselves. A stable global environment ultimately contributes to the prosperity and safety of individual Americans.

A strong defense fuels economic growth. Stability provides the foundation for businesses to innovate and thrive and for investments to grow. Nations with robust defense and stable alliances attract global investment, foster trade, and expand economic opportunities. Defense and economics are inseparable. Economic strength fuels defense, and defense ensures the safety of markets and supply chains.

Economic strength underpins global influence, sustains technological leadership, and allows the nation to respond effectively to challenges. Protecting business interests and fostering growth are as much a part of defense as any military strategy.

Defense is a collective effort and a shared responsibility. Loving each other benefits us all because mutual protection creates stability and opportunity for individuals, businesses, and communities to succeed.

Our fifth national goal is…

Welfare

Our fifth national goal is to promote the general welfare. This goal identifies our collective duty to ensure the well-being of all Americans. The general welfare has nothing to do with social welfare programs. When the states ratified the Constitution to make it effective, social welfare programs did not exist.

Loving each other means recognizing that our success as individuals is tied to the success of others. People can contribute to society when the nation sets conditions to achieve widespread education, healthcare, housing, and safety. Empowering Americans to contribute to society is an investment in the nation's infrastructure.

This national infrastructure is human capital — the knowledge, skills, and abilities of individual Americans. Human capital is foundational infrastructure similar to bridges, roads, and dams. Collective individual capability generates national capability. Said another way, the skills and knowledge of individuals build the strength of the nation as a whole.

Promoting general welfare requires balancing individual freedom with collective progress. This balance means providing opportunities while preserving personal responsibility.

Investing in human capital—like education and healthcare—strengthens our collective ability to thrive and innovate. Consider education. It’s a cornerstone of promoting the general welfare. Education supports individuals, regardless of background, in gaining the knowledge, skills, and training necessary to function in and improve society. Or consider healthcare. It protects individuals and communities from preventable crises. Promoting the general welfare means supporting national infrastructure that demonstrates commitment to the idea that every American deserves the chance to pursue happiness and live a meaningful life. This effective governance demonstrates love for others.

Americans don’t need handouts to connect to the infrastructure. Big infrastructure programs demonstrate that Americans will connect themselves to infrastructure when given the opportunity. When allowed to move goods across states, American businesses jump at the chance. When we need flood control for agriculture and resources for national security, Americans are ready. When electricity is available, rural Americans connect themselves to electricity.

Loving each other means promoting the general welfare. Promoting the general welfare means building national infrastructure. National infrastructure includes expanding the infrastructure that is individual capability.

And our final national goal…

Liberty

Our sixth and final national goal is to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and those who follow.

Liberty is the promise that every American has the right to live freely, to pursue their dreams, and to choose their path. It is the ultimate expression of love and respect for the individual. Liberty is the right to choose. These choices have consequences. Personal choice enables us to grow through personal responsibility. Without liberty, there is no responsibility.

Liberty empowers us to learn from the consequences of our choices, fostering resilience, innovation, and a deeper sense of responsibility.

Individual liberty is the hallmark of America. It’s a foundational concept that represents several rights. The freedom to practice a religion of your choosing, or none at all, is a right of liberty. Freedom of speech and expression is liberty. Freedom to vote is liberty. The list is long.

When we allow some to take liberty from others, we risk losing our own. To preserve our individual liberty, we must protect and fight for the rights of others.

Therefore, it’s the right of Americans to express their liberty and the responsibility of Americans to tolerate others who would express their liberty in a manner we may find objectionable.

Liberty allows for diversity of thought, belief, and action. These are the hallmarks of a thriving society. Liberty is not an excuse for selfishness. It is an opportunity to grow through personal responsibility, to learn from our choices, and to help secure the freedom of others. Loving each other means fighting for liberty—not just for ourselves, but for each other.

The Ties That Bind

These six goals tie together.

There is no union without demonstrated commitment, sacrifice, and willingness to work through differences.

There is no general welfare without the willingness to build infrastructure to expand individual and national capability.

There is no justice without stability and opportunity for Americans from any station of birth to access that infrastructure.

We can’t preserve what individuals and communities can achieve without the tranquility built on order, stability, and mutual respect.

We must protect the union and interests beyond our borders through partnership, engagement, and defense.

These conditions enable a society where Americans can choose their path, note the consequences of their choices, and develop the personal responsibility that leads to individual and community growth. This is liberty.

So…

To Love Your Country, Love Your Countrymen

We are commanded to love each other not for the good of others but for the good of ourselves. Loving others helps us individually. Loving each other isn’t an unachievable ideal. Love is a practice. It brings us union, justice, tranquility, protection, welfare, and liberty.

Therefore, we can’t love our country without loving our countrymen.

My best wishes are with you and yours this Christmas. I’m not a priest and have no right to bless you, but I’ll do it anyway.

May God bless you and keep you;May God smile on you and be gracious to you;May God look on you with favor and give you peace.

May God bless the United States of America.

H-1B visas have been an item of hot discussion lately. On New Year’s Day, Newsweek detailed, “At the end of December a bitter row broke out within Trump’s MAGA (Make America Great Again) movement over H-1B visas, pitting business figures such as Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy who believe they boost the U.S. economy against more nativist elements who think they harm American workers. And, speaking to The New York Post on December 28 Trump defended H-1B visas.”

This recent debate reveals a deeper question: Why are we still relying on this program after more than 30 years? Is the H-1B visa program solving America’s workforce challenges—or masking our failure to address them?

…

An H-1B visa is a nonimmigrant visa issued by the United States. Nonimmigrant visas apply to individuals wishing to enter the US temporarily. Reasons for entry might include business, temporary work, study, or other reasons.

H-1Bs allow foreign workers to work in specialty occupations in the US for up to six years, with some opportunity to change that six years to permanent residence. Employers that sponsor H-1B holders need specialized knowledge and typically require a bachelor’s degree or equivalent in a relevant field. Common industries employing H-1B workers include technology, engineering, finance, healthcare, and education.

The US Department of Labor says H-1Bs “help employers who cannot otherwise obtain needed business skills and abilities from the U.S. workforce by authorizing the temporary employment of qualified individuals who are not otherwise authorized to work in the United States.”

Proponents and Opponents

Proponents argue that we should expand the number of visas and skilled immigrant workers. They argue that the program is essential to maintaining America’s competitive edge in a global economy, particularly in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. They highlight how skilled foreign workers contribute to innovation, job creation, and economic growth. They note that H-1B visa holders bring expertise in short supply domestically.

They cite studies that find more H-1B workers in an occupation correlate with lower unemployment. That stricter H-1B policies lead US multinational companies to cut domestic jobs while expanding foreign operations, especially in India, China, and Canada. That higher H-1B approval rates lead to more patents, increased patent citations, greater venture capital funding, and higher success rates for IPOs and acquisitions.

Opponents argue the program negatively impacts US workers by depressing wages and reducing job opportunities. They claim some employers exploit the system to hire foreign workers at lower wages, bypassing qualified domestic candidates. Critics point to instances of fraud and abuse, where companies misuse the program to outsource jobs or replace existing American employees.

Opponents further see the program as a failure to invest in the domestic workforce through training and education. They argue that we need to shift our main effort toward equipping US workers with the skills needed for high-demand fields rather than relying on foreign labor.

Now, for our question: So, why do we need more H-1B visas? Or do we?

Bipartisan Immigration Efforts in the 1990s

President George H.W. Bush (Republican) signed the Immigration Act of 1990 into law on November 29, 1990. The bill represented the most comprehensive reform of US immigration laws in 66 years. It aimed to adapt national immigration to the American economy’s changing needs. In particular, it addressed the increased demand for skilled professionals in technology, engineering, and other specialized fields.

In 1990, Democrats held a strong majority in the House and Senate. Both parties agreed to increase skilled immigration in support of American business.

One key provision of the 1990 Act was the creation of the H-1B visa category. This effort specifically supported businesses seeking immigrants in “specialty occupations” and required these immigrants to have at least a bachelor’s degree or equivalent in a specialized field of study. The bill intended to enable American businesses to fill critical skill gaps the domestic workforce could not meet.

The law established annual caps on the number of H-1B visas issued, initially set at 65,000. This cap intended to balance employer needs while protecting the domestic labor market. Further, employers seeking skilled immigrants had to attest that hiring foreign workers would not negatively impact US workers by certifying that H-1B workers would be paid at least the prevailing wage for their occupation and location.

…

By 1998, the dot-com boom raged. Tech companies clamored for more skilled workers in STEM fields, and the nation revamped the H-1B program.

But the political tides had turned. The Republican Party held strong majorities in both the Senate and House. No matter. President Bill Clinton (Democrat) signed the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act (ACWIA) into law on October 21, 1998.

The ACWIA temporarily raised the H-1B cap from 65,000 to 115,000 for 1999 and 2000. It also introduced a training fee for employers sponsoring H-1B workers, initially set at $500 per worker. Congress intended that this fee would fund training and education programs for US workers and reduce reliance on foreign labor in the long term.

…

Employers quickly absorbed skilled workers from the 1998 cap increase, and tech companies returned to Congress a few years later, again asking for more visas. Their request led to another temporary cap increase authorized by the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act (AC21) of 2000.

In 2000, Republicans controlled both the Senate and House. President Bill Clinton (Democrat) signed AC21 into law on October 17, 2000. It expanded the number of visas and opened the opportunity for H-1B visa holders to apply for permanent residency.

…

In sum, the tech industry has long demonstrated the need for more skilled labor. Critics argue that this pattern of periodic cap raises reveals structural deficiencies in the training and education of American workers.

Saying this condition is a training and education problem dances around the problem. What we have is a failure to meet Constitutional obligations.

Constitutional Duty

The nation’s guiding document outlines a national purpose to achieve six highly aspirational goals: Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty. These six goals are why the nation exists. Advancing interests not linked to these six goals is meaningless at best and damaging at worst. Two goals—general welfare and justice—apply to our discussion of H-1B visas.

First, general welfare. Individuals can contribute to society when the nation sets conditions to achieve widespread education, healthcare, housing, and safety. Though not the only components of infrastructure, these conditions build the infrastructure that is individual capability. Collective individual capability generates national capability.

Said another way, empowering Americans to contribute to society is an investment in the nation’s infrastructure.

Second, justice. Justice presents the opportunity for Americans from any station of birth to access that infrastructure. Innovation, ideas, and contributions come from every corner of society and lift us all economically and culturally. When Americans from any station of birth can access the infrastructure that supports promoting the general welfare, we strengthen American individuals and businesses.

Expanding the H-1B visa program directly means we have either failed to build the infrastructure that generates individual capability, which then generates national capability, or built the system in such a way that denies Americans the opportunity from any station of birth to access that infrastructure, or both. Therefore, we have failed to achieve welfare and justice, two of our six national goals. Worse, rather than decisive efforts to fix this deficiency, and to meet the needs of tech businesses, we bring in skilled immigrant workers from nations who do a better job of achieving these goals than we have.

We should highlight this is not a fault of American businesses. A business’s primary responsibility is to increase profits, and corporate executives working within legal and ethical boundaries should concentrate solely on maximizing shareholder value. Corporate social responsibility blurs the line between the private and public sectors.

Any effort toward individual welfare or justice is outside a business’s fundamental responsibility unless it directly contributes to profitability. Instead, the public sector—or government—must fulfill these roles.

…

A business’s primary responsibility is to generate profits, not solve national workforce issues. The public sector must address justice and general welfare—these are public responsibilities. After all, it is our Constitution, and we are “We the People.”

If we intend to reduce reliance on H-1B workers while meeting the demands of our tech economy, the solution isn’t curbing immigration. It’s building infrastructure and ensuring Americans from any station of birth have access to that infrastructure. To that end, here are three recommendations to set conditions enabling training and education for Americans in tech fields.

1. Change How We Measure Success

How do you know when you’ve achieved your goals? They have to be measurable, and you must actively measure them. For simple goals, the process is straightforward. For instance, if your goal is to solidify your family’s financial security, you might set a sub-goal of saving $500 each month. If your savings account grows by $500 this month compared to last, you’ve achieved your goal. Consistently meeting this sub-goal brings you closer to your broader objective of financial security.

When you lead large organizations, those goals become bigger, more complex, and more ambiguous. For example, how do you measure your organization’s innovation rate? Or…how would you measure the trust you have with your customers? You have to break your big goals down into smaller, measurable units. You have to pick the right areas to measure, and these areas need to directly correlate to your goals. If we choose a metric that is easy to measure but only loosely connected to a goal, the insights we gain about our progress become unclear and ambiguous.

Another note about picking areas to measure—whatever area we choose to measure and apply pressure to will improve. There may be unintended effects of this improvement we don’t foresee, but when there’s money or job performance associated with improving a particular measurable outcome, that direct outcome will improve.

So let’s ask: If we intend the H-1B visa program to become less necessary, how do we measure and assess the national infrastructure that is technical training and education?

Congress evaluates H-1B visas through a lens of economic metrics. Each H-1B generates revenue from employer fees. A significant portion of these fees goes to the National Science Foundation (NSF) and other entities to support workforce development and education. The NSF administers these funds by distributing grants and scholarships with the intent to improve STEM education and create opportunities for US workers to compete in a global economy.

This system introduces two layers of bureaucracy. Money flows from employers to Congress, then to the NSF, and finally to education and training programs, where we hope this money has its intended impact. As the old saying goes, hope is not a strategy.

Further, the nation has attempted to implement initiatives to enhance technology training programs, particularly for students in low-income areas. Recent attempts include the National Educational Technology Plan (NETP) of 2024. The US Department of Education intends NETP to close the digital gap and improve tech education for all students.

Funding and supporting training programs are commendable efforts. But, if the goal is to strengthen the national infrastructure for technical training and education to reduce reliance on the H-1B visa program, we must measure H-1B visa applications with a clear intent to decrease demand from businesses. That is something we do not do.

In sum, H-1B visa applications are a measure of the tech readiness of the workforce. So…

…

Recommendation 1. We need a better metric: H-1B visa applications per capita.

We must move beyond tracking resources and programs to focus on outcomes. To that end, we need to measure and assess the technical training and education of American students by H-1B applications.

Tracking H-1B applications per capita directly measures how well the domestic workforce meets industry demands. A decline would show progress toward self-reliance, while persistent or rising applications would highlight where gaps remain.

Declines in H-1B applications per capita should signal reduced dependency on foreign talent and reflect improvements in the domestic workforce’s readiness to meet tech industry demand. This approach will directly measure how well we are closing skill gaps towards a more self-reliant workforce. Reduced H-1B applications would signal stronger domestic readiness, national innovation, and economic resilience.

Now for our second goal. We need to build technical training and education infrastructure.

2. Build Infrastructure

The best training and education programs are focused and iterative. They’re designed to meet specific needs, build on feedback, and improve over time.

We need infrastructure that bridges the divide between high school and high-level tech performance for working Americans. This infrastructure might look like a network of training and education innovation hubs. With support from local communities, we need to use the nation’s community college infrastructure as an initial base.

We need these programs to apply to all careers. Agriculture needs tech education. Theater needs technical training. Manufacturing needs tech education.

To build this infrastructure, we need to partner with academia to create pathways for students with no education beyond high school to acquire training and professional certifications in tech. Businesses must also play a critical role by participating in class exercises and presenting real-world challenges. This involvement ensures that programs remain relevant and aligned with workforce demands.

However, business participation cannot be optional. A business’s primary duty is to generate profits, and workforce development may not always align with that goal. The duty of the public realm is then to step in and set requirements. Businesses benefit from the stability and talent of American workers, and they have an obligation to support this development.

Therefore, businesses seeking to file H-1B applications must demonstrate active participation in local training programs. This participation could include participating in relevant coursework or exercises, hosting career days, or presenting industry-specific challenges for students to solve. Companies that fail to engage in these programs should not have the option to file H-1B visa applications. This requirement aligns public and private interests, ensuring businesses contribute to the development of the American workforce while still meeting their hiring needs.

This requirement shouldn’t be imposed on all businesses—only those seeking to file H-1B visa applications. Businesses choosing to hire skilled foreign workers must first demonstrate efforts to find and hire skilled American workers.

Courses within these hubs must be laser-focused on high-performance job skills. While valuable, humanities courses are not essential for many roles and should remain optional. Programs should bridge the gap between high school and professional careers, offering practical training that goes beyond surface-level knowledge. For example, statistics might be a subject skimmed over in high school but would require deeper exploration in a program designed for data analysis.

This isn’t about theory—it’s about measurable results: reducing reliance on H-1B visas, increasing workforce readiness, and securing meaningful employment for American workers. So…

…

Recommendation 2. Create a network of focused and iterative training hubs.

This network would enable Americans to develop high-value skills, solve critical industry challenges, and secure employment in fields currently filled through H-1B applications. Investing in this infrastructure would build capability, enhance economic competitiveness, and create pathways for all Americans to succeed in the modern workforce.

Building this infrastructure would directly address our Constitutional duty to promote the general welfare of Americans.

Let’s move on to our final goal. Building a strong training infrastructure removes one barrier to workforce readiness. We must address another: the financial burden of student loan debt, which disproportionately affects low-income Americans. To fulfill our Constitutional mandate to establish justice, we need to eliminate student loan debt interest for the lower half of American students by income level.

3. Support justice by eliminating student loan debt interest for students with low-income levels

We need American students to build their individual capability through training and education. This collective individual capability drives national capability. Further, we have a Constitutional duty to establish justice for all Americans. We achieve justice when each individual has the opportunity to fulfill their role in society.

Student loan debt presents a significant barrier to this goal. For students from low-income backgrounds, this burden can become insurmountable. Due to predatory or poorly structured terms, some student loan debt grows even when borrowers consistently make their payments. A 2021 Wall Street Journal article, Why Student Debt Keeps Growing—Even When Borrowers Keep Paying, highlights how total balances can increase over time despite regular payments, trapping borrowers in a cycle of debt.

This violates the principle of justice. If students from the lowest income brackets cannot repay their loans and gain access to training and education, they are effectively barred from achieving the qualifications necessary to contribute meaningfully to society. Without this access, they cannot fulfill their potential or aid in building national capability.

Let’s consider a straightforward question: Why does the government charge interest on federal student loans? The government isn’t a for-profit institution, and the nation benefits when its citizens improve their individual capability. Charging interest on these loans neither strengthens national finances nor aids individual students—it simply prolongs repayment periods and exacerbates financial stress.

Eliminating interest on federal student loans for low-income students would provide these individuals with a fair opportunity to repay their debt within a reasonable time frame. This would enable them to focus on building their skills and fulfilling their role in society rather than being trapped in a cycle of debt.

So…

Recommendation 3. Eliminate student loan debt interest for students with low-income levels.

This change would remove a significant barrier to education for millions of Americans, ensuring that low-income students can contribute to the nation’s collective capability without being penalized by debt that grows faster than they can repay it. By supporting these students, we uphold our Constitutional duty to establish justice and strengthen both individual and national prosperity.

In Sum

America’s guiding document exists to achieve six goals.

One of these is to promote the general welfare. In part, promoting the general welfare means building national infrastructure that enables individual and national capability.

A second goal is to establish justice. We achieve justice when Americans from any station of birth have access to that infrastructure so they can take the initiative to build their capability and fulfill their role in society.

Our continued reliance on H-1B visas means we have either failed to build the infrastructure that generates individual capability or built the system in a way that denies Americans from any station of birth the opportunity to access that infrastructure, or both.

To achieve our Constitutional aims, we must set and progress towards three goals.

We must move beyond tracking resources and programs instead of focusing on outcomes. To that end, we need to measure and assess the technical training and education of American students by H-1B applications.

We need to create a network of focused and iterative training hubs. These hubs will reduce reliance on H-1B visas, increase workforce readiness, and secure meaningful employment for American workers.

And we need to eliminate student loan debt interest for students with low-income levels in order to remove barriers to tech training and education for millions of Americans.

Some will say these aims are too lofty, even unachievable.

To that, I say there are six reasons America exists, and these goals tie directly to two of those reasons. If we don’t make our decisive effort to align with America’s purpose, why are we here?

May God bless the United States of America.

Should America take economic control of Greenland? Both the Prime Minister of Denmark—who oversees Greenland’s foreign affairs—and the Prime Minister of Greenland have repeatedly said that the territory is not for sale and have rejected the idea of annexation.

But American interest in Greenland has already had its intended effect. Forbes reported that Denmark is “open to a dialogue with the Americans on how we can cooperate, possibly even more closely than we already do, to ensure that American ambitions are fulfilled.”

Even if America taking economic control of Greenland seems imperialistic, rephrasing the question reframes the stakes. As in, we might ask the exact same question but with different wording.

Should China have access to rare earth elements in Greenland?

The shift in wording highlights Greenland’s role in great power competition and underscores the strategic value of its location and resources. Let’s kick our mental exercise off by considering Greenland’s significance on the world stage.

Greenland’s Strategic Value

Greenland’s strategic value has evolved over centuries, shaped by its unique location and resources. In 1721, Danish-Norwegian missionary Hans Egede led an expedition to Greenland to search for descendants of vanished Norse settlers. While Egede did not find the Norse, he established the settlement of Nuuk, which later became Greenland’s capital and marked the start of Danish-Norwegian rule. Over time, Denmark-Norway expanded its control. It established trading posts and integrated Greenland into the European mercantile system. After Denmark-Norway split in 1814, Greenland remained under Danish control.

Greenland’s modern strategic importance emerged during World War II when the US agreed to protect the island after Germany occupied Denmark. The US established military bases that served as critical waypoints for transatlantic flights, weather stations for Allied operations, and a source of cryolite, a key catalyst for aluminum production. During the Cold War, Greenland’s pivotal Arctic location became essential for monitoring Soviet activity and hosting early warning radar systems.

In 1953, Denmark ended Greenland’s colonial status and incorporated it into the kingdom. This granted its citizens representation in the Danish parliament and access to national welfare programs. Greenland achieved home rule in 1979, gaining control over its internal affairs. In 2009, it gained further autonomy, including authority over resources and justice, while Denmark retained control over foreign policy and defense.

As climate change opens new shipping routes and enhances resource accessibility, Greenland’s economic and geopolitical significance grows. Greenland’s vast reserves of rare earth elements and strategic Arctic location make it a focal point for global competition.

Rare Earth Elements

Greenland has some of the world’s biggest stores of rare earth elements (REE), known by unfamiliar names such as neodymium, dysprosium, and praseodymium. These elements are essential for producing wind turbines, electric vehicle motors, and military equipment.

Despite their name, REEs are relatively common in Earth’s crust. However, their distribution and extraction present a mining challenge. REEs are rarely found in concentrated, profitable, mineable deposits. Instead, they are typically dispersed across vast areas, mixed with other elements. Due to their chemical similarity, extracting and refining them is complex and costly. Greenland’s reserves are especially valuable because they are believed to exist in relatively high concentrations, making them potentially more economical to extract than deposits found elsewhere.

Greenland’s untapped resources would allow Western nations to diversify their supply chains, reducing their dependence on China, which dominates the global REE market.

China controls approximately 90% of global rare earth production. Approximately 80% of the REEs used domestically in the US are imported from China. This dominance is due to its vast reserves, advanced refining infrastructure, and government policies prioritizing REE production as a strategic industry.

China’s near monopoly gives it significant leverage in geopolitical and economic arenas. Rare earth elements are critical for manufacturing everything from smartphones and renewable energy technologies to advanced military systems. This dependence poses a strategic vulnerability for Western nations, as disruptions to China’s supply—from trade disputes, export restrictions, or internal policy changes—could severely impact key industries. Even if Chinese companies wanted to negotiate business arrangements in good faith, the Chinese government controls all private businesses in China at its whim.

Greenland’s potential to become an alternative source of REEs represents an opportunity to mitigate this risk and secure a more stable and diversified supply chain for these critical materials.

However, rare earth elements are only part of Greenland’s strategic significance. Because of its strategic Arctic location, Greenland is a focal point for global competitors. 

Strategic Arctic Location

Because we tend to look at flat maps rather than globes, it’s easy to overlook that the Earth is round and the shortest path from America to Europe lies over the Arctic. For example, the distance from Los Angeles to Paris, France, is approximately 5,700 miles over the Arctic and 8,300 miles through the Panama Canal.

These Arctic routes follow what mathematicians even before the time of Columbus called the Great Circle Route. This Great Circle Route is the shortest path between two points on the Earth’s surface. From North America, it typically passes near or over regions like Greenland and the Arctic, depending on specific flight or shipping planning considerations.

Although the distance difference may not seem significant, even small reductions in distance can translate to significant savings in time, fuel, and emissions. Arctic routes offer the potential for more efficient transit between major markets in North America, Europe, and Asia, bypassing clogged routes through the Panama or Suez Canal. Greenland’s strategic location along these potential routes underscores its importance in shipping, aviation, trade, and defense logistics.

Of course, the Arctic has other transit challenges. It’s cold. Historically, extreme Arctic cold and thick ice made navigation treacherous. Shipping lanes like the Northwest Passage and Northern Sea Route were largely impassable for most of the year. But it’s less cold now, and previously unavailable shipping routes are opening.

This accessibility extends beyond shipping routes. The retreating ice uncovers untapped natural resources, including oil, gas, and rare earth element reserves. This new territory is fueling a modern scramble for control over the Arctic.

The US has long viewed the Arctic as a critical defense and economic security frontier. Military bases like Thule in Greenland and several in Alaska cement our commitment.

Meanwhile, China aggressively seeks influence. In 2018, It declared itself a “near-Arctic state” and incorporated Arctic development into its Belt and Road Initiative, the Polar Silk Road. China’s motives are clear. Shipping from China to Europe through the Suez Canal in Egypt takes 48 days and only 24 days by way of the Northeast Passage through the Arctic.

In response, US leaders drew firm lines. In 2019, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo stated, “There are only Arctic states and non-Arctic states…No third category exists — and claiming otherwise entitles China to exactly nothing.”

Ultimately, new shipping lanes and resource opportunities have turned the Arctic into a strategic chessboard. Control over Greenland and other key locations could shift the balance of global influence. America cannot yield its position in this great power competition. If we cede influence under the guise of fairness, rival nations will not return the favor. America must act alone and with partner nations to create favorable global conditions and ensure freedom of action and influence for the American people and our allies.

The strategic necessity of great power competition and the Constitution compels us to protect national interests.

Great Power Competition

Nations have no choice but to ensure their survival and protect their interests. If they do not, or cannot, protect their interests, their competitors will not cede them prosperity. The absence of a world government creates a globally competitive environment that compels states to prioritize their security, interests, and the stability of their strategic alliances.

In this anarchic international order, nations act in their own interest. They make choices that maximize their benefit and strength—even at the expense of others. We form coalitions and partnerships as strategic efforts to enhance our power, stability, and influence. Preserving our business interests requires denying competitors the same advantages we seek, which ensures a favorable position in the global hierarchy.

This competitive reality is on full display in the Arctic. The US, Russia, and China are vying for control of a region where melting ice has opened new shipping lanes and exposed previously buried resources. The Arctic is a critical arena for global rivalry. The security and prosperity of the American people and our allies require independent action and strategic partnerships to shape favorable conditions. These efforts are essential to maintaining freedom of action and influence in this rapidly evolving region.

From America’s perspective, this imperative aligns with Constitutional guiding principles. The Constitution does not explicitly state that maintaining favorable business conditions is a federal responsibility; however, specific provisions inherently support this objective.

The Commerce Clause (in Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) grants Congress the power to regulate trade with foreign nations, ensure economic stability, and facilitate commerce. However, the Clause does not grant Congress the power to regulate trade under conditions that do not benefit the American people. An implied mandate in regulating trade, ensuring economic stability, and facilitating commerce is to achieve these conditions under favorable terms.

Further, if the Commerce Clause isn’t sufficient to achieve commerce under favorable terms, the Constitution grants Congress the authority to raise and support armies (in Article I, Section 8, Clause 12). Nations that can establish favorable international conditions attract international investment, promote trade, and create new economic opportunities. Defense and the economy are interconnected. Economic power sustains defense, while defense safeguards markets and secures supply chains.

Now for our Question

Should America take economic control of Greenland?

Let’s rephrase the question to reframe the stakes.

Should China have access to rare earth elements in Greenland?

Let’s review some key points.

Greenland’s Arctic location makes it indispensable for trade, defense, and global influence.

The United States and Greenland have a longstanding and cooperative partnership.

China’s dominance in rare earth production presents a strategic vulnerability for America; Greenland’s resources offer a solution.

Climate change is unlocking Arctic shipping lanes and revealing untapped resources. Greenland’s strategic position along Arctic trade routes and the Great Circle Route solidifies its role as a vital hub for global shipping, aviation, and defense operations.

Safeguarding influence in Greenland is crucial for creating favorable conditions for the American people and our allies while preserving freedom of action and influence in the Arctic. This reflects the strategic necessity of great power competition and the Constitutional duty to protect national interests.

Securing our position under favorable terms requires denying our competitors those advantages. Therefore, we must actively prevent Chinese access to Greenland and other Arctic regions under the control of America and our allies.

Should the United States take control of Greenland by military force? Absolutely not. Denmark is a steadfast ally and a NATO member. Instead, we should pursue a collaborative arrangement that benefits Denmark and America, strengthening our partnership and mutual interests.

May God bless the United States of America.

Last week, David Leonhardt, writing for the New York Times, questioned whether any of President Biden’s legacy would endure. Most Americans view his term unfavorably. Parties with one-term presidents often see those presidencies as failures and shift their focus to the future. However, Leonhardt highlighted one aspect of Biden’s agenda that may leave a lasting mark. This is the idea that “the federal government should take a more active role in both assisting and regulating the private sector than it did for much of the previous half-century.”

President Biden is not alone in his assessment. Both parties agree to some extent that unfettered free market globalization is not in America’s best interest. Similar to an approach used in the Gilded Age, President Trump intends to influence the global economic system through tariffs.

In his farewell address from the Oval Office, President Biden said, “Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy…We’ve seen it before, more than a century ago, but the American people stood up to the robber barons back then.”

Biden’s use of the term ‘robber barons’ is a reference to a phrase from the late 19th century, when Mark Twain’s The Gilded Age gave that period its name. From the 1870s to the early 1900s, the Gilded Age saw rapid industrialization, economic growth, glaring inequality, and societal transformation. It was also a time of innovation. From the birth of America to 1870, the US Patent Office granted 40,000 patents. By 1900, that number exploded tenfold. The country’s population nearly doubled in those 30 years from immigrants flooding into the nation to work in the factories. During this era, industrial magnates like Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, and Stanford amassed immense wealth. Twain satirized their greed and the corruption that defined America’s elite.

As the country experiences rapid digital transformation and robust economic growth, parallels to the Gilded Age are hard to ignore. Unlike then, wealth is concentrated in corporations rather than individuals and families. Like in the Gilded Age, many American families are left behind. Inefficient social programs that did not exist in the Gilded Age prop up society, but these programs come at the cost of unprecedented national debt. Without them, unrest would mirror the turmoil of the Gilded Age.

Leonhardt observed that the emerging idea of a more active federal role in regulating the private sector still lacks a name. Scholars and policymakers have referred to it as the “end of the neoliberal order,” “a new economics,” or “a new centrism.”

He makes a strong point. America has faced at least two significant periods of inequality before. In both instances, unifying messages helped Americans rise to the challenge. But before considering names, it’s worth breaking this idea into two fundamental questions.

First, do Americans have a mandate to address inequality?

Second, if Americans have a mandate and decide to act, what simple message could unite the nation and drive change?

Let’s start by considering the first question. Should Americans choose to address inequality?

Should America Address Inequality?

Businesses have no responsibility to address social inequality. None. Businesses have responsibilities only to their business and their shareholders. Diverting effort away from generating profit is using someone else’s money—shareholders, employees, or customers—for purposes they did not agree to. A business’s primary responsibility is to increase profits, and corporate executives should focus solely on maximizing shareholder value within legal and ethical boundaries. Any effort toward social justice is outside a business’s fundamental responsibility unless it directly contributes to profitability. While some businesses voluntarily pursue social initiatives, their fundamental legal responsibility is to maximize shareholder value.

Therefore, arguments claiming that businesses should pay higher wages to address social inequality are flawed, as businesses have no inherent responsibility to resolve societal issues. Declaring that an individual or group ‘should’ do something for which they have no responsibility (and therefore, no requirement) means they will do exactly what they are required to do. In this case, exactly nothing.

So…if businesses are not responsible for paying livable wages and can find workers willing to accept poverty-level pay, they have little incentive to raise wages voluntarily.

To continue this argument, we need to note that Americans can earn money from two sources: their work, or their fellow taxpayers in the form of the government. Because Americans get money from both sources, this leaves the government to address the shortfall in wages.

Through social programs, Congress spends the American people’s money to support society as a result of low wages. These social programs, subsidies, and incentives are supported by taxes collected from the American people. And our elected representatives certainly have the requirement to spend taxpayer money responsibly.

The basis of this requirement is found in Constitutional provisions that include the Spending Clause (Article I, Section 8), which directs Congress to allocate funds for defense and general welfare. It is further found in the Appropriations Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 7), which mandates transparency and accountability in public expenditures. Additionally, federal laws like the Antideficiency Act prohibit spending beyond appropriations, underscoring the Congressional duty to ensure fiscal discipline.

There’s another fascinating wrinkle here.

In United States v. Butler (1936), the Supreme Court ruled that Congress has the authority to spend money for the “general welfare” under the Spending Clause but that the Constitution limits that authority. This spending must serve the common good, not specific groups or industries. Subsidizing low wages with public funds serves business interests but not the American people as a whole.

Spending on social programs to help those who aren’t able to work supports American society by promoting order and tranquility. But half of American working families needing social program support is wildly excessive and points to low wages as a root cause problem.

The burden of wages has shifted from employers to taxpayers, violating the principle that public spending should benefit the nation as a whole.

We, the People, must meet the Constitutional standard to promote the general welfare. Therefore, Congress must act to reduce reliance on social programs by addressing systemic wage issues. Failure to do so violates Constitutional principles and harms the American public.

…

In short, we can answer our first question.

Do Americans have a mandate to address inequality?

Yes, Americans and our elected representatives have a Constitutional and legal mandate to address inequality. Failure to minimize spending on taxpayer-funded social programs benefits only special business interests, not the American people as a whole. This violates the Constitution. Therefore, we are mandated to take an active federal role in regulating the private sector.

Now, let’s recall our second question.

If Americans have a mandate and decide to act, what simple message could unite the nation and drive change?

History shows that when America faced inequality in the past, it found its way through unity and purpose. To understand how this was achieved, let’s turn to our nation’s first period of radical inequality and the leadership of Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln’s Legacy

Abraham Lincoln led the nation through its first great reckoning with radical inequality. The divide between free labor in the North and enslaved labor in the South symbolized a moral and economic conflict.

This divide was too great for Lincoln to tolerate. As a lawyer, he was known for clear reasoning and ability to simplify complex issues. In an 1862 draft titled Meditation on the Divine Will, he wrote that “God can not be for and against the same thing at the same time.” Lincoln sought to preserve the union, the first national goal outlined in our Constitution. The union could not sustain itself half-slave and half-free; it had to be one or the other.

This question defined Lincoln’s leadership. In a nation of free men and enslaved men, who had the right to the fruits of their labor?

In his Fragments of a Tariff Discussion (1847), Lincoln articulated his economic philosophy. He referenced the biblical phrase, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread,” to emphasize the dignity of labor and the moral imperative that workers should benefit from their toil. Later in his 1861 Annual Message to Congress, he outlined more specifically that “Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”

Further, in Fragments, Lincoln wrote that a “most worthy object of any good government” is to ensure that “each laborer (receives) the whole product of his labor, or as nearly as possible.” This belief tied directly to his fight against slavery as both a moral and economic injustice that denied millions of people their rightful share of the wealth they created.

Critics often downplay Lincoln’s connection to labor rights. They argue that he focused narrowly on preserving the Union or that the Civil War was not fundamentally about slavery. Luckily, Lincoln was a prolific writer who preserved his thoughts in ink. His views on labor were intertwined with his opposition to slavery. He believed that the right to benefit from one’s work was essential to a just and prosperous society.

Lincoln’s leadership was guided by principles that resonate as mantras even today.

“A house divided against itself cannot stand” captured his conviction that the nation’s survival depended on resolving the division between free and enslaved labor.

The Gettysburg Address’s “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” reaffirmed his belief in the republic’s role to enable the opportunity of Americans of any station of birth to benefit from their work.

As we confront modern inequality, we consider Lincoln’s legacy. He faced an economic system that denied millions of workers their fundamental rights. His vision of fairness in labor was twofold: First, each person has the right to benefit from their work, and second, ‘We, the People,’ must protect that right. These principles remain as vital today as they did during the Civil War.

The second national period of severe inequality was the Gilded Age. Several individuals led the nation through this more prolonged period, but Teddy Roosevelt left a decisive impact.

Teddy Roosevelt’s Legacy

President Theodore Roosevelt’s legacy is that for any one of us to be great, we all need to be able to be great. The primary source of our welfare is our work. The welfare of each of us depends on the welfare of all of us.

Teddy Roosevelt stepped forward during the Gilded Age to confront the entrenched power of industrial elites and champion the ability of individual Americans to be great. By Roosevelt’s time, the wealth and influence of “robber barons” like Rockefeller and Carnegie had reached unprecedented heights. They left millions of workers behind for a system that favored the few over the many. Roosevelt saw this disparity as a barrier to the greatness of the American people.

Roosevelt’s presidency is best remembered for his bold actions against corporate monopolies. As the “trust-buster,” he challenged the power of industrial giants, using the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to dismantle monopolies like Northern Securities and to regulate companies like Standard Oil. His actions conveyed that no individual or corporation was above the law. Roosevelt understood that unchecked corporate power created inequality and stifled opportunity, making it impossible for the average person to succeed and thrive.

Roosevelt didn’t believe that the government’s role was to tear down booming businesses or level the playing field. He believed that the government should give every individual a “Square Deal,” or fair chance, to be great. A core premise of his administration was that the government needed to actively intervene on behalf of the general public to ensure economic opportunity for all.

Roosevelt’s mantras reflect these principles.

“Far and away, the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing,” reflected his belief that fulfillment, purpose, and personal greatness are achieved through dedication to meaningful effort.

“The welfare of each of us depends on the welfare of all of us” embodied Roosevelt’s vision of a society where every individual, regardless of birth or background, had a fair chance to succeed. In this society, the government had a duty to protect the rights of workers, promote fair competition, and ensure access to opportunity.

Roosevelt’s legacy reminds us of the importance of empowering individuals to be great. Greatness is a product of good work and a fair share of the profits from that work. Greatness is a collective pursuit. His presidency was a testament to the idea that everyone deserves a square deal to live, work, and achieve.

…

Now we can address our second question.

If Americans have a mandate and decide to act, what simple message could unite the nation and drive change?

A New Economics: Reward Work, Build Opportunity

Lincoln faced a nation divided by slavery and inequality, but he never wavered in his belief that every worker deserved the fruits of their labor. Roosevelt fought against monopolies to ensure that individual Americans had a fair chance to succeed.

Both great leaders focused their decisive effort on enabling Americans from any station of birth to reap the value of their work.

They had two simple messages.

First, the messages “A house divided against itself cannot stand” and “Far and away, the best prize that life offers is the chance to work hard at work worth doing” share a common theme. The survival of the nation relies on Americans finding fulfillment and purpose through meaningful work and having the right to bring the fruits of their labor home to their families.

Second, the messages “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” and “The welfare of each of us depends on the welfare of all of us” emphasize the government’s duty to safeguard that right and ensure opportunity for all Americans, regardless of their station of birth.

These simple messages illuminate the fundamental human truth that fulfillment comes from enjoying our work and eating and drinking with those we love.

With these truths in mind, we can answer our second question.

If Americans have a mandate and decide to act, what simple message could unite the nation and drive change?

“A New Economics: Reward Work, Build Opportunity” is a good starting point.

May God bless the United States of America.

I love hearing from listeners and readers. While I don’t always respond with a dedicated piece, I genuinely appreciate the feedback and seriously consider the questions.

This week, John left a comment at Substack on Reward Work, Build Opportunity:

"Perhaps, instead of waiting for Washington D.C. to work for us, those with skills needed to stimulate the economy and create new jobs could work together."

I love the comment. It challenges the premise that “We, the People,” have a collective mandate to organize and address inequality. It reflects frustration with our elected officials’ inability to fulfill their Constitutional duty. But more than that, it suggests a belief that we can make America better—even without complete consensus.

So! … Let’s explore it.

Capitalism

The heart of John’s comment gets into capitalism as our foundational economic system. The fundamental truth of capitalism is best illustrated by a 1776 quote from Scottish Economist and Philosopher Adam Smith:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

In a capitalist system, private citizens control property and act in their self-interest to gain economic prosperity.

Capitalism drives significant economic growth and innovation. It undeniably demonstrates the ability to drive progress and meet consumer demand. Supported by order and defense, capitalism is the foundation of America’s high standard of living.

Let’s consider a series of questions as an example of this exceedingly high standard of living. How many of us put milk or cream in our coffee or butter on our toast this morning? How many of us woke up at four to milk the cow and churn the butter? After months or years working on a dairy, you will never take cream or butter for granted. Our national abundance of butter comes from capitalism.

Our butter example highlights one of capitalism’s great strengths: its ability to pool individual effort into a system that delivers abundance for others. Producers work to meet consumer demand in ways that create economic growth and improve living standards for everyone. As John’s comment suggests, collaboration within this framework—through competition, business partnerships, innovation, or shared effort— creates even more opportunity.

A capitalist system aims to enable individuals to act in their self-interest. Its success—economic growth, innovation, and increased living standards—motivates us to keep it as the foundational economic system.

A Simplified Premise

Let’s pose a simplified premise: inside this capitalist system, there are business owners (such as corporations, small businesses, etc.), and there are individual workers.

Businesses are solely responsible to their shareholders. They focus on profit and maximizing business value within legal and ethical limits. Diverting resources away from profit involves using others’ money—shareholders, employees, or customers—without their consent.

Some criticize this focus on profit, but it serves a vital role in a capitalist system. Profits enable businesses to reinvest, innovate, expand, and create more opportunities for workers and consumers. Without this commitment to profitability, businesses fail, jobs disappear, and economic progress stalls. In essence, by focusing on their bottom line, businesses indirectly contribute to the broader economy. Profits are what remains from revenue after expenses, taxes, and costs.

Worker pay is a component of revenue. Businesses generate revenue by selling goods or services, using part to pay wages among other expenses. They also invest in infrastructure, technology, taxes, raw materials, manufacturing, logistics, and research and development.

In sum, high worker pay reduces profitability and threatens business viability, especially in lean years. Therefore, acting in their self-interest, businesses seek to cut wages to maximize profits.

Let’s keep pulling on this thread. In this simplified system, individual workers command higher pay by raising their value. Workers seeking to raise their value need to change their position on the ‘Supply and Demand’ scale.

In simple systems, supply and demand explain free market prices. Supply refers to how much of a product or service is available, and demand is how much people want it. This applies to wages, too. Supply represents the number of workers available with the skills needed for a particular job, and demand represents how many employers compete for those skills.

For example, consider a dishwasher. It’s easy to find people capable of washing dishes, though maybe not easy to find someone willing to do so. The perceived value of the job remains low because the skill level required is minimal, and employers can usually find enough workers to fill the gap.

On the other hand, consider a computer engineer. It’s harder to find someone who can do the job because the skills required are specialized and take training, education, and time to develop. The limited supply of qualified engineers, coupled with the high demand for their expertise, drives their wages higher. Employers in this scenario must compete more aggressively for skilled talent. This competition means they offer higher pay and better benefits to attract the best candidates.

This back-and-forth illustrates why raising worker value is vital to supporting both workers and businesses. Workers who invest in learning new skills, gaining certifications, or entering high-demand fields improve their position on the supply-demand scale. They move into roles where their skills are scarce, making them more valuable to employers. As a result, they command higher wages. Businesses leverage their increased value to innovate and grow revenue, which supports paying higher wages.

Now that we have a common understanding of these basics let’s return to John’s comment. His suggestion touches on the idea that workers, business owners, and communities can collaborate within this system to raise worker value and create opportunities that benefit everyone.

Stimulate the Economy and Create Jobs

John suggests we work together through our capitalist system to create higher-paying jobs. In a non-regulated free market economy, this means raising worker value so businesses can innovate and grow revenue. As businesses grow, this revenue allows workers to command higher wages in the market.

Working together to raise worker value without taxpayer dollars or regulation likely involves creating a non-profit organization that would enhance the professional development of young workers. This organization could become a collaboration hub where businesses, educators, and communities work toward a shared goal of preparing local workers with in-demand skills.

This non-profit organization would establish a vision, mission, task, and purpose. Funding would come from private sources—particularly businesses needing a more skilled workforce. Local businesses would be instrumental in shaping the training programs, ensuring they align with actual market needs. With these resources, the organization could develop educational and training materials tailored to young individuals with no education and training beyond high school. These workers, equipped with quality skills, would enter businesses ready to innovate, boost productivity, and generate revenue. In turn, they could command higher wages, benefiting both themselves and the broader economy.

This organization would need to track results, such as job placements, wage increases, and productivity gains, to ensure its programs remain effective and relevant.

Of course, there would be severe challenges. Securing funding, maintaining a relevant curriculum, and scaling the program require focus and determination. But with the right partnerships and a clear purpose, it’s possible. Businesses, workers, and communities would need to come together, but the potential payoff of a more skilled workforce and a stronger economy is worth the effort.

It wouldn’t be easy, but it would provide businesses and individuals with a solution that works within our capitalist system. And it supports John’s idea of taking ownership of our shared future instead of waiting for the government to act.

…

In the meantime, we are spending the American people’s money to support society as a result of low wages. Half of American working families needing social program support is wildly excessive. Because businesses exist to achieve profitability, they seek to cut wages to maximize profits. Building consensus to reduce inequality through regulation is necessary and must continue.

Build Consensus…

Changing culture is hard. It takes dedicated and sustained effort.

A part of realigning our culture with the American ideal is building consensus.

Building consensus involves developing messages that resonate broadly across diverse populations, reminding us of our shared goals and the principles that unite us.

If we are to orient our perspective towards the goals that are America, we have to use our decisive effort to achieve our goals. It could take ten or more years.

So! … In the meantime, we focus on these guiding principles: Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty.

We conserve the institution that is our Constitutional democratic Republic.

We progress toward the opportunity for all Americans to be born from nothing and achieve greatness.

May God bless the United States of America.

We often hear that land doesn’t vote; people do.

How about a different perspective?

Land doesn’t have rights, but land endows rights.

What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?

We often hear that “land doesn’t vote; people do.” This phrase highlights the humanity of our democratic republic. The adage emphasizes rights of the individual and the collective power of the electorate to shape governance and policy. But, the viewpoint oversimplifies the intertwined relationship between people and the soil.

Land doesn’t have rights, but land endows rights. Geographical boundaries and birthplaces shape individual rights, demonstrating the enduring influence of the land on our legal and societal frameworks.

The Latin Jus soli, or the right of the soil, is a cornerstone of our legal and societal frameworks. It grants individuals a national identity rooted in their birthplace.

Our Constitution establishes rights granted to all Americans by the soil, including rights of citizenship, representation, and national service.

This connection between land and individual rights becomes especially clear when we consider the legal foundations of citizenship in America. Citizenship’s roots grow into this concept of the soil.

Citizenship

Citizenship in America is founded on jus soli, the right of the soil, and jus sanguinis, the right of blood. The right of the soil carries into the right of blood.

Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1870 to Wee Lee and Wong Si Ping. The couple were not American citizens and had no path to citizenship; they returned to China when Wong was eight.

In August 1895, at the age of 24, Wong made a return trip to San Francisco with papers certifying his identity and legal standing as a citizen born on American soil. US customs official John H. Wise denied Wong’s entry on the grounds of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the 1880 Angell Treaty between the US and Qing Dynasty China, which recognized America’s ability to restrict Chinese immigration. Wise ordered Wong deported.

Wong appealed the decision and remained on shipping vessels for several months off the coast of California. In 1897, the US Supreme Court heard his case. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the court found Wong to be an American citizen on the grounds of the 14th Amendment’s first clause: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

During deliberation, the court found Wong was born in the US. Further, though his parents were subjects to the Emperor of China, they were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.” The court affirmed that Wong was subject to US jurisdiction at birth and thus a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark upheld the principle of the right of the soil for determining citizenship. It firmly clarified that children born in America to foreign citizens are US citizens, even if their parents have no allegiance to America. The Supreme Court's decision established a broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It ensured that the vast majority of children born on American soil are entitled to citizenship, regardless of their parents' nationality. Though the fight for equal treatment of Asian Americans continued well past Mr. Wong, this ruling has had a lasting impact on immigration and citizenship policies.

Jus soli grants citizenship to all born on US soil and carries through blood. The right of blood extends the right of citizenship across borders, allowing children born abroad to American citizens to inherit their citizenship. This dual foundation reflects a comprehensive understanding of national belonging—rights rooted in the physical land of America that reach through the blood to extend the inalienable rights to those born to American parents worldwide.

Just as jus soli grants citizenship, it also confers the right to participate in our democratic republic. This extension of rights from the land empowers us as participants in the national discourse.

Representation

The 14th Amendment is not the earliest affirmation of the right of the soil in the Constitution. The first reference to the premise that soil endows citizens with rights is earlier than even the Bill of Rights.

Specifically, Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution identifies, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…”

This section was later amended by the 12th Amendment after some drama in the 1796 and 1800 elections. It forms the basis of the Electoral College, which grants individuals the right to representation in national elections. By ensuring that residents' votes in each state contribute to the national outcome of presidential elections, the Electoral College grants them a meaningful role in the democratic process.

The Constitution achieves this by guaranteeing that every state has a certain number of electors, regardless of population. This system grants "rights" or influence to regions, paralleling how jus soli grants citizenship rights to individuals born on US soil.

Just as the right of the soil grants citizenship, it also guarantees that each geographic state has a say in national elections. Because land doesn’t vote, the Constitution extends this guarantee to the voters in each state.

“Land doesn’t vote; people do” is a misconception. The statement overlooks how the Electoral College system carefully balances geographic diversity and population. The system allocates votes in a manner that accounts for geographic distribution, thereby preventing larger population states from completely dominating national elections. It also supports the underlying principle of our democratic republic—every vote is an expression of an individual's choice, and all states have a voice in national elections.

In short, land doesn’t bestow on Americans the right to vote; it grants people from each state influence in national elections, no matter how small the state. Elected representatives from all states ratified both the US Constitution and the 12th Amendment. Therefore, every American agreed with the premise that each state has a voice in national elections.

The influence of land on rights extends into the highest offices of national service, reinforcing the critical role that birthplace plays in determining who may lead the nation.

National Service

Serving the nation in any capacity is a privilege. Serving in the highest office is a privilege only available to those who are endowed with the right of the soil.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President.” If you weren’t born on US soil or with the right of the soil carried into the right of blood, you are ineligible for the nation’s highest office.

The founders included the natural-born citizen requirement to ensure the President would have the deep-rooted allegiance to the United States that only the right of the soil bestows. They believed the requirement would reduce the risk of foreign governments having control over the nation.

Eight Presidents had parents, or both parents, who were not born on US soil. They range from Andrew Jackson, whose parents were both immigrants, to Donald Trump, whose mother was an immigrant. But all Presidents have been natural-born citizens, either born on US soil or to US citizens abroad in an official capacity.

National service is a distinguished honor, especially when it involves leading the country. Only those granted citizenship by the right of the soil or the right of the soil through the blood are eligible. This precedent safeguards the presidency from foreign influence, ensuring the President's loyalty lies firmly with America.

Now for our question: What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?

Birthright citizenship isn’t a legal formality. It’s a fundamental cornerstone of American democracy and identity. It ensures that every person born on American soil is a part of the nation's fabric, endowed with the rights and responsibilities that fortify our collective future. Overturning the precedent would lead to a future where many are isolated, disenfranchised, and alienated from the civic body.

Attempting to repeal birthright citizenship would disregard the strong precedent that allegiance to America is gained through the right of the soil.

Some argue that we should repeal birthright citizenship to preserve national identity and ensure we grant citizenship only to those with a provable connection to the United States. But national identity and unity come from commitment to the American ideal, not from repealing birthright citizenship.

Some argue for the repeal of birthright citizenship because children of non-citizens place an undue economic burden on American taxpayers. They cite the costs of public education, healthcare, and other social services. This perspective overlooks the long-term economic contributions of immigrants and their children, who stay in America for generations.

Finally, proponents of repealing birthright citizenship argue it would enhance national security and more effectively control immigration. In fact, it would lead to stateless individuals inside the country, creating a marginalized group that's more vulnerable to radicalization and exploitation. Individuals born on American soil have a clear and immediate stake in the country's future, promoting societal integration and cohesion.

Throughout our discussion, from citizenship to national representation and service, we see a consistent theme: soil bestows rights on Americans.

Our Constitution firmly establishes that we are tied to the soil and the soil through blood. Birthright citizenship is crucial for American identity and the health of our democratic republic.

The Constitution grants individuals rights of citizenship, representation, and national service based on the soil. These rights underscore the importance of soil—whether a specific place of one's birth or the geographic boundaries of states—in defining what it means to be American.

National identity and unity come from shared values and commitments to the American ideal.

What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?

Attempting to repeal birthright citizenship would disregard the strong precedent the Constitution establishes: namely, jus soli imprints allegiance on Americans.

May God bless the United States of America.

Before we discuss progressives today and ask, “Who is the Champion of ‘We, the People?’”, we need some context. We gauge progress by whether our decisive efforts move America closer to achieving its six national goals.

Both conservative and progressive principles are essential for effective governance. Without both sets of principles, we cannot achieve America’s goals.

But progressivism’s focus drifted. To meet our goals, we must restore it as a center of gravity—focused on the people, not just the government.

…

Conservatives believe in America and strive to conserve the institution that is the American ideal. Their principles respect tradition, state and local governance, individual liberty, and personal responsibility. Their philosophy values the wisdom of the past, seeks cautious progress in the present, and envisions a stable, prosperous future.

From a business standpoint, conservatives rely on their commitment to personal responsibility. They advocate for free-market capitalism and minimal government intervention. They believe that to command higher wages, workers are responsible for increasing their value. They oppose unfunded federal mandates because they face the reality that to pay higher wages, businesses must increase revenue or face elimination. High worker pay reduces profitability and can threaten business viability, especially in lean years. Therefore, acting in their self-interest, businesses seek to minimize wages to maximize profits.

Conservative values strongly benefit America. They advance living standards by driving economic growth, encouraging innovation, and fostering competition.

Democrats and Republicans alike can be conservatives.

…

Like conservatives, progressives believe in the American ideal.

Progressives view the government as a go-between representative for the people. An intermediary. Strong progressives advocate for fairness and equality across American society. They believe the government must set conditions enabling every individual to have a fair chance to be great.

Regarding business, progressives believe the government must set conditions enabling fair workplace environments, including pay, safety, and hours. They pass federal mandates that benefit workers and America as a whole. They seek to create a society where individuals fulfill their roles and contribute to the overall well-being of the state.

Progressive values strongly benefit America. They advance American society by promoting justice and economic stability, protecting worker rights, and ensuring fair wages. Government regulations create safer workplaces, prevent exploitation, and help sustain a middle class that drives consumer demand.

Republicans and Democrats alike can be progressives.

…

As a related topic, let’s recall there are six national goals outlined in the Constitution. Union… Order… Defense… Welfare… Justice… and Liberty…

Some might view the goals as having different priorities. For example, conservatives might lean toward order over justice, while progressives might choose the opposite. But the truth is that all six goals carry the same weight.

So … if conservatives and progressives see different priorities—but the goals themselves are equal—then we need both perspectives to achieve them. Relying only on conservative principles threatens justice. Relying only on progressive values threatens order.

Now that we have shared context, that brings us to this week’s question.

Who is the Champion of ‘We, the People?’

Representative AOC and Jon Stewart

On the January 23 episode of The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY)—better known simply as AOC—joined host, hilarious comedian, and all-around great American Jon Stewart for a lengthy interview.

At around 45:20, Stewart and AOC begin a portion of their conversation that YouTube has named “What is the Process of Redefining what the Democratic Party Represents?”

Stewart comments—

“People are thirsty for … leadership. The Democrats, I think, have had a really difficult time responding to that thirst, responding to that action. What is the process then of redefining what this party is, what it represents moving forward, and are there leaders there?”

Representative AOC responds—

“If you ask a working-class American or just any normal American, what is a Democrat? What do they stand for? They will not really be able to give you a clear answer …”

A meaningful exchange.

…

Okay. Let’s tie our thoughts together.

We need both conservative and progressive ideas to attempt to achieve the goals outlined in the Constitution.

Conservatives have not wavered in their commitment to personal responsibility. They believe workers are responsible for their own wages. They oppose unfunded federal mandates. They support business profitability, recognizing the challenges of balancing profitability and survival.

Now for progressives. While both parties can have progressives, Democrats lean that way more often.

So…to answer AOC’s question…what do progressives stand for?

Working-class Americans no longer see a strong group of progressives fighting on their behalf. Progressives face a crisis of identity. They have become the party of government, not the party of the people. Leaders like AOC openly acknowledge this gap.

Let’s ask again. Who is the Champion of ‘We, the People?’

Do Progressives Believe in the People?

There are two points to be made here.

The first is a fundamental truth in life. Never reinforce your shaping effort—focus everything on the decisive action that brings real change. Save and expend all your resources, or as many as possible, towards your decisive effort.

For progressives, this means fighting against conservatives is a waste of time and resources. Political battles for the sake of winning political theater don’t serve the American people. In the fleeting moments when progressives have both the public will and the political consensus to create meaningful change, every ounce of decisive effort must be spent on delivering tangible results. Wasting that energy on ideological fights, political purity tests, or symbolic victories only kills progress for those who need it most.

Progressives need to fight for the people, not against conservatives. Every moment spent trying to score points against the opposition is a moment not spent improving wages, expanding opportunity for kids who live in projects or leaky trailers, or securing a better future for working Americans. If progressives are serious about governance, their singular focus must be delivering real, lasting benefits to the people they claim to represent. Anything less is a waste of precious time and resources.

The second point is even more fundamental: the point of government is not government.

Government does not exist to serve itself. It is not meant to perpetuate its own power or sustain bureaucratic inertia. The entire premise of American governance is that it is of, by, and for the people. That means every policy, every law, and every decision should be measured against a simple standard: Does this advance American interests toward achieving one of our six goals for the American people?

Progressives lose sight of this. Their attention drifts to prioritizing expanded government authority or making governance easier over empowering individuals. They allow their focus to change toward maintaining political control instead of achieving progress for working-class America. This breaks the trust of the people they claim to serve.

So the question remains: Do progressives believe in the people? If they do, then their path is clear. They must fight for them, not against their political opponents. They must use government as a tool to uplift Americans, not as a means to sustain itself. And they must never forget that political victory is not a measure of success. It’s measured by the prosperity of the working-class people they serve.

Many of us are both conservatives and progressives. We strive to conserve the institution that is the American ideal. And we believe in progress toward achieving our national goals for the American people.

Because we are both conservatives and progressives, we can reword our takeaways to make them more relevant.

Both conservative and progressive principles are essential for effective governance. Without both sets of principles, we cannot achieve America’s goals.

Relying only on conservative principles threatens justice. Relying only on progressive values threatens order.

The point of government is not government. Political victory is not a measure of success.

We measure our success by the prosperity of the working-class people we serve.

We gauge progress by whether our decisive efforts move America closer to achieving its six national goals.

May God bless the United States of America.

Why is remembering American history so hard? It’s a question that needs an answer because Black history is American history, and federal agencies decided to ban Black History Month.

Black history isn’t just Black history. It’s a record of our constant battle between order and justice. To erase it is to erase the struggle that defines our national identity. It may be easier to maintain a neat, sanitized version of our history than to confront the struggle and resistance justice demands, but that ease is detrimental to America.

If remembering Black history is too difficult, maybe we should turn to the one document that defines our national values. Every state in the Union agreed with the verbiage. You’d think it would offer clarity.

But even there, justice and order are locked in a constant struggle. The Constitution sets both as national goals, side by side. Then, history demonstrates again and again how the ideals clash and how essential they are to each other.

Justice Disrupts Order, and Order Suppresses Justice

Last week, we discussed the inherent tension between justice and order. Ensuring domestic tranquility and establishing justice are two of our six national goals, but they are often at odds.

Tranquility means a society built on order, stability, and mutual respect. Tranquility is a deliberate national choice to maintain a collective structure.

Justice is the foundation for a society in which individuals can fulfill their roles and contribute to the nation’s well-being. It includes fair and equal treatment under the law, equal access to individual opportunity, and equitable distribution of resources like education, healthcare, and housing.

Justice threatens order. We build institutions and cultural norms around systems that offer stability but perpetuate inequality and power imbalance. Calls for justice expose inherent flaws. They challenge the status quo.

Order threatens justice. While order is necessary for social stability, the rigid pursuit of order obstructs justice. Groups in power preserve the status quo instead of addressing systemic imbalances. They argue that stability must be maintained at all costs. This focus on order suppresses dissent and marginalizes groups that call for reform.

No American better embodies the tension between justice and order than the great Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

But to really understand the challenge of justice, order, and Dr. King, we need to first understand Reverend Billy Graham.

Billy Graham Believed in Order

In 1954, TIME Magazine called Reverend Billy Graham “the best-known, most talked-about Christian leader in the world today, barring the Pope.” US presidents sought his council. He became the moral advisor to the nation.

By 1957, Graham was at the height of his influence as America’s most prominent evangelist. That year marked his landmark New York City Crusade. The 16-week revival held at Madison Square Garden drew massive crowds. Over two million people attended, and more than 60,000 responded to his call for conversion.

Graham’s sermons emphasized personal salvation and moral living. His message resonated with many Americans wrestling with Cold War anxiety and social change. It offered comfort in uncertain times.

During this crusade, Graham crossed paths with a young reverend, Martin Luther King Jr., for the first time. Graham hoped to expand the reach of his message to a broader audience and invited King to speak in New York. King spoke of a brotherhood that transcended race and color. He hoped alliances with influential figures like Graham could accelerate the fight for civil rights.

By 1960, differences between the two men’s approaches emerged. Graham made it clear he valued social order above civil disobedience. He stated…

“I do believe that we have a responsibility to obey the law. Otherwise, you have anarchy. And, no matter what that law may be—it may be an unjust law—I believe we have a Christian responsibility to obey it.”

There it is. Order versus justice.

Graham wasn’t just preaching personal salvation—he was tapping into a national desire for stability in a time of upheaval. For many, his message was a soothing alternative to the discomfort of systemic injustice.

Graham’s stance reflected the views of many Americans at the time. They were uncomfortable with the confrontational approach of the Civil Rights movement. They preferred order to justice. Graham’s supporters argue he wasn’t racist. They argue he was called to a mission focused on personal salvation rather than political activism. His critics argue that his reluctance to challenge unjust laws reflected a failure to meet the moral urgency of the moment.

No matter the reason, his line was drawn by April 1963. As Graham envisioned order, King led the Birmingham Campaign. This bold, nonviolent movement targeted deep-rooted segregation and racial injustice in one of America’s most racially divided cities.

Letter from a Birmingham Jail

In April 1963, Birmingham, Alabama, was the most violently racist city in the United States. Its aggressive resistance to desegregation earned it the nickname “Bombingham” due to the frequent bombings of Black homes and churches by white supremacists. From 1945 to 1962, white supremacists conducted 50 racially motivated bombings of Black American homes, businesses, and churches.

They bombed the home of Reverend Milton Curry Jr. on August 2, 1949. The home of Monroe and Mary Means Monk on December 21, 1950. The home of the minister of Bethel Baptist Church, Reverend Fred Shuttlesworth, on December 24, 1956. The Ku Klux Klan bombed Bethel Baptist Church on June 29, 1958. It was the second time the Klan had bombed the church.

On and on. 50 bombings.

Amid the years of bombings, Public Safety Commissioner Bull Connor led the city government to openly enforce Jim Crow laws with brutal tactics. They used police dogs, fire hoses, and mass arrests to suppress civil rights demonstrations.

Quite a backdrop.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. arrived in Birmingham, Alabama, on April 3, 1963, to lead the Birmingham Campaign. It was the season of the major Christian holiday of Easter. On Easter, Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus Christ and his love for humanity. We remember our vow to love God and love others.

King’s Birmingham Campaign included nonviolent protests against segregation and racial injustice. King and other activists planned sit-ins, marches, and boycotts targeting businesses that upheld segregation.

On April 10, 1963, Circuit Judge of the Tenth Judicial Circuit of Alabama W. A. Jenkins, Jr. issued an injunction prohibiting the demonstrations.

King and others chose to defy the order. They viewed it as an unjust law meant to suppress their Constitutional rights. On April 12, Good Friday, the day Christians remember the Romans putting Christ to death, authorities arrested King and at least 55 other leaders for “parading without a permit.” King spent 9 days in jail. They loved him so much they denied him even his phone call.

While in jail, King read a public letter from eight white Alabama clergymen who criticized the protests as “unwise and untimely.” They urged activists to seek justice through the courts rather than the streets.

King wrote his response to the letter in the margins of a newspaper and on scraps of paper smuggled in by friends. The pieces became the iconic Letter from Birmingham Jail. In it, King defends civil disobedience and highlights the moral urgency of confronting injustice.

King explicitly calls out Americans who are “more devoted to order than to justice; who prefer a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice.”

There it is again. Order versus justice.

…

Let’s reestablish that this is not a Black history topic. This is a Constitutional topic. This is the interlocked American history of Billy Graham and Martin Luther King Jr. Just as we have a national goal to ensure order, we have a national goal to establish justice.

Order and justice. Two ideals, forever competing. Let’s pause for a minute and honor the genius of Gouverneur Morris, Pennsylvania delegate to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, who wrote the Preamble; the founding fathers that agreed to the verbiage; and each state in the Union for ratifying the document. Together, they laid out national goals that were almost impossible to achieve. They understood the delicate balance needed to hold a diverse and divided nation together.

In the ultimate irony, they placed the words establishing justice and ensuring domestic tranquility side by side in the Preamble.

They knew a society striving for justice would inevitably disrupt the status quo. We would challenge entrenched power. It would create tension. At the same time, they recognized that without order, society could descend into chaos. Chaos makes justice impossible to sustain. This tension is a feature of the system. The struggle forces every generation to wrestle with competing ideals.

Each principle threatens the other. But that’s not why they are next to each other in the Constitution.

They’re next to each other because each value is essential to achieve the other.

Justice Enables Order

Justice sets the conditions for trust. In an environment of justice, people trust that they have rights, that those rights are protected, and that fairness governs social interactions. They trust that they are treated equitably, regardless of race, class, or background.

In a just society, people respect the rules and institutions that govern their lives. Justice fosters legitimacy, and legitimacy is the foundation of stable, lasting order.

Enforcing order without justice is impossible. Without justice, any semblance of order is fragile. Authorities may attempt to maintain control through fear, repression, or coercion, but this “order” is unsustainable. It breeds resentment, resistance, and unrest. A society that values individuals, respects rights, and offers real opportunities for prosperity doesn’t need to police itself into submission.

Back to Birmingham in 1963. Authorities claimed they were maintaining order, but that “order” depended on segregation, discrimination, and suppression. It wasn’t order—it was controlled instability. The American people’s demand for justice didn’t just disrupt order—it exposed what many called ‘order’ was a system built on oppression.

On the surface, one might assume that justice threatens order. But justice and order are not rivals. Justice isn’t just compatible with order—it’s the only thing that makes order possible.

As justice enables order, order sustains justice.

Order Sustains Justice

Order is necessary to sustain justice. Justice requires a strong institution of structure, law, and social framework to establish and maintain it. Without order, these systems collapse. This collapse makes it impossible to protect individual rights, ensure fairness, or maintain trust in governance.

History demonstrates that righteous justice movements rely on some level of structure to succeed.

Back again to Birmingham in 1963. The Civil Rights Movement made lasting change in the nation. But dismantling segregation depended on legal victories, organized protests, and strategic leadership. Without disciplined nonviolent resistance combined with a functioning legal system to challenge unjust laws, racial justice would have remained an ideal rather than a reality.

Even when we achieve justice, we still have a duty to preserve it. A just society cannot exist in a constant state of upheaval. Laws must be enforced, rights must be protected, and institutions must remain strong to prevent injustice from creeping back in. Without order, justice is fleeting. It becomes a moment of fairness swallowed by instability.

Justice corrects and refines order, but order provides the structure that allows justice to endure.

American History

Justice and order are not Black history. They are American history.

They are the interlocked American history of Reverend Billy Graham, who believed in order, and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., who knew order was not possible without justice.

This is a Constitutional topic. Just as we have a national goal to maintain order, we have a national goal to establish justice.

Today, we continue to struggle with order and justice. We will always struggle with order and justice. History demonstrates again and again how the ideals clash.

When we look deeper, we see how essential they are to each other. There is no order without justice. We cannot sustain justice without order.

We don’t have to do it in February every year, but if we don’t study Black history, how will we remember American history?

May God bless the United States of America.

Petro Kalnyshevsky: The Last Cossack

Curtain up. The stage is set. A warrior, a nation, and a betrayal that would echo for centuries.

Imagine. A man who has spent a lifetime fighting for his people, riding into battle, outmaneuvering empires, defending his homeland. He commands warriors, negotiates with kings, and builds a thriving nation from the wild steppe. And then, at 85 years old, after everything he’s given, his so-called ally betrays him.

One moment, he was the leader of the fiercest, freest people in Eastern Europe. The next, a prisoner, dragged away in chains, locked in a stone cell, left to rot in the cold, endless dark.

This is the story of Peter Ivanovich Kalnyshevsky, the last leader of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, betrayed by the Russians. He lived through the rise and fall of a nation and spent 25 years in confinement, refusing to break.

A Warrior’s Rise

Kalnyshevsky was born in the late 1600s in what is now central Ukraine, a land of vast, untamed wilderness where survival meant strength. From a young age, he was drawn to the life of the Zaporozhian Cossacks, the wild horsemen of the steppe. They answered to no king or emperor. They lived by the sword, fought as free men, and bent the knee to no one.

By the time Kalnyshevsky rose through the ranks, people both feared and admired the Cossacks. They were known for their brutal raids against the Ottomans and their cunning ability to play empires against each other. But by the mid-18th century, the world was changing. The Russian Empire was expanding, and the Cossacks were caught in a dangerous game.

Kalnyshevsky was a master of strategy, on and off the battlefield. In 1762, the people elected him Kosh Ataman, the leader of the Cossacks. Russian Empress Catherine removed him in 1763, but the people, undeterred, elected him against her wishes again in 1765. He ruled with a mix of toughness and diplomacy. Under his command, the Sich thrived. The Cossacks became essential allies to Russia in its wars against the Ottomans, and Kalnyshevsky hoped that by proving their loyalty, he could secure their independence.

Catherine had other plans.

The Night of Betrayal

The Cossacks failed to shape the battlefield in their favor. They relied on Russian alliances that betrayed them. They believed their contributions would secure their future.

By 1774, Russian Empress Catherine the Great had secured a major victory against the Ottoman Empire in the Russo-Turkish War. That same year, she signed the Treaty of Küçük Kaynarca, which gave Russia control over Crimea and expanded her empire’s reach. The Cossacks, once useful in the fight against the Ottomans, were now a liability.

For years, Catherine had been dismantling Ukrainian autonomy. She had already crushed the Hetmanate, another independent Cossack structure, in the 1760s. The Zaporozhian Cossacks were next. She saw them as too independent, too unpredictable. Their lands were valuable. Their fighting spirit, too dangerous to be left unchecked. The empire could not allow a warrior state to exist within its borders.

On the night of June 4th to 5th, 1775, without warning, General Pyotr Tekeli’s army surrounded the Zaporozhian Sich. Sixty thousand Russian soldiers against a few thousand Cossacks. There was no chance. Kalnyshevsky, then 85 years old, knew that fighting would mean slaughter. So he ordered his men to lay down their arms, hoping to negotiate, hoping to save what little remained.

He was wrong. Catherine’s betrayal wasn’t just political. It was complete.

That night, there was no bloodshed, but two months later, Russia finished the betrayal. On August 3, 1775, Catherine ordered the Sich to be destroyed and wiped off the map. The Russians tore down fortifications, looted homes, and desecrated churches. They seized Cossack records in an attempt to erase their history. Some Cossacks managed to escape to Ottoman-controlled lands. Others were forcibly conscripted into the Russian army. The Zaporozhian way of life, centuries old, was erased.

And as for Kalnyshevsky, the empire couldn’t risk letting a legend roam free.

Ten Years of Darkness

In July of 1776, the American Continental Congress signed the Declaration of Independence from Britain. The same month, the Russians arrested and exiled Kalnyshevsky. And not just any prison. Solovetsky Monastery. A frozen fortress in the White Sea, where political prisoners were sent to vanish.

Then in 1792, the Russians put him in solitary confinement for ten years. His cell was three meters by three meters, a stone box with no windows, no books, and no human contact. Kalnyshevsky sat in the darkness. He went blind. The world outside changed, but he remained trapped, a relic of a lost nation.

He was a warrior who had led thousands into battle, now left alone with nothing but his thoughts and prayers. And yet, he refused to break.

The Russian empire expected him to die quickly, but the old Cossack endured.

Years of isolation and deprivation robbed him of his vision but not his will. Even the monastery guards, hardened men who had seen many prisoners die in despair, came to admire him. He became known not as a broken old man but as a saint-like figure—silent, unshaken, and still carrying the pride of the Cossacks.

In 1801, at the age of 110, Emperor Alexander I of Russia pardoned him. Alexander intended to present himself as a reformer. One of his early acts was to grant amnesty to several long-imprisoned political figures.

But it was too late.

There was nowhere left to go. The Sich was gone. The Cossacks had been scattered. Kalnyshevsky was an elderly blind man without a home, without a people. So he stayed at the monastery, living out his final two years in quiet solitude.

When he died in 1803, he was buried in the cold northern soil, far from the land he had fought for.

The Last Cossack

Today, we remember Petro Kalnyshevsky as a symbol of resistance. He refused to break in the face of an empire.

Despite efforts in the 1990s to repatriate them, his remains were never relocated to Ukraine. His gravestone exists, but the exact location of his grave is lost; buried at Solovetsky Monastery in Russia. In 2008, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Kyiv Patriarchate canonized him as a saint, recognizing his enduring legacy.

Today, the last Cossack still stands. A legend of defiance. A reminder that free people will always fight against Russian aggression.

(Beat. Silence.)

Curtain down.

Scene Two

Enter Stage Right … the Capitalists

It so happens that funding the fight of a free people against their Russian oppressors isn’t inexpensive. Some Americans think these resources should be a two-way street. If Ukraine wants American support, it needs to prioritize aligning its economic future with US interests. And that starts with a minerals deal.

Some say our relationship shouldn’t be transactional. But Friday’s meeting between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky made it clear that the White House isn’t treating support for Ukraine as a matter of ideological solidarity. The United States is making decisions based on interests. If Ukraine wants continued support, securing the mineral rights deal with American companies must be its top priority.

Ukraine has a stronger hand than is apparent. America is desperate to counterbalance China’s monopoly in the rare earth element business, and getting rare earth elements from Greenland appears increasingly unlikely.

From Ukraine’s perspective, this agreement is about survival. A stable Ukraine isn’t possible without economic security, but economic security depends on stability first. The US won’t invest in a war zone. To establish this stability, the minerals deal must include security guarantees, infrastructure commitments, and long-term stability.

War is diplomacy combined with other means. Wars aren’t won only with kinetic weapons. We achieve national objectives with power, with influence, and with the right pressure in the right places. Money and resources are influence.

If Ukraine wants American support, it must commit to an economic relationship that makes its survival an American interest. The minerals deal isn’t a side negotiation. It is the negotiation.

Enter Stage Left … the Bleeding Heart Liberals

It may seem unlikely that those who champion the struggle of the Ukrainian people would need to root for the capitalists, but here we are. We may lament the state of the world, but that doesn’t mean we can change it.

This is not a new phenomenon. The term “bleeding heart liberal” first appeared in 1938, mocking those pushing for an anti-lynching bill. The bill failed. Lynchings continued. The US didn’t officially make lynching a federal hate crime until 2022—84 years later.

History reminds us that moral clarity doesn’t guarantee action. Righteous causes are every day delayed, diluted, or outright denied. And when they are, people suffer. Ukraine can’t afford to wait 84 years for the world to catch up.

Despite its lack of grace and decorum, the term never quite disappeared. Last week, Elon Musk took aim on X, commenting:

"Every bleeding-heart liberal I talk to about the Russia-Ukraine war wants to keep feeding bodies into the meat grinder forever….They have no plan for success."

It’s easy to mock those who care, but caring without strategy prolongs suffering. If Ukraine is to win, security can’t be a moral stance. It must be a vital American interest, which means money, power, and leverage.

No one wants more bodies in the meat grinder. Passive support in the form of moral backing, speeches, and aid packages that sustain but don’t resolve the conflict isn’t enough.

We need decisive action. That means changing the conditions of the war in a way that forces Russia to back down, not just keeping Ukraine in the fight. We need to turn Ukraine’s security into a US interest through the minerals deal and economic integration.

Moral conviction won’t stop Russian aggression.

Enter Center Stage … The Pragmatists

The capitalists see opportunity. The bleeding hearts see morality. And the pragmatists see reality. They see that security, economics, and influence are all tied together. If we are to achieve a successful outcome, we have to stop reacting and start shaping the battlefield.

Russia is not a friend to the American people. It sponsors violent extremism across Africa and the Middle East, fueling the same instability that leads to deadly attacks on American soil—including the worst in our history, twenty-four years ago.

This threat goes beyond terror networks. Russia actively undermines US alliances and disrupts international stability, making the world more dangerous and unpredictable. The stronger Russia’s grip on Ukraine, the more emboldened it becomes elsewhere.

Russia has no real incentive to negotiate in good faith because it believes it can outlast Ukraine and Western support. They assume political divisions, shifting US priorities, and battlefield attrition will eventually work in their favor. They will drag out the conflict, knowing that American attention is fleeting. They will use the battlefield as their primary negotiating tool, showing little regard for the lives of their own soldiers, let alone Ukraine’s.

Instead of waiting for Russia to decide when it’s willing to talk, the US and our allies need to shape the conditions under which Russia has no good choices.

NATO needs to apply pressure to key pieces of vulnerable Russian geography, such as Kaliningrad. Kaliningrad is a tiny piece of Russia, separated from the main Russian landmass. Even stopping and searching shipping vehicles entering or leaving Kaliningrad sends a message. No blockade, but disruption. It’s not an act of war, but it brings traffic to a standstill. And that means we can blockade Kaliningrad whenever we want.

Stopping and searching traffic in and out of Kaliningrad is a message. A warning shot without an empty casing. If Russia escalates or drags their feet in Ukraine, NATO can escalate in Kaliningrad.

Russia knows this. Kaliningrad on the table changes the calculus for Russia. Every second they delay in Ukraine, we can squeeze them in Kaliningrad.

We need to strengthen our negotiating position. We can’t just ask Russia nicely. Strength is the only thing Putin understands. But leverage isn’t just about more weapons or more aid—it’s about shaping the conditions of the war. We need to make the cost of Russia staying in Ukraine higher than the cost of leaving. And that starts with Kaliningrad.

Russia is a threat to the American people, and we need leverage to negate that threat.

In Sum

Kalnyshevsky fought well. He resisted. He endured. But he lost.

Not because he wasn’t strong enough. Not because the Cossacks lacked courage. They failed to shape the battlefield in their favor and were betrayed by their Russian allies.

Ukraine cannot afford to make the same mistake.

The American capitalists need Ukraine, and Ukraine needs the capitalists.

The world doesn’t operate on sentimentality. Ukraine must commit to an economic future tied to American interests. Securing a rare earth minerals deal is its survival strategy. The minerals deal isn’t a side negotiation; it is the negotiation.

The compassionate need Ukraine, and Ukraine needs the compassionate.

A tragic reality is that history is full of righteous causes that fail. Support for Ukraine must be more than a moral conviction; it must be a vital US interest.

The pragmatists need Ukraine, and Ukraine needs the pragmatists.

We need to shape the battlefield. Russia threatens the American people, and we need leverage. Kaliningrad is that leverage.

Free people will always resist Russian aggression. Will America stand with them?

May God bless the United States of America.

Should America Give Our Surplus Grain Away Every Year?

This week, the nation’s Food for Peace Program—and all other United States Agency for International Development (USAID) programs—found themselves on the chopping block.

Before we go any further, let’s get on the same page.

American agriculture is national security.

Second, let’s share some quick history.

On July 10, 1954, President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act, allowing the president to ship surplus commodities to “friendly” nations on concessional or grant terms. For the first time, America could give away its excess grain to partner nations.

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy expanded the program, rebranded it Food for Peace, and established USAID to oversee it.

If you believe that those with plenty should help those with nothing, Food for Peace was a success. It became the largest single food donor to the United Nations World Food Programme. In 2022 alone, “American farmers provided more than 4 billion pounds of U.S.-grown grains, soybeans, lentils, rice, and other commodity staples” through the program.

It’s also good business for American farmers. Now, Republican lawmakers from agricultural states are fighting to save it.

Every government program should face scrutiny. But this one is worth saving.

This isn’t about charity. That was a benefit of the program. But Food for Peace wasn’t only about poverty. It was about national security.

Global hunger breeds instability.

Instability creates openings for adversaries.

Adversary influence threatens the American people.

So the real question isn’t whether America should shut down an agency that some see as a global social program driven by ideology.

We need to step back and look at the bigger picture. Forget charity for a second. Let’s take the question at face value.

Should America give our surplus grain away every year?

Food Security is National Security

A country that cannot feed itself becomes a victim of coercion and geopolitical manipulation.

By the late 1930s, Japan relied heavily on imports for most of its food and nearly all of its oil, rubber, and metals. Japan’s domestic agriculture couldn’t keep up with its growing population, and they started seizing food from their neighbors. Between 1936 and 1938, 95% of Japan’s imported rice came from Korea or Taiwan (Johnston, B. F. (1953). Japanese Food Management in World War II. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 45–49, 166–170, 202–204).

Food shortages forced Japan to expand. As its military campaign in China escalated, the US and other Western powers imposed economic sanctions.

Japan’s food problem became catastrophic during World War II. Imports were disrupted, military priorities came first, and by 1940, Japan rationed food. Malnutrition, disease, and starvation followed. Beriberi, a disease caused by vitamin B1 deficiency, spiked.

Hunger was a key factor in Japan’s surrender. By 1945, US naval blockades and bombing campaigns had destroyed Japan’s food supply chains. America targeted Japan’s food vulnerability as a center of gravity in our strategic approach. Even if the war had continued, famine would have crippled Japan’s ability to fight. After the war, food shortages persisted into the US occupation.

This suffering changed Japan’s long-term policies. The country fortified domestic agriculture and imposed high tariffs on imported grains like rice, wheat, and barley. Even today, Japan strictly controls grain imports, avoiding overdependence on foreign suppliers, including the US.

The lesson is clear. Food security is national security. It is not just about feeding people. It is sovereignty, stability, and strength.

Japan wasn’t the only nation that learned this the hard way.

Let’s talk about another fallen American adversary: the Soviet Union.

Khrushchev and Yeltsin Go to the Grocery Store!

On Monday, September 21, 1959, Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev went to the grocery store. Not in Moscow. Not in Leningrad. In San Francisco, California.

He walked through aisles of produce, deli meats, and frozen dinners—foods unimaginable in the Soviet Union. The next day, in Des Moines, Iowa, he ate his first American hot dog and joked:

“We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.”

But in 1959, Khrushchev never publicly admitted shock at America’s grocery stores. That would come later.

By the 1980s, Soviet agriculture had collapsed under central planning. Shortages and rationing became commonplace.

Then, in 1989, just two months before the Berlin Wall fell, Boris Yeltsin visited a grocery store in Houston, Texas. Unlike Khrushchev, Yeltsin couldn’t hide his reaction. The Houston Chronicle described how he roamed the aisles of Randall’s, shaking his head in amazement.

Yeltsin had grown up hungry. The Soviet State had taken away his family’s farm, leaving them dependent on a system that couldn’t feed its own people.

That grocery store visit shattered any belief in communism. Two years later, as Russian President, Yeltsin ordered Russian state land to be divided into private family farms.

From the defeat of Japan to the fall of the Soviet Union, our lesson is that:

American Agriculture is National Security

Food isn’t just about feeding people. It is economic strength, national security, and global influence.

Japanese agriculture couldn’t keep up with American agriculture.

Soviet Russian agriculture couldn’t keep up with American agriculture.

And today, we still need agricultural abundance.

Agricultural Abundance

America’s agricultural dominance isn’t an accident. It’s a deliberate national choice. It’s built on policy, infrastructure, and continuous innovation. Both necessity and profit drive this system.

On February 13, President Trump reinforced this priority, signing an Executive Order establishing the Make America Healthy Again Commission. One of its key tasks is to “Work with farmers to ensure that U.S. food is healthy, abundant, and affordable.”

The focus on abundance is critical. Food security isn’t just about today. It’s long-term stability.

A nation that produces only ‘just enough’ food is one disaster away from crisis. That’s why the national agriculture system cannot be designed for maximum profit alone. There has to be excess. The system must be resilient.

Food production isn’t instant. Crops and livestock take time, land, and weather cooperation. For example, with the recent egg shortages, if producers could ramp up supply overnight to chase profits, they would. But you can’t create egg layers out of thin air.

This is why food security requires intentional overproduction.

Without surplus, a drought, flood, or disease outbreak can cripple the food supply. Unlike other industries, agriculture can’t instantly scale production to meet demand. Efficiency alone isn’t the right measure. Resilience is the right measure for agriculture. A strong system produces more than necessary because shortages are more dangerous than excess.

The resulting surplus shields against uncertainty. It stabilizes the food supply, prevents reliance on foreign imports, and protects against market disruptions. On the world stage, a nation that produces more food than it consumes has leverage. Countries that depend on imports are vulnerable to foreign control. When America has a surplus, adversaries can’t weaponize food against us.

In this way, surplus grain isn’t waste. Surplus grain is a strategic asset.

There’s another key factor at play.

Agriculture is Unpredictable

Farmers don’t control the weather, bird flu outbreaks, or global trade policies. One in three years is a bad year for agriculture. A system that only produces ‘just enough’ in a good year guarantees shortages in a bad year.

The only way to secure the nation’s food supply is to grow more than needed every year.

When one region suffers from drought, another’s surplus offsets the losses. When unpredictable events disrupt production, a buffer ensures food remains affordable and accessible. Surplus keeps Americans fed, prices stable, and the country resilient.

Because our agricultural system must be designed this way, we always have more grain than we need. Even though we need surplus every year, we also need to manage it wisely. Uncontrolled surplus drives prices down, hurting American farmers. If we don’t address the grain surplus, we risk losing the ability to grow it.

We also need to think about American influence on the world stage.

Agricultural Surplus and Influence

Without order, scarcity leads to conflict. Nations compete for limited resources. The strong dominate, and the weak suffer. In a world where food shortages create instability, countries that control the global food supply exert power over those that do not.

This is why agricultural abundance is more than an economic advantage. It is a tool of influence. Nations with surplus can stabilize their allies, undermine their adversaries, and dictate the terms of trade. Japan and the Soviet Union failed because they could not secure their own food supply. America’s agricultural surplus allowed it to feed its friends and keep its enemies dependent.

But surplus alone is not enough. It must be managed strategically. An uncontrolled surplus collapses domestic markets, driving prices so low that farmers go bankrupt. A controlled surplus allows America to direct influence where it matters.

Food is both a commodity and a diplomatic asset. Throughout history, America has used surplus grain as a foundation for long-term partnerships. Food aid programs have strengthened alliances, opened trade routes, and cemented US influence in key regions. The Marshall Plan rebuilt Europe and ensured that newly rebuilt economies were tied to American markets. The Food for Peace program fed the hungry while reinforcing US influence in developing nations. It aligned economic structures with American interests rather than Soviet alternatives.

Partnerships built on food endure. A nation that depends on America for food security is far less likely to align with adversaries. A reliable food supplier is a stabilizing force in times of crisis. Strategic agricultural surplus is not just about helping others. Our agricultural surplus secures America’s position in the world.

We need to extend our influence and maintain strong partnerships to achieve our global security goals. And to do that, we need surplus grain.

Which brings us to our question. Should America give our surplus grain away every year?

Should America Give Our Surplus Grain Away Every Year?

American agriculture is national security.

Food is not just about feeding people. It is economic strength, national security, and global influence. On the world stage, America has interests, and we have partners. Reliability and trustworthiness are both virtues and strategic advantages.

Surplus grain is not waste. It is a strategic asset that we need to use wisely. The question is not whether we should give grain away. The real question is how we should use it to advance American interests.

If you believe that those with plenty, like America, have a duty to help those with nothing, then Food for Peace was a success. But food aid is not charity. It is good business for American farmers and a powerful tool of influence.

Food aid programs do more than just feed people. They strengthen alliances. They open trade routes. They cement US influence. They align global economic structures with American interests rather than those of our adversaries.

We might choose not to send our surplus grain through the United Nations World Food Programme. We might prefer more direct control over where we exert influence.

But we must choose to use American agriculture to reinforce partnerships, secure influence, and protect our global standing.

May God bless the United States of America.

A quick note before we dive in. This week, “I Believe” officially hit the numbers to rank as a Top 10% global podcast for all of 2025. Of course, it’s still February, and we have plenty of room to grow. I just want to take a moment to say thanks for listening!

…

How do we bring manufacturing back to America?

🎙️ Tariffs Built American Industry

In the early 1800s, the United States was still an economic underdog. We had won our independence from Britain, but economically we were far from independent.

Across the Atlantic, the Industrial Revolution was transforming British manufacturing. British factories had decades of experience in mass production. They churned out cheap, high-quality goods. Meanwhile, US manufacturing was small, scattered, and struggling to compete.

America’s economy revolved around agriculture. Cotton. Tobacco. Wheat. We relied heavily on European imports for manufactured goods. British industries dominated global trade, producing textiles and iron at such low costs that American businesses couldn’t compete.

That left us with a major vulnerability: We were too dependent on foreign goods. Without a strong domestic manufacturing base, America had little economic control over its own future.

James Madison & The Road to War

In 1808, America elected James Madison as the fourth President of the United States. Tensions with Britain were boiling over.

For years, British naval forces harassed American ships, seized cargo, and forced American sailors into their navy, a practice known as impressment. As an international insult, the British stirred unrest in the Northwest Territory, backing Native American resistance against US expansion.

By 1812, America had had enough. On June 18, 1812, Congress declared war on Great Britain.

The War of 1812: A Mixed Outcome

Militarily, the War of 1812 was a mess. The US attempted to invade Canada, which … didn’t go well. We did capture York, which is modern-day Toronto, and burned public buildings, but the British retaliated in full force. They marched into Washington, D.C. and burned the White House and the Capitol.

But here’s where things get interesting economically.

British naval blockades cut off trade. Those cheap British imports we had relied on were gone.

American businesses had no choice but to step up. Factories that might have otherwise struggled suddenly had a captive market. We had to produce goods for ourselves, and for the first time, we saw what an independent American industry could look like.

The Aftermath & Economic Crisis

In December 1814, the war ended with the Treaty of Ghent. Neither side gained or lost territory. Militarily, it was a stalemate.

Symbolically, it was a turning point. The US had stood up to Britain and survived. National pride soared. The war cemented America’s identity as a sovereign power.

While the fighting stopped, Britain wasn’t done economically. Almost immediately, British manufacturers flooded American ports with cheap goods, undercutting US businesses and threatening to wipe out our industrial progress overnight.

Congress had newfound confidence and a choice. We could let American industry collapse, or step in to protect it.

The Tariff of 1816: America’s First Protective Tariff

In 1816, Congress gained consensus and passed the first major protective tariff in US history. Even the Senate’s most prominent conservative states’ rights advocate, John C. Calhoun (South Carolina), publically advocated for it.

The Tariff of 1816 imposed a 20 to 30% tax on imported goods, particularly textiles, iron, and leather products. Our goal was to make British goods more expensive and give American manufacturers a chance to compete.

And it worked.

Textile mills in New England flourished. Lowell, Massachusetts, became a booming industrial hub.

Iron production surged in Pennsylvania, fueling railroads, construction, and manufacturing.

Infrastructure projects expanded as a growing economy demanded better roads and canals.

This was America’s manufacturing turning point. It was the moment we moved from a country dependent on foreign goods to one that could build its own industrial future.

The Tariff Debate: North vs. South

Now, not everyone was on board.

Southern cotton planters feared retaliation. They worried that if Britain had to pay more for American goods, they’d buy less American cotton in return. Higher tariffs, to them, meant less trade and lower profits.

This tariff debate, whether to protect US industries or keep trade open and cheap, would continue for decades. It fueled sectional tensions between the industrial North and the agrarian South.

Despite the controversy, the US took its first major step toward economic independence.

Instead of relying on Europe, we were finally building an economy of our own.

It’s easy to come to the simple conclusion that tariffs protected American industry. You could say, “Our success all started with tariffs!” But that would be a shortsided conclusion.

The decisive element that protected and grew American industry was consensus.

Tariffs Today

The Wall Street Journal last week reported President Trump is considering tariffs “in the neighborhood of 25%” on automobiles, semiconductors, and pharmaceutical products. He suggested these tariffs could increase over time.

There’s been a lot of discussion lately about tariffs, so that wasn’t so compelling.

President Trump suggested that US companies could be given a phase-in period on the items they import. This period could give businesses time to move production back to the US. He even said he’d allow “a little bit of a chance” for companies to re-shore before ramping up the tariffs.

He didn’t offer details, but the logic behind giving industry time to come home before tightening the screws is what makes this policy intriguing.

He billed it as a different kind of protectionism.

In the early 1800s, Congress passed protectionist tariffs to protect American manufacturing from British manufacturing. But American manufacturing was already here. It just needed a kickstart.

Today, we face a different challenge. We don’t need to protect industry. We need to rebuild it.

Starting in the 1960s and 1970s, America began exporting its manufacturing jobs overseas. Jack Welch and General Electric were at the forefront, pushing for offshoring to boost profits. Other companies followed, chasing cheaper labor and higher margins. Bit by bit, America willingly chose to dismantle our own industrial base. Washington stood by and watched as we destroyed our national capability for a quick buck.

As an example, that was our moment to save American steel. Had we implemented protective tariffs in the 1960s and 1970s, some of those jobs and, more importantly, that capability might have stayed here.

So … the protectionist tariffs President Trump is considering might not just be about protecting our industry from foreign competition.

They might be about protecting us from ourselves.

And the logic behind that is fascinating.

But again, let’s remember that the decisive element that protects and grows American industry is not tariffs. It’s consensus. There’s a key difference between the Tariff of 1816 and today.

James Madison and the Tariff of 1816: The Evolution of a Founding Father

James Madison wasn’t just a president. He was the architect of America.

Few figures in American history shaped the nation as profoundly as he did. Before he ever set foot in the White House, he had already built the American framework.

He was the Father of the Constitution. He meticulously crafted the structure of the US government. When the new republic teetered on the edge of collapse under the weak Articles of Confederation, it was Madison who designed a stronger system that balanced power between the federal government and the states. He sought stability without tyranny.

He didn’t just write the Constitution. He defended it. Alongside Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, Madison co-wrote The Federalist Papers, a series of essays that convinced the states to ratify the Constitution. Without him, there might not have been a Constitution at all.

When critics of the Constitution demanded protections for individual liberties, Madison delivered. He authored the Bill of Rights, enshrining free speech, religious freedom, and due process into law.

He designed the system. He fought for its ratification. And then, he spent the rest of his career making it work.

From Congressman to Secretary of State

Madison served as a congressman from Virginia, playing a crucial role in shaping early American policy. He was one of Thomas Jefferson’s closest allies, standing at the center of nearly every major political battle of the era.

He opposed Alexander Hamilton’s vision of a strong central government and a national bank, fearing that these would concentrate too much power in the hands of the federal government. He fought for states’ rights.

He fought against policies that favored wealthy elites over working-class citizens.

In 1801, he became Secretary of State under Jefferson. There, Madison oversaw The Louisiana Purchase, one of the most important events in US history. Jefferson saw an opportunity to double the size of the country. Madison handled the negotiations. He drafted the plan and authorized James Monroe to offer a price starting at ten million dollars for the land. In total, four cents per acre. The deal secured vast new lands, opened up the frontier for westward expansion, and strengthened the nation’s position on the world stage.

For eight years, Madison handled foreign affairs. He navigated tensions with Britain and France as the US struggled to maintain neutrality during the Napoleonic Wars. By the time he took office as president in 1809, conflict with Britain had become unavoidable.

Quite a list of accomplishments. The nation forever owes a debt to James Madison.

Because he literally wrote the document to govern America, he knew he needed consensus to make America great.

Madison and Tariffs

James Madison was a champion of divided power, states’ rights, and the right of the people over tyranny.

He wrote the document that explicitly gave Congress, not the President, the authority to impose tariffs. The Constitution, in Article I, Section 8, Clause 1, placed that power in the hands of the legislature.

And because he wrote it, Madison knew he could not simply order a tariff into existence. He needed national consensus to prompt Congress to act. A president acting alone creates no legacy, and certainly not a legacy like Madison’s. A policy dictated by one man is erased by the next administration. A policy built through Congress, through debate, and through broad support is the decisive effect that endures.

By 1815, Madison publicly acknowledged that the United States needed a strong manufacturing base to avoid dependence on Britain. In his Seventh Annual Message to Congress, he explicitly called for tariffs to protect American industry, marking a major shift in his thinking.

Madison understood the stakes. America had the natural resources, the labor force, and the potential to be an industrial power, but manufacturing would not develop on its own. He argued that certain industries, particularly those tied to national defense and essential goods, were too important to be left at the mercy of foreign competition.

He knew that without government support, industry could take decades to grow. Without broad, lasting consensus, it would not grow at all. A policy that shifts every four years did not support American industry.

Madison’s public support signaled a major shift in Republican thinking. His endorsement reassured moderates, convincing those who had once resisted federal economic intervention.

If the Father of the Constitution, the guardian of states’ rights, and the protector of the people’s liberty believed it was in America’s best interest to protect its industry, who would dare question the brilliant President James Madison?

Back to Today

The lesson of 1816 is clear.

America owes allegiance to no king. Executive orders are fleeting.

Madison worked to build consensus, spurring Congress to action. It was not Madison alone who reshaped America’s economic future.

The long-term success of American industry does not rest on executive orders or short-term tariff hikes. Just like in 1816, it rests with Congress.

We must deliberate, gain consensus, and pass tariffs that protect American industry, especially our defense capability and goods essential to running American society. We need to make these goods internally and defend ourselves from coercion from other countries.

May God bless the United States of America.

Some say we fight for democracy. But what if that fight is misplaced?

Some Hills are Worth Dying On

July 2, 1863, outside of Gettysburg. It’s the second day of the Battle of Gettysburg. The air is thick with smoke, the smell of gunpowder, sweat, and blood. Cannon fire rumbles in the distance, and the screams of wounded men echo through the Pennsylvania hills.

The Confederate Army, under General Robert E. Lee, is pressing hard against the Union lines. After a brutal first day of fighting, Lee has ordered an all-out assault on the Union flanks. He intended to break their defenses, separate the Union Army from Washington, and win the war right here and now.

Up on the far left of the Union line was a rocky little hill called Little Round Top. There, a professor-turned-soldier named Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain stood with his men, the 20th Maine Regiment.

Chamberlain wasn’t a career military officer. Just two years ago, he stood in front of a classroom at Bowdoin College in Maine. He taught students theology, philosophy, and the great ideas that shape nations.

He pursued truth. He was a man of character and conviction and believed in the union of states. He studied the moral arguments against slavery, knowing that America could not truly be free while slavery existed. He believed in liberty and justice.

After the war broke out, Chamberlain volunteered for the Union Army. In his letter to Maine Governor Israel Washburn, Chamberlain stated he had much to learn about military service, but continued that…

“I fear, this war, so costly of blood and treasure, will not cease until the men of the North are willing to leave good positions, and sacrifice the dearest personal interests, to rescue our Country from Desolation, and defend the National Existence against treachery at home and jeopardy abroad.”

So, volunteer he did. But in all his reading and studying, nothing had prepared him for this moment at Gettysburg.

He stood on this hill, gripped his sword, and stared down at the tree line below. The Confederate army was coming. If they broke through and took the hill, the Union line would collapse. And if that happened, Gettysburg could be lost. Maybe even the war.

The first wave hit them hard. The men of the 15th and 47th Alabama came crashing up the rocky slope, firing, shouting, bayonets flashing in the sunlight. The 20th Maine fired down into them, holding the line. The Confederates fell back, regrouped, and came again. Then again. Then again.

Chamberlain’s men fell exhausted, running low on ammunition, some down to their last few rounds.

Chamberlain looked down at his men. They were bloody, battered, barely standing. The logical thing to do would be to fall back. But there was nowhere to fall back to. If they broke, the enemy would sweep through them like a flood.

In war, everything is simple. But achieving even the simplest task is daunting. Fog, friction, risk, and the unknown close in on you. Exhausted, outnumbered, and wounded in the leg, Chamberlain could barely stand. His men had no more bullets. He did not know if help would arrive, and whether his unit would survive the day. He took a breath, steadied himself against the pain, and gave the order.

He shouted, “Bayonet!”

The 20th Maine roared to life. They charge.

Down the slope, straight into the enemy. The Confederates, themselves tired, expecting another volley of bullets, not cold steel, panic. The Union men slam into them, driving them back, pushing them down the hill. Other Union soldiers arriving at that moment on Little Round Top fire volleys behind the Confederates. The Confederate line buckles. Then it shatters. They turn and run.

And just like that, Little Round Top, Gettysburg, the Union Army, and the United States of America, held. Had Chamberlain’s men lost the hill, the Confederates may well have won the war. There would be no America.

Chamberlain had spent his life studying ideas, philosophies, great speeches. He had left a good position in Maine and sacrificed his dearest personal interests for the union of states.

He believed in liberty and justice.

For him, that hill was worth dying on.

And Some Hills Are Not Worth Dying On

It’s 1953, the final months of the Korean War. The war is dragging on. Behind closed doors, diplomats are hammering out the details of a ceasefire. The fighting, at least in theory, should be winding down. But on a barren, rocky outpost known as Pork Chop Hill, men are still killing and dying.

The hill itself is meaningless. It’s a craggy mound of earth, scarred by months of shelling, roughly shaped like a pork chop. No major roads lead to it. No towns depend on it. It has no real strategic value. And yet, it has become a battlefield. Two sides fight not to win the war but to influence the negotiations.

The first battle erupts in April 1953. US forces, led by Lieutenant Colonel William Kern, first hold the hill when the Chinese launch a massive assault. The fighting is brutal. Soldiers fight hand-to-hand, clawing for control of bunkers, trenches, and high ground. The Americans barely hold. Casualties pile up. When the shooting stops, the hill is still ours, but we’ve gained nothing.

Three months later, in July 1953, the Chinese come again. Thousands of soldiers charge up the slopes in waves. The battle turns into a meat grinder. The US high command debates whether we should keep defending this worthless hill, or we should let it go.

(The low rumble of retreating trucks.)

The decision comes down. We abandon the hill. The Chinese take it, planting their flag in the same dirt that had swallowed hundreds of lives over the past few months. And then, just a few weeks later, the war ends.

After the bloodshed and sacrifice, the final armistice line was drawn north of the hill. The Chinese didn’t even keep it. The battle, in the end, meant nothing.

This fact makes the battle even more tragic. Real breathing men fought and died over a worthless position. It was abandoned by the US, taken by the Chinese, and then given up anyway as part of the armistice agreement.

Pork Chop Hill is one of the clearest examples of fighting for the sake of fighting, with no real strategic or territorial gain for either side.

Some hills are worth dying on.

This wasn’t one of them.

History has made clear that some fights are necessary, and some are senseless. Today, we hear calls to ‘save democracy.’ We have to ask: What are we fighting for?

Save American Democracy!

Today, some call for Americans to “Save our Democracy.” This call has echoed for several years.

To be clear, this rallying cry is futile.

The word democracy appears in the US Constitution exactly zero times. That wasn’t an oversight. The founders didn’t build America on majority rule. They built it on structure, balance, and law. American government was designed to restrain power, not distribute it. The father of the Constitution, James Madison, even wrote a series of documents identifying why America is not a democracy.

In Federalist Paper No. 51, Madison identified the purpose of government. He stated…

Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit.

Justice is the purpose of government. Not power or control. Not democracy. Justice. It is the purpose of civil society. It’s the reason we create laws, elect leaders, and build nations. Only when we start to threaten liberty should we stop pursuing justice.

The American founding fathers outlined a dogma that a just government exists to protect the weak, not to serve the strong. America owes allegiance to no king, and no aristocracy. America owes allegiance to the American people.

The best way to safeguard justice is with many voices, many factions, and competing interests. No single group should be able to seize control and oppress the others. Justice requires checks and balances that divide, limit, and restrain power and influence. No branch of government should dominate. No leader should rule unchecked. No law or executive order should go unchallenged.

Justice and liberty are inseparable. One cannot exist without the other. A government that fails to uphold justice will eventually destroy liberty, and a society that loses liberty will never know justice.

This is a rallying cry.

Our goals are simple. But achieving even the simplest goal is daunting.

Until government servants establish conditions of justice that enable every American family to work for and achieve heat in the house and food on the table without taxpayer support, we will fight for liberty and justice.

Until women have the liberty to make their own healthcare decisions without the government knowing what they decided, we will fight for liberty and justice.

Until American institutions again support checks and balances and no longer threaten the due process and structure of the nation itself, we will fight for liberty and justice.

The list goes on. Sure seems like we have plenty to keep us busy fighting for liberty and justice. We need not die on the hill of democracy.

Those Who Cry for Democracy Have Lost Their Way

Yes, we are a democratic republic. But the point of American governance is not democracy.

The foundation of America has never been majority rule. We are built on the higher purpose of liberty and justice.

Justice for the oppressed.Provision for those in need.Liberty for those whose rights are threatened by the majority or the ruling class.

Some say we must fight for democracy, but democracy is just a process. It means nothing without justice, and it is worthless without liberty. If we fight, let it be for the only things that matter.

America was never meant to serve the will of the strongest, even if the strongest is the majority. It was meant to defend the rights of the weakest.

That is the hill worth dying on.

May we seek justice. May we defend liberty.

May God bless the United States of America.

Intro…sounds of echoing hooves on stone, a cart creaks, lanterns glow, a horse pulls steady and slow.

1801. The Revolution’s Philosopher Takes Power

It's March 4, 1801. A cold wind sweeps through the muddy streets of Washington, D.C., a rough, partially built capital city. Philosopher, writer, and revolutionary Thomas Jefferson is about to become America’s third president.

As he stood before the partially finished Capitol, the weight of history settled on his shoulders. Demonstrating simplicity, Jefferson wore plain clothes instead of a monarch’s suit. Unlike his predecessors, who arrived in grand carriages, Jefferson walked from his room to the Capitol. When he arrived, nearly a thousand people filled the Senate Chamber, waiting.

This wasn’t just another transfer of power. It was a test. The election had been bitterly contested, newspapers spreading lies to the darkest corners of the nation.

But he had prevailed. Now, America faced a question: Would the young republic stay true to its founding ideals or drift toward the centralized power Jefferson feared?

(Sounds; a horse neighs in the distance…)

We remember Jefferson not just as a president, but as a great philosopher.

He devoted his life to contemplating freedom, governance, and human rights. He upheld the liberal ideal that everyone is born with natural rights no government can take away. His ideas laid America’s foundation. Inspired by Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, Jefferson regarded government not as an instrument of control, but a protector of individual freedom.

Jefferson’s words in the Declaration of Independence weren’t politics; they were principles of governance and philosophy. He carefully crafted the Declaration to define what America stood for. More than two centuries later, those ideas still shape our views on freedom, representation, and government.

Jefferson’s philosophy shaped America from our earliest days. His principles still inspire discussions about freedom and our democratic republic.

Moving from philosophy to practical matters, Jefferson believed in limited government, fiscal restraint, and individual liberty.

He championed small government, lower taxes, minimal public debt, and strict adherence to the Constitution. He viewed centralized power and extensive government intervention as threats to individual freedom and pursued policies to limit federal influence, reduce government size, and preserve states’ rights and personal liberty.

(Ambient crowd sound…)

Back to March of 1801. Jefferson stood in the Senate Chamber to deliver an inaugural address defining his presidency.

The crowd fell silent.

Jefferson spoke passionately about simpler, smaller government. He declared: “a wise and frugal government... shall restrain men from injuring one another…(and)…shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits…”

His speech echoed a 1799 letter to Elbridge Gerry, where he detailed his vision of a disciplined, frugal, and simple government. Every dollar should strengthen the nation’s economic footing, not expand government control to reward political allies.

The Shadow of Debt

Jefferson entered office with a clear vision, but immediately faced a looming crisis: America was drowning in $80 million of debt, an unimaginable sum for a struggling young country.

Debt wasn’t just a financial burden. Jefferson believed debt represented bondage, robbing future generations of freedom.  

In a 1789 letter to James Madison, Jefferson pondered whether one generation had the right to bind another with debt. He argued that the dead have no rights over the living.

If the government kept borrowing, it had to keep taxing. Endless taxing meant Americans would never truly be free. Jefferson feared policies driven by debt obligations rather than the people’s will.

Taking office, Jefferson didn’t hesitate. He refused to let the new republic fall into the traps of Europe’s monarchies, where endless spending fueled endless war. Determined, he launched an ambitious plan to slash spending, dismantle bloated government offices, and strip unnecessary costs.

He intended to create a government small enough to live within its means, freeing future Americans from borrowed money. Success meant setting a precedent for efficient government. Failure meant endless national debt and expanding federal power.

Jefferson’s Radical Plan

Jefferson saw the military as too big, too expensive, and too dangerous. He believed standing armies led to tyranny, soldiers answering to power, not people. So, he slashed military spending, cutting the army nearly in half. Officers were dismissed, outposts abandoned. Only six Navy ships remained active, enough to protect trade, not wage war. The rest sat idle.

Critics warned Jefferson was leaving America defenseless, vulnerable to Britain, France, or pirates. Jefferson didn’t flinch. He envisioned a citizen-led defense, believing a large military was a threat rather than protection.

While ruthless with military budgets, he trimmed the rest of government more gently. His aim wasn’t to gut government, but to prevent it from growing. Military savings funded debt reduction, the republic’s real enemy.

For Jefferson, this wasn’t just about money. As a philosopher, he wanted government out of people’s lives, power resting with citizens. To that end, he fought against a bloated army and an overreaching federal system.

A Revolutionary Tax Overhaul

Jefferson saw taxes as tools of government control. He quickly eliminated the whiskey tax, a hated levy that sparked rebellion in the 1790s. To Jefferson, the idea that the government would send troops against its own people over taxes was a disgrace.

He didn’t stop there. Jefferson aimed to reshape federal revenue entirely. Instead of direct taxes, he preferred customs duties, or what we would today call tariffs.

At the time, material needs were modest, social programs nonexistent, infrastructure minimal. Federal tax needs were low.

Jefferson proposed there would be no income tax, property tax, or internal revenue taxes during peacetime. Government would be funded only by trade. He bet a thriving economy with goods moving through American ports would suffice.

Critics warned tariffs made America vulnerable. Reduced imports meant reduced revenue. Others argued tariffs raised consumer prices. Jefferson stood firm.

Mostly, his plan succeeded. Government stayed afloat, people kept more money, and he cut the national debt in half.

Triumph and Irony

Jefferson reduced the national debt from $80 million to $57 million his first two years in office. Americans celebrated. It was proof his vision worked.

Yet Jefferson soon faced contradiction. In 1803, Napoleon offered the Louisiana territory, 827,000 square miles, for $15 million. The Constitution gave no clear authority for this purchase.

Jefferson, a strict constitutionalist, faced a philosophical crisis. He suddenly found himself arguing in favor of implied powers that he had long opposed. Ultimately, his practical vision of freedom won out. He justified the Louisiana Purchase as securing liberty for future generations.

With one stroke of the pen, America doubled in size. He opened vast new lands for settlement, farming, and expansion.

Critics highlighted the contradiction. How could Jefferson, who spent years shrinking government, justify this massive federal purchase?

Jefferson believed this purchase didn’t expand government power, but opportunity. More land meant more self-sufficient citizens and less European interference.

Legacy of the Small-Government Philosopher Revolutionary

Jefferson’s presidency leaves a powerful legacy. His dramatic cuts and bold ideas about limited government continue to shape American debates even today.

Much has changed in America in the last two hundred and twenty-four years. Roads stretch from coast to coast. Power lines hum with energy. The internet connects even the most remote corners of the country. Education shapes the next generation. Social security ensures no one is left behind in old age. All of it; our infrastructure, our systems, our stability, comes at a cost.

But Jefferson’s fierce dedication to freedom and simplicity defined an era and makes us question what is possible today.

Should we dramatically cut the size of government?

On the one hand, we’ve forgotten Jefferson’s philosophical principle that one generation has no right to bind another generation with debt. The dead have no rights over the living. Yet, every president since 1940 has increased the national debt. Every president. Both parties.

And on the other, each generation uses, and must pay to maintain, national infrastructure. Roads and telecommunications systems are infrastructure. Education and training is infrastructure. Societal stability is infrastructure. We can’t eliminate federal taxes and still maintain our infrastructure. There is no free lunch.

We can’t claim to be Jeffersonian conservatives and cut taxes on the rich, expanding government control to reward our political allies. Jefferson didn’t cut taxes for his political allies. He intended to strengthen the economic footing of every American and reduce the burden of debt on future generations.

And Jefferson didn’t cut the size of the federal workforce just to slash jobs. He was guided by philosophy.

Cutting the federal workforce while taking steps that increase the federal debt and pass the burden of debt on to future generations is against his philosophy.

Only four presidents have monuments on the National Mall in Washington D.C.

Washington, who helped birth an America at war, and then gave that power back to the people of the republic.

Lincoln, who reunited a nation torn apart from our dispute over whether people from any station of birth have a right to the fruits of their labor.

FDR, who championed the infrastructure that protects working Americans.

And Jefferson, the revolution’s philosopher, who sought to safeguard every American’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness through limited government, lower taxes, minimal public debt, and unwavering commitment to the Constitution.

So…should we dramatically cut the size of government? After some reflection, that seems to be the wrong question to ask.

Should we strengthen the economic footing of every American and reduce the burden of debt on future generations?

May God bless the United States of America.

Why do we spend so much on defense?

Opening Scene – Key West, 1948

[Sound Design: Waves crashing, seagulls squawking.]

Narrator: It’s March 1948, and the tropical heat of Key West, Florida, presses against a group of men in khaki uniforms and dark blue service caps. They sit around a long table in what was once a naval officers’ club, now repurposed for one of the most important meetings in US military history.

This is where the fate of America’s post-World War II military structure is being decided in a meeting known as the Key West Agreement.

Before this meeting, President Harry S. Truman had signed the National Security Act of 1947 into law. It came into effect on September 18, 1947. Among other directives, the act created the Air Force, separated the Marine Corps as its own service, and merged the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force into one big, happy Department of Defense family.

Except they were all unhappy.

At the head of the table sat the first-ever Secretary of Defense, James Forrestal. He was tasked with bringing order to the growing tensions between the military services. There’s no official transcript of this meeting, but Forrestal’s message was clear. He wasn’t here to debate; he was here to decide.

Forrestal (Actor’s Voice): “Gentlemen, this nation cannot afford inefficiency in its military forces. The roles and missions of each service must be clearly defined, or we risk wasting taxpayer dollars on duplicative efforts. The President expects solutions today, not another fight over who controls what.”

Narrator: It was a polite way of saying, “Stop the infighting.” The war was over. The Soviets were the new enemy. And America needed a plan.

The Fight Over Military Roles

Narrator: The stakes couldn’t have been higher. World War II had ended just three years earlier, and now, the services were battling over bureaucracy.

The Air Force, freshly carved out of the Army in 1947, wanted exclusive control over air operations, strategic bombing, and nuclear weapons.

Furious at the idea of losing its aircraft carriers, the Navy fought to keep its fleet air arm.

The Marine Corps wanted no part of being absorbed into the Army.

The Army, which had spent the war defining large-scale land combat, was now struggling for relevance in a world obsessed with air power and nuclear bombs.

[Sound Design: Ice clinking in glasses, the scratch of pens on paper.]

Military Officer (Actor’s Voice): "Mr. Secretary, how do you want to handle this?"

[Sound Design: Chair creaks. A brief pause. Papers being folded shut. Silence hangs for a moment, then quiet murmurs of dissatisfaction.]

Forrestal (Actor’s Voice): “The Air Force will control strategic bombing and nuclear weapons delivery. The Navy retains control of aircraft carriers and fleet operations. The Army’s role remains ground warfare and land-based air defense. The Marine Corps will not become part of the Army.”

Narrator: Forrestal had one goal. He intended to divide responsibilities before the inter-service feuding weakened America’s military effectiveness.

This was the compromise. The Navy kept its carriers and agreed not to pursue its own strategic air force. The Air Force agreed not to pursue carrier aviation. Everyone agreed the Marine Corps would not become a part of the Army.

All the services had vital peacetime tasks except the largest. The Air Force would operate the nation’s global strike weapons and stand watch over the homeland. The Navy would protect shipping lanes. The Marine Corps would project decisive combat power within days of notification.

The Army, the largest service and used to special treatment, was left wondering whether its traditional role would fade away.

And yet, the agreement set the foundation for American defense spending for generations. Instead of reducing redundancy, it baked in inter-service rivalry. Instead of cutting costs, it ensured every branch would fight to justify its share of the budget. And over the next few years, that fight would escalate and become public.

[Sound Design: A military phone rings in the background.]

While the generals and admirals were busy carving up the military’s future, another war was brewing. In Asia.

[Sound Design: The hum of a military transport plane. Fade to silence.]

The Forgotten Warning – Korea, 1949

Narrator: The Korean Peninsula was spiraling toward war a year after the Key West Agreement. The US had withdrawn most of its forces from South Korea, assuming that a small advisory mission would be enough to keep order.

In Washington, the focus was shifting toward nuclear weapons and strategic deterrence. Ground forces and conventional war were yesterday’s thinking. The real threat was the Soviet Union and its growing atomic arsenal.

To make the matter more urgent, the Soviets conducted their first successful test of a nuclear weapon in August 1949. The West had lost its dominance.

Then, in January 1950, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson defined America’s vital security interests in the Pacific. He excluded Korea from that list.

But by the time Washington realized Korea wasn’t just another skirmish, it was too late. A Soviet-backed North Korea invaded the South on June 25, 1950, launching a war that the US wasn’t prepared for.

And this is where General Matthew Ridgway enters the picture. He was the man who would change America’s military spending forever.

[Sound Design: Artillery explosions in the distance. The rhythmic thumping of helicopter blades overhead.]

Ridgway’s War – 1950

Narrator: December 1950. The war was going badly. US and UN forces were retreating. The Chinese had entered the war, pushing American troops into a brutal winter retreat. Morale had collapsed. Soldiers were exhausted. Supplies were low. The US commander had been killed in a traffic incident.

Amidst the turmoil, the Army chose a new commander, Matthew Ridgway. During World War II, Ridgway commanded the 82nd Airborne Division at Normandy and the XVIII Airborne Corps during the Ardennes Offensive.

Upon taking command, Ridgway assessed the situation. He stated:

Ridgway (Actor’s Voice): “The men I met along the road, those I stopped to talk to, all conveyed to me a conviction that this was a bewildered army, not sure of itself or its leaders, not sure what they were doing there. The leadership I found in many instances sadly lacking, and I said so.”

Narrator: Many wondered whether America would leave. This list ranged from South Korean national leadership to soldiers on the ground. Ridgway expressed his intent and stated:

Ridgway (Actor’s Voice): “I’ve come to stay.”

Narrator: Ridgway took over the 8th Army after General Walton Walker’s death and immediately changed everything. He re-energized the troops, stopped the retreat, and launched a counteroffensive. By early 1951, he had stabilized the front and turned the tide. The Forgotten War would end in a stalemate rather than a decisive loss.

But his biggest impact wasn’t just on the battlefield. It was what he did after the war.

The Birth of Permanent Military Spending

Narrator: After Korea, Ridgway became Chief of Staff of the Army. And this is where he made his mark. Not with a rifle, but with politics.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower, himself a former Army officer who led the Allies to victory in Europe, aimed to balance military commitments with economic sustainability. He knew that without military drawdown, America would run deficits due to military funding. He intended to cut the Army and shift spending toward the other services and the global strike weapons that defend America’s homeland. He sought troop reductions in Europe and intended to share defense responsibilities with NATO allies.

Eisenhower stated, “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.”

Eisenhower warned against the establishment of a military-industrial complex.

Ridgway publicly fought back. He argued the US needed permanent large ground forces to handle conflicts like Korea. He testified before Congress, pushing back against budget cuts and warning against over-reliance on nuclear deterrence.

Ridgway won out. Presented with two conflicting arguments, Congress did what it does best. It gridlocked. The Army didn’t shrink. Military budgets remained high. And America locked itself into a cycle of permanent defense spending. This defense spending premise continues today.

People like to say the US spends so much on defense because we have to “fight two wars at once” or “project power.” That’s wrong. Those policies were the result of high defense spending, not the cause.

The real reason was that Matthew Ridgway and others like him made sure each military service had a justification for more funding, even when nuclear deterrence made massive peacetime ground forces unnecessary.

And that’s the story of why we spend so much on defense.

Seventy-five years later, America is still locked into this model. But what happens when the world changes and we don’t?

Fast Forward to Today

Our high defense spending had an unintended consequence. America had such a large defense capability that some partner nations chose to put less effort into theirs. Now, America wants NATO and Europe to spend more to contribute to their own defense. This is an echo of President Eisenhower in the 1950s.

And despite the fact that NATO has only once activated the Joint Defense Act, and that was to come to the aid of the United States in Afghanistan, some call for us to leave NATO.

But in a twist that defies logic, those who call for America to reduce our commitment to partner nations still call for us to maintain high defense spending.

These two positions contradict.

One valid position would be to strengthen the economic footing of every American and reduce the burden of debt on future generations. One generation has no right to bind another generation with debt. The dead have no rights over the living.

This position would acknowledge that we must reduce defense spending during peacetime. A result of this position would be reduced support for partner nations, requiring our partners to increase their capability.

A countering valid position would be to maintain our high defense commitment to our partner nations. Security, economics, and influence are all tied together.

This position would acknowledge that if America will be great, we need to maintain global leadership. We must act alone and with partner nations to create favorable conditions and gain and maintain freedom of action and influence. Nations form and maintain coalitions and international partnerships not out of altruism but as a strategic effort to enhance their own strength, stability, and interests.

But threatening and divorcing our long-term partners while still increasing debt for future generations is both unsound and unwise.

Is a country that burdens its future generations with debt while weakening its alliances making itself great again?

May God bless the United States of America.

We want real prosperity for working Americans without piling debt on future generations.

So, we’ve got to be open to new ideas. Some of those ideas might sound like they’ll never work. That’s fine. What matters is that we consider the options, build consensus, and stay focused on the results, not just the method.

Consensus makes lasting change possible. If we build real consensus across parties and regions, then we open the door to a rarity in American policy: a permanent solution. Not a temporary fix. Not a patch for the next election cycle. We need a system that works because enough people agree on the goal and not the method for achieving that goal.

Achieving the goal matters. How we get there is secondary.

There’s another angle we need to consider. When we’re looking at solutions, we have to be willing to think all the way to the edges. On one end of the spectrum is the “do nothing” option. This option is something we should consider even when everyone’s yelling that we have to act. On the other end is the option that delivers overwhelming, decisive results.

At both ends, we have to ask: Why wouldn’t that work? And if we can’t find a good answer, then maybe that so-called extreme isn’t extreme at all. Maybe it’s the best option we’ve got.

So, with that in mind, here’s a question worth asking:

If our goal is food on the table and heat in the house for all American workers, why do we tax businesses at all?

If that made you pause or even angry, that means we’re asking the right question.

Goals Matter More Than Methods

During World War II, America faced a nearly impossible problem. The country needed tanks, planes, and ships. We needed millions of them. We needed them fast. But at the time, the factories that could build them were busy making cars, stoves, and washing machines.

The problem was so dire that adversary global leaders assessed there was no way we could achieve our goals and win the war. Reichsmarschall Hermann Göring, one of Adolf Hitler’s top lieutenants, said that Americans could only make refrigerators and razor blades. He assessed we would never be able to produce the military equipment and supplies necessary to defeat Nazi Germany.

At the time, Göring was right.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt knew it, too. So, Roosevelt started building consensus in order to create permanent effects to win the war.

And he had a tough row to hoe. Many thought FDR was anti-business. He had expanded government oversight of banking, labor, and markets. He raised income taxes on the wealthy and introduced new corporate taxes many saw as hostile to business investment. He supported unions and workers’ rights that businesses viewed as empowering strikes and weakening employer control. He framed the wealthy elite as obstacles to recovery.

But FDR wasn’t anti-business. He was pro-American worker. He opposed exploitation. He knew he needed a strong business culture. In his annual Budget Message to Congress on January 5, 1942, FDR said…

“We cannot outfight our enemies unless, at the same time, we outproduce our enemies. It is not enough to turn out just a few more planes, a few more tanks, a few more guns, a few more ships, than can be turned out by our enemies. We must outproduce them overwhelmingly, so that there can be no question of our ability to provide a crushing superiority of equipment in any theater of the world war.”

FDR’s administration couldn’t mandate patriotism or force companies to comply. It had to make the pivot profitable. The administration partnered with industry and offered massive contracts, tax incentives, and full-throttle support to retool factories for war production.

The government offered something called cost-plus contracts. For every dollar a company spent retooling its factory, it got that dollar back, plus a guaranteed profit. There were advance payments, tax incentives, and full reimbursement for production costs. That meant zero financial risk for the companies. If they stepped up, they didn’t just help the country. They came out ahead.

The results were fantastic.

Ford built a mile-long assembly line just for B-24 bombers. Chrysler stopped making cars and started producing tanks. General Motors converted its plants to churn out machine guns and aircraft engines. These weren’t small measures. They were full-scale industrial makeovers. Entire factories partnered with FDR’s administration and reimagined themselves for the singular purpose of achieving the national goal. The method for achieving that goal was secondary.

And it worked. Not because everyone agreed on the politics but because everyone agreed on the goal. And the government made it profitable to help achieve that goal. The system rewarded those who helped achieve it.

America became the Arsenal of Democracy not just through sacrifice but through consensus. The right incentives produced the right results in the timeframe we needed.

Fast forward to today. If we want prosperity for American workers, if we want families to thrive without leaning on public assistance, maybe the answer isn’t another patch or another tax. Maybe it’s the same principle. Let’s reward the businesses that help us achieve our national goals.

If a business pays livable wages, covers worker healthcare, and doesn’t push its costs onto taxpayers, what are we taxing them for?

In the end, it’s not about the method. It’s about the national goal of any worker being able to work for and achieve food on the table and heat in the house, all without taxpayer support. If we can achieve our goal, the method is irrelevant.

If Low Wages Are a Business Model, the IRS Should Send a Bill

Business taxes bring in less revenue than the cost of low wages. So, maybe we’re taxing the wrong thing.

Let’s take a closer look at the numbers.

In 2024, the federal government brought in about $4.9 trillion in revenue. Out of that, corporate income taxes made up just 10 percent or around half a trillion dollars of that five trillion.

At the same time, low wages cost the American taxpayer far more than half a trillion dollars a year. They cost about a quarter of the entire federal budget or 1.25 trillion dollars.

When companies pay poverty wages, workers still need to survive. No matter what, people need food on the table and heat in the house. We have all agreed to this principle. Both parties have expanded social programs to help people meet these necessities.

Because we all agreed that people need to be able to work for and achieve food on the table and heat in the house, these programs become mandatory funding. Mandatory means we must pay them. So, mandatory taxpayer-funded social programs kick in. These programs, including Medicaid, SNAP, housing aid, and refundable tax credits like the Earned Income Tax Credit, are automatic payments written into law. If someone qualifies, the American taxpayer pays.

In 2024, nearly 25 percent of all federal spending went to these kinds of programs. Much of this deficit is wage-related. Medicaid alone serves millions of low-income workers, especially in food service, retail, and care work. The EITC is specifically designed to supplement low wages with taxpayer dollars. In short, the federal government spends far more cleaning up after low wages than it ever collects from taxing business profits.

But rather than be angry at the state of the world, we need to figure out a healthy path forward.

So here’s the question. If a business pays its people enough to live, doesn’t push its labor costs onto taxpayers, and supports self-sufficiency, should we tax that business at all?

Because right now, we’re taxing good businesses and subsidizing the bad ones. And that makes no sense.

But … we also can’t raise the minimum wage to mandate the change. Just like FDR couldn’t compel businesses to get on board to achieve national goals, we can’t compel businesses to eliminate the need for taxpayer-funded social programs by asking nicely. When we needed Ford Motor Company to build B-24 bombers, we had to incentivize the change.

If businesses don’t increase revenue, they can’t raise wages. Mandating higher wages leads to job losses, not higher wages.

Two Studies Arguing Past the Point

It’s been a year since California raised its minimum wage for fast food workers to $20 an hour. And, of course, some sources claim the wage increase mandate is killing businesses, and others claim it had no negative effect.

First, a study conducted by the Berkeley Research Group, dated February 18, 2025, found that nearly 9 in 10 restaurant operators cut employee hours in the first few months. A third reduced benefits. Most said they planned to cut even more over the coming year.

Jobs declined. According to federal data, California’s fast food sector saw its first December job loss in over two decades outside of a recession or pandemic. That’s not a small dip. That’s a reversal of a long-term trend.

And prices jumped. Fast food menu prices in California rose almost 15% in one year, nearly double the national average. In April 2024 alone, the month the new wage took effect, prices in California spiked by nearly 3%, the biggest one-month jump in the country.

…

But before we jump to conclusions, let’s look at the second viewpoint.

A study by the University of California at Berkeley from February 24, 2025, found something very different.

According to their analysis, the $20 fast-food minimum wage in California did what it was supposed to do. It raised pay by about 8 to 9 percent for covered workers. It did not reduce jobs, it did not cause mass closures, and the price of a typical fast-food meal went up by only about 6 cents on a four-dollar burger.

The University of California study used government data, private payroll sources, and job posting platforms. It compared covered restaurants to valid control groups and adjusted for seasonality and economic trends. Again, they found no significant job losses. In fact, the number of fast-food restaurants in California actually grew faster than in the rest of the country.

University of California economists pushed back on the BRG study. They said BRG cherry-picked data, failed to separate correlation from causation, and relied on sources that weren’t central to the wage policy itself. For example, job losses had already begun before the law took effect, and the price spike BRG cited didn’t account for restaurant type or broader inflation. So who’s right?

Both are likely correct.

Businesses act in their self-interest to maximize profits. This statement does not intend to demonize businesses. If a business can invest in automation in such a way that results in higher profits, it will do so, as it is a means to reduce labor costs.

But let’s get away from the contradiction. It only muddies our view.

The decisive point is not whether the government should mandate a wage increase. Any mandate the government makes to the business pool has ripple effects, and there are winners and losers.

The decisive point is that the government mandating a wage increase does not build consensus.

We will not achieve long-term consensus with a wage mandate. Just like FDR couldn’t compel businesses to get on board to achieve national goals, we will not achieve our goals in a lasting manner with mandates. We have to incentivize change.

We Won’t Agree on the Method. Let’s Agree on the Goal

The first step to building consensus is agreeing on the goal.

And we can agree on the goal: food on the table and heat in the house for working Americans. We can build from there.

Here’s a fact: any business that pays poverty wages costs the American taxpayer more than it pays in taxes.

Here’s another: if we’re against raising wages to a livable standard for every worker, then we are for continued dependence on social programs. You can’t be against both livable wages and social programs. No matter how much we argue for market freedom, if wages stay low, taxpayers pick up the tab.

So, we need to build consensus to get through our gridlock.

Let’s throw out a proposal.

If a business can prove it pays every worker a livable wage, including the dishwasher, the pipefitter, the burger cook, the philosophy major, the ranch hand … then how about they pay no federal taxes?

It doesn’t matter if a business thinks those are low-skill jobs that don’t justify higher wages. If they don’t pay their workers enough, the taxpayer fills the gap, and that costs America a trillion dollars a year.

But when workers earn livable wages, they don’t need food stamps. They can afford private healthcare, so they don’t need Medicaid. They no longer need the Earned Income Tax Credit. Higher wages reduce the taxpayer’s mandatory funding commitment.

As a bonus, this approach reduces the burden on the federal budget and raises revenue because higher wages mean more income taxes paid by workers.

Some will say that we can’t eliminate business taxes because we should mandate businesses pay both livable wages and taxes.

And they have a valid point. But that stance has blocked progress towards our goal for more than 40 years. We will likely never gain the political consensus to make lasting progress with mandates.

Whether a business pays taxes or how large its tax bill is isn’t the point.

The decisive point is whether Americans can work for and achieve food on the table and heat in the house without piling debt on future generations.

That’s the goal. That’s the consensus.

If we reward the right behavior, we don’t need mandates. We build a system that works, even if not everyone agrees with how we got there.

How we achieve our goal matters less than achieving it.

May God bless the United States of America.

Jennifer worked for more than forty years. She spent just a few years at home when the baby was born, then went right back to it.

She didn’t ask for handouts.Never made a scene.She went to church on Sunday and to work every day during the week.She paid her taxes, saved a little, and kept going.

She wasn’t rich.Didn’t have a pension.But she had her 401K and maybe some Social Security waiting if the government didn’t take that away.She thought she was doing it right.

Then, her son got sick.

He was in his twenties. Just getting started. No real savings. Barely enough insurance.The money he had didn’t come close to what he needed.

He was the kind of sick that throws everything into chaos.The kind that doesn’t care how old you are or how prepared your mother thought she was.

Jennifer fought the denials.Sat through the waiting lists.She watched the out-of-pocket bills pile up. The bills didn’t care about her budget or her plans.

She wasn’t going to watch her son die sitting on any money, so she drained her savings.Sold her car.Skipped her own treatments to stretch the money.

She never complained.She just did what any mother would do. She tried to save her child.

So now, she’s 60.

Her son’s alive.The savings are gone.She hopes to get a small Social Security check. She knows that because of the choice she made and would make again, she will have to work longer to cover rent. She doesn’t regret her decision.

…

Jennifer’s situation begs a question: what do we owe those struck by misfortune?

To answer that, we have to ask something deeper…

Why does this system exist in the first place?

We consent to governance in order for those we elect to protect our property.

Individuals possess inherent rights. These include the right to life, liberty, and the ability to strive toward purpose. These rights are your property. No one can own you but you. So, you are your own property, and only you have the right to make decisions about yourself.

These rights exist independently of government. Even if government didn’t exist, we would still have the inherent right to live, make choices, grow from the result of those choices, and strive for a fulfilling life.

By choosing to submit to governance, we assign a duty to those we elect to protect these rights and the property that comes from us exercising those rights.

Beyond protecting the property that is our natural rights, government also resolves disputes over property. These might involve employers and workers, neighbors, families, or other rub points in society.

This duty is not optional, and it applies to both the strong and the weak. Elected officials are charged with protecting the life and property of every individual, including those who cannot defend their rights on their own.

We give up some control through laws, regulations, and taxes. Sometimes, we pool our resources to build things that multiply our individual capability, like roads, power grids, or schools. Other times, we give up control because we know we can’t always protect our own rights alone.

This is where the tension in funding Social Security begins.

Some succeed and come to see it as a kind of fraudulent Ponzi scheme. They feel that if they can’t access the money their government took from them in taxes when they want it, then those officials failed to protect their property.

But that’s the view from the top of the hill. It’s not wrong, just incomplete. It’s the view of the world from the folly of wealth.

Because eventually, time and chance happen to us all.

The fastest runner doesn’t always win the race. The strongest doesn’t always win the fight. Wisdom, intelligence, and skill don’t always lead to wealth, health, or success.

Sooner or later, misfortune visits everyone. We get injured. Or sick. Or old. Or maybe our child is the one who suffers.

Because we don’t know when misfortune will strike, we hedge our bets. As a nation of individuals, we buy insurance in case we, as individuals, can no longer work due to age or injury.

So…

Our property begins with our ability to choose and pursue our life’s purpose. That includes our labor, our time, and what we create with them. But we live in a world that’s unpredictable and sometimes violent. We know that no amount of planning can fully protect us from injury, illness, or age.

So, in our individual self-interest, we agree to pool some of what we earn. We buy insurance together so that if misfortune strikes before we’ve saved enough, we’re not left with nothing.

This insurance is called Social Security. It’s not built to be flexible. It’s built to be there for when we can no longer work.

But we still haven’t directly answered our question about Jennifer’s situation:

What do we owe those struck by misfortune?

What do we owe those struck by misfortune?

We don’t owe those struck by misfortune sympathy. Nor do we owe them charity. We may have personal beliefs that direct us to love and serve others through our churches and nonprofits, but we cannot force others to share our personal beliefs.

What we owe those struck by misfortune is commitment to stable institutions that protect the life and property of individuals, including those who cannot defend these rights on their own.

Institutions like Social Security don’t spring up by accident. They develop organically over generations and embody the collective wisdom of society. They are built over time in response to painful lessons and misfortune. They reflect the accumulated judgment of generations who saw what happened when nothing was there to catch the falling. They are not the product of a single generation’s will. They are the accumulated wisdom of America refined by need and time.

These institutions carry memory. They remember the cost of doing nothing, the pain of the Great Depression, and the reason we built a floor for those struck by misfortune to stand on.

For those blinded by the folly of wealth and comfort, it’s easy to call for reform. They make claims of fraud without showing evidence. They bought in like everyone else, but now they want to walk away with their share as if the deal was only about them.

We do need to reform the institution to better serve the needs of those struck by misfortune while still maintaining our commitment to it. Not to eliminate it or make it more difficult to use but to better serve those who depend on it.

But reform should come from people who understand the purpose and history of the institution, not from oligarchs in power trying to tear it down.

So, what does America owe Jennifer and others struck by misfortune?

We owe Jennifer commitment to institutions that protect the rights and property of every American, including the weak who cannot defend those rights on their own.

May God bless the United States of America.

Music from #Uppbeathttps://uppbeat.io/t/eversafe/eversafeLicense code: STFNDGAT8W2XKNIF

☘️ Joel (00:00:00):

Today, I'm pleased to host Crom Carmichael. Crom is an entrepreneur, investor, and business leader. He has served as the CEO and board member of Nishai Biotech, and if I said that wrong, I apologize, since 2002.

🎤 Crom (00:00:16):

Nope, that's exactly right.

☘️ Joel (00:00:19):

He's a native of South Bend, Indiana, graduated from Vanderbilt University in 1971. Crom has extensive leadership experience and a demonstrated strong commitment to innovation and growth, especially in biotech.

Key aspects of your career include you're a founding investor in Serif Group, who provides seed and early stage funding to startups.

You sit on the board of multiple companies, and those are all going to be in the written version (including Consensus Point, TrackPoint Systems, Confirmation.com, BancVue, 3SAE Technologies, and The Gardner School).

You own an audio program that covers history's most influential thinkers called Giants of Political Thought. And the series fascinatingly outlines the philosophy of governance, including thinking of giants such as Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, Adam Smith, and others.

And you and Mike Hassell now just started to host a podcast From Our Generation To Yours, where you offer lessons on business, politics, and life for the next generation.

Crom, it's great to talk to you today.

🎤 Crom (00:01:22):

Well, Joel, thanks for having me. I appreciate it very much.

☘️ Joel (00:01:26):

I really appreciate that you focus so much on philosophy in governance because philosophy informs how and why we think about things.

We establish goals based on some hopefully philosophical logic. And we need to orient ourself toward those goals because when we take our eyes or focus off of the goal, we get to start doing things that don't really make sense.

I bet we can find common ground with the question, well, I bet we would both answer yes to the question of whether individuals have a duty to prepare for an uncertain future so they aren't a burden on others.

I'm fascinated to hear your take on:

Do we have a mandate for individuals to prepare for an uncertain future?

As in, like a government requirement mandate. Essentially, should we have social security?

Do we have a mandate for individuals to prepare for their future? And you have to make the assumption that me paying into Social Security is me funding my own Social Security in the future. I know that is not the way the system works.

I know that it's not me paying in because I pay in for someone who's older than me and then somebody younger than me would theoretically pay in for me. But if I don't pay into the system, then I don't get the benefit.

🎤 Crom (00:03:02):

Right.

So Social Security, when it was founded, it was promised to be like an insurance program where the money that you put in would go into your own social security account.

And every year people get in the, I get, now I'm on social security and I get a piece in the mail that tells me how much I'm going to get. And I believe that even when you're younger, I believe that you can request and find out what the Social Security system, quote, promises, unquote, to pay you.

But the Social Security system, as it actually works today, and you hit it right on the head. You're right on target. The Social Security tax is just simply a tax.

The Social Security benefit is a promise that the government makes so long as it's able to keep it.

But the money that you pay in, it does not go into an account in your name.

It just goes into a Social Security fund that then is used to pay for Social Security and any other general expenses that the government might need the money for.

And so the right word for it is, unfortunately, it's a Ponzi scheme.

☘️ Joel (00:04:29):

So I was going to ask, so some people call it a Ponzi scheme instead of an insurance program or, or however you want to describe it.

Um, so you and I agree that it is not, that you put money into a bucket that money grows like the stock market or like a bond or whatever. And then at the retirement age of your life, you have access to that money.

You don't ever theoretically own that money.

And because you don't own it, some people call it a Ponzi scheme.

I don't, I think that institutionally, there's a reason that we created the program and that came out of the Great Depression and people not having enough.

So if that is still true, if we eliminated the program, then don't we have an obligation to maintain our commitment to it?

🎤 Crom (00:05:34):

Well, I mean, you know, Social Security from a political standpoint, I mean, people who have worked all their lives and now everybody who is retired today worked their entire life and paid into the Social Security system.

So it is an obligation that the government has based on the promise that the government has made to every American citizen.

And the government will keep that promise as long as it can. But the point that you make is that somebody's ability to receive or the government's ability to pay the benefit is what will depend on whether or not the benefit always gets paid.

And so what age, I'm 76. And so I've been collecting Social Security for about, let's say seven or eight years. I paid into Social Security for about 45 years. And most people who are collecting Social Security feel that they have earned the money that they are receiving.

And the reason that they do is that the people who started receiving Social Security in the 40s and 50s and even in the 60s paid very little into the system compared to the benefits that they were receiving.

And so therein lies the Ponzi scheme.

☘️ Joel (00:07:04):

Sure, yeah.

🎤 Crom (00:07:05):

It's a little bit like, when I was in college many years ago, if I needed, I may be telling on myself here a bit, but if I needed a few bottles of alcohol I would send out a chain letter. Do you know what a chain letter is?

☘️ Joel (00:07:21):

Yeah.

🎤 Crom (00:07:23):

And I would put my name at the top. I'd put three of my friends under me and I'd send out the chain letter to about 100 people that I didn't know and tell them to send a bottle of such and such to the top person on the list and then remove that person, move the second person to the top and put their name on the bottom.

And I'd send out 100 of those things, and I would inevitably get three or four bottles of whiskey. And so that's how Social Security worked from the beginning.

Now, there was a senator named Senator Clark who offered an amendment to make it so that when people put money into Social Security, that it would actually go into an account in their name in the same way that an IRA works today.

And that amendment, it was voted down.

☘️ Joel (00:08:19):

I wrote a previous idea back in, I think, May of last year. Why doesn't the government give every baby born in America a $100,000 loan when they're born?

And over the lifetime of that child, and I understand the math doesn't perfectly work out because there's inflation and the reality of things,

but...

That individual repays their $100,000 to the government over their lifetime.

And then the investment of that grows at some government promised kind of low rate, like 3%.

And then at their retirement age, then they get, depending on what year they retire, then they get a benefit of that divided into 30 years.

And so then if you don't live long enough, which most people won't because if you retired 65 and your benefits are planned to last till you're 95, then most people just statistically don't live to be 95. Then whatever you didn't earn in that, you still don't own. The government seizes it.

And then that funds people who through not necessarily any fault of their own were injured or for whatever reason couldn't work.

And so then the program always has full funding because of that.

But I understand that there's political consensus that would have to take place for Congress to pass that and change Social Security.

But to me, that makes sense that FDR could have when he created the Social Security program. He could have created it to benefit retirees at the time, but then somehow morphed it into a self-funded thing.

Because we're going to have generations that are smaller than than previous generations. And like Gen X is smaller than the baby boomers. And so we have a problem now that social security is running out of funding because the baby boomers are a bigger generation than those that follow.

And so then there are not enough people in the way that FDR set up, there's not enough people paying into the program.

🎤 Crom (00:10:26):

Well, yeah, and, you know, your ideas make a great deal of sense as a practical matter.

I mean, they make a great deal of sense from a mathematical matter, but as a practical matter, getting Congress to agree to do something like that, I think would probably be giving $100,000 to every baby.

I'm not quite sure how that $100,000 would be invested on behalf of that person.

And then the problem becomes the politicians as that amount of money, if you even could establish it to begin with.

Politicians would see that pool of money and want to do something, do something with it.

And that's always been the problem because when Social Security was originally passed, I went back and did a little bit of preparation for this conversation.

And the original Social Security tax for the individual was 1% on their first $3,000. So it was $30 a year. And the employer matched that. So the employer also put up $30 a year. And Roosevelt promised that those two numbers would never change. And, of course, that was not true. But he said that in order to get the bill passed.

And then the media then reported what Roosevelt said, and the bill got – the Social Security bill got passed.

And then as politicians started to see, well, gee, there are a lot of people who are now, and by the way, when Roosevelt passed that bill, average life expectancy was 62 and you didn't start collecting Social Security until you were 65.

Well, then over the next 25 years, life expectancy increased to approximately 75 and they actually lowered the year that you could collect Social Security down to 62.

And they increased the benefits.

And that's because politicians found that if they ran on a platform back in those days of increasing Social Security benefits by 5%, people who were collecting Social Security benefits would vote for them.

And so it's unfortunate that we could have an interesting conversation sometime on what the founding fathers, what some of their discussions were, and it's all in the Federalist Papers, by the way, what their discussions were when they were devising the Constitution, what were the principles that they tried to take into account in writing a constitution that they hoped would last for hundreds of years.

Please, go ahead.

☘️ Joel (00:13:26):

It is really interesting to me, the John Locke piece that got lost in the translation between John Locke's philosophy and the Declaration of Independence that Life, liberty, and property, because it was one of John Locke's big things.

The role of government is to protect your property. And then Jefferson changed that to Pursuit of Happiness.

So I understand the challenge of saying that the government's role is to protect your property, because some people might hear that and say, oh, I don't own a house. I don't own 10 acres or whatever, so I don't have property, and the government promised me property, and so now you are obliged to give me a yard or whatever.

That's not what that means.

But it does mean that for your body, as an example, you can make decisions about your body.

But if your dollars are your property because you work and generate funds from that work, and those funds become your property, then does the government have a responsibility to protect your property?

And then that actually ties in with the insurance piece, because if the government does have a responsibility to protect your property, but you're facing an uncertain future, then do you buy an insurance plan to make it so you still have some money at the end of your life or in the instance that you can't work and that insurance would become Social Security?

That's an interesting premise that I thought about.

🎤 Crom (00:15:04):

Back in the 20s, before the Great Depression, back in the 20s, more than half of the American people bought insurance policies in the form of annuities. And that was buying insurance privately that would provide for their retirement.

☘️ Joel (00:15:27):

So do you think we should still commit to Social Security?

Essentially, you and I agree you have a mandate to prepare for an uncertain future.

There are different ways that you can do that.

How do you think we should get that done? Because we need to probably reform the program so that it's healthy again.

🎤 Crom (00:15:52):

Well, the government does have. A number of years ago, he federal government passed legislation they passed.

And I'm going to I may get this, Joel, slightly wrong, but they provided for people if people wanted to set up IRAs, individual retirement accounts, they could do that if they worked for a company that offered a 401k. Then they could contribute to the 401 , and oftentimes the company matched that amount.

And then there's this other thing called Roth IRAs. And I'm not that familiar with any of those in very, very specific detail other than there's lots of tax deferring that goes on in those plans so that they can build.

And so for the average, for the regular person, if they work in a company that has a 401k, and the company contributes to that 401k with a matching grant, matching amount of money, I encourage people to put as much as they possibly can in those IRAs if they're matched by the company because that automatically gives them 100% return on that investment.

And there's nothing that comes close to that in any other way of investing.

☘️ Joel (00:17:22):

But I agree, totally agree with the investment vehicles that are there.

If it's going to take the place of social security, though, they can't be an elective thing. They have to be mandated, right?

Because there will always be people that choose not to invest because they don't have the money, because we talked about low wages a minute ago.

And because they don't have the money, they're not going to do it.

And then they're going to get to the end of their life. And what do you do?

Do you just leave them to die?

And the answer is no, you can't. And so if you're going to have people be able to use their 401k as their retirement money, then it can't be optional.

🎤 Crom (00:18:10):

Well, in the society that we're in today, Social Security is going to exist until it can't. And that would be if you had an economic collapse and the value of money would have to be redefined. That's a possibility.

That type of thing has happened throughout history.

But for our discussion, for practical purposes, Social Security benefits are going to continue to be paid out because it would be political suicide to call for the elimination of Social Security benefits and exchange it for some other program.

And so as long as Social Security benefits are going to be paid out, there would need to be some form of Social Security tax that really forces people who are working and earning money to pay money toward, as you say, the Social Security for the people who are currently retired.

So I don't think there's a way out of the Social Security trap, if that's the way that you and I want to describe it, only because it's been around now for close to 90 years.

☘️ Joel (00:19:35):

Yeah, I don't know that I would call it a trap. I don't know that I would use that term. I would probably say it's a very inefficient vehicle to prepare for your retirement.

And anytime we choose to funnel money through the government, you're just going to waste at a minimum 40% of it by people working government jobs.

They're going to kind of siphon off that money.

And so then by wasting 40% of it, you would have less money than you would if you had invested that money instead.

But I don't know that the only way I think that we could change it, and that's an interesting point, if you elected to invest your own money and could prove that through your taxes every year, whether or not you could elect to not pay Social Security.

That'd be an interesting point.

🎤 Crom (00:20:34):

Well, that's why I called it. That's why I referred to it as the Social Security trap.

Because if you work and receive a paycheck, your employer is required to take your Social Security tax out of your pay.

So it's not a choice that you as a worker, you don't have that choice.

You can't say, well, I think I'd rather do this rather than pay the tax. You don't have a choice.

☘️ Joel (00:21:01):

Yeah, then it gets back to the Edmund Burke thing that institutionally we chose as a nation to do X at this time.

And Burke would say we have a commitment to the institution to maintain the viability for people who don't have resources.

So...

🎤 Crom (00:21:23):

Yeah, but it's also just there's a philosophical point, and then there's the practical political point, and that is that if anybody, if any politician ran saying that we're going to take away people's Social Security benefits who don't need the money, I will promise you that that politician will not win the next election.

☘️ Joel (00:21:45):

Yeah, yeah.

🎤 Crom (00:21:47):

So the tax will always be there as long as the social security system is viable enough to pay out the benefits.

☘️ Joel (00:21:58):

Yeah.

And I actually, I personally think that we have to have social security or some form of social insurance so that elderly people aren't freezing to death in their apartments.

I think that Social security, as it is shaped right now, probably needs reformed so that it better benefits those people.

Because, for instance, if you consider the $100,000 loan when you're a baby thing, and then the worker pays that back through their lifetime earnings, you would pay less in social security taxes because you could even make poverty level wages and pay that $100,000 back.

And you would almost double your entitlement benefit or your benefit at your retirement age is, I don't want to call it an entitlement at that point because that's an investment that the government made on your behalf when you were born.

But I think that it's just something that we need to, we can't get rid of because too many elderly people and people who can't work depend on it.

🎤 Crom (00:23:05):

Yeah, I would suggest that the biggest area of federal savings is not going to be in Social Security because I would disagree with you just a bit on the cost of administering Social Security is actually relatively low compared to the cost of managing our healthcare system because with Social Security, it's just a formula and they pay it out.

☘️ Joel (00:23:38):

I really appreciate your time. And thanks for sharing the phone call with me.

🎤 Crom (00:23:43):

Joel, I appreciate it. Thanks for having me.

May God bless the United States of America.