Category: Blogs

On day one, mind our house divided

Victorious conservatives see the recent decisive presidential election as a mandate for radical change. And progressives are predictably suiting up for battle. A house divided cannot stand.

The recent decisive presidential election showed that a significant number of voters were mad as hell and were not going to take it anymore. However, the aftermath showed some with fear of real and imagined threats and public figures vowing to fight in defense of their turf. Everyone seemingly ignoring that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

Abraham Lincoln spoke of the peril of a house divided — quoting Matthew 12:25 — at a time of great national sorrow, when the Southern economy dependent on slave labor was made to face an anti-slavery movement. Today, our nation is on a similar, although thankfully not as tragically wrenching, position of divisiveness: populous coastal states dependent on a redistributive economy were made to face a solid mass of conservative middle states.

Obviously, magnitude of suffering is not what can be compared between today’s divisiveness and the post-Civil War discord. What can be instructive, however, is an assessment of what works best after an upheaval. The post-Civil War Reconstruction period tried both change through conciliatory compromise and change through forced acquiescence. The latter overwhelmed the former, leaving unhealed wounds residues of which linger to this day.

Andrew Johnson, Vice President during Abraham Lincoln’s administration, assumed the presidency upon Lincoln’s assassination. He attempted to follow Lincoln’s advice to bind up the nation’s wounds by adopting a conciliatory approach to full emancipation of former slaves.

His efforts were ineffectively lenient, given the enormity of the challenge. The defeated South experienced rampant violence against former slaves. Radical Republicans in Congress upon achieving a majority, implemented a vastly more stringent agenda, imposing military rule in the South, and disenfranchising Southern rebels.

While Radical Republican actions enabled basic requirements of equality with passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution, they also ushered Jim Crow. From Whites Only water fountains to Whites Only suburbs, Jim Crow lasted for nearly 100 years. The last vestiges of which were legislatively erased by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, but Jim Crow left an entire population of citizens playing catch up.

We should accept that Andrew Johnson’s conciliatory approach did not work. However, we should also speculate whether the Radical Republican approach might have been too harsh, producing unfortunate boomerang effects.

The result of the 2024 presidential election is being lauded by supporters as a mandate for radical change that will necessitate radical actions. Predictably, progressive-socialist bastions are already suiting up for battle – the boomerang effect is already evident.

Progressive state governors like Gavin Newsom of California, J.B. Pritzker of Illinois, Kathy Hochul of New York, and Maura Healey of Massachusetts are leading the charge – in the words of Gavin Newsom – to “Trump-proof” their states.

Less strident state leaders have issued more thoughtful messages. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz made a good point: the Trump-Vance team often spoke of leaving decisions to the states; therefore, he is “willing to take them at their word for that.” Walz listed the areas he will defend: abortion rights, climate change, gun restrictions in schools and labor rights. These issues are good ones for the federal government to handle with finesse rather than bluster.

Admitedly, there are issues that need to be handled firmly, but hopefully not belligerently.

It should be obvious by now given the nation’s current unsustainable $35 trillion debt that government is spending beyond its means trying to support an obscenely bloated bureaucracy and a dependent legal and illegal constituency. The incoming administration has pledged to trim both.

Hopefully, in its efforts to keep its pledge the new administration will act “with malice toward none” by avoiding unnecessary acrimonious words and deeds. This tactic will do wonders to heal the nation’s divisiveness and set it on a path to greater prosperity.

Hopefully, the new majority in Congress will heed its Constitutional duties “to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States.” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1). For the last two decades, Congress has abdicated most of its Constitutional responsibilities, by loosening its purse strings ($35 trillion in national debt), adopting a lenient approach to homeland security (open borders and a military not fully prepared), and forgetting what “general” as opposed to selective welfare means.

Hopefully, new leaders will focus on the big picture – national expenditures, prosperity, and a safe homeland. And defer posturing, especially in signing of Executive Orders.

Hopefully, new leaders will mind history and the perils of a house divided.

Grocery prices too high? You can fix that!

When inflation gets so high that voters complain, politicians can dance around the challenge by implementing price controls, breaking up big corporations, or trying other gimmicks that have never worked. Or they can refrain from pressuring the Federal Reserve, and allow them to bring inflation down by increasing interest rates and decreasing the money supply.

The working middle and modest-income classes in the United States are struggling with rising prices and stagnant incomes. They are also hoping government will “do something” to ease their pain. Unfortunately, most often government is the cause of the pain, not the cure.

An article dated November 2013, on the website Federal Reserve History, has some interesting things to say about the Great Inflation of 1965-1982.

Here are a few quotes from that article:

“The Great Inflation was the defining macroeconomic event of the second half of the twentieth century … It was, according to one prominent economist, ‘the greatest failure of American macroeconomic policy in the postwar period.’ “

“In 1964, inflation measured a little more than 1 percent per year. It had been in this vicinity over the preceding six years. Inflation began ratcheting upward in the mid-1960s and reached more than 14 percent in 1980.”

“While economists debate the relative importance of the factors that motivated and perpetuated inflation for more than a decade, there is little debate about its source. The origins of the Great Inflation were policies that allowed for an excessive growth in the supply of money—Federal Reserve policies.”

“The late 1960s and the early 1970s were a turbulent time for the US economy. President Johnson’s Great Society legislation brought about major spending programs across a broad array of social initiatives at a time when the US fiscal situation was already being strained by the Vietnam War.”

“A more disruptive force was the repeated energy crises that increased oil costs and sapped U.S. growth. The first crisis was an Arab oil embargo that began in October 1973 and lasted about five months. During this period, crude oil prices quadrupled to a plateau that held until the Iranian revolution brought a second energy crisis in 1979. The second crisis tripled the cost of oil.”

“The Nixon administration introduced wage and price controls over three phases between 1971 and 1974. Those controls only temporarily slowed the rise in prices while exacerbating shortages, particularly for food and energy. The Ford administration fared no better in its efforts. After declaring inflation “enemy number one,” the president in 1974 introduced the Whip Inflation Now (WIN) program, which consisted of voluntary measures to encourage more thrift. It was a failure.”

“In 1979, Paul Volcker, formerly the president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, became chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.”

“By this time, it was generally accepted that reducing inflation required greater control over the growth rate of [bank] reserves specifically, and broad money more generally. … Lending activity fell, unemployment rose, and the economy entered a brief recession … But the Volcker Fed continued to press the fight against high inflation with a combination of higher interest rates and even slower reserve growth … Unemployment peaked at nearly 11 percent, but inflation continued to move lower and by recession’s end, year-over-year inflation was back under 5 percent.”

The meaning, summarized:

*Government spent too much thanks to the Federal Reserve’s generous increase in the money supply and its failure to change monetary policy when inflation started to rise significantly.

*There was no oil price gouging. The significant increase in the price of gas and energy was the result of shortages caused by the Arab oil embargo and by the Iranian revolution.

*The Nixon administration’s wage and price controls did not work. They resulted in massive shortages of goods and an inflation rate of 11%.

*The Ford administration’s measures to encourage corporate and consumer thrift did not work either.

*What did work in bringing inflation down to 3.66% by 1987 were the policies of Paul Volcker, Federal Reserve Chairman from August 1979 to August 1987. He raised interest rates as high as 19.08% and decreased the money supply.

*The Federal Reserve continuously plays a balancing act in abiding by its objectives of maximum employment and price stability.

The Somewhat Great Inflation of 2022-2024.

The 9% inflation rate of 2022 pales by comparison to the 13.88% 1980 rate.

However, just as spending on the Vietnam war and the Great Society fueled inflation, spending in response to the 2019-2023 pandemic did as well. In 2020 federal spending increased 45% from 2019, as compared to a 18% increase in spending in response to the Great Recession of 2008-2009.

The Nixon administration price and wage control did nothing to stabilize prices. So far, neither has the Biden administration Inflation Reduction Act. However, interest rate increases have made a difference.

The unadjusted 12-months ended July 2024 inflation rate for all items of goods and services was 2.9%, down from 3.2% in 2023 and 8.5% in 2022. The decrease is thanks to the Federal Reserve Bank steadily increasing the Federal Funds rate from 1.68% in July 2022 to 5.33% in July 2024.

Other factors besides spending.

There are certainly other factors besides excessive government spending without significant increase in production that can trigger inflation. The factors that contributed to the current inflation are mentioned in these two studies:

*A study reported in July 2024 by MIT Sloan School of Management indicates the following triggers and their relative influence on the current inflation:

Money supply 2.90%
Yield curve 3.30%
Wages and salaries 4.80%
Personal consumption 6.20%
Producer prices 10.10%
Interest rates 14.30%
Inflation expectations 16.90%
Federal spending 41.60%

Federal spending outweighs all other influences. Interestingly, money supply is not a significant contributor according to this study. Although, this paragraph from Statista Research dated May 14, 2024, disagrees.

“While between 2000 and 2019, the M1 money supply increased at a slow pace, there was an exceptionally sharp increase in 2020, which was the result of the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The sharpest increase took place in May 2020, when the M1 money supply was increased from 4.8 to 16.2 trillion U.S. dollars.”

*And from Brookings Institution research dated June 13, 2023:

“The pandemic-era inflation has been a complicated phenomenon that involved both multiple sources and complex dynamic interactions. Ultimately, as many have recognized, the inflation largely reflected strong aggregate demand, the product of easy fiscal and monetary policies, excess savings accumulated during the pandemic, and the reopening of locked-down economies.”

Additional factors.

Indeed, the current inflation is complex, with many variables. One variable that the above-mentioned studies do not emphasize because it does not play a major role in inflation is corporations’ ability to raise prices in a consolidated market. Microsoft and Alphabet are examples of near monopolies that are often accused of setting rules and prices largely undisturbed by competitors.

Although those accusations are partly true (Procter & Gamble’s recent report of sales decline attests that the company’s ability to raise prices is not unlimited!), the clamor that government “do something” is laughable, since it is government’s “easy money” that allows formation of such monopolies. Remember, buyouts are mostly leveraged, facilitated by low interest rates.

In conclusion.

Once upon a time, the U.S. dollar was backed by gold. In those old days, politicians could not get re-elected by just spending unlimited amounts of government fiat money giving their constituents the moon – today they can.

Unfortunately, unbridled spending brings on inflation. When inflation gets so high that voters complain, politicians can dance around the challenge by implementing price controls, breaking up big corporations, or trying other gimmicks that have never worked. Or they can refrain from pressuring the Federal Reserve, and allow them to bring inflation down by increasing interest rates and decreasing the money supply.

Thankfully, politicians do not simply step into their roles – they get elected by voters. Thus, voters can fix things that go wrong, like inflation, by voting wisely.

Did Facebook just figure censorship is wrong?

Recently Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg admitted that government officials pressured his company to censor certain Covid-19 content. We will see going forward whether his contrition is real.

On August 27, Mark Zuckerberg expressed what perhaps most people knew. He said in a letter to Representative Jim Jordan (R-OH), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, that government officials pressured Facebook to censor certain Covid-19 content. He indicated in the letter that he regretted not being more outspoken about it.

Although Mr. Zuckerberg has now articulated contrition, it will be his actions not his words that prove his repentance. He could start by directing Facebook engineers and content administrators to restore the “reach” of posts that dared to bring up a situation, event, research that diverged from official prescribed positions during the pandemic.

Interestingly, the censorship alluded by Mark Zuckerberg applied to any Facebook account, no matter how obscure. And that included the Just Vote No Blog.

Up to the rise of Covid-related censorship, the Just Vote No Facebook Page reached a good number of people and received several comments on each post. Then, one fateful day, the Just Vote No Blog placed on its Facebook Page a post criticizing the way the pandemic was being handled by U.S. officials. Mind you, the post acknowledged that Covid-19 was real, and people were dying. The post only disagreed with the official response to the challenge, calling the ensuring disarray Keystone Cops behavior.

Overnight, the “reach” of all subsequent posts was “0,” and comments disappeared. This situation continues to this day.

It will be interesting to see whether Mark Zuckerberg’s newly-found courage and common sense will translate into more diverse posts on his platform. There is so much in cat video and cute memes content most people can tolerate.

Picture: Anonymous engraving of a 19th century service called the Black Cabinet. The cabinet’s duty was to examine private correspondence for security reasons. From arts print website Meinsterdrucke

The Trump/Musk conversation: Over the media’s head?

Our legacy media has not been kind regarding the recent Trump/Musk conversation. Did they miss that this was supposed to be freewheeling and extemporaneous? Did the whole thing go over the media’s head?

The Just Vote No Blog is not a partisan website, but the Trump/Musk conversation live streamed on August 12, was interesting enough to comment on. Equally interesting has been the legacy media’s focus on “slurring” and “rambling.” Did the fact this was a freewheeling, extemporaneous conversation escape the media? Did the noteworthy comments made go over their head? Well, here are this blog’s observation of a few issues discussed on the Trump/Musk conversation.

Eliminate the Department of Education. Trump briefly spoke about such elimination, which he would endeavor for two reasons: 1) Government is way too big and too expensive. Lots needs to be eliminated if the current unsustainable national debt is to be reduced. 2) Constitutionally, what is not listed as duties of the federal government must be left to the states. Education is not a duty of the federal government. The Department of Education is, therefore, a good candidate for elimination.

There are good, decent people coming through our borders. But there are also criminals that are not being vetted. Both Trump and Musk agreed on this point. Both focused on the criminals, since that is the “existential threat” (Musk’s view) to the U.S. Accusations of “racism” do not apply here.

The current level of inflation is a threat and realistic action needs to be taken to bring it under control. Inflation was probably the challenge Musk wanted to focus on the most. He succinctly stated the cause of inflation: Too much government spending with borrowed money. He also stated his view of a remedy: Establish a commission to determine costs/benefits of every current and proposed spending. Trump agreed with Musk’s definition of inflation (“there is too much waste”), but glossed over Musk’s remedy. The objective is to shrink government, not grow it with another commission.

Climate change is not our greatest threat; nuclear war is. Neither Trump nor Musk slighted challenges posed by earth’s changing climate. Their viewpoint, however, is that serious conflicts are brewing that could result in the use of nuclear weapons. Current negotiations are not proving effective. Trump’s view is that the cudgel of severe sanctions aimed as disruptors of peace works better than long-winded talks.

Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un are smart people that know what their threats are. Trump again repeated what gets progressive panties in a bunch. His point is not that ruthless dictators are to be emulated, but that the smart ones know a threat when they see one. A friendly but deadly serious threat of severe sanctions brings better results than an insulting threat of military aggression. Teddy Roosevelt had a great line on this subject: “Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far.”

Significant decreases in oil production and electric vehicle mandates are unrealistic ways of mitigating the effects of climate change. The first part of this statement came from Musk, the majority owner of Tesla. Oil and its thousands of derivatives keep the wheels of the economy moving. We cannot significantly decrease oil production without accepting a significant decrease in economic activity. The second part of the statement was what Trump emphasized. His point was simply “An electric car is not for everyone.”

Want to go on strike? “Everyone of you is gone.” It is not surprising that Trump, owner of several businesses, speaking with a fellow business owner, would express his opposition to union-originated strikes. Businesses exist to produce goods and services, not to sit idly while workers strike. Understandably, the UAW immediately filed a lawsuit against Trump and Musk claiming worker intimidation. It will be interesting to see come November if most workers want union protection or want a job – companies that feel pressured by regulations or by unions simply move out of state or out of the country.

Don’t take prosperity for granted. Musk gave Argentina and Venezuela as examples of countries once unbelievably prosperous that fell into total disintegration. Trump agreed, adding the reason for the disintegration was ascension of “stupid people.” Both Trump and Musk also mentioned current President of Argentina Javier Milei, who turned his failed country around in under a year, principally bringing inflation down to single digits in six months. Milei is a libertarian capitalist that knows what he is doing. Milei is not “stupid,” and it shows.

It would be good to hear Vice President Kamala Harris, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, in a similar relaxed conversation with a personality of her choice. It is good for voters to get a feel for how candidates for political office talk, just talk. Often what people say in friendly conversation is what they feel about issues.

Picture: From website Donald J. Trump for President 2024

Violence never solves anything

Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump was the victim of an assassination attempt. As other perpetrators of violence, Trump’s assailant solved nothing and failed in his intent in so many ways.

Presidential candidate Donald J. Trump suffered an assassination attempt on July 13, 2024. Thankfully, the tortured soul that pulled the trigger missed. He missed in so many ways. He missed his target, he instead mortally wounded a well-respected father of two, injured two others, and provided a news-worthy image of a bloody but defiant Trump.

If the shooter was looking for fame, he likely failed there as well. His terrible deed was overshadowed by the animated crowd at the Republican National Convention two days later. If history repeats itself, his name will be largely forgotten. Anyone remembers Richard Lawrence, John Flammang Schrank, Giuseppe Zangara, John Warnock Jr, Arthur Bremer, or Lynette Fromme?

There have been perpetrators of violence whom history chooses to remember, but often as creators of martyrs. In this context, perpetrators again fail in their intent. Speaking about Trump’s attempted assassination, HBO show host Bill Maher said: “When I saw that photo today of him with the blood streaming down his face … MAGA nation finally has its full martyr.”

Senseless violence does not end well for either perpetrators or society. Violence does not solve any challenges to which its was aimed. Violent acts should be pre-emptively avoided by shunning needlessly inflammatory speech, demeaning nicknames, and glorification of guns (one thing is to understand the reason the Founding Fathers rightly placed the Second Amendment near the top of the Bill of Rights, but another thing is to flaunt rifles and boast ownership).

Hopefully, there will be no more political violence going forward. Hopefully, our presidential candidates will focus on economic and governance issues, and voters will do so as well. Hopefully, legislators and other officials will behave impartially, firmly abiding by our nation’s Constitutional principles.

Picture: Firefighters of Butler, Pennsylvania, mourned one of their own. Corey Comperatore, well-respected member of the Butler community and volunteer firefighter, was an innocent bystander killed at the Trump rally on July 13, 2024.

When establishments’ outcasts become leaders

Repeatedly throughout history the risk-taking establishment outcasts do what needs to be done. They often recognize and are instrumental in ending a regime in decay. They often rise to power to start a new cycle in a nation’s history.

It is assumed that any nation would prefer as its leader someone with an impeccable record, free of imperfections.  However, at certain times in history the establishment’s outcast was the one chosen to do what needed to be done.  Reasons vary, but the root cause is constant – the establishment accepted by the dominant power has run its course. 

When the power behind the establishment fails to accept its decay and inevitable end, the agent for change is often the extreme risk taker, willing to suffer tribulations including incarceration, or worse.    

If they persist and survive, agents for change often achieve their objective of ending a decayed regime, and in the process, they rise to power.  Their rise and eventual position of leadership simply indicate that a new cycle is starting.  Whether the new cycle is of benefit to the people of a nation depends on the sincerity and ability of the new leader. 

An interesting report dated May 16, 2018, by the news network France 24, From Prison to Power: Leaders who Served Time, gives five examples of individuals who famously went from incarceration to leadership. Of the five, here is, very briefly, the story of the better-known three:

Nelson Mandela founded the paramilitary wing of the African National Congress with the mission to fight against the South African apartheid government.  After 27 years of incarceration, Mandela became in 1994 South Africa’s president in the country’s first multiracial election.  One of his most popular quotes is, “I am not a saint, unless you think of a saint as a sinner who keeps on trying.”

Jawaharlal Nehru’s opposition to British colonial rule in India landed him in jail in 1921.  His continued civil disobedience campaigns alongside Mahatma Gandhi cost him nearly a decade of incarceration.  When in 1947 India finally achieved independence, Nehru was elected the country’s first prime minister, a position he held until his death in 1964.  Nehru’s efforts could be summarized in one of his quotes: “The policy of being too cautious is the greatest risk of all.”

Vaclav Havel was a Czech playwright, essayist, and poet.  He was also a dissident.  During the 1970s and 1980s Havel was arrested several times by the ruling Soviet regime and spent four years in prison.  But December 29, 1989, saw the peaceful overthrow of communist rule. Vaclav Havel was democratically elected president.  The Czech transition to democratic rule was achieved non-violently – the “otherwise” of what Havel once said: “Evil must be confronted in its womb and, if it can’t be done otherwise, then it has to be dealt with by the use of force.”

Regimes, like people, become sclerotic.  As time passes, regimes grow increasingly inflexible and unresponsive.  They become wedded to ideologies that might no longer fit time and place.  At some point, the regime simply collapses, as did the Soviet Union at the end of the Cold War; or suffers a violent demise, as did the French monarchy during the reign of Louis XVI. 

Agents of change, like the Soviet Union’s Mikhail Gorbachev or the French Revolution’s Maximilien Robespierre play major roles in ending a regime that is in an untenable level of decay.  Like Mandela, Nehru and Havel, agents often rise to power to start a new cycle.

For clarification, it is useful to note that the organic cycle of regimes from natural birth to natural demise has no relation to forceful takeovers by outside agents.  For example, the rise and fall of the Roman Empire exemplifies a regime’s organic cycle.  Conversely, inorganic takeovers include colonization of other people’s land by European powers starting around the 1500s, or the more socially acceptable “partitioning” of territories as occurred after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in 1922, or today’s Russian invasion of Ukraine. 

Picture:  Nelson Mandela in Soweto, Johannesburg, South Africa, two days after his release from prison.  Image from In Pictures: 30 years since Nelson Mandela became a free man, AlJazeera, February 11, 2020.

Student loans and the Great Bailout

Recommended item: Cameron Weber – economist, historian, and author of the popular book Economics for Everyone, is also producer of Hardfire TV, a political economics talk show. His latest show discusses student loan debt and debt “forgiveness.” It is worth watching for a different perspective.

Recommended item: Cameron Weber – economist, historian, and author of the popular book Economics for Everyone, is also producer of Hardfire TV, a political economics talk show. His latest show discusses student loan debt and debt “forgiveness.”

College tuition and student loan debt have suffered mind-boggling increases since the early 2000s. In an October 2023 report Education Data reported the following,

“Before adjusting for inflation, the average student loan debt at graduation has increased 106% since 2007; after adjusting for inflation, the average debt increased 41%.”

When adding to this sad statistic a February 2024 report by Inside Higher Ed indicating that nowadays 52% of college graduates are underemployed, seems that young people need to do some homework on what is causing such unfortunate situation.

The student loan segment on Hardfire TV might help. The show can be seen on YouTube.

A few words on political economics as preview.

Economics, especially political economics, wears several hats. It is not akin to, say, mathematics. Political economics is more like the costume of Le Bon Florian, Anatole France’s harlequin – viewed from one perspective the costume is red, and viewed from another it is blue.

The libertarian-leaning perspective of student loans and the accompanying student loan debt is that government intervention – subsidies – has incentivized colleges to raise their tuition to unsustainable levels. As tuition rises, so does student loan debt. The solution is to end the subsidies. This will force colleges to trim their offerings, staff, and tuition. Also, colleges will likely return to emphasizing work-study programs, and financial institutions in the marketplace will again compete to offer college assistance.

The progressive-leaning perspective is that government is a better provider than the marketplace. The marketplace increased tuition and student loan debt to untenable levels. Therefore, government needs to step in and abate that debt. Students and former students carrying the heavy burden of student loan debt are constrained from investing sufficiently in goods and services, thus fail to contribute fully to the economy. Everyone benefits when everyone contributes, which justifies taxation – income and debt redistribution.

And in the middle of these harlequinesque perspectives is the vision of the nation’s Founding Parents. This nation was founded as a grand experiment. It would be ruled not by kings or other sole decision makers, but by the people, like farmers, silversmiths, and carpenters. Therefore, education beyond that of the well to do and privileged was necessary. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams were among those that argued in favor of public schools and colleges that would provide the populace with the wisdom, knowledge and awareness necessary to make wise decisions at the ballot box.

Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Richard Price, January 8, 1789. “… wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government…”

Letter from John Adams to John Jebb, September 10, 1785. “There should not be a district of one Mile Square without a school in it, not founded by a Charitable individual but maintained at the expense of the People themselves.”

So, would our Founders then support the idea of having free colleges today? Probably not. Today, things are quite different than back in the 1800s.

Today we talk about money earned by college graduates vs. non-graduates. Young people often major in trendy subjects, like gender studies or DEI, hoping to find positions in government programs or equally trendy corporations. Hardly expectations seeped in wisdom and awareness.

Agreed that not all was perfect back then. It took nearly 100 years for women and Black students to be routinely admitted into colleges. For a brief historical perspective:

Harvard University (originally called New College) was established in 1636, and Yale University in 1701. These and other equally fine schools, were Colonial institutions established for the education of white, mostly upper class, males.

Oberlin College started accepting women in 1837. 1865 saw the emergence of women’s colleges that offered courses comparable to those of men. By the 1880s women could acquire higher education at Vassar, Smith, Wellesley, Bryn Mawr, and Mount Holyoke colleges.

There were only a few Black colleges before the Civil War. However, between 1865 and 1900, several Historically Black Colleges were established, the majority in 1867, two years after Emancipation.

Today, qualified students are admitted to colleges and universities regardless of sex and color. But whether they are receiving the skills, wisdom, and work ethic the Founders had in mind is questionable.

As libertarian-leaning economists consistently point out, government often creates problems which it then tries to take credit for solving, only to create more problems. The problem of the ballooning student loan debt, and the perceived need for debt forgiveness is a prime example. Those of a libertarian bent suggest that government get out of the student loan business, and let private banks compete to offer students the best loan deal.

Maybe the November 2024 elections will inform us which side of the harlequin’s costume is the most appealing.

Picture: From YouTube video of the Hardfire TV show on Student Loans, with host Cameron Weber and guests Marcy Berry and Melissa Wilcox.

The consummate political football: Title IX

Rules under the new Title IX go into effect August 1, 2024. While the original 1972 Title IX was a straightforward 37-word mandate to treat women and men in educational environments equally, the new 2024 rules are a salad bowl of schemes sure to bring confusion rather than equality under the law.

On August 1, 2024, rules under President Joe Biden’s revision of Title IX go into effect. The new Title IX reverses the revisions provided by former President Donald Trump, which in turn reversed the revisions provided by former President Barack Obama.

Title IX has become a special kind of proverbial political football, as it grows bigger and more adorned with every presidential administration.

The rules, commonly known as Title IX, were signed into law by then President Richard M. Nixon as part of the Education Act of 1972. Title IX was a straightforward command based on the 14th Amendment’s Constitutional principle of equal protection under the law. It read,

“No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any educational programs or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”

This 37-word directive worked just fine for three decades after its enactment, providing major educational opportunities for girls and women. Educational institutions could no longer exclude women from elite sports, courses, and activities – exclusions that were the norm rather than exceptions.

The original Title IX was not without opposition, especially from those concerned about its effect on time-honored and often lucrative men’s sports. However, all states complied with and implemented Title IX rules.

As time passed, meanings for the words “discrimination” and “sex” proliferated. In the case of Title IX, discrimination no longer simply meant not providing equal treatment, and sex no longer simply meant a difference in number of chromosomes or bodily characteristics.

Along with the growing interpretations of what is discrimination, of what is sex as opposed to gender as opposed to identity, and of who belongs to what category, came the proliferation of agendas. In 2024, the new Title IX looks more like a salad bowl of schemes than a necessary, ethical and Constitutional effort to provide equal protection under the law.

Yes, the argument can be made that the original 1972 Title IX broke with some conventions accepted by many at the time: Family and society need women as caregivers not as scholars or athletes. Elite educational institutions need the revenue and prestige brought by men’s athletics. Women’s athletics would dilute revenue and prestige. Women don’t like sports, anyway. However, all states accepted and complied with the new rules without major revolt.

The argument can also be made that a woman’s team that includes a biological male would have an advantage over an all-biological female team. And that would be a good thing for the inclusive team.

However, attorneys general in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia have sued the Biden administration, arguing primarily that the administration exceeded its authority changing Title IX. Governors and state education officials in Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, Montana, Oklahoma Nebraska, South Carolina, and Texas have directed their states’ educational institutions not to comply with the new Title IX rules.

The position of conservative, Republican-led states is that the new rules are a bridge too far in its intent to ignore physical differences by requiring protection against discrimination based on gender identity. Although the new rules stop short of specifically permitting biological men that identify as women competing in women’s sports, the rules lead to such permission by adding gender identity to protected characteristics.

Certainly, a biological male athlete that has received at least 2 years of gender-affirming care prior to puberty could claim his muscle size and strength is comparable to that of a biological female. Totally fair to allow him in women’s sports. But, nowhere in Title IX rules does that eventuality appear, thereby opening the doors to biological males unfairly competing with biological females.

The new Title IX rules are not only unfair to women but are also loaded with nuances likely to cause confusion.

The original 1972 Title IX established a new, straightforward rule that did not exist prior to the title’s enactment. The new 2024 Title IX heaps more prohibitions against infractions that are already punishable under federal, state and local laws, purportedly to tailor said infractions to sex and gender. For example, harassment, assault, violence, and stalking are already punishable. It should be questionable whether the new Title IX rules needed to list all of these already punishable infractions under “sex based” behavior – and why the rules did so. Is a sexual assault on a campus that receives federal assistance any different than a sexual assault in a shopping mall’s parking lot?

Legislators passed the original 1972 Title IX to help end the evident unfairness inherent in the exclusion of women from elite sports, courses, and educational activities. The Title IX rules helped women to achieve excellence in fields previously closed to them. If federal, state, and local jurisdictions abide by existing laws against all harassment and other violence, is there really a need for more than the original Title IX? Probably not. But factions have not resisted the urge to use Title IX as an agenda-driven political football.

Picture: New Zealand’s Laurel Hubbard, a trans athlete, competed in the women’s weightlifting team in the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. Hubbard was eligible to compete because his testosterone level was below the maximum allowed trans athletes at the time. Requirements did not take into account that if transgender care starts after puberty, biological males will keep their muscular advantage over females.

A Nation of Immigrants: That was then

We are a nation of immigrants. But, 12 million immigrants that arrived at Ellis Island from 1892 through 1954, that was then.  The 2,063,692 undocumented immigrants that crossed U.S. borders in 2023, this is now. Different numbers and different worlds.

Razor and concertina wire continue to go up along the Texas border with Mexico, and the flow of undocumented immigrants into the United States continues unabated.  Meanwhile, President Joe Biden says, “I’ve done all I can do.  Just give me the power.  Give me the border patrol … “  And all the while, Congress and Senate bicker over border solutions that make little sense anyway.  

Illegal border crossings have become not only another crisis, but also another divisive issue among Americans.  Contentious pro/con arguments abound.  Here are some: 

*   Pro – We are a nation of immigrants.  Con – The country cannot sustain the current level of undocumented immigrants. 

*   Pro – Immigrants of all kinds contribute to the labor force and thus to GNP growth.  Con – Most unauthorized border crossers are not self-sufficient, and the costs to taxpayers they incur outweigh contributions they make. 

*   Pro – America is humane and cannot turn away people escaping poverty and violence.  Con -Every cent that goes towards being humane to unauthorized border crossers is every cent not applied to current lawful residents. 

Perhaps the most often used argument in favor of the current liberal border policies is that we are a nation of immigrants. 

Indeed, immigrants have always been attracted to the U.S., mostly because of this country’s fairly strong adherence to a Constitution that protects individual liberties, and a largely market-based successful economy.  Thus, former President John F. Kennedy, when still Senator from Massachusetts, coined the phrase “A Nation of Immigrants” in a 1958 essay, which was later publishes posthumously as a book in 1964.

The story told by John F. Kennedy about his Irish-born great-grandparents could be told about millions of immigrants who have contributed mightily to the economy and culture of the U.S.

However, it is worthwhile to place in context John F. Kennedy’s classic essay on immigration.  Here are some statistics that might help:

The numbers.

*  The U.S. Historical Census Statistics on the Foreign-born Populations of the United States 1850-1990 indicates in 1850 (around the time the Kennedys first settled in the U.S.) there were 2,244,602 foreign born individuals residing in the U.S., 9.7% of the total population. 

*  U.S. Customs and Border Protection Stats and Summaries indicates total FY 2023 nationwide encounters (apprehensions) were 2,063,692.

Nationwide Border Patrol encounters in one year (FY 2023) are almost as high as the total number of foreign-born people living in the U.S. in 1850. 

*  The U.S. Customs and Border Protection historical figures 1925-2020 indicate total FY 1958  nationwide Border Patrol encounters (apprehensions) were 40,504.

The 1925-2020 Border Patrol nationwide apprehension figures fluctuated considerably from year to year (lowest in 1934 10,319; highest in 1986 1,692,544; and last in 2020 405,036).   But the 1958 figure 40,504 serves to put into context the time of Kennedy’s essay vs. today (FY2023  2,063,692 apprehensions).

The costs.

There is a misconception that government at the federal level does not provide public assistance to undocumented foreign-born individuals.  Although there are restrictions, the federal government does provide plenty of taxpayer-funded programs that benefit undocumented aliens.  Information on the following programs can be found on the website of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

*   Unaccompanied Children Program:  By law HHS must assume custody and provide care for children under 18 who enter the U.S. undocumented and unaccompanied by a parent or guardian, and who have no parent or guardian in the U.S. 

*   Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF):  The federal government provides grants to states, DC and territories that can be used with flexibility to help low-income families with children.  (There is no indication that states cannot use TANF grants to assist low-income undocumented families with children). 

*   Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP):  This federal nutrition program is available to victims of trafficking, Cuban or Haitian entrants under the Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980.

*   Head Start and Early Head Start:  This program is in the Office of Head Start (OHS), within the Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  It is not considered a federal public benefit, and any child whose family qualifies under income limits can participate regardless of immigration status.

In addition to the social costs mentioned above, the federal government funds immigration courts, border agents, medical emergencies at the border, processing centers, and grants to non-federal entities to support border and interior communities receiving migrants through the Shelter and Services Program (shelter for apprehended and released undocumented border crossers). 

What services to undocumented immigrants cannot be funded with federal money, several states and localities fund them with state and local taxes.  As of November 2023, California, Illinois, Oregon, New York, Colorado, and the District of Columbia offer some form of state-funded health coverage to all residents regardless of immigration status.  12 states offer health coverage to income-eligible undocumented children.

As in the case of the federal government, states also bear costs of providing shelter, food and emergency medical care to undocumented immigrants, as Texas Governor Greg Abbot has made abundantly clear!  In addition, states bear costs educating all children.

Obviously, we are talking here about immigrants who have limited education and resources, not about university postgraduates from well-healed families on expired visas or arrivals by private jet.  And obviously, many of the former magnificently rise above their circumstances. 

During his testimony on September 13, 2023, before the U.S. Senate Committee on the Budget, Robert Rector, Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation made the following observations.

“The current net fiscal cost of illegal aliens in the U.S. is between $84 and $94 billion per year. This means that illegal aliens receive $84 to $94 billion more in government benefits and services than they pay in total taxes.”

“The real economic test of any immigration policy is whether it makes current lawful residents better off by raising their after-tax incomes. Both low skill immigration and illegal immigration in general harm current citizens and lawful residents by placing substantial added burdens on U.S. taxpayers.”

The last of these two observations should give us pause.  First, let’s assume Mr. Rector’s calculations are correct.  Secondly, let’s note he does not seem to be accounting for illegal workers who pay into Social Security and Medicare but cannot receive benefits from either.  Still, given the verdict of illegal immigration’s “general harm” to lawful residents (native born and lawful foreign born), should we allow our humanity, compassion, and awareness that we are a nation of immigrants override our economic best interests?  The tax well is not inexhaustible and neither is the borrowing well; therefore, we need to choose beneficiaries of limited resources thoughtfully.

The workforce.

The often-used argument that illegal immigrants help fill jobs nobody else wants is correct.  As Robert Rector indicated in his testimony, illegal immigrants on average lack education and resources, limiting them to low-paying, back-breaking work.

Another argument is that illegal aliens help replenish a shrinking workforce like that of the U.S.  That is also correct.  The U.S. is experiencing a declining birth rate, so children of immigrants – lawful and unlawful – will be welcomed in a future workforce. 

The nostalgia.

Images of the Statue of Liberty welcoming “the huddled masses” and of heroic families literally stepping into the unknown at Ellis Island generate empathy towards the brave souls wading rivers and climbing over barbed wire. 

But the 12 million immigrants that arrived at Ellis Island from 1892 through 1954, that was then.  The 2,063,692 undocumented immigrants that crossed U.S. borders in 2023, this is now. Different numbers and different worlds.

Pictured:  Concertina wire with shreds of clothing, indicating border crossers climbed over the wires to enter the U.S.  The crowd near the wire will probably attempt the same feat.  Picture by Omar Ornelas of the El Paso Times is from Time article Along Texas’ floating border barrier, migrant children left bloody by razor wire, July 23, 2023. 

Trump in Iowa – Bad news for elites

Former President Donald Trump received a landslide win in the Iowa caucus. As the chaos bringer, deep state foe, and beloved of “deplorables” and other hard-working folks, Trump is putting fear in the hearts of the elites.

U.S. former President Donald Trump easily won the Republican Iowa caucus on Tuesday. He has remained the leading Republican candidate throughout the campaigns. Meanwhile President Joe Biden’s approval ratings keep falling. By now, Trump — “unpresidential,” loved by “deplorables,” name caller, knee-high in legal troubles, and the bringer of chaos – he must be putting fear and trembling in the hearts of the elites (globalists, deepstaters, corporate cronies can be included).

You see, Trump is not a career politician. He does not need from the elites money or permission to take action. He looks pretty much like he is running for President only because he is peeved, annoyed, tired of the status quo. He is ready to rumble. Ready for some serious chaos that might upend the long march towards the capitalism with Chinese characteristics (i.e., cronyism) beloved of the elites.

A lot of Americans seem also ready to turn tides in several areas of both government and society. For example,

Relentless increase in size and scope of government agencies intent on micromanaging not only the country’s economy, but also the lives of the country’s people. For some people it might be difficult to believe the following paragraph did not come from the Babylon Bee.

“The Department of Commerce is developing the Business Diversity Principles (BDP) Initiative as part of its 2022-2026 Strategic Plan goal of promoting inclusive capitalism and equitable economic growth for all Americans.” U.S. Department of Commerce. Business Diversity Principles Initiative. December 22, 2023.

Unremitting increases in the already unsustainable national debt, currently of $34 trillion. As the media and other progressives revile Congress’ Freedom Caucus for fighting debt increases, voters wonder what the debt might do to their retirement funds, to their grandchildren’s economic well-being, to the country’s ability to keep borrowing to support massive spending.

“Public concern about federal spending is on the rise. In a new Pew Research Center survey about the public’s policy priorities, 57% of Americans cited reducing the budget deficit as a top priority for the president and Congress to address this year, up from 45% a year ago.” 5 Facts About the U.S. National Debt. Pew Research Center. February 14, 2023.

The overwhelming number of unauthorized U.S. border crossers have caused respected aphorism, like “we are a nation of immigrants,” to now sound hollow to an increasing number of Americans.

“Annually, illegal immigration now costs taxpayers billions of dollars a year. For instance, in states far away from the southern border like Illinois, that cost was $4.59 billion in 2022. That’s $930 per household. Every year.
The crisis now costs California $21.76 billion and Texas $8.88 billion annually in education, health care, law enforcement and criminal justice system costs, welfare expenditures, and more. Border states are often the subject of shocking reports of epidemics of violent attacks, taxpayers footing the bill for illegal aliens’ health care costs, and increased property destruction.” Shocking Cost of the Illegal Immigration Crisis to Americans. The Heritage Foundation. February 17, 2023.

The list can go on with several other ills either ignored, too entrenched, or welcomed by opportunists. Voters might be awakening to the possibility that great risk and major chaos are the only way to erase or at least ameliorate such ills. Any wonder Donald Trump is the contender to the reckoned with?