I did find the speech on the White House YouTube channel. I don’t need to go through the specifics to recognize a worrisome trend. The former main news networks are trying to control our thinking. I stopped watching on election evening in 2016. I realized that night that the news was not balanced. The anchors were absolutely melting down. Add to that the fact that the networks decided not to run the President’s speech last night and our confidence in the networks should be thoroughly destroyed.

I read an article by Alexander Muse today. He is pretty right wing, but I find his articles to be intelligently written. “My name was given to Twitter by the Department of Justice as one of the accounts the government wanted shadow banned or suspended. There were thousands of us targeted by the Biden administration. The posts that ultimately got me suspended for almost two years concerned an election integrity issue that was very real and that the intelligence community was actively suppressing, the same category of information now sitting in the White House archive for anyone to read.”

The only ones who think that is a secret are the ones who fail to follow what was happening during the Biden administration. Biden wasn’t just leaning on “disinformation” about Covid and vaccines. Those who questioned election integrity were also targeted. Trump has now declassified and released files showing that the agencies were corrupt.

We should agree that we need election integrity. We should not be able to say that someone stole an election. We have heard that charge for every presidential election since 2016. Before mail in ballots, we had election integrity. You had to show up, sign your name, fill out a ballot and leave. I was even a poll watcher. Now we have computer systems that are capable of fraud, and we have no way to check it. We shouldn’t have to prove that fraud existed. We should prove that fraud couldn’t exist.

We should agree that only citizens are allowed to vote. My wife taught several classes for people who wanted to become citizens. One of the benefits is the right to vote. We teach our children American history and the political system. People who want to vote should also know and agree to uphold the system.

We must restore integrity to our election process.

We must understand that the news networks that many of us relied upon for decades are puppets of the Democrat party. There is no longer any pretense of balance. We must search for truth.

Share

Subscribe now

Sec. Kennedy is making some changes. Before I go into that, I’ll give you my background.

Chiropractors have a long history of being opposed to vaccine. The discoverer of chiropractic claimed that the cause of disease was subluxation of the spine. Although that was hyperbole, he made an additional statement. If vaccinations are of any benefit, your vaccinated children will not be harmed by my unvaccinated children.

I wasn’t vaccinated until I was about 12 years old. My parents wanted me to have the opportunity of natural immunity first. Natural immunity has proven to be stronger than artificial immunity derived from vaccines. A reason may be that more of the immune system is involved. When a virus enters your nasal passages or digestive tract, the immune response may start much sooner and go through a different process than when injected.

The idea that people will develop an immune response to a weakened or dead virus makes sense to me. If we can develop an immune response without getting the full-blown disease, that might save lives. In the case of injury, saving lives is not the question.

Many people don’t understand that vaccines can cause injury. In fact, drug manufacturers demanded that Congress pass the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act to shield them from liability. Part of the Act is VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) and VICP (National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program).

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has publicly proposed and is actively pursuing changes to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), also known as the “vaccine court,” along with related efforts for COVID-19 vaccine injured.

In July 2025, Kennedy criticized the program’s structure. HHS acts as the defendant rather than vaccine manufacturers. He claims the process dismisses or delays meritorious claims and said he is working with the Attorney General to address this.

Sec. Kennedy has discussed overhauling operations, potentially expanding the “injury table” (a list of presumed vaccine-related injuries and time frames for compensation), extending statutes of limitations, and making it easier/faster for claimants. Some advisers have suggested broader definitions of encephalopathy to include some cases of autism.

A process began in July to create a COVID-19 vaccine injury table under the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP). The change would presume certain injuries are caused by the shots. Compensation would be easier without proving causation in each case.

Billions of dollars have been paid out since inception of the program. Critics fear expansion will overwhelm the program, funded by a tax on vaccines. They also fear rising costs, and deterrence of vaccine production. Those fears seem legitimate.

Some people maintain that vaccines save lives. Others claim vaccines injure and kill people. Both claims can be true. It gets down to a cost/benefit analysis. We can’t do the analysis until we track the costs and benefits.

If you enjoyed this post, I’d appreciate it if you share it. It is a way you can support me. Free subscribers get access to most posts. Paid subscribers also get access to my two books: A Doctor’s Guide to Real Estate Investing and How Politics Increased the Cost of Healthcare in America plus a discount on my Udemy Course - 20/20 Business Education for Healthcare Chiropractors.

Share

Subscribe now

Today I received an email from the International Chiropractic Association asking me to help them pass a bill to modernize the Social Security Act to better cover chiropractic care in Medicare. Let me give you some background.

Chiropractic care was added to Medicare in 1972. Although the chiropractic adjustment was a covered service, exams and X-rays were not. When I began practice in 1985, the exam and X-rays could run over $200. Patients were paying out-of-pocket creating a barrier to care that did not exist for medical care.

I have been told by people claiming to be in the know, that chiropractors are required to be part of the Medicare system. Other physicians are allowed to opt out. I no longer have a Medicare number. It is unclear to me whether it is legal for me to see patients who are Medicare illegible.

Many of my patients came in for wellness care. That is not a Medicare service. As with most insurance, the patient must have a condition that requires treatment. It is unclear whether wellness care will be available after the modernization, but I imagine not.

I used the MAHA Action link to send a message to my congressman. The message is below. There is a place to put your own personal experience. I deleted the MAHA sentence and added my own. I italicized it for you.

“I urge you to vote in favor of the Chiropractic Medicare Coverage Modernization Act, H.R. 539 in the House and S. 106 in the Senate, strengthened by the profession’s three amendments: coverage defined by each state’s scope of practice with clear boundaries, equal Medicare opt-out rights for chiropractors, and a firm implementation timeline. One in three American seniors lives with chronic pain, yet Medicare still covers exactly one chiropractic service while the VA, the Department of Defense, federal employee health plans, and private insurance already recognize the fuller scope of care chiropractors are state-licensed to provide.

After nearly 40 years, I am retired from active practice. I was able to help many patients, often after regular medical care and physical therapy had proven insufficient.

This bill has one of the largest bipartisan coalitions of any health bill in Congress. It defers to each state’s scope of practice and explicitly excludes drugs, surgery, and obstetrics. Seniors have waited more than 50 years. Pass it this Congress.”

If you would like to help, go to MAHA Action. Fill out your information. Delete or customize the sentence on your experience with chiropractic. It will be sent to your representative. You might also subscribe to 1-4 substack accounts. You can always unsubscribe, if too much.

If you enjoyed this post, I’d appreciate it if you share it. It is a way you can support me. Free subscribers get access to most posts. Paid subscribers also get access to my two books: A Doctor’s Guide to Real Estate Investing and How Politics Increased the Cost of Healthcare in America plus a discount on my Udemy Courses.

Share

Subscribe now

Today is a big day for the little town of Blaine, WA. We have a parade, a car show, and vendors in the streets. It is all capped off with a giant fireworks display. I just read an article with an interview of our mayor.

According to the article, our celebration will be muted this year considering it is our 250th, because of lack of Canadians. The article cites store closures due to lack of Canadian traffic. That is true. We had a number of mail stores. Canadians would have mail sent here and come down to get it. Those stores closed during Covid. The article failed to mention a new Mexican restaurant, barber, oyster restaurant, McDonalds, car wash, medical center. As is so often the case, the reporter was looking for a down side.

I think it is a good time to reflect on what it means to be American. I’ll start with what it means to be a country.

I used C0-pilot search and found that internation law defines a country using four criteria.

1. 1. A stable population. There isn’t a minimum number of people. The people have to be permanent residents and not transients.

2. 2. The country controls a definite territory. Borders can be in dispute, but the country must have borders and effective control of the borders.

3. 3. The entity must have an effective government. The government must provide public order, enforcing laws, collecting revenue, and providing basic services.

4. 4. A state must be able to conduct foreign affairs, negotiate treaties, and fulfill international obligations.

Without borders, you don’t have a country. If laws are not enforced, you don’t have a country. Without the ability to negotiate treaties and fulfill international obligations, you don’t have a country.

None of that is unique to America. What do Americans celebrate today?

We actually celebrate the signing of the Declaration of Independence. For me, the most meaningful part is the following:

“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.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Certainly, we have struggled to live up to the idea all men are created equal. We fought a civil war for freedom of slaves. Yet, we had laws that kept whites in control for about a century. I am proud to see the number of my friends and relatives with grandchildren of mixed race. We still struggle with equality.

Women were finally recognized as equal to men and given the right to vote. Yet, men still received preferential treatment in the work force. Title 9 of federal law gave men and women equal opportunity in education and athletics. Women’s sports were finally allowed. Now transgender women want to play women’s sports with some of the advantages of a male body. Should we have teams that are unisex? How will women fair in such an environment? We still struggle with equality.

We have finally created laws to protect sexual preference. Although we still have a long way to go, one of my favorite examples of improvement is Secretary of Treasury Scott Bessent. Secretary Bessent is the first treasury secretary to be openly gay. I don’t like him because he is gay. I like him for his ideas. He is an example of hiring based on merit. Discrimination is hiring people based on their membership of a protected class. We should be hiring people based on merit, based on their ideas and abilities, not based on their protected class. We still struggle with equality.

I could go on and on.

I don’t celebrate today because we have a perfect country. I celebrate today because we started with an ideal and we continue to struggle to reach it. We struggle to give every citizen an opportunity to excel. That includes an opportunity to fail. When we fail, we allow people to declare bankruptcy and try again.

Certainly, rich have more opportunities than poor. We continue to struggle with income equality. We continue to struggle with health care equality.

We must try new things. We must also not be afraid to recognize when our attempts have failed and to try something else. We must recognize when our attempts have succeeded and our priorities can shift.

We don’t have a perfect country. We have a country built on ideas. As Pentanomics shows us, it is constant improvement that maximizes the good. We must continue to constantly improve. I believe that we are constantly improving.

Happy Independence Day USA!!

If you enjoyed this post, I’d appreciate it if you share it. It is a way you can support me. Free subscribers get access to most posts. Paid subscribers also get access to my two books: A Doctor’s Guide to Real Estate Investing and How Politics Increased the Cost of Healthcare in America plus a discount on my Udemy Courses.

Share

Subscribe now

In the Politics section I look at issues based on evidence. I try not to be for or against any political party. I admit to being a member of the Republican Party in the 1980’s. In fact, I was a precinct officer, secretary of the Whatcom County Republican Party, and newsletter editor. I dropped out when Pat Robertson packed the caucuses in 1988.

As a practicing chiropractor, I had to pay attention to governmental changes. Nationally, I was paid by Medicare. I also took care of injured workers. Washington State Department of Labor and Industries paid me. I had to be aware of changes there.

Washington State has the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) that is passed by the legislature. The Washington Administrative Code (WAC) is passed by agencies to implement the RCWs. I had to be aware of how those laws affected my ability to practice. I also had to be aware of the law that controlled my Limited Liability Companies, Professional Limited Liability Companies, and Professional Services Corporation.

I paid social security and Medicare taxes on my employees. I paid into Labor and Industries and Employment Security so that my employees were covered if they were hurt on the job or had to be laid off.

My point is that I have more experience in politics and law than the average citizen.

This article is about Pentanomics which was discovered by my friend Rick Raddatz. He starts with logic. We can’t decide any course of action by emotions because we feel differently. We can’t decide based on beliefs, because people can choose to believe anything. Actually, even if we agree on a fact, like poverty, we don’t agree on what to do about it. Facts don’t help us. Rick gives us laws that govern society.

Universal Law #1 - We have no choice about the laws that govern society. We can make many laws, but the laws of economics will ultimately prevail. Consider the laws favoring electric cars. In spite of the laws, not enough people bought them. Auto makers had to react and continue to make gas powered cars.

Universal Law #2 - The only way to maximize the good is to minimize the harm. We begin with the premise that humans act. The action can be perceived as helpful or harmful. Value is subjective. Different people will value the same action differently.

We don’t worry about helpful action. We welcome that. We want as much helpful action as we can get. We are concerned with harmful action. We should be able to agree that if we minimize harm, we gain freedom from harm. We can use that freedom to do whatever we want as long as we don’t harm others. Freedom to negotiate is a fundamental freedom of economics. If you can’t steal something you want, then you must negotiate for it.

If people are incentivized to negotiate without harming others, then their position is improved without harm. If we scale that up, we improve the world. By continuing to improve the world, over time, we come closer to reaching the maximum good.

Can we prove that is the only way to maximize good? Consider governing too much, a benevolent dictator. The benevolent dictator can never maximize the good. No matter how much good the dictator does, greater good can always be done through the process of continual improvement.

What if we govern too little and allow harm to run amok. Allowing harm to run amok cannot be maximizing the good.

Good cannot be maximized by governing too much or too little. We must minimize harm.

Universal Law #3 - Societies have five economies. Rick gives “The Genesis” experiment to prove there are only five types of action. I think it is genius.

The Genesis Experiment. Start with a world with no people. Then add one at a time.
1. With one person in the world, private action is possible.
2. With two people in the world, they can act as a group, a mini society, and that means public action is possible.
3. With three people in the world, two people can outvote one, meaning it is now possible to apply political force, political action is possible.
4. With a single person outside the society, foreign action is possible.
5. Imagining a single person in the future makes governing action possible.

Rick then develops the Pentanomic Table. The columns are Action, Harm, Minimizing Harm, Freedom, Sustainability, Negotiation, and Maximum Good. The rows are Private, Public, Political, Foreign and Governing.

The harm from Private action is theft. One person can steal from another. To minimize that we have police. We gain economic freedom and environmental sustainability. We negotiate prices. We maximize prosperity.

The harm from Public action is waste. We minimize the harm by prioritizing. We gain priority freedom and fiscal sustainability. We negotiate priorities. We maximize social justice. This gives us the freedom to try different solutions and change priorities. Perhaps one solution wastes too much and we decide to try another solution.

The harm from Political action is oppression. We minimize the harm through checks and balances. We gain political freedom and political sustainability. We negotiate compromises. The maximum good is maturity.

The harm from Foreign action is invasion. We minimize the harm by defense. We gain national freedom and geo-political sustainability. We negotiate alliances. The maximum good is harmony.

The harm from Governing action is bad government. We minimize the harm through education. We gain ideological freedom and ideological sustainability. We negotiate ideal justice. The maximum good is our best future.

Pentanomics gives us something to guide us. I won’t always use it as we look at political issues. However, I think it is a great guide.

If you enjoyed this post, I’d appreciate it if you share it. It is a way you can support me. Together we can change the world!! Free subscribers get access to most posts. Paid subscribers also get access to my two books: A Doctor’s Guide to Real Estate Investing and How Politics Increased the Cost of Healthcare in America plus a discount on my Udemy Courses.

Share

Subscribe now

You’re right. The picture above is not the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. However, the title is not clickbait. The picture is the fishpond in my yard. I have delt with algae blooms for years. I may have finally found the answer.

Before we get into my solution, let’s look at some facts about the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting pool. The pool was built in 1923 and is about 2028 feet long and 167 feet wide. Almost from the beginning, the pool has suffered from structural failure, sinking, leaking, algae growth, and expensive repair efforts.

The Pool was built on former marshland near the Potomac River. Engineers at the time did not foresee the long-term settling that would plague the structure.

From the outset, the pool faced persistent maintenance issues. The concrete sank and cracked, which of course leaked. By the late 20th century, these problems had worsened significantly. The pool lost hundreds of thousands of gallons weekly through leaks, seepage, and evaporation. Historical accounts indicate it had settled roughly one foot into the ground. Concrete repairs had been attempted in the 1980s, but by the end of the century more was obviously needed.

By 2010, the Obama administration approved a comprehensive $34–35 million reconstruction, funded largely by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Construction ran from 2010 to 2012. The job was a near-total rebuild. The pool was drained, and much of the old structure removed. Over 2,100 timber pilings were driven deep into the ground to stabilize the foundation. The basin was elevated and reinforced to prevent further sinking, while the depth was slightly reduced for better aesthetics and functionality.

Key improvements targeted sustainability and efficiency. The project shifted from potable municipal water to a continuous-flow system drawing from the nearby Tidal Basin (fed by the Potomac River), with city water as a backup. This included modernized water circulation, a new filtration system with ozone disinfection, and re-circulating pumps in an upgraded pump building. Water now fills via 58 outlets at about 800 gallons per minute, taking roughly five days. The total volume is between 4 and 6 million gallons. To put that in perspective, Blaine, WA (where I live) uses about 10 million gallons per week. These changes reduced annual potable water use by 21–26 million gallons, addressed stagnant water issues, and improved overall water quality. A dark gray tinted bottom was added to enhance reflectivity.

The reconstruction achieved major goals: halting structural settling, reducing water loss, enhancing circulation, modernizing infrastructure, and creating a more sustainable river-water-based system. It was one of the largest restorations on the National Mall.

Challenges persisted. Algae blooms remained common due to the open-air environment and nutrient-rich river water; an early outbreak after reopening required draining and cleaning. Issues like circulation problems, mechanical failures, occasional leaks, and water-quality concerns continued, necessitating periodic draining for maintenance (e.g., a 2019 water line repair). Critics noted that while structural stabilization succeeded, a completely maintenance-free pool proved elusive in such a large, natural-adjacent feature.

In 2026, during his second term, President Donald Trump highlighted ongoing problems, criticizing the Obama-era work and claiming exaggerated prior spending. Although the spending was exaggerated the persistent problems were real. The Trump administration launched a $14–16 million project focused on resurfacing and sealing. (Note that Obama’s efforts were $50 million in 2026 dollars.) This involved draining the pool, sandblasting, repairing joints and cracks, and applying a new “American Flag Blue” coating described as a durable waterproof barrier.

Shortly after refilling in June 2026, issues emerged. Algae blooms turned sections green, prompting treatments like hydrogen peroxide. The new coating showed peeling and detachment, with floating material reported. The Pool may have to be drained again to solve the problems. As I have found, the algae blooms will persist until a solution is found.

Now for more about my pond. We have had a fishpond for about 7 years. We have had problems with murky water every summer. We have used mesh filters with UV light built into the filter. For two years, we have had two such filters. Nearly every week I would clean the filters. They would be filthy. The pond is about 700 gallons and has about 15 fish.

During the summer, I usually have to drain and refill the pond to clear it up. My wife has tried chemicals. Nothing has worked. Until maybe this year.

We gave up on the two filters. We bought a pump that circulates 800 gallons per hour. We are using a mesh filter first with a carbon filter after that. We are also using a separate UV light treatment. We have had the pond get murky but have been able to clean it by cleaning the filter every day. The old system had the filter, pump and light in one box. We couldn’t see the filter. Our new system has the filter about a foot below the surface of the water. We can see when it needs to be cleaned. Now my pond is fantastic.

The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool is scheduled for further maintenance in the fall. The plumbing is leaking. My hope is that they will figure out the filtration system. My pond has been very difficult, using City of Blaine water. I can’t imagine cleaning up the Potomac River. The problem was made worse by the sewage spill of January 19, 2026. It released 240-300 million gallons of sewage into the river. However, based on my experience, filtration is the key.

I don’t know which is better ozone or UV. I’m not even sure the UV is what is helping. I’m wondering if simply filtering the water every hour has been the solution. To duplicate what I’m doing, pumps would need to move 4 million gallons of water per hour. I can’t imagine, but perhaps engineers can figure it out.

Key is to realize the problems. Sinkage may have been solved by Obama’s administration. Leaks may be resolved by the Trump administration. Algae have been a continued problem, especially after the first fill. The water pipes hold water with algae during repairs.

It will never be a permanent fix. Hopefully we can make something with minimal maintenance.

If you enjoyed this post, I’d appreciate it if you share it. Free subscribers get access to most posts. Paid subscribers also get access to my two books: A Doctor’s Guide to Real Estate Investing and How Politics Increased the Cost of Healthcare in America plus a discount on my Udemy Course - 20/20 Business Education for Healthcare Entrepreneurs.

Subscribe now

Share

I read an article by Christine Dulion that cited a Canadian poll. The poll found that 57% of Canadians want President Trump to apologize for his 51st state comment. Dulion admits there is no proof that an apology would lead to increased tourism, but she thinks it might help.

I doubt it.

Most people, both Canadians and Americans, don’t realize why Trump made the comment. Prime minister Justin Trudeau argued that Canada needed access to U.S. markets without tariffs and needed to keep its tariffs in place to continue to exist. Canada was also failing to make its commitment on defense spending. It seems to me to be a logical extension that if they want free access to our markets and our protection, they should be a state.

It should be noted that in 2014 all NATO countries agreed to spend 2% of their GDP on defense within 10 years. In 2014, Canada was spending .99% of GDP. By 2023 it was spending 1.29%. Canada was expected to reach 2% of GDP in 2025. Meanwhile, Americans spent 3.5%. Remember that is a percentage of GDP. In terms of dollars, U.S. is spending $980 Billion compared to NATO Europe plus Canada spending $657 Billion.

Another way to look at the data is in terms of spending per capita. In 2025, Canada spent $1,051 per capita on defense. The U.S. is spent $2,046 per capita in 2025.

Now, back to the lead article by Dulion. I often like to look at the opposite statistic. Twenty eight percent of Canadians oppose the idea of demanding an apology. That leaves 15% unsure. She admitted, “For some travelers, the decision to avoid the U.S. has been about politics. For others, it has been about a weaker Canadian dollar, tariffs, border anxiety, or the feeling that the U.S. is less welcoming than it used to be.”

Some businesses in Blaine are suffering because of decreased Canadian traffic. I am seeing more and more Canadian license plates. They are not tourists. It seems that most are not white. They are our neighbors to the north who come here to buy milk and gasoline, avoiding the Canadian high prices. There is a sign at a local store that the maximum amount of milk Canadians can take across the border is $20.

So, the descendants of white western Europeans are afraid to come to the U.S. because of our borders. At the same time, we have descendants of Eastern Europe and Asia (the ones some claim should be afraid to come) coming. It has gotten crazy.

Recently, one of my Canadian relatives came for a visit. Before he came, someone asked him if he was afraid he would be shot at the border. He said, “No, it’s the same as it always was.” It isn’t just about the 51st state comment. Where are Canadians getting the idea that they might be shot for entering the U.S. legally? I live on the border. Nobody has been shot here. I’ve seen border patrol kindly asking Canadians to cross back to a common park area.

Who gains? Will China or Europe gain from the anti-American sentiment being promoted by some politicians and media? Canada’s Prime Minister Mark Carney is traveling around the world trying to make trade deals. He seems to be primarily interested in China and the European Union. He wants to diversify and get away from reliance on the U.S. I think it is a great idea. There are a couple of tiny problems, the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans.

The U.S. is a major market for the world. In 2025, Canada exported nearly $409 billion to the U.S. That was roughly 18% of Canada’s GDP. It didn’t have to cross an ocean. It just goes by rail, pipeline, or truck.

I think the 51st state comment was unfortunate. It is also very impractical. Canadian provinces can’t get along with each other. Quebec, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Labrador, and now Alberta have all considered leaving Canada. Quebec had elections on the topic in 1980 and 1995. Alberta may have an election on separation this fall. Imagine a state in which every county bickered. What a mess!

Although the 51st state comment was unfortunate and impractical, it made a point. If Canada and the other NATO countries want to be taken seriously as allies, they can’t rely on the U.S. to shoulder their responsibilities.

Will apology help? I doubt it. The problem is much deeper. It is centralized government control and the high prices that go with it versus a free market with subsidies to encourage risk. Both sides want tariffs to protect their industries.

As Pentanomics points out, negotiation is the key to international relations. We must make agreements that benefit all.

If you enjoyed this post, I’d appreciate it if you share it. Free subscribers get access to most posts. Paid subscribers also get access to my two books: A Doctor’s Guide to Real Estate Investing and How Politics Increased the Cost of Healthcare in America plus a discount on my Udemy Course - 20/20 Business Education for Healthcare Entrepreneurs.

Share

Subscribe now

Jeff Bezos pointed out that the U.S. tax system is already progressive, meaning that the top wage earners pay more as a percentage of their income than low wage earners. The top 1% pay about 40% of all federal income tax. The bottom 50% pay roughly 3%. He says that we could make our system even more progressive by zeroing out the bottom 50%.

That makes sense to me. I have said that those at or below the poverty level shouldn’t be paying any federal income tax. Bezos is just taking it a step further. Those in the bottom 50% of wage earners shouldn’t be paying any income tax.

Many people claim the billionaires don’t pay enough. While continuing to harp on that claim, they fail to point out a simple way to help people who are at the bottom half of the economic ladder: STOP TAXING THEM!

Detractors of that idea will use the tax tables to say that they are only paying 10% on income up to $11,925 and 12% on income between $11,925 and $48,475. That is $5578.38 for people making the top of that bracket. That’s only $15.28 per day. That’s no big deal. Really? That’s enough for a used car payment. Or a couple of months rent. That could really be helpful.

The next bracket is 22% on income between $48,475 and $103,350. The tax on an income of $75,000 would be $11,413.66. Bezos said that a nurse in Queens making $75,000 shouldn’t be paying $12,000 in taxes. If my math is correct, he rounded up. I agree with him. However the median income for U.S. individuals was $45,140 in 2024. I haven’t seen more recent numbers I would trust. Perhaps the nurse should be paying something, even if the standard deduction was $45,140.

How do we best help those in the bottom half of the income bracket? Many will propose federal programs funded by taxing the wealthy. A problem with that approach is the overhead involved. Many people will be making $100,000 or more annually to implement the program. That is money that doesn’t help anyone except the person receiving the check.

Of course, we also must consider fraud. I’d like to believe that only those who really needed help would benefit. I’m not that naive. Fraud is a reality.

However, a very clean and no cost way to help is to stop taxing them. That would mean instant pay increases for everyone who needs it.

Before we worry about taxing the wealthy for new federal programs, WE MUST STOP TAXING the poor and lower middle class.

Share

Subscribe now

In politics, many people pick a person or a party, then maybe look at the issues. Often times, they don’t think about issues at all. They attack people or parties. Even if I can get them to think about an issue, when they start by attacking a person or a party, that frames how they think. It is very difficult to get them to be rational.

President Trump is one of the worst in that respect. He attacks people or the opposing party first. Opponents respond in like measure. The result is emotional not rational. Soon people are doing something just to be the opposite.

Reminds me of when I was about four years old. A teenage boy was sitting in his car waiting for my aunt. He wanted me to do something. I shook my head. He nodded his. We both did that for a little bit and then he shook his head and I nodded mine. I was just doing the opposite of what he was doing.

I’ve noticed that political parties change sides on issues. If you follow the party and not the issues, you too will change sides.

People won’t give their opponents a win, even if the win means getting what they want. If you simply followed the issues, you would recognize the win.

Think about it in therms of your health. We crave consistency. When we follow people or political parties, we can have a shallow consistency. We are always one party or the other. However, when the party changes, we find ourselves on a different side of an issue. That creates inconsistency. We might even find ourselves attacking the position we used to defend and defending the position we used to attack. That creates inner turmoil. If you are awake enough to notice.

I’ve heard that Albert Schweitzer was asked what was wrong with the world. He replied, “Men simply don’t think.”

Some people feel deeply about one issue. They stick with that one issue and don’t care about anything else. At least they are sticking with an issue.

I’m just not a one issue person. I like to see a broad picture. I understand that there are tradeoffs. There are interconnections.

How can we help the most people live lives with the most freedoms? That might be an umbrella issue that we all should care about.

Subscribe now

Share

We live in a world where everything seems to be polarizing. Many people can’t sleep. They are constantly upset. They are contributing to the problems. Here’s how you can find the off ramp.

A few minutes ago, I read an article that a friend had reposted. The final line was, “You can’t hate Republicans enough.” I’ve read similar articles that end with “You can’t hate Democrats enough.”

Hate is not good for you. Stop reading things that tell you to hate. It is interesting that the haters are in the extreme positions. They are trying to pull us apart.

Look for truth. What is the evidence? Often the evidence is something that you expect to see. Your brain is already framed to believe it. If I look at articles as a scientist, I look at the claims and the actual data to support the claims.

For example, a claim was made that Trump is opening pristine areas for copper mining that were previously off limits. The article also claimed that Teddy Roosevelt had the foresight to make areas parks. Both statements are true. The author wants us to believe that Trump opened up parks that Roosevelt set aside for mining. That is a propaganda technique. Propagandists put ideas in close proximity so that our brains will link them together. Research showed me that the area Trump opened up had been part of Biden’s set aside. You may disagree with Trump’s decision. However, I find that realizing that he countered a policy Biden created a few years ago feels different than thinking he countered Teddy Roosevelt.

Why would Trump do that? An immediate answer for some is to enrich the wealthy. An immediate answer for others is to provide copper for Americans and ensure that we are not dependent on other nations.

A few years ago, an electrician said that he was investing in copper. He reasoned that EVs require a lot of copper to manufacture. Charging stations also require a lot of copper. Where will we get all the copper we need? The electrician was investing in China.

By looking at a bigger picture, you can ask questions that take you out of the extreme positions. You become a thinker instead of being controlled by your programming.

I was talking with one of my brothers-in-law a few days ago. He said that he can watch news and then watch some other news and find them contradictory. He said, “I don’t know what to believe.”

That is another opening to pull you out of a polar position. I’ve already mentioned questioning. If you start by realizing that you don’t know what to believe, you take the emotional charge off of it. Start looking for news outlets that tell the truth. I do that by comparing what I’m being told will happen in the future to what actually happens.

For example, a friend shared an article on a Friday during the last election. The article said that Biden would step out of the race for President on Sunday. At the same time, other news sources were all reporting that Biden was sharp as a tack. I just waited. Which news outlet was more trustworthy? We all know the result.

I didn’t get emotional about either side. I just took a wait and see approach. I continue to compare what news says is going to happen to what actually happens.

A similar story is developing over the continued January 6 hearings. What ultimately will happen? I’m waiting to see.

I have spoken with people who were investigated by the Biden administration. First person accounts aren’t news.

Pressure to control free speech during the Biden administration has been admitted by Facebook and Google. I have friends who were spelling words with symbols to keep from being targeted by algorithms. Fortunately, free speech has been restored.

Now we can weigh speech based on evidence without the hand of government tipping the scales in the background.

Realize that we all evaluate our environment based on what we expect to see. Become self-aware. Ask what if I’m wrong? Look for contradictions. Connect the dots. Wait for more information and recognize when people are proven wrong.

Those simple techniques can help you sleep better and help the world become a better place.

Share

Subscribe now

You may have heard some horror story about a Canadian citizen who was detained at the border. Last Tuesday, I helped a Canadian get home. It was a great experience.

First I’ll give you a little background. The monument you see in the photo is on the U.S. - Canada border. It is about a half mile from my home in Blaine, WA. The monument is the Peace Arch and is on Peace Arch Park. The park is next to a Washington State park. There is no fence between the park and Canada. Canadians and Americans are welcome at Peace Arch Park but must check in with Customs and Border Patrol if leaving the park and crossing the border.

In fact, a few weeks ago my wife and I were walking through the Washington State Park, when a border patrol agent came to talk to us. He asked us if we were citizens and if we knew what the boundaries are. I replied that I thought so, but why don’t you tell us to make sure. He pointed to the street adjacent to the park. “That is Canada. I try to talk to everyone, but last week three people got past while I was talking to someone else. They were walking on the street and the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police) arrested them before I could get to them.” I thanked him. He was very nice and we talked for a few minutes. It was typical of my experience with border patrol.

I picked up Erick, my brother-in-law, in Bellingham last Tuesday and brought him to Blaine. The plan was to stop at L&L Bakery for a coffee and cinnamon roll then take a walk. We had finished our roll when a man opened the door and said, “Is this Canada?”

He was a small man and spoke with a Japanese accent. I immediately got up to help him. People often get off the freeway too early and wind up in Blaine.

I said, “No. Do you want to go to Canada?” He said, “Yes.”

So we went outside to show him. It is very confusing. There is a traffic circle with six exits/entrances. I once gave someone directions and watched as he took the wrong exit and headed south instead of north. So, I carefully explained to him which exit to take to get under the freeway. To make matters worse, there is another traffic circle on the other side of the freeway. It only has five exits/entrances. I told him which one to take to get to Canada. Then he asked about Peace Arch Park. The street to the park is right before the exit to Canada. I asked him if he wanted to walk there. He was quite excited to do that.

I downed my last few gulps of coffee and we took off. The man explained his situation to me as we walked. He had left his wife and two friends on the Canadian side of Peace Arch Park. He went to park the car and wound up going through American customs. He had to go inside to explain his situation. He was given an orange sheet of paper and told to take a road back to Canada. The road was blocked and border patrol pointed for him to go down a road that wound up in Blaine. He checked his pockets and didn’t have the orange sheet of paper. He thought he must have left it in his car. He went back to get his car and Erick and I went to stand by the exit to Peace Arch Park.

When he showed up, I had him park in a parking lot to chat. He hadn’t found the orange paper. His concern was that Canada wouldn’t let him back into Canada because he didn’t have his passport or Nexus card. He did have a driver’s license. He lost the orange paper.

I told him that I know some people have horror stories about crossing the border and I didn’t want to get him into trouble, but I’ve always found the border patrol to be very helpful. He agreed to walk up to the border patrol and ask them what to do.

We walked up to a patrol car. I explained the situation. The agent looked at the Canadian. “Do you speak English.” He nodded. “You’re Canadian?” He nodded again. “Just present yourself to the Canadians and they’ll look you up in the computer and let you in. Don’t worry about it. This happens all the time.”

We walked him about halfway back to his car. We shook hands and wished him well. I watched to make sure he took the right exit to Canada.

Then Erick and I walked back up and went through Peace Arch Park. On our way back through the park, we saw an American border patrolman shooing some Canadians back across the Canadian line. “You folks have to go back past those signs.” They kind of turned. He continued, “You folks are Canadian, right? You have to go back past those signs.” They headed back. He didn’t fine them. He didn’t arrest them. He just quietly enforced the border.

Our small town depends a lot on Canadians. We took a big hit during Covid. Things were improving when President Trump stirred up Canadians with 51st state talk. That caused a decrease in traffic again. I was counting Canadian license plates while walking my dogs or going to Costco. A few weeks ago, I went to Costco and there were so many Canadian plates moving around that I couldn’t count them. Things are improving. It was interesting that when I went inside Costco, I found most of the people were non-white. The people some think should be most afraid to cross the border into the U.S. are the people who are coming.

That is typical of my personal experience with American border patrol. Welcome back Canadians!!

Share

Subscribe now

I'd like a tax code that seems fair for everyone. That is why a flat tax with no deductions appeals to me. I do agree with a progressive tax system. Those who earn more should pay more, as a percentage, than those who earn less.

If we had a flat tax with a large standard deduction, everyone would be paying the same as a percentage of income. Everyone would also claim the same standard deduction. As a result, the more money a person makes, the more the person would pay in tax as a percentage of income.

Some don’t like that. They want the percentage to be higher as you make more money. There are currently 7 tax brackets. The bottom bracket is 10% on incomes under $11,925. The top bracket is 37% on incomes over $626,351.

However, the top earners get to take advantage of many deductions. Those who favor them claim deductions encourage people to do things for the public good. Those opposed claim deductions are simply ways to reward donors.

According to the IRS, we do have two flat taxes right now with no deductions. Social security is 6.2% paid by both the employee and the employer. Medicare is 1.45% paid by both employee and employer.

There is a wage base limit of $184,500 for social security in 2026. Social security taxes stop at that limit. On the other hand, people who earn more than $200,000 pay .9% on all income over that amount. There is no employer match.

I believe we should remove the limit on social security wages. Removing the limit would bring several advantages. It would bring in 12.4% increased revenue on all income over $184,500. It would encourage people to think of it as a tax that is benefiting all, rather than a forced retirement account.

Some will argue that they earn millions and will never get their money back out of social security. That should be true of all taxes. We shouldn’t be paying taxes hoping to get paid. We pay taxes for the public good.

Some will say they don’t need social security. They have enough money and shouldn’t have to pay into it. That is really an argument for means testing. People who don’t need social security shouldn’t be receiving it.

However, the idea that we won’t need it is challenged by two examples. One is the father of a friend of mine. The father was earning millions and lost it all in bad investments. I personally know someone else who had the same fate. Both men wound up needing social security.

Everyone is used to paying social security and Medicare tax. Why should they stop paying social security when they make more than $184,500? On the other hand, why should people making more than $200,000 pay an additional .9% in Medicare? Why doesn’t the employer have to contribute? I think we should leave Medicare at 1.45% for both employees and employers with no limit.

Well, that’s my idea for the beginning of a shift in tax policy. I believe it makes tax policy fairer. It makes it obvious that people are paying a tax and not paying into some retirement account. It would raise revenue for social security.

If we add means testing for social security, we might just make it solvent.

Please like and share this thought. Who knows? Maybe something will change.

Share

Subscribe now

I see a lot of commentary that the billionaires aren’t paying their fair share of income tax. What is their fair share? What is fair? What about the poorest among us? How much should they pay? What is fair?

What if we took our entire federal expenditures and divided it by the number of people in the U.S. We spent $7.1 trillion in 2025. There were estimated 341 million people in U.S. One might say that a person’s fair share is $20,821. I don’t want to get into silly arguments about the numbers. Even if off by a factor of 20%, the amount is somewhere between $16,000 and $25,000.

Based on that, I’m not paying my fair share.

Maybe that isn’t how we should look at fairness. I certainly don’t want to pay more tax.

It is easy to point to others and say they should pay more. How much more? What is fair?

The Tax Foundation provides an interesting table. Looks like the top 1% of earners, those with incomes above $663,164 pay 40% of total taxes paid. Yet they only represent 1% of returns filed. Does that seem fair?

What about the top 5%, those with incomes above $262,591, they pay 61% of total taxes. Is that fair?

Let’s look at the bottom 50%, those with incomes less than $50,339, they pay 3% of total taxes. Is that fair?

What about those at the very bottom of the economic ladder? I’ve often said the same people who want the rich to pay more, ignore the poor. Why should anybody who is under the Federal Poverty Level pay any tax? Is that fair? I don’t think so.

I looked up the history of the standard deduction. It was 10% of Adjusted Gross Income with a maximum of $1000 from 1944-1969. In 1970, it went up to $1,100, The Federal Poverty Level was about $2000 for a single person. It went up in 1970 due to the Tax Reform Act of 1969 and increased annually by a few hundred dollars per year.

The 1986 Tax Reform Act brought the standard deduction up to $3000, up from $2540, effective 1988. The Federal Poverty Level was $5,770.

By 2017, the standard deduction was $6,350. The Federal Poverty Level was $12,060. So, those making just under the poverty level were paying income tax on nearly half their income. Does that seem fair? I don’t think so.

Who helped? Due to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the standard deduction was increased to $12,000. The Federal Poverty Level was $12,140. Those in poverty almost didn’t pay tax.

The 2025 OBBBA pushed the standard deduction to $15,750. The Federal Poverty Level was $15,650. Finally, those in poverty paid no tax.

While we might disagree on what is fair for the wealthy to pay, I hope we can agree that those who are below the bottom rung of the economic ladder shouldn’t be paying anything. Those who keep our focus on the wealthy, seem to neglect the poor.

Let’s focus on both ends!

Share

Subscribe now

My wife and I spent a few days in Palm Springs last week. We were standing at a bus stop, and my wife asked a man if he often took the bus. She was probably profiling. The man could be described as a person of color. The question began a conversation.

The man’s name was Able. After asking about us. He told us that we could save some money by using the senior discount. The discount is from $1 to 50 cents. Then he laughed and made a comment about Maduro claiming that he made less than 2 pesitos per year. After explaining that a pesito was less than a peso, he said that he used to be a Democrat but now was independent. I told him I was too. He said, if I had to choose, I’d choose Republican. I told him that I didn’t expect to hear that at a Palm Springs bus stop.

He explained that he spoke English and Spanish. He had been a missionary through much of central America and was on Haiti when the earthquake hit. According to his account, the Clintons built five model homes. They told local residents that they would be given homes like those depending on their needs. If you have two children, you get one like that. If you have three children, you get one like that, etc. The homes would be free.

According to Able, it sounded great. The model homes looked great. None of the homes was connected to water. You had to walk five miles to get water. Able claimed, Clintons took in $14 billion. They didn’t build a single house.

I could stop there. All of that is true. Able is a person and did tell me that. Many people would stop there. Able was there. He was giving an eyewitness account. Why go further?

What about truth?

Able also mentioned that he had to sell a gold ring. He sold it when gold was around $2000/ounce. Now it is over $5000/ounce. He also said that his mother’s house burned in the Palisades fire. He was likely from a more affluent family. He had also lived in a big house owned by a wealthy person. He was not paid a salary but was paid commissions based on sales of artwork. He might not have the perspective of the average California bus rider.

I decided to look into the Clinton Foundation. I couldn’t find any evidence at the web site that the Foundation had helped people in Haiti. I asked Grok:

“According to the Clinton Foundation’s own statements and reports:

• It mobilized and deployed over $30 million in immediate relief support, including cash grants, in-kind donations (such as trucks, solar lights, clothing, medical supplies, tents, water purification units, and more).

• Every dollar raised for Haiti relief was directed to on-the-ground efforts, with no overhead or administrative fees taken by the Foundation.

• Grants went to organizations like ACTED, CARE, and Concern Worldwide for emergency aid (food, water, shelter, medicine).

• The Foundation collaborated on broader recovery through the Clinton Global Initiative’s Haiti Action Network (focused on long-term areas like agriculture, education, health, energy, and job creation).

• It helped support initiatives that reportedly assisted thousands of farmers, planted millions of trees, provided clean energy installations, and offered job skills training to women.”

On the negative side, Grok reported:

“The overall international aid response (including U.S. government funds overseen in part by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) totaled billions pledged, but results were mixed across efforts. Criticisms and controversies exist regarding the broader Clinton-involved recovery:

• Many Haitians and critics (including activists, journalists, and reports from outlets like BBC, The Guardian, and others) expressed frustration over slow progress, bureaucratic delays, limited rubble removal/housing, and projects that underdelivered (e.g., the Caracol industrial park, meant to create jobs but criticized for falling short).

• Some specific aid items (like temporary shelters/trailers) faced allegations of poor quality or health issues (e.g., mold or formaldehyde concerns in subcontracted units).

• Claims of corruption, “pay-to-play,” or personal enrichment (e.g., benefits to donors) have circulated, particularly during the 2016 U.S. election, but fact-checks (including from The Washington Post and others) and the Foundation have called major accusations (like stealing billions) baseless.

• Broader aid failures in Haiti stemmed from systemic issues like corruption, political instability, and coordination problems—not solely attributable to the Clintons or their Foundation.

In summary, the Clinton Foundation did actively help with direct relief and longer-term programs, distributing funds transparently per their accounts, but the massive reconstruction effort (in which they were heavily involved) has been widely seen as disappointing in achieving lasting recovery for Haiti. Sources include official Clinton Foundation pages, BBC reporting, The Guardian analyses, and fact-checks from various outlets.”

Able may have been correct. If we give Clintons benefit of the doubt, perhaps their efforts were thwarted by corruption and other problems not under their control. However, when I see what they contributed to: ACTED, CARE, and Concern Worldwide. I wonder what happened to the money. It reminds me of my post; The Numbers Aren’t Wrong. They’re Just the Wrong Numbers. Telling us that they gave millions of dollars to charities, does NOT tell us how people were actually helped. How many houses were built? How many people were fed? How many trees were planted? Were a few administrators making a lot of money?

I decided to look at ACTED web site and searched on Haiti earthquake:

“In the first weeks, ACTED teams responded to the immediate emergency with food rations, drinking water, and basic necessities which included: mattresses, mosquito nets, kitchen kits, hygiene kits and plastic sheeting for emergency shelters.”

“For those who had lost their homes, they had no other option but to take shelter in one of the many camps which sprang up in the wake of the disaster. These camps created their own health challenges, thus ACTED built 850 latrines, more than 400 showers and 40 tanks in the main camps of the country to provide more than 20,000 people with water.”

That seems to be a lot, but probably a drop in the bucket when we consider that “Between 250 000 and 300 000 people lost their lives in the earthquake, with another 300 000 counted among the injured. The disaster levelled 80% of the Haitian capital with a similar impact in nearby towns like Léogâne.”

Looking back after ten years, what do we see? According to the web site:

“Results appear very mixed: Due to the scale of the disaster but also the complexity and fragility of the Haitian context, reconstruction has proved long and difficult and international aid has been less effective than expected. In addition, the cholera epidemic that broke out at the end of 2010 and Hurricane Matthew in December 2016, created extremely difficult conditions for the Haitian state. In 2020, while cholera is on the verge of eradication, the humanitarian situation remains of great concern, with 3.6 million people in a situation of acute food insecurity.”

In this post I’ve provided an example of how to look at both sides. It is easy to quote one person. Can’t you just imagine sticking a camera in Able’s face and reporting it on the news? He could have told the truth. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Clintons had a dream of building free houses.

However, I didn’t find evidence that Clinton’s got $14 billion. Perhaps around 14 billion was pledged from international efforts. Clinton’s probably did give a lot of money to NGOs. That would be consistent with their modus operandi. They’re not entrepreneurs. They feel better once they give money to a NGO.

It is also difficult to control politics. It is difficult to get permits to build a house in Washington State. I can’t imagine what it would be like in Haiti.

Well, that’s my take on it. Sometimes I’m criticized for not accepting eyewitness accounts immediately. I like to think a little. I encourage you to do the same.

Share

Subscribe now

A friend on Facebook seems to be upset with me because I have refused to accept her version of reality. Perhaps she missed my article, I Saw It with My Own Eyes. Key to our reality is the programming of our past. We often see what we have programmed ourselves to see.

In reference to the deaths involving ICE officers, I believe that there should be trials. Shouldn’t there be trials anytime someone is shot and killed? Those are no exceptions.

I have refused to enter the fray. I have seen videos showing both sides. I know better than to accept one over another. I refuse to allow my preconceived notions of yesterday choose my reality today. I want to control my brain.

I encourage you to start with a fresh reality. What you are seeing may not be true. I took a gun safety class when I was a boy scout. The instructor showed us his revolver. He unloaded it. He began to tell a story. It was about a little boy who picked up his father’s revolver. The teacher picked up his revolver. He pointed the gun at his father and pulled the trigger. Daddy you’re dead. His dad laughed. He pointed the gun at his mother and pulled the trigger. The instructor’s gun fired. I knew what was going to happen. Even though I knew what to look for, I didn’t see him put a bullet in the revolver. I can’t believe my eyes. Even when I am there.

I do believe in the rule of law. Many say they want laws to be followed, but when I ask, they point to a specific law. For example, some point to a judge’s decision that ICE should stand down. What about immigration law? Should that be followed?

It is a new phenomenon that suddenly protestors are on the side of illegal immigrants. When Clinton’s administration deported local immigrants, letters to the editor blamed the local business that hired them. The argument was if businesses didn’t hire them, they wouldn’t come.

Obama gave Tom Homan a medal for his work deporting illegal aliens. As soon as Trump was elected, people claimed that farmers needed illegal immigrants to pick crops. Farmers need cheap labor. Wait a minute. I thought businesses were the problem. What happened to minimum wage?

Last year, I saw images of construction sites that were idle because all of the illegal aliens left. Suddenly that is Trump’s fault. How did the illegals get into the country? Why was there no outcry among the party that has the backs of the blue-collar workers - the construction unions?

Why are illegal aliens attracted to Minnesota? Are businesses to blame? Or do they come for some form of economic opportunity unrelated to work?

Some think that the Democrats are winning in Minnesota. They believe they are taking a stand and the average union worker (who wasn’t working) is going to see how well they are fighting for illegal aliens will be more likely to vote Democrat. Really? I don’t get it.

In fact, I just got back from a few days in Palm Springs. My next article will be on the surprise conversation I had with a man waiting for the bus. He was dark complected and spoke English and Spanish. Watch for my next post.

Share

Subscribe now

Is Trump being reckless or careful? Decades ago, I watched some television show with people who seemed to me to be intelligent, talking about regime changes. A take-away for me was the importance of democracies. If we support a dictator, then when the dictator is overthrown, the new power considers us the enemy. If we overthrow a dictator, then the people who supported the former dictator consider us the enemy. When we support a democracy, we can say that we support your elected choice.

With that in mind, I’m watching the world stage. Some criticize the capture of Maduro. The argument is that President Trump has violated Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter.

Trump is claiming his actions were just a police action. Military action was only used to protect law enforcement personnel.

I don’t like the idea of the U.S. doing whatever it wants around the world just because we are the biggest gorilla. On the other hand, I am somewhat sympathetic. How does the U.S. help people around the world flourish in their own countries? Sending money to countries seems to be used by corrupt leaders and doesn’t really change the underlying dynamics.

Some people criticize Trump for not recognizing the opposition leader (who many claim was elected president). That would certainly be a regime change as described in the first paragraph. In my opinion, it would also lend more support to the idea that the Trump administration violated the U.N. Charter. Trump left the government intact. I suspect the new leadership might have a different perspective on working with the U.S.

Some claim the CIA could have accomplished something similar without involving the military. Apparently, that would not have violated the U.N. Charter. Is that the way we have done things in the past? How did it work out? Look at Iran.

Iran was overthrown in 1953. According to The National Security Archive the CIA was involved:

Some Iranians were attending Independence Community Junior College while I was a student in the mid 1970s. One student had been in the military and had a picture of the Shaw in his wallet. In 1979, the Shaw was overthrown. Apply the first paragraph - we became the enemy. Iran is just one example. There have been many.

Something that I have wondered about is why the U.S. doesn’t go after leaders. Why not take out Putin? Why kill hundreds of thousands of soldiers because of one leader? Could Trump’s police action to extricate Maduro be an example of a change in war tactics?

Has Trump just caused a ripple of doubt in leadership of all countries? Mexico didn’t want our help to fight drug gangs. Do you think Mexico had any idea of what the U.S. military is capable of? Do you suppose Mexico might be re-thinking?

What about Iran? If Trump said that he would not tolerate killing Iranian protesters, what are his options? If we take out the leadership, will we be the bad guys as described in the first paragraph? So far, he’s talking about more tariffs. Really?

Then we have Greenland. I didn’t realize the strategic importance of Greenland until I watched an episode of the television series, The Diplomat, last year. Greenland is of strategic importance to help control the Arctic circle. Russia and China are bolstering their presences in the area.

Meanwhile, Canada is our major ally in the Arctic circle. It has the largest coastline in the world. It has a GDP of $2.24 trillion. Canada is on track to reach its annual NATO commitment of spending 2% on its military this year. That would be $44.8B. Note that the 2% agreement was first reached in 2006 and this will be the first time Canada has met it. Can a country with the longest coastline in the world defend itself with $44.8B?

Compare to U.S. The GDP of the U.S. in 2024 was $28.7 trillion. The U.S. spent 3.22% on defense or $924B. For perspective, the sum of all defense related expenditures of NATO allies was $1588B in 2025. Without the U.S. contribution, the total is $664B. I don’t want to quarrel with NATO. However, to put a fine point on the problem, if all the NATO allies decided to gang up on the U.S., based just on our spending differences, the allies would be $260B short.

As I said earlier, I don’t like the idea of the U.S. being the world’s bully. I don’t even like the idea that we are every NATO ally’s big brother. However, that seems to be the reality.

We live in a dangerous world. People leave their countries to come to the U.S. hoping for a better life. I hope that the U.S. can continue to be a country that people want to come to.

Even better is a world where people can flourish in their own countries. In many cases, that means that oppressors must act differently. I’m hopeful that Trump is setting the stage for that change of action.

I have read about half of Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy of the Unites States of America. So far, it looks to me like his ambition is to get along with all countries. I’ll continue reading and give you my perspective.

Share

Subscribe now

A friend shared a video of Robert Reich. I am a subscriber to his Substack account, not because I agree with him, but because I usually disagree with him. The video was no exception.

The gist of the video was that before 1970’s, minimum wage tracked with productivity. After the 70’s, productivity continued to increase but minimum wage did not. He then points out that executive salaries skyrocketed. The implication was that executives were taking all the money rather than sharing it with employees at the lowest end of the economic scale.

That may sound good to those who feel victimized by management. Workers often buy into the idea that they are the reason the company is profitable, not management. They have never started or run a company. They have no idea. In fact, most of those employees who try to go out on their own are bankrupt within a few years.

Think about how labor productivity is measured. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has a good explanation of how productivity is measured. The calculation is made by dividing output by the number of hours worked. The numbers are massaged to attempt to factor in the change in labor demographics. Higher educated and older workers will probably have a higher output than inexperienced and poorly educated workers.

Reich’s first fallacy is comparing the average improvement in productivity (which includes many more highly educated and experienced workers) to minimum wage earners whose productivity may not have improved much. Think of servers in a restaurant. They have been doing the job essentially the same way for decades.

Reich’s second fallacy is stating that based on productivity, minimum wage should be $25 per hour. Looking forward, minimum wage is not the problem. Soon there will be no minimum wage jobs. Robots will be doing them. I have now been served by robots in two different restaurants. That is an improvement in productivity for those restaurants who use them. Soon there will be no jobs. Robots are performing surgery. Robots are making pizza.

Reich also states that in the 60’s and 70’s more people were in unions. He believes that is why they were making more money. He goes on to say that when lower paid employees make more money they spend more. He states that helps drive the economy. That is true.

Reich also believes we must tax corporations and wealthy individuals much more. That also is music to the ears of the victimized worker, but does it actually help the economy?

I doubt that Reich has ever had a profit from his company, made plans to increase output, and realized that he couldn’t expand because of income tax. I’ve seen that. Taxes reduce supply.

If we increase demand with higher wages and reduce supply with higher taxes, the result is shortages and inflation. That is Reich’s third fallacy. His ideas are what are causing inflation. The government increased demand by giving workers money during COVID and decreased supply by shutting down business. That caused inflation.

Reich’s fourth fallacy is that executive pay increases are due to decrease in worker salaries. I am listening to a class called Transformational Leadership. I just learned that many startup companies do not have training for their executives. Startup companies lure away talented and proven executives with pay packages. How do companies keep the executives that they have trained? They have to meet the other offers. The increase in salary has little, if anything, to do with minimum wage.

I see many people sharing Reich’s videos. He has a following. I subscribe just to give me ideas. He is nearly 90 years old. We must look forward and stop paying attention to 80-year-olds reminiscing about politics.

Share

Subscribe now

I’m working on the second edition of my book on healthcare. One chapter is on the idea of insurance. Is insurance an investment or a gamble?

One of the profs in my MBA program talked about the difference between insurance, investing and gambling. He was making a point about our expectations.

A rational person does not go to a casino with the expectation of a positive outcome. My wife and I like to go and limit our losses to about twenty bucks each. Last night I won eighteen dollars very quickly. We left while we were ahead. Our experience is that eventually the casino wins. A rational gambler expects to lose money, a negative return.

Similarly, a rational person does not expect to make money from an insurance policy. Insurance covers risk of loss and pays to make you whole. The hope is that you will never need the insurance. You expect a negative return, like gambling.

If you do a good job of investing money, you expect a positive return. You expect to have more money because of the investment.

Before we go into insurance, I want to explain why insurance companies want more money to accept more risk. Again, one of the profs in the MBA gave a great example.

Imagine I put an eight foot two by four board on the ground and offer $1 to anyone who can walk the length of it without falling off. Everyone in the class might try it. Imagine I bring in two five-foot ladders and balance the same board between the ladders. Fewer people will try to walk the board between the ladders for $1. If I offer $100, I might get more takers. Now imagine the same board between two towers one hundred feet in the air. I might not get many takers for a million dollars. It is the same board. The risk changed.

That is the basic idea of paying people or companies to take risk. The higher the risk, the more we have to pay. Now we’ll look at insurance.

Insurance is protection by compensation for loss. Two things affect the premium. One is the risk of loss. If the risk is high, the premium should be high. If the risk is low, the premium should be lower. The second thing that affects premium is the amount of the loss itself. If the amount is high, the premium is high. If the amount is low, the premium should be lower.

Car insurance pays if you have an accident. If you drive recklessly, you will pay a higher premium. If you drive an expensive car, you will pay more to insure your car. Increased risk and increased loss are easy to understand.

The case is similar for homeowner’s insurance. You insure your home in case something bad happens to your house. Fire is the most common. Insurance doesn’t pay for you to paint your house every five years. It doesn’t pay for you to put a new roof on it. It may not even pay if you have a flood. If there is a fire, your insurance will pay.

Life insurance is really death insurance. It pays when the covered person dies. Insurance companies may require a physical exam to decide the risk of death and the resulting payout by the amount of insurance. A million-dollar policy for a person in poor health will cost a lot more than a one hundred-thousand-dollar policy for a person in good health.

What about health insurance? It used to cover risk of loss. It paid for medical care if you became ill or got hurt. It didn’t cover all risks, and it didn’t try to reduce risks. I remember talking with an agent when my wife and I were young. He explained that adding obstetrics care would cost more. We paid more to have pregnancy covered.

In an effort to sell more policies, insurance companies began covering things that were supposed to keep you healthy. A certain number of wellness massage visits, acupuncture, chiropractic, etc. were allowed every year. In addition, health club memberships were sometimes covered by insurance.

Where is the risk of loss? The Office of the Insurance Commissioner regulates insurance companies. Why did the Insurance Commissioner allow insurance companies to offer services for health promotion?

The reason is public demand. A former executive director of our Washington State Chiropractic Association told me that he met the president of a large insurance company at a social function. The director pulled the president aside and told him that chiropractic care could save his company a lot of money in treating their subscribers. His reply, “I don’t care what will save us money on the back end. I want to know what will sell policies on the front end.”

Allowing insurance companies to offer coverage for wellness care blurred the difference between what should be covered by insurance and what should not be covered. People thought it was a great idea that their insurance company wanted them to stay healthy. Costs continued to rise.

If we want the cost of health insurance to go down, we must go back to covering risk of loss for covered conditions. We must realize that health insurance does not pay for everything. It does cover certain treatments for covered conditions. Individuals should pay to stay healthy. Insurance premiums should be lower for those who live healthy lives. The risk is lowered.

What conditions insurance covers and what treatments are reimbursed should be a matter of science – not politics. However, the problem is that politicians have already rigged the system. Research funding goes primarily to allopathic medicine. The fix is in, and costs continue to rise, because health insurance is not about health or insurance. It is about getting your money.

Share

Subscribe now

Like the picture of two old men talking, I’ve become friends with Bob, who is a little left of center politically. I’m a little right of center. Extremists can’t talk to each other. We can hardly stop talking. We’ve met three times for coffee. Last time we met at 10:00 am and stopped at 3 pm. We drank a pot of coffee and both old men had to pee twice. We thoroughly enjoy it.

Bob is opposed to Trump’s attempts to reduce crime in major cities. He believes that people are violent by nature. I agreed. I told him that a friend of mine pointed out that crime in major cities is just in sections not the entire cities. I asked my friend if he thought the sections that were violent were the poor and minority sections. My friend did think that was true. I asked Bob for his opinion.

Bob also believes the violence is in the poorer sections of cities. He believes that because they have less economic opportunities, they are more likely to violate the law.

I asked Bob if he thought people in poor areas enjoyed high crime rate.

He did not think so.

It seems to me that the answer is to enforce the law and provide economic opportunity.

He told me that I am more optimistic than he is. He has given up.

Bob is also against the deportations of illegal immigrants. I told him that a classmate had a car dealership before going chiropractic college. He told me that he had a Mexican national detailing cars for him. If the Mexican didn’t show up, he knew ICE had got him. The Mexican would often beat ICE back to town. That was the first time I had heard of ICE.

The second time was during the Clinton administration. ICE arrested 8 people while working for a local manufacturer. Some people blamed the employer, not the workers. The claim was that if the employer wouldn’t hire them, they wouldn’t come.

People are not attacking the farmers for employing illegal immigrants. In fact, people are saying the farmers will have nobody to pick crops. Some farmers are now claiming they have to pay higher wages. People don’t want to pay higher prices for food. Yet, they want workers to have higher wages. Wake up!! That is how it works. We either pay higher prices for goods so the suppliers can afford to pay higher wages, or we won’t have the goods.

Tomorrow people will be protesting. What are they protesting? Do they want crime to remain high in inner cities? Have they given up? How do people who live in fear feel when their politicians refuse to protect them? How do they feel when people from the wealthier areas protest? Will they realize that Democrat leaders have either given up or don’t care?

Do protestors want illegal aliens to come into the country and compete for jobs against the poorest among us? Do they realize that the policy is hurting wages for the poor? Do they not care? Do they just care about their own cheap food? Or have they just given up?

I want to see crime reduced. I want people to be able to walk all of the streets of every city without fear.

I want people to be able to have jobs that support their families. I want people to experience the dignity of being employed.

I believe we must enforce laws and provide economic opportunities. I will not be protesting tomorrow. I have not given up hope.

Share

Subscribe now