I Believe

This week, we consider whether CEOs should take a big bonus even if they don’t intend to pay one to their employees.

We’ll explore perspectives from two seemingly opposed philosophers to guide our thoughts. First, Ayn Rand, a staunch advocate of libertarian principles who champions individual rights and achievements. And then John Rawls, whose commitment to justice, equality, and fairness challenges us to consider the welfare of society's least advantaged.

And now, an introduction to the dilemma.

Hi, I’m Neil.

Thirty-two years ago, I took out a personal loan from my local bank and started my own business. For a couple of years, it was just me. My wife helped with the books in the evening. The business was going pretty well, but I always needed help.

Hiring employees was really scary. Still is sometimes. I was always worried that the business would have a bad year and I wouldn’t be able to pay someone. And I wanted to pay everyone a good wage so they could have a proud living. I don’t view paying good wages as just the business’s responsibility. I view it as my responsibility. I started the business, and it’s a part of me. I take pride in being a small business owner.

We aren’t as small now, though. We expanded a couple of times, and last year, we hired our 42nd team member. The business is doing really well!

This year is a year for celebration. My daughter is graduating from college, and my son is getting married. My wife and I wanted both of our kids to take ownership of their lives, so we told them if they wanted to go to college, they needed to make good money choices and figure out a way to pay for it.

We are really proud of the people they have become, and we want to pay off our daughter’s student loan and send our son and his bride on a Tahiti honeymoon.

We make a comfortable living from what I pay myself out of the business, but we don’t show off. At the same time, my shop supervisor tells me the employees always want better raises.

I want to take a big bonus this year to pay for my kids’ school loan and honeymoon. I should be able to do that, right?

After 32 years of dedication and personal sacrifice, Neil’s question about taking a substantial bonus isn’t about the money. It’s about our duty as individual creators and our responsibility to others.

Ayn Rand and John Rawls are seemingly opposed philosophers who can guide our debate.

Ayn Rand's Objectivism

Ayn Rand (1905-1982) was a Russian-American writer and philosopher best known for developing a philosophical system called Objectivism. She was born in Saint Petersburg, Russia, and moved to the United States in 1926, where she established herself as a screenwriter and novelist.

Rand's philosophy of objectivism concerns reality, reason, ethics, and structure. It strongly supports the idea that we have a moral right to the fruit of our labor. Through this lens, a business owner or CEO’s decisions about compensation are extensions of their personal liberty and responsibility to themselves as individuals. Rand highlighted that:

Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

Rand (and Random House) published Atlas Shrugged in 1957 to highlight the principles of objectivism. In this fictional work, she explores the world’s creators—innovators, artists, scientists, and industrialists—going on strike against a society that increasingly demands their goods and services while demonizing their success. She argues for the greatness of the individual and the service that individuals provide to society through progress. Society benefits most when individuals can pursue their aspirations without undue interference.

If society benefits when individuals can pursue their interests, acting in one’s rational self-interest is a moral duty to fulfill one's potential. Individual achievements create value and advance human knowledge and civilization. Success and money incentivize individual achievement.

CEOs, business owners, innovators, artists, scientists, and industrialists strive for individual greatness and advance society by doing so. We should not demonize them for their success and the prosperity their success brings.

John Rawls' Theory of Justice

On the other hand, there’s John Rawls.

John Rawls (1921-2002) was an influential American philosopher widely regarded as one of the most important political philosophers of the 20th century. Rawls is best known for his work in political philosophy and his theory of justice as fairness. He pursued an academic career at Harvard University for almost 40 years.

In his great work A Theory of Justice, Rawls outlines two principles of justice. The first is the right to fundamental liberty. The second principle of justice, which he called the Difference Principle, states that the basic structure of society should offer advantages for everyone and that positions of authority or opportunity should be achievable by anyone under conditions of equality of opportunity. To provide advantages for everyone, Rawls advocated that we should structure society to benefit even our least advantaged members.

In other words, we have to work harder to give the disadvantaged a better chance of success.

Rawls argued that while inequality can exist, our structure should benefit society's least advantaged members. This can mean, for example, that higher earnings for CEOs should somehow contribute to better wages or working conditions for lower-level employees. This principle doesn't mean everyone is offered the same choices. Rawls emphasized "fair equality of opportunity," which means we should level the playing field so that individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds have the same opportunity to achieve prosperity as those from more privileged ones.

Practical Implications for Neil

Let’s combine Ayn Rand’s Objectivism and John Rawls' theory of justice to address Neil’s dilemma of taking a big CEO bonus.

Rand’s philosophy would support Neil’s right to claim the CEO bonus as a reward for his contribution to the company's success. As the long-dedicated individual creator, leader, and risk-taker, he has a moral duty to enjoy the fruits of his labor. In Rand’s view, the bonus isn’t simply justified; it’s morally proper for him to claim it. Neil created value that benefits stakeholders by sustaining and growing the business. It would be ethically wrong for Neil to not prosper as a result.

Rawls’ philosophy is more aspirational and challenging. Rawls would emphasize that any economic inequality, like a large bonus for the CEO, needs to benefit the least advantaged members of the company. This doesn’t mean that the CEO shouldn’t take the bonus, but it should be structured so it doesn’t harm others, particularly the most vulnerable. For Neil to justify the bonus, he needs to pay livable wages to all his employees. The bonus shouldn't come at the cost of necessary expenditures to improve employee welfare or job security.

Further, Rawls' philosophy stresses that the conditions allowing Neil to earn the bonus should be part of a fair and transparent system of compensation and advancement available to all employees.

Let’s combine the philosophies. There’s “a” way to look at the bonus through both lenses. Namely, Neil should implement company policies that promote both individual achievement (aligned with Rand’s values) and the well-being of all employees (aligned with Rawls' values). This interpretation could mean ensuring bonuses are part of a structured compensation plan that includes employee performance incentives, promoting a culture of meritocracy and fairness.

But that’s the wrong focus. The decisive effort is not the money, despite how many articles we see about the financial disparity between CEOs and workers. The commonplace worldview might focus on the monetary bonus, but that view is a shortsighted interpretation of Rawls’ philosophy.

Instead, we should consider the bonus through the combined lenses of achievement and opportunity. Neil started the business and put in the work and risk for 32 years. If an employee wants a big CEO bonus, shouldn’t they have the opportunity to do the same thing Neil did?

Rawls’ second principle of justice and equality of opportunity suggests that everyone should have the opportunity to undertake similar risks and start their own ventures. Doing so could potentially earn them similar rewards.

In other words, employees shouldn’t necessarily have the opportunity to receive the same financial bonus. They should have the opportunity to start their own business and work for 30 years, also earning their CEO bonus.

That said, Neil isn’t off the hook. Rawls’ philosophy does require commitment from Neil. He should foster a business environment encouraging his employees to develop entrepreneurial skills. He should provide opportunities for them to lead projects or spin-offs, promoting a competitive innovation mindset within the company. He should offer a merit-based reward system to reward employees who demonstrate long-term investment and risk. Then, other employees also see a pathway to significant achievement based on their contributions.

Neil should go further to achieve the exceedingly high intent of Rawls’ philosophy. When he started his business, he probably had or needed a mentor, so he needs to be one. Neil can help employees acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to excel in their current roles or to prepare for entrepreneurial ventures. Mentorship supports employee individual growth, aligning with Rand’s principles of personal excellence and self-interest.

He might need to consider offering a partnership as a business spinoff to grow his own business. Offering partnership opportunities to employees encourages a sense of ownership and responsibility, advancing innovation and commitment. This initiative exemplifies Rawls' principle of opening up high-reward positions to all capable and interested employees, not just the higher echelons.

Neil needed seed money that he got from a personal loan, but his employees might not have the opportunity to get a personal loan. Providing seed money for rigorously thorough employee business ideas fosters an entrepreneurial spirit within the company, driving innovation and potentially new business opportunities. This action supports Rand’s view that investing in one’s ideas is a pathway to personal and financial success.

Neil should offer assistance with tuition for relevant study programs. By supporting further education, Neil invests in his employees' intellectual and professional growth, benefitting both the employees and the business. Education can lead to more innovative ideas and improved business practices, boosting the company's competitiveness and market position. This effort would further support Rawls' principle of opening up high-reward opportunities to all capable and interested employees.

Neil might also sponsor an employee to start a business spinoff and let other employees move to this partner location, setting them off on the right foot. Employees who feel valued and see clear paths to advancement are more dedicated and motivated. These initiatives help create a company culture where everyone, not just Neil, feels responsible for the business's success.

At first glance, the philosophies of Ayn Rand and John Rawls appear opposed, with Rand championing the sovereign individual and Rawls advocating for a society structured to lift the least advantaged. But they’re not opposed; they’re complementary.

Integrating Rand’s emphasis on individual achievement with Rawls’ focus on equitable social structures yields a holistic approach to address both personal success and societal fairness.

Neil should take the bonus and feel no guilt. He has a moral right to the fruit of his labor. As a society, we should not demonize our creators—innovators, artists, scientists, and industrialists—for their success. Individual achievements create value and advance human knowledge and civilization.

At the same time, Neil should lead initiatives to enable his employees to achieve the same success. To the best of his ability, he is responsible for making sound decisions and paying livable wages while offering long-term stability. He further needs to lead initiatives to enable everyone to have the opportunity to start their own business and work for 30 years, also earning their CEO bonus.

This effort is Neil's big commitment. He needs to be a mentor and partner, potentially offer the opportunity to get seed money, offer tuition assistance for relevant studies, and sponsor partner spinoffs. These are not small commitments.

We spend too much time focusing on society's inequality. We do need to improve wages to help our fellow Americans, especially from our fine working class, but the world always has inequality. Instead, our decisive focus must be tangible approaches to helping the most disadvantaged lift themselves. This is our real commitment to our inherent right to pursue happiness.

May God bless the United States of America.

There’s another side to the wages debate we didn’t examine last week. We outlined we can’t support policies that allow some businesses to pay unsustainable wages while simultaneously opposing social programs designed to mitigate the consequences of low incomes. But it’s a complex dilemma, and that statement only captures part of the muddle.

Let’s consider another aspect. If businesses don't increase revenue, they can't raise wages.

The Philosophy of Wages

Three weeks ago, we learned about John Stuart Mill in the piece, On Liberty. Mill (1806-1873) was a philosopher known for his writings on logic, economics, and ethics. He was the most influential English language philosopher of the nineteenth century, and his philosophical work laid the groundwork for the way we now think about personal freedom and liberty.

Mill was not only a brilliant philosopher. He was also a luminary economist. He promoted fairness and the welfare of workers, supported cooperative movements and women’s rights, and believed in social justice. Mill provided a theoretical framework that continues to influence contemporary economic thought.

His treatise Principles of Political Economy (1848) is considered one of the most important works in the history of economics. Just as Mill outlined that individual liberty is essential for a just and progressive society, he refined existing theories of economic production, distribution, and exchange. He integrated economic theory with broad social themes, arguing for economic policies that considered the welfare of cultures. His basis of an economic framework that considered social and ethical factors was revolutionary in his time.

Mill's most important contribution to economics was his theory of the wage fund. He analyzed the impact of economic growth, productivity, and capital availability on wages. He tied wages conceptually to revenue, aligning both with broader economic activity.

Let’s take a minute to gain a common understanding of wages. Businesses generate revenue through the sale of goods or services. Business leaders use part of this revenue to pay wages, but wages aren’t the only expenditure. Businesses have to build and maintain infrastructure, including physical facilities and technological systems they use to operate. They have to pay taxes. They need to make their product and expend revenue to generate raw materials, manufacturing, and logistics. They have to conduct research and development to improve their offerings.

A business's ability to maintain healthy wage levels depends on revenue being high enough to support their other costs. In lean years, wages that are too high threaten financial stability. This can lead to a business failing to invest in infrastructure to modernize and compete with new businesses. It could cause a loss of talent due to wage freezes, reductions, or layoffs. It could reduce the ability to move into new markets, slowing growth and strangling the business. Every time a business fails to achieve one of these marks, one of its competitors does. If it misses too many, it dies.

Due to this constraint that high wages threaten business growth and survival in lean years, one principle business leaders consider is their payroll-to-revenue ratio. For many businesses, a good guideline is 15-30%. In fat years, wages may only be 15% of revenue. In lean years, wages could be 30% or more.

In the long run, businesses can only afford to raise wages if they can increase their revenue. If the business needs to raise wages by 10%, it needs to grow revenue so the payroll-to-revenue ratio is still in a healthy range.

Mill's theory of the wage fund was a simplified model of how wages are determined. In Principles of Political Economy, he outlined wage levels and the impacts of economic factors such as population and capital. Mill’s wage fund concept suggested that at any given time, there is a fixed amount of capital available to pay wages. This fund is influenced by the total revenue and the number of workers available, meaning wages are determined by the division of this fund among the workforce. In Mill’s theory, all the workers were paid the same.

While Mill's theory is no longer accepted in its original form, it is still helpful to understand how wages are determined. Businesses don’t generate the same revenue every year, and there’s no fixed fund for wages. Some workers make more than others. As noted, businesses now think of the payroll-to-revenue ratio, not a fixed fund.

Mill revised his economic theory to a more flexible understanding of capital and wages. But Mill’s theory that wages are a component of revenue and a critical component of business viability survived even in its original form.

This theory explains why raising the minimum wage to a federal family-supporting livable wage level is politically divisive. Raising the minimum wage so it’s functional for families in high cost of living areas threatens some businesses and weakens others.

If businesses don't increase revenue, they can't raise wages.

The Wages Dilemma

Let’s reiterate the dilemma that’s been building for the last two months.

* Americans need to be able to prosper. This aspect of our dilemma is non-negotiable. No matter what actions we take, if American individuals and families can’t prosper, we have failed. A component of prosperity is livable income.

* We can’t support policies that allow some businesses to pay unsustainable wages while simultaneously opposing social programs designed to mitigate the consequences of low incomes. We have to either support higher wages or support social programs.

* Funneling American taxpayer dollars through the government to aid needy Americans leads to significant administrative overhead costs, diminishing the funds actually reaching those in need. For instance, administrative costs account for approximately 30% of total expenditures within private healthcare companies. In the military, bureaucratic expenses consume 70% of allocated funds due to extensive logistical and support structures. Based on these examples, we will assume that government bureaucracy absorbs 40% of the funds intended for social programs. More than one layer of bureaucracy, i.e., money that passes through both federal and state levels, cuts taxpayer dollars even more. These government functions aren’t inherently evil. They have familiar names, like Human Resources (HR), finance, building and grounds maintenance, and logistics.

* If businesses don't increase revenue, they can't raise wages. Taking across-the-board action, such as raising the minimum wage to a federal standard for all areas, threatens business vigor and viability. As a result, this approach is politically untenable.

All combined, it’s a tough problem.

It’s easiest to politically avoid the problem and hide the real cost of sustainable wages in the federal deficit. This avoidance gives rise to social programs. That’s why half of American families with children receive benefits from social programs, and 99 million Americans receive social program benefits.

We aren’t going to avoid the problem, though. Let’s transition to a mental exercise to think about how we could approach a solution.

A Mental Exercise

Nicholas: Hi, I’m Nicholas. I’m a 37-year-old married parent of three daughters. I work full-time, and my wife works part-time to support our childcare needs. We file our taxes jointly. All combined, we will make $60,000 this year.

Nicholas and his family qualify for a social program called the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). EITC is designed to benefit low—to moderate-income working individuals and families, particularly those with children. It aims to reduce poverty, incentivize work, stimulate the economy, and reduce income inequality.

President Ford (R) signed the program into law in 1975. President Reagan (R), President George HW Bush (R), and President Clinton (D) significantly expanded it. President Reagan (R) said EITC was “the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress.”

Since Nicholas and his wife have three daughters, file their taxes jointly, and make less than the threshold of $66,819 for 2024, they will qualify to get taxpayer social program benefits in the amount of $6,819 this year when they file their taxes.

Now for a tough question: How much does it cost the American taxpayer to give $6,819 to Nicholas and his family? Assuming the factor we mentioned earlier, that bureaucracy absorbs 40% of funds, this $6,819 is 60% of the total. The government absorbs the other 40%, or $4,546.

Adding the sums together results in…a cost to America of $11,365 to give Nicholas and his family $6,819.

There are approximately 84 million families in America. Of these, 42 million, or half, get social program dollars. Many of these Americans don’t even know they get social program support because it’s hidden in their tax filing and hidden again in this year’s federal deficit.

Assuming these 42 million families all got a similar benefit, $11,365 multiplied across those families totals $477,330,000,000 of the federal deficit. Almost a half trillion dollars a year.

A Proposed Solution

Is there a path around this problem? Yes.

There are only two sources for an American worker to get money. One is the government, which represents funneling the American people’s money through bureaucracy. We just covered how efficient this approach is.

The other is their work. But government livable wage mandates threaten business vigor and viability, making this approach politically untenable. Since raising the minimum wage to a family-supporting livable wage isn’t going to politically work, we have to reorient our perspective and approach the problem with new eyes.

Let’s also remember that to raise wages, businesses need to grow revenue.

So how would we grow business revenue, allowing us at the same time to mandate higher wages? Where would this additional revenue come from?

Let’s go back to our common understanding of wages. Businesses generate revenue through the sale of goods or services. Business leaders use part of this revenue to pay wages, but wages aren’t the only expenditure.

Businesses have to pay taxes. Make a mental note to remember that.

Also, systemic problems require systemic solutions. There’s no silver bullet that will solve the problem. We need to take more than one approach.

The Earned Income Tax Credit table for 2024 shows that the minimum wage for a married worker claiming no children to be above the social program threshold is $12.27 per hour. The figure is based on the EITC-threshold $25,511 income divided across 2080 hours or a 40-hour week for 52 weeks. For a married worker claiming one child, that minimum wage rises to $26.93. Married with two children is $30.14. Married with three children is $32.13.

These figures make sense because if someone is married but claims no children, both Americans can work. $12.27 an hour multiplied by two people is $24.54 an hour combined. That’s what a living wage is.

One child means one of the parents needs to be at home, or if not at home, they have to pay for childcare, which costs one entire income. A second child costs more, but not much more than the first, and a third child costs a little less than the second.

It’s pretty obvious that the minimum wage must be at least $12.27 per hour. There is no better definition of ‘minimum’ than a rate ensuring that if someone works, the American taxpayer doesn’t have to subsidize wages through government assistance. This minimum wage means that, at a minimum, it supports an individual to stand independently. I have no sympathy for businesses that offer poverty wages and let the American taxpayer pick up the tab.

Now we arrive at our dilemma.

How do we cover the difference between $12.27 an hour and $26.93 an hour when the family chooses to have children? America needs to grow. Just as a shrinking business is a dying business, a shrinking nation is a dying nation. So we need to incentivize young Americans to have children.

We also need to generate business revenue to raise wages.

If we refuse to help businesses generate this revenue, 42 million American families will receive social program benefits, which will cost the nation almost a half trillion dollars a year.

The Proposal

We need to reduce the tax burden for small businesses that pay wages sufficient to keep Americans off social programs by 10% across the board and target specific industries with even more significant tax breaks. Businesses need to prove in their annual taxes they paid wages above social program levels to qualify. This approach would help businesses generate the revenue to pay wages sufficient to enable workers to provide for themselves and reduce the national need for poverty programs.

We might need a more significant tax credit for certain sectors, such as retail and food service businesses. These businesses might need a 25% tax break to incentivize paying higher wages. We need to phase in the tax credit over time. This design would give businesses more time to adjust to the higher cost of paying livable wages.

With this approach, less social program dollars get funneled through the government, reducing waste.

Worker wages go up.

Businesses keep more of their revenue, so they can pay higher wages.

I’m personally having a hard time finding a downside.

Views of Others

Some will say this is just a subsidy for businesses instead of individuals. This proposal is different from a trickle-down approach. It saves the American taxpayer half a trillion dollars a year that don’t get funneled through government bureaucracy. And for a business to get the money, the dollars have to actually get to the workers.

Some will say that instead of giving businesses tax cuts, we should raise the minimum wage across the board to a livable wage. That becomes a complex political issue that ends up in gridlock. This gridlock means nothing is done and Americans don’t have the money they need to live without social program support. Trying to raise the minimum wage to a functional level keeps 42 million American families on welfare programs.

Some will say it’s not enough incentive for the business, and the 10% tax break doesn’t cover the entire cost of the wage difference. That will be true for some businesses. But it’s part of a systemic solution. It will make some businesses more competitive, and other businesses will copy them so they can also be more competitive. We don’t need a social program to support all businesses. We need a program to make businesses compete for the benefit of the American worker.

Some will say the taxpayer shouldn’t support the workers at all. They should gain skills to justify raising their own wages. The premise of this argument is short-sided. When people have to work multiple full-time jobs to put food on the table, they don’t have time to improve their skills. This cycle just keeps 42 million American families on welfare programs.

We need to incentivize businesses to pay higher wages.

If businesses don't increase revenue, they can't raise wages.

To achieve our goal, we need to help businesses grow revenue. Without higher revenue, mandated wage hikes threaten business survival.

We need businesses to pass this expanded revenue on to their workers.

To achieve our goal, we need to reduce the tax burden for small businesses that pay wages sufficient to keep Americans off social programs by 10% across the board and target specific industries with even more significant tax breaks. To qualify, businesses need to prove in their annual taxes they paid wages above social program levels. For a business to get the money, the dollars have to actually get to the workers.

May God bless the United States of America.

Last week, we discussed the inherent limitations of social welfare programs and their effects on American families. But we overlooked some essential philosophy: the principle of non-contradiction, which guides our understanding of truth and reality.

The principle is simple. You can’t ‘be’ and ‘not be’ at the same time. Said another way, you can’t stand on both the beach and a mountaintop at the same time. You have to choose one or the other.

We use this principle every day, and it applies to governance. We can’t support policies that allow some businesses to pay unsustainable wages while simultaneously opposing social programs designed to mitigate the consequences of low incomes.

Aristotle was the first to systematically explore and defend the principle of non-contradiction in his work, Metaphysics, written around 350 BC. The tome explored the foundations of reality, existence, and being. Aristotle emphasized that without non-contradiction, distinguishing between truth and fiction becomes impossible and leads to absurdity.

He argued that if we deny this principle, we blur the lines between what is true and false, making reality both true and false simultaneously. It would destroy the foundation for debate or discourse. If all contradictions are true, then we would have to logically accept unsound arguments as true. This would effectively mean everything is true, and nothing is true. Aristotle stated, “Without the principle of non-contradiction, we could not know anything that we do know.”

Aristotle’s philosophy directly influenced one of America’s most revered leaders, President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln’s leadership exemplified the practical application of non-contradiction.

President Lincoln strongly agreed with Aristotle’s principle of non-contradiction. Before his service as president, Lincoln was a lawyer. He was known for his clear reasoning, persuasive arguments, and ability to simplify complex legal issues.

During the Civil War, Lincoln’s approach to leadership demonstrated the principle in action. In an 1862 draft titled Meditation on the Divine Will, Lincoln wrote, “God can not be for, and against the same thing at the same time.” He argued that the union couldn’t sustain itself half-slave and half-free; it must be one or the other. He believed in a clear, non-contradictory stance in policy and morality.

Additionally, Lincoln had a strong focus on labor and the value of one’s work. This influenced his opinion on freedom for black Americans. There were limited social programs in Lincoln’s time. But Lincoln believed in the value of labor inside the capitalist structure. In his work Fragments of a Tariff Discussion, Lincoln wrote that at creation, the Almighty said, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread.’’

In the same piece, he wrote that the goal of government, or “a most worthy object of any good government,” is to ensure that each worker receives a livable share of his work, or “each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible.”

He was committed to fairness and justice within the economic system. Free workers had a right to pursue prosperity as a product of their work, and enslaved workers had both a right to freedom and a right to pursue prosperity through their work.

Some claim Lincoln didn’t lead the fight for labor rights, and we didn’t fight the war over slavery. In fact, Lincoln led the fight for the right of enslaved workers to be paid at all.

Lincoln’s commitment to non-contradictory principles in governance echoes the Constitution, itself a non-contradictory legal framework.

The foundational principles of fairness and equality embedded in American governance and the legal philosophy of the US Constitution support Lincoln’s view that workers should be paid a livable share of wages. From the Preamble:

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

The Preamble’s objectives create a framework for laws that support citizens’ economic well-being. From Lincoln’s perspective, maintaining a union meant conserving a system in which laws aligned with the fundamental values of fairness and equality.

The Constitution derives the premise that individuals have the right to pursue a prosperous livelihood from the concept of "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" outlined in the Declaration of Independence. Though not legally binding, the Declaration philosophically informs the Constitution. Individuals earning a living from their work is part of their pursuit of happiness and liberty.

Lincoln’s non-contradictory logic applied to modern labor suggests that if a government commits to the welfare of its citizens, it can’t simultaneously endorse policies that undermine individual economic security. This translates into an employer’s responsibility to pay fair wages and a government duty to regulate that standard.

The government’s role, therefore, is to ensure that the economic system operates without contradictions that would undermine the ability of Americans to live prosperously. To repeat Lincoln’s words again, “To [secure] to each labourer the whole product of his labour, or as nearly as possible, is a most worthy object of any good government.”

The constitutional framework as a non-contradictory legal system sets the stage for addressing tough policy challenges, including our debates over wages and social programs.

If we reject the premise that every American should be paid a decent wage for their labor because we judge that some jobs aren’t worthy of those wages, there’s another source of possible income for individual Americans: taxes paid by the American people.

I’m not going to outline an argument in support of social programs. I will say that if government leaders fail to fulfill their duty to regulate decent wages, individual Americans first need to be able to earn a living.

Obviously, there’s a failure in the system, because half of American families depend on social program support.

These social programs benefit the neediest Americans, and we love our countrymen. But social programs aren’t the preferred method for individuals to earn a living and pursue happiness.

Social program money doesn’t give individuals the dignity and pride of earning a living and supporting their families from their work. Government housing robs families of the opportunity to feel the accomplishment of buying a home. Buying groceries with food stamps or WIC vouchers results in Americans who feel shame at the checkout. Funneling money through the bureaucracy wastes the majority of it instead of ensuring it reaches families in need.

To be clear, many Americans earn good wages and don’t need social program support. America has never been more prosperous. Few of us have no clean water or access to electricity. The vast majority of Americans have never set foot on a dairy and still have butter for their toast. Many business owners pay good wages to all their workers.

The one hundred million Americans who receive benefits from social programs need help, but most of them don’t need social programs. They need to earn a decent wage from their jobs, regardless of their skill level or education.

Back to the law of non-contradiction.

We can’t support policies that allow businesses to pay unsustainable wages while simultaneously opposing social programs designed to mitigate the consequences of low incomes.

When we fail to fulfill our duty to ensure the system works to pay all workers decent wages for any job, we perpetuate a system that incentivizes social programs.

That’s just the reality. We can’t stand on top of the mountain and stand on the beach at the same time.

May God bless the United States of America.

In principle, we should be against Social Welfare programs.

And maybe ‘against’ isn’t the right word. It's not that we're ‘against’ social programs. We can’t love our country and not love our countrymen. So, we’re not against Americans who need social programs. We're not against the social programs themselves, even though we acknowledge their inefficiencies, because they still manage to help our fellow Americans.

But if half of American families rely on social programs, that means the rules designed to enable individual Americans to succeed have failed.

We are ‘against’ social programs because the goal is for Americans to succeed as individuals and not need social programs.

Florence Owens Thompson was born Florence Leona Christie in 1903 in Indian Territory, now Oklahoma. A mother of seven children, Florence struggled to support her family during the Great Depression after her husband died of tuberculosis in 1931. To survive, she traveled with her children and other relatives as migrant farm workers from Oklahoma to California, picking cotton and other crops.

In March 1936, Florence and her family were traveling on US Highway 101 in California towards Watsonville. She intended to work in the lettuce fields of the Pajaro Valley. However, their car broke down near a pea pickers camp in Nipomo.

A photographer, Dorothea Lange, found her there. Lange was working for the Resettlement Administration (later the Farm Security Administration) and was concluding a month-long photography trip when she came across Florence and her family in the camp. Lange took several photographs of Florence and her children.

Florence became an iconic figure of the Great Depression through the photograph that became known as “Migrant Mother.” Lange described the encounter:

I saw and approached the hungry and desperate mother, as if drawn by a magnet. I do not remember how I explained my presence or my camera to her, but I do remember she asked me no questions. I made five exposures, working closer and closer from the same direction. I did not ask her name or her history. She told me her age, that she was thirty-two. She said that they had been living on frozen vegetables from the surrounding fields, and birds that the children killed. She had just sold the tires from her car to buy food. There she sat in that lean-to tent with her children huddled around her, and seemed to know that my pictures might help her, and so she helped me. There was a sort of equality about it. (From Lange's "The Assignment I'll Never Forget: Migrant Mother," Popular Photography, Feb. 1960).

Personal accounts of the day since 1936 reveal some irregularities in the reporting. Nonetheless, the image became one of the most enduring symbols of the Great Depression, highlighting the intense struggle and enduring spirit of countless Americans during that time. The photographs were published in newspapers and magazines nationwide. They became a symbol of the plight of migrant workers and the desperate conditions faced by many Americans. This exposure helped draw attention to the need for aid and led to increased government action to support the destitute workers and social programs nationwide.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR) enacted numerous social programs as part of his New Deal, a series of reforms enacted during the Great Depression to address widespread economic hardship, unemployment, and social strife. These programs included union protection programs, the Social Security Act, programs to aid tenant farmers and migrant workers, banking reform laws, emergency and work relief programs, and agricultural programs. The programs helped lift the nation out of the depths of the Great Depression.

At the same time, the New Deal had downsides. Some downsides were obvious, as they excluded or marginalized black Americans, women, and other minority groups. Further, the programs were expensive and led to significant increases in government debt.

Other downsides are less obvious. The New Deal created a dependency culture wherein individuals and communities rely more on government assistance than on self-reliance or local and state initiatives. This dependency stifles innovation and the motivation for self-improvement.

The New Deal also shifted American expectations of government permanently. Before FDR, Americans had a laissez-faire view of government. After, intervention in the economy and individual lives was more acceptable.

Today, government intervention in individual lives is a near expectation.

The US Department of Health and Human Services Office of Human Services Policy released data analyzing social program participation in January 2023. That study found:

* Half of American families with children receive benefits from social programs.

* Nearly 30% of individual Americans receive benefits from the programs.

Those are pretty high numbers. There are 330 million people in the US. If 30% of them receive social program benefits, that means 99 million Americans receive social program benefits. And let’s repeat the first one again. Half of American families with children receive benefits from social programs.

The study suggests that a substantial portion of the population depends on government assistance. We can view this dependency in different ways. First, as a necessary support system that helps stabilize and provide for families in need. Second, as a potential issue where too large a portion of the population relies on government aid. This is unsustainable and indicative of broader economic problems.

Both can be true at the same time. It's not that we're ‘against’ social programs. We can’t love our country and not love our countrymen. So, we’re not against Americans who need social programs. We're not against the social programs themselves, even though we acknowledge their inefficiencies, because they still manage to help our fellow Americans.

But if half of American families rely on social programs, that means the rules designed to enable individual Americans to succeed have failed.

In principle, we should oppose social programs, but not because we don’t love the people who need them to survive.

We should be against social programs because if half of American families need them, that means we have a systemic failure of the system.

Let’s consider an example, highlighted by a statement I hear often, “That job isn’t worth paying someone well to do it. They need to pull themselves up, move on, and find a better-paying job. And they need to get off the government dole.”

To make our example easier to follow, let’s call this job “dishwasher.”

If we judge, and the rules support, that the dishwasher job isn't worth paying someone a decent wage to do it, they might go to night school, move on, and find a higher-quality job. But in the meantime, they get social program dollars. When we make rules that don’t enable all individuals to succeed from their work, we open the door for social programs.

When a job consistently pays wages that aren’t enough for workers to sustain themselves without additional government aid (like food stamps, housing assistance, or healthcare subsidies), the employer relies on taxpayer dollars to supplement their employees’ incomes. These rules allow businesses to maintain profitability by offloading some of the true costs of labor onto the American people.

Let’s stay on our logic train. The first dishwasher does move on and finds a higher-paying job. Then the second dishwasher finds a better-paying job. And the third, on and on.

But, the business owner fills the dishwasher job as a low-paying job and continues to fill it as a low-paying job year after year, making it a permanently funded taxpayer-subsidized job.

If half the jobs in the country don’t pay well enough for American families to thrive without social programs support, we end up with…half of American families that need social programs.

Every year, the dishwasher receives money from their fellow Americans in the form of social program dollars that help them put food on the table. The person washing the dishes changes, but the American people keep paying for the dishwasher anyway.

Some might say the taxpayer is subsidizing low-skill Americans and not the business. However, the point remains—it isn’t appropriate for taxpayers to subsidize workers, businesses, or the government at all.

This is a systemic problem. We perpetuate many jobs as low-wage, not because they inherently must be low-wage but because the system encourages low wages.

Further, the cook only makes $2 more per hour than the dishwasher, because if the American people will subsidize the dishwasher, why not the cook too? When there’s no upward pressure for higher wages for dishwasher jobs, there’s no wage pressure for other jobs.

This creates a cycle in which individual workers may advance to seek better opportunities, but the systemic problem remains the same.

The first part of the systemic problem is Americans aren’t succeeding on their own with the business rules we have in place now. We cut business taxes, but without a drive to raise wages along with the tax cuts, those dollars don’t trickle down to workers. Trickle-down economics doesn’t work.

The second part of the systemic problem is that funneling money through the government is inherently wasteful. The majority of that money is absorbed by administrative functions. Government programs perpetuate themselves. Government agencies don’t intend to eliminate themselves—they want to be functional. Lifting Americans out of poverty with social programs doesn’t work, or at least doesn’t work very well.

The American people paying government officials to send their money to an individual living in poverty doesn’t make sense. They just wasted 70% of it funneling it through the bureaucracy. Instead of the government acting as a bloated middleman, Americans need to earn sufficient money from their work, and the rules need to support wages high enough for individuals to succeed.

We need leaders to make the rules work for individuals. We don’t need rules that work just for businesses, and we don’t need rules that work for the government to support more Americans to get social program dollars. One helps businesses; one helps the government. Neither helps the American family.

I recognize and value the role of social welfare programs in supporting vulnerable populations.

But our broader goal should be to reform the system to promote independence and reduce dependency. We need to address the root causes of why half of American families with children need social programs.

America is an individualist nation. We need to prioritize policies that enable personal responsibility and self-sufficiency rather than giving businesses tax cuts or expanding inefficient, burdensome government assistance programs.

Individualism can only thrive if we set conditions that enable individuals to succeed.

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript.

Raising the minimum wage is a crude way to improve resources for American families. It’s not a great mechanism because it’s too politically divisive, but establishing a minimum full-time wage representing a rate no less than the poverty level plus 50%, assuming the worker and three dependents for that locality might work.

I invite you to read Horses and Sparrows to consider that idea.

A way to improve resources for American families and support small businesses at the same time would be to give businesses tax cuts once they prove that none of their workers needs social program support.

I invite you to read or listen to Earned Income Tax Credit and Small Business Taxes for that idea.

Amending the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 to require directors and officers of publicly traded corporations to act in the best interests of the corporation, its shareholders, and its workers would give workers a seat at the wages table.

I invite you to read The Future of Work: A Stakeholder Approach to consider that idea.

Systemic problems require systemic solutions. It’s been nearly a hundred years since the advent of FDR’s social programs lifted the country out of the depression. We won’t fix the system overnight, and it will take more than one approach working together.

We can debate whether we call ourselves a democracy, a republic, or a democratic republic. We can debate Social Security, wages, housing programs, small business taxes, our energy grid, border security, and whether to support military programs.

But we can’t debate that the foundational premise of America is individual liberty. From liberty comes personal responsibility. And if you have a right to individual liberty, so does everyone else. Even when we disagree with how others express that right.

Human nature is not a machine to be built after a model, and set to do exactly the work prescribed for it, but a tree, which requires to grow and develop itself on all sides, according to the tendency of the inward forces which make it a living thing. -- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) was a philosopher and economist known for his writings on logic, economics, and ethics. He is regarded as “the most influential English language philosopher of the nineteenth century.” His philosophical work laid the groundwork for the way we now think about personal freedom and liberty.

Mill wrote several journals on topics ranging from the scientific method to happiness and reality. But his most compelling philosophical thinking concerned the contradiction between individual liberty and the good of society, for which he used the term utilitarianism.

His essay On Liberty is a cornerstone of liberal thought. It advocates for individual autonomy free from societal and governmental intrusion, except in cases where an individual’s choice harms others. Mill's ideas on freedom of expression, such as freedom of speech, equality, and moral progress, continue to influence contemporary discussions on civil rights and public policy.

Two years after publishing On Liberty, he wrote Utilitarianism. Utilitarianism suggests that the best action for society is the one that maximizes utility, generally defined as that which produces the greatest well-being for the greatest number of people.

The tension between individual liberty and utilitarianism is a notable philosophical challenge.

Proponents of liberty consider personal freedom to be sacred. For example, Patrick Henry's famous 1775 speech was part of a debate on whether America should seek peace with Britain or pursue independence from British tyranny. His speech ended with the memorable words, "Give me Liberty, or give me death!"

On the other hand, proponents of utilitarianism believe that we have an ethical and moral responsibility to pursue the greatest good for society. According to utilitarian principles, if an action can improve the happiness of the majority, it should be pursued. This can clash with the principle of protecting individual liberty, especially when the majority's pursuit of the greater good infringes on the liberty of individuals.

Mill’s notable contribution wasn’t the two philosophical theories alone. Patrick Henry made his fiery statement before Mill was born, and Jean-Jacque Rousseau championed the concept of the greater good a century before Mill.

Mill’s significant contribution was resolving and connecting the two philosophical theories. He argued that protecting individual liberty leads to the best outcomes for society as a whole. Expressing individual liberty promotes intellectual and moral developments that won’t happen if individuals don’t have the freedom of action to make those decisions. From individual liberty, one derives personal responsibility.

Let’s follow Mill’s line of reasoning from Chapter 3 of On Liberty. If we let society or our environment dictate our life choices, we're just mimicking others and not really thinking for ourselves.

When we choose our own path, we engage ourselves. We observe, plan, and make decisions. We develop skills and talents to the extent that we rely on our own logic and intuition.

What we do isn’t the only thing that matters; it's what kind of person we become by doing it. By choosing our own path, we utilize our intellectual and emotional capacity and shape our character and identity at the same time.

This autonomy fosters critical thinking and decision-making skills. Conforming to societal expectations stifles personal growth and reduces our contributions to society.

In short, a life led by individual liberty cultivates effective, wise, and morally sound individuals.

Then, in Chapter 4, Mill drops the hammer. He asks: what is the rightful limit to an individual's sovereignty over themselves, and where does society's authority begin?

He discusses a logic sequence invoking a philosophy similar to the American Western principle, “Ride for the Brand.” Society isn’t based on a formal contract, but living in society requires each person to follow certain rules toward others. If an individual shows insufficient consideration for others without violating any constituted rights, the offender may then be justly punished by public opinion, though not by law. Therefore, an individual should be free to act and face the consequences.

If we are free to act and face the consequences, then no one has the right to tell another that they can’t do what they choose with their life. Each person is most interested in their well-being, and our direct interest in others is trivial in comparison.

If others have little direct interest in our choices, then public opinion on individual conduct is as likely to be wrong as right since it reflects some people's opinions on what they think is good or bad for others. Many people see conduct they dislike as an injury to themselves and resent it, as a bigot may resent others' beliefs. Moralists teach that their conduct is right because they feel it to be so, applying personal feelings as moral laws. This approach leads the public to enforce personal preferences as societal norms, ignoring individual freedom.

Therefore, public interference in personal conduct denies others individual freedom. It stifles liberty and self-determination. Society's role should be limited to preventing harm to others, not imposing conformity to its preferences. Respect for individual liberty is essential for a just and progressive society.

So, according to Mill, we cannot have personal responsibility without liberty. If we take away liberty, we lose accountability and responsibility in society. Therefore, government and society have a duty to ensure individual liberty as the basis for humanity.

American presidents support Mill’s philosophy. Here are some quotes…

If we love our country, we should also love our countrymen.

Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing.

It is time to restore the American precept that every individual is accountable for his actions.

Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.

Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.

There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect.

Okay, so that’s all one president, namely our 40th President, Ronald Reagan. If John Stuart Mill was the preeminent liberal thinker of the 19th Century, Reagan sounds pretty liberal to me. Of course, we misuse the term. All Americans are liberals.

Reagan sounds like a liberal because he sought to conserve the American democratic republic, which is based on Enlightenment liberalism. Conserving the liberal democratic republic makes you a liberal.

We need to restore conservatives to align with the American institution again.

Give me liberty or give me death means “Give us all liberty!” All Americans have the God-given right to liberty.

Liberty is the right to make decisions about our own property, including our bodies. This means the right for adults to make decisions for themselves and their children about their healthcare. Even when other people disagree with those choices. Applying personal morals to dictate someone else’s choices violates our right to individual liberty.

Liberty is the right to speak and expose ourselves and our children to ideas. Many of these ideas are found in books. If you don’t want your children exposed to these ideas in schools, you have a right to homeschool your child. Applying our personal beliefs to governance violates the individual liberty of others.

Liberty is your right to burn my flag. I find this act personally detestable. If I told you I didn’t support your right to burn my flag, wouldn’t that be telling you I thought you didn’t deserve your right to individual liberty?

Liberty is freedom of religion. Liberty is freedom from religion.

Liberty is our elected leaders adhering to Article IV, Section 4 of the US Constitution, which states that “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them…against domestic Violence.” Attempting to nullify votes from states in the Union and then attempting a violent overthrow of the proceedings at the US Capitol violates individual liberty. We are the United States because the citizens of each state agreed to form the union. A part of that agreement was that each state would have the right for their vote to be counted. Refusing to recognize the vote from states and refusing to transfer power peacefully directly leads to domestic violence and violates individual liberty.

I call on conservatives to realign themselves, ourselves, with the foundational premise of America. The Almighty gave us all our right to life and liberty, and inherent in that gift is our right to make decisions to benefit ourselves, free from the rules of others in society or government.

We can debate whether we call ourselves a democracy, a republic, or a democratic republic. We can debate Social Security, wages, housing programs, small business taxes, our energy grid, border security, and whether to support military programs.

But we can’t debate that the foundational premise of America is individual liberty. From liberty comes personal responsibility. And if you have a right to individual liberty, so does everyone else. Even when we disagree with how others express that right.

May God bless the United States of America.

To receive new posts, consider becoming a free subscriber.

Last week, we introduced Project 2025's first stated goal: "Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children." This week, we'll expand on that thought.

How could we improve the well-being of the American family while promoting interwoven, overlapping communities?

Presidential Perspectives on Homeownership: A Pillar of American Values

The conservative fourth President of the United States, and the primary author of the US Constitution, President James Madison: The Freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of Republican liberty. In modern verbiage, we might paraphrase this by saying, ‘The property owners of the country would be the best protectors of Republican liberty.’

The liberal transformative thirty-second President of the United States, and a central figure in guiding the nation through the Great Depression and World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt: A nation of homeowners, of people who own a real share in their land, is unconquerable.

The GI Bill

On June 22, 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944 into law. The bill passed both the House and Senate unanimously and became commonly known as the GI Bill.

The GI Bill enabled veterans returning home from World War II to access higher education, job training, and home ownership. By 1951, eight million veterans used the benefit to advance their education, and another two and a half million used it to buy a home, farm, or business.

The bill reshaped social, economic, and educational landscapes in post-WWII America. It led to unprecedented levels of college attendance and homeownership among veterans of working-class backgrounds. The surge in educated and financially stable individuals contributed significantly to the growth of the middle class and the expansion of the US economy in the decades following the war.

The GI Bill demonstrated that the government could successfully act through the capitalist housing market to set conditions that would prompt housing market growth.

Owning a home became synonymous with the American Dream. It symbolized stability and a better future. The increase in homeownership shaped the cultural landscape of America, promoting values centered around family, home, and community.

***Note*** The 1950s was a time of extreme racism and unequal treatment of Americans. We should not return to the American culture of the 1950s.

In sum, with the GI Bill, government leaders acted through the capitalist housing market to set conditions to spur housing market growth. How did the capitalist housing market respond?

The Capitalist Housing Market Responds

The capitalist housing market responded by building homes for first-time homebuyers. Let’s look at an example.

Following World War II, America faced a severe housing shortage. Millions of veterans came home needing housing, adding sudden and intense demand to the housing market. During the war, construction materials and labor were redirected toward the war effort, significantly reducing residential construction. Young Americans were having babies at a high rate, birthing a generation we call the Baby Boomers.

Through this storm, families struggled to find suitable shelter. Some lived in boxcars, chicken coops, and large iceboxes.

Enterprising business leaders recognized the potential for profits in the housing market and sprang into action.

On August 2, 1947, Levitt & Sons broke ground for Levittown, New York, the first of three Levittowns they developed. Levittown and similar projects gave rise to the American suburbs and promised homeownership for working-class Americans who could not have dreamed of homeownership before the war.

The influence of Levittown extended beyond veteran communities. Builders across the country adopted the Levittown model, improving housing availability and making homes more accessible and affordable. The construction boom created jobs that benefited communities nationwide, improving the standard of living for many Americans. The demand led to innovation in building technology and practices, reducing costs and increasing the speed of construction.

New housing rules gave Americans new economic benefits. Before the new Veterans Administration (VA) and Federal Housing Administration (FHA) initiatives, first-time homebuyers had to put down an average of 58% of a home's purchase price to secure a mortgage (source: Kenneth T. Jackson, Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), 204 and 236.) With the new rules in place, Levitt & Sons could qualify veterans for mortgages with no money down.

Over time, the GI Bill, Levittown, and similar initiatives shaped the American landscape and made homeownership a central element of the American Dream. National leaders expanded housing availability through the GI Bill and other initiatives, causing homeownership rates to soar by 20% from 1940 to 1960. Homeownership brought stability to many Americans of that generation.

Could we apply the GI Bill model to improve the well-being of American families and promote interwoven, vibrant communities? How might we incentivize young generations to protect American liberty and contribute to their communities?

There’s another personal piece relevant for context here.

I once returned home from fighting in a combat zone. I rotated out of theater, flew back to Baltimore, stayed overnight, and had my first bourbon in months. The next day, I flew the rest of the way home. I came home to my wife and one-year-old, and to a house we had purchased with the assistance of a GI Bill loan. The GI Bill cemented our stability and community reintegration.

In the months I was gone, I had forgotten parts of American culture. Everything was shockingly different—the cars, music, beautiful farms and ranches, churches, and communities. It was good to be back in America.

It’s not just veterans who make America great. Americans make America great.

Veterans serve their country with distinction, and so do other Americans. They volunteer at arts and theater events, nonprofits, and churches. They help keep neighborhoods safe and respond to fires and crashes. They volunteer their time and talents to improve their communities. Just as the GI Bill provided veterans like me with crucial support, extending homeownership benefits to Americans who serve their communities could strengthen our national fabric.

Should we incentivize civilian service with housing benefits akin to the GI Bill for veterans to enhance the well-being of American families and build cohesive communities?

There would be many specifics to iron out. How many years of community service would qualify? How would we verify that individuals met their commitments? Would all nonprofits qualify?

I’m inclined to believe that the vast majority of people are good, and we need to extend benefits to first-time homebuyers simply because it’s the right thing to do for American families and, by extension, the country. Too many presidents from both parties across our history share the same opinion to believe in random chance.

However, part of the legislative process is communication and deliberation between parties. We should have frank discussions about how to strengthen American families while benefitting communities.

Let’s tie this all together.

Government leaders from both parties have demonstrated that we can act through the capitalist housing market to set conditions to spur housing market growth. The housing market has demonstrated that it responds to these initiatives.

Americans make America great, and many Americans serve their communities.

We can encourage Americans to serve their communities with homebuyer benefits to improve the well-being of American families and promote interwoven, vibrant communities.

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript.

Some more Presidential Perspectives on Homeownership

President Thomas Jefferson: The small landholders are the most precious part of a state.

President James Madison: The Freeholders of the country would be the safest depositories of Republican liberty.

President Calvin Coolidge: No Greater contribution could be made to the stability of the Nation, and the advancement of its ideals, than to make it a Nation of homeowning families.

President Herbert Hoover: [Homeownership makes] a more wholesome, healthful and happy atmosphere in which to bring up children.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt: A nation of homeowners, of people who own a real share in their land, is unconquerable.

President George W. Bush: To give every American a stake in the promise and future of our country, we will…widen the ownership of homes and businesses…preparing our people for the challenges of life in a free society.

President Barack Obama: We’ll make owning a home a symbol of responsibility, not speculation — a source of security for generations to come, just like it was for my grandparents.

To receive new written and audio posts, consider becoming a subscriber.

Do national leaders have a duty to enhance the welfare of citizens?

Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 BC) was a Roman statesman, orator, lawyer, and philosopher widely regarded as one of the Roman Republic’s greatest orators and writers.

During the late Roman Republic, extreme wealth disparity tore the social fabric of Rome. Conquests brought immense wealth, but only to a few elite families. This wealth disparity led to struggles between the plebeians (the people) and patricians (the aristocrats) over land, political equality, and access to resources.

For much of the republic, soldiers were typically small landowners. As wealth concentrated in the hands of the few, aristocrats increasingly bought up this resource. Soldiers became landless men. Commanders promised the soldiers care and stability, and soldiers became more loyal to their commanders than to the republic.

Powerful and ambitious leaders like Pompey, Julius Caesar, and Crassus rose. These men formed an unofficial political alliance that historians call the First Triumvirate to challenge the republic’s governance structures. Their rivalries and personal armies led to a series of civil wars.

Political corruption ensued. Politicians bought offices and votes, eroding the principles of Roman governance and public trust. Influential individuals exploited the largely unwritten and tradition-based Roman Constitution, pushing its boundaries to achieve their ends and ultimately breaking constitutional norms.

The assassination of Julius Caesar in 44 BC led to more civil wars. Octavian (later Augustus) prevailed in these conflicts and became the first emperor of Rome in 27 BC, marking the end of the Roman Republic and the beginning of the Roman Empire.

In this turbulent context, Cicero championed the potential of philosophy to improve governance and society. He believed in applying philosophical concepts pragmatically to address Rome’s challenges. His work, De Re Publica (On the Republic, written around 54-51 BC), explored the nature of Roman government and proposed an ideal state structured around a balanced mix of monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy. This mixed system, he argued, would prevent tyranny by dividing power among the people, the senate, and a monarch, ensuring no single group could dominate.

Cicero discussed the importance of setting a moral example and leading by that example to foster unity and ethical behavior among citizens. He posited public leadership as a service to the nation and not a means to accumulate personal gain, power, or wealth. Leaders are the guardians of the state’s traditions and must strive to enhance the welfare of its citizens.

Cicero's republican philosophy balanced moral integrity, the rule of law, and the distribution of power. His philosophy later significantly influenced John Locke and Enlightenment Liberal thought and, therefore, the US Constitution.

It’s been almost 2100 years since Cicero penned his theses, but much of his philosophy is still relevant today. Sufficiently dividing power between groups weakens each group, preventing them from robbing individuals of their liberty. National service is a privilege and not a means to achieve personal gain. National leaders must strive to enhance the welfare of citizens, not to strengthen their own political party.

Recently, Project 2025 has sparked debate over its vision for America’s future. Their work, Mandate for Leadership 2025: The Conservative Promise, claims to advance “positive change for America” towards “the drive to make our country better.”

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative Washington, D.C. think tank, is leading the effort. We shouldn’t be against think tanks positing ideas. American leaders need to care about America, not party; good ideas come from many sources. The balance between liberal and conservative thought is a cornerstone that makes America great.

America needs strong liberal leaders to advance progress toward the opportunity for all Americans to be born from nothing and achieve greatness. After all, one of the foundational beliefs in America is that we are all created equal and have the inherent right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Throughout our history, we have fallen short of this stated goal, and we need liberal leaders to advance our progress toward it.

America needs strong conservative leaders to conserve the institution that is the structure of our constitutional democratic republic. Conservatives advocate for limited government and divided power, a philosophy outlined by Cicero and Locke. They argue that individuals should take responsibility for their own lives, successes, and failures rather than rely on government assistance or intervention. This principle is consistent with Cicero’s and Locke’s views of moral integrity and the natural right of individuals to own themselves and the product of their labor. We need strong conservative leaders to preserve the institution that is the American Republic.

So, I have no heartburn with the Heritage Foundation or other think tanks proposing ideas, many of which are outlined in Project 2025.

My problem with Project 2025 is that it’s poorly done. As a conservative playbook, it falls short. It needs to reorient towards the decisive effort of American conservatism and focus on preserving the American institution.

Here’s an example…

Page 4 of the report outlines Project 2025's Promise #1: Restore the family as the centerpiece of American life and protect our children. The first sentence of the section is…

The next conservative President must get to work pursuing the true priority of politics—the well-being of the American family.

This is an admirable goal. It echoes back to Cicero’s position that leaders must strive to enhance the welfare of citizens.

Unfortunately, the reader can’t make it past that same page without reading about fatherlessness and the terms “woke progressivism” and “woke culture warriors.”

This continued effort to participate in a perceived culture war is unproductive. The premise of individual liberty is that if you have the right to individual liberty, so does everyone else, even if they express it in a manner objectionable to you. Leaders need to stop focusing on culture wars and focus on governance.

Further, focusing on culture wars detracts from the goal of improving the well-being of the American family. And we severely need to enhance the well-being of the American family.

What’s the one thing that, more than anything else, promotes families to have economic and, therefore, community and emotional stability? Is it whether a woman can make decisions about her property? Which books are available for a child in a school library? The tax status of my local church? Which bathroom a teenager can use? No. None of these.

More than any other factor, families need to be able to heat their houses and put food on the table. To have rooms to heat and tables to put food on, families need the opportunity to buy a home.

One of our nation’s best presidents, Theodore Roosevelt, was a conservative who championed a square deal for the American people. And we need a conservative approach to our housing market challenge.

We aren’t going to achieve stability through homeownership for families with government programs. Government programs build government housing, and individuals don’t get to own government housing.

Instead, we need leaders to work through the market to make homeownership attainable for families. We need to enable first-time homebuyers the opportunity to buy homes at a low interest rate so they can have stability in any financial environment. Families need to be able to purchase these homes with the earnings from one full-time job to have the stability of a parent at home.

This is just one example of a conservative approach to pursuing the true priority of national leadership—the well-being of the American family. This most decisive family support element needed the center-stage spotlight in Project 2025.

From the Cicerean philosophy of the ancient Roman Republic to John Locke's ideas that underpin the US Constitution to the legacy of the great conservative President Teddy Roosevelt, it is evident that national leaders have a duty to enhance the welfare of their citizens.

We need to stop focusing on culture wars and focus on governance.

Homeownership is the decisive governance element that would improve the stability of American families.

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript.

I strongly condemn the assassination attempt on President Trump. We have radical disagreements across America, but political violence is reprehensible.

I invite you to read Financial Security for Young Americans for more about homeownership for young Americans and a pitch to support first-time homebuyers.

I invite you to read or listen to Small, Affordable Homes to consider how we might work through the market to expand the availability of homes for first-time homebuyers.

I invite you to read or listen to Has Capitalism Failed the Housing Market to consider a national leader’s duty to work through the market.

I invite you to read or listen to Progressives for more details about the great conservative President Teddy Roosevelt.

Last week, the US Supreme Court addressed the issue of presidential immunity during official acts, and many people were very upset about it.

Many hysterically claimed the court weighed in favor of conservatives and ruled the court gave the president unchecked power. Media sources said it was a “Blueprint for Dictatorship.”

Should we charge every president with a crime when they leave office?

During the Global War on Terror, the US killed about 4700 suspected or alleged terrorists with drone strikes. The majority of those drone strikes occurred during President Obama’s tenure.

The harsh truth of those drone strikes is that President Obama acted in accordance with what he believed was his duty. All presidents are bound by oath to act…

And will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

On May 22, 2013, the Brookings Institute reported that former US Attorney General Eric Holder said some of those drone strikes killed American citizens. Those Americans were suspected terrorists and were internal enemies of the state.

However, President Obama ordered, and the military conducted, the strikes against American citizens in violation of several Constitutional principles. The Fifth Amendment guarantees that no person shall be “deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The killing of American citizens without a trial or any form of judicial process directly violates this fundamental right. The Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to a trial. Executing American citizens suspected of terrorism without a trial denies them this constitutional right.

In Hobbesian terms, the absence of a world government results in global anarchy and compels states to ensure their own security. Violent extremism threatens US security. The president has a duty to maintain regional stability, which is crucial for protecting the American homeland.

Should we have charged President Obama with crimes when he left office? No. He had immunity for the conduct necessary to support his Constitutional duties.

How about FDR and Heart Mountain?

During World War II, Franklin D. Roosevelt ordered the internment of American citizens of Japanese descent through Executive Order 9066. Conditions in the camps were brutal, with inadequate housing, poor sanitation, and limited medical care. The forced removal of Japanese Americans from their homes without warrants or cause and the confiscation of their property violated the 4th Amendment. Detaining the Americans without charges or a fair opportunity to contest their detention in court violated their right to Habeas Corpus (Article I, Section 9).

We now consider the internment of Japanese Americans one of the most egregious violations of civil liberties in American history. The event demonstrates the importance of protecting constitutional rights, especially during times of national crisis.

Would we today charge FDR with crimes?

One could argue that both Obama and FDR acted in what they believed was the nation’s best interest. But what about clear cases of corruption?

How about President Warren G. Harding, who transferred control of the Teapot Dome oil field in Wyoming to Secretary of the Interior Albert B. Fall? Private oil companies then paid Fall bribes equivalent to about $6 million today. Though Harding didn’t get any money, what role did he play in the event?

Or Ulysses S. Grant and the Whiskey Ring Scandal? The ring involved bribing Treasury Department officials to underreport the amount of whiskey produced, reducing owed taxes. The conspirators then shared the defrauded taxes amongst themselves. Only President Grant’s testimony on behalf of his personal secretary and friend, General Orville Babcock, saved Babcock from conviction for his participation in the ring.

More than one president could have been subject to criminal charges for their actions. Are presidents above the law? No. But we have treated them with immunity.

Back to the matter at hand.

We can judge whether President Trump’s acts on and around January 6th were official duties, and the courts will weigh in in the coming months. I doubt the courts will turn fast enough to judge his role in the mob desecration of the US Capitol Building before the election. The real jury of whether the mob attempted to overthrow the republic will be the American people on November 5th.

However, regarding immunity, America has demonstrated for many years that presidents have immunity during official acts and have presumptuous immunity for even unofficial acts. The Supreme Court’s decision only affirms how we have acted since our earliest years.

America is an imperfect democratic republic. Presidents make tough choices, and we need to elect people of high character.

Presidents from either party must be able to act to preserve, protect, and defend the republic without fear of being charged with a crime when they leave office.

May God bless the United States of America.

Universal Basic Income pilot studies prove the concept works, and advocates say we should support it.

Is Universal Basic Income a silver bullet solution to societal issues or a band-aid on deep wounds?

What is Universal Basic Income?

Universal Basic Income (UBI) is a financial policy proposal under consideration by many municipalities across America. Under UBI, the people of a municipality, acting through the government, provide regular, unconditional payments to all citizens regardless of income or employment status.

The premise of UBI is to ensure a minimum standard of living and reduce poverty and inequality. UBI programs intend to simplify welfare systems, reduce bureaucracy, and provide economic security for the lowest-income earners.

On June 22, 2024, in the LA Times, writer Rebecca Plevin reported, “More than 200 guaranteed-income experiments have popped up nationwide over the last four years in response to the pandemic, as well as racial injustice and widening economic inequality.” In a separate piece published June 26th, Business Insider identified a couple of residents of St. Louis, Missouri, sued the City of St. Louis over objections to its taxpayer-funded UBI program.

How is UBI funded?

Universal Basic Income (UBI) proposals are funded through various mechanisms. Common funding sources include:

* Private contributions. Funding for some pilot programs, such as those used for Arlington’s Guarantee Pilot Evaluation conducted in Arlington, Virginia, were from private sources. The Arlington Community Foundation acquired all funding from private donors, business donations, faith communities, and other foundations. They used no public dollars for the study.

* Taxes. Proponents often pose income taxes, consumption taxes, or new forms of taxes such as a carbon tax or wealth tax for UBI funding.

* Reduction of Existing Welfare. Some proposals suggest funding UBI by streamlining or eliminating current welfare programs and redirecting those funds into the UBI pool.

* Other sources might include natural resources such as Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend. They might also include investment funds owned by the state or from sources like surplus revenues.

UBI Programs Work

So many municipalities are considering UBI because the pilot programs prove it works. Americans aren’t irresponsible with money, or lazy, or stupid. They use the money to gain skills and get better jobs, move into safer neighborhoods, buy shoes and coats for their kids, and heat their houses. They go back to school and get degrees and certifications.

They work MORE with the extra funds, not less. And the work they do is more meaningful.

Or, to be more correct, Americans with enough money live stable, productive lives.

With so much decisive information proving UBI works, I should be arguing for UBI, right? But I’m not going to.

UBI is a Symptom, Not a Solution

Proponents of UBI argue that the programs reduce poverty, simplify welfare, reduce the cost of administering welfare, reduce income inequality, and have still other benefits. They write passionate pieces that convey how UBI programs help those most in need. I don’t disagree with their position.

Though I often write about problems, including low worker wages and how we might address housing challenges, that’s not my decisive effort.

I write about America. I believe in the principles that formed America and in individual liberty. I believe that given the right conditions, individuals will succeed on their own.

UBI programs demonstrate that America is at a crossroads. They are symptomatic of deeper structural issues rather than a solution to them. UBI programs demonstrate that conditions in America are such that individual Americans aren’t surviving on their own. The system is broken. More people than ever are working multiple full-time jobs to survive. Buying housing is out of the question for many. For the first time since the end of the Great Depression, more 18- to 29-year-old adults live with their parents than on their own. UBI programs highlight that the problem is so dire that some would give others money for not even working.

UBI programs are a Progressive response to poverty. I’m not a huge fan of Progressive solutions to move money when there are other options.

It’s not that I’m anti-government. Government is necessary. It provides a means for individuals to combine resources and generate essential services that individuals cannot achieve on their own, such as infrastructure, defense, and education. Without government, we have no interstate market access, no roads for transit, and no financial system to support trade between individuals.

At the same time, government is inherently wasteful. One of the most studied examples that highlights this phenomenon is the US military’s tooth-to-tail ratio, or the ratio of combat effects forces to support forces. At no point in the last 150 years has the military had more than 28% of combat effects forces, with 72% support forces. These support forces have familiar names such as Human Resources (HR), finance, maintenance, and logistics.

All government entities have support forces, and this same principle applies. Larger government waste isn’t studied the same way outside the Department of Defense. But even if the percentages are somewhat different, the point is the same: Funneling money through the government results in the majority of that money being absorbed by support functions. The support is necessary, but it reduces the money that can be directly applied to the problem.

The American people paying government officials to provide a service benefitting multiple Americans is a good use of resources. Yes, the government still gets this funding, but the intent is to provide the service, and the government can achieve the intent.

The American people paying government officials to send their money to an individual living in poverty doesn’t make sense. They just wasted 70% of it funneling it through the bureaucracy. Americans need to earn sufficient money from their work, and the rules need to support wages high enough for individuals to succeed. The intent the government can achieve is to make the rules work for individuals.

As we grapple with UBI and the broader role of government in America, we can revisit the wisdom of historical figures who navigated similar crossroads.

Edmond Burke is the world’s most renowned Conservative philosopher. Just before the American Revolution, Burke sounded a strong call for systemic change to conserve the integrity of the British Empire. He urged King George to address the British government's missteps and expressed that England should pursue conciliatory measures with the colonies.

Burke knew that saving the British Empire meant change.

King George rejected Burke’s counsel, and America was born at war.

If we are going to save the American dream, we can’t say the system is working and bury our heads in the sand.

If Americans can’t succeed as individuals, they will increasingly turn to social programs. America is built on individual liberty, not collective social programs.

When the American people pay tax dollars to fund the government, the decisive effort of those dollars needs to set conditions for individuals to succeed.

Individuals can succeed when they have heat in the house and food on the table from working one full-time job while still being able to go to school at night to expand their skills. They need to be able to buy a house and feed their family on one income. Single mothers need to make enough to pay for childcare so they can go to work and still feed their kids.

To support this individual capability, we need leaders who work for the American people, not just for businesses and not for the government.

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript.

Last week, I found myself in the middle of a discussion centered on Presidential obligation and authority. The subject was the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the semiautomatic firearms bump stock ban on the grounds that the Trump administration had overstepped its authority. One passionate advocate emphasized that the executive had a responsibility to protect the greater good, while others said that the ban required congressional action.

Does the Presidential Oath of Office imply a duty for US Presidents to act in the interest of the greater good?

On July 26, 1948, President Harry S. Truman signed Executive Order 9981, desegregating the US military. More than one million black Americans proudly fought in every theater of operations in World War II, only to return home to face segregation across America. Truman, who himself had grown up with white supremacist views in Missouri, was profoundly disturbed by the treatment of these veterans. He expressed his disgust, stating, “My stomach turned over when I learned that Negro soldiers, just back from overseas, were being dumped out of army trucks in Mississippi and beaten.”

EO 9981 helped set the stage for later broad desegregation during the Civil Rights Movement. It was a major policy change by the executive branch. It used the President's authority as Commander-in-Chief to enforce principles of equality and non-discrimination within the armed forces.

Two sections of the executive order are compelling for our discussion. The first reads…

NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me as President of the United States, by the Constitution and the statutes of the United States, and as Commander in Chief of the armed services, it is hereby ordered as follows…

The Constitution endows the Presidency with both authority and duty. The President holds the authority to lead and execute the federal government's directives and the duty to uphold and enforce the laws and principles delineated in the Constitution.

By referencing the Constitution in the executive order, President Truman made a clear statement that his actions were within the scope of his powers. This responsibility stems from the President's oath of office, which commits to 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.' This oath is a testament to the President's commitment to the law and the principles it upholds.

The second notable section states…

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin.

The executive order echoes the Constitution. The Constitution mandates that all branches of government operate consistently with principles of equality of treatment and opportunity.

These broad principles are found in the Preamble as a mandate to “establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” They are reinforced by the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Furthermore, Article II, Section 3 identifies the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” mandating enforcement of laws in a manner consistent with the Constitution's principles of equality and justice.

Truman signed Executive Order 9981 for the greater good, but it clearly had a constitutional authority and duty component. This is just one example of how a President can use their authority to act for the greater good.

However, another critical aspect of the order was the applicability of the location. Truman ordered equal treatment of all inside the US military. As Commander in Chief, he had the authority to direct desegregation in the services. Outside the executive branch, he didn’t have the ability to order desegregation for all. That feat took overcoming heated resistance and was only achieved 16 years later when Congress finally passed the Civil Rights Act in 1964.

Let’s apply this conceptual philosophy to our question. Does the Presidential Oath of Office imply a duty for US Presidents to act in the interest of the greater good?

Yes and no. The Presidential Oath of Office explicitly binds the President to uphold and defend the Constitution and to execute their duties faithfully. This oath grants them authority to govern where this authority applies, primarily within the executive branch. However, it's important to note that it doesn't extend the President's authority to direct actions outside the executive branch. This is a critical aspect of the Presidential role.

How about an example?

Consider taxpayer money: Our taxes fund various government activities, including awarding contracts and grants to companies. Suppose the government awards a contract to Company X, which then hires a worker at poverty wages. Due to these low wages, the worker qualifies for government assistance programs to meet basic needs like food on the table and heat in the house.

The American people end up paying twice for this worker: once through the payment to Company X under the government contract and again through social welfare programs because Company X pays the worker insufficient earnings to meet these basic needs.

This dual payment represents an irresponsible and wasteful use of funds by the executive. Careless and wasteful use of taxpayer dollars violates Constitutional principles. The Constitution compels the President to faithfully execute the law, which includes managing resources effectively and preventing wasteful spending.

But the President can’t direct companies to pay wages that would prevent workers from qualifying for social programs, and companies won’t do it out of the goodness of their hearts.

The President could sign an executive order directing executive federal agencies to award contracts or grants only to companies that pay all employees wages above the social program level. This order would ensure that government funds are used responsibly and prudently and reduce government spending on social programs for low-income workers.

This approach ensures workers can earn enough to support themselves without needing supplemental government assistance, representing an appropriate use of government funds. It would reduce government spending on social programs for low-income workers. Higher wages could increase consumer spending, boost the economy, and promote sustainable economic growth.

The President should have the authority to sign this order. They aren’t compelling companies to pay higher wages. A company can choose to withdraw from competing for government funding. The executive is directing their branch of government to allocate the funds issued by Congress responsibly and prudently.

Counterarguments that some jobs are entry-level positions that don’t justify wages sufficient for Americans to have food on the table and heat in the house are empty. That is an argument to support social programs.

Americans should not subsidize companies that benefit from taxpayer funding and pay low wages.

The ideal solution is for Congress to pass laws to help Americans succeed as individuals and eliminate the need for broad social programs.

Does the Presidential Oath of Office imply a duty for US Presidents to act in the interest of the greater good?

Yes, the Oath implies these duties but gives the President limited power to execute them.

The President can still innovate and act inside their authority for the greater good.

May God bless the United States of America.