How might we change the premise of Social Security to make it fully funded, more equitable, and sustainable indefinitely?

Social Security is societal insurance, not an individual retirement plan. It’s intended to protect individuals against income loss due to retirement, disability, or death. It supports disabled individuals, survivors, and children and reduces poverty.

Social Security protects taxpayers across American society. Without Social Security, millions would face poverty, straining families and state and local governments, increasing inequality, and destabilizing the economy.

But Social Security isn’t without its problems. It relies on a larger future generation funding the current generation of older Americans. This model is projected to run out of full funding between 2034 and 2037 for the Boomer generation. With the Millennial generation larger than Gen X, the shortfall might right itself during the Gen X retirement period.

We need to explore innovative solutions beyond increasing taxes, reducing benefits, or expanding the workforce. How about we explore an approach so simple that it would be a radical, permanent solution?

Before we begin, we need to establish an objective to guide our mental efforts.

To ensure each future generation has access to the social insurance program, we must orient the program to be:

* Fully funded by the individual, not the following generation

* Funding achievable by an individual in their earnings lifetime

* Sustainable, such that the program will incur no government debt and weather future changes in population growth

This is achievable.

What if the American people invested $100,000 in every newborn, purchasing a 65-year government bond on their behalf that guaranteed a 3.5% annual return?

Then, throughout each individual’s lifetime, both the individual and their employer would contribute to Social Security taxes, repaying this investment. This structure would mirror the existing Social Security tax system.

The individual would have access to the funds when they reach 65 years old. The fund would project to pay out 30 years of benefit to age 95 at a fixed monthly rate.

The government would incur no permanent debt with this approach.

Let’s consider the feasibility of this proposal. If America invested $100K at a baby’s birth and the trust grew tax-free and returned a 3.5% annual return, the $100K would grow to $935,670 when the baby turned 65.

If we wanted that money to last until the individual reached age 95, that $935K would pay $2600 per month, or $935,670 spread across 360 months. $2600 per month is $31,200 per year, which is above the 2024 federal poverty level of $30,000 for a family of four. The average Social Security check today for retired workers is $1915 per month, a figure published in April 2024.

Let’s break it down piece by piece.

Equitable Access and Personal Responsibility

The premise of this approach is equitable treatment and personal responsibility. Every American, irrespective of background, would contribute to and benefit from the fund equally, eliminating disparities from unequal lifetime earnings. Each participant would receive the same initial investment, with repayment terms identical for all. No generation would be responsible for supporting another.

Ultimately, this model aims to balance the collective security of traditional social insurance with the individual responsibility of personal investment.

Once the individual returns the initial investment to the American people, the individual should no longer owe Social Security taxes. Their additional income could be redirected towards other financial goals, such as saving for retirement or investing. This would accelerate financial security as individuals approach retirement, providing more flexibility in financial planning.

Projects 30 years of Benefit with No Permanent Government Debt

In 2020, 33% of the US population was older than 65, and only 0.6% was older than 95.

Projecting benefits to age 95 ensures the program plans for the vast majority of Americans. Those who survive past 95 would continue to receive their benefits. Individuals receiving benefits past 95 is achievable because most don’t survive to that fine old age.

Because Social Security is a social insurance plan and not an individual retirement plan, the funds not paid out to individuals would remain in the Social Security fund.

This is not different from Social Security today.

Access to the Funds

Adjusting the age of funds distribution, similar to Social Security today would result in modest changes to the monthly payment.

If individuals chose to take early distributions at age 62, the payout would change to $2,362 per month.

If individuals chose to wait to take distributions at age 70, the payout would change to $3,118 per month.

Funding Achievable by an Individual

A worker repaying their $100K investment back to the American people is achievable.

Let’s assume a worker works for 40 years by the time they reach 65. At the current Social Security tax rate of 6.2%, that worker would need to earn $806,451 to repay $50,000 in Social Security taxes over their lifetime.

To achieve this lifetime earnings mark in 40 years, the worker would need to have an average annual wage of $20,161.29.

This is a simplified model that assumes consistent earnings over the entire career without interruptions and no change to the Social Security tax structure.

Individual Benefit Clearly Outweighs the Cost

The benefits of this model are exceedingly strong for the individual because the American people made the initial investment at birth. The timing of the contribution is such that the fund can grow for decades before the individual makes their individual retirement account investments.

Repaying the American people’s $100K investment would result in a monthly payment of $2600 to the individual.

If the individual lives 3.2 years past 65, they would receive more than their Social Security contribution.

Further, many individuals will repay their Social Security investment early in their careers and stop paying Social Security taxes. They can then focus the remainder of their retirement planning on their individual accounts.

The proposal has risks, including changes in economic conditions, varying bond yields, and the impact of these factors on the proposed payouts.

The transition from the current model to this sustainable model would require strong political consensus to gain public and political support for such an overhaul.

How might we change the premise of Social Security to make it fully funded, more equitable, and sustainable indefinitely?

To ensure each future generation has access to the social insurance program, we need to reorient the program.

We must make it fully funded by the individual and not the following generation. Individuals need to be able to easily repay the American people’s investment in their earnings lifetime. The program needs to be sustainable, such that it will incur no government debt and weather future changes in population growth.

These goals are achievable, and using this model would ensure future Americans would enter retirement more financially secure.

May God bless the United States of America.

Piece originally published at American Thinker on May 24, 2024, here.

“Drain the swamp” is a metaphor likening the government to a swamp that needs to be drained to remove undesirable elements.

But who’s the swamp? It’s not the people, and characterizing it as such is political theater. Most Americans who work in government want to make life better for other Americans.

The real swamp is the self-serving rules—government working for itself, not the people. We need to drain this swamp.

The Chevron Doctrine

In March 2018, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) enacted a rule requiring fishermen to pay for at-sea monitors in the New England groundfish fishery. The intent was noble: to enhance the fishery's sustainability.

Fishermen did not object to the observers. No one is more invested in the sustainability of fisheries than those who rely on them. Both NMFS and the fishermen aim to improve the resource's sustainability.

However, as private small businesses, the fishermen opposed the financial burden of paying for regulatory observers. These observers weren’t aiding the fishermen with their jobs. Regulatory observers are a governmental function; if they are truly necessary, taxpayer dollars should fund them.

Said another way: if it’s not vital enough to justify taxpayer funding, the government should not be involved.

The fishermen challenged the NMFS rule in court, arguing that the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act didn’t direct the fishermen to foot the bill for regulatory observers. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia gave the initial ruling, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit gave a second ruling. Both courts sided with the NMFS, upholding the rule on the grounds that the agency's interpretation of the rule was reasonable. The courts applied the Chevron deference, a principle stemming from the US Supreme Court's Chevron USA vs. Natural Resources Defense Council decision.

Under the Chevron doctrine, courts defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute that it administers, provided the interpretation is reasonable.

The fishermen appealed the ruling. The US Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and in January 2024, the high court heard arguments in Loper Bright Enterprises vs. Raimondo. The court should weigh in this summer, and many experts believe the US Supreme Court will overturn or severely weaken the Chevron deference.

Despite being under the radar, Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo has the potential to become one of the most consequential Supreme Court decisions in decades. The decision could reshape US Executive Branch regulatory authority and administrative law. For example, the Environmental Protection Agency relies on Chevron deference to interpret and enforce environmental laws. Department of Health and Human Services enforces provisions of the Affordable Care Act using the Chevron doctrine. The Department of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board use Chevron deference to implement and enforce labor laws.

In short, every federal agency uses Chevron to interpret statutory mandates to guide national affairs. Chevron allows agencies to create laws, bypassing the legislative process and overstepping constitutional boundaries. Chevron also limits the judiciary's role in checking and balancing the executive branch's power. The court’s deference to agency interpretations precludes them from thoroughly reviewing whether those interpretations align with congressional intent or constitutional principles.

Overturning Chevron would strongly benefit Americans. It would promote federal agencies to work for the people and not for themselves, and it would restore the balance of power intended by the Constitution.

Making Federal Agencies Work for the People

Federal agencies are meant to serve a public purpose.

But a reality of government is that once you create an organization, its primary purpose becomes to sustain itself. While not necessarily bad, the primary purpose of a federal agency is not to preserve itself. It’s to serve Americans, even at the expense of itself.

No federal agency makes rules that make life for itself more difficult, even if those rules would benefit Americans. Federal agencies aim to be more efficient and fulfill their mandate. Sometimes, this means at the expense of Americans.

An example? It would be much better for America if the US Bureau of Land Management (BLM) installed solar panels on the endless landscape of federal parking lots rather than our fine American wildlife lands. But BLM intends to install solar panels on nearly a million acres of public lands, threatening wildlife habitat and natural beauty.

Congress did pass Public Law 116-260, authorizing the executive branch to support solar technology and its use on public lands. However, the law also states the executive branch must…“reduce and mitigate potential life cycle negative impacts of solar energy technologies on human communities, wildlife, and wildlife habitats.” The terms “reduce and mitigate” are ambiguous, but the best way to mitigate adverse impacts on wildlife is to leave the land undisturbed.

Putting solar panels atop parking lots would cost more and be less efficient, but it’s better for America than removing wildlife habitat.

Overturning Chevron would require federal agencies to follow the exact language of congressional laws more closely rather than interpreting ambiguous statutes in a way that expands their regulatory scope. This would lead to agencies being more accountable to Americans. Agency actions would have to align more directly with the legislation passed by elected officials. This alignment would ensure agencies operate within their designated boundaries, prioritizing public interest over bureaucratic agendas.

Further, without Chevron deference, agencies would need to provide more rigorous justifications for their rules, making their decision-making processes more transparent. This transparency could enable better public scrutiny and participation in the regulatory process, enhancing democratic governance.

Restore a Balance of Power

The US Constitution, inspired by philosopher John Locke, established a democratic republic with a balance of power divided between three branches instead of a monarchy. Chevron throws off the balance by enabling executive branch agencies to make laws. If one of those branches can make and execute laws and appoint justices to sit on the courts that defer to that branch, the President becomes a king.

America owes allegiance to no king.

Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution states that all legislative powers reside in Congress, reinforcing the premise that agencies should not legislate from the executive branch. Further, the judiciary's role is to interpret the law independently without deferring to the executive branch’s interpretations.

This principle is decisive to our national identity, as the foundation of America is individual liberty.

In Federalist Paper No. 47 (1788), James Madison outlined the idea that power concentration in the hands of a few threatens individual liberty. Madison continued the premise in Federalist Paper No. 51 (also 1788). It builds on Federalist 47 by stressing the need for each branch to have both the constitutional mechanisms and personal incentives to check the powers of the others.

Despite these clear national guidelines, the judicial branch currently defers to the executive branch to decide what the legislative branch intends in legislation. This gives the executive branch the authority to make and enforce laws (through interpretation).

Overturning Chevron restores the Constitutional balance of power. Congress makes laws, the executive branch executes them, and the judicial branch interprets ambiguous laws. This balance of power protects against government tyranny.

We need to drain the swamp. The swamp isn’t the people who work in government; it's the overreaching regulations that serve agencies rather than the people.

Federal agencies need to work on behalf of the people, not the agency.

This balance of power is a decisive tenet of our democratic republic. One that we need to restore.

May God bless the United States of America.

Last week, we examined the goal of traceability in beef markets. Traceability helps ensure a safe food supply and keeps markets open.

Further expanding traceability from birth to beef empowers individual choice and supports American ranchers.

USDA doesn’t have to achieve this goal alone. Blockchain-driven agricultural cooperatives could play a crucial role in achieving these goals. As the demand for traceable and sustainable beef grows, blockchain technology and Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) offer transformative solutions for American ranchers.

How could a blockchain-driven Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO) revolutionize cattle ranching?

What is Blockchain-Driven?

Imagine a group of bookkeepers who work for different companies. The companies recently formed a partnership. They don’t have much history working together, and each company's survival depends on getting its portion of the revenue from the partnership. Record keeping and transparency are vital pieces of their joint venture.

To ensure each company gets its correct share of the profits, they bring their bookkeepers together in one office. They record all transactions on a large whiteboard on the wall. The bookkeepers arrive and leave at the same time every day, ensuring that everyone can see and verify their records and everyone else's.

That’s blockchain in a nutshell.

In industries where partnerships are critical and trust must be built from scratch, blockchain provides a secure, transparent system for transactions without a central authority.

The bookkeepers working in one office where they can see each other's work mirror the decentralized nature of blockchain. In blockchain, all participants (nodes) in the network have access to the entire ledger. They can independently verify the ledger’s accuracy and the validity of new entries.

The whiteboard represents the blockchain ledger, a cryptographically encoded digital record of all transactions executed and confirmed by the network. The ledger is visible to all parties at all times.

The bookkeepers opening and closing the office together symbolize the consensus mechanism used in blockchains. Like all bookkeepers agreeing to open and close the office, record keepers in blockchain technology must gain consensus before a new block can be added to the chain.

The nature of blockchain ensures that all transactions are openly recorded on the ledger and accessible to all involved parties. This helps prevent disputes and ensures that each party receives their due, per the agreement.

Blockchain provides a framework for fairness, transparency, and security in joint ventures without needing a trusted third party. Applications such as supply chain management, financial services, and other sectors where joint ventures are common can benefit from blockchains. One structure that benefits from blockchain technology is a DAO.

What is a DAO?

Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) operate through smart contracts, like automated agreements coded into a blockchain. When predefined conditions are met, these programs automatically execute actions (like payments). This ensures that all participants adhere to the rules without the need for intermediaries like lawyers or banks.

DAOs aren’t governed by a single entity like a CEO or Board of Directors. They operate in a distributed manner across a network of computers. Members of a DAO collaboratively discuss and democratically vote on the rules governing their interactions and the organization's operations. Computers then automatically execute these agreements, mitigating the risks of centralized corruption and avoiding single points of failure.

When agreed-upon business conditions are met, the computer executes specified actions without human intervention. This means the organization can run efficiently and consistently without bureaucracy.

All transactions and rules in a DAO are recorded on the blockchain, making them fully transparent and easily auditable by anyone in the partnership. This transparency builds trust among participants and can make organizational decision-making more accountable and fair.

Essentially, DAOs represent a new approach to organizing collective efforts. By harnessing blockchain technology, DAOs ensure operations are democratic, transparent, and efficient. They represent the potential to usher in a new era of partnership management. Implementing blockchain through DAOs could radically streamline cattle ranching in America.

What is Cattle Ranching?

Cattle ranching involves raising cattle for beef. It requires experts in animal husbandry, pasture management, veterinary medicine, and nutrition. Ranchers must understand and respond to environmental conditions such as weather patterns, soil health, and water availability. They also need expertise in sustainability, market fluctuations, trade regulations, and economic policies to be profitable and make sound decisions.

Further, national cattle ranching is a segregated operation. Figure 7, below (also shown last week), taken from USDA Economic Research Service Report Number 830, depicts the complexity of beef commodities.

An important note about the diagram: most cattle ranchers don’t operate in more than one sphere. Cow-calf operators are not also stockers. Stockers don’t run feedlots, and feedlot operators don’t slaughter and process animals. Each segment of the ranching industry is largely segregated from the next.

Enter the possibility of blockchain-driven Decentralized Autonomous Organizations (DAOs) revolutionizing cattle ranching.

Let’s take a simple example: A large operation cow-calf operator in Wyoming with excellent genetics, a stocker in Kansas, and a processing agent in Missouri agree to form a partnership. They all want to realize the increased profit potential of the direct-to-consumer market for high-quality, pasture-finished beef. They need to share ownership from birth to beef to achieve their aim. But they individually don’t have the resources to do it alone.

The cow-calf operator needs the partnership because she doesn’t have enough grass to feed her calves year-round. The stocker agrees because he doesn’t have many cows to have calves, but he has outstanding overwintering forage. The processing agent agrees because he thinks there’s more profit potential than in the beef commodity market. The processing agent runs a USDA-inspected facility, so the beef will have a final USDA grade and be sellable to restaurants and grocers. They find a restaurant customer for the finest cuts, the Golden Ox in Kansas City, which overlooks the historic Kansas City stockyards. The rest of the cuts will go to local area butchers.

They agree to establish a DAO. They all agree that Ethereum is a good blockchain platform because of its widespread use and robust support for smart contracts. The calves each have their tag number registered on the blockchain, and the processing agent agrees to maintain the blockchain information post-processing.

They agree that each of them will earn one token, or share, for each calf they transfer to the following individual. So, the Wyoming producer earns a token when a calf arrives in Kansas, and the Kansas producer earns a token when the calf arrives at the processing facility. This arrangement promotes responsibility and ensures each participant is invested in the health and quality of the cattle as they pass through the supply chain.

The total revenue is continually divided by the number of tokens, paying out the total. Over time, their revenue increases because they compete in the lucrative direct-to-consumer beef market instead of the wholesale beef commodity market.

Three ranchers agreeing to a DAO partnership grows into ten, then fifty. It keeps growing and Americans start to expect traceability from birth to beef.

By forming a DAO, the ranchers leverage blockchain technology to:

Track and Verify Genetic Quality and Handling: From the calf's birth through its growth at the stocker to its processing, all data can be recorded on the blockchain. This includes genetic information, health records, feed type, and USDA beef grade.

Automate Revenue Sharing: As each participant adds value (e.g., the cow-calf operator providing calves, the stocker raising them, the processor handling slaughtering and packaging), they receive tokens representing their contribution. Smart contracts automatically calculate and distribute revenue based on the number of tokens each member holds, ensuring fair compensation.

Access Data in Real Time: All parties can access the blockchain ledger to see each animal's status, location, and health. This transparency helps in planning and management.

Maintain Compliance and Quality Assurance: The processing agent maintains blockchain records post-processing, which adds a layer of compliance and quality assurance. Restaurants and butchers purchasing the beef can verify its USDA grade and trace its entire history, a significant selling point.

There are some downsides to setting up the DAO. For example, the DAO partnership maintaining ownership of the animals from birth to beef means the cow-calf producer won’t be paid for two years. Producers would have to accept the technology and arrangement. Regulatory environments for blockchain technologies aren’t the same across the nation. Consumers would need to accept the technology as proof of the quality of the product.

Even with the challenges, there is significant upside to cattle ranchers competing in the lucrative direct-to-consumer beef market instead of the wholesale commodity beef market.

Blockchain-driven DAOs are a way to enhance transparency, increase efficiency, and open up new markets for ranchers.

Traceability from birth to beef enables individual Americans with the capability and freedom to choose beef that aligns with their needs and values.

Traceability further improves ranch management and profitability, bringing more funds to rural communities.

Entities such as blockchain-driven agriculture cooperatives will drive innovation in cattle ranching.

May God bless the United States of America.

Do you know where your beef comes from?

Cattle wear earrings. They’re not decorative; their primary purpose is to assist ranchers in managing and aiding their herds. The earrings have unique patterns of numbers or letters, allowing ranchers to identify individual cattle.

On April 26, 2024, the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) passed a final rule requiring animal agriculture producers to use electronic identification eartags for cattle and bison. Electronic identification tags don’t store any information on their own. Rather, Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology allows readers and data systems to quickly scan the tags and build comprehensive location and animal health profiles.

USDA calls their earrings Official Identification (Official ID). When the April 26th rule goes into effect, cattle and bison over 18 months of age and all dairy cattle moving across state lines must have electronic identification earrings. Previously, USDA allowed both metal and electronic identification tags. Other smaller classifications of cattle, such as rodeo stock, will require electronic identification. The entire rule can be reviewed here if you are interested in the specifics.

With the rule change, USDA intends to strengthen animal disease traceability (ADT) “to help quickly pinpoint and respond to costly foreign animal diseases.” Traceability is “one of the best protections against disease outbreaks…that allows for quick tracing of sick and exposed animals to stop disease spread.”

Animal Disease Traceability achieves two goals.

* ADT helps achieve a safe food supply.

ADT enables animal health officials at federal and state levels to quickly locate and quarantine potentially diseased or exposed animals. Quicker response times to disease outbreaks prevent potentially contaminated meat from entering the consumer market.

Traceability in beef markets is exceptionally difficult. Figure 7, below, taken from USDA Economic Research Service Report Number 830, depicts the complexity of beef commodities. Electronic tags facilitate real-time data access across the supply chain, enhancing responsiveness during disease outbreaks.

To make the figure more relevant, we need to keep in mind that there are 92 million cattle in the US. Cattle move in a near-constant state between these various locations. There are cow-calf operators, stockers, feedlots, and processing plants across the country. On average (based on a conservative assumption of three movements per lifetime), approximately 285,000 cattle move to a new location in the US every day.

ADT helps achieve a second goal.

* ADT helps keep markets open.

Disease outbreaks shut markets down.

During the 2001 Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) outbreak in Britain, officials initially responded slowly, and animals passed the highly infectious and sometimes fatal FMD through markets. Eventually, Britain shut down all animal markets to attempt to contain the disease spread. During the outbreak, Britain slaughtered more than six million cattle and sheep. The total cost of the outbreak exceeded $17 billion US dollars, expressed in today’s dollars. The new USDA rules could prevent such a scenario in the US by enabling quicker disease response.

The benefits of this new rule are clear. Further, its implementation presents two big opportunities for the future of American agriculture: individual consumer choice and improved ranch management.

Individual Consumer Choice

Consumers must have the knowledge and freedom to choose products and services that align with their values and needs.

Economist and philosopher Amartya Sen won the 1998 Nobel Prize for Economics. He outlined a capability approach to humanity, detailed in his 1999 book Development as Freedom. Sen posits that true economic development comes from enhancing individual capabilities and choices, not just GDP growth.

For Sen, capability refers to the opportunity to achieve well-being. Freedom encompasses the real choices individuals have to select from these capabilities.

We can debate the attainability of Sen’s ideas, such as transparent, ethical markets. However, the premise that knowledge enables consumer freedom is relevant to our discussion. His theory establishes consumers need to be able to evaluate how well products align with their ethical beliefs, health requirements, or personal preferences. When possible, markets should empower consumers to have sufficient information to make choices that reflect their values and needs.

Let’s apply Sen’s ideas to our question: Do you know where your beef comes from?

To meet Sen’s ideal, consumers need the capability and freedom to choose beef that aligns with their values and needs. In this case, capability is the knowledge of the beef's characteristics and origin, and freedom is the ability to choose based on this knowledge.

Today, unless consumers make a deliberate effort to buy beef directly from a source (such as from a ranch), they don’t have the capability to choose beef that aligns with their needs and values.

As an example, let’s assume climate change is important to you, and you want to buy beef from companies that do not source beef from deforested Amazon rainforests. Two-thirds of deforested land in the Amazon becomes cattle pasture. The vast majority of rainforest beef goes to China, but the same companies that send this beef to China also deal in beef in the US. You want to stop supporting these companies.

So, you arm yourself with the right knowledge by researching the companies that support deforestation. And then go to the butcher or grocery store, and…you end up buying the steak that looks the best.

Because of the packaging, you don’t and can’t know where that animal came from. The package only has a USDA grade and a price label.

The April 26 USDA rule marks a significant step towards improving traceability from farm to table. Other USDA departments must support this initiative and extend traceability to include detailed labeling. The labeling needs to detail meat sourcing and production practices so consumers can choose products that align with their needs and values.

The second opportunity the new rule enables is improved ranch management.

Improved Ranch Management

Farmers and ranchers compete for profits primarily in either the wholesale commodity market or the specialty beef market.

Beef intended for the wholesale commodity market commands small profit margins. In total, at an average steer dress weight of 885 lbs., the meat packer might generate $2603 ($294.20/100wt) per carcass that grades USDA Choice, or $2546 ($287.65/100wt) per carcass that grades USDA Select, plus the value of by-product such as hides, approximately $100 (11.28/100wt), per the May 3, 2024 National Daily Cattle & Beef Summary. This value represents all grass, water, fuel, and infrastructure costs to raise beef. These small profit margins dictate high throughput at large meat processing facilities. Further, a White House 2021 report found that “four large conglomerates control approximately 55-85% of the market for pork, beef, and poultry, and these middlemen were using their market power to increase prices and underpay farmers.” Due to ongoing price pressures and the meat packer monopoly in the US, meat packers have historically engaged in practices such as price fixing and limiting payments to ranchers.

In contrast, consumers pay premium prices for beef with desirable attributes. For example, wholesale commodity sirloin steak brought $6.75/lb. in April 2024, whereas grass-fed direct-to-consumer sirloin steak brought $13.42/lb. A farm or ranch operation raising beef with preferred credible attributes commands higher market prices and improves ranch profitability.

Because of a lack of traceability, most ranchers have to compete against high-volume producers in the wholesale commodity market when they could be competing in the specialty beef markets instead.

Traceability from birth to beef would further allow ranchers to share information to improve their operational efficiency. As cattle move through stages in the supply system, little or no information is relayed back to the previous rancher. Ranchers don’t know the answers to even simple questions, such as whether cow X or cow Y birthed a calf that graded US Choice. A traceability system from birth to beef would improve management practices for ranchers across the nation, making US markets more competitive.

Traceability would improve profitability for ranchers and bring more funds to their rural communities.

The new USDA electronic identification rule strongly benefits America. It helps officials respond quicker to disease outbreaks.

It helps achieve a national safe food supply.

It keeps agricultural markets open.

But…do you know where your beef comes from?

USDA needs to go further and expand traceability from birth to beef.

This traceability would empower individual Americans with the capability and freedom to choose beef that aligns with their needs and values.

It would further improve ranch management and profitability, bringing more funds to rural communities.

USDA doesn’t have to achieve this goal alone. Entities such as blockchain-driven agriculture cooperatives could strongly assist. USDA has to change the rules to make the effort possible.

May God bless the United States of America.

Чи підтримує Америка боротьбу України проти Росії, бо це відповідає її власним інтересам? Чи слід нам припинити фінансування цих зусиль в Україні?

Філософія

Томас Гоббс у своїй праці "Левіафан", опублікованій у 1651 році, виклав свої погляди на теорію суспільного договору. Протягом цього періоду Англія пережила значні потрясіння. Громадянська війна в Англії була на піку, фракції боролися за владу монархії, релігійні розбіжності та соціальні заворушення. Нестабільність і насильство врешті-решт призвели до суду та страти короля Карла I у 1649 році.

У цьому контексті Гоббс розробив філософію, засновану на досить похмурому погляді на людську природу. Він вважав людство конкурентоспроможним і стверджував, що особи переважно діють у власних інтересах. Гоббс стверджував, що люди роблять вибір, який, на їхню думку, максимізує їхні переваги або користь, навіть за рахунок інших.

Гоббс окреслив, що особи живуть у постійному страху перед насильством, що призводить до життя, яке є "самітнім, бідним, підлим, жорстоким і коротким". Цей концептуальний каркас пояснював, чому він вважав, що суверени необхідні — щоб нав'язувати порядок та запобігати війні всіх проти всіх. На думку Гоббса, особи керуються раціональним егоїзмом. Вони погоджуються укласти суспільний договір і створити суверена, щоб уникнути цього вічного конфлікту та забезпечити власне виживання.

Вибір назви Гоббсом є захоплюючим. Він назвав свої погляди на теорію суспільного договору Левіафаном на честь біблійного морського чудовиська з єврейських текстів. У Книзі Йова, написаній близько 2000 року до н.е., Левіафан є потужною істотою, яку може підкорити лише Бог. У Книзі Псалмів Левіафан чекає, коли Бог його нагодує.

Гоббс використав Левіафана для символізації абсолютистської держави. Щоб підтримувати мир і порядок, держава повинна мати вищу владу, як Левіафан. Ця влада була необхідна, щоб запобігти анархії людської природи, яка могла б привести суспільство до безладу і насильства. Його метафора підкреслювала його аргумент про природу людей і структуру суспільства, виступаючи за сильну центральну владу для досягнення мирного і стабільного суспільного порядку.

Сучасні теоретики застосовують принципи Гоббса до міжнародних відносин.

У книзі "Війна та зміни у світовій політиці", опублікованій у 1981 році, Роберт Гілпін використовує реалізм Гоббса. На відміну від Гоббса, який концептуалізував індивідів та їхні інтереси, Гілпін розглядав нації. Індивіди об'єднуються для розвитку коаліцій, і ці коаліції мають інтереси. Коли коаліції є націями, нації створюють міжнародні партнерства для розвитку своїх інтересів. Ці міжнародні партнерства представляють Левіафан.

Отже, з гоббсіанської точки зору, нації перш за все турбуються про власне виживання і владу. Вони діють самостійно і разом з партнерськими націями, створюючи сприятливі умови та забезпечуючи та підтримуючи свободу дій і вплив. Ці нації формують коаліції та міжнародні партнерства не з альтруїзму, а як стратегічне зусилля для посилення власної сили, стабільності та інтересів.

Підсумовуючи, для забезпечення безпеки у світі гоббсіанського реалізму:

Нації повинні діяти незалежно: нації діють автономно, щоб захистити та просувати власні інтереси.

Нації діють через партнерства: нації вступають у союзи, щоб зміцнити свою силу та стабільність, покращуючи своє стратегічне положення у світі.

Ці принципи застосовуються до фінансування Америкою зусиль України захищати себе від вторгнення Росії. Фінансуючи Україну, Америка діє як незалежно, так і через партнерства, щоб підсилити власну силу, стабільність та інтереси.

Америка діє незалежно заради України та американського народу

Фінансуючи зусилля України захистити себе, Америка діє, щоб підсилити власну безпеку та стабільність. Америку змушують діяти, оскільки Росія фінансує насильницький екстремізм проти Америки. Підтримка України безпосередньо зменшує здатність Росії спонсорувати цей екстремізм, тим самим збільшуючи безпеку для американського народу.

Сьогодні Росія та російські групи спонсорують насильницький екстремізм в Африці та на Близькому Сході. Посол та директор Вільсонівського центру Марк Грін вказав, що «регіон підсахарної Африки зазнав значного зростання екстремістського насильства, що становить більше ніж 40% від загальносвітових смертей, пов'язаних з тероризмом у 2022 році.» Двадцять один рік тому насильницький екстремізм став причиною найсмертоноснішої атаки на території США в нашій історії.

Сванте Корнелл, доктор філософії, співзасновник та директор Інституту політики безпеки та розвитку, свідчив перед Комітетом з закордонних справ Палати представників США у 2017 році. Він підсумував цілі Росії щодо Америки:

Основна мета Росії — підірвати лідерство США у світі, і коли повстанці та терористи якимось чином сприяють цій меті, Росія не має проблем із координацією з ними, підтримкою їх і, звичайно, маніпулюванням ними.

У відповідь на ці загрози США стратегічно обирають підтримку України. Ця підтримка відображає широке зобов'язання стабілізувати міжнародні відносини та забезпечити наші власні внутрішні інтереси. Ми стримуємо подальшу російську агресію, зберігаючи регіональну стабільність, яка є життєво важливою для безпеки американської батьківщини. Зменшення здатності Росії спонсорувати екстремізм зміцнює глобальний порядок, що стримує держави від підриву безпеки один одного.

Насильницький екстремізм загрожує безпеці США. Росія спонсорує насильницький екстремізм. Тому Росія загрожує безпеці США. Америка має діяти самостійно, щоб протидіяти цілям Росії.

У гоббсіанських термінах, відсутність світового уряду призводить до глобальної анархії і змушує держави забезпечувати власну безпеку. Спонсорство Росією насильницького екстремізму є спробою скористатися цією анархією, ослабити своїх противників та змінити баланс сил на свою користь, щоб повернути вплив, втрачений після розпаду Радянського Союзу.

Підтримка США Україні стримує подальшу російську агресію і зберігає регіональну стабільність. Це допомагає забезпечити безпеку американської батьківщини, зменшуючи здатність Росії спонсорувати екстремізм, який міг би загрожувати нашим інтересам. Це також зміцнює глобальний порядок, що стримує держави від підриву безпеки один одного.

Америка діє через партнерства для захисту американського народу

Жодна нація не може одноосібно підтримувати глобальну стабільність.

Міжнародні альянси виступають як паралелі до Левіафана Гоббса. Цей сучасний Левіафан діє як надсуверенна сила, що нав'язує порядок у міжнародній системі та запобігає занепаду в хаос і насильство. Америка діє разом і підтримує наших міжнародних партнерів, щоб підтримувати Левіафана, який сприяє глобальній стабільності.

Гоббс розглядав Левіафана як всемогутнього суверена, який міг нав'язати порядок і запобігти природному стану війни серед людей. У сучасних міжнародних відносинах жодна нація не є глобальним сувереном; коаліції, такі як НАТО, є колективними Левіафанами. Ці альянси об'єднують силу окремих держав, щоб сформувати коаліції, які діють, щоб підтримувати мир і стабільність на широку масштабу.

Зокрема, НАТО було створено після Другої світової війни, перш за все як засіб стримування радянської агресії в Європі. Його роль еволюціонувала до включення управління кризами та кооперативної безпеки. Ця еволюція показує, як НАТО нав'язує порядок і запобігає конфліктам через стратегічний баланс сил.

У лютому міністр оборони США Ллойд Дж. Остін III підкреслив, що ця міжнародна коаліція “надала більше ніж 87 мільярдів доларів допомоги в галузі безпеки Україні з початку війни Путіна, включаючи 15 союзників США, які, як відсоток від ВВП, вносять більший внесок у потреби України у спроможностях, ніж Сполучені Штати”.

Росія загрожує партнерам у наших міжнародних альянсах. Росія проводить кібератаки та кампанії дезінформації проти Америки та наших партнерів по НАТО. Росія також становить фізичну загрозу партнерським націям НАТО, включаючи фізичні загрози проти прикордонної країни Фінляндії, найновішого члена НАТО. Путін стверджує, що загрожує нашим партнерам по НАТО, щоб “нейтралізувати загрози, пов'язані з останнім розширенням НАТО”.

НАТО та інші міжнародні альянси діють, щоб нав'язати порядок у міжнародній системі та запобігти хаосу та насильству. Америка діє через ці партнерства, щоб служити нашим власним інтересам та збільшувати безпеку та стабільність для американців.

Наша зобов'язання щодо України, яка не є членом НАТО, є зобов'язанням перед нашими партнерами по НАТО та іншими європейськими партнерами. Підтримуючи Україну, ми підтримуємо міжнародну систему, яку наші альянси впливають.

Твердження про те, що ми не повинні підтримувати Україну, тому що вона не є членом НАТО, і її безпека не має нічого спільного з нашою безпекою, ігнорує наше зобов'язання перед нашими партнерами. Наші партнери по НАТО підтримували операції в Афганістані протягом 18 років разом з Америкою. Чи вплинула наша безпека в Афганістані на їхню? Швидше за все, ні. Але вони виконали своє зобов'язання перед Америкою, і ми повинні зробити те ж саме. Більше того, якби Україна була членом НАТО, ми вже були б у стані війни. Фінансування зусиль України проти Росії вимагає значно менших витрат грошей і крові, ніж військові операції.

І... Конституція США

Ще одне питання, яке ми повинні задати щодо нашого зобов'язання перед Україною, це те, що Конституція США говорить про безпеку. З преамбули:

Ми, народ Сполучених Штатів, з метою… забезпечити спільний захист

Америка існує як нація, щоб забезпечувати безпеку для американського народу, серед інших причин. Це буквально частина причини, чому кожна група людей, організована як штат, погодилася сформувати Союз Сполучених Штатів.

Олександр Гамільтон, пишучи Федералістський нарис № 23, явно виправдав логіку Конституції та окреслив мету Союзу. Його основні цілі включали захист членських штатів, підтримання миру всередині країни та проти зовнішніх загроз, регулювання торгівлі з іншими країнами та між штатами, а також нагляд за нашими взаємодіями з іншими країнами.

Конституція конкретно доручає обраним представникам забезпечувати спільний захист та нагляд за взаємодіями з іншими націями. Це завдання може бути прямо пов'язане з сучасними рішеннями зовнішньої політики. Ми підтримуємо оборону України, щоб стримувати російську агресію, стабілізувати регіон, зменшити загрози для європейських союзників та захистити американський народ.

Прихильність Конституції до спільного захисту є сучасним втіленням гоббсіанського принципу сильної влади, яка забезпечує безпеку та мир. Ця влада підтримує міжнародний порядок та запобігає широкій регіональній нестабільності.

Гоббсіанська філософія розглядає людську природу як стан анархії та насильства. Його Левіафан представляє потужний символ порядку та стабільності.

Жодна нація не може одноосібно підтримувати глобальну стабільність.

Щоб здобути та підтримати безпеку для американського народу, Америка має діяти самостійно та в рамках міжнародних коаліцій, щоб створити цього Левіафана.

Росія спонсорує насильницький екстремізм, який загрожує американському народу.

Росія атакує наші міжнародні альянси, що загрожує міжнародному порядку та безпеці американського народу.

Ми не підтримуємо Україну за рахунок американського народу. Ми підтримуємо Україну, щоб захистити американський народ.

Чи підтримує Америка боротьбу України проти Росії, діючи у власних інтересах?

Ці зусилля відповідають нашим власним інтересам з підтримання глобального порядку та мінімізації насильства.

Нехай Бог благословить Україну.

Is America supporting Ukraine’s fight against Russia, acting in our self-interest? Or should we stop funding the effort in Ukraine?

Philosophy

Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan, published in 1651, presented his views on social contract theory. During this period, England experienced significant upheaval. The English Civil War raged, with factions fighting over monarchy power, religious discord, and social upheaval. The instability and violence ultimately led to the trial and execution of King Charles I in 1649.

In this context, Hobbes developed a philosophy based on a rather bleak view of human nature. He viewed humankind as competitive and posited individuals primarily act in their own self-interest. Hobbes asserted individuals make choices that they perceive maximize their advantage or benefit, even at the expense of others.

Hobbes outlined individuals live in constant fear of violence, leading to a life that is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short." This conceptual framework explained why he believed sovereigns were necessary—to impose order and prevent the war of all against all. In Hobbes’ view, individuals are driven by rational self-interest. They agree to form a social contract and establish a sovereign to escape this perpetual conflict and ensure their own survival.

Hobbes’ choice of title is fascinating. He named his views on the social contract theory Leviathan in reference to a biblical sea monster from Hebrew texts. In the Book of Job, written about 2000 BC, the Leviathan is a powerful creature that only God can subdue. In the Book of Psalms, the Leviathan waits for God to feed it.

Hobbes used the Leviathan to symbolize the absolutist state. To maintain peace and order, the state must have supreme power, like the Leviathan. This power was necessary to prevent the anarchy of human nature from leading society into disorder and violence. His metaphor emphasized his argument about the nature of human beings and the structure of society, advocating for a strong central authority to achieve a peaceful and stable social order.

Modern theorists apply Hobbesian principles to international relations.

In War and Change in World Politics, published in 1981, Robert Gilpin draws on Hobbesian realism. In contrast to Hobbes, who conceptualized individuals and their interests, Gilpin considered nations. Individuals join to develop coalitions, and these coalitions have interests. When the coalitions are nations, the nations create international partnerships to advance their interests. These international partnerships represent a Leviathan.

Therefore, from a Hobbesian perspective, nations are primarily concerned with their own survival and power. They act alone and with partner nations to create favorable conditions and gain and maintain freedom of action and influence. These nations form coalitions and international partnerships not out of altruism but as a strategic effort to enhance their own strength, stability, and interests.

In summary, to ensure security in a world of Hobbesian realism:

* Nations must take independent action: Nations act autonomously to safeguard and promote their own interests.

* Nations act through partnerships: Nations engage in alliances to bolster their strength and stability, enhancing their strategic position globally.

These principles apply to America funding Ukraine’s effort to defend itself against Russia’s invasion. By funding Ukraine, America acts both independently and through partnerships to enhance our own strength, stability, and interests.

America Acts Independently for Ukraine and the American People

By funding Ukraine’s effort to defend itself, America acts to enhance our own security and stability. America is compelled to act because Russia funds violent extremism against America. Supporting Ukraine directly reduces Russia’s capacity to sponsor this extremism, thereby increasing security for the American people.

Today, Russia and Russian groups sponsor violent extremism in Africa and the Middle East. Ambassador and Director of the Wilson Center Mark Green identified, “The sub-Saharan region has seen a significant rise in extremist violence, accounting for more than 40% of global terrorism-related deaths in 2022.” Twenty-one years ago, violent extremism was the cause of the most deadly attack on US soil in our history.

Svante Cornell, PhD, co-founder and Director of the Institute for Security and Development Policy, testified before the Committee on Foreign Affairs, US House of Representatives in 2017. He summed up Russia’s aims with regard to America:

Russia's main aim is to undermine U.S. leadership in the world, and when insurgents and terrorists contribute to this goal in one way or another, Russia has no problem with coordinating with them, supporting them, and, of course, manipulating them.

In response to these threats, the US strategically chooses to support Ukraine. This support reflects a broad commitment to stabilize international relations and secure our own domestic interests. We deter further Russian aggression to maintain regional stability, which is crucial for the security of the American homeland. Reducing Russia's capability to sponsor extremism strengthens the global order that discourages states from undermining each other's security.

Violent extremism threatens US security. Russia sponsors violent extremism. Therefore, Russia threatens US security. America must act on its own to counter Russia’s aims.

In Hobbesian terms, the absence of a world government results in global anarchy and compels states to ensure their own security. Russia's sponsorship of violent extremism is an attempt to exploit this anarchy, weaken its adversaries, and alter the balance of power in its favor to gain back the influence it lost when the Soviet Union dissolved.

US support for Ukraine deters further Russian aggression and maintains regional stability. This helps secure the American homeland by reducing Russia’s capability to sponsor extremism that could threaten our interests. It also strengthens a global order that discourages states from undermining each other’s security.

America Acts Through Partnerships to Protect the American People

No single nation can unilaterally maintain global stability.

International alliances serve as parallels to Hobbes's Leviathan. This modern-day Leviathan acts as a super-sovereign power that imposes order in the international system and prevents descent into chaos and violence. America acts with and supports our international partners to maintain the Leviathan that promotes global stability.

Hobbes viewed the Leviathan as an all-powerful sovereign that could impose order and prevent the natural state of war among humans. In modern international relations, no single nation is a global sovereign; coalitions such as NATO are collective Leviathans. These alliances aggregate the power of individual states to form coalitions that act to maintain peace and stability on a broad scale.

NATO, in particular, was established in the aftermath of World War II, primarily as a means of deterring Soviet aggression in Europe. Its role has evolved to include crisis management and cooperative security. This evolution shows how NATO imposes order and prevents conflict through a strategic balance of power.

In February, US Secretary of Defense Lloyd J. Austin III highlighted this international coalition has “committed more than $87 billion in security assistance to Ukraine since the start of Putin's war—including 15 U.S. allies that, as a percentage of GDP, contribute more to Ukraine's capability needs than the United States.”

Russia threatens partners in our international alliances. Russia conducts cyber attacks and disinformation campaigns against America and our NATO partners. Russia also poses physical threats to partner NATO nations, including issuing physical threats against border nation Finland, NATO’s newest member. Putin claims to threaten our NATO partners in order to “neutralize threats connected to the latest expansion of NATO.”

NATO and other international alliances act to impose order in the international system and prevent chaos and violence. America acts through these partnerships to serve our own interests and increase security and stability for Americans.

Our commitment to Ukraine, which is not a NATO member, is a commitment to our NATO and other European partners. By supporting Ukraine, we support the international system that our alliances influence.

Arguing that we shouldn’t support Ukraine because it isn’t a NATO member and its security has nothing to do with our security overlooks our commitment to our partners. Our NATO partners supported operations in Afghanistan for 18 years alongside America. Did our security in Afghanistan impact theirs? Likely not. But they honored their commitment to America, and we need to do the same. Further, if Ukraine were a NATO member, we would already be at war. Funding Ukraine’s efforts against Russia requires significantly less treasure in money and blood than military operations.

And…The US Constitution

Another question we should ask regarding our commitment to Ukraine is what the US Constitution says about security. From the Preamble:

We the People of the United States, in Order to…provide for the common defense

America exists as a nation to provide security for the American people, among other reasons. It’s literally part of the reason each group of people, organized as a state, agreed to form the Union of the United States.

Alexander Hamilton, writing Federalist Paper No. 23, explicitly justified the logic of the Constitution and outlined the purpose of the Union. Its primary goals included defending the member states, maintaining peace within the country and against external threats, regulating commerce with other nations and between states, and overseeing our interactions with other countries.

The Constitution specifically tasks elected representatives with providing for the common defense and overseeing interactions with other nations. This mandate can be linked directly to contemporary foreign policy decisions. We support Ukraine’s defense in order to deter Russian aggression, stabilize the region, reduce threats to European allies, and protect the American people.

The Constitution's dedication to common defense is a modern implementation of the Hobbesian principle for a strong authority to ensure security and peace. This authority maintains international order and prevents broad regional instability.

Hobbesian philosophy views human nature as a state of anarchy and violence. His Leviathan represents a powerful symbol of order and stability.

No single nation can unilaterally maintain global stability.

To gain and maintain security for the American people, America must act on its own and within international coalitions to create this Leviathan.

Russia sponsors violent extremism, which threatens the American people.

Russia attacks our international alliances, which threatens international order and the security of the American people.

We don’t support Ukraine at the expense of the American people. We support Ukraine to protect the American people.

Is America supporting Ukraine’s fight against Russia, acting in our self-interest?

These efforts are in our own self-interest to maintain global order and minimize violence.

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript.

For those who would argue we should secure our own border first, here’s a link to a four-part series on US southern border security:

The Rise and Fall of an Industrial Giant

The lack of tariffs on foreign steel led to the downfall of American steel. We watched as plants closed and people lost their jobs amid a significant decline in the domestic industry's global competitiveness.

Augustus Wolle founded the Saucona Iron Company in 1857 in Saucon Valley, Pennsylvania. The company moved to Bethlehem in 1861 and rebranded as Bethlehem Steel Corporation in 1903 under Charles Schwab’s presidency. Schwab elevated the company to new heights, making it a manufacturing juggernaut instrumental in shaping American infrastructure. Bethlehem Steel became the largest munitions supplier for the Allies during WWI and produced more ship tonnage than any other US company in WWII.

Bethlehem Steel was foundational to constructing American icons. The company's steel formed the backbone of 80 percent of the New York skyline, including landmarks like the Empire State Building, George Washington Bridge, Madison Square Garden, and Rockefeller Center. Landmarks outside New York included the Golden Gate Bridge, Hoover Dam, and the US Supreme Court Building. Throughout the 20th Century, Bethlehem Steel exemplified American industrial leadership.

The landscape shifted in the 1970s and 1980s as cheaper steel imports from emerging markets, including China, began flooding the US market. Asian governments subsidized their steel production, and their imports were priced lower than American steel. Bethlehem struggled to compete due to its older plants, higher labor costs, and stricter domestic environmental regulations compared to those in emerging markets. The company faced layoffs and plant closures.

Globalization intensified in the 1990s with the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the prospect of China joining the World Trade Organization. By 2001, unable to innovate or modernize, Bethlehem Steel filed for bankruptcy. In 2003, International Steel Group Inc. acquired the company. Pennsylvania redeveloped the former Bethlehem Steel site into a mixed-use facility featuring a casino, museum, and cultural center.

Today, Bethlehem Steel's legacy continues to inform ongoing discussions in America regarding trade policies, national security, and our economic future, particularly in debates concerning tariffs with China. This history serves as a critical lesson in the consequences of unprotected industries and the importance of thoughtful trade policy.

Current Debates on Tariffs and Environmental Policy

Tariffs are traditional tools for protecting domestic industries, but they also have the potential to address global environmental challenges.

The Wall Street Journal on April 17 reported that President Biden intended to significantly increase tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum products. The proposed tariffs, which would more than triple the current rate to 25% from 7.5%, are part of a broader strategy to protect domestic industries. This move follows the tariffs imposed by President Trump’s administration, further fueling the ongoing debates on trade policies and the steel industry.

There is strong concern about Chinese manufacturing goods flooding the market. To attempt to kickstart its economy, China is pushing cheap goods onto other countries. On April 19, WSJ reported that in the past year, “China exported 95 million metric tons of steel…a sum that exceeds estimates for total U.S. steel consumption in all of 2022.” Experts liken this surge to the early 2000s, which cost the US around two million manufacturing jobs.

We consider tariffs vital to maintaining US manufacturing jobs, capability, and competitiveness. However, another critical aspect often overlooked in discussions about tariffs is the economic cost of climate change.

We debate the cause and impact of climate change, but we can’t debate that it is happening. Some argue that man-made emissions from activities such as burning fossil fuels are the primary cause. They emphasize human activity's impact on increasing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Others contend that natural phenomena like wildfires and volcanic eruptions are more influential.

No matter your opinion of the cause, the effect is proven. The Earth is warming.

To connect the discussion on tariffs and climate change, we need to make a couple of assumptions. An assumption is a premise or starting point accepted as true for the purposes of argument or investigation.

First, we assume that humankind burning fossil fuels causes a buildup of greenhouse gases, which warms the Earth. The scientific community widely supports this position.

Second, we assume that imposing tariffs on imported goods from countries with less stringent environmental regulations could incentivize these countries to adopt cleaner, more sustainable manufacturing practices. Historical precedents in environmental economics show that economic incentives drive substantial policy changes and technological innovations in manufacturing.

These assumptions allow us to explore the potential that tariffs, traditionally seen as instruments of economic policy, can also be strategically used to encourage stricter global environmental standards.

Proposed Solutions and Global Cooperation

Climate change has a high cost to American taxpayers in real US dollars.

The January 2022 Deloitte Economics Institute report, The Turning Point: A New Economic Climate in the United States, found that inaction on climate change could “result in economic losses to the US economy of $14.5 trillion (in present-value terms) over the next 50 years.” Preventative measures like tariffs could be economically beneficial in the long run compared to the costs of climate inaction.

Starting in the 1960s and 1970s, America exported manufacturing jobs overseas, often to countries with less stringent environmental practices. Jack Welch and General Electric (GE) were at the forefront of this movement, leading the American push to offshore jobs to maintain a competitive edge. As more American companies joined the trend, it eroded US manufacturing capability and inadvertently contributed to the increase in global greenhouse gas emissions.

That was our moment to save Bethlehem Steel. Instead, we chose to export our manufacturing base overseas. Had we implemented protective tariffs during the 1960s and 1970s to level the playing field for American manufacturers, some of those jobs would have stayed here. Those companies would have had better environmental practices, potentially reducing overall global emissions. Instead, when we sent manufacturing abroad to countries with little or no environmental regulations, we increased the level of greenhouse gases in the global environment.

Tariffs today could still make a difference and influence environmental policies abroad. Imposing tariffs on goods produced with poor environmental standards encourages sustainable manufacturing practices worldwide. They would reduce the market for goods made with poor practices.

These proposed tariffs aren’t intended to be punitive. By setting higher standards for imported goods, we aim to elevate global manufacturing processes to promote a cleaner, more sustainable manufacturing sector worldwide.

Strengthening environmental standards through tariffs helps combat climate change and boosts the competitiveness of American businesses. By ensuring that foreign manufacturers meet high environmental standards, we level the playing field for American companies that already adhere to strict regulations. This dual benefit of protecting the environment while leveling the playing field for American businesses is a point on which both political parties can agree.

As an additional benefit, working with global partners to establish this standard would make American businesses more competitive at home and abroad. The effort would keep more jobs here at home.

Challenges and Mitigation

We can mitigate the approach's downsides, but higher tariffs will cause short-term economic adjustments. Countries affected by the tariffs could respond with retaliatory tariffs. Tariffs generally lead to higher prices for imported goods, which are passed on to consumers. Determining and monitoring the environmental standards of manufacturing practices in other countries can be challenging. These tariffs could strain diplomatic relations, especially with major trading partners.

The long-term benefits of sustainable economic growth, reduced climate impact, and improved global health far outweigh these initial challenges.

We should have saved Bethlehem Steel and American manufacturing in the 1960s and 1970s. Instead, we exported our manufacturing overseas.

When we sent manufacturing abroad, companies chose to make goods using poor environmental practices.

Climate change has a high cost to American taxpayers in real US dollars.

We missed our chance to save American manufacturing and environmental health with tariffs. But the best time to build a future that values economic prosperity alongside environmental integrity is now.

We shouldn’t increase tariffs on Chinese steel because it’s Chinese. We should increase tariffs on all manufacturing goods that aren’t made to the same environmental standards as American goods.

May God bless the United States of America.

We often hear that land doesn’t vote; people do.

How about a different perspective?

Land doesn’t have rights, but land endows rights.

What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?

We often hear that “land doesn’t vote; people do.” This phrase highlights the humanity of our democratic republic. The adage emphasizes rights of the individual and the collective power of the electorate to shape governance and policy. But, the viewpoint oversimplifies the intertwined relationship between people and the soil.

Land doesn’t have rights, but land endows rights. Geographical boundaries and birthplaces shape individual rights, demonstrating the enduring influence of the land on our legal and societal frameworks.

The Latin Jus soli, or the right of the soil, is a cornerstone of our legal and societal frameworks. It grants individuals a national identity rooted in their birthplace.

Our Constitution establishes rights granted to all Americans by the soil, including rights of citizenship, representation, and national service.

This connection between land and individual rights becomes especially clear when we consider the legal foundations of citizenship in America. Citizenship’s roots grow into this concept of the soil.

Citizenship

Citizenship in America is founded on jus soli, the right of the soil, and jus sanguinis, the right of blood. The right of the soil carries into the right of blood.

Wong Kim Ark was born in San Francisco in 1870 to Wee Lee and Wong Si Ping. The couple were not American citizens and had no path to citizenship; they returned to China when Wong was eight.

In August 1895, at the age of 24, Wong made a return trip to San Francisco with papers certifying his identity and legal standing as a citizen born on American soil. US customs official John H. Wise denied Wong’s entry on the grounds of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act and the 1880 Angell Treaty between the US and Qing Dynasty China, which recognized America’s ability to restrict Chinese immigration. Wise ordered Wong deported.

Wong appealed the decision and remained on shipping vessels for several months off the coast of California. In 1897, the US Supreme Court heard his case. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the court found Wong to be an American citizen on the grounds of the 14th Amendment’s first clause: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

During deliberation, the court found Wong was born in the US. Further, though his parents were subjects to the Emperor of China, they were not “employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China.” The court affirmed that Wong was subject to US jurisdiction at birth and thus a citizen by virtue of the 14th Amendment.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark upheld the principle of the right of the soil for determining citizenship. It firmly clarified that children born in America to foreign citizens are US citizens, even if their parents have no allegiance to America. The Supreme Court's decision established a broad interpretation of the 14th Amendment. It ensured that the vast majority of children born on American soil are entitled to citizenship, regardless of their parents' nationality. Though the fight for equal treatment of Asian Americans continued well past Mr. Wong, this ruling has had a lasting impact on immigration and citizenship policies.

Jus soli grants citizenship to all born on US soil and carries through blood. The right of blood extends the right of citizenship across borders, allowing children born abroad to American citizens to inherit their citizenship. This dual foundation reflects a comprehensive understanding of national belonging—rights rooted in the physical land of America that reach through the blood to extend the inalienable rights to those born to American parents worldwide.

Just as jus soli grants citizenship, it also confers the right to participate in our democratic republic. This extension of rights from the land empowers us as participants in the national discourse.

Representation

The 14th Amendment is not the earliest affirmation of the right of the soil in the Constitution. The first reference to the premise that soil endows citizens with rights is earlier than even the Bill of Rights.

Specifically, Article II, Section 1 of the US Constitution identifies, “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…”

This section was later amended by the 12th Amendment after some drama in the 1796 and 1800 elections. It forms the basis of the Electoral College, which grants individuals the right to representation in national elections. By ensuring that residents' votes in each state contribute to the national outcome of presidential elections, the Electoral College grants them a meaningful role in the democratic process.

The Constitution achieves this by guaranteeing that every state has a certain number of electors, regardless of population. This system grants "rights" or influence to regions, paralleling how jus soli grants citizenship rights to individuals born on US soil.

Just as the right of the soil grants citizenship, it also guarantees that each geographic state has a say in national elections. Because land doesn’t vote, the Constitution extends this guarantee to the voters in each state.

“Land doesn’t vote; people do” is a misconception. The statement overlooks how the Electoral College system carefully balances geographic diversity and population. The system allocates votes in a manner that accounts for geographic distribution, thereby preventing larger population states from completely dominating national elections. It also supports the underlying principle of our democratic republic—every vote is an expression of an individual's choice, and all states have a voice in national elections.

In short, land doesn’t bestow on Americans the right to vote; it grants people from each state influence in national elections, no matter how small the state. Elected representatives from all states ratified both the US Constitution and the 12th Amendment. Therefore, every American agreed with the premise that each state has a voice in national elections.

The influence of land on rights extends into the highest offices of national service, reinforcing the critical role that birthplace plays in determining who may lead the nation.

National Service

Serving the nation in any capacity is a privilege. Serving in the highest office is a privilege only available to those who are endowed with the right of the soil.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution states, “No Person except a natural born Citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President.” If you weren’t born on US soil or with the right of the soil carried into the right of blood, you are ineligible for the nation’s highest office.

The founders included the natural-born citizen requirement to ensure the President would have the deep-rooted allegiance to the United States that only the right of the soil bestows. They believed the requirement would reduce the risk of foreign governments having control over the nation.

Eight Presidents had parents, or both parents, who were not born on US soil. They range from Andrew Jackson, whose parents were both immigrants, to Donald Trump, whose mother was an immigrant. But all Presidents have been natural-born citizens, either born on US soil or to US citizens abroad in an official capacity.

National service is a distinguished honor, especially when it involves leading the country. Only those granted citizenship by the right of the soil or the right of the soil through the blood are eligible. This precedent safeguards the presidency from foreign influence, ensuring the President's loyalty lies firmly with America.

Now for our question: What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?

Birthright citizenship isn’t a legal formality. It’s a fundamental cornerstone of American democracy and identity. It ensures that every person born on American soil is a part of the nation's fabric, endowed with the rights and responsibilities that fortify our collective future. Overturning the precedent would lead to a future where many are isolated, disenfranchised, and alienated from the civic body.

Attempting to repeal birthright citizenship would disregard the strong precedent that allegiance to America is gained through the right of the soil.

Some argue that we should repeal birthright citizenship to preserve national identity and ensure we grant citizenship only to those with a provable connection to the United States. But national identity and unity come from commitment to the American ideal, not from repealing birthright citizenship.

Some argue for the repeal of birthright citizenship because children of non-citizens place an undue economic burden on American taxpayers. They cite the costs of public education, healthcare, and other social services. This perspective overlooks the long-term economic contributions of immigrants and their children, who stay in America for generations.

Finally, proponents of repealing birthright citizenship argue it would enhance national security and more effectively control immigration. In fact, it would lead to stateless individuals inside the country, creating a marginalized group that's more vulnerable to radicalization and exploitation. Individuals born on American soil have a clear and immediate stake in the country's future, promoting societal integration and cohesion.

Throughout our discussion, from citizenship to national representation and service, we see a consistent theme: soil bestows rights on Americans.

Our Constitution firmly establishes that we are tied to the soil and the soil through blood. Birthright citizenship is crucial for American identity and the health of our democratic republic.

The Constitution grants individuals rights of citizenship, representation, and national service based on the soil. These rights underscore the importance of soil—whether a specific place of one's birth or the geographic boundaries of states—in defining what it means to be American.

National identity and unity come from shared values and commitments to the American ideal.

What would repealing Birthright Citizenship mean?

Attempting to repeal birthright citizenship would disregard the strong precedent the Constitution establishes: namely, jus soli imprints allegiance on Americans.

May God bless the United States of America.

Has capitalism failed the housing market?

We need to examine the decisive points that lead us through some philosophy to consider capitalism’s impact on housing affordability and supply.

Ultimately, our goal should be to achieve an adequate supply of homes, resulting in a median home price of two times the median household income for that area.

Capitalism and Housing

Scottish Economist and Philosopher Adam Smith speaking on capitalism in 1776:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages.

Capitalism is an economic system characterized by private ownership of production and operations for profit. Central tenets of capitalism include wealth accumulation, competitive markets, private property, and the recognition of property rights. Private citizens control property and act in their self-interest to gain economic prosperity. Production, distribution, income, and prices are determined mainly through markets rather than governments.

Capitalism drives significant economic growth and innovation and increases standards of living. However, it can also lead to exploitation and economic inequality. Capitalism proponents assert that the most efficient use of resources occurs when individuals make decisions based on market signals without government influence.

The American housing market thrives on capitalism, but the system is a double-edged sword.

Capitalism undeniably demonstrates the ability to drive progress and meet consumer demand. It benefits America’s housing market through innovation, efficiency, and investment opportunities. The drive for profit encourages innovation and efficiency. Capitalism supports a robust real estate market. Markets allow individuals to invest in property, contributing to personal wealth and economic growth.

However, capitalism also leads to systemic challenges in the housing market. It creates affordability challenges and widens income inequality. In many urban and desirable areas, housing prices have escalated beyond the reach of middle- and lower-income families.

Moving from Adam Smith's capitalist ideals, which highlight market-driven self-interest, to John Locke's philosophical stance, we encounter a compelling case for governance that honors and protects natural rights, including the essential need for housing.

The Role of Government in Capitalism

John Locke, the foundational philosopher of the US Constitution, championed a government that actively preserved property rights. He viewed these rights as more than just material possessions. They extended beyond physical holdings to include individual liberty and the fruits of one’s labor. His vision extended beyond debates about regulation.

Regarding property, Locke, in his Two Treatises of Government, 1690, said:

The great and chief end…of men’s…putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.

In essence, Locke believed individuals consent to government to preserve their property—not just physical possessions but life, liberty, and personal estate. Protecting these elements justifies government within society. Some might argue his focus on property rights disregards the needs of those who may not have property or the means to acquire it. However, Locke’s premise was that everyone owns property, even if that property is owning yourself.

Locke’s view of property rights relates to today’s affordable housing challenges through his understanding of the government’s responsibility. We have a duty not only to protect these rights but also to create conditions under which citizens can secure their own properties, which in a modern sense includes affordable housing.

Securing basic needs allows individuals to pursue prosperity and stability. These can’t be achieved without heat in the house and food on the table, and you can’t put food on the table without a home to put it in.

Therefore, the people who lead government must address the broader economic conditions that enable individuals to acquire and enjoy property. These conditions include access to affordable housing, fair market practices, and the protection of investments.

The Current State of the Housing Market

The housing market has become untenable. The challenges aren’t an inherent failure of capitalism. They’re a symptom of market-driven systems operating with added government influence but without sufficient intervention to address societal needs.

Government officials at many levels, including cities, counties, states, and the federal level, levy additional housing rules on builders. Many of these requirements are strongly beneficial, such as plumbing, electrical, and personal safety standards. Other requirements, such as zoning, increase housing costs. All combined, the requirements represent government interference that increases the cost of building housing.

The impact of increased building costs is a reduced supply of affordable housing, which has been decreasing since 1960. Builders build bigger homes to recoup their costs. Figure 4-6 below shows a long-term trend in housing production per capita, with a notable decrease in the construction of single-family homes. This downturn in housing is especially pronounced during economic recessions, as evidenced by the gray bars. The data suggests that in our regulatory environment, market-driven production alone doesn’t meet the population's housing needs.

The supply of first-time homebuyer houses is especially low. Figure 4-7 below presents a stark visual representation of the declining trend in the construction of smaller single-family homes since the 1970s. As these homes are often more affordable for first-time homebuyers and lower-income families, the sharp decrease from nearly 40% of homes to just over 5% signifies a shift away from affordable housing. This shift isn’t just a reflection of consumer preference. It indicates market and policy failures.

Adam Smith, the capitalist philosopher, identified we can’t ask builders to build more inexpensive, smaller homes for first-time homebuyers out of the goodness of their hearts. We have to appeal to their self-interest. Building smaller homes has to be profitable.

The government's role, in the Lockean sense, needs to evolve to address the challenges presented by the housing market. The decline in affordable housing isn’t a market outcome. It’s a central concern for policy intervention.

Counterarguments

Critics argue that government regulations like zoning laws and building codes inherently disrupt market efficiencies. However, we need more than unchecked capitalism to ensure equitable access to housing. Targeted government intervention, informed by Locke's principle of protecting property rights and individual liberty, can help correct market failures without undermining overall market efficiency.

Another common critique is that merely increasing the housing supply does not address the deeper issues of market greed and speculation, which can continue to drive prices up, outpacing increases in supply. This argument overlooks the role of targeted policy measures in shaping the type of supply that comes to market. By incentivizing the construction of affordable housing through tax credits, grants, and revised zoning regulations, government action can ensure that increased supply directly addresses the needs of low- and middle-income families.

A more philosophical critique posits that capitalism is inherently unjust, leading to inequality and prioritizing profit over human needs. While capitalism does have its flaws, it is also the driving force behind innovation and economic growth. The issue is not capitalism itself but how it is regulated and directed. By aligning capitalist incentives with societal needs, such as creating affordable housing, we can retain capitalism’s strengths while mitigating its weaknesses.

Proposal

We have examined capitalism's double-edged sword and recognized the duty of government officials to safeguard an individual's rights, including the fundamental right to secure necessary resources. With this common understanding of the philosophy, we can answer our question: Has capitalism failed the housing market?

No, capitalism has not failed the housing market.

Capitalism can’t fail the housing market because it’s an economic system. It’s not accountable to anyone, and no one directs capitalism. It doesn’t aim to achieve housing for low- and middle-income individuals; the goal of a capitalist system is to enable individuals to act in their interest. The success of capitalism—economic growth, innovation, and increased living standards—orients us to keep capitalism for the housing market.

We need to work through the market and increase the supply of homes for low- and middle-income families. In simple economic terms, as the supply of an item rises relative to the demand for that item, the price in the market will decrease. In a capitalist market, the approach to reducing the cost of houses for first-time homebuyers is to increase the supply.

As an example, imagine there are only a few slices of pizza left, and everyone wants one. The price will be high because everyone wants a slice, and they are willing to pay more to get one. But if the kitchen suddenly makes more pizzas, there will be enough for everyone. The price will come down because there's no longer competition for the limited slices. This is similar to what happens in housing. When there are fewer houses available than people who want them (or low supply, high demand), prices go up.

As the latest Congressional Research Service US housing supply report implies, the supply of first-time homebuyer houses is too low. Home prices are unaffordable for low- to middle-income families. The report mentions some ideas, like grants, to reduce the challenges of building new houses. These challenges could be things like permits, zoning laws, or other regulations that make it more expensive or time-consuming to build.

The CRS report identifies other possibilities, such as tax credits for first-time homebuyers and setting goals to increase the supply of building materials. But the reality is those items aren’t direct indicators of affordability for first-time homebuyers.

The direct indicator of housing affordability is the ratio of median household incomes and home prices. The median household income in 1960 was $5,600, and the median cost of a home was $11,900. We need to measure our progress to achieve that 2:1 standard.

In addition to current efforts to increase the supply of affordable housing, we need to set a goal. We need to achieve an adequate supply of homes, resulting in a median home price of two times the median household income for that area.

Has Capitalism failed the housing market?

Capitalism is an economic system. The system drives economic growth and innovation and increases our standard of living.

No, capitalism has not failed the housing market. The goal of a capitalist system isn’t to make housing affordable. The goal is to enable individuals to act in their self-interest.

But while capitalism hasn’t failed per se, it has created a scenario where intervention is necessary to safeguard individual rights. This includes the fundamental right to secure housing.

To enable Americans the ability to secure their own needs, we need to set and measure progress toward a goal. That goal is a median home price of two times the median household income for that area.

May God bless the United States of America.

Postscript.

Mostramos nuestro compromiso con el ideal estadounidense cuando interactuamos entre nosotros con gracia y dignidad. Desde los debates sobre el idioma del siglo XVIII hasta la reciente tragedia en Baltimore, no necesitamos hablar el mismo idioma para respetar los derechos de los demás y agradecernos mutuamente por nuestro servicio.

¿Cuál es el idioma oficial de América?

El 9 de enero de 1794, un grupo de germano-americanos en Virginia solicitó al tercer Congreso de los Estados Unidos que imprimiera las leyes federales tanto en inglés como en alemán para poder entenderlas mejor. En enero de 1795, la Cámara votó en contra y el proyecto de ley no prosperó.

La votación en el pleno de la Cámara fue de 42-41. Durante al menos doscientos años después de la derrota del proyecto de ley, persistió el mito de que el Congreso casi cambia el idioma oficial americano al alemán. Eso nunca fue el caso.

De hecho, el idioma oficial americano nunca estuvo en duda.

América no tiene un idioma oficial.

El 17 de noviembre de 2000. A los 22 años, recién salido de la universidad y como un flamante oficial comisionado de las fuerzas armadas, emprendí mi primer viaje a través de América. Tras mi ceremonia de graduación como oficial, tenía en mano órdenes con 10 días para llegar a mi base de entrenamiento en la costa de California. Con un par de días de sobra, hice un desvío para ir a casa por el Missouri rural para visitar a mis padres y a mi futura esposa. Después de la visita, un amigo y yo nos encontramos justo fuera de St. Louis para viajar juntos el resto del camino. Hasta ese momento, había pasado muy pocos días fuera del Missouri rural.

Viajamos a través de Oklahoma, el panhandle de Texas, Nuevo México y Arizona sin incidentes. En la frontera de California, el agente de inspección se llevó la manzana que iba a comer como merienda, no se permiten frutas del exterior. Justo fuera de Los Ángeles, me detuve en una gasolinera para llenar el tanque. Había escuchado que el tráfico en LA podría ser complicado y no quería quedarme sin gasolina atascado en el tráfico. El empleado no hablaba inglés, y yo no hablaba español. Sin embargo, no hubo problema. Encontramos una manera para que pudiera pagar la gasolina y una Coca-Cola.

En ese momento pensaba que alguien que viviera en América debería hablar inglés. Ahora, eso no me parece importante.

Desde ese día, serví con muchos estadounidenses que levantaron la mano para ofrecerse voluntarios para servir a su nación, y no solo en el ejército. También en el Departamento de Estado, miembros bilingües brillantes de la Actividad Educativa del DoD (DoDEA), la CIA, la NSA, el Cuerpo de Paz, el USDA, y así sucesivamente.

Todos hablaban inglés, pero muchos de sus padres no lo hacían o lo hablaban mal. Pero sus padres habían buscado el individualismo inherente a América, y sus hijos sirvieron a nuestra nación como agradecimiento. Ese hombre en la gasolinera fuera de Los Ángeles, y muchos otros como él, crían a hijos que sirven a nuestra nación con distinción.

Mis experiencias personales destacan que, aunque los estadounidenses no compartamos un idioma común, podemos respetar la libertad individual de los demás. Este principio se refleja en una serie de fallos de la Corte Suprema que han abordado los derechos lingüísticos en la sociedad estadounidense.

Varios casos fascinantes de la Corte Suprema de EE. UU. tratan sobre el idioma y los derechos de los hablantes no angloparlantes en América.

En el primero, Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), el alto tribunal bloqueó una ley de Nebraska que prohibía enseñar idiomas distintos al inglés a los escolares. El Sr. Meyer, quien enseñaba alemán en una escuela luterana, fue condenado bajo esta ley. Apeló su condena. La corte tomó el caso y encontró que la ley violaba su derecho a enseñar alemán y la libertad individual de los padres para controlar la educación de sus hijos, protegida por la 14.ª Enmienda.

En ese momento, la ley de Nebraska buscaba prevenir que las escuelas enseñaran alemán. La ley pretendía "promover el desarrollo cívico inhibiendo la formación y educación de los inmaduros en lenguas e ideales extranjeros antes de que pudieran aprender inglés y adquirir ideales americanos."

En la opinión mayoritaria, el juez James C. McReynolds afirmó que "el mero conocimiento del idioma alemán no puede considerarse razonablemente como dañino."

Nuestro resumen hasta ahora: América no tiene un idioma oficial, y es inconstitucional prevenir la enseñanza a los estadounidenses más jóvenes de un idioma distinto al inglés.

El 22 de noviembre de 2008: Estaba en camino a Irak para unirme a una unidad del Cuerpo de Marines de EE. UU. por varios meses. Antes de mi viaje al campo, me quedé un par de días en el Campamento Buehring, Kuwait, a 15 millas de la frontera sur de Irak. Estaba en el Campamento Buehring para recibir un entrenamiento final en sistemas técnicos utilizados por las fuerzas británicas y estadounidenses. No pude recibir el entrenamiento en EE. UU. porque no teníamos experiencia con el equipo británico.

Nuestro joven instructor británico hablaba con un acento inglés grueso e indescifrable. Comenzó la sesión de entrenamiento contando chistes.

Al principio, ninguno de los estadounidenses en la sala entendía nada de lo que decía. El británico seguía contando chistes.

Después de un par de minutos, algunos de los estadounidenses comenzaron a reírse de los chistes. ¡Eventualmente, todos en la sala estaban aullando de risa! El instructor era realmente gracioso.

Fue entonces cuando el instructor británico comenzó la sesión de entrenamiento. Dijo que podía darse cuenta de cuándo todos comenzábamos a entender su acento porque nos reíamos de los chistes.

Incluso hablar el mismo idioma no significa que nos entendamos entre nosotros.

Un segundo caso fascinante de la Corte Suprema de EE. UU. involucrando el idioma fue Lau v. Nichols (1974). En 1971, las escuelas de San Francisco, California, se integraron y absorbieron a más de 2,800 niños chino-americanos que no dominaban el inglés. El sistema escolar público se negó a ofrecer a los niños educación suplementaria en el idioma inglés y enseñó las clases solo en inglés. Como resultado, los niños no pudieron participar en los programas educativos proporcionados por las escuelas. Los estudiantes llevaron su situación ante el tribunal superior.

En la decisión unánime, la corte dictaminó que un distrito escolar tiene el deber de proporcionar instrucción lingüística suplementaria para los estudiantes que hablan un idioma diferente al inglés. La corte encontró que el distrito escolar de San Francisco violó la Ley de Derechos Civiles de 1964 y negó a los estudiantes la oportunidad de participar en el programa de educación pública. La Corte razonó que simplemente tratar a los estudiantes igual independientemente de sus necesidades lingüísticas no garantizaba su acceso equitativo a la educación.

Basándonos en nuestro resumen, América no tiene un idioma oficial, y es inconstitucional prevenir enseñar a los estadounidenses más jóvenes un idioma diferente al inglés. Sin embargo, el pueblo estadounidense tiene el deber de enseñar inglés a los estudiantes cuando existe una barrera lingüística que impide el acceso equitativo a la educación.

Avanzando rápido al 29 de junio de 2017. Tuve el privilegio de liderar un escuadrón militar como su oficial comandante. Un tercio completo de los miembros del escuadrón eran inmigrantes de primera o segunda generación. Todos los miembros del escuadrón hablaban inglés, pero algunos tenían un fuerte acento. Muchos miembros del escuadrón eran bilingües. Operábamos sistemas técnicos distribuidos y nos comunicábamos con radios y teléfonos. A menudo, el enriquecimiento de la comunicación a través del lenguaje corporal no estaba disponible.

Tuvimos algunos desafíos de comunicación, pero todos compartíamos un compromiso mutuo y con nuestra misión. A pesar de nuestros desafíos, logramos los más altos niveles de seguridad, protección y preparación operativa en comparación con cualquier otro escuadrón durante esos dos años. Sin importar nuestro lugar de nacimiento, todos éramos estadounidenses, proporcionando capacidad de combate para la nación.

Sí, teníamos barreras lingüísticas, pero todos éramos parte de un equipo excepcional.

Un último caso de la Corte Suprema de EE. UU. relacionado con el idioma fue Plyler v. Doe (1982). El caso impugnó una ley de Texas que retenía fondos estatales de los distritos escolares locales necesarios para educar a niños que no habían sido legalmente admitidos en los Estados Unidos. La ley también autorizaba a los distritos escolares a negar la inscripción a estos niños.

El juez William J. Brennan Jr. escribió la opinión mayoritaria. Afirmó: "Al negarles a estos niños una educación básica, les negamos la capacidad de vivir dentro de la estructura de nuestras instituciones cívicas y cerramos cualquier posibilidad realista de que contribuyan de la menor manera al progreso de nuestra Nación."

Varios estados posteriormente impugnaron la sentencia, incluidos California en 1994, Illinois en 2006 y Alabama en 2011. Plyler v. Doe es crucial para los derechos lingüísticos ya que asegura el acceso a la educación para los estudiantes que no hablan inglés, muchos de los cuales son inmigrantes.

Este acceso es crítico para aprender inglés y participar plenamente en la sociedad estadounidense.

Temprano en la mañana del martes 26 de marzo de 2024, un buque contenedor chocó contra el Puente Francis Scott Key en Baltimore. Ocho obreros de construcción que trabajaban para proporcionar capacidad nacional a través del soporte de infraestructura fueron arrojados al agua; solo dos de los hombres sobrevivieron. The Associated Press identificó que los hombres eran de México, Guatemala, Honduras y El Salvador.

El gobernador de Maryland, Wes Moore, se dirigió a las familias en español después del incidente, diciendo: “Estamos contigo, ahora y siempre”. Su elección del idioma refleja un entendimiento de que nuestro compromiso mutuo es más profundo que una barrera lingüística. Su discurso fue un reconocimiento a nuestra herencia multilingüe, mostrando que los estadounidenses hablan muchos idiomas.

Ser estadounidense no se trata de hablar un solo idioma. América representa abrazar los principios de la libertad individual y aceptar la responsabilidad personal de contribuir a la nación. Agradezco a los trabajadores por su compromiso.

Debatimos nuestro idioma y lo que significa ser estadounidense. Los debates legislativos del siglo XVIII continúan hasta nuestros días, enfrentando desafíos contemporáneos y tragedias. Nos recuerdan la libertad, la dignidad y la búsqueda de unidad en la diversidad que nos definen.

América no tiene un idioma oficial. Por haber sido una colonia británica, usamos el inglés en el gobierno y para satisfacer la necesidad práctica de un idioma común.

América es un crisol de muchas culturas. Los inmigrantes legales vienen a América en busca de oportunidad e individualismo. Al mismo tiempo, muchos de estos inmigrantes hablan poco o nada de inglés.

Nuestro tribunal supremo ha mostrado repetidamente dignidad al asegurar que los estadounidenses tengan el derecho a la libertad individual, sin importar su idioma.

Haciendo eco de la corte, mostramos nuestro compromiso con el ideal estadounidense cuando interactuamos entre nosotros con gracia y dignidad. No necesitamos hablar el mismo idioma para respetar los derechos de los demás y agradecernos mutuamente por nuestro servicio.

Que Dios bendiga a los Estados Unidos de América.