Will Common Sense and Sanity Reign Again?

On February 12, 2026, the Trump administration repealed the EPA’s 2009 Endangerment Finding, which classified carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases as threats to public health and welfare. 

This action removed the legal foundation for federal regulation of carbon dioxide that was the basis for a number of mandates affecting the automobile, utility and energy industries.

The 2009 EPA Endangerment Finding stated that carbon dioxide, among other greenhouse gases, was an air pollutant under the Clean Air Act that endangered public health or welfare.

However, the reality is that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant and never was.

“Pollutant” has always meant something that causes immediate or near-term harm: sewage fouling water and spreading disease, smoke that chokes lungs or asbestos scarring lungs from heavy exposure.

Carbon dioxide is a basic building block in our world.

It is in our breath. It is what greens the planet and what feeds our trees and plants and improves crop yields.

Without it we would all die.

It also makes up an infinitesimal share of our atmosphere.

If you think about it, if government can decree that carbon dioxide is a pollutant there is no human or animal activity that cannot be regulated in some way. 

In recent years, we have seen the United States, Canada and many countries in Europe issue scores of regulations and mandate untold policies in order to reduce greenhouse gases based on the argument that it was critical for our survival.

All of the was based not on hard science but on models that projected a warming planet years in the future if carbon emissions were not reduced.

This analysis by John Christy of the University of Alabama-Huntsville shows just how flawed the models have been.

Greenhouse gas emissions have increased over 5-fold in the last 100 years without any discernible threat to humanity. 

The United States and Europe have actually reduced greenhouse gas emissions since 2009 by about 1.4 billion tonnes annually. 

However, Asia has increased greenhouse emissions by almost 8 billion tonnes annually in the same period.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/greenhouse-gas-emissions

What has been the real world effect?

Since the global warming crusade started over 30 years ago there has not even been a one-tenth degree increase in average global temperatures.

There has also been no increase in temperatures in the 16 years since the EPA ruled carbon dioxide was a pollutant despite the global increase in emissions.

Moreover, consider this headline from 16 years ago that warned that within 10 years climate change was going to result in costs exceeding those of both world wars and render swaths of the planet uninhabitable.

And who can forget Al Gore and all of his predictions of impending climate doom that led to being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize?

I wrote a blog post detailing all of the failed predictions with the actual facts as they played out on the 10th anniversary of Gore's 2006 movie, "An Inconvenient Truth".

I followed that up with another blog post a year later about all of Al Gore's hypocrisy on the issue.

The climate alarmists like to talk about the future costs of not acting to curb greenhouse emissions.

However, those are all fictional costs based on those flawed models.

What are the actual real world costs that we have already spent on green initiatives?

Consider just the recent write-offs of investments by auto manufacturers of their investments in electric vehicles.

$26 billion at Stellantis.

$20 billion at Ford.

$7.6 billion at GM.

$6 billion at Porsche.

Has any industry ever destroyed so much value in such a short period of time?

Why did they make such a bad decision?

In 2021, shortly after Biden became President, all the major automakers (except Elon Musk and Tesla) were invited to The White House and given $26.2 billion in government loans to make electric vehicles.

The decisions were made for political purposes above all.

What we are seeing now seems to be the inevitable result when the government attempts to mandate a result that should be left to the free market.

Of course, that is a mere drop in the bucket compared to what has been spent globally to get to "net zero".

As far as costs are concerned, consider what has been spent in the name of attempting to get to "net zero" in Europe, the United State and Canada.

One estimate is that at least $16 trillion has been spent in pursuit of "green" initiatives.

That cost is also increasing by at least $2 trillion per year.

Credit: https://x.com/BjornLomborg/status/2022644543695245490

For what benefit?

What else could that $16 trillion have been spent on that might have had more tangible returns on benefiting humanity?

On hunger? On housing? On healthcare?

We can only hope that Trump's reversal of the EPA ruling will signal a return to sanity and common sense.

Let's hope that starts first with journalists who have endlessly and mindlessly amplified the climate change narrative.

Consider these two headlines in The New York Times.

Two years ago it was reporting about the warm winter having all the hallmarks of global warming.

This year the question is what's up with this big freeze?

Credit: https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/2020341736896360591/photo/1

You also had these headlines in the paper two years apart.

We were facing the end of snow in 2024 and but New Yorkers are now weary of winter and snow.

What is really inconvenient for The New York Times is explaining this week's snow storm that dumped over 20 inches of snow in New York City's Central Park.

This is the 9th largest amount of snow to fall in New York City since 1869!

A record 38 inches of snow fell in Providence, Rhode Island in the same storm.

The Washington Post recently signaled that it may be ready for more sanity in its climate reporting.

Incredibly, The Washington Post had 30 "journalists" reporting on climate change in 2022 after only having 5 on staff in 2020.

The Post has just laid off all but 5 of its climate change reporters in its recent staff cutbacks.

You can be sure of two things looking at this info.

First, it is hard to not see how politically motivated all of this was. The number of climate change reporters went from 5 to 10 and then to 30 when the Biden administration came to power. It is now back to 5 with Trump.

Second, you can be assured that those 30 journalists were not working to report two sides of any climate change story.

I wrote a blog post in 2019 in which I referred to the climate change narrative as the greatest fraud of all time.

I think that assessment still stands although the Covid narrative and the response to it is worthy of consideration on that score.

What is interesting between those two is the popular narrative is that climate change is man-made when it is almost certain humans cannot do anything to outweigh the forces of nature when it comes to the climate.

On the other hand, Dr. Fauci and all the rest spent all their time peddling a narrative that Covid was natural when all the evidence pointed to the fact that it was almost certainly man-made in a Chinese lab.

If all of this had not happened to us it would be hard to believe it.

I first wrote this passage in 2013. It is as true today as it was then.

Only in a liberal mind does it make sense to...

shut down your most cost-effective energy generating source,

shut-off your most abundant energy resource,

raise electricity costs on all Americans,

and risk losing hundreds of thousand of jobs in the process.

In an attempt to solve a problem...

that we are not even sure we have,

and if we do, we are not sure we can do anything about it,

because of natural or external forces that we cannot control, 

that may overwhelm anything we do anyway,

that ultimately works to the advantage of your biggest trade partner,

that will undoubtedly result in more job losses for Americans over the longer term.

May common sense and sanity once again reign supreme.

Disability Costs and Consequences

I have written before about the troubling increase in those reporting a disability in the United States over the last five years.

In February 2021, there were about 30 million Americans reporting a disability.

Today that number is 36 million.

Source: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNU00074597

What are the criteria to be considered to have a disability in the numbers above?

There are six disability types according to the Census Bureau standards that are used in compiling this data.

1. Hearing difficulty  deaf or having serious difficulty hearing 

2. Vision difficulty, blind or having serious difficulty seeing, even when wearing glasses 

3. Cognitive difficulty  Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, having difficulty remembering, concentrating, or making decisions .

4. Ambulatory difficulty  Having serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs 

5. Self-care difficulty  Having difficulty bathing or dressing 

6. Independent living difficulty  Because of a physical, mental, or emotional problem, having difficulty doing errands alone such as visiting a doctor’s office or shopping 

What is going on?

The most obvious answer is that the increased number of those with a disability is due to an aging population.

This clearly explains some of the increase.

However, note that the disability numbers were relatively flat in the previous five years (2015-2020) when the leading wave of Baby Boomers were already beginning to reach their 70's.

Is something else involved here?

Could any of this be due to effects from Covid?

That certainly could be the case.

However, the numbers actually dropped at the beginning of Covid and did not begin to rise dramatically until the period between March and June, 2021 a year into Covid.

Is it a coincidence that the March-June, 2021 period is also when Covid vaccines were being rolled out most aggressively?

An honest analysis should raise the question of whether the Covid vaccines are responsible for the increased numbers in some form or manner.

Is it possible that Covid or the Covid vaccines might have accelerated disability conditions in an already aging population?

My guess is that an aging population, Covid and the vaccines could very likely all be involved in some way in the increased numbers we are seeing with disabilities.

However, there is another factor that I was completely shocked by in looking at the disability data.

That is the huge number of young people who claim to have a disability.

This seems to be a phenomenon that is especially prevalent with college students at elite universities.

Schools that only reported about 5% of their student body with disabilities a decade ago are now reporting disability rates of 3 or 4 times higher.

Stanford reports that almost 40% of their students have some type of disability.

34% of students at Amherst are reported to have a disability.

Here is a graph that shows the changes in disability rates over the last decade at a number of elite universities.

Source: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2025/12/8/harvard-undergrad-disabilities-climb/

At Stanford, 24% of undergrads received some type of academic or housing accommodations in the fall quarter. This might mean advantages such as untimed tests, longer periods to turn in assignments, special food in the cafeteria or a single dorm room.

Contrast those figures to numbers for community colleges where only 3%-4% of students receive some type of disability accommodation.

A female Stanford student recently wrote an article for The Sunday Times in which she revealed how she and others gamed the disability system at the school.

Source: https://www.thetimes.com/us/news-today/article/40-percent-stanford-undergraduates-claim-disabled-sw99r3k8c

At the Ivy League colleges Brown and Harvard, more than 20 per cent of undergrads are registered as disabled. Contrast these numbers with America’s community colleges, where only 3 to 4 per cent of students receive disability accommodations. 

Bizarrely, the schools that boast the most academically successful students are the ones with the largest number who claim disabilities — disabilities that you’d think would deter academic success.

The truth is, the system is there to be gamed, and most students feel that if you’re not gaming it, you’re putting yourself at a disadvantage.

What is most telling in the article is the fact that everyone knows that most of it is all a scam.

But at Stanford, almost no one talks about the system with shame. Rather, we openly discuss, strategise and even joke about it. At a university of savvy optimisers, the feeling is that if you aren’t getting accommodations, you haven’t tried hard enough.

Another student told me that special “accommodations are so prevalent that they effectively only punish the honest”. Academic accommodations, they added, help “students get ahead … which puts a huge proportion of the class on an unfair playing ground”.

After all, if everyone else is doing it, why shouldn't I?

Of course, none of this would be possible if the powers that be actually did managed the issue responsibly.

Administrators seem powerless to reform the system and frankly don’t seem to care. How do you prove someone doesn’t have anxiety? How do you verify they don’t need extra time on a test? How do you challenge a religious dietary claim without risking a discrimination lawsuit?

I often think back to that conversation with my upperclassman friend. She wasn’t proud of gaming the system and she wasn’t ashamed either. She was simply rational. The university had created a set of incentives and she had simply responded to them.

That’s what strikes me most about the accommodation explosion at Stanford and similar schools. The students aren’t exactly cheating and if they are, can you blame them? Stanford has made gaming the system the logical choice.

We used to live in a world where having a disability was so stigmatized that many with a disability did everything in their power to try to overcome it so as to blend in.

Those with a disability worked harder as they wanted to prove they could do almost anything any other person could.

We have now reached a point where the opposite is true. 

Those with the most ability are claiming disability to further their natural advantages.

Of course, all of these disability accommodations then further diminishes those that have real significant physical or mental disabilities.

There is one final anecdote on this subject that I saw recently on X that adds some additional color.

This tweet was from a traveler who was sitting in the boarding area of a Southwest Airlines flight is another example of how claims about disability have changed.

It should be noted that Southwest just abandoned its open seating system earlier this year and went to assigned seating like most other airlines. People with disabilities were permitted to board first and take their pick of seats under the old system.

In recent years this led to increasing number of passengers requesting wheelchairs for their "disability" to allow them to board ahead of other passengers. As many as 25% of passengers on some flights were claiming the need to board early which was a major reason Southwest changed the policy.

Finding out they were boarding last to an assigned seat seems to have healed them of their disability when they realized there might not be space for their carry on baggage in the overheads.

Indeed, it was a miracle!

All of this shows how important incentive structures are in the formation of behavior.

Incentives drive behavior.

There is one absolute when considering human behavior.

Human beings respond to incentives. We quickly understand what is in our interest and what is not, and we respond accordingly. We will act in accordance with what is in our best interest. Period.

If the incentives for people are properly aligned, you will get the behavior and result you want.  If the incentives are not properly aligned, you will get poor results.  Whenever you get a poor result it is likely that you will find that the underlying incentives were not aligned properly.

The other factor in play here seem to be an increasing entitlement attitude in our society.

The more we see someone else get a special benefit the more we each believe that we should also be entitled to the same advantage.

That attitude expands and compounds over time weakening our social fabric. Trust and the boundaries of civil behavior are eroded.

You can see this in the statistics of those receiving Social Security disability payments.

In the 1980's, those on Social Security disability were about 2% of the U.S. workforce. By the 1990's it had grown to 4% and when Obama was President it went to 6%. It is now over 8%.

That entitlement attitude seems to have accelerated even further beginning with Covid.

However, even though Covid retreated, the attitude remains.

That might also be a reason that disability claims have increased as they have in the last five years.

Whatever the reason for the rise in disability numbers, the important point here is that anyone with a disability is in need of some type of support or accomodation and it comes with a cost.

Those costs put additional pressure on everyone else.

We can afford the financial costs that come to support those with real disabilities.

We cannot afford the cost and consequences associated with the loss of trust in our society that comes from those who want to game the system.

The Science of Success

Over the years, as I have observed people who have achieved success, I have concluded that almost every time there is a formula behind it.

I have done a considerable amount of research on the subject and have attempted to define the key elements in most success stories I have examined.

When I speak on the subject I refer to it as "the science of success".

As I watched the Winter Olympics on NBC last week, I saw the following background piece on Gold Medal winning U.S.speed skater Jordan Stolz.

Here is a link to the video on YouTube.

I could not help but see those elements of the formula of success in Jordan Stolz.

This was a unique glimpse into the beginnings of the Jordan Stolz success story in that his parents actually filmed the first time he put on skates at age 5 and ventured out on the ice with his 7 year old sister.

It is rare that you ever see the very beginnings of a success story.

The formula involves eight elements that drive the science of success.

Potential

Passion

Practice

Perspiration

Perseverance

Patterns

Parents

Providence

As a formula it might look like this.

S=P⁸

Let's look at these eight elements and how they apply to Stolz.

Potential

Every human being is born with potential in the form of gifts, talents and natural abilities. These may be physical (height, body frame, etc) or a natural inclination toward athletics, music, art, engineering or something else. However, there is potential in everyone. Stolz was blessed with a long and lean body frame that was well suited for speed skating. However, his mother never participated in any athletics. His father skied and was a track and field athlete when he was younger but was far from world-class.

When Jordan started skating, it was acknowledged that his sister Hannah appeared to have more natural talent and potential. You can see the difference on that first day on the ice. However, potential only takes you so far along the path to success.

As a friend of mine often observed,

"The most abundant resource on earth is unrealized potential."

Passion

Far more important than potential is passion or desire. To achieve success in anything a person needs to have the passion to succeed. The fire was lit in Stolz at age 5 when he saw speed skating in the 2010 Olympics where Apolo Ohno competing in the short track competition. Jordan and his sister told their parents they wanted to do that. 

Their parents cleared the snow from the pond behind their house and put skates on them so they could try it. Mrs. Stolz was scared the ice might not be thick enough so she also put life jackets on her two kids as they tried skating that first time on the pond they usually just fished on.

Despite a few slips and falls and those tentative first strides on the ice in which Jordan saw that his sister was better than he was, his assessment on his first day of the ice was simply, "Wasn't that amazing?"

Jordan's successful journey was fueled by that passion on that first day.

Practice

What followed next was years of purposeful practice. Many hours on the ice on the pond behind the house and then graduating to formal work beginning at age 7 at a speed skating rink 40 miles from home which his parents would drive him to. The practice never ceased over the next 16 years.

Perspiration

Stolz also put in the hard work and perspiration that went with it. It wasn't just work on the ice but long bike rides and runs in the summer. leg strength training and a lot of sweat. 

You don't get thighs like Stolz has without a lot of perspiration.

This graphic comparison that NBC put together speaks volumes.

Credit: NBC Sports

Perseverance

I don't know what setbacks, disappointments and obstacles Jordan Stolz had to persevere through to get where he is today but I have to believe there were a few.

Anyone successful has had to push forward at some point when they probably wanted to quit.

What I do know is that a large part of Jordan's success in speed skating is his finishing ability. He is able to push through the pain at the end of the race when others fade.

Canada's Laurent Dubreuil, who finished third to Stolz in the 1000 meter Olympic race said this about Stolz.

“Not a lot of guys open faster than him, and all those that do just die after 3[00], 400 meters,” says Dubreuil. “And he's the huge favorite for the 1,500. If I raced a 1,500, I would finish last and wouldn't even probably medal against the women. Because I'm training for 500. I'm just a sprinter. He's good at everything. That's what's incredible. His ability to put power in the ice when all the other top sprinters are dead. It's unbelievable to watch, but it's not something I think we can copy. He’s just physically superior to us.”

That is obviously true from both a physical and mental perspective as perseverance is a mental ability.

 Patterns

Successful people also form good habits and establish consistent patterns in their life that lead to their success.

The 'power of habit' is underrated in fueling success.

You can be sure that Stolz was not sleeping in to 10am when he was supposed to be on the ice or in the gym.

In fact, his training regime is so ingrained that he "never, ever misses a leg day".

Source: https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a70311758/jordan-stolz-speed-skating-lower-body-workout/?utm_campaign=trueanthem&utm_content=698e0760a294d20001810e91&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Stolz also always eats only rice before every race to increase his carb load.

"The lunch before a race, it's only rice," he told MH fitness director Ebenezer Samuel in Italy ahead of his events, which start on February 8. Stolz doesn't have any protein or add anything else to the dish for a simple reason. "I just feel like it doesn't sit well in my stomach. I'm trying to get as many carbs in as possible."

You don't achieve success without well established habits and patterns to keep you on track.

Parents 

There are self-made men and women who achieve success.

However, most who succeed have strong parental support.

Scottie Scheffler would not be the golfer he is today without the $50,000 his parents borrowed to join Royal Oaks Country Club in Dallas where Scheffler honed his game as a youngster.

Jeff Bezos might not have been able to get Amazon off the ground without his parents investing their life savings in his entrepreneurial venture when they were nearing retirement age.

Michael Jackson does not achieve the fame and success he had without the influence and efforts of his father, Joe Jackson, in pushing and promoting the early musical efforts of Michael and his brothers in the Jackson 5.

The same is true with Jordan Stolz. His parents were instrumental in every step that led to his success.

Source: https://people.com/all-about-jordan-stolz-parents-11903703

They put him in skates the first time on a pond they had cleared of snow.

Later they drove him to practices on a rink 40 miles from home.

His father, a deputy sheriff, switched to the graveyard shift for a schedule that make it easier to accommodate Jordan's skating schedule.

His mother started homeschooling Jordan so he would have more time for practice and greater flexibility to travel to competitions.

His parents started a taxidermy business on the side for additional income to fund Jordan's training.

Parental support is an essential element in most success stories.

Providence

You also cannot dismiss Providence being in play in most success stories.

Being in just the right place at the right time.

A chance encounter.

An unexpected provision when needed most.

Is it luck or was God's hand and direction involved somehow?

What if Jordan Stolz had been living in Key West, Florida rather than Kewaskum, Wisconsin when he first saw speed skating on television?

What if there had been no pond behind his house?

What if it had been too warm for the pond to freeze over that week in February, 2010?

What if the Winter Olympics had continued to be held in leap years as is the Summer Olympics (the date was changed starting in 1992)? If this had not been done, the Winter Olympics would not have been held in 2010. In 2008, Stolz might have been too young to start skating. In 2012, he might have already been involved in Little League baseball or another sport to be interested in skating. 

There is no denying that Providence is involved in many success stories.

Jordan Stolz will be competing for his third gold medal of the Winter Olympics today in the 1,500 meters.

The race might be determined by 1,500 meters but the path he followed to success from that first day on the pond behind his house 16 years ago to today was long and required many elements working together.

Think about all that went into putting Jordan Stolz in that race on the ice today.

There is no better example of "The Science of Success" than the story of Jordan Stolz.

Our Northern Neighbor Heading South?

President Trump received a lot of attention early in his Presidency by suggesting that Canada should join the United States as its 51st state.

Trump started saying this after former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Trump that if the United States levied a large tariff on goods it exports to the United States that Canada would cease to exist as a country.

Trump then concluded...

"If Canada cannot exist without being reliant on the United States market perhaps it would make sense for Canada to become a state. There would then be no tariffs going either way."

Most dismissed this as mere hyperbole to be used as a negotiating tactic to get Canada to agree to a trade agreement that is more advantageous for the United States.

Trump is prone to hyperbole.

However, the reality is that Canada is facing more and more problems which points to a nation in trouble.

Is our northern neighbor headed south?

It might not eventually become part of the United States but Canada is heading south from a number of perspectives.

Consider GDP per capita.

Canada is going nowhere while the United States surges.

The United States is projected to have GDP growth as high as 5.4% in the fourth quarter, 2025.

Canada's economy was on track to actually shrink in the fourth quarter.

One economist described Canada's economy as being on 'life support'.

The Canadian dollar has also declined massively vs. the U.S. dollar over the last 15 years.

Source: https://ca.finance.yahoo.com/quote/CADUSD%3DX/

In 2011, you could get $1.05 Canadian for $1 US dollar.

The Canadian dollar is only worth 73 cents today---a devaluation of 30%.

Every Canadian has gotten poorer vs. Americans.

Manufacturing activity in Canada is also significantly lagging the United States.

Credit: https://x.com/KatKanada_TM/status/2020293125714112684

Canada is not just doing poorly compared to the United States.

Over the last decade it has lagged all of the major OECD economies.

The future also does not look very bright for Canada.

Business investment has fallen off a cliff compared to the United States.

Canadians are also not having children.

Births in Canada are now lower than in Europe which is low to begin with.

10 years ago, when the Liberals took over in Canada, they decided that the best way to grow was to open the floodgates to immigrants.

The immigration does not appear to have helped the economy but it will undeniably change the demographics and culture of Canada for the future.

Almost 30% of the population of Canada today was born outside the country.

In Toronto, that number is 47% and in Vancouver it is 42% according to recent estimates. 

By comparison, the percentage of foreign-born in the United States today is 15% which is the highest that it has ever been in the long history of the country.

Housing prices increased dramatically as supply could not compete with the demand created by all of the immigrants.

As a result, price-income ratios soared past all of the other OECD countries even though housing prices have recently started to fall.

The average house price in Canada today is 8x the average income.

That is at least twice what it should be.

All of that home mortgage debt means that Canada has a huge amount of household debt compared to the size of its economy.

How does Canada dig out from under this pile of debt?

Despite the fact that Canada is totally dependent on the United States for its defense, 77% of its exports and 20% of its GDP is tied to exports to the United States, Canadians elected another Liberal as Prime Minister on the promise he would stand up to Trump.

That strategy is not working out very well for the Canadians thus far.

Mark Carney has been no better than Justin Trudeau.

The reality is that Canada has no real leverage in any negotiations with the United States.

To make matters worse, in an area where Canada has an advantage, it is shooting itself in the foot.

It is the only nation in the Top 10 oil producers that levies a carbon tax on its use.

Production and jobs in key sectors that export to the United States such as autos, metals and forestry have seen production drops which is also straining employment in these industries.

Source: https://www.automotiveworld.com/news/gm-cuts-500-canada-jobs-moves-production-back-to-us/

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/10/15/world/canada/stellantis-auto-production-canada-us-trump-tariffs.html

Add to all of this an increasing amount of political discontent that has provinces such as Alberta seeing active movements promoting separation from Canada.

A petition drive is underway right now in Alberta to put a referendum vote on separation before the people of the province. 177,732 valid signatures (about 10% of registered voters) are necessary by May 2, 2026 to force the provincial government to hold the referendum vote. 

If the petition drive is successful the vote would be held as early as October, 2026.

Even a clear majority vote would not mean that Alberta could secede. It would just mean that Canada would have to enter into negotiations with the province on its grievances.

Recent polls show that the petition drive will likely succeed in getting the referendum vote on the ballot  but the majority of Albertans still favor remaining as a part of Canada right now.

However, it should be noted that Quebec, British Columbia and Saskatchewan alos all have separation movements of some kind that are active.

Source: https://x.com/RiseOfAlberta/status/2020327406498902070

There is clearly a lot of political unrest and dissension in Canada.

I don't expect Alberta or another province to be able to secede and become an independent country, or to join the United States, as the Canadian constitution requires all the other provinces must agree to separation. 

The other provinces are deriving too much economic benefit from Alberta and Saskatchewan to let them separate in the near future.

Alberta and Saskatchewan have 95% of Canada's oil and gas reserves and 75% of its farmland.

However, I do foresee a period of turmoil and tumult for Canada as a result of the policies that the Liberals in that country continue to pursue.

Unless Canada's leadership does a course correction on its liberal policies and attitude towards Trump and the United States, it is headed further south.

We may not see Canada become the 51st state but it might not be far-fetched that we will see the country implode or split apart in the longer term due to its economy and its worsening social and political divisions.

What is really sad is that the majority in Canada seem to want to blame Donald Trump for their problems when the reality is that they have done this to themselves by following the wrong leaders and the wrong policies.

Income and Wealth Inequality

We hear a lot of complaints about income and wealth inequality in the United States.

There are an increasing number who believe that if we could just get billionaires to pay their fair share of taxes there would not be any problems in the world.

Elon Musk seems to be the one that those on the Left are most angry about.

This PhD in Gender Studies (they really give an advanced degree in that?) is so angry about Elon's billions that she is not going to buy a Tesla or Starlink or use Grok.

However, she did not have a problem using X to call Musk "a billionaire Nazi"?

Of course, they all seem to ignore the fact that most of the billionaires like Musk have built businesses that have created jobs for millions of workers which allows them to put food on the table for their families and to pay billions and billions in taxes on the income they earn.

For example, the latest estimate by Grok is that 150,000-160,000 people are employed in the companies that make up the bulk of Elon Musk's wealth---Tesla, SpaceX, Twitter, Neuralink, The Boring Company and xAI.

Billionaires have also improved the lives of billions of people around the world.

They have also made a lot of people financially comfortable with investments in their companies or the products they have enjoyed because of it.

Leftists in California are attempting to put a issue on the ballot in November that would impose a one-time tax of 5% on the wealth of any California resident with a net worth of $1 billion or more.

This is supposed to support healthcare, education and food assistance programs.

Of course, the top 1% of income earners already pay almost 50% of the income taxes in the state.

At least six billionaires have already left the state due to this proposal which, if passed, would apply to residents as of January 1, 2026.

Those billionaires include Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin who have a combined fortune of over $500 billion.

Source: https://nypost.com
trib.al/qQFsBLF

In all, an estimated $1 trillion of the $2 trillion of wealth that is targeted by the tax proposal has already left the state due to the possibility it might be passed by voters in the Golden State.

Of course, left unsaid is where does California go next for revenues when this money quickly runs out?

And the ongoing income that came from that wealth has also left the state to not be taxed again?

The problems seem to have a way of compounding in California.

The total above does not include the wealth of Mark Zuckerberg.

It was reported this week that the Facebook founder has purchased a $150 million property in Miami to be his new principal residence beginning in April. You can be sure he severed domiciliary ties with California before January 1.

Source: https://www.foxbusiness.com/real-estate/mark-zuckerberg-becomes-latest-california-billionaire-relocate-florida-amid-tax-concerns

Yes, there is income and wealth inequality in the United States.

There has always been income and wealth inequality in the world.

It has been the case since the beginning of mankind.

There was income inequality in ancient Babylon, Rome and Egypt.

There was wealth inequality in Europe in the 17th century, in Asia in the 18th century and South America in the 19th century.

Africa had much more income inequality in the 20th century than the United States did at that time...or now.

There has been income inequality in every society over history.

There have always been some in a society that found ways to make greater incomes and accumulate more wealth than others. 

I doubt that will ever change.

Income inequality is typically measured by what is called the Gini coefficient.

The Gini coefficient measures the inequality among the values of a frequency distribution. 

A Gini coefficient of 0 reflects perfect equality, where all income or wealth values are the same. In contrast, a Gini coefficient of 1 (or 100%) reflects maximal inequality among values, where a single individual has all the income while all others have none.

This graph shows the Gini coefficient for the United States since 1913.

In truth, income and wealth inequality was undoubtedly even greater in the United States before this data was first collected considering the fortunes of Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt and J.P. Morgan in the early 20th century.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/economic-inequality

Income inequality today is about the same as it was in the 1913-1940 period. Of course, that period was notable for the emergence of large industrial enterprises in the United States which included the emergence of the auto industry, oil companies and the radio. This fueled wealth and income concentrations in the entrepreneur class that developed these industries.

Inequality improved in the post-World War II era as more and more people were able to enjoy middle class incomes with good paying jobs in the manufacturing sector that flattened the Gini coefficient.

However, that began to change in the United States in the mid-1980's as technology began replacing manufacturing as the fuel behind the economy in the U.S.

We entered an information age from a manufacturing age. Manufacturing spreads income in a much broader swath in an economy. You need to pay a lot of workers to build an automobile.  You only need a couple of computer programmers to develop a video game or an app that might bring in billions in income.

There is no question that income inequality in the United States has increased over the last 40 years. This is the direct result of technology innovation, internet commerce and artificial intelligence as well as a  decline in manufacturing. However, we are far from being outside of historical norms insofar as income or wealth inequality.

The United States is also not outside current global norms.

The United States actually has less income inequality than the world at large.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/economic-inequality

It should also be noted that the calculation above does not include welfare benefits for those with lower incomes. This would move the Gini coefficient lower in the United States.

It also does not take account of income taxes which, due to the highly progressive income tax system in the United States, would also move the Gini coefficient lower in the United States.

It should also be noted that the poorest 50% in the world are accounting for much more of consumption spending today than they ever had while the share by the top 1% has been steadily declining.

As far as the progressive income tax system in the United States,is concerned compare the amount of income taxes paid between the top 5% of income earners and the bottom 95%. 

The top 1% of income earners paid 47% of all income taxes in 2021.

The top 5% paid 67% of all income taxes.

Here is a comparison of the United States to some selected countries around the world on the Gini coefficient.

The United States is basically on par with Russia and China on income inequality and is more equitable than countries such as South Africa, Mexico, Brazil and India.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/economic-inequality

It is true that the United States has more income and wealth inequality than European countries that have adopted stronger socialist welfare states than the U.S has.

However, the actual gap has not really changed much in the last 45 years between the United States and these other countries.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/economic-inequality

You also have to take into account the relative differences in the amount of income and wealth there is to divide between various countries.

The size of the pot of income and wealth also matters.

For example, Czechia has a Gini coefficient of .33 which is the top income equality score in the world.

However, Czechia's GDP per capita is almost $30,000 less than the United States.

There is a big difference in being in the bottom half of income earners in 'equitable' Czechia compared to living in the so-called 'inequitable' United States.

Source: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/gdp-per-capita-worldbank?tab=line&time=1990..2024&country=USA~CZE~OWID_WRL~OWID_EU27

The same is true comparing the United States to the European Union countries where the U.S. has $20,000 more GDP per capita annually on average.

You can also see that the U.S. GDP advantage has widened over the last five years due to technology innovation and the income and wealth effect associated with it.

I understand the concerns about income inequality in the United States. However, it is hard to take anyone seriously when they say that things would be better if we were Czechia, China or France.

We should not ignore the issue of income inequality in public policy discussions but our time would be much better spent working to make the economic pie bigger rather than worrying about how to slice it.

The bottom line is that we are in this together in this country.  President Kennedy said it best 60 years ago when he said, "A rising tide raises all boats".   

The reality is that when the rich do better it follows that everyone generally does better.  If the rich become poorer, we all most certainly will become poorer.  

We need to start recognizing that if the 1% and 99% work together we will get much more than 100% in the end. 

If we pit the 99% versus the 1%, it is guaranteed that we will get much less than 100%.

Losing By Winning

Winning the Super Bowl provided Seattle Seahawks quarterback Sam Darnold with a winner's share of $178,000 that goes to each of the players on the winning team.

Of course, those are taxable earnings for the 2026 tax year.

Darnold also signed a $105 million, three-year contract before the season with Seattle.

Sam Darnold
Credit: Seattle Times

Based on the projected payments under that contract, Darnold will owe federal income taxes on his Super Bowl sum along with taxes on his $12.3 million in base salary, $6.4 million in pro-rated signing bonus to be paid in 2026 and a potential $15 million roster bonus if he plays for Seattle in 2026 

California, the site of this year's Super Bowl, claims that it is entitled to tax a share of Darnold's annual income for the work he performed in the state during the year.

This is true for everyone who might work in the state (even for just a day or two) but is generally only enforced for those with large incomes such as entertainers, pro athletes and other highly paid individuals.

California has the highest marginal income tax rate in the nation at 13.3%. 

California taxes non-resident pro athletes a percentage of their income based on “duty days” spent in the state. A "duty day" is a day in which the athlete performs work-related activities.

For an NFL player, that includes not only the day of the game but also days traveling, pre-season camp and games, practices, attending meetings and otherwise preparing for the game.

The total duty days for an NFL player is typically around 200 days.

Teams travel to the Super Bowl the preceding Sunday for practices, media appearances and the like meaning that Darnold and the other players will generally have at least 8 duty days in California associated with the Super Bowl.

A typical NFL game usually entails 2 duty days. Arrival on Saturday with some team activities that day and a game on Sunday.

The Seahawks will have two regular season games in California in 2026. One with LA and another with San Francisco.

We will assume there will be no exhibition games in California in 2026 for the Seahawks

This would mean that Darnold would usually have 4/200 (2%) of his income taxed in California.

Playing in the Super Bowl would increase duty days to 12/200 (6%).

Let's do the math (for simplicity I am just applying the marginal rate to all income (which overstates the total somewhat) on what that means for Darnold's tax liability in California.

Based on an estimated $33.7 million in income in 2026, without playing in the Super Bowl, Darnold would owe California $89,642 in taxes ($33.7 million x.02 x 13.3%.

Add to the $33.7 million the $178,000 that Darnold gets for being on the winner's team greatly increases his tax liability due to the game being played in California and the jock tax duty days.

For playing and winning the Super Bowl Darnold owes California $270,346 ($33.7 million + 178,000= $33,878,000 x .06 x 13.3% )

Darnold's winning share of the Super Bowl of $178,000 does not cover the additional $180,704 in taxes he will owe by playing the game in California. Darnold is a couple thousand dollars poorer overall despite winning.

It would have been worse for Darnold if the Seahawks had lost. 

The loser's share is $103,000. Darnold's tax liability to California would be $269,788 ($33.7 million +103,000=33,808,000 x.06 x 13.3%). That is $180,146 of additional tax for playing in the Super Bowl compared to the $103,000 he got for playing. Darnold would be $77,000 poorer by playing in the Super Bowl in California.

It is true that Darnold and other athletes can soften the blow of the California taxes by claiming a tax credit up to the tax rate on their home state income tax returns. 

This would mean they would only pay extra for the additional amount of the California taxes over and above what the taxes would be in their home state domicile.

However, if Darnold has a smart tax planner, I would assume he has made the state of Washington as his home which has no state income tax on earnings. Therefore, no mitigation would be available. The tax in California would all be incremental to him.

How do you lose by winning?

By playing the Super Bowl in California.

It makes you wonder why the National Football League Players' Association would not insist that the Super Bowl be played in a state without an income tax such as Florida, Texas or Nevada every year?

I do not know that has been an issue to this point

In fact, next year's Super Bowl is also scheduled to be played in California at SoFi Stadium in Los Angeles.

Maybe the players should make the taxes an issue?

In the meantime, a lot other people and businesses are getting the message.

California is the last place that anyone who is productive and prosperous wants to call their home (or even visit) for a few days.

Ask Sam Darnold.

All the same, he would probably trade the extra $180,000 in California taxes this year for the Super Bowl ring on his finger for the rest of his life.

However, he could have had the ring and kept the $180,000 if the game had been played in Texas, Florida or Nevada.

That is losing by winning.