Balancing Rights and Responsibilities

"Things tend to work out best when people have to live with the consequences of their own behavior"

or said another way

"Things tend to work out poorly when the consequences of our actions spill over onto other people"

This is probably one of the most insightful statements that I have ever seen. When I first read it I copied it and put this simple principle up on the wall to be reminded of it every day.

However, as simple and obvious as it is, it is amazing how often we ignore what is really one of the most important principles of economics.

I saw this statement in a book by Steven E. Landsburg who teaches economics at the University of Rochester who goes on to say,

Whether you're blowing leaves or discarding litter, having children or having sex, saving or spending, smoking or drinking, setting fires or reporting them-your actions have costs and benefits.  As long as you feel all the costs and benefits, you'll tend to get the quantity right.

You'll drop the right number of banana peels, or have the right number of children, or choose the right number of sex partners. But, if you feel only the benefits while someone else feels the costs, you'll tend to overindulge.  And conversely, if you feel only the costs while someone else feels the benefits, you'll under indulge.

It makes a lot of sense doesn't it?

You know how it works. 

When you are out to dinner with friends and you have agreed to split the check equally, do you order the $10 dessert?  Of course you do.  Your skinny friend who does not like desserts is going to pay part of your cost. You win. He loses. Your friend also stops going to dinner with the group in the future.  He is tired of the decisions of others spilling over on him.

The bottom line is that spillovers cause bad outcomes.  If someone wants to pollute their own swimming pool, feel free. However, when the sludge spills over the edge of the pool and into the community stream that we all share they should be prepared to pay for the damage.

In my view one of the biggest problems we have in the country today is our inability to draw the line between rights and freedoms on the one hand and consequences and costs on the other.  Where do individual rights end and where does the the public interest begin?

First, we have too often ignored the primary principle that people should have to live with the consequences of their own behavior.  You fail to take advantage of the free public education that everyone has access to in this country and can't get a job.  That's ok, we have welfare assistance.  

You have a child out of wedlock. That's ok, we will give you money to pay for the child. 

You buy a flat screen tv rather than health care insurance.  That's ok, just go to the emergency room and someone else will pay your medical bill. 

You took out a gigantic student loan to pay for college and don't want to pay it back? That's ok, will we forgive it.

At the same time, each of these actions is spilling over onto other people who were attempting to live their life responsibly without infringing on others. The person who studied and went to school, married, had children and bought healthcare insurance rather than the flat screen tv ends up paying these bills as well as their own.

A great example involves whether someone riding on a motorcycle should be required to wear a helmet. I'm all for giving someone the freedom to feel the wind blowing through their hair.  However, what happens when they are in an accident and suffer brain damage and need medical care for the next thirty years?  

Who is going to pay for that?  If it is me through my health care premiums or higher taxes I don't feel quite the same about that person's individual rights and freedom as I did before.

We have been living in an era over the last generation where individualism has reigned supreme in the United States.  Respect for the individual and their rights has been preeminent over the collective good in most instances.  It has been more about ME than WE.  

A good example are the federal court decisions over the last 15 years that have invalidated state laws  requiring welfare recipients to take a drug test before they can qualify for public assistance.  The courts have ruled that broad-based and "suspicionless" drug test requirements for welfare benefits are an "unreasonable search".  You can only require drug testing if there is reasonable suspicion they are on drugs.

Bear in mind that the majority of private sector employees today cannot get a job without submitting to a pre-employment drug test.

How does any of this make sense?  In effect, we know that most of the people in the private sector are clean, drug free and paying taxes.  However, those people are not allowed to even ask whether the people they are supporting have even a chance of getting off welfare at some point in the future.?

After all, if you can't pass a drug test, you most likely are not going to get a job and get off welfare since it is a condition of pre-employment with the majority of employers.

Contrast this with some of the laws in the country of Singapore.  You can be arrested for not flushing the toilet in a public restroom or spitting anywhere.  They don't want germs spreading and spilling over on other people. It is also illegal to sell chewing gum in Singapore.  Who wants to walk down the street and look at all that gum on the sidewalk because someone just threw it down with no regard to the public good? Take a look down on any sidewalk in a major city in the United States and you will see what I mean.

Credit:  TheCityReview.com

Where do we draw the line?  What is the proper balance between liberty and tyranny that balances individual rights and the public interest?  

We saw this conflict come together in a big way during the Covid pandemic. However, in that case, tyranny quickly took over with vaccine mandates, mandatory masking, school closings and all the rest.

It might have made sense if there had a true scientific basis for all it. However, as I wrote over and over again in these pages, more often than not there was no basis to override personal rights to the extent it was done in the name of the public interest.

All of this takes on added significance in an era of AI and surveillance cameras wherever you look.

In Australia, cameras at street corners peer into vehicles to determine whether your seat belt is on or you  are in contact with your cell phone.

A seat belt that is attached but not properly fit over your shoulder brings a $500 fine in the mail. 

A cell phone in your lap costs you a $1,200 fine even if you were not using it.

These are real examples I heard in a recent visit to Australia.

Have the Aussies taken it too far?

I think balancing rights and responsibilities will be a major question of the next decade in the United States. It is at the core of many of our big issues today.  Gun rights.  Drug Legalization. Immigration. Abortion. Health Care. Welfare.

Religious freedom is one of the bedrock rights in the United States.

However, does that give Muslims the right to blast the Islamic call to prayer over loudspeakers in New York City?

Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ab3_MOeF7U4

Or Muslims taking over Times Square to pray?

Source: https://www.bssnews.net/news-flash/178084

Is this a religious observance or a political statement?

Our largest failing over the last half century in this country is not coupling individual rights with individual responsibility.  You simply cannot have a well functioning society where these two are not in alignment. There have to be clear incentives for people to do the right things and even clearer disincentives to prevent people from doing the wrong things.

William Strauss and Neil Howe predicted in their book, The Fourth Turning, that the 2020's would usher in a new cycle in which public interest would be on the ascendancy and special interests and individualism would wane.  

They predicted more calls for personal responsibility and civic duty.  Conformity with core values would become more important.   

Perhaps this will lead to better alignment between individual rights and responsibility.  Unfortunately, the lessons of history often tell us this only comes about when society has got its back to the wall and it does not have much choice.  You either have got to focus on WE or there will be no ME left.

In the meantime, I only ask for two things.  If you are a fellow citizen, don't spillover on me.  If you are the government, don't tread on me.  If we can get both of these right, we are all going to be ok.

Wiil Birthright Citizenship Survive The Supreme Court?

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments about the birthright citizenship question this Spring with a decision by the end of the Summer.

Source: https://www.scotusblog.com/2025/12/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-trumps-challenge-to-birthright-citizenship/

President Trump signed an executive order on his first day of his second term changing the policy of providing birthright citizenship to babies born on U.S. soil to illegal alien parents and those whose parents are here on temporary visas. These babies are popularly referred to as "anchor babies".

President Trump's order was quickly challenged in federal court by 22 Democrat-led states and several civil rights organizations. This undoubtedly was no surprise to Trump. However, it set the stage for this important issue to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The birthright citizenship question has never been directly confronted by the Supreme Court on the issue of the children of illegal immigrants . Trump's order did not apply to babies born to immigrants who are lawful permanent residents.

Is is also important to note that the Trump order only applies to future anchor babies. It does not attempt to strip citizenship from past anchor babies.

This is an issue I wrote about in these pages ten years ago entitled, "An Anchor Around Our Necks" detailing the compounding costs of birthright citizenship.

This was before Donald Trump even started making headlines about the issue when he first ran for President in 2016.

Let's take a deeper look at the issue of birthright citizenship and the legal issues that will be before the Supreme Court. 

Will birthright citizenship survive the Supreme Court?

Many take it for granted the U.S. Constitution allows anyone born on U.S. soil the privileges of citizenship.

However, if you look deeply at the issue you can see that it is not quite that clear cut.

The United States is decidedly in a distinct minority in providing citizenship this way. Among developed countries, Canada is the only other country in the world to provide birthright citizenship.

In fact, the trend in recent years has been to eliminate birthright citizenship. Ireland was the last European Union country to eliminate it in 2005. France did away with it in 1993. The UK in 1983.

Australia (1986) and New Zealand (2006) are other countries that eliminated birthright citizenship in recent years.

The common narrative repeated by many is that birthright citizen is a fundamental right for anyone born in the United States provided by the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,

Therefore, it can only be eliminated by constitutional amendment. However, as stated above, this question has never been directly decided by the Supreme Court.

What does the 14th Amendment actually say which was originally enacted to insure that slaves would be recognized as citizens?

Amendment XIV, Section 1, Clause 1:

"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." (emphasis added)

That seems fairly clear except for the words I underlined above..."and subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Is a child born in the United States to parents who are illegal immigrants "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" when those parents are unlawfully present in our country?

This is the foundational argument behind Trump's executive order. His argument is that the 14th Amendment does not automatically confer birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. These individuals are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States as they are citizens of other countries.

Even if one believes that Trump cannot do this through executive order many believe that Congress has the right to define what "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means. It has already been accepted that this means that children born to foreign diplomats do not gain U.S. birthright citizenship nor do members of certain Indian tribes.

If the birth of a child in the United States to parents who are members of an Indian tribe who were also born in the United States are not U.S. citizens based on a reading of the 14th amendment how is it far-fetched to conclude that a child born to two illegal immigrants is automatically a U.S. citizen by birth?

I would further argue that the very actions of the federal government in not enforcing the immigration laws means that illegal immigrants that are here have effectively not been "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States" by the consistent failure of our government to enforce the country's jurisdictional borders. 

How can an illegal immigrant be considered to be subject to the jurisdiction of our country if they are here illegally but our government is doing nothing about it?

The Center for Immigration Studies did a study in 2018 that estimated 300,000 children were born in the United States that year to mothers who are illegal immigrants. To put that in perspective, that is about 1 out of every 12 births in this country!

It is hard to believe that the numbers are not higher today especially considering the surge of illegals into the country over the last four years.

As a result of the prevailing interpretation of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution each of these children are considered to be United States citizens.

500,000 additional children were born to legal immigrants. It should be noted that children born to legal permanent immigrants would still be considered U.S. citizens under the Trump order in that they "are subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States.

Taken together, births to immigrants made up about 20% of all U.S. births in 2018 according to that study.

This overall estimate would seem to be accurate today in that the foreign-born population is now 15.6% of the U.S population (a higher percentage that it has ever been). In that this immigrant population is younger and has generally higher fertility rates than the native population it follows that about 20% of all births in any year are to immigrants.

Source: https://cis.org/Report/ForeignBorn-Population-Grew-51-Million-Last-Two-Years

U.S.-born children of illegal aliens are also eligible to sponsor the immigration of family members once they come of age. At 18, an “anchor baby” can sponsor an overseas spouse and unmarried children of his own. At full majority age at 21, he or she can sponsor parents and siblings under our "chain migration" laws.

Can you imagine anyone who voted for the 14th Amendment in 1866 at the federal or state level thinking that we would be conferring citizenship to this many as a result of this provision?

Or to even consider the fact that people could transport themselves within a day from any point in the world to the United States?

Michael Anton of the Claremont Institute wrote what I have found to be the best overall argument for why citizenship birthright should be ended. He has extensively researched the legislative history behind the 14th Amendment deliberations in 1866.

It seems that those who wrote and voted on the 14th Amendment had no intention that they would be conferring birthright citizenship on anyone whose parents were unlawfully in the United States.

It is also not debatable that the American people were never brought into the conversation as Anton observes.

The American people did not willingly, knowingly, or politically adopt birthright citizenship. They were maneuvered into it by the Left and by the Left-allied judiciary. They’ve never debated it or voted on it. They’ve simply been told that it’s required by the Constitution.

What is in the legislative history to support the view that birthright citizenship was never intended by the 14th Amendment?

Senator Jacob Howard was one of the authors of the 14th Amendment and specifically offered the amendment language that added the words, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof". This is his explanation of the reasons for that language and its import.

This suggests that to acquire birthright citizenship a person has to be born within the limits of the United States and be fully subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.

This was made even clearer by the clarifying comment of Senator Johnson of Maryland during the debate about the 14th Amendment.

Now, all this amendment provides is, that all persons born in the United States and not subject to some foreign Power—for that, no doubt, is the meaning of the committee who have brought the matter before us—shall be considered as citizens of the United States. That would seem to be not only a wise but a necessary provision. If there are to be citizens of the United States entitled everywhere to the character of citizens of the United States there should be some certain definition of what citizenship is, what has created the character of citizen as between himself and the United States, and the amendment says that citizenship may depend upon birth, and I know of no better way to give rise to citizenship than the fact of birth within the territory of the United States, born of parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States. (emphasis added)

Of course, the slaves that were the primary focus of the 14th Amendment met both of these requirements. They had been born in the United States and they were not subject to the sovereign authority of any other country. 

In my mind the most persuasive argument that the 14th Amendment does not confer birthright citizenship is understanding the reasons that the citizenship clause was included therein to begin with.

Earlier in 1866 Congress had passed into law "The Civil Rights Act of 1866"  in order to define citizenship and affirm that all citizens are equally protected under the law. Of course, this was primarily intended to make clear that slaves were citizens and had all the rights of any other citizens.

However, Congress became concerned that the law could be overturned sometime in the future or that it could be declared unconstitutional on the basis that there was no authority for Congress to confer particular rights to all citizens rather just outlawing discrimination.

Therefore, the leading proponents of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 proposed the 14th Amendment with the intention of eliminating all doubts about the law's constitutionality.

As a result, the Citizenship Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment parallels the citizenship language in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and the Equal Protection Clause parallels nondiscrimination language in the 1866 Act.

Of note, Representative John Bingham of Ohio, who is sometimes referred to as the "Father of the 14th Amendment", stated that the Citizenship Clause in the 1866 Civil Rights Act was meant to require that someone not only be born in the United States but also not owe allegiance to any foreign sovereign.

I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen..

I also doubt that Senators Howard, Johnson and Representative Bingham or others at that time could have envisioned a time in which Chinese, Russian, Mexican or Honduran women would come to the United States and have a child that would be a U.S. citizen.

That child could then as a U.S. citizen at age 21 sponsor their parents and siblings to become U.S. citizens under our "chain migration" policies.

It sets in motion a compounding effect that increases exponentially over time.

What is "chain migration"?

Under the United States’ current immigration system, most migrants receive a green card simply because they are the relative of an earlier migrant, not because of what they can contribute to American society. 

This creates a “chain” of immigrants who can then sponsor other immigrants in the same manner. These, in turn, may sponsor more immigrants, and so on.

As more and more immigrants are admitted to the United States, the population eligible to sponsor their relatives for green cards increases exponentially. This means that every time one immigrant is admitted, the door is opened to many more.

Do you think that those who wrote the 14th Amendment could ever imagine we would have Chinese billionaires fathering hundreds of children using IVF in order to provide U.S. citizenship?

Source: The Wall Street Journal

 

Chinese billionaires are using American surrogates to create “mega-families” of more than 100 children.

Wealthy businessmen have effectively used lax US surrogacy laws to create breeding programmes with the intention of creating an “unstoppable family dynasty”, The Wall Street Journal reported.

Nathan Zhang, the founder of IVF USA, a network of fertility clinics in the US and Mexico, said some of his “crazy rich” Chinese clients wanted hundreds of American-born babies.

As long as birthright citizenship is continued it will be a magnet for illegal immigration, birth tourism and schemes like we are seeing with rich Chinese men. It incentivizes people from all over the world to break our laws to come here. The longer the practice continues the more illegal immigration we are likely to get.

If we are ever to get meaningful immigration reform it is necessary to cease providing birthright citizenship or it will undermine almost anything else we do.

Trump deserves credit for having the courage and personal constitution to be willing to elevate this issue to public debate. It is an issue that deserves public scrutiny and discussion. Whether it goes anywhere in the near term will be determined by the United State Supreme Court.

If the Supreme Court is unwilling to end the policy, it may require a constitutional amendment which will be next to impossible to achieve in the short term considering the current political divide in the country.

However, the fact remains that until birthright citizenship is terminated, a wall is built to staunch the flow of illegals, and strict enforcement policies are adhered to, it will continue to be difficult to reach the goal of the sensible and sustainable immigration reform the United States desperately needs.

The Vision and Genius of Elon Musk

Elon Musk had two gigantic dreams for his life when he graduated from the University of Pennsylvania 30 years ago.

He wanted to develop an electric car and he wanted to build a spaceship capable of traveling to Mars.

Elon Musk was one of the founders of PayPal and at a gathering of alums of the company after it had been sold in 2002 (Elon's share was $176 million ) one of the alums asked Elon what he was going to do next.

Musk answered straightaway.

"I'm going to colonize Mars. My mission in life is to make mankind a multi planetary civilization."

Musk came to that mission because he was concerned about the long-term survival and expansion of human consciousness. He wants to make humanity a multi-planetary species as a form of "life insurance" for civilization. 

Musk argues that Earth is vulnerable to catastrophic events—such as asteroid impacts, supervolcanoes, nuclear wars, pandemics, or other unforeseen disasters—that could wipe out all life. 

By creating a self-sustaining colony on Mars, humanity would have a backup, ensuring the "light of consciousness" persists even if Earth becomes uninhabitable. 

His former colleague remembers telling Musk he was "bananas" crazy as Musk sat in a pool cabana reading a tattered manual for a Russian rocket engine

Reid Hoffman, another PayPal veteran who ultimately founded NetFlix, after listening to Elon describe his plan to send rockets to Mars was puzzled, and asked him,

"How is that a business?"

Later Hoffman would realize that Musk didn't think that way.

"What I didn't appreciate is that Elon starts with a mission and later finds a way to backfill in order to make it work financially." That's what makes him a force of nature."

There is no better way to describe Musk than as a "force of nature".

Elon Musk went on to found SpaceX and started building rockets.

Source: https://www.boringcompany.com/projects#vl

That also led to the development of the communication satellites of Starlink which now has more than 9,400 operational satellites in orbit.

He also made Tesla the largest electric vehicle manufacturer in the world.

Across all vehicle models globally, the Tesla Model Y is the third biggest seller in the world.

Tesla Model Y

Musk also developed the autonomous driving technology used in the Tesla based on artificial intelligence rather than radar and sonar like other companies.

Every mile that is driven by Teslas around the world is making the technology better

Tesla also has a significant presence in solar panels.

Tesla has also become a leader in battery storage technology.

Tesla's Optimus division is also developing human-like robots that can do many functions and jobs that humans can do. He is using the same AI concepts for the robots that he did with his vehicles.

Elon Musk also founded The Boring Company that creates safe, fast-to-dig and low cost transportation, utility and freight tunnels.

One of the first projects is a Vegas Loop which will comprise 68 miles of transportation tunnels serving Las Vegas.

Source: https://www.boringcompany.com/projects#vl

I have written about Elon Musk several times in these pages over the years.

The most focused view was a blog post I wrote in December, 2023 after reading Walter Isascsson's biography of Musk.

I would highly recommend this book if you want to learn more about Musk.

I wrote this sentence to begin that blog post in 2023 and I have an even stronger belief in its truth than I did over two years ago.

When the definitive history of the early 21st Century is written I would be surprised if Elon Musk is not considered the most consequential person of this period.

When I wrote that I was thinking about all of the things that Musk was doing that were advancing our world.

Electric vehicles.

A reusable Rocket system capable of returning us to the Moon and, later, to Mars.

The Starlink communications network that could provide voice and internet connectivity anywhere on earth.

Solar power for homes and businesses.

Battery storage that could store the solar energy.

Humanoid robots that could handle all sorts of human functions and tasks.

Tunnel systems.

Each of these alone would advance human society forward enormously.

Collectively they can literally advance the human race beyond earth.

What I failed to realize until recently is that all of the things that Musk is doing have one thing in common.

They are all critical to establishing, maintaining and sustaining a human colony on Mars.

First, you need a rocket with the power and range to travel to Mars.

You need that rocket to be reusable as it will require thousands of trips to ferry the necessary supplies and materials to Mars to build and support a colony.

You need power on Mars-the most likely source of that power is solar.

It will be necessary to harness and store that power. You will need solar panels and battery storage.

Transportation on Mars will be necessary and the most obvious solution is for it to be electric vehicles powered by solar power.

It will be difficult to build roads on the Mars surface and the outside environment is harsh so tunnels might be a better method for transportation between key locations on the planet.

The harsh Mars climate will make it difficult for humans to operate. Robots would be a much better option to use for construction and other tasks at the Mars colony.

Until recently, it had not occurred to me that each of the business ventures and innovations above are all aligned to accomplish Musk's overriding mission in life---to establish a human colony on Mars.

That takes me back to Reid Hoffman's statement about Elon Musk with an even greater appreciation for his vision...and genius.

"What I didn't appreciate is that Elon starts with a mission and later finds a way to backfill in order to make it work financially." That's what makes him a force of nature."

Consider how many criticize Elon Musk for his wealth.

Do they understand that his wealth has only come about about as a consequence of backfilling behind his real mission?

He has become the world's wealthiest man not because he was a greedy capitalist but because he is concerned about the continuity of the human race.

That is the real genius of Elon Musk.

Take all of the above and then consider what Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ("AOC") said about Musk last year.

Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5125508-ocasio-cortez-musk-one-of-the-most-unintelligent-billionaires-i-have-ever-met/

Really?

That should tell you everything you need to know about judgment and intellect of the darling of the American Left.

Choose wisely who you follow and trust.

Don't Bite The Hand That Feeds You

Few places in the United States (or the world) have prospered in the way that Seattle and the state of Washington have over the last 40 years.

Three gigantic corporations that are integral to almost everyone's daily lives were founded there.

Microsoft.

Starbucks.

Amazon.

Washington has the third highest GDP per capita of any state in the union only trailing New York and Massachusetts. 

Of course, nothing comes close to the District of Columbia on that score.

Almost all of it fueled by our tax dollars!

Real per capita GDP by state
Source: Statista.com

Real median income (2023$) in the state increased from $61,200 in 1985 to $97,500 in 2024---almost 60% over and above inflation.

A major factor that contributed to Washington's growth was the fact that the state had no income tax.

Howard Schultz and Jeff Bezos both relocated from New York to Washington to begin their entrepreneurial pursuits motivated in part by that no state income tax policy.

The lack of a state income tax has hardly hampered Washington's ability to generate revenues over the years.

In 1985, the state had $4.3 billion in annual revenues from state and local taxes.

In 2025, those tax revenues had grown to $41.6 billion.

However, it does not seem to matter how much money government collects.

They always need more.

That is particularly true in a liberal state like Washington.

Washington has not had a Republican governor since 1985.

Republicans have not been in control of both houses of the state legislature since 1996.

In 2021, the Democrats in Washington passed a law that taxed capital gains of over $250,000 at 7%.

Last year that was increased to 9.9% for capital gains over $1 million.

This week the Washington House approved an income tax of 9.9% on those with adjusted household incomes of more than $1 million  annually.

Source: https://washingtonstatestandard.com/2026/03/10/with-marathon-debate-and-heated-vote-wa-house-advances-income-tax/

This is in a state which voters have rejected income tax proposals 10 times in the last 90 years. 

An income tax was last rejected by voters in 2010 by an overwhelming margin of 64%-36%.

The need to obtain voter approval to implement an income tax in the past was based on previous rulings of the Supreme Court of Washington that a graduated state income tax was unconstitutional.

This is due to a provision in the state constitution that states that all property must be taxed uniformly.

The Court has ruled that income is property and therefore a graduated, progressive income tax that does not tax everyone is unconstitutional.

The capital gains tax enacted in 2021 was upheld because the Court ruled that it was an excise tax involving the privilege of selling selling or transferring a capital asset rather on the property or asset itself.

The Court ruled that selling a capital asset was a "voluntary" act.

The Democrats was emboldened to pursue the income tax legislatively, and bypass the voting public, with the hope that a liberal Supreme Court will overturn the prior precedent that goes back almost 100 years.

Will that Court also now hold that earning income is "voluntary"?

In the meantime, Jeff Bezos and Howard Schultz have seen enough and have abandoned the state they moved to in order to make their fortunes.

Bezos left the state for tax-free Florida in 2023 after the capital gains tax was enacted.

Schultz (coincidentally?) announced on LinkedIn this week that he has also moved to Florida.

Bill Gates is apparently still making Washington his principal residence for now but he has multiple homes and it would not require much for him to change his tax domicile.

What is particularly interesting in all of this is that Bezos, Schultz and Gates have all been large contributors to Democrats in both the state and national elections over the years.

You have to wonder if they have had any second thoughts about that?

There is also an old idiom that Democrats in the state might want to think about.

"Don't bite the hand that feeds you."

Washington became one of the wealthiest states in the union over the last 40 years because of entrepreneurs who started businesses in the state that created hundreds of thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in tax revenues to Washington.

Their reward is for the state to take a massive bite out of their income and success?

You have to believe that there will also be a lot fewer entrepreneurs willing to take the risk of establishing new businesses in the state going forward.

What is also interesting is to see the divergence in state income tax rates across the nation over the last 25 years.

21 states (most being red states) have lowered state income tax rates.

6 states (including Washington if the new law is enacted) have increased income tax rates.

All six are Democrat led--D.C, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York and Washington.

Credit: https://x.com/JaredWalczak/status/2031738823512641688

Many states have accepted the fact that it is not wise to bite the hand that feeds you.

This has not sunk in for leftists in Washington and elsewhere.

They apparently will not be content until they take a bite out of everyone and everything.

Even if it ends up devouring them in the process when there is no one left to pay the bills.

Perception Is Reality

I used to spend a lot of time in Washington, D.C. when I was practicing as a tax attorney.

Many of those visits involved work on various tax legislative initiatives.

I often worked with a lobbyist who had been a high level legislative staffer before getting into lobbying.

He often said this about understanding how things work in D.C.

"Perception is reality" he would repeat over and over.

He believed that nothing mattered more than perception.

Perception was more important than facts, truth or anything else.

That is a big reason media narratives are so important when it comes to most major political issues.

Media narratives shape the perception of the public.

Those perceptions then become the reality that shapes the political response from those in D.C.

I often focus this blog on facts and data that counter media narratives.

Providing context and the truth and reality around issues.

However, I also pay close attention to polls and surveys that measure perceptions and sentiments based on what my former colleague said about Washington.

In that perceptions are so important to politics you can't afford to ignore those perceptions.

Let's take a look at a recent NBC News poll to see the approval ratings of various people and groups.

Clearly, it is tough for anyone or any thing to get positive net approval from voters in any poll these days.

That is particularly true for any politician.

The only positive approvals scores in the NBC News polls were for the Pope and a comedian.

Source: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/27777984-nbc-news-march-2026-poll-03-08-2024-release-final/

Every politician and political party was in negative territory.

The Democrat Party is -22 compared to -14 for the Republican Party.

Only Iran polls worse than Democrats right now.

The two biggest names being promoted for 2028 for the Democrat Presidential election are Kamala Harris at -17 and Gavin Newsom at -18.

Compare that to the two Republican frontrunners that are mentioned the most---Marco Rubio -7 and J.D. Vance -11. 

President Trump is at -12 in the NBC poll despite a media narrative that is almost constantly negative.

In the Real Clear Politics composite average of all polls Trump is -10.

Source: https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/approval/donald-trump/approval-rating

Let's compare Trump's -10 to previous President's to the first week of March of their second term (only term for Biden).

Biden         -14

Obama       -10

Bush II       -12

Trump's approval is right in line with Obama's and better than Biden or Bush at the same time.

Who would have thought that if you watched NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN or MSNOW every night?

In his first term, Trump was -14 this same week.

It will be interesting to see what Trump's approval in the days and weeks ahead with the Iran situation being so fluid.

Is the U.S. achieving its objectives?

Will Iran create more chaos in the region?

Where are oil prices headed?

If we are looking at $5 gas prices it will not be good.

On the other hand, if Iran is under control, we may see exactly the opposite.

Perception will be reality either way, especially in the short term.

However, Trump did not do any of this except with the long term in mind.

The actual reality of what eventually develops will be what is recorded in the history books.

Today's perceptions will fade from memory.

A lot of times current perceptions do not make any sense.

For example, compare the views on sanctuary cities and those on ICE.

43% of those polled do not approve of sanctuary cities compared to only 33% who approve.

Those numbers would indicate that people do not want cities protecting criminal aliens from deportation.

However, by a 56%-36% score, those polled have a negative view of ICE who is charged with enforcing the immigration laws.

You can be sure that the views on ICE have been heavily influenced by a negative media narrative.

However, perception is reality.

Most surprising to me in the poll was the high negative feelings about Artificial Intelligence at -20.

The only things that polled worse were Iran and the Democrat Party.

Keep your eye on this issue as we head towards 2028.

Will we see politicians taking stands to rein in AI as more stories like this appear?

One thing you can count on is people reacting to threats to their livelihood and way of life.

Source: https://edition.cnn.com/2026/01/28/tech/amazon-layoffs-ai

Source: https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/oracle-expected-slash-thousands-jobs-massive-ai-spending-creates-financial-cash-crisis

I have said before that it remains to be seen whether AI will be one of mankind's greatest innovations or our final undoing.

I am an optimist so I am inclined to believe the former.

However, that does not mean there will not be challenges, pain and economic dislocations along the way.

A lot of whale oil distributors went out of business when electricity starting lighting cities.

Self-dialed phones meant a lot of telephone operations lost their jobs.

So did a lot of secretaries when word processors or encyclopedia salesmen when Google was developed.

However, perception is reality in the short term.

Truth is revealed in the long term.

The problem is that most political decisions are made in the short term based on perceptions.

Trump is not a politician as if any of us need to be reminded of that fact.

Poetic Justice

The most astounding fact involving the Israeli-United States campaign against Iran is the intelligence that was behind the bombing targets.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his inner circle were taken out as they gathered at his residential compound in Tehran at the beginning of the campaign.

The IDF released this graphic this shows the major regime leaders that were eliminated in the first hours of the campaign.

The building in which Iran's Assembly of Experts were going to meet to name the new Supreme Leader was then bombed in which some of the clerics were present and either perished or were injured.

The precision bombing is impressive in itself.

However, more impressive is the intelligence that is directing those deadly strikes.

How have Mossad and/or the CIA been able to do this?

The obvious answer is that they have a very well-placed source within the Iranian leadership.

I have also seen speculation that Mossad-paid dentists and/or doctors planted tracking sensors in the teeth or in the bodies of some of the key Iranian figures.

That seems far-fetched but the mere fact that it is being circulated is a very effective psyop that has to be playing in the minds of every remaining Iranian leader right now 

The most reliable explanation for the intelligence is from original reporting that first appeared in The Financial Times.

The FT report claims that Israel hacked into traffic and surveillance cameras in Tehran to track the movements of the Supreme Leader, his security team and other top leaders.

Source: https://www.timesofisrael.com/report-israel-hacked-tehran-traffic-cameras-to-track-khamenei-ahead-of-assassination/

The cameras were part of one of the most comprehensive surveillance systems in the world.

Cameras on every street. Facial recognition at universities to identify emerging dissidents. License tag readers to automatically fine women who might remove their hijab in their cars. Drones that monitored beaches to insure women remained fully clothed and covered.

It was the primary tool to insure compliance with strict Islamic law.

All of it established and implemented on the orders of the Supreme Leader.

Israel hacked nearly all of it over a number of years and used it to build files on the movements and habits of all of the key leaders and their security personnel.

As they put it, the Israelis eventually knew Tehran as well as they did Jerusalem.

Israel hacked into Tehran’s extensive traffic camera network in order to track the bodyguards of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and other top Iranian officials ahead of Saturday’s assassination of the supreme leader, the Financial Times reported on Monday, citing two people familiar with the matter.

Iran’s cameras are believed to be part of the state’s surveillance apparatus, allowing authorities to identify and pursue protesters and regime opponents. But the Mossad, Israel’s spy agency, was able to co-opt the network for use against the regime, the report said.

The FT said Israel gained access to the cameras years ago, and found that one particular camera was angled in such a way that it showed where members of Khamenei’s security team parked their cars.

Through the cameras, Israeli intelligence built files on the guards’ addresses, work schedules, and who they were assigned to protect.

On the day of the attack, Israel and the US also disrupted cellular service on Tehran’s Pasteur Street, where Khamenei was assassinated, so those trying to reach the bodyguards and deliver possible warnings would receive busy signals, per the report.

“We knew Tehran like we know Jerusalem,” an Israeli intelligence official told the Financial Times. “And when you know [a place] as well as you know the street you grew up on, you notice a single thing that’s out of place.”

Israel used AI tools and algorithms it had developed to sort through mountains of data it was amassing on Iran’s leadership and their movements, according to an official who spoke with the British daily, which said the bulk of the work was performed by the IDF’s Unit 8200.

The massive data mining operation allowed the military to track Khamenei to the Saturday meeting where he was struck, and assured Mossad and the CIA that senior officials were on their way to the meeting.

The CIA also had a human source who provided key intelligence, according to the sources. No further details were provided.

Take as step back and consider all of this.

Israel did not hack a military installation or system.

They hacked a domestic surveillance apparatus the primary purpose of which was to keep their people in line.

It was used to track women who were not wearing a hijab, were not wearing their veil properly or to build dossiers on women who committed the crime of showing a few locks of hair.

Israel turned the tool of Iran's morality police into intelligence to attack those in the regime that were using the surveillance system to spy and suppress their population.

The Ayatollah spent untold amounts of money to control Iran's population, especially its women.

Is it not poetic justice that all of this ultimately led to his undoing?

Some might see it as something else.

This and That---March 2, 2026

A few random observations, charts and factoids to provide some context on what is going on in the world.

Not Afraid To Be Great

Eight years ago, one year into Donald Trump's first term as President, I wrote this.

I don't know if Donald Trump will be a great President, average, or terrible when history is written.

What I do know is that you cannot be great unless you are not afraid to be great.

I also know that Donald Trump is not afraid to be great.

That has been proven to be even truer in Trump's second term.

Consider just a few examples over the last year.

Proceeding with his tariff strategy despite claims by almost all economists that it would lead to higher inflation and wreck the U.S. economy.

It hasn't.

Launching an audacious bombing mission last year to take out Iran's nuclear facilities.

Using U.S. Special Forces to snatch Venezuelan President Maduro and bring him to the United States for trial while also stopping the flow of oil from that country to Cuba and China.

Of course, the biggest of all bets was Trump partnering with Israel in the last few days to target Iran's military capabilities and its terror-supporting regime.

You could not put down a much bigger bet than that one.

If Trump is successful, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism will be neutralized.

A potential nuclear and strategic threat will be eliminated.

The Middle East might actually find peace.

Israel might find itself secure.

The United States might be able to pull back its significant military presence presence in the region.

China, which has relied on cheap oil from Iran and Venezuela, may have to turn to the United States for oil to power its economy.

The Iranian people will be freed from the brutal theocracy they have had to endure for almost 50 years.

The benefits of Trump's move, as he would say, are HUUUUUGGE!

Of course, huge potential benefits invariably involve significant risks.

What happens if Iran's missiles do significant damage to the US Naval fleet?

Or to American allies such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait or the UAE?

What if the world economy starts to teeter with an extended war?

What about the price of oil?

Or a crash in the stock market.

What if Iran retaliates with sleeper cells in the United States?

Any time you undergo military action there are second, third and fourth order effects that can occur.

Of course, great Presidents usually come about by facing great challenges. In many respects, the times make the man. It was certainly true with Washington, Lincoln and Roosevelt.

Greatness does not follow when taking the easy road. It only graces those who are not afraid of the challenge on the hard road.

Success is never assured. Trump may fail bigly. However, he is not afraid to be great. 

That in itself is a rare commodity.

China Imports

Before Donald Trump was elected President, China was accounting for over 22% of all of the imports entering the United States.

Trump was determined that the United States would not continue to be that dependent on any one country, especially one that was not an ally.

 

That dependence had resulted in the loss of American manufacturing jobs in addition to it being harmful to the security of the United States.

China's share of imports into the United States has fallen to 7.5%---about where it was in the year 2000.

It really does matter who is elected President.

Where Did All The Day Traders Go?

Do you remember a few years ago when all the rage was around day trading?

You don't hear much about it these days.

I wonder where they all went?

Perhaps they can be found at the casino.

Unwed Mothers

In the United States, 40% of children are born out of wedlock.

However, that number is nearly 70% for Black children compared to 28% for White children.

There are also significant differences in this metric by country.

For example, 87% of children in Colombia are born out of wedlock compared to only 2.4% in Japan.

Can New York City Be More Like Tokyo?

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani wants to transform the city.

Most of what he wants to do would cost billions of dollars.

If he wants a model on how to make the city better he might want to look at Tokyo.

The Tokyo metropolis has twice the population and its annual budget is half of New York City's.

As an aside, New York City employs 364,000 government workers of which only 31% are White.

However, the budget of Mamdani contains these line items.

Is the objective to increase the number of Whites to increase diversity or to take the number to 0%?

I am guessing that Tokyo is not spending any money on DEI.

Business Start-Ups

Interested in starting a business?

The percent that you will be successful based on type of business.

Yes, there is a reason that there are a large number of self-storage businesses besides the fact that we have too much stuff.

I have to think there is also a lot of synergy in owning both a mobile home park and a laundromat in close proximity.