November’s First Week

Next week will be much more impactful than usual. Elections in New Jersey, Virginia, and New York City will provide us with real-time insight into the electorate’s mood. On November 5th, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the Tariff cases. We may get a grasp on how the court will rule in this momentous area.

Off-year elections tend to favor the out-of-power party, and polls show Democrats leading in these elections. However, polls show the races in New Jersey and Virginia favor the Democratic Party. However, the gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia are narrowing. Instead of being on the attack, the Democrats are back on their heels.

In New Jersey, the incumbent Governor is highly unpopular. High taxes and energy prices plague the state. Fealty to the “Green New Deal” sees unsightly windmills on the famous Jersey Shore. Yet the Democratic candidate seems devoid of workable ideas to right the ship, leaving the energetic Republican candidate on the offensive.  

The vast majority of Virginians oppose biological men on girls’ sports teams and in their bathrooms. An 80-20 issue, and Abigail Spanberger, the Democratic candidate, can’t find a way to align with the girls. Menacing messages from the Democratic Attorney General candidate included threats to an opponent’s children. Spanberger can’t even say he should drop out.

New York City is among the bluest places in America, but it has faced myriad problems. Businesses and people, especially high-value taxpayers, are moving out. High taxes, crime, deteriorating services, bad schools, and very high-priced housing have diminished the “Big Apple’s appeal since the heady Giuliani and Bloomberg mayoralties. The city has long been a creative melting pot. For instance, almost one in eight New Yorkers is Jewish.

Continue reading

A Heads Up For Trump

The Washington Post reports that President Trump is considering attending the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in the tariff cases scheduled for November 5. It’s hard to see this threat as anything other than an attempt at intimidation. No president ever did this. Something about this executive branch’s effort to menace another branch made me think of another leader’s actions along these lines against another coequal branch of government.

At loggerheads with Parliament over its refusal to fund his endeavors, Charles I of the U.K. raised money through forced loans in defiance of that body and even threatened it. He entered Parliament with soldiers in an attempt to arrest some members. The idea was to wrest the Power of the purse — Parliament’s basic Power — from that body. The result was the English Civil War, where Parliament prevailed. Charles didn’t fare so well:

With the Power of the purse firmly embedded in the legislative branch, the principle migrated to the English colonies, where the Crown appointed the Governors. Still, the colonists elected the legislature that controlled funding. It’s no surprise that the legislative Power of the purse appears in the very first article of our Constitution.

Trump vs. V.O.S Selections —the official case name —is the most important separation-of-powers case since Truman seized the steel mills. To my mind, Trump’s tariffs are so expansive that they dwarf Truman’s action. Suppose a President can proclaim an emergency, which he can solely define, and usurp a revenue source expressly delegated to the legislative branch. In that case, the executive can neuter that branch and destroy our foundational system of checks and balances.

Continue reading

Rooted in Obamacare

The government shutdown is brought on by Senate Democrats refusing to sign on to a clean continuing resolution because of exploding Obamacare premiums. Without an extension of the COVID-19 era coverage expansion subsidies, many people will see their premiums more than double. The heartless Republicans will consign people to lose their healthcare. Of course, some of those losing their subsidy make 600%0f of the poverty level, but everyone is entitled to healthcare, right?

None of this mess should come as a surprise. When the original Obamacare bill squeaked through, President Obama and the Democrats told us this was a way to get close to universal medical care at a reasonable cost.

Obamacare, at the forefront of the shutdown, brought back the memory of why I started this blog. At the time, I, along with a slew of others, disputed these claims. We said the projected costs would prove much higher and would leave many people uncovered. Of course, we’re correct:

Even with the COVID-19 expansion, 27.2 million Americans, or 8.7%, remained uninsured in 2024. Coupling with this failure are rapidly rising costs. Contributing to these costs is widespread fraud.

After the Affordable Care Act (ACA, Obamacare) narrowly passed and went into effect, I happened to inveigh against it at a family dinner, pointing out its numerous flaws and how to improve healthcare. My stepdaughter challenged me to come up with a better plan. In other words, put up or shut up, though she said more nicely.

This reasonable dare prodded me to start this blog to air my public policy ideas, beginning with healthcare. Dave’s Healthcare Plan went online in 2014. Anyone can read it here.

The difference between my Plan and others, including the ACA, is that it integrates health insurance with savings and portability. This view of a person’s financial picture is standard for a financial advisor assessing a person’s economic needs. Without health insurance, you could wipe out your savings overnight. Your savings could make healthcare more affordable.

Continue reading

Getting Immigration Right

Immigration is a continuing flash point in America, but we rarely look at the facts and data. Emotions have led to deadlock on one of our most important policy questions. Let’s start with what we know:

The more we deport migrants, the sooner we will experience negative population growth. A glance at our social programs reveals the disastrous consequences of this path. Social Security will have to cut benefits by 2033 as things presently stand. With even fewer people supporting our retirees, the system collapses. We’ll need more people to fill jobs in an expanding economy.

Once we understand that our future depends on a growing population, the only question is how to achieve it. More births would be beneficial, but no one has yet found a way to increase births in advanced economies. That leaves immigration. However, this conclusion doesn’t mean throwing the borders open and taking in all comers. Done correctly, immigration can be a win-win proposition.

There are approximately 400,000 to 500,000 unfilled manufacturing jobs in the U.S. as of mid-2025. More than 1 million skilled trades jobs are unfilled, a figure expected to continue growing. The cybersecurity sector is projected to have 3.5 million unfilled positions in 2025. The nursing profession faces significant projected shortages, with approximately 1 million openings predicted for the decade of 2022-2032. These figures inform us that we need more skilled workers.  

Instead of the confusing and ineffective visa programs for skilled workers we have presently, I propose that anyone with skills worldwide can register for clearance. Once approved, authorized individuals can receive a visa at any time in the future.

Continue reading