Trump is correct in wanting to end birthright citizenship

January 28, 2025

Among the many Executive Orders President Donald Trump has signed is one aimed at ending "birthright citizenship." That is the aspect of the U.S. Constitution that has enabled children born to illegal aliens or those on temporary visas while they are in the U.S. to become citizens, although their parents are not citizens.

Birthright citizenship is also known as the legal principle of unrestricted — or “pure” — jus soli, or the "right of the soil." 

Trump’s effort to end this element has stirred quite a lot of opposition. At least 22 states, the city of San Francisco and the District of Columbia have filed suit in opposition.

During the signing of the Executive Order, Trump said, incorrectly, that the United States is “the only country in the world that does this.” However, some 30 countries allow automatic jus soli, and most do not have any restrictions to it. However, while Trump’s assertion wasn’t correct, it is true that this concept is losing its appeal in these countries.

The part of the U.S. Constitution that enables this is the Fourteenth Amendment, which states: “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.” 

Trump's order seeks to change the rules to deny the granting of citizenship to these children in the future. It does not apply retroactively.

However, although the Amendment’s language does not specifically say it, there was a specific and limited intent for creating the Amendment that has been disregarded for a long time.

Britannica online explains that the Fourteenth Amendment, approved in 1868, “granted citizenship and equal civil and legal rights to African Americans and slaves who had been emancipated after the American Civil War, including them under the umbrella phrase “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”

To the need for the Amendment, National Immigration Forum adds: “In the aftermath [of the Civil War], Congress was eager to ensure that newly emancipated blacks not be deprived of their rights in states previously part of the Confederacy as well as to guarantee that African Americans were entitled to citizenship regardless of where they resided, overturning the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision.”

However, for the last hundred or so years, the original intent of the Amendment has been unheeded, and it has been allowed to apply to virtually anyone born in the U.S., regardless of the circumstances of why the parent or parents were in the country.

Consequently, today, and for many years, pregnant women have come to the U.S. and given birth to their babies, and the babies have been granted citizenship. 

Whereas the original intent of the Amendment made perfect sense and was the right thing to do, the more liberal interpretation of it has allowed any child born here regardless of who the parent is. The parents could be good people or bad people, but that doesn’t matter. And because their child is a citizen, special circumstances exist for them.

Giving a baby citizenship in the U.S. simply because its mother happened to be here when it was born makes no sense, and is not something that we should allow any longer. And as the Amendment is now understood, and has been for some time, it is an advertisement for illegal entry into the country.

From Wikipedia: “The Pew Hispanic Center estimated that in 2016, approximately 6 percent of all births in the U.S. (about 250,000 out of 4 million births per year) were to unauthorized immigrants, and a population of 5 million children under 18 with at least one unauthorized parent were living in the United States. In 2018, the Migration Policy Institute estimated numbers at 4.1 million children.”

Straightening this out could be a difficult task, some say. It would require an amendment to the Constitution, and that is very difficult and takes a long time. It requires a two-thirds vote in both chambers of Congress to approve an amendment to initiate the change, and it must then be ratified by three-fourths of the states, or 38 of the 50.

But the simple solution is to consider why the Amendment was created in the first place, and allow that original intent to once again be the correct interpretation.

And in doing so, seriously consider the importance of the clause “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” This is interpreted to mean that the non-citizen must owe full allegiance to the United States and to no other country. Given that the non-citizen parent(s) entered the U.S. illegally, it would seem their allegiance would be to the country from which the non-citizen parent(s) came, rather than to the U.S., where they have broken the law when they entered.

The original idea was not to allow every, or any, child born in the country to be ruled a citizen, but to award citizenship to African Americans, slaves and their children. Otherwise, to become a citizen here, everyone desiring citizenship must follow the existing process. 

To reiterate, Trump’s end to birthright citizenship, should it be approved, will not be applied to those who have already come in, but to those in the future.

Our tax system, and what is the “fair share” for the rich?

January 21, 2025

Looking a bit deeper into the tax situation in the United States, the subject of the rich “paying their fair share” is a common point of discussion. It is especially popular with those who want to score points with voters by attacking the rich.

In his farewell address to the nation last week, and at other times, President Joe Biden made claims that are misleading or in need of context.

For example, he claimed that billionaires “paid an average of 8.2 percent in federal taxes.” Without further explanation, that figure is certifiably false. The truth is that under the current tax code, the top 1 percent of taxpayers pay an effective tax rate roughly three times that amount, about 25 percent on the income the government counts.

Whether Biden doesn’t actually know any better, or whether he just doesn’t care about the facts, is an open question. And, there is the theory that he just reads what he is given by the White House staff.

In general, Democrats think the lower income earners pay too much in taxes, and the wealthy pay too little. They are in support of an overhaul to the tax code and the tax system. They believe the country needs a tax code that rewards work and creates wealth for more people, which is certainly a positive goal. But they think we currently have a tax code that “hoards wealth for those who already have it,” and that we cannot afford to have tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans.

The Biden-Harris administration had proposed the following changes to the tax code:
* Raising the top income tax rate on the top 1 percent of earners from 37 percent to 39.6 percent
* Increasing the corporate income tax rate
* Taxing capital gains and dividends at ordinary income tax rates
* Increasing refundable tax credits for individuals

In response to the administration’s proposals, the Tax Foundation had estimated that the major tax increase proposals in the FY 2025 budget would reduce economic output by 1.6 percent, and reduce employment by 666,000 full-time jobs. Vice President and presidential candidate Kamala Harris had previously proposed to take the tax increases further, which would have made the economic losses even greater.

A look at the tax situation on The Balance website published last September cited these facts about the tax system in 2021:
* Most of the government’s federal income tax revenue comes from the nation’s top income earners. 
* In 2021, the top 1 percent of earners paid 45.8 percent of income taxes.
* The top 5 percent of earners — people with incomes $252,840 and above — collectively paid over $1.4 trillion in income taxes, or about 66 percent of the national total. 
* If you include the top 10 percent — everyone who made at least $169,800 — that figure rises to $1.7 trillion, or 76 percent of the total.
* The top 50 percent of earners contributed 97.7 percent of federal income tax revenue.

The unpopular and unfairly demonized “rich” carry the tax load for the rest of us. The top 10 percent of earners pay three-fourths of the tax revenue, much more than the relatively miniscule amount that some of the Democrat politicians would have everyone believe was the truth. And, the bottom 50 percent of earners contributed just 2.3 percent of income tax revenue.

It seems likely that given this information, any reasonable person would discount the old saw that the rich are not paying their fair share, with the wealthiest 1 percent paying nearly half of all income tax revenue.

There are seven different tax rates that an individual taxpayer, or taxpayers filing jointly, may pay, based upon their earnings: 10 percent; 12 percent; 22 percent; 24 percent; 32 percent; 35 percent; and 37 percent.

And taxes are collectable from a long list of income areas:
* Wages, salaries, and employee benefits
* Rental income
* Goods or services sold or bartered
* Royalties (e.g. from copyrights and patents)
* Business entities
* Capital gains (e.g. stocks and bonds)
* Digital assets (e.g. cryptocurrency)
* Government benefits (e.g. unemployment, Social Security)
* Tax refunds, reimbursements, and rebates
* Court awards and damages
* Gambling winnings
* Prizes and awards

Yes, we Americans — the citizens of the land of the free and the home of the brave — need to support our government’s functions. But Americans also deserve to keep as much of the money they work for as possible. And the government has a solemn duty to operate as efficiently and inexpensively as possible.

Our government is not living up to its economic responsibility. Those elected by the people, and the others who are hired to work in government, are there to serve the best interests of the American people. But they seem unconcerned about that duty. Rather than seek ways to economize, they seek expansion, which is both costly and infringes on the freedoms our Founders worked so hard to create for us.

We must hope that President Donald Trump’s incoming administration focuses on this duty, and that the opposition party is willing to help them.

“Taxation with representation” isn’t working so well, either!

January 14, 2025

These days, there are few things that Americans agree on. If there is one that has broad agreement, it is that we feel pretty much the same about taxes. Nobody likes paying taxes, although people do it with the understanding that it is necessary for the nation to survive.

Taxation has been around about as long as civilizations have existed. We know that taxation existed in Mesopotamia more than 4,500 years ago. And taxes here in the U.S. go all the way back to the colonies, when Great Britain taxed about everything that existed. The colonists objected, eventually creating the now well-known phrase "no taxation without representation." But the English king ignored them and this led to protests, the best known of them being the Boston Tea Party.

Even after the revolution and the creation of the United States of America taxes have been an important part of the lives of Americans. 

While understanding that they are necessary, there always has been much controversy about the system of taxation. One major issue is the length and complexity of the current tax code.

The tax code’s growth over the last century or so is hard to swallow. In 1913 the tax code was a relatively tiny 400 pages. Today, it is about 6,000 pages. But when you add in the IRS guidelines, with its nearly 10,000 sections it is 75,000 pages of regulations, instructions and guidance. Someone estimated that in order to read the entire code, it would take nine days of 24-hour reading. 

As explained by eFile.com, the code includes “categories for employment taxes, financing of election campaigns, coal industry health benefits, and the trust fund code. This incredible growth can be attributed to both expansions and revisions that are made to patch up tax loopholes. Over the past 10 years, it is estimated that the tax code has been amended or revised over 4,000 times.”

In the not so distant past, several changes were made to the tax code. President Ronald Reagan made two reforms, in 1981 and 1986, including the largest tax cut in our history, at the time. President Bill Clinton lowered taxes on the middle class in the 1990s, and President George W. Bush also cut taxes substantially in 2001.

President Donald Trump put forth the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act in 2017, which helped people with lower incomes and it also lowered the corporate tax rate. His efforts are regarded as the largest overhaul of taxes in the 30 years prior to its passage.

Even so, these actions did not actually make the tax code any shorter or easier to understand and deal with.

Our tax code is so large and complex that the Tax Foundation estimates that 6.5 billion hours are needed each year to get all the tax work done. That works out to the equivalent of 3.1 million full-time workers. And the wages of these folks total $313 billion. In addition, there are 83,190 people working as tax preparers, as estimated by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

And then there is the issue of tax rates. If there is to be a tax on personal income, why should there be different tax rates depending upon how much you make? The old saw that “the rich ought to pay more” works with everyone paying the same rate. At 10 percent of wages, earnings of $30,000 = $3,000; $75,000 = $7,500; $500,000 = $50,000; $1,000,000 = $100,000.

Why do higher income earners have to pay a higher tax rate? When wealthier people pay higher tax rates, they have less money to spend on the things they need and want, like homes and things in them, autos and other personal items, investments, donations to charity, etc. 

Lower rates give them more money to spend. Having more of their money in the economy is a very good thing. It increases sales of items and services, and that creates jobs and prosperity. Lower tax rates also reduce or eliminate the need for tax loopholes.

People with incomes at or below a certain point cannot afford to pay taxes on their income, so they should continue to get a break. And those in the income area just above that point might need a lower tax rate than others. But we shouldn’t need more than two rates.

Taxes must be sufficient to pay for the actions of government. But the actions of government must for this and other reasons be only as expensive as is absolutely necessary to provide for the safety and well-being of the people. A smaller, more efficient government would require less income from taxation to pay the bills.

The tax code should not be thousands of pages long. And it should not be so complicated that the average American cannot understand it and comply with it without having to seek help from professionals.

Increasing government efficiency at the same time as we are reducing excessive regulations, eliminating unnecessary or unconstitutional departments and agencies, and establishing sensible and fair income tax rates is long overdue.

Hopefully, the incoming Trump administration will address these problems and take steps to fix them.

Political considerations still control how our government works

January 7, 2025

As we watch Joe Biden’s presidency ending and prepare for President-elect Donald Trump to take office, some notable things have occurred.

First, Biden continued his questionable behavior by killing the sale of the troubled U.S. Steel company to Japan’s Nippon Steel. This transaction, had it been completed, would have been for more than $14 billion. 

In doing this, Biden said it was his “responsibility to block foreign ownership of this vital American company” as “this acquisition would…create risk for our national security and our critical supply chains.”

There is little evidence to support that. However, had the purchaser been our most significant adversary, Communist China, those who condemn Biden’s action would have celebrated it.

U.S. Steel was founded 1901 by Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan and Charles Schwab. It is the first U.S. company to achieve a worth of at least $1 billion not long after its creation. However, during the 20th century the company had serious problems, which brought about trying to sell it.

Japan is a strong ally of the U.S. and would have been a good owner of the company, keeping it alive. U.S. Steel had warned that, “without Nippon Steel’s cash, it will shift production away from its aging blast furnaces to cheaper non-union electric arc furnaces and move its headquarters out of Pittsburgh,” as reported by the Associated Press.

Biden, who prides himself as the most pro-union president ever, seemed to not notice that possibility.

Also, Biden awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to 19 people at a White House ceremony. The Medal is the Nation’s highest civilian honor, and is presented to individuals who have made exemplary contributions to the United States, to world peace, or other significant endeavors.

Prior to giving the awards Biden noted that the recipients are “a collection of people, with different backgrounds, beliefs, talents, generations, and agendas, using their remarkable gifts and unwavering passion to strengthen our resolve as one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

Among those receiving this special award were some well-known people, including Robert F. Kennedy (posthumous), Michael J. Fox, Denzel Washington, Lionel Messi, Earvin “Magic” Johnson, Ashton B. Carter (posthumous), Bill Nye, and Ralph Lauren.

However, there were two others who are well known, and controversial: former Secretary of State and former Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and notorious philanthropist George Soros.

As Secretary of State, Clinton was lackluster. Her time as a senator and first lady were no better. She is best known for her erroneous claims, such as that as first lady she traveled to Bosnia, and “landed under sniper fire.”

More recently, she said that “If you’re just catching up: The Republican Party, taking orders from the world’s richest man, is on course to shut down the government over the holidays, stopping paychecks for our troops and nutrition benefits for low-income families just in time for Christmas.” Really?

George Soros is a strong supporter of progressive projects, and has poured billions of dollars into them through his Open Society Foundations. He funded groups supporting anti-Israel protests on college campuses.

Worse, he has invested heavily in political campaigns of far-left, progressive — read “pro-criminal” — district attorneys in major cities. Two of these are Manhattan’s Alvin Bragg and Larry Krasner in Philadelphia. These two prefer pursuing criminal justice reform over finding and prosecuting criminals.

Just last week as the 119th Congress prepares to begin working, the House of Representatives addressed its first step, which is electing its Speaker. The Republican candidate, who was depending on a very narrow majority, was former-Speaker Mike Johnson, and the Democrat candidate was Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

The House can do nothing until it elects the Speaker, and a vote to certify the election of the next President is at the top of the list, right after members of the House are sworn in. So, a smooth and quick Speaker election is critical.

What should have been a simple task of taking an hour to count the votes and complete the election was thrown into chaos by a few Republicans who did not want Johnson in the position.

Of the 219 House Republicans all but three understood the importance of getting Johnson elected quickly so they could get on with the important work of the House did vote for Johnson. He then fell short of the needed 218 votes, which was the majority of those voting.

The three who wanted to play games with this important action were Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Rep. Ralph Norman of South Carolina, and Rep. Keith Self of Texas. It would have made more sense to elect Johnson and get to work, and if there was strong enough support to replace him, wait until the House was up and running. 

It appeared initially like a second vote would be needed. Johnson talked with each of the three to try and work things out. But ultimately, what did the trick was a phone call from Trump.

So, the efforts of three Republicans to continue the insanity that began with the ouster of former-Speaker Kevin McCarthy in 2023 did not succeed. And now the House can focus on passing legislation that will help restore America. 

2025 can be the year to get America back on the right track

December 31, 2024

Last November’s election has given many Americans reason to be optimistic about the future. This feeling is amplified virtually day-by-day as President Joe Biden continues adding items to the long Biden’s Worst Actions List.

Even some on the left have been shocked into reality, understanding that the Democrats’ radical “progressive” movement is well beyond what a substantial majority of Americans can stomach.

Things like open borders and the horrors that result; ridiculous level of inflation and the high costs of wants and needs; government agencies and departments straying from their duty and unelected bureaucrats making rules and punishments with the force of law; government spending well beyond income levels; important areas like education being infected by socialistic goals; the military adopting the idiotic concept of diversity, equity and inclusion; out of control and harmful mandates during the COVID pandemic; a high level of regulation that makes it more difficult for businesses to operate profitably; government propping up people who don’t want to work; and trying to relieve education loan debts in order to buy votes. 

While some of this has been going on for many years, the Biden-Harris administration has jammed the accelerator to the floor and removed protections that prevented or slowed problems from developing. They have done more damage than the guy who started all this, former President Barack Obama.

How will this next presidential transition go? Will the Democrats in Congress stick to their “oppose Trump on everything because he is Trump” behavior, opposing his nominations for key government positions? Or, will they return to the idea of being an American and make sensible decisions on these nominations, doing what Congress is supposed to do by approving a president’s nominees unless there are real and significant problems? We must hope for the latter choice.

One of the United States most serious problems is an enormous national debt caused by foolish spending levels by a government that is too big and too broad in its reach.

The federal government does not need to be controlling every aspect of our lives, or even be involved in many of the things over which it now has control or affects strongly.

Under our system of “federalism,” the federal government has limited powers, which are outlined in the U.S. Constitution, and the states are left with control of many aspects of daily life that are not given to the federal government, as per the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. This sensible concept has been diluted over the past decades, and needs to be re-established.

Our federal government is too big and too powerful. It employs too many people, and has too many departments and agencies, and it exerts power over the people in far too many areas of their lives.

Back in 2011, Rep. Jeff Duncan, R-SC, was concerned with federal agencies that he said are not constitutional. He specifically mentioned the Department of Education, the Department of Energy and the National Labor Relations Board. If his was an accurate evaluation, then these departments should be eliminated, along with any others that may also be outside the limits of the Constitution.

According to a Gallop poll in 2022, “a 54 percent majority of Americans say the federal government has too much power, while 39 percent say it has about the right amount of power and 6 percent say too little. … Since 2005, no less than 50 percent of Americans have said they believe the federal government is too powerful, with some of those readings reaching 60 percent.”

As for the number of employees, USA Facts tells us that “as of November 2024, the federal government employed just over 3 million people. … Federal government employees work at departments or agencies housed under one of the three branches of government — executive, legislative, or judicial, though most federal agencies are under the federal executive branch. Across all US industries, it’s the15th-largest workforce overall.”

Trump has expressed his intention to address this situation. One beneficial idea for his presidency is the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency, called DOGE. This proposed presidential advisory commission will work to identify areas of inefficiency and over-reach, remove harmful and invasive regulations, identify wasteful spending and other similar things. Trump has nominated Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to run this operation.

All one has to do to understand that changes must be made is to look at the National Debt of $35 trillion, and the interest on that enormous amount of $1.2 trillion in 2023. 

We have to get the size, cost, and over-regulation of the federal government down; re-establish our energy superiority; and get inflation under control, among other important things.

We have seen so much domestic production and so many jobs in those production areas moved out of the U.S. and into foreign countries. America needs to be the primary provider of the products we need and want, and Americans should be the ones who produce them. We need to begin to bring those back.

Donald Trump intends to address these problems, but we must remember that it will take more than one year or four years to complete this gargantuan project.