Taxpayers vs. Taxers

It’s Easier to Tax than to Trim Government Waste & Excess

by: David White

7/7/2025

Early success by the Trump Administration and Elon Musk in cleaning house at the Federal level in many areas through their Department of Government Efficiency (D.O.G.E.) gave us hope that we’d see some of the same thing happen as an organic outcropping of support for their efforts in all 50 states.

While efficiency efforts occurred in several states, Colorado’s legislature and Governor didn’t even come close to embracing the merits of what was behind the D.O.G.E. movement. Instead, they’ve ratcheted up their efforts to increase the size of government and they’ve made it clear that they’re going to raise taxes to do it by trying to invalidate the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) which voters approved in 1992 as an amendment to the State Constitution to control the growth of government. TABOR limits the amount of revenue governments in the state can retain and spend and requires excess revenue to be refunded to taxpayers if not approved by voters. The TABOR limit "base" is equal to the lesser of the prior fiscal year's revenue limit grown by Colorado inflation and population growth, or the current fiscal year's revenue.

This last legislative session saw an effort by Rep. Sean Camacho (a Denver Democrat) to sponsor a resolution to require the General Assembly to sue over the constitutionality of TABOR which he introduced in early April, a month before the end of the 2025 Legislative Session. A month later, Colorado Democrats decided that they would not pursue a lawsuit to try and invalidate this 1992 voter-approved amendment to the state constitution. However, as House Majority Leader Monica Duran (Democrat from Wheat Ridge) said at a news conference after the decision was made, “At the end of the day, we just have to look at the timing that we have available.” Duran said it’s likely the effort will be back in some form next session, adding, “Sometimes, it takes a couple of tries.” (See the following for reference: Democratic lawmakers prepare to sue over constitutionality of Colorado's TABOR | News | coloradopolitics.com and Colorado Democrats won’t pursue a lawsuit to invalidate TABOR after all | AspenTimes.com)

Michael Fields, president of Advance Colorado Institute, told the online newspaper Colorado Politics, that with the federal courts ruling against the plaintiffs, "liberal legislators" are exploring the state courts "to get rid of TABOR entirely." "This isn’t a new tactic. They tried to do the same thing in federal court over a decade ago, and in 2021, they lost that case on the merits," Fields said. 

Fields continued…"So, what we have is Democratic lawmakers wasting taxpayers’ dollars to go after a 33-year-old Constitutional measure that has a 70% approval rating. The real story here is the divide between legislators and the people on TABOR, and also the divide within the Democratic Party."

And so it goes. Fiscally challenged Democrat lawmakers and no doubt some Republican ones too, will spend your money to take more of your money. But do they really need to do this? I say that they don’t because they figured out years ago how to get more out of your wallet every year without even bothering to ask you. And how do they do this? It’s called “fees.” And boy, do we have plenty of those!

Tax hikes are a non-starter for most voters who will turn on elected officials very quickly when confronted with having to pay more in taxes. But with fees, they’ll never tell you that you’ve been hit with a tax increase even though that’s exactly what the outcome is equivalent to.

According to the Common Sense Institute of Colorado (https://www.commonsenseinstituteus.org/colorado/) in a study that they released in August of 2024, the following are well researched facts on what “fees” have done to us in Colorado:

• In the first year following the passage of TABOR, fee-based enterprises generated $742 million. By 2023, their revenue had increased by over 3,000%, far beyond population growth (62%), to $23.3 billion.

• In 1996, only 46% of total state spending was TABOR-exempt—$5,027 per Coloradan in 2023 dollars. In 2023, 71% of state spending was exempt, amounting to $8,442 per Coloradan.

•       Proposition 117, which requires new enterprises projected to generate revenue above a threshold to receive voter approval, passed in 2020. Since then, the legislature has directly established eight new enterprises and expanded a pre-existing one, costing Coloradans a total of $88.3 million in FY23.

• If all of Colorado’s fee enterprises, minus higher education, were instead funded by the state income tax, the state income tax would increase to 7.68%, a 75% increase from the current rate of 4.4%.

• In 2000, enterprises collected $222 per Coloradan and the General Fund received $1,174 per resident. By 2023, these amounts had grown to $3,791 and $2,360, respectively—for every $1 increase in General Fund revenue per Coloradan since 2008, total fee collections rose by $3.10.

• Since 2018, voters have approved two income tax cuts for a combined .23 percentage point reduction. At the same time, fee-based revenue to enterprises has increased by an amount equal to a .51 percentage point increase in the state income tax netting an INCREASE in taxation equal to .28 percentage point increase in taxes paid.

The policies of the Democratically controlled Governor’s Office and State Legislature over the last 20 years have brought about a decided shift in our economic makeup and balance. Since TABOR was passed in 1992, not only has our population doubled, but an economy primarily fueled by the sale of tangible goods (70%) has flipped to a service-driven market (now nearing 70%). Production of fossil fuels and mined minerals, once the source of abundant state income that used to fund our communities, has gone away as an environmentally driven “earth first” agenda took control of the decision-making process. Fear and loathing of these industries alone have created much of the fiscal mess we find ourselves in along with many socialist policies that will soon lead to a state-wide fiscal bankruptcy if something isn’t done.

Challenging the TABOR Amendment (again), isn’t going to fix this. A D.O.G.E. like effort is demanded. Elimination of outdated and restrictive laws along with reviving the energy sector in Colorado will go a long way to resolve the current and coming fiscal crisis created by the mismanagement of our state’s budget by our elected officials.

All I can say is that you, the public and those of you who vote, need to demand accountability and action now. More taxes and fees will do nothing but make people more dependent on the government and force those with the means to leave the state. That’s not a viable solution to what plagues us. A philosophical change will help as well as a fundamental understanding of economics. Unfortunately, most legislators do not possess the will or desire to change or develop either. Eventually the pendulum will swing the other way. Until then, hold on for a bumpy ride.

Mr. White is an active citizen & community leader as well as a business owner, entrepreneur, former Colorado Springs City Councilor and Montrose City Councilor as well as Montrose Mayor. He was a two-term Montrose County Commissioner and has served on many boards and commissions during his career. He & his wife are the parents of six children and have 10 grandchildren & one great grandchild.

MAGA:

The Centrist Movement

to Restore American Prosperity

7/7/2025

• MAGA as Centrist: The Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement is often mischaracterized as extreme but aligns with mainstream American values of fiscal responsibility and individual liberty, drawing independents with its common-sense, America First approach.

• DOGE’s Role: The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), initiated by President Trump, supports MAGA by exposing significant waste, fraud, and abuse in federal spending.

• Historical Context: Policies from past administrations, like the Roman Republic’s focus on high levels of welfare that drained the treasury and disincentivized production, have contributed to economic decline, which MAGA and DOGE aim to address through reform.

• Legislative Reforms:  Eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act and rescinding the Impoundment Control Act would enhance Congress’s and the President’s ability to rein in spending and redirect funds responsibly.

Understanding MAGA’s Centrist Appeal

The MAGA movement, often labeled as far-right by critics, is better understood as a centrist effort to restore America’s economic vitality and reduce government overreach. Its slogan, “Make America Great Again,” reflects a widely shared desire to reverse the nation’s perceived decline, a goal that resonates with millions of Americans across political spectrums. The movement’s common-sense, America First approach—prioritizing national interests, economic opportunity, and fiscal responsibility—has drawn significant support from independents, contributing to Donald J. Trump’s return to the White House in 2024. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), launched by President Trump in January 2025, amplifies this mission by targeting inefficiencies in federal spending, providing evidence that supports MAGA’s call for reform. Additionally, eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act and rescinding the Impoundment Control Act would empower Congress and the President to better control spending and redirect taxpayer funds to critical priorities, aligning with MAGA’s fiscal responsibility agenda.

DOGE’s Impact on Exposing Waste, Fraud, and Abuse

DOGE, led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, has made headlines by identifying instances of wasteful government spending. Examples include significant expenditures on non-essential programs and mismanaged funds, which have struck a chord with taxpayers frustrated by government inefficiency. DOGE’s efforts to highlight specific cases of waste align with MAGA’s focus on accountability, reinforcing the need for legislative reforms like eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act to incentivize cost-cutting and rescinding the Impoundment Control Act to allow the President to redirect funds efficiently.

Addressing Historical Economic Challenges

MAGA’s critique of past policies, from the Federal Reserve Act to expansive entitlement programs, underscores the need for reform. DOGE’s work complements this by targeting modern inefficiencies, reinforcing the movement’s argument that unchecked spending undermines American prosperity. Legislative changes, such as eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act, would force Congress to justify spending increases annually, while rescinding the Impoundment Control Act would restore the President’s authority to prioritize funding, enhancing fiscal discipline.

Legislative Reforms for Fiscal Responsibility

• Eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act

The Baseline Budgeting Act, part of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, assumes automatic annual increases in federal spending based on inflation and other factors, regardless of program necessity or efficiency (Congressional Budget Act). This practice discourages cost-cutting and perpetuates bloated budgets, contributing to the $37 trillion national debt. Eliminating baseline budgeting would require Congress to evaluate and justify every dollar spent, incentivizing government agencies to implement cost-saving measures and ensuring responsible use of taxpayer funds. As the Heritage Foundation notes, “Baseline budgeting creates a bias toward spending increases, making it harder to achieve fiscal discipline” (Baseline Budgeting Reform).

• Rescinding the Impoundment Control Act

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 restricts the President’s ability to withhold or redirect congressionally appropriated funds, limiting executive flexibility to address wasteful spending (Impoundment Control Act). Rescinding this act would restore the President’s constitutional authority to manage federal funds efficiently, allowing the redirection of resources to critical priorities, such as infrastructure or national security, while curbing frivolous expenditures. Historical precedent, such as President Nixon’s use of impoundment to control spending, demonstrates its potential to enhance fiscal responsibility, though it sparked controversy leading to the act’s passage (Impoundment History). This reform aligns with MAGA’s goal of empowering the executive to act decisively in the interest of taxpayers.

• Navigating Opposition to Reforms

Proposals to eliminate the Baseline Budgeting Act and rescind the Impoundment Control Act may face opposition from those who argue they protect congressional authority or prevent executive overreach. However, these reforms, when balanced with oversight, could significantly enhance fiscal accountability, aligning with MAGA’s mission to ensure taxpayer funds are used responsibly.

MAGA: The Centrist Movement to Restore American Prosperity

The Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement is frequently portrayed by mainstream corporate media as an extreme right-wing ideology steeped in fascist tendencies. This narrative, however, is a deliberate misrepresentation. Far from being extreme, MAGA represents the most mainstream, centrist movement in the United States in the past century. Its core premise, restoring America’s greatness by addressing economic decline, reducing government overreach, and prioritizing the prosperity of its citizens, resonates with millions of Americans who seek a return to fiscal responsibility and individual liberty. The movement’s common-sense, America First approach, emphasizing practical governance and national interest, has drawn significant support from independents, contributing to Donald J. Trump’s return to the White House in 2024. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), initiated by President Trump in January 2025, amplifies MAGA’s mission by exposing and addressing waste, fraud, and abuse in federal spending. Furthermore, eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act and rescinding the Impoundment Control Act would enhance Congress’s and the President’s ability to rein in spending and redirect funds responsibly, reinforcing MAGA’s centrist appeal. This article explores why MAGA is a centrist response to unsustainable policies, counters the left’s attempts to label it as extremist, highlights DOGE’s role in exposing government inefficiencies, and advocates for key legislative reforms to ensure responsible use of taxpayer funds.

The Mischaracterization of MAGA

The mainstream media’s portrayal of MAGA as an extremist movement is a tactic to deflect attention from the left’s own radical policies. By framing MAGA as a fringe ideology, critics aim to marginalize a movement that appeals to a broad swath of Americans concerned about the nation’s trajectory. The term “Make America Great Again” reflects a desire to reverse the decline in America’s global standing and domestic prosperity, a goal that is inherently moderate and widely shared. Its common-sense, America First policies—such as prioritizing economic growth, border security, and fiscal responsibility—resonate with independents who value practical governance over ideological extremes. This broad appeal was a key factor in Donald J. Trump’s 2024 presidential victory, as exit polls showed 31% of independents supported Trump, citing economic concerns and dissatisfaction with government inefficiency (Edison Research, 2024). As political scientist John J. Pitney Jr. notes, “The appeal of MAGA lies in its simplicity and optimism, restoring a sense of national pride and economic opportunity is not an extreme position but one rooted in traditional American values” (Pitney, 2020).

This mischaracterization is not new. Historically, centrist movements challenging entrenched power structures have often been labeled as radical to preserve the status quo. For instance, the Tea Party movement of the early 2000s was similarly branded as extremist for advocating fiscal restraint and limited government, yet its ideas gained traction among a diverse coalition of voters (Skocpol & Williamson, 2012). MAGA’s focus on economic revitalization, border security, reducing bureaucratic overreach, and implementing legislative reforms like eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act and rescinding the Impoundment Control Act, bolstered by DOGE’s efforts to expose government waste, aligns with these earlier calls for reform, positioning it firmly in the center of American political thought.

The Decline of American Prosperity: A Historical Perspective

MAGA’s argument that America has seen a decline in its global and economic stature is supported by historical parallels and economic data. The Roman Republic’s fall serves as a cautionary tale, driven by high levels of welfare, such as the free grain dole, which drained the public treasury and created incentives for citizens to rely on handouts rather than produce, ultimately contributing to economic stagnation and collapse (Gibbon, 1776; Duncan-Jones, 1990). Similarly, the United States has faced growing economic challenges due to policies that prioritize short-term benefits over long-term sustainability, with waste, fraud, and abuse exacerbating the problem, as uncovered by DOGE. Legislative barriers like the Baseline Budgeting Act and the Impoundment Control Act have further hindered efforts to curb wasteful spending.

Woodrow Wilson’s Legacy:

• The Federal Reserve and the 16th Amendment

Under President Woodrow Wilson, two policies fundamentally altered America’s economic landscape. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 created a private banking system that controls monetary policy, removing Congress’s constitutional authority to “coin money and regulate the value thereof” (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8). Critics argue that the Federal Reserve, despite its name, is neither federal nor a reserve but a private entity that charges interest on currency it creates, contributing to the nation’s $37 trillion debt (Paul, 2009). This system, where taxpayers bear the cost of printing money while paying interest to a private institution, has been criticized as a departure from constitutional principles and a driver of inflation.

The ratification of the 16th Amendment in 1913, also under Wilson, legalized the federal income tax. While proponents argued it was necessary to fund government operations, the Supreme Court has ruled that the amendment did not grant Congress new taxing powers beyond what it already possessed (Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 1916). This raises questions about the constitutionality of taxing individual labor, a practice that has become a significant burden on American workers. These policies, far from centrist, shifted wealth creation away from individuals and toward centralized institutions, setting the stage for future economic challenges, including the waste and mismanagement DOGE is now addressing.

Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Rise of Social Security

Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal introduced Social Security in 1935, marketed as a modest tax on the wealthiest 1% to provide a safety net for the indigent elderly. However, Social Security has evolved into a bloated program that now consumes 17% of workers’ income (8.5% from employees and a matching 8.5% from employers) with no opt-out mechanism (Social Security Administration, 2024). Initially designed to support a ratio of 37 workers per retiree, the program now operates at a near 1:1 ratio, rendering it unsustainable (Munnell, 2018). Critics argue that Social Security resembles a Ponzi scheme, where current workers fund current retirees rather than building personal retirement savings, creating disincentives for individual financial planning similar to Rome’s welfare system. A private investment of the same 17% in a conservative market portfolio could yield significantly higher returns, offering Americans greater financial security (Kotlikoff, 2019). DOGE’s investigations have highlighted inefficiencies in Social Security, such as payments to deceased individuals, underscoring the need for reform to protect taxpayer dollars.

The Expansion of Entitlements: From Johnson to Biden

Subsequent administrations have compounded these issues. Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society expanded Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, further straining federal budgets and fostering dependency akin to Rome’s welfare policies. Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act (2010) increased healthcare costs for many Americans, despite promises of affordability, with premiums rising by an average of 34% from 2016 to 2018 (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2018). Joe Biden’s “New Green Deal” initiatives, while aimed at environmental goals, have contributed to inflation through massive spending, with consumer prices rising 20.2% from January 2021 to September 2024 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2024). These programs, while often well-intentioned, have placed an unsustainable burden on American taxpayers, with DOGE uncovering billions in improper payments and fraud, such as $59.3 million spent on housing illegal immigrants in luxury New York City hotels.

The national debt has ballooned to $37 trillion, with interest payments projected to reach $1 trillion annually by 2030 (Congressional Budget Office, 2025). This trajectory threatens the economic stability of future generations, undermining the ability of families to prosper, much like Rome’s treasury-draining welfare programs. DOGE’s findings, including $4.3 billion in wasted COVID relief funds and hundreds of millions in misspent foreign aid, highlight the extent of government waste that MAGA seeks to address. Eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act would force Congress to scrutinize spending annually, while rescinding the Impoundment Control Act would enable the President to redirect funds away from wasteful programs, enhancing fiscal discipline.

MAGA’s Centrist Solution: Removing Barriers to Prosperity with DOGE and Legislative Reforms

MAGA’s policy platform, amplified by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and supported by proposed legislative reforms, is not about dismantling necessary social safety nets but about removing barriers to prosperity and restoring fiscal responsibility, countering the disincentives created by excessive welfare programs. DOGE, established by executive order on January 20, 2025, is tasked with modernizing federal technology and software to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity, as well as cutting excess regulations and spending (White House, 2025a). Its mission includes exposing and addressing waste, fraud, and abuse in federal spending, which resonates with MAGA’s core values of limited government and individual empowerment, appealing to independents who value practical, America First governance.

These findings highlight the extent of government waste that MAGA seeks to address. DOGE is also reviewing all existing federal contracts and grants, prioritizing funds disbursed to educational institutions and foreign entities for waste, fraud, and abuse (White House, 2025b). This comprehensive approach ensures that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently and effectively.

The movement’s emphasis on border security also reflects a centrist concern for national sovereignty and economic stability, resonating with independents who see secure borders as a practical measure. Uncontrolled immigration has been linked to wage suppression for low-income workers, with studies showing that a 10% increase in the immigrant share of the labor force can reduce wages by 3-4% for native-born workers (Borjas, 2016). DOGE’s exposure of wasteful spending on immigration, such as the $83 million contract for an empty illegal alien facility and $80 million in FEMA funding for lodging in New York City, reinforces MAGA’s call for secure borders and efficient use of taxpayer funds.

DOGE’s impact on the MAGA movement is profound, as it provides concrete evidence of government waste, fraud, and abuse that validates MAGA’s critique of federal overreach. For instance, DOGE uncovered $20 million spent on a “Sesame Street” program in Iraq and hundreds of millions supporting poppy cultivation in Afghanistan, benefiting the Taliban. These findings resonate with Americans, particularly independents, frustrated by a government that squanders resources on frivolous or harmful projects, strengthening MAGA’s appeal as a centrist movement focused on accountability.

The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability has partnered with DOGE, using the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) High Risk List to target programs vulnerable to mismanagement, further aligning MAGA’s goals with bipartisan oversight efforts (House Budget Committee, 2025).

Eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act  would further enhance Congress’s ability to rein in spending by requiring agencies to justify their budgets annually, incentivizing cost-cutting measures and reducing automatic spending increases that echo Rome’s treasury-draining welfare policies. Rescinding the Impoundment Control Act would restore the President’s authority to redirect funds from wasteful programs to critical needs, ensuring taxpayer money is used effectively. These reforms, combined with DOGE’s efforts, create a robust framework for fiscal responsibility that aligns with MAGA’s centrist vision and its appeal to independents seeking practical governance.

Countering the Extremism Narrative

The left’s portrayal of MAGA as extremist is a reaction to its challenge to entrenched power structures, now amplified by DOGE’s revelations and proposed legislative reforms. Policies like defunding the police, open borders, and expansive social programs, which have gained traction on the left, are far less mainstream than MAGA’s focus on economic opportunity and limited government. Polls consistently show that a majority of Americans support stronger border security (68%) and lower taxes (62%), aligning with MAGA’s priorities (Gallup, 2024). By contrast, only 29% of Americans support defunding the police, a policy championed by some progressive factions (Pew Research Center, 2021). MAGA’s common-sense approach, emphasizing America First policies, has drawn independents frustrated with partisan gridlock, contributing to Trump’s 2024 victory.

The media’s role in amplifying this narrative cannot be understated. Studies have shown that major news outlets exhibit a liberal bias, with 86% of coverage of MAGA-related issues framing it negatively (Groseclose, 2011). This bias distorts public perception, painting a centrist movement as extreme to protect the left’s policy agenda. DOGE’s high-profile findings, such as a $550 million bribery scandal at USAID, undermine this narrative by exposing the real extremism of unchecked government spending and corruption, further legitimizing MAGA’s call for reform and resonating with independents seeking accountability.

MAGA, amplified by DOGE’s efforts and supported by legislative reforms like eliminating the Baseline Budgeting Act and rescinding the Impoundment Control Act, is not an extremist ideology but a centrist call to restore America’s economic vitality and individual liberty. Its common-sense, America First approach has drawn significant support from independents, contributing to Donald J. Trump’s return to the White House in 2024.

By addressing the unsustainable policies of the past, from the Federal Reserve’s monetary control to the expansion of entitlement programs that mirror Rome’s treasury-draining welfare system, and tackling the billions lost to improper payments and corruption, MAGA seeks to remove barriers to prosperity and empower Americans to build wealth. Historical parallels, economic data, public opinion, and DOGE’s findings, such as $175 billion in taxpayer savings through targeted cuts, support the movement’s premise that America’s decline can be reversed through fiscal responsibility and limited government. These reforms ensure that taxpayer funds are used responsibly, resonating with millions of Americans who want a stronger, more prosperous nation.

Disagreeing with President Trump is Not Betrayal

7/7/2025

In today’s polarized political climate, loyalty to a leader is often mistaken for unwavering agreement. The narrative that disagreeing with Donald Trump equates to “stabbing him in the back” has grown tiresome and misleading. Political disagreements are a natural part of our Republic, and conflating dissent with disloyalty oversimplifies complex issues and undermines healthy discourse. Here we will explore why disagreement within Trump’s base is not betrayal but a sign of a vibrant political process.

Disagreement is Not Disloyalty

No two individuals agree on every issue, even within the same political camp. Supporters of any leader, including Trump, can align with core principles while diverging on specific policies. For instance, a 2024 Pew Research Center survey found that 63% of Republican voters support Trump’s leadership, yet only 41% agree with his stance on every major policy issue, such as trade tariffs or immigration reform (Pew Research Center, 2024). This gap highlights that loyalty to a leader does not require blind agreement.

Consider the issue of trade policy. Trump’s push for tariffs on foreign goods has been a cornerstone of his economic agenda. However, some conservative economists and business leaders, while supportive of his broader vision, argue that tariffs could increase consumer prices. A 2023 study by the Tax Foundation estimated that Trump’s proposed tariffs could raise costs for American households by an average of $625 annually (Tax Foundation, 2023). Voicing this concern does not make one a traitor; it reflects a reasoned critique grounded in economic analysis.

The Danger of Blind Trust

Blind trust in any leader is a recipe for stagnation. Ronald Reagan’s famous phrase, “trust but verify,” encapsulates the need for critical evaluation, even of those we support. Reagan’s approach ensured accountability, fostering trust through scrutiny rather than unquestioning allegiance. Applying this to modern politics, supporters should feel empowered to question policies without fear of being labeled disloyal.

Historical data supports the value of constructive dissent. During the Reagan administration, internal debates within the Republican Party led to refined policies, such as the 1986 Tax Reform Act, which simplified the tax code after extensive intra-party negotiations (Congressional Research Service, 1986). Similarly, Trump’s supporters can strengthen his agenda by offering critiques that refine policies rather than rubber-stamping them.

The Role of Healthy Disagreement

Disagreement within a political movement is not a weakness but a strength. It fosters innovation and prevents groupthink. For example, during the 2020 election cycle, some Trump supporters advocated for a stronger focus on healthcare reform, citing rising costs as a voter concern. A Gallup poll from 2020 showed that 65% of Americans, including many Republicans, wanted more government involvement in reducing healthcare costs (Gallup, 2020). These voices within the base pushed for a broader platform, demonstrating that dissent can expand a leader’s appeal.

Labeling dissent as betrayal also alienates potential allies. The Republican Party is a coalition of diverse groups (Harmony, NOT Unison), from evangelical Christians to libertarian-leaning business owners. A 2022 YouGov poll found that 28% of Republican voters identify as “somewhat independent,” valuing policy debate over strict party loyalty (YouGov, 2022). Shutting down these voices risks fracturing the coalition that Trump relies on.

Moving Forward

The “stabbing in the back” narrative is a distraction from substantive policy discussions. Supporters should be encouraged to engage critically with Trump’s agenda, offering ideas that strengthen his platform. Our Republic thrives on diverse perspectives, not monolithic agreement. Reagan’s “trust but verify” remains a timeless guide: loyalty is earned through accountability, not enforced through silence.  By embracing disagreement as a natural part of political life, Trump’s base can build a stronger, more resilient movement. Let’s retire the betrayal trope and focus on ideas that advance the common good.

A personal reflection on the course of America

7/7/2025

I’ve been grappling with the idea of wealth redistribution, especially after listening to Thomas Sowell’s sharp analysis. His arguments hit home for me, and I want to share why I think he’s right that redistribution isn’t the fix for inequality it’s often sold as. It’s not just about shifting money from the rich to the poor. There’s a bigger picture involving how wealth works, what motivates people, and why good intentions can go wrong.

I used to see wealth as a fixed pie. If someone has a big slice, someone else is left with scraps. Sowell flipped that view for me. Wealth isn’t static. It’s created through hard work, innovation, and people trading value. A business owner who makes something people want isn’t stealing. They’re growing the pie. Taxing them heavily to redistribute wealth can scare them off from investing or innovating. I’ve seen small businesses cut jobs or close under tax burdens. That doesn’t help anyone, especially those redistribution is meant to lift.

Then there’s the government’s role. I get why people trust it to handle redistribution. It sounds fair. But it’s often a mess. Bureaucracy eats up funds. Studies show that in some welfare programs, only a fraction of the budget reaches those in need, with the rest lost to overhead or mismanagement. It’s maddening to think my tax dollars, meant to help, are getting stuck in the system. That’s not compassion. It’s waste.

Sowell’s take on incentives really got me thinking. If people get money without effort, it can sap their drive. I’ve seen this locally. Some folks are caught in a cycle where welfare keeps them going but doesn’t push them forward. It’s not their fault. The system sets it up that way. Research backs this: generous, long-term benefits in some countries correlate with higher unemployment. It’s not laziness. It’s human nature. Why grind if you’re covered? On the other hand, taxing success heavily tells entrepreneurs to slow down. That’s a loss for everyone.

I understand why redistribution feels right. Inequality stings. Seeing someone struggle while others live large seems unfair. But Sowell’s point that emotions don’t equal results stuck with me. Policies like price controls, meant to help the poor, often backfire. Rent control in cities like San Francisco has led to housing shortages. Redistribution can do the same, throwing markets out of whack. It’s like trying to fix a leaky pipe by flooding the house.

Sowell also made me rethink the rich. They’re not always villains hoarding wealth. People like Steve Jobs or my neighbor who runs a bakery got ahead by creating value. Her success comes from serving customers, not exploiting them. Taxing her to death won’t help the poor. It might shutter her shop. Wealth often comes from benefiting others, and punishing that hurts us all.

Some say redistribution works, pointing to places like Sweden. But Sowell notes those countries are different. They’re smaller, less diverse, with high trust in the system. In the U.S., redistribution often sparks resentment, with groups fighting over government handouts. Data shows welfare programs can fuel social tension in diverse societies.

When the government picks winners, it breeds conflict.

I’d rather see a focus on opportunity. Better schools, more jobs, fewer barriers to starting a business help people climb without handouts. Look at Hong Kong, where free markets slashed poverty in a generation. I want that for my community: a system where anyone can rise, not one that traps people in dependency or punishes success.

Sowell’s ideas have me rethinking fairness. Redistribution sounds good, but it often creates more problems than it solves. I’d rather we bet on people’s potential, giving them tools to build their own wealth, not just a cut of someone else’s. That’s the way forward.