“We are masters of unsaid words, but slaves to those we let slip out.” — Winston Churchill
On Oct. 10, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz was with California Gov. Gavin Newsom when he said: “I think all of us know the Electoral College needs to go. We need, we need a national popular vote, but that is not the world we live in. So, we need to win in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. We need to be able to go into York, Pennsylvania, and win. We need to be in Western Michigan and win. We need to be in Reno, Nevada, and win.”
Walz said aloud what many in his party have long believed. The Harris campaign was quick to say it did not support abolishing the Electoral College — a controversy they do not want to navigate until in office. But Walz rang this bell, and everyone heard it.
Let us discuss the implications of his mindset.
“The Electoral College needs to go.” A constitutional amendment requires 38 states to agree. It is unlikely even half would vote to abolish the Electoral College, which ensures that candidates visit many states. Fifty percent of Americans live in just 9 states. New York City has more people than 39 of our states, Los Angeles County more than 41. An NPV scheme would reward candidates focused on metropolitan areas. With NPV, locations that provide food and natural resources to these urban areas would truly become “fly over states.”
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Because opponents of the Electoral College will never win the consent of 38 states, leaders of Walz’s party launched this Compact in 2006. It seeks to gain agreement among states to award their Electoral votes to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. It takes 270 Electoral votes to win the presidency. NPV legislation provides that once the states in the Compact have a total of 270 Electors, it goes into effect the evening of the next presidential election — creating a Constitutional crisis.
Walz Signed the NPV Compact. In the past two years Minnesota and Maine joined the NPV, giving it seventeen states and 209 Electors. These states have one thing in common: one-party control of the House, Senate and governorship. More than 98% of the state legislators voting to join the Compact are of Walz’s party. States in the Compact pledge to direct their Electors to vote for the winner of the national popular vote even if the majority vote of their state must be ignored.
Beaver County, York, Reno and Western Michigan. While in California, which has more than 39 million people, Walz spoke derisively about having to visit Beaver County Pa. (population 168,215), York County, Pa. (456,438), Reno, Nev. (264,165), and Western Michigan because the Electoral College design incentivizes candidates not to ignore these communities. Walz expressed an elitist desire to have urban areas rule. One might ask him, are our major cities so safe and well-managed they should become the sole arbiters of the affairs of our Republic?
How Heads of Government Are Elected in Other Republics. Walz is oblivious to the fact that how we elect our president is more “democratic” than most other republics. Of the 27 countries in the European Union, only France and Cypress use a national popular vote to elect their heads of government. The other 25 elect their heads of government in their parliaments. The same goes for Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United Kingdom.
Churchill was never on the ballot of all Englishmen, only his constituency. Parliament elected him prime minister.
“Whoever gets the most runs wins.” The Minnesota Twins have won the World Series on two occasions: 1987 and 1991. In 1991 the Twins won 4 of 7 games to clinch the series, even though the Twins had a total of 24 runs in those 7 games, the Atlanta Braves a total of 29.
Is that fair? Most sports focus on the most games won, not the most points. Our states provide 50 electoral competitions — 50 games if you will. We then aggregate those contests to choose our leader. Ingenious!
“Whoever gets the most votes wins.” Walz’s comment is filled with irony. President Joseph Biden is the only person who in 2024 has received Democratic popular votes for president. “Whoever wins no votes wins?”
The Electoral College incentivizes candidates to visit most states, including their rural communities. The winning candidates are those who visit and listen to a wide swath of this vast nation and her people. E Pluribus Unum. Out of many, one. And, so, it is with our own Electoral College.
Michael Maibach is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation and a Distinguished Fellow on American Federalism at Save Our States. He is also a Trustee and the Managing Director of the James Wilson Institute. www.SaveOurStates.comwww.jameswilsoninstitute.org
The dead-end hyperinflationary policies of the Biden-Harris administration have put the American Dream out of reach for many young people. I have talked to my 21-year-old daughter about this so many times that it breaks my heart.
Ruby, like so many young Americans, is doing everything right. She works hard, she saves up, but that old-fashioned notion of the white-picket fence seems to be slipping away from her grasp. Part of the reason I am running for Senate is to make America affordable again. And I know that bringing down out-of-control housing prices is the key to restoring access to the American Dream for our young people.
Per Federal Reserve data, in 1984, the median U.S. household income was $22,400 and the median home price was $78,200, or about 3.5 times the median income. By 2022, median household income had risen to $74,580, but median home prices had risen to over $433,000 — or nearly six times median income.
Elected officials owe it to our constituents to take clear and decisive action to reduce housing costs.
There has been so much focus on the role of interest rates, but the answer to bringing them back down, while hard to achieve, is fairly straightforward: the federal government needs to stop printing money we don’t have so that it can pay bills that we can’t afford. Taming that imbalance won’t be quick or easy, and anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you a bill of goods.
But there is another key element of the housing crisis that we can address quickly and effectively: a lack of skilled tradespeople. According to an analysis by Associated Builders and Contractors, the United States is short over half a million skilled construction workers. The lack of skilled construction workers combined with rapidly increasing costs of materials is creating a roadblock to building the millions of additional housing units that are needed to relieve the cost bottleneck.
Bringing down the cost of materials largely hinges on three things: reducing the price of energy and fuel, eliminating excessive regulations created by the Biden-Harris administration, and increasing the number of skilled workers available to producers. Limitations on oil-and-gas production and refining are leading to rapidly increasing fuel and energy costs that have inflated the price of building materials by tens of thousands of dollars per home.
Likewise, excessive regulation and DEI mandates being forced on producers by the Biden-Harris administration are also increasing materials and labor costs, without appreciable benefit to society in terms of reduced inequality. Lastly, the rush to send every high school graduate to a four-year college, with massive government subsidies, is draining the workforce of skilled tradespeople which both increases the cost of construction and delays additional new home starts.
Solving the first two problems is very simple. Replace President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris with Donald Trump, overturn the current administration’s pointless and counterproductive executive mandates, and you are two thirds of the way there. The last step — increasing the number of skilled construction workers — is going to take more effort.
But with some simple changes in federal education funding and policy, we can turn that deficit around in a matter of just a few years by revising federal education funding and loans to stop discriminating against trade schools and technical education and support the development of a skilled workforce sufficient to meet the demands of our housing market.
First, we need to revise the guidelines for Pell grants to allow them to be issued and used for more students to attend trade and technical schools. Second, if the government is going to continue to back student loans, eligibility for those loans needs to be aggressively expanded to include more trade schools.
Currently, trade-school students can access government-backed student loans, but only if their trade school is federally accredited. Many are not. Getting the vast majority of trade schools nationwide accredited so their students have access to government-backed loans should be a major priority for the next administration and will be a priority of mine in the U.S. Senate.
Lastly, the government needs to aggressively partner with industry to expand trade school opportunities by making low-interest loans available to companies and unions to invest in new and expanded trade and technical-school facilities.
The cost to attend trade and technical schools is far less than the cost of a four-year degree, and the returns on that investment are astronomical. A few thousand dollars of up-front investment in these careers yields a lifetime of high earnings, and resultant increased tax revenues. As a result, investing in expanding our skilled workforce is responsible governance, and must be a priority going forward.
Free speech is dying in schools. Ian Prior with America First posted on X that the Loudoun County School Board Chair recently shut down public comment to “combat misinformation.” The Chair claimed that misinformation is rising, and the board must be vigilant in actively combating it. Since COVID, parents have taken to the microphone at Loudon County Public Schools (LCPS) board meetings nationwide to make public comments. Some respectfully, and some in outrage, have sought to hold the governing board accountable for unthinkable, immoral school incidents and an apparent reckless disregard for core academics.
Take, for example, another LCPS board meeting. A female student’s father became agitated about her daughter’s alleged recent assault in the girls’ bathroom by a boy wearing a skirt. When the LCPS Superintendent Scott Ziegler spoke up in response, he asserted that “the predator transgender student or person simply does not exist” and that “we don’t have any record of assaults occurring in our restrooms.” According to Fox News, a judge found the boy guilty, and the father filed a lawsuit against the school.
Suppression of free speech seems to be “in the air,” and it’s frightening to discover that some conservatives, once the bastion of free speech defenders, are taking on an authoritarian posture. School board members have been known to tell community members not to make public comments at their board meetings. Everyone has the right to sign up to make public comments under open meetings law while respecting board protocols and decorum when making comments.
Recently, in North Carolina, after making public comments at a board meeting, Pastor John Amanchukwu was put in handcuffs and escorted out. Amanchukwu travels the country speaking at school board meetings to defend public school kids from dangerous woke culture in the classroom. Maybe in a different style, he did what hundreds or thousands of us nationwide did when making public comments at school board meetings. He asserted that the Board allowing pornographic content and discussions on gender identity in schools was a violation of parental rights.
Free speech may not always be welcomed by the hearer, but we are entitled to our opinions. The freedom to speak up about issues of concern is a hallowed right unique in human history, as expressed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. It safeguards speech in the press, at an assembly, and the right to petition the government from governmental interference. Its protections include what we say and wear on a hat, a T-shirt, a sign, and other symbols. Yes, even at school board meetings.
However, freedom of speech appears to be eroding across the board, including on social media platforms. And this affects all issues of concern, including education. The recent SCOTUS case (Manhattan Community Access Corporation v. Halleck) determined that while freedom of speech applies to federal, state, and local governments, the First Amendment does not govern private entities. That makes sense. What doesn’t make sense is that this ruling is being applied to social media platforms. They are exempt from the responsibilities of a publisher. Yet, Facebook and other social media can regulate or restrict speech hosted on their platforms by manipulating algorithms to favor their friends and harm their enemies.
In addition to honestly examining whether our right to free speech is being infringed, we should also determine whether we are operating out of mutual respect when it comes to the free speech of others despite everyday differences of opinion. For example, what is the real reason that the Loudon County Public School Board decided to shut down certain kinds of speech at board meetings? Well, for one thing, in doing so, they are shutting down dissent. Government entity or not, this differs from where we should go as a society.
Tamra Farah has twenty years of experience in public policy and politics, focusing on protecting individual liberty and promoting limited government.
Free-market economist Milton Friedman was hardly anti-immigration. He acknowledged that, pre-1914, immigrants came “for a better life for them and their children. In the main they succeeded,” broadly benefiting their adopted country.
But there was an important caveat. “It is one thing to have free immigration to jobs. It is another thing to have free immigration to welfare.” Immigrants dependent on public benefits don’t boost their host country. They have the effect of “a reduction of everybody to the same, uniform level.”
Leftists may not like it, but Friedman was right. We’re about to learn the lesson good and hard.
The tens of millions of “undocumented” immigrants now arriving in America have a much different outlook than immigrants of a century ago. In short, today’s immigrants don’t work that much.
A study of Census data by the Atlanta Federal Reserve reported that while over half of new jobs created in the last two years have gone to illegal immigrants, so many have come that barely half of working age, non-college immigrants are in the labor force. Five of six native Americans 25 through 64 regularly work.
The Border Patrol recorded over 10 million illegal immigrants processed during the Biden years plus countless millions not detected. Yet foreign-born employment increased by only 2.32 million. So, who is supporting the rest? We are.
California is the poster child for dependent illegal immigrants. There they get taxpayer-funded health insurance, food stamps, housing allowances, and myriad other benefits, costing $22.8 billion in state and local taxes alone, according to the pro-immigration Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. Yet this for a population that generated just $8.5 billion in income.
Moreover, many of the programs are direct federal subsidies which means we all participate in their funding. Beyond all this is the escalation in spending by NGOs and philanthropic agencies to house, clothe, and feed the millions of “newcomers” being bused around the country, again at our expense.
The increased pressure on the federal budget, which immigration “hawks” warned against not long ago, has already been normalized. The discussion has subtly passed from whether illegal immigrants should be included in public benefits to how this should be accomplished. Deportation, once assumed for those who failed their asylum hearings (which most do), is now regarded as logistically and morally impossible.
It’s no mystery why our welfare system is a worldwide magnet. Average benefits received by working age households have risen from $7,352 in 1967 to $64,700 in 2022, adjusted for inflation. Welfare spending now consumes 72.6 percent of unobligated revenues (an accounting which doesn’t count payroll taxes or mandatory interest payments) while defense spending has fallen by half.
Most Americans don’t realize that official poverty statistics distributed by the Census Bureau don’t count as income. 88% of the transfer payments made to alleviate poverty. As noted by Gramm and Arrington in the Wall Street Journal, “The census doesn’t count refundable tax credits, food stamp debit cards, free medical care through Medicaid or benefits from about 100 other transfer payments as income.”
When these benefits are deemed to be income, 80% of those today who are counted as poor are no longer poor and the bottom three income quintiles in the Census Bureau all have approximately the same spending power.
With the abundance of means-tested transfer payments available, the percentage of working age persons in the bottom quintile who work has fallen from 68% to 38%. For about the same income, 2.4 times as many workers in the second lowest quintile actually work—and on average work 85% more hours than those in the bottom quintile.
Welfare beneficiaries in the main aren’t liars or cheaters. They are making rational decisions in an irrational environment. America is unfortunately a nation deeply in debt, living on anticipated income from the future. We spend money as if we still had it. The kids will figure it out.
The driving motive behind immigration policy is still to permanently alter the political landscape. The ultimate victims may be the migrants themselves, attracted by promises that in the long run can’t be kept.
As Friedman pointed out, we can’t enrich others by impoverishing ourselves. We all just become more poor.
Dr. Thomas Patterson, former Chairman of the Goldwater Institute, is a retired emergency physician. He served as an Arizona State senator for 10 years in the 1990s, and as Majority Leader from 93-96. He is the author of Arizona’s original charter schools bill.
The Scottsdale teachers’ union has endorsed three candidates for the Scottsdale Unified School District (SUSD) Governing Board, emphasizing their extensive experience as education professionals. While their expertise may seem impressive to some, the pressing question remains: does SUSD need more so-called experts on the Board, or do we require individuals who prioritize common sense, academic excellence, and respect for parents’ rights?
Under the current leadership of Dr. Menzel, an education expert, the SUSD has experienced a troubling decline in academic performance and significant student and staff turnover. Despite promises by the experts that social-emotional learning (SEL) would improve academic educational outcomes, the reality has been disappointing. Not only has academic achievement not improved but it has declined during his tenure.
Dr. Menzel and the experts on the Board, who rubber stamp everything he wants to do, not only have a dismal academic record but have caused over 2,200 students to leave SUSD along with record-high staff turnover.
Some studies and reports suggest that SEL is harming the emotional and mental health of students. The shift in spending away from teachers and to more social workers and counselors further drives down academic performance.
The three endorsed candidates—Dr. Donna Lewis, Matt Pittinsky, and Michael Sharkey—have questionable records that raise concerns about their suitability for the Board, but they also promise to “protect SUSD” and Menzel, ensuring the continued disruption and dismantling of the District.
Dr. Lewis has highlighted her accolade as the national superintendent of the year during her time at the Creighton School District, claiming she improved schools from Cs, Ds, and Fs to As, Bs, and Cs. However, she conveniently omits that only 13% of students were proficient in English Language Arts (ELA) and just 8% in math during her celebrated year. Additionally, her leadership style has been criticized for creating a hostile and toxic environment, prompting a formal public apology from a school board member after her departure.
Matt Pittinsky, another candidate with 25 years in education, has been less than forthcoming about his business ties to SUSD. One of his companies provides services to the district, a fact he only revealed after being confronted publicly. This raises serious questions about his transparency and the potential conflicts of interest in his role as a board member. Furthermore, his acceptance of over $10,000 in out-of-state campaign contributions, primarily from CEOs of companies that sell to schools, adds another layer of concern. What motivations could these out-of-state contributors have for influencing a local election?
Michael Sharkey, who has over 20 years of experience in education, has publicly linked his candidacy to the rise of the parents’ rights movement, which he blames for many of SUSD’s current issues. Sharkey asserts that the “book bans, cultural wars, and dysfunction” that are plaguing SUSD are due to the parents’ rights movement.
He rejects the idea that parents are best positioned to make educational and healthcare decisions for their children, asserting that trained professionals know better. This stance is contrary to the Arizona Revised Statutes, which enshrine parental rights in the Parent’s Bill of Rights. Sharkey’s reluctance to recognize these rights suggests a troubling approach to governance that may not prioritize parental input nor respect their legal parental rights.
Despite Sharkey’s recent claims of wanting to engage with families and welcome their input, it’s important to note that initial statements often reflect true beliefs. His previous rhetoric implies a preference for limiting parental involvement and allowing “experts” to take charge of children’s education and healthcare.
You also must ask yourself why a school board member, who should be focusing on academics, would be involved in making healthcare decisions for the students. Again, Arizona law leaves it up to the parents.
This upcoming election presents a critical choice: we can either “protect SUSD” and continue down the path of endorsing more educational experts who have failed to deliver results and are harming children, or we can elect board members who demonstrate common sense, a focus on academics, and a commitment to respecting parents’ rights. Candidates like Gretchen Jacobs, Jeanne Beasley, and Drew Hassler embody these qualities, promising to be responsible stewards of our tax dollars while prioritizing the safety and educational needs of all students in SUSD.
It’s time for a change that puts our children’s future first.
Mr. Williams is a longtime Scottsdale resident, businessman, grandfather, and the parent of an SUSD graduate.
Every election cycle, out-of-state special interests spend millions trying to put their bad ideas onto our ballot. Because these groups do not understand our laws or our constitution, the measures they peddle are poorly drafted and are often unworkable or illegal. In some instances, they do know better but don’t seem to care that their proposed measure is unconstitutional.
For example, in 2020, two out-of-state groups collected signatures to put the largest tax hike in state history on the ballot. Nonpartisan attorneys at legislative council told them prior to gathering any signatures that their measure was unconstitutional. They didn’t care. After a multi-million-dollar campaign that resulted in the measure passing by a slim margin, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled the initiative unconstitutional a year later.
Why was it on the ballot in the first place, if it was so clearly unconstitutional? The courts have long held that they currently do not have the power to consider any challenges to the constitutionality of a measure before it is passed on the ballot. The only challenge that can be brought is against the signatures filed with the Secretary of State, or for a violation of the single subject or separate amendment requirements.
But if an out-of-state group is trying to put a measure on the ballot that is clearly unconstitutional, like statutorily exempting a tax hike from a constitutional spending limit, as Prop 208 tried to do, a challenge is not considered “ripe.” Instead, costly campaigns are run on both sides, and only after voters have been presented with a broken measure can a challenge be brought.
