The Untold Story Of Affordability

What comes to mind when you hear the words "affordability"? The cost of gasoline? Grocery prices? Insurance premiums? Those household costs are the grist for a deluge of political campaign ads. But the price tag that has most Americans squawking is housing.  

Data from the Department of Labor reveals that housing prices have soared approximately 56% since 2020, while general inflation has spiked by about 29% during the same period.  Housing (shelter)  makes up the largest share of the Consumer Price Index (CPI)--about 36%.   

In other words, home prices have increased at almost twice the rate of inflation over the last six years. Overall inflationary trends cannot solely explain why today's home prices have hit the ceiling fan, pardon the word choice.

The current median price of a new home in the U.S. is $425,786, according to the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). Existing median home prices are $434,800.  About 88.2 million households (or 65%) are unable to afford a median priced home at today's interest rates.

Those national averages may not apply to your market.  There are wide gaps between cities. Here are some comparisons between metro areas of median home sale (not the listed price) sales:

• San Jose, California:  $1.528 million
• Seattle, Washington: $814,757
• New York City: $735,000
• Boston, Massachusetts $710,000
• Birmingham, Alabama: $293,500
• San Antonio, Texas: $285,000
• Memphis, Tennessee: $271,000
• Louisville, Kentucky: $270,000
• St. Louis, Missouri: $262,750
• Cleveland, Ohio: $220,000

A leading national benchmark for residential real estate values--the Case-Shiller Home Index Price--calculated that single home prices skyrocketed 87% between December, 2015, through December, 2025.That is good news for existing homeowners, but impacts the affordability for potential buyers.  

Interest rates act as an overhang on housing affordability.  When the Federal Reserve began aggressively raising rates to quell inflation, the move triggered an increase in mortgage rates. Typically, mortgage rates move nearly in tandem with the 10-year Treasury rate.

The Treasury rate rises when the Fed hikes rates because it reflects an average of where investors expect short term rates to be over the next decade. Today, a 30-year fixed rate mortgage lugs a 7.2% interest rate. In January, 2021, the rate was 2.65%.  The pre-pandemic average was 3.41%.  

To demonstrate the impact, consider that when interest rates increased from 6.5% to 6.75%. It effectively priced out of the market around 1.3 million households. These households are unable to meet the higher income threshold required to afford the increased monthly payments.

Mortgage rates also negatively impact home buying because many households are sitting on ultra-low COVID era rates.  About 78% of Americans with outstanding 30-year mortgages have interest rates below 6%.  More than half (51%) are holding fixed rates pegged at 3.99% or below.

These homeowners are understandably reluctant to sell their residence and move even if they can afford a higher monthly payment.  Elevated home prices and hefty mortgage rates are a double whammy for first time buyers. They face the largest affordability gap, 

That explains why the average age of first-time homebuyers has leapfrogged to a record high of 40-years old, according to National Association of Realtors research. The average age has climbed from 32-years old only a decade ago. 

Consider 70% of households can only afford housing priced from $100,000 to $300,000, according to the NAHB data.  The average buyer would need household income of $147,433 to qualify for a mortgage for a median-priced home.  The annual median household income is $87,460 today.

That chasm between home price and income is what is frustrating young home buyers. 

Traditionally, starter homes for first-time buyers are newly built residences.  Housing starts for single family residences have dipped from 1.127 million nationally in 2021 to 940,000 in 2025. New home supply usually translates into more negotiating leverage for buyers of new and existing residences.

Projects with single-family home priced at $300,000 or below accounted for just 14.2% of the total in May, according to research on housing trends.  This was down significantly from 27.3% in May of 2019 when homes in this price range represented the second-largest portion of the new home market.

Median down payments have accelerated as buyers spend more money up front to lower their monthly payments in today's breakneck interest rate environment. In August, the median down payment was $27,166, which represents a jump of $4,000 from January.  

Input prices are also driving up costs for new homes.  Since the pandemic, costs for materials such as power transformers (72%), steel-mill products (77%), gypsum building materials (48%), brick and structural tile (29%) and ready mix concrete (33%) have forced builders to boost prices.

Material costs aren't the only issue influencing home prices.  Wage growth for residential construction trades jumped after COVID. National averages for heavy equipment operators have reached  $44.20 per hour; electricians $40; roofers $28.40; and construction laborers $24.80.   

Competition these workers are increasing as more factories and data centers are building built in the country.  The lack of experienced tradespeople is prompting calls for the opening of more training centers to encourage young people to qualify for these jobs.

Housing affordability matters not only to buyers; it impacts the nation's economy. Housing spending and investment accounts for 15% to 18% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a measurement of economic activity.  Home equity represents a major source of household wealth, accounting for 45%.

Every homebuyer wants to know the answer to this question: When will home prices ever come down?

The outlook for relief soon is cloudy at best.  Although household income is climbing, interest rates are the number one stumbling block to homebuyers. Robust interest rates translate into higher monthly mortgage payments reducing affordability, while suppressing new home starts. 

The Federal Reserve, which has tinkered with rates for six years, has yet to reach its target inflation rate of 2%.  Inflation was last exactly 2.0% in April, 2019.  The Fed has a mandate to tame inflation, but the downside of ever increasing rates is the suffocation of the home market.  

One suggestion worth considering is to make home mortgage rates portable.  Homeowners could buy a new or existing residence and retain their current interest rate.  Lenders would likely choke on the idea, but the current strategy is not healthy for the economy.  New ideas are needed to turn the tide.

Foreign Interests Fueling Data Center Backlash

Activist groups, including some funded by foreign sources, are waging a coordinated campaign against data centers.  Their aim is to derail the construction of facilities that will provide the backbone for the new Artificial Intelligence-based economy, jeopardizing American technological leadership.

A misinformation offensive, often using social media platforms, is spreading deception about companies' efforts to construct data centers. The propaganda excoriates the projects for depleting water resources, increasing consumer utility bills and devouring large parcels of farmland. 

What's ironic is many naysayers hypnotized by AI deception are young people, who are the heaviest users of new applications from the likes of Anthropic (Claude), Open AI (ChatGPT), and SpaceXAI (Grok).  It's hypocritical to be against data centers, but be unwilling to give up the technology.  

Pew Research recently published figures showing there are more than 3,000 operational data centers in the U.S. with another 1,500 in various stages of development.  However, other sources cite as many as 4,500 operational centers.  

The first data center was built in 1998 in Northern Virginia by a startup firm, Equinix, to serve America Online (AOL).  It was a novel idea, but as the internet became more intertwined in American life, other facilities sprouted.  Northern Virginia is now home to the highest concentration of data centers. 

Currently, 38% of Americans live within five miles of one data center, Pew estimates.  Most  people are unaware of their presence because these warehouse-looking buildings have slumbered in anonymity for decades.  The facilities were about as controversial as ice cream.

Even as data centers construction boomed in the last 20 years, few Americans understood how the facilities touched their lives. The technology housed in the centers enable internet connections for your laptop, smartphone, smartwatch, automobile and many other digital devices.

Every time you check an email, text someone, browse a website, use social media, stream music and movies, use a ride share app, buy products and services online, use a location app, save a photo to the cloud, access your banking information, it is routed digitally to a data center. 

Packed inside the centers are powerful computers, hard drives, routers, cables, fiber optics, cooling systems, generators and batteries, ethernet switches and a myriad of other equipment. Data centers are the backbone of the digital world we inhabit. 

With the advent of Artificial Intelligence data centers, there has been a seismic shift in public attitudes.  The latest polling finds 61% of Americans oppose the building of a new data center in their area, according to a University of Pennsylvania survey.  That's up 12 percentage points just since February. 

Opposition began as a small stream and now is a raging river of hostility. It is the political issue de jour for many, embroiling communities, states, politicians and Congress.  The outcry has been stoked by activist groups infiltrating social media and public events to sabotage data center construction.

The coordinated opposition campaign is the work of 12 organizations that have received collectively more than $39 million from foreign donors, including billionaires and foundations based in Switzerland, United Kingdom, Denmark and China.  

This information was compiled by Americans for Public Trust, a nonprofit watchdog that tracks foreign money influencing politics.  The funding totals are based on publicly available grant disclosures and tax filings.  

Among the key organizations is the national 350.org, which claims its mission is to train "ordinary people to create local campaigns to ignite a renewable energy revolution." Multiple chapters have organized anti-data center protests from New York City, to Hawaii, Wisconsin and Minnesota.  

The 350.org has reported receiving $9.5 million in donations from United Kingdom and Denmark groups.  The largest donor is the Oak Foundation, a UK-based group that shelled out $7.5 million. The foundation has attracted attention globally for its extensive funding of controversial activities.

A familiar backer of the anti-AI data center movement is the Indivisible Project, which has been involved in the No Kings protests and anti-ICE activities.  The group received $7.45 million from Wyss Foundation, which is funded by Swiss billionaire Hansjorg Wyss. 

A group called Oil Change International, which advocates for policies to ban fossil fuels, has partnered with media outlets to provided biased research attaching a negative spin on data center development.  Among its chief funders is a Danish -based philanthropic group, KR foundation. 

CodePink, which has targeted data center projects, has received funding linked to socialist mega donor Neville Roy Singham, who has deep ties to the Chinese Communist Party.  Singham has reportedly funneled roughly $285 million into six activist nonprofits. Many are at the forefront of opposition.

Several media outlets recently reported that China is using "bots" to influence Americans to oppose AI data centers on the social media platform, X.  The X Safety Team identified 200,000 accounts posting in "a manner to manipulate legitimate debate" about data centers.

OpenAI briefed on disrupting two Chinese-linked covert networks using its ChatGPT to create fake content to influence debates on energy consumption by AI data centers.  The Chinese Communist Party has openly discussed its plan to dominate the Artificial Intelligence space. 

The House Energy and Commerce Committee sent a letter in June asking the FBI and White House advisers to brief lawmakers on alleged propaganda campaigns to undermine data center expansion designed by foreign adversaries, specifically China, Russia and Iran. 

Despite evidence to the contrary, America's legacy media continue to paint opposition to AI data centers as a grassroots campaign.  They note that ranchers, housewives, college students and ordinary people show up at the protests.  They point to bi-partisan calls for data center moratoriums.

But the opposition is not spontaneous, but a coordinated campaign financed in part by foreign donors.  These astroturf protests are constructed on political ideology and misinformation rather than facts.

One of the favorite tactics of adversaries is to raise the specter of rising electric rates for average Americans. They never mention that many AI centers under construction have agreed to provide their own power sources or negotiate contracts with local utilities to shield consumers from rate hikes. 

A Harvard study found that data centers accounted for 1.9% of all the electricity usage in the U.S. in 2018.  The percentage rose to 4.4% in 2023.  Forecasters are estimating the usage as a percentage of all electricity generated will be 9% by 2030.  By 2030, electric vehicles will consume about 4.6%. 

The primary reason for higher electricity bills is that utilities are spending heavily to replace aging power lines, modernize distribution systems and harden the grid against severe weather events.  For years, utilities have deferred updating facilities. These costs are passed on directly to consumers. 

Additional capacity is also required for electric vehicles, manufacturing plants and, yes, for data centers too. Blaming only data centers for costly upgrades ignores the reality on the ground.  America's electric grid is woefully inadequate and its showing signs of aging.  

Another argument employed by antagonists is water consumption by thirsty AI data centers. The water is used to cool the centers, which are stuffed with thousands of powerful Graphic Processing Units (GPU) which create more heat than a standard data center. 

In recognition of the water issue, new AI data centers used so-called closed-loop water cooling.  Water circulates in sealed pipes or coils without directly exposing the liquid to air.  This minimizes the loss of water--the same water is being recirculated.  These systems reduce freshwater usage by 70%.    

To conserve water, the $1.2 billion Meta data center in Kuma, Idaho, will deploy a closed loop system containing 200,000 gallons of water, reducing the need to tap into a community's fresh water system.  The firm has also invested $100 million in a new water and wastewater infrastructure in Kuma.  

Amazon Web Services announced recently that 20 of its data centers will be cooling with purified wastewater, instead of fresh water.  After cycling through the cooling system, the water is sent back to the treatment plant to be cleaned and reused again.  

Many smaller or older data centers rely on air conditioning and chilled air circulation to remove heat.  The centers employ mechanical chillers or heat exchangers that do not consumer water for cooling, aside from minimal water for humidification.  Air cooling is more common in cooler climates. 

Industry estimates show that approximately 75-90% of data centers worldwide rely on water-based cooling as the primary methodology for cooling.  One site in Fayetteville County, Georgia, used 29 million gallons over a span of 15 months. Statistics such as this are grist for anti-AI activists. 

However, here's just one fact to put data center usage in perspective. It takes 1.1 gallons of water to grow a single almond.  California produces 2.5-to-2.8 BILLION pounds of almonds every year.  Do you recall dozens of well funded activist groups showing up to protest almonds?

New AI data centers have one thing in common with almond crops--both need large parcels of land.  The average AI data center requires about 200 acres, although some major tech companies are constructing massive facilities that gobble up 500-to-800 acres.  

More tech companies are targeting large rural or semi-rural acreage for construction of their facilities.  Commercial property firm Avison Young estimates that AI firms have spent roughly $6 billion on land purchases this year, a 79% hike from just one year ago.

Farmers, in particular, must weigh the benefits and and disadvantages of selling land.  Farmers stand to benefit from innovations and efficiency in their business from AI powered information, reports the American Farm Bureau Federation. 

Every farmer or rancher has a different motivation.  Small farmers, often are one crop failure away from bankruptcy, may be incentivized to sell their land to insure their family's financial future. For others, the land has been in their family for generations and they have no plan to sell.

Ultimately, farmers, ranchers and landowners have the right to decide how their private property is used.   

If all else fails, critics fall back on a familiar harangue--the billionaires are the ones reaping all the benefits off AI data centers.  Ordinary folks are the ones footing the bill.  There have been studies documenting the real world economic impact of AI data centers, which paint a different picture.  

A 2025 study found that data center projects in Ohio supported nearly 9,700 construction jobs during the build phase, while generating $2.4 billion in total economic output and contributing $1 billion to the state's Gross Domestic Product.  The centers generated $84 million in state and local tax revenues. 

A similar study in Virginia found that data centers in that state supported nearly 74,000 jobs annually, including construction, and generated $9.1 billion in annual economic contribution.  In some jurisdictions, data centers accounted for up to 30% of local tax revenues.

Winners in the AI race will be those countries that foster a collaborative climate between communities and the firms building the data centers to address electricity and water issues prior to construction. That is already happening as more AI industry firms are working to resolve potential impacts.

Americans need facts about AI data centers to make informed decisions. Unfortunately, the majority of the media is fueling the opposition by regurgitating the left's talking points rather than providing balanced reporting.  In doing so, they are aiding and abetting China. 

Every new technology introduced in American history has faced skepticism, opposition and apprehension.  Keep that in mind as you read and listen to arguments on both sides of the AI data center issue.  The history lesson is that facts eventually triumph over scare tactics.  

America's Looming Critical Worker Shortage

America has a jobs conundrum. The issue isn't a shortage of jobs or a lack of workers.  The problem is a mismatch of skills and available workers. The dilemma is compounded by a demographic quandary that will result in a gaping shortage of workers to fill some of society's most critical jobs.

Thousands of young people with newly minted college degrees are struggling today to find work.  Reports show about 5.6% of recent college grads remain unemployed. At the same time, many American businesses can't find qualified workers to fill jobs. 

The Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) latest data estimates there are currently 7.36 million job vacancies in America.  The number of people searching for employment is calculated to be 7.1 million. Simple math would indicate those vacancies could be whittled down by matching jobs with applicants.

However, there aren't enough job seekers with the skills required by companies that are hiring. 

The Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) published research that found about a third (32.7%) of job openings cannot be filled by someone with recent job experience in a related field. Nearly three in 10 unemployed people could not be matched to a job despite relatable experience. 

Some may be thinking: AI is to blame. No question workers today are fearful artificial intelligence may endanger their jobs.  Stanford policy research termed the "AI jobs apocalypse" more fiction than fact. Company announcements blaming job cuts on AI often are a disguise for softening market conditions.

Indeed, job cuts in July slowed nationally as companies stepped up hiring plans, according to data from outplacement firm Challenger, Gray and Christmas. Layoffs decreased 27% from June. Job reductions have primarily been in tech sector, where AI has been a factor cited by firms.

Demographics--not AI--will create the largest shortage of workers in U.S. history by 2032.

Georgetown University's Center on Education and the Workforce projects a shortage of 5.25 million workers with education beyond high school.  About 4.5 million of these workers will need at least a bachelor's degree to meet hiring requirements,  according to the new research.

Part of the problem is that the labor participation rate is tumbling.  The rate measures the percentage of working age adults (18+) who are in the workforce.  The latest data for June shows the rate to be 61.5%. That is a steep decline from the peak of 67.3% in 2000.

If the labor participation rate reached its historic high and unemployment remained at the current 4.1%, the workforce would increase by 12 million people, more than double the projected shortage in 2032.  However, more workers doesn't necessarily mean they will have the skills needed.

Many of those 12 million potential workers would need more education and training than today's employees.  The current projection indicates that 52% of those potential workers would not have the skills companies are seeking.

Georgetown's research reveals that the economy will need more accountants, construction workers, doctors, engineers, managers, nurses, teachers and truck drivers in six years than people with those skills.  Some of the largest shortages will likely occur in the most critical areas.

Projections are for a shortfall of 611,000 teachers, 362,000 nurse practitioners and registered nurses, and 42,000 licensed practical nurses.  High turnover rates due to burnout from the COVID-19 pandemic decimated the ranks of these professions and fewer people are interested in those jobs, Georgetown's research finds.

America also faces a skill shortage of 210,000 engineers.  Research shows not enough young people are qualified and interested in these careers.  Forecasters indicate there will be shortages in occupations that don't require a college degree, such as truck drivers (402,000) and construction workers (200,000).

Even these eye watering numbers don't tell the whole story.  

A University of Minnesota professor of history and population studies reviewed Census Data and discovered the double whammy impacting the labor market are baby boomer retirements coupled with fewer people entering the workforce.

Professor Steven Ruggles says the result will be the labor force will shrink by 2.7 million workers or 1.3% from 2030 to 2040, according to his analysis of Census data and projections from the Congressional Budget Office. 

An average of 10,000 boomers a day are turning 65 through 2029, based on Census data.  In 2025, a record 4.18 million Americans turned 65. Boomers are leaving the work environment at a time when there are fewer young people entering the labor market and many don't have the same skills as retirees.

The U.S. fertility rate has been below replacement rate since the early 1970's and declined further since 2007.  Currently, the fertility rate is around 1.6 annually, below the 2.1 births needed to grow the population. A reversal in fertility rates is not likely any time soon, demographers postulate. 

Possible solutions to the looming labor market crisis include sharpening skills-based hiring; investing in retraining workers; expanding visa programs to prioritize immigrants with in-demand skills; aligning college degree programs with skill sets required for the future; and expanding training programs in the trades.

Artificial Intelligence could gallop to the rescue.

AI is currently automating burdensome administrative tasks, freeing workers to spend more time on more rewarding projects. AI can also accelerate training of the workforce by using tools that enhance learning on the job. AI systems can also churn out analytical data to give managers and workers more information to improve their productivity.  Already, AI is being deployed in the healthcare industry, assisting in the diagnosis of diseases and reviewing MRI's and X-Rays.  

And companies are just scratching the surface on AI applications.

That's why you can add data scientists--including those with computer and mathematical skills--to the list of the fastest growing occupations through 2034, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The agency estimates a 33.5% growth in this occupation.

America has faced worker shortages before, as recently as 2018.  A combination of increased productivity, innovation and the retraining of workers met hiring needs.  Then the pandemic hit, which whipsawed the labor market.  The U.S. pulled out of that quagmire too and can do it again.  

Socialists Are Hijacking Democratic Party

The Democratic Socialists of America, once a fringe club that met in people's basements, has morphed into a mushrooming force in Democratic Party politics. This election season socialists have scored a string of upsets in the primaries, an impressive record for a nascent political party founded in 1982.  

As recently as 2016, the DSA had about 8,000 members.  However, the ideological group has blossomed into an energetic, political juggernaut with 120,000 members.  Although its finances and membership are dwarfed by the Democratic Party, the DSA is muscling its way into the mainstream. 

The party's rolls exploded after the 2016 presidential campaign of avowed socialist Senator Bernie Sanders.  Today, the party claims more than 250 members in elected offices from Texas to Missouri, and Pennsylvania to Utah.  Its highest profile officeholder is New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani.

Nationally, DSA endorsed members include Representatives Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rashida Tlaib from Michigan.  Both were elected in 2018, a year when 50 DSA-endorsed candidates won Democratic Party nominations at the national, state and local level.  

The socialists' success in the Democratic Party has ruptured unity ahead of the key midterms.  Socialists have unseated several moderate Democrats in primaries this cycle, winning 35 races at local, state and national levels.  And they have set their sights on running a presidential candidate in 2028.  

Democrats have tried to put lip gloss on what is a messy food fight within the party.  They brush off the schism, assuring critics socialists are part of the "big tent" embraced by Democrats.  Their disclaimer notwithstanding, mainline Democrats are clearly worried about a fissure within the party. 

Although the DSA party platform has echoes of Maxism, lately their candidates have rejected the label of Communism.  Socialists eschew the characterization because they fear it may scare off some voters. But their views are hiding in plain sight on their website and in pronouncements by DSA apparatchiks.

The DSA platform calls for radically restructuring American government and institutions in ways that would shift political power to an elected dictatorship. Many of their ideas are unconstitutional and beg the question about how peaceful implementation could be achieved. 

The group's doctrinal manifesto includes the following:

• Ending corporate control of the economy in favor of social ownership, effectively abolishing capitalism while mandating a 32-hour workweek.
• Replacing the President and the Supreme Court with bodies that would be "subordinate to Congress."
• Getting rid of the United States Senate.
• Massive public housing construction; universal rent control; and, tenant protections.
• Reparations and investment in communities affected by racism and or colonialism.
• Abolition of police and prisons.
• Expanding voting rights to non-citizens and incarcerated persons. 
• Opening borders to migrants and granting amnesty to illegals in the country.

In their races this year, DSA candidates have avoided talking about most of the group's extreme positions in an effort to soft pedal socialism. Instead, socialist candidates deliver sermons about affordability and economic inequality wrapped in the politics of envy, jealousy and resentment.

Their message drips with the Marxism's doctrine of class struggle. They advocate for raising taxes on billionaires and millionaires, giving workers more control in the workplace, replacing capitalism with a fairer system, free universal healthcare, housing as a human right and free education for all.

Every DSA candidate rails against Israel and condemns U.S. support for that country.  They are the shrill voices supporting Palestine, Hamas and Hezbollah.  Their militant anti-Zionism bent is not only the organization's defining cause, it crosses the line into being unequivocally anti-Semitic. 

Despite the Communist tenets embraced by the DSA candidates, incumbent Democrats are loathe to criticize candidates or their message, lest they become the next target in a primary.  But there is another more pragmatic reason for their recalcitrance.

A Pew Research poll found one in three (32%) of Democrats and those who lean Democrat view socialists leaders and ideology positively.  The survey, conducted in January, found that among those Democrats who describe themselves as "liberal," an astounding 52% have favorable views of socialism.    

Democrats who are white, younger, female and college educated are the most likely to have a positive view of socialists.  This is the same demographic showing up in primaries to lift the fortunes of Democratic Socialists of America candidates. They are also supporting the DSA financially. 

According to its website, the DSA is primarily funded by its members through regular dues and individual contributions. They claim to take no funds from Political Action Committees (PACs). The group, however, has a separate non-profit entity--the DSA Fund--that accepts charitable contributions.

Publicly available records show the fund collected $586,000 from 2019 to 2024.  That is a pittance in today's political financial arms race.  But there is a murky trail of like-minded groups supporting DSA candidates, which is funded by an American-born tycoon with ties to the Chinese Communist Party.

The multi-millionaire, Neville Roy Singham, lives in Shanghai.  He has bankrolled a string of nonprofits including, CodePink, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, People's Forum and a the anti-Zionist group American Priorities. The later group spent millions electing DSA candidates this cycle.

The U.S. State Department has identified the Singham network of tax-exempt groups as a tool for Chinese propaganda.  House Ways and Means Committee chairman Missouri Republican Jason Smith has issued subpoenas to delve into the Singham backed organizations.  

Democrats' strategy is to compare the socialists wave to the Tea Party uprising in the Republican Party in 2009.  It's just a trendy fad, they claim.  There is no comparison.  The Tea Party demanded fiscal responsibility, limited government and free markets.  Those ideals are far from Communist theory.  

The DSA has already demonstrated more staying power than the forgotten Tea Party. Socialists are gaining members and political power. The longer Democrats avoid putting distance between the party and socialists, the bigger the risk the Democratic Party becomes a safe haven for socialists.  

For their part, Republicans need to tie every Democrat running for office to the socialists.  Run ad campaigns about the "new" Democrat party's socialist ideas. Make Democrat candidates either endorse or refute the DSA.  Don't let them off the hook with "big tent" euphemisms.  

Democrats want to make the midterms a referendum on President Trump.  The GOP should turn the tables and make the election about capitalism versus Communist-style socialism.  That may keep the Democrats from overturning Republican majorities in the House and Senate. 

The Seething Assassination Culture

A daily theater of the absurd is playing outside a New York courtroom. A mostly young female crowd is swooning over the alleged killer of a UnitedHealthcare CEO. Some have penned notes volunteering for conjugal visits if 26-year-old Luigi Mangione is convicted. Social media is awash with contentions the executive deserved to die for the sins of the insurance industry. 

Mangione, arrested December 9, 2024, is on trial in New York State court on murder charges. He has been anointed a martyr by an astonishing percentage of young people who have grievances against the American health insurance industry.  It's tempting to assume the unhinged attitude is not representative of the culture at large.  

You may be shocked to learn a large swath of young people not only have no sympathy for the victim but think his murder was justified. Research conducted by Emerson College Polling  found 41% of those aged 18-29 found it either "somewhat acceptable" or "completely acceptable" to kill CEO Brian Thompson.  

The online demonization of Thompson, a father of two young sons, stands in stark contrast to the fawning adoration for the curly haired Mangione. There are memes featuring Mangione as the cuddly character Luigi in the Super Mario video game. Mangione is more hero than villain to some.  

In another attack on a businessman, a 20-year old Texas man was arrested for throwing a Molotov cocktail at OpenAI founder Sam Altman's San Francisco house.  The assailant had a manifesto entitled, "Your Last Warning."  It expressed anti-AI sentiments.

Tesla CEO Elon Musk's company became a target after his role to improve government efficiency and reduce funding and personnel. Tesla dealership and vehicles were set on fire.  Charging stations were vandalized and an Oregon dealership was sprayed with gunfire.  A Rutgers University's Social Perception Lab survey found 31.6% of adults agreed it would be somewhat justified to kill Musk.

It's characteristic to dismiss these incidents as an anomaly.  Yet there is evidence of the mainstreaming of this brand of societal violence. The attempted assassination of President Trump by a 20-year-old gunman revealed the this deep vein of hatred and violence that ripples through our society, numbing too many to murder. 

The aforementioned Rutgers research found that 38.5% percent of respondents believe the Trump shooting was at least somewhat justified. That's a sad commentary on society in a country that professes ballots not bullets are the hallmark of a democracy.

After the killing of Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk, a national survey by CloudResearch found that 22% of respondents under 30 years of age agreed the murder was justified.  Within that age group, those who identified as Democrats were most likely to call the killing justified (32%).

More recently, a 21-year old gunman unleashed a fusillade of 60 rounds of bullets near the White House. Secret Service agents opened fire, killing the assailant.  The Maryland man had a history of encounters with law enforcement and mental health issues. 

Politicians and the media take to the airwaves to practice amateur psychoanalysis after these acts and resulting polls.  They always blame violence on partisanship, hate speech or one political party or the other. Their cohorts in research churn out polls dutifully supporting their thesis.

However, for those who want to understand this phenomenon, a Gallup Poll offers insight into political and social violence. 

The nonpartisan group conducted research last December that offered sobering evidence that age is the strongest predictor of attitudes toward political violence.  While overwhelming majorities of Americans say its is never okay to use violence to achieve a political goal, research confirmed young people are more likely to approve of it.

An astounding 30% of those 18-29 years-old agree that it is "sometimes" acceptable to use political violence.  Among those 30-to-44, the percentage is 21%.  Those 60 years and older find political violence the most antithetical: only 4% told pollsters they find political violence sometimes acceptable. 

In each of the violent episodes recounted here, the shooter fit the 18-29-year old age profile.  This isn't a coincidence.  Research-after -research report documents that young males are more likely than other demographics to endorse violence.   

Gallup discovered the attitude is "more prevalent among heavy social media users than those who use social media less frequently or not at all." Differences in views by political affiliation and education are smaller.  The research uncovered no differences based on income or other socioeconomic factors.

Heavy usage of social media appears to have the strongest linkage to attitudes about violence among younger adults.  The more hours they spend on social media, the more likely they are to condone violence. Some of the most ardent believers in violence are on social media five or more hours a day.

As a casual observer of social media, the most outrageous postings are often if not always the most viewed.  Many contain disturbing images of violence against politicians and the wealthy.  A surprising number of individuals post selfies encouraging mayhem and "wishing" people would die.

The Rutgers study reported a linkage between support for political violence and usage of BlueSky-- social media platform that leans left--including punitive attitudes toward ideological opponents. But you can find justification for acts of violence on other social media too. 

Studies have shown that social media addiction among young adults can create extreme feelings of loneliness.  The Gallup research found there is a correlation between loneliness and political violence, particularly among young males, aged 18-29 years old.

Gallup conducted similar studies in 1970 and 1995.  The biggest shift in attitudes is among younger Americans 18-29 who are more likely today than in the past to "view violence as a legitimate tool" to bring about societal or political change.

A 2024 Harvard study further documented the social disconnection between young 18-to-29 year olds and the rest of society.  It found that 24% of this demographic reported "frequently" or "always" feeling lonely.  By comparison adults aged 65 and older, had the lowest rate of loneliness: 10%.

Blaming the super heated nature of our politics for every shooting has become reflexive. The lazy media gravitates to the politically acceptable answer rather than striving for intelligent examination.  The root causes of a preference for violence by young adults is more than a wake up call.  It is a blaring siren that must be answered by solutions not by shallow analysis that supports a pre-existing political narrative. 

How The Gerrymandering Wars Started

Texas is getting blamed for igniting the gerrymandering wars.  Virginia fired the latest salvo after residents voted to realign Congressional districts. Others states are joining the fray. The political tug-of-war matters because the midterm elections this fall will determine which party controls the House.

News media reports, as you might expect, are missing context. Accounts often portray the drawing of congressional maps as a non-partisan exercise, corrupted by Texas and President Trump.  Some media deceitfully claim it's a new phenomenon foisted on the country by diabolical Republicans. 

In fact, gerrymandering is as old as America.  The first congressional map, hammered out in 1788, the so-called anti-Federalists in Virginia jiggered the district to pit their candidate James Monroe against the incumbent James Madison.  The maneuver failed as Madison was reelected.

The term gerrymandering was coined in 1812 by the Boston Gazette after Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts championed a bill that manipulated the boundaries of state electoral districts to give his party, Democrat-Republicans, what was considered an unfair political advantage.

(It's ironic that the Democratic-Republican party--the same two parties duking it out over maps today--was the beneficiary.  The party was formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in 1792.  They called themselves "Republicans" in a nod to their ideology. Federalists were the opposition party.) 

After Governor Gerry signed the redistricting bill, the Boston Gazette referred to the resulting map as a Gerry-mander, because the contorted district in the Boston area resembled the shape of a mythological salamander.  Thus the moniker became a disreputable term for partisan redistricting.

Gerrymandering has whipsawed American politics for more than 200 years.  The earliest battles were over statewide Congressional elections versus specific districts.  Some states, such as Pennsylvania, held at-large elections for representatives.  Others, mixed district and at-large-systems.

This hodgepodge was common as the political parties jockeyed for power.  The result was a high turnover among congressional delegations, a far cry from today's entrenched incumbency.  It wasn't until 1842 when Congress approved legislation mandating single member districts.

Despite the new law, some Democrat controlled states refused to comply with mandate.  The election of 1846 changed everything after the Democrats endured an electoral shellacking.  Democrat states fell in line after that and single member districts became the political pro forma for electing representatives. 

The decree for single-member districts was bolstered by the passage of the Uniform Congressional Districting Act of 1967. The groundwork for the law was laid by two Supreme Court decisions as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  

The justices ruled in 1962 that federal courts could weigh in on the redistricting maps.  Then in a 1964 case, SCOTUS established the principle of one-person, one vote.  That opinion compelled states to redraw House district boundaries to ensure equal population in each district.  

The judicial rulings sparked the great reapportionment.  For Democrats in non-Southern states, the legal decisions were a gift.  Since Democrats were dominant in urban cities, they carved out districts that could be won by a black candidate, cementing the relationship between the party and this constituency.  

The reappointment revolution also ushered in a sustained period of Democrat Party control of the House of Representatives.  It took Republicans 40 years to win control of the lower chamber in 1994. Democrats contend gerrymandering had nothing to do with their decades of dominance.  

With their newfound majority, the GOP launched an effort in 2010 to gain control of state legislatures, which are charged with drawing the House district maps.  At the time, Democrats controlled 27 state legislatures and eight were split.  Democrats held 60 of the 100 chambers of state legislatures.  

Following the 2010 state elections, Republicans seized control of 25 state legislatures. Democrat controlled legislatures plummeted to 16 with nine states split.  Prior to the Republican sweep, Democrats had at least a 2-to-1 advantage in redistricting authority for the previous 40 years.

In recent years, some states, in an effort to tamp down flaming partisanship, have established independent commissions to draft maps while a handful have created so-called advisory councils. However, the state legislators have the final authority to override the advisory groups.

Even independent commissions can be ditched.  California in 2008 put redistricting in the hands of an "impartial" commission.  But the state's voters recently passed a proposition to "temporarily" redesign the House districts, potentially adding five Democrat seats.  SCOTUS upheld the move in February.

The ink was barely dry on the court's decision when the justices struck down a Louisiana map, ruling that it was unconstitutional to gerrymander on the basis of race.  Louisiana's 2024 Congressional map included two majority black districts.  

Toss in the political stew the disregard for waiting until the decennial census to redraw maps. Virginia, California, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Texas and Utah have rejiggered district maps ahead of the 2030 census.  Mid-decade redistricting is neither prohibited by the Constitution nor federal law. 

Whether it's gerrymandering or just the voters' preference for a single party, there currently are 19 states with a one-party House delegation--7 Democrat controlled and 12 dominated by the GOP.  After this latest round of gerrymandering, those numbers will only increase.   

Open hostilities between the two parties stoking the Gerrymandering Wars, raise the question: What's best for America?  Should redistricting be restricted to every 10 years with the census?  Should every state agreed to use a neutral commission to draw maps?  Should Congress pass guidelines?

With a politically polarized nation, it might be wishful thinking to hope for a solution. As it stands, the number of competitive House races shrinks every year.  Incumbency has been institutionalized.  The average member is 57.5 years old and the average tenure is a tick more than four terms (8.6 years).

Gerrymandering may have less to do with the makeup of the House than the partisan nature of states.  There is a reason Red and Blue colors have been assigned to most states with a few purples.  The Constitution, the Courts and Legislatures appear to be of the same mind.  Let the states draw maps.

The only change likely will be no change.  

Is It Racist To Question Birthright Citizenship?

Almost overnight, birthright citizenship has become a contentious debate in America. President Trump signed an executive order in January to narrow the practice.  Federal courts stepped in to overturn its effect, seemingly ending the matter.  But now the issue will be decided by the nation's highest court.

The Supreme Court is expected to hand down a ruling this summer in the first major test of a Civil War era amendment on birthright citizenship.  The law hinges on the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, ratified in 1868, to guarantee the rights of citizenship to protect the status of freed American slaves.

Georgetown law professor Jonathon Turley, a recognized legal scholar, has written extensively on Constitutional Law.  In an opinion column after the SOCTUS hearing, he reminded that many leaders have opposed birthright citizenship, including former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat. 

In 1993, Reid introduced the Immigration Stabilization Act, a sweeping law that would have cleared up the fog over the 14th Amendment by narrowing birthright citizenship.  His unsuccessful measure would have required the birth mother to be a U.S. citizen for her baby to be recognized as a U.S. citizen.    

Those who argue the 14th Amendment is clear on birthright citizenship are being less than honest, Turley says.  No one argues the original intent.  Over the years, the high court has heard cases on the law's application in different situations. Despite the rulings, a fair amount of ambiguity remains. 

In any event, it is disingenuous to contend the authors of the amendment could foresee today's complex immigration landscape. Millions of illegal immigrants have given birth to children who are granted immediate citizenship.  A cottage industry of birth tourism has arisen to take advantage of the loophole.

Understanding the issue rests on interpretation of the 14th amendment. Section 1 reads as follows:

"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.  No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

This may sound straightforward, but the other four sections deal specifically with slaves, including the counting of freed slaves for the apportionment of U.S. representatives.  Section four denies government obligation for the loss of "emancipation of any slave." Clearly, the amendment addressed only slaves.

Neither the Supreme Court in past decisions nor Congress has clarified that U.S. born children of illegal or non-permanent resident aliens have a claim of birthright citizenship.  

In fact, one of the amendment's coauthors, Senator Jacob Howard, assured his colleagues the amendment would not "of course include persons born in the United States, who are foreigners, aliens or who belong to the families of political jurisdiction, and not subject to a foreign power."

In the aftermath of Trump's executive order, there have been many mischaracterizations of the president's intent.  The most outrageous came from a Harvard law professor who posted on social media that the president was pursuing some antebellum agenda to overturn the outcome of the Civil War.

Partisanship has replaced common sense.  There are circumstances today that could not have been foreseen in 1868 regarding citizenship.

For instance, during the Biden Administration a conservative estimate of 10 million illegal immigrants entered the country. Pew Research, using 2023 Census data, estimated 13.7 million-to-14 million persons living in the country are non-citizens.  The Federation for American Immigrant Reform (FAIR) puts the number as of 2025 at 18.6 million.  

In 2023, mothers who were "unauthorized immigrants" or had temporary status in the U.S. had 320,000 babies, according to Pew Research. That represents about nine percent of the 3.6 million babies born that year. Pew derived the data from Census Bureau surveys.  

A deep dive into the data, shows that 245,000 babies were born to mothers who were "unauthorized immigrants" and fathers who were not citizens or permanent residents.  Another 15,000 babies were born to mothers who had legal temporary status and fathers who were not citizens. 

Each one of those babies is now a citizen of the United States, despite the illegal status of their parents. Pew noted in its research report that "some mothers get temporary visas specifically to secure U.S. citizenship for their newborns." 

Citizens of China have taken advantage of birth tourism to exploit the unconditional birthright citizenship process.  Evidence suggests thousands of Chinese nationals have traveled to the U.S. as tourists annually. Experts  estimate between 30,000 and 50,000 births per year prior to the pandemic.

Hundreds of sham agencies operate in California to accommodate pregnant Chinese women providing "maternity hotels" and travel support.  The illegal operators coach women on how to trick customs officials when they fly to U.S. airports, hiding their baby bumps by wearing loose fitting outfits.

Chinese women turn to birth tourism to gain U.S. citizenship for their children, which offers benefits including access to an American college education.  Once their children turn 21, the foreign birth mothers can also apply for permanent residency in the U.S.  

Last year a California woman was sentenced to three years in prison for helping pregnant Chinese females travel to the U.S. to deliver babies. The California woman and her husband were charged with conspiracy and money laundering through their company, USA Happy Baby.

More than a dozen people were charged in an Obama-era crackdown on birth tourism schemes. There are estimates that a cumulative 1.5 million U.S. babies are currently being raised in China.  Few Americans are aware of the loophole created by lax interpretation of the 14th Amendment. 

Commercial surrogacy is another lucrative way to gain U.S. citizenship. It involves hiring a an American woman to gestate a child for a fee, which can go as high as $60,000.  The practice, dubbed rent-a-womb, allows foreign nationals to ship eggs and sperm to the U.S. Other foreigners come to the U.S. for fertility treatments to avoid shipping.  

Is this what the 14th Amendment framers envisioned?  The answer is obvious. 

As the debate over birthright citizenship has simmered, Democrats have peddled the lie that the U.S. would be out of step with the rest of the world if it put conditions on birthright citizenship.  That is factually incorrect.  Unconditional birthright citizenship is restricted to the Americas, including Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and about 30 other countries. 

Overwhelming, most nations including European countries, place conditions on birthright citizenship.  In fact, many countries are ending automatic birthright citizenship instead of following the permissive policy of the U.S. New Zealand is just the latest example.  Children born in the country now only gain citizenship only if one parent is a citizen or permanent resident.

If the Supreme Court, as expected, refuses to overturn unconditional birthright citizenship, Americans should demand that Congress approve legislation to recognize citizenship only if one parent is a citizen or a permanent resident.  Granting U.S. citizenship should be should be an inviolable right not a womb free-for-all.