I write this out of my hope and prayer that you come to love being Jewish and find a home in its faith and rich traditions. I hope you walk humbly, but with great pride, embracing the history of your people and the phenomenal resilience they’ve shown throughout history. And always, that you live the central Jewish value of tikkun olam: repairing the world.

I also write this piece to the many young people who have compassionate hearts who are driven to political activism on behalf of marginalized groups. In the early 1980s I was a proud member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), where some of you currently find your political home. I was inspired by its founder, Michael Harrington, the Jesuit-educated political activist/philosopher credited with sparking President Kennedy and Johnson’s War on Poverty with his publication of “The Other America: Poverty in the United States.” Unfortunately, today, DSA is home to much antisemitism.

Lastly, I write this to the many people who have no idea what to think about this conflict. It’s not unreasonable to conclude, “It’s complicated, where would I begin…who the heck knows what the truth is, I can’t be bothered.” I believe this is a good-faith effort, albeit with my biases, to give you some historical framework that doesn’t involve having to read a shelf full of books! It’s long by design…but, I think you’ll find it well worth your time!

Let me say upfront that this piece is no apology or defense for the current Israeli government headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Our family was beyond fortunate to have belonged to Temple Micah in Washington, DC, led by Rabbi Danny Zemel (retired), while your mother was growing up. We’re still members. Rabbi Zemel is a proud Zionist who believes deeply in Israel. He is a man of uncommon integrity and faith. I can think of few men I admire more.

Danny tells me, “The current government of Israel brings great shame to Jewish history and to the Jewish people. Many Israelis, including former generals and those high up in the security services, have said to me that after January, 2024, there was nothing of worthy security goals being met in Israel’s ongoing war with Hamas. It was simply to destroy Gaza. The ongoing two-year war on the West Bank by Settlers and aided and abetted by the government is criminal.” It pains me to hear these words, but hear them I must because being honest is so important. I trust Rabbi Zemel’s view.

I loathe our current American government in the strongest way, but I certainly don’t expect to be held responsible for its actions. It would not occur to me to hold my Russian-American neighbor responsible for Putin’s terror against the Ukrainian people. Jews alone are expected to make their views on Israel’s current government known to determine if they meet some acceptable standard of rebuke.

While there is no disputing the suffering of the Palestinian people, there is a lot of room in assessing ultimate blame. The estimated 5.5 million Palestinians living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip live under brutal conditions. However, the principal cause of that suffering stems from the choices that Palestinian leaders, divorced from accountability to their people, have made over many years, in my opinion.

Seventy-Five Years Against All Odds

Brooke, Grant, first and foremost, you need to know, in your bones, what the Jewish state of Israel has accomplished since its founding. In seventy-five years, Israel has built the 28th largest economy in the world. It ranks 13th in terms of GDP per capita, having turned arid desert into fruitful, fertile land, hitherto not seen. It’s created a vibrant “start-up” economic culture that produces cutting-edge technology. Israel provides its citizens - including the 21% of its population that is Arab Palestinian (not West Bank and Gazan Palestinians) - with universal healthcare. The country’s life expectancy exceeds that of the U.S.

Israel is the only democracy in a neighborhood devoid of it. The 22 Arab countries that make up the Arab League are overwhelmingly autocratic. “Freedom,” said one Arab observer quoted in Fouad Ajami’s “The Arab Predicament” (1981), “is a plant alien to our part of the world…We used to blame the colonists. Then some of us colonized others and the plant of freedom died over and over again.”

The Arab Spring, a pro-democracy movement that swept through the Middle East in 2010, including Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen, was quickly and violently crushed by those countries’ autocrats. It seems that Arab governments slaughtering fellow Arabs is ignored by Israel’s critics. Hopefully, one day the Palestinians will have their own state. What are the odds it will look much different from other Arab nations?

Israel (peacefully) convicted a former prime minister of a crime and sent him to jail. It elected a woman prime minister - Golda Meir - in 1969. Israel’s 7 million Jews are roughly half of the world’s Jewish population. Three Israeli Prime Ministers have been awarded Nobel Peace Prizes for their efforts on behalf of peace: Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin, and Shimon Peres.

The Rise of Antisemitic Democratic Politicians

DSA members would be well-served to familiarize themselves with their founder’s staunch support for the State of Israel and Zionism (the two of course cannot be separated). “The basic fact,” Harrington wrote in 1975, “...is that Zionism - which I take to mean the philosophy of support for and identification with a Jewish homeland in Israel - is the national liberation movement of a Jewish people asserting their right to self-determination.”

Today, New York Mayor and DSA member Zohran Mamdani, elected to help solve that city’s considerable challenges, spends an inordinate amount of time condemning Israel. Mamdani seems to believe that weighing in on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in his job description. Why? As the Bard of Avon said, “Me thinks he protesteth too much.”

In fact, I think the world protesteth too much. Sudan is just one example. In a recent New York Times editorial (July 19th, 2026), “The World Must Wake Up To the Horror in Sudan,” Times writers note, “If even the low end of the estimated death toll in Sudan is correct - 150,000 people - it is twice the official toll in Gaza…” Arab-identifying militias are engaged in ethnic cleansing of non-Arab Black African people. There’s an estimated 12 million refugees. The United Nations (UN) in fact has called Sudan the world’s largest humanitarian crisis. Prominent public statements by 24/7 Israeli critics Representatives Ro Khanna and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC)? None.

I (still) get three newspapers delivered to my home: The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. I can expect every day for there to be an article in one of them about 1) Israel and 2) Artificial Intelligence. It’s not just Sudan. Articles drawing attention to Russia’s completely unprovoked attack and continuing assault on Ukraine’s 35 million people, and its kidnapping of an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 Ukrainian children? Very few.

Putin intentionally targets civilians; they are not remotely the consequence of enemy combatants hiding behind civilians (only Hamas does that), as exists in Israel’s case in Gaza. Charges of genocide against Putin? I don’t see them.

Did Israel go too far in its bombing campaign in Gaza? It’s a fair point, and the likely answer is yes. War is typically hell, and lots of innocent people suffer and die. The United States targeted and killed an estimated 200,000 Japanese civilians (many of them women and children) in order to save the lives of 200,000 servicemen, which was the estimated cost of a ground invasion. Our country’s response to 911 (where 3,000 Americans were killed), including going to war against Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and Pakistan, with over 400,000 innocent deaths according to Brown University’s Watson School of International and Public Affairs.

The progressive left’s silence and disinterest during Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s brutal crackdown (2011 to 2024) in that country - estimated innocent deaths of 300,000 - was deafening. An estimated 13 million refugees (the largest displacement in the 21st Century). While Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu is accused of overseeing a genocide (no international body has declared such) on a regular basis by AOC, there is no public record of her condemning Syria’s Assad.

To be clear, examples of other countries’ “crimes” don’t exonerate Israel. But they do help illustrate the double standard (on steroids) applied to Israel. A Jew who loves and believes in Israel’s miracle as a Jewish state can understandably despair over current events as a Jew. A non-Jew is certainly entitled to criticize Israel’s actions to the extent the standards applied are done so in an equal manner. However, all too often, Israel is uniquely singled out.

DSA member Arila Chevalier recently won a Democratic primary race in New York (she was endorsed by Mamdani). Chevalier, in no uncertain terms, made it clear that she believes Israel had it coming when it was attacked on October 7, 2023.

On October 7, 2023, the elected leaders of the Gaza Strip, Hamas, killed 1,200 innocent Israeli citizens, raped women, and took 251 innocent hostages. It was a gruesome slaughter that involved murdering young concert-goers. On October 8, the very next day, Chevalier attended a DSA-sponsored, pro-Palestinian rally in Times Square where attendees chanted “From the River to the Sea,” and held up signs saying, “Globalize the Intifada.” An intifada is an Arabic word meaning “uprising.”

What kind of person attends a rally - on behalf of the perpetrators of terror - the day after such a vile act? What kind of person endorses such a candidate? Like many of Trump’s working-class voters, I cannot understand why New York’s Jews would support Mamdani after the Chevalier endorsement.

Chevalier is hardly alone. DSA member Melat Kiros recently ousted a Democratic incumbent in Colorado in the 1st Congressional District primary. Kiros referred to October 7th as “inevitable,” and blamed Israel for rising antisemitism in America. In June 2025, an 82-year old woman was killed when a Molotov cocktail was thrown into a peaceful pro-Israel gathering in Boulder, CO. Kiros had a very difficult time calling the act antisemitic despite the man arrested having yelled “Free Palestine.”

Rabbi Menachem Lehrfield, director of the Jewish Outreach Initiative in Denver, recently told the story of walking down the street, wearing a yarmulke, when somebody rolled down their window and yelled, “dirty Jew.” When I think about this person, I can only conclude that they are - at some elemental level of their being - deeply envious. How else to understand such hate? I know about hate and envy, too. Many of us do, and it’s a powerful force if it’s not confronted.

“From the River to the Sea” refers to the Jordan River (Israel’s east coast) and the Mediterranean Sea (Israel’s west coast), and means that Israel, as a Jewish state, should not exist. This slogan is increasingly accepted on campuses among so-called “progressive” students and far-left Democratic candidates associated with anti-Israel rhetoric. It is an unabashed call to violence. It is rarely, if ever, called out as such. To be clear, right-wing religious West Bank Jews yelling “From Judea to Sumaria” is no different in effect.

It’s ironic that America’s present-day “progressives” have come out against the only democracy in the Middle East — the one where women have full citizenship rights. In most Arab countries, homosexuality is illegal, prison sentences and corporal punishment are common. In Saudi Arabia, homosexuality is punishable by death. I often see Israeli protestors wearing “pride” clothing seemingly unaware that Israel is the only country in the Middle East where they could wear such clothing and not worry about being killed.

When Trump welcomed white nationalists into the Republican Party, and gave them cover to come out and play, Democrats of all stripes were (rightly) aghast and rose up in protest. Now, DSA candidates like Chevalier and Kiros, and former Democratic Maine Senate candidate Graham “I didn’t know my tattoo was a nazi symbol “ Platner are given a pass. How is it different? It’s not.

Several Jewish friends, somewhat amused by my apparent naivete, are not surprised by the rise of antisemitism. They never believed it was gone; it just became unacceptable in polite society (like its sister, white supremacy), but always right below the surface. It’s my own view that President Trump normalized hate in America in a new way. It’s increasingly just a part of our culture ushered in by a deeply amoral President.

Israel’s young critics, and perhaps older ones too, may be unaware that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a strong supporter of Israel. In a 1968 address, King said, “Peace for Israel means security, and we must stand with all our might to protect its right to exist, its territorial integrity.” King didn’t mince words when he said, “When people criticize ‘Zionists,’ they mean Jews. You’re talking antisemitism.” Free Palestine? From the River to the Sea? Not for Dr. King.

Today, in stark contrast to King and Harrington, being anti-Israel seems to have become a signal to the world that one stands for social justice, and on the side of beaten-down, oppressed peoples. Brooke, Grant, your Uncle Jordan started telling me about the rising antisemitism inside the Democratic left a couple years ago, and I didn’t fully believe him. I do now.

The Far-Right and the Far-Left Agree!

Our country is divided, but the two-thousand-year-plus scourge of antisemitism is increasingly bringing people together! The far-right likely gets higher marks for not hiding its antisemitism. In August of 2017, right-wing neo-nazis and white supremacists, brandishing torches, chanted “Jews will not replace us” at their Charlottesville, VA Rally. DSA, and its more educated and sophisticated members, describe Israel as a “settler-colonial, apartheid state,” and view anti-Zionism as a core organizational principle.

Rabbi Zemel believes, “The antisemitism of the left is awful. The antisemitism on the right continues to scare me more.”

The comedian Jerry Seinfeld compares the “Free Palestine” crowd to the KKK, but gives the latter credit for at least being transparent. “Why not just say,” says Seinfeld, “you don’t like Jews?” Clearly, much anti-Israeli rhetoric is disguised as cover for anti-Jewish sentiment.

Think about it…there are roughly 195 recognized countries in the world. They’ve come into being by hook or crook, and everything in between. Migration, war, conquest, and displacement have shaped every country in the world. The U.S. displaced indigenous people, Canada the First Nations, and Australia Aboriginal peoples. Yet alone, Israel is subjected to the question of whether it has a “right to exist,” because it’s (wrongly) alleged by some to be a “settler-colonial” nation.

In fact, distinct from these other examples, Jews were returning to their ancient homeland that was often nothing but desert, not organized into a nation-state. Take a look at the history of the land below your own feet, and then decide whether you want to decolonize the world.

Indeed, visceral hatred of Israel has become fashionable. At the same time, Jew-hatred is on the rise. In America, according to USAFacts, in 2024, while making up 2.5% of the country, roughly 70% of reported religiously based hate crimes were anti-Jewish. USAFacts says, “This is more than double all other religiously motivated crimes combined. In ten years, anti-Jewish hate crimes more than tripled.” Anti-Muslim hate crimes were second at an estimated 9% that year.

According the Anti-Defamation League (ADL): While incidents of harassment and vandalism decreased significantly in 2025 from record highs in 2023 and 2024, physical assaults this past year were higher than ever before. In 2025, there was an average of 17 incidents per day, compared to an average of eight incidents per day between 2020 and 2022.

Some Ancient History - Very Briefly!

Guys, this is going to be brief…you can do all the follow-up, deeper dive research your hearts desire.

The Roman Emperor Titus destroyed Jerusalem, the homeland of Jews, in 70 A.D. The Jews’ Second Temple was destroyed. All that remained was the Western Wall, commonly known today as the Wailing Wall. In Israel today, you can see many remnants of the Jews’ ties to Palestine during Biblical times. Beginning in the second Century A.D., Jews were restricted from entering Jerusalem by the Emperor Hadrian, and so began the Jewish diaspora. Byzantine rulers replaced the Romans until the Arab conquest in 637 A.D.

Having been displaced from their homeland, Jews began saying, “Next year in Jerusalem” at their Passover Seders around the 11th or 12th Centuries.

In 1517, the Turks (Ottomans) conquered Palestine and ruled until the British took over during WWI. Like all lands, this one has exchanged hands a few times!

Throughout the Middle Ages in Europe, waves of antisemitism rose up. The charge of deicide - that all Jews collectively are responsible for the killing of Christ - served as a significant force multiplier to this hatred. There is also evidence of pre-Christian antisemitism. Hence, the reason it’s sometimes called “the longest hatred.” Jews will sometimes say, “If we’re the chosen people, please God, could you choose someone else!”

When Jesus is being put to death, Pilate washes his hands of the crucifixion and declares himself innocent, and the (Jewish) crowd answers him, “His blood be on us and our children!” (Matthew 27) Biblical scholar Amy-Jill Levine says that this passage has “...caused more Jewish suffering throughout history than any other passage in the New Testament.”

The deicide charge officially continued until 1965, when Pope Paul VI and the bishops of the Second Vatican Council unequivocally absolved Jews from any collective guilt or charge of deicide in issuing the Nostra Aetate declaration: “The Council deplores and condemns the hatred and persecution of Jews…The Jewish people should never be presented as one rejected, cursed or guilty of deicide.” In his address in 1986 while visiting the Great Synagogue of Rome, John Paul II famously referred to Jews as “...our dearly beloved brothers and…in a certain way, our elder brothers.” Way to go, John Paul!

I was coming of age during Vatican II. I still recall walking to Immaculate Heart of Mary in Detroit, MI, around 1970, when we came upon a “Jewish” home. One of my buddies told the gang that if “the Jews” hadn’t killed Christ, we wouldn’t have to walk to school (10 blocks), but rather there would be escalators carrying us! Clearly, he hadn’t read the reforms of Vatican II!

As crazy as this story is, I don’t think some version of it is all that uncommon. “The Jews”...and add your favorite storyline. The funniest one is perhaps that “the Jews” control the world while making up .2% of its population. If “the Jews” control the media, they ain’t doing such a good job right now. It is true that Jewish immigrants effectively founded Hollywood…not because anyone gave it to them, but because they were excluded from legacy industries so they created a new one. Paramount, Universal, Warner, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Columbia and 20th Century Fox were all founded by Jewish immigrants. Has this success generated some envy? Seems likely.

One theory put forth by historians to account for outsized Jewish “success” in the world is that having been uprooted and banished over the centuries, they came to emphasize something that couldn’t be taken away - education and learning. I don’t know. But good for them!

As the 19th Century was coming to an end, Jews were increasingly under attack throughout Europe. Charges of blood libel were common, i.e., the centuries-old false belief that Jews were murdering non-Jewish children for their blood for religious rituals. Pogroms (organized violent attacks) in Algeria, Russia, and Poland were common. In 1882, the International Anti-Jewish Congress Convention in Dresden, Germany, appealed to “...the Governments and Peoples of Christian nations threatened by Judaism to expel the Semitic Race of the Jews from Europe.”

The largest act of antisemitism was still 40 years away when Germany murdered 6 million European Jews, out of roughly 9 million, or two-thirds of them.

Déjà vu?

In just the past week, as I write this piece:

1. A Jewish man (wearing a kippah) stabbed with a screwdriver in Manhattan.

2. Two Jewish-owned bagel shops badly vandalized in Toronto.

3. A 65-year-old man brutally beaten in Germany for wearing an Israeli pin.

4. 13 Torah scrolls stolen from a Paris synagogue.

5. Jewish tourists in Crete were harassed by a mob that stormed their hotel.

Five countries - one week.

Theodore Herzl - The Father of Modern Zionism

Theodore Herzl (1860 to 1904), a Hungarian Jew and both a journalist and a lawyer, concluded that the idea of Jewish assimilation in various European countries was impossible. Antisemitism and the scapegoating of Jews were just too persistent. Herzl’s insight was forty years before the Holocaust!

Herzl believed the only solution was the establishment of a Jewish state. Herzl published a treatise that “took off,” elaborating on his vision and encouraging Jews to return home. The Jewish population in Palestine at this time is estimated to have been between 5% and 7%, as some Jews, God bless them, never left.

Initially, early Zionists raised money and purchased land from Ottoman “owners.” As a result, some Arab tenant farmers were displaced. Mostly, they migrated to barren desert in Palestine, hitherto viewed as unlivable, and developed irrigation techniques to make the land fertile. According to Rabbi Zemel, “The entire question of Arab population growth in Palestine from the years 1881 (first Zionist settlement) to 1948 is highly contested. I hold with those who claim that the development of the land by Jewish pioneers from the years 1881 - 1938 caused Arab migration into Palestine. Jews developed an economy - more Arabs came to participate in the growth.”

The British took control - from the Ottoman Turks - around 1917. By 1920, having reached a critical mass and with their presence increasingly being more felt, Jews and Arabs began fighting. Both sides committed atrocities that typically accompany war. By 1947, the British wanted out of this catfight. The United Nations stepped in.

The 1947 UN Partition Plan - Resolution 181

In 1948, Israel declared its independence after decades of fighting with Palestinians. Israel’s Declaration of Independence was enabled by United Nations Resolution 181 (November 29, 1947) - the Partition Plan for Palestine - which separated the land into two states, one Jewish and one Arab. The Jewish state made clear that Arabs living in what was now designated Israel were welcome to stay as full and equal citizens. Israel’s Declaration of Independence (May 14, 1948) stated:

“We call upon the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to return to the ways of peace and play their part in the development of the State, with full and equal citizenship and due representation in its bodies and institutions.”

Many Arabs chose to stay, and that’s why today 21% of Israel’s population is Palestinian Arab. Israel’s Palestinian citizens serve in the legislature and on its Supreme Court. In 2022, Khaled Kabub made history as the first Arab to receive a permanent seat on Israel’s High Court.

Jews were not offered a similar invitation to stay in the areas they lived in that were now a part of the land designated for Palestinians. Over the ensuing decades, an estimated 850,000 Jews from Iraq, Egypt, Yemen, and Syria were displaced and forced to flee those countries, with most relocating to the new State of Israel.

Under President Truman, the United States was the first country to recognize Israel on May 14, 1948. Other countries soon followed: the Soviet Union on May 17, 1948, Great Britain on January 29, 1949, and France on May 20, 1949. China recognized Israel on January 24, 1992. The world’s leaders, supported by the UN, determined that the Partition was the fairest, most reasonable solution to this ongoing war between these two peoples, both with ancestral ties to the land of Palestine.

The partition plan gave 55% of the land to the Jewish state, and 45% to the Arab side. However, 60% of the Jewish side was the Negev desert. To be clear, historians debate which side got the better deal. The Jews accepted the terms of the Partition; the Palestinians did not.

1948 Arab-Israeli War

The 1948 Arab-Israeli War ensued when five Arab nations (Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, and Trans-Jordan) banded together, entered Palestine, attacked Israel, and took land designated for the Palestinians. As a result of the war, the Palestinians lost…big time. At the end of the war, Israel’s control of the land went from 55% to 77%. Jordan took control of E. Jerusalem and what is now known as the West Bank. Egypt took the Gaza Strip.

Thus, Palestinian self-determination was thwarted not only by its own rejection of Resolution 181 and Israel’s annexation of land as a result of the war, but by neighboring Arab nations as well.

With the Palestinians not accepting Resolution 181, an estimated 700,000 Palestinians were displaced and became refugees living in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The Palestinians refer to this displacement as the Nakba (Catastrophe). Sadeq al-Azm, an American-educated Syrian, in “Self-Criticism after the Defeat,” argued that the term “Nakba” reflects Arab fatalism, a tendency toward supernatural explanations and an unwillingness to accept themselves as possessing agency.

In a 2011 interview with Reuters, then Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas regretted that the Palestinians did not accept Resolution 181: “It was our mistake. It was an Arab mistake as a whole.” Have truer words been said?

The 1967 Arab-Israeli War, aka the Six-Day War

In 1967, Egypt, Syria, and Jordan coordinated an attack on Israel. Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser (1954 - 1970), fashioning himself to be the leader of Pan-Arabism (the unification of all Arab nations), blockaded the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, an act of war under international law, cutting off the port of Eilat for Israeli shipping. Syria increased its shelling of Israel. Egypt amassed forces in the Sinai Peninsula. Jordan (warned by Israel to stay out of the war) signed a mutual-defense treaty with Egypt and Syria.

Israel, seeing the threat emerging, preemptively struck and won a decisive victory against all three Arab nations bent on its destruction. The strike largely wiped out Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian air forces. By the end of the sixth day, Israel took the Sinai and the Gaza Strip from Egypt, the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Golan Heights from Jordan. The 1967 defeat was devastating to these Arab nations.

In other words, Israel controls the Gaza Strip and the West Bank today not because it woke up one day and decided to acquire them. They are “occupied” as a result of Israel defending itself in reaction to a coordinated offensive by three Arab nations. It’s been no picnic. If Israel offered Gaza to Egypt, and the West Bank to Jordan today, each would likely say, “No thanks!”

Interestingly, Ben Gurion, Israel’s first Prime Minister, a preeminent statesman of uncommon virtue, warned against maintaining control of these Palestinian-occupied areas, believing that managing a land populated with people who hate you was not sustainable and undermined Israel’s moral vision to be a “light unto the world.” A notion lost on the Netanyahu government.

1973 Yom Kippur War

On October 6, 1973, Arab nations, led by Egypt and Syria, made a surprise attack on Israel on the holiest day of the Jewish calendar. Israel’s Defense Forces (IDF) took high initial casualties. Reservists were called out of synagogue to tend their battle stations. The IDF regrouped, with American support, while the Soviet Union backed the Arab states and pushed Syrian forces back toward Damascus. In the south, Israeli forces crossed the Suez Canal and surrounded the Egyptian Third Army.

A cease fire was put in place on October 25 when UN Security Council Resolution 338 was signed. The War was considered a stalemate. It is believed that Egypt won a psychological victory, which enabled a pathway to peace with Israel.

Peace with Egypt

Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, one of the great peacemakers of the 20th Century, made one of that century’s most memorable speeches when he accepted an invitation by Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to speak before the Knesset on November 20, 1977.

“In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate…I have decided to come to you with an open mind and heart, and with a conscious free will, to establish a durable peace based on justice…Today, I have come to you with firm steps, to build a new life and to establish peace. We all on this earth, Moslems, Christians and Jews alike, worship God and nobody but Him. God’s teachings and commandments are love, sincerity, purity and peace.”

For young people, with so few examples of real political leadership, courage and moral vision, and for older ones hungry for a reminder, it’s worth reading Sadat’s 1977 speech. It is bold, uplifting, hopeful, and above all else courageous, as Sadat was widely criticized throughout the Arab world for making peace with Israel. https://www.palquest.org/en/historictext/21734/address-president-anwar-sadat-knesset

In 1979, Israel and Egypt signed a peace treaty that has stood the test of time. Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Chairman Yasser Arafat, opposed to the treaty, said, “Let them sign what they like. False peace will not last.” Arafat was wrong.

On October 6, 1981, President Anwar Sadat was assassinated by members of the Egyptian Islamic Jihad for having made peace with Israel.

The Oslo Peace Accords Rejected by Palestinian Leadership

President Bill Clinton, in September of 1993, deployed his considerable charisma and deep interest in helping broker peace in the Middle East. He brought together then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Chairman Yasser Arafat for a meeting at the White House. Both men took real political risks in signing the Oslo Accords, so named for the secret negotiations that began in Norway. Each side’s extremists opposed the negotiations.

In Clinton’s memoir, “My Life,” he describes each man and the productive working relationship that developed between them. Clinton was particularly moved by Rabin’s speech that day, calling it “magnificent.” The speech moved me to tears. In the Rose Garden on that September day, Rabin said:

“We are destined to live together, on the same soil in the same land. We, the soldiers who have returned from battles stained with blood…, say to you today, in a loud and clear voice: Enough of blood and tears. Enough!... We, like you, are people - people who want to build a home, to plant a tree, to love, to live side by side with you in dignity, in affinity as human beings, as free men.” Then, “The time for peace has come,” quoting the book of Koheleth, which Christians call Ecclesiastes.

Rabin, according to Clinton, told him that he had come to realize that “...the territory Israel had occupied since the 1967 war was no longer necessary to its security and, in fact, was a source of insecurity.” Rabin went on that “...occupying territory full of angry people did not make Israel more secure, but made it more vulnerable to attacks from within.”

Clinton’s admiration is clear: “I had admired Rabin even before meeting him in 1992, but that day, watching him speak at the ceremony and listening to his argument for peace, I had seen the greatness of his leadership and his spirit. I had never met anyone quite like him, and I was determined to help him achieve his dream of peace.”

Yishak Rabin was assassinated on November 4, 1995, by a far-right Jewish extremist in protest of the Oslo Accords.

Clinton would not be derailed, and the negotiations continued. In 2000, he brought together then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Arafat at Camp David to finally put into motion the terms both sides had fought over and hammered out over the past several years. Clinton recounts the joy of watching Israeli and Palestinian diplomats share drinks and stories of their families while playing cards late into the night.

In the end, Arafat rejected the deal, despite Clinton’s view that many on his team were in favor of it. No one, according to Clinton, including senior advisor and future Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, had the ability or courage to stand up to Arafat. Clinton laments, “Arafat’s rejection of my proposal after Barak accepted it was an error of historic proportions…”

Reflecting on Arafat, Clinton says, “Perhaps he simply couldn’t make the final jump from revolutionary to statesman…It would be different if the end of violence took Palestine out of the headlines. Instead, he had to worry about providing jobs, schools, and basic services.” What did the average Palestinian think of the deal? We’ll never know because we never heard from them.

Clinton notes that as his presidency was winding down, Arafat reached out, now willing to accept or negotiate based on the “Clinton Parameters” presented at Camp David. “Apparently,” said Clinton, “Arafat had thought the time to decide, five minutes to midnight, had finally come. His watch had been broken a long time.”

Imagine where we could be today had Arafat accepted the deal?

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s Offer of Peace in 2008

In her memoir, “No Higher Honor,” Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush’s Secretary of State (approved by the Senate in 2005 on an 85-13 bipartisan vote), recounts in detail Prime Minister Olmert’s peace offer to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in 2008. In a secret private dinner in Israel, Rice recounts the outlines of what Israel was willing to give up in pursuit of peace.

According to Rice, Olmert said, “I know what he needs. He needs something on refugees and on Jerusalem. I’ll give him enough land, maybe something like 94 percent with swaps…There will be two capitals, one for us in West Jerusalem and one for the Palestinians in East Jerusalem.” Rice recalls thinking, “This is unbelievable…Is the Israeli prime minister saying that he’ll divide Jerusalem and put an international body in charge of the Holy sites?” Rice concludes the dinner, telling Olmert, “Mr. Prime Minister, this is remarkable.”

In a 2009 interview with Greg Sheridan, Foreign Editor of The Australian, Olmert details his offer to Abbas, noting that from 2006 to the end of 2008 he and Abbas met more than 35 times, more “...than any Israeli leader has ever met any Arab leader.”

1. Territorial solution based on the 1967 borders with “minor modifications on both sides.” Israel would claim part of the West Bank, about 6%, where settlement blocks are now essentially suburbs of Jerusalem. This 6% would be made up for with other land.

2. A safe passage between the West Bank and Gaza. It would be a tunnel fully controlled by the Palestinians.

3. Jerusalem. “This was very sensitive,” says Olmert, “...very painful, soul-searching process.” “While I firmly believed that historically, and emotionally, Jerusalem was always the capital of the Jewish people, I was ready to accept that the city should be shared.”

4. Right of Return. The Palestinians wanted a complete “right of return” for all Palestinians (and their descendants) able to live in Israel proper. This would be over 1 million people and effectively make Israel a Palestinian state over time given respective birth rates. No Israeli Prime Minister would ever agree to this demand. It is and always has been non-negotiable as it would eliminate Israel being a Jewish state. Olmert provided for 5,000.

5. “In addition, we talked about creating an international fund that would compensate Palestinians for their suffering,” said Olmert. “I was the first Israeli prime minister to speak of Palestinian suffering and to say we are not indifferent to that suffering.”

According to Olmert, he told Abbas, “Sign it, and we can immediately get support from America, from Europe, from all over the world. I told him he’d never get anything like this again from an Israeli leader for 50 years. I said to him, Do you want to keep floating forever - like an astronaut in space - or do you want a state?”

In the end, Abbas rejected the offer, just as Arafat had done with Barak. Says Rice, “Abbas refused…We had one last chance. The two leaders came separately in November and December to say good-bye. The President (George W. Bush) took Abbas into the Oval Office alone and appealed to him to reconsider. The Palestinian stood firm, and the idea died.”

Yet Another Lost Opportunity - The Gaza Strip

In 2005, under Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Israel withdrew its troops and civilians from Gaza, creating a semi-independent state. Simon Sebag Montefiore, a British historian and author of the soon-to-be-published “Cauldron: The Making of the Modern Middle East,” says “...there’s a pretense now (that Gaza) was occupied from 2006 to 2023.” In fact, the Palestinians held elections the year following Israel’s withdrawal. Hamas was elected and promised an end to the corruption of previous Palestinian leadership and strong social services.

At that point, Hamas had, according to Montefiore, “... a prime minister, ministries, ministers and police.” It also had “...what was in effect a formidable army of 40,000 paramilitaries, and it had a foreign policy. It was independent enough to launch a war.” What a unique opportunity Gazans had to show the world they were interested in planting the seeds to build a sovereign country alongside Israel.

Instead, with aid coming in from all over the world, Hamas, led by Yahya Sinwar (whom Israel killed on October 16th, 2024), chose to build underground tunnels to hide weaponry, fire rockets into Israel, and cynically gain international sympathy when Israel predictably hit weapon caches strategically placed below hospitals and schools.

In November 2022, the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for Palestine was outraged when it discovered a tunnel below an elementary school it operated. UNRWA said it was a “serious violation of the Agency’s neutrality and a breach of international law that exposes children and the Agency staff to significant security and safety risks.” UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, joined by other senior UN officials, has stated unequivocally that “Hamas and other militants use civilians as human shields,” including children. How do you fight an enemy willing to hide behind its own children?

Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, a pro-Palestinian, anti-Hamas expert who grew up in Gaza City and is no defender of the current Israeli government, describes the roughly 2 million Palestinians in Gaza not as being “occupied” so much as being “hostages” of Hamas. Jews and/or Israelis criticizing Israel is common. A Palestinian taking on its leaders? Rare. https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2026/08/13/are-we-thinking-about-the-israel-hamas-conflict-all-wrong

Finally, according to Montefiore, while Hamas failed militarily, “...it has also won massive success in terms of political consequences. The whole Middle East has been upturned by this tiny statelet and the gamble of one psychopathic leader (Sinwar) who had immense freedom to act, since Hamas leaders didn’t care what happened to their people.” Hamas official, Sami Abu Zuhri, has been quoted as saying, “The price of the suffering is worth paying. The benefits are extensive. The wombs of our women will give birth to twice the number of martyrs.”

“Peace will come,” Golda Meir said, “when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.”

What if the decision had been made to build a few first-class hotels, and a golf course or two, instead of tunnels, firing rockets, and launching a massive attack on innocents, along Gaza’s 25 miles of Mediterranean Sea coastline? That was an option Palestinian leaders chose not to take.

The Palestinians rejected Resolution 181 in 1948. President Clinton and Secretary of State Rice tell the same heartbreaking story of two separate attempts at peace, each describing the Israeli offer as bold, generous, and a genuine opportunity for a new beginning. Both were shocked that the offers were rejected. A grand opportunity was presented in 2006 when Israel exited Gaza, and it was completely squandered. Question: When does the world recognize that the Palestinians themselves are most responsible for the situation they find themselves in today?

Abba Eban, the famous Israeli diplomat in the 1970s, once said, “The Arabs never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

The Future - Who Knows

Rahm Emmanuel, former Chief of Staff to President Obama, Mayor of Chicago (2011 - 2019), and Ambassador to Japan, and possible 2028 presidential candidate, argues that the Arab states must stand up and be the “adult in the room.” They must demand that Palestinian leaders be held “responsible and accountable” for their actions. I have nothing to add.

Sometimes we’re told the fixation (often seems more like an obsession) with Israel’s “sins” is because American taxpayers send them so much aid. Putting aside that they’ve been our biggest ally in a highly strategic part of the world for a long time, that’s true. That said, I don’t buy it. According to the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), Israel has in fact been the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid since its founding, having received over $300 billion (adjusted for inflation). However, Egypt is second during that same time, having received over $150 billion in aid.

Has anyone ever demanded we end Egyptian aid because of their human rights abuses? Who really believes that ending American aid will put an end to the “From the River to the Sea” chants on campuses, the stabbing of a man wearing a yarmulke in New York, or the killing of a woman in Boulder at a pro-Israeli rally?

By all means, the percentage of Israeli aid that is not tied to America’s strategic interests should end. It’s time. Put Israel on the same footing as every other country in terms of access to U.S. weaponry. Fine.

The Israeli people will go to the polls on October 27, 2026. Netanyahu will face Gadi Eisenkot, a 66-year-old former Israeli General who lost a son and two nephews in the war in Gaza. He served in Netanyahu’s government before leaving, accusing the Prime Minister of undermining deals to end the fighting. The Israeli people will get to decide who will lead them forward. I hope they choose Eisen and start anew.

Democratic politicians and others, believing they’re standing with the Palestinians by relentlessly criticizing Israel while never demanding anything from the Palestinians, are doing no such thing. They’re cowardly, preening for votes, finger to the wind, hoping to get in with the emerging “cool kids,” or have just jumped on the bandwagon without much knowledge of the band. In so doing, they are consigning another generation of Palestinians to unattainable fantasies and a life of despair.

“From the River to the Sea” ain’t happening. Ever. Whatever you think of the history of the Middle East, Israel isn’t going anywhere. The U.S. is not giving Arizona or California, acquired as a result of the Mexican-American War, back to Mexico. Ever. The full right of return is not going to happen. Ever. Former President Clinton said, “Someday peace will come, and when it does, the final agreement will look a lot like the proposals that came out of Camp David…” That’s the truth. If progressives want to really stand with the Palestinians, have the courage to tell them the truth. Otherwise, you look performative and silly.

To our country’s young, big-hearted activists who genuinely want to heal the world. In America today, nearly 50 million fellow citizens live in food-insecure households. We have close to 50,000 annual firearm deaths in our country each year, over 50% due to suicide, by far the highest among our peer nations. We currently have a president willing to steal an upcoming election, who has no regard for the rule of law. Isn’t there enough wood to chop right here at home?

Exactly why are the Palestinians, who have played the leading role in their own fate, so abused and misled by their own leaders, among all the suffering peoples in the world (including the ones right here in your own backyard), such a high priority? One reason, according to Montefiore, is the West’s longstanding “weird fetish and obsession with the Middle East, particularly the Holy Land.” In addition to antisemitism rolling its way through history, another reason is the highly successful marketing campaign of the Palestinians and their supporters to present themselves as complete victims and the media’s complicity in that narrative.

Ultimately, the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians will have to be worked out among themselves. Holding up signs on elite campuses of “Free Palestine” or “From the River to the Sea” isn’t going to do much for anyone.

Brooke and Grant, if you actually got through this whole thing, well, good for you! Your grandpa surely doesn’t have a lot of answers. I do know we must never relent in seeking and working for peace. The Palestinian people deserve a homeland in Palestine, and there will never be peace without one.

I hope you’re able to walk away after reading your Grandpa’s musings with a basic understanding of Jewish history, where and how Israel fits into that history, and grasp the privilege and responsibility of being a Jew. Israel is a model for all of us of what can (potentially) be accomplished with vision, hard work, and sacrifice.

To Yitzhak Rabin and Anwar Sadat - may you both rest in peace. You were both warriors for peace. Thank you for your uncommon courage, leadership, spirit, toughness, and compassion. We long for the likes of you both.

All my love, Grandpa Jim

American businesses are eerily silent. University presidents…crickets. Mainstream media companies are increasingly cowed. Republican officeholders, not a peep. Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski said the quiet part out loud: “We are all scared.”

However, Pope Leo XIV, the first American pontiff, hailing from Chicago, raised by two immigrant parents (his father was part of the Normandy invasion), and a committed White Sox fan, has seen enough and is speaking out against the cruel mass deportation of America’s undocumented immigrants.

In his first interview with an American outlet, Leo spoke clearly: America’s mass deportation program is “immoral.” Being pro-life, according to Leo, cannot be boiled down to simply being against abortion: “Someone who says that ‘I’m against abortion, but I’m in agreement with the inhuman treatment of immigrants in the United States,’ I don’t know if that’s pro-life.” “Inhumane treatment of immigrants” - a simple, declarative, and straightforward description.

“Who Am I to Judge?”

In 2013, Pope Francis, in answering a question about gays in the Church, said, “Who am I to judge?” Like the first shot fired at Lexington in 1775, Francis’s words were similarly a “shot heard ‘round the world.” Francis was signaling that abortion should no longer be “the” singular issue for American Catholics to consider when rendering their votes in a pro-life context.

In a letter to American bishops earlier this year, before he passed, Francis made his views on mass deportations crystal clear while recognizing a nation’s right to defend itself.

“...one must recognize the right of a nation to defend itself and keep communities safe from those who have committed violent or serious crimes while in the country or prior to arrival. That said, the act of deporting people who in many cases have left their own land for reasons of extreme poverty, insecurity, exploitation, persecution or serious deterioration of the environment, damages the dignity of many men and women, and of entire families, and places them in a state of particular vulnerability and defenselessness.”

Francis’s image of who our undocumented immigrants primarily are - poor, vulnerable, and often defenseless people seeking a better life for themselves and their families - sharply contrasts with the one the President has relentlessly, and successfully, sold to the American people for ten years.

Trump’s view, expressed in his initial 2015 presidential announcement speech, is clear: “They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” At a 2024 rally in Colorado, he said our undocumented immigrants “...were very, very sick with highly contagious disease,” and were coming to “infect” Americans. In September of 2024, regarding Haitian immigrants in Ohio, he falsely claimed, “...they are eating our dogs.”

In his own emerging style, Leo has picked up the baton. In an interview with Crux, a Catholic news site, he noted: “The fact that I am American means, among other things, people can’t say, like they did about Francis, ‘he doesn’t understand the United States, he just doesn’t see what’s going on’.” Though more scripted than the off-the-cuff, charismatic Francis, Leo is showing himself to be on the same page as his predecessor. In his first meeting with cardinals, Leo pledged to continue Francis’s “precious legacy.”

It’s worth noting that Cardinal Robert Francis Prevost (now Pope Leo XIV) took the pontifical name “Leo” from Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903). Leo XIII was popularly known as the “Social Pope” and the “Pope of the Workers.” According to Britannica, his 1891 encyclical “...ruffled the feathers of conservative Roman Catholics by what was seen as a progressive doctrine in the context of 19th-century Roman Catholicism” and is considered to have “...laid the foundation for modern Catholic social teaching.”

Leo is speaking out despite knowing that many in his flock support the U.S. president. Trump received 55% of the Catholic vote (60% of white Catholics) in the 2024 election. Catholics voted 52% for Trump in 2016 and 50% in 2020. American conservative Catholic leaders are furious with him, having prayed that the days of Francis’s outspoken leadership be over.

Deportations are Not Making Us Safer

Setting aside the morality of mass deportations (as opposed to understandably securing the border), the alleged reasoning behind the policy is deeply flawed. ICE agents lying in wait at churches, schools, and hospitals (long considered off-limits to immigration enforcement but reversed earlier this year) are not taking criminals off the streets. Raiding a Home Depot store, a Hyundai plant, or an agricultural site is not reducing crime in America.

We are not rounding up “the worst of the worst,” as magically claimed by President Trump. Instead, we are often sending away tax-paying workers, who, on average, have been in their communities for over ten years, tacitly invited in over decades by Americans seeking lower prices, businesses seeking cheap labor, and doing work that no one else wanted to do.

New York Times writer Gary Graff, who has written extensively on this topic, estimates that one-fifth of U.S. Marshals and FBI agents, half of ATF agents, and two-thirds of Homeland Security agents are now involved in deportation efforts. Will there be a decline in the Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecuting real crimes? How can there not be? The shift in each agency’s resources is, in all likelihood, making us less safe.

In the words of the Brennan Center for Justice, we are creating a “Deportation-Industrial Complex.” According to the Center, The Big Beautiful Bill passed earlier this year includes more than $170 billion over four years with the largest percentage increase going to finding, arresting, detaining, and deporting immigrants already living in the U.S. Says the Center, “That is more than the yearly budget of all local and state law enforcement agencies combined across the entire United States.”

The libertarian CATO Institute describes its mission as one to “...keep the principles, ideas, and moral case for liberty alive…while moving public policy in the direction of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace.” Of the individuals ICE has detained, CATO says, “...more than 93% of ICE book-ins were never convicted of any violent offenses. “About nine in ten had no convictions for violent or property offenses.”

Few cases underscore the cruelty of this Administration as does the case of Kilmer Abrego Garcia. Garcia was deported to El Salvador’s notorious CECOT prison despite a 2019 court order that specifically said he could not be deported there. The Administration admitted in court documents - twice - that Garcia’s deportation was an “administrative error.”

Despite the mistake, the DOJ stated that it would not take any action to bring him back to America. It’s like DNA exonerating a man in prison for a particular crime, but the prosecutor then says he’s still not going to be released. Leo reacted to the Garcia case by posting a pointed question to our President: “Is your conscience not disturbed?” The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that he must be returned to the U.S.

The Los Angeles Times recently reported on an undocumented father of three Marines taken at his landscaping job. According to the Times, he was “...pinned down and punched by masked federal agents before being thrown into detention.”

While the landscaping father of three Marines is set to be deported, Changpeng Zhao, a China-born, Canadian-raised billionaire, was recently pardoned for money laundering. According to former Treasury Secretary Janet L. Yellen, Zhao’s company, Binance, “...allowed money to flow to terrorists, cybercriminals, and child abusers through its platform.” What gives? World Liberty Financial (WLF), a crypto company founded by members of the Trump and Witcoff families, has a significant and growing partnership with Binance. (The Presidency has been very lucrative for Trump; Forbes estimates that his net worth has increased by over $3 billion, about double, in the past year.)

The stories of actual citizens being temporarily imprisoned because of how they “look,” and where they’re working (now made legal by the current Supreme Court), children being separated from their parents, suspects being thrown to the ground by aggressive ICE agents, are growing. The Administration claims it has deported 350,000 individuals. There’s just 14 million to go based on Pew Research’s most recent estimate.

U.S. Border Patrol Agents detain a woman outside Home Depot in Los Angeles on August 15th. “Worst of the worst?”

My son, long enamored by the Trump “show,” with so much raucous good guy fun, recently turned after realizing how dangerous it actually is after watching a MAGA rally on television. The rally was held outside of Detroit, MI, earlier this year (attended by the President), celebrating, while chanting “USA” as if at a sporting event, a video of ICE agents roughing up immigrants. The circus no longer looks fun to him.

Wouldn’t some conditional pathway to citizenship, like the one signed into law by President Reagan in 1986, and supported by the bipartisan Gang of Eight’s failed immigration reform efforts in 2013, provide a more humane and sensible solution than mass deportation?

Leaders Are Afraid to Speak Out

Senator Murkowski, in April of this year, answered the question: “I’m oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice because retaliation is real…It is as hard as anything I’ve engaged in in the 20-plus years I have been in the Senate.”

A United States Senator, in the President’s own party, is afraid of being retaliated against in some dangerous way for simply voicing an opinion different from his. Echoing Murkowski, Republican Senator Rand Paul recently said his GOP colleagues are “afraid” of the President.

Business leaders, academic deans, and GOP officeholders all know that if you speak out, Trump will threaten your business, take away your research funding, government contracts, security clearances, job, or talk show. It’s pay-up, or shut-up. It’s that simple.

The GOP, evidently unaware that history is watching and recording, once inspired by the likes of Churchill and Reagan, sturdy men of principles, has fallen into complete capitulation to a man possessing none.

The Religious Response is Growing

To be clear, Pope Leo XIV isn’t alone in speaking out with a moral voice anchored in religious tradition.

The Union for Reform Judaism issued the following statement in January of 2025:

“For decades, the Reform movement has advocated for immigration policies that are compassionate and just, reflecting the United States’ status as a nation founded and strengthened by immigrants and as a nation of laws with borders that must be secure. We now speak strongly against the policies and Executive Orders issued by President Trump that demonize immigrants, seek to end birthright citizenship, target immigrants for mass deportation, make synagogues newly vulnerable to immigration enforcement actions…”

The Episcopal Church, in January of 2025, spoke out against the President’s mass deportation program as well:

“We read this news with concern and urge our new president and congressional leaders to exercise mercy and compassion, especially toward law-abiding, long-term members of our congregations and communities; parents and children who are under threat of separation in the name of immigration enforcement; and women and children who are vulnerable to abuse in detention and who fear reporting abuse to law enforcement.”

Can Pope Leo’s American voice, joined by other religiously inspired ones, all beyond being bullied, bought off, or extorted, speak to the depth of this Administration’s inhumanity? “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil,” says the Lord’s prayer. We can hope.

Music has a way of chronicling one’s life. It’s a bit like an archeological dig, leaving clues to where we’ve been, where we’ve wanted to be, who spoke to us, and with what words and beats. From Roberta Flack and Dione Warwick, to The Beatles, The Stones, Led Zeppelin, to Little Richard, Elvis, and Bob Dylan. To Detroit hometown hero Bob Seger, the J. Geils Band, and all the way to Frank Sinatra and John Denver, I’ve crafted what I feel is the soundtrack of my life.

Initially, I ranked the songs, but quickly discovered this was a fool’s errand after realizing it’s my life’s playlist, not a competitive sport. Comparing and ranking music from different genres is also impossible. I categorized my Top 50 songs into their primary themes: Reflective (30%), Sweet (26%), Happy (20%), Get Up and Dance! - (18%), and Religious - (6%). Lastly, because many great songs were excluded from the initial 50, I created a second list of 50 songs.

In “Five Things Your Taste in Music Reveals about You,” published in the December 2022 edition of Psychology Today, author Shahram Heshmat says, “Music heard during childhood and adolescence creates more durable memories than music heard at other ages. The music we listen to during our early teens creates a strong nostalgia in later years.” Heshmat’s research was no surprise to me. Ninety percent of my songs were recorded before 1980, with 52% recorded before 1970. I picked out a handful of songs to highlight.

After making an initial list and attempting to rank them, I swapped songs in and out. I wondered if I was creating a list that would look cooler than I actually am. So what if I love some of John Denver’s songs? Denver’s “Annie” (Sweet) was a favorite of Father Jerry Dorn, a Catholic priest who served as a mentor, friend, and confidant during some turbulent times in my young life. He led the Glenmary Farm in rural Kentucky, where young Catholic men came to help build houses in poor Appalachia while searching for purpose and meaning in their young lives. When I hear “Annie,” I see Jerry’s big, warm, smiling face. He passed away in 2014. I still think about him nearly every day.

George Harrison - the quiet one - was my favorite Beatle. His “My Sweet Lord” (Religious) has always triggered my own deep longing for something transcendent. It’s a simple song. “My sweet Lord…I really want to see you, really want to be with you…But it takes so long, my Lord.” I discovered that George incorporates “Hallelujah” and “Hare Krishna” in the chorus, reflecting his “multi-faith spirituality.” I’ve bounced around among faith traditions, never quite finding a home. There are my Catholic roots, my interest in Buddhist philosophy, and embracing my wife’s Jewish faith while raising our children. The song is more joyful than angst-ridden and has always brought me comfort.

The Stones’ “Sympathy for the Devil” (Reflective) has always grabbed me from head to toe, igniting a deep sense of rebellion and forbidden fruit as Jagger imagines what the devil is thinking. It’s such a badass rock song for me. It taps into my rage and my wanting to let loose and go wild. And there’s something about the line, “When after all, it was you and me…” in response to the song’s question, “Who killed the Kennedys?” I wondered whether I should be guilty of liking this song from the devil’s perspective, even though I don’t believe in the devil. My very practicing Catholic sister assured me, “Absolutely not…I love that song, too.”

Elvis Presley recorded “That’s All Right” (Get Up and Dance!) in 1954, and it is considered by some to be the first rock and roll song. In this song, I’m in love with the beat and Elvis’s energy. It just makes me feel good. I took up the drums (a lifelong desire) several years ago, but dropped them after four years because it was increasingly hard to get good, but not before the band I was in played this song at a porch fest. It was a real bucket list item to have played publicly, and I was proud of myself for doing it.

I’ve never considered myself a Deadhead, but the 2015 “Playing for Change” version of “Ripple” (Sweet), featuring artists from all over the world (joining Jerry Garcia and Bill Kreutzmann), in a moment of coming together as one planet, is magical to me. Watching the video and seeing each artist, from different corners of the globe, join in is really something cool to watch. My son Jordan named our dog Ripple after this song.

I love Diana Ross. She’s from my hometown of Detroit. I love her voice, her style, and her presence. “Where Did Our Love Go” (Reflective, I think) is a signature Ross song, with the iconic line “Baby, baby, baby…”. She’s Motown all day long. Ross was just 19 in 1964 when the song was released. Barry Gordy’s Motown Records, founded in 1959, featured artists such as The Temptations, Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, and The Jackson Five.

Stevie Wonder’s “You Are the Sunshine of My Life” (Happy) was my wedding song in 1988. “You are the sunshine of my life That’s why I’ll always be around You are the apple of my eye Forever you’ll stay in my heart.” Our band played a lot of Motown that day (it was a Sunday afternoon wedding to save money at the venue). Debbie’s been there for me through thick and thin for 37 years.

Petula Clark’s “Downtown” (Reflective) is a song that my brother and I both remember playing on the radio while we sat in the back seat of the family car, driving through downtown Detroit during the Christmas season, with all the bright lights, before our parents got divorced. It’s one of the few memories I have of my family of origin before it broke up in the mid-1960s. The song is about what you can do when you’re feeling lonely - go downtown. Led Zeppelin guitarist Jimmy Page played guitar on Clark’s recording of this song.

Detroiter Bob Seger and The Silver Bullet Band’s “Night Moves” (Reflective) describes my teenage years (Clarenceville HS, Livonia, MI 1979). Bob nails it. Seeger was our Springsteen. “We were just young and restless and bored liven by the sword and we’d steal away every chance we could to the backroom, to the alley, or the trusty woods…tryin to lose the awkward teenage blues workin on our night moves.” This song gives me chills every time I hear it. It also triggers some of the heartbreak of those years. (I took a girl to a Seger concert, but she ditched me after we entered Pontiac Stadium. “She used me, I used her, neither one cared,” may have been her experience, but certainly wasn’t mine that day.

I feel, as so many others do, an affinity for Bruce Springsteen. I picked “Streets of Philadelphia” (Reflective) because for me, it’s Bruce at his best. Fearless, he explores the final days of a man dying from AIDS:

I was bruised and battered

I couldn’t tell what I felt

I was unrecognizable to myself

Saw my reflection in a window

And didn’t know my own face

Oh brother are you gonna leave me wastin’ away

On the streets of Philadelphia?

A real hard-rock song and the best - in my mind - “pure” rock & roll band of all time - Led Zeppelin’s “Whole Lotta Love” (Get Up and Dance!...or just listen). Plant is screaming, Bonham is beating up the drums, and it all comes together in that Zeppelin sound. I also selected Zep’s “Ramble On” (Get Up and Dance!), because I love the rebellious energy of this band. When drummer John Bonham died in 1980 at the age of 32 (accidental death from drinking), the band broke up, saying the loss was “insurmountable.” Bonham, they said, was the “heart” of the band. Pretty classy.

Lulu’s “To Sir, With Love” (Sweet) is the theme song to the same movie featuring one of my favorite actors (and role models), Sidney Poitier. I studied in India for a year in 1982, and by November, I was homesick. A movie house showing English-speaking films showed this one, and it comforted me. The song expresses deeply felt gratitude. Years later, I woke up one morning to read that Poitier was doing a book signing nearby. I told my then 10-year-old daughter that she’s not going to school, but to a book signing. We had our “moment” with this remarkable man, and he was everything one would imagine, graceful and kind. I introduced him to Nina, and he said, “Hi Nina, thank you for coming today.” As we walked away, she said, “He’s a really nice man.”

"Can't Take My Eyes Off of You" (Happy) by Frankie Valli is a beautiful song of longing. "You're just too good to be true Can't take my eyes off of you You'd be like heaven to touch I wanna hold you so much…Pardon the way that I stare." The song hauntingly played in the Vietnam War movie “The Deer Hunter,” while the boys have one of their last outings before being shipped off to the jungles in Asia. My brothers and I watched the movie with our Dad more than once, and it hit us all in the solar plexus. My Dad was a big movie guy, often fell asleep, but not with this one. We quoted lines with him until Dad passed in 2009. De Niro's "One shot. One shot, Stosh" or Axel's "F***in A" were favorite lines.

My daughter, Nina, and I danced to "The Way You Look Tonight" (Sweet) at her wedding to my wonderful son-in-law, Chad, in 2021. Fred Astaire originally sang the song in the 1936 movie, “Swing Time.” It won the Academy Award for Best Original Song. Frank Sinatra’s version is on the playlist. Nina and Chad’s wedding was a magical evening in the mountains of Colorado. The rain during the outdoor ceremony somehow seemed to enhance their moment. Nina's a great dancer, and I think I held my own. We never rehearsed. We met on the dance floor, our eyes locked in, and we danced. One of the happiest days of my life, for sure.

The songs are here to listen to if you're so inclined. I would love to hear others' top songs. Personal taste is just that…as an old maxim states: About matters of taste, there is no disputing. Can music help tell our life’s story? I think so. It's been a fun and engaging exercise, an excavation of sorts, sparked by some of my wonderful Raymond Street friends!

50 Songs I Love Link: https://music.apple.com/us/playlist/jims-top-50-songs/pl.u-ZmblVPJHZZyJ2b

My Sweet Lord, George Harrison 1970

Eleanor Rigby, The Beatles 1966

Sympathy for the Devil, The Rolling Stones 1968

That’s All Right Mama, Elvis Presley 1956

The Way You Look Tonight, Frank Sinatra 1964

Long Tall Sally, Little Richard 1957

Where Did Our Love Go, The Supremes 1964

Ripple, Grateful Dead (Playing for Change version) 2015 (Original song 1970)

You Are the Sunshine of My Life, Stevie Wonder 1972

WholeLotta Love, Led Zeppelin 1969

Downtown, Petula Clark 1964

Night Moves, Bob Seger and The Silver Bullet Band 1976

Centerfold, The J. Geils Band 1981

Wichita Lineman, Glen Campbell 1968

God’s Gonna Cut You Down, Johnny Cash 2006 (Posthumously)

Walk on By, Dionee Warwick1964

Killing Me Softly With His Song, Roberta Flack 1973

Dancing in the Street, Martha Reeves & The Vandellas 1965

The Thrill is Gone, B.B. King 1970

Rambin On, Led Zeppelin 1969

Hey Jude, The Beatles 1968

Streets of Philadelphia, Bruce Springstein 1993

I Say a Little Prayer, Dionne Warwick 1967

Annie’s Song, John Denver 1974

Peace Train, Cat Stevens 1971

In the Ghetto, Elvis Presley 1969

The Boxer, Simon & Garfunkel 1970

Walk This Way, Aerosmith 1975

Turn the Page, Bob Seger and The Silver Bullet Band 1973

Crossroads, Cream 1966

The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down, The Band 1969

Tired of Being Alone, Al Green 1971

Gotta Serve Somebody, Bob Dylan 1979

To Sir, With Love, Lulu 1967

My Girl, The Temptations 1964

Born Under a Bad Sign, Albert King 1967

Who Do You Love, Bo Didley 1956

Tiny Dancer, Elton John 1971

Doctor My Eyes, Jackson Browne 1972

Layla, Eric Clapton 1973

Always on My Mind, Willie Nelson 1982

Give Me Love (Give Me Peace), George Harrison 1973

Fly Me to the Moon, Frank Sinatra 1964

Lay Lady, Lay, Bob Dylan 1969

Forever Young, Bob Dylan 1974

While My Guitar Gently Weeps, The Beatles/George Harrison 1968

(Sittin’ On) The Dock of the Bay, Otis Redding 1967

Let it Be, The Beatles/Paul McCartney 1970

Can’t Take My Eyes off You, Frankie Valli 1967

Ava Maria, Franz Schbert (1825!) song by Maria Ferrante 2000

The next 50 (51 - 100)…because there were so many great songs left off of the Top 50: https://music.apple.com/us/playlist/top-51-100/pl.u-PDb40J4uJJmjRY

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, passed in 2022, is described by long-time gun safety advocacy group Brady, a gunshot survivors group founded by President Reagan’s Press Secretary Jim Brady (a gunshot victim) and his wife Sarah, as “the most comprehensive gun violence prevention legislation in the past thirty years.”

The Act, supported by 15 Republican Senators and all 50 Democratic ones, tightened gun restrictions and provided funds for mental health services and community violence intervention (CVI) programs. Still, in many ways, the Act was inadequate and left loopholes in place. Nonetheless, the current Administration is significantly eroding the critical new protections the Act put in place, as well as older gun-safety laws on the books.

The Gun Owners of America, a far-right gun-rights advocacy group, has the ear of the President. Among other things, this group advocates closing down the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and eliminating gun sale records that law enforcement uses to help solve crimes. ATF is responsible for investigating crimes relating to firearms and regulating the firearms industry. The Administration has proposed a nearly 30% cut to ATF’s 2026 budget.

Gun Safety Actions Taken by the Trump Administration since January

* Closed the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention established in 2022.

* Repealed the ATF’s “Zero Tolerance Policy” put in place to crack down on (only) those gun dealers who “willfully” violate federal gun laws including failing to conduct background checks, selling firearms to prohibited people such as convicted felons or engaging in straw purchases (when someone buys a gun for another person prohibited from owning one).

*The Department of Justice has announced it plans to cut two-thirds of inspectors monitoring gun sales (that’s 541 inspectors out of 800 to be cut).

* The DOJ reports that it is considering allowing domestic abusers and other prohibited individuals a pathway to regain firearm access.

*Revoked Surgeon General's advisory that had classified gun violence as a public health crisis.

*Stopped $1 billion for mental health services for children and eliminated $500 million in public safety grants going to communities across the country, included in the 2022 Safer Communities Act.

*Introduced the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, which would require all states to honor concealed carry permits from any other state. This law, if passed, will effectively override each state’s laws regarding open-carry.

*Ghost Guns, made from do-it-yourself kits and parts, are proliferating in the U.S., lack serial numbers, are untraceable, and generally evade all gun regulations. The Supreme Court, earlier this year, ruled against the Administration’s attempt to eliminate President Biden’s order to increase ghost gun regulations by requiring certain parts to carry serial numbers.

In 2017, during President Trump’s first term, based on narrowing the definition of a “fugitive from justice,” he directed the FBI to purge 500,000 fugitives from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). As a result, these individuals could pass a background check.

America’s Gun-Related Deaths in Context

The U.S. - by far - has the highest murder and suicide rates among its developed-world peers. According to Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s The Center for Gun Violence Solutions, the U.S.’s homicide rate is nearly 25x higher than that of other high-income countries. The firearm suicide rate is almost 10x that of other high-income countries.

The Commonwealth Fund reports that globally, the U.S. ranks in the 93rd percentile for overall firearm mortality, i.e. we’re at the bottom of the barrel.

There is some good news - our actual gun-related murders are down from the 1990s (despite the number of undocumented immigrants having grown from 3.5 million to an estimated 12 million). More recently, they’re down from the highs reached during the COVID pandemic.

Number of reported murder and nonnegligent manslaughter cases in the United States 1990 to 2023

Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2024). Crime in the United States: Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter statistics, 1990–2023. U.S. Department of Justice https://cde.ucr.cjis.gov

There are roughly 200 countries in the world; only 12 have suicide rates greater than the U.S., none of them high-income countries. Our veterans are particularly at risk for suicide, with a rate nearly 60% greater than the general population. Will veterans’ mental health access be unaffected by the proposed 80,000 staff cuts to that Agency?

Police officers are in the crosshairs of gun-related deaths. From 2012 to 2021, 504 police officers were killed in the U.S., 90% by a gunshot. The Giffords Law Center reports that states receiving an “F” in gun-safety laws had police (gun) fatalities between 2017 and 2021 that were 150% higher than states receiving an “A” or “B” score. During the same period, 12 officers were killed in Canada, 4 in the U.K., and 3 in Australia.

This Administration’s gun policies, with a complicit Republican-controlled Congress, are threatening and further endangering the lives of our children, veterans, and police officers. Of course, gun death statistics do not include the survivors of gun violence, and the trauma felt by families and communities living in the aftermath of gun-related tragedies.

Americans’ Support of Commonsense Gun Regulations is Strong

Everytown for Gun Safety, founded by former NYC Mayor and long-time advocate of stricter gun laws, Michael Bloomberg, has the support of hundreds of the country’s mayors. Warren Buffett serves on its Advisory Board. Everytown claims that 58% of Americans have been affected by gun violence.

According to Everytown, the cornerstone of gun-safety laws lies in a strong, federally mandated universal background check system. According to Everytown:

“Under federal law, background checks are only required for gun sales conducted by licensed dealers. Federal law does not address gun sales by unlicensed sellers (e.g., non-dealers who sell guns online or at gun shows). This loophole makes it easy for people with felony convictions, domestic abuse restraining orders, and/or prohibiting histories of mental illness to buy guns with no questions asked. While federal regulations expanded in 2024 to require more background checks nationwide, the loophole in the law remains. The loophole should be closed by requiring background checks on all gun sales—not just on the sale of firearms from licensed gun dealers.”

According to Penn State’s McCourtney Institute of Democracy, 86% of Americans support mandatory background checks for all firearm sales and transfers, 75% support requiring gun owners to take a test, and 63% favor banning the sale or private ownership of semi-automatic weapons.

Even Fox News's polling indicates broad support for basic gun-safety regulations, i.e., not taking away the Second Amendment right to bear arms. According to Fox News’s 2023 nationwide poll:

*81% support criminal background checks.

*81% support raising the legal age to buy a gun to 21.

*80% support Red Flag laws allowing police to take guns away from people considered a danger to themselves or others (favored by 76% of gun-owning households).

*77% favor a 30-day waiting period for all gun purchases.

*61% support banning assault rifles and semi-automatic weapons (including 50% of gun-owning households).

https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-voters-favor-gun-limits-arming-citizens-reduce-gun-violence

The Importance of Community Investments

The 2022 Act's funding of Community Violence Intervention (CVI) programs, typically run by people "in the community," has gotten the support from the center-right R Street Institute, and was a critical piece of the legislation's attempt to address gun violence. Logan Seacrest, a resident fellow at R Street, says, "Recent experiments in red states have been encouraging, demonstrating CVI's adaptability with bipartisan values such as fiscal restraint and local control." Charles Beck, former police chief of Los Angeles, says people in violent environments see the police "working with these nontraditional partnerships...we increase community trust. Then you're able to reduce violence." The Chief also says flatly, "We've got too many freaking guns."

Among my fondest memories as a boy growing up in Detroit is the well-kept park in the neighborhood, where we could play baseball every day in the summer, football in the fall, and hockey in the winter. The kindergarten school at one end of the park transformed into a place for us to do arts and crafts in the summer. My brother and I, experiencing the trauma of our parents’ divorce and vulnerable for the attention that comes with getting into trouble, have often said, "That park saved us.” Kind firemen would open our neighborhood fire hydrant and blast water to cool us kids down. We loved it. Defunding community investments, while extending tax cuts to our wealthiest citizens and S&P 500 corporations experiencing all-time high profit margins, is misguided and immoral.

Is There Evidence that Gun Laws Work?

What’s the evidence that gun laws work? After an exhaustive study of all fifty states’ gun laws and each state’s gun-related death rates, Everytown says, “In states where elected officials have taken action to pass gun safety laws, fewer people die by gun violence.” For example, an individual is 8x more likely to die from a gunshot in Mississippi (the state with the fewest gun restrictions) than in Massachusetts (the state with the most gun restrictions), according to Everytown. The Hopkins Center is crystal clear - “gun laws work”.

Gun Death Rates by State, Ranked Highest to Lowest, 2023

Source: Center for Disease Control and Prevention. National Center for Health Statistics.

The states with the highest rates of gun-related deaths, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Alabama, are solidly Republican states with minimal gun restrictions. The states with the lowest rate of gun-related deaths, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York, are solidly Democratic and score high on gun-safety regulations. Washington, D.C., a solidly Democratic “federal district”, not a state, would join Mississippi if it were one in its gun death rate.

The Hopkins Center underscores Everytown's conclusions: “Overwhelming evidence shows that firearm ownership and access are associated with increased suicide, homicide, unintentional firearm deaths, and injuries.” Jens Ludwig, a professor at the University of Chicago’s Harris School of Public Policy, recently published “Unforgiving Places: The Unexpected Origins of American Gun Violence,” argues that “Most gun violence stems from arguments that go back and forth,” get super-heated, “and then someone ends up dead because they’ve got a gun.”

Why are Policies Moving in the Opposite Direction of Consensus Views?

With Americans widely, on a bipartisan basis, supporting basic (not onerous) common-sense gun-safety restrictions, why is this Administration moving powerfully in the opposite direction? Women are shot and killed by intimate partners on average of 700 per year, and are 5x more likely to be murdered if their abuser has access to a firearm, according to Hopkins. Why is this Administration looking for ways to weaken the 1996 Domestic Violence Gun Ban by considering ways to provide a pathway to previously convicted domestic abusers (and others convicted of violent crimes) to regain their gun rights? It’s a question worth asking.

The Senate passed the 1996 Ban 97 to 2! The Administration’s purported attempts to weaken it, with the silence of Republican legislators, underscore as much as anything possibly could that this is not your father’s Republican party. This party is pursuing a right-wing extremist agenda never seen before in America. It’s led by an individual found liable for sexual abuse in addition to having treasonously attempted to overthrow a presidential election.

In Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar, Cassius tells Brutus, “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves…” It’s us, not undocumented immigrants. We - the 97% of the population that is entirely legal - account for the crime in America. It’s basic arithmetic. Further, multiple studies conducted by the government, foundations, and academic institutions repeatedly conclude that undocumented immigrants commit violent and non-violent crimes at lower rates than legal residents.

Simply put, a genuine, honest attempt to make our country safer would not repeal sensible gun-safety laws, defund community investments, historically supported on a bipartisan basis, and favored by wide margins of the American people. These laws and initiatives should be strengthened, not weakened, if America’s safety is really the goal.

_______________

I want to thank my son, Jordan, for providing me with the idea of writing about this topic. He humbly credits John Stewart for bringing it to his attention. I also want to thank E.J. Dionne, Jr., whose "The Good News about Murder," published in the Washington Post on August 3rd, provided several helpful insights.

If you know someone who may not be aware of the above facts, consider sending this piece to them in the hope that we can make the gun issue a higher priority for voters.

Just in the week since I began writing this piece, the following major gun events occurred:

*A mass shooting at a bar in Montana killed four people.

*A shooting in NYC that killed four people, including one police officer.

*A gunman ambushed a U.S. firefighter in Idaho, resulting in two deaths and one injury.

*A mass shooting at Ft Stewart, GA, where five soldiers were wounded.

Warren Buffett announced that he will be retiring as the CEO of Berkshire Hathaway at the end of this year. Unlike in sports, his GOAT status in the investment industry is not even remotely up for debate. Many fly to Omaha yearly to capitalism's "Woodstock," i.e., Berkshire's annual shareholder meeting. He's long been affectionately called the "Oracle of Omaha".

Since Buffett took over in 1965, through the end of 2024, Berkshire returned 5,502,284% versus the S&P 500's return of 39,054%. Put another way, Buffett has compounded capital at 20% annually for 60 years versus the index's return of 10%. How do I frame these numbers - they're insane! The story gets better. Buffett still lives in the modest stucco home in Omaha, which he purchased for $31,500 in 1958.

Serious policy makers, genuinely concerned about the deficit and America's rising debt levels, would want to mine Buffett's thoughts on financing our government, right? Hardly. It’s like admiring Einstein but not asking him to help with a physics problem.

So, what are the Oracle's thoughts on appropriate tax levels? In a 2011 New York Times article, "Stop Coddling the Super-Rich," he was clear: "We mega-rich continue to get extraordinary tax breaks…These and other blessings are showered upon us by legislators in Washington who feel compelled to protect us, much as if we were spotted owls or some endangered species."

Over the years, Buffett has lamented the unfairness of his tax rate, which is half the rate Berkshire employees pay: “I hear this Republican message that we’re rich as hell and we’re not taking it anymore. That doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. I’m paying taxes at a lower rate than my secretary…and frankly I think that’s crazy.” He’s proposed the "Buffett Rule," which calls for taxing all income above $1 million at 30%.

In the 2011 article, he states his belief that it's hogwash that investors won't make investments or that unemployment will rise at higher tax levels. He's never not invested at higher tax rates or seen others abstain, even when the capital gains tax rate was 39% versus today's 21% rate. Further, he notes, "And to those who argue that higher rates will hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what's happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation."

Buffett is unusually humble. He has long noted that he hit the lottery in: 1) being born in America, 2) being born into a caring and supportive family, and 3) being born with an unusually high-functioning brain for investing. He believes that luck (on many fronts) played a significant role in his success. Says Buffett, "Anybody that says I did it all myself is just kidding… They're delusional."

While recognizing Wall Street’s value as a unique financing mechanism for our economy, the Oracle—out there in Omaha—believes the rewards it showers on its participants are way out of whack. This sentiment is refreshing: “We work in a market-based economy that rewards our efforts far more bountifully than it does the efforts of others whose output is of equal or greater benefit to society. Taxation should, and does, partially redress this inequity.”

Buffett is a strong proponent of a robust estate tax. Twenty-two years ago, he signed Bill Gates Sr’s pledge supporting a 45% tax on joint estates above $4 million at that time. Echoing Buffett’s views, Gates argued, “If you have accumulated tens of millions, hundreds of millions, or billions, you did not do it alone. You got help.” That help, in one way or another, is delivered by Uncle Sam in the form of public schools, public infrastructure, public investments in healthcare and public safety, to name a few. And, backstopping Wall Street excesses during the 2008 financial crisis!

Warren doesn't blame the economically poor for being poor. In Berkshire's annual shareholder letter published earlier this year, he stated that the government should "take care of the many who, for no fault of their own, got the short straws in life. They deserve better." He believes successful people are morally obligated to level the playing field and soften the hits that life's sometimes brutal blows thrust upon fellow citizens.

It’s always puzzled me why we’re much more forgiving or dismissive of the wealthy's various "welfare" programs, typically delivered as special tax breaks, than we are toward direct recipients actually in need? Today, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis, the average corporate (after-tax) profit margin is at an all-time high (dating back to 1947). Corporate taxes, as a percentage of GDP, hover at all-time lows. Corporate welfare barely raises an eyebrow.

Cutting food-stamp benefits seems more justified to many. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities reports that current SNAP (Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program) benefits are targeted to be cut by $230 billion annually (roughly a $1.40/day cut from the current average benefit of a lowly $6.16/day!). I once received food stamps in my twenties, which were a big help to me.

To be clear, Buffett has no disdain for the rich. They're his friends, and in his experience, they’re most often more than willing to pay their fair share. He couldn't be more pro-business. In the 2011 piece, he states, "The poor are most definitely not poor because the rich are rich. Nor are the rich undeserving." He's not a class warrior. While he notes “I’m a Democrat,” at the same time unequivocally states “I’m a card-carrying capitalist.”

Buffett’s views are not just being ignored as the tax debate heats up; the Administration and its congressional backers are going in the opposite direction: They’re gutting key government social spending programs while cutting taxes on the well-off. It’s the worst of both worlds—our most vulnerable citizens will suffer while our nation’s debt skyrockets, as it always does in the aftermath of big tax cuts.

The bond rating agency Moody’s just downgraded the U.S. debt from AAA to AA1. Moody’s noted that its base-case scenario assumes the extension of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, which it estimates will add $4 trillion to the nation’s debt over ten years.

Simply put, Buffett is a national treasure. He is a thoughtful, highly regarded investor with an exceptionally high intelligence quotient. He believes in paying our bills and financing the government responsibly. It seems absurd and a missed opportunity that we’re dismissing his insights and ideas about creating and financing a fairer society.

According to the Pew Research Center, using U.S. Census Bureau data, the number of undocumented immigrants living in the United States, while having increased since 2020, was lower at the end of 2022 (most up-to-date data) than at its peak in 2007. You read that correctly. The data showed 12.2 million illegal immigrants in 2007; in 2022, the number was estimated to be 11 million. The 2022 Pew figure is also the official figure of the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Homeland Security Statistics (OHSS).

The annual number of undocumented immigrants living in the country—shown in the graph below—is the sum of total illegal entries to date, less the number of individuals who returned to their home countries voluntarily, were deported, died, or were given lawful status.

Pew notes the number of undocumented is “likely” up since 2022. It is still likely within the steady 10 to 12 million people range dating back twenty years. Moreover, over half of the undocumented immigrant population is estimated to have arrived before 2010. To be clear, the undocumented population went up by about an estimated 10% during the Biden Administration. It was a failure of that Administration, but it did not change the “big picture” of the undocumented immigration issue in any material way. Below are Pew’s total undocumented raw numbers over time in the context of the U.S. total population.

In fact, since 2007, the percentage of the U.S. population characterized as undocumented has fallen by 20%, i.e., from 4.1% to 3.3%. Who would have guessed? One could be forgiven for believing that the undocumented among us has steadily risen as a percentage of the country’s population over the past twenty years - it has not. This is a fact that surprised me.

The data shows that the real increase in the undocumented occurred between 1990 and 2007. The economy was booming, workers were needed, and the country (collectively) chose to look the other way. Businesses and Chamber of Commerce Republicans wanted the labor. The price was right, and these workers were far less likely to unionize than native-born workers. Americans wanted cheap goods and services. They also increasingly wanted to outsource jobs they were unwilling to do themselves. That’s the deal we all made. Now, some of us are like Captain Renault in Casablanca, who accepts his winnings (cheaper goods and services) while claiming he’s “Shocked, shocked to find gambling going on in here!” when Rick’s Cafe is raided.

Clearly, illegal immigration is an issue Americans care a lot about, and it should go without saying that immigration laws and border enforcement are essential to the nation’s identity. There are select communities, no doubt, that have felt the stress on their resources from illegal immigrants. I don’t live in such a community. It’s a real issue for these communities that requires thoughtful solutions.

The picture, however, is more complicated than is typically presented by those who would have us believe that undocumented immigrants are an existential threat to America. On the contrary, in addition to doing work Americans don’t want to do themselves, they are likely benefitting an aging nation with fewer workers to support an ever-increasing number of retirees entitled to Social Security and Medicare benefits. Did you know that while the undocumented pay taxes, it is illegal for them to receive Social Security or Medicare benefits?

A central component of economic growth is labor force growth, and ours is anemic because we’re having fewer babies. Falling birth rates are so severe that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that deaths will exceed births beginning in 2040. The CBO predicts a continuation of fewer workers per retiree in the years ahead.

Imagine we could magically round up the 11 million undocumented immigrants, of which an estimated 8 million are part of the labor force, and return them safely to their home countries. Ask yourself: would we suddenly - on the whole - be better or worse off? That is the question.

Where would the replacement workers come from if today’s 4% unemployment rate is a structural low? For instance, the U.S. agriculture industry is estimated to be 45% made up of undocumented workers. Can we find people to pick the fruits and vegetables undocumented workers are now picking up? The economy would likely crash, businesses would close, and tax revenue would drop if we suddenly lost these people. Inflation would surely spike as a result of labor shortages. And our demographic challenges would increase. What exactly would we gain? Would the gains - whatever they might be - offset what we would lose?

Is crime the issue? According to various scholarly sources, illegal immigration does not lead to an increased crime rate. The National Institute of Health (NIH) did the first longitudinal study from 1990 to 2014. They concluded, “The results from fixed-effects regression models reveal that undocumented immigration does not increase violence. Rather, the relationship between undocumented immigration and violent crime is generally negative, although not significant in all specifications.”

Texas is a leader in categorizing crime based on immigration status, and its data is instructive. Many states lump illegal and legal immigrants together, making it challenging to study crime rates among the undocumented. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) National Institute of Justice (NIJ) division examined Texas crime data from 2012-2018 and concluded the following:

“The study found that undocumented immigrants are arrested at less than half the rate of native-born U.S. citizens for violent and drug crimes and a quarter the rate of native-born citizens for property crimes.”

While the data shows that the undocumented commit crimes at a lower rate than do native-born citizens, it is wholly understandable that people have a visceral reaction when a violent crime is committed by an undocumented immigrant. Such crimes are easily sensationalized. But the overwhelming number of crimes in our country are committed by the 97% of us who are legal…it’s basic math. As Willie Sutton would counsel, “That’s where the money is.” Why not just have a war on crime instead of one on undocumented immigrants? Note that a war on crime doesn’t typically begin with slashing the FBI’s budget, as recently announced.

President Reagan seemed to recognize the above facts when his 1986 Immigration and Reform Act included a pathway for the undocumented to gain legal status (not immediate citizenship) - with criteria and conditions - and an estimated 3 million did so. Extending selective “amnesty” to undocumented immigrants made sense to Reagan, who had the Statue of Liberty’s sacred admonition to “Give me your tired, your poor, Your Huddled masses, yearning to breathe free” etched deep into his bones.

The existential risk to America is not coming from the undocumented; it’s from the lawlessness currently being exercised by the Executive branch. Ironically, from beyond, Reagan seems to be injecting himself back into today’s debate. It was conservative Reagan appointee, J. Harvie Wilkison III, 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Chief Judge, who highlighted the threat to our Constitution by the current Administration in a blistering rebuke last week:

“The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in a foreign prison without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order…This should be shocking not only to judges, but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.”

Mass deportations and illegal roundups lacking due process based on mistruths and outright lies do not serve America’s economic interests or its highest ideals. Judge Wilkison is spot on, what is going on in America today is "shocking.”

Simply put, the evidence says that the 3.3% of the current population that is undocumented are overwhelmingly hard-working, tax-paying neighbors who do not bring crime waves. They comprise roughly 6 million U.S. households (out of an estimated 130 million), and an estimated 70% of these homes are considered “mixed status,” meaning the household contains at least one lawful immigrant or U.S. citizen. Moreover, these undocumented immigrants are surrounded by 96.7% of us who are legal!

The super-star Israeli-American behavioral psychologist Daniel Kahneman long argued that we humans form opinions first and then go looking for evidence to support those views. I am that human. I’ve long gone hunting for facts that buttress my party’s approach to governing. In the process I missed the many good and noble things previous Republican administrations accomplished. I find myself missing the old Republican guard. Joni Mitchell said it best, “Don’t it always seem to go that you don’t know what you got ‘til it’s gone.”

President Eisenhower (Ike) takes the lead for using the financing power of the federal government to build things. The Federal Highway Act of 1956 was then the largest public-works project in the nation’s history. It was 90% financed by the federal government from taxing gas, tires, trucks and buses. According to the National Archives, Ike was influenced by seeing the value of Germany’s autobahn network. Over 40,000 miles of highway, up from 6,500 miles, was laid. Imagine what the return on investment has been from this government outlay?

Do you enjoy being on a plane, or dining in a restaurant, without cigarette smoke engulfing you? If so, it’s because the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) made the decision to classify secondhand smoke as carcinogenic. Smog once enveloped many of our cities. The Cuyahoga River in Cleveland caught fire in 1969. Remember “acid rain?” We have President Nixon to thank for the establishment of the EPA, and the passages of both the Clean Air and Water Acts. Sulphur dioxide (generated from fossil fuel production) has dropped 80% since 1970 and there’s been a 90% reduction in emissions per mile since that time because of stricter fuel standards.

Despite significant headwinds beyond his control – rising unemployment, inflation and a sharp rise in oil prices – President Ford continued to push an environmental agenda and in 1974 signed the Safe Drinking Water Act into law requiring the EPA to enforce mandatory federal standards for public water systems. Ford, a long-time Republican Congressman from the great state of Michigan was known for his decency, honesty and willingness to work across the aisle to get things done.

President Reagan is remembered for standing down the Soviet Union when, speaking at the Brandenburg Gate in West Germany, boldly demanded, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” Such simple yet powerful words. My side often ridiculed Reagan and thought he would lead us into WW III. We were wrong. In fact, his military build-up is generally viewed by historians as providing a major (by no means exclusive) contribution to ending the Soviet Union’s domination of its neighbors. There are now 15 post-Soviet states. Ukraine, now, is (still) one of them.

Reagan positively used the federal government domestically as well. His Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA), while beefing up border security spending, also provided full legalization status to undocumented workers meeting certain criteria through its Lawful Permanent Residence (LPR) provision. An estimated 3 million – mostly Hispanic – immigrants gained legal status (not citizenship) because of Reagan’s IRCA. Reagan’s actions on immigration suggest that he believed that the majority of undocumented immigrants benefit America despite having come to the country illegally.

George HW Bush was an enthusiastic and forceful supporter of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and in 1990 signed it into law. Lex Friedan, the the-director of the National Council on Disability, and one of the law’s architects, said, “George Bush will be viewed by people with disabilities and their families as the Abraham Lincoln of their experience.”

In his 2003 State of the Union address, President George W. Bush announced the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) to fight global HIV/AIDS. According to Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus, the Director-General of the World Health Organization (WHO), PEPFAR “has saved 25 million lives, enabled 20 million people with HIV to start antiretroviral treatment and prevented 5.5 million babies from being born with HIV.” Former Ambassador, and 33-year State Department veteran Niels Marquardt, said of PEPFAR, “It’s one of the most amazing, life-saving initiatives than any country or entity has ever taken in the history of mankind.” Bush’s vision wasn’t just based on moral grounds, he viewed it as a “central part of our foreign policy to help alleviate the despair that allows extremism to take hold.”

In one way or another, these Republican presidents advanced agendas that invested in infrastructure, expanded opportunity and freedom and secured a healthier environment. They understood only government can do certain things. Ike signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and used the Insurrection Act to send federal troops into Little Rock, Ark to integrate schools there. Bush I courageously raised taxes, despite his pledge not to, knowing it could cost him his next election. Bush listened to economic advisors who told him it was the right thing to do…for the country.

These presidents believed in a purposeful nation possessing a set of ideals, norms, a commitment to the rule of law and a willingness to accept defeat and do it graciously. They knew and studied history. Hate was not a part of their canon. Allies were not attacked. Friendship was honored.

Rivals Ford and Carter went on to become close friends. Carter movingly spoke at his opponent’s funeral. Liberal 1972 Democratic presidential candidate George McGovern, late in his life, admitted that he voted “for my long-time Republican friend” Gerald Ford over the unknown Carter in 1976. Bush I, the youngest Navy fighter pilot in WW II, and a recipient of the Distinguished Flying Cross for his bravery in battle, became friends with the young boomer upstart who denied him a second term. He and Bill Clinton became friends and worked on several humanitarian projects together. Senator McCain asked his bitter rival, President Obama, to speak at his funeral. Beautiful.

Simply put, we do not have a Republican party today in either policy or temperament. The “party of Reagan” has ignited an on-again-off-again global trade war. Reagan’s view, “High tariffs inevitably lead to retaliation…and the triggering of fierce trade wars…markets shrink…businesses and industries shut down and millions of people lose their jobs.” Our NATO alliance, the guardian of the post-War world order, is now in question. None of these presidents believed it was in our interest, or capability, to “go it alone” while trying to bully the world to cede to our demands.

In my thirty plus years as a professional investor I didn’t worry about the stability of our nation, so important to ensure a willingness to risk capital. I do now. The rule of law isn’t just some quaint term, it is the heart and soul of a democracy. As messy as it might be sometimes, due process is America.

In 1968, during another turbulent time in our history, singer-songwriter Paul Simon longingly asked, “Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio? Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you,” lamenting the loss of heroes. Where have you gone Republican party? I miss you.

While it may be a good headline with a hint of common sense, the obsession with slashing government expenses – beyond carefully rooting out actual waste, fraud and abuse - is the wrong approach to reducing our deficit for two reasons. First, our country’s total government spending is significantly below the most economically successful countries on the planet. Total federal, state and local government spending combined is a modest 35% of our GDP. In fact, countries like Canada, U.K., Australia, Germany and Japan average 45%. Second, it’s likely that the current approach of defunding key government services will end up costing us more than the alleged “savings” once the consequences of these largely random cuts roll in overtime.

For example:

· The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program maintains the largest database of crime statistics for use by local law enforcement agencies throughout the country. What will ultimately be the cost to cutting the FBI’s budget by $1 billion? Given its national reach in fighting crime, isn’t this cut effectively “defunding the police” on steroids likely to result in more criminals on our streets as fewer crimes are solved?

· What are the long-term costs to eliminating half the Department of Education’s budget and thereby decimating funds for the country’s poorest school districts?

· Who believes that reducing the number of air traffic controllers will be “free”?

· As the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) enforcement actions drop so will industry compliance with clean water and air laws. Dirtier water and air will not ultimately be a cost savings to anyone.

· Funded by the National Institute of Health (NIH), universities’ early-stage medical research projects often don’t attract private-sector dollars as such investments are considered too risky. How will our families be better off if innovative drug and medical device research funding is slashed?

· Pediatric cancer research receives only 4% of all government allocated cancer research funds. Now at risk are previously bipartisan supported legislation like the Creating Hope Reauthorization Act, the Gabriella Miller Kids First Research Act and the Accelerating Kids to Research Act. Isn’t there a moral cost to our nation’s character and sense of itself in abandoning sick children?

Yet, doesn’t our nation’s annual deficit need to be addressed? Absolutely. Fortunately, there’s a better way. Moreover, it doesn’t require raising taxes to the levels of our capitalist peers. It certainly doesn’t require the restructuring of America’s free-enterprise system. It does call for a fairer corporate tax-rate structure and stepped-up IRS collection enforcement. These actions will ensure that corporate giants fairly contribute to the nation’s coffers and both business and individual tax cheats are prevented from ripping off the average, law-abiding taxpayer.

The steady decline in corporate taxation has been going on for decades and represents significant amounts of lost revenue. In the 1950s, corporate taxes totaled over 5% of the country’s GDP at their peak; in the 1960s they fell to 3.7%; and in the 1990s corporate taxes dropped further to the 2% level. Last year, corporate income taxes approached 1.5% of our country’s $30 trillion in GDP. At the rate we’re going, the nation’s large corporations will be asking us to pay them for the privilege of their presence!

Corporate Income Tax Revenue (% of GDP)

Source: Office of Management and Budget

A look at specific income statements of major S & P 500 companies makes clear that a drop in tax rates and a rise in loopholes has greatly reduced the tax burden for major companies. For instance, in 1993, Coca Cola paid 32% of its pre-tax income in taxes; in 2015 it had dropped to 23%; in 2024 it dropped further to 19%. The pharmaceutical giant Merck paid 32% of its pre-tax income in taxes in 1994; in 2015 it had dropped to 17%; in 2024 it dropped down to a mere 14%.

Taking corporate taxes to 3% of GDP (40% below the level seen in the often-mythologized prosperous 1950s) would raise an additional $450 billion per year (25% of today’s deficit) and rise over time as our economy grows.

Tesla, founded by Elon Musk, President Trump’s grim reaper spearheading his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) initiative, made over $30 billion in profits in the past three years. Embedded in those earnings is the generosity of Uncle Sam and the American people. An extensive Washington Post analysis showed that Tesla has received billions in government subsidies, loans and credits. According to a former high-ranking Tesla employee, the company would not have survived without a $465 million loan provided by the Department of Energy in 2010.

Musk, heir to so much government support himself, despite not having grown up in an American community, smiles broadly while raising a chainsaw celebrating the mass firings of public workers. The $8 billion proposed cut to the Department of Energy’s loan program will surely make loans like the one given to Tesla less likely. Tesla revolutionized electrical vehicles and today employs over 100,000 people in the United States. That’s great. America had a terrific return on its investment in Tesla but now the very loan program it once counted on is on the chopping block.

Corporate tax-cutting cheerleaders always tell us that the dollars no longer going to the IRS will go into plant, equipment and worker pay. Really? Since the 2017 Trump tax cuts, S&P 500 stock buybacks have skyrocketed. According to Goldman Sachs, buybacks in 2025 are estimated to reach $1 trillion. A buyback is the opposite of an investment in plants, equipment or workers. Buybacks reduce a company’s outstanding shares, driving up per/share earnings, directly benefiting shareholders in a tax-advantaged way. We’re also told that big federal tax-cuts will “pay for themselves” in more economic growth - it’s never happened.

If asked, Willie Sutton would likely encourage the Administration to look at the tax-gap, too. The tax-gap is the difference between what is owed in taxes annually and what is collected. In 2022, the IRS estimated the net tax-gap to be $606 billion. The IRS estimates that over 70% of this number is the result of individuals underreporting their income or overstating credits and/or deductions. What if – instead of spiteful and irrational cuts to IRS staff - we went after tax-cheats with real vigor?

To be clear, the tax-gap is not coming from W-2 filers where the IRS has a third-party documented trail of income and taxes paid…that ain’t where the money is. These are harder to measure business and real estate returns that require competent, professional enforcement staff. In fact, the IRS points out that if you’re making less than $400K per year the likelihood of being audited is .3%.

The data is clear, IRS enforcement officers, now being fired, are not a cost-center, they are revenue generators! For example, in 2023, 33,000 IRS enforcement officers collected $32 billion in unpaid taxes. In 2010, the IRS’s 50,000 enforcement officers at that time collected over $60 billion, (or two-times) what was collected in ’23, in unpaid taxes. A Brookings Institute study found that taxpayers get back $9 for every $1 invested into IRS enforcement. If the Administration’s real objective is to reduce the deficit, would they be firing IRS enforcement officers?

There are various ways to appropriately tax wealthy individual households, as well. For instance, Social Security taxes currently max out at $176K/year. The person making $5 million/year pays the same amount in Social Security taxes as the person making $176K. Eliminating the cap brings in over $3 trillion in additional revenue, over ten years, according to the Social Security Trustees. The Buffett Rule, proposed by super-investor and common-sense sage Warren Buffett, advocates for a minimum tax of 30% on annual incomes more than $1 million.

Not extending Trump’s 2017 tax-cuts – a tax expenditure estimated to have cost the country $1.9 trillion according to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) - would be a no-brainer to Willie. Extending these cuts are estimated to cost the U.S. Treasury over $4 trillion over ten years, according to the nonpartisan Center on Budget Policy and Priorities. Extend the middle class cuts, but surely we can agree that well-off households, and highly profitable corporations, need no more tax-relief from Uncle Sam. These in fact are expenditures we can not afford.

The above revenue proposals, and there are others, would raise over $1 trillion annually and effectively eliminate our deficit problem by reducing it to under the widely recommended 3% of GDP deficit target. Don’t believe the naysayers. Recall, we were told by Wall Street, the business community and their supporters that President Clinton’s tax increases on the wealthiest Americans – he increased the top income tax bracket from 31% to 39.6% - would sink the economy. Of course, many factors contributed to the 1990s economic boom, but Clinton’s tax increases on wealthy households, and the then 35% corporate tax rate (compared to today’s 21%), clearly didn’t stop it from happening. Clinton’s final four budgets were balanced with surpluses, the only ones since 1969.

The Administration’s policies are not serious ones for securing a stronger fiscal future for America. The reckless carpet-bombing approach of DOGE will not make us a stronger, more prosperous country. The Administration’s tax policies will further line the pockets of the well-off, who are already more than just fine. The gutting of so many critical public investments, far from saving us money, will cost our children, families and communities in untold ways.

In the end, when Trump is gone and permanently camped out at Mar-A-Largo, the real cost of these misguided and often cruel budget cuts will come due. Then what? What do you think?

It is often taken as gospel that the size of government is too big. Maybe. But on what basis is this canon-like belief held? Is there evidence showing that living standards drop as public sectors grow?

Ask yourself: Are the richest nations in the world characterized by small government sectors? The 39 Organization for Economic and Commercial Development (OECD) nations are considered to be the most economically successful countries in the world possessing the highest living standards. What can we glean from studying this prestigious group of countries? One thing is clear: they all have large and robust public sectors.

In fact, the average public sector (total government spending inclusive of federal and local entities), as a percentage of each country’s GDP, among OECD nations is roughly 45%. In 2024, the U.S.’s total public sector (federal, state and local) accounted for roughly 35% of our country’s GDP.

If we reduced our total government’s size, as a percentage of the economy, down to say the 30% area, our peers at that level would include: El Salvador, Kosovo and Rwanda. If we went up to the north of 40% level, our peers would be: Canada, Germany and the United Kingdom. If you were forced to raise your family outside of America, which countries would be on your prospective list?

I should point out that I’m a private-sector guy. I just retired after founding a successful asset management firm specializing in small company investments. I can attest to regularly finding waste, fraud, self-dealing and abuse in private-sector, public-company, corporate environments. Did I love the unannounced SEC audits we experienced? Not really, but I always felt they were fair, and I accepted the public was well-served by such an agency.

Is there a point where government is too big? Of course there is: France, with a staggering 57% public sector ratio - over 60% larger than the United States’ ratio - is a good example…we are nowhere near those levels. I would never want to jeopordize the dynamism of American capitalism.

Contrary to those who reflexively believe we have too much government in America, I would say the evidence, to the extent it exists, suggests the opposite. Despite the success of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) driving down the country’s uninsured rate to its lowest level on record (a program vigorously opposed to by anti-government hawks, is now quite popular – 65% approval - with the American public), 8% of our population is still without health insurance, an estimated 26 million people.

Meaningful mental health coverage is sadly close to non-existent in our country. Republicans claim that better mental health access, and not stricter gun laws, is what is needed to reduce shootings. Well, show me the money! Wouldn’t we be better off as a nation, safer and more prosperous, with greater mental health resources availalbe to our citizens? Putting more money in the pockets of already well-off individuals, and successful corporations, by extending the tax-cuts they’ve enjoyed since 2017 (while benefiting from the tailwinds of a 150% stock market return since that time), is misguided. Budgets are moral documents, too.

The parallel canon of the “government is too big crowd” is that we are over-taxed. Here again, it’s worth asking, on what basis? The average OECD country – the most successful ones in the world - takes out 34% of its GDP in total taxes; the U.S.’s total tax to GDP ratio is 25%. Total U.S. corporate taxes (federal, state and local) collected, as a percentage of GDP, was 1.6% in 2023. In the often- mythologized 1950s, corporations paid over 5% of GDP in taxes.

Our nation’s debt wouldn’t be a problem if we simply acted more responsibly and collected in taxes a number closer to our peer nations. If Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, heavily skewed toward the rich, are extended, while key government functions are defunded, then we are effectively exchanging broadly shared public goods to further enrich the well-off. By all means, extend the modest middle-class tax cuts, but if you’re really interested in reducing the nation’s debt you don’t provide tax relief to people/corporations who don’t need it.

Living in the Washington, D.C. area, I know many government workers. For decades, I’ve watched my NASA-employed neighbor walk to the bus stop while it’s still dark outside and return home after dark. You could not find a more hard-working, dedicated employee. There’s Vince who worked as a scientist at NIH who could have made oodles more money working for a pharmaceutical company but chose to ply his MIT education on behalf of the public.

We are about to learn, the hard way, that there are key functions for government including investment (education, infrastructure, R&D), civil justice, public safety, public health, national security and safety nets. Private market cheerleaders (of which I am one), may soon learn how crucial public market investments are to modern capitalist economies. The proposed cuts to the National Institute of Health’s (NIH) university grant funding program is an “atomic bomb” on biomedical research, according to Sarah Tishkoff, a geneticist at the University of Pennsylvania.

Put simply, there are no examples of economically successful countries without robust public sectors.

In 1986, I finally settled into a “grown up” job and became a “stockbroker”, primarily selling tax-free municipal bonds. In 1998, I opened my own firm, Roumell Asset Management, LLC (RAM), focused on deep-value small cap investing based on the investment principals of famed value investor Marty Whitman. In 2011, we started a mutual fund that at its peak reached over $300 million in assets.

My work life was a mix of high highs, and low lows. RAM’s success was greater than I ever imagined. Unfortunately, in the final years of our firm’s twenty-five plus-year run, a few (three to be exact) major investments went south on us. It was, and still is, very humbling. How to “make peace” with it all?

As a small-business entrepreneur, I was “supposed” to be anti-government, but I evidently didn’t get the memo. I’ve always been grateful for the many public investments that contributed to whatever success I enjoyed throughout my life.

Having said that, as a long-time investor, I’m also well-aware that governmental regulations can be excessive and inhibit business formation. For example, in the 1990s our firm invested in a large piece of raw land in Southern California expecting it to be entitled for development in a reasonable amount of time. We had hoped a housing development would ultimately be built to help solve a housing shortage in that state. Today, publicly-traded Tejon Ranch (TRC) still remains a largely undeveloped piece of land – 25 years later - because of laws allowing certain environmental groups the ability to tie the property up in litigation for decades.

Still, I’ve been writing about the net positive role that government plays in our lives for many years. My first article (published in 2012), “What I Built with Government Help” was a reflection on the important ways I was personally helped by Uncle Sam. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-i-built--with-government-help/2012/08/17/ecc86b24-e885-11e1-936a-b801f1abab19_story.html

Recent events from the current Administration motivated me to pick up my pen again.

My real motivation? I would like to get more connected, to be in touch (with old friends and new ones), find new purpose. I expect to comment on public issues, and to explore private challenges as a newly retired person feeling adrift. Looking back, I can see how defining work was for me, how much it kept me busy and gave me an identity that allowed me to be in the world confidently. What now? Let’s see where this goes.

Thanks for reading my first post titled, “Is the Government Really too Big?”