I'd like a tax code that seems fair for everyone. That is why a flat tax with no deductions appeals to me. I do agree with a progressive tax system. Those who earn more should pay more, as a percentage, than those who earn less.

If we had a flat tax with a large standard deduction, everyone would be paying the same as a percentage of income. Everyone would also claim the same standard deduction. As a result, the more money a person makes, the more the person would pay in tax as a percentage of income.

Some don’t like that. They want the percentage to be higher as you make more money. There are currently 7 tax brackets. The bottom bracket is 10% on incomes under $11,925. The top bracket is 37% on incomes over $626,351.

However, the top earners get to take advantage of many deductions. Those who favor them claim deductions encourage people to do things for the public good. Those opposed claim deductions are simply ways to reward donors.

According to the IRS, we do have two flat taxes right now with no deductions. Social security is 6.2% paid by both the employee and the employer. Medicare is 1.45% paid by both employee and employer.

There is a wage base limit of $184,500 for social security in 2026. Social security taxes stop at that limit. On the other hand, people who earn more than $200,000 pay .9% on all income over that amount. There is no employer match.

I believe we should remove the limit on social security wages. Removing the limit would bring several advantages. It would bring in 12.4% increased revenue on all income over $184,500. It would encourage people to think of it as a tax that is benefiting all, rather than a forced retirement account.

Some will argue that they earn millions and will never get their money back out of social security. That should be true of all taxes. We shouldn’t be paying taxes hoping to get paid. We pay taxes for the public good.

Some will say they don’t need social security. They have enough money and shouldn’t have to pay into it. That is really an argument for means testing. People who don’t need social security shouldn’t be receiving it.

However, the idea that we won’t need it is challenged by two examples. One is the father of a friend of mine. The father was earning millions and lost it all in bad investments. I personally know someone else who had the same fate. Both men wound up needing social security.

Everyone is used to paying social security and Medicare tax. Why should they stop paying social security when they make more than $184,500? On the other hand, why should people making more than $200,000 pay an additional .9% in Medicare? Why doesn’t the employer have to contribute? I think we should leave Medicare at 1.45% for both employees and employers with no limit.

Well, that’s my idea for the beginning of a shift in tax policy. I believe it makes tax policy fairer. It makes it obvious that people are paying a tax and not paying into some retirement account. It would raise revenue for social security.

If we add means testing for social security, we might just make it solvent.

Please like and share this thought. Who knows? Maybe something will change.

Share

Subscribe now

I see a lot of commentary that the billionaires aren’t paying their fair share of income tax. What is their fair share? What is fair? What about the poorest among us? How much should they pay? What is fair?

What if we took our entire federal expenditures and divided it by the number of people in the U.S. We spent $7.1 trillion in 2025. There were estimated 341 million people in U.S. One might say that a person’s fair share is $20,821. I don’t want to get into silly arguments about the numbers. Even if off by a factor of 20%, the amount is somewhere between $16,000 and $25,000.

Based on that, I’m not paying my fair share.

Maybe that isn’t how we should look at fairness. I certainly don’t want to pay more tax.

It is easy to point to others and say they should pay more. How much more? What is fair?

The Tax Foundation provides an interesting table. Looks like the top 1% of earners, those with incomes above $663,164 pay 40% of total taxes paid. Yet they only represent 1% of returns filed. Does that seem fair?

What about the top 5%, those with incomes above $262,591, they pay 61% of total taxes. Is that fair?

Let’s look at the bottom 50%, those with incomes less than $50,339, they pay 3% of total taxes. Is that fair?

What about those at the very bottom of the economic ladder? I’ve often said the same people who want the rich to pay more, ignore the poor. Why should anybody who is under the Federal Poverty Level pay any tax? Is that fair? I don’t think so.

I looked up the history of the standard deduction. It was 10% of Adjusted Gross Income with a maximum of $1000 from 1944-1969. In 1970, it went up to $1,100, The Federal Poverty Level was about $2000 for a single person. It went up in 1970 due to the Tax Reform Act of 1969 and increased annually by a few hundred dollars per year.

The 1986 Tax Reform Act brought the standard deduction up to $3000, up from $2540, effective 1988. The Federal Poverty Level was $5,770.

By 2017, the standard deduction was $6,350. The Federal Poverty Level was $12,060. So, those making just under the poverty level were paying income tax on nearly half their income. Does that seem fair? I don’t think so.

Who helped? Due to the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the standard deduction was increased to $12,000. The Federal Poverty Level was $12,140. Those in poverty almost didn’t pay tax.

The 2025 OBBBA pushed the standard deduction to $15,750. The Federal Poverty Level was $15,650. Finally, those in poverty paid no tax.

While we might disagree on what is fair for the wealthy to pay, I hope we can agree that those who are below the bottom rung of the economic ladder shouldn’t be paying anything. Those who keep our focus on the wealthy, seem to neglect the poor.

Let’s focus on both ends!

Share

Subscribe now

My wife and I spent a few days in Palm Springs last week. We were standing at a bus stop, and my wife asked a man if he often took the bus. She was probably profiling. The man could be described as a person of color. The question began a conversation.

The man’s name was Able. After asking about us. He told us that we could save some money by using the senior discount. The discount is from $1 to 50 cents. Then he laughed and made a comment about Maduro claiming that he made less than 2 pesitos per year. After explaining that a pesito was less than a peso, he said that he used to be a Democrat but now was independent. I told him I was too. He said, if I had to choose, I’d choose Republican. I told him that I didn’t expect to hear that at a Palm Springs bus stop.

He explained that he spoke English and Spanish. He had been a missionary through much of central America and was on Haiti when the earthquake hit. According to his account, the Clintons built five model homes. They told local residents that they would be given homes like those depending on their needs. If you have two children, you get one like that. If you have three children, you get one like that, etc. The homes would be free.

According to Able, it sounded great. The model homes looked great. None of the homes was connected to water. You had to walk five miles to get water. Able claimed, Clintons took in $14 billion. They didn’t build a single house.

I could stop there. All of that is true. Able is a person and did tell me that. Many people would stop there. Able was there. He was giving an eyewitness account. Why go further?

What about truth?

Able also mentioned that he had to sell a gold ring. He sold it when gold was around $2000/ounce. Now it is over $5000/ounce. He also said that his mother’s house burned in the Palisades fire. He was likely from a more affluent family. He had also lived in a big house owned by a wealthy person. He was not paid a salary but was paid commissions based on sales of artwork. He might not have the perspective of the average California bus rider.

I decided to look into the Clinton Foundation. I couldn’t find any evidence at the web site that the Foundation had helped people in Haiti. I asked Grok:

“According to the Clinton Foundation’s own statements and reports:

• It mobilized and deployed over $30 million in immediate relief support, including cash grants, in-kind donations (such as trucks, solar lights, clothing, medical supplies, tents, water purification units, and more).

• Every dollar raised for Haiti relief was directed to on-the-ground efforts, with no overhead or administrative fees taken by the Foundation.

• Grants went to organizations like ACTED, CARE, and Concern Worldwide for emergency aid (food, water, shelter, medicine).

• The Foundation collaborated on broader recovery through the Clinton Global Initiative’s Haiti Action Network (focused on long-term areas like agriculture, education, health, energy, and job creation).

• It helped support initiatives that reportedly assisted thousands of farmers, planted millions of trees, provided clean energy installations, and offered job skills training to women.”

On the negative side, Grok reported:

“The overall international aid response (including U.S. government funds overseen in part by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton) totaled billions pledged, but results were mixed across efforts. Criticisms and controversies exist regarding the broader Clinton-involved recovery:

• Many Haitians and critics (including activists, journalists, and reports from outlets like BBC, The Guardian, and others) expressed frustration over slow progress, bureaucratic delays, limited rubble removal/housing, and projects that underdelivered (e.g., the Caracol industrial park, meant to create jobs but criticized for falling short).

• Some specific aid items (like temporary shelters/trailers) faced allegations of poor quality or health issues (e.g., mold or formaldehyde concerns in subcontracted units).

• Claims of corruption, “pay-to-play,” or personal enrichment (e.g., benefits to donors) have circulated, particularly during the 2016 U.S. election, but fact-checks (including from The Washington Post and others) and the Foundation have called major accusations (like stealing billions) baseless.

• Broader aid failures in Haiti stemmed from systemic issues like corruption, political instability, and coordination problems—not solely attributable to the Clintons or their Foundation.

In summary, the Clinton Foundation did actively help with direct relief and longer-term programs, distributing funds transparently per their accounts, but the massive reconstruction effort (in which they were heavily involved) has been widely seen as disappointing in achieving lasting recovery for Haiti. Sources include official Clinton Foundation pages, BBC reporting, The Guardian analyses, and fact-checks from various outlets.”

Able may have been correct. If we give Clintons benefit of the doubt, perhaps their efforts were thwarted by corruption and other problems not under their control. However, when I see what they contributed to: ACTED, CARE, and Concern Worldwide. I wonder what happened to the money. It reminds me of my post; The Numbers Aren’t Wrong. They’re Just the Wrong Numbers. Telling us that they gave millions of dollars to charities, does NOT tell us how people were actually helped. How many houses were built? How many people were fed? How many trees were planted? Were a few administrators making a lot of money?

I decided to look at ACTED web site and searched on Haiti earthquake:

“In the first weeks, ACTED teams responded to the immediate emergency with food rations, drinking water, and basic necessities which included: mattresses, mosquito nets, kitchen kits, hygiene kits and plastic sheeting for emergency shelters.”

“For those who had lost their homes, they had no other option but to take shelter in one of the many camps which sprang up in the wake of the disaster. These camps created their own health challenges, thus ACTED built 850 latrines, more than 400 showers and 40 tanks in the main camps of the country to provide more than 20,000 people with water.”

That seems to be a lot, but probably a drop in the bucket when we consider that “Between 250 000 and 300 000 people lost their lives in the earthquake, with another 300 000 counted among the injured. The disaster levelled 80% of the Haitian capital with a similar impact in nearby towns like Léogâne.”

Looking back after ten years, what do we see? According to the web site:

“Results appear very mixed: Due to the scale of the disaster but also the complexity and fragility of the Haitian context, reconstruction has proved long and difficult and international aid has been less effective than expected. In addition, the cholera epidemic that broke out at the end of 2010 and Hurricane Matthew in December 2016, created extremely difficult conditions for the Haitian state. In 2020, while cholera is on the verge of eradication, the humanitarian situation remains of great concern, with 3.6 million people in a situation of acute food insecurity.”

In this post I’ve provided an example of how to look at both sides. It is easy to quote one person. Can’t you just imagine sticking a camera in Able’s face and reporting it on the news? He could have told the truth. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that Clintons had a dream of building free houses.

However, I didn’t find evidence that Clinton’s got $14 billion. Perhaps around 14 billion was pledged from international efforts. Clinton’s probably did give a lot of money to NGOs. That would be consistent with their modus operandi. They’re not entrepreneurs. They feel better once they give money to a NGO.

It is also difficult to control politics. It is difficult to get permits to build a house in Washington State. I can’t imagine what it would be like in Haiti.

Well, that’s my take on it. Sometimes I’m criticized for not accepting eyewitness accounts immediately. I like to think a little. I encourage you to do the same.

Share

Subscribe now

A friend on Facebook seems to be upset with me because I have refused to accept her version of reality. Perhaps she missed my article, I Saw It with My Own Eyes. Key to our reality is the programming of our past. We often see what we have programmed ourselves to see.

In reference to the deaths involving ICE officers, I believe that there should be trials. Shouldn’t there be trials anytime someone is shot and killed? Those are no exceptions.

I have refused to enter the fray. I have seen videos showing both sides. I know better than to accept one over another. I refuse to allow my preconceived notions of yesterday choose my reality today. I want to control my brain.

I encourage you to start with a fresh reality. What you are seeing may not be true. I took a gun safety class when I was a boy scout. The instructor showed us his revolver. He unloaded it. He began to tell a story. It was about a little boy who picked up his father’s revolver. The teacher picked up his revolver. He pointed the gun at his father and pulled the trigger. Daddy you’re dead. His dad laughed. He pointed the gun at his mother and pulled the trigger. The instructor’s gun fired. I knew what was going to happen. Even though I knew what to look for, I didn’t see him put a bullet in the revolver. I can’t believe my eyes. Even when I am there.

I do believe in the rule of law. Many say they want laws to be followed, but when I ask, they point to a specific law. For example, some point to a judge’s decision that ICE should stand down. What about immigration law? Should that be followed?

It is a new phenomenon that suddenly protestors are on the side of illegal immigrants. When Clinton’s administration deported local immigrants, letters to the editor blamed the local business that hired them. The argument was if businesses didn’t hire them, they wouldn’t come.

Obama gave Tom Homan a medal for his work deporting illegal aliens. As soon as Trump was elected, people claimed that farmers needed illegal immigrants to pick crops. Farmers need cheap labor. Wait a minute. I thought businesses were the problem. What happened to minimum wage?

Last year, I saw images of construction sites that were idle because all of the illegal aliens left. Suddenly that is Trump’s fault. How did the illegals get into the country? Why was there no outcry among the party that has the backs of the blue-collar workers - the construction unions?

Why are illegal aliens attracted to Minnesota? Are businesses to blame? Or do they come for some form of economic opportunity unrelated to work?

Some think that the Democrats are winning in Minnesota. They believe they are taking a stand and the average union worker (who wasn’t working) is going to see how well they are fighting for illegal aliens will be more likely to vote Democrat. Really? I don’t get it.

In fact, I just got back from a few days in Palm Springs. My next article will be on the surprise conversation I had with a man waiting for the bus. He was dark complected and spoke English and Spanish. Watch for my next post.

Share

Subscribe now

Is Trump being reckless or careful? Decades ago, I watched some television show with people who seemed to me to be intelligent, talking about regime changes. A take-away for me was the importance of democracies. If we support a dictator, then when the dictator is overthrown, the new power considers us the enemy. If we overthrow a dictator, then the people who supported the former dictator consider us the enemy. When we support a democracy, we can say that we support your elected choice.

With that in mind, I’m watching the world stage. Some criticize the capture of Maduro. The argument is that President Trump has violated Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter.

Trump is claiming his actions were just a police action. Military action was only used to protect law enforcement personnel.

I don’t like the idea of the U.S. doing whatever it wants around the world just because we are the biggest gorilla. On the other hand, I am somewhat sympathetic. How does the U.S. help people around the world flourish in their own countries? Sending money to countries seems to be used by corrupt leaders and doesn’t really change the underlying dynamics.

Some people criticize Trump for not recognizing the opposition leader (who many claim was elected president). That would certainly be a regime change as described in the first paragraph. In my opinion, it would also lend more support to the idea that the Trump administration violated the U.N. Charter. Trump left the government intact. I suspect the new leadership might have a different perspective on working with the U.S.

Some claim the CIA could have accomplished something similar without involving the military. Apparently, that would not have violated the U.N. Charter. Is that the way we have done things in the past? How did it work out? Look at Iran.

Iran was overthrown in 1953. According to The National Security Archive the CIA was involved:

Some Iranians were attending Independence Community Junior College while I was a student in the mid 1970s. One student had been in the military and had a picture of the Shaw in his wallet. In 1979, the Shaw was overthrown. Apply the first paragraph - we became the enemy. Iran is just one example. There have been many.

Something that I have wondered about is why the U.S. doesn’t go after leaders. Why not take out Putin? Why kill hundreds of thousands of soldiers because of one leader? Could Trump’s police action to extricate Maduro be an example of a change in war tactics?

Has Trump just caused a ripple of doubt in leadership of all countries? Mexico didn’t want our help to fight drug gangs. Do you think Mexico had any idea of what the U.S. military is capable of? Do you suppose Mexico might be re-thinking?

What about Iran? If Trump said that he would not tolerate killing Iranian protesters, what are his options? If we take out the leadership, will we be the bad guys as described in the first paragraph? So far, he’s talking about more tariffs. Really?

Then we have Greenland. I didn’t realize the strategic importance of Greenland until I watched an episode of the television series, The Diplomat, last year. Greenland is of strategic importance to help control the Arctic circle. Russia and China are bolstering their presences in the area.

Meanwhile, Canada is our major ally in the Arctic circle. It has the largest coastline in the world. It has a GDP of $2.24 trillion. Canada is on track to reach its annual NATO commitment of spending 2% on its military this year. That would be $44.8B. Note that the 2% agreement was first reached in 2006 and this will be the first time Canada has met it. Can a country with the longest coastline in the world defend itself with $44.8B?

Compare to U.S. The GDP of the U.S. in 2024 was $28.7 trillion. The U.S. spent 3.22% on defense or $924B. For perspective, the sum of all defense related expenditures of NATO allies was $1588B in 2025. Without the U.S. contribution, the total is $664B. I don’t want to quarrel with NATO. However, to put a fine point on the problem, if all the NATO allies decided to gang up on the U.S., based just on our spending differences, the allies would be $260B short.

As I said earlier, I don’t like the idea of the U.S. being the world’s bully. I don’t even like the idea that we are every NATO ally’s big brother. However, that seems to be the reality.

We live in a dangerous world. People leave their countries to come to the U.S. hoping for a better life. I hope that the U.S. can continue to be a country that people want to come to.

Even better is a world where people can flourish in their own countries. In many cases, that means that oppressors must act differently. I’m hopeful that Trump is setting the stage for that change of action.

I have read about half of Trump’s 2025 National Security Strategy of the Unites States of America. So far, it looks to me like his ambition is to get along with all countries. I’ll continue reading and give you my perspective.

Share

Subscribe now

A friend shared a video of Robert Reich. I am a subscriber to his Substack account, not because I agree with him, but because I usually disagree with him. The video was no exception.

The gist of the video was that before 1970’s, minimum wage tracked with productivity. After the 70’s, productivity continued to increase but minimum wage did not. He then points out that executive salaries skyrocketed. The implication was that executives were taking all the money rather than sharing it with employees at the lowest end of the economic scale.

That may sound good to those who feel victimized by management. Workers often buy into the idea that they are the reason the company is profitable, not management. They have never started or run a company. They have no idea. In fact, most of those employees who try to go out on their own are bankrupt within a few years.

Think about how labor productivity is measured. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has a good explanation of how productivity is measured. The calculation is made by dividing output by the number of hours worked. The numbers are massaged to attempt to factor in the change in labor demographics. Higher educated and older workers will probably have a higher output than inexperienced and poorly educated workers.

Reich’s first fallacy is comparing the average improvement in productivity (which includes many more highly educated and experienced workers) to minimum wage earners whose productivity may not have improved much. Think of servers in a restaurant. They have been doing the job essentially the same way for decades.

Reich’s second fallacy is stating that based on productivity, minimum wage should be $25 per hour. Looking forward, minimum wage is not the problem. Soon there will be no minimum wage jobs. Robots will be doing them. I have now been served by robots in two different restaurants. That is an improvement in productivity for those restaurants who use them. Soon there will be no jobs. Robots are performing surgery. Robots are making pizza.

Reich also states that in the 60’s and 70’s more people were in unions. He believes that is why they were making more money. He goes on to say that when lower paid employees make more money they spend more. He states that helps drive the economy. That is true.

Reich also believes we must tax corporations and wealthy individuals much more. That also is music to the ears of the victimized worker, but does it actually help the economy?

I doubt that Reich has ever had a profit from his company, made plans to increase output, and realized that he couldn’t expand because of income tax. I’ve seen that. Taxes reduce supply.

If we increase demand with higher wages and reduce supply with higher taxes, the result is shortages and inflation. That is Reich’s third fallacy. His ideas are what are causing inflation. The government increased demand by giving workers money during COVID and decreased supply by shutting down business. That caused inflation.

Reich’s fourth fallacy is that executive pay increases are due to decrease in worker salaries. I am listening to a class called Transformational Leadership. I just learned that many startup companies do not have training for their executives. Startup companies lure away talented and proven executives with pay packages. How do companies keep the executives that they have trained? They have to meet the other offers. The increase in salary has little, if anything, to do with minimum wage.

I see many people sharing Reich’s videos. He has a following. I subscribe just to give me ideas. He is nearly 90 years old. We must look forward and stop paying attention to 80-year-olds reminiscing about politics.

Share

Subscribe now

I’m working on the second edition of my book on healthcare. One chapter is on the idea of insurance. Is insurance an investment or a gamble?

One of the profs in my MBA program talked about the difference between insurance, investing and gambling. He was making a point about our expectations.

A rational person does not go to a casino with the expectation of a positive outcome. My wife and I like to go and limit our losses to about twenty bucks each. Last night I won eighteen dollars very quickly. We left while we were ahead. Our experience is that eventually the casino wins. A rational gambler expects to lose money, a negative return.

Similarly, a rational person does not expect to make money from an insurance policy. Insurance covers risk of loss and pays to make you whole. The hope is that you will never need the insurance. You expect a negative return, like gambling.

If you do a good job of investing money, you expect a positive return. You expect to have more money because of the investment.

Before we go into insurance, I want to explain why insurance companies want more money to accept more risk. Again, one of the profs in the MBA gave a great example.

Imagine I put an eight foot two by four board on the ground and offer $1 to anyone who can walk the length of it without falling off. Everyone in the class might try it. Imagine I bring in two five-foot ladders and balance the same board between the ladders. Fewer people will try to walk the board between the ladders for $1. If I offer $100, I might get more takers. Now imagine the same board between two towers one hundred feet in the air. I might not get many takers for a million dollars. It is the same board. The risk changed.

That is the basic idea of paying people or companies to take risk. The higher the risk, the more we have to pay. Now we’ll look at insurance.

Insurance is protection by compensation for loss. Two things affect the premium. One is the risk of loss. If the risk is high, the premium should be high. If the risk is low, the premium should be lower. The second thing that affects premium is the amount of the loss itself. If the amount is high, the premium is high. If the amount is low, the premium should be lower.

Car insurance pays if you have an accident. If you drive recklessly, you will pay a higher premium. If you drive an expensive car, you will pay more to insure your car. Increased risk and increased loss are easy to understand.

The case is similar for homeowner’s insurance. You insure your home in case something bad happens to your house. Fire is the most common. Insurance doesn’t pay for you to paint your house every five years. It doesn’t pay for you to put a new roof on it. It may not even pay if you have a flood. If there is a fire, your insurance will pay.

Life insurance is really death insurance. It pays when the covered person dies. Insurance companies may require a physical exam to decide the risk of death and the resulting payout by the amount of insurance. A million-dollar policy for a person in poor health will cost a lot more than a one hundred-thousand-dollar policy for a person in good health.

What about health insurance? It used to cover risk of loss. It paid for medical care if you became ill or got hurt. It didn’t cover all risks, and it didn’t try to reduce risks. I remember talking with an agent when my wife and I were young. He explained that adding obstetrics care would cost more. We paid more to have pregnancy covered.

In an effort to sell more policies, insurance companies began covering things that were supposed to keep you healthy. A certain number of wellness massage visits, acupuncture, chiropractic, etc. were allowed every year. In addition, health club memberships were sometimes covered by insurance.

Where is the risk of loss? The Office of the Insurance Commissioner regulates insurance companies. Why did the Insurance Commissioner allow insurance companies to offer services for health promotion?

The reason is public demand. A former executive director of our Washington State Chiropractic Association told me that he met the president of a large insurance company at a social function. The director pulled the president aside and told him that chiropractic care could save his company a lot of money in treating their subscribers. His reply, “I don’t care what will save us money on the back end. I want to know what will sell policies on the front end.”

Allowing insurance companies to offer coverage for wellness care blurred the difference between what should be covered by insurance and what should not be covered. People thought it was a great idea that their insurance company wanted them to stay healthy. Costs continued to rise.

If we want the cost of health insurance to go down, we must go back to covering risk of loss for covered conditions. We must realize that health insurance does not pay for everything. It does cover certain treatments for covered conditions. Individuals should pay to stay healthy. Insurance premiums should be lower for those who live healthy lives. The risk is lowered.

What conditions insurance covers and what treatments are reimbursed should be a matter of science – not politics. However, the problem is that politicians have already rigged the system. Research funding goes primarily to allopathic medicine. The fix is in, and costs continue to rise, because health insurance is not about health or insurance. It is about getting your money.

Share

Subscribe now

Like the picture of two old men talking, I’ve become friends with Bob, who is a little left of center politically. I’m a little right of center. Extremists can’t talk to each other. We can hardly stop talking. We’ve met three times for coffee. Last time we met at 10:00 am and stopped at 3 pm. We drank a pot of coffee and both old men had to pee twice. We thoroughly enjoy it.

Bob is opposed to Trump’s attempts to reduce crime in major cities. He believes that people are violent by nature. I agreed. I told him that a friend of mine pointed out that crime in major cities is just in sections not the entire cities. I asked my friend if he thought the sections that were violent were the poor and minority sections. My friend did think that was true. I asked Bob for his opinion.

Bob also believes the violence is in the poorer sections of cities. He believes that because they have less economic opportunities, they are more likely to violate the law.

I asked Bob if he thought people in poor areas enjoyed high crime rate.

He did not think so.

It seems to me that the answer is to enforce the law and provide economic opportunity.

He told me that I am more optimistic than he is. He has given up.

Bob is also against the deportations of illegal immigrants. I told him that a classmate had a car dealership before going chiropractic college. He told me that he had a Mexican national detailing cars for him. If the Mexican didn’t show up, he knew ICE had got him. The Mexican would often beat ICE back to town. That was the first time I had heard of ICE.

The second time was during the Clinton administration. ICE arrested 8 people while working for a local manufacturer. Some people blamed the employer, not the workers. The claim was that if the employer wouldn’t hire them, they wouldn’t come.

People are not attacking the farmers for employing illegal immigrants. In fact, people are saying the farmers will have nobody to pick crops. Some farmers are now claiming they have to pay higher wages. People don’t want to pay higher prices for food. Yet, they want workers to have higher wages. Wake up!! That is how it works. We either pay higher prices for goods so the suppliers can afford to pay higher wages, or we won’t have the goods.

Tomorrow people will be protesting. What are they protesting? Do they want crime to remain high in inner cities? Have they given up? How do people who live in fear feel when their politicians refuse to protect them? How do they feel when people from the wealthier areas protest? Will they realize that Democrat leaders have either given up or don’t care?

Do protestors want illegal aliens to come into the country and compete for jobs against the poorest among us? Do they realize that the policy is hurting wages for the poor? Do they not care? Do they just care about their own cheap food? Or have they just given up?

I want to see crime reduced. I want people to be able to walk all of the streets of every city without fear.

I want people to be able to have jobs that support their families. I want people to experience the dignity of being employed.

I believe we must enforce laws and provide economic opportunities. I will not be protesting tomorrow. I have not given up hope.

Share

Subscribe now

As the U.S. government shut down continues, many of us fail to understand what the real issues are. Are they even real issues?

I’m reminded of a Human Resources class that was part of my MBA program. The professor said that sometimes union leaders had to call for a strike. If they negotiated without a strike, union members might think they could have gotten more. If they call for a strike, then if they win anything, workers feel that the strike was worth it and the union bosses are great.

I think that is similar to what is going on right now. Both sides are looking for a way to claim victory. One political pundit predicted that Trump will cave and claim victory. More likely is both sides will “cave” and claim victory. I think that is called negotiation.

We have to be realistic. What is really at stake?

According to the Washington Examiner (a moderate right leaning paper),

Obamacare, or as the 2010 Affordable Care Act is known, established state-level marketplaces in which individuals making less than four times the federal poverty level could purchase subsidized insurance via premium tax credits for qualifying enrollees.

But Democrats passed enhanced premium tax credits under former President Joe Biden as part of the American Rescue Plan during the COVID-19 pandemic, capping the cost of health insurance to 8.5% of income for anyone who purchased a plan on the exchange, subsidizing insurance coverage even for those in the top income brackets.

As I understand it, Democrats want to extend the credits. Republicans say the cost is too high. According to the Washington Examiner, the Congressional Budget Office predicts 4 million Americans will not be able to afford insurance without subsidies. The cost has been $34 billion in the first two years.

People who make less than 400% of the poverty level will still get lower premiums. It is those at the higher income brackets that will see big increases. The article gives an example of a couple living in Washington, D.C. making $85,000 per year. Their cost for premiums would increase by $1887 per month. That seems incredible to me. Looks like there should be room to negotiate and lower the total cost while helping those who need it.

How has this happened? I’m revising my book. The new title will be Health Politics Exposed. The subtitle will be How Politicians Increased the Cost of Healthcare in America.

The first step in solving any problem is understanding the problem. I probably won’t be giving any solutions, but I will expose the problems. I plan to post some chapters to allow my subscribers to read and comment before publication. Subscribe now and help me make this book a success.

Share

Subscribe now

Perhaps you remember the excitement of May 18, 1980, when Mount St. Helens blew. I was still working for IBM and living in Lawrence, Kansas. I would never have guessed that less than five years later I would be living in Washington State.

My wife, Mandy, and I visited Mt. St. Helens last week. It was our third trip. The first time was in the late 80s or early 90s. The mountain was still covered with ash. Burned trees were down. The area was bleak.

We didn’t go through the parts that have been preserved. We drove through parts that were quickly replanted.

Weyerhaeuser, the lumber company, had much of the area under management. They quickly invested $9 million to replant trees. They learned to dig through the ash and plant the trees in the dirt.

I took this picture of the longest bridge constructed by the Army Corps of Engineers. It was a pretty amazing feat.

“To restore the channels of the Colummbia River for navigation and the Toutle and Cowlitz rivers for flood control, nearly 140 million cubic yards (110 million cubic meters) of material was removed from the river channels by 1987. This is enough material to build a 12-lane highway, one foot thick, from New York to San Franscisco.)

That quote was taken from the above sign. I thought it pretty impressive accomplishment. Imagine, in 7 years, the equivalent of a 12-lane highway from New York to San Franscisco was removed. Then I thought of what the volcano had done in a matter of minutes to hours. I went back and took a picture of the first sign.

“The eruption of Mount St. Helens on May 18, 1980, began with the largest landslide in recorded history that deposited more than 3 billion cubic yards of sediment into the Toutle River basin.”

The Corps moved 140 million cubic yards in 7 years. The volcano moved 3 billion cubic yards in a day. In one day, the mountain moved over 21 times what the Corps moved in 7 years.

Mount St. Helens is a great reminder of what we can do when we work together. It is also a great reminder of how puny we are in comparison to the power of nature.

Share

Subscribe now

“Bob, you’re not an anarchist.” Mark Nelson.

Mark was chair of the Whatcom County Republican Party, so of course, we were discussing politics. I immediately realized he was correct.

I’ve always considered myself on the side of maximum freedom. I’ve valued small government because I see government as taking away individual rights.

When there is anarchy, we lose freedom. After writing the article on murder rates in large cities, I was talking with Greg Evaritt. I told him about my findings, and he said that although the murder rates in cities might be high, it was in sections of the cities. I hadn’t thought about that. Actually, that makes it even worse. That means that if you live in the safe areas of the cities (probably the wealthiest), you don’t feel afraid. You can afford to defund the police. It is the poor areas that are hardest hit. I don’t see that as fair.

I’ll always remember my trip to downtown St. Louis in 1979. A black cab driver took me to the hotel. We had a nice conversation. When he dropped me off, he said, “Don’t go out at night.” We were looking at each other in the rear-view mirror. I said, “Okay.” Apparently, he could see that I wasn’t going to pay attention, by the look on my face. He turned around in his seat and emphatically stated, “I’ve been shot!” Then said, “Don’t you go out at night.”

That has never seemed right to me. Shouldn’t a person be able to walk through a major city at any time without worrying about being shot? It isn’t okay with me that crime is more prevalent in black or poor neighborhoods. Don’t those people want to be safe? Maybe I’m wrong. I just can’t imagine it. I believe they want to have the same freedom as the people in more prosperous neighborhoods.

Someone wrote a letter to the editor of The Bellingham Herald years ago. She said that we have criminals because we have laws. That seems to be true. Don’t we have laws because we didn’t like the behavior that was happening?

Enforcement of shoplifting laws was relaxed during Covid. I watched someone steal a bottle of liquor from a Walgreen.

Just a few months ago, my wife and I saw someone walk out of a Fred Meyer with a big box on his shoulder. A manager was following him and said, “We’ve got you on camera.” “Yeah. Whatever,” was the reply.

So now, we have stores with many items locked up. We have security officers in many stores. Walmart is leaving Portland, because of their profitability. I suspect pressure from online retailers; however, crime isn’t helping.

Who is being hurt? The locals who rely on the local retailers. It will be difficult to get a store to take the place of Walmart, if the crime rate is a problem.

So, while in favor of small government, I do believe in good government. We must have laws to protect people. If we don’t enforce the law, even normally law-abiding people break the law.

I met some family members for coffee. I paid the meter. Someone else did not because the law was not being enforced. That is a simple example. The city still needed the revenue.

Fact is we need to enforce the law to protect our freedom. If laws are not fair, then enforcing them will prove to be unjust and the law must be changed.

Ignoring the law leads to anarchy.

Share

Subscribe now

Many people lost trust in the CDC during COVID. They saw statements from government officials like the following:

1. You can’t get Covid, if you’ve been vaccinated.

2. You must be vaccinated even if you have been exposed to the virus.

3. You can’t transmit the virus if you’ve been vaccinated.

Those of us who have been trained in immunology were ridiculed based on government sources. However, none of that had anything to do with my mistrust.

I was invited to an email discussion nearly 25 years ago. I was presented as an anonymous chiropractor. The person who invited me said that the group included a professor at a medical school and would try to take my license. Anonymity was my protection. The first thing I was asked was, “Do you believe in vaccination?” I replied that vaccinations were not within my scope of practice. Based on the science, I remained unconvinced. The group assumed I knew nothing about immunology and told the basic hypothesis I learned in school. They also told me of the importance of double-blind, placebo-controlled research. They then presented me with cases. None of them could pass muster. None of them had double-blind, placebo-controlled studies. I began making fun of them. I said, “If you could just present one honest study, maybe I could believe.” After two weeks they gave up.

Not long ago, a friend posted on Facebook that the measles cases were unnecessary, and lives were being lost needlessly. Vaccine would have prevented all of it. I looked up the CDC stats. Measles cases in 2025, take a look before reading further and see if you can tell how they produce propaganda.

Scroll down and you will find 1431 total cases. 4% of cases had been vaccinated with 1 dose, 4% with 2 doses, and 92% were unvaccinated or unknown. There have been 3 deaths. Why isn’t there an unvaccinated group and an unknown group? Why not lump the unknown with the vaccinated. Your mind is being controlled. Why not tell us if the 3 deaths were vaccinated, unvaccinated or unknown?

The system is corrupt by design. The only way to fix it is to honestly look at data. Using data for propaganda purposes is not science.

Oh, by the way, I was vaccinated for Covid in the early days.

Share

Subscribe now

A claim is being made that President Trump is targeting cities in blue states, while red states have the same problems. I suspected it was merely propaganda and decided to research the claim. I suspected red states had cities with Democrat mayors. I used Grok and then ChatGPT. After the first round, I found ChatGPT was inaccurate and did not use it again.

Below is a list of the 10 largest cities in the United States by population, based on 2024 population estimates, along with their current mayors, their political affiliations, and the latest available FBI violent crime statistics, focusing on murders, for each city. Population data is sourced from 2024 estimates, mayoral information from Ballotpedia and other sources, and crime statistics from the FBI’s 2024 Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) data or related analyses where available. Note that exact murder numbers for 2024 may be incomplete, as FBI data is often reported with a lag, and some cities may not have fully submitted 2024 data. Where precise 2024 data is unavailable, I’ve used the most recent reliable figures or trends from sources like the Council on Criminal Justice.Top 10 U.S. Cities by Population, Mayors, Political Affiliation, and Violent Crime Statistics

1. New York, NY

   Population (2024 estimate): 8,258,035

   Mayor: Eric Adams

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   Violent Crime (Murders, 2024): New York City reported 391 murders in 2023, per NYPD data, with a slight increase noted in early 2024. The FBI UCR data for 2024 estimates a murder rate of approximately 4.8 per 100,000 people, reflecting a stable but slightly elevated trend compared to 2023. Overall violent crime (including murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) was 1,209 per 100,000 in 2023.

2. Los Angeles, CA

   Population (2024 estimate): 3,820,914

   Mayor: Karen Bass

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   Violent Crime (Murders, 2024): Los Angeles had 309 murders in 2023, with a 2024 murder rate estimated at 8.1 per 100,000 based on partial FBI data. Violent crime overall was reported at 768 per 100,000 in 2023, with a slight decline noted in early 2024.

3. Chicago, IL

   Population (2024 estimate): 2,664,452

   Mayor: Brandon Johnson

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   Violent Crime (Murders, 2024): Chicago reported 617 murders in 2023, with a 2024 murder rate of approximately 23.2 per 100,000, one of the highest among major cities. Violent crime overall was 1,149 per 100,000 in 2023, with a modest decrease in homicides noted in early 2024.

4. Houston, TX

   Population (2024 estimate): 2,314,157

   Mayor: John Whitmire

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   Violent Crime (Murders, 2024): Houston had 435 murders in 2023, with a 2024 murder rate estimated at 18.8 per 100,000. Violent crime overall was 1,256 per 100,000 in 2023, with a slight uptick in murders reported in 2024.

5. Phoenix, AZ

   Population (2024 estimate): 1,650,070

   Mayor: Kate Gallego

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   Violent Crime (Murders, 2024): Phoenix reported 198 murders in 2023, with a 2024 murder rate of approximately 12.0 per 100,000. Overall violent crime was 825 per 100,000 in 2023, showing a stable trend into 2024.

6. Philadelphia, PA

   Population (2024 estimate): 1,550,542

   Mayor: Cherelle Parker

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   Violent Crime (Murders, 2024): Philadelphia had 410 murders in 2023, with a 2024 murder rate estimated at 26.4 per 100,000, among the highest in the U.S. Violent crime overall was 1,048 per 100,000 in 2023, with a slight decline in murders in 2024.

7. San Antonio, TX

   Population (2024 estimate): 1,495,295

   Mayor: Gina Ortiz Jones

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   Violent Crime (Murders, 2024): San Antonio reported 159 murders in 2023, with a 2024 murder rate of approximately 10.6 per 100,000. Violent crime overall was 735 per 100,000 in 2023, with stable trends in 2024.

8. San Diego, CA

   Population (2024 estimate): 1,388,320

   Mayor: Todd Gloria

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   Violent Crime (Murders, 2024): San Diego had 35 murders in 2023, with a 2024 murder rate of approximately 2.5 per 100,000, one of the lowest among major cities. Violent crime overall was 431 per 100,000 in 2023, with a slight decrease in 2024.

9. Dallas, TX

   Population (2024 estimate): 1,302,868

   Mayor: Eric Johnson

   Political Affiliation: Republican (switched from Democrat in 2023)

   Violent Crime (Murders, 2024): Dallas reported 246 murders in 2023, with a 2024 murder rate estimated at 18.9 per 100,000. Violent crime overall was 778 per 100,000 in 2023, with a stable to slight increase in 2024.

10. Jacksonville, FL

    Population (2024 estimate): 985,843

    Mayor: Donna Deegan

    Political Affiliation: Democrat

    Violent Crime (Murders, 2024): Jacksonville had 131 murders in 2023, with a 2024 murder rate of approximately 13.3 per 100,000. Violent crime overall was 683 per 100,000 in 2023, with a slight decline noted in 2024.

Notes:

• Population Data: The population figures are based on 2024 estimates from sources like biggestuscities.com, which align closely with U.S. Census Bureau projections.

• Mayor and Political Affiliation: Mayoral data and political affiliations are sourced from Ballotpedia and Wikipedia, reflecting the most current information as of August 2025. Note that some mayoral elections occur in 2025, and terms may end soon (e.g., San Antonio’s mayor term ends in 2027). Eric Johnson of Dallas is noted as a Republican after switching from the Democratic Party in 2023.

• Crime Statistics: The FBI’s 2024 UCR data is preliminary for some cities, and exact murder numbers may vary slightly as data is finalized. Where 2024 data is incomplete, 2023 figures from FBI UCR or Council on Criminal Justice reports are used, with trends noted for 2024. Murder rates are calculated per 100,000 residents based on population estimates.

• Limitations: Some cities’ 2024 FBI data may not be fully reported, and smaller cities may have less granular data. I’ve prioritized the most reliable sources available. If you need more detailed or real-time data, I can search X or other platforms for updates, but this would require your confirmation.

Those are the top 10 cities by population in U.S. I then asked for the top 10 cities by crime rate.

Below is a list of the top 10 U.S. cities with the highest murder rates per capita (per 100,000 residents) for 2024, based on the most reliable and recent data available from sources like the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, the Council on Criminal Justice, and other reports such as those from Wirepoints, Newsweek, and USAFacts. The data reflects 2024 estimates, with some variation across sources due to reporting differences and preliminary figures. Since the request focuses on murder rates per capita, I’ve prioritized cities with populations over 100,000 (as smaller cities can skew rates due to low population) and cross-referenced data to ensure accuracy. Note that some of the largest cities by population (e.g., New York, San Diego) do not appear in this list because their per capita murder rates are lower than these smaller, more violent cities. Top 10 U.S. Cities with Highest Murder Rates per Capita (2024)

1. St. Louis, MO

   Population (2024 estimate): 286,053

   Murder Rate: 69.9 per 100,000 (200 murders)

   Mayor: Tishaura Jones

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   • Historical Trend:

     • 1990: ~69.3 (similar to 2024, peak of crime wave)

     • 2000: 35.3 (~135 murders)

     • 2010: 44.8 (~157 murders)

     • 2018–19: 57.0 (~170 murders/year)

     • 2020–21: 65.0 (~190 murders/year)

     • 2022–23: 62.0 (~180 murders in 2023)

     • 2024: 69.9 (7% drop from 2023, but 45% above 2019 levels)

   • Analysis: St. Louis has consistently led the nation in per capita murder rates, driven by concentrated poverty, gang activity, and gun violence in North St. Louis. The 2024 rate is high but reflects a slight decline from 2023.

2. Baltimore, MD

   Population (2024 estimate): 570,546

   Murder Rate: 50.3 per 100,000 (287 murders)

   Mayor: Brandon Scott

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   • Historical Trend:

     • 1990: 40.4 (~305 murders)

     • 2000: 40.0 (~261 murders)

     • 2010: 35.0 (~223 murders)

     • 2018–19: 50.5 (~309 murders/year)

     • 2020–21: 55.0 (~337 murders/year)

     • 2022–23: 47.0 (~263 murders in 2023)

     • 2024: 50.3 (42% drop from 2019, 18% drop from 2023)

   • Analysis: Baltimore’s high murder rate is fueled by gun violence and socioeconomic challenges in East and West Baltimore. The significant 2024 decline reflects improved policing and community programs.

3. Detroit, MI

   Population (2024 estimate): 626,757

   Murder Rate: 49.1 per 100,000 (308 murders)

   Mayor: Mike Duggan

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   • Historical Trend:

     • 1990: 57.6 (~615 murders)

     • 2000: 41.0 (~395 murders)

     • 2010: 38.0 (~308 murders)

     • 2018–19: 41.0 (~260 murders/year)

     • 2020–21: 47.9 (~303 murders/year)

     • 2022–23: 45.0 (~283 murders in 2023)

     • 2024: 49.1 (25% drop from 2023)

   • Analysis: Detroit’s murder rate remains among the highest due to economic decline and gun violence. The 2024 rate is down, with initiatives like Project Green Light improving response times.

4. Memphis, TN

   Population (2024 estimate): 624,944

   Murder Rate: 43.0 per 100,000 (269 murders)

   Mayor: Paul Young

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   • Historical Trend:

     • 1990: 34.0 (~213 murders)

     • 2000: 20.0 (~130 murders)

     • 2010: 17.0 (~110 murders)

     • 2018–19: 28.0 (~180 murders/year)

     • 2020–21: 38.0 (~240 murders/year)

     • 2022–23: 48.7 (~304 murders in 2023)

   • • 2024: 43.0 (20% drop from 2023)

   • Analysis: Memphis faces high gang-related violence, with 2024 showing improvement due to focused deterrence and real-time crime monitoring.

5. New Orleans, LA

   Population (2024 estimate): 370,128

   Murder Rate: 71.9 per 100,000 (266 murders)

   Mayor: LaToya Cantrell

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   • Historical Trend:

     • 1990: 60.0 (~300 murders)

     • 2000: 42.0 (~204 murders)

     • 2010: 49.0 (~175 murders)

     • 2018–19: 30.0 (~120 murders/year)

     • 2020–21: 40.6 (~150 murders/year)

     • 2022–23: 36.0 (~133 murders in 2023)

     • 2024: 71.9 (>30% drop from 2023)

   • Analysis: New Orleans has one of the highest murder rates, driven by gun violence in areas like the 7th Ward. The 2024 drop is notable, with NOPD’s strategies showing impact.

6. Cleveland, OH

   Population (2024 estimate): 363,764

   Murder Rate: 39.9 per 100,000 (145 murders)

   Mayor: Justin Bibb

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   • Historical Trend:

     • 1990: 33.0 (~165 murders)

     • 2000: 25.0 (~119 murders)

     • 2010: 20.0 (~80 murders)

     • 2018–19: 25.0 (~95 murders/year)

     • 2020–21: 33.7 (~130 murders/year)

     • 2022–23: 30.0 (~110 murders in 2023)

     • 2024: 39.9 (12% drop from 2023)

   • Analysis: Cleveland’s murder rate is driven by firearm-related incidents in East Cleveland. Violence intervention programs have contributed to a modest 2024 decline.

7. Birmingham, AL

   Population (2024 estimate): 195,050

   Murder Rate: 72.8 per 100,000 (142 murders)

   Mayor: Randall Woodfin

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   • Historical Trend:

     • 1990: 35.0 (~100 murders)

     • 2000: 25.0 (~67 murders)

     • 2010: 25.0 (~53 murders)

     • 2018–19: 28.2 (~60 murders/year)

     • 2020–21: 40.0 (~85 murders/year)

     • 2022–23: 35.0 (~70 murders in 2023)

     • 2024: 72.8

   Analysis: Birmingham’s high murder rate is linked to poverty and gun violence, with 2024 showing an increase from prior years, making it a top contender.

8. Kansas City, MO

   Population (2024 estimate): 508,856

   Murder Rate: 32.6 per 100,000 (166 murders)

   Mayor: Quinton Lucas

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   • Historical Trend:

     • 1990: 30.0 (~150 murders)

     • 2000: 20.0 (~88 murders)

     • 2010: 18.0 (~82 murders)

     • 2018–19: 25.3 (~125 murders/year)

     • 2020–21: 31.2 (~155 murders/year)

     • 2022–23: 30.0 (~150 murders in 2023)

     • 2024: 32.6 (5% drop from 2019)

   • Analysis: Kansas City’s murder rate remains high, with violence concentrated in certain neighborhoods. Community policing has led to a slight 2024 decline.

9. Philadelphia, PA

   Population (2024 estimate): 1,555,812

   Murder Rate: 33.0 per 100,000 (514 murders)

   Mayor: Cherelle Parker

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   • Historical Trend:

     • 1990: 31.0 (~503 murders)

     • 2000: 21.5 (~330 murders)

     • 2010: 19.6 (~306 murders)

     • 2018–19: 22.2 (~351 murders/year)

     • 2020–21: 33.0 (~499 murders/year)

     • 2022–23: 29.8 (~410 murders in 2023)

     • 2024: 33.0 (33% drop from 2023)

   • Analysis: Philadelphia’s murder rate, driven by poverty and gun crime, saw a significant 2024 drop due to federal grants and community engagement.

10. Chicago, IL

    Population (2024 estimate): 2,638,698

    Murder Rate: 22.8 per 100,000 (604 murders)

    Mayor: Brandon Johnson

    Political Affiliation: Democrat

    • Historical Trend:

      • 1990: 31.7 (~850 murders)

      • 2000: 21.8 (~628 murders)

      • 2010: 16.0 (~435 murders)

      • 2018–19: 20.0 (~500 murders/year)

      • 2020–21: 29.4 (~617 murders/year)

      • 2022–23: 25.5 (~617 murders in 2023)

      • 2024: 22.8 (8% drop from 2023)

    • Analysis: Chicago leads in total murders due to its size but ranks lower per capita. The 2024 decline is modest, with gang activity still a key driver.

Notes:

• Data Sources: Murder rates and totals are primarily from FBI UCR 2024 data, cross-referenced with Wirepoints, Newsweek, and Slaycation.wtf. Population estimates are from 2024 U.S. Census data or cited sources. Historical trends are from prior responses and Manhattan Institute data.

• Discrepancies: Some sources report slightly different rates (e.g., St. Louis at 54.4–87.2 per 100,000) due to reporting variations or partial-year data. I’ve used the most consistent figures, prioritizing FBI and municipal data.

• Mayoral Information: Sourced from Ballotpedia and city websites, accurate as of August 2025.

• Limitations: 2024 data is preliminary, and smaller cities (e.g., Birmingham) may show higher volatility in rates due to lower populations. Some cities (e.g., New Orleans) have conflicting rates across sources, so I’ve used the most cited figures.

Based on the above of murders per capita, it would appear that the Trump administration may be targeting cities in blue states first. However, consider the number of total murders in each city.

Top 10 U.S. Cities by Total Number of Homicides (2024)

1. Chicago, IL

   Total Homicides (2024): 573

   Population (2024 estimate): 2,638,698

   Murder Rate (per 100,000): 21.7

   Mayor: Brandon Johnson

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   • Historical Trend:

     • 1990: 31.7 (~850 murders)

     • 2000: 21.8 (~628 murders)

     • 2010: 16.0 (~435 murders)

     • 2018–19: 20.0 (~500 murders/year)

     • 2020–21: 29.4 (~617 murders/year)

     • 2022–23: 25.5 (~617 murders in 2023)

     • 2024: 21.7 (~573 murders, 8% drop from 2023)

   • Analysis: Chicago has led the nation in total homicides for 13 consecutive years, driven by gang activity and gun violence in neighborhoods like Englewood. The 2024 decline reflects violence interruption programs, but the city’s total remains high due to its size.

2. Philadelphia, PA

   Total Homicides (2024): 514

   Population (2024 estimate): 1,555,812

   Murder Rate (per 100,000): 33.0

   Mayor: Cherelle Parker

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   • Historical Trend:

     • 1990: 31.0 (~503 murders)

     • 2000: 21.5 (~330 murders)

     • 2010: 19.6 (~306 murders)

     • 2018–19: 22.2 (~351 murders/year)

     • 2020–21: 33.0 (~499 murders/year)

     • 2022–23: 29.8 (~410 murders in 2023)

     • 2024: 33.0 (~514 murders, 33% drop from 2023)

   • Analysis: Philadelphia’s high homicide count is fueled by poverty and gun crime in areas like North Philadelphia. The 2024 drop is significant, driven by federal grants and community engagement.

3. Houston, TX

   Total Homicides (2024): 433

   Population (2024 estimate): 2,276,533

   Murder Rate (per 100,000): 19.0

   Mayor: John Whitmire

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   • Historical Trend:

     • 1990: 21.8 (~426 murders)

     • 2000: 13.0 (~254 murders)

     • 2010: 11.8 (~269 murders)

     • 2018–19: 12.0 (~276 murders/year)

     • 2020–21: 18.9 (~435 murders/year)

     • 2022–23: 17.1 (~435 murders in 2023)

     • 2024: 19.0 (~433 murders, 30% drop from 2023)

   • Analysis: Houston’s homicide count is high due to its large population, with gang-related and gun violence issues. A 30% drop in 2024 reflects focused deterrence and community programs.

4. Los Angeles, CA

   Total Homicides (2024): 387

   Population (2024 estimate): 3,809,182

   Murder Rate (per 100,000): 10.2

   Mayor: Karen Bass

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   • Historical Trend:

     • 1990: 28.1 (~1,094 murders)

     • 2000: 15.0 (~550 murders)

     • 2010: 7.6 (~297 murders)

     • 2018–19: 6.4 (~250 murders/year)

     • 2020–21: 9.4 (~350 murders/year)

     • 2022–23: 9.5 (~309 murders in 2023)

     • 2024: 10.2 (~387 murders, 20% drop from 2023)

   • Analysis: Los Angeles has a relatively low per capita rate for its size, with homicides concentrated in areas like South LA. Data-driven policing and youth outreach contributed to the 2024 decline.

5. New York, NY

   Total Homicides (2024): 377

   Population (2024 estimate): 8,258,035

   Murder Rate (per 100,000): 5.8

   Mayor: Eric Adams

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   • Historical Trend:

     • 1990: 30.7 (~2,245 murders)

     • 2000: 8.4 (~674 murders)

     • 2010: 6.4 (~532 murders)

     • 2018–19: 3.6 (~300 murders/year)

     • 2020–21: 5.7 (~462 murders/year)

     • 2022–23: 5.0 (~391 murders in 2023)

     • 2024: 5.8 (~377 murders, 4% drop from 2023)

   • Analysis: New York’s low per capita rate reflects effective policing (e.g., CompStat) and community programs, despite its large population. The 2024 total is high due to sheer size but stable.

6. Baltimore, MD

   Total Homicides (2024): 287

   Population (2024 estimate): 570,546

   Murder Rate (per 100,000): 50.3

   Mayor: Brandon Scott

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   • Historical Trend:

     • 1990: 40.4 (~305 murders)

     • 2000: 40.0 (~261 murders)

     • 2010: 35.0 (~223 murders)

     • 2018–19: 50.5 (~309 murders/year)

     • 2020–21: 55.0 (~337 murders/year)

     • 2022–23: 47.0 (~263 murders in 2023)

     • 2024: 50.3 (~287 murders, 42% drop from 2019, 18% drop from 2023)

   • Analysis: Baltimore’s high per capita rate is driven by gun violence in East and West Baltimore. The 2024 decline reflects ceasefire programs and improved police-community relations.

7. Memphis, TN

   Total Homicides (2024): 269

   Population (2024 estimate): 624,944

   Murder Rate (per 100,000): 43.0

   Mayor: Paul Young

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   • Historical Trend:

     • 1990: 34.0 (~213 murders)

     • 2000: 20.0 (~130 murders)

     • 2010: 17.0 (~110 murders)

     • 2018–19: 28.0 (~180 murders/year)

     • 2020–21: 38.0 (~240 murders/year)

     • 2022–23: 48.7 (~304 murders in 2023)

     • 2024: 43.0 (~269 murders, 20% drop from 2023)

   • Analysis: Memphis struggles with gang-related violence in areas like South Memphis. The 2024 drop is linked to real-time crime monitoring and community interventions.

8. New Orleans, LA

   Total Homicides (2024): 266

   Population (2024 estimate): 370,128

   Murder Rate (per 100,000): 71.9

   Mayor: LaToya Cantrell

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   • Historical Trend:

     • 1990: 60.0 (~300 murders)

     • 2000: 42.0 (~204 murders)

     • 2010: 49.0 (~175 murders)

     • 2018–19: 30.0 (~120 murders/year)

     • 2020–21: 40.6 (~150 murders/year)

     • 2022–23: 36.0 (~133 murders in 2023)

     • 2024: 71.9 (~266 murders, >30% drop from 2023)

   • Analysis: New Orleans has a very high per capita rate, driven by gun violence in the 7th Ward. The 2024 drop reflects NOPD’s focused deterrence and community programs.

9. Detroit, MI

   Total Homicides (2024): 308

   Population (2024 estimate): 626,757

   Murder Rate (per 100,000): 49.1

   Mayor: Mike Duggan

   Political Affiliation: Democrat

   • Historical Trend:

     • 1990: 57.6 (~615 murders)

     • 2000: 41.0 (~395 murders)

     • 2010: 38.0 (~308 murders)

     • 2018–19: 41.0 (~260 murders/year)

     • 2020–21: 47.9 (~303 murders/year)

     • 2022–23: 45.0 (~283 murders in 2023)

     • 2024: 49.1 (~308 murders, 25% drop from 2023)

   • Analysis: Detroit’s homicides are driven by gun violence on the east and southwest sides. Project Green Light and violence interrupters contributed to the 2024 decline.

10. San Antonio, TX

    Total Homicides (2024): 230

    Population (2024 estimate): 1,465,608

    Murder Rate (per 100,000): 15.7

    Mayor: Gina Ortiz Jones

    Political Affiliation: Democrat

    • Historical Trend:

      • 1990: 14.4 (~140 murders)

      • 2000: 8.5 (~97 murders)

      • 2010: 6.0 (~79 murders)

      • 2018–19: 6.8 (~100 murders/year)

      • 2020–21: 9.3 (~140 murders/year)

      • 2022–23: 13.4 (~159 murders in 2023)

      • 2024: 15.7 (~230 murders, 33% above 2019 levels)

    • Analysis: San Antonio’s homicide count rose in 2024, driven by crime in select neighborhoods. Community liaisons and gun buyback programs aim to address the increase.

Notes:

• Data Sources: Homicide totals and rates are primarily from Wirepoints, RoadSnacks, and Slaycation, cross-referenced with FBI UCR data and Newsweek. Population estimates are from 2024 Census data or cited sources. Mayoral data is from Ballotpedia and city websites, accurate as of August 2025.

• Discrepancies: Some sources report slightly different homicide totals or rates (e.g., St. Louis at 150–200 homicides, Chicago at 573–604). I’ve used the most consistent figures, prioritizing Wirepoints and FBI data where available. New Orleans’ high rate (71.9) in some sources conflicts with others (e.g., 34.1 in Wirepoints); I’ve used RoadSnacks for consistency with other high-ranking cities.

• Context: Larger cities like Chicago and New York rank high in total homicides due to population size, but their per capita rates are lower than smaller cities like St. Louis or New Orleans. The national homicide rate in 2023 was 6.8 per 100,000, with 2024 showing a 16% decline across 29 major cities.

• Historical Trends: Included from prior responses to show long-term patterns. Most cities saw a spike in 2020–21 post-pandemic and George Floyd unrest, with declines in 2024.

• Political Affiliation: All mayors in these cities are Democrats, reflecting urban voting patterns, though state-level politics vary (e.g., Texas is red, Illinois is blue)

Finally, I thought it would be interesting to rank states for homicide rates. Data is for 2023.

California (blue) is first with 1929. Per capita is 4.9.

Texas (red) is second with 1845. Per capita is 6.1.

Florida (red) is third with 1280. Per capita is 5.8.

Illinois (blue) is fourth with 805. Per capita is 12.3.

Pennsylvania (red) is fifth with 736. Per capita is 5.7.

Looks like the outlier per capita among the top 5 is Illinois.

I found it interesting that there are no Republican mayors of major U.S. cities. I am correcting that sentence. Eric Johnson, mayor of Dallas, switched to Republican in 2023.

As to the claim that President Trump is targeting blue states. It is early to tell. In my opinion, it would be a genius strategic move. Will people continue to vote for Democrats if their mayors resist help and protect criminals? Time will tell.

I’ve done the research for you. Think about it.

Share

Subscribe now

I have friends who believe government is the answer no matter what the question is. In Washington State we have sales taxes, excise taxes, real estate taxes, permits, sin (liquor and tobacco) taxes, licenses, fees for nearly anything. We don’t have personal income taxes, although we do have a Business and Occupations (B&O) Tax on businesses. The B&O tax is on business revenue. A business can be losing money and still owe B&O tax.

So, why are people who rarely meet a tax they don’t like against tariffs? Simple. They might have to pay them.

That is one of the things I don’t like about how many people vote. I try to vote in a way that I think is fair. Is it fair to force others to pay for public good and not pay myself? I don’t think so.

The U.S. income tax system is progressive. People who make more money pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. At least that is what the tax tables say. However, many deductibles and exemptions are given to encourage “public good”. The result is that the rich aren’t paying nearly what the tables say.

Some complain that the rich aren’t paying “their fair share”. What if we had a flat tax with no exemptions? How much would you be willing to pay?

We could have a flat tax with a large deductible that would be the same for everyone and still be progressive. That appeals to me, but I’m not sure of the details.

Now back to tariffs. Tariffs are being used as a tax, a bargaining tool for trade, and a negotiation tool for diplomacy. You can argue that you don’t like tariffs being used for trade or diplomacy, but what about the tax? We need tax revenue for public good.

The argument seems to be that tariffs are driving inflation. That would be true if consumers were paying the entire tax. So, the question is: Who is paying?

Here is an example, quoted from The New York Times:

“If Walmart imports $100 in shoes from Vietnam — which face a 20 percent tariff under the terms of a preliminary trade deal — Walmart will owe $20 in tariffs to the U.S. government.

What happens next?

• Walmart could try to force the cost onto the Vietnamese shoe manufacturer by telling it that Walmart would pay less for the product.

• Walmart could cut into its own profit margin and absorb the cost of the tariff.

• Walmart could raise the price of the shoes at its stores.

• Some combination of the above.”

According to the article, the foreign company could be paying the tariff. The importing company could be paying the tariff. The tariff could be passed on to consumers. Or a combination of the above.

So, why are some harping on consumers paying higher prices? Because they don’t want to pay the tax. There is a way to lower taxes for us all. Reduce government spending. If we are not willing to pay, what are we willing to axe? That is the question we are facing.

As for me, I’m fortunate to be able to pay a little more. I’ve talked with two people in the last couple of weeks who have said national politics really doesn’t affect their lives much.

How about you? Are rising prices affecting your purchases? Are you willing to pay a little more for a more stable U.S.A.?

Share

Subscribe now

If you think we should have an inheritance tax, I read an article today from Market Watch that should give you pause. The article wasn’t about inheritance tax. It was about how to better handle inherited wealth. The statistic that made me think - “Younger generations collectively stand to inherit about $16 trillion over the coming decade.”

That is a lot of money. America’s national debt was nearly $37 trillion on July 29, 2025. If we took the entire inheritance of everyone in America over the next 10 years, we couldn’t pay off half of our national debt.

I recorded a short video about getting a tariff rebate check. I am against it. We should be paying off our national debt. It is a huge problem.

According to the Treasury department for June, our cumulative interest expense for fiscal 2025 was $749 billion. We will spend well over a trillion dollars in 2025 on interest. In my opinion, that money is not performing any public good.

Inheritance tax alone, won’t save us.

What if we tax billionaires? According to Inequality.org, on March 18, 2024, the U.S. had 737 billionaires worth a combined $5.529 trillion. That is roughly a sixth of what we need to pay off our debt.

What is the solution? We must balance the budget, so we are not increasing the problem. Reducing interest would help balance the budget. We need to improve revenue. Inheritance tax and taxing billionaires might help, but those alone will not solve the problem.

We need to grow the economy and optimize taxes to improve our revenue stream. I was dubious about tariffs. I hope they work.

Share

Subscribe now

For a thorough explanation read The Goldilocks Manifesto. These are a few of my thoughts.

How do we create a good government? We must first recognize that we can’t maximize good. No matter how much good we do, someone could always do more. Rather than trying to maximize good, we should try to minimize harm.

Government is good. Too much government is tyranny. That is harmful. Too little government is anarchy. That is also harmful. By minimizing harm, we create a government that is neither too much nor too little. It is just right.

How does that advance our situation?

At one point in my life, I was more of a libertarian. I wanted a minimal government. I had become active in the Whatcom County Republican Party. In fact, I was a precinct officer, secretary, and newsletter editor. One day I said something and Mark Nelson, chair of the WCRP said, “Bob you are not an anarchist!” I realized he was right. I want a good government.

Where is the line? How do we decide that we should be doing this and we should not be doing that? How do we minimize harm?

Perhaps, you will agree with me that we should not be spending money on programs that are not solving a problem. Healthcare is a great example. We don’t really have healthcare. We have disease care. A disease is diagnosed, and we use the scientific method to determine what is the best treatment for the diagnosis. Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance cover the costs of treatment.

The scientific method requires that we define a problem. Establish a possible solution. Then, test the solution.

Imagine if we used that process in all of government. What is the problem? How can we solve it? How do we test our solution?

In healthcare, new treatments are being created. They are tested against old methods.

Similarly, our government should allow new approaches to problems to be tested. We would change our approaches based on new data. We would change our spending to be more efficient at solving the problem. We would also look at all problems to prioritize spending. As society evolves our problems change.

There is no limit to what you could do to improve your health. I believe that regular chiropractic checkups are beneficial. Others believe in exercise, massage, acupuncture, Reiki, etc. Today, you have probably heard or seen an advertisement for a food supplement that would help you. If government tried to pay for everything that might be beneficial, we would quickly be bankrupt. There is obviously a limit to how much “good” government can do.

Do I want people to be healthy? Absolutely. Health is not a harm. Nobody wants to minimize health.

How do we incentivize people to take healthy actions and reduce the burden of treating disease? I think education is the best way. We can’t make appropriate choices if we don’t know about the alternatives.

There is much more to The Goldilocks Revolution. I encourage you to download the book. Consider joining the movement.

If you have any questions, I’d be happy to set up a meeting with Rick Raddatz, you and me. You’d have a chance to ask Rick anything you want.

I think it is time to get beyond being Democrat or Republican and get behind a movement for good government. This isn’t just for U.S.A. The ideas apply to all societies.

Share

Subscribe now

In this series, I am using Economics, 3rd Edition by Professor Timothy Taylor, as a guide. I am providing the link so that you can take the course yourself. I found it quite enjoyable.

In Lecture 6, Professor Taylor applies the supply and demand curves to the labor market.

The general statements for supply and demand are: 1) As price goes up demand goes down. 2) As price goes up supply goes up.

I don’t think the average person thinks about supply and demand in terms of labor. Would you be willing to work more for more money?

In many cases, hourly workers must be paid overtime, 1.5 times what their usual wages are. When I was a teenager, I often worked long hours to make the extra money. However, some of the older men wanted to go home to their families. The extra money was not enough of an incentive. I bet if the wage was raised enough, they could have been enticed to work.

On the other hand, my employer would have liked to not pay me overtime. Think it through. If he pays me overtime, he makes less money. So, why would he do it? Although he made less money per order, he fulfilled more orders. He still made more money.

Many different labor markets exist. One of my sons is a research physicist. He is not in the same labor market as a cashier at the local grocery store. One way to define markets is by the skill set required.

Many of us think of unions as organizations that increase the price of labor for their members, by threatening or actually going out on strike. They could also be a way of improving communication between labor and management. Some unions also provide training. One of my sons is a general contractor. Early in his construction career, he was a member of the carpenters’ union. The union had classes to teach him how to increase his skill level and be more productive.

Minimum wage sets a price floor. There are societal tradeoffs. Is the increase in income for those hired better than the loss of income for those workers laid off? There are alternatives to minimum wage. Professor Taylor gave examples, “Examples of such policies include government training programs, subsidized hiring of low-skill workers, and tax credits for low-income workers.”

Workers can also demand that their employers take over some of their expenses. Examples include healthcare insurance, and social security. According to Professor Taylor, average total compensation was $23.29 per hour. Wages were only 71% of that or $16.64 per hour.

When you think about demand for labor, think about what employers really want - production. Increasingly, employers will shift from human labor to automation. As an example, my wife and I went to a restaurant in Merritt, B.C. last week. The server brought us a small bowl of sauce. The rest of the meal was brought by a robot.

Subscribe now

Share

In this series, I will be teaching from Economics, 3rd Edition by Professor Timothy Taylor. I am providing the link so that you can take the course yourself. I found it quite enjoyable.

In Lecture 5, Professor Taylor covers what economists call elasticity. I learned about elasticity in the MBA program. I don’t remember understanding it. I’ll try to understand and explain it.

When we talk about supply and demand curves, the curves really are curves and not straight lines. I will continue to use straight lines in this post. A change in price of 1% probably does not cause a quantity change in either demand or supply of 1%. Elasticity is computed by dividing the percentage change in quantity by the percentage change in price.

Compare buying a new car to buying a new bicycle. A change in price of $500 might not affect the demand or supply of cars. It might affect both demand and supply of bicycles. So, rather than look at the dollar values, we look at percentages. If a car or bicycle goes up 100% in price, that is double. The car may have gone up by tens of thousands of dollars and the bicycle might have gone up hundreds of dollars. We can compare the elasticity of each of them by comparing percentage changes.

Elastic demand is when elasticity is greater than 1. A change in price produces a larger change in quantity demanded. Inelastic demand is when a change in price produces a smaller change in demand. If the percentage change in quantity/percentage change in price equals 1, it is called Unitary Elasticity of Demand.

I have found an easy way to look at it. If buyers can stretch and take other options, demand is elastic. Quantity demanded can change a lot with price changes. If buyers must buy, demand is inelastic. Quantity demanded does not change much with price changes.

Look at the following elastic and inelastic demand lines. The quantity demanded on the inelastic line hardly changes when price changes. Buyers don’t have an option. No matter what price they must buy. Medications and food are two examples.

An example of elastic demand would be something you don’t have to buy. A new car might be an example. You could buy many substitutes. If you feel price is too high, you buy something else, or you don’t buy anything. So, demand quickly falls with price increase. Or, a supplier can decrease price and increase demand.

Think about supply similarly. If suppliers have options as to how much to supply, supply is elastic. Supply can change a lot with price. For example, if the price of a manufactured good goes up, a supplier might add another shift of workers to increase supply.

If suppliers don’t have much option, supply is inelastic. In the short term, supply will stay about the same with changes in price. For example, a farmer can’t harvest a different crop for months so change in quantity takes time

In short hand:

%change in quantity demanded/%change in price > 1 = Elastic Demand

%change in quantity demanded/%change in price < 1 = Inelastic Demand

%change in quantity supply/%change in price > 1 = Elastic Supply

%change in quantity supply/%change in price < 1 = Inelastic Supply

Practical applications:

If demand is inelastic, suppliers can pass along changes in cost over the short run. Over the long run, buyers may find options. On the other hand, supply may be inelastic in the short run. Prices may go up and suppliers can’t produce more quantity. In the long run, suppliers have time to increase capacity.

Think about tariffs. Tariffs may cause increase in prices. If demand is elastic, we expect to see the quantity purchased go down. If demand is inelastic, we expect to see quantity demanded stay the same. Increase in price means that local sources may produce more. That may not happen in the short run. For example, Intalco (an aluminum plant near me) has not been operational for many years. When I moved here, it employed about 200 people. I doubt that it would take too long to get it running again, if the price was right. Makes me wonder how many other plants could be rejuvenated quickly.