The FBI says crime rankings provide little insight into the many variables that mold crime in a particular city or other jurisdiction. However, comparing cities at the extremes of a ranking may reveal patterns that are otherwise difficult to detect due to the multitude of factors that motivate criminal behavior. For example…
Most assault and rape offenders were known to the victim, in contrast to just a fifth of robbery offenders. That may be one reason why public safety concerns are often linked to the perceived likelihood of getting robbed. “Are the streets safe where you live” is less likely to evoke images of partner violence than of getting attacked and robbed by a stranger.
Ok, so the low-robbery cities are relatively affluent and well-educated, on average. However, Surprise, Arizona doesn’t seem to fit with this overall pattern: Surprise has a lot of children in poverty and adults with no education past high school, both factors associated with higher crime rates. What’s up with that? Is Surprise doing something that mitigates the risks of poverty and limited education? Could other cities learn from its example?
Apparently, Democrats like socialism almost as much as they like free enterprise. Which is odd, given that free enterprise is a market-driven economic system largely free of government control and socialism is an ideology that wants to increase government control over economic matters and reduce or even eliminate the role of markets. Seems like a contradiction to me.
Then again, this Gallup survey is not asking for thoughtful responses, it’s asking for gut reactions.
“Down with large businesses!” just sounds stupid. I think most people appreciate that large businesses have their advantages and uses. Large businesses contribute to a country’s economic vitality… But “Big Business” brings to mind a history of abysmal wages and working conditions, of riots violently put down, tycoons buying political influence, and governments doing their bidding.
Per Gallup 2025, a large majority of Americans like free enterprise - that is, economic systems in which “private business operates in competition and largely free of state control” (Google Dictionary) and “prices, products, and services are determined by market forces rather than government intervention” (Investopedia). …But while independents and Democrats embrace free enterprise, they’re rather critical of capitalism.
In these surveys, respondents are asked, “Just off the top of your head, would you say you have a positive or negative image of each of the following?” Their views are then solicited on capitalism, free enterprise, socialism, big business and small business. Each post in this series will focus on a subset of the 2025 survey responses. I’ll start with a comparing positive responses to capitalism and socialism. Here’s a summary of those responses, by self-reported party identity…
Notice that Democrats seemed to care much less about the issues that were most important to Republicans. But the reverse was not true.
While US studies often show a negative association, studies in Western Europe, where different labor relations systems are common, frequently find that unions do not depress innovation… An example would be in Denmark, where unions contribute to innovation and competitiveness through the cooperative "flexicurity" model. This model allows employers to hire and fire as needed to adapt to changing market conditions and adopt new technologies quickly, combined with the country’s strong social safety net that provides income security during job transitions, and government-funded training and education programs to help unemployed workers re-enter the workforce.
So people go along to get along and cultures ossify. But every once in a while, alternative perspectives break through and the whole thing crumples, sometimes very quickly. That may be happening now, in America.
These revenue-raising options are modest and unlikely to cause economic havoc. Plus, they allow me to close the remaining $1.55T deficit gap.
Job completed.
Based on the experience of OECD countries and the lower estimate given for a U.S. wealth tax by Saez and Zucman., I’m going to assume a wealth tax in the U.S. would bring in around 1.5% of total federal tax revenue on average. Last year the IRS collected close to $5 trillion in tax revenue. $5 trillion x 1.5% = $75 billion.
Note that the entire after-tax income of the top 1% isn’t enough to close the federal deficit gap of $1.55 trillion. Maybe we can squeeze a bit more out of these lemons but it won’t come close to closing the gap.
Not bad, but $6.55T is still $1.55T short of the goal of cutting the Federal Deficit by $8.1 trillion. So I thought it might be time to go after the rich, tax-wise - but not so much as to undermine the country’s economic growth and vitality (ie, the source of future tax revenue). After all, the rich are the investor class; hit them too hard and the economy goes down with them.
What the American Medical Association says: “Nurse Practitioners are essential members of the physician-led care team, but they are plainly not trained to practice independently.” What researchers have found: “Public safety is often used as an argument against expanding scope of practice (SOP) for nurse practitioners, despite the benefit of filling unmet health care demand…[We found] absolutely no evidence that states that expanded scope of practice performed worse than states that chose not to in terms of public safety.” Bhai & Mitchell, 2025
As documented in the last post, the AMA gives “three big reasons” for opposing independent nurse practitioners (NPs):
It won’t solve the rural access problem.
It will raise health care costs, not cut them.
It threatens patient safety.
I tackled the rural access issue in the last post. This time I will address the second reason the AMA gives for opposing independent NPs.
According to its website, the mission of the American Medical Association (AMA) is to “promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health.” The AMA is also a lobbying organization that promotes the self-interest of its members: physicians and medical students. But sometimes the greater good does not mesh with the self-interest of physicians. And sometimes the AMA puts self-interest first.
I’m more interested in the salary gap between physicians and the average worker. As it turns out, that gap is also bigger in the US than in Canada, France and Germany. And yet Americans see their doctors less often than the Canadians, French and Germans. In fact, the bigger the salary gap, the fewer doctor visits per capita…
There are a few differences though: corporate statements about company culture or core values don’t mention devotion or commitment to the organization itself and they have little to say about individual fulfillment. They’re more about working together on a mission, e.g., customer satisfaction, better products, fixing problems. Patriotism is also about working together towards common goals (e.g., the “American Project”) but love of country (the overarching organization) is central. And in the U.S., love of country is bound up with its gift to the individual: liberty, opportunity, and the pursuit of happiness.
One reason the federal government spends so much on Medicare and Medicaid (M&M) is that the entire US healthcare system is expensive, no matter who pays the bills. The providers and suppliers are pretty much the same, whether the payer is private or public. Sure, the feds have some pricing power, but squeeze too hard and healthcare service providers will simply say thanks but no thanks.