First, we have the foreigners visiting the U.S. to cheer on their teams in this year’s World Cup soccer championship. As I wrote last week, it’s been heartwarming to see how much these people love America, and how surprised they’ve been to find that Americans are warm, welcoming, generous and kind people.

Another aspect of America that has astonished our guests is the number, size and variety of our businesses: restaurants of every type, small boutiques, “big box” supermarkets and corner grocers, food trucks, outdoor equipment and hunting stores (with their ubiquitous guns and ammo), mom-and-pop shops, little kids’ lemonade stands, delicatessens — you name it. Social media is filled with posts and videos in which visitors express their amazement at the quality of the food (and portion size!), “free” appetizers and soda refills, and the uncountable options and choices among America’s products and services.

That, my friends, is a consequence of America’s culture of entrepreneurship — a fact that some of the foreigners here have recognized and remarked upon with envy. One Canadian described us as “the most opportunity-dense country ever.”

He’s right.

So I was disappointed (though not surprised) when Pope Leo XIV posted on X a few days ago that food, water and health care shouldn’t be “commodities” that are subject to “market considerations.” In his follow-up post, he “appealed to governments” to “increase the resources dedicated to combating hunger and its root causes.”

Seriously? Governments are the chief “root causes” of hunger.

The key to adequate food production is not government but small business. Sorry, Holy Father, but food, water and health care are “commodities,” because their provision, for the most part, depends upon the work of other human beings. I would love to hear the pope praise and promote the market, individual initiative and entrepreneurial capitalism as the tickets to human flourishing that they are, instead of treating them as tawdry institutions to be tolerated at best, while government is hailed as the answer to every human problem.

Entrepreneurship meets human needs far better than governments ever have or ever will. This is true even in the world’s poorest nations. There, like everywhere else, people can start little businesses. But officials, regulations, laws, paperwork, permits, fees and taxes — all of which benefit the rich and promote corruption and fraud — stymie the growth of those businesses. When poor people are permitted to grow their businesses, they don’t stay poor.

That only happens when government gets out of the way.

As an American, Pope Leo should know better. But he apparently has a lot of company, even here in the States. In this week’s Democrat primaries in New York City, not one but three socialist candidates won their races.

Aber Kawas, a Muslim Palestinian activist and member of Democratic Socialists of America who has stated that the U.S. deserved 9/11 because of “white supremacy” and “Islamophobia,” won her primary for a New York state Senate race. Self-professed communist Darializa Chevalier defeated incumbent Adriano Espaillat to win the primary for the congressional seat in New York’s 13th district. Chevalier is a convert to Islam and a founder of Columbia University (why am I not surprised?) Apartheid Divest, which calls for an “international intifada” and the “eradication of western civilization,” the abolition of the police and immediate citizenship for all illegal aliens. And socialist Brad Lander defeated incumbent Dan Goldman for New York’s 10th district congressional seat. Lander, too, wants to abolish immigration enforcement, as well as pack the U.S. Supreme Court and pass $2 trillion in student loan debt onto the American taxpayers.

The DSA claims it’s only targeting “millionaires and billionaires” (and the world’s only trillionaire — at least on paper). If you believe that, your head is firmly wedged in your nethermost orifice. Time to read some real history — not the propaganda Western Leftists can get away with only because private enterprise insulates them and the societies they infect from the worst consequences of their ideologies.

Here’s the truth: Socialists and communists neither know how to make anything nor how to build an organization that provides goods or services people are willing to pay for. (Nope, a campaign isn’t the same thing.)

What they do instead is traffic in grievances for their personal aggrandizement.

They exploit ignorance and foster resentment, telling their followers that the only reason they have less is because others have more, and that it’s been stolen or gotten through greed and exploitation. In that vein, they love to focus on major multinational corporations and their extremely wealthy owners and CEOs, even though the backbone of American business is family-owned and small — the vast majority (80%-plus) of companies with employees have fewer than 20.

They preach that wealth is a zero sum game and a limited pie, and refuse to acknowledge that enterprise creates wealth that didn’t exist before, even though the evidence is everywhere. (Did we have the automotive industry 150 years ago? The personal computer industry 100 years ago? The smartphone industry 50 years ago?)

Socialists promise what they can never deliver: an unlimited supply of high-quality goods and services that are cheap or free. And they drive up costs for producers with restrictive regulations and taxes while demanding that prices cannot rise to keep up with those increasing costs.

The result is that businesses are forced to leave or close. Not the big corporations — at least, not at first — but the small ones that house, feed, employ and create the middle class. Then they raise taxes and costs even higher to make up the difference.

Sometimes they take over the businesses. Or even entire industries. That’s the beginning of a precipitous decline.

They don’t understand production, inventory management or balance sheets. With no competition, there’s no need for quality or customer service. So the production declines, the quality declines, the management declines and the rationing starts.

Complainers are smeared as greedy individualists or capitalist throwbacks who don’t want everyone to be “equal” and don’t understand that sacrifices have to be made for “progress.”

No one should be fooled by the presence of the erudite “intellectuals” leading these movements at the beginning. Those self-loathing, upper-class graduates of the best schools don’t last long, because unhappy masses can’t be kept in line (bread or otherwise) by pious platitudes.

No, that takes force. And that’s when the thugs take over.

This is what’s meant when pundits say, “You can vote yourself into socialism or communism, but you have to shoot your way out.”

The America that our World Cup visitors are marveling at was built by freedom-loving entrepreneurs operating within the reasonable structures of a limited government — people of every background who were willing to sacrifice much to build their American dream. We are all the beneficiaries of their hard work.

But what took 250 years to build can be destroyed by socialists within a very short time.

Written by Laura Hollis

Official website; http://law.nd.edu/directory/laura-hollis/

It also taxes a slice of a player’s global endorsement income, prorated by how many days of the year they happen to spend in the UK. Fail to advance far enough in the tournament, and the tax bill on your sponsorship deals can exceed your payout. So, the players who get to choose where they compete are now choosing somewhere else.

“(I)t’s not about the money for playing,” retired superstar Rafael Nadal once explained. “They take from the sponsors. … This is very difficult. I am playing in the UK and losing money.”

File this story under “how people dodge taxes by leaving.” Evidence for the phenomenon was piling up long before California billionaires began their high-profile relocations to Nevada and Florida ahead of a proposed wealth tax on the ballot this November. And it’s not the only reason these taxes disappoint.

When Norway raised its top wealth-tax rate by just one percentage point in 2022, economist Christine Blandhol documented a wave of business owners leaving for Switzerland, helped by a treaty between the two countries that precluded being double-taxed during the move. Norway lost tax revenue while the firms that business owners left behind, now run from a distance, saw their outputs decline.

Switzerland’s own cantons — 26 subdivisions that have taxed wealth since the 1800s at rates from about 0.1% to 0.9% — give researchers a natural experiment. The wealthy move steadily from high-rate Bern to low-rate Lucerne.

The people pushing California’s wealth tax know this. Gabriel Zucman of the University of California, Berkeley — a frequent coauthor with fellow French economist Emmanuel Saez, whose revenue estimates underpin the campaign — has spent the past couple of years engineering around it.

Zucman wants a coordinated global minimum tax on billionaire wealth, designed explicitly so that there’s nowhere left for the superrich to move. He admits frankly that the whole point of his international coordination plan is to defeat the mobility problem. If wealth taxes are global, the thinking goes, they finally work as intended.

Not so fast. It’s easy to count up lost tax revenue after taxpayers move away. There is also a less visible, but no less real, behavior change from people who stay home (by choice or because there’s no better option).

The effect showed up in Denmark, where decades of tax records — covering people who by and large stayed put during its wealth-tax era — show dwindling levels of wealth accumulation when more of it is taxed away. Nobody had to leave the country for the effect to show up; the incentive to save and build wealth in the first place had simply shrunk.

Inside the businesses of the wealthy, there’s an avoidance channel that requires no moving van. When a wealth-tax bill comes due, the owner of a closely held company will often pull out a larger dividend to cover it. Once that money has left the company, it doesn’t go back into payroll or business expansion.

Make no mistake, the non-wealthy will suffer from this tax too. As wealth taxes diminish saving and reinvestment, the capital stock that workers depend on for tools, equipment and business expansion stops growing as quickly as it should. Wages rise when there’s more capital for each worker to use, so the slower buildup eventually means smaller paychecks for people who would never pay a wealth tax. This effect compounds for decades, so a modest annual drag turns into a substantial gap by the time anyone notices it in the data.

The same dynamic can show up even without a wealth tax. We saw it with another aggressive California levy. When the state raised its top income-tax rate by three points in 2012, Stanford economist Joshua Rauh went looking for the revenue. He found that the people who stayed and bore the tax increase deferred bonuses, retimed asset sales and restructured how they got paid, shifting income away from the year the higher rate applied. Within two years, those reporting changes had erased most of the revenue gain the tax increase was supposed to deliver.

Income and wealth are taxed differently, but the lesson is the same: Raise the price of an activity and people do less of it, restructure how they report it, or, if they can, leave the jurisdiction entirely.

These are the responses that even a global wealth tax can’t reach, because mobility was never the sole problem. The result is less tax revenue than pro-tax advocates project, and less economic activity too. Ultimately, everyone, not just the rich, will be poorer for it.

Written by Veronique de Rugy

Official website; http://twitter.com/veroderugy

In the House, it narrowly passed 218-214.

Not one Democrat voted for it in either chamber.

President Donald Trump signed it into law on July 4, 2025.

One provision in this narrowly passed law had the potential to help school children all across the country. It was the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit program. This program, now set to begin in 2027, will give Americans a nonrefundable tax credit of up to $1,700 per year for making donations to support school-choice scholarships set up in the states.

“Under the program,” explains the Congressional Research Service, “taxpayers will be eligible to receive a tax credit of up to $1,700 for the value of cash contributions to certain scholarship granting organizations (SGOs). These organizations, in turn, will be required to use these contributions to grant scholarships to students at private and public elementary and secondary schools located within their states.”

Recipients of these scholarships would be subject to a family income limit. “Eligibility for scholarships,” said the CRS, “will be limited to students whose family income is below 300% of their area median income.”

Recipients will be able to use the money from these scholarships to cover basic educational costs, including tuition and books, at elementary and secondary schools, whether they are “public, private or religious.”

Whether or not to participate in this school-choice scholarship program was left to the states themselves. “States (and the District of Columbia) may choose whether to recognize eligible SGOs within their jurisdictions,” explained the CRS report. “To qualify for the credit, a contribution must be made to a state-sponsored SGO (which need not be located in the same state as the taxpayer), and the organization must only provide scholarships to students located within the state that recognized it. This effectively allows states to decide whether to make students who live within their borders eligible for the program.”

Why would the political leadership of a state prevent students in their state from receiving scholarship money voluntarily contributed by individual Americans? Because they want to prevent families, who would otherwise lack the necessary resources, from choosing to send their children to private or religious schools rather than to government-run schools.

By contrast, Republican Gov. Jim Pillen of Nebraska wasted little time in signing his state up for these scholarships. On Sept. 29, 2025, he went to St. Teresa Catholic School, not far from the Nebraska capital, and signed an executive order backing his state’s participation in the program. “This program is a game-changer for Nebraska students and their families, generating funds that will help send students to the school of their choice,” he said.

South Dakota soon followed Nebraska. Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden announced on Nov. 14, 2025, that his state also would be joining the school-choice scholarship program. “Parents should have the freedom to choose the learning environment that sets their kids up for success,” he said. “I am grateful that President Trump has the same conviction and is helping us create more opportunities for our students.”

Yet it was not just Republican governors who had their states join the program. The Colorado Sun reported on Dec. 5, 2025, that Democratic Colorado Gov. Jared Polis “said it was a no-brainer for the state to take advantage of the federal tax credit scholarship program, describing it as ‘a real boom of investment in kids.'”

“I mean, it would be crazy not to,” he said.

When the Kentucky state legislature passed a bill in March that opted their state into the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit program, Democratic Gov. Andy Beshear took a different approach. He vetoed the bill. “Kentuckians have been firm that public dollars should only be used for public education,” Beshear said.

“Kentuckians love our public schools,” he said.

The Kentucky legislature overwhelmingly disagreed — with the state senate voting 31-5 and the state house voting 77-14 to override Beshear’s veto.

What did California, the nation’s most populous state, do about the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit program? Republican Rep. Vince Fong of California sent Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom a letter in January urging him to bring their state into the program. “By electing to participate, you would ensure this new federal education benefit will flow to California students, regardless of whether they attend a public or private school, and at no cost to the State,” Fong wrote to Newsom.

The IRS published a list indicating that, as of June 22, there were 28 states that had signed up to participate in the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit Program. Newsom’s California was not one of them.

Newsom, as this column has noted before, attended Notre Dame des Victoires, a Catholic grammar school in the heart of San Francisco.

When that school marked its 100th anniversary in 2024, Newsom recalled the remarkable opportunity it had provided him.

“Attending Ecole Notre Dame des Victoires was a transformative experience,” he said. “It was here that I learned not only how to conjugate verbs in French, but also about the rich tapestry of French Catholic history. This foundation has stayed with me throughout my life, and I am grateful for the lifelong connections and values instilled in me during my time at NDV.”

So, why is he not supporting a program that would provide funding to help children in San Francisco today embrace a similar experience?

The 2025 National Assessment of Educational Progress “long-term trend” tests showed a continuing pattern in American education: Catholic school students outscored public school students in reading and math. Among 13-year-olds, the average reading score among public school students was 255 out of 500. Among Catholic school students, it was 276 out of 500. The average mathematics score among 13-year-olds in public schools was 269 out of 500. Among Catholic school students, it was 291 out of 500.

Embracing unlimited school choice, where every student gets a voucher equal to the full per-pupil expenditures in the local public schools, would be good for students and for our country.

Written by Terence P. Jeffrey

Official website; http://twitter.com/terryjeffrey

To which I say, “So what.”

Basing the notion of fair representation on racial, gender or ethnic identity needs to be put in a folder — a paper folder stored in a dusty steel file cabinet. Most of us have additional identities — as electricians, teachers, environmentalists, grandparents, bus drivers, stock investors, union members.

Who would represent me under this broader definition? Someone with brown hair who streams a lot of true crime, has too many opinions and used to play the flute. That perfect human being has yet to appear on my ballot. If she did, I might not vote for her anyway if we disagreed on tariffs, green energy and immigration.

The Founders designed a republic in which representatives would debate ideas, not their reflection in a bathroom mirror. Besides, people of similar physical identities disagree on lots of things, including matters tied to identity.

This DNA-based notion of “fair representation” comes up in the thorny matter of redistricting, that is, the redrawing of House districts in ways that would allegedly help one party. Donald Trump kicked off the latest round. Panicky that Democrats might swamp the midterms, he’s pushed Republican-controlled states to change the lines to remove “safe” Democratic districts, or so he thinks. Democratic-controlled states countered with their own gerrymandering.

Trump was responding to a recent Supreme Court ruling, Louisiana v. Callais, which weakened limits in the Voting Rights Act on race-based redistricting. He apparently believes that dividing Blacks among majority-white districts would leave them too small a share of the vote to elect their preferred candidate. The assumption under that assumption is that Black voters agree on who should represent them.

Consider the lively primary race in a newly redrawn South Florida district. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a Democrat, decided to run in a largely Black district after Gov. Ron DeSantis helped erase her own district lines.

“A lot of people in the community are angry,” says Dale Holness, a former Broward County commissioner who is African American. By community, we assume he means the “Black community.”

But he does not entirely speak for “the community,” even by his definition. Many of these constituents have interests beyond the race of their representative. Issues like Social Security, medical coverage, abortion, the war with Iran, gasoline prices.

John Beckford, a Broward business leader originally from Jamaica, is Black. He said that Schultz has “always been a part of the African American, Black community, the Caribbean community. It’s not like she’s now a stranger trying to make herself known.”

Business owners and other voters of all colors might want to retain a rep who is a senior member of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, which sends federal money to the districts. That interest might double in the likely event that Democrats take control of the House in the midterms.

Opponents of the current Republican leadership tactics hold that the redistricting mania will lead to less “representation” of black voters. But others argue the exact opposite, and they include Republicans.

The partisans who think they are cleverly scattering Black voters into white-majority districts would also be increasing the Black voters’ clout in those same districts. That can make a difference in close races, especially as political allegiances continue to splinter.

History should also have its say. A Black man was elected U.S. president twice by a majority white electorate. There are reasons to support a candidate other than resemblance to self. And those tend to be the better reasons.

Written by Froma Harrop

Official website; https://twitter.com/FromaHarrop

Politically, I consider him a liberal, though he would argue the point, but I digress.

He wanted to know my thoughts about ESPN sports commentator, Stephen A. Smith.

Smith and I travel in the same circles, but he has yet to have the pleasure of meeting me.  I find this amazing since we have actually been at several events at the same time.

But as usual, all things in due season.

My thoughts on Smith are based on my personal observations, conversations with industry insiders and those who have personal relationships with him.

My primary and most important thought on Smith is that he is greatly OVEREXPOSED!  Last time I checked, he was not Jamaican, but yet he has a million jobs.

He has shows on ESPN, YouTube, XM Sirius.  He is constantly being interviewed in one media format or another.

For those who do not know, I make a living by helping high profile people navigate all things media.

Smith’s trajectory is unsustainable and unnecessary.

I am not one to count other people’s money, but if media accounts are accurate, he recently signed a deal with ESPN that made him one of the highest paid individuals in sports media.  Included in his deal is the right to have his own production company and produce outside content that is not owned by ESPN.

This is not an uncommon arrangement with elite entertainers like him, but it is unnecessary.  At this point it is all about ego.  He is definitely not worried about paying his light bills every month.

I have had many clients go down this path and all have been destroyed by the ego associated with drinking from the cup of fortune and fame.

I tell every one of my clients, “Fortune and fame is like soap, the more you use it, the less you have.”

My advice to Smith is to focus on being even better on ESPN and not dilute his talents by being spread too thin.

A few outside projects every now and then is OK, but I see and hear him way too much.  When was the last time you heard the name Lizzo?  She is exhibit A in overexposure and then puuuffffff!

And this idiotic talk about him running for president?  Boy, please!!!

I understand why he is promoting and encouraging this type of speculation, but it will prove to be counter-productive to his brand.

One of the most insidious down sides of social media is that in order to continue to get subscribers, likes, and followers, you must constantly feed the beast!

How do you feed the beast?  Controversy!

You have to constantly engage in petty online fights with high profile people who you have never met or create show topics involving the underbelly of race, homosexuality, or sex.  The bigger you get, the more extreme your behavior must be.

Podcasters Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson are two exceptions to this rule.  They are so genuine and substantive in their content that there is no need for them to play the fool for clicks and likes.  They feed the beast with their substance and it works for them.

If Smith were totally focused on his role with ESPN there would be no need for him to get into public pissing matches with people like former ESPN colleague, Jason Whitlock.

I have never nor will I ever understand how adults can get into a public feud with people that have absolutely no contact with their lives.  All parties come out looking like fools.

But this childish behavior feeds the beast.

Again, I do understand why Smith is encouraging this talk about running for president.  In political circles he is mocked and ridiculed because he is not a well-read person and it shows.

Smith reminds me of people like Jasmine Crockett, LeBron James, Steve Kerr to name a few.  Just because you have a platform to speak from does not mean you need to comment on everything.

Sometimes silence is the loudest statement one can make.

I have heard Smith pontificate on political issues that made me cringe.

Solomon once told me in Proverbs 4:7, “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting get understanding.”

It is not enough for someone like Smith to quote statistics, though sometimes they come in handy.  He needs to be able to demonstrate that he has the understanding to go along with the statistics.

He who knows how will always have a job.  He who knows why will always be his boss.

There is no question that Smith has the how down pat.  He is a very intelligent person, but he needs to do much better on the why part.

He has carved out a niche for himself in media and he should be proud of his accomplishments.  He has worked his butt off and deserves all the accolades and money he can get.

But he must not lose focus on what got him to this point in his career—sports.  Not politics, pop culture, or foreign affairs.

My friend I was having dinner with finally told me why he had a sudden interest in my views of Smith.  For various reasons he assumed that I had a personal relationship with Smith and he trusted me to deliver a discreet message to him.

The top executives at ESPN also think that Smith is doing too much but they are afraid to have this conversation with him because they are terrified of any possible racial implications that could end up in a lawsuit.

This is what America has come to when it comes to race relations.  A major company like ESPN and its white executives are too afraid to have a man-to-man conversation with one of their top employees because he is Black.

Stephen, we have many mutual friends and so I am quite sure this column will somehow get to you.

I do not know if you have surrounded yourself with people who tell you what you want to hear or those who tell you what you need to hear.  Far too often it is the former and not the latter.

My unsolicited advice to you is to get back to your first love—sports journalism.  This social media is going to further damage your brand.  I think you are better than that.

With your production company, I would love to see you do documentaries and in-depth feature reporting.  Social media could be used to compliment this long form of journalism.

This will also make you more valuable to ESPN.

Social media is like the tinkling cymbal or the sounding brass full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

I can easily see you being a billion-dollar enterprise if you get back to your roots and not try to be all things to all men.

Stay thirsty my friend.

Staff Writer; Raynard Jackson

This talented brother is a Pulitzer Award nominated columnist and founder and chairman of Black Americans for a Better Future (BAFBF), a federally registered 527 Super PAC established to get more Blacks involved in the Republican Party. BAFBF focuses on the Black entrepreneur. For more information about BAFBF, visit www.bafbf.org. You can follow Raynard on Twitter; RealRaynardJ; on Gettr: RaynardJackson.

Can also drop him an email at; RaynardJ@ThyBlackMan.com.

Verify the license, bond, and insurance first

In California, any home improvement job over $500 in combined labor and materials must be performed by a licensed contractor. Before you go any further, look up the contractor’s license through the California State License Board (CSLB). It confirms the license is active, shows which work classifications it covers, and flags any disciplinary history. Then confirm they carry a contractor’s bond, general liability insurance, and workers’ compensation for their crew. A reputable contractor will hand this over without hesitation. Anyone who stalls on the basics has told you what you need to know.

Insist on real Los Angeles experience

Los Angeles is not a one-size-fits-all market. Permitting through LADBS, Title 24 energy compliance, and the realities of remodeling older and mid-century homes all require local know-how. A contractor who regularly pulls permits and passes inspections in the city already understands the timelines and requirements that trip up less experienced crews. This matters even more for moisture- and code-sensitive work. A bathroom remodeling project, for instance, involves waterproofing, ventilation, and plumbing that all have to meet code, while kitchen remodeling often touches electrical, gas, and structural elements at once. Local experience is what keeps those moving parts on track. Firms like Denali Builders & Design that work across LA County day in and day out bring exactly that kind of practical, on-the-ground knowledge to a project.

Review the portfolio and call references

Ask to see completed projects that match your scope and style, not just glossy marketing shots. If you’re planning a kitchen, look at finished kitchens. If it’s a bath, look at finished baths. Then ask for references from recent clients and actually call them. Keep your questions pointed: Did the project finish on time and on budget? How were unexpected issues and change orders handled? Would you hire this contractor again? Honest answers to those three questions reveal far more than any photo gallery.

Compare bids on substance, not just price

When estimates come in, don’t default to the lowest number. A bid that’s dramatically cheaper than the rest usually means something is missing, lower-grade materials, an underestimated scope, or costs that will reappear later as change orders. Ask each contractor to itemize the bid into labor, materials, permits, and a contingency allowance. A detailed, transparent estimate reflects a contractor who has genuinely thought the project through. A vague one-line quote reflects the opposite.

Get everything in writing

Never begin work on a verbal agreement. A solid contract should define the full scope, a payment schedule tied to completed milestones, the specific materials and finishes, a projected timeline, and a clear process for pricing and approving changes. In California, the down payment on a home improvement contract is capped by law at 10% of the contract price or $1,000, whichever is less. Be cautious of anyone demanding a large sum upfront. Milestone-based payments protect you and keep the project moving toward completion.

Consider a design-build approach for bigger projects

For more involved renovations, a design-build firm handles both the design and the construction under one roof. Keeping the people drawing the plans and the people building them on the same team reduces miscommunication, keeps budgets realistic from the start, and gives you one point of accountability. For projects that combine kitchen remodeling, bathroom remodeling, and structural changes at once, that coordination is often worth more than a slightly lower bid from a contractor who only handles part of the job.

Watch how they communicate

Finally, pay attention to communication before you sign anything. Do they return calls quickly? Do they answer questions clearly instead of deflecting? A remodel can run for weeks or months, and you’ll be in regular contact the entire time. A contractor who communicates well during the bidding stage almost always communicates well during the build, and that steady, honest relationship is what separates a renovation you dread from one you’re glad you did.

Choosing the right remodeling contractor in Los Angeles comes down to verifying credentials, confirming local experience, and partnering with a team that’s transparent at every stage. Vet thoroughly up front, and the rest of the project becomes something you can actually enjoy.

Ready to start your remodel?

If you’re planning a kitchen remodeling or bathroom remodeling project in Los Angeles, partner with a team that brings local experience and clear communication to every job. Reach out to Denali Builders & Design for a consultation and find out how the right contractor can make your renovation a smooth, rewarding experience from start to finish.

Staff Writer; Doug Moore

Yet history also teaches a sobering lesson: While millions have voted for socialism, millions more have ultimately fled from it.

Why?

The answer is not found in campaign slogans or academic theories. It is found in the lived experiences of ordinary people across generations and continents.

Throughout the 20th century, socialist governments emerged across Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, and Latin America. Many came to power promising to eliminate poverty, reduce inequality, and place the needs of the people above the interests of the wealthy. In the beginning, those promises often generated enormous enthusiasm. Citizens were told that government planning would be more efficient than free markets, that collective ownership would create fairness, and that centralized control would produce prosperity for all.

The results, however, frequently fell short of the promises.

One recurring problem was the concentration of power. When governments assume responsibility for directing large portions of the economy, political leaders inevitably gain greater control over employment, investment, production and distribution. Over time, this concentration of authority often extends beyond economics into other aspects of society.

History shows that when governments acquire greater power, citizens frequently lose a measure of independence. Economic freedom and political freedom are often more closely connected than many realize. When a person’s livelihood depends heavily upon the state, dissent becomes more difficult and individual choice becomes more limited.

Another lesson history teaches is that incentives matter.

Human beings respond to rewards, risks and opportunities. Free-market systems are far from perfect, but they have consistently demonstrated a remarkable ability to encourage innovation, entrepreneurship and productivity. When individuals are allowed to benefit from their hard work, creativity and investment, economies tend to grow.

By contrast, heavily centralized systems often struggle to generate the same level of innovation and efficiency. Bureaucracies can become slow, inflexible and disconnected from local realities. Over time, shortages, inefficiencies and declining productivity have plagued many state-controlled economies.

This does not mean capitalism is without flaws. It clearly is not. Free markets can produce inequality, abuse and economic dislocation. They require regulation, accountability and moral responsibility. But history suggests that replacing markets with extensive government control often creates a different set of problems — problems that can be even more difficult to solve.

Perhaps the most powerful evidence comes from migration patterns.

Throughout modern history, people have overwhelmingly moved toward societies that offered greater economic freedom rather than away from them. From East Germans risking their lives to cross the Berlin Wall to Cubans crossing dangerous waters to Venezuelans fleeing economic collapse, countless individuals have voted with their feet.

This reality deserves careful consideration.

People rarely abandon their homes, families, language and culture without compelling reasons. When citizens repeatedly leave countries governed by socialist systems in search of opportunity elsewhere, it raises important questions about the long-term sustainability of those systems.

The lesson is not that every policy associated with socialism is inherently wrong. Many democratic societies incorporate social safety nets, public health care programs, retirement systems and other forms of government support while maintaining market economies and strong democratic institutions.

The real lesson is about balance.

Successful societies tend to recognize both the strengths and limitations of government. They understand that government has an important role in protecting the vulnerable, enforcing the rule of law, and providing essential public services. At the same time, they recognize that prosperity is often driven by individual initiative, private enterprise, innovation and economic freedom.

As younger generations debate the merits of socialism, they should do so with an appreciation for history rather than romanticized visions of what might be. Good intentions alone do not guarantee good outcomes. Policies must ultimately be judged not by their promises but by their results.

History’s verdict is neither simple nor ideological. It is practical. Again and again, people have demonstrated through their actions that they value freedom, opportunity and the ability to shape their own destinies. When those things become scarce, many eventually seek them elsewhere.

That is perhaps the most enduring lesson history offers: People may be attracted by promises of equality, but they are often willing to travel great distances — and endure great hardship — in pursuit of liberty.

Today, these lessons are becoming part of the American political conversation. With socialist candidates gaining influence in major cities — two examples being the rise of Councilwoman Janeese Lewis George in Washington, D.C., and the growing prominence of Mayor Zohran Mamdani in New York City — voters are once again debating the proper balance between government intervention and individual enterprise.

Supporters see these movements as a response to rising costs, housing shortages and economic inequality. Critics see warning signs that history has presented before. Whatever one’s political perspective, the debate should not be driven by slogans or emotion alone. It should be informed by the experiences of nations that have already traveled this road.

The harsh lessons of history are not that compassion is dangerous or that government has no role to play. Rather, they remind us that concentrated power, diminished economic freedom and excessive dependence on the state often carry consequences that emerge only over time.

America’s future will not be determined by labels such as “capitalist” or “socialist.” It will be determined by whether we preserve the freedom, opportunity, innovation and personal responsibility that have long defined the nation’s success while ensuring that those who struggle are not left behind.

History remains our greatest teacher. The question is whether we are willing to learn from it.

Written by Armstrong Williams

Official website; http://twitter.com/Arightside

It would be hard to find a passage that better reflects this year’s World Cup soccer (OK, OK — “football”) championship, which the U.S. is hosting for the first time since 1994.

But not because the other nations participating in this year’s World Cup are our “enemies.” To the contrary, the reactions of the athletes and fans from other countries who have traveled to and through the U.S. to compete and to cheer on their favorite teams have been nothing short of astounding; in fact, they have taken social media by storm, and Americans by surprise.

Turns out, our guests love America and Americans, and they’re telling us why.

I’ll just mention a few instances.

FIFA has, of course, placed teams in cities where they have access to proper-sized practice fields. In many cases, that has meant college towns. Lawrence, Kansas, for example, home to the University of Kansas, is hosting the Algerian national team and has welcomed them with open arms. The Jayhawks’ marching band learned the Algerian national anthem to welcome the team to the field. Lawrence residents have regularly shown up at the stadium waving Algerian flags and cheering on the players, who reciprocated by inviting local children to practice with them and autographing soccer balls.

Aspects of American culture that have amazed and delighted World Cup fans visiting our country include “big box” stores like Costco, Buc-ee’s and Bass Pro Shops, free chips and salsa at Mexican restaurants, Waffle House, soda machines with dozens of flavor add-ins, free soda refills (and OMG, all the ice), the number of screens at our sports bars, Texas barbecue, Southern sweet tea, biscuits and gravy, the size of college and high school (American) football stadiums, Portillo’s in Chicago, hamburgers (everywhere) and the French Quarter in New Orleans. (They were understandably less thrilled with the heat and humidity in the South and the horrendous thunderstorms and tornados that are endemic to the American Midwest in the summer, but they’ve been troopers about it.)

Other World Cup highlights so far have included the Norway team’s incomparable Viking photo, Scotland fans (the “Tartan Army”) renting a boat in Boston Harbor for a “booze cruise” and drinking the bars in downtown Boston dry, fans from Japan cleaning up stadiums after a game, Dutch revelers singing “Sweet Caroline,” a Dallas pub handing out “World Cup passports” and giving stamps for every game guests watch there, and the Czech national team attending a rodeo in Fort Worth, Texas.

This World Cup is, quite frankly, the best thing to happen to international relations in decades.

Some of the foreign soccer fans visiting the States have posted so frequently that they’ve acquired an enormous fan base here. Tommo from England, Freddy from Germany and Shaun from Scotland have been surprised at the joy and generosity their heartfelt posts have inspired among Americans. But buried within some of these posts is a big reason: They — and others — have acknowledged that much of what they’d previously heard about America was negative. It’s only now that they’ve traveled here and seen things for themselves that they’re realizing what they were told isn’t true.

They aren’t the only ones. Watching, reading and listening to our foreign guests sing our praises has made many of us realize just how much of what we hear about ourselves is negative and false.

Where do we hear this from? The same places the Europeans do: the press, certain politicians and intellectuals harangue us 24/7/365 with their opinions that America is a country founded on “systemic racism” and only prosperous because of “white supremacy”; that Americans are greedy individualists who are racist, sexist and fill-in-the-blank-phobic; that we “hate brown people,” that we’re infected with “toxic masculinity,” and that our national pride is a tool of oppression.

Seeing the robust nationalism of the French, Germans, Italians, Swedes, Japanese, Norwegians, Greeks, Algerians, Scots and countless others while simultaneously being on the receiving end of so many kind and grateful observations from them about our country and our people has been a real eye-opener and a shot in the arm. To be blunt, it’s like having been in an abusive relationship for years with someone who hates you and realizing — finally — that you can get out.

That’s not hyperbole. American institutions dominated by the political Left — which include the media, entertainment industry and academia — have spent the past 50 years telling us how awful we are and that the rest of the world justifiably hates us.

Too many Americans believe that and behave accordingly, with incensed TikToks, constant protests, riots and shrill demands to “tear down” the American economic and political systems and replace them with collectivism that is “less selfish” and “more compassionate.” The rest may not swallow the self-loathing propaganda but have nevertheless felt beaten down, marginalized, silenced and frustrated.

And now: a break in the clouds; a ray of sunlight; a glimpse of the truth; an epiphany that is a shock to the system in the best possible way. Americans are being told by the very people we were assured despised us that our country is beautiful and diverse; that our parks are family-friendly and our athletic facilities are second to none; that our traditions (and yes, we have them) are meaningful and distinctive; that our food is delicious and our restaurants and bars are bountiful; that our superstores are marvels of supply and organization with bathrooms so clean you could eat off the floor; that the workers in our service industries take real pride in excellent service.

And that we as a people are generous, kind, funny, inclusive, helpful, positive, warm and welcoming.

The professional malcontents who’ve built their lucrative careers making us hate ourselves are the selfish ones. Those deceitful frauds — not the citizens of other nations — are the “enemies” of Psalm 23 who are wailing and gnashing their teeth as the Lord shows us — through the eyes of our foreign visitors — that though we are imperfect, we are still good and decent and richly blessed.

It’s time to reject, once and for all, the hollow accusations of the Left, as well as the shackles that come with them. Our nation’s 250th birthday is next month; this World Cup is the best present ever.

Written by Laura Hollis

Official website; http://law.nd.edu/directory/laura-hollis/

By last month, China had cut imports of oil by 3 million barrels a day, the daily consumption of Italy and France combined. China’s economy, meanwhile, hums along.

Americans agonize over how the price of oil affects gas at the pump. Were it not for China, a tank of gas would cost considerably more. “China is Propping Up the World Economy by Importing a Lot Less Oil,” reads a Wall Street Journal headline.

There are several reasons China has been able to cut oil imports, but one is its move away from gas-powered vehicles into electric vehicles. China has also invested heavily in electric-powered high-speed rail, letting travelers replace oil-guzzling short flights and trips in gas-powered cars with train travel. By 2030, China’s EVs could displace 2.7 million barrels a day, according to the International Energy Agency.

If the war with Iran is truly over, and it may not be, Americans’ price of oil should be coming down. That’s already started, but economists warn that the decline will be slow.

Thus, Donald Trump’s long crusade against electrified vehicles and promotion of gas-powered ones is hard to explain other than his personal ties with the oil industry. The U.S. is producing more fossil fuel, but much of it is being exported to other countries willing to pay a lot for it. Get this: If Americans want more of their fuel to stay home, they’ll have to pay more for it.

Trump hollers that Americans must drill-drill-drill to cushion themselves from the cost of foreign energy. And so what did he do first day back in office? He ordered the Energy Department to restart exports of American-produced natural gas. He also supports exporting U.S. oil, branding it as “energy dominance.”

Other than environmentalists, and bless you all, Americans tend not to care what powers their cars. Electricity, gasoline, whale oil … Buyers of cars or trucks generally prefer whichever option is cheaper. Happily, the energy source that does least damage to the planet is now the less expensive one.

True, it costs more to make electric vehicles than gas-powered ones. However — and this is a big however — the cost to operate EVs is a lot less. And the more gasoline costs, the better the electric car deal becomes.

A Chevy Equinox EV costs about $35,000, but the price for the gas-powered version of the compact SUV is $30,000. But if an Equinox owner in, say, Iowa drives about 11,000 miles a year — the American average — over 10 years, they will be spending nearly $10,000 more to power the gas SUV than the electric one.

We get it. If you must have a new Chevy Equinox right now and can’t spare an extra $5,000, then the gas version may be regarded as a necessary purchase. What happens 10 or 15 years down the road can be worried about later.

Electricity prices had also been going up, but nowhere near as much as oil prices. That’s because power plants use energy sources other than oil, including hydro, wind, solar and nuclear, in addition to natural gas.

But those who can plan for their economic future should be onto it. And so are countries that do planning, such as China. The U.S. tried under President Joe Biden to electrify the economy, but Trump has undermined almost all that progress. What’s promoting American consumers’ new interest in electric vehicles is the high price of gasoline.

If this country had made the kind of advances China has, we wouldn’t be caring so much about what happens in the Strait of Hormuz. On some things, China knows better.

Written by Froma Harrop

Official website; https://twitter.com/FromaHarrop

The data have never left much question. The answer is economic growth. Nonetheless, many development economists have spent decades arguing that growth isn’t enough or as important as development aid. The French report is simply a radical expression of a popular view. So, it’s worth reviewing the evidence again.

Stated plainly, every country that has gotten richer overall has also reduced poverty. More importantly, no poor country has ever achieved decent living standards without first getting genuinely richer. Obviously, wealth and basic human wellbeing move together, but the relationship is so reliable that it’s more like a physical law than a social-science finding.

People in poverty have little access to food, clean water, decent shelter, basic medical care and schooling. Adequate amounts do not exist in nature; they must be produced. As an economy grows, it produces more of these things. This enables more growth which, in turn, lifts the masses out of poverty.

Two centuries ago, roughly three-quarters of the world could not afford more than tiny living spaces, enough food to avoid malnutrition and some minimum heating capacity. Since then, the share of people in this type of poverty has fallen dramatically. The reason is an explosion in production that began with the Industrial Revolution and has yet to stop.

Unfortunately, the belief that economic growth in poor countries benefits richer residents and bypasses the needy remains commonplace. A large body of economic literature shows that this is nonsense. For instance, the work of World Bank economists David Dollar and Aart Kraay and others finds that when average incomes rise, the incomes of the poorest 20% of a population rise at essentially the same rate. In other words, growth is not systematically biased against the poor.

Further, even in the worst cases where growth skews toward elites, the impact on wellbeing in poor countries is too powerful to ignore. In a recent Substack post, development economist Lant Pritchett showed that elite-skewed growth in Ethiopia does four times more to improve basic human wellbeing — clean water, child survival, schooling — than uniform growth in Denmark. Denmark has already achieved those basics. Ethiopia has not.

As such, the most important question for poor countries is not who gains most from growth. It is whether growth happens at all. The countries that are home to most of the world’s remaining extreme poor — places like Madagascar, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mozambique, Malawi and Burundi — have not grown for decades. Our World in Data’s Max Rosen points out that Madagascar’s GDP per capita today is roughly the same as it was in 1950.

The reason isn’t a lack of development aid. These are among the world’s most aid-dependent economies. The DRC has received tens of billions of dollars in foreign aid over decades and $1.3 billion in 2024 from the U.S. alone. In past years, Mozambique received as much as half of its government budget from foreign aid. These countries have been the focus of development programs, nongovernmental organization activity, World Bank projects, bilateral donor attention and charitable intervention for generations.

Countries don’t get stuck in extreme poverty because the world has ignored them. They get stuck because they do not produce. And they do not produce because the institutional conditions that make production possible — secure property rights, the rule of law, open markets, protection from predatory government — are largely absent. Countries ranking at or near the bottom of economic freedom indexes are also the poorest. Those that liberalize experience across-the-board income increases.

Economist Vincent Geloso’s research finds that economic freedom is one of the strongest predictors of who escapes persistent poverty and who stays trapped. Colin Doran and Thomas Stratmann have found much the same. The mechanism is straightforward: Property rights give people an incentive to produce. Lower regulatory barriers let businesses form and labor move toward opportunity. Freedom from predatory government encourages long-term investment. Remove these conditions and countries stagnate, no matter how much aid they get.

Growth is both necessary and sufficient. No country has escaped poverty without it. Every country that has achieved higher GDP per capita has also achieved high levels of basic human wellbeing. Targeted aid can be useful at the margin, but it’s no substitute. Although many supposed poverty fighters are blind to this reality, serious policymakers shouldn’t be.

Written by Veronique de Rugy

Official website; http://twitter.com/veroderugy