Why the Jewish Symbolism Surrounding Bread?: A Look at the Hamotzi Blessing

I was recently doing a chevruta study session with a dear friend of mine. We have been studying a 13th-century Jewish text called Sefer HaYirah (ספר היראה). Although the word yirah is commonly translated as fear, I would argue that awe and wonder better encapsulate the word. That tangent set aside, one of the passages we were studying had to do with saying a blessing over the bread:

וירך על מלחם המוציא. ויתן ריוח בין תיבה לתיבה.

Now he says the [Jewish] blessing of hamotzi over the bread, but he must leave an interval between each and every letter.

That is quite the intentionality! When reading that, I had to ask myself why does Judaism put so much emphasis on bread? On Shabbat, there are two loaves of challah bread. During Rosh Hashanah, there is the round challah. For Passover, there is the unleavened bread of matzah. The Hebrew word for "bread" (לחם) appears in the Torah over 300 times. And bread is filled with carbohydrates, the most effective form of energy for humans. Most notably, it makes it on the top of the hierarchy for food blessings in Judaism. Why is that out of all the foods on the planet, Judaism values bread above all else? 

Before answering that question, I think there is something peculiar about the hamotzi blessing itself:

ברוך אתה הי המוציא לחם מן הארץ

Blessed are you, oh G-d, ruler of the universe, who brings forth bread from the universe. 

The blessing is weird at first glance because G-d does not bring forth bread in the literal sense. It is not like people plant seeds and out pops loaves of bread. It is a grain that is grown, such as wheat, that is eventually processed into bread. So why is the blessing framed in such an awkward fashion?

In the Talmud (Berachot 58a), the Rabbis talk about how much man had to toil to make bread, whether it was the plowing, the sowing, the reaping, the sheaving, the threshing, winnowing, sifting...you get the idea. Making bread is a lot of work and certainly was quite the task back when these blessings were crafted. As my friend independently realized, there is a lot of work that gets involved. And as I brought up in a previous blog entry, the multiple steps in the supply chain provide multiple opportunities for us to be grateful and wonder at how such a complex process exists at all.

Even more interesting is how the language is Psalm 104:14 is almost identical to the ones in the hamotzi blessing, i.e., להוציא לחם מן הארץ. The blessing does merely act as a tribute to G-d. It is an acknowledgement of a partnership. We both recognize the work that we put in to turn the wheat into bread, as well as wheat being able to be transformed into bread comes from G-d, the Ultimate Source of the Universe. A tangential lesson is that we are meant to work hard for our sustenance, but the overall trajectory is ultimately in G-d's hands. There are things we can do to improve our lot, but ultimately, the outcome is out of our hands. Dichotomy of control in a nutshell. 

Another interesting concept related to the blessing, which comes from Tiferes Yisrael, is that hamotzi makes reference to the entire Earth (הארץ), whereas the blessings for vegetables only reference the soil on the surface on the Earth (האדמה).  This actually is an extension of how much effort goes into making bread. We are not meant to get at the surface level. We are meant to dig deep and understand so we can nourish ourselves at the greatest depths of our souls. 

The Torah (Deuteronomy 8:3) teaches "For not on bread alone will man live, but upon that which issues from G-d's mouth." Yes, the Torah acknowledges being fed because poverty is terrible both materially and spiritually. Lurianic mystical tradition teaches that this Torah verse is about releasing the spiritual potential within the physical act. The task set before a Jew is how to transform a physical, otherwise mundane act and elevate it into a higher purpose. 

While it sounds daunting, it is not as arduous as it may seem. In contrast to manna, which in Hebrew is referred to as "bread of the Heavens," the bread over which we say a blessing is of the earth, something that is close and accessible. We do not need an intermediary or twenty years studying to become close to G-d or gain access to a spiritual life. It is close by. By reciting hamotzi, we can put minds and spiritual paths on a course previously unimaginable. 

Making English an Official Language of the United States Is Unnecessary

This past Saturday, President Trump signed an executive order designating English as the sole official language of the United States. According to the executive order, Trump would like to "promote unity, cultivate a shared culture for all citizens, ensure consistency in government operations, and create a pathway to civic engagement." Reading this executive order, I have to question the necessity of this executive order. 

First and foremost, this is the first time in over two centuries that the United States has had an official language on the federal level. Trump's slogan since he ran for President in 2016 has been "Make Great America Great." If Trump wants to make America great again, that would mean that there was a previous time America was great. Guess what? During that first time America was great, English was not an official language of the United States. 

Although the Constitution and Declaration were written in the English language, the Founding Fathers did not see a need to declare English as the official language. Yes, English has been the de facto primary language of American society. However, America's economy grew to the point of having the world's largest economy. America became a haven for immigrants seeking a better life. Not only did America become synonymous with the "Land of the Free, Home of the Brave" or a "shining city on a hill," but America ascended to become a player on the global stage and a superpower. It did all of that without English being an official language of the country. So why do we need one now?

Second, the English language is not under threat. There are 1.5 billion English speakers on the planet, thereby making it the most spoken language in the world. Over three-quarters of Americans already exclusively speak English in the home (Census Bureau). Yes, Spanish is spoken by 42-plus-million Americans and rising. It is also true that third- or higher-generation Latino-Americans are much less likely to speak Spanish than their first-generation counterparts (Pew Research). Immigrants do not need an official language to realize that English is the de facto language and not knowing English while living in the United States makes life that much more difficult. English is not going anywhere.

One could argue that most other nations have an official language. However, I would point out that those nations are not automatically stable simply because they have an official language. I would not exactly consider such nations as Afghanistan, Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Syria, Venezuela, or Yemen to be stable or unified countries, even though they all have official languages. There are also countries that have multiple official languages, such as Belgium, Canada, Finland, India, Luxembourg, New Zealand, the Philippines, and Switzerland. Conversely, Argentina, Australia, Japan, Mexico, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom do not have official languages. Essentially, declaring a sole de jure official language does not ensure the unity Trump thinks it does. There are much more significant factors playing into the present divisiveness of the United States. 

I would contend not having an official language is a reflection of what historically has made America great. We do not need an official language or religion because it reflects not only the diversity of this nation (350 languages spoken in the United States and counting), but also that the American Dream is based on the freedom to choose how to live our lives, including which language or languages to speak. Freedom of speech under the First Amendment includes being able to speak in whichever language you would like. Instead of respecting citizens' constitutional rights to self-express in a language other than English, Trump has participated in some serious right-winged virtue signaling, time which could have been spent focusing on more pressing matters. 

Trump Cannot Fight Trade Deficits with Higher Tariffs, Nor Does He Need To

Since the beginning of his second term, Trump has been more gung-ho on tariffs than he was during his first term. Not only did Trump threaten tariffs on U.S. allies Mexico and Canada under the guise of fighting fentanyl, but he implemented 25 percent tariffs on steel and aluminum. A couple of weeks ago, Trump passed an executive order for reciprocal tariffs. Trump stated that he needed these reciprocal tariffs to deal with the trade deficit, which Trump claims threaten the economy and national security. Too bad for Trump that tariffs do not help with the trade deficit. According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE), countries with higher tariffs have higher trade deficits. 

Why is this the case? Tariffs lower imports. This decrease in imports lowers demand for foreign currency, which in turn appreciates the dollar (Furceri et al., 2019). What does that end up doing? Making American exports more expensive for foreign consumers, which lowers sales. Plus, when there are retaliatory tariffs in play, the initial tariffs increase the cost of U.S. exports, which have the potential to cost more jobs at home, much like we saw with the tariffs from Trump's first term. 

None of this addresses the reality that trade deficits are not a bad thing. Trump bemoaned the trade deficit during his first term in office. In reply, I criticized Trump and explained why we should not be worried. In addition to laying out the description of the macroeconomics of trade deficits, I pointed out how a trade deficit can improve our quality of life and how the U.S. economy grew considerably in spite of running a trade deficit since 1975. There is more to an economy than trade balance, not to mention that the trade balance is not a sound metric for economic health. Ultimately, it does not matter whether Trump is imposing tariffs because of national security, fighting the War on Drugs, or because of trade deficits. Tariffs are not the solution. 

Consumers Will Be Fine If Trump Gets Rid of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

There has been a flurry of Trump attempting to curtail or eliminate entire departments, whether that is the Department of Education or the United States Agency for International Development. Another department is making its way to Trump's chopping block: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, or CFPB. On February 9, CFPB Chair Russ Vought told CFPB employees to not pass any new regulations and to desist any current investigations, as well as stated that the CFPB will not be drawing its next quarter of funds from the Federal Reserve. One federal judge ordered a temporary stay on Trump firing CFPB employees, but the case will be re-heard elsewhere on March 3. Why should we care?

CFPB was enacted in 2011 by Congress as part of Dodd-Frank in response to the financial abuses after the 2007-2008 financial crisis. The intention of CFPB was to the United States' consumer finance watchdog to protect U.S. consumers in the future. Admittedly, I have not written that much on the CFPB. I created a literature review in 2015, but did not come to any concrete conclusion about CFPB. In 2018, I scrutinized Dodd-Frank, including the fact that the costs with regulatory compliance overshadow the benefits that CFPB was claiming about its existence. Last year, I especially criticized a CFPB rule that put overdraft fee caps on banks, which upon examination, harm the consumers they were meant to protect. The fees exist to cover cost and mitigate risk. Banks will find other ways to account for these costs and risks. 

This does not get to the fact that we do not need a CFPB because it is redundant. For one, the state governments already have financial regulation and oversight, a reality that has played out in past prosecutions. Furthermore, the federal government already has numerous financial regulators (see below), including the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). 

Aside from redundancy, the CFPB does not have an understanding of what it actually means to protect consumers. This goes beyond the previous example of overdraft fee caps that limit financial services to low-income households:

• Ban medical debt from credit reports. In June 2024, the CFPB proposed to ban medical debt from credit reports to help out those who are burdened by medical debt. Thankfully, it has not been implemented yet. Low-income households are the ones most likely to have medical debt. Lenders are not going to ignore the absence of medical debt on the credit report, but instead will likely assume that there is undisclosed medical debt. This would lead to increasing borrowing rates, which could very well direct low-income households to less conventional forms of borrowing (e.g., payday lenders, loan sharks). Hiding information does not help, much like ban-the-box laws backfired and harmed African-American men who were not criminals and looking for a job.  
• Credit card fees. In 2023, the CFPB wanted to go after credit card fees. The Cato Institute rightly criticized this policy. I also criticized Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) for proposing a credit card fee cap in 2018. After examining the history of interest rate caps, I concluded that a) high-risk borrowers will be cut off from the mainstream credit system, and b) lenders will find other clever ways to make up for the loss in their terms and conditions. 
• Payday loans. In 2016, CFPB issued a rule on regulating payday loans, which was overturned in 2020. I am glad this was overturned. I wrote on payday loans a couple of years ago. While payday loans are not an ideal financial instrument, putting the squeeze on payday loans means that these consumers go to less savory options, such as loan sharks, pawn shops, or putting a second mortgage on their home.   
• Anti-arbitration bias. In 2015, the CFPB tried to pass a law banning companies from instating mandatory arbitration agreements, instead of class action lawsuits. In spite of this rule being overturned in 2017, the CFPB continued with its anti-arbitration bias by creating a database in 2023 to help track which companies track arbitration agreements. Not only are private arbitration courts cheaper and quicker (7 months versus 3 years), but there is no evidence between arbitration agreements and being subject to CFPB action (Pham and Donovan, 2023), thereby implying that arbitration agreements are not a threat to consumers. 

I do not even want to get into how CFPB is de facto an unelected regulator with a blank check that has next to no oversight. The CFPB has spent years pushing consumer finance policy that does not protect consumers, but rather harms them and makes it more difficult to have access to mainstream credit. I will conclude today by quoting the illustrious Veronique de Rugy:

Rather than pouring more resources into this bureaucratic black hole, especially one that duplicates the work of other agencies and programs, officials should cut their losses and abolish the CFPB. Let's return to a system based on clear disclosure requirements, competitive markets, and the enforcement of fraud laws. Consumers should be empowered, not infantilized.

DOGE at One Month: Examining Its Tameness on Tackling Government Efficiency

DOGE. Department of Government Efficiency. What started out as a noncommittal remark by President Trump and a half-serious tweet from billionaire Elon Musk has made multiple rounds of the news cycle since Trump's initial executive order brought it to life one month ago from today. Initially, DOGE was created to modernize government-wide software and infrastructure. An executive order issued on February 11 extended that power to workforce optimization, including letting go of hundreds of federal workers. Critics believe that DOGE is an unconstitutional power grab that is going to dismantle the United States government. Proponents believe that DOGE will overhaul federal bureaucracy and bring sanity to profligate government spending and largesse. Which depiction is closer to the truth? 

Since Trump won the 2024 election, I called for the abolishment of the Department of Education, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Furthermore, condensing ministries was part of Argentinean President Javier Milei's plan to reduce government spending. As a result of his plan, he was able to generate a surplus for the first time in over a decade. It is likely that Milei's chainsaw approach to government inspired Elon Musk. In concept, I agree with having a bureaucratic agency focused on making government more efficient. The question is whether DOGE has been successful or will succeed, legal and constitutional challenges notwithstanding. 

DOGE claims that it has already saved the taxpayers $55 billion so far. When accounting for some preexisting improper entries, duplicate entries, and other federal accounting nuances, the figure is closer to $8 billion. DOGE has mainly targeted low-hanging fruit, particularly with waste and fraud. DOGE's workforce optimization is not much better. 

The rule of "one in, four out" for the federal workforce sounds drastic, but it does not do as much as one would think. The military as well as those in law enforcement, public safety, or immigration enforcement are exempt. That exempts 60 percent of the federal workforce. Plus, even if you cut half the federal workforce, the $150-175 billion in savings would not make a sufficient dent to tackle the $2 trillion deficit. 

And that is part of the point. The national deficit for year-to-date is $700 billion. To avoid that deficit spending, we would need to eliminate the Department of Education and USAID five times over. To avoid adding debt and bring a balanced budget, we would need to eliminate the equivalent of ED and USAID thirteen times over. That is how staggering U.S. government spending is! While one could argue that DOGE's spending cuts are worthwhile, they are modest in comparison to the large scale of government spending. 

As the Cato Institute brings up, trying to make government more efficient misses the mark. Why? There are aspects of government that cannot intrinsically be run efficiently, which is why there are multiple parts of federal government that should not exist at all. If you cannot scrap or at least greatly reduce the size of given government agencies, waste and inefficiency will ensue. 

This Cato Institute report to DOGE gets at how to address major cuts to the federal budget. If DOGE does not tackle the major three drivers of the federal budget, which are Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, what DOGE can do to make the federal budget great again is minimal. 

This brings up a final point from Reason Magazine, which is that DOGE cannot go in and do it alone. Short of abolishing the Constitution, DOGE will need Congress' help to get the job done because Congress pulls the purse strings and Congress is responsible for determining the scope of the executive branch's activities. Given that Congress can barely pass stop-gap temporary funding, never mind pass all its required bills (last time it did that was 1996), I will not hold my breath in Congress getting its act together to help DOGE with its mission. Without lasting structural reform, DOGE is at best a distraction from the real issues facing the federal budget. 

Trump Didn't Learn From His Steel & Aluminum Tariffs Failures During His First Term

President Trump is not letting up on his trade war. Earlier this month, Trump threatened China, as well as U.S. allies Mexico and Canada, with tariffs. A little over a week ago, Trump decided to implement a 25 percent tariff on all steel and aluminum tariffs, which will take effect in mid-March. 

I roll my eyes not simply because of how unpleasant tariffs are in economic theory. We have already been down this path. At the beginning of Trump's first term, Trump implemented a 10 percent tariff on aluminum and a 25 percent tariff on steel. In 2017, I criticized Trump's steel and aluminum tariffs, scrutinizing his national security argument vis-à-vis Section 232 while pointing out how poorly they worked out when President George W. Bush implemented similar tariffs in 2002. It turns out I was right. 

What was the end result of those steel and aluminum tariffs from Trump's first term? As I detailed last year, less export growth, a lower GDP, the 1,000 steel manufacturing jobs gained caused a reduction in manufacturing employment by 75,000 workers, not to mention more expensive steel and aluminum prices (24 and 31.1 percent, respectively). And guess who paid those higher prices? It was not China, but rather U.S. consumers. Last week, the Cato Institute also highlighted several studies that showed these undesirable effects. Here are some highlights:

• The American Action Forum showed the direct cost of the tariffs ended up being $4.6 billion annually (Lee and Varas, 2022).
• In its 2023 report, the U.S. International Trade Commission calculated that the tariffs caused a) a decline in downstream production of $3.5 billion, and b) that steel and aluminum prices increased an additional 2.4 and 1.6 percent, respectively. 
• The Center for Automotive Research found that his tariffs created a deadweight loss of $4.3 billion, and that the few jobs that the tariffs managed to save cost a whopping $635,000 per annum (Schultz et al., 2019).

Trump does not seem to understand the ripple effect this will have in the U.S. economy. As the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) shows, there are way many more construction workers that use steel, as well as transportation and packing jobs that use aluminum, than the jobs protected by the tariffs. Reason Magazine reminds us that for every job in aluminum manufacturing, there are 177 jobs in downstream aluminum-consuming industries. 

Reason Magazine also brings up the point that this will harm the energy sector because nuclear power plants are built with steel, carbon steel forges and aluminum tubular products are commonly used to extract oil and gas, steel makes up 69 percent of a wind turbine's mass, and aluminum accounts for 85 percent of solar power components. You want to know what that will mean? Energy prices are going to increase because of these tariffs. 

Right now, Standard and Poor's and the Tax Foundation preliminarily believe that the effects on GDP will be less than 0.1 percent. That might sound like giving Trump a reason to celebrate, but I am not holding my breath. Aside from the lousy history of steel tariffs in this country, there is still concern about how this will affect downstream industries. Standard and Poor's also surmises that the effects will be larger if these tariffs end up triggering trade retaliation, which is certainly plausible given how Canada and Mexico were ready to retaliate with Trump's other tariffs this presidential term. 

There are two reasons to believe the effects of the tariffs will be worse this time around. One, the aluminum tariffs were only 10 percent the first time around. Now, it will be 25 percent. The second one is that the administration has made clear that in contrast to the first term, there will be no exemptions this time around. To emphasize this point, these steel and aluminum tariffs from Trump's first term did not help with national security nor did they boost the economy. How many tariffs will it take for the Tariff Man to finally get the hint that tariffs harm American consumers and businesses?

Why the Government Should Shut Down USAID Permanently

Trump is shaking up the world of international development. On Trump's first day in office, he used an executive order to pause all foreign development for the next 90 days pending review. On February 1, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) website was down. Last week, Trump announced that he is going to fire 95 percent of USAID staff, although it looks like a federal judge has at least been able to pause the order for the time being. All of this made me wonder about whether USAID should be shut down. I will start with some example of USAID mismanaging money to get the conversation going:

• Starting in 2015, USAID spent $280 million on a program intended to empower 75,000 Afghani women and help them find jobs in the Afghani workforce. How many women did USAID end up helping? According to a report from the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction (SIGAR), anywhere between 0 and about 60 women. 
• According to a SIGAR report, part of $1.46 billion in USAID funds that was meant to divert from opium production "inadvertently" funded poppy production. This on top of the $335 million in USAID for a power plant that was almost never used, $175 million spent on roads that were washed away within a month by a flood, and $7.7 million on an industrial park that had no power (SIGAR).
• As Bloomberg reported last year, USAID gave $29 million to an orphanage for Kenyan children. While it sounds noble to help orphans affected by AIDS, it also turned out that the orphanage who received this money embroiled in a major sex abuse scandal. 
• Then there is the matter of USAID funding the terrorist organization Hamas. The Middle East Forum identified $164 million in grants that went to radical organizations. The problem is bad enough where the USAID's Inspector General has expressed concern that there are lax vetting mechanisms with the oversight of aid going to Gaza. 
• USAID's Global Health Supply Chain program was a $9.5 billion program created to improve a country's ability to obtain medical supplies. It was supposed to be so effective that there would never need to be such foreign aid intervention again. What happened? Most shipments were not completed on time in the initial stages. Even when they got better with shipping items, there were still considerable delays. As this report from the Bureau of Investigative Journalism details, the program was riddled with fraud, undelivered supplies, and certainly did not help countries manage their own medical supplies and equipment supply chains.

Perhaps this list is damning enough. Perhaps we have to look at both the good and bad that USAID has done before making a determination. I am sure that proponents can highlight such program as its work in preventing and treating HIV/AIDS in multiple developing countries, the President's Malaria Initiative, or fighting tuberculosis. There is also USAID's Feed the Future program, which according to its own outcome monitoring, decreased extreme poverty from 7 to 36 percent. 

One could argue that USAID should still exist but still go under considerable reform, as the list of debacles above shows. However, I have a meta-argument about why we should not have an entire government agency devoted to foreign aid. When making this argument, I make the distinction between foreign aid and humanitarian assistance, the latter of which is a targeted, short-term form of aid (e.g., food, water, medical care, protection, shelter), typically in response to natural disasters or man-made disasters in war zones. 

As I detailed in 2016, trade liberalization does a lot better of a job of helping out those suffering in developing countries than foreign aid does. Furthermore, foreign aid has a negative impact on political institutions and democratization, as a World Bank study concluded (Djankov et al., 2007). As I have argued before, corruption erodes economic development. By using foreign aid to perpetuate weak political institutions, USAID undermines its long-term goals of bringing prosperity. 

As Cato Institute scholar Ian Vázquez points out, economic development is not a top-down process, as is implied by USAID's wealth transfers to poorer countries. The Cato Institute points out in its Handbook for Policymakers that foreign aid does not address the byzantine regulations and red tape, the trade protectionism, price controls, nationalization of industries, restrictions on investment, or inflationary monetary policy. As such, foreign aid keeps developing countries in a state of misery by continuing with poor policies, greater corruption and debt, and the inability to tackle the given country's problems head-on, particularly those problems that USAID proponents believe justify USAID's continued existence. 

It does not matter that the USAID budget is less than one percent of the $6.75 trillion U.S. federal budget. Since foreign aid is not accomplishing its goals, the agency should be nixed, shut down, cease to operate. Humanitarian assistance should be provided by the State Department. As for trying to use foreign aid to promote democracy or try to improve economic development, that is the sort of work that should not be part of U.S. foreign policy because it is a waste of taxpayer dollars.