The Steep Costs of Trump Expanding Tariff Power Under Section 301

Section 301 wasn't supposed to be a presidential blank check. Yet that's increasingly how it has been used. The latest lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's latest tariffs argues that the statute doesn't authorize this latest round of import taxes. The courts will sort out that legal question in due course.

But the lawsuit highlights a broader problem: Section 301 has steadily evolved from a targeted enforcement tool into an increasingly elastic source of presidential tariff authority in which the president can impose tariffs because "the president said so." If every trade dispute can justify sweeping tariffs, then the statute's limiting principle has largely disappeared.

Congress enacted Section 301 as part of the Trade Act of 1974 to combat unfair foreign trade practices. It authorized the president to respond when another country maintained discriminatory policies that burdened U.S. commerce, using targeted retaliation to encourage reform and open foreign markets. In other words, Congress designed Section 301 to function like a scalpel, not a sledgehammer.

Section 301 was built around leverage. The idea was to impose costs on foreign governments until they removed unfair trade barriers. That logic begins to break down when tariffs become untethered from the specific conduct they're supposed to address.

The Competitive Enterprise Institute has observed that recent Section 301 actions often feature expansive investigations, weak causal links, and tariffs extending far beyond the industries connected to the alleged misconduct. The result is an increasingly flexible statute capable of supporting almost any desired tariff outcome.

The Cato Institute adds that these measures appear less focused on correcting unfair trade practices than on preserving a preferred tariff policy. In that sense, trade enforcement risks becoming a rationale rather than the objective. Once almost any international grievance can justify sweeping import taxes, Section 301 stops functioning as a narrowly tailored trade law and starts looking like an open-ended delegation of Congress's tariff power.

The mismatch between the alleged harm and the proposed remedy is another sign of how elastic Section 301 has become. Even accepting the administration's claims about forced labor, the Cato Institute analysis also finds that the amount of trade plausibly affected is a tiny share of overall commerce (see below). Yet the response is not a narrowly tailored correction of a specific distortion; it is a sweeping tariff regime affecting trillions of dollars in imports. When the remedy is significantly larger than the underlying problem, it starts looking less like trade enforcement and more like economic punishment.

Perhaps the courts will conclude that the statute permits this approach. But if Section 301 can be stretched to accommodate virtually any broad tariff program, its limits become difficult to identify. And when the limits of a delegated power become impossible to identify, the delegation itself deserves a closer look.

The concerns surrounding Section 301 are not limited to statutory interpretation or presidential power. They also involve the very real economic costs created by expanding tariff authority. According to the Penn Wharton Budget Model, Section 301 tariffs alone are projected to cost Americans approximately $1.05 trillion over the next decade. Those costs do not vanish at the border. They are absorbed by businesses and consumers through higher prices, increased input costs, and disrupted supply chains.

The National Taxpayers Union notes that adding the costs of Section 232 national security tariffs brings the total burden of these tariff policies to roughly $2.2 trillion over ten years. That is a significant economic consequence flowing from executive decisions that increasingly rely on broad interpretations of existing authority. Tariffs may be imposed by presidents, but their costs are paid throughout the economy.

Section 301 was never meant to be a blank check for presidential tariff authority. It was designed to address specific unfair trade practices, not serve as a legal scavenger hunt for whatever tariff justification an administration can find. The courts may decide whether this latest theory passes muster, but Congress should make clear that Section 301 is not an all-purpose authorization for presidents to impose taxes whenever they want. 

If Congress does not reclaim its tariff authority, the executive branch will have expanded power to tax the American people into higher prices, distorted markets, and fewer protections. I thought that this country was founded on a war in which Americans fought against unfair taxation. History does not repeat itself, but it's amazing how it rhymes. 

The Sanctioning Russia Act Won't Stop Putin, But the Tariffs Will Expand Presidential Power

When Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, Western governments responded with one of the most sweeping sanctions regimes in modern history. At the time, I questioned whether economic sanctions would compel Vladimir Putin to change course, noting that they often impose heavy economic costs while producing mixed political results. 

Four years later, Russia remains at war, and Congress is now debating legislation that would expand presidential tariff authority in an effort to increase pressure on Moscow. Instead of rushing forward, lawmakers should consider what the past four years have actually taught us about sanctions, tariffs, and constitutional government.

Ryan Young, a senior economist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, scrutinizes the argument that the Sanctioning Russia Act would have any meaningful impact on the war in Ukraine. Since direct trade between the United States and Russia is already minimal, new tariffs would do little to reduce Russian export revenue. The bill's broader use of secondary tariffs against countries buying Russian energy also raises concerns. Young argues that these tariffs are unlikely to change the policies of major trading partners while potentially creating diplomatic conflicts and disrupting broader U.S. trade relationships.

The National Taxpayers Union's chief concern is not simply the size of the proposed tariffs, but the uncertainty surrounding them. The legislation gives the president broad discretion to determine which countries are targeted and what tariff rates they receive, while requiring the list of affected countries to be recalculated every 180 days. 

As global energy markets change, countries could move on or off the list with little warning. Businesses can adapt to almost any rule, but they struggle when the rules themselves are constantly changing. This is why Congress should write clear, predictable laws rather than leave fundamental trade decisions to executive discretion.

If that were not enough, there are issues with constitutional governance. Rather than asking whether additional sanctions on Russia are warranted, the Cato Institute asks whether Congress should grant the president another broad source of unilateral tariff authority. 

The bill allows the executive branch to determine which countries are targeted, what data are used to identify them, what tariff rates apply, and which nations qualify for exemptions. Such discretion extends far beyond Russia policy and could easily be used as leverage in unrelated trade negotiations. Congress should be reclaiming its constitutional authority over tariffs, not delegating even more of it to the executive branch.

Russia's aggression deserves a firm response, but good intentions are no substitute for sound public policy. If additional tariffs are create uncertainty for businesses, further erode Congress's constitutional authority, and are unlikely to change Putin's behavior, lawmakers should think twice before rushing this bill into law. 

Effective foreign policy requires realism, constitutional restraint, and a willingness to question politically popular ideas. Otherwise, Washington risks punishing everyone except the people it intends to punish. Hope is not a strategy, and tariffs are not a substitute for one.

Why Eliminating the Social Security Payroll Tax Cap Is Not an Easy Fix

Every few years, politicians think they have found the silver bullet for solving Social Security's financial woes. This time, it is Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and Bernie Moreno (R-OH) proposing to eliminate the Social Security payroll tax cap of $184,000. The argument is simple enough: tax earnings above the current cap, collect more revenue, and the program can keep going. If only it were that simple.

As I detailed last year, Social Security's challenges are rooted in demographics and the structure of the program itself. Eliminating the payroll cap sounds like a sound solution, but it is an expensive workaround that does not deal with the declining worker-to-beneficiary ratios, longer life expectancy, or the pay-as-you-go financing structure.  

If eliminating the payroll tax cap were an obvious solution its supporters claim, you would at least expect broad agreement among tax policy experts. But even the Left-leaning Tax Policy Center (TPC) argues that the Warren-Moreno proposal is flawed.

The TPC calculated that this proposal would bring in $2.5 trillion in revenue over the next decade. That sounds like a lot of cash, but here's the catch. It does not actually save Social Security. It only closes about half of the long-term financing gap, and annual deficits return in about 4 years. By the way, this is the best-case scenario. 

TPC points out another issue: severing the link between contributions and benefits. Social Security was created as a a safety net during the Great Depression, but policymakers also deliberately structured it as social insurance, with benefits tied to workers' earning histories and payroll contributions. Workers have generally viewed their benefits as something they earned through payroll contributions. 

Eliminating the cap while leaving benefits largely unchanged weakens that relationship. For many higher-income workers, additional contributions would no longer purchase additional benefits. Once the program is perceived more as income redistribution, it risks undermining the broad political support. 

Higher marginal tax rates can create economic distortions by educing the incentives to earn additional income, invest, or expand business. When taxpayers keep less of each additional dollar earned, some may alter their work decisions, compensation arrangements, or investment strategies to minimize tax exposure. While these effects may be modest for some, policymakers should consider the broader consequences of increasing taxes on productivity, economic growth, and future revenue generation. A policy intended to strengthen Social Security should not undermine the economy that funds it. 

The debate over eliminating the payroll tax cap shows that policymakers are more focused on finding more money over reforming a structurally flawed program. Higher taxes can postpone difficult decisions, but they cannot fix demographic realities, a low return on investment, or the lack of personal ownership over retirement savings. The people of America need more than paying more to Social Security. It needs reform that can provide the working American with the ability to comfortably retire instead of struggling in their later years.

What Does Nonbinary People's Day Celebrate If Anyone Can Be Nonbinary?

July 14 is not only Bastille Day in France, but it is also International Nonbinary People's Day, which takes place tomorrow. It was chosen as July 14 because it's the exact midpoint between International Women's Day and International Men's Day. It was created to raise global awareness about nonbinary people, but it begs an essential question: what in the world is nonbinary?

Every commemorative day celebrates an identifiable group of people. Veterans Day celebrates veterans. International Women's Day celebrates women. Before celebrating a category, it is reasonable to ask what distinguishes its members from everyone else. That is a surprisingly difficult question to answer when it comes to nonbinary people. 

Nonbinary: The Identity That Means Everything and Nothing

Most organizations and nonbinary individuals define nonbinary in roughly the same way: someone whose gender identity is not exclusively male or exclusively female. At first glance, that sounds straightforward enough. But after further examination, it doesn't answer the question because then there is the follow-up question of "What does that look like?"

Depending on who you ask, being nonbinary can be a range of things, whether that is identifying as both male and female, neither male nor female, something in between, outside the gender binary altogether, gender-fluid, or possessing multiple genders. These descriptions point in dramatically different directions. Instead of identifying a single, distinguishable category, "nonbinary" appears to function as an umbrella term for a wide variety of subjective experiences. 

That in itself presents a conceptual problem. Categories exist to distinguish one thing from another. The category of "veteran" distinguishes those who have served in the military from those who have not. The category of "citizen" distinguishes between those who possess a particular legal status from those who do not. 

But what distinguishes a nonbinary person from a man or woman who simply rejects traditional gender stereotypes? If the answer comes down to subjective self-identification, then the category has no ascertainable membership criteria. It tells us only what someone calls themselves, not what distinguishes them from everyone else. That "definition" offers no independent criteria by which anyone can distinguish between a nonbinary person from an ordinary variation between men and women. As such, the category of "nonbinary" has no meaningful limiting principle. 

The "Because I Say So" Problem: A Definition That Defines Itself

The problem becomes even more obvious when one asks a self-identifying nonbinary individual how they know they are nonbinary. The answer is usually with some form of "Because that's how I identify." But identify with what? Again, the most common definition is someone whose gender identity is neither exclusively male nor female. It is not descriptive because it does not answer the question of what gender is in this framework. 

If a man is defined as someone who identifies as a man, if a woman is someone who identifies as a woman, and a nonbinary person is defined as someone who identifies as nonbinary, the explanation becomes circular. If gender is not biological sex, personality, clothing, interests, or gender stereotypes, then what positive characteristics remain? The definition tells us who identifies, but it provides zero insight into what they are identifying with. Instead of pointing to an independently recognizable characteristic, the label appears to refer only to itself. 

At this point, I can see someone objecting to this description of nonbinary by saying that many identities involve self-identification. After all, no one can peer into another person's mind to determine whether they are truly a Christian, a Democrat, or homosexual. But those identities refer to something beyond the declaration itself. 

Biological sex refers to observable biological characteristics. Sexual orientation describes enduring patters of romantic or sexual attraction. Religion encompasses identifiable belief and practices that exist independently of merely claiming the label. While each of these identities contains subjective elements, they also refer to concepts that can be understood apart from self-identification. 

Nonbinary is different. Since the only criterion for membership is declaring oneself to be nonbinary, then the declaration is not merely evidence of the identity; it is the identity. The category then becomes self-referential, which makes it impossible to distinguish between the label and the thing the label is supposed to describe. That may suffice for personal self-expression, but it does not provide a foundation for a category, certainly one that is supposed to have an international day of recognition and observance. 

Everyone Is Different, and....?

Even if we wanted to set aside the definitional problems with nonbinary, there is another problem: the characteristics often associated with nonbinary identity are not unique to nonbinary people. Human beings have always varied in personality, interests, appearance, and behavior. Some men are more traditionally masculine, while others are more traditionally feminine. 

This is especially true when looking at gay men and lesbians. For gay men, there is everything from the muscle gays and jocks to the fem boy, and everything in between. Lesbians range on the femininity spectrum from lipstick lesbian to being butch. One of the contributions of the gay rights movement was challenging the idea that a man must conform to a narrow definition of masculinity or that  a woman must conform to a narrow definition of femininity. 

Men who are less masculine are still men, and women who are less feminine are still women. That does not mean that they are this third category. If nonbinary identity is based on not fitting neatly into traditional gender norms, then it risks treating ordinary human diversity as evidence of a separate identity category. A category that encompasses anyone who does perfectly conform to gender stereotypes, which is basically everybody, ultimately ceases to distinguish between anything meaningful. 

The vast majority of people experience themselves differently from some idealized form of gender norms and expectations. Since there are no criteria that separate nonbinary people from men and women who share those same traits, the category has no clear boundary. Without clear boundaries, the category of nonbinary is meaningless because virtually anyone can qualify simply by interpreting their own relationship with gender in a particular way. A description that includes just about everyone who feels different in some way ceases to be a category at all. 

So What Is Being Celebrated?

A meaningful category should tell us who belongs, what members have in common, and how they differ from everyone else. Yet nonbinary lacks a clear definition, objective membership criteria, and distinguishing characteristics beyond self-identification. If a category can include almost anyone who feels different from traditional gender expectations, then it is not a distinct group of people. Since there is no clear defined group of people to celebrate, what does Nonbinary Day celebrate exactly? 

It seems like it is one of the first awareness days in human history for a group of people who cannot explain who is in the group. In short, it is the culmination of coddling every subjective experience simply because someone says "it's my lived experience" and of the Participation Trophy mindset. When words no longer describe anything beyond what someone says they describe, categories themselves lose their purpose. It is a death knell of words having any meaning. 

Why Restricting International Students Is Trump's $481 Billion Mistake

There are a number of features that make the United States a unique and exceptional country. One of those drivers of American innovation has been that it has attracted ambitious people around the world, which means having an immigration policy open enough to allow them to work and live in the United States. America has historically understood that importing talent is one of the best investments it can make, but the current administration has lost sight of that concept. 

As I pointed out earlier this year, the Trump administration has attacked legal immigration to the United States. One of those foci of attack has been restricting international students to study in U.S. universities. The Trump administration asserted that foreign adversaries have exploited American universities to steal sensitive research and technology and that stricter visa screening was needed to safeguard U.S. interests.

Whether these restrictions ultimately improve national security remains difficult to measure. What is much easier to estimate, however, is their economic cost. A recent study from the Peterson Institute for International Economics estimates that restricting international STEM students could reduce U.S. GDP by as much as $481 billion over the next decade.

The reason for this decline in GDP is intuitive. The mechanism is fairly intuitive. International STEM students don't simply earn degrees. They become part of America's innovation ecosystem. Many stay to work in research labs, high-tech firms, and startups, where they help develop new products, improve existing technologies, and increase productivity throughout the economy. 

By reducing the number of these future innovators, restrictions shrink the pool of human capital that drives long-term economic growth. The projected GDP loss is therefore not an accidental correlation, but the estimated value of the discoveries, companies, and productivity gains that never materialize.

This immigration restriction especially hits hard for the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) industry because as the PIIE study points out, 35 percent of all STEM workers with a PhD are foreign-born and U.S.-trained.

Scientists and engineers develop new products, improve manufacturing processes, write software, discover medical treatments, and launch companies that employ thousands of people. These innovations make workers across the economy more productive, which is ultimately what drives rising incomes and long-term economic growth. International STEM graduates have played an outsized role in America's innovation economy for decades. Restricting their numbers reduces the number of future breakthroughs that make the entire U.S. economy more prosperous.

Ironically enough, these restrictions can actually undermine the President's rationale for the restrictions. Economic strength is one of the foundations of national security. A larger, more productive economy generates greater capacity in research, development new technologies, and gives the United States the resources needed to maintain a technological edge over its rivals. 

Policies that reduce innovation therefore carry national security costs of their own. Restricting international STEM students may prevent some security risks, but it also reduces the supply of scientists and engineers who drive economic growth. If America becomes less innovative, it also becomes less capable of sustaining the military and technological superiority that has underpinned its security for decades.

The irony is that policies intended to protect American workers and strengthen American security can end up undermining both. In an effort to protect America, policymakers risk reducing the very economic dynamism that has made America powerful. STEM students do not simply compete for jobs. They create knowledge, launch companies, and develop technologies that make the entire economy more productive. Restricting their ability to study in the United States means fewer innovations, fewer businesses, and less economic growth.

Restricting international STEM students risks sacrificing one of America's greatest strategic assets: its ability to attract talented people who create new ideas and technologies. In addition to economic implications, it harms national security because it risks reducing the innovation and technological leadership that make the United States secure in the first place. This is yet another reminder that protectionist policies have this uncanny ability to limit economic freedom and American prosperity at the same time.

United Nations Falsely Accuses Israel of Genocide: Targeting Children Edition

Astronomer Carl Sagan once said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. That principle is especially relevant when the claim in question is not merely whether a military has committed wrongful acts in war, but that it has deliberately targeted children as a part of a broader strategy amounting to genocide. In both moral and legal terms, this is among the most serious accusations that can be leveled against any state or armed force. The accusation of targeting children heightens the claim because under humanitarian law, children are treated as a protected category. It also implies a level of moral depravity and legal culpability that international law reserves for the worst of the worst.

Yet a recent United Nations Commission report precisely makes that allegation against Israel in the context of the war in Gaza. It concludes that Israel not only caused widespread death and suffering, but that it formed part of a broader strategy to destroy the future of the Palestinians in Gaza by targeting children as a "biological and social continuity" of that group.  

This is not the first time that the UN has advanced sweeping claims against Israel that later proved controversial or methodologically fragile. The UN falsely accused Israel of causing food shortages of Gaza, implying it was part of some master strategy to starve Gazans. The UN also blindly accepted Gazan casualty statistics that exaggerated children fatalities, with the effect of making it look like the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) were targeting women and children. The UN perpetuating refugee status and Jew-hatred under UNRWA also does not help matters.

This does not by itself prove the UN's latest allegations false, but it does warrant extraordinary caution of what the UN claims. Therefore, it is necessary to determine whether the Commission's findings themselves actually confirm if the IDF deliberately targeted children in Gaza or not. 

To conclude that Israel deliberately targeted children, the Commission would need produce evidence of intent, not merely evidence of harm. In the law of armed conflict, intent may be established from direct proof, whether it is orders, directives, or communications. This was the sort of thing observable during the Nanjing Massacre, the murder of children during the Holocaust, ISIS targeting Yazidi children in Iraq, and the Srebrenica massacre. Alternatively, such intent could be inferred through highly compelling circumstances evidence that excludes reasonable alternative explanations. 

The Commission does not present this kind of evidence. Instead, it infers intent from the scale and pattern of child casualties, assuming that a) each child killed in Gaza was killed by the IDF, and b) the child was targeted simply because a child died. Another way to put it: what the UN Commission does is it makes the evidentiary leap from "children have died in this war" to "Israel is targeting children." But even if one were to acknowledge the existence of large-scale harm, that by itself does not prove intent. 

As I have explained before when refuting false claims accusing Israel of committing genocide, for something to be considered genocide, one would have to be able to infer that genocidal intent is the only reasonable inference from the evidence. Here are some things that the United Nations conveniently leaves out of or minimizes in its reporting that show that is far from the case. 

We have to remember that it was Hamas that started this war by raping, kidnapping, torturing, and murdering over 1,200 civilians. Since 1948, Israel has been surrounded by Arab entities that want to wipe it off the map, including the genocidal entity known as Hamas. That by itself does not give the IDF a carte blanche to do what it wants in response. But what follows points out that genocide is not a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. 

Civilian casualties are sadly a consequence of armed conflict. Children casualties are going to be an outcome given that about half of Gaza's population is under 18. More to the point, Gaza is one of the most densely populated battlefields in modern history, making this outcome even more inevitable.

There is one other sad truth to acknowledge: not all individuals under 18 in this conflict zone are necessarily noncombatant casualties. Armed groups in Gaza have been known to recruit and train minors to participate in hostilities against Israel. This further underscores why aggregate references to "child casualties" is insufficient, and is one other area in which the UN overstates their case. 

Even if one were to accept the Commission's casualty figures (which again, I would hesitate since the UN has accepted exaggerated casualty numbers before), neither a high civilian death toll nor a particular civilian-to-combatant ratio can substitute for genocidal intent. 

Hamas has a long-standing practice of using its civilians as human shields. The UN also ignores that Hamas has embedded vast tunnel networks, weapons stockpiles, booby-trapped buildings, and command facilities in civilian infrastructure. Without this context, the UN does not capture the complexities that the IDF faces while fighting Hamas and dismisses that these deaths could have been caused by crossfire, militant Hamas activity, or an unfortunate consequence of urban warfare. 

Furthermore, Israel's conduct is inconsistent with genocidal intent. The IDF has put warnings to civilians out before strikes (e.g., evacuation notices, phone calls, text messages), which no other military in history has done because they would lose the tactical advantage and incur military cost. The IDF has also allowed for humanitarian corridors and humanitarian aid to enter to reduce civilian suffering. 

Another point: Israel has a multi-ethnic and multi-religious population that includes about 2 million Muslims who are given equal rights under the law. It would be an odd policy for a government that was intent on exterminating Muslims to simultaneously extend full legal equality to Muslims in its borders. But then again, these are the sort of loops that the anti-Israel side jumps through to believe in this accusation. 

Ultimately, the UN does not prove evidence showing its headline allegation that the IDF is targeting children. All of this context in the previous paragraphs provides a reasonable, alternative explanation for the scale of child casualties in Gaza. However, the report gives those alternative explanations insufficient considerations and jumps straight to genocide as the only explanation, which is out of touch with the reality on the ground. This sort of inferential leap without sufficient evidence not only should give us reason to pause, but for any rational and sane person, it is yet another example that puts the UN's supposed objectivity and impartiality into question.

America at 250: Where Has My Country Gone?

I remember back in 2009 watching a South Park episode called Dances with Smurfs.  In the episode, the troublemaker Eric Cartman becomes the reader of the elementary school announcements. He takes on the persona of political commentator Glenn Beck, and repeatedly invokes the What happened to my school? I don't consider myself a conservative or one to have blind patriotism, but that episode recently had me ask a similar question of What happened to my country? 

Sure, there are great things about the United States. The United States has the world's largest economy and is still the main superpower. Many of the world's top universities and largest companies are in the United States, and is still a hub for innovation. It is a country that was built on a creed and where your ancestry did not determine your lot in life. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are still faring well, certainly relative to Europe. But there is so much that has me concerned:

• Capitalism is declining in popularity while nearly two-thirds of Americans from the age of 18 to 29 who favor socialism. An economic system once considered synonymous with the American Dream is now viewed with skepticism. Instead, more of today's youth are attracted to an ideology that has been tried and has failed. 
• According to Heritage Foundation's Index of Economic Freedom, the United States was faring better a couple of decades ago. A similar decline is on Fraser's Economic Freedom index. It shows that this country is less committed to the economic liberty that fueled generations of innovation, entrepreneurship, and prosperity. 
• There was a time where Congress cared about fiscal discipline, but the U.S. credit rating continues to spiral downwards with the debt-to-GDP ratio showing no signs of slowing down and shrinking.
• The Federal Reserve continues to have a large balance sheet, not to mention the U.S. dollar declining as a percent of global reserves. While the dollar is still dominant, it does signal concerns about the long-term fiscal and monetary foundations of the United States. 
• Homeownership and education are increasingly out of reach. Starting a family is more expensive, whether it is child care or providing a proper education. 
• More Americans think the First Amendment goes too far. The freedoms of religion, speech, protest, and press are civil liberties are not merely inconveniences that should be tolerated. They are some of the defining features of a free society. Cancel culture has only made this trend worse. It shows that this country is less tolerant of opposing ideas, beliefs, and ways of life that are not one’s own. 
• Populism has become popular on both sides of the political aisle. The Left promises protection from corporations, inequality, and unfairness. The Right promises protections from foreign competition, free trade, immigrants, and cultural change. Both increasingly believe that the government is the solution, not markets and civil society.  

This list is not about one president, one party, one election, one Supreme Court decision, or one public policy. It is the sad realization that over the course of my lifetime, the country I thought represented life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is disappearing bit by bit. America used to stand for many noble ideals. Here are some that come to mind:

• All people are created equal and are entitled to equal protection under the law. 
• With enough hard work and disciple, anyone can thrive, regardless of their station in life. 
• Markets generally work better than the government. 
• Capitalism provides prosperity and excessive government is anathema to the American spirit. 
• Government should be small and liberty is the default. 
• The extent to which government is in it is in our lives, it exists to serve the people, not the other way around. 
• A person's status and success should be determined by their merits, talents, and efforts, and not on their wealth, class, gender, or race. 
• Personal independence and individual accomplishments. 

What makes me sad is that many of the ideas that once made America exceptional now have to be defended in a way they never did before. The principles of liberty, limited government, free enterprise, and constitutional restraint have survived wars, depressions, and national crises over the past 250 years. I want those ideals to triumph both because they are morally just and because they create the most prosperity. Even so, I am less hopeful that those ideals can survive in this country for another 250 years.