We Need to Strengthen Work Requirements in SNAP and Other Safety Net Programs

The drama with the debt limit continues. The deadline to deal with the debt ceiling is in about two months. Biden wants a no-strings-attached increase of the debt limit, but the Republicans are playing hardball with a series of proposed reforms called Limit, Save, Grow. One of the reforms in this proposal is strengthening work requirements for food stamps, also known as Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). 

The proposal raises the top age for the able-bodied adults without dependents, or ABAWD, category from 48 to 56. Looking at USDA data, that would affect around 1 million SNAP recipients. According to the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), the work requirements for SNAP, Medicaid, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) in Limit, Save, Grow will save $100 billion over the next ten years. If passed, all the reforms would reduce debt over the next decade from a debt-to-GDP of 118 percent to 107 percent (CRFB). While this country has a ways with reigning in its debt issues, it highlights the importance of work requirements in safety net programs.

Opponents of work requirements view work requirements as punitive, especially for the needy. In 2016, I wrote about why SNAP benefits need work requirements. One reason why I supported and still support work requirements is because it helps with the longevity of the program. In 2021, the Biden administration ended the work requirement policies that the Trump administration put into place. The American Enterprise Institute estimates that not enforcing SNAP work requirements costs us $20 billion per annum. As we see with the CRFB projections, having lax requirements seeks to drive debt. 

In the Road to Serfdom (p. 148), Frederich Hayek advocated for some provision of a social safety. To channel Hayek: if there is going to be a safety net, it should go to those who are neediest and should be temporary. Although a temporary, minimal safety net can be a net social positive, having a safety net for too long can create a disincentive to get back to work. As the American Enterprise Institute points out, we do not have definitive conclusions about work requirements for SNAP or Medicaid due to data limitations. There is some information from the Upjohn Institute that shows marginal effects on employment for SNAP recipients (Harris, 2018).

If we want to get a better idea of how work requirements could impact employment, we can use another safety net program as a proxy: TANF. A working paper from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) shows that work requirements in TANF are effective at offsetting the work disincentives (Falk, 2022). This CBO finding has been consistent with other research on the topic (e.g., Hamilton et al., 2001). Similarly, data show that unemployment insurance creates disincentives to go back to work. 

Finally, long-term unemployment is bad for the unemployed. This is more than a matter of long-term employment prospects or lifetime earnings. As the Left-leaning Urban Institute illustrates, it can reduce life expectancy by a year and a half (Nichols et al., 2013). In its recent analysis, the Right-leaning Heritage Foundation gets into some of the benefits on not being long-term unemployed. 

Increasing work requirements for social safety net programs such as SNAP will help with debt reduction. It will help the macroeconomy given that we are facing a labor shortage. It will also help SNAP recipients that are ABAWD because in the long-run, working is better for physical and mental health than being on welfare. Increasing the work requirements only scratches the surface on what could be done for safety net reform, but it is a good start. 

What a Shock: Biden Proposed Emissions Standards to Encourage Electric Vehicle Purchases Would Backfire

This past weekend, we celebrated our 53rd Earth Day. It was meant to be a time to recognize legitimate environmental concerns. What has changed between that fateful day in 1970 and now? For one, there was a concern from the media and some scientists that we were all going to die from global cooling. This was hardly the only environmentalist crisis that has existed since 1970. There have been concerns about overpopulation, peak oil, copper, food shortages, pesticide residues, major species extinction, and the disappearance of the ozone layer. Notice how those fears either did not happen or were exaggerated. There is one other phenomenon that I would like to mention separately because it has dominated our news cycle. It will be brought up throughout today's piece, but the biggest environmental problem of our time that is mentioned constantly by media and politicians is that of climate change.

Environmentalists argue that if we do not significantly reduce the world's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions soon, the world as we know it will either be destroyed or considerably altered in an unpleasant way. Extreme heat waves, sea level rising, coral reefs disappearing, increase of adverse weather events, massive crop shortages, water drying up, species' habitats being destroyed. It sounds like a scenario in which the world would go to hell in a hand basket. The potential of such calamity is so high that governments are willing to intervene with whatever policies they deem fit to stop it that goes well beyond gas stoves.

What is the the Biden Administration going after in the name of climate change? Gasoline vehicles. A couple of weeks ago, the Biden Administration's EPA proposed "strongest-ever" emissions standards on cars and trucks. How strong? If these proposed standards become law, they would be strong enough where the EPA is estimating that 67 percent of vehicles sales in 2032 would need to be electric vehicles (EV) in order to comply with these regulations. 

If we want to go somewhere, we need to know where we are at first. That is not merely for travel, but also sound advice for making progress. According to data analytics firm J.D. Power, less than 1 percent of vehicles in this country are electric and that 6 percent of vehicle sales in 2022 were electric. Trying to get from 6 percent to 67 percent in a decade is quite ambitious. This is not to say there is no demand for EVs. EV sales have tripled in the past three years, but that is a far cry from everyone clamoring for an EV. Looking at February 2023 survey data from AP/NORC, 47 percent are not too likely/not at all likely to purchase an EV, as opposed to 19 percent who would be. While there is demand, there are considerations that make Biden's aggressive, and quite frankly impatient, goals a pipe dream. 

Climate change is not a crisis. This is a point I brought up in November 2021, as well as a point that was more recently made by Reason Magazine and Fraser Institute. This is not to say that humans have not contributed to shifts in the Earth's climate or that there are going to be changes in weather patterns that cause problems. What I am saying is that we are not on the brink of catastrophe and the world is not going to end if we do not do something soon. A recent study from Climatic Study shows that people who have better environmental knowledge have less "climate anxiety" and are less likely to succumb to alarmism (Zacher and Rudolph, 2023). If we stopped having models with implausible scenarios and fear-mongering dominate the conversation, we would realize that climate change is a manageable problem. For argument's sake, let's assume that the fear-mongers are correct. Even if we agreed that climate change were an imminent threat, Biden's vehicle emissions standards are still problematic.     

Rushing production could slow EV development. As Reason Magazine points out, automobile manufacturers are struggling to get the manufacturing process for EVs to scale. An electric vehicle is still a nascent technology. Like with other technologies, it is going to take time to figure out how to make the electric vehicle more cost-efficient. When the cell phone, television, and computer first came out, they were expensive luxury items that only the rich could afford. Over time, they became more cost-effective.

It took a while to develop the technology and infrastructure to build combustion-powered vehicles. Since electric vehicles are so new, we have not reached that stage in technological development to build EVs at scale. Ford lost more than $2.1 billion on its electric car division last year and is expected to lose another $3 billion this year. Axios noted that battery technology is still evolving, which says nothing about whether we can mine the critical minerals for the batteries. An attempt to rush production could result in putting out an inferior product to market versus a more carbon-neutral option that uses less scarce materials.

Then there is the matter of being able to supply electricity in an already-strained grid system. According to Biden's own Department of Energy, we would need to expand electricity transmission systems by 60 percent by 2030 and triple it by 2050 to meet the demands of renewable energy and greater electricity demand. For this to work, productivity in transmission production would need to increase a whopping twelve-fold from what it was between 2008 and 2021. As long as demand for electricity outstrips supply, EVs are not going to gain traction. 

Electric vehicles are more expensive than gas vehicles and have other costs. Aside from buying a house or paying for college, purchasing a vehicle is one of the largest purchases a typical American makes. When criticizing the so-called Inflation Reduction Act's environmental provisions last year, I pointed out that the average electric vehicle is about $16,000 more expensive. The price gap would plausibly diminish over time as the technology progresses. For now, price remains a major barrier to entry for Americans. The AP-NORC survey findings I mentioned earlier rank the cost as the highest obstacle. 

The price gap between an electric and gas vehicle goes beyond the initial purchase. Electric vehicles are more expensive to repair and insure. Many states have additional registration fees. Electric vehicles do not fare as well in cold weather. There are still costs to charging an electric vehicle. Maintenance expenses are fewer on an electric vehicle because they have fewer parts than a combustion engine vehicle. Even so, there still are maintenance costs. The lack of a charging station infrastructure, long charging time, and limited driving range relative to a combustion engine vehicle also create doubt in the consumer's mind (AP-NORC). Charging time, range, and overall cost of an EV have improved over time. Odds are they will still get better as time passes. At the same time, the current limitations are still prohibitive enough where they create barriers to purchase, especially for those living in rural areas. 

5-3-2023 Addendum: An analysis from Manhattan Institute reminded me that electric vehicles are not only going to cost a lot now. If Biden's regulations pass, the cost of vehicle ownership is going to increase. To comply with the regulations, automobile manufacturers can increase the cost of internal combustion vehicles. Two, increased demand for EVs is going to increase the inputs of EV manufacturing, especially the battery. Three, electricity costs will increase.

Electric vehicles have their environmental impact, too. It is true that electric vehicles do not consume gasoline or produce tailpipe emissions. That does not mean that electric vehicles do not come without environmental impact, as even the Left-leaning Slate concedes. There are multiple carbon-intensive inputs of manufacturing EVs, especially when it comes to the battery. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), it takes six times the amount of minerals to manufacture EVs than it does for conventional vehicles. 

Mining for these rare earth metals for EVs gets complicated by the fact that as of the end of 2022, China accounted for 70 percent of the world's rare earth metals market (Statista). Sino-U.S. relations are not exactly great at the moment, but let us assume that China decides to cooperate. There are other minerals that need to be mined for that create environmental costs. 

Then there are the emissions from transporting the batteries from China to the United States. I am not here to say that EVs do not have the potential to have a net positive impact on carbon emissions, especially in the long-run. After reviewing a detailed piece from RealClear Investigations entitled 'Zero Emissions' from Electric Vehicles? Here's Why That Claim Has Zero Basis, I do know that manufacturing EVs is far from being a zero-carbon process. What I would contend is that the environmental impact of EVs is contingent upon some major factors, including the two below:

• The electricity for the electric vehicles has to come from somewhere. The origin of that fuel source has a huge impact as to whether the electric vehicles lower carbon emissions. As of February 2023, 60.2 percent of electricity comes from fossil fuels. If the electricity comes from carbon-neutral sources, then it will be better in terms of carbon emissions than if it were to come from fossil fuels. The catch is that demand often exceeds supply for clean energy sources, which is why fossil fuels (at least for now) will play its role in charging EVs.  
• There is the question of battery life. The technology is new enough where automakers have not had too many opportunities to replace depleted batteries. We do not have adequate data to answer this question. EV manufacturers are optimistic in saying that they can last 15 to 20 years. However, if it ends up being closer to 10 years or less, the financial and environmental cost of an EV can change, and not in the environmentalists' favor.

Postscript. In summation, Biden's proposed emission standards to incentivize (or rather, force) EV purchases is misguided in a number of ways. Whether it would be beneficial to the environment, certainly enough to significantly curtail carbon emissions, is in question. Since climate change is not the calamity that EV proponents make it out to be, it is as if the Biden administration is trying to implement a solution in search of a problem. If anything, it is a power-grab of the Biden administration because if GHG emissions are an existential threat, it would basically give carte blanche to the government to regulate the economy as they see fit. 

Then there is appreciating the irony that Biden's impatience could result in there being fewer EVs. You can throw all the money at a problem and create all the incentives (e.g., tax credits, subsidies, emissions standards) you want. If EVs really were cheaper and more efficient, you would not need to be forced into purchasing one. The truth is that EVs are currently more expensive than conventional vehicles because they are not as efficient or cost-effective to manufacture. I think of LED (light-emitting diodes) lights and how that took time for LEDs to replace the incandescent light bulb. They were expensive at first, but the price did drop and came with more performance improvements such as being more durable and lasting longer.   

I made a similar argument about electric stoves last January, and the truth is that EVs are not a viable option for many Americans. If the technology for EVs improves and EVs become more affordable, that is one thing. That would be market forces moving in a direction more favorable instead of government fiat essentially stating that most vehicles need to be electric. If EVs are truly meant to be a thing of the future, it will happen on its own time. As I have brought up numerous times on this blog, competition is what leads to innovation, not government edict. Consumers should be deciding whether purchasing an EV is right for their household, not the government. For the sake of American consumers, I hope this proposed regulation does not become law. 

You Cannot Spell "Healthcare" Without "THC": What Are the Effects of Marijuana on Public Health?

In 2012, the states of Colorado and Washington legalized recreational marijuana. Since then, recreational marijuana has been made legal in a total of 21 U.S. states and Washington, D.C. Other countries have legalized marijuana, including Mexico, Uruguay, Georgia, South Africa, Canada, Thailand, and Malta. While progress has been made on marijuana legalization, there is still progress that still needs to be made, particularly when it comes to public opinion. Polling finds that how people perceive marijuana as overall good is split. According to Gallup, 53 percent believe marijuana has a positive effect on individual marijuana users, whereas 49 percent believe it has a positive effect on society. As we see below, those who have tried marijuana have a more positive view on marijuana than those who have not. 

In honor of this April 20th, I would like to examine the effects that marijuana have had on public health, as opposed to individual health. I do not expect the public health argument for marijuana to be open-and-shut. As I brought up in my argument to legalize psychedelic mushrooms, any substance is going to come with some risk. Marijuana is not an exception to that rule.  

A literature released by the American Economic Association last month was promising (Anderson and Rees, 2023). Not only is there "little credible evidence to suggest that [medical marijuana] legalization promotes marijuana use among teenagers," but there is "convincing evidence that young adults consume less alcohol when medical marijuana is legalized." What about other effects on public health? I will be citing a Cato Institute policy analysis more than once to help answer this important question (Dills et al., 2021).

• Violent crime. I bring up violent crime because the outcomes of violent crime have impact on public health and health services usage. The concern about marijuana when it comes to violent crime is that the THC induces psychosis, which can increase likelihood of violent crime. Conversely, a decrease in crime would be a boon for marijuana proponents to illustrate how legalizing marijuana diverts marijuana sales from underground markets to legal markets. What the Cato Institute found is a disappointment to both sides: "Overall, violent crime has neither soared nor plummeted in the wake of marijuana legalization." A study from the Journal of Drug Issues concluded that medicinal marijuana laws did not have a negative impact on violent or property crime (Shepard et al., 2016). A working paper from Appalachian State University goes as far as arguing that the effects of marijuana on violent crime are in favor of marijuana legalization proponents (Callahan et al., 2021).
• Effects on alcohol use. There was postulation over how marijuana legalization would affect substance use of other substances. Would people trade in one substance for marijuana (substitution effect)? If so, it could be an argument for marijuana proponents since marijuana has been shown to be safer than alcohol. Or would alcohol users use marijuana in addition to the other substance (complementary effect)? According to a study from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), both the substitution and complementary effects exist when it comes to marijuana (Gunn et al., 2022). The Cato Institute points out that there is no clear relation between marijuana legalization and alcohol use.
• Vehicle Fatalities and Accidents. This part is interesting because it is possible that marijuana legalization could make matters worse if more people use marijuana and/or the complementary effect were in full force. On the other hand, if the substitution effect were more prominent than the complementary effect, it could very well improve road safety since marijuana tends to impair less than alcohol. A study from the Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs calculated a 2.3 percent increase in fatal car crashes (Farmer et al., 2022). On the other hand, the Cato Institute went state-by-state to look at the "before/after" rates and compared those to the U.S. average. The Cato Institute found that Oregon notwithstanding, the vehicle fatality rate per 100 million miles driven stayed relatively flat post-legalization. 
• Suicide: This is another metric where the intuition could go either way. Marijuana could be used to treat depression, bipolar, or other behavioral disorders. Excessive marijuana use can also create some others, including schizophrenia and depression. In 2017, the National Academies of Science conducted a lengthy review on marijuana and mental health disorders. The conclusion from NAS was that the findings were mixed and often confounded by alcohol use. Similarly, Cato Institute surmised that "it is difficult to see any association between marijuana legalization and changes in suicide trends." A preprint state-level longitudinal analysis shows a 6.3 percent reduction in suicide (Rich et al., 2021).

Since marijuana legalization is new, the amount of post-legalization data we have is relatively limited. There are only so many conclusions we can draw based on what we have. I think there should be more research to determine the medical, public health, and economic effects of marijuana. This is one of the reasons I have been in favor of removing the DEA's Schedule I designator: so that we can conduct more research on the effects of marijuana. 

We should have a conversation about costs and benefits of marijuana legalization. We need to consider the costs of keeping marijuana in an underground market, as well as the individual and social costs of marijuana legalization. We also need to keep in mind the benefits of each, as well. This conversation about cost-benefit analysis or risk assessment was sorely lacking when politicians implemented lockdowns and other onerous regulations during the COVID pandemic. 

What I will say is that based on what data we currently have, the findings are overall underwhelming. Marijuana legalization does not seem to affect the traffic fatality rate, violent crime rate, alcohol use, or the suicide rate. These findings do not prove that marijuana legalization was the boon to public health that I would have guessed. On the other hand, violent crime, suicides, or vehicle fatalities did not skyrocket. I understand that these issues are multifaceted. But if marijuana were really that bad for public health, you would think that the negative effects would have shown up in the data. 

Correlation does not mean causation. At the same time, you cannot have causation with a correlation in the data, a phenomenon that can similarly be found in the data on gun ownership and gun deaths. From an economic standpoint, I find bans to be blunt instruments that have negative unintended consequences. For those advocating for a ban on or criminalization of marijuana, the burden of proof is on these advocates to show a clear and present danger to public safety and health. With the presently available data, you cannot make the case that marijuana legalization is a menace to public health. If you cannot prove correlation (much less a causation), you cannot even begin to justify such strict measures. Since there is no statistically significant effect on major public health metrics, we should err on the side of freedom and let people smoke their weed in the Land of the Free. 

Post-Passover Thoughts on Conceptualizing Freedom and How to Be Freer in Our Personal Lives

As much as I love the themes of Passover, I have found the dietary restrictions on Passover to be grueling. It has made me wonder why the holiday lasts for an extended period of time, especially since the Passover seders happen at the beginning of the holiday. Then I came across this quote from Rabbi David Wolpe about how we spend the holiday spinning out the lessons and the questions that come as a result of our Passover experience. 

I felt that was especially true this year. As part of my Passover preparations this year, I wrote a piece on how we are meant to help out others as a part of the liberation process that we are meant to experience on Passover. There was a quote from Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel that I found particularly striking: "The opposite of freedom is not determinism, but hardness of heart. Freedom presupposes openness of heart, of mind, of eye and ear." 

I have always highly valued freedom. It would help explain why I ended up becoming a libertarian. What the Heschel quote triggered for me was introspection on what freedom really means. As the Passover story illustrates, when you live under an oppressive regime, being free is nigh impossible. I believe man has a desire to be free, as we can see in history with numerous revolutions of people being under the heel of an overbearing, tyrannical government. Government is certainly a major oppressor in human history, but it is not the only form. We can find subtler forms of slavery or oppression with societal or familial expectations, the rat race, consumerism, certain religious communities, or peer pressure. 

Even if you remove all those external pressures, there is still one obstacle left to acquire freedom: yourself. I'm not going to get into my personal life here, but I will say that this is a lesson I have had to learn the hard way and I am still working on in because it is part of the process. The Jewish ethical text Pirke Avot (4:1) asks "Who is mighty?" The answer: He who conquers his evil inclination (הכובש את יצרו). By addressing one's internal struggles, the ghosts from our past, and the emotional baggage can we become freer. 

Rabbi Heschel had a salient point: to be free, we need to be more open. How do we reach that level of freedom where we are from pressures both external and internal? Here are a few ways I reflected on during my Passover celebration this year that I believe will help with that journey.

1. Dichotomy of control. It seems like a tautology, but we have more freedom when we have more choices. There are moments where we might feel really stuck to the point where the only thing we can control is our response to a terrible situation. Much more often than not, there are choices there if we look for them. This is where the Stoic concept of dichotomy of control comes in. I was not able to control whether there was a pandemic or if the gyms closed in 2020, but I focused on getting more exercise in my life all the same because I knew not doing so would be bad for both my physical and mental health. This also happens when other unfortunate occurrences happen, whether it is losing a job, a car accident, getting robbed or assaulted, or a divorce. In the majority of situations, we can find a way to work through or past a bad situation. If we blame an unfortunate event on family, friends, systemic racism, or some other external force, that is a recipe for more unhappiness. To be freer, we need to focus our lives on what we can control instead of what we cannot. 

2. Gratitude. Much like with dichotomy of control, gratitude is a matter of mindset. How does gratitude lead to greater freedom? Humans are prone to a negativity bias. All things considered equal, it is easier for us to see the negative. In Hebrew, the term for gratitude (הכרת הטוב) means "to recognize the good." Gratitude makes us freer is because it gives us the ability to see the world in a different light. Not only that, the more positive mindset gives us the energy to use our freedom and pursue what we want in life.

3. Discipline and Structure. During Passover, I was listening to the Mindset Mentor podcast by Rob Dial Jr. (highly recommended!). He said that discipline is a way to freedom. That seems paradoxical since freedom is about doing what you want, right? This harkens back to a conversation I had at a past Passover seder. The word seder (סדר) in Hebrew means "order." There is a place for structure in our lives. In music, if we get rid of chords, time signatures, and tempos, it becomes noise. In baking or chemistry, if you do not have the right ingredients in the right proportion, things can go very wrong very quickly. Mark Manson actually brings up this paradox of freedom. We do not have the time or energy to do everything possible in the world. By committing to certain things, you have to exclude alternatives. This is not an argument to be overly rigid or detail-obsessed. At the same time, if we do not have a vision or a sense of where we are going or what we want to do, we forego our freedom. Rather than have the choice of what we want, external forces will help determine where our lives go. 

4. Kindness. I want to conclude today with the point that Rabbi Heschel made in his quote. Freedom is about openness, in this instance, of the heart. Humans have a tendency of being self-interested, a tendency that the Torah recognizes (Genesis 8:21). I do not think that is prima facie a bad thing. The Midrash (Breishit Rabbah 9:7) brings up that without this self-interest, we would not build a home, get married, have a job, or do much of anything. We need that drive, that self-interest. As a side note, what I like about capitalism is that it channels self-interest into mutually beneficial transactions that help out all involved. But as I wrote a couple of weeks ago, part of what is freeing about kindness is that it gives us more options. As the Mental Health Foundation brings up, acts of kindness "can boost feelings of confidence, being in control, happiness, and optimism." These byproducts of acts of kindness (including the helper's high) allow us to live freer lives. 

Postscript: Being able to do what you want provided that you do not harm others is of utmost importance. That freedom within the nonaggression axiom is vital to finding personal meaning in our lives. As important as it is, it is not enough to "do what you want." If we want to truly be free, we need to expand our options. Sometimes, that is in being kinder or more grateful. That also includes focusing on what we can control and having structures in place to make sure we pursue what we want. But without being more disciplined and open to life's opportunities, we will not be able to be truly free.

Is Long COVID Legitimately Prevalent or Is Its Prevalence Exaggerated to Scare Us?

There was no shortage of scare tactics during the COVID pandemic, whether that came in the form of wreaking havoc on the hospital system if you cared about freedom, the accusation of killing grannies if you did not wear a mask, saying that "you can't do such-and-such activity if you're dead," the consistently negative media coverage, or the mantra of "stay home, save lives." The fear of dying from COVID was not the only scare tactic used to try to keep people in line. There was the threat of long COVID. Long COVID, also known as post-acute sequelae SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), is when an individual continues to have lingering symptoms weeks or months after initial recovery from COVID. Some symptoms include shortness of breath, fatigue, brain fog, headache, and sleep issues. 

CNN made it sound like nearly one in two people who have had COVID suffer from long COVID at least six months after infection. In 2021, NPR found a study saying that was more than a third who suffer from long COVID. I am not here to say that long-term effects of a disease do not happen. This was observed in multiple diseases, the Spanish flu, pneumonia, and diabetes. What I would like to know is if long COVID is running rampant or if the prevalence of long COVID has been exaggerated. 

One of my big reasons for being skeptical about the media fear-mongering on this subject is that long COVID is poorly defined. Look at a CDC study on long COVID as an example (Landry et al., 2023). The CDC looked at students, faculty, and staff at George Washington University. Although the CDC acknowledges the time period is anywhere from 28 days to 6 months, the CDC emphatically stated that 36 percent of COVID cases in their study resulted in long COVID. Symptoms exhibited among these individuals included fatigue, sadness, anxiety, and trouble sleeping. Not only are these symptoms non-specific, they are also a common part of the college experience. Another example of the CDC cherry-picking data to suit an agenda.

This leads to a second reason why I express skepticism about long COVID. The non-specific nature of these symptoms could plausibly mean that there is another factor in play. Long-term fear has negative effects on the body, including many of the symptoms that are part of long COVID. As I previously brought up, the fear that the media and government peddled throughout the pandemic elevated stress levels and exacerbated mental health. Traumatic life events and long-term stress wear down the immune system. The lockdowns caused an increase of anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation, especially amongst children. A study from the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) found that pre-infection psychological distress causes 1.3-to 1.5-fold increase of self-reported post-viral symptoms (Wang et al., 2022). 

What is even more intriguing is a research paper that came out of Norway a couple of weeks ago (Selvakumar et al., 2023). You can read the analysis of practicing hematologist-oncologist and professor at University of California-San Francisco Vinay Prasad on this research here. 

This study looked at adolescents and young adults who exhibited long COVID symptoms. They used blood samples and other metrics to create a control group of those who previously had COVID and those who did not. The control group is key, especially since the previously mentioned CDC study did not have one. The bombshell of a finding from this Norwegian study is that having COVID had nothing to do with whether someone exhibited symptoms related to long COVID. To quote the study, long COVID "was not associated with biological markers specific to viral infection, but with initial symptom severity and psychosocial factors." This Norwegian study confirms a JAMA study that found that many people who had long COVID symptoms did not test positive for COVID antibodies (Matta et al., 2021). 

I do want to emphasize that this is not me saying that long COVID does not exist or that the symptoms are not real. Much like with other diseases, there are long-term effects of infection. I would surmise the same is for COVID. At the same time, it does not make sense to lump a bunch of non-specific diseases together and call it "long COVID." It is becoming more clear that the prevalence of long COVID has been exaggerated. 

But COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are down. The federal government is still on track to end its COVID emergency powers on May 11. Why does this debate on long COVID still matter if the pandemic is behind us? For one, the hype surrounding long COVID was part of the justification of the litany of misguided COVID restrictions that either did little to nothing to help or made matters worse. Some of these policies are still in place, including vaccine mandates for college students and federal employees. This hype is a lesson of fear getting the best of people, including decision-makers. If we are to be prepared for the next pandemic, we need to learn from this pandemic.   

The second is hinted at in the CDC's recent study, in which the authors say that "this sequela has been suggested to be the 'next national health disaster.'" I know that the topic about long COVID is ever-evolving. As more data come in, I would assume we have a clearer picture of what actually constitutes as long COVID and what is caused by other factors. The latest data suggests that there are a significant number of patients that are misattributing their symptoms to long COVID. This finding may or may not change as we acquire more data. Someone who appreciates the scientific process would be able to adjust their viewpoints when more methodologically sound findings come along our way. The CDC has shown that it is incapable of that humility or that adaptability. If they have an exaggerated understanding of long COVID prevalence, how can we expect the government to solve such a problem?

Critical Race Theory and Social Justice Are Commonplace In School: Can Anything Be Done to Fight It?

School is not only supposed to be a place to acquire knowledge, but to learn how to think vis-à-vis critical thinking skills. Education is supposed to seek facts and determine what is truth. When one is presented beliefs or values as truth, that is when you know that indoctrination is at play. That is exactly what is happening at schools all across the United States of America. In late February, the Right-leaning Manhattan Institute released a groundbreaking study entitled School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education. 

The study surveyed 1,500 Americans aged 18 to 20 to find that 93 percent of American students have been exposed to at least one idea of Critical Social Justice. What are these eight ideas? As we see below, these ideas range from a patriarchal society, the existence of multiple genders, gender identity being a choice, white privilege, America being a "systemically racist society," white people having "unconscious bias," America was built on stolen land, and that discrimination is the main difference for wealth and other outcomes in life. 

If these ideas of Critical Social Justice were being taught alongside other perspectives and counterarguments, that would be one thing because it would mean students are learning from multiple viewpoints. Yet that is not what is happening in today's schools. The Manhattan Study report shows that the greater exposure to CSJ, the more likely that CSJ is being taught as fact rather than one school of thought. The report also shows that CSJ is shifting children to the political Left. 

The Manhattan Institute report also shows what happens if students try to speak out against what the teachers are presenting to students. As we see below, the number of students surveyed that feared being shamed, punished, or expelled was over 50 percent. That sort of fear not only creates mental health for children, but it discourages open communication or critical thinking, neither of which are conducive for a sound education.

These findings confirm that children are not receiving an education, but are being indoctrinated. The fact that Critical Social Justice has permeated this country's schools, both public and private alike, is disturbing to say the least. I have commented on how CRT does nothing to improve race relations or helps with the quality of education. I have pointed out how CRT is divisive and destructive for society. As the Foundation for Economic Education points out:

It should be clear that this approach is an improper use of the state--which should be educating, not indoctrinating, students. It not only gives children an incomplete picture of the world around them, but also creates a civil society that is more prone to intolerance of dissenting views. After all, if one was led to believe only one perspective was legitimate, then it is natural to then believe that it is important to shut out all 'illegitimate' views, both socially and maybe even legislatively. This is concerning because pluralism and tolerance are indispensable to a healthy and vibrant political culture. 

So what can be done? In private or parochial schools, it will have to be a cultural shift. As for public schools, there needs to be other measures since the government decides the curriculum. As the Manhattan Institute outlines in its report, this is where impartiality laws, curriculum reform laws (including the establishment of education standards), and audits come into play. 

As already illustrated, this has negative impact on education and civil society. The increase in woke censorship acts as a reminder that we are in the midst of a culture war that is being fought on multiple battlegrounds, and the school is one such battleground. Whether we can maintain a pluralistic society that is tolerant of others who think, speak, or act differently will depend on how well indoctrination can be kept out of our schools. I never thought I would have to say the following because I never thought that I would see our political and cultural institutions make such authoritarian shifts in my lifetime to silence dissenting voices. But I strongly believe that the future of American democracy is at a tipping point. How we come out of the other side of this culture war, especially with regards to our education system, will determine whether or not we can maintain a pluralistic, democratic society.

Why a Federal Ban of TikTok Would Be a Ticking Time Bomb Waiting to Erode Our Rights

TikTok is a short-form video hosting service that has made the news lately. While the video-sharing app has brought entertainment and information to millions, it is facing the possibility of a ban in the United States. But why? It is true that TikTok collects data, gets people addicted on social media, and can be used to find what some would deem inappropriate or inaccurate information. TikTok also has had its share of vulnerabilities, privacy violations, and dubious practices. But the same could be said for Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, and YouTube. What is different about TikTok? In two words, Chinese influence. 

TikTok is a company that is owned by ByteDance (字节跳动有限公司). ByteDance is headquartered in Beijing and incorporated in the Cayman Islands. The issue with ByteDance are the allegations that ByteDance answers to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Ownership by a Chinese company brings up national security concerns about data privacy, propaganda, cyberattacks, and disinformation from the CCP. 

Whether or not the CCP already has collected TikTok data does not negate that the CCP could plausibly compel ByteDance to fork over TikTok data to the CCP. After all, modern-day China has a propensity towards surveillance, censorship, and overall cracking down on freedom. Plus, as the Right-leaning Heritage Foundation brings up in its report TikTok Generation: A CCP Official in Every Pocket, there are laws already in place that could make that possibility a reality. Furthermore, FBI Director Christopher Wray recently testified that TikTok "screams national security concerns."

It could explain why according to Pew Research, U.S. citizens favor a TikTok ban by nearly two to one. There might be a plausible case to disallow the use of TikTok for government officials and employees who guard state secrets or have Top Secret security clearances. After all, such government employees already have other restrictions on their lives due to the nature of their work. Outside of that notable exception, let me run through the reasons why a nationwide ban of TikTok would be highly problematic.

The first issue with banning TikTok is that it is unconstitutional. As Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) brings up in his op-ed, the First Amendment applies to speech whether you like it or not. The second is that a bill of attainder, which is a bill against a specific person or company, is prohibited under the Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 3). Odds are that a TikTok ban would be overruled by the Supreme Court, especially since a federal court previously overruled former President Trump's TikTok ban. 

In the event that a TikTok ban were to be upheld by the Supreme Court, it would have serious ramifications for the freedom of speech. It is not only that TikTok is used by 150 million U.S. users, 10 percent of adults in the U.S. receive their news from TikTok, or that a TikTok ban would be the largest impairment of freedom of speech in the United States. If the government could ban TikTok, it would set precedent for the federal government to control what apps and technologies that U.S. citizens could use to communicate. 

What makes you think that this sort of oversight and regulation would ultimately be limited to TikTok? A TikTok ban is merely a pretense for more government power. That is not mere conjecture or fantasy. Take a look at this spot-on analysis from the Cato Institute on Congress' latest attempt at a power grab: the "Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology" Act, also known as the RESTRICT Act. The power under the RESTRICT Act to define "adversary" nations and which companies could be subject to government restrictions would be a nightmare for freedom of speech and privacy protections. If the RESTRICT Act were to pass, China would not be the only potential threat to American citizens.  

Do you really want the the federal government to have the power to restrict free speech, along with other rights, like that? It would make no sense for U.S. politicians to be so appalled by China's disregard for civil liberties while responding by emulating the CCP's behavior of suppressing freedom of speech and free enterprise. How does embracing government overreach and censorship show that the United States is the land of the free? You think we would have learned from the civil rights abuses from the Patriot Act, but here we are. 

While we are on the topic of liberty, Americans should have the right and freedom to use the TikTok app. To quote the Foundation of Economic Education, "The government has no business telling people what apps they have on their phone. If individuals want to take the risk of exposing their data to the CCP, that should be their choice." If we are to maintain a free and open internet, individuals should take responsibility for their own data privacy. This would include reading privacy policies for given apps, using virtual private networks (VPNs), favoring apps that use encrypted messaging and other privacy features, or simply not using a smartphone to track you. 

There has been a lot of postulating and handwringing about potential national security issues. Let's ask some questions about whether the government could come up with a national security justification for the ban:

• 71.2 percent of TikTok users are between the age of 18 and 34. If CCP were to get its hands on the data of the average TikTok user, especially given age demographics, how would that threaten national security? 
• TikTok has a special-purpose subsidiary called TikTok U.S. Data Security that contracts with the company Oracle to store U.S. data. Is there proof that TikTok is actually sharing U.S. user data with the CCP, even in spite of the existence of this subsidiary? (Answer: not as of yet.)
• Why is there no evidence that the CCP has tampered with TikTok's content recommendation to disseminate CCP propaganda or disinformation?
• If TikTok were so pro-China that it was a puppet of the Chinese government, why is TikTok banned in China? Why do Chinese citizens have to use Douyin instead?
• If China were such a national security concern, why does the U.S. government still allow for the production of such consumer goods as smart appliances, pharmaceuticals, personal protective equipment, and computer chips to be consumed in the U.S.?

At this juncture, the national security harms of TikTok are conjectural. But let's forget for a moment that the national security concerns are not based on hard evidence or specific, concrete examples. TikTok colluding with the CCP on content acquisition is bad business. If TikTok were to facilitate pro-CCP tampering, it would be a public relations disaster for TikTok. They have a profit incentive to play by the free speech norms that are in the Western world, much like U.S. companies have had to comply with the Great Firewall of China if it wants to do business in China. The Chinese government also has a macroeconomic incentive for companies such as TikTok to be able to compete in the greater global market.

Finally, what good would a TikTok ban do? Bans can often be circumvented. If someone like Mayor Bloomberg tries to ban sodas greater than 16 ounces, you can buy two sodas under 16 ounces and consumer just as much, if not more, sugar. Illicit drugs could be purchased on the black market. A mass shooter could get around a high-capacity magazine ban by changing magazines or bringing multiple weapons. As for TikTok, users could circumvent the ban by purchasing a VPN and using TikTok that way. Given the number of TikTok users that exist, could you imagine the regulatory apparatus to monitor millions of smartphones and computers? 

As the Brookings Institution points out in its analysis on why a TikTok ban will not guarantee consumer safety, "much of the information collected by TikTok is like that compiled by many companies that host consumer facing products." Also, the CCP already has the ability to buy demographic, health, geographic, and political data (as well as device identifiers, and face or voice prints) from private third-party data brokers. In short, if the CCP wanted those data, it can already get a hold of them.

None of this even gets into the economic impact that a TikTok ban would have on a variety of professions, including life coaches, influencers, and small business owners. Instead of focusing on banning TikTok, Congress should be asking itself how it can pass broad-based data privacy rules or laws. By asking ourselves how to enact laws that protect the data privacy of consumers and individual freedom, the U.S. government can protect our values and democracy while not taking the authoritarian path that the Chinese government uses to censor and limit freedom.

"No Man Is an Island": A Passover Lesson on Being There for Others

While the holiday of Passover, also known as Pesach (פסח), is a particularly Jewish holiday, it also has such universal themes as freedom and liberation. Three is a telling of the story of liberation known as the Exodus during Passover, which is called the Maggid (מגיד), is the fifth step of the Passover ritual feast known as the Seder. Before the Maggid begins, there is an Aramaic passage known as Ha Lachma Anya (הא לחמא עניא) that is read:

הא לחמא עניא די אכלו אבהתנא בארעא דמצרים. כל דכפין ייתי וייכל, כל דצריך ייתי ויפסח. השתא הכא, לשנה הבאה בארעא דישראל. השתא עבדי, לשנה הבאה בני חורין

This is the bread of affliction that our ancestors ate in the land of Egypt. All those who are hungry, let them enter and eat. All who are in need, let them come celebrate the Passover. Now we are here. Next year in the land of Israel. This year, we are slaves. Next year, we will be free. 

I have often wondered why we recite this passage before beginning telling the story of the Exodus. Every year, the head of the house opens the door reciting this phrase with some vague hope that people will come to the Seder. I have never seen anyone near the doorstep to accept the invitation. Odds are that you have not either, which would make sense given how few people actually understand Aramaic. If the expectation to invite people in for a meal is not meant to be taken so literally, how are we meant to understand this interlude? 

In the first call of Ha Lachma Anya where it says "let those who are hungry come and eat" (כל דכפין ייתי וייכל), one is meant to address the hunger of others.  I find it especially alluring given that moments beforehand, the afikomen is broken and hidden in the ritual called yachatz (יחץ). When I reflected on the spiritual lessons of yachatz, I pointed out how breaking food and saving it for later was a sign of poverty in ancient times. In spite of that poverty (either literal or metaphorical), the Seder teaches us the importance of developing an abundance mindset and providing part of our material wealth to those who are lacking. 

However, there is a second call of "all who are in need" (כל דצריך). Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik made an interesting point on this text. This is not referring to physical hunger because that was previously covered. R. Soloveitchik saw it as addressing spiritual needs, particularly those who are lonely and need companionship and friendship. 

As Soloveitchik brings up, Jews have been oppressed, exiled, and ostracized. The Jewish people know what it is like to feel alone, abandoned, and forsaken. When dealing with that level of hurt and trauma, someone who is oppressed is either faced with becoming an oppressor themselves or being kind. Rather than giving into spiritual darkness, the Seder asks us to break that cycle and open our doors with love and kindness. 

I find this passage of Ha Lachma Anya to be enlightening, especially since the Seder was created in a time where extreme poverty was the norm. We are supposed to help others with their physical needs, even if we do not have much material wealth. Thankfully, there has been progress made on eradicating extreme poverty. I also acknowledge that poverty is still a reality lived by millions in this world, which means that the call of כל דכפין ייתי וייכל has sadly not lost its relevance. 

At the same time, the Seder was centuries ahead of Abraham Maslow (who was incidentally Jewish) and his hierarchy of needs. It is important that basic needs of food, clothing, and shelter are met. But what about beyond that? We live in an age of unprecedented technology and progress, yet depression and anxiety are quite high. 

That paradox can be answered by the fact that we are more than physical creatures. Human beings also crave connection and meaning. The need to address non-physical concerns is higher than ever. Well before its time, the Seder teaches that we are to be mindful of the plight of those around us, whether that plight is physical, emotional, mental, or spiritual. Rabbi Jonathan Sacks astutely reminds us that the bread of affliction (also known as matzah) becomes the bread of freedom the moment that we decide to share it with others. The fact that matzah can both represent the food the Israelites ate in Egypt while in slavery and the bread eaten as the Israelites are leaving Egypt to be free allude to the idea that our perception of something and how we use it in life can make a difference in quality of life, but I digress.

We are not meant to live on an island and simply fend for ourselves. To quote Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel, "The opposite of freedom is not determinism, but hardness of heart. Freedom presupposes openness of heart, of mind, of eye and ear." If you are too open, that means you have no personal boundaries and lose your freedom that way. At the same time, I agree with Heschel in that if you close yourself off to possibilities, you are equally unfree. Being open to something does not automatically mean saying "yes," but rather the awareness that allows to you consider it a possibility. 

It is interesting to think that the extent to which we are open determines who free we are, particularly when it comes to the topic of giving. Slaves did not and do not have the option to give because they were deprived of autonomy or a salary. Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook believed that this gesture of Ha Lachma Anya and wanting to feed the hungry is a sign of what makes us human and signals an essential part of being a free being. 

On some level, all of us have limited resources, energy, and time because are finite beings. Some have greater limits than others, to be sure. Nevertheless, we are still meant to help those who are within our sphere of influence. Ha Lachma Anya is to remind Jews that to be there for others is an essential part of a Jew's spiritual calling, as I would argue is the calling of the spiritual life of many non-Jewish practices. It is an unattributable quote, but I will end with it all the same: 

"When you have more than you need, build a longer table, not a taller fence."