Latest news with #Founding
Fox News
01-08-2025
- Business
- Fox News
5 huge ways Trump can make civil service great again
Under the leadership of President Donald Trump, we have a chance to make civil service great again. In many ways, the Founding Fathers were the original civil servants. They were the start-up founders who inspired generations to work on behalf of the American dream long before there was an institutionalized civil service – later formalized by the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883 and bolstered by Theodore Roosevelt's leadership as commissioner of the U.S. Civil Service Commission (the modern predecessor of today's Office of Personnel Management, which I have the privilege to lead). Across two and a half centuries since our nation's founding, public servants have heeded the clarion call of the noblest of missions: from forming our nation after the American Revolution to ultimately cementing our supremacy during the Cold War by literally shooting for the moon via the Apollo program. These bold entreaties inspired the nation's best and brightest to embrace public service. For over 50 years since the Apollo landing, however, the public's interest in civil service has plummeted back down to earth. Many Founding Fathers such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin were polymaths who chose to focus their genius on creating the best government the world had ever seen. But if Alexander Hamilton, our first Treasury secretary, were alive today, he likely would be working in Silicon Valley or Wall Street, instead of in the federal government. First, the mission – since the days of moonshots, the federal workforce has not been asked to "dream big" or innovate. Instead, they have been tasked with managing small problems, preserving the status quo and protecting against the downside at all costs. Second, incentives – power and prestige derive from the size of an agency's headcount and budget. In all cases, more is better. Third, the lack of a high-performance culture – a focus on equity over merit and job stability over accountability. Fourth, treating technology as a second-class citizen – instead, the answer to most problems has been more headcount. Fifth, an arms-length relationship with the private sector that fails to create partnership, particularly when it comes to attracting talent in critical areas. First, Trump has no shortage of moonshots to transform America's economic future – winning in artificial intelligence, unleashing American energy, revolutionizing financial technology with cryptocurrencies, reindustrializing the heartland, making America healthy again, and the list goes on. Inspiring missions inspire great minds who want to be a part of something truly transformational. Second, changing the incentives that ultimately drive civil service behavior. If we give employees permission to take "measured" risks, to think from first principles, to be willing to pilot new ideas with the understanding that we won't score a 100%, to make operational efficiency and stewardship of taxpayer dollars a first-class citizen, we can change behavior. Let's reward creativity, continuous improvement and doing more with less; power should no longer derive from organizational bloat, but rather from financially sound outcomes. Third, we can create a high-performance culture. We must disproportionately reward those who create the most value for the taxpayer and remove employees from the organization who aren't able to respond to performance improvement guidance. No more "peanut buttering" of annual evaluations and bonuses to achieve equity goals; we should instead demand excellence. But if Alexander Hamilton, our first Treasury secretary, were alive today, he likely would be working in Silicon Valley or Wall Street, instead of in the federal government. Fourth, make the adoption of technology a key tenet of success. The government should be a leading testing ground for new technologies, rather than the last bastion of mainframe computers. Eliminate the "not invented here" bias that pervades government adoption of technology; we don't need to build bespoke applications when third parties have superior solutions. Lastly, embrace the private sector to partner on talent. We can build out public-private exchanges, secondment opportunities, and higher education pathways to ensure that the government gets access to the best and brightest. Of course, many people may ultimately choose to spend the majority of their careers in the private sector, but they can still contribute to success in the public sector. President Trump is ushering in a Golden Age for America by reforming the government bureaucracy to work for the American people. We will make the civil service great again. The future of our nation depends on it.
Epoch Times
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
How Virtue Sustains the Individual and a Nation, According to Our Founding Fathers
'We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable,' reads Thomas Jefferson's Jefferson's draft was discussed, debated, and edited over the coming days by the other members of the Committee of Five, which included Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston; and then by the Second Continental Congress. When it came to those 'inalienable rights,' the men, whom posterity would herald as the Founding Fathers, understood perfectly what was meant by life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The last of these three, however, has, over the last century, been slowly and completely redefined.
Time Magazine
03-07-2025
- Science
- Time Magazine
How Has The Climate Changed Since the First 4th of July?
The Founding Fathers who gathered in Philadelphia to adopt the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 1776 picked a nice day to do their work. It was a Thursday, and the temperature at 6:00 a.m. was 68°F, going up to a warmish but still pleasant 76°F at 1:00 p.m., according to daily records kept by Virginia's Thomas Jefferson. The planetary metabolism at the time was set more for such balmy days than it was for the increasingly suffocating summers we experience in the 21st century. It was in 1867 that scientists would first define the epoch that includes the late 1700s as the Holocene—a period that began 11,700 years ago and is still ongoing. The Holocene was originally temperate, with atmospheric carbon levels measuring about 280 parts per million (ppm)—enough to keep the Earth warm but not stifling. About a billion acres of North America—or 46% of the continent—were covered in carbon-absorbing trees, further helping to regulate the climate. If anything, the planet was calibrated for cold. The first Independence Day occurred during the period known as the Little Ice Age, which ran from 1300 to 1850 and saw temperatures in North America falling 1°C to 2°C (1.8° F to 3.6°F) below thousand-year averages. 'It was quite a bit colder [than average] in the 17th century,' says Kyle Harper, professor of classics and letters at the University of Oklahoma and a faculty member at the Santa Fe Institute. 'The 18th century is a little less extreme, but it's still part of the Little Ice Age. The 19th century starts to get even colder for a little bit. And then, of course, it turns around.' That turnaround—a wholesale reshaping of our world's climate—has been attributable in large measure to humans, and it's what makes today's Independence Day so different from the one 249 years ago. The Little Ice Age that preceded the majority of climate-altering human activity was caused largely by clusters of volcanic eruptions, which released a sun-shielding haze into the atmosphere, along with four solar minimums—or periods of reduced solar activity—occurring on and off from 1280 to 1830. 'The sun is not a totally constant star,' says Harper. 'The power of the solar dynamo itself is changing.' Those factors helped lead to a shift in the Atlantic current, which furthered the cooling. Cool temperatures were not constant during the Little Ice Age, of course. As always, day to day weather is very different from decade to decade or century to century climate, and there were plenty of scorchers in America's early years. 'Some of those summers in the 1770s and 1780s were still really hot,' says Harper. 'In 1787 when they were drafting the Constitution in Philadelphia it was hellishly hot.' Humanity would make that heat more common—and more intense. In 1760, the Industrial Revolution—a period of explosive factory-building and carbon-burning—began in Europe and North America, pouring greenhouse gasses into the sky and countering the natural forces keeping the Earth relatively cool. At the same time, great swaths of forested land around the world were being cleared and put to the torch to make room for agriculture. That practice, known as slash-and-burn farming, actually began 12,000 years ago, though it didn't get started in earnest in North America until 1500 when European settlers arrived. Since then more than 25% of the continent's forestland has disappeared. In the Amazon, the figure is about 20%. Not only does that take hundreds of millions of acres of carbon-absorbing trees out of circulation, it also pumps more carbon into the skies as unwanted trees and surrounding brush are incinerated. 'Trees are a huge carbon stock,' says Harper. 'You take something that was alive and had a lot of carbon in it and you burn it and that releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The percentage of trees that we've cumulatively cut down definitely affects the Earth system.' Across the arc of the past two and a half centuries, those slash-and-burn practices, along with fossil fuel-burning factories and internal combustion engines have released an estimated 1.5 trillion tons of CO2 into the air, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). That has swamped the skies, with CO2 levels rising from 280 ppm in Colonial times to 422.8 ppm in 2024, according to NOAA. In turn, temperatures have soared. Last year, the Earth was 2.65°F (1.47°C) warmer than it was when formal record-keeping began in the late 1800s, according to NASA and NOAA—and the problem is only forecast to get worse. 'What does one degree mean? What does two degrees mean?' asks Harper. 'Two degrees, when you're talking about a global average, is a massive change. And beyond that, you talk about four degrees—it's really like a different planet.' Nearly 250 years ago, a small group of men on a little patch of that planet raised the flag of a new country. Today, that country—and the 194 others around the globe—face an existential peril the American colonists could not have foreseen.
Newsweek
16-06-2025
- Business
- Newsweek
America Needs a Real Plan To Make Homeownership Affordable Again
The American dream of homeownership, already slipping out of reach in recent years, is now vanishing for millions. The housing market is under siege from all sides. We're short approximately four million homes, mortgage rates have nearly tripled since the coronavirus pandemic, and tariffs are driving up the cost of materials, slowing development to a crawl. In April alone, single-family housing starts dropped 12 percent compared with the same month last year. From the earliest days of the republic, property ownership was deemed essential to liberty. The Founding Fathers believed that broad ownership of private property, especially land, was essential to sustaining a self-reliant citizenry. "Dependence begets subservience," Thomas Jefferson warned, and owning the ground beneath your feet was a guardrail against both. That ideal distinguished the United States from the Old World, where land belonged to the elite and everyone else merely rented. Legislation like the Homestead Act of 1862 and the GI Bill of 1944 reflected the fundamental ethos that ownership ensures empowerment. Today, that ethos is at risk. Our nation faces three interlocking crises: a massive supply shortfall, punishing interest rates, and a worsening affordability spiral. Tackling them head-on to produce homes that everyday Americans can afford requires courageous and targeted reform. First, policymakers must create incentives for developers to build entry-level housing targeted at buyers earning around the median income in the communities where they operate. The sole purpose of this policy should be to increase the inventory of homes accessible to everyday Americans while limiting competition from investors and second-home buyers. As part of this initiative, the federal government should offer a 50 percent reduction in capital gains or income tax liability to non-publicly traded developers who build and sell homes priced within 20 percent of the local median home price, provided those homes are sold to first-time buyers. To further jumpstart development and encourage scale, that incentive should rise to 75 percent after the first ten qualifying homes. Larger, publicly traded firms should be included as well, though at a lower incentive rate. AUSTIN, TEXAS - APRIL 17: An aerial view of houses undergoing construction in a neighborhood on April 17, 2025 in Austin, Texas. AUSTIN, TEXAS - APRIL 17: An aerial view of houses undergoing construction in a neighborhood on April 17, 2025 in Austin, the federal government should put its own land to better use. Vast tracts of underutilized and unused federal land could be sold at a discount to qualified developers, yet with strings attached. Homes must go to first-time buyers, priced near the local median, and states must commit to a 20-year property tax abatement. President Donald Trump's proposal to unlock federal land was an admirable start. But we also need to direct development toward working families rather than vacation-home investors. Third, states must be empowered to lead. Governors would apply, identifying housing-strapped regions, providing local price data, and agreeing to tax abatements. A dedicated federal agency should coordinate this program, modeled on the successful Opportunity Zone framework established under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Without micromanaging, the agency would ensure funding and enforcement consistency across state lines. New homes mean nothing if no one can afford to buy them. Since 2020, prices have soared by almost 50 percent while rates have tripled. That's a double whammy for prospective middle-class buyers. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac should offer discounted mortgage rates for income-qualified households purchasing homes in the program. Without financing relief, inventory will not translate into ownership. Then there remains the danger that Wall Street will pounce on any new homes. Institutional investors have bought up single-family homes in cash by the thousands, inflating prices and freezing out first-time buyers. Publicly traded firms should be capped at ownership of 50 single-family homes. If they own more, they must sell the excess within two years or face heavy penalties. That single measure would instantly return inventory to the market. To additionally safeguard homes for families, we also need to keep them from becoming just another asset class. Homes built under the program should carry 20-year deed restrictions with only primary occupants having the ability to buy and sell. If a homeowner wants to sell before the 20 years are up, the next buyer must also intend to live there. Localities have used similar models successfully for decades. This plan is admittedly aggressive, but it's achievable. It merely asks government to use resources readily at its disposal—land, taxes, and regulation—to empower developers, protect families, and rebuild the American middle class. If implemented, it would resuscitate the founding principle that every citizen should have a shot at owning the place they call home. Policymakers must act before the American dream becomes little more than a nostalgic memory. Pierre E. Debbas is managing partner of Romer Debbas LLP. Follow on X: @pierredebbasesq The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Yahoo
11-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
People Are Saying This Video Of Soldiers Booing When Democrats Are Mentioned "Sent A Chill Down" Their Spines
Donald Trump recently gave a speech in front of military soldiers in Fort Bragg, North Carolina — home of the largest military installation in the US — and it was deeply disturbing. In his speech, Trump called anti-ICE protestors "a vicious and violent mob," and baselessly accused Governor Gavin Newsom and Mayor Karen Bass of paying people to cause chaos at the LA protests. He also heckled the "fake news" media, mocked Joe Biden, insulted trans people, and announced he was restoring the names of multiple military bases to feature Confederate leaders. Trump goaded active duty troops at his Fort Bragg speech to boo:The Media, Gov. Gavin Newsom, Mayor Karen Bass, and Joe Biden — The Bulwark (@BulwarkOnline) June 10, 2025 AP / Twitter: @BulwarkOnline Oddly enough, the most shocking aspect of Trump's speech wasn't his words, but rather, the reactions of the in-uniform soldiers. "In Los Angeles, the governor of California, the mayor of Los incompetent, and they paid troublemakers, agitators, and insurrectionists. They're engaged in this willful attempt to nullify federal law and aid the occupation of the city by criminal invaders," Trump said. The soldiers booed loudly, seemingly in agreement. "This is a record think this crowd would've showed up for Biden? I don't think so," Trump continued, smiling. Related: The Internet Is Having A Field Day Over Marjorie Taylor Greene's Tweet About Homeschooling With An Altered Map Many soldiers laughed and booed at the mention of former commander in chief Joe Biden. "Ladies and gentlemen, the fake news. Look at 'em, look at 'em I have to put up with. Fake news," Trump said pointing to reporters. In response, the soldiers loudly booed the media. Related: A NSFW Float Depicting Donald Trump's "MAGA" Penis Was Just Paraded Around Germany, And It' "For a little breaking news, we are also going to be restoring the names to Fort Pickett, Fort Fort Robert E. Lee," Trump said. The news of Confederate leaders' names being returned to military bases was met with loud applause and cheers. Since their posting on X, the speech clips have ramped up millions of views, and commenters have expressed fear and anger about Trump's politicization of the military, and the soldiers' reactions. "The way this disgusting creature is politicizing the troops endlessly in this rant AND the fact they are participating in it is equally despicable. He is everything the Founding Fathers feared," one person wrote. Another X user who claims to be a veteran described the speech as "absolutely unacceptable," continuing, "we serve ALL Americans, even the ones we disagree with or dislike and we do not turn fellow citizens into enemies." "The troops booing sent a chill down my spine," this person wrote. This person called it "outrageously unpresidential" and "un-American" to "speak to the US military like they're his partisan personal army." Another veteran who spent 37 years in uniform said they'd never witnessed anything like it. "The military booing an American city, goaded by the president, is deeply unsettling." What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below. Also in In the News: JD Vance Shared The Most Bizarre Tweet Of Him Serving "Food" As Donald Trump's Housewife Also in In the News: This Senator's Clap Back Fully Gagged An MSNBC Anchor, And The Clip Is Going Viral Also in In the News: AOC's Viral Response About A Potential Presidential Run Has Everyone Watching, And I'm Honestly Living For It
