Category: Education

How Italy’s Political Violence Mirrors U.S. Extremism

On By TonyIn Belief, Education, PoliticsLeave a comment

Italy’s Years of Lead (late 1960s–1980s) were marked by sustained political violence—bombings, kidnappings, assassinations—by both far-left and far-right militants. The period left deep scars on Italian democracy and institutions. The United States today faces its own surge in politically motivated violence, rising extremist networks (predominantly on the far right), intense polarization, and institutional strain. Drawing lessons from Italy can help the U.S. avoid escalation and protect democratic norms.

What’s happening now in the U.S.

  • A rise in right-wing violence: Research and law-enforcement reporting show increasing activity by white supremacist, anti-government, and militia groups. The FBI and DHS have repeatedly identified domestic violent extremists—especially racially motivated violent extremists and anti-government actors—as among the top domestic threats. 
  • High-profile political violence: Charlottesville (2017) and the January 6, 2021, Capitol attacks are stark examples of organized political violence and the willingness of politically motivated mobs to use force. 
  • Rhetoric and radicalization: Prominent conservative activists and media figures (like Charlie Kirk) have used combative, often dehumanizing rhetoric. In NO WAY does this justify his killing – BUT- Scholars link such rhetoric to environments that can facilitate radicalization even when direct causation is hard to prove. Public figures’ statements that stoke grievance and delegitimize opponents lower norms and can embolden violent actors. 
  • Media and accountability pressures: Major media organizations have fired or disciplined hosts and contributors after controversies over comments about public figures or political matters, reflecting both commercial pressures and debates about editorial tolerance. Some critics argue media responses have been inconsistent, fueling perceptions of selective accountability. 
  • Use of federal forces in cities: Debates over federal deployments—whether federal agents at protests or National Guard activations—have heightened tensions, with critics warning such moves can escalate conflict or be perceived as politicized if not transparently justified and overseen.

Comparing to Italy’s Years of Lead: parallels and limits

  • Parallels: Polarization, media amplification, organized extremist networks, and institutional stress are common factors. Italy’s descent shows how unresolved grievances and state overreach can create feedback loops of violence and delegitimation. 
  • Limits: Italy’s violence involved more sustained, symmetric campaigns by both left and right, large-scale bombings, and Cold War geopolitics that have no direct modern U.S. equivalent. The U.S. context is shaped by social media radicalization, different political institutions, and a mostly far-right profile of violent groups today.

Risks to watch

  • Normalizing dehumanizing rhetoric from public figures, which lowers barriers to violence. 
  • Selective enforcement or politicized use of federal force, which undermines trust. 
  • Media incentives that amplify polarizing content and inconsistent accountability, which reinforce grievance narratives. 
  • Online ecosystems that speed radicalization and facilitate operational planning.

What Can We Do in Dover and New Hampshire?

  • Community violence prevention: Invest in local organizations, crisis-intervention teams, and intervention specialists who can mediate disputes and identify early radicalization signs. 
  • Robust civilian oversight: Create empowered civilian review boards and independent investigators for incidents involving political actors. 
  • Prosecutorial independence and ethics: Strengthen rules and oversight to ensure local prosecutors act impartially on politically sensitive cases. 
  • Education and media literacy: Expand programs in schools and communities to build critical thinking and resilience against disinformation. 
  • Local reintegration services: Fund job training, counseling, and social supports for those leaving extremist movements to reduce recidivism.

Civic and media responsibilities

  • Public figures should be held to higher standards of rhetoric; platforms and outlets should apply policies transparently and consistently. 
  • Media organizations must balance accountability with due process, resisting both partisan pressure and reflexive cancellations that feed grievance narratives. 
  • Civil society should bolster spaces for cross-partisan engagement to rebuild trust.

Italy’s Years of Lead show how democratic backsliding and political violence can feed off polarization, institutional weakness, and state overreach. The United States is not destined to repeat Italy’s worst extremes—but avoiding that path requires recognizing the growing threat from right-wing violence, curbing incendiary rhetoric, ensuring impartial enforcement, reforming federal interventions, and investing at state and local levels in prevention and reintegration. Clear oversight, consistent accountability, and civic renewal are the best defenses against escalation

The Real Reason Birth Rates Are Falling in the U.S.: It’s the Economy, Plain and Simple

On By TonyIn Belief, economy, EducationLeave a comment

“How can anyone but the top 10% even afford a child?”

I was listening to NPR the other day, and they were diving into the mystery of America’s declining birth rate. Experts offered a wide range of possible explanations—shifting cultural norms, delayed marriages, more women in the workforce, climate anxiety, even a rise in individualism. All interesting ideas, but I couldn’t help thinking: aren’t we ignoring the obvious reason?

When you strip away the sociological theory and high-concept analysis, the reason so many Americans are choosing not to have children—or to have fewer of them—is simple: it’s just too expensive.

Let’s talk about the basics.

Giving Birth Is a Financial Burden

Even giving birth in the U.S. is a luxury many can’t afford. The average cost of childbirth with insurance is around $3,000 out of pocket. Without insurance, it can balloon up to $15,000 or more. And that’s just for the delivery—never mind prenatal care, time off work, or complications.

Compare this to countries where childbirth is covered by universal healthcare, and it’s no wonder families in the U.S. are thinking twice.

It’s just too expensive to have a kid in the United States.

This isn’t some abstract cultural shift. It’s economics. Let’s look at the data.

🏥 1. The Cost of Giving Birth in the U.S.

Average Cost of Childbirth (2023):

Delivery TypeWith InsuranceWithout Insurance
Vaginal Delivery~$3,000~$10,000–$15,000
C-Section~$5,000~$15,000–$20,000

Source: Health Care Cost Institute, 2023

👶 2. No Paid Parental Leave


Only 24% of U.S. workers have access to any paid parental leave.

Source: OECD; U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023

🧒 3. Childcare Costs More Than College

  • Massachusetts: $21,000/year (childcare) vs $14,000/year (college)
  • California: $17,000/year vs $11,000/year
  • National Avg: ~$15,000/year

Source: Economic Policy Institute, 2023

🏠 4. Housing Is Out of Reach

  • Median home price (2024): $420,000+
  • Median household income: $75,000

Source: Zillow; U.S. Census Bureau, 2024

📚 5. Public School Funding Gaps

If families manage to overcome the cost of birth, childcare, and housing, they’re rewarded with another financial stress: underfunded schools. For those who want quality education, private school tuition or expensive neighborhood buy-ins become the next hurdle.

And the list goes on: healthcare, college savings, groceries, transportation, extracurriculars. Every line item adds up, and most families are doing the math—and opting out.

  • Rich districts: $20,000+ per student
  • Poor districts: $8,000–$12,000 per student

Source: National Center for Education Statistics, 2023

🧮 It’s Just Math

Here’s the simple equation most working- and middle-class Americans are doing in their heads:

Cost of childbirth + no leave + $20k/year childcare + unaffordable housing + uncertain education = maybe no kids.

  • 2007: 2.12 children per woman
  • 2023: 1.62 children per woman (record low)

Source: CDC, 2024

🎯 It’s Not About Culture—It’s About Affordability

So while experts continue to theorize why Americans aren’t having kids, maybe the better question is this:

How can anyone but the top 10% even afford to?

This isn’t about people not wanting children. It’s about people being realistic. In a country where basic support systems are missing and the cost of living rises faster than wages, choosing to have children can feel like stepping off a cliff—financially and emotionally.

Until we address the economic reality of family life in America, the birth rate will keep falling. Not because people are selfish or scared or lazy—but because the math just doesn’t work.Until we create a society where average families can afford to raise children without risking economic ruin, the birth rate will keep falling. Not because people are selfish or lazy—but because they’re rational.

Dover Athletic Field Project: A Necessary Investment

On By TonyIn economy, EducationLeave a comment

As your elected representative for Ward 3, I need to share my reasoning behind a difficult but ultimately necessary decision: my vote in favor of the Dover High School athletic field project.

This was not an easy call. I understand and respect the concerns around cost and timing and decision to use synthetic surfaces. But after years of deferred maintenance and growing student needs, it became clear that action could no longer be delayed. Our athletic fields have been ignored for too long, and the time to invest is now.

This project was recommended by the Joint Building Commission (JBC), endorsed by the Recreation Department, and approved by the School Board. The City Council’s role was to authorize the necessary funding—and I believe that as stewards of Dover’s future, we had a responsibility to support it.

I want to thank the JBC for their tremendous work over the past 18 months in shaping and guiding this project. Their dedication, planning, and attention to detail have been critical in bringing this proposal forward. I also want to thank the citizens of Dover who took the time to come out, speak up, and let their voices be heard. Civic engagement is the cornerstone of good local government, and I deeply value the input I received.

Two-thirds of the residents who reached out to me expressed support for moving forward. I listened carefully to every voice, and I weighed the facts, the community input, and the long-term impact on our city. In the end, I was guided by our shared values: investing in our youth, creating safe and accessible spaces for families, and ensuring Dover remains a great place to live and grow.

As a small business owner, I understand that responsible debt can be a tool for progress. We’ve used this approach before—with the parking garage, the police station, and the new high school. Each of these projects required financial commitment, but they have strengthened our community in measurable ways. The same principle applies to the athletic fields. Sometimes, we must make bold investments today to build the community we envision for tomorrow.

Thank you for trusting me to make thoughtful, informed decisions. I remain committed to transparency, accountability, and working together for the betterment of our city.

Tony Retrosi
Ward 3 City Councilor
Dover, NH

Democratic Strategies: Education, Healthcare, and Economy Focus

On By TonyIn Belief, economy, Education, Elections, PoliticsLeave a comment

I’ve just spent a few weeks in Italy for work, and conversations with European friends and colleagues left me both humbled and a little haunted. The most common, almost automatic question they asked was: “How could America do this again?” (Meaning, elect Trump.)

Having to answer that—over and over—really made me reflect. Why could this happen again? And what’s our part in preventing it?

I had time to think (and research, thanks to fast and free WiFi on high-speed trains—Italy gets that part right!). What hit me hardest was this: We, as Democrats, are trying to be everything to everyone, and in doing so, we risk becoming nothing to anyone. From education and healthcare to the environment and housing, we fight for it all—but from the outside, we look scattered, unfocused, and reactive.

In places like Dover, we might feel “safe,” but that complacency is dangerous. “Vote for us—we’re not them” only worked once. It’s not a winning message anymore.

I run my businesses. If I don’t focus, I fail. In politics, it’s no different.

To win the statehouse, the NH House and Senate, as well as local races, we need simple, bold, results-driven messages that answer two clear questions:

  1. Why does the current leadership need to go?
  2. Why is our candidate the better hire?

Here are three core issues that cut through the noise: EDUCATION, HEALTHCARE, and the ECONOMY.

🎓 EDUCATION

The NH GOP has systematically weakened our schools. Underfunded, inefficient, and inequitable. Public dollars are helping millionaires send their kids to private schools while our classrooms lack supplies and teachers live on the edge.

Our Message:
We’ll target education funds to families and schools that need it most. No gimmicks—just real investment in our public schools.

🏥 HEALTHCARE

In rural NH, access to maternal care is evaporating. Policies that limit access and increase cost hurt real families. Governor Ayotte has kept those in place.

Our Message:
We’ll work with local hospitals and clinics to restore essential healthcare access across the state. Starting a family should not require a two-hour drive to the nearest birthing center.

💼 THE ECONOMY

While the GOP fearmongers about “illegals” on the northern border, let’s talk about our real borders—with Massachusetts and the seacoast. We have opportunity right in front of us.

Our Message:
Let’s make NH a destination for business and talent. Invest in infrastructure—rail, roads, ports—to connect us better to the region. Build partnerships like the Dover Riverfront Project that boost jobs, tourism, and sustainability. Protect the industries that matter—like fishing and clean water.

The great thing about infrastructure is that it is literally a 2 way street. Better roads allow us to get NH made products to market and people to work but also ease the difficulties getting products and people into NH   

We ALL pay taxes. Let’s show people what they actually get for it.

We must stop being afraid to stand for something. Stop whispering in corners and start speaking up—in public, in the press, and yes, at protests. Before every time we are holding signs on a downtown corner or when we are at a gathering before we head out to pick up garbage at a Don’t Trash Dover event- someone needs to speak. It shouldn’t be a huge speech. Just a statement with a quotable sound bite  

Where are our voices? Where’s our boldness?

Trump fills arenas. Bernie and AOC speak to packed halls. Why? Because they speak to real kitchen-table issues. Populists and reformers win. The “status quo” candidates don’t. Look at history: Carter, Bush Sr., Biden/ Harris. We need passion. We need presence.

We should be flooding YouTube and social media with clear, 15-second spots on our core issues. That’s how you get a message out in 2025. We don’t have time to wait for someone else to do it.

Let’s be the party that offers people something to believe in—not just something to fear.

Yes, I’m just a guy with time to think on a train in Italy. But I’m also a citizen who because of my work knows what leadership, focus, and action looks like.

We need to tie every member of the NH GOP with Trump and MAGA policies.  These policies that are hugely unpopular.  Cynically, there is no downside.  They want to prove they are NOT a MAGA loyalist and come up with some policies that actually help NH citizens- great! That is good for all of us.  I just don’t think they have the backbone to do it   

Let’s show NH—and the country—what it looks like when we actually deliver.

The Value of Compassionate Governance

On By TonyIn Belief, economy, Education, PoliticsLeave a comment

THIS I BELIEVE;

1. I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. PERIOD.

2. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that’s interpreted as “I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all.” This is not the case. I’m fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it’s impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes “let people die because they can’t afford healthcare” a better alternative. I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it. No, I’m not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen.

3. I believe  higher education should be affordable. It doesn’t necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I’m mystified as to why it can’t work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt. Graduating with crippling debt is NOT good for the economy.

4. I DO NOT believe our money should be taken from us and given to people who don’t want to work. I have never encountered anyone who believes this. Ever. I have a massive moral problem with a society where a handful of people can possess the majority of the wealth while there are people literally starving to death, freezing to death, or dying because they can’t afford to go to the doctor. Fair wages, lower housing costs, universal healthcare, affordable education, and the wealthy actually paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this. Somehow believing that makes me a communist.

5. I don’t throw around “I’m willing to pay higher taxes” lightly. If I’m suggesting something that involves paying more, well, it’s because I’m fine with paying my share as long as it’s actually going to something besides lining corporate pockets or bombing other countries while Americans die without healthcare. Ezra Klein said the other day, “When people complain about their taxes they say, “My taxes are too high.” When they should say, “MY TAXES ARE TOO HIGH AND I GET NOTHING FOR IT.” “

6. I believe companies should be required to pay their employees a decent, livable wage. Somehow this is always interpreted as me wanting burger flippers to be able to afford a penthouse apartment and a Mercedes. What it actually means is that no one should have to work three full-time jobs just to keep their head above water. Restaurant servers should not have to rely on tips, multibillion-dollar companies should not have employees on food stamps, workers shouldn’t have to work themselves into the ground just to barely make ends meet, and minimum wage should be enough for someone to work 40 hours and live.

7. I am not anti-Christian. I have no desire to stop Christians from being Christians, to close churches, to ban the Bible, to forbid prayer in school, etc. (BTW, prayer in school is NOT illegal; *compulsory* prayer in school is – and should be – illegal). All I ask is that Christians recognize *my* right to live according to *my* beliefs. When I get pissed off that a politician is trying to legislate Scripture into law, I’m not “offended by Christianity” — I’m offended that you’re trying to force me to live by your religion’s rules. You know how you get really upset at the thought of Muslims imposing Sharia law on you? That’s how I feel about Christians trying to impose biblical law on me. Be a Christian. Do your thing. Just don’t force it on me or mine.

8. I don’t believe LGBT people should have more rights than you. I just believe they should have the *same* rights as you.

9. I don’t believe illegal immigrants should come to America and have the world at their feet, especially since THIS ISN’T WHAT THEY DO (spoiler: undocumented immigrants are ineligible for all those programs they’re supposed to be abusing, and if they’re “stealing” your job it’s because your employer is hiring illegally). I believe there are far more humane ways to handle undocumented immigration than our current practices (i.e., detaining children, splitting up families, ending DACA, etc).

10. I don’t believe the government should regulate everything, but since greed is such a driving force in our country, we NEED regulations to prevent cut corners, environmental destruction, tainted food/water, unsafe materials in consumable goods or medical equipment, etc. It’s not that I want the government’s hands in everything — I just don’t trust people trying to make money to ensure that their products/practices/etc. are actually SAFE. Is the government devoid of shadiness? Of course not. But with those regulations in place, consumers have recourse if they’re harmed and companies are liable for medical bills, environmental cleanup, etc. Just kind of seems like common sense when the alternative to government regulation is letting companies bring their bottom line into the equation.

11. I believe our current administration has some serious fascist tendencies. Not because I dislike them or because I can’t get over an election, but because I’ve spent too many years reading and learning about the Third Reich to miss the similarities. From masked agents kidnapping college students because of their beliefs to rounding up Venezuelans because of their tattoos and sending them to El Salvador. Not because any administration I dislike must be Nazis, but because things are actually mirroring authoritarian and fascist regimes of the past.

12. I believe the systemic racism and misogyny in our society is much worse than many people think, and desperately needs to be addressed. Which means those with privilege, like me, white, straight, male, economic, etc. — need to start listening, even if you don’t like what we’re hearing, so we can start dismantling everything that’s causing people to be marginalized.

13. I am not interested in coming after your blessed guns, nor is anyone serving in government. What I am interested in is the enforcement of present laws and enacting new, common sense gun regulations. Got another opinion? Put it on your page, not mine.

14. I believe in so-called political correctness. I prefer to think it’s social politeness. My name is Anthony. I prefer to be called Tony. If I call you Chuck and you say you prefer to be called Charles I’ll call you Charles. It’s the polite thing to do. Not because everyone is a delicate snowflake, but because as Maya Angelou put it, when we know better, we do better. When someone tells you that a term or phrase is more accurate/less hurtful than the one you’re using, you now know better. So why not do better? How does it hurt you to NOT hurt another person?

15. I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so they can change jobs. There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil. Sorry, billionaires. Maybe try investing in something else.

16. I believe that women should not be treated as a separate class of human. They should be paid the same as men who do the same work, should have the same rights as men and should be free from abuse. Why on earth shouldn’t they be?

So let’s clear a few things up.

I don’t fit into some one-size-fits-all stereotype, and neither do most people who share my views. What I believe in is fairness, compassion, and the idea that a civilized society should look out for its people. If that sounds radical, maybe the problem isn’t me.

Somewhere along the way, these beliefs have been twisted into something extreme, impractical, or even un-American. I’ve been told what I stand for, what I believe, and what my values are by people who’ve never once asked. And quite frankly, I’m tired of it.

So, for the record—this is what I believe. This is why I stand where I stand. If that makes me a liberal, then so be it.

Liberal. 

lib·er·al

/ˈlib(ə)rəl/

adjective

  1.  relating to or denoting a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise
  2. willing to respect or accept behavior or opinions different from one’s own; open to new ideas.

noun

  1. a supporter of policies that are socially progressive and promote social welfare.”she dissented from the decision, joined by the court’s liberals”
  2. a supporter of a political and social philosophy that promotes individual rights, civil liberties, democracy, and free enterprise.

Why History Matters: Learning from Europe’s Educational Approaches

On By TonyIn Education, History, Teaching1 Comment

As many of you know, I have lived and worked in Europe off and on for the last few years. When it comes to current educational standards and philosophy I feel we Arte moving in the wrong direction. As a gymnastics coach I tell my athletes that they do not start REALLY learning until they get out of their comfort zone. The same is true with HISTORY. While many states in the USA right now do not want to make any white student uncomfortable with our past, many countries in Europe take on their past head on .

​In Germany and Italy, the teaching of fascism, Nazism, and World War II is approached with a commitment to confronting historical truths, ensuring that students understand the complexities and atrocities of their past. This educational philosophy contrasts sharply with current trends in several U.S. states, where legislative measures are restricting discussions on racism, sexism, segregation, and the Civil War. Such limitations hinder students’ ability to engage critically with history, depriving them of essential knowledge and understanding.​

Educational Approaches in Germany and Italy

In Germany, the education system mandates comprehensive coverage of the Nazi era and the Holocaust. Students visit concentration camps, engage with survivor testimonies, and analyze the socio-political factors that led to the rise of Nazism. This immersive approach fosters a deep understanding of the consequences of totalitarianism and the importance of democratic values.​

Italy’s educational system also addresses its fascist past, though with some differences. Post-World War II, Italy underwent a less extensive de-fascistization process compared to Germany. However, contemporary Italian textbooks strive to present an objective analysis of Mussolini’s regime, its alliance with Nazi Germany, and the impact on Italian society. This includes discussions on the implementation of antisemitic laws in 1938 and Italy’s role during the war. ​RedditHolocaust Encyclopedia

The Consequences of Ignoring Difficult Histories

In contrast, numerous U.S. states have introduced legislation that restricts teaching about racism and related issues. As of early 2023, only California, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Nevada, and Vermont have not attempted such bans.  These legislative actions often stem from misunderstandings about critical race theory (CRT), an academic framework that examines systemic racism within legal and social contexts. Opponents fear that CRT admonishes all white people for being oppressors while classifying all Black people as hopelessly oppressed victims, leading to bans in states like Tennessee and Idaho. ​World Population ReviewBrookings+5ABC News+5Statista+5Brookings

By limiting discussions on these critical aspects of American history, students are deprived of the opportunity to learn from past mistakes and to understand the roots and ramifications of social injustices. This educational censorship undermines the development of critical thinking skills and the ability to engage in informed civic discourse.​

IF YOU KNOW YOUR HISTORY THEN YOU WOULD KNOW WHERE YOU COMING FROM. Bob Marley

The Role of the Department of Education

The Department of Education played a crucial role in setting national educational standards and ensuring that curricula are comprehensive and inclusive. Abolishing this department will exacerbate the current trend of educational censorship by removing a centralized body that advocates for balanced and thorough historical education. Without federal oversight, states may have greater latitude to implement restrictive educational policies, further hindering students’ understanding of complex historical and social issues.​

The experiences of Germany and Italy demonstrate the importance of confronting and teaching difficult historical truths. By contrast, the current trajectory in parts of the United States toward restricting discussions on racism and other critical topics threatens to deprive students of essential knowledge and critical thinking skills. Maintaining robust educational standards through institutions like the Department of Education is vital to ensure that future generations are well-informed and capable of contributing thoughtfully to society. We must do better in embracing our full history, acknowledging its complexities, and learning from it to build a more just and equitable future.​

Recent Developments in Education Legislation

https://www.reachinghighernh.org/content-item/461/nh-state-board-of-education-adopts-controversial-minimum-standards-despite-sharp-public-opposition

Chron

AG Ken Paxton sues North Texas district for allegedly teaching critical race theory

8 days agoAxiosTexas AG sues Coppell ISD after conservative activist video claims district teaches critical race theory

7 days agoAxiosTexas Senate passes religious, anti-DEI education bills2 days ago

New Hampshire GOP: What’s Their Endgame?

On By TonyIn economy, Education, Elections, PoliticsLeave a comment

What is it that New Hampshire Republicans want, at the end?

Dana Wormald

DANA WORMALD
MARCH 25, 2025 2:30 PM

 People protest various actions undertaken by the Trump administration and Elon Musk during a rally in front of the State House on March 14, 2025. (Photo by Dana Wormald/New Hampshire Bulletin)

I’m confused about what Republican voters in New Hampshire want.

I mean, I know what they want right now. Lower (or nonexistent) taxes, the dismantling of public education, fewer (or zero) protections for LGBTQ people, the disappearance of migrants who lack the proper documentation, the elimination of environmental regulations, the continued dominance of fossil fuels, reductions to (or the end of) the social safety net, more power for parents to control what their kids learn at school, a version of the American story that redacts any mention of genocide or slavery, a male- and Christian-dominated system of women’s reproductive health care, freedom from vaccination and other public health initiatives, and the overall elimination of the public sector as we know it.

That much is clear. What I don’t understand is what they want ultimately.

Once all of the so-called liberal or progressive policies and systems are eradicated, what kind of state and nation are we left with? The replies from the right are not tough to predict: “Sounds like paradise to me.” But that’s just the politics of retribution talking, with all of its B.S. bravado and “Make America Great Again” inanity.

Is a society without community-based public education a better society? Republicans seem to think so, but I can’t wrap my brain around what it is they are picturing instead. When education is privatized, which is the ultimate goal of school vouchers, how can the system create anything other than rich schools for rich kids and poor schools for poor kids, a predicament-by-design not unlike the one we find ourselves in now. So, vouchers can’t be the solution. The answer to New Hampshire’s equity problem is fair taxation and distribution — a system of public education no longer reliant on collective wealth within town lines. Republicans like to scare voters away from this kind of unity by screaming “socialism” at every opportunity, but what they are proposing instead is increased inequality through privatization. How is that a better situation for anyone other than the already wealthy and powerful?

How is society stronger when our transgender or immigrant neighbors are afraid for their very lives because of policies instituted or protections repealed based on nothing more than apocryphal anecdotes and cultivated fear? How is our beautiful state an even better place to live because environmental regulations are eliminated and clean power and energy efficiency initiatives are blocked? Even if you buy the economic arguments of the need for fossil fuel-based energy policies, is the degradation of New Hampshire’s natural environment (and, you know, the continued destruction of the planet) worth it? And are we such big fans of free-market liberty that we’ll accept the White Mountain National Forest being opened up to any and all kinds of corporate exploitation?

Is all of that the goal?

And what do New Hampshire Republicans want for their children? Freedom from vaccines that are intended to make their very future more assured? Do they want their kids to believe that the American experiment was of divine creation, that there was no tragic abandonment of human principles at any point along the way to the 21st century? No colonization, no genocide, no slavery, no segregation, no lynchings, no red-lining. To what end do we create those gaps in our children’s knowledge? Is it the belief that there can be darkness or light, good or evil, but not both? That we are a nation built and maintained only by heroes, so different from the rest of us in our daily imperfection and inability to live up to our own standards of behavior? What is more human than wanting, needing to know — about what lies over the horizon, in the stars, at the bottom of the ocean, in the hearts of those who are so different from ourselves? 

Is the point to stop the kids from yearning for knowledge and understanding about the complexities of how this moment came to be?

I know that not all New Hampshire Republicans want the same things. For some, it’s the pro-business, anti-tax piece of the platform that makes them register as Republicans. For others, it’s a desire for revenge against societal shifts that they don’t like or that make them uncomfortable — for which they use the shorthand “woke.” But in this moment, made unique by the appetite and actions of Donald Trump and his administration, it is impossible for a New Hampshire Republican to pick and choose the way the party does or does not represent their desires.

In the March 27 edition of The New York Review of Books, Neal Ascherson writes about a recent book by Richard J. Evans titled “Hitler’s People: The Faces of the Third Reich.” 

Here’s Ascherson, under the headline “Ordinary Germans”: “The late Erhard Eppler, a radical Christian who became ‘the conscience of Social Democrats’ in postwar West Germany, used to invoke the Roman fasces as the image of twentieth-century fascism: a bundle of quite disparate rods (or policies) held together by the strap of the leader. When the strap is cut, the rods scatter, and people could claim that ‘I agreed with Hitler about revising the Versailles Treaty or ‘degenerate culture,’ but I always thought the persecution of the Jews a grave mistake. So I never believed in the whole fasces-bundle. So I was never truly a Nazi!’ To which Evans’s book in effect retorts: During the Third Reich, you could not pick and choose between ‘rods.’ You either accepted or rejected the bundle as a whole.”

I bring up Ascherson’s description of the rods and the bundle not to compare regimes but rather to see what one political moment can tell us about another. To be a Republican in New Hampshire in 2025 is to be for all of the things I mentioned at the top of this essay. The social, cultural, political, and economic toll of that bundle is such that no one can claim liberty to choose from among the rods, now or later. 

There was a time when a Republican could declare themselves a “moderate” or a “fiscal conservative,” but times have changed in a way that disallows that luxury. All that remains is history’s clear choice: You either accept or reject the bundle as a whole.

Why Higher Corporate Taxes Are Better for the Economy—When Used to Incentivize Reinvestment and Growth

On By TonyIn economy, Education, PoliticsLeave a comment

Yesterday I posted this on social media:

Of course what I posted caused a bit of a firestorm with people arguing that the Department of Education was useless etc. What I didn’t understand were the people arguing for trickle down economics. No matter that it has NEVER worked the way they want/ dream. It is a ZOMBIE argument. No matter how many times it gets killed it keeps coming back. People are entitled to their own opinions. Just not their own facts.

The Failure of Trickle-Down Economics and Why Higher Corporate Taxes Are Better for Growth

For decades, politicians and business leaders have promoted trickle-down economics—the idea that cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthy will lead to widespread economic benefits. This theory assumes that when the richest individuals and largest companies have more money, they will invest in businesses, create jobs, and ultimately improve wages for everyone.

But history has proven otherwise. Instead of spurring economic prosperity for all, trickle-down policies have increased income inequality, slowed wage growth, and allowed corporations to hoard profits rather than reinvest in the economy. It’s time to abandon this failed approach and adopt policies that encourage reinvestment, job creation, and fair economic growth—starting with higher corporate taxes.

1. Why Trickle-Down Economics Has Failed

The Wealth Stays at the Top

One of the biggest flaws of trickle-down economics is the assumption that tax breaks for corporations will eventually “trickle down” to workers through higher wages and more job opportunities. However, in practice, the wealth tends to accumulate at the top rather than being shared.

When corporations receive tax cuts, they rarely pass those savings on to employees. Instead, they use them for stock buybacks, executive bonuses, and offshore tax havens. For example, after the 2017 U.S. corporate tax cuts, corporations spent a record-breaking $806 billion on stock buybacks, benefiting shareholders but doing little to help workers.

Wages Have Stagnated While Corporate Profits Soar

If trickle-down economics worked, we would have seen wages rise significantly alongside corporate tax cuts. Instead, worker wages have remained stagnant for decades, even as productivity and corporate profits have surged.

Between 1979 and 2019, U.S. worker productivity grew nearly 60%, but wages for the average worker increased by only 15% (adjusted for inflation). Meanwhile, CEO pay skyrocketed by over 1,000% in the same period. Rather than fueling economic prosperity for all, tax cuts have primarily enriched executives and shareholders.

Corporate Tax Cuts Increase Income Inequality

By reducing corporate taxes, governments effectively shift the tax burden onto workers and small businesses. As corporations pay less, public services like education, healthcare, and infrastructure suffer, disproportionately affecting middle- and lower-income individuals.

A 2020 study by the London School of Economics analyzed 50 years of data across 18 countries and found that tax cuts for the rich did not lead to economic growth or job creation but significantly increased income inequality. This means that trickle-down policies have only widened the wealth gap rather than lifting everyone up.

Corporate Profits:

According to the US Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), corporate profits in the United States have experienced significant growth over the past decades. For instance, corporate profits averaged $637.60 billion from 1947 until 2024, reaching an all-time high of $3,141.56 billion in the second quarter of 2024.

Average Employee Compensation:

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) provides data on employer costs for employee compensation. As of December 2024, total employer compensation costs for private industry workers averaged $44.67 per hour worked. Wages and salaries averaged $31.47 per hour, accounting for 70.5% of employer costs, while benefit costs averaged $13.20 per hour, accounting for the remaining 29.5%.

Trend Analysis:

Over recent decades, corporate profits have grown substantially faster than employee compensation. While the two measures tracked closely for most of the 20th century, workers have shared less of the gains more recently. Since 2000, employee compensation has increased 28% after inflation, whereas corporate profits have increased 107%

As the owner of a small business (about 50 employees) I am taking the risk. If my business fails I believe my employees will find different work before I am done cleaning out the buildings. Where I am on the hook. So YES- employers should be compensated at a higher rate. But I need to reinvest into the business and compensate my employees respectively.

2. Why Higher Corporate Taxes Are Better for the Economy

Encouraging Reinvestment Instead of Hoarding

Higher corporate taxes—when paired with smart incentives—can drive economic growth by encouraging companies to reinvest their profits rather than hoarding them.

When corporate tax rates are too low, businesses have little reason to put money back into their companies. Instead, they often distribute profits to shareholders. A higher tax rate, combined with tax credits for reinvestment, would encourage corporations to:

  • Expand operations and hire more workers
  • Increase wages and employee benefits
  • Invest in research and development (R&D)
  • Upgrade infrastructure and production facilities

For example, Germany and Sweden maintain higher corporate tax rates than the U.S. but offer incentives for reinvestment, leading to strong job markets and industrial growth.

Reducing Income Inequality and Strengthening the Middle Class

Corporate tax revenue funds public services like education, healthcare, and infrastructure—key drivers of economic mobility. When corporations pay their fair share, governments can invest in programs that support workers and create long-term economic stability.

Nordic countries, for example, have higher corporate taxes but also provide robust social services and worker protections, leading to stronger middle classes and higher economic growth compared to low-tax nations like the U.S.

Preventing Corporate Tax Avoidance and Offshore Hoarding

Low corporate taxes encourage companies to shift profits to offshore tax havens, where they pay little to no tax. This results in massive revenue losses for governments. In 2021 alone, U.S. multinational corporations avoided paying nearly $1 trillion in taxes by stashing profits overseas.

A fair corporate tax policy would:

  • Close loopholes that allow corporations to avoid taxes
  • Implement a global minimum tax to prevent offshoring
  • Incentivize domestic reinvestment by taxing excessive stock buybacks

Stimulating Demand Through Higher Wages and Job Growth

Economic growth is driven by consumer demand—when workers have more disposable income, they spend more, which boosts businesses. Low corporate taxes do not create demand; higher wages do.

A tax system that rewards companies for increasing wages and benefits would ensure that corporate success translates into real economic gains for workers, fueling a cycle of growth rather than stagnation.

Leveling the Playing Field for Small Businesses

Large multinational corporations benefit disproportionately from tax cuts and loopholes, allowing them to undercut small and medium-sized businesses. Higher corporate taxes, along with targeted incentives for local businesses, help level the playing field by ensuring that all businesses compete fairly.

For instance, Amazon has paid $0 in federal income tax multiple times despite massive profits, while small businesses face an average tax rate of 21%. Ensuring that large corporations pay their fair share helps create a fairer, more competitive business environment.

3. A Smarter Approach: Higher Corporate Taxes with Growth Incentives

Instead of blindly raising or lowering corporate taxes, the best approach is a progressive corporate tax system that rewards reinvestment while preventing excessive profit-hoarding.

Policies could include:

✅ Tax credits for job creation and wage increases

✅ Deductions for R&D and infrastructure investments

✅ Penalties for excessive stock buybacks and executive bonuses

✅ Stronger anti-avoidance laws to stop offshore tax sheltering

By aligning tax policy with economic growth, we can ensure that corporations contribute to a thriving economy instead of extracting wealth from it.

It’s Time to Move Beyond Trickle-Down Economics

The evidence is clear: trickle-down economics has failed. Instead of spurring economic prosperity, it has led to corporate greed, stagnant wages, and rising inequality.

The solution isn’t more tax cuts for the rich—it’s a fair corporate tax system that encourages reinvestment in workers, innovation, and long-term growth. By shifting economic policy away from failed trickle-down policies and toward a growth-driven reinvestment model, we can build a more equitable, sustainable, and prosperous economy for everyone.

The Paradise of Fools is Coming to an End.

On By TonyIn Belief, economy, Education, PoliticsLeave a comment

The End of Consequence-Free Antivax Beliefs

Conspiracists are about to get a dose of reality

Antivaxers, cranks and fantasists thrive in safe, stable societies but the days of consequence-free idiocy may be ending

James Marriott

Monday February 17 2025, 9.00pm GMT, The Times

Ayokel’s bulbous nose erupts grotesquely into a cow-shaped boil. Another woman, eyes popping with the effort, vomits up a miniature bull. An obese matron, her face a bloated mask of misery, sprouts little yellow horns. More cows burst surreally from arms, ears and britches.

James Gillray’s print The Cow-Pock, or the Wonderful Effects of the New Inoculation! is a savage jeer at the superstition and hysteria that greeted Edward Jenner’s pioneering application of small doses of harmless cowpox as a prophylactic against smallpox. If art really had the political power that is sometimes optimistically attributed to it then Gillray, the most vicious of the Regency satirists, would have strangled the anti-vaccination movement in its cradle.

I cannot read about modern antivaxers without recalling Gillray’s picture. The pre-modern, anti-scientific absurdity of their position was apparent in an age of stage coaches and rotten boroughs. And yet in 2025, after more than two centuries of what seemed like progress, Texas is gripped by its worst measles outbreak this century. Inevitably, the state contains some of the least vaccinated areas of America.

Ironically, it is precisely the safety and rationality of modern society that has allowed anti-vaccination beliefs to flourish. Gillray’s contemporaries feared the deaths of their children and were haunted in their drawing rooms and city streets by faces deformed by pockmarks. Modern antivaxers are exposed to no such monitory horrors. They indulge their stupidity in ignorance of real suffering; their good health guaranteed by the “herd immunity” provided by the mass of sensible citizens who do get vaccinated.

Some antivaxers owe their children’s lives to those they loathe as sheeplike conformists. But they and other 21st-century fools may not be able to rely on the protection of a sane society for much longer.

One of the less frequently noticed luxuries of the postwar liberal order was the licence to be a fool. For the better part of a century, prosperous, scientifically minded countries have tolerantly sustained an underbelly of madmen and extremists — medical sceptics, conspiracy types and anti-democratic fantasists who would quickly have come to grief in less congenial surroundings.

Try rejecting modern medicine in the Horn of Africa. Or dabbling with lunatic ideas in the Soviet Union, whose secret police were almost as unforgiving of political cranks as they were of real enemies of the state. The point is almost never appreciated by the fanatics but they owe their health and freedom to the sanity of the society they affect to despise.

Indeed, those who imagine themselves the most fearless critics of modern civilisation are often its most coddled children. America’s new antivaxer health secretary Robert F Kennedy — the amateurish, purposeless scion of a modern American aristocracy — is a perfect symbol of the decadence of the attitude. Kennedy’s carelessness is a function of his pampered insulation from anything resembling real life.

Similarly, my fashionable corner of east London (I am something of a local anomaly) bristles with casual anti-science faddists. Glow-faced trust-fund babies fritter their unearned cash on crystals, alternative remedies and “non-western” medicines, scorning the medical system that has made them among the healthiest people in the history of the world.

The roots of modern conspiracy theories and anti-scientific cults are conventionally (and correctly) attributed to those much-chronicled woes of western democracies: economic stagnation, financial inequality and political sclerosis. But an underrated factor in modern irrationality and zealotry is the West’s stability. Our society has been peaceful and healthy for so long that for many people serious disaster has become inconceivable. You can rattle the bars of the cage as fiercely as you like but you will never actually escape the comfort of the zoo.

Those ruddy, bull-necked Americans who parade around in amateur militia groups and brandish Nazi symbols do so partly because they are unable to conceive of what life would actually be like in a fascist state. Dabblers in homeopathy cannot really comprehend a society without modern medicine. The supporters of autocracy who fawn at the feet of the anti-democratic “thinker” Curtis Yarvin and cheer when Donald Trump suggests that “He who saves his country does not violate any law” have no serious understanding of what it means to live under an autocratic government.

In the prophetic and too-little-read final chapters of The End of History, the political theorist Francis Fukuyama suggests that the safety and success of modern liberal societies provides not only a licence for misbehaviour but a provocation to it. Men without any oppression to struggle against may struggle anyway “out of a certain boredom”. Fukuyama writes that “if the greater part of the world in which they live is characterized by peaceful and prosperous liberal democracy, then they will struggle against that peace and prosperity, and against democracy”.

A version of that struggle has beguiled many pointless lives since the end of the Second World War. But as the fate of those Texan antivaxers shows, the luxury of consequence-free foolishness may be coming to an end. As the economy flounders, political crises loom, vaccination rates fall and science deniers enter government, the West is becoming a more dangerous place and its fools are less insulated from the repercussions of their own beliefs. The Texan antivaxers may only be the first to find out. The paradise of fools is coming to an end. I do not hope for an apology or recantation. I just hope they do not take the rest of us down with them.

As of today there has been a measles death of an unvaccinated child in TEXAS.

School Vouchers- Bad for New Hampshire. TERRIBLE for Dover Residents

On By TonyIn EducationLeave a comment

In Dover our current budget is $2.1 million over the tax cap. The bulk of the overage is due to a inadequate state funding to our school district. This while the state of New Hampshire gives out more than $24 million this year to support PRIVATE SCHOOLS in the form of school vouchers. It is my belief that school vouchers only further exacerbate the existing inequality in our education system.

By diverting funds away from public schools and towards private institutions, school vouchers ultimately benefit those who are already privileged enough to attend these schools. This leaves students in underfunded public schools at a further disadvantage, as they are left with fewer resources and opportunities to succeed. Or, in the case of Dover, an unfair burden on our local taxpayers.

Furthermore, school vouchers can also result in a lack of accountability and oversight in terms of how taxpayer dollars are being spent. Without proper regulations in place, there is no guarantee that private schools receiving vouchers will provide a high-quality education or prioritize the needs of their students.

The Republicans on New Hampshire’s House Education Committee voted in favor of FIVE different bills that would send millions more tax dollars into the ever-expanding sinkhole known as the school voucher program.

Since when is it “fiscally responsible” to expand a program that has been operating with virtually no public accountability or transparency and has produced no verifiable data to show that it’s having a positive impact on student outcomes?

The school voucher program was established with the express goal of offering “choice” to low-income students in public school, whose parents wanted a different option for them. In reality, three-fourths of the students who took vouchers were already attending private or home school without public subsidy – the only “choice” they made was to take free cash when the state offered it.

Over the past 2½ years, the program has spent a total of $45 million in taxpayer dollars on “educational service providers” (private or religious schools, for-profit “learning centers,” ski areas, summer camps ). Most of the people and entities being paid with voucher funds do not have to be vetted or accredited by anyone; they need not have any experience, training, or even criminal background checks; and whatever these vendors’ qualifications may or may not be is information unavailable to the taxpayers who are paying them. Nor are they required to make public any information about their students’ progress.

Last year $265,948 was spent on 705 tutors and tutoring services. Who’s to say a parent isn’t hiring a relative, even possibly one of her own children, to tutor a child? Are the tutors qualified? Are the rates we’re paying them reasonable? Are students showing up for the tutoring, and are they making appropriate academic progress? We, the public, have no way of knowing.

I believe that we should be focusing on investing in and supporting our public schools, rather than implementing a system that only serves to benefit a select few at the expense of the majority. Education is a right that should be accessible to all, and school vouchers risk further widening the gap between the privileged and the marginalized in our community.