Canada is in crisis mode, and thanks to their Supreme Court, it’s about to get a helluva lot worse.

First, here are just a couple of major issues Canada’s dealing with:

Housing prices have exploded. Their home prices are soaring, while their wages are dropping.

INSANITY: Canada now ranks #2 in the WORLD for worst home price-to-income ratio‼️

📊 According to Statista, the average Canadian home costs over 9x the average household income — worse than the US, UK, Australia, Germany, and Japan.

💥 This is unsustainable.

Waiting times for medical care stretch months, sometimes longer. And if you have an emergency, you could still be waiting 15 hours or more, like this poor woman with an appendix about to burst.

X trackers and content blocked

Your Firefox settings blocked this content from tracking you across sites or being used for ads.

A woman in Canada with a swollen appendix heads to the ER — the board shows a 15+ hour wait. She’s already been there 3 hours. That’s 18 hours total. Welcome to Canada’s “universal healthcare.”pic.twitter.com/tvjTeqWKMR — Brandon Straka #WalkAway (@BrandonStraka) March 3, 2026

Across the country, many Canadians are wondering how much more pressure their country can take before it finally crumbles. You can’t blame them. It’s a mess.

Which brings us to Canada’s latest Supreme Court ruling. Now things are really reaching “code red” status.

In a decision that could literally cause massive financial consequences, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Quebec cannot exclude asylum seekers from taxpayer-subsidized daycare.

Now, when many people look at this, they think, “Oh, how humane and lovely.” But no, there’s much more to the story. It’s way bigger than daycare.

With this ruling, the high court stretched the definition of discrimination so far that it could now force Canadian governments to open up even more taxpayer-funded benefits to people who just arrived in the country, without a pot to piss in.

And for a country already in crisis mode, barely managing to maintain housing supply, medical capacity, and a slew of other public services, that possibility is like a blaring alarm bell ringing at warp speed.

To really understand why this ruling is causing so much concern, you have to look at how the court framed everything.

It all started when Quebec decided to limit access to its subsidized daycare system. The program is heavily funded by taxpayers and was supposed to be for residents of the province.

But the Supreme Court ruled that excluding asylum seekers from that system counts as “discrimination,” particularly against mothers. So, the court just decided the policy had unequal effects, even though it was never written to target women.

Many experts say the decision lowers the bar to an absurd level. Now everybody and their brother will be suing to get access to government programs.

Here’s how one legal observer described the implications:

The Supreme Court found 8-1 that Quebec’s decision to exclude asylum seekers from taxpayer subsidized daycare discriminates against mothers. The CCF intervened to try to clarify the kinds of evidence that can be used in discrimination cases. More to come.

The majority decision here is stunning. One need not prove that a distinction between groups is arbitrary to prove discrimination. Almost any evidence of a distinction will do. Intersectionality is to be considered. Only certain groups can face discrimination.

Today’s SCC decision finding it’s discriminatory to exclude asylum seekers from subsidized daycare has huge financial implications. Taxpayers may now need to fund anyone who enters Canada and claims asylum equally in housing, health too, unless gov’ts use notwithstanding clause.

As you can imagine, the reaction to the ruling has been fast and furious.

For people who see this as a complete disaster, the concern isn’t just about immigration policy. It’s the same issue we’re having in the US, where courts are reshaping politics through sketchy legal moves, not public debate and voting.

Critics believe decisions like this transfer control over major spending questions from elected officials to judges, and that’s not how it should be. Sadly, Americans know how this works firsthand.

This shift will have huge implications on how Canada manages immigration, welfare programs, and public spending.

One angry reaction summed up the fears many Canadians have.

Canada’s Supreme Court has confirmed that the welfare system in Canada must be thrown open to the entire Third World.

We are governed by insane ideologues who wish to force us, a nation of 40 million, to offer unlimited resources and funding to all and any of the billions of Third Worlders who might happen to land upon our shores.

Of course, if Canada is the place where a Third Worlder with no skills, no intelligence, and no ability to be productive can, upon arrival, get free housing, daycare, and funding for groceries and other living expenses, we should expect that the word would spread like wildfire and soon all of their cousins and spouses (but I repeat myself) would come flooding in.

This decision is just one more proof that the people governing us seek our utter destruction.

Let that sink in.

Canada’s social programs were built with certain limits in mind. When courts start changing those limits and adding their own “spin,” the consequences will pile up real quick.

And for a country already in chaos thanks to housing shortages, low wages, strained healthcare systems, and rising public costs, the stakes couldn’t be higher right now.

As you can see, this is about so much more than daycare. But it’s the babysitting part of this story that will light the match that starts a wildfire.

OH< CANADA, thanks for helping relive our crisis of stupidity, or having the gates open to every foreign criminal alien.

Boxes of Trump steaks on display at The Sharper Image during the product’s short run in the 2000s.© Stephen Lovekin/Getty Images

From Atlantic City’s Trump Taj Mahal to Trump Magazine and various products and services in between, Donald Trump’s unsuccessful business ventures have piled up well before he first became U.S. president in 2016. But few perhaps stand out more than Trump Steaks, aka the real estate mogul’s foray into the beef world that lost steam mere months after its launch in mid-2007. The meaty enterprise still comes up in political discourse as a prime example of Trump’s business failures, with poor sales cited as the main reason for it going up in flames. But similar to how the President’s no tax on tips law has hidden downsides, this Trump initiative — and its ultimate failure — was a bit more complicated than it seemed.

For some background, the Trump Steaks trademark was registered in August 2006, but the products didn’t hit the market until the following year. Debuting with the tagline, “The World’s Greatest Steaks,” Trump Steaks were sold exclusively at The Sharper Image (though they were reportedly the same steaks available at Trump’s golf clubs). At one point, Trump “Steakburgers” were also sold through QVC, though it’s unclear if other Trump-branded cuts hit the shopping network as well. Either way, the meat vanished just two months later, short of what some sources say was supposed to be a three-month trial period. In a 2016 interview with Think Progress, Sharper Image CEO Jerry Levin said, “We literally sold almost no steaks … if we sold $50,000 of steaks grand total, I’d be surprised.”

Mixed reviews and high prices didn’t help Trump Steaks take off

If you were hoping to just buy a single Trump Steak in 2007, you’d be out of luck. Instead, you could expect to spend anywhere between $199 for the lowest-tier “Classic Collection” and a whopping $999 for the highest tier “Connoisseur Collection.” If that sounds pricey, consider again that this was in 2007 — beef prices hit an all-time high in 2025, which may skew modern perceptions of just how steep the retail prices of Trump Steaks really were. As per the Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator, those same steak collections would start at $311.30 and go up to $1,562.77 in 2026.

Of course, price was likely not the only deterrent for sales. In a TV ad from the time, Trump himself declared, “Trump Steaks are by far the best tasting, most flavorful beef you’ve ever had. Truly in a league of their own.” Some reviews, however, disagreed. Noting that the steaks were simply meat licensed through Sysco (the same company stocking Trump’s golf club menus), Gourmet Magazine called the concept of selling steaks through The Sharper Image “stupid” and called the steaks “edible, but not particularly good.”

The reviews weren’t all bad, though. In a blind taste test, The New York Post rated Trump Steaks a decent 7.5 out of 10, preferring them over a couple of other New York City steak brands. Even so, the publication noted that Trump’s beef was not worth its extremely high price point.

Trump’s retailer of choice was already struggling when Trump Steaks launched

Another factor in Trump Steaks’ downfall that can’t be ignored was the choice of retailer. Now, a good steak can be a hard sell as it is due to the cost — some major steak chains are finally making a comeback from the COVID-19 pandemic thanks to some very shrewd financial decisions. But they also all had loyal followings in years past and, importantly, are built around the sit-down steakhouse model rather than selling steaks in stores as premium brands. Trump Steaks only came flash frozen and shrink wrapped, and their retailer, The Sharper Image was then best known for selling various gadgets and lifestyle tech. Though The Sharper Image is technically still around in 2026 as a brand, its stores all closed by the end of 2008.

Trump’s preferences may also just differ from others looking to buy premium steak. As The Washington Post reported in 2017, Trump enjoys his steaks cooked well-done and served with ketchup; aka what most chefs consider to be compromising steak quality, flavor, and texture. Either way, despite various claims over the years by Trump and representatives from the Trump Organization suggesting the steaks are still around and doing well, legal records show that the Trump Steaks trademark was canceled in December 2014.

Today, the company lost approximately $60 BILLION IN MARKET VALUE.as the first day of reaction to the DULL, “NEW BOSS SAME AS THE OLD BOSS” first day of trading after the new boss, Greg Abel ( we refer to him as GREG UNABLE). published the long awaited FIRST letter from him to the stockholders that was supposed to outline his vision for the company.

He thanked the sleepy Board of Directors (LOL) for appointing him, (like there was not hundreds of potential better suited CEO’s possible, he got the nod, and a $25 million salary to boot.!!!

Why what are his accomplishments for being at Berkshire for decades ?

WHAT VISION!!!???

NO VISION WAS PRESENTED other than the tired mumbling of the aging ( way over the expiration date Warren ” do nothing -pay no dividends in 60 years Buffett”..

Greg only said that “it was a tough act to follow” the sleepy aging Mr. Buffett.

What stupid statement was that?

Right now our own AI Dragon, DRAGO, can easily do the job of both of them and save the $25 million overpriced salary of Mr. Greg Unable!

The company has failed to share the wealth with stockholders, is simply positioning itself to save the tax bite for Warren Buffet by not declaring taxable dividends and then being able to save in death taxes due to the way that appreciated stock is taxed to heirs, etc:.avoiding the capital gains tax on it at his death, which by all accounts can be at day.due to his age of 95!

Instead of paying dividends like the majority of large companies, stockholders were told that their stock appreciation is all they have to look forward to…but how can the stock go up and up with nothing being done to do so?

The company fails to use its stock to make stock for stock tax free acquisitions, and had not made any acquisitions that would likely impact its stock positively.

Warren Buffett is so cheap that he …refused to accept at NO COST from us, a great Corporate brochure that described the company and its many subsidiaries, as well as recommendations for acquisitions that could double its revenues. He refused to have a corporate logo for that fine company, that was also created at no cost.

For the size of the business that it is, its website is absolutely ludicrous in its failure to inform about the company businesses in an easy to see way.

Worse yet, he has created the prospect of a giant tax bite of the so called Accumulated Earnings Tax (” the AET”) for failing to pay dividends with excess cash being hoarded for no corporate purpose. Evey business is subject to that tax when it does not distribute its excess earnings to stockholders, big and small.

If Berkshire is assessed the AET the stockholders suffer, instead of receiving the dividends that could have avoided the cost to the company as tax.

Rebuttals and counterarguments

Berkshire will argue:

1. Insurance float requires massive liquidity. Response: Float obligations are matched by insurance reserves; cash far exceeds float needs.
2. Large acquisitions are unpredictable. Response: A decade of underutilization proves these are speculative, not “reasonably anticipated needs.”
3. Repurchases substitute for dividends. Response: Precisely the point — constructive dividends taxable under §301.

Closing policy appeal

If Berkshire’s strategy is permitted to stand unchallenged, the precedent invites other mega-caps to abandon distributions, creating a shadow pass-through regime at scale. Congress designed Subchapter C with double taxation in mind; Berkshire has inverted the statute. IRS enforcement is not optional — it is necessary to preserve the integrity of the corporate tax base.

The Dividend-Non-Paying C-Corp as Quasi-S with Pass-Through Benefits

“The Great Dividend Schism” as Moral Economy

Core Thesis

1. Dividend covenant broken. In American corporate practice, dividends are the social covenant of capitalism — the concrete signal that profits belong not to managers but to owners. Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway has shattered this covenant.
2. Doctrinal inversion. Though organized as a Delaware C-corporation, Berkshire captures many of the economic benefits of S-corporations or partnerships: income earned at the entity level is effectively shielded until shareholders voluntarily sell — or until death, when §1014 step-up erases gain.
3. Regulatory arbitrage. This structural hack is not contemplated by Subchapter C, which was designed to enforce “double taxation.” Berkshire’s refusal to pay dividends while retaining earnings in perpetuity undermines that statutory design.

II. Delaware law presumption

Proposition 1. DGCL §170 permits dividends out of “surplus” or net profits. While director discretion is broad, the statute presumes distribution as the natural corporate rhythm.

Proposition 2. Case law — Klang v. Smith’s Food & Drug Centers, Inc., 702 A.2d 150 (Del. 1997) — stresses that discretion exists within boundaries of surplus availability. Berkshire’s $696B retained earnings (Q2 2025) proves surplus in excess.

Proposition 3. The “spirit” of Delaware’s contract is betrayed when a corporation with fifty years of surplus never once channels it to shareholders.

Structural comparison: C-Corp vs. S-Corp vs. Berkshire

Inference. Berkshire operationalizes an “S-corp without limits.”

Pass-through logic and “death erasure”

1. Step-up exploitation. Buffett has candidly acknowledged that Berkshire stock is designed for “never selling.” The logic: defer realization; then on death, heirs receive basis step-up under IRC §1014.
   • 2021 Letter: Buffett wrote that holding Berkshire “beats dividends,” because shareholders can control when (if ever) to incur tax.
   • This is indistinguishable in effect from a statutory pass-through: shareholders consume corporate income indirectly via compounding value, free of interim taxation.
2. Deferred taxation = effective exemption. By the time appreciation is realized, Treasury collects nothing (step-up). Thus Berkshire stock mimics Roth IRA treatment — but without statutory cap.

Constructive distribution doctrine

1. Courts have long looked past form to substance. If shareholders benefit indirectly, the IRS may impute dividends. Wall v. United States, 164 F.2d 462 (4th Cir. 1947).
2. Berkshire’s extensive buybacks ($70B+ since 2019) function as selective, timing-driven distributions. Under Boulware v. United States, 552 U.S. 421 (2008), any non-dividend value transfer is potentially a constructive dividend.
3. Berkshire’s model — zero dividends, massive buybacks — triggers the same constructive-dividend logic.

VI. Case law analogues

• Helvering v. Nat’l Grocery Co., 304 U.S. 282 (1938). Retention to avoid shareholder tax condemned.
• Smoot Sand & Gravel Corp. v. Comm’r, 241 F.2d 197 (4th Cir. 1957). Rejected “rainy day” justification.
• Ivan Allen Co. v. United States, 422 U.S. 617 (1975). Upheld IRS discretion to impose AET.

Application. Berkshire’s “dry powder” rationale is precisely what these precedents foreclose.

 Moral economy of dividends

1. Historical norm. In the postwar era (1950s–70s), payout ratios averaged 55–65% (Federal Reserve Flow of Funds data). Dividends were expected, not optional.
2. Cultural breach. Buffett inverted this covenant. Since 1967, Berkshire has paid no dividend. His annual letters (esp. 2012, 2017, 2023) emphasize “retaining all earnings” as policy.
3. Social consequence. Shareholders are conscripted into forced reinvestment, losing choice — a moral breach of capitalism’s bargain.

VIII. Empirical exhibit: Payout comparisons 2010–2024

Observation. Berkshire is unique: 0% payout across decades.

IRS scrutiny and regulatory gap

1. Statutory mismatch. Congress limited S-corps to 100 U.S. shareholders to prevent broad erosion of the tax base. Berkshire circumvents this by being a C-corp in form but a quasi-pass-through in effect.
2. IRS vulnerability. The Service has rarely challenged mega-caps under AET. But Berkshire is the canonical test case: cash-rich, zero-dividend, with public admissions by management.
3. Consequences for the Treasury. Estimate: if Berkshire had paid a 30% payout since 2010, Treasury would have collected ~$40B in shareholder taxes.

Quasi-S as regulatory arbitrage

Proposition 4. Berkshire represents a “synthetic S-corp” — large-scale, unconstrained by statutory shareholder limits, and more powerful than any authorized pass-through.

Proposition 5. Such arbitrage destabilizes the corporate tax base. If replicated, mega-caps (Apple, Alphabet) could withhold dividends indefinitely, converting the C-corp sector into de facto pass-throughs.

Moral hazard and systemic risk

• Copycat risk. Already, Alphabet and Amazon follow similar low-payout strategies. Berkshire legitimizes this. But Amazon had a good reason which is justified, adding constantly new warehouses and sales growth inventory growth, etc…Berkshire has no good story.
• Treasury impact. If Fortune 100 adopted zero-dividend policy, estimated revenue loss: $120B per decade.
• Market culture. Dividend discipline fades; managerial empires grow unchecked.

1. Statutory fix. Congress could require payout ratios (e.g., minimum 25%) for publicly traded C-corps with >$50B earnings.
   .

Retained earnings trajectory

Inference. Growth in retained earnings is linear, uninterrupted, and unshared.

Closing frame

The “Great Dividend Schism” is not merely a curiosity of corporate culture; it is a structural breach in the tax system. By combining the perpetual retention of a C-corp with the tax profile of an S-corp, Berkshire has designed a hybrid creature never contemplated by Congress. Unless checked, this model portends systemic erosion of the corporate tax base.

The Dividend-Non-Paying C-Corp as Quasi-S with Pass-Through Benefits

•  304 U.S. 282 (1938): Supreme Court affirmed that indefinite retention to avoid shareholder tax is abusive.
• Ivan Allen Co. v. United States, 422 U.S. 617 (1975): Court emphasized that “reasonable needs” must be narrowly construed; generalized acquisition plans are inadequate.
• Smoot Sand & Gravel Corp. v. Comm’r, 241 F.2d 197 (4th Cir. 1957): “Vague or indefinite expansion” does not justify retention.

Application. Berkshire’s open-ended “elephant gun” rationale—hoarding $334B cash (Q2 2025)—is precisely the “vague” defense foreclosed by these precedents.

Constructive dividend doctrine applies to indirect transfers.

• Wall v. United States, 164 F.2d 462 (4th Cir. 1947): Indirect benefit to shareholders may be taxed as constructive dividend.
• Boulware v. United States, 552 U.S. 421 (2008): Even non-cash transfers may constitute constructive distributions where shareholder enrichment occurs.
• Dean v. Comm’r, 187 F.2d 1019 (3d Cir. 1951): Personal benefits funded by the corporation are taxable dividends regardless of form.

Application. Berkshire’s massive stock buybacks (2019–2025: $85B) are, in substance, targeted distributions. Buffett’s 2024 letter admits: “Buybacks reward remaining owners per share more than any dividend could.” This is an admission of constructive dividend effect.

 Admissions by Buffett (Shareholder Letters 2023–2025)

Exhibit A – 2023 Letter

• Buffett: “We reinvest everything; our shareholders prefer control of when they realize gains.”
• Legal implication: Explicit recognition of tax deferral scheme.

Exhibit B – 2024 Letter

• Buffett: “Cash is a perpetual option, a war chest that compounds without the friction of dividend taxes.”
• Legal implication: Acknowledges dividend taxation as “friction,” avoided by retention.

Exhibit C – 2025 Letter (May)

• Buffett: “Berkshire has returned more via buybacks than any dividend policy ever could.”
• Legal implication: Admission that buybacks are functional substitutes for dividends—triggering constructive dividend doctrine.

Comparative EDGAR Analysis

Pulling 10-Ks (2015–2024) via SEC EDGAR:

Inference. Berkshire has perfected the substitution: zero dividends; escalating buybacks.

Moral Economy Deepened

1. Dividends as covenant. 19th c. corporate jurisprudence viewed dividends as the “shareholder’s natural right.” See Cook on Corporations (1894).
2. Buffett’s rupture. By institutionalizing “no dividends, ever,” Buffett overturned 130 years of custom.
3. Economic impact. Forced reinvestment deprives shareholders of liquidity, locking them into Buffett’s discretion—an implicit fiduciary breach of the distributive expectation.

Empirical Counterpoint – Peer Payout Ratios

Observation. Even capital-intensive peers distribute. Berkshire alone abstains.

Quasi-S as Structural Hack

Statutory S-corp restrictions (≤100 shareholders, U.S.-only, single class stock) were designed to cabin tax avoidance. Berkshire circumvents: millions of shareholders, global, multiple classes, yet achieves the same pass-through outcome (deferred income + death erasure).

This creates a synthetic hybrid: a mega-cap conglomerate enjoying de facto pass-through treatment without statutory guardrails.

Consequences for Treasury

Estimate.

• Berkshire’s cumulative retained earnings since 2010: ~$550B.
• If 30% payout → $165B distributed.
• If taxed at 20% capital gains rate → $33B revenue lost.
• With compounding → >$40B total foregone.
  Treasury Reg. §1.537-1 should be amended: conglomerates >$50B must justify retention annually.
  • Burden shifts to taxpayer to prove “reasonable need.”

1. Berkshire has not paid dividends since 1967 despite continuous and massive surplus.
2. Retained earnings exceed $696B as of 2024; cash reserves $334B.
3. Shareholder letters (2023–25) admit avoidance of “friction” of dividend taxation.
4. Buybacks exceeding $85B (2019–25) function as constructive dividends.

 Closing Argument

Berkshire Hathaway exemplifies the quasi-S paradox:

• Legally a C-corp, but economically a pass-through.
• Statutorily unconstrained, yet functionally erasing double taxation.
• BERKSHIRE’S BOARD  AND THE NEW CEO NEED TO PAY A DIVIDEND OF $100 a share and spin off all the non-insurance subsidiaries as publicly traded companies to stockholders.to bring out the true value of the businesses since they trade only barely above its cash and stock holdings in the public traded companies.

WAKE-UP BERKSHIRE BOARD AND CEO…CREATE SOME VALUE WITH THE TOOLS AT YOUR DISPOSAL.

Another Blow to Statehood: Puerto Rico’s Political Reality Is Changing

Separation is a good (and growing) idea, but America’s national security matters, and that can be protected.

For years, Puerto Rico’s statehood movement sold Americans on a simple idea: admission as the 51st state was only a matter of time. But a series of recent political, cultural, and fiscal developments—from congressional resistance in Washington to shifting public sentiment on the island—suggests that assumption is rapidly collapsing. What is emerging instead is a new and more realistic conversation, one increasingly centered on sovereignty and strategic partnership rather than permanent territorial dependence.

Many Americans are now realizing that Puerto Rico’s status debate extends beyond political rights or federal benefits. It involves issues of identity, culture, economics, and political viability. Moreover, the push for statehood is increasingly confronting real-world challenges.

The Cultural Turning Point: Bad Bunny and National Identity

The Super Bowl halftime show with Puerto Rican star Bad Bunny was more than just entertainment. It turned into a cultural spotlight that revealed something many Americans seldom think about: although Puerto Ricans have U.S. citizenship (imposed in 1917), they do not see themselves as Americans, and many Americans share this view.

This is not a new phenomenon. Puerto Rican identity has endured for over a century of American rule because Puerto Ricans resisted assimilation policies, English-only initiatives, and attempts to diminish their language and national culture. The maintenance of Spanish, national symbols, the national flag (once banned), and a unique political identity has historically served as a form of nationalist and civic resistance.

Following the halftime show, media outlets and lawmakers resumed open discussions about Puerto Rico’s status, including independence. Even members of Congress who previously sidestepped the issue are now publicly recognizing that sovereignty options are becoming more legitimate. The message Americans receive is straightforward: while Puerto Rico is politically connected to the United States, it considers itself a nation, culturally and nationally distinct.

The second setback to statehood was policy-driven, not cultural. Congress recently barred Puerto Rico from transitioning its local nutrition program (PAN) to the federal SNAP system. The main reason was financial: estimates suggested about $1 billion would be needed over ten years to fund the transition, excluding future spending increases.

This decision highlights a rising trend in Washington: limited willingness to increase federal responsibilities for Puerto Rico, especially amid ongoing debates over the federal deficit. Critics argued that committing another billion dollars would increase colonial welfare dependency rather than foster economic reform. Currently, Puerto Rico receives about $3 billion annually from the PAN block grant. Despite decades of federal support, poverty rates stay high, approximating 50 percent by many standards.

For conservative policymakers, this begs a question: if large-scale federal spending has not resolved Puerto Rico’s economic issues while under territorial status, why do they think statehood—which would significantly increase federal responsibilities—would lead to a different outcome? A 2014 U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report even detailed the negative impacts of statehood for the United States (increased federal liabilities) and for Puerto Rico (economic destruction and loss of its tax base).

Advertisement

Image created using AI.

Statehood’s Political Dead End in Washington

Perhaps the most evident indication came from veteran Congressman Steny Hoyer, a Democrat (and Democrats have strongly supported statehood), who has long been involved in status discussions. Hoyer explicitly recognized that statehood does not currently have the necessary Senate votes to pass, particularly the 60 votes needed to clear procedural hurdles.

Hoyer’s remarks reveal what insiders have quietly recognized for years: Congress shows no genuine drive to grant Puerto Rico statehood. Historically, this trend has persisted for over 128 years under U.S. governance, with Congress displaying minimal interest in the island’s statehood. How long is Puerto Rico going to be held in colonial limbo if Congress has already stated that statehood is not a viable option?

The Rise of Sovereignty Sentiment

Although Washington is losing interest in statehood, support for national sovereignty options is increasing. Recent votes and polls show that combined support for independence and free association has reached around 43 percent and continues to rise. Youth trends are particularly notable, with surveys in 2024 revealing strong pro-sovereignty feelings among younger Puerto Ricans reaching 60 percent, a group that will influence future elections.

This generational change is significant because younger voters feel less connected to postwar narratives of federal dependence. Instead, they see sovereignty, foreign relations, economic development, global trade, and international investment as means to promote national growth, prosperity, and opportunities. Relying on the corrupt, stagnant, and dying colonial regime and its empty promises is no longer an option.

This explains why the pro-independence movement is now a significant political force. For the first time in recent history (having overcome decades of repression and persecution), independence supporters and leaders are approaching U.S. policymakers as pragmatic strategists, exploring structured sovereignty arrangements, such as a Treaty of Friendship & Cooperation or free association agreements, similar to Palau, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands, that maintain cooperation while ending territorial rule and reliance.

Beyond politics and economics, Washington policymakers are increasingly aware that any long-term solution must also address U.S. national security and strategic interests in the Caribbean, an area where sovereignty strategists argue they have already developed serious, workable proposals.

Security and Strategic Alignment

Supporters of Puerto Rican sovereignty understand that the United States has legitimate and enduring national security interests in Puerto Rico and across the Caribbean basin. The real question is not whether those interests exist, but whether continued territorial control is the most effective or fiscally responsible way to protect them.

With Congress acknowledging that statehood lacks the political support to advance and support for sovereignty rising, policymakers must begin considering realistic alternatives that better serve American strategic and economic interests. Maintaining Puerto Rico as a U.S. territory imposes hundreds of billions in long-term financial obligations on American taxpayers without necessarily enhancing regional stability or deterrence.

For this reason, pro-independence leaders and strategists have been developing a draft Bilateral Security & Defense Agreement for a sovereign Puerto Rico as a dependable U.S. ally and strategic partner in the hemisphere. In meetings with Republican and Democrat congressional staff, we consistently emphasize that a sovereignty framework built on alliance rather than dependency aligns with conservative principles of burden-sharing, fiscal discipline, and strategic realism.

Dependency Politics and the Status Quo

Both the pro-statehood PNP and the commonwealth-supporting PPD, Puerto Rico’s main territorial political parties, have historically depended on federal transfers to maintain their influence. Sovereignty advocates, in line with policymakers, contend that this approach intentionally sustains poverty, as federal aid encourages ongoing consumption without promoting significant economic reforms.

According to both parties, why develop a productive economy when we can get free money from the Americans? Consequently, this creates a political economy where colonial dependency is normalized, celebrated, and politically advantageous for the PNP and the PPD.

A New Alignment Between Sovereignty and U.S. Interests

For many conservative Americans, this ongoing debate likely feels familiar. Key conservative aims include self-sufficiency, lowering long-term federal expenses, and boosting economic competitiveness.

This is why figures like Representative Tom McClintock and others are openly talking about independence legislation for Puerto Rico. What is increasingly clear, both in Puerto Rico and in Washington, is that the status debate has entered a new phase. The old assumption that statehood is inevitable no longer matches political reality, fiscal constraints, or evolving strategic priorities.

As Congress reevaluates its options and Puerto Rican voters continue to shift toward sovereignty, policymakers have an opportunity to pursue a solution that strengthens U.S. interests while allowing Puerto Rico to take responsibility for its own future. The question facing Washington is no longer whether change is coming, but whether leaders will shape that change through a realistic, mutually beneficial partnership or continue defending a status quo that satisfies no one and solves little.

STERLING COOPER’S CEO OWNED AN AIRLINE THAT HAD A PUERTO RICO PRESENCE THERE AND THE ENTIRE CHAIN OF ISLANDS DOWN TO TRINIDAD TOBAGO..

The residents are mostly welfare dependent, have bad government that does not understand  business, , will for the most part not assimilate as AMERICANS and speak English either. So why become a UNITED STATE?

—

The United States may be a democracy, but if knowledge is power, some states clearly have a stronger claim to the crown than others. Higher education is a privilege not everyone gets, yet those who do often gain access to higher incomes, greater job security, and more career mobility.

That opportunity gap isn’t evenly distributed. From high school graduation rates to graduate degrees, education levels vary widely across the country, shaping local economies and long-term quality of life. So which states are the most educated, and which are still playing catch-up?

The Smartest States

To rank the most and least educated states in America, WalletHub analyzed all 50 states using 18 metrics tied to both educational achievement and access. The analysis considers how educated a state’s population is, how strong its schools are, and how evenly opportunities are shared across gender and race. Higher scores point to states where education is both effective and widely accessible, while lower scores highlight deeper, more persistent gaps-shown on the map below.

Topping the list is Massachusetts, home to world-renowned colleges like MIT and Harvard. Nearly half of adults hold a bachelor’s degree, and a significant share have graduate or professional degrees. But the Bay State isn’t just about the Ivies-its public schools rank among the best in the country, and some state-sponsored programs even help make college more affordable.

A little further up the East Coast is Vermont, the second-most educated state in America. Small but mighty, the Green Mountain State boasts nearly universal high school graduation and a large share of adults with bachelor’s degrees. Top-ranked colleges and broad access to postsecondary education give residents plenty of opportunities to keep learning, making lifelong education feel like a community tradition.

Heading down south, Maryland rounds out the top three most educated states. The Old Line State boasts strong high schools that prepare students to become highly educated adults, many of whom hold bachelor’s or graduate degrees. Free community college programs open doors for scholars, while the state’s universities rank among the nation’s best. Maryland also keeps things fair, with one of the smallest gender gaps in bachelor’s degree attainment and policies that encourage learning year-round.

Quality vs. Quantity

Education isn’t just about how many diplomas are hanging on the wall: it’s also about how strong the system is behind them. This study evaluates states across two dimensions: quantity (the number of degrees residents earn) and quality (school performance and overall system strength).

Here are the top 10 most educated states in America, along with their educational attainment and quality of education rankings:

The most educated states tend to strike a balance, pairing high levels of college completion with strong public schools, colleges, and universities. But the two don’t always move in lockstep. Some states, like Colorado, turn out plenty of graduates despite a more middle-of-the-pack system quality. In contrast, others, such as New Jersey, boast top-tier schools that haven’t fully translated into the highest levels of adult degree attainment.

More Education, More Money?

WalletHub© WalletHub

At a glance, the pattern is hard to ignore: states with higher education rankings tend to land higher in median household income as well. The green dots-states that rank highly in both education and income-cluster toward the top left of the chart, reinforcing the idea that strong schools and a well-educated population often go hand in hand with economic prosperity.

But the story isn’t perfectly linear. The blue states rank highly in education but lag in income, suggesting that degrees don’t always translate immediately into higher household earnings. On the flip side, the gray states post stronger income rankings despite lower education standings-likely benefiting from industry mix, natural resources, or other economic advantages.

Meanwhile, the red cluster shows the toughest reality: states that rank lower in education often also lag in income, underscoring how deeply intertwined opportunity and earning power can be.

In the end, education isn’t the only factor shaping a state’s wealth, but the overall upward trend makes one thing clear: more education generally means more money.

Social media users are denouncing the idea of “marriage bootcamps” as “ridiculous” and “demographic control” online after an unadopted policy plan from the conservative think tank that helped create Project 2025 proposed the camps as a way to boost birthrates.

The online report, titled “Saving America by Saving the Family: A Foundation for the Next 250 Years,” published Jan. 8 by The Heritage Foundation, lays out ways the group says the United States can “restore the family home,” including through monetarily incentivizing couples to have children and stay married, among other efforts.

The report has since drawn some criticism online, much of it aimed at the “marriage bootcamps” outlined in the plan that would end with people who participated in the program taking part in a communal wedding.

What’s in the Heritage Foundation report? Call for more marriage, babies.

In its report, the Heritage Foundation calls on the Trump administration and Congress to consider a plethora of proposed actions that they say would help reverse the declining birth rate in the United States, which they call “America’s family crisis.”

Overall population growth has slowed “significantly,” with an increase of just 1.8 million people between July 1, 2024, and July 1, 2025, according to U.S. census estimates released on Jan. 27.

There were about 519,000 more births than deaths in the United States between July 2024 and July 2025, representing similar growth as the year before, the Census Bureau said. The birth rate is higher than during the pandemic, but it still “represents a significant decline from prior decades,” according to the agency.

The report outlines The Heritage Foundation’s plan to combat this, including reforming current programs related to welfare, higher education, surrogacy and more, while placing family building and marriage at the focus of both American lives and politics.

Some of the other major suggestions in the report include:

‘Marriage bootcamps’ and a communal wedding

The report also floated the idea of “marriage bootcamps” that aim to cover topics like communication, money management and conflict resolution for “cohabiting couples with children.”

The successful completion of the program would conclude with couples “ready to walk down the aisle at a communal wedding,” the report states, and a potential $5,000 monetary incentive − funded by foundations or private donors − for couples to get married. Additionally, newlyweds would leave with a mentor couple to guide them through marriage following the wedding.

Delano Squires, director of The Heritage Foundation’s Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Human Flourishing, told USA TODAY that programs supporting marriage like this already exist, and federal funding has in the past been designated for marriage education, including by the Administration for Children & Families. Ideally, he added, the program would create and support a culture of marriage in what he called “marriage deserts,” or places where people want to get married but aren’t.

“We know that in some of these neighborhoods, particularly low-income, working-class neighborhoods, people are not getting married before having children. But you can find a critical mass of cohabiting couples, right? So, they have kids together, they live together. Oftentimes, their finances are mixed up together,” Squires said. “How about we … work with them to move them from, as old folks would say, shacking up to settling down.”

Paul Eastwick, relationship psychology expert and author of “Bonded by Evolution: The New Science of Love and Connection,” said that while he views the mentor couple idea as potentially beneficial for newlyweds, he is unsure how successful the overall bootcamps would be based on the usefulness of similar past programs, like former President George W. Bush’s Healthy Marriage Initiative.

“It’s kind of based on a broken idea about what makes for good relationships, or at least what prevents bad relationships. Because the assumption was, if we just give people the skills, they’ll like do coupledom better,” Eastwick said.

However, there’s a risk that the delivery of these skills and marriage tips, such as in a classroom format, might not resonate with people trying to manage their marriage or be beneficial in the end, he added.

“There’s good evidence that therapy can work, but a lot of ways that therapy works, it’s not like teaching skills in the abstract. It’s not like you take a class and you get an ‘A’ and now you’re ready to be married,” Eastwick said. “That’s not where most of the goodness or the badness of a relationship comes from.”

Alternatively, Eastwick said he is more concerned with loneliness than marriage when it comes to a lack of socialization and relationships in the U.S. Getting people to spend time together and form connections in person would be his first step to reduce that loneliness that could eventually result in more relationships, he added.

“We don’t want to go back to where we were stigmatizing people for wanting to be single,” Eastwick said. “But if you’re single and looking, if there are creative ways of helping these people to find each other that aren’t swiping, I think that’d be great.”

Social media users react to ‘Saving the Family’ plan

The Heritage Foundation’s plan is a recommendation to the Trump administration that has not been adopted. The camp is also designated as being for cohabiting couples with children.

But the report is still receiving mixed responses from some social media users who view the plan as a potential way for the government to control aspects of their personal lives.

“It’s every bride’s dream,” says user @wiscocowboy sarcastically in a TikTok video. “A forced communal wedding.”