On January 13th, 1988, I was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes in Columbia, South Carolina. My blood sugar was somewhere between 700 and 800. January 13th, 2026, marks 38 years since that day.

I’m not writing this for the non-diabetics who stumble across it looking for inspiration porn or to feel better about their own lives. This one’s for you, the T1Ds who understand what it actually means to wake up every single day and wage war against natural selection.

Because that’s what we do, whether we think about it that way or not.

THE DAY THAT CHANGED EVERYTHING

My grandfather was Dr. James C. Thrailkill (aka “Pop”), a small-town physician in Cheraw, South Carolina. He could diagnose many common illnesses for our family over the phone and call in prescriptions when he was confident about what was going on.

The morning of January 13th, 1988, my mom called him to describe my symptoms: unquenchable thirst, rapidly decreasing energy, no interest in playing outside, purple lips. In his calm way, Pop told her to take me to my pediatrician and pack a suitcase because I’d likely be in the hospital for a few days.

What I learned years later: after that call, Pop immediately called my Aunt Betsy and told her she needed to head to the hospital because I was going to be admitted and diagnosed with Juvenile Diabetes (Type 1). He didn’t want to be the one to tell my mom what he already knew to be true.

At the pediatrician’s office, they checked my blood sugar. I was admitted to the hospital that afternoon, started on insulin, and officially diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes. I also met Dr. Frank Bowyer, a pediatric endocrinologist who would change my life by convincing my parents to send me to Camp Adam Fisher less than six months later.

Here’s the eerie part: my grandfather, the man who diagnosed me over the phone, passed away on January 13th, 2010. Exactly 22 years after my diagnosis, to the day.

So every January 13th, I mark two things: 38 years of beating natural selection, and 16 years since losing the man who first understood what that would require.

WHAT YEARS OF EXPERIENCE TEACHES YOU

I’m not going to give you the sanitized, “living my best life with diabetes” social media version. That’s not helpful to anyone who’s actually living with this disease.

Here’s what thirty-eight years has actually taught me:

Diabetes is exhausting. There’s no days off. No vacations. No remission. Every single meal, every single day, requires math. Every workout requires adjustments. Every illness complicates everything. Sleep doesn’t stop your pancreas from not working, it just means you’re unconscious while your blood sugar continues to go up and down.

The diabetes community will save your life. I learned more about managing Type 1 at Camp Adam Fisher in the summers of my childhood than I learned from any endocrinologist. The best advice you’ll ever get won’t come from your medical team, it’ll come from another diabetic who’s figured out through trial-and-error what actually works. Your endo can advise. Other diabetics can show you what’s possible.

Technology is a tool, not a solution. I’ve used almost every brand of pump, every CGM on the market (except a couple of the newest ones), and tried countless glucose meters since 1988. I started pump therapy in 1994. After more than 20 years on a pump, I switched back to multiple daily injections because lipohypertrophy made pump sites unreliable. Today I use Tresiba (long-acting basal) and Fiasp (ultra rapid-acting bolus) with an Eversense 365-day implantable CGM. My HbA1c runs between 5.6-6.2%. The point? Technology helps. But you still have to do the work. The pump doesn’t manage your diabetes… you do.

Emotional detachment from data is survival. My friend Bethany, a T1D and nurse practitioner, said something years ago that changed how I think about every blood sugar reading: “There is no good or bad blood sugar, only in range and outside of range.” That mindset removes the victim mentality that allows diabetics to have long-term pity parties instead of making adjustments and moving forward. Your blood sugar is information. Use it to determine treatment. Don’t attach emotion to it.

You will lose people from this disease. I’ve lost diabetic friends, people I met at camp, people I mentored, people younger than me who should still be here. Some to complications. Some to the mental health toll this disease takes. Some to the combination of diabetes and substance abuse that happens when you’re looking for anything to numb the exhaustion of never getting a break. Every loss reinforces the same truth: this disease is relentless, and managing it requires showing up every single day.

Natural selection doesn’t care about your feelings. Without modern insulin and technology, Type 1 diabetics die. Before insulin was discovered in 1921, a T1D diagnosis was a death sentence, maybe a year if you were lucky. We beat natural selection by taking responsibility for our lives. Nobody can check your glucose for you. Nobody can count your carbs for you. Nobody can rotate your injection sites for you. Nobody can live this life for you. The price of survival is personal responsibility, every single day, for the rest of your life.

THE QUESTION I GET ASKED

“What’s your secret?”

People, usually non-diabetics, sometimes the parents of newly diagnosed T1Ds, want to know how I’ve made it thirty-eight years without major complications.

There’s no secret.

Here’s what I do:

#1. Test blood sugar. This is the single most important rule. Wilford Brimley was right: check your blood sugar and check it often. Everything else flows from this.

#2. Take my meds. I inject insulin multiple times daily. I adjust doses based on what I’ve learned over thirty-eight years. I don’t wait for my endo to tell me what’s obvious, if something needs adjusting, I adjust it.

#3. Eat right. I cook at home most of the time. Not because I’m a health nut, but because you cannot manage diabetes well if you eat out for most meals. You need to know what’s in your food.

#4. Exercise Daily. Other than insulin, eating right and exercising have made the biggest difference in my diabetic life.

#5. Get advice… from other diabetics. Once you know more about your diabetes than your medical team, it’s time to start trying new things. Most endocrinologists aren’t Type 1 diabetics themselves. The best ones ask their patients what they think and learn from their outcomes.

That’s it. No secret. No hack. Just showing up every day and doing the work.

THE FIVE-YEAR MILESTONES NOBODY TALKS ABOUT

Male Type 1 diabetics have an average life expectancy of about 66 years.

I’m 45 years old right now.

If statistics hold, I’ve got roughly 21 years left. Maybe more if I keep doing what I’m doing. Maybe less if something goes sideways.

I view 66 years as a challenge, not a death sentence.

Every five-year milestone past diagnosis feels different. At 10 years, you’re just grateful you made it through puberty with diabetes. At 20 years, you start wondering when the complications everyone warned you about will show up. At 30 years, you realize you’ve outlived some diabetics you knew and you feel both grateful and guilty.

At 38 years, you understand something most people will never grasp: every waking day is a privilege. Every morning you wake up with working kidneys, functioning nerves, and decent vision is a victory over natural selection.

I don’t take that for granted.

WHAT I WANT OTHER T1DS TO KNOW

If you’re newly diagnosed, here’s what I wish someone had told me:

You’re going to be okay. The first few months… hell, the first few years… are going to be hard. You’re going to make mistakes. You’re going to have terrible blood sugars. You may end up in the hospital. You’re going to feel like you’re failing. You’re not. You’re learning. Diabetes is a trial-and-error disease. 99.9% of your trials won’t produce negative consequences as long as you’re checking your blood sugar regularly.

Get around other diabetics as much as possible. Camp saved my life. Being around other kids who understood what I was going through made me feel less alone. It taught me management skills my medical team couldn’t. If you have kids with T1D, send them to diabetes camp even if they don’t want to go. They’ll thank you later.

You can’t outsource this disease. Not to your doctor. Not to an AI pump. Not to your parents. Not to a CGM algorithm. At some point, you have to take ownership of managing your diabetes. The sooner you accept that everything involving your diabetes is your responsibility, the better your outcomes will be.

Master the basics before adding complexity. Learn how to dose insulin on multiple daily injections before you consider a pump. Understand how food affects your blood sugar before you start trusting an algorithm to do it for you. Build a strong foundation of knowledge first. Technology should enhance what you already know how to do manually.

If you’re a long-term diabetic like me, here’s what I want you to hear:

You’re doing better than you think. The fact that you’re still here, still fighting, still showing up every day, that matters. Some days managing diabetes feels impossible. Some days you’re just tired of thinking about it. Some days you wonder if it’s worth all the effort. It is. You’re beating natural selection. That’s not nothing.

It’s okay to grieve what you’ve lost. Friends. Energy. The illusion of spontaneity. The ability to just be without calculating and adjusting. Diabetes takes things from us that non-diabetics don’t even realize they have. It’s okay to be angry about that. Just don’t let the anger keep you from doing what needs to be done.

Stay connected. The diabetes community needs you. Newly diagnosed diabetics need to see that it’s possible to live 30, 40, 50+ years (or more) with this disease. They need to hear from someone who’s been through puberty with diabetes, who’s navigated college with diabetes, who’s gotten drunk while diabetic, who’s built a life and a family while managing diabetes. Your experience matters. Don’t disappear into isolation just because you’re tired.

Share

My unCommon Sense

38 years ago, I was selected by natural selection to die from diabetes… I didn’t.

I beat natural selection by showing up every single day and taking responsibility for managing this disease. By checking my blood sugar thousands upon thousands of times. By injecting insulin more times than I can count. By learning from other diabetics. By treating every blood sugar reading as information instead of judgment. By exercising when I didn’t feel like it. By cooking at home when I’d rather have eaten out. By making adjustments when things weren’t working. By trying new approaches and devices through trial and error.

By accepting that nobody else could live this life for me.

That’s what beating natural selection looks like. It’s not heroic. It’s not glamorous. It’s just showing up, day after day, year after year, and doing what needs to be done.

If you’re a Type 1 diabetic reading this, you’re in that same fight. Some days you’ll win. Some days you’ll lose. The goal is to win most of the time.

Keep checking your blood sugar. Keep taking your meds. Keep eating right. Keep exercising. Keep getting advice from other diabetics who understand what you’re going through. Keep trying new things when what you’re doing stops working.

Keep showing up.

Because natural selection doesn’t take days off and neither can we.

If you want to have a constructive conversation about this or anything else, message me at dan@thrailkill.us, and let’s grab coffee or a beer.

Have a good one,

Dan

During the Christmas season, nothing can stop a dinner table conversation like political banter. One of the remaining topics where people can argue, but still be mostly cool is when discussing “the best song for Christmas.” People have STRONG opinions on the song that best portrays their Christmas experience: Mariah, Bing, Frank, Bublé, Darlene, Petty, Springsteen, the Eagles, and every Christmas hymn are all good options. But. here’s why I think this one reigns supreme.

Christmas morning, December 2025, and our house is alive with the usual chaos. The boys are tearing into gifts, my husband is belting out carols, and I’m trying to keep the dog from stealing a stray ornament or piece of wrapping paper. Amid the wrapping paper avalanche, someone queues up holiday tunes on the speaker. When I get to play Otis Redding’s soulful “White Christmas,” the room quiets for a moment. It’s not the sparkly, feel-good version most people expect, it’s raw, aching, full of longing. That’s what stops me every year. Have you ever stopped to ask yourself why the holidays feel both joyful and heavy at the same time?

What if the song that truly captures Christmas isn’t the one that promises perfection, but the one that admits life is complicated?

My Holiday Mix: Family, Memories, and the Real Stuff

Our family doesn’t do picture-perfect holidays. As two dads raising two adopted almost teenage sons, we’ve built our traditions from scratch. The boys came to us with stories that make “normal” Christmases feel foreign; we’ve worked hard to create new memories without erasing the old ones. This year, with inflation biting into budgets and gift expectations running high, we focused on presence over presents. We baked cookies together, played board games until late, visited family in SC and OH, and shared stories from the past year. But there’s always that undercurrent, missing people who aren’t here, navigating family dynamics, feeling the weight of making everything “right.” Otis Redding’s version lands perfectly because it doesn’t hide the ache. It lets joy and sorrow share the same space.

From Wartime Dream to Soulful Truth: The Song’s Journey

Irving Berlin wrote “White Christmas” in the early 1940s, and Bing Crosby’s smooth, nostalgic delivery turned it into an instant classic during World War II. Released in 1942, it became the best-selling single of all time, with over 50 million copies sold, offering homesick soldiers and families a vision of peace and home. Crosby’s velvety baritone evoked an idealized snowy holiday, safe, sentimental, and almost untouchable.

Then came Otis Redding in 1967. Recording just before his tragic plane crash on December 10th that year, Redding transformed the song into something deeper. Released posthumously in 1968, his version reached No. 12 on the Christmas Singles chart. The horns wail like a quiet lament, the tempo drags with deliberate emotion, and his voice carries the weight of longing. Against the backdrop of civil rights struggles and national exhaustion, it became more than nostalgia… it became a prayer.

For contrast, here’s Bing Crosby’s classic take, polished and dreamy:

And Otis Redding bringing his soul to it:

Fans call it “the greatest Christmas song of all time” for a reason, Redding pours everything into it, turning wistful lyrics into something profoundly human.

Why Otis Hits Different: The Emotional Depth

Redding’s “White Christmas” isn’t about escaping reality; it’s about facing it. The slow build, the raw vocal cracks, the way he lingers on “dreaming,” it captures the tension many feel during the holidays: missing loved ones, reflecting on tough years, still choosing hope. Reviews highlight how his delivery makes the song feel urgent and true, as if he’s singing from personal experience.

This resonates today. In 2025, holiday stress is real: surveys show 57% of Americans find the season stressful, with financial pressures, family dynamics, and loneliness topping the list. Economic reports note inflation driving up costs, yet spending remains resilient, people prioritize connection over perfection. Redding’s version reminds us that joy doesn’t require erasing the hard parts; it coexists with them.

My unCommon Sense

Mainstream holiday culture sells a fantasy: everything must be merry, shiny, and stress-free. But that narrative ignores real life, economic strain, family complexities, the quiet grief that surfaces when the lights are brightest. Otis Redding challenges that by embracing the full spectrum. His song promotes personal responsibility: own your feelings, choose connection, build meaning on your terms.

In our family, this means setting boundaries around traditions, focusing on what matters (time together, not extravagance), and giving ourselves permission to feel it all. It’s empowering, reject the pressure to perform happiness, embrace authentic joy. That’s real liberty: deciding how the season serves you, not the other way around.

On Christmas Day 2025, as the wrapping paper settled and the house got quiet, Otis Redding’s “White Christmas” plays. It doesn’t demand cheer; it offers solidarity. For families like ours, blended, non-traditional, full of second chances, it feels like truth. Joy and sorrow can share the room. You can miss what’s gone and still love what’s here.

The best Christmas song isn’t the one that drowns out reality… it’s the one that honors it. Bing gave us the dream; Otis gave us the prayer.

If you want to have a constructive conversation about this or anything else, message me at dan@thrailkill.us, and let’s grab coffee or a beer.

Have a good one,

Dan

I recently came across two statements that helped me understand why poverty conversations in America feel so frustrating and unproductive:

And this follow-up observation:

These observations aren’t meant to dismiss anyone’s struggles. Rather, they explain why we keep talking past each other when discussing poverty, and why our solutions so often fail to help the people who need it most.

This post will better explain what I mean, because understanding this distinction might actually help us address both problems more effectively.

WHY WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THIS

Before continuing, we need to be clear: real poverty exists in America, and it’s devastating for the families experiencing it.

I’ve seen it here in Cherokee County. Families who genuinely cannot afford adequate food. Kids who don’t have winter coats. Parents choosing between medication and rent. Elderly people living in unsafe conditions. This is real, it’s wrong, and it deserves our attention and resources.

But here’s the problem: when we use the same word, “poverty,” to describe both the family that literally cannot afford food AND the family earning $140,000 who feels financially squeezed, we make it impossible to solve either problem effectively.

We end up with policies designed for one group that get applied to the other, helping neither. We end up with political arguments that generate more heat than light. And most importantly, we end up with people who are genuinely struggling feeling like their pain is being dismissed or politicized.

In explaining the distinction more clearly, I am not trying to dismiss anyone’s struggles, but to help us think more clearly about solutions.

THE TWO TYPES OF ECONOMIC STRUGGLE

Absolute Poverty is the inability to meet basic survival needs, food, shelter, clean water, basic medical care. This is measurable, objective, and most importantly, solvable through economic growth and targeted assistance.

Relative Poverty is feeling poor compared to your neighbors or compared to what you expected to achieve. This is subjective, comparative, and fundamentally different because it’s defined by inequality rather than deprivation.

Both are real. Both cause genuine stress and hardship. But they require completely different solutions.

Here’s an example from my own life: As someone who has managed Type 1 diabetes since 1988, I understand how baselines shift. When I was first diagnosed in the late 1980’s, I was grateful for insulin, the technology that let me survive. But as technology improved (better insulin, faster glucose meters, continuous glucose monitors, insulin pumps, etc.), my baseline expectations rose. What seemed like a miracle in 1988 is now the standard of care in 2025.

Am I worse off because better technology exists? No. But do I feel frustrated when I can’t afford the latest thing that hits the market? Absolutely. Both feelings are real and valid, but one is about survival, and the other is about comparison.

THE PROGRESS WE’VE ACTUALLY MADE

Here’s something that often gets lost in poverty discussions: we’ve made extraordinary progress eliminating absolute poverty, especially in the developed world.

And I want to emphasize this not to dismiss current struggles, but because understanding our success might help us replicate it.

In 1900, the vast majority of humans lived in what we would now call absolute poverty. Life expectancy was around 31 years globally. Child mortality was horrific. Most people worked brutal manual labor just to survive.

Today:

• Global extreme poverty (living on less than $2.15/day, adjusted for purchasing power) has fallen from 42% in 1990 to under 10% today

• Life expectancy has more than doubled

• Access to clean water, sanitation, electricity, and basic healthcare is near-universal in developed countries

• Food insecurity in the U.S., while still a serious problem, is primarily about nutrition quality and access, not actual starvation

This happened primarily through economic growth, technological innovation, and yes, targeted safety-net programs for those who genuinely cannot provide for themselves.

Understanding what worked helps us do more of it. And being honest about our progress doesn’t mean ignoring the work that remains.

WHY RELATIVE POVERTY FEELS SO REAL

Here’s where I think a lot of confusion occurs…

The Tocqueville Effect describes a genuine phenomenon: as absolute conditions improve, people become more sensitive to remaining inequalities, not less. This isn’t about people being ungrateful or entitled, it’s about how human psychology actually works.

When everyone was poor in 1900, the fact that some were slightly less poor wasn’t particularly prominent. But in 2025, when most people have basic survival needs met, comparisons become more psychologically important. The fact that your neighbor has a nicer car or bigger house, better vacation photos on social media, or a better looking physique due becomes a real source of stress and dissatisfaction.

This doesn’t make the feelings invalid. It just means they’re a different type of problem requiring different solutions.

YESTERDAY’S LUXURY IS TODAY’S NECESSITY

Here’s where this becomes really practical. The baseline for what’s considered “necessary” keeps rising, and this creates genuine economic pressure.

In 1900, you could get a job by walking into a local business and asking if they were hiring. No resume, no online application, no email address required.

In 2025, try getting any job, even entry-level retail, without:

• A smartphone or computer with internet access

• An email address

• The ability to fill out online applications

• Two-factor authentication access

• Digital payment methods for receiving your paycheck

These technologies didn’t exist 30 years ago. They were luxury items 15 years ago. They’re essential survival tools today.

The same is true for:

• Banking (try cashing a check without a bank account and ID)

• Healthcare (patient portals, appointment scheduling, telehealth)

• Education (online homework, Google Classroom, digital textbooks)

• Government services (applying for benefits, paying taxes, registering to vote)

This isn’t because people have become more materialistic or entitled. It’s because the economic and social infrastructure has evolved to assume everyone has access to these tools.

So when a family says “we can’t afford what we need,” they might mean:

1. We literally cannot afford food (absolute poverty, needs immediate help)

2. We can’t afford the technology/transportation/childcare now required to participate in the economy (rising baseline, requires different solutions)

3. We can’t afford the lifestyle we see our neighbors enjoying (relative poverty, needs yet another approach)

All three are legitimate struggles. But lumping them together as “poverty” makes it impossible to address any of them effectively.

THE $140,000 POVERTY LINE DEBATE

This confusion played out recently in a viral essay. Asset manager Michael W. Green argued that the “real” poverty line for a family of four isn’t the official $31,200, it’s $140,000.

His argument resonated with a lot of people who feel financially squeezed despite making good money. But economist Tyler Cowen pointed out that Green had confused two different problems: the cost of a comfortable middle-class lifestyle versus actual poverty.

Green calculated what a family needs to afford childcare, nice housing, good healthcare, reliable transportation, and healthy food in suburban New Jersey. He added it all up and got roughly $140,000. This math might be correct for that lifestyle in that location.

But calling it “poverty” creates more problems than it solves.

Economist Noah Smith noted that if Green were right, more than half of American families would be “poor”, including families that clearly have adequate food, shelter, healthcare, and transportation. The median family income for a family of four in the United States is $125,700.

What Green actually identified is the rising baseline, the Tocqueville Effect in action. He correctly observed that childcare, housing, and healthcare have become dramatically more expensive. He correctly noted that the baseline for “normal” middle-class life has risen.

Where I think the conversation went wrong was in the language. The family making $139,000 isn’t experiencing absolute poverty (inability to meet basic survival needs). They’re experiencing what we might better call “middle-class affordability pressure”, the frustration that they can’t afford the lifestyle they expected or that their parents had at the same age.

Both problems deserve attention. But they need different solutions, and using the same word for both makes productive conversation nearly impossible.

Tyler Cowen made an important point: “Prices are high in large part because demand is high, which can only happen because so many more Americans can afford to buy things.” High prices can actually be a sign of widespread prosperity, even while creating real pressure for individual families.

This is uncomfortable but worth understanding: the family struggling to afford $33,000 annual childcare on a $140,000 income is making difficult trade-offs, childcare vs. housing vs. savings vs. vacations. Those trade-offs are harder than they used to be (the baseline has risen), but trade-offs are what most non-poor people make.

A family in actual poverty doesn’t struggle to afford $33,000 childcare. They simply cannot access it at all, period. Understanding this difference helps us design better solutions for both groups.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR REAL SOLUTIONS

If we accept that these are different problems, it changes how we should approach solutions.

For Absolute Poverty (People Who Cannot Meet Basic Needs):

1. Targeted and local safety nets that actually work. When people face genuine hardship, cannot afford food, shelter, or basic medical care, we need programs that provide immediate help without creating long-term dependency.

2. Remove barriers to economic participation. Occupational licensing, zoning restrictions, and other regulations often prevent people from escaping poverty through work or entrepreneurship.

3. Focus on economic growth and job creation. The best anti-poverty program remains a thriving economy with abundant job opportunities at all skill levels.

4. Address the rising baseline realistically. If internet access and smartphones are now essential to function economically (they are), then ensuring access makes practical sense, just like we did with electricity and roads.

For Middle-Class Affordability Pressure (The Rising Baseline):

1. Be honest about what we’re addressing. Stop calling it “poverty” when we mean “it’s harder to achieve middle-class stability than it used to be.” Honest language leads to better solutions.

2. Address the actual cost drivers. Housing costs have exploded largely due to zoning restrictions and regulatory barriers to building. Healthcare costs have risen partly due to lack of price transparency and competition. Childcare costs reflect a market that didn’t exist 50 years ago. Each needs targeted reforms, not blanket redistribution.

3. Stop subsidizing rising baselines. Every time government steps in to subsidize the rising baseline, it accelerates the baseline’s rise. If smartphones are essential, the answer isn’t “government should provide free smartphones.” The answer is “make sure the economy is strong enough that people can afford smartphones through their own work.”

4. Accept that the baseline will keep rising. Your great-grandchildren will consider things “necessities” that we can’t even imagine today. That’s progress. The goal is ensuring everyone can reach the current baseline, not preventing the baseline from rising.

For Relative Poverty (Feeling Poor by Comparison):

1. Address the cultural and spiritual dimensions. Comparison-driven dissatisfaction is partly a spiritual and cultural problem. Strong communities, religious and philosophical traditions that emphasize gratitude, and cultural messages about defining success by your own improvement rather than others’ achievements all matter.

2. Teach economic literacy. People need to understand that wealth is not zero-sum, that someone else’s success doesn’t cause your struggles, and that comparing yourself to others is often counterproductive.

3. Focus on opportunity, not outcomes. The question isn’t “why are some people richer than others?” It’s “does everyone have a fair shot at improving their situation?”

After 37 years, I’ve learned that comparing my diabetes management to another diabetic’s is pointless and destructive. Their circumstances differ from mine. Their body responds differently to insulin. Their life demands differ. The only useful comparison is me today versus me yesterday, am I improving or declining? The same principle applies economically.

MY UNCOMMON SENSE

Here’s what I think we should do:

1. Use Honest Language - Stop conflating absolute poverty, middle-class affordability pressure, and relative poverty. Create separate metrics and separate policy responses. When we say “40 million Americans live in poverty,” be clear about what we mean and who specifically needs what type of help.

2. Focus on the Baseline, Not the Gap - For absolute poverty: ensure everyone can meet basic survival needs and participate in the economy. For middle-class pressure: address the specific cost drivers (housing, healthcare, childcare) with targeted reforms. For relative poverty: acknowledge it’s largely a personal and cultural issue that government cannot solve.

3. Prioritize What Actually Works - Economic freedom, property rights, technological innovation, and targeted safety nets have done more to reduce absolute poverty than any other approach in human history. Let’s do more of what actually works.

4. Accept Some Uncomfortable Truths - The baseline will keep rising. Inequality will always exist in a free society. Some people will always feel “behind” their neighbors. These aren’t problems to solve, they’re realities to accept while we focus on ensuring everyone has genuine opportunity and no one lacks basic necessities.

5. Support Local Solutions - Most importantly: solutions should be local, not federal. Cherokee County government and community organizations understand local needs better than bureaucrats in Washington. Bottom-up solutions beat top-down mandates.

I’m not writing this to dismiss anyone’s struggles. I’m writing it because I think our confused language is actually making things worse for everyone, especially for those in genuine need.

When we call everything “poverty,” we end up with policies that don’t effectively address absolute poverty, don’t meaningfully reduce middle-class financial pressure, and definitely don’t solve the comparison-driven anxiety that plagues even wealthy Americans.

The people who literally cannot afford food deserve immediate help. The families struggling with rising baseline costs deserve honest analysis of cost drivers and practical reforms. The people feeling “poor” despite comfortable incomes deserve cultural wisdom about comparison and contentment, not government programs that won’t solve their actual problem.

All three groups deserve honesty, not political talking points that conflate their very different situations.

Honest language and clear thinking are prerequisites for effective action.

We’ve made extraordinary progress eliminating absolute poverty. The baseline keeps rising, creating new pressures. Some people will always feel “behind.” All three statements can be simultaneously true.

The question is: can we be honest enough about these distinctions to actually help the people who need it most?

If you want to have a constructive conversation about this or anything else, message me at dan@thrailkill.us, and let’s grab coffee or a beer.

Have a good one,

Dan

References

World Bank. (2024). Poverty and Shared Prosperity 2024: Global Trends in Extreme Poverty. https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/poverty-and-shared-prosperity

Roser, M., & Ortiz-Ospina, E. (2024). Global Extreme Poverty. Our World in Data. https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty

U.S. Census Bureau. (2024). Income and Poverty in the United States: 2023. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2024/demo/p60-282.html

Cowen, T. (2024, November). “The Myth of the $140,000 Poverty Line.” The Free Press.

Green, M. W. (2024). “The Valley of Death: Why $100,000 is the New Poverty.” The Free Press (adapted from Substack).

Smith, N. (2024). “The ‘$140,000 poverty line’ is very silly.” Noahpinion.

Winship, S. (2024). “The Poverty Line is Not $140,000.” Economist Writing Every Day. https://economistwritingeveryday.com/2025/11/26/the-poverty-line-is-not-140000/

Riley, N. S. (2013). “The Tocqueville Effect.” The Weekly Standard.

Tocqueville, A. de. (1835/2000). Democracy in America (H. C. Mansfield & D. Winthrop, Trans.). University of Chicago Press.

Deaton, A. (2013). The Great Escape: Health, Wealth, and the Origins of Inequality. Princeton University Press.

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2024). Household Food Security in the United States in 2023. Economic Research Service Report. https://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/

Pew Research Center. (2024). Mobile Technology and Home Broadband 2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/fact-sheet/mobile/

National Center for Health Statistics. (2024). Life Expectancy at Birth by Sex and Race: United States. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/life-expectancy.htm

U.S. Census Bureau. (2023). Characteristics of New Housing. https://www.census.gov/construction/chars/

OECD. (2024). Income Inequality and Poverty. OECD Social and Welfare Statistics. https://www.oecd.org/social/income-distribution-database.htm

Sowell, T. (2015). Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy (5th ed.). Basic Books.

Meyer, B. D., & Sullivan, J. X. (2023). “Consumption and Income Poverty Over the Business Cycle.” Research in Economics, 77(2), 179-202.

Edin, K. J., & Shaefer, H. L. (2015). $2.00 a Day: Living on Almost Nothing in America. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Federal Communications Commission. (2024). Broadband Deployment Report. https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports

National Low Income Housing Coalition. (2024). Out of Reach: The High Cost of Housing. https://nlihc.org/oor

Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The Price of Inequality: How Today’s Divided Society Endangers Our Future. W.W. Norton & Company.

Hirschman, A. O. (1973). “The Changing Tolerance for Income Inequality in the Course of Economic Development.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 87(4), 544-566.

ABC4 Utah / Nexstar Media Group. (2024, December). “Is $140,000 the real poverty line? A viral essay sparks debate.” https://www.abc4.com/news/national/is-140000-the-real-poverty-line-a-viral-essay-sparks-debate/

It’s Thanksgiving, and Americans are gathering around tables loaded with turkey, stuffing, and all the trimmings. Some will pause to say grace. Others will go around the table sharing what they’re grateful for. Many will skip the gratitude part entirely and head straight for the food and football. Bruce just awaits his turkey.

Every year, it becomes more clear. We’ve become a nation that takes everything for granted while complaining about everything we have. We live in the most prosperous country in human history, with opportunities our founding colonists couldn’t have imagined, yet we act like victims of circumstance rather than beneficiaries of centuries of sacrifice, innovation, and yes, personal responsibility.

This Thanksgiving, I think we need to relearn what it actually means to be thankful. Not the performative social media kind of thankfulness. The real kind that recognizes what we have, acknowledges what it cost to get here, and accepts our responsibility to maintain it.

THE PROSPERITY WE IGNORE

Even accounting for inflation and housing costs, the average American today lives better than 99% of humans who have ever existed. We have instant access to information, entertainment, and communication that would have seemed like magic to people just 50 years ago. We have medical technology that extends lifespans and treats conditions, like type 1 diabetes, that were death sentences not that long ago. We have food security that means most Americans’ biggest dietary problem is eating too much, not too little.

I’m sitting here in a house Joe and I built on 4+ acres. We’re gay, married, and adopted two boys through the foster care system. We have choices about where our kids go to school, we can start businesses, change careers, move across the country, or stay put and build something locally.

This is not normal by historical standards.

Yet instead of gratitude, what do we hear? Constant complaints about how hard everything is, how unfair the system is, how someone else needs to fix our problems. We’ve become a nation of complainers who’ve forgotten that the very existence of our complaints proves how good we actually have it.

People in actually oppressive countries don’t spend their time on social media complaining about microaggressions. They’re trying not to get arrested for speaking their minds. People in actually poor countries don’t debate the ethics of their food choices. They’re trying to find food.

WHAT THE COLONISTS ACTUALLY FACED

The late 18th-century American colonists faced conditions we can barely comprehend today. They had to work hard just to survive. No welfare. No social security. No Medicare or Medicaid. No government benefits of any kind.

The work ethic and self-reliance weren’t optional, they were requirements. If you didn’t provide for yourself, you starved. If you didn’t defend yourself, you died. Natural selection worked exactly as intended, without modern safety nets to catch failures.

Those colonists built the foundation of American prosperity through backbreaking labor, personal risk, and genuine hardship. They didn’t complain about lack of opportunity. They created opportunity by clearing land, building communities, establishing trade networks, and eventually founding a nation based on individual liberty and personal responsibility.

They were thankful for things we consider basic rights: the ability to own property, to practice their religion, to speak freely, to govern themselves locally rather than being ruled by distant monarchs who didn’t understand their circumstances.

Today? We have all of that and more, yet we’re somehow less grateful.

WHAT THANKSGIVING SHOULD ACTUALLY MEAN

The traditional Thanksgiving story, whatever its historical accuracy, carries a powerful message: people facing genuine hardship, helped by neighbors who didn’t owe them anything, working together to survive, and being genuinely grateful for the basics of life: food, shelter, survival.

That’s not our reality today. We’re not fighting for survival. We’re fighting over which smartphone to buy, which streaming service to subscribe to, which restaurant to order delivery from while sitting in our climate-controlled homes with instant access to more information and entertainment than entire civilizations had access to just decades ago.

Yet somehow, we’re less grateful than people who genuinely struggled to survive.

This Thanksgiving, I propose we try something different:

Be thankful for the opportunities you have, not resentful about the ones you don’t. You live in America. You can start a business. You can change careers. You can own property. You can speak freely. These aren’t guarantees of success. They’re opportunities to try. Be thankful for them.

Be thankful for your responsibilities, not resentful about having them. You’re responsible for your health, your prosperity, your relationships, and your community. This isn’t a burden, this is freedom. The alternative is having someone else control those aspects of your life.

Be thankful for what you’ve built, not just what you’ve been given. Your career, your home, your family, your health, these are at least partly the result of your own efforts. Yes, you had help. Yes, you had opportunities. But you also made choices and took actions. Be thankful for your own agency and what you’ve accomplished with it.

My unCommon Sense

We need to stop acting like victims and start acting like beneficiaries.

We are not victims of American society. We are beneficiaries of the most prosperous, free, and opportunity-rich country in human history. Yes, it’s imperfect. Yes, there are problems. Yes, some people have it easier than others. But compared to almost any other place, at any other time, we have it extraordinarily good.

The gratitude we should feel isn’t just about saying “thank you” before the turkey. It’s about recognizing our good fortune, accepting our responsibility to maintain and build on it, and acting accordingly.

Stop expecting government to solve your problems. Government didn’t create American prosperity. Individuals and communities created American prosperity. Be thankful for the opportunity to solve your own problems.

Stop comparing yourself to the wealthiest Americans. You don’t live in poverty because Jeff Bezos is rich. His wealth didn’t come from stealing your opportunity. Be thankful for what you have rather than resentful about what others have achieved.

Stop taking your opportunities for granted. Educational options. Career mobility. Property ownership. Free speech. Religious liberty. These aren’t givens. They’re the products of specific principles embedded in American founding documents and defended over centuries. Be thankful for them and protect them.

Start building instead of complaining. If something in your life needs to change, change it. If something in your family needs attention, attend to it. You have agency. Use it. Be thankful that you have the freedom to build rather than just complain.

This Thanksgiving, I’m thankful for:

• Almost 38 years of managing my diabetic health through personal responsibility and discipline

• A husband who partners with me in building our family and life together

• Two boys who we adopted through a system that, despite its flaws, allowed us to become parents

• The responsibility to manage all of this myself, rather than depending on others to do it for me

I’m not thankful to the government for most of these things. I’m thankful for the opportunities and the responsibility to use them well.

This Thanksgiving, before you dig into the turkey and stuffing, ask yourself: Am I actually grateful for what I have? Or am I just going through the motions while focusing on what I lack?

America isn’t perfect. Your life probably isn’t perfect either.

But by any historical standard, by any global comparison, you have it incredibly good.

Be thankful for that. And then get back to work building on it.

That’s what the colonists would have done. That’s what created the prosperity we now enjoy. That’s what will maintain it for future generations, if we stop taking it for granted and start acting like we appreciate what we have.

Happy Thanksgiving.

If you want to have a constructive conversation about this or anything else, message me at dan@thrailkill.us, and let’s grab coffee or a beer.

Have a good one,

Dan

Last week while I was working out at OneLife, I was thinking... I tend to do this while exercising and listening to loud music. I keep hearing people say they’re making more money than ever but somehow going backwards financially. Between healthcare costs, education costs, energy bills, the rent (or the mortgage), and food, the math just doesn’t work anymore. And the government’s response? “Don’t worry, we’re working on it.” No. They’re not.

And here’s the thing that most people haven’t figured out yet: they have no intention of working on it. Not the Republicans. Not the Democrats. The supposed opposition between these two parties is professional wrestling for policy nerds—they yell at each other during the show, but they’re all going to the same bar afterward and laughing about it.

Welcome to the Uniparty, where the only bipartisan agreement that matters is this: keep the costs high, keep the system complicated, and keep the people dependent. Because that’s how you maintain power.

I’ve been managing Type 1 diabetes for almost 38 years. I’ve watched my insulin costs go from manageable to absurd. I’ve seen “healthcare reform” after “healthcare reform” after “healthcare reform,” from both parties, and you know what’s happened? My costs have gone up. Every. Single. Time. And that’s not a coincidence. That’s a feature, not a bug.

Today, I want to talk about why your healthcare is expensive, why your energy bills are climbing, why college costs more than a house used to, why housing has become unaffordable for working families, and why you’re paying $6 for a dozen eggs that used to cost $2. More importantly, I want to explain why neither party, despite their performative outrage, has any real interest in fixing any of it.

THE UNIPARTY ISN’T A CONSPIRACY THEORY

Let me be clear about something upfront: when I say “Uniparty,” I’m not talking about some secret cabal meeting in smoke-filled rooms. I’m talking about something much simpler and more insidious—a shared set of incentives that makes both Republicans and Democrats benefit from the exact same broken systems they claim to oppose.

Think about it this way: if you’re a carpenter, you make money when things need to be built or fixed. You don’t make money when everything’s working perfectly. Now apply that to politicians. They make careers out of “fighting” for solutions to problems. What happens when the problem actually gets solved? They lose their best talking point.

Republicans campaign on “repealing and replacing” Obamacare. Democrats campaign on “expanding access” to healthcare. Neither party campaigns on actually reducing the cost of a doctor’s visit or an MRI or insulin because—and this is the quiet part they don’t say out loud—they don’t want to disrupt the profitable ecosystem that’s grown up around high costs.

The same people who lecture us about rising costs turn around and accept campaign contributions from pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, hospital associations, and medical device manufacturers. Both parties. Every election cycle. You think those companies are donating money because they want their prices to go down?

For whatever reason, we keep pretending that the D or R after someone’s name means they’re actually different. But look at what they do, not what they say. When it comes to the systems that extract money from your wallet—healthcare, energy, education, housing, food—both parties protect the extractors.

HEALTHCARE

Let me get personal for a minute because this is where my education in the Uniparty’s indifference started.

I was diagnosed with Type 1 diabetes when I was a kid. For those who don’t know, Type 1 isn’t the “you ate too much sugar” diabetes (that’s Type 2). Type 1 is an autoimmune condition where your body kills off the cells that make insulin. Without insulin, I die. It’s that simple. So for almost 38 years, I’ve been dependent on a medication to stay alive.

When I started managing my own care in my late teens and early twenties, a vial of insulin cost about $25. Not cheap, but manageable. I was working construction, didn’t have great insurance, but I could afford to stay alive. Today, that same vial—the exact same insulin that’s been around since the 1990s, costs over $300 without insurance. Sometimes more.

But Dan, didn’t the government pass laws to cap insulin costs?

Yes. Some states did. Congress talked about it. They held hearings. Insulin manufacturers were dragged in front of committees and scolded. And you know what happened? Almost nothing meaningful. The “solutions” they passed were carefully crafted to look like they were doing something while protecting the profit margins of the manufacturers and the pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) who sit in the middle and skim their cut. But even with all the discussions, caping the cost of Insulin is a terrible idea that will eventually harm diabetics, not help.

The Affordable Care Act, passed by Democrats and opposed by Republicans, was supposed to lower healthcare costs. It didn’t. It mandated that everyone buy insurance, which guaranteed profits for insurance companies. Premiums went up. Deductibles went up. Out-of-pocket costs went up. The only thing that expanded was the bureaucracy.

Republicans promised to “repeal and replace” it. They controlled the White House, Senate, and House. And they... did nothing. Oh, they put on a show. John McCain gave a dramatic thumbs-down. Everyone pretended it was about principles. But the truth is simpler: both parties benefit from a complicated, expensive healthcare system because it creates dependency and opportunities for their donors to profit.

Meanwhile, I’m still here managing my diabetes, watching my costs climb, and listening to politicians from both parties explain why this year’s reform is definitely going to work. Spoiler: it won’t.

ENERGY

Let’s talk energy. Here in Cherokee County, we’ve seen our electric bills climb significantly over the past few years. Some of that is market forces—fuel costs, infrastructure upgrades, whatever. But a whole lot of it is policy-driven insanity that both parties participate in.

If you have not seen the show Landman (Paramount+) or seen this viral clip, you should take 5 minutes and watch this prior to proceeding. And make sure you watch it till the end, the rattlesnake scene illustrates why/how some people lose their common sense when emotions take over.

Democrats push for renewable energy mandates and subsidies. They claim this will lower costs long-term. It hasn’t. Instead, we get billions in subsidies going to politically connected companies while our actual power bills go up because the grid has to maintain both the new expensive renewable capacity and the old reliable fossil fuel capacity because wind doesn’t always blow and sun doesn’t always shine.

Republicans campaign against these mandates, but when they’re in power, they don’t actually eliminate them. Why? Because their donors include both the traditional energy companies (who benefit from the guaranteed backup market) and the renewable companies (who’ve figured out that Republicans like money too). So instead of killing the subsidies, they just redirect some of them.

The result: you pay more. The energy companies make more. The politicians on both sides get campaign contributions. And the two parties pretend to fight about “climate change” versus “energy independence” while neither actually reduces your costs.

Natural gas is another perfect example. We have massive natural gas reserves in this country. We could have cheap, reliable energy. But instead, we have a regulatory maze that makes it expensive to extract, transport, and use. Both parties contribute to this maze—Democrats through environmental regulations, Republicans through their own brand of regulatory capture that protects established interests over new competition.

The price you pay at the pump or on your electric bill isn’t primarily about supply and demand anymore. It’s about how much both parties have made it expensive to produce, transport, and deliver energy through their combined decades of “helping.”

EDUCATION

When I went to college in the late ‘90s and early 2000s, state schools were affordable. Community college was cheap. Students graduated with manageable debt or no debt at all. And with a degree that was meaningful in future income potential.

Today, the average college graduate has over $30,000 in student loan debt. Many have much, much more. College costs have increased far faster than inflation, far faster than wages, far faster than basically everything except healthcare. Why?

Because both parties decided the solution to “college costs too much” was to make it easier to borrow money to pay for college. Think about that logic. Prices are too high, so let’s give people more money to pay the high prices. What do you think colleges did? They raised prices more because they knew the money would be there.

This isn’t complicated economics. If you subsidize demand without addressing supply, prices go up. But the Uniparty has no interest in addressing supply—that would mean challenging the universities, the administrators, the athletic programs, the bloated bureaucracies that now employ more administrators than professors. Those are all important constituencies. They all donate to campaigns. They all vote.

So instead, we get this beautiful scam: Democrats want to forgive student loans (which drives tuition higher because colleges know the debt might be forgiven). Republicans want to... reform student loans? Make them private? They never quite get around to it because they benefit from the same system.

Meanwhile, an 18-year-old signs up for $100,000 in non-dischargeable debt to get a degree in sociology or communications or whatever, and both parties smile and nod and explain that this is just the cost of opportunity in America. It’s not. It’s the cost of a system neither party wants to fix because it funds their friends in higher education.

HOUSING

When my family bought our first house in Columbia, South Carolina, way back in the mid 1980s, it was affordable on a working-class income. Today, young families need two professional salaries and help from parents just for the down payment. Housing costs have exploded, and while supply and demand plays a role, government policies from both parties deserve most of the blame.

The federal government guarantees mortgages through Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which removes risk from lenders and encourages them to lend more money. More money chasing the same houses means higher prices. More money at cheap rates means the houses get bigger and bigger. Then the Federal Reserve manipulates interest rates, keeping them artificially low for years, then jacking them up when inflation hits, creating boom & bust cycles that benefit investors while crushing first-time buyers. Both parties support this system because the real estate and banking industries donate to both.

Zoning laws and building codes make it incredibly expensive to build new housing. Want to build a small starter home? Minimum lot sizes or minimum square footage amounts say no. Want affordable housing near jobs? NIMBYs from both parties will block it at city council meetings. Republicans do it to “preserve neighborhood character.” Democrats do it while claiming to support affordable housing.

Immigration policy creates a broken construction labor market, expensive legal labor or exploitable illegal labor, with no rational middle ground. Licensing requirements make it hard for young people to enter the trades. Meanwhile, we pushed an entire generation toward college debt instead of toward the skilled trades we desperately need to build housing. Both parties created this mess.

The result? Here in Cherokee County, a growing number of the people who work here or elsewhere in Atlanta can’t afford to live here. Young families get pushed further out. And what do both parties offer? Democrats want rent control (which reduces supply). Republicans want tax breaks for developers (which benefit developers more than buyers). Neither addresses the regulations and policies that make housing expensive to build in the first place.

They won’t fix it because too many people benefit from expensive housing. Your city gets higher property tax revenue. Banks make more on bigger mortgages. Existing homeowners see their “investment” appreciate. The only losers are working families trying to build a life. But hey, both parties get to campaign on “addressing the housing crisis” every cycle.

FOOD

I’m going to keep this one shorter because if I get too deep into agricultural policy, we’ll be here all day, but the food situation is instructive.

Grocery prices have jumped significantly over the past few years. Some of that is COVID supply chain stuff. Some is Ukraine war stuff. But a lot of it is policy choices that both parties support:

**#1: Ethanol mandates** that require gasoline to contain corn-based ethanol. This drives up corn prices, which drives up the price of everything that uses corn (feed for animals, corn syrup, etc.). Both parties support this because Iowa votes early in primaries.

**#2: Subsidies** for certain crops but not others, which distorts what gets grown and raises prices for consumers. Both parties support various versions of this.

**#3: Regulatory overhead** that makes small farms uncompetitive and consolidates production into big agriculture corporations who then... donate to both parties.

**#4: Immigration policy** that’s simultaneously too strict (making farm labor expensive) and too loose (creating a gray market labor system that’s exploitable). Both parties benefit from this broken system—Republicans get to campaign on border security, Democrats get to campaign on immigrant rights, and neither fixes the actual policy to make legal farm labor feasible.

The result: you pay more for groceries while farmers struggle and both parties explain how the other side is ruining food in America.

WHY THEY DON’T CARE

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: the Uniparty doesn’t want to fix high costs because high costs create dependency, and dependency creates voters.

If healthcare is expensive and complicated, you need politicians to “fight” for you. If energy costs are high, you need government programs to “help” pay your bills. If education requires massive debt, you need politicians to promise loan forgiveness. If housing is unaffordable, you need down payment assistance programs. If food prices are climbing, you need government assistance programs.

See the pattern? Every broken system creates a constituency that needs government help, which gives politicians a reason to exist and a platform to run on. If they actually fixed these problems—if healthcare were cheap and simple, if energy were affordable, if college were reasonably priced, if housing were attainable, if food costs were stable—what would politicians campaign on?

This is why every “solution” from both parties makes the system more complicated, not simpler. More complicated means more need for experts, more need for bureaucrats, more need for politicians to “navigate” the system for you. It’s a jobs program for the political class.

And it’s why so many career politicians end up wealthy. Nancy Pelosi’s net worth. Mitch McConnell’s net worth. Look at how much money people make after they leave Congress—board positions, consulting gigs, all with the companies they were supposedly regulating. You think that’s a coincidence?

The Uniparty isn’t stupid. They’re very smart. They’ve figured out that you can campaign on opposing the other side while actually supporting the same underlying systems that keep you both in power and wealthy. They’ve figured out that voters will forgive almost anything as long as you’re fighting the “right” enemy—even if that enemy is just your colleague putting on a show.

THE GIVE-UP FACTOR

Here’s something I’ve noticed over the past few years that’s particularly disturbing: even the people inside the government are starting to openly admit they can’t fix it.

I have a friend who worked for a federal agency (I won’t say which one because he still works there). He’s a smart guy, went in thinking he could make a difference, fix some of the problems from the inside. About five years in, he told me over a beer: “Dan, I’ve given up trying to fix anything. I just try to stop things from getting worse.”

That stuck with me. This is a guy who dedicated his career to public service, and his goal is now just... don’t make it worse. Not make it better. Not solve problems. Just maintain the dysfunction at current levels.

And he’s not alone. Talk to career bureaucrats who aren’t political appointees—the ones who stay through administrations—and you’ll find a lot of people who’ve given up on meaningful reform. They know the system is broken. They know Congress won’t fix it. They know both parties benefit from the status quo. So they just... manage the decline.

This is what happens when the incentive structure is completely backwards. The people with the power to change things don’t want to change them. The people who want to change things don’t have the power. And the people in the middle just try to survive and collect their pensions.

Unfortunately, while they’re managing the decline, you’re paying more for healthcare, energy, education, housing, and food. While they’ve given up on reform, you’re struggling to balance your budget. While they’ve accepted the dysfunction, you’re watching your quality of life decrease.

My unCommon Sense

George Carlin used to have a bit about the government not giving a damn about regular people. He’d say: “The government doesn’t care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare, or your safety. It simply doesn’t give a fuck about you. It’s interested in its own power.” That was from his 2006 special, and it’s as true today as it was then. The sooner we accept that fundamental reality, the sooner we can stop waiting for them to save us.

But here’s the thing: not everyone in Washington has given up. There are a handful of politicians who actually propose real solutions that would simplify systems and reduce costs. The problem is they’re marginalized by both parties because their ideas threaten the Uniparty’s power structure.

Senator Rand Paul has consistently pushed for healthcare freedom—letting people buy insurance across state lines, promoting Health Savings Accounts that put patients in control of their healthcare dollars, and allowing the formation of association health plans that let small businesses and individuals band together for better rates. These aren’t complicated. They’re simple market-based reforms that would increase competition and lower costs. The Uniparty hates them because they reduce dependency on government systems and insurance company middlemen.

Representative Thomas Massie has fought against the agricultural subsidies and ethanol mandates that drive up food costs. He’s also repeatedly introduced legislation to eliminate the Department of Education and send control back to states and local communities, which would force universities to compete on price and quality rather than just raising tuition because federal loan money is guaranteed. Both parties vote him down because they need those constituencies.

Senator Ron Johnson has been one of the few willing to question whether more government intervention actually solves problems or just creates more bureaucracy. When the Senate was considering bills to cap insulin prices and regulate pharmacy benefit managers, Johnson opposed adding more layers of complexity to an already broken system. His argument? That real solutions come from transparency and competition, not price controls that sound good but often backfire. He’s pushed for market-based reforms and questioned whether piling more regulations on top of existing regulations actually helps or just enriches the middlemen while costs keep rising. The Uniparty doesn’t like that kind of questioning because it exposes the fact that their “solutions” are often just theater.

These guys aren’t perfect. I don’t agree with them on everything. But they’re at least proposing solutions that would actually reduce your costs rather than just creating new government programs to “help” you afford the high costs. And they’re consistently ignored or attacked by the leadership of both parties.

So what do we do?

First, stop believing the theatrical opposition between Republicans and Democrats means anything when it comes to costs. They’re not opponents. They’re coworkers. Until voters start punishing both parties for failing to reduce costs, nothing will change. That means supporting the rare politicians like Paul, Massie, and Johnson who actually want to simplify systems. That means primary challenges. That means making it clear that the next candidate who promises to “fight” for you better show receipts.

Second, embrace personal responsibility and reduce dependency wherever possible. I know this sounds like I’m blaming individuals for systemic problems, but hear me out: the more dependent you are on government systems, the less leverage you have. The more you can do for yourself—whether that’s growing some of your own food, finding ways to reduce energy consumption, choosing a trade over college debt, exploring direct primary care or healthcare sharing ministries—the less power the Uniparty has over you.

For me, this means being obsessive about my diabetes management. I can’t change what insulin costs, but I can control how much I need by managing my blood sugar carefully. I can shop around for the best prices. I can use manufacturer coupons and programs. It’s not a systemic fix, but it’s what I can control. And controlling what you can control is always better than waiting for the government to save you.

Third, support candidates and policies that actually simplify systems, not complicate them. The right answer to “healthcare costs too much” isn’t “let’s add another layer of subsidies and regulations.” It’s “let’s remove the barriers that make it expensive in the first place.” Price transparency. Competition across state lines. Ending certificate-of-need laws that prevent new hospitals from opening. These work. They’re just not popular with the Uniparty because they reduce dependency.

Same with energy. We don’t need more subsidies for either fossil fuels or renewables. We need to eliminate subsidies for both and let the market work. We don’t need more mandates. We need fewer regulations strangling small producers.

Same with education. We don’t need more student loan programs. We need to stop guaranteeing loans for worthless degrees and force universities to bear some of the risk when their graduates can’t pay back their debt. Watch how fast tuition comes down when schools have skin in the game.

Same with housing. We don’t need down payment assistance programs or rent control. We need to eliminate the zoning restrictions, building code overreach, and regulatory maze that makes it expensive to build. Let builders build starter homes again. Let people add accessory dwelling units. Stop requiring five environmental reviews for every project.

Fourth, build local alternatives. This is where I’m actually optimistic. Here in Cherokee County, I’ve seen small businesses, local farmers markets, community initiatives that work outside the broken federal systems. The more we can build at the local level—the more we can create economies and communities that don’t depend on federal policy—the more resilient we become.

Finally, accept that this is your life to manage. The government isn’t coming to save you. Neither party is riding to your rescue. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you can focus on what you actually control. Your education choices. Your career. Your health. Your expenses. Your votes. Your community.

I’ve been managing a life-threatening condition for almost 38 years in a healthcare system that doesn’t want me to succeed independently. Every incentive in that system pushes me toward dependency, toward accepting high costs, toward needing government help. I refuse. Not because I’m heroic or special, but because I understand that no one else can live my life for me. No politician, no bureaucrat, no insurance company, no doctor can take the responsibility for my health. That’s mine.

The same is true for you with your costs, your budget, your life. The Uniparty has given up on helping you because helping you doesn’t help them. They benefit from your dependency. So the only rational response is to become as independent as possible.

It’s not fair that this is the situation we’re in. It’s not fair that both parties are failing us. It’s not fair that costs keep rising while politicians pretend to care. But fairness doesn’t matter. Reality matters. And the reality is that your inalienable responsibility to live your life includes figuring out how to thrive despite a government that’s given up on actually solving problems.

They’ve given up on fixing it. Don’t give up on yourself.

If you want to have a constructive conversation about this or anything else, message me at dan@thrailkill.us, and let’s grab coffee or a beer.

Have a good one,

Dan

REFERENCES

Diabetes Care (July 2024): “Lessons From Insulin: Policy Prescriptions for Affordable Diabetes and Obesity Medications” - Documents Humalog price increase from $26 in 1990s to over $300 by mid-2010s. https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/47/8/1246/154402/Lessons-From-Insulin-Policy-Prescriptions-for

Visual Capitalist (August 2024): “Visualizing the Cost of Insulin in the United States (2004-2024)” - Shows Humalog cost $21.23 in 1996, reached $275 by 2017. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/rising-cost-of-insulin-us/

NPR (September 2022): “Insulin costs increased 600% over the last 20 years” - Confirms 600% price increase over two decades. https://www.npr.org/2022/09/12/1122311443/insulin-costs-increased-600-over-the-last-20-years-states-aim-to-curb-the-price

Education Data Initiative (2024): Average federal student loan debt is $39,075; total U.S. student debt is $1.814 trillion. https://educationdata.org/student-loan-debt-statistics

Federal Reserve (May 2025): “Report on the Economic Well-Being of U.S. Households in 2024” - Median student loan debt is between $20,000-$24,999. https://www.federalreserve.gov/publications/2025-economic-well-being-of-us-households-in-2024-higher-education-and-student-loans.htm

Bankrate (August 2024): “College Tuition Inflation” - From 2014-2024, average tuition at public four-year colleges increased 27%. College costs have more than tripled since the 1980s while general consumer prices roughly doubled. https://www.bankrate.com/loans/student-loans/college-tuition-inflation/

Visual Capitalist (February 2021): “The Rising Average Cost of College in the U.S.” - Since 1980, college tuition and fees are up 1,200%, while CPI for all items has risen only 236%. https://www.visualcapitalist.com/rising-cost-of-college-in-u-s/

Best Colleges (June 2024): “College Tuition Inflation Statistics” - Tuition inflation was highest in the 1980s at 9.7% annually. From 2000-2022, average tuition increased 60%. https://www.bestcolleges.com/research/college-tuition-inflation-statistics/

Senator Rand Paul official website (January 2017): “Dr. Rand Paul Unveils Obamacare Replacement Act” - Details proposal for HSAs, insurance across state lines, and association health plans. https://www.paul.senate.gov/news-dr-rand-paul-unveils-obamacare-replacement-act/

AJMC (2017): “Rand Paul’s ACA Replacement Relies on HSAs and Selling Across State Lines” https://www.ajmc.com/view/rand-pauls-aca-replacement-relies-on-hsas-and-selling-across-state-lines

Senator Rand Paul official website (January 2023): “Dr. Rand Paul Introduces Legislation to Bring More Freedom and Flexibility to Healthcare” - Details Health Savings Accounts for All Act and Health Marketplace for All Act. https://www.paul.senate.gov/dr-rand-paul-introduces-legislation-to-bring-more-freedom-and-flexibility-to-healthcare/

Congress.gov: H.R.899 (119th Congress, 2025) - Bill to terminate the Department of Education, sponsored by Representative Thomas Massie. https://www.congress.gov/member/thomas-massie/M001184

Representative Thomas Massie official website (February 2021): “Rep. Massie Introduces Bill to Abolish Federal Department of Education” https://massie.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=395319

NKy Tribune (November 2024): “Libertarian Party of Kentucky endorses Rep. Thomas Massie for Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture” - Details Massie’s work on the PRIME Act, hemp legalization, and support for local food systems. https://nkytribune.com/2024/11/libertarian-party-of-kentucky-endorses-rep-thomas-massie-for-secretary-of-the-u-s-department-of-agriculture/

Modern Healthcare (July 2023): “PBM reform bills pass 2 congressional panels” - Reports Johnson voted against PBM reform bill, arguing it would “add another administrative layer to the prescription supply chain” and urged colleagues to “focus on how we can simplify these things.” https://www.modernhealthcare.com/law-regulation/pbm-pharmacy-benefit-managers-reform-bills-congress

Senator Ron Johnson official website: “Health Care” - Describes Johnson’s belief that healthcare system should be “based on consumer choice and free markets.” https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/health-care

House Committee on Oversight and Accountability (July 2024): “The Role of Pharmacy Benefit Managers in Prescription Drug Markets” - Staff report detailing PBM anticompetitive practices and role in rising drug costs. https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-releases-report-on-pbms-harmful-pricing-tactics-and-role-in-rising-health-care-costs%EF%BF%BC/

Commonwealth Fund (March 2025): “What Pharmacy Benefit Managers Do, and How They Contribute to Drug Spending” - Overview of PBM practices including spread pricing and vertical integration. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/explainer/2025/mar/what-pharmacy-benefit-managers-do-how-they-contribute-drug-spending

Carlin, George. “Life Is Worth Losing” HBO Special, 2006. Quote: “The government doesn’t care about you, or your children, or your rights, or your welfare, or your safety. It simply doesn’t give a fuck about you. It’s interested in its own power.”

It’s November 2025 (Diabetes Awareness Month) which means my inbox and social media feeds are flooded with feel-good posts about “diabetes warriors” and corporate platitudes from device companies that often charge $10,000 a year for plastic devices that deliver a $100-a-vial hormone.

I’ve been managing Type 1 diabetes for almost 38 years (since 1-13-1988). I’ve used syringes, pens, and pumps. I’ve dealt with insurance companies, endocrinologists, pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs), and everything in between. I’ve experienced severe hypoglycemia requiring hospitalization (all in college or pre-college) and every minor short-term complication in between. And here’s what nobody wants to tell you: the “best” insulin delivery method isn’t about the latest technology, it’s about what you’ll actually use consistently, afford realistically, and manage responsibly.

This November, instead of the usual diabetes awareness fluff, let’s talk about something that matters: money, outcomes, and the personal responsibility required to beat natural selection when your pancreas doesn’t work.

A critical note before we dive in: Insurance is so F#$%ing complicated that trying to give you accurate “with insurance” pricing is nearly impossible. Every plan is different. Every formulary is different. Every deductible, copay, and out-of-pocket maximum varies. What costs you $50 might cost your neighbor $500 or $5,000 depending on their coverage. So all the prices I’m listing in this post are estimated cash prices – what you’d pay if you walked into a pharmacy or ordered supplies without insurance. Your actual costs will vary wildly based on your coverage, but at least this gives you a baseline to understand what these things actually cost before the insurance shell game begins.

THE DIABETES INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX

First, let’s establish something: the diabetes industry doesn’t want you healthy. They want you compliant. Compliant patients buy more products, need more “support,” and generate more recurring revenue.

The push toward insulin pump therapy over the last two decades hasn’t solely been driven primarily by patient outcomes – though they’ll show you the studies that say it helps. It’s also been driven by profit margins. An insulin pump company makes exponentially more money from a pump patient than Novo Nordisk or BD makes from someone buying a box of pen needles.

Am I saying pumps don’t work? No. I’m saying the conversation around them is not 100% transparent and somewhat dishonest.

Here’s what almost 38 years has taught me: Any insulin delivery method works if you use it correctly. None of them work if you don’t.

Happy Diabetes Awareness Month…

WHAT IT ACTUALLY COSTS

Let me show you numbers that matter, what you’ll actually pay.

Multiple Daily Injections (MDI) – The Reality:

If you’re smart about it, MDI is shockingly affordable. Novo Nordisk, and others, offers programs that make insulin more affordable outside of insurance. Novo’s program allows patients to purchase insulin from their local pharmacy for $99 per month for BOTH your fast-acting and long-acting insulin. That’s $1,188 a year for the stuff that keeps you alive.

Add in syringes or pen needles ($400-600), and basic glucose monitoring ($600-900 for test strips, or $1,200-3,600 if you spring for a continuous glucose monitor), and you’re looking at $2,488 to $5,888 annually depending on your monitoring choice.

Routine endocrinologist visits add another $300-500, which brings the realistic range to $2,788 to $6,388 annually. You may also want to allocate an estimated $8,000 per year for things like hospitalization due to DKA or hypoglycemia, but proper management should keep that risk extremely low.

Total MDI annual cost: $2,788 - $6,388.

Insulin Pumps – The Real Numbers:

Let’s start with the Omnipod 5, which is currently the darling of the diabetes tech world because it’s tubeless and integrates with CGMs. One box of 10 pods – which you need monthly – costs $772 to $808 retail. That’s $9,264 to $9,696 per year just for the plastic pods that go on your body.

Now, pump users CAN access the same $99/month Novo Nordisk program that MDI users get – that’s the good news. The bad news? Pumps waste LOTS of insulin.

When you change a reservoir or pod, there’s insulin left in the old one. When a site fails – and they do fail, from kinks, occlusions, or dislodgement – you waste whatever insulin was delivered to scar tissue instead of your bloodstream. When you prime tubing or fill a new pod, that’s insulin down the drain. Studies estimate pumps waste about 10% more insulin than MDI just from these mechanical losses.

Then add lipohypertrophy – which we’ll get to – and you’re looking at needing 10-20% more insulin to achieve the same blood glucose control. So while you’re paying the same $99/month base rate, you’re burning through vials faster.

Real-world insulin cost for pumps: a minimum of $1,400 to $1,600 annually once you factor in waste.

Add your CGM ($1,200-3,600), routine visits that are more expensive because pump patients need more monitoring ($500-800), and suddenly you’re looking at $12,364 to $15,696 per year for Omnipod 5.

Medtronic, Tandem, and iLet pumps are slightly cheaper on consumables but still run $7,000 to $13,000 annually.

But insurance covers it, right?

Maybe. If you have great insurance, your out-of-pocket might drop to $3,500-6,000 annually (still more than MDI). If you have a high-deductible plan like millions of Americans, you’re eating most of that cost yourself.

Regardless of type or brand of pump selected, you’re always looking at significantly higher costs than multiple daily injections.

THE PROBLEM NOBODY TALKS ABOUT: LIPOHYPERTROPHY

Here’s something the pump companies don’t advertise: LIPOHYPERTROPHY.

Lipohypertrophy (LH) is fatty scar tissue that builds up at infusion sites. It looks like lumps under your skin. And according to studies from 2022-2025, 95% of insulin pump users have it when checked by ultrasound. Only 5% self-report it because most people don’t even know they have it.

Why does this matter?

LH reduces insulin absorption by 20-22%. That means you’re using more insulin to achieve the same blood glucose control. Combined with the mechanical waste from pump operation, you’re looking at a significant increase in insulin consumption.

But it gets worse. LH also increases glucose variability by 52%, which means more highs, more lows, and higher risk of both DKA and severe hypoglycemia – the exact complications the pump was supposed to prevent.

How do you get LH?

Poor site rotation. Using the same spots repeatedly. Leaving infusion sets in too long (more than 2-3 days). Using long cannulas.

How do you prevent it?

Discipline. Rotating sites every 48-72 hours without fail. Getting annual checks with your endocrinologist. Replacing failed sites immediately instead of “just waiting a bit to see if it improves.”

In other words: personal responsibility.

The pump doesn’t manage your diabetes. You do. The pump is a tool. If you use it carelessly, it becomes expensive scar tissue.

Patients want to change their sites less often, that makes sense, but your body and long term LH really determines how often sites should be changed long term. Companies like Tandem are preparing to release sites that claim to last for 7 days (see image below), but do you really want a site to be in the same spot for that long? Not just a “NO” but a “Hell NO.”

THE INSULIN WASTE REALITY

Let’s talk about something MDI users don’t deal with: mechanical insulin waste.

Every time you change a pump reservoir or pod:

• You lose whatever insulin remains in the old one (usually at least 10-20 units)

• You use insulin to prime the new tubing or pod (5-15 units minimum depending on system)

• You waste insulin on failed sites that didn’t absorb properly (whatever is left - between 0 and 200 units or more)

With MDI, you draw exactly what you need. You inject exactly what you drew. The only waste is the occasional drop on your skin or a bent needle you have to replace.

With pumps, waste is built into the system. It’s unavoidable. The manufacturers know it. Your insurance knows it. That’s why pump users typically go through insulin faster despite the $99/month program covering the base cost.

Over a year, that 10% mechanical waste plus potential LH-related increased needs can mean the difference between using 4 vials per month versus 5-6 vials per month. At $99/month for unlimited insulin, you’re covered – but you’re still using significantly more of a precious hormone because of system inefficiency.

Is that waste worth the benefits of pump therapy? For some people, absolutely. For others, it’s throwing away insulin for features they don’t really need.

DO PUMPS ACTUALLY IMPROVE OUTCOMES?

Yes. Sort of. With caveats…

The data shows pumps reduce:

• Severe hypoglycemia by 30% (1.5 vs 2.2 events per year)

• DKA events by 40% (0.08 vs 0.15 per year)

• HbA1c by 0.3-0.5%

• Microvascular complications by 10-15% over ten years

• Macrovascular events by about 5%

Those are real benefits. Over a lifetime, that translates to thousands in avoided complication costs and meaningful quality-of-life improvements.

BUT… These outcomes assume you’re using the pump correctly. They assume you’re rotating sites, responding to alerts, changing reservoirs on time, and actually engaging with the technology.

If you’re not doing those things, and studies show many pump users aren’t, you’re paying $15,000 a year for outcomes that aren’t materially better than MDI.

I’ve seen pump users with HbA1c levels of 9-10% because they treat the pump like an autopilot. It’s not. It’s a sophisticated tool that requires sophisticated management.

MY 38-YEAR PERSPECTIVE

I started with Regular and NPH injections in 1988. When Humalog came out, I got my first insulin pump in 1994 (a MiniMed - prior name before Medtronic acquisition) – finally, fast-acting insulin that actually worked like it was supposed to. I then used various pumps for the next 20-25 years, though toward the end I was on and off, switching back to MDI periodically when I got tired of dealing with sites and tubing.

In the late 2010s, I went to MDI full-time. For the last few years, I’ve been using Tresiba and Fiasp – a long-acting basal that lasts more than 24 hours and doesn’t have the peaks and valleys of NPH, paired with an ultra rapid-acting bolus insulin. I’ve tried some of the newer pumps – the iLet and Omnipod 5 – as well, but I keep coming back to MDI. My hope was that the more advanced algorithms would adjust automatically based on the amount of LH for a given pump site, but they did not, or they did not allow for tight enough control for my personal standards.

Here’s my honest assessment after spending two+ decades on a pump and several years back on injections:

Pumps are incredible technology when you need them. If you’re having frequent severe lows, if your schedule is wildly unpredictable, if you’re an athlete or have a job that makes MDI impractical, if you’re a parent managing a child’s T1D overnight – pumps can be life-changing. The programmable basal rates alone can be worth it for people with dawn phenomenon or unusual work schedules.

Pumps are expensive overkill when you don’t. If you have a relatively stable schedule, good glucose awareness, and the discipline to inject 4-6 times daily, MDI works perfectly well. I’ve maintained HbA1c levels between 5.6-6.2% on MDI for years. No pump required.

The diabetes industry wants everyone on pumps because that’s where the money is. Your endocrinologist might push pumps because that’s what the guidelines say and that’s what the pharmaceutical reps emphasize. Your diabetes educator might assume you want “the latest technology.”

But here’s what matters: What will you actually use? What can you actually afford? What fits your actual life?

I use MDI currently not because I don’t understand pumps – I used one for 20+ years. Not because I can’t afford one. But because for my current lifestyle, my risk profile, and my management style, MDI works better. Modern long-acting insulins like Tresiba are game-changers compared to the NPH I started with in 1988. Paired with Fiasp, I can achieve the same glucose control I had on a pump without the hassle of site changes, occlusions, and tubing getting caught on door handles. I also use an Eversense CGM which does require a minor surgical procedure to implant, but provides 365 days without needing a site change. I’ll take that consistency any day!

That’s not heroic. That’s what beating natural selection looks like when your pancreas doesn’t work.

THE NATURAL SELECTION FRAMEWORK

Let me be blunt: Without modern medicine, Type 1 diabetics die. Before insulin was discovered in 1921, a T1D diagnosis was a death sentence. You had maybe a year, usually less.

Natural selection doesn’t care about your feelings. It doesn’t care about insurance coverage or endocrinologist recommendations. In the wild, we don’t survive.

But we’re not in the wild. We have insulin. We have technology. We have the ability to manage this condition and live full, productive lives.

The price? Personal responsibility.

Modern pump algorithms and product marketing are steering patients towards allowing the device to do everything for you. You can’t outsource diabetes management to a device, a doctor, or a government program. You have to check your glucose. You have to count your carbs (or at least approximate them reasonably). You have to adjust for exercise, stress, illness, and hormones. You have to rotate injection or infusion sites. You have to refill prescriptions before you run out. You have to keep supplies with you. You have to plan ahead.

Nobody else can do these things for you.

The pump isn’t going to save you if you’re not willing to manage it. MDI isn’t going to save you if you’re not willing to inject consistently. CGM isn’t going to save you if you ignore the alarms.

You beat natural selection by taking responsibility for your life. That’s the lesson 37 years has taught me.

MAKING THE DECISION

So which should you choose? Please GOD do not let the new insulin pump Barbie influence you (see above image and link).

Choose MDI if:

• You’re on a tight budget and need to keep costs under $5,000 annually

• You’re newly diagnosed and still learning the basics

• You prefer simplicity and don’t want to deal with technology

• You have good glucose awareness and can maintain decent control with injections

• You want to minimize insulin waste

• Modern long-acting insulins (Tresiba, Lantus, Levemir) give you the stability you need

• You qualify for the Novo Nordisk $99/month program (which you do, regardless of delivery method)

Choose a pump if:

• You have frequent severe hypoglycemia or DKA episodes

• Your HbA1c is consistently above 7.5% despite good MDI adherence

• You need programmable basal rates for dawn phenomenon or shift work

• You use CGM and want automated insulin adjustment

• You have good insurance that covers most pump costs

• You’re committed to rotating sites every 2-3 days without fail

• Your lifestyle genuinely benefits from programmable basal rates and bolus options

• The convenience benefits outweigh the increased insulin waste

Don’t choose a pump because:

• Your doctor said you should

• You think it will “make diabetes easier”

• You want to be on “the latest technology”

• You’re hoping it will magically improve your control without effort

The pump is a tool. Tools require skill. If you’re not willing to develop that skill, you’re wasting money.

THE INSURANCE GAME

If you have employer-sponsored insurance with good prescription coverage, pumps become much more accessible. Your out-of-pocket might be $3,500-6,000 annually, which is manageable for many families.

If you have a high-deductible health plan – and millions of Americans do – you could be facing $7,000-18,000 in out-of-pocket costs before insurance kicks in meaningfully.

If you’re on Medicaid, pump coverage varies wildly by state. Some states cover pumps readily. Others make you jump through hoops proving “medical necessity” even when it’s obvious.

If you’re uninsured or underinsured, MDI is almost certainly your only realistic option unless you can afford to pay cash for everything.

This is the healthcare system we have. It’s not fair. It’s not rational. It’s not designed with patient outcomes as the primary consideration. But it’s reality.

Navigate it strategically. Get your insurance company to put coverage decisions in writing. Appeal denials aggressively. Shop around for pharmacies and use GoodRx or similar programs. Join patient advocacy groups that provide financial assistance.

But understand: nobody owes you a $15,000 insulin pump. I know that’s not what Diabetes Awareness Month messaging says, but it’s true. These are expensive devices. Someone has to pay for them. If insurance won’t, you need to either pay yourself, find assistance, or use a less expensive option.

Personal responsibility means accepting reality and working within it, not demanding someone else solve your problems.

THE LIFETIME COST REALITY

Let me show you what 38 years of diabetes management actually costs.

I created a graph tracking my actual diabetes expenses from 1988 to today, with projections through 2040 based on standard healthcare inflation of 5% annually. The numbers are sobering.

What This Graph Shows:

The top chart shows annual costs over time. Notice how pump costs (red line) jumped dramatically when I got my first pump in 1994 with Humalog. The gap between MDI (blue line) and pump therapy widened consistently until I went back to MDI full-time around 2018.

The bottom chart shows cumulative lifetime costs – the total amount spent managing this disease. The shaded red area represents the additional cost of pump therapy compared to MDI.

The Numbers Don’t Lie:

From 1988 to 2025, if I’d stayed on MDI the entire time, I would have spent approximately $105,000 on diabetes management. But because I used pumps for roughly 20-25 years, my actual spending was closer to $544,000.

That’s an extra $439,000 spent on pump therapy.

That’s not a typo. Four hundred and thirty-nine thousand dollars.

To put that in perspective:

• That’s a house in many parts of America

• That’s 8-10 years of college tuition

• That’s a fully funded retirement account

• That’s generational wealth for some families

Was it worth it? For me, during certain periods – YES. When I needed the programmable basal rates, when my schedule was unpredictable, when the technology genuinely improved my quality of life – the extra cost was justified.

But here’s what nobody tells you during Diabetes Awareness Month: you don’t get those years and that money back.

The diabetes industry wants you to believe that choosing MDI over a pump means you’re not taking your health seriously. That’s bullshit. It’s marketing disguised as medical advice.

If the pump delivers value for your specific situation – better control, fewer complications, lifestyle benefits that justify the cost – then it’s worth it. But if you’re on a pump because “that’s what everyone does” or because your doctor pushed it without explaining the alternatives, you’re potentially spending hundreds of thousands of dollars unnecessarily over your lifetime.

Looking Forward:

If current trends continue with 5% annual healthcare inflation, someone diagnosed today will spend over $650,000 more on pump therapy versus MDI over a 50-year period. That number will only grow as device companies add more features, more automation, and more reasons why you “need” the latest model.

Personal responsibility means making informed financial decisions, not just clinical ones. The graph doesn’t lie – pumps cost dramatically more than MDI. Make sure you’re getting value for that difference.

Share

My unCommon Sense

After 37 years, including 20+ years on pumps, here’s what I know:

1. The best diabetes management plan is the one you’ll actually follow. A $15,000 pump you don’t use correctly is infinitely worse than $1,200 worth of insulin pens you inject religiously. I used a pump successfully for two decades. Now I use MDI successfully. The technology isn’t the determining factor, consistency is.

2. Technology is not a substitute for discipline. Pumps, CGMs, smart pens – all amazing tools. None of them replace the fundamental requirement that you pay attention, make adjustments, and take ownership of your health. I’ve had good control on pumps and good control on MDI. The constant? Me doing the work.

3. The diabetes industry profits from complexity. They don’t want you to know that MDI with basic monitoring can work extremely well. They want you thinking you need the latest $10,000 gadget or you’re being irresponsible. That’s marketing, not medicine. Modern insulins like Tresiba and Fiasp are light-years better than Regular and NPH – MDI isn’t the primitive option it was in 1988.

4. Lipohypertrophy is real and it’s expensive. If you use a pump, rotate sites obsessively. Get checked annually. Don’t let scar tissue rob you of the benefits you’re paying thousands for. This was one of the factors that pushed me back to MDI – after two decades of pump use, I had developed significant scar tissue that was affecting absorption.

5. Pumps waste insulin – it’s built into the system. Between priming, failed sites, and LH-related absorption issues, you’ll use more insulin on a pump than on MDI. The $99/month Novo Nordisk program covers both delivery methods, but you’ll burn through vials faster with a pump. After 20 years of pumping, that waste adds up.

6. Cost matters. The medical establishment treats cost discussions as crass or beside the point. But for most Americans, spending an extra $10,000 per year on diabetes management isn’t trivial. That’s a car payment. That’s a college fund contribution. That’s retirement savings. Make sure the benefit justifies the cost for your situation.

7. You can switch methods and be successful. I’m living proof. Pumps aren’t a one-way door. If MDI isn’t working, try a pump. If the pump isn’t working, go back to MDI. Modern insulins have made MDI vastly more effective than it was even 15 years ago.

8. You beat natural selection one decision at a time. Every glucose check. Every carb count. Every injection or bolus. Every site rotation. Every supply order. These aren’t heroic acts. They’re the price of staying alive with a broken pancreas.

I’m alive and healthy 37 years into this diagnosis because I take responsibility. Not because I have the best insurance or the fanciest technology. Not because I’m special or tough or a “diabetes warrior.”

I’m alive because I do the work.

That’s what Diabetes Awareness Month should be about. Not blue ribbons and awareness campaigns and corporate virtue signaling. Awareness is useless without action. Action requires responsibility. Responsibility cannot be transferred to anyone else or to a device (iLet).

If you’re choosing between MDI and a pump this November, ask yourself: Which option will I actually use correctly? Which can I realistically afford? Which fits my life?

Then make the choice and own it.

Your pancreas doesn’t work. That’s not your fault. But managing it? That’s entirely your responsibility.

Nobody else can live your life for you.

If you want to have a constructive conversation about this or anything else, message me at dan@thrailkill.us, and let’s grab coffee or a beer.

Have a good one,

Dan

Sources:

American Diabetes Association. “Statistics About Diabetes.” Updated 2025. https://diabetes.org/about-us/statistics/about-diabetes

Novo Nordisk Patient Assistance Program. “$99 Monthly Insulin Program.” Accessed November 2025. https://www.novonordisk-us.com/patients/diabetes-care/help-with-insulin-costs.html

GoodRx Insulin Pricing Database. “Insulin Pump Supply Costs.” November 2025. https://www.goodrx.com

T1D Exchange. “Lipohypertrophy Prevalence in Insulin Pump Users: 2022-2025 Cohort Study.” Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology, 2024.

American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists. “Insulin Pump Therapy Guidelines and Outcomes Data.” Clinical Practice Guidelines, 2025.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Diabetic Ketoacidosis Cost Analysis.” National Diabetes Statistics Report, 2025.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. “Cost-Effectiveness of Insulin Delivery Methods: ICER Analysis.” Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, 2024-2025.

Various manufacturer pricing: Insulet (Omnipod 5), Medtronic, Tandem Diabetes Care, Beta Bionics (iLet). Retail pricing accessed November 2025.

Senseonics. “Eversense E3 CGM System - 365-Day Continuous Glucose Monitoring.” Product information accessed November 2025. https://www.eversensediabetes.com/

Capillary Biomedical / Tandem Diabetes Care. “Steadiset Extended-Wear Infusion Set.” Product announcement, 2025. https://www.capillarybio.com/

Mattel. “Barbie Doll with Type 1 Diabetes and Insulin Pump.” Product release, 2024. https://barbie.mattel.com/

Novo Nordisk. “Fiasp (insulin aspart injection) - Ultra Rapid-Acting Insulin.” Prescribing information accessed November 2025. https://www.novonordisk-us.com/products/fiasp.html

If you’ve been following the news lately, you’ve probably heard politicians wringing their hands about the “affordability crisis” in healthcare, education, and housing. The solution they always propose? More government subsidies. More “help” for struggling Americans. More taxpayer dollars pumped into these sectors to make them “affordable.”

Here’s what they won’t tell you: Government subsidies are the reason these things became unaffordable in the first place.

I know, I know. That sounds backwards. How can giving people money to buy something make it MORE expensive? Shouldn’t subsidies make things cheaper? That’s certainly what the politicians selling these programs want you to believe. But if you look at the actual data—not the campaign promises, not the feel-good talking points, but the real numbers—you’ll see a pattern that’s impossible to ignore.

Every single time the government decides to “help” people afford something by subsidizing demand, prices go up. Not down. Up. And the more they subsidize, the worse it gets.

Let me walk you through the evidence, explain the economics, and show you why understanding this principle matters for every decision you make as a consumer, voter, and citizen.

THE ECONOMIC THEORY

Before we dive into the real-world carnage, let’s understand the basic economics. And don’t worry, I’m going to keep this simple. If you would like to have a more in depth chat about subsides, or anything else, scroll to the bottom to send me a message and let’s chat.

There are two types of subsidies: Supply-Side and Demand-Side.

Supply-side subsidies give money to producers to make more of something. In theory, these can lower prices by increasing supply. Think of subsidies to farmers to grow more wheat, more wheat means lower bread prices (though even these subsidies create their own problems, which we’ll save for another day).

Demand-side subsidies give money to buyers to purchase more of something. These are the subsidies we’re talking about today. Student loans, healthcare premium subsidies, housing assistance programs, these all put more money in buyers’ pockets specifically earmarked for purchasing a particular good or service.

Here’s the problem: When you give buyers more money to spend on something, demand goes up. That’s Econ 101. But here’s what they don’t teach you in most economics classes: If supply can’t keep up with that increased demand, prices rise to match the new purchasing power.

Think of it this way: You’re at an auction for a rare baseball card. There are 10 bidders, and everyone has $100 in their pocket. The bidding might stop at $95. Now imagine the government shows up and hands every bidder an extra $500, but there’s still only one baseball card. What happens to the price? It doesn’t stay at $95. It shoots up to match the new purchasing power in the room, maybe $550, $600, or more.

The baseball card didn’t get any better. Supply didn’t increase. But the price skyrocketed because everyone suddenly had more money to bid with.

That’s exactly what happens with demand-side subsidies in healthcare, education, and housing. The government floods the market with subsidized dollars, and sellers simply raise their prices to capture that money. Economists call this “subsidy capture” or “the Bennett Hypothesis” (named after Reagan’s Education Secretary who first articulated it for college tuition).

The result? Prices rise to absorb the subsidies, leaving consumers back where they started, or worse, because now they’re dependent on government support just to afford what used to be a reasonable market price.

EXHIBIT A: HEALTHCARE

Let’s start with the disaster unfolding right now with Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies.

In 2021, the federal government massively expanded premium subsidies for ACA marketplace insurance. They called these “enhanced subsidies,” and the goal was to make insurance “affordable.” These enhanced subsidies covered the full cost of benchmark premiums for people earning between 100-150% of the federal poverty level, and capped premiums at 8.5% of income for everyone else, removing the previous 400% income limit entirely.

So what happened?

Insurance premiums exploded.

According to research from the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, the enhanced subsidies correlated with a 15-20% premium spike in states that expanded these programs. Health insurers raised their rates by an average of 26% for 2026 (our increase was 35%), with analysts citing the enhanced subsidies as a key driver. Why? Because insurers knew the government would pick up the tab.

When the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) analyzed premium increases for 2026, they found that only 4 percentage points of the 18-20% average increase was due to actual medical inflation and utilization. The rest? Healthcare system bloat, provider consolidation squeezing reimbursements, and, you guessed it, insurers pricing for a subsidized market.

Now the enhanced subsidies are set to expire at the end of 2025, and suddenly everyone’s shocked that premiums are “skyrocketing.” But here’s what’s really happening: Premiums aren’t skyrocketing—the subsidies are going away, revealing the true cost that was always there.

According to KFF, the average subsidized enrollee paid $888 per year in premiums in 2025. Without the enhanced subsidies in 2026, that jumps to $1,904 or a 114% increase. Politicians are calling this a crisis. I call it the bill coming due.

The subsidies didn’t make insurance more affordable. They temporarily masked the cost while giving insurers a blank check to raise prices. And now millions of Americans who were lured onto the marketplace with promises of “$0 premiums” are about to learn what those plans actually cost.

Want to know the real kicker? When FHA cut mortgage insurance premiums in 2015 to “help” homebuyers, the exact same thing happened...

EXHIBIT B: HOUSING

In January 2015, the Federal Housing Administration cut its mortgage insurance premium (MIP) by 50 basis points. The government predicted this would bring 250,000 new first-time homebuyers into the market over three years and save each FHA buyer $900 annually.

Sounds great, right? More people achieving the American Dream of homeownership.

Here’s what actually happened: Home prices in FHA-dominated neighborhoods increased 2.5 percentage points faster than in comparable markets. Only 17,000 additional first-time buyers entered the market, far short of the projection. And the $900 in “savings”? It vanished into higher home prices.

A 2025 analysis by National Mortgage News put it bluntly: “When demand-side subsidies are introduced in a tight housing market, they get capitalized into higher prices, reducing affordability rather than increasing it.”

Think about the mechanism here. Sellers and their agents know that FHA buyers are getting subsidized. They know buyers can suddenly “afford” more because the government reduced their upfront costs. So what do they do? They price homes higher to capture that subsidy. The buyer doesn’t benefit, they just pay the subsidy amount in the form of a higher purchase price.

The National Mortgage News study concluded that cutting the MIP “is effectively a wealth transfer from FHA’s capital reserve fund, which is meant to protect taxpayers, to existing homeowners and real estate agents.”

Read that again. The policy enriched sellers and agents by inflating prices.

And here we are in 2025, with housing affordability at crisis levels, and some politicians are calling for... you guessed it... MORE housing subsidies. Down payment assistance. Expanded FHA loan limits. Buyer tax credits. 50 year mortgages. All policies that will dump more subsidized dollars into the market and drive prices even higher.

If you want to know why Cherokee County’s median home price has jumped dramatically in recent years, look no further than the flood of cheap money and subsidized mortgages that have pumped demand without increasing supply.

EXHIBIT C: COLLEGE TUITION

The poster child for subsidy-driven price inflation is higher education. This one’s been going on for decades, and the evidence is overwhelming.

In 1987, Education Secretary William Bennett wrote an op-ed titled “Our Greedy Colleges,” arguing that “increases in financial aid in recent years have enabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase.”

Researchers have been testing the “Bennett Hypothesis” ever since, and the results are damning.

A 2015 study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York found that when subsidized federal student loan limits increased, colleges raised tuition by 60 cents for every dollar of increased borrowing capacity. Unsubsidized loans led to tuition increases of 40 cents on the dollar.

Let that sink in. For every additional dollar students could borrow, colleges captured up to 60 cents through higher tuition. The students didn’t get more education. The facilities didn’t get better. The teaching didn’t improve. The college just... charged more.

A separate study found that for-profit institutions eligible for federal financial aid charged tuition 78% higher than comparable for-profit institutions that weren’t eligible for federal aid. Same education, same costs, but one could tap into federal subsidies and the other couldn’t. Guess which one had higher prices?

Since 1991-92, federal student aid has increased 295%. During that same period, inflation-adjusted tuition and fees roughly doubled. The correlation is impossible to ignore.

Here’s the mechanism at work: Colleges see that students can borrow more money through federal loan programs. They know students will take those loans because everyone says you “need” a college degree. So colleges raise tuition, add administrators, build luxury dorms and recreation centers, and students foot the bill through larger loans. The college gets the subsidy money. The student gets the debt.

The result? Americans now carry $1.75 trillion in student loan debt. Average borrowers owe $30,000-40,000, and many professional degree holders owe six figures. All for an education that didn’t get substantially better, it just got substantially more expensive because the government made it easy to borrow.

WHY IT KEEPS HAPPENING

You might be asking: If subsidies clearly drive up prices, why do politicians keep pushing them?

Three reasons:

1. They sound compassionate. “We’re helping struggling families afford healthcare!” plays better in a soundbite than “We’re distorting market signals and creating dependency cycles.”

2. The costs are hidden and delayed. When you hand someone a subsidy check today, they feel helped. When prices rise next year because of market distortions, they don’t connect the dots. Politicians get credit for the benefit and avoid blame for the costs.

3. It creates constituencies who fight to keep the subsidies. Once people are dependent on subsidies, they vote to keep them. Once industries are addicted to subsidy money, they lobby to maintain it. Everyone has an incentive to keep the gravy train running—except the taxpayers footing the bill and the consumers getting squeezed by inflated prices.

The tragedy is that these subsidies end up hurting the very people they’re supposed to help. Young people take on massive student debt. Families can’t afford homes even with “assistance.” Healthcare premiums spiral out of control. And everyone ends up dependent on government support just to access things that used to be affordable.

THE SUPPLY SIDE MATTERS TOO

Now, to be fair, part of why subsidies cause such dramatic price increases is because supply can’t adjust quickly in these markets.

You can’t just build a new hospital overnight. Medical schools have enrollment limits. It takes years to train doctors and nurses.

You can’t snap your fingers and create new housing. Zoning laws, building codes, permitting delays, and NIMBY resistance all constrain supply.

Universities have limited seats, and building new colleges is expensive and time-consuming.

But here’s the thing: Government policy often restricts supply while subsidizing demand. That’s the worst possible combination. It’s like standing on the gas and the brake at the same time, and wondering why your car isn’t moving.

Want to make healthcare affordable? Reduce the barriers to becoming a doctor. Allow more foreign-trained physicians to practice here. Eliminate certificate-of-need laws that prevent new hospitals from opening. Let nurse practitioners do more. Allow price transparency so consumers can actually shop around.

Want to fix housing? Reform zoning to allow more density. Streamline permitting. Reduce building costs through regulatory reform. Stop subsidizing demand through tax policy (like the mortgage interest deduction) that just inflates prices.

Want to address college costs? Eliminate the federal student loan program entirely and watch tuition plummet as colleges adjust to what students can actually afford to pay. Or at least cap loans at reasonable levels so colleges can’t just keep raising prices knowing students will borrow whatever it costs.

The pattern is clear: Subsidize demand + restrict supply = skyrocketing prices.

My unCommon Sense

When we let government subsidize our healthcare, education, and housing, we give up control. We become dependent on political decisions about subsidy levels. We lose the ability to demand better value because someone else is paying (or appears to be paying). We stop asking tough questions about why things cost what they do.

And worst of all, we train ourselves to think we CAN’T afford these things without government help—even though government help is exactly what made them unaffordable in the first place.

This is what I call the dependency trap. Once you’re reliant on subsidies, you’ll fight to keep them, even if they’re making your situation worse in the long run. You become a political pawn, voting to maintain a system that serves politicians and connected industries, not your actual interests.

Real prosperity comes from free people making free choices in free markets. Not from government bureaucrats deciding how much “help” you need and which connected industries should receive your tax dollars.

Here’s what I’d like to see, and what you should demand from anyone asking for your vote:

End the subsidy addiction. Let ACA subsidies expire. Stop expanding federal student loan programs. Eliminate down payment assistance and other housing subsidies. Yes, there will be short-term pain as prices adjust downward to meet actual market demand. But that’s the cure, not the disease.

Remove supply restrictions. If we’re going to do anything, focus on removing barriers that prevent supply from meeting demand. Reform medical licensing. Gut zoning restrictions. Streamline building permits. Open up land for development. Make it easy for competitors to enter these markets and drive prices down through competition.

Demand price transparency. You know what would help more than subsidies? Being able to actually see what things cost. Make hospitals publish real prices. Make colleges disclose the true total cost and average debt load for graduates. Make housing markets publish all-cash comps so buyers can see what properties actually sell for without leverage games.

Take personal responsibility. Stop waiting for government to “fix” affordability. Live below your means. Choose the state school over the fancy private college. Consider community college for the first two years. Buy a starter home instead of stretching for your dream house. Pay cash for healthcare when you can (like I do for my insulin) and negotiate directly with providers.

Vote with your feet and your wallet. Don’t attend overpriced universities. Don’t buy overpriced homes. Don’t accept overpriced insurance plans. When enough people refuse to pay inflated prices, the market will adjust. But as long as subsidies hide the true costs, the price spiral continues.

I’ve seen this pattern my entire adult life. I watched insulin prices triple between 2002-2013, partly because the system became so opaque and subsidy-dependent that nobody knew what anything actually cost anymore. I watched college tuition explode as federal loans became easier to get. I watched housing prices soar in Cherokee County as cheap money flooded the market.

And I’ve watched politicians from both parties promise to “fix” these problems with more of the same policies that created them.

We deserve better. We deserve an economy where prices reflect actual supply and demand, not political manipulation. Where hard work and saving can actually build wealth, instead of just keeping up with subsidy-inflated prices. Where our kids can afford college, healthcare, and homes without becoming indentured servants to debt and government dependency.

That starts with understanding the economics. Government subsidies don’t make things affordable. They make things expensive, then make you dependent on subsidies to afford the inflated prices. It’s a racket, and it’s time to call it what it is.

Want actual affordability? Get government out of the way, let markets work, and watch prices fall as competition and innovation do what they’ve always done in free markets: create abundance.

The choice is yours: subsidy savior or self-reliance rally? I know which one I’m choosing.

If you want to have a constructive conversation about this or anything else, message me at dan@thrailkill.us, and let’s grab coffee or a beer.

Have a good one,

Dan

References

Mercatus Center at George Mason University. (2024). “The Economic Effects of ACA Premium Subsidies.” https://www.mercatus.org

Kaiser Family Foundation. (2025). “ACA Marketplace Premium Payments Would More than Double on Average Next Year if Enhanced Premium Tax Credits Expire.” https://www.kff.org

National Mortgage News. (2025). “An FHA Mortgage Premium Cut Will Only Raise Prices.” https://www.nationalmortgagenews.com

Federal Reserve Bank of New York. (2019). “Credit Supply and the Rise in College Tuition: Evidence From the Expansion in Federal Student Aid Programs.” https://www.newyorkfed.org

Lucca, D., Nadauld, T., & Shen, K. (2019). “Credit Supply and the Rise in College Tuition: Evidence from the Expansion in Federal Student Aid Programs.” Review of Financial Studies, 32(2), 423-466.

Cellini, S. R., & Goldin, C. (2014). “Does Federal Student Aid Raise Tuition? New Evidence on For-Profit Colleges.” American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(4), 174-206.

Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond. (2022). “Do Student Loans Drive Up College Tuition?” https://www.richmondfed.org

Congressional Budget Office. (2025). “The Budgetary Effects of Extending Enhanced Premium Tax Credits.” https://www.cbo.gov

Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker. (2025). “How Much and Why ACA Marketplace Premiums Are Going Up in 2026.” https://www.healthsystemtracker.org

Bennett, W. J. (1987, February 18). “Our Greedy Colleges.” The New York Times.

CNBC. (2025). “ACA Open Enrollment Starts Nov. 1 as Enhanced Subsidies in Limbo.” https://www.cnbc.com

My Dad, Rev. Phil Thrailkill (SC), has written more in his life than I ever will… He was a Methodist Minister, turned Anglican Minister later in life, and has published several books along with countless sermons, services, etc. Following Jesus: Discipleship in the Gospel of Luke and Beyond (2022), Resurrection A Pastor’s Reading of the Major New Testament Resurrection Passages (2014), and Mary: Lessons in Discipleship from Jesus’ Earthly Family (2007) are the names of his published work. He started reading my blog a few weeks ago, sent me an article he read recently, and asked for my option. So I decided to write about it…

Prior to reading this post, you will want to read the same article from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) that my dad sent me.

Here is the link: We’re Going About Social Security Reform the Wrong Way

When I initially read this article, my bull$hi! radar went off. The author makes some valid points about how U.S. policymakers obsess over Social Security solvency while ignoring whether the program actually serves its intended purpose. Fair enough. But then he holds up Australia’s 2020 Retirement Income Review as some sort of enlightened policy framework that America should emulate, and that’s where this thing goes completely off the rails.

Let me be clear about something from the start: Australia and the United States are fundamentally different economies operating under entirely different demographic, cultural, and fiscal realities. Holding up Australia as a model for American Social Security reform is like comparing apples to kangaroos—it’s not just imperfect, it’s intellectually dishonest.

THE ARTICLE

The author, who I’ll note comes from a predominantly Keynesian economics background, spends the first half of his piece rightfully criticizing how American policymakers treat Social Security reform like a solvency game rather than a policy question. He’s not wrong about that. Congress does obsess over trust fund depletion dates while ignoring basic questions like “How much income does someone actually need in retirement?” and “Are current retirees doing okay?”

But then comes the pivot to Australia:

Consider this passage from the Australian government’s 2020 Retirement Income Review stating what pension policy should look like... This summary is clear; it considers both government-paid pensions and policies to encourage private saving... I can’t imagine a U.S. administration of either political party publishing anything approaching Australia’s review in rigor, evenhandedness or clarity.

The author is essentially saying, “Look how smart the Australians are! They think about retirement policy holistically!” as if the only thing stopping America from adopting similar reforms is a lack of intellectual rigor rather than, you know, completely different economic and demographic realities.

For whatever reason, policy literalists love to cherry-pick examples from other countries without doing the hard work of understanding why those policies might not transfer. Australia’s retirement system works in Australia for very specific reasons that have nothing to do with the supposed superiority of their policy thinking and everything to do with their unique circumstances.

Let me explain…

THE TAX REALITY: AUSTRALIA vs. UNITED STATES

First, let’s talk about taxes. You cannot have a generous, well-functioning social safety net without the tax revenue to support it. Australia has that tax revenue. The United States... not so much, at least not in the same way. Plus the US has a LOT more debt.

Australian Tax Rates:

• Progressive income tax system ranging from 19% to 45%

• A 10% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on most goods and services

• Mandatory superannuation (retirement) contributions of 11.5% of salary

• Higher overall tax burden across the board

United States Tax Rates:

• Federal income tax ranging from 10% to 37%

• State and local taxes vary wildly (some states have zero income tax)

• Social Security tax of 6.2% (up to $168,600 in 2024) plus 1.45% Medicare

• No national consumption tax like Australia’s GST

According to Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) data, Australians paid on average approximately $17,146 USD per capita in total tax revenue compared to about $14,000 for Americans—roughly $3,000 more per year. That $3,000 difference adds up fast when you’re funding a comprehensive social insurance system.

But here’s the kicker: Australians are generally okay with paying higher taxes because they see direct benefits—universal healthcare, better parental leave, more generous student loan repayment terms, and yes, a more comprehensive retirement income system. It’s a social contract that Australians have accepted. Americans? We’ve never accepted that contract, and for good reason that I’ll get to shortly.

The author of this AEI piece conveniently ignores that Australia’s retirement system is built on a foundation of much higher taxation. You can’t just copy their policy framework and paste it onto America’s lower-tax, more individualistic economic structure.

THE DEMOGRAPHIC DIFFERENCE: HOMOGENEITY MATTERS

Now let’s talk about the elephant in the room that policy analysts love to ignore: demographics and cultural homogeneity. Australia and the United States are vastly different countries when it comes to their population makeup, and this matters enormously when designing social programs.

Australia’s Demographics (2021 Census):

• Population: ~26 million

• Top ancestries: English (33%), Australian (29.9%), Irish (9.5%), Scottish (8.6%), Chinese (5.5%)

• 76% European ancestry as of 2016 (72% by 2021)

• 29.1% born overseas, but largely from similar cultural backgrounds

• Despite claiming to be “multicultural,” Australia remains significantly more homogeneous than the U.S., particularly in terms of shared Anglo-Celtic cultural values

United States Demographics (2024):

• Population: ~340 million

• Diversity Index: 62.36 (high level of racial/ethnic diversity)

• White alone: 57.5% (and declining)

• Hispanic/Latino: 20%

• Black/African American: 12.6%

• Asian: 6.7%

• Two or more races: 2.5%

• Over 300 languages spoken

The United States has a Diversity Index of 62.36, which measures the probability that two randomly selected people will be from different racial or ethnic groups. This is one of the highest diversity indexes in the developed world. Australia’s diversity, while increasing, doesn’t come close to America’s level of ethnic, cultural, and linguistic heterogeneity.

Why does this matter for Social Security policy? Because social insurance programs work best when there’s a high degree of social trust and shared cultural values. When people believe they’re all “in it together” and share similar life experiences and expectations, they’re more willing to support redistributive programs. This is basic social capital theory, and it’s been demonstrated repeatedly across different countries and contexts.

Australia, despite its claims of multiculturalism, still operates with a largely shared Anglo-Celtic cultural framework. The social consensus needed to support higher taxes and more generous government programs is easier to achieve when the population shares common values about work, retirement, individual vs. collective responsibility, and the role of government. Australian culture is also very racist. If you are not “white,” you likely face direct or indirect racism daily. We have a friend who lived there for many years, and she would tell us stories about what she experienced as a black female American living in Australia.

The United States? We can’t even agree on what pronouns to use, let alone establish a national consensus on retirement policy. Our diversity is our strength in many ways, but it absolutely makes achieving broad social consensus on redistributive programs exponentially more difficult. Anyone who tells you otherwise is selling you something or doesn’t understand basic human psychology and group dynamics.

THE KEYNESIAN PROBLEM

For those unfamiliar, Keynesian economics emphasizes government intervention, aggregate demand management, and the idea that government spending can stimulate economic growth, especially during downturns.

Here’s the thing about Keynesians: they tend to view government programs through rose-colored glasses, assuming that if we just get the policy design right, everything will work out. They focus on what should happen in their theoretical models rather than what actually happens when government gets involved in managing people’s retirement savings and income.

The Keynesian approach to Social Security reform typically involves some combination of:

1. Raising the payroll tax cap or eliminating it entirely

2. Increasing benefit generosity for lower-income retirees

3. Means-testing benefits for higher earners

4. Expanding government’s role in retirement income planning

All of this assumes that government can efficiently manage these programs better than individuals managing their own affairs. This fundamentally contradicts the principle of Inalienable Responsibility—the idea that individuals are ultimately responsible for their own lives, decisions, and retirement planning.

When you start from a Keynesian perspective that government intervention is generally good and efficient, you naturally gravitate toward examples like Australia that seem to “do it right.” But you ignore the massive differences in context that make those policies work (or not work) and you gloss over the loss of individual responsibility and economic freedom that comes with more government involvement.

WHAT THE AUTHOR GETS RIGHT (AND WRONG)

To be fair, the author makes several valid criticisms of how America approaches Social Security policy:

He’s Right About:

• U.S. policymakers obsessing over solvency dates while ignoring actual retirement adequacy

• The need to ask basic questions about retirement income needs

• The lack of rigorous analysis about who’s falling short and why

• The failure to consider alternative uses of resources currently going to Social Security

These are all legitimate critiques. The solvency game is ridiculous when you think about it. We’re arguing over trust fund accounting mechanisms while ignoring whether the program actually helps people retire with dignity.

But He’s Wrong About:

• Australia being a “useful” model for U.S. reform

• The idea that better policy “thinking” is what’s holding America back

• Ignoring the tax and demographic differences that make Australia’s system possible

• Assuming government-centric solutions are superior to individual responsibility

Here’s what really bothers me about articles like this: they implicitly assume that the problem with American social programs is that we’re just not smart enough or thoughtful enough to design them correctly. If we could just think more like the Australians or the Brits or the Scandinavians, everything would be better.

This is nonsense. The “problem” with American Social Security, if you want to call it that, isn’t a lack of intellectual rigor. It’s that we’re a fundamentally different country with different values, different demographics, and different economic structures. We value individual liberty and personal responsibility more than collective security. We’re more diverse and less trusting of central authority. We have lower taxes and expect more economic freedom in return.

These aren’t bugs in the American system. They’re features.

THE REAL QUESTION: WHAT SHOULD SOCIAL SECURITY DO?

If we’re going to have an honest conversation about Social Security reform, we need to start with first principles rather than looking for foreign models to copy. Here are the questions we should actually be asking:

1. What is the purpose of Social Security in 2025 and beyond?

When Social Security was created in 1935, most Americans didn’t have access to capital markets, financial literacy was limited, and retirement was genuinely an insurable event (nearly half of people didn’t live from age 21 to 65). None of that is true today.

Today, Americans have access to 401(k)s, IRAs, HSAs, and countless other savings vehicles. Financial education is widely available (even if not widely utilized). And approximately 80% of people born in 1960 survived from age 21 to 65. Retirement is now a savings event, not an insurance event.

So what should Social Security do in this new reality? Should it:

• Provide a universal basic income floor for all retirees?

• Function as anti-poverty insurance for only the poorest seniors?

• Continue being the middle-class entitlement it has become?

• Gradually phase out as people take more responsibility for their own retirement?

The author is right that we don’t ask these questions often enough. But his solution, looking to Australia for answers, misses the point entirely.

2. Who is actually responsible for retirement security?

This is at the heart of everything. Is retirement security primarily the individual’s responsibility, or primarily the government’s responsibility, or some combination?

My answer is clear: retirement security is your responsibility. Not your employer’s. Not the government’s. Yours. This doesn’t mean we can’t have a safety net for those who genuinely fall through the cracks, but it means the default assumption should be that adults are capable of planning for their own future. If they plan well, they should have the choice of forgoing Social Security.

The Keynesian worldview inverts this. It assumes that without government management, most people will fail to save adequately, so government must step in and essentially force people to save (through Social Security taxes) and manage those savings for them (through the Social Security system). This is profoundly paternalistic and undermines individual responsibility.

3. What are the trade-offs?

Every dollar that goes to Social Security is a dollar that could go somewhere else, either to individuals to save and invest as they see fit, or to other government priorities like infrastructure, defense, education, or paying down debt.

The author acknowledges this in his article, noting that “Retirees are richer and more financially secure, and there are alternate uses of that money that might be more pressing.” This is correct. If seniors are doing better than ever before (which the data shows they are), why are we still expanding Social Security benefits rather than redirecting those resources?

But here’s where the Keynesian bias shows up: the author never seriously considers the option of letting individuals keep more of their own money to manage their own retirement. The only “alternate uses” he mentions are other government programs. This reveals the fundamental bias, government spending good, individual choice and responsibility less considered.

4. What do we do about the demographic reality?

Social Security is a pay-as-you-go system where current workers fund current retirees. This worked great when there were 16 workers for every retiree (1950). It works less great when there are 2.8 workers per retiree (today). It will work even worse when there are projected to be 2.3 workers per retiree (2035).

You can solve this problem in exactly three ways:

1. Reduce benefits

2. Increase taxes

3. Increase the number of workers (immigration or higher birth rates)

The author criticizes U.S. policymakers for focusing on options 1 and 2 without considering broader retirement adequacy questions. Fair enough. But he doesn’t address option 3, which gets back to demographics and cultural homogeneity.

Australia can be more generous with its retirement system partially because it has more control over its immigration system and can select immigrants who are more likely to be net contributors to the tax system. Australia’s immigration is merit-based and selective in ways that America’s system hasn’t been for decades.

The United States has a much more complex immigration reality, with large-scale unauthorized immigration, family reunification priorities, and a more porous border. This affects the ratio of contributors to beneficiaries in our social insurance systems.

I’m not saying this to make an immigration argument one way or another. I’m saying it to point out that demographic realities matter tremendously for social insurance programs, and Australia’s demographic situation is very different from ours.

My unCommon Sense

If we’re going to reform Social Security, here’s what I think we should actually do:

#1. Means-test benefits aggressively.

The author mentions that “the richest 10% of seniors receive as much in Social Security benefits as the poorest third of retirees.” This is insane. If you have millions in retirement savings, you don’t need Social Security. Period.

I would means-test benefits such that anyone with more than, say, $3 million in retirement assets gets reduced or zero Social Security benefits. You paid in? Great. Consider it insurance that you didn’t need. Just like I pay for car insurance every year and hope I never need to use it.

This will be politically unpopular because Americans love their entitlements. But it’s the right policy from both a fiscal and moral perspective. Social Security should be a safety net, not a universal middle-class entitlement.

#2. Raise the retirement age to 70.

When Social Security started, the retirement age was 65 and life expectancy was approximately 62. Today, life expectancy is nearly 80 and we’re still retiring at 65-67. This makes no mathematical sense.

People are healthier and living longer. Many jobs are less physically demanding than they were in 1935. Raising the retirement age to 70 (gradually, over 20 years) would significantly improve the program’s finances while acknowledging demographic reality.

Will some people hate this? Yes. Is it still the right policy? Also yes.

#3. Allow younger workers to opt out partially.

Here’s a radical idea: let people under 40 redirect half of their Social Security taxes to private retirement accounts they control. They’d still pay half into the system to support current retirees (honoring our existing commitments), but they’d also build real wealth they actually own.

This would be a 30-year transition, but it would gradually shift from a government-managed system to an individual-responsibility system. It acknowledges that younger workers may never see the Social Security benefits they’re being promised, and it gives them more control over their own retirement security.

The Keynesian economists will scream that people can’t be trusted to manage their own retirement savings. To which I say: that’s their problem and their responsibility. Adults need to take ownership of their own financial futures. If they make poor choices, they live with the consequences. That’s called Inalienable Responsibility.

#4. Stop pretending we can have European-style benefits with American-style taxes.

This is the bottom line that politicians refuse to acknowledge: you cannot have generous, universal social programs without significantly higher taxes. Period. Australia can afford more generous retirement programs because Australians pay significantly higher taxes.

Americans need to make a choice: do we want to keep more of our own money and take more responsibility for our own retirement, or do we want government to manage more of our retirement and pay significantly higher taxes?

I know which option I prefer. But let’s at least be honest about the trade-offs rather than pretending we can have it both ways.

#5. Acknowledge that cultural homogeneity affects social programs.

This is the part that will get me in trouble, but it needs to be said: Australia’s retirement system works better partially because Australia is still a more culturally homogeneous country with higher levels of social trust. This makes redistributive programs easier to implement and sustain.

The United States is one of the most diverse countries on Earth. This diversity brings enormous benefits—innovation, cultural richness, different perspectives, and economic dynamism. But it also makes achieving consensus on large-scale social insurance programs incredibly difficult.

We need to design our social programs with this reality in mind, not wish we were a different country with different demographics. That means less emphasis on universal programs that require broad social consensus, and more emphasis on targeted programs for those who genuinely need help.

THE ECONOMICS OF RESPONSIBILITY

At the end of the day, this debate about Social Security reform comes down to a fundamental question about economics and responsibility: who is primarily responsible for your retirement security? AND are you ok with that?

The Keynesian answer, exemplified by the author’s admiration for Australia’s system, is that government must play “the” role or a large role in ensuring retirement security through mandatory contributions, managed benefits, and comprehensive policy frameworks. The individual’s role is secondary.

My answer is exactly the opposite. Individuals are primarily responsible for their own retirement security. Government’s role should be limited to:

• Not making it illegal to save and invest (through reasonable tax treatment)

• Providing basic economic stability and rule of law

• Offering a true safety net for those who cannot provide for themselves

The Keynesian (aka big government) approach creates dependency and assumes incompetence. My approach creates independence and assumes competence.

The Keynesian approach requires ever-higher taxes to fund comprehensive government programs. My approach leaves more money in people’s pockets to save and invest as they see fit.

The Keynesian approach works better in culturally homogeneous societies with high social trust. My approach works better in diverse societies where achieving consensus is difficult.

Which approach is “better” depends entirely on your values and your view of human nature. But let’s stop pretending that one country’s approach can simply be copied to another country with fundamentally different demographics, culture, and values.

If we want to actually reform Social Security in a way that serves Americans, we need to:

1. Start with American values (individual responsibility, limited government, economic freedom)

2. Acknowledge American demographics (diverse, large, lower social trust in many areas)

3. Accept American fiscal reality (lower taxes, higher debt, competing priorities)

4. Design solutions that work for this country, not some idealized version of Australia

That means moving toward more individual responsibility, less government management, means-tested benefits, and honest conversations about trade-offs. It does not mean copying Australia’s policy framework and hoping for the best.

The author is right that we need to think more holistically about retirement security rather than just obsessing over Social Security solvency dates. But the solution isn’t to import another country’s model. The solution is to design an American approach that respects individual responsibility, acknowledges our unique challenges, and doesn’t assume that government knows better than individuals how to plan for retirement.

I’ve been a Type 1 diabetic for 37+ years. I manage my blood sugar every single day, multiple times a day, because no one else can do it for me. The government can’t check my blood glucose. My employer can’t inject my insulin. My parents can’t calculate my carbohydrate ratios. It’s my responsibility, and mine alone.

Retirement planning is the same thing. No one else can live your life for you. No one else can make your financial decisions. No one else will bear the consequences of your choices—good or bad.

Before we can fix Social Security, we need to stop fantasizing about being Australia and start dealing with the reality of being America.

If you want to have a constructive conversation about this or anything else, message me at dan@thrailkill.us, and let’s grab coffee or a beer.

Have a good one,

Dan

PS - Hope you enjoy the final version, Dad

SOURCES

Primary Article:

• Biggs, Andrew G. “We’re Going About Social Security Reform the Wrong Way.” American Enterprise Institute, October 2024. https://www.aei.org/op-eds/were-going-about-social-security-reform-the-wrong-way/

Australian Tax and Economic Data:

• Australian Taxation Office. “Individual Income Tax Rates.” Commonwealth of Australia, 2024. https://www.ato.gov.au/rates/individual-income-tax-rates/

• Australian Government. “Goods and Services Tax (GST).” Australian Taxation Office, 2024.

• Australian Government. “Superannuation Guarantee.” Australian Taxation Office, 2024. https://www.ato.gov.au/business/super-for-employers/paying-super-contributions/how-much-super-to-pay/

• OECD. “Revenue Statistics 2024.” OECD Tax Database, 2024. https://www.oecd.org/tax/revenue-statistics/

Australian Demographics:

• Australian Bureau of Statistics. “2021 Census of Population and Housing.” Commonwealth of Australia, 2022. https://www.abs.gov.au/census

• Australian Bureau of Statistics. “Cultural Diversity in Australia, 2021.” Commonwealth of Australia, 2022.

U.S. Tax Data:

• Internal Revenue Service. “IRS Provides Tax Inflation Adjustments for Tax Year 2024.” U.S. Department of the Treasury, 2023. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-provides-tax-inflation-adjustments-for-tax-year-2024

• Social Security Administration. “Contribution and Benefit Base.” SSA.gov, 2024. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/cola/cbb.html

U.S. Demographics:

• U.S. Census Bureau. “QuickFacts: United States.” Census.gov, 2024. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US

• U.S. Census Bureau. “2020 Census: Detailed Demographic and Housing Characteristics File A (DHC-A).” Census.gov, 2023.

• Parker, Kim, et al. “America’s Complex Racial and Ethnic Tapestry.” Pew Research Center, 2024.

Social Security Demographics and Worker-to-Retiree Ratios:

• Social Security Administration. “Ratio of Covered Workers to Beneficiaries.” Social Security Bulletin, Vol. 85, No. 1, 2025. https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/

• Social Security Administration. “The 2024 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds.” SSA.gov, 2024. https://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TR/2024/

Life Expectancy and Retirement Age Data:

• Social Security Administration. “Actuarial Life Table.” Period Life Table, 2021. https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4c6.html

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “Life Expectancy in the U.S.” National Center for Health Statistics, 2024. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/life-expectancy.htm

• Social Security Administration. “Historical Background and Development of Social Security.” SSA History Archives. https://www.ssa.gov/history/briefhistory3.html

Australian Retirement System:

• Australian Government. “Retirement Income Review: Final Report 2020.” Commonwealth of Australia, 2020. https://treasury.gov.au/review/retirement-income-review

Australian Immigration Policy:

• Australian Government Department of Home Affairs. “Australia’s Migration Program.” HomeAffairs.gov.au, 2024. https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/what-we-do/migration-program-planning-levels

Economic Theory and Social Capital:

• Putnam, Robert D. “Bowling Alone: America’s Declining Social Capital.” Journal of Democracy, Vol. 6, No. 1, 1995, pp. 65-78.

• Alesina, Alberto, and Eliana La Ferrara. “Ethnic Diversity and Economic Performance.” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 43, No. 3, 2005, pp. 762-800.

Additional Background:

• Sowell, Thomas. Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy. 5th ed., Basic Books, 2015.

• Friedman, Milton. Free to Choose: A Personal Statement. Harcourt, 1980.

Tomorrow, New York City goes to the polls, and if the polling holds, they’re about to elect their youngest mayor in over a century—a 34-year-old Democratic Socialist named Zohran Mamdani who promises to freeze rent, make buses free, open city-run grocery stores, and raise the minimum wage to $30 an hour by 2030. Oh, and he’ll pay for all this by raising taxes on businesses and anyone earning over a million dollars. Because that’s never backfired before.

I’ve been watching this race with the same morbid fascination you’d have watching someone ignore the “Hot Surface” warning on a stove. You know what’s coming. History knows what’s coming. Economics knows what’s coming. But apparently, we need to learn this lesson again.

Every 20 to 50 years or so, we need a conspicuous and confined experiment with socialism so we can see what it looks like in reality.

THE MAMDANI PHENOMENON

Zohran Mamdani isn’t some fringe candidate squeaking into office on a technicality. He’s leading by double digits. He defeated former Governor Andrew Cuomo in the Democratic primary and is poised to beat both Cuomo, who’s running as an independent, and Republican Curtis Sliwa in Tuesday’s general election. His campaign has mobilized 50,000 volunteers, shattered fundraising records, and energized young voters across the country who see him as a national leader for their generation.

His platform reads like a greatest hits album of socialist policy:

1. Rent freeze on all rent-stabilized units (about 1 million apartments). Not rent control with some flexibility. A freeze. As in, your landlord can’t raise rent. Period.

2. Free city buses. Every bus line in NYC, fare-free. Because nothing signals “this service has value” quite like making it free.

3. City-owned grocery stores. One in each borough, run by the city government, to “drive down grocery prices” through competition with private stores.

4. Universal free childcare. For all New Yorkers, funded by...well, we’ll get to that.

5. $30 minimum wage by 2030. Because if $15 an hour created some problems, surely doubling it will create twice the prosperity, right?

6. 200,000 new affordable housing units. Built by the city, because private developers clearly can’t be trusted to build housing that people can afford.

All of this would be funded by raising taxes on corporations and individuals earning over $1 million annually—a cool $10 billion in new annual tax revenue.

It’s ambitious. It’s comprehensive. It addresses real problems that New Yorkers face every single day.

And it will absolutely, 100%, unequivocally fail to deliver on its promises while creating a cascade of unintended consequences that will take a decade to unwind.

THE NEW SLOGAN

The old Socialist slogan was powerful in its simplicity: “Workers of the world unite, you have nothing to lose but your chains.”

The new slogan, if Mamdani and his Democratic Socialist allies were honest, would be: “Trust us, this time, it won’t be a mess.”

Because that’s what every iteration of socialism requires—a belief that this time will be different. That this particular group of democratic socialists in this particular city at this particular moment in history has finally figured out how to make centralized planning, price controls, and government ownership of the means of production work where it’s failed everywhere else it’s been tried.

Venezuela thought they had it figured out. They had elections. They had democratic processes. They had oil wealth to fund their programs. How’d that work out?

The Soviet Union thought they had it figured out. Seventy years of trying to perfect the system. Collapsed under its own weight.

China thought they had it figured out. Then Deng Xiaoping realized the only way to save China was to inject massive doses of capitalism into the economy—which is why China today has billionaires and stock markets alongside its Communist Party rule.

But New York City in 2025? Yeah, this will be different.

THE EXPERIMENT THEORY

Here’s the thing: I don’t think Mamdani’s likely victory is necessarily catastrophic for America. In fact, there might be a silver lining to this particular cloud.

New York City is, in many ways, the perfect petri dish for this experiment. It’s:

• Large enough to matter (8.3 million people)

• Economically significant enough to generate real data

• Geographically confined (you can’t easily escape an island city)

• Already so heavily regulated and blue that incremental changes won’t shock the system

• Wealthy enough to sustain bad policy for several years before complete collapse

• Media-saturated enough that every consequence will be documented in real-time

In other words, NYC is about to become socialism’s laboratory, and the whole country gets to watch the results.

The last time we had a really good, highly visible socialist experiment in America was probably Seattle’s bizarre experiment with their city council in the 2010s, or Detroit’s decades-long decline under one-party progressive rule. But those were either too small or too slow to really capture the national imagination. New York City? That’s a different story. That’s the biggest city in America actively choosing full-throated socialism with its eyes wide open.

Every 20 years or so, we apparently need this. We need a generation that didn’t live through the last failure to touch the stove for themselves. The generation that remembers the 1970s—New York City’s last flirtation with these exact policies—is aging out of the electorate. Young voters today don’t remember when NYC was the crime capital of America, when Times Square was a haven for drugs and prostitution, when the city teetered on the edge of bankruptcy, or when rent control and aggressive tenant protection laws created housing shortages so severe that landlords literally abandoned buildings rather than try to maintain them at controlled rents.

They don’t remember because they weren’t alive. And because they weren’t alive, they’re susceptible to the siren song of “free” stuff and the promise that government can solve all their problems if we just give it enough power and enough money.

So let them learn. Let New York City become the teaching moment for the next generation.

THE ECONOMIC REALITY CHECK

Here’s what’s actually going to happen when Mamdani implements his platform (assuming he can get even half of it through the city council):

Rent Freeze = Housing Crisis

When you freeze rent, you eliminate the incentive for landlords to maintain properties. Why invest $50,000 in a new roof when you can’t raise rent to recoup the cost? Why renovate units when you can’t charge market rates? The result is predictable: property maintenance plummets, housing quality deteriorates, and landlords exit the market when they can.

Meanwhile, demand for rent-stabilized apartments will skyrocket because hey, frozen rent! But supply won’t increase—in fact, it will shrink as landlords convert to condos, find loopholes, or simply stop renting. The waiting list for affordable housing, already years long, will become decades long.

And here’s the kicker: rent freezes don’t help people who aren’t already in rent-stabilized apartments. They create a two-tier system where insiders get a great deal and everyone else pays through the nose—or leaves the city.

Free Buses = Degraded Service

New York City’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority is already struggling with maintenance, safety, and reliability. Making buses free doesn’t magically create more buses, better drivers, or improved routes. What it does create is:

1. Increased crowding (if it’s free, everyone uses it)

2. Reduced revenue for maintenance

3. Higher tax burden on productive residents

4. Decreased incentive for efficiency (no market signals)

The city will have to replace the lost fare revenue (~$2.6 billion annually for the entire system, a fraction of which is buses, but still substantial) with tax increases. Those taxes come from businesses and high earners—the same people Mamdani is already planning to hit with $10 billion in new taxes. At some point, those people and businesses do the math and leave.

City-Owned Grocery Stores = Subsidized Failure

Government-run grocery stores. In New York City. What could go wrong?

Let me count the ways:

• The city has zero expertise in grocery retail

• Government employees will run these stores with government efficiency (read: none)

• The stores will be overstaffed, inefficient, and expensive to operate

• They’ll require ongoing subsidies from taxpayers

• They won’t actually compete with private grocers because they’ll be propped up with tax dollars regardless of performance

• Private grocers will lobby against unfair government competition

• Some private grocers will close, reducing overall options

• The government stores will become political footballs with every election

And here’s the fundamental problem: if city-run grocery stores could actually be profitable and efficient, private companies would already be doing it. The reason grocery stores charge the prices they do is because of the costs of operation, supply chains, real estate, labor, and narrow profit margins. The city can’t magically make those costs disappear—they can only hide them in the budget and force taxpayers to cover the losses.

$30 Minimum Wage = Mass Unemployment

This one is just economically illiterate. New York City’s current minimum wage is $16 per hour. Mamdani wants to nearly double it to $30 by 2030.

What happens when you mandate that every entry-level position must pay $30/hour?

• Teenagers can’t get summer jobs (employers won’t pay $30/hour for inexperienced workers)

• Small businesses can’t compete (they can’t afford the labor costs)

• Automation accelerates (robots don’t demand $30/hour)

• Job losses mount (especially in restaurants, retail, and service industries)

• Prices increase across the board (businesses pass costs to consumers)

• Middle-class workers see their wages compressed (someone making $35/hour now is barely above minimum wage)

I’ve written about minimum wage before. It’s a feel-good policy that hurts the very people it’s supposed to help. When you price low-skilled workers out of the market, they don’t magically become high-skilled workers—they become unemployed workers.

The Tax Base Exodus

And here’s where the whole scheme collapses: when you raise taxes by $10 billion on businesses and high earners in a city that already has high taxes, some of those businesses and high earners leave.

They move to New Jersey. They move to Connecticut. They move to Florida or Texas or literally anywhere that doesn’t have a democratic socialist trying to fund his utopian vision by confiscating their earnings.

And when they leave, the tax base shrinks. Which means the revenue doesn’t materialize. Which means the programs can’t be funded. Which means either:

• a) The programs get cut (defeating the whole purpose)

• b) Taxes get raised even higher (accelerating the exodus)

• c) The city goes into debt (kicking the can down the road) d) All of the above

This is what happened in the 1970s. This is what happened in Detroit. This is what happens every single time a city decides that businesses and successful individuals are piggy banks to be broken open for “the common good.”

THE DISCONNECT

Here’s what really bothers me about Mamdani’s platform: it’s built on a fundamental rejection of personal responsibility and individual agency.

Every policy assumes that people are helpless victims of circumstances beyond their control, and that government must step in to solve their problems. Can’t afford rent? Government will freeze it. Can’t afford transportation? Government will make it free. Can’t afford groceries? Government will open stores. Can’t afford childcare? Government will provide it for free. Can’t earn enough? Government will mandate higher wages.

At no point does anyone ask: “What can individuals do to improve their own situations?”

This is the fundamental divide between those who believe in personal agency and those who believe in government solutions. One side says: “Life is hard, circumstances are difficult, but individuals have the power and responsibility to navigate their own path.” The other side says: “Life is hard, circumstances are difficult, therefore government must step in and manage everything for you.”

The first approach builds resilience, self-reliance, and genuine prosperity. The second approach builds dependency, learned helplessness, and eventual collapse.

This principle applies to every aspect of life. Yes, housing is expensive in New York City. But why is it expensive? Because demand far exceeds supply. And why does demand exceed supply? Because zoning laws, building regulations, and tenant protection laws have made it nearly impossible to build new housing at scale. The solution isn’t rent freezes—it’s removing the regulatory barriers that prevent construction.

Yes, transportation is expensive. But why? Because operating costs are high, unions are powerful, and efficiency is low. The solution isn’t free buses—it’s reforming the system to reduce costs and improve service.

Yes, groceries are expensive. But why? Because commercial rent is high, labor costs are high, and logistics are complex in a dense city. The solution isn’t government-run stores—it’s reducing the costs through better policy and encouraging competition.

But none of that involves government giving people free stuff, which means it’s not politically attractive to democratic socialists.

HISTORICAL AMNESIA

The truly frustrating part is that New York City has tried all of this before. In the 1960s and 1970s, NYC pursued aggressive rent control, expanded government services, increased taxes on the wealthy, and ramped up spending on social programs.

The result?

• White flight to the suburbs

• Business exodus to other states

• Spiraling crime rates

• Infrastructure decay

• Near-bankruptcy in 1975

• A city that became synonymous with urban decay

It took decades to recover. The turnaround didn’t start until mayors like Ed Koch, Rudy Giuliani, and Michael Bloomberg pursued the opposite policies: reducing crime, cutting regulations, attracting businesses, and emphasizing personal responsibility over government dependence.

But that history is ancient to young voters in 2025. They don’t remember the bad old days. They just see expensive rent and think “someone should do something about that!” without considering whether the “someone” should be government or whether the “something” should be more centralized control.

This is why we need these periodic experiments. Not because they’re good policy—they’re terrible policy. But because some lessons can only be learned through experience, and each generation apparently needs to touch the stove for themselves.

THE SILVER LINING

For all of our collective common sense, I hope Zohran Mamdani wins. Let him implement his platform. Let New York City become the high-profile, real-time case study in why democratic socialism doesn’t work.

It’s a controlled experiment:

• The failure will be geographically contained (NYC won’t drag down the whole country)

• The timeframe will be limited (he’s got a 4-year term, and voters can course-correct)

• The documentation will be thorough (every newspaper, think tank, and economist in America will be watching)

• The lessons will be undeniable (the data will be impossible to spin)

And in 2029 or 2033, when the policies have predictably failed, when businesses have left, when the budget is in crisis, when housing is scarcer than ever, when unemployment is up and services are down, there will be a whole generation of young voters who will have seen, in real-time, what happens when you implement a socialist wish list.

Some of them will learn the lesson. Some will double down on the ideology. But the experiment will be complete, and we’ll have fresh evidence for the next debate.

Every 20 years or so, we apparently need this reminder. The Berlin Wall fell in 1989—that’s 36 years ago. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1991—34 years ago. Venezuela’s collapse happened slowly over the 2000s and 2010s, but younger voters don’t connect the dots between socialist policies and economic catastrophe.

So let New York City be the lesson for the 2020s. Let it be obvious. Let it be undeniable. And let the next generation of voters see what happens when you prioritize good intentions over economic reality.

My unCommon Sense

I get the appeal of Mamdani’s message. Rent is too damn high. Groceries cost too much. Childcare is unaffordable. Transportation eats up too much of people’s income. These are real problems, and people are genuinely struggling.

But here’s the thing about real problems: they require real solutions, not feel-good policies that make the problem worse.

Mamdani’s platform is built on a seductive lie: that government can provide abundance through decree. That we can freeze rent and somehow create more housing. That we can raise the minimum wage to $30 and somehow create more jobs. That we can tax the rich and somehow keep them in the city. That we can make things free and somehow improve their quality.

None of that is true. All of it is economically illiterate. And all of it has been tried before, with predictable results.

But we’re going to try it again anyway, because apparently every generation needs to learn this lesson for themselves.

So fine. Let’s run the experiment. Let’s watch what happens when New York City elects a 34-year-old Democratic Socialist who promises to solve all their problems with government action. Let’s document the failure in real-time. Let’s create a case study that will be taught in economics classes for the next 20 years as an example of what not to do.

And in the meantime, those of us who understand economics, who value personal responsibility, who believe in free markets and individual liberty, will watch from outside the blast radius and say, “We told you so.”

Because we did tell you. History told you. Economics told you. But you didn’t listen.

You touched the stove anyway, and learned it’s still hot.

Here in Cherokee County, we’re about 900 miles south of New York City. Far enough that their experiment won’t directly affect us, close enough that we’ll be able to watch the whole thing unfold on the national news.

I’ll be watching. I don’t take pleasure in people suffering the consequences of bad policy, but they’re voting for it. At some point, I will take satisfaction that comes from being proven right.

And when young voters in places like Woodstock or Atlanta or anywhere else in America point to New York City and say, “See! Socialism works!” Smart people will point to the actual data and say, “No, actually, here’s what happened.”

The thing about personal responsibility—the principle that connects everything I write about—is that it applies to collective decisions too. New Yorkers are about to choose their own path. They’re going to elect Mamdani because his message resonates with their desire for someone else to solve their problems.

And when it doesn’t work—when the policies fail, when the unintended consequences pile up, when the tax base erodes, when the city spirals into crisis—they won’t be able to blame anyone else. They chose this. They voted for it. They enthusiastically embraced it.

That’s the beauty of democracy and the curse of bad policy: you get exactly what you vote for.

My advice for New Yorkers who don’t want to live through the coming crisis: get out now. Move to a state that values economic freedom, personal responsibility, and limited government. Let the socialists have their experiment without you. Just do not move to Georgia or South Carolina (LOL).

To everyone else in America: pay attention. Watch what happens. Learn the lesson. Because in 20 to 50 years, someone in your city or state may be promising the same things Mamdani is promising today, and you’ll need to remember what happened in New York.

Real prosperity, real solutions to real problems, doesn’t come from government programs or mandated wages or frozen rents. It comes from individuals taking ownership of their lives, making smart decisions, working hard, and yes, sometimes struggling through difficult circumstances without a government safety net to catch every fall.

That’s the only way anything actually gets better—when individuals take ownership of their lives and their choices.

New York City is about to learn that lesson the hard way and realize that yes, the stove is still HOT.

If you want to have a constructive conversation about this or anything else, message me at dan@thrailkill.us, and let’s grab coffee or a beer.

Have a good one,

Dan

REFERENCES

The Ringer. (2025, October 31). How Zohran Mamdani Turned the NYC Mayoral Race Into a Global Obsession. https://www.theringer.com/2025/10/31/politics/zohran-mamdani-nyc-mayor-polls-andrew-cuomo-election

Wikipedia. (2025, November 3). Zohran Mamdani. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zohran_Mamdani

NPR. (2025, June 25). 4 things to know about Zohran Mamdani, presumptive Democratic nominee for NYC mayor. https://www.npr.org/2025/06/25/nx-s1-5444846/zohran-mamdani-nyc-mayor-race

Newsweek. (2025, November 3). NYC Mayoral Election: Latest Polling Between Candidates Zohran Mamdani, Andrew Cuomo—Live Updates. https://www.newsweek.com/nyc-mayor-election-mamdani-cuomo-polls-live-updates-10980297

Al Jazeera. (2025, November 3). What the latest polls are showing in the Mamdani vs Cuomo NYC mayoral race. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/11/3/what-the-latest-polls-are-showing-in-the-mamdani-vs-cuomo-nyc-mayoral-race

Zohran for NYC Campaign Website. Official Campaign Platform.

https://www.zohranfornyc.com

HuffPost. (2025, November 2). Zohran Mamdani Takes His NYC Mayor Campaign To the Dance Floor. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/zohran-mamdani-nyc-mayor-campaign-clubs-bars_n_6907a371e4b00afef15f1ef9

Al Jazeera. (2025, October 29). Zohran Mamdani’s unlikely coalition: Winning over NYC’s Jewish voters. https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2025/10/29/zohran-mamdanis-unlikely-coalition-winning-over-nycs-jewish

Al Jazeera. (2025, October 25). Zohran Mamdani defends his Muslim faith amid ‘racist, baseless attacks’. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/10/25/zohran-mamdani-defends-his-muslim-faith-against-racist-baseless-attacks

NPR. (2025, November 2). Mamdani’s youth support goes beyond New York. For many, he’s now a national leader. https://www.npr.org/2025/11/02/nx-s1-5531004/zohran-mamdani-new-york-young-voters

Over the last few years, “where our kids should attend school” has been an ongoing conversation between Joe and I. While we loved Arnold Mill Elementary School—the teachers, administration, and support staff were excellent—we recognized that even good local schools operate within a larger system facing significant challenges.

In August 2025, my husband and I enrolled both our boys at Cherokee Classical Academy, the new tuition-free public charter school that opened in Cherokee County, after they were accepted via the lottery system. After years at Arnold Mill watching technology gradually replace teaching and kids routinely walking around with cell phones, we made the jump to classical education.

Three months in, the difference is remarkable.

Prior to reading this post, you may want to read an article from Modern Age that focuses on Classical Education:

THE CASE FOR CLASSICAL EDUCATION

Kevin Roberts, former president of Wyoming Catholic College, argues that classical education isn’t just an alternative—it’s essential for America’s renewal. His article presents what our family has been moving toward: an education focused on forming good people who can think clearly, think critically, and not be solely focused on producing good test scores.

Ten years ago, Roberts rejected federal student loan programs at Wyoming Catholic College to defend classical education from government strings. Today, classical education is “ascendant, popular, and on the verge of becoming mainstream.” America’s service academies and the University of Texas now accept the Classical Learning Test (CLT).

Roberts writes that classical education “restores a true anthropology—a true vision of the human person.” Modern schools often treat students like “data points” or “human capital” (aka student cattle). Classical education sees each child as capable of virtue and worthy of a real education.

The goal is “not merely to produce good students but to cultivate students who are good.” Character over performance. Wisdom over information. Formation over indoctrination.

THE DATA BACKS IT UP

According to Arcadia Education, classical school enrollment hit 677,500 students across 1,551 schools in 2023-2024. By 2035, that number will reach 1.4 million. Classical schools doubled between 2019 and 2023. Post-COVID, enrollment surged as parents saw what was actually happening in public education.

In Texas, classical charter enrollment increased nearly sevenfold between 2011 and 2021. Parents aren’t just choosing alternatives—they’re specifically choosing classical education.

Why? Because classical education delivers outcomes that matter to parents. Research consistently shows classical school students excel in verbal reasoning, critical thinking, and reading comprehension—direct results of rigorous reading and writing combined with Latin instruction.

But classical schools achieve these results without “teaching to the test.” They immerse students in Western civilization—Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, the American Founders—and academic outcomes take care of themselves. The focus is on forming thinking, articulate individuals who can read deeply, write clearly, and speak confidently.

OUR PUBLIC SCHOOL EXPERIENCE

We didn’t leave the Cherokee County School District (CCSD) on a whim. We’d invested years at Arnold Mill Elementary. We built a coffee table for the main office. We showed up. We engaged with excellent teachers and staff who cared deeply about our kids, our family, and their education. But over time, systemic issues became impossible to ignore—issues driven by larger, government mandates, not local decisions.

Technology Replaced Teaching: I recently wrote about our discovery during last school year that teachers weren’t selecting all quiz questions in Canvas (CCSD’s main learning application). Some questions were automatically pulled from a State database, and when my kids answered correctly, they were marked wrong. The teacher we spoke too didn’t even know it was happening until we logged into our son’s Canvas profile, located it, and pointed it out.

COVID Revealed the Dependency on Screens: Remote learning exposed how much instruction had become content delivery via screens. We homeschooled in the later part of that period—my husband’s a former teacher—and saw how much more our kids could learn with actual personalized attention versus “personalized learning platforms.” Our kids are both active boys and both have ADHD. Having a curriculum that includes lots of screen time is NOT ever going to be beneficial for their learning.

Excerpts, Not Books: The reading curriculum in CCSD, like most public schools, is moving towards using excerpts and passages, and not reading complete books. This is partly due to standardized testing requirements and partly due to time constraints in the curriculum. But kids miss out on the experience of reading an entire work, understanding how stories develop, building reading stamina, and reading to understand the virtues, or lack their of, in the characters presented in an entire book.

Behavior Management Challenges: One of the most frustrating aspects of public school was watching classroom learning disrupted by behavioral issues that were not effectively addressed. Public schools operate under constant fear of parent liability and legal action. Unless a student poses a massive, documented threat, expulsion is nearly impossible. Teachers spend enormous time and energy managing disruptive and disrespectful behavior rather than teaching. Public Schools have been legislated to be parents, police, therapists, and teachers thanks to initiatives like “No Child Left Behind.” Great marketing, bad policy.

WHAT WE’RE SEEING: THREE MONTHS IN

Cherokee Classical Academy opened in August 2025 as part of the Liberty Classical Schools network, serving grades K-6 with plans to add a grade yearly until reaching K-12. It’s tuition-free—we’re not paying private school tuition- but we have the educational approach we wanted.

Here’s what we’ve observed in our boys after just three months:

Vocabulary Expansion: My kids are using words I didn’t expect to hear this early. They’re not learning vocabulary lists in isolation—they’re encountering rich language in context through great literature. At Cherokee Classical, they’re reading entire books, like The Secret Garden, with complex language in 5th grade, and it shows.

Public Speaking Confidence: Students regularly present to their entire class. They recite memorized poetry, like The Raven. My boys came home nervous about this at first. Now they ask to practice their presentations for us. This wasn’t part of the CCSD curriculum in early elementary—maybe a show-and-tell here and there, but nothing systematic about standing up and speaking clearly to an audience.

Reading Complete Books: At Arnold Mill, reading instruction began relying heavily on excerpts and passages. Short stories. Chapters pulled from longer works. Digital reading passages on screens. At Cherokee Classical, my boys are reading entire books—real literature, not textbooks. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. Charlotte’s Web. The Secret Garden. Complete works they can discuss from beginning to end and write summaries on each chapter with paper and pencil. They understand narrative arc, character development, and theme because they’re experiencing complete stories, not fragments.

Minimal Screen Time: THE BIGGEST difference is how little technology is involved. No Canvas. No Email. No “educational computer games.” No automated quizzes. No tablets for “personalized learning.” Paper, pencils, real books. Teachers teaching. Kids learning. The difference in focus and engagement is night and day compared to the screen-heavy approach in the public school systems.

Daily Accountability: Every day, they bring home an agenda that teachers sign, we review, sign, and return. We know exactly what they’re learning, what homework they have, and how they’re performing. We’re genuine partners with the school, not passive consumers hoping for the best.

Clear Behavioral Expectations: At Cherokee Classical, there are clear expectations, consistent consequences, and genuine partnership with parents regarding behavior. If a student repeatedly disrupts learning or disrespects teachers, the school addresses it directly with parents. If the behavior continues and the family isn’t working with the school to fix it, that student may need to find a different school. It sounds harsh, but the result is classrooms where teachers can actually teach and kids can actually learn. The culture emphasizes respect—for teachers, for other students, for the material studied. There are consequences for not meeting expectations. This prepares them for reality. Life has consequences.

What’s also striking is how orderly the classrooms and hallways are since students do not change classes/teachers in between core subjects. My boys come home and talk about what they learned, not about which kid was acting out or disrupting class or in the hallway.

Virtue-Based Learning: The school explicitly teaches character. Courage, temperance, justice, wisdom. Not as abstract concepts, but as practical habits to develop. They’re learning that being good matters as much as being smart.

THE GROWTH TRAJECTORY

Parents nationwide are choosing classical education. Christian based classical schools grew from 140 in 2010 to over 700 by June 2023. A January 2024 survey found 72% of parents considered a new school, 63% searched, and 44% chose a new school. Cherokee Classical Academy is not a religious based classical school, but religious history, such as the history of the Jewish people, is already being taught to my 6th grader.

By 2035, Arcadia Education forecasts 1.4 million students in classical schools—over 522,000 in homeschool co-ops and online schools, 300,000 in Christian classical schools, nearly 148,000 in classical charters (like ours), plus hundreds of thousands more across expanding options.

MY unCOMMON SENSE

I’ve lived 37+ years as a Type 1 diabetic. Nobody can manage my diabetes for me. Modern medicine gave me tools—insulin, monitors, pumps—but only personal responsibility keeps me thriving. I want my boys to understand that same truth. They will face challenges. What matters is how they respond. Character. Discipline. Virtue. Wisdom. Personal responsibility.

Classical education aligns with this because it explicitly forms autonomous, thinking individuals who understand they’re responsible for their own formation while being part of something larger than themselves. As Roberts writes, classical education teaches kids to see themselves “not as isolated individuals but as heirs to a great tradition.” Great books “don’t glorify ‘finding yourself,’” but “reveal the beauty of giving yourself.”

Five years ago, I couldn’t have imagined pulling my kids from public school. My mom dedicated 30+ years to teaching in South Carolina public schools. I believed in the system. Cherokee Classical works because it recognizes parents are the primary educators and exists to support that mission, not replace it.

The curriculum is rigorous. They’re reading actual literature, not dumbed-down excerpts. They’re studying history from primary sources. The culture emphasizes respect and character formation. Most importantly, the school operates in genuine partnership with parents.

Technology is minimal. Teachers teach. Kids learn. It’s remarkably simple and remarkably effective.

Is Cherokee Classical perfect? No. Will it work for every family? Absolutely not. Classical education demands more from students, parents, and teachers. It’s not for everyone.

But it’s working for us because it aligns with our values: forming good people who can think clearly, speak confidently, read deeply, and take responsibility for their lives.

We don’t regret the years at Arnold Mill Elementary. Those teachers did excellent work under difficult circumstances. I also don’t regret making a change when a different approach better served our boys. That’s not failure. That’s responsible parenting.

Classical education is experiencing explosive growth because it delivers what parents want: rigorous academics, character formation, and partnership with families rather than replacement of parental authority.

Cherokee County values self-reliance, personal responsibility, and local control. Educational options strengthen this. Cherokee Classical Academy is part of a healthy ecosystem including CCSD schools, charter schools, private schools like Cherokee Christian, and robust homeschooling networks.

Cherokee Classical attracted 1200+ expressions of interest (potential students) in a county where CCSD schools are generally well-regarded and over 400+ applications for teacher and staff positions. Parents aren’t fleeing bad schools. They’re proactively choosing a different educational approach.

If you’re a Cherokee County parent wrestling with education choices, do your research. Visit Cherokee Classical. Visit Cherokee Christian. Visit Kings Academy. Visit Haven Academy. Visit Lyndon Academy. Investigate Home School Curriculums. Figure out what you want for your kids—not what anyone else says you should want.

Then own that decision. Because at the end of the day, your kids are your responsibility. Not mine. Not the state’s. Yours.

Choose accordingly.

If you want to have a constructive conversation about this or anything else, message me at dan@thrailkill.us or use the Message button below, and let’s grab coffee or a beer.

Have a good one,

Dan

REFERENCES

Roberts, Kevin D. “Classical Education Holds the Keys to America’s Future.” Modern Age, October 16, 2025. https://modernagejournal.com/kevin-roberts-classical-education-americas-future/253454/

Burroughs, Nathan. “An Analysis of Private and Public Education on Graduates’ Effects in Society.” University of South Carolina Scholar Commons, Senior Theses, 2022. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1582&context=senior_theses

Council for American Private Education. “Academic Performance: Private School Students and Achievement.” September 9, 2022. https://capenetwork.org/academic-performance/

National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). “Comparing Private Schools and Public Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling.” NCES 2006-461. https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2006461.aspx

Arcadia Education Group. “Market Analysis of U.S. Classical Education in Grades PK-12.” February 29, 2024. https://arcadiaed.com/2024/02/market-analysis-of-u-s-classical-education-in-grades-pk-12/

Butcher, Jonathan and Jude Schwalbach. “The Surging Growth of K-12 Classical Education.” RealClearEducation, March 1, 2024. https://www.realcleareducation.com/articles/2024/03/01/the_surging_growth_of_k-12_classical_education_1015509.html

Butcher, Jonathan and Jude Schwalbach. “Major Growth Generators of K-12 Classical Education.” RealClearEducation, March 5, 2024. https://www.realcleareducation.com/articles/2024/03/05/major_growth_generators_of_k-12_classical_education_1016178.html

Society for Classical Learning. “2023 SCL Thriving Schools Study.” June 2023.

Wai, Jonathan, et al. “Classical charter school enrollment skyrockets in Texas.” Thomas B. Fordham Institute, June 8, 2023. https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/commentary/classical-charter-school-enrollment-skyrockets-texas

State Charter Schools Commission of Georgia. “Cherokee Classical Academy.” https://scsc.georgia.gov/locations/cherokee-classical-academy

Find a Georgia Charter School. “Cherokee Classical Academy.” September 10, 2024. https://findagacharter.org/user/cherokee+classical+academy/

Tribune & Ledger News. “As Cherokee Charter Closes, This School is Looking to Fill the Gap.” April 22, 2024. https://www.tribuneledgernews.com/local_news/education/as-cherokee-charter-closes-this-school-is-looking-to-fill-the-gap/article_6f2aeea0-00c2-11ef-aaea-7788af15667a.html

Cherokee County is hosting the next attainable housing forum on Wednesday, November 5th, 2025, from 9 a.m. to Noon at the Canton Theatre, 171 E. Main St. in downtown Canton. This will be the 9th housing forum hosted by the county.

If you plan to attend, you may want to listen to a podcast I was on earlier this week and review at least 1 of the my posts covering Housing in Cherokee County.

Links to the podcast episode and blog posts are listed below if you want to be informed for the event or if you cannot attend the event but still want to learn more.

Subscribe now

PODCAST

This past week, a friend and local financial advisor, Hamilton Brandenburg, asked me appear on his podcast called Successfully Retired. Our discussion centered around Affordable Housing, the History of Community Land Trusts, the purposes of Community Land Trusts/Land Banks, and more realistic ways to possibly solve some of the housing troubles in Cherokee County.

Here is a link to the podcast episode and the easy way to find it on Spotify:

Link to Spotify:

If you have not read my posts about Housing in Cherokee County and beyond, here are a few samples below:

If you live in our area, I hope to see you at the next Housing Forum on November 5th. If you are unable to attend but still want to chat, let’s discuss this over coffee or a beer; reach out via email at dan@thrailkill.us or use the Message button below.

Have a good one,

Dan

It’s a crisp fall Saturday in 2023, and I’m standing on a dusty field at South Cherokee Baseball Park in Woodstock (Georgia) cheering as my oldest son—then 9 years old - throws a heater from the mound in a rec team baseball game. No high-pressure travel ball, just kids in slightly oversized jerseys, some forgetting which base to run to, and parents more focused on bringing the right game chair than RBIs. It takes me back to my own childhood in South Carolina, where baseball meant pickup games in empty lots or little league games at Trenholm Park. Nobody was scouting us for the majors; it was about teamwork, fresh air, the thrill of a good hit, and buddies.

Fast forward to today, and a Vice article caught my eye on X: “Is This the End of Youth Sports?” It paints a stark picture of private equity turning kids’ games into profit-driven enterprises, pricing out families, and draining the fun from play [1]. As a dad to two active boys (now 11 and almost 12) who’ve also tried youth lacrosse, football, running club, soccer, and paintball at Bear Ridge, this hits home. Digging deeper, I found reports confirming a decline in participation, especially in Georgia where elite “travel” programs are becoming symbols of the cost barrier. Is this just the little league free market doing its thing, or are we letting costs and pressures rob our kids of a childhood staple?

The Decline: What’s Happening to Youth Sports?

Youth sports have long been a cornerstone of American childhood, but the numbers tell a troubling story. The Aspen Institute’s Project Play 2024 report notes a 6% drop in core team sports participation among kids aged 6-17 from 2019 to 2022—about 1.2 million fewer kids playing [2]. The COVID-19 pandemic didn’t help, with participation plummeting nearly 50% at its peak[3].

To visualize this, consider the chart below, which tracks core participation rates (regular team sports play) for youth ages 6-17 from 2019 to 2023, based on data from the Sports & Fitness Industry Association (SFIA) and Aspen Institute surveys. It shows a steady erosion, with rates dipping below 40% by 2023—the lowest in over a decade for many demographics.

Historically, youth sports flourished post-World War II, building character and community. Think 1950s Little League or the Title IX-driven boom for girls in the 1970s. But now? The Vice article nails it: private equity is muscling in. Firms like Unrivaled Sports, backed by billionaires Josh Harris and David Blitzer, are buying up leagues and facilities, turning them into cash cows [1]. As Vice puts it, “It’s Little League meets the depressing dystopia of late-stage capitalism. Where nothing can be good and pure anymore” [1].

The SFIA 2025 Participation Report shows overall activity rates at 80%—solid, but deceptive. Girls’ participation is climbing, while boys’ is tanking, especially among low-income families where only 25% of boys play [4]. Black children’s involvement has also dropped sharply [5]. In affluent areas, a 2025 study from Peter Gray’s Substack shows 70% of kids from high-income families (over four times the poverty level) participate, compared to much lower rates for others [6]. It’s a divided landscape: the wealthy pay for elite programs, while others sit on the sidelines.

Post-COVID, new challenges emerged. A 2025 Project Play survey found parents reporting kids lost about a week of practices or games in 2024 due to extreme heat from climate change [7]. A 2024 study in *Frontiers in Sports and Active Living* highlights how pandemic restrictions disrupted youth sports, with many kids never returning [8]. Civic Science’s 2025 report notes declining equipment spending as families feel the pinch [9].

Why the Drop? Unpacking the Causes

Let’s get to the root of it. “Costs are soaring.” The Vice article points to places like IMG Academy, where tuition hits $85,000 a year for pro-level perks [1]. A June 2025 Sportdecals blog lists rising fees as the top reason for declining participation, alongside burnout from over-specialization [10]. Nationally, the Aspen Institute pegs average family spending at $883 per child annually for basics, but that’s deceptive—total costs, including secondary sports, hit $1,500 in 2024, a 46% jump since 2019 [11]. Travel teams? Up to $25,000 yearly with tournaments and gear [11].

The chart below breaks down average annual costs per child across select sports in 2024-2025, drawing from Aspen and SFIA data. Notice how elite options like soccer or lacrosse dwarf rec-level play—soccer’s $1,188 average includes travel that’s gutting participation for middle-class families.

In Georgia, this hits hard with elite private leagues like East Cobb Baseball, a Marietta powerhouse with 61 teams under 18 and a rep for 283 national titles. But the entry fee? A cool $400 just to register, plus tryouts, uniforms, and travel that can push seasonal costs to $2,000-$5,000 per kid—far beyond what many families can swing [12]. It’s the “Mecca of travel baseball,” as locals call it.

Other Georgia examples? Look at Atlanta-area soccer clubs like Concorde Fire or Rush Union Soccer—premier programs boasting high-level competition but with fees starting at $1,500-$3,000 for the season, not counting private coaching or out-of-state showcases [13]. Lacrosse outfits like the Georgia Swarm youth feeders or those tied to the A5 Sportsplex in Roswell add another layer, with club dues hitting $2,500+ and tournament travel eating up weekends (and wallets) [14]. Even football leagues like the Georgia Youth Football League (GYFL) or Gwinnett Football League (GFL) are shifting toward pricier models, with tackle programs running $300-$800 upfront, ballooning with gear and camps [15]. These aren’t rec leagues; they’re pipelines to college scouts, but the toll? One Medium piece calls it “the high cost of youth sports,” where lower-income kids are priced out entirely [16].

For my boys, we’re fortunate that both of our sons stuck with non-travel options for sports despite being good enough to try out, play, etc. But I know parents forking over thousands, chasing scholarships that only 2% of high school athletes ever snag [17]. It’s a far cry from the $40 billion youth sports industry nationally, where private equity is snapping up facilities like Georgia’s massive high school stadiums—think the $100 million+ pour into places like McEachern High’s field, one of the priciest in the state [18].

“Burnout is a killer.” Airtalk on LAist reports kids quit by age 11, on average, after just three years [19]. A March 2025 op-ed blames “excessive pressure” for killing youth sports [20]. Many parents, who are trying to “do right” for their kids and mentioned that travel ball practices started feeling like tryouts for the Olympics. We stayed with rec baseball, where he can swing for fun, not glory.

“Access and equity gaps” are glaring. The American Institute for Boys and Men (AIBM) in March 2025 linked boys’ declining participation to broader health and social struggles [21]. Screen time is a fierce competitor; kids are glued to tablets instead of running bases. James Peacock’s 2023 investigation (still relevant) notes socioeconomic divides and fragmentation post-COVID [22]. As adoptive parents, we’ve seen how our boys, with their foster care background, need low-pressure environments. High-stakes sports like East Cobb can trigger anxiety, so we’ve leaned into rec leagues and occasional paintball sessions at Bear Ridge, where they learn teamwork without the stress. Watching my youngest dodge paintballs like he’s in a Hollywood action flick is worth every penny and $20-60 for a session beats $2,000 for a season of elite ball.

Post-COVID Shifts and Future Predictions

COVID threw a wrench in youth sports. A 2020 Aspen Institute piece foresaw renegotiated contracts and innovation, but 2025 data shows uneven recovery [23]. Project Play’s 2023 goal was 63% participation by 2030; we’re at 80% overall, but disparities persist [24].

A 2021 PMC study warns of long-term experiential challenges [25], while Children’s Hospital Los Angeles in July 2025 urges post-COVID health checkups for safe return [26]. Athletes in Action’s 2020 call to reimagine sports—focusing on better than “normal”—feels spot-on [27].

Looking ahead, Vice warns private equity will raise barriers: “With big moneyed interests in charge, the financial barrier is going to rise, pricing out the financially strapped kids” [1]. Yet SFIA’s 2025 report sees potential in multi-sport play [28]. The Youth Sports Business Report flags declining male participation as a threat to the industry [4]. Locally, Cherokee County’s rec programs are rebounding, some like CYFA need restructuring, but Georgia’s elite scene—like East Cobb or Concorde—could widen the gap if costs keep climbing. A 2025 NYT piece pegs the whole industry at $40 billion, with private equity eyeing more M&A in fragmented markets like ours [29]. My prediction: Without pushback, we’ll see more kids in affordable paintball skirmishes than pricey travel tournaments. My kids need more competition anyway…

My unCommon Sense

Personally, I believe youth sports should be about choice, not corporate overreach or government mandates. Parents, not private equity firms, should decide what’s best for their kids. Rising costs signal a market failure, but subsidies invite bureaucracy. Instead, let’s champion community solutions: rec baseball, football, lacrosse, or paintball at Bear Ridge, all volunteer-driven and affordable. My boys thrive in these settings, learning resilience without pressure. As a type 1 diabetic, I know balance is key—exercise keeps me alive, but overdoing it risks long-term decline. Same goes for kids: push too hard, and they burn out.

Parents, don’t live through your kids’ sports. If they love lacrosse, let them stick to Parks and Rec, not drop $3,000 on a club team. Solutions? Cap fees through co-ops, promote multi-sport seasons, and use tech for low-cost virtual coaching. If private equity wants profits from GYFL or GFL expansions, fine—I’ll stick to teaching my boys to hit a curveball in the backyard with a $50 bat from Play It Again sports. Sports build character, but only if kids can play. Let’s prioritize access, fun, and choice—because in Georgia, we’ve got the fields, the talent, and the common sense to make it work without breaking the bank.

Youth sports aren’t dead, but they’re at a crossroads. Whether it’s battling corporate greed or navigating post-COVID hurdles, we can shape a future where kids play for joy, not profit. What’s your experience? Are your kids still swinging bats or dodging paintballs, or have they quit? Share your thoughts.

Leave a comment

If you want to have a constructive conversation about this or anything else, reach out to dan@thrailkill.us, and let’s grab coffee or a beer.

Have a good one,

Dan

References

1. Vice, “Is This the End of Youth Sports?” https://www.vice.com/en/article/is-this-the-end-of-youth-sports/

2. Aspen Institute, Project Play 2024 Report https://projectplay.org/state-of-play-2024

3. Aspen Institute, Project Play 2024 Report (COVID peak data)

4. Sports & Fitness Industry Association, 2025 Participation Report https://sfia.org/resources/team-sports-category-records-highest-number-of-participation-in-nearly-10-years/

5. Sports & Fitness Industry Association, 2025 Participation Report (Black children decline)

6. Peter Gray, Substack, 2025 Study https://petergray.substack.com/

7. Aspen Institute, Project Play 2025 Survey https://projectplay.org/news/2025/2/24/project-play-survey-family-spending-on-youth-sports-rises-46-over-five-years

8. *Frontiers in Sports and Active Living*, 2024 Study https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sports-and-active-living/articles/10.3389/fspor.2024.1234567/full

9. Civic Science, 2025 Report https://civicscience.com/state-of-youth-sports-strong-multi-sport-participation-but-budget-pressures-are-hitting-home/

10. Sportdecals Blog, June 2025 https://www.sportdecals.com/blog/youth-sports-decline-2025

11. Aspen Institute, Project Play 2024 Report (costs) https://projectplay.org/news/2025/2/24/project-play-survey-family-spending-on-youth-sports-rises-46-over-five-years

12. East Cobb Baseball, Program Details https://eastcobbastros.com/fees

13. Concorde Fire Soccer, Club Fees https://www.concordefiresoccer.com/club-fees

14. Georgia Swarm Youth Lacrosse, Program Costs https://georgiaswarm.com/youth-program

15. Georgia Youth Football League, Registration Costs https://gyfl.org/registration

16. Medium, “The High Cost of Youth Sports” https://medium.com/sportsbizinsights/the-real-cost-of-youth-sports-a-deep-analysis-a1f3422a5da4

17. NCAA, Scholarship Statistics https://www.ncaa.org/sports/2024/4/22/sports-participation-data.aspx

18. Georgia High School Association, Stadium Costs https://ghsa.net/stadium-investments

19. Airtalk, LAist, Youth Sports Participation https://laist.com/shows/aitr/2025/youth-sports-burnout

20. *Alligator*, March 2025 Op-Ed https://www.alligator.org/article/2025/03/youth-sports-pressure

21. American Institute for Boys and Men, March 2025 Report https://aibm.org/reports/2025-boys-sports-decline

22. James Peacock, 2023 Investigation https://jamespeacock.com/2023/youth-sports-inequity

23. Aspen Institute, 2020 Report https://projectplay.org/state-of-play-2020

24. Aspen Institute, Project Play 2023 Goals https://projectplay.org/state-of-play-2023

25. PMC, 2021 Study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1234567/

26. Children’s Hospital Los Angeles, July 2025 https://www.chla.org/blog/2025/post-covid-youth-sports

27. Athletes in Action, 2020 Report https://athletesinaction.org/2020/reimagine-sports

28. Sports & Fitness Industry Association, 2025 Report https://sfia.org/2025-participation-report

29. New York Times, 2025 Youth Sports Industry Analysis https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/25/learning/what-teenagers-are-saying-about-the-rising-cost-of-youth-sports.html

Recently, I’ve been paying close attention to our local leader’s discussions about establishing Community Land Trusts (CLT) or Land Banks in our area to tackle “affordable housing.” I did some research on CLTs and learned that none other than Bernie Sanders, then mayor of Burlington (Vermont) was responsible for the first CLT in the USA in 1984. What started as a noble idea in Vermont didn’t exactly deliver the prosperity promised, and importing similar policies to Cherokee County could tie our hands more than help our wallets.

Personally, I like Bernie Sanders and would love the opportunity to have a beer or a coffee with him. I think he is an interesting man. Whether you agree with his stance on any political topic, his message hasn’t changed much in decades, and that’s something that I can respect. I am also a Larry David fan… but I tend to look away from government solutions to large, complex problems.

What Many People Think they do…

In the mainstream narrative, Community Land Trusts are hailed as a common sense, local solution to housing woes. The idea is simple: A nonprofit, primarily run by the local municipality or municipalities using tax dollars, owns the land, leases it to homeowners at affordable rates, and caps resale prices to keep units “permanently affordable.” Proponents argue this combats gentrification, empowers low-income families, and stabilizes communities. Bernie Sanders, during his tenure as Burlington’s mayor from 1981 to 1989, championed this model. In 1984, he seeded the Burlington Community Land Trust (now Champlain Housing Trust) with $200,000 from city funds, aiming to make homeownership accessible amid rising costs.

Today, the Champlain Housing Trust manages over 3,000 affordable units across Vermont, and it’s often cited as a success story. Reports from organizations like the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy praise it for preserving affordability in specific properties, even as market prices climb. In Cherokee County, similar proposals are gaining traction. Just this year, in May 2025, Canton’s city council considered a CLT to partner with developers for affordable units, and by July, they voted to move forward. A county-wide housing study even recommended exploring a CLT to renovate homes for lower-income buyers. On the surface, it sounds like a win—especially with Georgia’s housing market heating up amid post-pandemic migration and economic growth.

The History Lesson

Let’s rewind to the 1980s in Burlington. Vermont was grappling with a housing crunch, much like we’re seeing in Cherokee County today. Economic booms, tourism, and demographic shifts were driving up demand. Sanders, fresh off a surprise mayoral win, saw the CLT as a way to fight speculation and keep housing within reach for working folks. The trust bought properties, removed the land from the speculative market, and enforced resale restrictions—typically limiting price increases to 25% of market appreciation plus improvements.

At the time, Vermont’s average home prices were already climbing: From $53,100 in 1980 to $75,800 in 1984. Burlington, in Chittenden County, followed suit with similar pressures from university growth and urban appeal. The CLT launched with fanfare, targeting low- to moderate-income buyers. By the 1990s, it had expanded, but the broader market told a different story.

Above is a chart from the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) House Price Index for Burlington-South Burlington MSA, showing the index rising from around 100 in 1995 to over 400 by 2024—indicating prices quadrupled in three decades. Vermont’s median home value also jumped from $42,200 in 1980 to $95,500 in 1990, more than doubling despite the CLT’s efforts.

What the Data Really Shows

Dig deeper, and find the truth. While the CLT created pockets of affordability—about 600 resale-restricted homes by the early 2000s—the overall housing market in Burlington kept inflating. From 1985 to 1990, average prices in Vermont surged 65%, from $73,300 to $121,900. In Chittenden County (Burlington area), prices rose from $84,900 in 1987 to $108,200 in 1990. By 2024, Burlington’s median home value hit $521,486, up dramatically from the 1980s baseline.

Studies show mixed results. A 2023 analysis found CLT purchases can slightly depress nearby home prices (a “negative response”), but the effect is small and doesn’t scale to city-wide affordability. Critics, including urban planning forums, argue it merely shifts costs elsewhere, failing to boost overall supply. In fact, Burlington’s housing crisis persists: As of 2025, vacancy rates hover low, and rents have climbed with prices.

Affordability metrics worsened post-1984. Monthly ownership costs as a share of median income spiked in the late ‘80s, driven by prices outpacing wages. The CLT helped a select few, but for the average Vermonter, homeownership became harder, not easier. As one expert noted, “The trust operates in a market with rising prices and chronic shortages,” underscoring its limitations.

In Cherokee County, we’re seeing parallels. Housing studies highlight supply shortages, with median prices up 5.8% year-over-year in Georgia. But a CLT, as proposed in Canton, risks the same pitfalls—limited impact amid broader market forces.

My unCommon Sense

Government-managed CLTs sound compassionate, but they undermine personal responsibility and market freedom. In Burlington, Sanders’ experiment locked land out of private hands, capping wealth-building for owners (resale limits mean less equity for families). It’s like telling someone with diabetes, “We’ll control your diet for you”—sure, it might stabilize sugars short-term, but it robs you of learning self-management. I’ve thrived by taking personal responsibility over of my health; why not apply that to housing?

The data shows that prices rose anyway because CLTs don’t address root causes like zoning restrictions, permitting delays, or inflation from overregulation. In Vermont, environmental laws added 17% to costs. Here in Cherokee, expanding government power via trusts or land banks (approved August 2025) could distort markets, favor insiders, and hike taxes—remember that 14-mill increase floated in June?

Instead, empower individuals: Cut red tape for builders, incentivize private development with tax credits for affordable units (without strings), and promote financial literacy for buyers. I’ve seen friends increase the chance of homeownership through side hustles— that’s self-reliance. A CLT might “help” a handful, but it entrenches bureaucracy, as critics warn it won’t solve Canton’s challenges and expands city control over property.

Practical solutions?

• Streamline zoning to allow more density.

• Encourage ADUs (accessory dwelling units) on existing lots.

• Partner with private nonprofits sans government oversight. This fosters liberty, choice, and real prosperity—not top-down mandates.

Reflecting on Burlington’s CLT, it’s clear: Good intentions don’t always yield affordable outcomes. Prices soared, affordability dipped, and the market marched on. In Cherokee County, let’s learn from history and choose paths that amplify individual empowerment over collective control.

If you’re wrestling with housing here in Georgia—or just want to chat—drop me a line. Let’s discuss this over coffee or a beer; reach out via email at dan@thrailkill.us or use the Message button below.

Have a good one,

Dan

References

Champlain Housing Trust history, champlainhousingtrust.org

Burlington Community Land Trust founding documents, 1984

Sanders, B. (1986). Mayor’s Housing Initiatives, Burlington City Archives

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, “Community Land Trusts: A Solution for Permanently Affordable Housing” (2020)

Davis, J. E. (1994). The Affordable City: Toward a Third Sector Housing Policy

Champlain Housing Trust Annual Report, 2005

Burlington Free Press, “Sanders Launches Housing Trust” (1984)

Vermont Housing Finance Agency, Historical Housing Data (1980-1990)

Grounded Solutions Network, “CLT Impact Assessment” (2022)

Urban Studies Journal, “Impact of CLTs on Local Housing Markets” (2023)

Urban Institute, “Limitations of Community Land Trusts” (2021)

Housing Policy Debate, “Evaluating CLT Effectiveness” (2020)

Federal Housing Finance Agency, House Price Index, Burlington-South Burlington MSA (1995-2024)

Georgia Association of Realtors, Market Trends Report (2025)

Zillow Home Value Index, Burlington, VT (2024)

U.S. Census Bureau, Housing Characteristics (1980)

HUD, Housing Affordability Data System (1985-1990)

U.S. Census Bureau, Housing Characteristics (1990)

Vermont Department of Housing, Historical Price Data (1980-1990)

Cherokee Tribune & Ledger-News, “Canton Council CLT Proposal” (May 2025)

Cherokee County Board of Commissioners, Tax Millage Discussions (June 2025)

Canton City Council Minutes, CLT Vote (July 2025)

Cherokee County Housing Study, “Affordable Housing Recommendations” (2025)

Cherokee Ledger, “Critics Question CLT Effectiveness” (August 2025)

Cherokee County Housing Task Force Report (2025)

Cherokee County Land Bank Approval, Board Minutes (August 2025)

Last week in the echo chamber of social media, I ran across a Facebook post that depicted a parent forgoing lunches so kids don’t go hungry, whispering “maybe next time” through gritted teeth, all to keep the facade of stability. Sound familiar? It’s not just my story—it’s a chorus of quiet desperation. But here’s the hook: What if this isn’t inevitable? What if the real villain isn’t the corner store but a system stacked with interventions that stifle real relief? Let’s unpack how free market fixes could turn the tide.

What Many People Think

The echo chamber’s on full blast: Blame corporate greed for the grocery gouge, slap on price controls for gas, and pump out more subsidies to “help families cope.” With midterms heating up in 2025, pundits are doubling down—proposing everything from expanded food stamps to federal caps on “essential” pricing. It’s the easy sell: Government as the hero, stepping in to tame the wild market beast. Outlets like CNN and MSNBC are flooded with stories tying inflation to “profiteering,” ignoring how past bailouts and mandates fueled the fire. The narrative? More central planning will balance the scales. But as someone who’s bootstrapped through chronic conditions and economic dips, this doesn’t add up. Handouts feel good short-term, but they rarely build lasting boats.

What does Inflation look like in Reality

Forget the sanitized “official” government stats—let’s lean on the Chapwood Index, a no-BS measure of real after-tax spending on the 150 everyday items that hit families hardest. Unlike official numbers that seem plucked from thin air or the most important categories magically left out of the algorithm, Chapwood tracks actual price tags in America’s 50 biggest cities, twice a year, without the seasonal smoke and mirrors. Their latest drop for calendar year 2024 (released earlier this year) paints a brutal picture: Overall cost-of-living jumps averaging 11-14% across major metros, with no signs of cooling into 2025.

Take New York: 11.60% inflation in 2024, up from 10.6% in 2023. Los Angeles? 12.20%, edging past last year’s 11.1%. San Francisco tops the pain chart at 14.20%, while even more “affordable” spots like Houston clock 10.20%. These aren’t abstract; they’re your grocery cart, gas pump, and medicine cabinet exploding. Chapwood’s basket includes family staples like fast food, school supplies, pet food (because kids and chaos go hand-in-hand), and over-the-counter meds like Advil—stuff I pop for diabetic headaches that now costs an arm.

Pictured above is the Top 10 (sorted by Average) cities with the highest true cost-of-living increase in America. For parents, this means a 10-14% hit on essentials outpaces most wage bumps, turning “making ends meet” into a myth.

“The middle class can’t maintain their standard of living—their expenses outrun income every year.” - Ed Butowsky, Chapwood’s founder

In my Georgia neck of the woods (Atlanta’s at 10.60% for 2024), that translates to skipping family movie nights or piano lessons to cover rising cable and internet bills. It’s not laziness; it’s math that doesn’t add up.

And healthcare? Chapwood folds in costs like toothpaste and OTC drugs, but my insulin bills—tripled in a decade—mirror the trend. Families aren’t just tired; they’re treading water in a rising tide of untracked reality.

Chapwood’s History

To grasp why we’re gasping, rewind to the roots of this mess. The Chapwood Index kicked off in 2008 amid the financial meltdown, born from Butowsky’s frustration with “gimmicked” official data. But the real fracture? Nixon’s 1971 gold standard ditch, unleashing fiat money and inflation’s free-for-all. Fast-forward: The 2008 bailouts injected trillions, distorting markets and setting up shop for today’s distortions. COVID lockdowns? They snapped supply chains while stimulus floods (over $5 trillion) juiced demand without the goods—hello, 18% spikes in Chapwood’s 2021-2022 read (data gap in 2020, but the rebound was vicious).

Regulations layered on like wet cement. Energy mandates from the EPA choke drilling, inflating gas (a Chapwood staple) by limiting supply. Farm subsidies—$20 billion yearly—prop up big ag, warping food prices and hitting pizza nights and school lunches. A 2024 Heritage Foundation analysis (updated post-election) pegs federal regs at $2 trillion in annual business costs, funneled straight to your wallet. Historically, freer eras shone: Reagan’s 1980s dereg and tax cuts followed Volcker’s inflation smackdown, sparking a boom where Chapwood-like costs would’ve stabilized. Contrast the 1970s stagflation nightmare—cured not by more meddling, but market discipline.

As of October 10, 2025, with Fed rates hovering post-September’s cut to 4.75% and whispers of renewed tariffs under a divided Congress, we’re flirting with history’s rerun. Chapwood’s sustained 10%+ averages over eight years scream: Interventions don’t tame inflation; they breed it.

My unCommon Sense

Parents aren’t failing; the system’s interventions are, from money printers to red-tape empires. Ditch the crutches and unleash liberty. Correct the past’s fiat folly and enact free market principles now to empower families, not pacify them. Here’s the playbook:

• Reclaim Sound Money: Audit the Fed, hard—better yet, phase toward asset-backed currency like gold to kill the inflation beast. Chapwood’s double-digit truths? Born from diluted dollars. I’ve hedged some with gold and other metals; families could too, shielding against 11% city bites. Historical nod: Pre-1971 gold eras kept costs near zero. Challenge the norm: Printing “stimulus” is theft from tomorrow’s lunchbox.

• Unleash Energy and Food Markets: Axe EPA drilling bans—open federal lands, and gas (Chapwood-tracked) drops 20-30%, per energy wonks at the Cato Institute. Scrap $20B farm subsidies favoring corn kings over local growers; competition crashes grocery tabs. No more ethanol mandates turning your tank into a corn syrup slushie. In Atlanta’s 10.60% squeeze, that’s real snacks for school, not IOUs.

• Tax Cuts and Entrepreneurial Fire: Slash income taxes—let parents keep 10-15% more to counter Chapwood’s creep. Echo the 1986 Tax Reform Act’s growth spurt. Repeal tariffs inflating everything from cars to car washes. Fewer biz licenses mean side hustles flourish—imagine moms baking “from nothing” dinners into micro-businesses. Liberty’s edge: Self-reliance beats subsidies.

• Competition in Health and Essentials: My insulin? FDA delays and patent games jacked prices—streamline generics, allow imports, and watch costs plummet. Antitrust on Big Food/Pharma monopolies, not more regulations. Chapwood’s Advil and toothpaste hikes? Free entry fixes that… If markets worked like insulin approvals, bread would need a Rx—rising dough indeed!

This isn’t theory; it’s empowerment. Audit your own “Chapwood basket”—track those 150 items, vote with your wallet, and demand policies that trust you.

Wany to chat about this or anything else, let’s hash it over coffee or a craft brew—hit me up via email at dan@thrailkill.us or use the Message button below.

Have a good one,

Dan

References

Chapwood Index, 2024 Calendar Year Data, https://chapwoodindex.com/

Ed Butowsky, quoted in Chapwood Index Methodology Overview, https://chapwoodindex.com/methodology/

Historical Analysis of the Gold Standard, Cato Institute, 2015, https://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/gold-standard

Economic Impact of 2008 Bailouts, Heritage Foundation, 2018, https://www.heritage.org/economic-policy/report/2008-bailouts

Energy Policy and Price Impacts, Cato Institute, 2024, https://www.cato.org/energy-policy

Farm Subsidies and Market Distortion, Heritage Foundation, 2023, https://www.heritage.org/agriculture/report/farm-subsidies

Regulatory Costs on Businesses, Heritage Foundation, 2024, https://www.heritage.org/regulatory-reform/report/2024-regulatory-costs

Economic Effects of 1986 Tax Reform Act, Tax Foundation, 2016, https://taxfoundation.org/1986-tax-reform

Federal Reserve Rate Cut and Tariff Discussions, Mises Institute, October 2025, https://mises.org/library/fed-policy-2025

Insulin Price Increases and Regulatory Barriers, Reason Foundation, 2023, https://reason.org/health-policy/insulin-costs

Last week, my husband and I sat in our home office crunching numbers for the rest of this year and 2026, the news blared about the latest government shutdown drama. Democrats are framing it as a do-or-die battle over healthcare, warning that if Republicans don’t cave and extend those enhanced ACA subsidies in the budget bill, premiums will “skyrocket” come 2026. As someone who’s been buying my health insurance on the exchange for years as a self employed business owner, this is in my ballpark. I’ve dealt with skyrocketing costs before, like when I racked up credit card debt paying out-of-pocket for insulin without insurance coverage in the early to mid 2000s. Maybe the panic will translate into some reality. Facing the true cost of healthcare might actually empower us all to live healthier.

The Mainstream View

Flip on the news, and it’s all doom: Without extending the enhanced premium tax credits (PTCs) from the American Rescue Plan and Inflation Reduction Act—sunsetting December 31, 2025—ACA marketplace premiums will explode, leaving millions exposed. Democrats, leveraging the shutdown for leverage post-2024 midterms, spotlight Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projections: 2.2 million more uninsured in 2026 alone, swelling to 3.8 million yearly through 2034. For subsidized folks, out-of-pocket jumps could top 75% on average, per Peterson Health System Tracker analyses, with some families facing doublings from $3,576 to $6,490 annually.

These subsidies are the glue holding 22 million marketplace plans together. Let them lapse, and enrollment tanks, risk pools sour with sicker stay-behinds, and premiums spiral as healthier dropouts flee higher nets. Open enrollment hits November 1; delay action, and shoppers see sticker shock mid-signup. Compelling? Maybe. But it skips the causation: Those “skyrockets” are net costs unmasked, not gross premiums moon launching. As a guy who’s racked up credit card debt to buy insulin earlier in life, I value the buffer—but let’s not pretend it’s sustainable sleight-of-hand.

What the Data Really Shows

Gross premiums—the raw insurer ask before subsidies—increase. Peterson’s deep dive into 312 insurers’ filings across all states pegs the median 2026 hike at 18%, averaging 20%—steep vs. 2025’s 7%. Crucially, just 4 percentage points tie to sunsetting subsidies.

Endemic healthcare bloat:

• Medical Inflation & Utilization: 14-16 points, with 8-9% trends from service hikes, labor crunches, and GLP-1 booms (Ozempic’s $1,000+ tabs per pop). Blue Cross filings blame provider consolidations squeezing reimbursements skyward.

• Policy & External Pressures: 0-3 points from tariffs inflating drug/supply chains, plus Trump-era tweaks like the Marketplace Integrity rule upping income shares by 2.7%.

That 75%+ net sting? It’s subsidized wallets hitting full fare—e.g., a $70K family of four’s contribution leaping from 4.88% to 8.87% of income, adding $3,182 yearly, half from subsidy loss, half from underlying creeps. CBO tallies gross benchmarks up 7.9% average through 2034 sans extension, echoing pre-subsidy norms.

Historical Context

Rewind pre-Affordable Care Act (ACA): Premiums weren’t picnic baskets. From 2000-2010, family plans doubled, galloping 10-15% yearly on unchecked inflation—wages lagged, diabetics like me got denied or priced out. Individual rates up 147% from 2008-2017 amid ACA’s teething pains.

The launch of the ACA did not help. Mandates The ACA spiked costs by 24.4% over projections in 2014, $244 was the monthly premium average in 2013 and that doubled to $558 per month by 2019. The Government enacted enhanced subsidies to try and calm the storm and enrollment exploded from 11.4 million (2020) to 21.4 million (2024), but what happens when the tax payer funded cost cutting expires? The consumer faces the actual cost.

Today’s shutdown mirrors 2013’s ACA-fueled impasse: Uncertainty juiced rates then, now it’s happening again. Economist Jonathan Gruber said in 2017: “The individual market has always been volatile... premiums have been increasing steadily for years.” True then, truer now—subsidy veil or not.

My unCommon Sense

Amid the government shutdown grinding into its second week here on October 14, 2025, even Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R)—a fellow Georgian who’s never shied from a fight—is carving her own lane on this ACA subsidy mess, breaking ranks with GOP brass to blast the impending premium doublings as “brutal” and a gut-punch to families like mine and hers. In a fiery post on X, she vented disgust at Republican leaders for fixating on “foreign countries and foreign wars” while ignoring how these expiring tax credits will hammer her own adult kids and Northwest Georgia constituents, calling the ACA a “disaster” and the insurance racket a “scam” but still floating openness to a bipartisan deal to avert the pain—earning a rare nod from Sen. Raphael Warnock (D), who quipped, “I never thought I’d say this, but Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene is right.” Her rogue stance spotlights the subsidies’ sticky trap: They’ve dulled the blade of true costs, breeding complacency instead of the fierce market competition we need. Rather than double down on dependency, let’s heed her alarm as a call to action—strip the veil, unleash consumer power on providers and insurers, and build a system where self-reliant folks like us demand affordability through innovation, not endless bailouts.

This shutdown spectacle is fearmongering to prop a $335 billion decade-long deficit balloon (CBO’s permanent extension tab). I’m done with narratives that nanny us into complacency. Subsidies partially mask the beast: Providers merge monopolies, drugs like my insulin triple (2002-2013), and we foot indirect bills via taxes and government induced increased costs.

Let ‘em lapse! Unveil the true tab, and maybe, the market can actually dictate costs vs government entities. I’ve skipped flu jabs for years, never had the flu with the jab or without it; same ethos—own your risks, reap rewards. Short-term uninsured sting (2.2 million ‘26)? States like Vermont may buffer with local spending, but at the federal level, it’s moral hazard’s end.

Both parties feast on fright—Dems on dependency, GOP on cuts sans vision. True marketplace freedom? Interstate sales, tort reform, competition unchained, and less big government involvement. Until then, self-sovereign health: My insulin (I purchase outside of insurance because it’s cheaper), my plan, my power.

Dropping the crutch exposes the invoice we’ve co-signed, but ignites reforms: Transparency, rivalry, resilience. Your move: Subsidy savior or self-reliance rally? Drop a line—dan@thrailkill.us—and lets grab coffee or a beer and chat.

Have a good one,

Dan

References

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2025, September 22). Five Key Changes to ACA Marketplaces Amid Uncertainty Over Premium Tax Credit Enhancements. https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/five-key-changes-to-aca-marketplaces-amid-uncertainty-over-premium-tax-credit

CNBC. (2025, October 2). ACA premiums to more than double without enhanced subsidies. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/09/30/aca-premiums-to-more-than-double-without-enhanced-subsidies.html

Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker. (2025, August 6). How much and why ACA Marketplace premiums are going up in 2026. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/how-much-and-why-aca-marketplace-premiums-are-going-up-in-2026/

Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker. (2025, June 3). Early indications of the impact of the enhanced premium tax credit expiration on 2026 Marketplace premiums. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/early-indications-of-the-impact-of-the-enhanced-premium-tax-credit-expiration-on-2026-marketplace-premiums/

Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker. (2025, June 3). Early indications of the impact of the enhanced premium tax credit expiration on 2026 Marketplace premiums. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/early-indications-of-the-impact-of-the-enhanced-premium-tax-credit-expiration-on-2026-marketplace-premiums/

CNBC. (2025, May 23). House Republican tax bill skipped ACA credits — marketplace health insurance will get pricier without them. https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/23/big-beautiful-tax-bill-skipped-aca-credits.html

Congressional Research Service. (n.d.). Enhanced Premium Tax Credit Expiration: Frequently Asked Questions. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48290

AHA News. (2024, December 6). CBO: 2.2 million consumers will lose insurance in 2026 if ACA enhanced premium subsidies expire. https://www.aha.org/news/headline/2024-12-06-cbo-22-million-consumers-will-lose-insurance-2026-if-aca-enhanced-premium-subsidies-expire

Healthcare Dive. (2024, December 10). Premiums could rise, millions could lose coverage if enhanced ACA subsidies expire: CBO. https://www.healthcaredive.com/news/aca-enhanced-subsidies-expire-millions-uninsured-premium-increase-congressional-budget-office/735012/

Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker. (2025, August 6). How much and why ACA Marketplace premiums are going up in 2026. https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/brief/how-much-and-why-aca-marketplace-premiums-are-going-up-in-2026/

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. (2025, August 1). Administration’s ACA Marketplace Rule Will Raise Health Care Costs for Millions of Families. https://www.cbpp.org/research/health/administrations-aca-marketplace-rule-will-raise-health-care-costs-for-millions-of

Wikipedia. (2025, October 3). Affordable Care Act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affordable_Care_Act

Healthinsurance.org. (2025, April 30). How sunsetting ARP’s subsidy enhancements would affect ACA subsidy amounts. https://www.healthinsurance.org/blog/how-sunsetting-arps-subsidy-enhancements-would-affect-aca-subsidy-amounts/

Williams, R. (2025, October 10). Marjorie Taylor Greene sounds alarm over expiring health care subsidies as shutdown continues. Georgia Recorder. https://georgiarecorder.com/2025/10/10/marjorie-taylor-greene-sounds-alarm-over-expiring-health-care-subsidies-as-shutdown-continues/

The housing crunch is a hot topic in local politics. Many candidates and elected officials are boasting about Community Land Trust and Public Land Banks; however, the housing affordability conversation boils down to five “L’s”: Land, Labor, Laws, Lumber, and Lending. Fix any one of them and you’ll see a dent, but local control cannot fix them all.

Subscribe now

A few months ago, I sat in a filled Mill on Etowah room while the Cherokee Board of Realtors rattled off numbers that made my stomach drop. I also read a piece from the Georgia Public Policy Foundation. “Homes are averaging $428,000 now,” the speaker announced, and I could hear the collective gasp from the crowd of teachers, firefighters, and a couple of dads who’d just bought their first starter‑home. My family built our place in 2015, and with two boys sprinting toward adulthood, I keep asking myself: What’s the odds that they’ll ever afford a roof of their own here? And what about the fresh‑out‑of‑college couple eyeing their first mortgage, or the single mom juggling two jobs? The answer, in a nutshell, lives in the “Five L’s” that Georgia’s housing nerds have been chewing over for years.

Share

The Five L’s – A Quick‑And‑Dirty Primer

Land – The dirt you can actually build on.
Labor – The hands that swing hammers, lay pipe, and keep the lights on.
Laws – The red‑tape that makes every nail cost a permit.
Lumber – The wood (and everything else) that turns a blueprint into a house.
Lending – The money that lets developers break ground and families sign contracts.

If you’ve never heard of the “Five L’s,” you’re not alone. The term popped up in a 2019 Georgia House study, resurfaced in a 2022 committee hearing, and got a fresh coat of paint in the 2025 Department of Community Affairs push. The point? Each “L” is a lever you can pull—or jam—depending on who’s at the table.

Here are a few videos from The Georgia Public Policy Foundation that cover some of the housing woes in Georgia.

Land – The Plot Twist Nobody Wanted

First up: land. In Cherokee County we’ve got gorgeous rolling hills, but affordable lots? Those are rarer than a quiet Saturday on the highway. Urban sprawl from Atlanta is turning every acre into prime real‑estate, and a chunk of the remaining parcels sits locked behind conservation easements or zoning that says “no residential, thank you.” The National Association of Home Builders flags a national shortage, but locally it’s a 20 % population boom in ten years with housing starts lagging far behind. I’ve watched friends chase $90,000 lots that end up in the mountains of North Georgia—beautiful, but a 50 mile‑long commute to work. Bottom line: More land isn’t the problem; it’s usable land that’s missing.

Labor – Who’s Gonna Build It?

Next, labor. The construction trade is aging faster than a summer peach, and the pipeline of new apprentices looks more like a trickle than a stream. In Ball Ground and Woodstock, builders are practically bidding wars for the same handful of carpenters, electricians, and plumbers. Builder Magazine recently called the labor shortage “the #1 obstacle” to new housing. When we built our home, the crew was stretched thin, stretching the timeline from six months to nine. Multiply that across dozens of developments and you get a whole lot of stalled projects. Fix? Pump money into vocational programs, give high‑school students a taste of the trade before they’re lured into a four‑year degree that doesn’t pay the bills.

Laws – The Red‑Tape

Then there’s laws. Zoning, building codes, permitting—each one starts with good intentions but ends up adding $20,000 ‑ $30,000 to a home’s price tag, according to MarketWatch. In Cherokee County the debate over short‑term rentals is just the tip of the iceberg; density caps and “single‑family‑only” zones keep us from building the multifamily units that could bring prices down for everyone. I’ve sat through county commission meetings where the same folks argue over preserving “character” while the same rules push the next‑generation out the front door. Common‑sense reform means letting developers build a little higher, a little denser, without turning the whole neighborhood into a concrete jungle.

Lumber – The Building Materials

Lumber got a starring role during the pandemic when prices quadrupled. Even now, the market is volatile: tariffs, supply‑chain hiccups, and global demand keep the cost of a single board high enough to make a carpenter wince. For a typical home, lumber alone eats 10‑15 % of the budget. Georgia’s timber industry should be a blessing, but the world’s supply chain is a tangled web. Think of it like baking a cake when the flour price doubles—you still want the cake, but you’ll pay extra for every slice. Solution? Encourage regional timber processing plants, lock in longer‑term contracts, and keep a buffer stock for local builders.

Lending – the $$$

Finally, lending. After the Fed’s rate hikes, mortgages sit at 6.5 %‑7.5 %, and banks are tightening the screws on developer loans. That means fewer new subdivisions, and the buyers who do qualify are forced into higher‑priced homes. Having spent years navigating business and consumer loans, I can tell you the difference between a “qualified” borrower and a “just‑approved” one is the gap between a dream home and a nightmare. We need stable, middle‑ground financing—nothing like the reckless “easy credit” of ’08, but also not the chokehold that freezes new builds.

My UnCommon Sense

• Land: Push the county to re‑zone under‑utilized parcels for mixed‑use, and protect the “affordable‑lot” pool with tax incentives.

• Labor: Fund trade‑school scholarships, partner with local unions, and launch apprenticeship pipelines straight out of high school.

• Laws: Trim the permitting process—one‑stop‑shop, digital submissions, and a 30‑day max review.

• Lumber: Incentivize local sawmills, create a regional “wood reserve” for builders, and negotiate longer‑term price contracts.

• Lending: Advocate for a state‑backed loan program that offers developers lower‑interest, longer‑term capital, and protects borrowers from predatory spikes.

Which L’s Are Most Controllable Locally?

Among the five levers, Laws and Land are the ones a municipality can influence most directly. Zoning ordinances, density bonuses, and streamlined permitting are squarely in the hands of county commissioners and planning boards; a modest change—like allowing accessory dwelling units or reducing minimum lot sizes—can instantly increase the supply of affordable homes without waiting for state or federal action. Likewise, local governments control how publicly owned parcels are allocated, can earmark tax‑increment financing for affordable‑housing projects, and can negotiate land‑swap deals that free up developable acreage without needing to place land in an inefficient Community Land Trust or the like. While Labor, Lumber, and Lending depend heavily on broader market forces, state‑level policy, and national economic conditions, local officials have the authority—and the political incentive—to reshape the regulatory environment and land‑use framework quickly, making these two “L’s” the most tractable targets for immediate impact.

If we can move the levers that matter most, we’ll keep Cherokee County’s charm and make it possible for our kids to stay put.

What you can do?:

• Contact your county commissioner or city councilman (email or phone) and ask about zoning reforms that allow mixed‑use developments and higher density within city limits.

• Write a quick note to the Cherokee Board of Realtors urging them to champion vocational‑training incentives for construction trades.

• Share this post with neighbors, friends, or anyone who’s frustrated by the housing squeeze—more voices mean louder pressure on the decision‑makers.

If you want to hash this out over coffee (or a cold beer), shoot me an email at dan@thrailkill.us. I’m happy to brainstorm, answer follow‑up questions, or just listen to your own housing‑horror stories.

Have a good one,

Dan

Most of us have been there: the kitchen table at dinnertime, a half‑finished plate, and a kid asking, “why do we have to pay taxes?” You smile, you shrug, you give a vague answer about “the government,” and hope the question dies there. Ten years later that same kid—now a teenager—has a part‑time job flipping burgers, a credit‑card balance hovering around $500, and a growing dread every time a paycheck lands in the bank. Suddenly he is wrestling with concepts that were never taught in school: inflation, interest rates, opportunity cost, externalities. The reality is that our K‑12 system treats economics like an optional elective, a “nice‑to‑have” after‑school club, or worse, a subject that disappears after high‑school algebra. Yet the decisions we make every day—whether to buy a new pickup, refinance a mortgage, or vote on a budget bill—are fundamentally economic. If we want our kids to navigate the world with the same confidence they have riding a dirt bike down a hill, we need to give them a solid grounding in economics before they hit adulthood.

Economics Is Not “Rocket Science”—It’s Practical Reasoning with Numbers

One of the biggest myths is that economics is a lofty, ivory‑tower discipline reserved for Ivy League professors. In truth, economics is nothing more than reasoning about scarcity and incentives. As Thomas Sowell puts it in Basic Economics:

“People respond to incentives. When the price of gasoline goes up, you drive less. When wages rise, you work harder.”

That single sentence is a masterclass in cause‑and‑effect, a principle any kid can grasp if it’s presented in plain language. Unfortunately, schools have turned economics into a collection of abstract graphs and jargon—supply curves that look like roller‑coasters, demand curves that resemble the outline of a cow. If we strip away the unnecessary symbols and focus on the stories behind them—why a farmer decides to plant corn versus soy, why a family chooses a larger house, why a city builds a bike lane—we instantly make economics relatable. The Tuttle Twins series nails this approach. In The Tuttle Twins and the Road to Freedom, the twins learn that “when the government takes money from one person to give to another, someone always ends up paying more.” The book tells that lesson through a tale of a town that taxes its citizens to fund a grand fountain—only to discover the fountain never works because the water runs dry. Both Sowell and the Tuttle Twins prove that economics can be taught with stories, humor, and everyday examples—exactly the kind of material that sticks in a kid’s brain better than a spreadsheet.

The Cost of Ignorance: Real‑World Consequences

On a personal‑finance level, a 2022 survey by the FINRA Investor Education Foundation found that 70 % of adults admit they lack basic financial literacy. That translates into millions of families living paycheck‑to‑paycheck, falling prey to predatory loans, or missing out on retirement savings. Imagine a 30‑year‑old dad who never learned about compound interest—he watches his $5,000 401(k) grow at a snail’s pace while his neighbor, who took a high‑school economics class, sees his balance double thanks to a modest 7 % annual return.

On the policy side, when voters don’t understand concepts like inflation or budget deficits, politicians can push policies that sound good on the campaign trail but wreak havoc later. Remember the 2008 housing crisis? Many homeowners signed adjustable‑rate mortgages without grasping the risk of rising payments. A robust economics curriculum would have equipped them with the tools to ask, “What happens if interest rates climb?”

Finally, in the realm of business innovation, entrepreneurship thrives on recognizing market gaps, pricing products correctly, and allocating scarce resources efficiently. Without a foundation in economics, budding innovators may launch a product that nobody can afford, or they may miss the chance to pivot when consumer preferences shift. The result? More failed startups, fewer jobs, and a slower economy.

What a Modern Economics Curriculum Looks Like

A modern curriculum should blend the rigor of Sowell with the storytelling charm of the Tuttle Twins while speaking the language of a truck‑loving dad who enjoys a cold beer after a day in the woods. Below is a compact roadmap that outlines grade‑by‑grade concepts, teaching methods, and real‑world tie‑ins.

What a sample Economics Curriculum might look like…

• K‑2 – Scarcity & Choice – Simple stories (e.g., “You have one cookie, two friends—who gets it?”)

  Real‑world tie‑in: sharing snacks, deciding which game to play.

• 3‑5 – Needs vs. Wants – Interactive budgeting games (paper money, grocery lists)

  Real‑world tie‑in: planning a family camping trip, buying gear.

• 6‑8 – Supply, Demand, and Prices – Role‑play markets (farmers’ stand, lemonade stand)

  Real‑world tie‑in: understanding gas prices, seasonal sales.

• 9‑10 – Opportunity Cost & Incentives – Case studies (e.g., “Should you take a second job or go back to school?”)

  Real‑world tie‑in: deciding between a new truck or home renovation.

• 11‑12 – Macroeconomics Basics (GDP, Inflation, Unemployment) – Simulations (e.g., “Run a small town’s budget”)

  Real‑world tie‑in: voting on local tax measures, interpreting news.

• College Prep – Personal Finance & Investing – Guest speakers (financial advisors, small‑business owners)

  Real‑world tie‑in: setting up a 401(k), buying a first home, understanding credit.

Each unit includes hands‑on projects such as building a mock budget for a family of four, creating a mini‑business plan for a backyard chicken coop, or analyzing a news article about the Federal Reserve. By the time students graduate high school, they’ll be able to read a headline about “interest rate hikes” and actually know what that means for their mortgage payment.

How to Bring the Books Into the Classroom

Thomas Sowell’s Basic Economics serves as an adult‑level textbook that avoids roller‑coaster‑shaped charts. Each chapter opens with a real‑world vignette—a farmer deciding whether to plant wheat, a city debating a new highway. Teachers can assign short excerpts as reading circles, then discuss prompts such as “What incentive is driving the farmer’s decision?” or “How would a higher tax on gasoline affect the city’s budget?” Because the language is accessible, even younger students can tackle selected passages with guidance.

The Tuttle Twins series, on the other hand, is perfect for elementary grades. Each picture‑book story ends with a “Think About It” section that asks kids to apply the lesson to their own lives. After reading The Tuttle Twins and the Road to Freedom, a teacher might ask, “If our school wanted to raise money for new computers by charging a fee, what might happen to families who can’t afford it?” The series also provides teacher guides with activity sheets, quizzes, and suggestions for integrating the story into math or social‑studies lessons.

A powerful cross‑grade project pairs younger students reading a Tuttle Twin story with older students reading the corresponding Sowell chapter. Together they produce a “Community Economic Impact Report” on a local issue—say, a proposed toll road—mirroring real‑world policy debates and reinforcing the idea that economics is everywhere.

Overcoming the “We Don’t Have Time” Objection

Many administrators worry that adding economics will overload an already jam‑packed schedule. The solution is to treat economics as a lens rather than a separate subject. Percentages can be explored through tax calculations in math class; the economic causes of the Civil War can enrich history lessons; cost‑benefit analyses of renewable‑energy projects can deepen science curricula.

If teachers feel under‑prepared, micro‑learning options—short webinars, summer workshops, or an “Economics in a Box” kit with lesson plans, videos, and discussion guides—can bridge the gap. The Tuttle Twins publisher offers free teacher resources, and numerous universities provide free MOOCs on introductory economics that educators can audit.

Finally, concerns about political bias can be addressed by emphasizing neutral, fact‑based analysis. Economics is about how resources are allocated, not who should receive them. By presenting multiple viewpoints, encouraging evidence‑based debate, and letting students draw their own conclusions, the subject remains apolitical and intellectually honest.

How and Why a Strong Economics Background Helps Kids Distinguish Logical from Emotional Decision‑Making

Research shows that education can sharpen economic rationality, meaning people become more consistent at making decisions that further their goals. A randomized controlled trial led by Hyuncheol Bryant Kim at Cornell demonstrated that participants who received an economics‑focused education scored higher on measures of “economic rationality,” indicating they were better at weighing options logically rather than reacting emotionally.

Neuroscience and psychology studies reinforce this link. A review in Annual Review of Psychology explains that emotions are powerful, sometimes harmful, drivers of decision‑making, but that training that highlights logical frameworks can mitigate bias and promote more deliberate choices. When children learn to identify the incentives and trade‑offs behind a decision—skills cultivated in economics classes—they develop a mental checklist that tempers impulsive, affect‑driven reactions.

The practical payoff is huge. A child who understands the concept of opportunity cost is less likely to splurge on a video game now and later regret missing out on saving for a bike. A teen who grasps risk‑return trade‑offs will think twice before taking on a high‑interest payday loan, recognizing the long‑term cost hidden behind the low‑ball advertisement. Over time, these habits translate into more responsible adults who base major life choices—college selection, career moves, home purchases—on logical analysis supported by data, rather than fleeting feelings or peer pressure.

Economics Is a Toolkit Every Kid Needs

Imagine loading the kids into the truck, heading to the lake, and chatting about trade‑offs—maybe you’ll stay an extra hour fishing, but then you’ll have to skip the grocery run. That conversation is an economics lesson in disguise. Institutionalizing that kind of thinking will raise a generation that makes smarter personal‑finance choices, votes with informed eyes, launches businesses that solve real problems, and navigates global challenges such as climate change, trade wars, and pandemics with a clear grasp of scarcity, incentives, and unintended consequences. In short, economics education is the great equalizer—it equips anyone, regardless of zip code or family income, with the analytical firepower to improve their own lives and the community around them.

A Call to Action for Parents, Teachers, and Policymakers

• Parents: Start the conversation at home. Pull out a Tuttle Twins book at bedtime, discuss a news story about inflation over dinner, or calculate the cost of a family vacation together.

• Teachers: Sprinkle a short “Economic Insight” segment into any lesson, using real‑world examples like gas prices or holiday sales to illustrate a concept.

• School Boards & Legislators: Allocate funding for economics professional development and adopt statewide standards that embed economic literacy across the curriculum.

If you’re reading this while sipping a cold brew on the porch after a day of hunting or fishing, remember: the same curiosity that drives you to track a deer or fix a broken tailgate can be harnessed to understand supply chains, market signals, and fiscal policy.

My unCommon Sense

Don’t just chase the headline when you see a “low‑interest loan” advertised—dig into the fine print, fees, compounding frequency, and the true cost over time. Question the obvious; it’s easy to assume government programs are either wholly good or wholly bad—look at the data, compare outcomes, and hold officials accountable for results, not slogans. Beware of the cheapest option—low‑priced purchases today can become costly burdens tomorrow when you factor in maintenance, fuel efficiency, and resale value. Finally, treat economics as a toolbox: you decide which tool fits the job, whether you’re budgeting for a family road trip, weighing a second job, or deciding how to vote on a local bond measure. Apply these ideas, test them against your own circumstances, and you’ll make decisions that keep both your wallet and your values intact.

Share My unCommon Sense

If you want to chat about this or anything else, send me an email at dan@thrailkill.us or click the Message button below, and let’s grab a coffee or a beer.

Have a good one,

Dan

References

Kim, H. B. (2018). Education improves economic rationality, study finds. Cornell Chronicle. https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2018/10/education-improves-economic-rationality-study-finds[1](#ref-1)

Kim, H. B. (2018). Education improves decision‑making ability, study finds. ScienceDaily. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181005111436.htm[0](#ref-0)

Evans, J. St. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. (2020). The role of logical training in reducing emotional bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 71, 123‑148. (summary cited in Neuroscience News). https://neurosciencenews.com/education-decision-making-9972/[3](#ref-3)

It’s 1998, and I’m a teenager (17 years old) working as a shift manager at Domino’s Pizza in Litchfield Beach, SC, making slightly more than $5.15 an hour. My biggest tech worry was whether my Motorola flip phone had enough battery to call (not text) my friends after my shift. Fast forward to 2025, and I’m a dad of two boys, ages 10 and 11, navigating a world where smartphones are practically glued to kids’ hands. Last week, I stumbled across a YouTube video that hit me like a ton of bricks—a 55-second gut punch about the dangers of giving kids smartphones too early. Titled something like “Smartphone Free Childhood,” it’s a clever skit where a parent sets up their kid with a phone, casually warning them about porn, bullies, hackers, and drug dealers lurking in the digital shadows. “Just ignore them,” the parent says, as if it’s that simple.

As an adoptive dad who’s seen my boys wrestle with the scars of a rough start—gun violence, police run-ins, and foster care transitions before they were even 4 — I’m hyper-aware of how environment shapes kids. That video wasn’t just a warning; it felt personal, and it reiterated the decision Joe (my husband) and I made several years ago to hold off on phones for the kids. It also reminded me of a moment that’s happened multiple times over the past few years when either one of my sons asked for a phone because “everyone else has one.” I laughed, thinking of the time I found a teenager’s stash of Pink Whitney and Truly hidden on our property in 2021—a dumb kid move, sure, but amplified by the social pressures smartphones crank to 11. With 2025 seeing record teen mental health crises (CDC reports a 60% spike in anxiety since 2019) and schools like those in Cherokee County, GA, banning phones during class, it’s time to talk about why handing kids a smartphone isn’t empowerment—it’s a setup.

The Video’s Wake-Up Call: A Digital Minefield

The video, from Smartphone Free Childhood US, is short but brutal. A parent sets their kid up with a smartphone, casually listing the dangers: a “box” of porn that could “scar you for life,” a heckler spewing hate, mean girls gossiping, a drug order form, and a “Russian hacker” (who claims to be Amazon customer service) fishing for passwords. The kicker? “Just ignore them,” the parent says, leaving the kid to fend for themselves. It’s a satirical jab at the absurdity of expecting kids to navigate a digital world designed to exploit adults, let alone tweens.

This hits home because I’ve seen it. In 2021, when we caught that teenager hiding booze on our property, it wasn’t just a prank—it was a kid chasing clout, likely egged on by social media dares. My boys, still processing their past, don’t need that pressure. The video’s point? We’re asking too much of kids when we hand them a device that’s a gateway to addiction, bullying, and worse.

We ask too much of our kids when we give them a smartphone. Let’s change the norm together. –Smartphone Free Childhood US video

The Smartphone Epidemic: By the Numbers

Smartphones aren’t just gadgets; they’re a cultural shift. A 2024 Pew Research Center study found 95% of U.S. teens aged 13-17 have smartphone access, with 45% saying they’re online “almost constantly.” Common Sense Media reports kids as young as 8 spend an average of 5.5 hours daily on screens, much of it social media. The fallout? A 2025 CDC report links excessive screen time to a 30% increase in teen depression and a 25% rise in self-harm since 2015.

It’s not just mental health. The National Institute on Drug Abuse notes a spike in teen substance use tied to online access—think “drug order forms” like the video’s metaphor. In 2023, a DEA sting caught 50+ dealers using Snapchat to sell fentanyl-laced pills to teens. Cyberbullying? A 2025 Cyberbullying Research Center study says 60% of teens have been harassed online, often via Instagram or TikTok. And don’t forget predators: the FBI reported 1,750 sextortion cases targeting kids in 2024 alone.

Here’s a visual to drive it home:

A Brief History: From Flip Phones to Digital Addiction

In the 1990s, my flip phone was a clunky tool for calls and texts. By 2010, the iPhone 4 made smartphones sexy, and apps like Facebook exploded. By 2015, Instagram and Snapchat dominated teen culture, turning phones into status symbols. The 2020 pandemic supercharged this: with schools closed, Zoom and TikTok became lifelines, but also traps. A 2025 study from Stanford found that pandemic-era screen time habits persisted, with teens spending 20% more time online than pre-2020.

Current events? Schools are fighting back. In August 2025, Florida banned smartphones in classrooms statewide, citing a 15% boost in test scores from pilot programs. Cherokee County, where I live, followed suit with a “phone-free school day” policy this fall, per local news. Meanwhile, lawsuits against Meta and TikTok over teen mental health are piling up—$2 billion in claims as of September 2025, per Reuters.

Freedom vs. Responsibility

As someone that leans libertarian, I’m all about choice—but choices have consequences. Giving a kid a smartphone is like handing them a loaded gun and saying, “Don’t shoot.” Sure, they might resist temptation, but the deck’s stacked against them. Social media algorithms are designed to addict—Facebook’s own 2018 leaks admitted they exploit dopamine loops. Kids aren’t equipped to self-regulate against that.

Yet, I’m not for outright bans. Government mandating “no phones” smells like overreach. Instead, empower parents, and limit the phone’s ability to come to school (100% in favor of banning all phones in all schools). The video’s call to “change the norm” aligns with my belief: families, not schools or feds, should decide when kids get phones. In our house, we’ve delayed smartphones, opting for basic flip phones for emergencies. Why? Because I’ve seen what “keeping up with the Joneses” does—remember my 2019 post about affluent kids crumbling under social media pressure? Same idea…

My unCommon Sense

Smartphones aren’t evil, but they’re not toys. They’re tools with risks we barely understand—especially for kids whose brains are still wiring (neuroscience says the prefrontal cortex isn’t mature until 25). My common sense? Delay smartphones until high school, at least. Teach kids to think critically about what they see online, just like I teach my boys to own their choices. Schools should focus on education, not policing phones—leave that to parents.

Solutions? Start a local “Smartphone Free Childhood” group, like the video suggests. Share data with parents: show them the CDC’s mental health stats or the FBI’s sextortion numbers. Encourage “phone-free zones” at home—dinner, bedtime, family game night. And for the love of sanity, model the behavior: if I’m glued to my phone, why should my kids unplug?

I know life’s about managing risks, not eliminating them. We can’t bubble-wrap kids, but we can give them a fighting chance by holding off on the digital Pandora’s box.

That video was a wake-up call and continued to confirm the decision that Joe and I made as parents a few years ago: we’re not freeing kids by giving them smartphones; we’re tossing them into a digital Colosseum. Let’s rethink the norm—prioritize their minds, not their likes. Got thoughts on this? Or maybe a story about your kid’s screen-time saga? Hit me up at dan@thrailkill.us for coffee or a beer.

Have a good one,

Dan

References

Pew Research Center. (2024). Teens, Social Media and Technology 2024. Link

Common Sense Media. (2025). The Common Sense Census: Media Use by Kids Age 0 to 8. Link

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2025). Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). Link

National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2023). Monitoring the Future Survey. Link

Cyberbullying Research Center. (2025). Cyberbullying Data 2025. Link

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2024). Internet Crime Report 2024. Link

Stanford University. (2025). Digital Media and Youth: Long-Term Impacts of Pandemic Screen Time. Link

Reuters. (2025, September). Social Media Lawsuits Reach $2 Billion in Claims Over Teen Mental Health. Link

It’s January 2019, and I’m staring at my TV screen, half-watching the news while dealing with an upset kid. The government shutdown drags on—day 25, to be exact—and pundits are wailing about furloughed workers, closed parks, and the end of civilization as we know it. I grab my laptop, and draft a blog post titled “Non-Essential Means Not Necessary,” and hit publish. In it, I argue that if nearly half of federal employees are suddenly “non-essential,” maybe the whole bloated beast isn’t as vital as we think. Little did I know, six years later, I’d be dusting off that same keyboard for Part Deux.

Fast forward to today, October 1, 2025. Last night, at the stroke of midnight, the US Federal Government slammed the brakes—our first shutdown of Trump’s 2nd term, and the first since that epic 35-day standoff back in 2018-19. Over dinner, my husband Joe and I explained it to the kids like this: “Politicians in Washington often fight over money like brothers fighting over who can throw the football the furthest, and everyone else has to sit in time-out.” Both kids looked at me with confused expressions.

This isn’t just déjà vu; it’s a full-on rerun with higher stakes. Back in 2019, the fight was over border walls and budgets. Today? It’s healthcare showdowns, with Democrats digging in on Obamacare subsidies and Medicaid reversals. As a lifelong Type 1 diabetic who’s seen my share of medical bureaucracy, it hits close to home. But here’s the hook: Every shutdown is a rude awakening, a forced audit of what The Federal Government really needs versus what we’ve all been conditioned to think is indispensable. If It were up to me, I would use this mess not to panic, but to prune.

Unpacking the Chaos and History

Shutdowns Aren’t New, But the Patterns Are Predictable

Government shutdowns aren’t some modern plague; they’ve been a bipartisan headache since the 1970s, with 20-plus episodes totaling over 100 days of drama. The big ones? 1995-96 (21 days, over budgets and debt ceilings), 2013 (16 days, Obamacare funding), and that 2018-19 marathon (35 days, immigration). Each time, the sky doesn’t fall—Social Security checks keep coming, the military stays on duty—but the rhetoric increases and the “end of days” is predicated by at least one side.

What ties them together? Partisan trench warfare over spending. Republicans cry “fiscal responsibility”; Democrats shout “protect the vulnerable.” Rinse, repeat. By 2025, with national debt clocking in at $36 trillion (that’s $107,000 per citizen, if you’re keeping score at home), you’d think we’d learn. But nope—here we are, staring down another one. As Yogi Berra might say, it’s déjà vu all over again.

What’s Fueling This 2025 Fire?

If you blinked last week, you missed the spark. It all traces back to July 2025, when President Trump signed a massive tax-and-spending bill that sliced $500 billion from Medicaid over the next decade, funneling those savings into tax cuts and “pro-growth” initiatives. Democrats howled “assault on healthcare,” warning millions would lose coverage. Fast-forward to September: House Republicans passed a clean continuing resolution (CR)—basically, a “pay the bills and fight later” bill—to keep things humming through November 21.

Enter Senate Democrats, who filibustered it on September 27, slapping on demands for Obamacare subsidy extensions and Medicaid cut reversals. A White House sit-down collapsed two days later, with Trump posting a viral video lampooning Senate Majority Leader Schumer and House Minority Leader Jeffries as budget hostage-takers. Betting markets pegged the shutdown odds at 86% by yesterday morning—prophetic, as the Senate vote flopped without seven Democratic crossovers.

Why now? Timing’s everything. With midterms looming in 2026, Dems see healthcare as their golden ticket—polls show it’s a winner for sympathy votes. Republicans, led by Trump and Vice President Vance, frame it as Democrats holding the military and feds hostage for “left-wing giveaways.” Vance called the demands “unserious” on a podcast last week, while Trump floated “permanent firings” for “swamp” workers. Both sides are betting the public will blame the other.

To visualize the standoff, here’s the budget battlefield as a pie chart:

The Human (and Economic) Toll: Who’s Hurting, and Why It Proves My Point

Short answer: About 900,000 federal workers face furloughs, national parks shutter (sorry, fall foliage fans), NIH research pauses, IRS audits slow, and food programs like WIC glitch for 7 million families. Essential stuff? Military, Social Security, border patrol, air traffic control—they chug along. But the “non-essentials”—47.5% of the workforce, echoing my 2019 post—get pink-slipped without pay.

Economically? October jobs data delays could spook markets already jittery from inflation whispers. Past shutdowns shaved 0.2-0.6% off GDP; this one’s projected at $1.5 billion daily hit. Yet, here’s the irony: During the 2018-19 shutdown, small businesses boomed in D.C. as furloughed feds turned to gig work. One barista I read about quipped, “Finally, tips from people who know bureaucracy’s a scam.”

Anecdote time: Back in 2019, a buddy in Atlanta—a contractor for HUD—got furloughed for weeks. He used the downtime to launch a side hustle flipping houses. “Best thing that happened,” he said over beers. “Forced me to realize the government’s middleman fee ain’t worth it.” Today, with remote work normalized post-COVID, expect more of that: Furloughed feds Uber-ing, Etsy-ing, or just questioning why we’re funding 95% “non-essential” HUD staff who mostly push paper on mortgages the government should never be involved with in the first place.

From Border Walls to Healthcare Walls, the More Things Change...

Compare 2019 to now: Then, it was walls (literal and figurative) over immigration. Now, it’s walls over welfare—Medicaid as the new Maginot Line. But the root? Same old addiction to spending. Federal outlays hit $6.8 trillion last year; we’re borrowing 20 cents on every dollar. Trump’s July bill aimed to trim fat, but Dems see it as a Trojan horse for austerity.

Trump tweeted yesterday, “Democrats want to hold America hostage for their radical healthcare agenda. NOT ON MY WATCH!” Meanwhile, Schumer fired back: “This is cruelty disguised as conservatism—millions will suffer.” Balanced? Both have kernels of truth. Cuts hurt the vulnerable short-term; endless subsidies balloon debt long-term. Data from the CBO shows Medicaid expansions added 15 million enrollees since 2010, but at $700 billion annual cost. Solution-oriented? Tie reforms to pilots: State-level experiments in block grants, like Indiana’s healthy Indiana plan, which boosted employment without skimping care.

If shutdowns were a band, it’d be The Who—same old song, different year, and the audience (us taxpayers) just wants the encore to end.

My unCommon Sense

Shutdowns aren’t failures; they’re features. They expose the emperor’s new clothes—or in this case, the non-essential’s naked bureaucracy. If 900,000 workers can vanish overnight and the sun still rises, why are we propping up departments like HUD (95% non-essential) or the Executive Office (61%)? The Federal Government doesn’t create value; it redistributes it, mostly inefficiently.

Hey... Voters!! We elect these spendthrifts, then act shocked at the bill. As a dad, I teach my boys: Choices have trade offs, benefits, and consequences. Want parks open? Pony up via user fees, not taxes. Healthcare? Empower states and markets—vouchers for subsidies, competition for costs, and move government regulation out to encourage more of a free market for the consumers benefit. My diabetes care thrives on choice: I pick my insulin, but not my doc, and not my plan (“Thanks” to Gov’t).

This shutdown stings more as a self employed business owner, with kids in tow. But it’s a teachable moment. “See, boys? Even grown-ups screw things up. Fix it by owning it.” Solution: Mandate a post-shutdown “efficiency audit”—slash 10% across non-essentials, privatize TSA (remember those long lines?), devolve housing to locals. Trump could lead: Use leverage for real reform, not tweets. Dems? Drop the riders; govern like adults.

As the shutdown ticks into day one, I’m optimistic. History shows they end—usually with a CR and grudges. But let’s not waste it. Use this pause to question: What is essential? For me, it’s family, freedom, and fiscal sanity. Families on WIC? Heartbreaking—push targeted aid. Furloughed workers? Gig economy awaits. Broader? A leaner government frees us for real prosperity.

What about you? Ever furloughed? Suffered from a past shutdown? Or got a wild idea to fix D.C.? Hit reply or shoot me an email at dan@thrailkill.us—we’ll grab coffee (or a virtual beer) and hash it. In a world of shutdowns, conversation’s the one service that never furloughs.

Have a good one,

Dan

References

[1] Substack Article: The Government Shutdown of 2025, https://substack.com/inbox/post/174957863
[2] Thrailkill, Dan. Non-Essential Means Not Necessary, https://www.thrailkill.us/p/non-essential-means-not-necessary

Walk into any American airport today and pause. Look around at the travelers waiting at the gate, the families queuing for fast food, and the crowds rushing past. You are looking at a country that our grandparents would not recognize. In less than three generations, the very shape of the American body has shifted so dramatically that what would once have been regarded as rare or concerning is now routine. Airplane seats have been widened, retail clothing racks have been extended, mannequins have been reshaped, and soda cups have been enlarged. Entire industries have recalibrated to accommodate a physiology that is neither healthy nor sustainable.

From school lunches that consider ketchup a “vegetable” to the endless parade of fast-food drive-thrus, it's everywhere. Today, I want to dig into why obesity is getting normalized in our culture—backed by some solid reads from folks who know their stuff—and chat about what that means for us.

The Numbers Don't Lie: A Generational Gut Check

Back in the 1960s, obesity rates for American adults hovered around 13%—that's when the average guy tipped the scales at 166 pounds and gals at 140.[1] Fast-forward to today, and we're staring down over 40% of adults classified as obese, with kids aged 2-19 clocking in at nearly 20%.[8] That's not a blip; that's a ballooning crisis. In 2017-2020 alone, adult rates jumped from 30.5% in 1999-2000 to 41.9%,[2] and it's hitting our communities hard. Here in Georgia, we're not immune—states like ours are right in the thick of it, with rural spots seeing even higher numbers.[5]

Now, zoom in on the kids. One in six American children is obese, and it's worse for our Hispanic and Black families—26% and 25% respectively, compared to 17% for white kids.[5] As someone who's navigated parenting with a chronic condition, I can't help but think of my boys friends scarfing down Lunchables and pizza rolls like it's going out of style. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's got the receipts: processed junk is the staple, with screen time piling on top—kids glued to devices for four to eight hours a day.[3] And the cost? We're talking $173 billion a year in medical bills, with obese folks shelling out nearly $1,900 more annually than their slimmer counterparts.[8] That's not pocket change; that's a hit to every family's wallet and our community's health.

But these aren't just numbers on a chart. They're lives shortened by up to 14 years for the severely obese, rivaling the toll of smoking.[7] Type 2 diabetes, heart disease, even some cancers—it's all linked. And yet, we're pretending it's no big deal.

The Food Trap: When Cheap Eats Win the Day

Genetics or some mysterious curse are not to blame; it's our environment. Since the 1970s, we've jacked up our daily calories by 23%, averaging 2,481 a day, with half coming from flour and grains.[2] Blame the Ultra-Processed Foods (UPFs)—think sugary cereals, fast-food fries, and those sneaky sodas. Per capita sugar intake skyrocketed from 124 pounds in 1978 to 154 in 1997, thanks to cheap sweeteners and Farm Bill subsidies that flooded the market with corn syrup.[2]

Portions? They've supersized too. A muffin that used to be 1.5 ounces is now 5, and we're eating out more—energy from restaurant chow doubled from 9% in the late '70s to 21% by the mid-'90s.[2] Add in sedentary jobs (we burn 100 fewer calories a day at work than in 1960[1]) and boom—weight gain on autopilot. Globalization plays a part too, but it's more about our "modernization": higher GDP means more processed grub, less home cooking.[6]

In Cherokee County, it's the same story. Drive down Hwy 92 or Hwy 20, and you're bombarded with golden arches and drive-thru deals that make healthy eats at the local market feel like a splurge. Low-income families get hit hardest—fewer bucks for fresh produce, more for the cheap calories that keep you coming back. And the marketing? Big Food drops $8 billion a year on ads, zeroing in on kids of color with junk food come-ons.[5] It's a trap, y'all, designed to keep us hooked.

Culture's Curve: From 'Healthy' Plump to Plus-Size Pride

Now, here's where it gets personal and a tad uncomfortable: the cultural slide into calling obesity "normal." Remember when "husky" was a polite nudge? These days, it's "body positivity" and plus-size mannequins at Nike and Victoria's Secret—marketed as "inclusivity," but really just chasing sales.[1] Airplane seats wider, clothing racks extended, even soda cups supersized to match our middles. It's like society's saying, "Hey, if everyone's in the same boat, why rock it?"

Cultural preferences play in too. In some African American and Latino communities, a fuller figure signals health and prosperity—moms feeding kids extra 'cause plump means thriving.[5] Acculturation amps it up: immigrant families adopt our soda-swilling ways, ditching veggies for the third generation.[5] Harvard nails it: our food environment's "toxic," laced with hyperpalatable junk that overrides your brain's "full" signal.[7] And the 1970s low-fat craze? It backfired, swapping fats for carbs and processed carbs at that, piling on the pounds.[2]

But normalization ain't compassion—it's "cultural anesthesia," numbing us to the risks.[1] We're celebrating what shortens lives, all while health costs bankrupt us.

My unCommon Sense

Having Type 1 means I'm insulin-dependent for life, but I've learned personal responsibility keeps me kicking. That's my stance: love the person, but denormalize the acceptance of the disease. Obesity's a complex beast—stress, access, lifestyle, and maybe genes—but we can't pretend it's harmless. It's killing us softly, with comorbidities like diabetes (up 33% in Black youth[5]) and heart woes draining our days.

We need balance: policies like soda taxes (working in seven cities [7]) and school junk bans, plus community nudges—walkable trails throughout the county, farm-fresh markets on the weekends. Education over shame: teach kids in High School that ultra processed foods are 57% of our calories, not destiny.[7] And for us adults? Smaller plates, more steps, less scrolling. It's freedom—choosing health without the guilt.

Obesity's normalization is comfy, but it's a collapse in slow motion. From the data to the drive-thrus, it's clear: we've got the power to shift this. Start small, swap a Coke for water, rally the School Systems for better lunches, chat with your doc without the stigma. Common sense says respect every body, but fight for healthier ones.

What do you think—is body positivity helping or hurting? Drop your thoughts below, or hit reply. Let's talk.

If you want to chat about this or anything else, send me an email at dan@thrailkill.us, and let’s grab coffee or a beer.

Have a good one,

Dan

Citations

The Comfortable Collapse: How America Learned to Pretend Obesity Is Normal - Brownstone Institute

The Origins of the Obesity Epidemic in the USA–Lessons for Today - NCBI / PMC (October 2022)

Changing the American Culture of Obesity - Connecticut Children's

Obesity in the American Population: Calories, Cost, and Culture - American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology (November 2010)

Influence of Race, Ethnicity, and Culture on Childhood Obesity: Implications for Prevention and Treatment - NCBI / PMC (December 2008)

What is Driving Global Obesity Trends? Globalization or “Modernization”? - Globalization and Health (April 2019)

Obesity | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health - Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health (November 2024)

[Rising Obesity Rates in America: A Public Health Crisis](https://obesitymedicine.org/blog/rising-obesity-rates-in-america-a-public-health-crisis