One town got a nuke plant; the other got a prison … and regret



Two Southern towns in different states share the same name: Hartsville. They were both chosen as future sites for nuclear plants in the late 1960s and early 1970s. One of those nuclear plants was completed and went online, helping to foster a thriving and prosperous community. The other plant was canceled, leaving a derelict cooling tower as a reminder of what might have been for the downtrodden town that has been economically left behind.

Hartsville, South Carolina, with its nuclear generating station, is thriving. Hartsville, Tennessee, with its for-profit penitentiary and abandoned nuclear project, is dying.

The 'tale of two Hartsvilles' shows the power of a town producing an actual product — requiring technicians, skilled tradesmen, and engagement with local businesses.

The Pamphleteer, a Nashville-based publication, published a piece by Hamilton Wesley Ellis titled “Atomic Hartsville: A small Tennessee town’s forgotten history as a nuclear leader.” The article draws a stark contrast between the two Hartsvilles — and explores what might have been if Hartsville, Tennessee, had completed its nuclear power plant.

But this story goes beyond one town’s missed opportunity and another’s industrial success. It serves as an allegory for a larger truth: Industrial vitality sustains American communities. Where industry thrives, prosperity and opportunity follow. Where industry dies, decline sets in — dragging despair in its wake.

A ‘tale of two Hartsvilles’

Ellis writes of Tennessee’s Hartsville:

Today the nuclear plant is quiet as the grave. Surely the town of Hartsville would look different had the plant’s four reactors reached criticality and provided power to the region. Since opening its doors in 2016, the private prison next door has had three fatal stabbings, three COVID deaths, and multiple cases of assaults on guards, mental health workers, and inmates alike. The prison’s short brutal history has firmly established it as a more dangerous place than any operational nuclear facility in US history, but at least they’re hiring.

The juxtaposition of a prison-based service economy and a nuclear-fueled industrial economy is certainly compelling, especially for those old Nader-ites still fighting against nuclear energy. Beyond the nuclear argument, the “tale of two Hartsvilles” shows the power of a town producing an actual product — requiring technicians, skilled tradesmen, and engagement with local businesses. This industrial ecosystem creates wealth, which is recirculated through a variety of other employers and supports an environment that enables a middle-class lifestyle.

If completed, the four-unit Hartsville facility would have been the largest nuclear power plant in the world.Photo by Karen Kasmauski/Corbis via Getty Images

To that point, Ellis observes:

The South Carolina Hartsville is home to a university, technical college, and the state Governor’s School for Science and Mathematics. Hartsville, Tennessee, has a Dollar General. Both towns have roughly the same population, give or take a couple thousand people, but extremely disparate vibes. One is a thriving community built on science and industry, the other a struggling village blanched gray by a very long run of bad luck.

Hartsville, Tennessee, is the story of too many such towns across the U.S. that have had a “long run of bad luck” — and that bad luck was no accident. It lies at the intersection of an America-last political mindset among our ruling class and a wicked business school philosophy that sees any labor expense as unacceptable.

RELATED: Comparative advantage was built on patriotism. That’s gone.

adventtr via iStock/Getty Images

American jobs were outsourced to countries where working conditions often resemble slavery. That decision triggered an industrial collapse across large swaths of the United States. With the collapse came a cascade of local devastation. Community institutions fell apart. Economic activity dried up. Social pathologies filled the vacuum.

The so-called “principled free traders” who once cheered the offshoring of American jobs now ridicule those calling for the reshoring of industry. They claim automation made industrial labor obsolete. Andrew Yang, a former Democratic presidential candidate, often promotes this idea, as he did in a 2019 New York Times op-ed headlined, “Yes, Robots Are Stealing Your Jobs.”

Let’s bring workers home

Maybe so. But if that’s the case, then let’s reshore those plants that are using robotics. Transportation costs should decrease significantly. If labor expense is so “reprehensible,” aren’t transportation expenses also bad? Moreover, automation still requires human workers to build, service, and install the robots, as well as skilled tradesmen to do the plumbing and electrical work. Moreover, people will need to deliver products from the bays, handle deliveries, service vehicles, and so on.

Hartsville, Tennessee — with its decaying cooling tower looming over a long-abandoned project — stands as a monument to the dismantling of reliable energy and the destruction of industrial jobs. This is the green, globalist vision for America. By contrast, Hartsville, South Carolina, with its thriving industrial base and a product globalists love to sneer at, represents the America-first alternative championed by the MAGA movement.

Whether it is nuclear power, appliances, microchips, or any other product, industrial manufacturing drives local prosperity. It circulates money through the economy, creates stable jobs, and builds strong communities. The United States doesn’t just benefit from this activity — it depends on it.

American innovation is dying — and Congress is the culprit



The United States once led the world in manufacturing, producing more than 25% of global industrial output. Today, China holds that title, controlling over 30%, while the U.S. struggles to maintain even half that share.

Plenty of factors drove this decline — decades of offshoring, the collapse of industrial job bases, and an obsession with short-term profits over long-term strength. But if America wants to reclaim its industrial leadership and restore economic self-reliance, we need more than reshoring slogans and infrastructure bills.

Innovation isn’t an expense. It’s an investment — in national security, in American workers, and the future of US leadership.

We must fix and expand the research and development tax credit.

A recent Wall Street Journal analysis focused on our loss of industrial capacity. But capacity starts with innovation. Every new factory, process, and product begins with research — and that remains our greatest untapped advantage.

Yet Congress has punished companies for investing in R&D. Since 2022, the tax code has forced businesses to amortize R&D expenses over five years instead of deducting them immediately. That change has choked innovation, especially among small and midsized manufacturers that depend on near-term tax relief to fund future growth.

The result? Reduced domestic innovation, fewer advanced manufacturing breakthroughs, and an economy less equipped to compete with subsidized foreign rivals.

R&D incentives work

The research and development tax credit was meant to drive economic growth. It helps businesses offset the steep costs of developing new technologies, improving production, and staying competitive.

But today’s credit falls short. It’s too small, too complicated, and — after the amortization change — actively harmful.

Now compare that to China. Beijing offers “super deductions,” direct subsidies, and aggressive industrial policies tailored to national priorities. The results speak for themselves: China leads in semiconductors, solar, electric vehicles, and other strategic industries.

Four immediate fixes

To reverse course and restore American competitiveness, Congress must act.

  • Restore full expensing of R&D investments so businesses can deduct costs in the year they’re made — not years later.
  • Expand the R&D credit to reach startups, family-owned manufacturers, and small tech firms that often drive innovation but struggle to access support.
  • Streamline eligibility rules and reduce audit risks that discourage many companies from claiming the credit at all.
  • Create bonus credits for R&D tied to domestic manufacturing in key sectors like semiconductors, energy, defense, and infrastructure.

R&D as economic infrastructure

American manufacturing won’t come back without innovation. You can’t revive the auto industry, reshore chip production, or scale clean energy without continuous investment in research and development. And without smart tax policy to back it, capital won’t go where it’s needed.

Lawmakers in both parties love to talk about supporting U.S. industry. But support doesn’t come from speeches — it comes from policy. If Congress is serious about restoring American manufacturing, it should start by fixing the one tax tool designed to keep us competitive.

The auto industry didn’t boom just because someone built a car. It took Ford’s innovation of the assembly line and the machines to make it work. Thomas Edison didn’t invent the light bulb — he made it viable. Steve Wozniak didn’t invent the microchip, but he made the personal computer scalable.

Inventors didn’t build the modern economy. Innovators did.

Innovation isn’t an expense. It’s an investment — in national security, in American workers, and in the future of U.S. leadership.

How California’s crisis could lead to a big political shift



California’s wide range of problems — including declining schools, widening inequality, rising housing prices, and a weak job market — shows the urgent need for reform. The larger question is whether there exists a will to change.

Although the state’s remarkable entrepreneurial economy has kept it afloat, a growing number of residents are concluding that the progressive agenda, pushed by public unions and their well-heeled allies, is failing. Most Californians have an exceptional lack of faith in the state’s direction. Only 40% of California voters approve of the legislature, and almost two-thirds have told pollsters the state is heading in the wrong direction. That helps explain why California residents — including about 1.1 million since 2021 — have been fleeing to other states.

California needs a movement that can stitch together a coalition of conservatives, independents, and, most critically, moderate Democrats.

Unhappiness with the one-party state is particularly intense in the inland areas, which are the only locales now growing and may prove critical to any resurgence. More troubling still, over 70% of California parents feel their children will do less well than they did. Four in 10 are considering an exit. By contrast, seniors, thought to be leaving en masse, are the least likely to express a desire to leave.

In some ways, discontent actually erodes potential support for reform. Conservative voters, notes a recent study, are far more likely to express a desire to move out of the state; the most liberal are the least likely. “Texas is taking away my voters,” laments Shawn Steel, California’s Republican National Committee member.

New awakenings

Given the demographic realities, a successful drive for reform cannot be driven by a marginalized GOP. Instead, what’s needed is a movement that can stitch together a coalition of conservatives, independents (now the state’s second-largest political grouping), and, most critically, moderate Democrats.

Remarkably, this shift has already begun in an unlikely place: the ultra-liberal, overwhelmingly Democratic Bay Area. For years, its most influential residents — billionaires, venture capitalists, and well-paid tech workers — have abetted or tolerated an increasingly ineffective and corrupt regime. Not only was the area poorly governed, but the streets of San Francisco, Oakland, San Jose, and other cities have become scenes of almost Dickensian squalor.

Over the past two years, tech entrepreneurs and professionals concerned about homelessness and crime worked to get rid of progressive prosecutor Chesa Boudin. Last year, they helped elect Dan Lurie, scion of the Levi Strauss fortune, as mayor, as well as some more moderate members to the board of supervisors. Lurie, of course, faces a major challenge to restore San Francisco’s luster against entrenched progressives and their allies in the media, academia, and the state’s bureaucracy.

Similar pushbacks are evident elsewhere. Californians, by large majorities, recently passed bills to strengthen law enforcement, ditching liberalized sentencing laws passed by Democratic lawmakers and defended by Gov. Gavin Newsom (D). Progressive Democrats have been recalled not only in San Francisco but also in Oakland (Alameda County) and Los Angeles, with voters blaming ideology-driven law enforcement for increasing rates of crime and disorder.

Critically, the liberal elites are not the only ones breaking ranks. Pressure for change is also coming from increasingly conservative Asian voters and Jews — who number more than 1 million in the state and largely are revolted by the anti-Semitism rife among some on the progressive left. Protecting property and economic growth is particularly critical to Latino and Asian immigrants — California is home to five of the 10 American counties with the most immigrants — who are more likely to start businesses than native-born Americans.

These minority entrepreneurs and those working for them are unlikely to share the view of progressive intellectuals, who see crime as an expression of injustice and who often excused or even celebrated looting during the summer of 2020. After all, it was largely people from “communities of color” who have borne the brunt of violent crime in cities such as Los Angeles, Oakland, and San Francisco. Minorities also face special challenges doing business here due to regulations that are especially burdensome on smaller, less capitalized businesses. According to the Small Business Regulation Index, California has the worst business climate for small firms in the nation.

The shift among minority voters could prove a critical game-changer, both within the Democratic Party and the still-weak GOP. In Oakland, for example, many minorities backed the removal of Mayor Sheng Thao (D), a progressive committed to lenient policing in what is now California’s most troubled, if not failed, major city.

Latinos, already the state’s largest ethnic group, constituting about 37.7% of the workforce, with expectations of further growth by 2030, seem to be heading toward the right. In the last presidential election, Trump did well in the heavily Latino inland counties and won the “Inland Empire” — the metropolitan area bordering Los Angeles and Orange Counties – the first time a GOP presidential candidate has achieved this in two decades.

Back to basics

After a generation of relentless virtue-signaling, California’s government needs to focus on the basic needs of its citizens: education, energy, housing, water supply, and public safety. As a widely distributed editorial by a small business owner noted, Californians, especially after highly publicized fire response failures in Los Angeles earlier this year, are increasingly willing to demand competent “basic governance” backed by a “ruthless examination of results” to ensure that their government supports “modest aspirations” for a better life.

California once excelled in basic governance, especially in the 1950s and '60s under Democratic Gov. Edmund G. “Pat” Brown. The state managed to cultivate growth while meeting key environmental challenges, starting in the late 1960s, most notably chronic air pollution. In what is justifiably hailed as a “major success,” California helped pioneer clean air regulatory approaches that have vastly reduced most automotive tailpipe emissions as well as eliminated lead and dramatically cut sulfur levels.

All of this starkly contrasts with the poor planning, execution, and catastrophist science evoked to justify the state’s climate agenda. Even Pat Brown’s son, former Gov. Jerry Brown (D), recognized that California has little effect on climate. Given the global nature of the challenge, reducing one state’s emissions by cutting back on industrial activities accomplishes little if those activities move elsewhere, often to locations with fewer restrictions such as China and India.

Rather than focusing on “climate leadership,” Sacramento needs to tackle the immediate causes of record out-migration, including sluggish economic growth and the nation’s highest levels of poverty and homelessness. The great challenges are not combatting global temperature rises but the housing crisis and the need to diversify the economy and improve the failing education system. As these problems have often been worsened by climate policies, there seems little reason for other states and countries to adopt California’s approach as a model.

halbergman via iStock/Getty Images

Fixing housing

California now has the nation’s second-lowest home ownership rate at 55.9%, slightly above New York (55.4%). High interest rates that have helped push home sales to the lowest level in three decades across the country are particularly burdensome in coastal California metros, where prices have risen to nearly 400% above the national average. The government almost owned up to its role in creating the state’s housing crisis — especially through excessive housing regulations and lawfare on developers — earlier this year when Newsom moved to cut red tape so homes could be rebuilt after the Los Angeles fires.

Current state policy — embraced by Yes in My Backyard activists, the greens, and unions — focuses on dense urban development. Projects are held up, for example, for creating too many vehicle miles traveled, even though barely 3.1% of Californians in 2023 took public transit to work, according to the American Community Survey. As a result, much “affordable” development is being steered to densely built areas that have the highest land prices. This is made worse with mandates associated with new projects, such as green building codes and union labor, that raise the price per unit to $1 million or more.

A far more enlightened approach would allow new growth to take place primarily outside city centers in interior areas where land costs are lower and where lower-cost, moderate-density new developments could flourish. These include areas like Riverside/San Bernardino, Yolo County (adjacent to Sacramento), and Solano County, east of San Francisco Bay. This approach would align with the behavior of residents who are already flocking to these areas because they provide lower-income households, often younger black and Latino, with the most favorable home ownership opportunities in the state.Over 71% of all housing units in the Inland Empire are single-family homes, and the aggregate ownership rate is over 63%, far above the state’s dismal 45.8% level.

Without change, the state is socially, fiscally, and economically unsustainable. California needs to return to attracting the young, talented, and ambitious, not just be a magnet for the wealthy or super-educated few.

More than anything, California needs a housing policy that syncs with the needs and preferences of its people, particularly young families. Rather than being consigned to apartments, 70% of Californians prefer single-family residences. The vast majority oppose legislation written by Yes in My Backyard hero Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener banning single-family zoning in much of the state.

Investment in the interior is critical for recreating the old California dream for millions of aspiring households, particularly among minorities who are being driven out of the home ownership market in the coastal metropolitan areas. The only California metropolitan area ranked by the National Association of Realtors as a top 10 pick for Millennials was not hip San Francisco or glamorous Los Angeles, but the more affordable historically “redneck” valley community of Bakersfield.

The numerous housing bills passed by Sacramento have not improved the situation. From 2010 to 2023, permits for single-family homes in California fell to a monthly average of 3,957 units from 8,529 during 1993-2006. California’s housing stock rose by just 7.9% between 2010 and 2023, lower than the national increase (10.3%) and well below housing growth in Arizona (13.8%), Nevada (14.7%), Texas (24%), and Florida (16.2%).

A more successful model can be seen in Texas, which generally advances market-oriented policies that have generated prodigious growth in both single-family and multi-family housing. This has helped the Lone Star State meet the housing needs of its far faster-growing population. A building boom has slowed, and there’s been some healthy decrease in prices in hot markets like Austin. Opening up leased grazing land in state and federal parks — roughly half the state land is owned by governments — could also relieve pressure on land prices. Until California allows for housing that people prefer, high prices and out-migration will continue into the foreseeable future.

Ultimately, California has room to grow, despite the suggestions by some academics that the state is largely “built out.”In reality, California is not “land short,” either in its cities or across its vast interior. Urbanization covers only 5.3% of the state, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, while parks, agricultural land, deserts, and forests make up the bulk of the area.

Diversifying the economy

Even Jerry Brown has remarked that the “Johnny one note” tech economy the state’s tax base depends on could stumble. This would reduce the huge returns on capital gains from the top 1% of filers, who now account for roughly half of all state income tax revenues. This overreliance may be particularly troublesome in the era of artificial intelligence, where tech companies may continue to expand but have less need for people. Indeed, San Francisco County, which boasts many tech jobs, experienced the nation’s largest drop in average weekly wages, 22.6%, between 2021 and 2022.

To expand opportunity and, hence, its tax base, California has to make more of the state attractive to employers. The best prospects, again, will be in inland areas.Today, when firms want to build spaceships, a clear growth industry where California retains significant leadership, as well as battery plants and high-tech and food processing facilities, they often opt to go to Nevada, Arizona, Tennessee, and Texas. Given lower land and housing costs, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, as well as spots on the Central Coast, should be ideally situated to compete for those jobs.

The current economic pattern creates a situation where AI developers, elite engineers, and venture capitalists may enjoy unprecedented profits, but relatively little trickles down to the mass of Californians. Not all Californians have wealthy parents to subsidize their lifestyle, and few are likely to thrive as AI engineers. To address the dilemmas facing the next generation of Californians, the state needs to focus not just on ephemera, software, and entertainment but on bringing back some of the basic industries that once forged the California dream. In this way, President Trump’s policies could actually help the state, particularly in fields like high-tech defense and space.

In the 1940s, California played a key role in the American “arsenal of democracy.” Today, it could do the same, not so much by producing planes and Liberty ships, but drones, rockets, and space-based defense systems. Indeed, there are now discussions of reviving the state’s once-vaunted shipbuilding industry that buoyed the economy of Solano County — something sure to inspire the ire of the Bay Area’s rich and powerful environmental lobby.

Photo by Gina Ferazzi/Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Improving education

Climate and environmentalism are not the only barriers to California’s revival. No problem is more pressing and consequential than the state’s failure to educate California’s 5.9 million public school children. In fiscal year 2023-2024, California will spend about $128 billion on K-12 public education — an amount exceeding the entire budget of every other state except New York. Despite this level of spending, about 75% of California students lack proficiency in core subject areas based on federal education standards.

Two out of three California students do not meet math standards, and more than half do not meet English standards on state assessments. Overall, less than half of California public school students performed at or above grade level for English language arts (reading, writing, etc.), while only 34.62% met or exceeded the math standard on the Smarter Balanced 2023 tests. The failures are particularly clear among minority students. According to the latest California testing results, only 36.08% of Latino students met or exceeded proficiency standards for English language arts. Only 22.69% met or exceeded proficiency standards in math. Latino students, for example, in Florida and Texas do somewhat better in both math and English, even though both states spend less per capita on education than California.

Not surprisingly, many parents object to a system where half of the state’s high school students barely read at grade level. One illustration of discontent has been the growth of the charter school movement. Today, one in nine California schoolchildren attend charter schools (including my younger daughter). The state’s largest school district, the heavily union-dominated Los Angeles Unified School District, has lost roughly 40% of its enrollment over two decades, while the number of students in charters grew from 140,000 in 2010 to 207,000 in 2022.

In addition to removing obstacles to charters, homeschoolers are part of the solution. California homeschool enrollment jumped by 78% in the five-year period before the pandemic and in the Los Angeles Unified School District by 89%. Equally important, some public districts and associated community colleges, as in Long Beach, have already shifted toward a more skills-based approach. Public officials understand that to keep a competitive edge, they need to supply industrial employers with skilled workers. This is all the more crucial as the aerospace workforce is aging — as much as 50% of Boeing’s workforce will be eligible for retirement in five years. In its quest for relevance, Long Beach’s educational partnership addresses the needs of the city’s industrial and trade sectors.

This approach contrasts with the state’s big push to make students take an ethnic studies course designed to promote a progressive and somewhat anti-capitalist, multicultural agenda. They will also be required to embrace the ideology of man-made climate change even if their grasp of basic science is minimal. A “woke” consciousness or deeper ethnic affiliations will not lead to student success later in life. What will count for the students and for California’s economy is gaining the skills that are in demand. You cannot run a high-tech lathe, manage logistics, or design programs for space vehicles with ideology.

More to come

Conventional wisdom on the right considers California to be on the road to inexorable decline. Progressives, not surprisingly, embrace the Golden State as a model while ignoring the regressive, ineffective policies that have driven the state toward a feudal future.

Yet both sides are wrong. California’s current progressive policies have failed, but if the state were governed correctly, it could resurge in ways that would astound the rest of the country and the world. Change is not impossible. As recent elections showed, Californians do not reflexively vote for progressives if they feel their safety or economic interests are on the line.

If change is to come in California, it may not be primarily driven by libertarian or conservative ideologies but by stark realities. Over two-thirds of California cities do not have any funds set aside for retiree health care and other expenses. Twelve of the state’s 15 large cities are in the red, and for many, it is only getting worse. The state overall suffers $1 trillion in pension debt, notes former Democratic state Rep. Joe Nation. U.S. News and World Report places California, despite the tech boom, 42nd in fiscal health among the states. This pension shortfall makes paying for infrastructure, or even teacher salaries, extraordinarily difficult at the state and local levels.

Without change, the state is socially, fiscally, and economically unsustainable, even if a handful of people get very rich and the older homeowners, public employees, and high-end professionals thrive. California needs to return to attracting the young, talented, and ambitious, not just be a magnet for the wealthy or super-educated few.

This can only happen if the state unleashes the animal spirits that long drove its ascendancy. The other alternative may be a more racial, class-based radicalism promoted by the Democratic Socialists of America and their allies. They have their own “cure” for California’s ills. We see this in debates over rebuilding Los Angeles, with progressives pushing for heavily subsidized housing, as with the case of the redevelopment of the Jordan Downs public housing complex, while seeking to densify and expand subsidized housing to once solidly affluent areas like the Palisades.

California has survived past crises — earthquakes and the defense and dot-com busts — and always has managed to reinvent itself. The key elements for success — its astounding physical environment, mild climate, and a tradition for relentless innovation — remain in place, ready to be released once the political constraints are loosened.

Fifty years ago, in her song “California,” Canada-reared Joni Mitchell captured the universal appeal of our remarkable state, not just its sunshine, mountains, and beaches, but also how it gave its residents an unprecedented chance to meet their fondest aspirations. Contrasting her adopted home with the sheer grayness of life elsewhere, she wrote, “My heart cried out for you, California / Oh California, I’m coming home.”

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.

Why tariffs are the key to America’s industrial comeback



On April 2, President Trump announced a sweeping policy of reciprocal tariffs aimed at severing America’s economic dependence on China. His goal: to reshore American industry and restore national self-sufficiency.

How can the United States defend its independence while relying on Chinese ships, machinery, and computers? It can’t.

Tariffs aren’t just about economics. They are a matter of national survival.

But time is short. Trump has just four years to prove that tariffs can bring back American manufacturing. The challenge is steep — but not unprecedented. Nations like South Korea and Japan have done it. So has the United States in earlier eras.

We can do it again. Here’s how.

Escaping the altar of globalism

Tariffs were never just about economics. They’re about self-suffiency.

A self-sufficient America doesn’t depend on foreign powers for its prosperity — or its defense. Political independence means nothing without economic independence. America’s founders learned that lesson the hard way: No industry, no nation.

The entire supply chain lives offshore. America doesn’t just import chips — it imports the ability to make them. That’s a massive strategic vulnerability.

During the Revolutionary War, British soldiers weren’t the only threat. British factories were just as dangerous. The colonies relied on British imports for everything from textiles to muskets. Without manufacturing, they had no means to wage war.

Victory only became possible when France began supplying the revolution, sending over 80,000 firearms. That lifeline turned the tide.

After the Revolution, George Washington wrote:

A free people ought not only to be armed, but ... their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories as tend to render them independent of others for essential, particularly military, supplies.

Washington’s first major legislative achievement was the Tariff Act of 1789. Two years later, Alexander Hamilton released his “Report on Manufactures,” a foundational blueprint for American industrial strategy. Hamilton didn’t view tariffs as mere taxes — he saw them as the engine for national development.

For nearly two centuries, America followed Hamilton’s lead. Under high tariffs, the nation prospered and industrialized. In fact, the U.S. maintained the highest average tariff rates in the 19th century. By 1870, America produced one-quarter of the world’s manufactured goods. By 1945, it produced half. The United States wasn’t just an economic powerhouse — it was the world’s factory.

That changed in the 1970s. Washington elites embraced globalism. The result?

America has run trade deficits every year since 1974. The cumulative total now exceeds $25 trillion in today’s dollars.

Meanwhile, American companies have poured $6.7 trillion into building factories, labs, and infrastructure overseas. And as if outsourcing weren’t bad enough, foreign governments and corporations have stolen nearly $10 trillion worth of American intellectual property and technology.

The consequences have been devastating.

Since the 1980s, more than 60,000 factories have moved overseas — to China, Mexico, and Europe. The result? The United States has lost over 5 million well-paying manufacturing jobs.

This industrial exodus didn’t just hollow out factories — it gutted middle-class bargaining power. Once employers gained the ability to offshore production, they no longer had to reward rising productivity with higher wages. That historic link — more output, more pay — was severed.

Today, American workers face a brutal equation: Take the deal on the table, or the job goes to China. The “race to the bottom” isn’t a slogan. It’s an economic policy — and it’s killing the American middle class.

Offshoring has crippled American industry, turning the United States into a nation dependent on foreign suppliers.

Technology offers the clearest example. In 2024, the U.S. imported $763 billion in advanced technology products. That includes a massive trade deficit in semiconductors, which power the brains of everything from fighter jets to toasters. If imports stopped, America would grind to a halt.

Worse, America doesn’t even make the machines needed to produce chips. Photolithography systems — critical to chip fabrication — come from the Netherlands. They’re shipped to Taiwan, where the chips are made and then sold back to the U.S.

The entire supply chain lives offshore. America doesn’t just import chips — it imports the ability to make them. That’s not just dependency. That’s a massive strategic vulnerability.

And the problem extends far beyond tech. The U.S. imports its steel, ball bearings, cars, and oceangoing ships. China now builds far more commercial vessels than the United States — by orders of magnitude.

How can America call itself a global power when it can no longer command the seas?

What happens if China stops shipping silicon chips to the U.S.? Or if it cuts off something as basic as shoes or light bulbs? No foreign power should hold that kind of leverage over the American people. And while China does, America isn’t truly free. No freer than a newborn clinging to a bottle. Dependence breeds servitude.

Make America self-sufficient again

Trump has precious little time to prove that reindustrializing America isn’t just a slogan — it’s possible. But he won’t get there with half-measures. “Reciprocal” tariffs? That’s a distraction. Pausing tariffs for 90 days to sweet-talk foreign leaders? That delays progress. Spooking the stock market with mixed signals? That sabotages momentum.

To succeed, Trump must start with one urgent move: establish high, stable tariffs — now, not later.

Tariffs must be high enough to make reshoring profitable. If it’s still cheaper to build factories in China or Vietnam and just pay a tariff, then the tariff becomes little more than a tax — raising revenue but doing nothing to bring industry home.

What’s the right rate? Time will tell, but Trump doesn’t have time. He should impose immediate overkill tariffs of 100% on day one to force the issue. Better to overshoot than fall short.

That figure may sound extreme, but consider this: Under the American System, the U.S. maintained average tariffs above 30% — without forklifts, without container ships, and without globalized supply chains. In modern terms, we’d need to go higher just to match that level of protection.

South Korea industrialized with average tariffs near 40%. And the Koreans had key advantages — cheap labor and a weak currency. America has neither. Tariffs must bridge the gap.

Just as important: Tariffs must remain stable. No company will invest trillions to reindustrialize the U.S. if rates shift every two weeks. They’ll ride out the storm, often with help from foreign governments eager to keep their access to American consumers.

President Trump must pick a strong, flat tariff — and stick to it.

This is our last chance

Tariffs must also serve their purpose: reindustrialization. If they don’t advance that goal, they’re useless.

Start with raw materials. Industry needs them cheap. That means zero tariffs on inputs like rare earth minerals, iron, and oil. Energy independence doesn’t come from taxing fuel — it comes from unleashing it.

Next, skip tariffs on goods America can’t produce. We don’t grow coffee or bananas. So taxing them does nothing for American workers or factories. It’s a scam — a cash grab disguised as policy.

Tariff revenue should fund America’s comeback. Imports won’t vanish overnight, which means revenue will flow. Use it wisely.

Cut taxes for domestic manufacturers. Offer low-interest loans for large-scale industrial projects. American industry runs on capital — Washington should help supply it.

A more innovative use of tariff revenue? Help cover the down payments for large-scale industrial projects. American businesses often struggle to raise capital for major builds. This plan fixes that.

Secure the loans against the land, then recoup them with interest when the land sells. It’s a smart way to jump-start American reindustrialization and build capital fast.

But let’s be clear: Tariffs alone won’t save us.

Trump must work with Congress to slash taxes and regulations. America needs a business environment that rewards risk and investment, not one that punishes it.

That means rebuilding crumbling infrastructure — railways, ports, power grids, and fiber networks. It means unlocking cheap energy from coal, hydro, and next-gen nuclear.

This is the final chance to reindustrialize. Another decade of globalism will leave American industry too hollowed out to recover. Great Britain was once the workshop of the world. Now it’s a cautionary tale.

Trump must hold the line. Impose high, stable tariffs. Reshore the factories. And bring the American dream roaring back to life.

Return of the ‘American System’: Trump’s economic comeback



Few economic philosophies have shaped America’s prosperity as profoundly as Henry Clay’s American System — a blueprint for national strength and self-sufficiency. Developed in the early 19th century, Clay’s vision centered on protective tariffs, a strong national banking system, infrastructure development, and the responsible use of natural resources. These pillars propelled the United States into economic dominance.

In the latter half of the 20th century, however, Cold War geopolitics led to a significant departure from these principles. Today, President Trump’s economic policies signal a revival of the American System, aiming to restore national industry, energy independence, and economic resilience.

The debate over trade, industry, and economic nationalism is far from over. But one thing is clear: Those opposing Trump’s policies are rejecting the very system that built America’s prosperity.

One of the key components of Clay’s American System was the use of tariffs to shield domestic industries from foreign competition. Clay and his contemporaries understood that fledgling American manufacturers needed time to grow without being undermined by cheaper imports. This approach helped transform the United States from an agrarian economy into an industrial powerhouse.

President Trump’s embrace of tariffs is a modern adaptation of this strategy, aimed at protecting American businesses from unfair foreign trade practices. His policies seek to revitalize domestic manufacturing, reduce dependency on foreign goods, and address trade imbalances, particularly with China. Additionally, tariff revenue contributes to lowering the national debt, reinforcing economic sovereignty.

Clay’s American System also relied on a centralized banking institution to maintain financial stability. The Second Bank of the United States played a critical role in providing credit, regulating state banks, and preventing economic crises. Although Andrew Jackson dismantled the bank in the 1830s, its essential functions were later restored with the creation of the Federal Reserve in 1913.

While Trump has been vocal in his criticism of the Federal Reserve’s interest rate decisions, he has consistently championed a strong dollar and a stable financial system. His economic policies aim to foster domestic growth while ensuring that U.S. monetary policy serves the nation’s best interests rather than the demands of global financial elites.

Another core tenet of the American System was the federal government’s role in developing infrastructure. Clay understood that investing in roads, canals, and railroads was essential for national growth, linking markets, and expanding economic opportunities. The Erie Canal, transcontinental railroad, and interstate highway system are all legacies of this philosophy.

Trump’s focus on rebuilding America’s infrastructure is a direct continuation of this principle. His administration has pushed for major investments in highways, bridges, airports, and broadband expansion, recognizing that modern infrastructure is key to long-term economic competitiveness. His “America First” vision prioritizes domestic industries and job creation through large-scale development projects.

Clay’s economic vision also emphasized utilizing America’s vast natural resources to fuel economic growth. Throughout U.S. history, industries have thrived due to the country’s access to coal, timber, oil, and minerals. Under President Trump, the United States became the world’s leading energy producer, reversing decades of reliance on foreign oil. His administration prioritizes domestic energy production — expanding oil drilling, natural gas extraction, and coal mining — which contributes to lower energy costs and economic growth. By ensuring energy independence, Trump reinforces a key pillar of the American System — harnessing natural resources for national prosperity.

For most of our history, the U.S. followed the American System to protect its industries and promote national wealth. However, after World War II, Cold War strategy took precedence over economic protectionism. To secure global alliances against communism, America lowered tariffs to encourage partnerships to contain the Soviet Union. While this strategy helped win the Cold War, it also led to the decline of American manufacturing.

Today, the Cold War is long over, yet the economic policies that sacrificed American industry remain unchanged. As a result, millions of jobs have been lost to overseas markets, and American businesses have suffered from unfair competition with countries that manipulate their currencies and exploit cheap labor. Trump’s economic agenda seeks to reverse these decades-old policies, prioritizing American workers and industries once again.

As the United States faces increasing competition from China and other global powers, the question remains: Will Trump’s economic philosophy be successful? While his policies were met with resistance from both parties, they resonate with millions of Americans who have witnessed firsthand the consequences of offshoring and deindustrialization.

The debate over trade, industry, and economic nationalism is far from over. But one thing is clear: Those opposing Trump’s policies are rejecting the very system that built America’s prosperity. The American System lifted the United States to economic dominance once before — can it do so again? If history is any guide, the answer may very well be yes.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published by RealClearPolitics and made available via RealClearWire.

Can Trump revive American steel?



During his famous pre-election appearance on “The Joe Rogan Experience,” Donald Trump discussed his use of tariffs to bolster American industries, including steel. This was one of the less colorful moments of the interview, but it is worth revisiting.

Trump said, “We will not allow the enemy to come in and take our jobs and take our factories … unless they pay a big price. And the big price is tariffs.”

Trump’s critics focus entirely on the tariffs and not on the unmatchable ferocity of Donald Trump. All he has to do is threaten tariffs. We’ve seen this already.

Trump is the “Tariff Man,” and for the American steel industry, that title served its mission during Trump’s first term.

When Trump imposed a 25% tariff on imported steel in 2018, skeptics warned of trade wars and rising costs, but for the steelworkers who’d spent decades watching their mills close, it was a shot of adrenaline. Domestic production surged, idle furnaces roared back to life, and companies like U.S. Steel announced new investments.

Trump made it clear that steel is a symbol of American might. “Our steel industry is thriving again,” he declared to Rogan.

To understand the industry’s trajectory, we need to examine its rise, its precipitous fall, and its likely future.

Heavy metal

If America had a literal spine, it would be made of steel. At its peak in the 1950s, the U.S. steel industry was a titan, producing 117 million tons of steel annually, with companies like U.S. Steel leading the charge.

But by the 1980s, the clamor of American mills had quieted, and the question remains: What led to the decline of an industry once synonymous with American might?

The decline of the American steel industry cannot be attributed to a single cause. Instead, it was a combination of forces that steadily eroded its dominance.

Unions played a crucial role. While they initially fought for fair wages and working conditions, by the 1970s and 1980s, the push for higher wages and benefits often put American steel companies at a competitive disadvantage compared to foreign producers.

Some critics argue that union demands outpaced the industry’s ability to adapt to a rapidly changing global market, contributing to the industry’s financial woes.

Imports also hammered American steel. Countries like Japan and Germany, and later China, began producing steel at lower costs, often with significant government subsidies. U.S. tariffs were inconsistent and sometimes lackluster, allowing foreign steel to flood the market, undercutting domestic prices and pushing American mills out of business.

In the 1970s and 1980s, this influx of cheaper steel devastated U.S. producers, resulting in widespread mill closures and mass layoffs.

Automation compounded the problem. Technological advances, including continuous casting and automated production, allowed steel to be produced more efficiently, requiring fewer workers.

While this made the remaining steel mills more productive, it also hollowed out the workforce. Towns built around the labor-intensive steel industry were left reeling and quiet, as generations of steelworkers found themselves without jobs.

The effect of U.S. tariffs on steel has been a contentious issue for decades. Proponents argue that tariffs are necessary to protect an industry vital to national security and American manufacturing.

Critics, however, contend that tariffs lead to trade wars, increased costs for American businesses reliant on steel, and retaliation from other countries.

While I’m by no means an expert on tariffs — at all — I notice that Trump’s critics focus entirely on the tariffs and not the unmatchable ferocity of Donald Trump. All he has to do is threaten tariffs. We’ve seen this already.

Steely Dan

Few people have had as significant an impact on the modern steel industry as Dan DiMicco, former CEO of Nucor Corporation.

His 2010 book, “American Made: Why Making Things Will Return Us to Greatness,” outlines his vision for reviving American industry through fair trade practices, reduced regulation, and a focus on domestic production.

To be frank, a lot of it is too nuanced for an artsy knob like me. But I bought the book and read it with an open mind.

Under DiMicco’s leadership, Nucor became the largest steel producer in the United States by embracing a unique strategy: Focus on lean production and use scrap-based electric arc furnaces, which are more energy-efficient than traditional blast furnaces. This allowed Nucor to stay competitive even in the face of global competition and shifting economic conditions.

DiMicco has long been an outspoken advocate for U.S. manufacturing and a staunch supporter of Donald Trump. He pushed for the 2018 steel tariffs, arguing that they were necessary to protect U.S. jobs and ensure national security.

Looking ahead, DiMicco envisions a future in which the U.S. reclaims its manufacturing dominance, but only if the government takes aggressive steps to protect its industries. In his view, tariffs, incentives for domestic production, and efforts to reduce dependency on foreign suppliers — particularly from China — are critical to the future of American steel.

Adapt or die

Despite the industry’s challenges, there is still hope for a revival. Companies like Nucor are investing in cleaner, more efficient technologies, including electric arc furnaces and carbon capture methods, to reduce their environmental impact and remain competitive.

China isn’t the powerhouse it has claimed to be, or at least not in relation to its daunting population.

The future of steel in America will depend on the industry’s ability to adapt to global competition and technological change. While we’re at it, it’s time for the climatists to aim their carbon-footed ire at the countries actually responsible for apathetic pollution.

The era of massive, labor-intensive mills may be over, but if the industry can embrace innovation while maintaining a focus on fair trade and national security, it could once again play a central role in America’s economy.

The story of American steel is far from over. It remains a vital thread in the fabric of the nation, even if its future looks very different from its past.

But hey, with Trump in charge, that’s a piece of cake. Just ask his buddies Elon Musk and Joe Rogan.

GOP’s growth meal: Appetizers ease regs, main course drives jobs



If policymakers want strong results, history and economic reality identify small businesses as the catalyst for growth. As a new Republican Congress and the incoming Trump administration view their menu of options, it’s imperative they view things from an appetizer and main-course perspective. The main course is bonus depreciation and access to capital, and the appetizers are reducing regulatory burdens, taming government overreach, lowering energy costs, and finding skilled and qualified workers.

The new Trump administration and the GOP-led Congress must serve up the appetizers and main course to fuel new record growth. Here’s what that meal might look like.

The appetizers

The increase in onerous regulations imposed by local, state, and federal governments is generating louder, justified complaints from small businesses. By April 2024, the cost of federal regulations had ballooned to $1.47 trillion. These rising costs are stifling small businesses. According to the October 2024 jobs report and downward revisions in new job creation, employment is weakening across the U.S. economy.

Industries are feeling the regulatory squeeze, and small businesses are suffering — especially in the wooden pallet industry. Ninety percent of all goods in the United States come into contact with a wooden pallet at some point. Regulatory burdens on the forest-products industry, such as reduced availability or higher costs of environmental permits, directly lower the supply of wood and increase its cost. And because wood pallets are manufactured, businesses in this sector must navigate OSHA oversight, air-quality permits, and trucking-related regulations. Customer-related rules, such as the Food Safety Modernization Act, also pass additional costs to pallet manufacturers.

If President Trump and congressional Republicans implement a comprehensive strategy, they could ignite a surge in economic growth the likes of which we’ve never seen.

Easing regulations would help small businesses lower their costs, enabling many to reinvest those savings in new plants, equipment, and workers.

The Trump administration should aggressively reduce the costly regulatory burdens on small businesses through executive actions. These actions should include initiatives to lower energy costs, which would further reduce expenses for small businesses. For manufacturing companies, lower costs would allow them to redeploy capital toward modernizing plants and fostering innovation.

Businesses, particularly small businesses, are struggling to attract new workers. Increased investment in career and technical education at the federal and state levels is essential. Such investment will help create future pipelines of skilled, motivated, and qualified workers.

The tooling and machining industry, which includes thousands of small to medium-sized precision machining manufacturers, serves a wide range of sectors, including aerospace, ordnance, defense, medical, space, electronics and semiconductors, oil and gas, automotive, and more. The lack of a skilled and qualified workforce remains the top challenge and limitation for precision machining.

The main course

The pathway to long-term economic and jobs growth is permanent write-offs for capital expenditures that include both plants and equipment.

To jump-start growth, a 100% bonus provision for plants and equipment for the first year followed by a consistent allowance for plants and equipment in the following years is essential. A heightened level of capital investment gets factories moving, makes small businesses more competitive, and drives higher employment levels and long-term growth.

In a “2 Way Community” conversation with Mark Halperin, Scott Bessent, founder and chief investment officer of Key Square Group and Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Treasury Department, indicated that “100% expensing for equipment is on the table as part of the extension of the Trump Tax Cuts and Jobs Act Job.” He also expressed support for “a limited life for structures that can also be expensed by 100%.”

Small businesses in the landscaping and fertilizer industries, for example, would be in a better position to invest in newer technologies and expand their production and distribution capacities.

Small businesses also have increasing capital requirements associated with the drive to automation, the high costs of machinery, and the need for research and development. To remain competitive, small businesses must also have an R&D tax credit available to them. Small businesses operating in the crane, rigging, and heavy transport sector will be able to invest in new cranes and other equipment and have the capacity to grow their businesses.

Every small business must have access to capital. New legislative and regulatory efforts must increase access to capital through streamlined small-business lending. Because 38% of small businesses that fail do so due to lack of capital, there must also be a renewed commitment to community banks, which are essential for small businesses to access capital. Bessent has also expressed support for this idea.

Making the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent and adding these additional incentives will change the game and launch a new wave of economic growth. Several key provisions are already expiring or will be phased out at the end of 2025. Expensing for business investments, research and experimentation deductibility, pass-through deductions, and a reduction of the estate tax concludes on December 31, 2025. These are important and should be continued.

Small businesses have historically driven economic recovery and prosperity. If President Trump and congressional Republicans implement a comprehensive strategy, they could ignite a surge in small-business activity and economic growth the likes of which we’ve never seen.

A Trump Presidency Could Make U.S. The ‘Crypto Capital Of The Planet’

In stark contrast to the Biden-Harris administration’s approach toward cryptocurrency, Trump’s platform would invigorate the crypto industry and promote its growth.

Trump And Teddy Roosevelt Have More Than Courage In Common

From assassination attempts to championing the working class and standing up to special interests, Donald Trump and Teddy Roosevelt have a lot in common.

The Ruling Class Screwed Over Manufacturing Towns Like East Palestine Long Before A Train Derailed

Even with all the attention it has recently received, East Palestine is easy to miss.