Two of the founding fathers that deserve more attention are Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. While the Hamilton musical provides us with some perspective and entertainment, I would recommend the book by Jay Cost, The Price of Greatness: Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and the Creation of American Oligarchy. He was on the Point of View radio program to talk about his book.

These two men belonged to a political movement with three fundamental foundations. The first was the commitment to liberal government that emphasized the protection of individual rights. The Declaration of Independence argued that “governments are instituted among men” in order to secure certain “unalienable rights.” That idea, written by Thomas Jefferson, was influenced by the writings of John Locke.

The second foundation was a belief in self-government, often referred to as republicanism. A republic allowed the citizens to be governed by laws that they actually had a hand in creating. A monarch did not hand down these laws. They were established by: “we the people.”

The third foundation was nationalism. The 13 separate colonies agreed to bind themselves together in a national union of 13 states. This is where there was the greatest division between the Federalists and the Antifederalists. And they ended up dividing Hamilton from Madison.

Hamilton emphasized national vigor and was eager to promote the Bank of the United States and other programs that would grow the national government. Madison, on the other hand, wanted to pursue what could be called “republican balance.” He feared that Hamilton’s policies favored the wealthy.

In reading this book by Jay Cost, I was struck by the reality that many of the debates in the founding of this country continue to this day. Many of the ideas put forward by Hamilton and Madison are still debated today in the halls of Congress.

According to the latest economic research, median household income is up significantly compared to previous years. Inflation-adjusted median household income hit $62,450. That is the highest level since the research group started tracking such economic numbers 18 years ago. In fact, when you combine these economic statistics with annual Census data, you discover that median household income is at an all-time high.

If you have been listening to my commentaries, you know that I rarely talk about such economic news. I made an exception in this case for a very good reason. Median household income is the highest it has ever been, but I doubt you heard much about it in the mainstream media.

I think you probably know the reason for that. Members of the media dislike President Donald Trump. But don’t you think it is good news for families that household income has increased by 4% in the 19 months Trump has been president? Before he took office, household income had been flat. During the eight years when President Obama was in office, median household income only rose 0.3%.

Frequently I say on radio that presidents often take too much credit for a good economy and receive too much blame for a bad economy. But political and economic policies do make a difference, and the latest economic news should be reported and at least partial credit should be given to the current administration.

Other positive news that is often overlooked is the Conference Board report that consumer confidence just hit an 18-year high. The same report indicates that job satisfaction is the highest it has been since 2005. A different survey found that 86% of blue-collar workers said they were satisfied with their jobs.

This is positive news that you probably won’t hear too often. That’s why I wanted to tell you about it today.

When voters go to the polls, they need to not only pay attention to the congressional races but also the races for the state legislature. Karl Rove refers to this as “the other House race.” We talked about his commentary recently on Point of View.

These days, most people are focusing on the elections for the US House of Representatives. About 60 of the 435 elections will be competitive and will ultimately determine whether Republicans or Democrats control the House next year.

The other house race is at the state level. Who the voters elect to state legislatures will determine the congressional districts of the next decade. That’s why we should also pay attention to the battle over 6,066 contests this fall and another 6,318 races next year and in 2020. Since most state senators serve four-year terms, those elected this November will be the ones casting votes on congressional redistricting plans.

None of this has escaped the notice of political parties. Republicans currently hold 67 of 99 chambers (Nebraska has a unicameral legislature). They control both legislatures in 32 states. By contrast, Democrats have legislative majorities in both houses in 14 states. Both the Republican State Leadership Committee and the National Democratic Redistricting Committee are raising money for these key races in state legislatures.

None of this should escape the notice of voters. Who you vote for in state legislative races this fall and in the near future will determine who you can elect to Congress a few years from now. Remember that I mentioned that only about 60 of the 435 races for the House of Representatives are competitive races. I might add that number is a bit higher than usual because so many Republican members of Congress decided to resign this election.

This is another reminder that you really need to pay attention to all the candidates you elect, up and down the ballot. It will have an impact on you in the future. I’m Kerby Anderson, and that’s my point of view.

Michael Wang should have been able to get into the college of his choice. He had a perfect score on the ACT and was second in his high school class. He was accomplished musically and even was selected to sing at the inauguration of Barack Obama.

Like I said, he should have been able to get into any college. Instead, six out of seven Ivy League schools rejected him. Michael Wang got suspicious when he noticed that other classmates and acquaintances that had less impressive credentials and experiences were admitted.

Edward Blum (Project on Fair Representation) looked into Michael Wang’s situation and was able to identify another dozen Asian-American students with similar experiences. That’s when he decided to file a lawsuit against Harvard University alleging racial discrimination.

Any type of affirmative action plan is going to be by definition discriminating against one person in order to advance another person. Many of these college admission’s policies as well as governmental affirmative action guidelines advance a minority from one race over a minority from another race that has also faced discrimination. Asian-American students would have a greater chance of being admitted to competitive colleges if they were African-American or Hispanic.

The latest word is that the US Justice Department will join the case. The filing argues that Harvard University has a vague admission’s policy that results in “unlawful racial discrimination on Asian-Americans.” It is possible that this case might begin to unravel the many affirmative action policies in universities and in state and local governments.

By attempting to advance one racial minority, colleges and governments are discriminating against another racial minority. We might be seeing the beginning of the end of affirmative action.

A recent study in the journal Lancet concludes that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption. This seems to contradict some other studies that argued that there were possible benefits to moderate use of alcohol.

The researchers looked at data from 28 million people worldwide. That allowed them to compare the few benefits of alcohol consumption that might be preventive for conditions like ischaemic heart disease and diabetes to the increased risk of cancers and other diseases. The authors suggest that public health organizations “consider recommendations for abstention.”

The conclusions of the research paper have been challenged at a number of levels. For example, the increase of risk is slight for one drink a day but increases significantly for someone drinking more than that. That is why some critics challenge the abstention recommendation. They remind us that there is no safe level for driving, but the government doesn’t recommend people avoid driving.

But it is worth repeating that the study concludes that no level of alcohol consumption improves health. And we are all aware of people who promise themselves and others that they will only have one drink, and end up having many more.

Another question is whether the study considered all the factors. Did they miss a confounding variable? A famous example was the erroneous conclusion from one study that coffee caused pancreatic cancer. The authors did not adjust for the fact that coffee drinkers are more likely to smoke. It was smoking that killed people, not coffee. It does appear that researchers did take such data into account.

This study illustrates once again that alcohol consumption is a global health issue where the risks outweigh the few possible benefits.

Today is Labor Day. Although this day was set aside to honor trade and labor organizations, I believe it is a day when Christians can also consider how they view work and labor. The Bible has quite a bit to say about how we are to view work, and so I devote part of a chapter in my book Making the Most of Your Money to a biblical view of work.

First, we are to work unto the Lord in our labors. Colossians 3:23 says, “Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men.” We may have an earthly master (or boss) but ultimately, we are working for our heavenly Master.

Second, work is valuable. Paul says in 1 Thessalonians 4:11-12 to “Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to your own business and work with your hands, just as we commanded you, so that you will behave properly toward outsiders and not be in any need.” He also warns in 2 Thessalonians 3:10 that “if anyone is not willing to work, then he is not to eat, either.”

The Proverbs talk about the importance and benefits of work. Proverbs 12:11 says, “He who tills his land will have plenty of bread, But he who pursues worthless things lacks sense.” Proverbs 13:4 says, “The soul of the sluggard craves and gets nothing, But the soul of the diligent is made fat.” And Proverbs 14:23 says, “In all labor there is profit, But mere talk leads only to poverty.”

The Greeks and Romans looked upon manual work as a menial task that was only for slaves (or else for people of lower class). The biblical view of work changed that ancient view because work and labor were combined with the idea of vocation and calling.

These ideas were reinforced in the Middle Ages through the gild movement and even expanded during the Reformation. Martin Luther, for example, taught that all work can be done for the glory of God. John Calvin taught that all should work because they were to serve as God’s instruments on earth. This led to what today is called the Protestant work ethic.

Let’s use this Labor Day to teach and reinforce biblical ideas of work.