<![CDATA[Jay Evensen - Opinions]]>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 08:56:25 -0700Weebly<![CDATA[More diseases making a comeback]]>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 15:17:25 GMThttp://www.jayevensen.com/opinions/more-diseases-making-a-comebackSometimes, current events can flip upside down in unexpected and disappointing ways.
Of all the editorial board meetings I’ve participated in during a 40-plus year career in journalism, only a few are seared into my memory banks. One of those was a visit in 2014 by Namala Mkopi, who was head of pediatric hematology in the Oncology Unit of Muhimbili National Hospital in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
He wanted us to understand what the discovery of a vaccine against rotavirus, and the U.S. government’s help in distributing it, had meant to his country. Rotavirus is a highly infectious virus that causes severe diarrhea and vomiting in children under the age of 5, leading to serious dehydration and possible death.
Mkopi described his hospital’s chaotic children’s ward before the vaccine. “You’re talking three children in every bed and on mattresses on the floor. So, it’s full, and many of them end up dead.”
The disease didn’t affect only the children of the poor. Mkopi recalled getting a 3 a.m. phone call from a mother who was desperate for someone to help her child. Not until he met her at the hospital did he realize she was a co-worker, another doctor.
But then Mkopi described his children’s ward since the 2013 introduction of the rotavirus vaccine that became widely available thanks to an international vaccine alliance called GAVI, which was funded in part by the U.S. government. 
“One can say it’s a miracle, but it’s simple science,” he told our board. “The vaccine works. We don’t see any more young people in the wards. Sometimes you might go into the ward and there’s no child there at all. In just one year.”
Why am I remembering a meeting held 12 years ago? Because of news accounts this week that report rotavirus is surging in the United States, and because doctors warn that parents who refuse to vaccinate their children could ignite a higher surge in years to come.
NBC News cited data from a program administered by Stanford and Emory universities that shows the disease gaining a foothold beginning in January. Infections are increasing particularly in the Western and Midwestern parts of the U.S.
A nation that once helped people like Dr. Mkopi experience the miracle of an empty children’s ward is turning its back on that miracle and taking chances with the health of its own children.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention makes it clear that Tanzania and other Third World countries weren’t the only ones to benefit from the vaccine. In the United States it is estimated to have prevented between 40,000 and 50,000 hospitalizations of infants and young children.
Rotavirus has no medicinal cure, other than supportive care and rehydration. The disease may take up to eight days to run its course. The CDC says only 73.8% of American children are vaccinated against it, and the percentage is steadily declining. The vaccine has been shown to protect 9 out of 10 children from severe forms of the disease, while 7 of 10 will be protected from any infection at all. 
The increase in rotavirus cases is not the only disease surging for lack of vaccinations. The New York Times this week reported that Utah is the nation’s hotbed for measles cases, having recorded almost 600 cases so far, with about one-third ending up in emergency rooms with extreme diarrhea and vomiting. Forty-nine patients have been admitted to hospitals. Cases have been reported in 22 of Utah’s 29 counties.
Against this backdrop, many American parents may be confused by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s recent attempts to change recommended immunization schedules. Among other things, parents would be advised to consult with a doctor before vaccinating against rotavirus. A judge has put these recommendations on hold.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration wants to reverse America’s role as the leading provider of humanitarian assistance to the Third World, urging nations to sign a declaration calling for “trade over aid,” according to the Washington Post.
I’m not sure how the world flipped this dramatically in 12 short years. But I hate to imagine how Dr. Mkopi would feel about his children’s ward filling up again with kids suffering from preventable diseases, while desperate parents can only hope for the best.

​
]]><![CDATA[Another budget-busting spending plan]]>Mon, 20 Apr 2026 15:14:16 GMThttp://www.jayevensen.com/opinions/another-budget-busting-spending-planDonald Trump’s newly released budget proposal for fiscal 2027 sounds so much like those I’ve heard from presidents my entire life. Pick some rosy assumption about how the economy will grow and everything will seem just fine.
Nothing new here, but nothing reassuring, either.
In this case, the president assumes a 3% annual growth in the economy over the next decade.
Such assumptions rarely, if ever, come true, while the overspending continues to rack up record levels of national debt. 
The Constitution puts Congress in the driver’s seat when it comes to federal revenue and spending. Presidents merely make requests that express policy priorities. This budget covers only about one-third of federal spending, focusing mainly on discretionary outlays.
Even so, the frustrating thing is that those requests never seem to focus on real spending reductions.
As Dominik Lett of the Libertarian-leaning Cato Institute said, the president’s budget doesn’t say a word about Social Security, Medicare or the rising interest due annually on the national debt.
“With deficits at nearly $2 trillion and publicly held federal debt set to exceed the nation’s entire economic output this year, Congress desperately needs fiscal responsibility,” Lett wrote. “And to arrest the long-term growth of the debt and deficit, Congress needs to adopt meaningful budget targets and establish an empowered independent fiscal commission to address the growth of old-age retirement and health care programs.”
Good luck with that. 
The centerpiece of Trump’s budget request is $1.5 trillion for defense. As reason.com reported, that’s about a 42% increase. Lett calls this “fiscally reckless and militarily unnecessary.” On the other side of the ledger are cuts to nondefense items, including a move toward privatizing the TSA and making states responsible for funding their own disaster relief.
But these cuts wouldn’t come close to offsetting the increases.
The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a private nonprofit group, estimates the extra military spending would add $6.9 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years. It may seem necessary, depending on how many more Venezuelan and Iranian-type military operations the president has in mind, but a mounting debt may limit those adventures in ways no politician can control.
None of these concerns is new, of course. In April of 1982, the L. A. Times warned that budget deficits under President Reagan might sink the U.S. economy. A copy of a story I obtained through newspapers.com said the president had presented rosy estimates of the budget’s impact on deficits based on unrealistic assumptions about economic growth.
For context, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the deficit that year might exceed $120 billion. This year’s shortfall may exceed $2 trillion.
But decades of overspending and warnings (with the exception of a few years in the late 1990s) may be part of the problem. Those warnings so far have not come true. 
Which, of course, doesn’t mean they can’t at some future point.
Also, Americans may think Washington has to balance the budget immediately in order to avoid disaster. Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell has said that is unnecessary. 
Speaking to an economics class at Harvard last month, Powell said the nation’s debt problem isn’t a crisis, yet. It will be, however, if the current trajectory doesn’t change, according to a story published by yahoo.com. 
“We don’t have to pay the debt down,” he said. “We just need to have primary balance and begin to have the economy actually growing more quickly than the debt.”
Right now, the debt, currently about $39 trillion, is growing faster than the nation’s economy. That growth increases the annual cost of paying interest on the debt, which can lead to higher interest rates in the general economy (think credit cards, car loans and mortgages), and the possibility of inflation. 
The United States borrows money by issuing Treasury bonds, bills, notes, floating rate notes and Treasury inflation-protected securities. Investors and other countries purchase these investment options because, although they pay little in interest, they are considered safe and secure investments. The dollar is the world’s reserve currency, meaning it is the principal currency for worldwide trade. 
None of these things should be taken for granted. Investors may demand higher returns if they feel the nation is losing control over its debt problem. That may initiate a downward spiral that’s difficult to reverse.
As I said, this is a problem for Congress to solve, independent of whatever the president is suggesting. Let’s hope they can at least, as  Powell wisely suggested, keep the growth of the nation’s overspending at a manageable level, while keeping growth projections realistic. Our futures depend on it.
]]><![CDATA[Today's young people need Artemis]]>Fri, 10 Apr 2026 16:03:06 GMThttp://www.jayevensen.com/opinions/todays-young-people-need-artemisWatching the crew of Artemis II circle the dark side of the moon this week – traveling farther into space than any humans in history — made me feel like I was back in Mrs. Palmer’s fourth grade class at Longview elementary in Phoenix.
That’s quite a trick, considering it has been 58 years since I sat in that class. The memories from those days remain vivid in my mind, however, even if they are in black and white.
That was all the TV that was wheeled into our classroom could show us. It was December 1968. Color TV was a luxury beyond the school district’s budget. But Mrs. Palmer and other teachers at the school felt the mission of Apollo 8, which, like Artemis II, also orbited the moon but didn’t land, was more important for us than any math, science or reading lesson we might otherwise have received.
Indeed, I can’t remember anything from our lessons in those subjects that week, but I will never forget what I felt watching those images from space.
It’s time a new generation had that experience.
Back then, our class was awed to silence as the astronauts turned their cameras toward the windows and showed the earth floating through space. We were mesmerized and unusually silent until one of my friends pointed at the image of earth and said, “Hey look! I see myself!”
We laughed. The timing was perfect for 4th grade humor. And yet, the joke carried more truth than we were capable of understanding.
Writing for the New York Times this week, Katrina Miller reflected on the new images of earth as Artemis II began its trek across the dark side of the moon. 
“There it was: The swirly blue crescent of our planet, with all of humanity — every single one of us, you, me, everyone we know — in tow. It dipped ever lower on the horizon of a lifeless, pockmarked moon, a poignant farewell to the members of the crew as they plunged into silence.”
More than that, however, the images, both in 1968 and in 2026, give us perspectives of ourselves we may not have considered. 
Those two years have a lot in common. The late ‘60s were filled with worry and tumult. Young people marched against a war and threatened society’s morals, rules and customs. Others braved physical attacks as they marched for basic civil rights. It seemed as if assumptions about everything and everyone were being redefined. 
Today, the nation is again involved in a war. Economic uncertainty, rising gas prices and a looming national debt cloud the future, and the nation seems hopelessly divided along political lines.
In short, it’s the perfect time for four heroes to risk their lives in a record-setting manned flight again. 
Some people question the value of manned space travel when robots could make ideal substitutes. But I doubt robots on Apollo 8 would have set my imagination soaring. Artemis II, like Apollo 8, reminds us of the things human beings can do right if they set their minds to it.
We can go to the moon and back. Surely, we can fix our other problems, too.
Meanwhile, no one knows what sort of unexpected things we will find along the way. 
When the Soviets launched Sputnik, the first orbiting satellite, on Oct. 4, 1957, news reports in  the United States were stunningly myopic. Military experts were quoted saying the spaceship meant little because “satellites would have no practicable military application in the foreseeable future.”
They had no way of predicting smart phones that could use geopositioning satellites to map a jogging route or to provide drivers with navigation. They couldn’t foresee, “memory foam, scratch-resistant lenses, CAT scanners, LEDs, ear thermometers, and the portable computer,” among other things listed as benefits from the space program on a jet propulsion laboratory website.
Whenever NASA engineers its way out of a problem, it seems as if new products are born, making life on earth a little easier.
And every time astronauts accomplish something new, young people begin dreaming about achievements far beyond the world around them. 
Like me, they may never grow up to be astronauts. But the thrill of endless possibilities will stay with them for decades. 
That thrill has now skipped too many generations. Artemis II could bring it back. It’s about time.
]]><![CDATA[Beware when a political party changes voting laws]]>Thu, 05 Mar 2026 21:48:14 GMThttp://www.jayevensen.com/opinions/beware-when-a-political-party-changes-voting-lawsIf you believe voter fraud has never taken place in the United States, you don’t know the story of how Lyndon Johnson won a runoff election in the Democratic primary for one of Texas’ Senate seats in 1948.
Johnson trailed his opponent by about 200 votes statewide. Three days after the election, officials in Jim Wells County, a remote place in the southern part of the state, suddenly “found” something labeled Box 13, containing hundreds of ballots filled out by people who miraculously had voted in alphabetical order and with the same handwriting. Once these were counted, Johnson won by 87 votes.
In 1977, the Associated Press reported an acknowledgment of ballot rigging back then by an election judge. An investigation had been launched in 1948. Plenty of folks were suspicious. But it all went away when Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black ended the probe. Johnson went on to win the general election and eventually become president.
That was in the days of strong political bosses, long before smartphones and the pressures social media can sometimes exert for embarrassment and justice. And there was no president in Washington asserting election fraud despite never offering tangible proof.
Utah may be dominated by one party, but the case for widespread fraud here is hard to take seriously. Still, there are problems.
In Utah, the Office of the Legislative Auditor General in 2024 found that voter rolls contained about 1,400 names of deceased voters that should have been removed. About half of those had been sent mail-in ballots. Two ballots had been filled out and cast.
Also, auditors found 300 cases in which voters had been given two voter I.D. numbers plus almost 450 records involving two voters claiming the same driver license number. Some people had apparently voted twice in the same election. 
State records currently list 2,072,506 registered voters in Utah. If you add up all the names of dead voters, duplicate I.D. numbers and duplicate licenses, it makes up 0.001% of registered voters. 
In an era of charged feelings toward election irregularities, that may be enough to force change. Some members of the House Public Utilities and Energy Committee clearly agonized this week during a hearing on HB479, a bill that  would change Utah’s near universal vote-by-mail system.
Rep. Nicholeen Peck, R-Tooele County, said that after countless emails and texts from constituents on both sides, she had finally decided to “err on … the side of the (idea that) people need to feel secure. They need to know that we care about the strength of those elections.” She voted to recommend the bill to the floor of the House.
House Majority Leader Casey Snider, who also sits on the committee, said it’s clear some people voted in recent elections who shouldn’t legally have been able to do so. He doesn’t believe any of that changed any election outcomes, “but I don’t believe that everybody feels that way.” Voting for the bill, he argued, would restore electoral confidence.
The bill passed out of committee, 8-3. If it becomes law, by 2029 Utah voters would have to opt in, either to an option that allows them to mail ballots in, or to one that allows them to physically hand a paper ballot and a valid I.D. to poll workers standing guard over a drop box, but only during certain hours in the last few days of an election. Everyone else would have to vote in person at a polling location.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Jefferson S. Burton, R-Salem, said he believes the bill would result in far fewer people voting by mail.
It’s worth pausing here to reflect on 20 years ago, a time dominated by different passions. As I wrote back then, people in Utah and several other states were reacting strongly to new electronic voting machines put in place thanks in part to federal funding after the 2000 presidential election punch-card debacle. 
People were up in arms over those new machines, debating, as I wrote, “over accuracy, computer programs, independent verification and the ability to tamper with the system.”
Allegations against the machines grew to the point where the clerk-auditor in Emery County decided to get an independent group to examine the machines. But once the machines were open, the warranty was voided and the state no longer could guarantee the machines hadn’t been compromised.
The point here is that, while a state should do all it can to eliminate irregularities, no voting system is completely above suspicion. 
Power is a strong motivator. Today, as in 1948, it always pays to watch politicians closely where elections are concerned.
The Constitution gives election authority to the states, which is also the entity most capable of shoring up trust in that process. The day may come when emotions settle and tension ease in Utah. For now, however, it appears voting may be about to get a bit more complicated.
]]><![CDATA[How predictions markets make gambling legal in Utah]]>Thu, 19 Feb 2026 23:42:02 GMThttp://www.jayevensen.com/opinions/how-predictions-markets-make-gambling-legal-in-utahFinally, Utah politicians are beginning to speak out about prediction markets and the faux gambling companies that hide under the umbrella of a system built to enable commodities trading.
These, if not stopped soon, will turn Utah into a place where anti-gambling laws become less than mere suggestions, and where the social ills tied to gambling have free rein. 
But it could go farther than that. They could invite interference that has national, or even international ramifications.
On Tuesday, Mike Selig, the chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission posted a video on X that defended prediction markets as useful for hedging risk and for acting as a “check” on the news media, presumably by providing better predictive data on upcoming elections than opinion polls.
Utah Gov. Spencer Cox responded with force, saying he doesn’t remember the Commodity Futures Trading Commission “having authority over the ‘derivative market’ of LeBron James’ rebounds.”
Of course not, and those who wrote laws nearly 100 years ago that marked the distinct differences between trading and the type of gambling that once had the mayor of New York City, Fiorello La Guardia, swinging a sledge hammer at illegal slot machines would be shocked by what’s going on.
“These prediction markets you are breathlessly defending are gambling — pure and simple,” the governor posted. “They are destroying the lives of families and countless Americans, especially young men. They have no place in Utah.”
In an email to Deseret Magazine, Utah Sen. Mike Lee said, “Prediction markets are clearly a form of gambling, simply with an inventive mechanism to work around gambling laws like Utah’s.” 
If it waddles like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck … well, it ought to be easy for even a nearsighted Elmer Fudd to see that the “inventive mechanism” of commodities markets doesn’t change the fact that a Utahn using an app to bet on a Jazz game is, in fact, gambling. 
And as a number of experts are now pointing out there is no magic to the odds predictive trading apps like Kalshi or Polymarket provide. 
“Kalshi and Polymarket contend that by letting the world know what the ‘crowd’ thinks will happen, their sites provide valuable information that is more accurate than polls or prognostications,” Benjamin Schiffrin, director of securities policy for Better Markets, wrote recently. “The problem is that, absent inside information, the users on these sites are no more likely to know whether a candidate will win an election or a team will win a game than anyone else.”
Evidence shows that prediction markets are not always accurate predictors, he said.
That, according to Matthew Wein, can be a big problem.
Wein edits the Secure Stakes newsletter, is CEO of the Wein Strategy Lab and used to be a  policy adviser at the Department of Homeland Security. He argues that commodity markets sometimes are thin and “dominated by a relatively small pool of sophisticated bettors, enthusiasts, and speculators.”
These people could easily manipulate markets. He uses the example of a bet on whether a movie will gross more than $100 million during its opening weekend. 
“A studio could rationally allocate a portion of its marketing budget to buy the ‘yes’ side to move the price upward, and then cite that movement to entertainment reporters as evidence of strong anticipated performance.”
It’s one thing to consider a movie, but quite another “when the topics at stake intersect with homeland security, national security, or cybersecurity,” he wrote.
American sports already are reeling from several recent gambling scandals, including the alleged throwing of college basketball games. Wein argues that companies that allow betting on virtually any event, election or game could eventually destroy trust in many institutions. Foreign governments, he wrote, already have shown their willingness to exploit stolen data “to shape narratives for strategic effect.”
But, of course, everyone right now is focused on sports gambling. NPR reported that Kalshi and Polymarket generated almost $5 billion in Super Bowl wagers leading up to the game. Presumably, that includes wagers from Utahns.
Prediction markets are regulated by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, not state laws that have developed around legal betting markets.
Tough statements by Utah politicians are helpful, but it may be hard to counter President Trump’s firm support for prediction markets in any legislative fight against states’ rights. 
Utah’s hope for maintaining control over its anti-gambling stance may rest ultimately with the Supreme Court.
]]><![CDATA[Bangladesh finally holds a free and fair election]]>Thu, 19 Feb 2026 23:40:30 GMThttp://www.jayevensen.com/opinions/bangladesh-finally-holds-a-free-and-fair-electionLast week, Bangladesh held an election that international observers said was fair and acceptable, according to the Associated Press. 
That is a remarkable achievement, coming only 18 months after a student-led uprising that prompted a violent response from former Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina before she fled to asylum in India. An estimated 1,400 student protesters were killed in weeks of marches and street protests. The nation was leaderless and in disarray, a recipe more conducive to the complete collapse of law and order than to what happened next.
Muhammad Yunus, the 85-year-old Nobel Laureate best known for his work among the poor, reluctantly accepted the job of interim leader, urged upon him by leaders of the student uprising. Officially known as the Chief Advisor to the Government, Yunus ran the country alone, with a parliament, and he set about instituting freedoms and organizing an election.
Some politicians criticized him for taking so long. But the motivations guiding Yunus, who was not a candidate for prime minister and who peacefully relinquished his office after the election, were beyond reproach. He inherited a government rife with corruption and, while certainly not cleansing it completely, put it on a promising road to success. 
That promise now belongs to new leaders to fulfill.
This is a story the world seldom sees, and it’s one to which the United States, and Utah, as well, should pay close attention. Yunus is a friend to Utah, having made several visits here to discuss his anti-poverty programs.
Unlike the Arab Spring, in which many democracy movements either were crushed by government forces or dissolved by counterrevolutionary actions, Bangladesh offers a real opportunity to replace tyranny with freedom. Yunus has seen to that.
This unique story is a reason why the Deseret News sent opinion editor Jay Evensen and photographer Scott Winterton to Dhaka, Bangladesh a year ago. 
While many in the United States believe corruption is pulling the nation apart, Bangladesh has been trying to come to terms with its corruption with the faith that it can build a government that guarantees rights. It is a story of hope amid a world of violence and tyranny.
Yunus told the Deseret News last year that his top priority was to enact some sort of guarantee that future governments would not revert to the abuses that led to the student uprising. 
He convened commissions tasked with writing reform measures that he eventually asked leaders of all political parties to sign. He called it the July National Charter, in honor of the revolution that began in July of 2024. 
The charter calls for more than 80 reforms, including term limits on the prime minister, a bicameral parliament, limits on the ruling party’s ability to unilaterally change the constitution and other items.
These were placed on ballots along with the parties vying for control. 
Various media reports said more than 60% of voters approved the charter, a solid mandate for permanent reform. 
The Bangladesh Nationalist Party won the lion’s share of seats in Parliament. Tarique Rahman, the 60-year-old son of a former prime minister and former president, who had been in self-imposed exile in the United Kingdom for 17 years, was sworn in this week as the new prime minister. 
His job now is to make sure the reforms of the charter are implemented into law. Entrenched government corruption is now his to clean up. His job also is to peacefully relinquish power when the time comes, in deference to the will of the people.
But the group that finished second — a coalition of parties led by the fundamentalist party Jamaat-e-Islami — also has a job. Opposition parties in Bangladesh have seldom operated as a “loyal’ opposition, choosing to demonstrate and protest instead of cooperate and compromise. The nation would greatly benefit by the coalition assuming a more gracious role. 
Complicating matters is the Awami League, the party of ousted prime minister Hasina, which has been outlawed.
Writing for the publication counterpoint.com, retired U.S. State Department Deputy Chief of Mission in Bangladesh Jon F. Danilowicz wrote, “The relatively peaceful nature of the election campaign and the acceptance of the results provides an opportunity for both government and opposition to break with past precedent.”
The world should hope this happens and that Bangladesh lights the way to freedom and dignity.
]]><![CDATA[Why Trump signed a bill to fund foreign aid]]>Sat, 07 Feb 2026 01:09:46 GMThttp://www.jayevensen.com/opinions/why-trump-signed-a-bill-to-fund-foreign-aidSometimes, friendship and kindness accomplish much more than threats and insults.
Even in today’s Washington.
When Washington ended its most recent partial shutdown this week, President Trump signed budget bills that contained substantial foreign aid appropriations, including $9.4 billion for global health programs. 
This was much more than the president had originally indicated. It came about a year after Elon Musk’s Doge cuts eviscerated the United States Agency for International Development and after disparaging remarks about foreign aid floated through many political discussions.
And it vindicated much of what Sam Daley-Harris has been trying to do for years.
I’ve written about Daley-Harris before. He’s an advocate, the founder of Results, an aptly named group that concerns itself with the poor. But unlike most advocates, he has pioneered a method that trains volunteers how to develop cordial, personal relationships with their local members of Congress. He calls it, “transformational advocacy,” and he believes it played a role in these appropriations. 
The $9.4 billion is less than the $12.4 billion appropriated last year, but much more than had been anticipated. It is part of a $51.4 billion foreign aid package.
Daley-Harris believes a lot of people want to make a difference in the world, but they don’t know how to do it. Should they protest? Should they file lawsuits? 
“I think so few people know the transformational advocacy route; the build-a-relationship route,” he told me this week in a Zoom interview.
Daley-Harris learned years ago that good ideas alone aren’t enough to move the needle in Washington. Most advocacy organizations ask their volunteers to sign petitions or cookie–cutter form letters. It makes them feel as if they’ve done something even though Daley-Harris says only 3% of congressional staffers say those methods are effective. 
Instead, he teaches volunteers how to become confident enough to meet with their own representatives in Congress or to access the editorial boards of their local newspapers. Instead of form letters, they write their own op-eds.
If the member of Congress isn’t interested, the volunteers are taught to politely ask, “What would it take to change your mind?” Then, “Could you say more about that?” And, finally, “Why do you think that is?”
Over time, these everyday volunteers build relationships. Those relationships, Daley-Harris believes,  eventually led to the letters hundreds of lawmakers of both parties signed recently, urging the heads of important subcommittees to approve the funding that ended up in the budget bills President Trump signed.
Those letters included the types of easily verifiable things Results volunteers have told members of Congress about for years, such as how the Global Fund for AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria has lowered HIV transmission rates by 75%, or how U.S. foreign assistance has, since 2000, reduced the number of preventable deaths to children under 5 by 58%, and maternal mortality by 42%.
Did Trump know what he was signing? Did the larger issues that had divided Washington obscure the relatively small amounts for foreign aid and health programs? 
Hard to say, but foreign aid traditionally has made up 1% or less of the federal budget.
Daley-Harris said he’s sure that, of the hundreds of representatives who signed letters, “very few of them had ever heard of these things when they were running for congress the very first time.” His “transformational advocacy” has informed them.
As always when I write about Results, I have to acknowledge that the organization gave me an award 15 years ago for my reporting on global poverty. Results leaders have connected me numerous times with Muhammad Yunus, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and current interim leader of Bangladesh. Last year, I traveled to Bangladesh to meet with him, eventually writing a five-part series on his efforts to lift thousands in that country out of poverty.
But this isn’t why I keep revisiting Yunus, Daley-Harris and others who lead the organization. I do so because of the way they quietly change the world through tactics that run counter to the loud, insulting, name-calling manner in which many engage in today’s political discussions.
Daley-Harris outlined his theories behind transformational advocacy in his book, “Reclaiming our Democracy.” He writes that many Americans shy away from advocating for causes. “Why? Because most of us see advocacy as too hard or too frustrating, too complicated, or too partisan, too dirty or too time-consuming, too ineffective or too costly.”
But there is nothing dirty or partisan about becoming friends with important lawmakers through frequent, unrelenting and kind interactions.
“The point is, there’s the silently groaning at home or there’s (holding) your protest sign, or there’s the building of a relationship.” That, he said, is the least-known strategy, but it makes the most sense, and it works.

​
]]><![CDATA[Do not nationalize U.S. elections]]>Sat, 07 Feb 2026 01:07:57 GMThttp://www.jayevensen.com/opinions/do-not-nationalize-us-electionsI assume I’m like many Americans when I say I can’t always tell when President Trump is serious or when he’s merely floating an idea for effect. 
But this much I do know. His latest provocative suggestion, that Republicans should take control of federal elections this year in possibly 15 states, is a terrible idea.
Thankfully, Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune quickly closed the door to such foolishness in the Senate, correctly noting, “that’s a constitutional issue.”
On that score, there shouldn’t be much debate. 
Article 1, section 4 gives state legislatures the power to set the “times, places and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives.”
The second part of that constitutional clause says, “but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of chusing (sic) senators.” This has been used through the years to regulate how state election systems may operate, especially in regards to racial fairness, but never to usurp several states’ powers completely.
But this issue goes beyond the words of the Constitution, important as they are, or with the need to amend it, difficult as that would be. It’s a matter of national and election security. 
The most important thing to remember in this debate is a number — 3,244. That’s how many counties and county equivalents exist in the United States. Most of them administer a part of the elections that regularly decide members of Congress and the presidency.
They do so separately, independently and in slightly different ways.
That’s as beautiful of a working argument for states’ rights and the wisdom of local control as you could find. Washington likes to get its hands on everything the states do, but elections remain complicated and fragmented and downright difficult to manipulate.
A successful conspiracy to rig an election would have to involve complicit precinct judges, technicians in charge of tabulating machines and post-election auditors in each county. That’s much harder than hacking into an enormous, centralized election bureaucracy in Washington.
As Brennan Center officials Jess Brouard and Derek Tisler wrote for the State Court Report last year:
“This decentralization is an important feature of American democracy. Since officials on the local level are empowered to handle the bulk of election operations, they can adjust procedures based on the needs and capacity of their communities. That kind of flexibility ensures fair elections can happen even in difficult circumstances, like if a natural disaster strikes.
“Furthermore, having election officials operate in their own communities creates responsiveness and transparency for voters — the people who serve you at the election office and the polling place are your neighbors who have a real stake in ensuring your community has a chance to be heard.”
Or as Thune put it: “I’m a big believer in decentralized and distributed power. And I think it’s harder to hack 50 election systems than it is to hack one. In my view, at least, that’s always a system that has worked pretty well.”
Indeed it has, notwithstanding the unsubstantiated claims of election fraud that have been echoing for nearly six years.
The U.S. election system is an example of good old-fashioned conservative local-control, which is why it’s so hard to hear a Republican president brushing them aside.
Sixty-four lawsuits were filed alleging fraud in the 2020 election. None succeeded. 
A panel of former jurists and other notable conservatives thoroughly examined each case, as well as election audits in battleground states. A distinguished member of that group, former U.S. Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Thomas B. Griffith, who currently is a fellow at the Wheatley Institute at Brigham Young University, wrote of that experience: 
“We have reached the unequivocal conclusion that Trump’s claims of election fraud are unsupported by evidence.”
No doubt, the president is concerned about polls that show Democrats leading in many congressional elections coming up this fall. That may be why he tossed this idea around on a podcast with former FBI deputy director Dan Bongino, and why he since has repeated it.
Is he serious? Who knows? But because the president said those things less than a week after the FBI searched the elections office in Fulton County, Georgia for records related to 2020, it’s hard not to be alarmed.

​
]]><![CDATA[Super Bowl bets ought to cause worries]]>Sat, 07 Feb 2026 01:05:33 GMThttp://www.jayevensen.com/opinions/super-bowl-bets-ought-to-cause-worriesOnly a few weeks after the Justice Department unsealed an indictment alleging a scheme to fix more than 29 NCAA Division I men’s basketball games involving more than 39 players on 17 different teams, Americans are set to dump a record amount on bets on the Super Bowl.
Sure, we’re talking about two different sports — basketball and football. But we’re also talking about one emerging industry — all-encompassing legal sports betting. And while we’re not suggesting Sunday’s outcome will be illegitimate (no evidence we know of suggests that), it’s clear that legal sports betting has taken hold of Americans in an alarmingly bad way, and that the industry is doing all it can to keep anyone from ruining that parade.
The American Gaming Association predicts a record $1.76 billion will be legally wagered on Super Bowl LX, including bets on the outcome of the game and a myriad of other wagers placed on individual athletes’ performances and other minute parts of the contest. This, ESPN reports, would represent a whopping 27% increase over last year’s game.
The Sports Betting Alliance, which works in partnership with the betting industry’s Legal Sports Report, estimates the total to be a more modest $1.71 billion. 
That hardly matters for understanding how legalized sports betting, which now includes 39 states and the District of Columbia, has led to a growth in gambling. 
In 2014, long before gambling on sports became legal, NBA commissioner Adam Silver wrote an op-ed for the New York Times arguing that illegal gambling was a $400 billion industry and that legalizing and regulating this would protect sports.
How interesting, then, to read a mid-2025 report from the American Gaming Association that estimated illegal gambling (of all kinds, not just sports) was generating $673.6 billion annually. 
“Driven by a sharp rise in illegal iGaming, expanding use of unregulated skill machines, and persistent illegal sports betting, the illegal market has grown 22% since AGA's last report in 2022,” a PR Newswire report by the AGA said.
Silver’s prediction appears to have been wrong. Rather than taming underground gambling, legalizing this vice leads to increases in both legal and illegal wagers.
It also ruins lives. 
The Siena College Research Institute published a poll last year that found 22% of Americans, a figure that included 48% of men 18-49, had an account with at least one online sportsbook. A U.S. News poll last July found that 25% of sports bettors reported being unable to pay a bill (in some cases their rent) because of gambling debts, while 30% reported having gambling debts of some kind. Also, 15% said they had taken out personal loans to cover gambling costs, and 52% said they carry a credit card balance from month to month.
These are side-effects of this national surge the industry would rather you not see. 
The newsletter Popular Information this week reported on FEC filings that show “DraftKings and FanDuel, have already spent millions of dollars on the 2026 midterm elections.” In years past, the industry had focused on donations to state political leaders, but now they appear to be trying to defeat some measures pending in Congress.
One, the Safe Bet Act, is sponsored by Rep. Paul Tonko, D-N.Y. It would ban gambling ads during live game broadcasts. Just as importantly, it would prohibit online sportsbooks from enticing new customers with “bonus bets” and other lures. Sportsbooks would be prohibited from using AI to track and entice problem gamblers.
Another bill, the GRIT Act, aims to set aside 50% of federal sports excise tax receipts to pay for programs that prevent, treat and research gambling addictions.
Currently, no federal agency is tracking or researching problem gambling in the United States, The GRIT Act would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make a report, within three years of its passage, on how effective the bill’s efforts had been.
More is needed. Gambling’s record since the Supreme Court allowed states to legalize sports betting in 2018 has been abysmal — so much so that Congress ought to retrench and outlaw all such bets nationwide for the nation’s good. If nothing else, recent scandals involving athletes and coaches ought to make this clear. 
Surely, Americans could find something better to do with the $1.76 billion they are prepared to toss away this weekend.

​
]]><![CDATA[Census report ought to be a wakeup call]]>Sat, 07 Feb 2026 01:03:40 GMThttp://www.jayevensen.com/opinions/census-report-ought-to-be-a-wakeup-callThe Census Bureau’s new population growth figures ought to be a wakeup call to Americans. Unfortunately, it’s not the only recent call that will likely go unanswered.
It may be a slight consolation that other large nations — China, for instance — are worse off. As economist Nicholas Eberstadt wrote recently for the American Enterprise Institute, “Tumbling birth rates have already thrown China into depopulation, with over four deaths for every three births in 2025.”
Two things could pull the United States away from a similar and seemingly inevitable demographic catastrophe. One — increasing the fertility rate — has proven difficult for governments to influence. A lot of nations have tried financial incentives and generous maternity leave and benefits in order to induce larger families. These have produced few, if any, results.
But the other thing lies well within government’s control. It is the need to increase the rate of legal immigration.
Immigration has long been a source of strength for the United States. As the George W. Bush Institute’s website puts it: 
“Immigration fuels the economy. When immigrants enter the labor force, they increase the productive capacity of the economy and raise GDP. Their incomes rise, but so do those of natives. It’s a phenomenon dubbed the ‘immigration surplus’ …” 
Also, “immigrants grease the wheels of the labor market by flowing into industries and areas where there is a relative need for workers — where bottlenecks or shortages might otherwise damp growth.”
The Census report measured changes from 2020 to 2025. It found “a historic decline in net international migration” which, in the year ending on July 1, 2025, fell to 1.3 million in the United States.
But because that time period included only the first half of Donald Trump’s second term, the report projected a further decline “to approximately 321,000 in 2026 if current trends continue.”
Because the report measures net migration, it includes people moving out of the country, as well.
Except for Montana and West Virginia, the report said, every state in the union is seeing a decline in growth due to fewer births and less migration. Utah remained among the top five fastest growing states, but its 1% growth rate (translating to 36,000 new residents) was due primarily to new births.  
A separate report by the Brookings Institution estimates that the United States saw a net decline in immigration during calendar year 2025. “Specifically, we estimate that net migration was between –295,000 and -10,000 for the year,” it said.
This is more than just a piece of trivia. The Congressional Budget Office predicts immigration will “become an increasingly important source of population growth in the coming years …” It predicts that by 2030 annual deaths will begin to outnumber births in the U.S., and the population will begin to shrink. That’s only four years away.
Unless, that is, things begin to change. There is nothing inevitable about any of this. What is needed, however, is a recognition of the importance of families and the incredible resources that immigrants bring to the country. That narrative seems to have been drowned out lately, or it gets pushed aside by a false narrative that says the nation gains only by allowing the best educated or most successful people to immigrate.
The rags-to-riches stories of poor immigrants who rise to wealth and fame didn’t end with Andrew Carnegie in the late 19th century. I’ve written about a number of modern examples in Utah, including Eumbo Kasongo, a Congolese man who had been kidnapped as a child by a gang of rebels and who came here as a refugee without money, education or skills.
The last time I talked to him, he was a surgical technician at St. Mark’s Hospital.
A paper by social demographer Charles Hirschman, published by the National Library of Medicine, outlined the attributes many such immigrants bring, including “a resilience and determination to succeed, a curiosity and openness to innovation born of marginality, and an attraction to high-risk pursuits (because conventional careers are less open to them).”
Immigration has long been a major part of the secret sauce that keeps America’s economy humming. With populations declining in many countries, and with the birthrate teetering, the U.S. should be opening its doors, not closing them, to more legal immigration. 
I’m certainly not advocating for open borders, but the tactics of ICE agents, the visa revocations and the recent decision to suspend processing visas for people from 75 countries has sent a strong message to the world that even legal immigrants are not welcome. That could be economic suicide.
The demographic hotline keeps ringing. Will we wake up?

​
]]>