Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The overleveraged and underleveraged society

The overleveraged and underleveraged society
Getty Images

Anderson edited "Leveraging: A Political, Economic and Societal Framework" (Springer, 2014), has taught at five universities and ran for the Democratic nomination for a Maryland congressional seat in 2016.

Many critiques of capitalist society show that there is either too much of something or too little of something, and each kind of critique can be written in a way to show that the value that we have too much of is equivalent to too little of the opposite of that value. A book that shows that there is too much economic inequality (like Thomas Piketty's Capital in the Twenty-First Century) can also be read as saying that there is too little economic equality. A book that shows that women suffer too much injustice (like Betty Friedan's The Feminine Mystique) can be read to say that women experience too little justice in our society. A book that shows African-Americans suffer too much injustice (like Cornel West's Race Matters) can be read as saying that there is too little justice in our society toward African-Americans.


Leverage is very different. For American society -- in fact all societies -- suffer from both the problem of excessive leverage and deficient leverage though not about the same subject matter. Rather, on some matters we have too much leverage, and on other matters we have too little leverage. Moreover, leverage, unlike equality and justice, is not a moral concept. Leverage is an empirical concept like weight. A person can weigh too much or too little, but the weight itself does not establish the judgment that there is too much or too little weight. That judgment must come from the medical profession, who must defend their own standards and values.

With leverage -- and there are different kinds, bargaining leverage, resource leverage, and financial leverage -- there can be too much or too little. And the judgment that there is too much or too little must come from a normative standpoint-- for example, a moral philosopher, a political philosopher, or a Congressional oversight committee.

Leveraging involves using a minimum force to create a maximum force with the help of some tool and a fulcrum. In traditional physical leverage, you can move a large concrete block with a pen if the pen is placed under the block and lifted in the appropriate way. Archimedes, the ancient Greek scientist who is credited with discovering physical leverage, said he could move the entire earth if he had a pole that was long enough and a fulcrum.

The financial crisis of 2008-09 was, according to many economists, a "leverage crisis," because both banks and homeowners were involved in excessive leveraging practices. In financial leverage, there is borrowing that takes place which is used for an investment that is intended to generate an outsized return. In the home mortgage leveraging crisis, homeowners bought homes which were interest free for a few years and then the interest rates ballooned, leading many homeowners to become incapable of paying their mortgages. They were "overleveraged." The banks, which could not collect the monthly mortgages, were also overleveraged and many of them crashed. Thus, excessive financial leveraging led to a financial disaster. Another example of overleveraging in our society is working mothers who are overwhelmed with their work and family responsibilities.

On the other hand we have under-leveraging. For example, the poor minorities in many American big cities who do not have laptops or broadband (although they may have smartphones), are part of an economy and political system which under-leverages information technology. An economically strong society is going to leverage information technology -- this is resource leverage and not financial or bargaining leverage -- effectively so that citizens can benefit in their work, health care, and family relations. A society can also under-leverage the diversity of its very population if the talents, background and cultural knowledge of different groups of people are not effectively harnessed in business, education, and government. Resource leverage typically goes beyond efficient use of resources. Gary Hamel and C.K. Prahalad in their book Competing for the Future explained how resource leveraging is inherently creative, especially by uniting resources from diverse sources.

A just and prosperous society will minimize the cases of overleveraging and under-leveraging striving to reach what I have called a "Leverage Mean." Aristotle said that virtue was the Golden Mean between excess and deficiency. Leverage analysis sends up red flags when it reveals either excessive or deficient leveraging. Indeed, if there is excessive or deficient leveraging, there is probably some moral value that is being violated.

There we have it then. Leveraging should be used more responsibly, avoiding extremes and hitting the Mean. If we analyze different parts of society via a leverage framework, then we will be better positioned to promote moral values like justice, equality, freedom and stability.


Read More

a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less
The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin
us a flag on pole
Photo by Saad Alfozan on Unsplash

The United States of America — A Nation in a Spin

Where is our nation headed — and why does it feel as if the country is spinning out of control under leaders who cannot, or will not, steady it?

Americans are watching a government that seems to have lost its balance. Decisions shift by the hour, explanations contradict one another, and the nation is left reacting to confusion rather than being guided by clarity. Leadership requires focus, discipline, and the courage to make deliberate, informed decisions — even when they are not politically convenient. Yet what we are witnessing instead is haphazard decision‑making, secrecy, and instability.

Keep ReadingShow less