Kerby Anderson
The U.S. has two debt problems: one long term and one short term. The first problem is a national debt of $36 trillion that has been increasing. Also concerning is the fact that the rate of indebtedness is also increasing.
The second problem is the current need to refinance so many federal treasuries this year. These T-bills are how we finance our debt, and $7 trillion of debt needs to be financed, along with the $2 trillion deficit this year. That means $9 trillion of current debt needs to be purchased.
Who is going to buy our debt? Not China, probably not Japan or any country in Europe. We need something to entice countries and companies to buy our debt.
Bitcoin might be the answer. At the Bitcoin Policy Institute, Michael Saylor ran models to show how investing in the bitcoin strategic reserve would build assets to offset the growing national debt. I mentioned that in a previous commentary.
But another presentation proposed a bitcoin bond (called a bit bond) that would increase an investor’s interest in buying bonds. Most of the purchase would go to the government, but a portion of the purchase would go to buy bitcoin. At maturity, the holder would receive all the upside price appreciation of bitcoin to a certain level. After that the additional appreciation would be split by half with the government.
The benefit to the holder would be an investment that likely would return a better percentage than normal. The benefit to the government would be the purchasing of bitcoin for the strategic reserve that is “budget-neutral” as required by the executive order signed by President Trump earlier this month.
Bitcoin might be way to pay off our national debt in the future but also attract needed investors to finance our debt today.

Penna Dexter
One of the United Nations’ largest annual feminist gatherings, the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW), is meeting in New York. Rebecca Oas from the Center for Family and Human Rights says, this year, there’s “a dramatic mood shift, largely because of the change in U.S. leadership.” A declaration adopted on the first day of the 2-week conference contained some language friendly to the gender identity agenda. But, to the chagrin of representatives from the International Planned Parenthood Federation, references to sexual and reproductive health, reproductive rights, and sexuality education were left out.
Feminists are not happy. Dr. Oas says, normally they ignore conservatives at the CSW. But not this time.
She reports that at a townhall for CSW attendees, U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres spoke of a “ferocious backlash against the rights of women and girls” which, he says, “is growing in power and strength.” He opened the Commission with a warning: “The poison of patriarchy is back….with a vengeance.”
A change in the party controlling the White House normally brings a switch in how the U.S seeks to influence international abortion policy. Notably, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio rejoined the Geneva Consensus Declaration, which states that there is no international right to abortion and that no nation is obligated to fund or promote abortion.
UN agencies constantly work to implement a version of gender equality that is outside their mandate. They are supported by certain NGOs and by groups like Women Deliver, which has voiced its concern that conservatives now “hold power in key global capitals.”
Dr. Oas says “The presence of conservative groups at the U.N. is often derided and their messages have been increasingly denigrated as ‘anti-rights,’ including by U.N. officials.”
Conservatives are pushing back with a statement declaring that, in many countries, majorities or sizable minorities of women ”hold pro-life and pro-family values, which ‘are mainstream positions’ and not anti-rights.”
It’s their views that should drive U.N. policy.

Kerby Anderson
For decades, progressive professors and politicians have been promoting universal basic income, known as UBI. It is the fiscal program to pay a regular income to everyone without any conditions. Proponents argue that we all benefit from technological advances and thus deserve a steady income, especially as we enter a world where AI might take away many of our jobs.
Chuck Bentley (CEO Crown Financial Ministries) has been warning about the perils of UBI in his articles and in a chapter in his book, Seven Gray Swans. Giving free money to everyone doesn’t make sense economically nor does it make sense theologically. People benefit from working and enjoying the fruits of their labor.
The National Bureau of Economic Research published a study of UBI, which was summarized in a lengthy thread by Athan Koutsiouroumbas. They found that giving people in Compton, California at least $500 per month in free money did little to help them. The participants only ended up $100 richer and smoked more cigarettes.
Here is a summary of some of their findings. For example, “Receiving guaranteed income had no impact on the labor supply of full-time workers, but part-time workers had a lower labor market participation by 13 percentage points.” The researchers discerned “no overall effects on indices of psychological and financial well-being.”
These results should not be surprising. Many studies show that happiness and fulfillment come from earned success. People who work hard and receive the benefit of their work are much happier and fulfilled than people, who for example, win the lottery.
Proverbs 13:11 says, “Wealth gained hastily will dwindle, but whoever gathers it little by little will increase it.” This recent study merely confirms what the Bible teaches and most of us know.