Month: May 2020

A picture of Trump at the Lincoln Memorial reminded me of a fake future news post from 2016 in which I envisioned Paul Ryan trying to find money for a grandiose Trump Monument. The question for today is, what would be a fit monument for the man on golf cart?

Given that his legacy will be division and bigotry, and his most memorable policy initiative is the wall, I would suggest a white marble wall with figures of white people on one side and people of color on the other. That says it all.

We know that Trump is going to try and paint Biden as being soft on China. How should Biden respond? I would suggest something like this:

1. Historically, members of both parties hoped and believed that integrating China into the web of global commerce would result, not just in increased prosperity, but in a friendlier and more democratic country. That clearly didn’t happen. China is becoming more aggressive and authoritarian by the day.
2. That said, our relationship with China is complicated, and we need to use carrots as well as sticks. We need to be able to cooperate with the Chinese on a variety of issues, including the virus and climate change.
3. Trump’s response to the Chinese challenge has been blustery, but singularly inept. He sucks up to Xi, ignores human rights issues, imposes tariffs for no clear purpose, and does his best to alienate the allies we need to change Chinese behavior. As a result, we have made no real progress on North Korea, the Chinese are continuing to militarize rocks in the South China Sea, and Taiwan and Hong Kong are under increased pressure. In addition, American consumers are paying more than they need to for Chinese manufactured goods, which benefits exactly no one in either country.
4. We need a new approach. We need to work with our allies to change the rules of world trade in our favor, instead of annoying them by calling them worse than the Chinese. We need to maintain a strong military presence in the South China Sea in order to keep our allies’ trade routes open. We need an open and transparent investigation of the origins of the virus to make sure it doesn’t happen again. We should not, however, make ridiculous demands for compensation that are never going to be satisfied, and we need to respond to the economic challenge by fixing things that we can control instead of insisting that the Chinese simply give up their attempts to modernize, because that isn’t going to happen.
5. Most of all, we need to stop using China as a scapegoat for our problems. China didn’t force us to respond so poorly to the virus. China didn’t demand that we shred our safety net, or treat climate change as a hoax, or pass a huge tax cut that primarily helps wealthy people, or put the regulatory screws to our workers. We did that to ourselves by electing a man who is clearly unfit for his office. If you elect me, that will stop.

Based on ideology and the fate of the Warsaw Pact countries, we knew what awaited us if we lost the Cold War: totalitarian rule by a Communist Party answerable to Moscow; the loss of all political and legal rights; and the destruction of all private businesses of any size. Does China aspire to something similar?

No. Given its history and belief in Chinese exceptionalism, China’s model for world domination is the relationship between the Middle Kingdom and vassal states, not the Soviet Union and its satellites. The Chinese do not care what kind of legal, political, and economic system we have as long as it doesn’t criticize China or prevent it from doing business as it sees fit. As a result, there would be some constraints on free speech, and the possibility of camps for political opponents, but nothing worse than that.

Do you find that comforting? I’m guessing not.

As originally envisioned by the man on golf cart, the proposed payroll tax cut made no sense, because it was an effort to stimulate economic activity at a time when the government was mandating business closures in the name of public health. The idea clearly hasn’t gone away, however, and conditions are somewhat different. Would it make sense today?

No–not unless and until the public health problem has been brought under much better control, and a conventional stimulus would be appropriate. We’re not there yet; we’re still in compensation for restrictive regulations mode. We should welcome the proposal for one reason, however; GOP efforts to deplete the Social Security and Medicare trust funds will be difficult to explain to the elderly in November.

Why hasn’t the vaccine just leaped out of the awesome scientific brain of the Very Stable Genius on its own accord? Based on his self-promotion, he alone should be able to solve this problem!

As we know, Trump won the 2016 election in spite of losing the popular vote by running the table in the swing states. How do the Democrats reverse that?

There are basically two ways to get to 270, assuming that Michigan will be flipped, as seems likely:

1. WIN FLORIDA OR TEXAS: Trump is going to be in trouble in Florida, as Biden will appeal to the elderly population, and the economic and public health effects of the virus will be particularly horrendous. I’m much more skeptical about Texas, but it isn’t impossible.
2. WIN TWO FAIRLY BIG SWING STATES: Pennsylvania, Ohio, Arizona, Wisconsin, and North Carolina are in play. Biden has strong historic ties to Pennsylvania; I think that one is his best bet. The others could go either way.

Here are the three scenarios, and the results:

1. A GOP SWEEP: Trump and the Republicans spike the football by cutting taxes for the wealthy, shredding the safety net, and repealing Obamacare, even in a pandemic. This is exactly the wrong approach for the times, and the recovery slows to a crawl, even with a vaccine. They don’t care. It’s the fruits of victory, you know.
2. A DEMOCRATIC SWEEP: The Democrats push through an expansionary budget that includes massive investments in green infrastructure and public health. The recovery accelerates.
3. MIXED GOVERNMENT: There is no meaningful legislation of any kind. The lights are kept on through agreements that reflect the spending priorities of both parties. As such, the budget is mildly expansionary, and the recovery continues at a reasonable pace.

Here’s what I think I know about November:

1. BIDEN IS GOING TO WIN THE POPULAR VOTE. His margin on a national basis is too high and stable for Trump to overcome, even under significantly different circumstances.
2. THE DEMOCRATS ARE GOING TO HOLD THE HOUSE: That was likely even before the pandemic and the ensuing recession. There will be no dramatic recovery, and the GOP will be blamed to some extent.
3. THE DEMOCRATS SHOULD WIN SEATS IN THE SENATE: That’s just a matter of math. The GOP is defending far more seats.

Here’s what I don’t know:

1. WHO WINS IN THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE? Trump is going to have to run the table in the swing states again to win. The odds are against it, but it certainly isn’t impossible; he proved that in 2016.
2. CAN THE DEMOCRATS TAKE CONTROL OF THE SENATE? There are enough seats in play to make that a realistic possibility. The balance of probabilities is against it, though. We will need a wave election for it to happen.

There are three scenarios for what happens to the nation in 2021: a GOP sweep; a Democratic sweep; or mixed government. I will discuss each of those in my next post.

If you’re looking at the world through Trump’s eyes, you undoubtedly think that the emergency is over, and that it is time to start the rebound that will assure your re-election. According to Politico, he is meeting with his advisers at Camp David this weekend to formulate the plan that will accomplish just that. What will it look like?

The GOP tool kit consists of two items: tax cuts and deregulation. That approach isn’t designed to deal with the impacts of a pandemic; cutting taxes doesn’t help when businesses can’t generate income, and deregulation only endangers the lives of workers and consumers. The real problem is consumer and worker confidence; tax cuts aren’t going to make people risk their lives to go to restaurants and bars again. The situation won’t really improve until the public perceives that the health issue is under control.

Nevertheless, because the GOP is what it is, the answer will be tax cuts. Cutting the payroll tax at least makes a tiny bit of sense, even though it is hardly the most efficient way to encourage employers to maintain the workforce. The real question is whether Trump will go further and suggest income, capital gains, and corporate tax cuts, as well. That would absolutely make no sense whatsoever under the current circumstances, so expect him to try it.

And when the House shows no interest, he will have someone else to blame for his failures.

Unlike its neighbors, Sweden has adopted a relaxed regime of distancing in the hope of acquiring earlier herd immunity. This approach inevitably has led to a much larger death toll in the short run. The government is betting on the following:

1. The number of added hospitalizations will not overwhelm the country’s medical resources;
2. There will be no vaccine in the foreseeable future, so herd immunity is the only ultimate solution;
3. The virus is not particularly lethal, on a percentage basis;
4. Immunity, once acquired, will remain indefinitely; and
5. Apart from the elderly and others at high levels of risk, the population will feel comfortable engaging in economic and social activity at normal levels of distancing.

So how is it working? Some of it is TBD. However, according to The Economist, notwithstanding the images you see on TV of Swedes congregating in parks and taverns, GDP is down almost as much as it is in Denmark. As to the last criterion, the gamble is not paying off.

The Chinese are predictably flooding the zone with fake news about the origins of the virus and the brilliance of their response to it. How should we react?

Any normal administration would rely on its reputation for telling the truth. Trump, however, sees the world in the same manner as the Russians and the Chinese; for him, the truth is anything that serves his purposes. Everyone knows that. Why, then, should anyone find him more credible than the Chinese?

In previous posts, I opined that what people call “character” is not indivisible; that “character” is only an issue to the extent that the individual in question is an embarrassment to the public, or cannot do his job properly; that it is a mistake to “believe women” in all cases, including Biden’s; and that even if the Reade allegations were true, they did not meet the standard for disqualification, particularly considering the quality of the alternative. Biden has now firmly denied the allegations, and I will make no further comment on that score. But what about Bill Clinton? Did he meet the standard?

Once Clinton had been re-elected, the embarrassment standard was superseded by the constitutional “high crimes and misdemeanor” test. Arguably lying under oath about sex in a private lawsuit was a “low crime and misdemeanor” that, in my opinion, did not meet the test. Prior to the election, however, the standard was very much in play. I think Clinton’s behavior did, in fact, make it difficult for him to represent the country properly. That’s a big reason why I voted for Dole in 1996.

Republicans want to force people who have reasonable fears about catching the virus to go back to work or starve. Republicans are complaining that the unemployment compensation provided by the second “stimulus” is too generous. Republicans are apparently going to demand pro-business, anti-worker language in the next round of “stimulus”. Republicans are responsible for the shambles of an unemployment compensation process in some swing states.

Not to mention, of course, their opposition to unions and a higher minimum wage, various new anti-worker Trump regulations, and the regressive tax cut. It’s an opening, Democrats. Don’t let it pass you by.

To what extent has the Republican Party devolved into the Party of Trump? Let’s look at the scorecard:

1. The GOP believes in free trade. The POT, not so much.
2. The GOP believes in limited, predictable government. The POT supports blustering, arbitrary government.
3. The GOP sees Russia as an enemy. The POT thinks Russia is a natural ally and gratefully accepts its support in elections.
4. The GOP at least says it worries about deficits. The POT couldn’t care less.
5. At least parts of the GOP are sympathetic to immigration. The POT, of course, isn’t.
6. The GOP believes in liberal democracy and supports it at home and abroad. The POT thinks right-wing dictators are our best hope of stability in a dangerous world and expresses contempt for democratic leaders and principles.
7. The GOP believes in legislative and judicial oversight of the executive branch. The POT thinks the executive is only accountable to the electorate.
8. The GOP says that character is important in a president. The POT thinks scruples and support for the rule of law are weaknesses.

It’s not a pretty picture, is it?

On the GOP leader named Mitch.

He’s Robin Hood, but for the rich.

He’s turning the screws

So the Democrats lose.

If they don’t, well, then, karma’s a bitch.