Month: July 2022

Lindsey Graham has come to Bedminster to discuss the upcoming campaign with the American Caligula. Trump, as usual, has left him waiting for an hour. Graham is finally escorted into the great room, where he finds Trump on a chair that looks suspiciously like a throne, with an attractive young woman dropping grapes into his mouth.

G: Mr. President!

T: Linseed! Good to see you! Are you here to talk about the campaign?

G: Of course! I can’t wait! And to deliver a message.

T: Oh, great. This is going to be good, I’m sure. Let me guess–it’s from Mitch and Kevin, right?

G: Yes.

T: And they want me to hold off on announcing my campaign, because they think it will hurt their candidates in the midterms.

G: That’s it.

T: And their reasoning is that they think the Democrat committee is damaging me politically, and all Republicans by implication.

G: Three for three.

T: Well, that’s exactly what I would expect them to say. And do you know why, Linseed?

G: Try me.

T: Because they’re RINOs, that’s why! They didn’t support my battle against the rigged election, and they still don’t! They think the system can be saved–that it’s good, even! They’re the problem, not the solution!

G: I’m not sure it’s fair to call them RINOs. They were Republicans before you were.

T: Of course, they’re RINOs, you dimwit! Anyone who opposes me, but claims to be a Republican, is a RINO by definition.

G: Why do you say that?

T: Because a real Republican knows the system is totally corrupt and needs to be burned down. What’s more, he knows that only I can do it. Give me absolute power, and I can deliver! Weaklings like Pence and DeSantis can’t say that.

G: It’s true. Mitch likes the system just the way it is. It gives him what he wants, and everyone else nothing. Not even the far left.

T: You believe in burning it down, don’t you, Linseed?

G: Of course, Mr. President.

T: Then let me hear you say it. BURN IT DOWN!

G: (Says it faintly)

T: I CAN’T HEAR YOU! SAY IT LOUDER!

G: Burn it down!

T: NOW MEAN IT THIS TIME! BURN IT DOWN!

G: BURN IT DOWN!

T: That’s my guy! Now, let’s go play golf. I’ll even give you a discount on your fees, and let you ride in my cart.

G: Oh, thank you, Mr. President! What an honor!

T: Just remember–you have no chance of winning. Winners win, by definition. I’m a winner. That’s how I know Biden couldn’t possibly beat me. You can’t, either.

G: Whatever you say, Mr. President.

(The two leave for the golf course).

The unemployment rate at the end of 2019 was 3.5 percent; today, it is 3.6 percent. The deficit for 2019 was slightly under $1 trillion; the projected deficit for 2022 is slightly over $1 trillion. The DJIA at the end of 2019 stood around 28,500; today, it is at 32,500. The Fed discount rate was 1.55 percent at the end of 2019; today, it is 2.5 percent.

In addition, the Trump tax cuts have not been repealed, the additional spending on social programs (with a few exceptions) in the pandemic relief bill have expired, and Trump’s tariffs are mostly still in place. In short, with one glaring exception, today’s economy is the GOP holy grail–the pre-pandemic Trump economy. The exception, of course, is inflation.

This proves two things. First, Biden’s policies can’t possibly be primarily responsible for the current level of inflation if they are effectively the same as Trump’s. This is, of course, confirmed by the data from the UK and the EU. Second, the GOP doesn’t have any plausible ideas for dealing with either inflation or slowing growth, since they are already getting what they want. All they really wanna do is have some fun bitching about the economy for opportunistic reasons.

Given its shape and location, the state of Florida is uniquely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Since the Florida GOP can’t abide the thought of intervening in the economy to prevent or even mitigate climate change, however, state government has done nothing to address the mounting problems over the last decade. Rick Scott reportedly wouldn’t even permit the use of the term in state regulations.

Unfortunately, reality bites, even in Florida. The cost of property insurance is out of control, due to the increasing cost of tropical events fueled by rising temperatures, and is becoming a major campaign issue. Instead of trying to address the underlying problem, DeSantis and the legislature have decided to pour more taxpayer money into the state-owned insurance company of last resort, and to expand its obligations. Otherwise, the value of property in Florida would collapse, and with it, the economy.

Doesn’t this sound a lot like, well, socialism for the middle class? Whatever happened to the rugged individual in Florida? One hopes that the Democrats understand what an opening this is and exploit it during the campaign.

The current predominant winner-take-all approach to apportioning electoral votes isn’t mandated by the Constitution; in fact, it probably isn’t consistent with the views of the Founding Fathers. It is also a disaster for our political system. Under the current conditions, it means that the votes of the vast majority of Americans are meaningless, and that presidential elections are decided by a handful of voters in swing states. That in turn means presidential candidates have no incentive to campaign in places like California or Texas, and it puts enormous pressure on the counting process in states like Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. It is a system in desperate need of reform.

The best way to do that is for all of the states to agree to apportion their electoral votes in accordance with proportions of the popular vote. A national referendum supporting that reform would be a good way to give all of the state governments the confidence to go ahead and make the change.

He was fabulously wealthy and famous, but it was never enough. He had a huge chip on his shoulder. He thought he didn’t get the respect he deserved (due largely to the fact that he was known for blowing the big one), and he hated the establishment for it. When given the opportunity, he took money from the Saudis and worked to set up a crass counter-establishment. Whether his efforts will be successful or not remains to be seen.

Is it Trump or Greg Norman? You decide. They’re effectively business partners with the LIV Tour today.

Guns move easily across state lines, so a patchwork of state regulations doesn’t really solve the problem; if we are to stop the use of assault weapons in mass shootings, we need a national sales ban. That is currently impossible, due to the filibuster. Could a national referendum help?

Yes. While it would be necessary to define “assault weapon,” which is a tricky task, the question itself would be relatively simple, and lends itself to a yes or no answer. That is ideal for a referendum.

The constitutionality of such a ban is currently an open question. It is possible, of course, that Clarence Thomas would flip the bird at the American people and tell them that their opinion doesn’t matter–he only cares about himself and Blackstone. That would require a level of arrogance that even Thomas might not be able to attain, however. It would be worth a try.

I don’t know the answer to that, of course, but there are three possibilities:

1. My initial plan was based on the assumption that Ukraine wouldn’t fight. It turned into a disaster. I have since gained enough ground to call the campaign a victory and avoid humiliation at home. Once my gains in the Donbas have been rounded off, I will lower the intensity of the war, look for a reasonable negotiated peace, rebuild my military, and wait for a better opportunity in the future–perhaps after Trump wins in 2024.
2. The current plan is working reasonably well. The combination of low-level conflict (which limits my casualties), the blockade, and gas cutoffs may force both Ukraine and NATO to make a deal that is highly favorable to me over the winter. It’s what I should have been doing all along. If that doesn’t work, we’ll revert back to #1.
3. I’m determined to take Ukraine, come hell or high water. There are no limits to what I will do, including the threat of nuclear war.

I think he has gone beyond #1. #2 is very plausible. God help us if it is #3.

Marco Rubio is one of the co-sponsors of a new bill that would require fathers to pay child support from the date of conception. The financial obligation would be retroactive in the event paternity could not be established before birth.

You can see why this approach appeals to Rubio; it permits him to appear woman-friendly without expanding the size of the welfare state, which is of course anathema to the GOP. In fact, I predicted the GOP would move in this direction over a year ago. But the legislation comes with many problems, including:

1. The current child support system lacks effective enforcement tools even for the born, largely due to the fact that many fathers simply don’t have any money. Imagine the problems collecting for a fetus!
2. Rubio probably imagines that the vast majority of abortions are the result of hook-ups. That is not true; his legislation does nothing for women in stable relationships.
3. It is reasonably easy to determine the additional financial needs created by an actual child. For a fetus, not so much. It doesn’t require clothes or shelter or food separate from the mother. How would this calculation be made?
4. I don’t think it’s possible to do paternity testing until the child is born. If not, making the financial obligation retroactive does nothing for the immediate needs of the mother. Do you really think service providers are going to permit her to, in effect, borrow against the inflow of cash that the system says she will receive months from now? Would you be willing to bet on that, if you were such a provider?

The bottom line is that the state’s enforcement abilities would have to be beefed up very significantly in order to make the legislation work. Rubio and his friends aren’t going to vote for a major expansion of government for that purpose. That’s not how they roll.

Regardless of whether you support or oppose abortion rights, you have to admit that the Supreme Court has left matters in a mess. Having a patchwork of regulations is not necessarily a problem by itself, but red states attempting to impose their will on blue states is. We are looking at years of really ugly litigation, and strains on the federal system that haven’t existed since the Civil War. It’s not a pretty picture.

A national abortion referendum could help resolve the problem. The ultimate objective would be to use the results of the referendum, which would be done on a national basis–not state by state–as the basis for federal legislation that would preempt any state laws. It would require, at a minimum, both parties to agree up front that the bill implementing the election results would not be filibustered.

The referendum would include at least two multiple-choice questions. The first question would revolve around when abortion would be permitted; the answers on the ballot would be: never; only to save the life of the mother; only in cases of rape and incest, or to save the life of the mother; and no limit on reasons for abortion. People who checked the last box would then be asked to provide a number of weeks for the procedure to be legal: 6; 15; 20; 24; or no limit. More questions could be added to address other specific issues, but these are the two core items.

The approval of federal legislation consistent with the referendum would put an end to extraterritorial and vigilante-based state laws. While it would not silence the extremists on both sides, it would effectively defang the issue for the foreseeable future. Finally, it would give everyone a fair and equal shot at being heard, so there would be no basis for grievance politics after the referendum.

It appears to me that the mainstream of the GOP has shifted its position on climate change. Instead of looking loony by denying it altogether, the new position is, just deal with the heat by cranking up your A/C! Sure, it may cost you a few more dollars, and life may be a bit uncomfortable for a while, but it’s better than paying $5 for gas, right? And in the long run, we have plenty of resources and time to figure things out, so there’s no reason to panic.

Well, yeah. Except that some people don’t have A/C, and many people can’t afford to pay higher electric bills. Not to mention the additional deaths and property damage from hurricanes and wildfires, the lost agricultural productivity, the lost property value as insurance on the coast becomes increasingly unavailable, the forced migration of millions in the West whose environment is no longer habitable due to a lack of water and unbearable heat, and, of course, millions of additional climate refugees at the border.

Maybe cheap gas isn’t such a good deal, after all. What the right considers acceptable collateral damage is a lot more than that.

The system, at least at the federal level, is stuck, to the dissatisfaction of everyone except Mitch McConnell. Due to the filibuster and the reactionary Supreme Court, the left is all but powerless; the right is also constrained by the filibuster, and by decades of precedent in the judicial system, to say nothing of the literal language of the Bill of Rights.

In the long run, a political process that doesn’t produce meaningful results is unsustainable. Fortunately for us, we’ve been here before, at least at the state level, so we have some idea of how to respond. Rapid urbanization without reapportionment led to completely unrepresentative legislatures, which governed purely in the interest of rural residents and big business. A large part of the answer at the turn of the 20th century was the referendum. Why can’t the same thing be done at the federal level?

The Constitution neither authorizes nor prohibits national referenda, so any such elections would be legal, but could not be binding on Congress. Nevertheless, it would take a very brave or foolish member of Congress to ignore the clear will of the American people.

National referenda would not be appropriate for budgetary issues; they could only be used for matters of clear national importance in which the options can be distilled to two, or at least just a few. Over the next few days, I will provide examples of how this could work.

Biden won the popular vote in 2020 by about 7 million votes, but the GOP picked up seats in the House and almost managed to retain control of the Senate. The message from the electorate clearly was that they wanted an end to Trump’s divisiveness and chaos, but they liked the economy of 2019.

This was effectively a massive repudiation of efforts by progressives to use the pandemic to replace the dollar store economy with a more worker-friendly environment. In that sense, Joe Manchin has a decent claim to be more in tune with the voters than the mainstream of the Democratic Party.

What does this mean for 2022, particularly in light of the unpopularity of inflation? It means the progressive agenda, in the most sweeping sense, is no longer relevant. The more appropriate course of action for Democratic candidates is to attack GOP cultural extremism–particularly on abortion–and to focus on small individual measures, such as controlling prescription drug costs, that will improve the lives of voters in a manner they will note and appreciate.

As I noted in a previous post, Trump managed to obtain the support of the religious right in spite of his conspicuous personal shortcomings because he persuaded them that only he had the strength and ruthlessness to save them from cultural annihilation. Since then, times have moved on. Roe is gone, and reactionaries all over the country are flooding the zone with culture war legislation–all of this without Trump.

Do the religious reactionaries think they still need him at this point, or do they view him as more of a distraction than anything else? We will find out if DeSantis, or one of the other prominent religious reactionaries, has the guts to run against him.

The Democrats are openly supporting far right candidates in some GOP primaries in the hope of running against a weaker opponent. Leaving the ethics of this aside, is it tactically sound?

That depends on two variables:

1. HOW MUCH DAMAGE CAN THE EXTREMIST CANDIDATE DO IF HE WINS? A single House member has little influence in the process, so using the tactic for House races makes some sense. A governor, on the other hand, can do a whole lot of damage. Members of the Senate are in the middle.
2. HOW PLAUSIBLE IS THE PROSPECT OF AN EXTREMIST VICTORY? In Maryland, for example, the Democrats have a 3:1 registration advantage, so the likelihood of a victory for a Trumpist candidate is pretty low. Pennsylvania, on the other hand, is becoming a swing state. You can’t afford to run the risk under those conditions.

As far as I can tell, the predominant business model at our colleges and universities runs something like this:

1. Spend millions of dollars on new plant and equipment and hire lots of expensive administrators to provide new services, so your school operates like a resort.
2. Jack up the tuition to pay for the new buildings and services.
3. Use the new buildings and services to entice wealthy students who can pay the full freight.
4. Use any remaining funds from the endowment and from the higher tuition to let in other students regardless of need. They will either get scholarships or take out large loans.

This business model only works if the economy generates plenty of high-paying jobs for graduates, who can then pay off the loans. That hasn’t been the experience for Gen Z–hence, the calls for wiping out student debt.

For the reasons I have discussed on many previous occasions, using tax money generated from workers who didn’t go to college to eliminate the debts of students who actually managed to get high-paying jobs as a result of their education is obnoxious. Some debt relief on a case-by-case basis is appropriate, however. And in the meantime, while private schools are free to operate in any manner they see fit, state governments need to get serious about overturning, or at least mitigating, the impacts of the faulty business model. In other words, get rid of the unnecessary administrators and don’t build any more white elephants.