Author: hamilton1788

To some extent, yes. A rebate would permit the country to enjoy the benefits of protectionism–the encouragement of local industries–without damaging the interests of consumers too much. It would be similar to cutting income taxes to offset the drag created by the adoption of a carbon tax.

But in this particular set of circumstances, it would increase the already swollen deficit and cause interest rates to rise. The tariff was supposed to be part of the fiscal mitigation for the BBB; now, that function would be gone. On the whole, therefore, it would be a mistake, which is why Bessent and lots of Republicans in Congress aren’t enthusiastic.

For decades, the Republican ideal of the rugged individual was the Marlboro Man. Handsome and charismatic, this cowboy would never even dream of asking for government assistance for anything.

But recently, the GOP idea of a rugged individual has focused more on a different mythical guy–the Music Man. In the eternal battle between knaves and fools, the GOP has decided to come down on the side of the knaves; the fools have only themselves to blame, and have no right to rely on government help. Why else do Republicans make such a priority out of eviscerating the CPB and the IRS?

Don’t you wonder how this could have happened?

The far right has always been with us, of course. But the intersection of the rise of the puritan left and the creation of the internet made it possible for extremists to proliferate and become more transgressive. Outrageous words and behavior became evidence of sincere and authentic opposition to the left. MAGA learned to embrace, or at least not to condemn, Hitler, because he wasn’t as bad as Joe Biden.

Trump has always indulged the neo-Nazis in the GOP. His willingness to shatter norms, after all, made him a role model for the extremists, whose votes were needed to defeat the left. Will J.D. follow the same path? The most recent evidence suggests that the answer is yes.

J.D. Vance looks like a bridge to everywhere. He has strong ties to the techno-aristocrats through his buddy Peter Thiel. He’s an outspoken conservative Catholic, albeit one with a shaky relationship with the Pope. He has connections with advocates of both the Godly Society and the New Confederacy. But he has elite credentials, too; he went to Yale Law School, and he can make a presentable case to NYT readers. A bit like George W. Bush, he is a member of the establishment he ostentatiously despises. With his abilities, connections, and resentments, he seems like a perfect successor to Trump.

But he has weaknesses, too. I’ve noted his problem with his capable Indian immigrant wife. His views about heritage Americans will offend hundreds of millions of voters who, according to him, are second-class citizens. And, of course, he will have to defend every inch of Trump’s ground even if it is resoundingly unpopular in 2028. That leaves the door open to challengers who don’t have those liabilities.

Bryan ran in 1896 as a supporter of cheap money, lower tariffs, and increased business regulation. McKinley advocated for the gold standard, high tariffs, and very limited regulation. With massive support from business interests, McKinley prevailed.

With the exception of the gold standard, Trump’s positions echo McKinley’s. And yet, he likes to portray himself as a populist, and people swallow it. Amazing!

The emails released by the Democrats don’t prove that Trump was an active Epstein collaborator; at most, they are more evidence that he was more aware of Epstein’s activities than he likes to let on. Should we sympathize with him for that reason?

No, because he was cynical enough to ride the wave when his loonier supporters said he was an instrument of God sent to smash the left-wing elitist pedophile ring. Trump isn’t one for introspection, but I bet he regrets that now.

Too late, big boy.

Cabinet churn was one of the most prominent features of the first Trump term. This time, not so much. Why the difference?

Because this time, Trump’s minions understand that competent department management is not the point; the essential job qualifications are complete subservience and the willingness to wreck. They are meeting the new standards with gusto. Don’t expect a boatload of tell-all books from this crowd when it’s all over.

At the beginning of the shutdown, I feared that the base would take to the streets if the Democrats capitulated. It’s not happening. Why?

Because the election took place during the shutdown, and the Democrats won, bigly. Hope for progress through the system consequently still exists.

The Democrats believe that a decent level of health care is a right, not a privilege, and that it must be guaranteed by the entire community, not the market. As a result, the key features of Obamacare are subsidies and community rating. Republicans, on the other hand, generally think that health care is a commodity like any other, that positive outcomes are driven primarily by personal responsibility, and that costs can be kept low by the operation of the market. You should not be surprised, therefore, to hear a lot of chatter about HSAs replacing Obamacare.

As I noted many times during Trump 1.0, the rosy Republican view of health care markets is not supported by the facts. The average consumer of health care services doesn’t know enough about the problems and products identified by physicians to bargain for them; wellness is driven as much by good genes and luck as by wise lifestyle choices; most hospitals are effectively monopolies; and drug patents are temporary monopolies by definition. In addition, relying on HSAs will benefit young and healthy people at the expense of older and sicker folks. The latter simply would have to go without the care they need if Trump’s concept of a plan becomes reality.

It won’t. The tiny GOP House majority is in no position to tackle fundamental health care reform in a way that will offend public opinion and threaten powerful vested interests. Any movement by the Republicans in that direction will only fail and cost them more votes.

An attack on Venezuela for the purpose of forcing regime change is clearly on the table. Is that the end of Trump’s ambitions?

If Venezuela is a success, why stop there? Why not invade Cuba? Sure, the Cuban military would fight back, but they would ultimately be overwhelmed. The exiles in Miami would be forever grateful, and the Cuban regime wouldn’t get any help from Russia or China. The rest of the Western Hemisphere would complain about gringo imperialism, but Trump doesn’t care one fig about that.

It could happen.

With a small swing, the Democrats can still win a free and fair presidential election. They will be favored to win the House next year. But the Senate presents serious challenges due to its bias in favor of rural areas, and not just next year; it is hard to see how the blue team can win any kind of working majority in the absence of some sort of GOP policy-driven disaster. The rural bias and the filibuster are key components of the McConnell Project, which keeps the blue team from exercising real power even when in office. What can the Democrats do about them?

In the end, they will have to take the risk and abolish the filibuster if they want to do more than play with the budget. They will also have to figure out a way to win at least some reasonable proportion of rural votes. Since rural voters appear to be more motivated by values than interests–their views on policy matters, according to surveys, aren’t very different from ours–that means running candidates who don’t look weak and woke.

The first year of Trump 2.0, as expected, focused on wrecking and retribution. The last two years will be devoted to the succession. But what happens next year? How will Trump define his legacy between now and the midterms?

Here are the most critical questions:

1. WILL THE ECONOMY IMPROVE, COLLAPSE, OR CONTINUE TO LIMP ALONG? You can make a case for any of the three scenarios, although I think the GOP optimists are clearly wrong about the end of the short-term pain. Much depends on the presence or absence of large external shocks and whether AI is a bubble or not.
2. WHAT HAPPENS WITH CHINA? Trump has just been treading water with China. He clearly wants to make some sort of massive deal with Xi, but no one knows what it is. Perhaps we will find out before the midterms.
3. HOW FAR WILL TRUMP GO WITH THE BLUE STATES? He has just been toying with authoritarianism thus far. The Hegseth right-wing militia, formerly known as the US military, should be purged and ready to go to war with the left in a year or so. Will Trump take the plunge or back off? TBD.

That’s how long the Democrats held out. In the end, however, Trump’s willingness to inflict pain on the American people exceeded the blue team’s tolerance for taking it. There was no prospect that the GOP would fold on the health insurance issue no matter how long the shutdown lasted and how loudly the voters screamed about price increases. It was time to capitulate.

And so, Trump and the Republicans have proved to the world that the Democrats have no real leverage in Congress, which is what really mattered to them. To put it more optimistically, the Republicans own everything that goes wrong over the next year. When they don’t reduce health insurance costs, it will be on them.

The blue team set a record for the longest shutdown in American history. The left can’t say they weren’t willing to fight. You can’t make much of an argument that starving SNAP beneficiaries is an acceptable tradeoff for a fruitless battle over health insurance with no exit ramp. And the Democrats actually won something valuable; the provision in the House bill prohibiting the GAO from suing Trump over impoundment is being removed. Given the Supreme Court’s most recent decision on standing and impoundment, that is a big deal.

It is suspicious that exactly enough blue team senators changed their votes. I suspect that was arranged with the leadership. A large majority, including Schumer, is still on record as supporting the shutdown. The most vulnerable members of the blue team consequently can claim that they wanted to continue to fight, which is the best of all possible worlds.

As usual, Trump declined to take any of the blame for the GOP’s losses in last week’s election. In his view, the culprits were GOP senators, for refusing to abolish the filibuster and end the shutdown; the Democrats, for seducing the voters; and the American people, for being too stupid to see they have the best economy in the history of the world.

The real question is, how much longer is the great man going to be willing to tolerate such acts of gross insubordination for his subjects? TBD.

The GOP didn’t really lose the 2020 election; Donald Trump did. The swing voters in the electorate were tired of his chaos in general, and his incoherent response to the virus in particular. By 2024, however, the voters were suffering from collective amnesia about 2020; all they could remember was the good times of 2019. Biden, on the other hand, was unjustly held completely responsible for the inflation of 2021-2023. The transactional swing voters–about 10 percent of the electorate–went Trump’s way, and the rest is history.

The pendulum swung back on Tuesday, as any reasonable person would have predicted. It will probably continue swinging left unless the economy improves, which, GOP optimists notwithstanding, is unlikely. The Democrats will probably win seats in both houses in 2026 if the election is free and fair. Then what? Trump will be a lame duck, Vance will be required to embrace every part of his unpopular legacy, and the base will be pulled in a variety of different directions by candidates outside of the administration. It will make for fascinating viewing.