Category: Uncategorized

It isn’t the way I would have handled it. I would have announced up front that I would rely on the Fourteenth Amendment if necessary, and then allowed centrists to try to make a deal on their own. But that isn’t where we are; Biden is clearly negotiating, when he said he wouldn’t. What happens next?

It appears that the framework for a reasonable deal is in place, although the devil will be in the details. Clawing back unused pandemic funds is OK, because the program turned out to be too generous, and spending the money fuels inflation; once you have conceded the point on work requirements for safety net payments, the age requirement is of little conceptual importance; given the private sector’s commitment to electric cars, easing oil and gas permitting standards won’t matter much; spending caps for the next year or so will be imposed by the GOP House majority one way or the other; and so on. The length of the cap is important, but I can imagine most Democrats agreeing to something like this. But then what?

My guess is that at least 50, and probably more, Republican House members would vote against an agreement similar to this one, so it would have to pass with significant Democratic support. Any one of the 50 could then file a motion to remove McCarthy as Speaker. It appears that a number of Democrats have told McCarthy, directly or indirectly, that they will help him keep his job under those circumstances, but he would then be operating at the sufferance of the opposing party, which could pull the chair out from under him at any time.

What do you think McCarthy would do? Will he agree to operate what amounts to a coalition government of moderates in the face of rabid opposition from Trump and his extremist acolytes? Is he really ready to be aa 21st century version of Ramsay MacDonald? Or would he rather maintain party unity, avoid the allegations of disloyalty, and keep the bus heading for the cliff?

Nothing I have seen from him over the years suggests to me that he will put his position in jeopardy and turn his back on the extremists. Maybe he’ll prove me wrong, but I don’t think so. I still say we are heading for the cliff, and Biden will have to use the Fourteenth Amendment in the end.

Anyone who has read my poem “Jesus Was an Ass-Kicker” knows that very little about today’s GOP can shock me. And yet, Michelle Goldberg has done it. In a column in today’s NYT, she argues that the race for the Republican nomination is a battle between a man who wants to impose Christian orthodoxy on the country and a man whose followers see him as a new messiah, unbound by rules created by the establishment in the past.

To put it in historical terms, this is a fight between a wannabe Jesus and Torquemada. The scary thing is that Goldberg is probably right.

This week’s issue of The Economist tells us that Biden is more responsible for America’s inflation than for our record low levels of unemployment. Is that true?

Three observations are pertinent here. First, most of the pandemic relief bill was designed to alleviate misery, not provide a “stimulus.” It worked admirably. Second, the portion of it that was labeled “stimulus” was supported by Trump. Third, it is difficult to take The Economist’s complaints about inflation seriously when it just announced another enormous price increase–one that cannot be justified on the basis of rising production costs. This is exactly the kind of corporate pricing strategy, based on arguments about premium products and directed at the relatively wealthy, that is driving American inflation today.

Physician, heal thyself.

Consistent with his “no enemies to the right” approach to the campaign, Ron DeSantis has embraced some pretty wild conspiracy theorists. He has completely associated himself with anti-vaxxers in the name of freedom, as you might expect, even though some of his followers want to go so far as to prohibit the use of the vaccine by millions of Florida residents who still believe in it. He has even referred to Alvin Bragg as a “George Soros prosecutor,” using the oldest right-wing trick in the book. It’s not very inspiring to anyone left of Viktor Orban.

He forgot that you can’t out-crazy Trump and his supporters, because they operate completely without limits. There is a school of thought among them to the effect that DeSantis is a tool planted by the establishment to keep the nomination away from the man on golf cart. These people even call him “Ron DeSoros.”

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

A right-wing former judge named Michael McConnell argues in the NYT that the House GOP is simply acting in the spirit of the parliamentarians who used the power of the purse against the Stuarts. This is normal politics, not hostage taking. Biden is obligated to negotiate. If he doesn’t, he’ll lose the case before the Supreme Court, because there is a big difference between questioning the validity of debts and simply not paying them. The issue won’t get that far, however, because selling bonds without a debt ceiling increase isn’t practically possible, given the level of risk the buyers would be accepting.

Is he right? Let’s deconstruct the argument:

1. BIDEN IS CHARLES I: Parliament didn’t authorize any of the king’s expenditures. Congress mandated Biden’s. The GOP wants to undo what it already legally did.
2. IT’S NOT HOSTAGE TAKING: Threatening to crash the economy over debts you previously authorized if you don’t get everything you want is normal politics? Give me a break!
3. BIDEN IS OBLIGATED TO NEGOTIATE: McCarthy has no votes to spare. Trump and several GOP extremists who voted for the ransom note have made it clear they will accept nothing less. Does that sound like “negotiating?”
4. THE SUPREMES WILL RULE IN FAVOR OF THE HOUSE GOP: McConnell doesn’t address the standing and justiciability issues any plaintiff would face. And do you really think the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment thought it was OK to refuse to pay Civil War debts as long as you didn’t say they were legally invalid? The result is exactly the same.
5. SELLING BONDS WITHOUT A DEBT CEILING INCREASE WON’T WORK: Yes, there will be a risk premium, which is why this approach isn’t ideal, but is it likely that investors will completely shun these bonds, given the virtual certainty of payment?

The bottom line is that the use of the Fourteenth Amendment is not ideal, but it’s certainly better than refusing to pay the debt. If that’s the choice facing Biden in the last hours before default, and it probably will be, given the inability of the GOP to accept any kind of reasonable compromise, he should take it without hesitation.

Ross Douthat fears we are replaying the primaries of 2016, with Ron DeSantis playing the role of Ted Cruz. Is he right?

Let’s break that proposition into two parts. During the process in 2016, Trump was the front-runner in the polls and was running in his own lane. He had plurality, but not majority, support in the GOP. A reasonable person could (just barely) believe at the time that he was a brilliant businessman operating outside the system who could improve America by making deals. Today, little of that is true. Trump is still the front-runner, but he has an extensive record, he is no longer running in his own lane, and nobody thinks he is any kind of a moderate pragmatist. This time around, his voters want to burn it down. The structure of the race, therefore, is very different.

As to the Cruz/DeSantis analogy, Cruz was running as the champion of pious evangelicals, whom he believed (not without reason) to be a majority of GOP voters. It turned out that he was wrong; the voters wanted an uncouth, amoral man who would make a display of fighting for them. DeSantis is running as an electable version of Trump, with all of the man on golf cart’s ideological and identity prejudices. That isn’t the same thing, either; if 2016 Cruz has an analogy, it is Mike Pence, not DeSantis.

JESUS WAS AN ASS-KICKER

Jesus was an ass-kicker.

He preached in Galilee.

He didn’t come from a big town

Just folks like you and me.

___________

Jesus was an ass-kicker.

He took on the deep state.

And when the press would do him down

He’d return their hate.

______________

Jesus was an ass-kicker.

He always carried guns.

So when the Romans came for him

He didn’t have to run.

_______________

Jesus was an ass-kicker.

He hated all things blue.

He battled the establishment

And spat upon the Jews.

________________

Jesus was an ass-kicker.

He’ll save us from our woe.

Don’t you think he sounds a lot

Like someone else we know?

What position should the left take on the GOP primaries? Should we support Trump, because he would be easier to beat? Or should we go with DeSantis, because he would make a more “normal” GOP president?

Here are my thoughts on the matter:

1. Choosing between the American Orban and the 21st century Caligula is a waste of time and effort. They are equally horrendous in different ways, and in any event, it isn’t up to us.
2. The best outcome, from our perspective, would be one of the other candidates–someone who wouldn’t present a threat to liberal democracy. The chances of that happening are obviously quite slim.
3. The next best alternative is that Trump and DeSantis destroy each other and split the party. That is a realistic possibility, but only if DeSantis changes tactics and starts making a pitch to the 70 percent.
4. In short, at the present time, we should be rooting for DeSantis to become a more viable candidate. If he does, we’ll just sit back and watch the fur fly. If he doesn’t, we’re running the sequel to 2020.

What will the reactionaries do for an encore? That’s the question I raised a few days ago, but I couldn’t really answer it, except to say there would almost certainly be one. The pig case, however, has given me a plausible answer.

I think the red states will start putting the screws to businesses from blue states that don’t reflect their values. A logical place to start would be to prohibit the sale of goods that were created in any part by illegal immigrants, regardless of the point of origin. Can’t you imagine Florida and Texas adopting that kind of regulation? Of course, you can.

And the Supreme Court has now blessed it.

When Trump was in office, he showed little interest in cutting spending, ran huge deficits, and demanded that the debt ceiling be raised without conditions. At the CNN town hall, however, he said the GOP should run the car over the cliff if Biden doesn’t agree to everything in the ransom note. What should we take from this?

Three things. First, it is a frank admission that he is more interested in his own ambitions than the welfare of the American people. Second, he thinks a debt ceiling disaster would benefit him politically; he is almost certainly right about that. Third, he sees this issue, unsurprisingly, as a no-holds-barred struggle for dominance between Biden and the GOP. For him, every relationship and every interaction is a struggle for power, and he is determined that his side should win, the American people be damned.

Don’t think the GOP crazoids didn’t hear him. As a result, it will be even more difficult for McCarthy to make any sort of reasonable deal.

The DeSantis ship started springing leaks even before it was launched. Icebergs are looming if it doesn’t change course. Here’s what he needs to do to get back on course:

1. KNOW YOUR VOTERS: You’ve secured your right flank by pushing an avalanche of culture war regulations through the Florida Legislature. That will help you keep the extreme right on side during a general election campaign, but it won’t win over Trump voters; their support for their man is unconditional. Focus on the 70 percent, not the 30 percent, which means moving back to the center on issues that divide the GOP.
2. TOUGHEN YOUR LANGUAGE ON RUSSIA: Trump has the pro-Putin vote in his pocket. You need to be pro-Ukraine and pro-NATO if you want the support of the donor class.
3. BURY THE HATCHET WITH DISNEY: You can’t win without support from business, and business hates your war with Disney. It makes you look like a dictator. Make a deal and move on.
4. PROPOSE AN ECONOMIC PLAN THAT MAKES SENSE: Trump has no clue how to deal with inflation. Maybe you do. It would help.
5. TAKE A CLEAR POSITION OPPOSING TRUMP ON 1/6 AND THE “RIGGED ELECTION”: Yes, you will offend some of the Trump voters you will need in the general election, but they have nowhere else to go. If you agree with Trump on 1/6 and the election, you are throwing away your best argument against his candidacy–that he is a proven loser.
6. STOP SUPPORTING CONSPIRACY THEORISTS: Moderates aren’t going to like your attacks on vaccines and your complaints about George Soros. They make you look deranged. Shut up and move on.

To summarize, you need to agree with Trump on wokeness, but point out that you took effective action on those issues, as opposed to just talking about them. On most other issues, move to the center, talk about how great Ronald Reagan was, and don’t be afraid to mix it up with the man on golf cart. No one will respect you if you refuse to engage with him.

California enacted a regulation prohibiting the sale of pork products within the state if the pigs were not raised in an environment with a specified number of square feet. The regulation applied to pigs raised both inside and outside the state. The Supreme Court just ruled 5-4 that the California regulation was a valid exercise of the state’s police powers. The groupings of justices concurring and dissenting did not follow the usual partisan lines.

Why does this matter? Because American economic success is largely based on the existence of a single market, which is underpinned by judicial interpretations of the Commerce Clause. In today’s political climate, we can expect both blue and red states to be more aggressive in the regulation of business: blue states, largely for environmental reasons; and red states, in an effort to control “woke capital.” In addition, red state regulations against abortion are usually designed to have extraterritorial effect, just as the pig regulation in the instant case did. All of these initiatives will undermine, at least to some extent, the single market; all of them will be justified in the future by this decision.

Does the pig case mean a further balkanization of America? Since the vote was so close, it is hard to say. It certainly doesn’t help, however.

Peter Beinart tells us in the NYT that the left is generally pleased with Biden’s support of Ukraine, but worries he is pushing us into a new Cold War with China, which will result in higher defense spending and a sluggish international response to climate change. In other words, the left is softer on China than it is on Russia. Does that make sense?

All you have to do is look at a map to understand the strategic significance of Taiwan, which is clearly under threat from China. If the Chinese invade, or find a better way to take control of Taiwan, they will be the complete masters of their sphere of influence, and Japan and South Korea will inevitably become vassal states. This can only be prevented by patient diplomacy and a buildup of our military forces in the region. Both of these are happening as we speak.

I can’t help but think that the left dislikes Putin more than Xi because he purports to be an ally of Trump and the American right in a universal war against wokeness. If I’m correct, the left is almost as deluded as the right on this issue; Putin is a ruthless imperialist and an autocrat, not a champion of traditional values.

I, of course, have no idea what Biden and McCarthy said at their meeting a few days ago. Here’s what they should have said:

B: Kevin! Good to see you! How’s life hanging out with MTG?

M: It’s better than being with AOC.

B: AOC’s not crazy. She never said anything about Jewish death rays.

M: Got me there. Got anything else for me?

B: A plan, or at least a process. It saves America and lets you keep your job. I know the latter is more important to you than the former.

M: I’m all ears.

B: The premise behind this is that you can’t possibly deliver any kind of reasonable compromise without losing your job, which is of the utmost importance to you.

M: I won’t deny it.

B: With that in mind, we will spend the next week or so throwing out ideas to make a deal with your more moderate members. You will strain every nerve to keep them in line, of course. If we can make the deal, so much the better, but my guess is that you probably win on that.

M: Probably. Then what?

B: I tell America the Fourteenth Amendment, along with morality and good sense, requires me to pay the bills. We meet all of our obligations in the usual way.

M: I would oppose that, of course. I would be outraged.

B: Of course you would! But what can you and your caucus do? Are you really going to sue to stop the government from making Social Security payments? Are you really that suicidal? Even your craziest members would have concerns about that.

M: Some of them will want to sue, anyway. They really want to burn it down.

B: I don’t think it will be a majority. If it isn’t, the game’s over, because no private plaintiff is going to have standing. If you do sue, however, the Court will find that it is a political question and that it doesn’t have jurisdiction.

M: Maybe. So you win! How does this help me?

B: You get to stand firm against me. You never have to accept a division in your party. The crazoids stay in your camp.

M: It’s an interesting concept. We’ll see how it plays out. (He leaves)

California was a free state at the time of the Civil War, and it never adopted a system of de jure segregation, so on its face, the case for reparations against it is extremely weak. On the other hand, most of our really bad left-wing ideas come from the Golden State, so in that sense, we shouldn’t be surprised.

Since the proponents of reparations can’t rely on either state-mandated segregation or slavery as a basis for the payments, they focus on other factors, including redlining, disproportionate policing, health care, improper government takings, and actions to devalue black-owned businesses. There are two very serious problems with this approach. The first, of course, is that once you take slavery out of the equation, all you have left is the impacts of discrimination, which were also felt by groups other than black people. What about the pervasive and repulsive measures against Asians? What about Hispanics and Native Americans? Should they really have to pay higher taxes to fund payments to black people?

The second problem is that the effects of the various categories cited by the reparation proponents were not pervasive enough to justify making payments to all black people. To cite some examples:

1. While redlining undoubtedly occurred, it was not directed by the state, it is far from clear that anyone actually benefited from it, and most black people during the relevant timeframe probably didn’t have enough income to buy homes in excluded areas, anyway.
2. Most black people were not arrested for the possession or sale of illegal drugs, and there was a legitimate public health rationale for the regulations in question, however misguided they might seem in retrospect.
3. Most black people did not have property taken by the state, and if they did, it would be difficult to determine who was properly compensated, and who wasn’t.
4. During most of the relevant timeframe, the state’s involvement in health care was very limited.
5. Most black people didn’t own businesses, so compensating all black people for losses imposed by the state is illogical.

There are two things we can say with certainty about this plan. First, it will never be implemented, because California can’t afford it; and second, it will be the gift that keeps on giving to the GOP. Expect to hear a lot about it at the national level over the next two years.