Category: Uncategorized

The GOP wants to avoid a divisive vote on extending the extra Obamacare subsidies and to prove to the world that the Democrats are a weak party with no leverage in the legislative process. The Democrats want to show that they are willing to fight for average Americans and, if possible, to win; at a minimum, they also want to raise the public’s consciousness about health care and identify the Republicans as the villains in the piece.

In the end, both parties are likely to get most of what they want. The public is going to be angry when the impact of the lost subsidies becomes clear. The GOP will continue to insist that nothing can be done until the government reopens; the Democrats, with no good options, will accept vague promises of compromise; and the GOP will be forced to tear itself apart talking about the issue, probably without delivering anything meaningful to the public.

As I’ve noted before, I’m technically a Boomer, but I don’t identify with them. To me, a Boomer is someone who participated in the great causes of the 1960s. I grew up with Watergate, inflation, and the Iran hostage crisis. It’s not the same thing at all.

Nevertheless, when I watched an NYT video featuring young people complaining about Boomers, it pissed me off so much I had to turn it off. It’s not that they don’t have some legitimate grievances; it’s that they misidentified the villains, to the extent there are any.

I will start by noting that Boomers did not elect Trump last year; Gen X did. The numbers don’t lie. As to the other complaints:

1. HOUSING COSTS: The speakers on the video argue that Boomers are NIMBYs. I have extensive experience in this field, and I can tell you that no generational cohort has any monopoly on NIMBY behavior. The problem is with a system that seeks to create public goods purely at the expense of existing homeowners, whether they be Boomers, Gen X, or Millenials.
2. COSTS OF EDUCATION: Yes, the paper cost of going to an elite private school has skyrocketed. This is due to a business model that also emphasizes massive aid to deserving poor students. Boomers probably didn’t invent the business model, and it certainly doesn’t benefit them in any way.
3. WELFARE STATE: There have been no massive increases in the size of the welfare state relative to the elderly during my lifetime. Yes, we suck up an increasing percentage of GDP due to our large numbers, but we paid for it in the form of tax increases and deferred retirement ages in bipartisan legislation passed during the Reagan years. There have been no tax increases to fund the system imposed on subsequent generations since that time of which I am aware.
4. HEALTH CARE COSTS: They have also skyrocketed, but that helps private companies and investors, not Boomer consumers.

It is fair, I think, to blame us as a group for responding selfishly to climate change. We also failed to grasp the significance of technological change and globalization, but it was the right, not all of our generation, that prevented the federal government from compensating the victims of those economic forces. Finally, some of us resisted tax increases to fund the welfare state, but some of us didn’t, and in any event, objections to higher taxes are not limited to my generation. If Gen Z wants to expand the welfare state for its benefit, it will have to agree to pay for it.

We’ve seen this movie before. Trump is sounding more hawkish on Ukraine than usual, so Putin will meet with him privately, flatter him, and make empty promises he has no intention of keeping. Trump will then change his tune, the war will go on, and nothing will change.

The only hope of bringing home a reasonable peace is to convince Putin that America’s support of Ukraine will never waver. With Trump in charge, how will that ever happen?

There is no exit ramp on the issue of impoundment, because Trump will never agree to it, and he has control of the facts on the ground. The only possible resolution of the issue will come through litigation. That is why impoundment is not the centerpiece of the blue team’s demands in spite of its extreme constitutional significance.

As to the Biden Obamacare subsidies, we have not yet heard the roar of anger in response to massive increases in insurance premiums because most Americans are not aware of them yet. That will change in a few weeks. If the public response doesn’t force the GOP into a meaningful compromise at that point, the only possible end to the shutdown will be a deal that saves the face of the Democrats, but nothing more.

PER CURIAM. The Court has examined the record in this case, which indicates unequivocally that the facilities provided to white and black students were not even remotely “equal” within the meaning of our previous precedents. If we were to decide this case based on the facts, therefore, there is no doubt that the school board would lose.

But that is not our method or our task. We are originalists. Our job is to determine the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment based on the totality of the information that we can dig up from books, newspapers, periodicals, public records, and the like. All of that information leads us to the same conclusion–America was an overwhelmingly racist nation in the middle of the 19th century, just as it was in 1787. Even most of the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment were racists, to say nothing of the attitudes of the general public.

We are compelled to conclude, therefore, that the Fourteenth Amendment is only intended to provide paper equality for white and black people, so the facts in the record simply do not matter in this case. It may be, as the dissent argues, that this decision is patently unjust and ignores the events of the last few centuries, including, but not limited to, the world’s response to the actions of the Third Reich. But that is irrelevant. The Constitution is not intended to be a living document; it must be read solely in relation to the attitudes prevailing at the time it was written, and any wisdom gained from experience subsequent to that event simply does not matter.

(Inspired by Ross Douthat’s interview with Amy Coney Barrett in today’s NYT)

The markets aren’t just Pollyannaish about AI; investors are assuming that Trump and Bessent can implement their counterrevolutionary economic plan without any severe short-term damage arising from a rupture with China. But what if they’re wrong? What if, for example, Xi needs to swagger as much as Trump does?

There is just so much that can go wrong here, starting, of course, with Trump’s capricious decision-making process. My investments are telling me that life is good, but I can’t see how it can last, and a lot of people are going to get hurt.

Life in the time of Trump.

The Phase One deal is done.

It’s good news for civilians;

Less for guys with guns.

Will it be a proper peace

Or just a brief cease-fire?

Gazans hope the former, for

Their suffering is dire.

There is nothing in the text or the legislative history of the Voting Rights Act which suggests the legislation was intended to self-destruct within a specified number of years. In addition, there are no logical or empirical standards independent of the Act that can be used by the judiciary to determine when it should expire.

And yet, a day after it was revealed that several prominent Young Republicans had used egregious racial slurs in group texts, it appears that the Court is prepared to invalidate Section 2 of the Act based on its perception–based on, if anything, a number pulled out of the air by Justice O’Connor decades ago–that America is now a completely colorblind country with no further need to protect racial minorities. Isn’t that special?

Apparently in response to some new initiatives from Trump, China has escalated the trade war by imposing increased port fees and making rare earth exports more difficult. Trump initially responded by lashing out and threatening huge new tariffs on November 1. He subsequently suggested that Xi was just having a bad day and that the new tariffs might not happen. J.D., in the meantime, tried to assure the public that Trump would ultimately win the trade war, as he has more cards than Xi. What should we make of this?

Under the present circumstances, Trump does not, in fact, hold the cards, which is why his behavior towards China has been so erratic. That is due largely to the fact that he has obligations to the voters, a problem not shared by the CCP. He could flip the script by giving a Churchillian speech demanding years of painful sacrifices from Americans, but the likelihood of him imposing major hardships on his base as well as blue America is extremely low. Instead, he will probably wind up making a geopolitical deal which gives some short-term economic benefits to America and a secure Asian sphere of influence to China.

With regard to Hamas, none. He had no influence or leverage over the terrorists. As I noted in a previous post, Bibi’s apparent lack of interest in freeing the hostages destroyed any leverage Hamas might have had; in fact, their continuing presence in Gaza was giving the Israelis an excuse to prolong the war. As a result, Hamas made the eminently rational decision to make the best deal possible and move on.

With regard to Bibi, some; he had more leverage with the Israelis than Biden did, and unlike Biden, he was willing to use it. The agreement, vague as it is, clearly contemplates a future for Gaza that doesn’t correspond to the fevered dreams of the extreme right-wingers in the Israeli cabinet. That represents an encouraging change in Israeli policy for which Trump is clearly responsible.

But Phase One is small potatoes. It is Phase Two that matters. Will Hamas really agree to disarm and relinquish control over the civilian population? Will Israel really agree to pull completely out of Gaza and end the fighting? Both of those events have to occur for this to be a real peace deal, and I have serious doubts about both.

I’ve got those dirty, lowdown, long shutdown blues.

You have to be aware of it; it’s all over the news.

Trump’s become an autocrat, and now we’ve got to choose.

Will we stand up strong and fight, or are we bound to lose?

__________________

The public turned its back on us; we lost last year, it’s true.

We talked about democracy; they asked for something new.

Retribution’s now the thing; Trump’s crushing all that’s blue.

If we don’t stop him here and now, he’ll come for me and you.

______________

I’ve got the blues.

The post-election blues.

Some think we need new leadership

But I’ve sure paid my dues.

The country’s getting very dark;

It’s hard to see much light.

The center wanders aimlessly;

The left just wants to fight.

David French applauds a federal judge on the West Coast for using her eyes and refusing to accept the presumption of regularity as to Trump’s misuse of his emergency powers. He wants the Supreme Court to follow her example. Is he right?

He absolutely is. This is the single biggest issue the Court will confront in the next few years. Unfortunately, there is every reason to believe, based on nearly a year of evidence, that the Court will continue to assume that Trump is operating in good faith when he argues that the sale of illegal drugs by foreigners is an “invasion” and that a handful of peaceful ICE opponents are engaged in an “insurrection.” If that happens, the door will be open for Trump to use the law to create an openly authoritarian state. Given the opportunity, do you doubt he will take it?

There are two theories for the source of ideas. The first one views them as a kind of manufactured product and the human brain, each with its own unique experiences and inherited traits, as a factory. The second is that ideas are revealed, not produced; their actual source is on the other side, and we are just channels. Which is correct?

There is no definitive answer to this question, of course, but AI will be incapable of receiving revelations, so it should give us some additional insight into the matter as it develops over the years. In the meantime, given my experience communicating with the other side, you can count me among the ancient Greeks (the Muses) and the many past and contemporary artists who have embraced the channeling theory.

There is a decent case for regime change in Venezuela. First of all, Maduro is a thug who has trashed democracy and impoverished his people. Second, and more importantly, there is an opposition with proven democratic support. As a result, there would be a reasonable chance of decapitating the regime with minimal bloodshed, installing the true winners of the last election, and then leaving. No nation-building required here.

There is no guarantee that the regime wouldn’t fight back, however. In addition, Trump has done nothing to prepare the American people for a sustained war except to engage in the Putinesque tactic of calling Maduro a drug dealer. Finally, you can be sure that Trump will demand compensation from the new government in the form of oil revenue concessions. The rest of the world will then see the American effort as old-fashioned imperialism and unite against us.

Would that be worth it? Trump doesn’t care about world opinion, so he would probably say yes. I do, so I would say no.

Mike Johnson knows three things about the expiring Obamacare subsidies. First, if the House had a free vote on extending them, it would pass. Second, refusing to hold that vote could cost the GOP the control of the House. And third, if he does permit the vote, the right wing of the party will be outraged, and he could lose his job.

In short, he doesn’t have any good options. For now, he is dealing with the problem by stalling and changing the subject; in his eyes, the issue is reopening the government and eliminating the blue team’s leverage, not soaring health care premiums. In the longer run, I suspect he will decide that the GOP has other ways to win the election–gerrymandering, crime, and a hypothetically improving economy–so the safer approach is to let the premiums rise and keep the Freedom Caucus happy.