The View from Right Field

Niall Ferguson’s “Ferguson’s Law” – No, But Yes.

Niall Ferguson wrote, in February, about what he called “Ferguson’s Law”¹: any great power that spends more servicing its debt than it spends on defense risks ceasing to be a great power.

I understand the point, but I wonder if debt service is the correct measure for today’s world.  I am not a historian of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, but I would think that, back then, defense and interest on debt were the two major expenditures of government and that the ability of governments to raise money was more limited than today.

How Long Can We Continue With This Deficit and This Debt?

In last Tuesday’s Financial Times, Martin Wolf did an excellent job explaining how various global imbalances interact and how one country trying to address its imbalances may have consequences on others, perhaps especially the United States because its economy, and imbalances, are so big.¹

Among the biggest of these imbalances is the global savings surplus and the US federal deficit, which, at this point, rather balance each other off.  The question is, if the United States actually reduced its fiscal deficit, what would happen to those with savings surpluses.

Was Abraham Lincoln Really a “Country Lawyer” Who Missed a Chance for Peace?

According to Harold Holzer’s review of 1861: The Lost Peace, by Jay Winik, in last Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal, Mr. Winik apparently views Abraham Lincoln as a “country lawyer” who couldn’t, or wouldn’t, make the necessary compromises to avoid war.  Given that such compromises would have allowed the further expansion of slavery and its continuation for who knows how long and until who knows what might happen, we are left with the words of Lincoln’s Second Inaugural:

“[I]f God wills that [this mighty scourge of war] continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said ‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’”

and the question of whether the ultimate civil war would have been even worse.

Are Things Really the Worst Ever?

In an editorial yesterday about the events in Los Angeles and elsewhere entitled “MAGA morphs into Make America Cruel Again,” the Chicago Tribune “wondered how on God’s green earth this country can hold it together for three-and-a-half more years of this level of presidential overreach, this amount of hatred and division.”  My response is simple: Does the Tribune remember the 1960s?  Consider just 1968.  Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in April.  The ensuing riots all over the country make what is happening in LA look minor.  You can still see the effects of those riots in parts of Chicago today. 

Two months later Bobby Kennedy was assassinated.  Then came the Democratic convention in Chicago.  I assume the Tribune remembers that.

What Is Donald Trump’s Governing Philosophy? Does He Have One?

It is fascinating, and perhaps sort of funny, to see so many articles trying to come up with an overall policy or logic for Donald Trump’s statements and decisions.  The authors try to fit President Trump’s decisions into some kind of overall theory that explains both the decisions themselves and how they fit together.  It’s normally right-wing or conservative writers who are doing this because they are the ones who like Trump or at least like some of his decisions.  The ones on the left, and maybe some part of the center, dislike Trump so much that they cannot say anything about him other than that he is horrible, stupid, etc..

I say it is fascinating to see these people try to do this because it is so hard to come up with a theory that is able to tie these things together with some kind of consistency.  On the other hand, it’s a little bit funny to see them try to do this because, in addition to being hard, there is always the possibility that President Trump will say or do something the next day that blows their whole theory apart.

How Was Trump Able to Come Back?

In a review of three books¹ on “The great Biden cover-up” in last Saturday’s Financial Times², Lionel Barber notes that missing in three books “is a deeper analysis of why Trump was able to stage of one of the greatest comebacks in US political life.”  Here is my suggestion: In looking back at 2021-24, the one constant was that every time Donald Trump was impeached, sued, indicted, or even convicted, his approval ratings among Republican voters went up. 

In January of 2021, I hoped those who were outraged by what Donald Trump had done would ignore him as he left the presidency and not give him new things he could use as grievances, however appropriate it was to do them, to begin his comeback.  That is not what happened.

If This is MAGA Tax Policy, I Don’t Want It.

The 2017 tax bill passed by the Republican Congress and signed by Donald Trump was pretty good.  It really was a reform bill.  For businesses, it lowered the tax rate from 35% to 21% and got rid of a lot of special interest deductions.  That is the definition of a good tax bill: Broadening the base and lowering the rate.

The provisions for individuals weren’t as good, but there were good changes.  The standard deduction was doubled, and deductions for state and local taxes were limited to $10,000.  The result was a boon for lots of taxpayers: The increase in the standard deduction meant they didn’t have to worry about itemizing their deductions, making filing their tax return simpler and easier.

The one thing to remember about the 2017 bill is that it was the result of years and years of work by people like Representative and House Speaker Paul Ryan, Senator Pat Toomey, and many others.  President Trump signed it, but it was a real Republican bill, not his bill.

Bringing Back Manufacturing or Bringing Back Manufacturing Jobs? Manufacturing Will Cost Money. The Jobs Won’t Be Brought Back.

I am not certain what Donald Trump is trying to do with his tariffs.¹  Is he trying to get manufacturing jobs back or is he worried about the United States not having the manufacturing capabilities it needs for national security purposes?  Does he think that having more manufacturing jobs will make us richer?²  Or is it just a matter of him thinking we have been getting ripped off by China and the EU (among others) and he wants to “get even”?

Whatever the reason, President Trump apparently thinks tariffs are answer.  I’m not sure whether his idea is to leave the tariffs in place, thereby making products from other countries more expensive, so companies will make them here and we will get richer (because we’ll have more jobs or we’ll make stuff or something else).  Or he is using the tariffs as a club to get other countries to buy more stuff from us (by lowering whatever barriers to trade they have or just agreeing to buy more stuff from us so we will remove/lower the tariffs)?³  Or maybe it’s just about the deal.⁴

What Is a Church’s Mission or Vision?

Our church has started something it describes as a “visioning and strategic planning process,” whatever that means.  It seems to me the purpose/mission/vision of our church, or any church, is to preach sermons, sing hymns, and teach Sunday School.  The rest is politics.  I’m not an expert on the Bible, but I don’t think Jesus told us what social programs, or other policies, work versus which ones don’t, in terms of accomplishing their purpose.

Too many people, especially politicians, think you solve a problem by spending money on it (whether social programs, defense, or anything else).  They never get to the question of what the actual results of the program are.  If the purpose is good, the policy must be good, and you don’t need to look at anything else.

I could be wrong, but I’m afraid too much of the discussion on what our church’s vision (or mission) should be is going to be about what I call politics – and, for me, church is not a place I want to talk politics. 

Federal Government Money Isn't Free Money

The Chicago Tribune reports that the Trump administration is cutting funds for the Institute of Museum and Library Services, cuts that could hit interlibrary loan programs throughout Illinois (“Libraries’ book sharing threatened by federal cuts,” April 28).  The article quotes numerous local and state library officials who decry the cuts and warn of dire consequences.

But it seems like there is a simple solution: If the federal government won’t use the money it gets from taxpayers to help fund this program, why can’t local libraries use money they get from taxpayers to jointly fund the program?  Alternatively, if the program is so important to Illinois, maybe the State could use money it gets from taxpayers to fund the program. 

JD Vance, Iraq, and MAGA Foreign Policy

So many things are happening in Washington, so fast and so quickly, that if you don’t comment on them immediately, you may miss the chance to do so, because people have moved on to the next big thing – or the one after that.  But I think something JD Vance back on April 15 needs to be commented on, even if I am late in doing so, because (i) it’s wrong (on Iraq), (ii) it says a lot about how Trump supporters view US foreign policy and the world (also wrongly, in my view), and (iii) what it perhaps says about Vice President Vance.

In a conversation on UnHerd, a British site, Vice President Vance was talking about Europe, how much he loves Europe and Europeans.  And then he said this:

“Something I know a little bit more personally: I think a lot of European nations were right about our invasion of Iraq.  And frankly, if the Europeans had been a little more independent, and a little more willing to stand up, then maybe we could have saved the entire world from the strategic disaster that was the American-led invasion of Iraq.”

Instinct, Not Strategy

Not that we didn’t know this, but Donald Trump has explained how he would be making decisions on tariffs, and probably other things, in the coming weeks:

“Instinctively, more than anything else.  You almost can’t take a pencil to paper, it’s really more of an instinct than anything else.”

That is just not going to work.  Maybe instinct works in real estate deals and in politics, but it doesn’t work in government – and certainly doesn’t work in foreign affairs and international economics. 

Republicans Embrace the “Nanny State”. Will Democrats Channel Their Inner Milton Friedman?

As part of Robert F. Kennedy’s “Make America Healthy Again” crusade, the Trump administration is fast-tracking state requests to exclude pop and candy from the food stamp program.  Even non-sugared pop will be excluded by Arkansas.  The idea is that even diet pop isn’t healthy, and the government wants everybody to be healthy, so people shouldn’t be able to use food stamps, i.e., SNAP account money, to buy it.  The federal government knows what is best for you, and they’re not going to let you buy stuff, or at least use food stamps to buy stuff that they think you shouldn’t eat.  In other words, the “Nanny State.”

Which sounds like something Democrats would normally support.  After all, Democrats like telling us what to do.  But, will the fact this is now being done by the Trump administration mean that Democrats will start saying that people should be “free to choose” what they use their SNAP monies to buy?

It Would Be a “Reverse Nixon”, Not a “Reverse Kissinger” – Though Trump Couldn’t Do It Anyway

In last Saturday’s Financial Times, Edward Luce wrote on Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski.¹  At one point, in comparing the foreign policies they advised on with that of Donald Trump, Mr. Luce said: “Notions of Trump pulling off a ‘reverse Kissinger’ – bringing the Russians into America’s orbit, much as Kissinger exploited the Sino-Soviet split in the other direction – are fanciful.”  I certainly agree with Mr. Luce on the idea of President Trump doing something like that, but I disagree with Mr. Luce both as to what such a maneuver would be called – it would be a “reverse Nixon” – and, perhaps more importantly, whose idea the original policy was.  Certainly, Dr. Kissinger played an important role in the secret diplomacy that was required to accomplish the opening to China, but the credit for the policy and the idea behind it belongs to Richard Nixon.

The problem is that Richard Nixon has been blamed by so many for so much for so long, sometimes fairly (in the case of the Watergate coverup) and other times unfairly (for example, the exposure of Alger Hiss as a Soviet spy), that it has become almost impossible to give credit to Mr. Nixon for anything. 

Donald Trump and the Failure of Policy in Ukraine

As Donald Trump’s presidency continues, I get more and more worried, perhaps especially about foreign policy.  He is bad domestically, but I am hopeful we can overcome the problems he is causing here.  The damage he is causing in foreign affairs seems greater.  I don’t know why he is doing what he is doing, but here are some possibilities:

1. He a zero-sum kind of guy. 
2. He thinks almost everybody has played us for suckers and has taken advantage of us. 
3. He is very thin-skinned, and he thinks people are out to get him.¹  Also, he seems to take it personally when people disagree with him (especially on a deal he wants to get done).
4. I am not sure how much history he knows, but I fear it is not enough.  History does not repeat, but knowledge of history does inform.
5. Government is different than business; making agreements between countries is different than making agreements between companies.  I don’t think President Trump understands this.  He thinks deals are deals.  They aren’t.²

Paying Taxes for Programs You Want - Illinois Version

Last Sunday, the Chicago Tribune reported that Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker’s upcoming budget will not include funding for one of the Governor’s signature programs: providing healthcare for immigrants aged 42 to 65 who cannot prove they are here legally.  Governor Pritzker started this program in 2022, perhaps using monies left over from Covid grants from the federal government.  Now, however, the Governor will apparently cancel the program.

Except, of course, if the program is as important as Governor Pritzker has said it is, there is a simple way to get the money to continue it: Raise taxes.  If there is something government needs to do and it doesn’t have the funds to do it, there is no choice.  You have to raise taxes.

Remembering Paul Ryan’s ‘Charge Up Entitlement Hill’

The following letter appeared in the "Letters to the Editor" section of today's print edition of The Wall Street Journal:

"Gerard Baker’s column  “Capitol Hill’s Republican Sycophant Caucus” (Free Expression, March 11), on elected Republicans who won’t criticize Donald Trump seemingly regardless of what he does, reminded me of a distant memory: Paul Gigot’s 2011 Weekend Interview with then-House Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan. When asked about the political risks of trying to deal with the debt and entitlements, Rep. Ryan said: “The way I look at things is if you want to be good at this kind of job, you have to be willing to lose it. … If you don’t believe in your principles, and applying those principles, then what’s the point?”

A lot can change in 14 years. If only we had more Republicans in Congress, and the party, who still believed that."

-------
NOTE: This is slightly edited from I submitted, but I have no objection.

Cutting Waste, Eliminating Fraud, and Paying for Things

You can’t justify tax cuts, etc., by saying you are going rid of fraud and waste.  We need to get rid of fraud and waste, but we need to do it for its own sake; i.e., why should government waste money or allow fraud.  We are not doing it so we can cut taxes or pay for something else.

A related thought: If you think the government needs to spend more money on X or Y, say how you are going raise taxes to pay for the cost of X or Y.  And it can’t be a matter of raising taxes on somebody else; it has to be taxes on you.
---------
UPDATE 3/12/25 3:00 pm): Corrected a typo in the second paragraph.

A Few Random Thoughts on Donald Trump – And Others

• Perhaps the thing that most explains the difference between how Donald Trump views the world, the economy, etc., and how I view them, is that President Trump thinks of pretty much everything as a zero sum game.  In every deal, maybe even in every interaction, there is a winner and a loser; and the amount the winner gains is pretty much equal to what the other side loses.  I don’t believe that.  President Trump does.
• If you are in a fight, it’s nice to have friends.  The United States no longer has as many friends it can count on in a fight – because if they can’t count on us, we can’t count on them.  We used to have lots of those kinds of friends, and we were safer because of it.  Now we don’t, so in order to have even close to the same level of safety, we are going to have to spend more money on defense, and we still may not be as safe.
• To the extent Americans, and some of our leaders, think (and have thought) we have been getting taken advantage of because we were spending a lot of money on defense, which allowed other countries to not spend their fair share on defense, some part of the blame for that rests on those other countries and their leaders for not spending on their own defense.  Here’s looking, for example, at you, Angela Merkel.¹  Even Barack Obama, the U.S. president that Chancellor Merkel liked the most, thought allies were free-riding on America and American defense expenditures.  Germany was happy to rely on America for defense and not spend much itself.  That has not worked out well for either of us.
  Germany was also willing to rely on Vladimir Putin not being Vladimir Putin.  That has not worked out well, either.
• Tariffs are a bad idea.  But then so are other trade barriers.  If we would all get rid of trade barriers, we would all be richer.  Unfortunately, American leaders have not believed in getting rid of trade barriers, i.e., free trade, for a long time.  It is a bipartisan problem.  But President Trump is making it worse.  Wars are bad; so are trade wars.
  -----------
  ¹ There are lots of others, too.

Does Donald Trump Have to Be So Obnoxious and Such a Bully?

I wonder what the reaction would be to what Donald Trump is doing if he were not so obnoxious and such a bully.  Is he antagonizing people, at home and abroad, by the way he is saying things more than the policies themselves would upset people?  At times, it seems, at least to me, that President Trump’s way of talking and acting unnecessarily irritates people and makes some of his policies seem worse than they are. 

It’s sort of the opposite of Barack Obama: some of his policies were worse than his way of talking about them.¹  On the other hand, maybe President Trump’s way of talking appeals to some of his supporters.  Certainly, President Obama’s way of talking appealed to many of his supporters.  In any case, President Trump is not going to change.  He is what he is.