The View from Right Field

Government Subsidies – Programs That Never End

There is a saying that the only things certain in life are death and taxes.  And the only thing permanent is a government program.  The inability of the federal government, and state and local governments, to terminate programs that don’t work is proof of the latter.  Instead of getting rid of the old programs that don’t work, governments just set up a new program – again and again.  Which results in four or five (or more) programs all trying to solve the same problem, and none of them doing it well (if at all).

Overseas, the forever programs are often subsidies: for food, fuel, etc.  In theory, the subsidies are set up for good purposes: to help the poor.  (Of course, they are also set up to help politicians – get votes.)  The problem is that, over time, the subsidies become more and more expensive, as costs go up and prices don’t.  And corruption seeps in: subsidized fuel, for example, is sold to neighboring countries where prices are subsidized.

“Russia Might Decide Aggression Is Worth Risking”

Gideon Rachman wrote in Tuesday’s Financial Times about the future of the EU as a superpower, “a geopolitical force.”¹  He concluded: “The EU used to be called a peace project.  In the modern world, it is more of a power project – and rightly so.”  However, in arguing for the EU as a superpower, I thought Mr. Rachman understated the risk of Russia, as I wrote in this letter to the editor that was published in today’s Financial Times²:

“In his argument for the EU as a superpower (‘Europe rightly aspires to be a power project,’ October 8), Gideon Rachman admits that it ‘lacks the military muscle to back up its geopolitical ambitions’.  However, he says that, ‘even if the US pulled all its troops out of Europe, which is unlikely, it would still be a huge gamble for Russia (or anyone else) to risk military aggression against a collective with the size and wealth of the EU’.

@Cubs 2020 – Hiring A Manager to Follow a “Hall of Fame” Manager

Last week, at the Joe Maddon goodbye fest, Theo Epstein said, as he was firing Joe,¹ that Joe was a Hall of Fame manager.   But apparently a Hall of Fame manager wasn’t what Theo thought the Cubs needed in 2020, so it was “Goodbye Joe.  Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.”  Which brings us to the question of “Who’s next?”

According to press reports, David Ross is being interviewed, as are one or more “internal” candidates; i.e., guys who were with the Cubs in 2019.  It seems to me, given the problems/concerns that Theo Epstein identified in his post-season press conference,² that Theo is saying the Cubs need a kick in the rear.  Can an internal candidate do that?  Can David Ross (who sounds more like a “lets-get-the-2016-gang-back-together-again” guy) do that?  Or do we need somebody from the outside to shake things up?

Why Should Anybody Trust Us? – Again

Donald Trump has announced, again, that the U.S. troops will leaving northeastern Syria (or at least parts of it) – and, in effect, we will basically give Turkey a free hand to do whatever they want to the Kurdish forces there.  And this time he may actually mean it.  He previously announced such a withdrawal in December of last year.  Then-Secretary of Defense James Mattis resigned because of the decision, as did Brett McGurk, who was Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter ISIS.  Last December/January, President Trump was apparently talked out of a complete withdrawal, and approximately 1,000 U.S. troops stayed.  But he now is saying, once again, that he is going to do it, so maybe we will.  Several comments (out of the many that could be made).

The Kurds helped have been a key ally in the fight against ISIS in Syria.  They lost thousands killed.  I realize it was to their benefit to do so, but it was to our benefit, too.  We were fighting together.  We were allies.  And now we have left them in the lurch.  That’s just wrong.  Nikki Haley, former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, said it well: “We must always have the backs of our allies, if we expect them to have our back.”

Sanders’s and Warren’s Wealth Taxes Aren’t Going to Just Cost the Super-Rich

I had been planning on writing about Elizabeth Warren’s tax-a-mega-millionaire program (actually, an annual 2% tax on net worths above $50 million and an additional 1% on amounts above $1 billion), but Bernie Sanders has come along with a bigger (and better-?) tax of his own.  Senator Sanders’s plan needs a chart (as with Senator Warren’s tax, Senator Sanders’s tax is assessed annually):

1% tax on wealth above $32 million;
2% tax on wealth between $50 to $250 million;
3% tax from $250 to $500 million;
4% tax from $500 million to $1 billion;
5% tax from $1 to $2.5 billion;
6% tax from $2.5 to $5 billion;
7% tax from $5 to $10 billion; and
8% tax above $10 billion.

Bidens in Ukraine – and Grifting in Illinois

In an article Peggy Noonan wrote last weekend about the President Trump/Ukraine story, she made a comment that seemed relevant to Illinois:

“In the end, in purely practical political terms, the one person who will be hurt by this story will be Joe Biden.  Every telling of this story necessitates pointing out that Mr. Biden’s son Hunter had cozy financial relationships with other countries, including Ukraine.  It’s real swamp stuff.  It looks bad, say the former vice president’s friends.  No, it is bad.

We Said Goodbye to Joe Maddon on Sunday. Now It’s Goodbye to Cleveland, 2016.

At the beginning of the 2019 season, the Cubs still had fourteen players on their roster from the 2016 World Series team.  Carl Edwards, Jr. and Mike Montgomery, the guys who pitched the bottom of the tenth inning of Game 7, left during the year, but even in September we could field a whole team, including DH, from the guys left from the World Series roster,¹ plus have two starters and a reliever.²  But with Ben Zobrist and Pedro Strop both being free agents and probably not coming back, and Albert Almora, Jr. and Addison Russell not playing all that regularly in 2019, the number of people from the World Series champs could be down a lot in 2020.³  And that doesn’t even include the possibility of one or more guys being traded (see below).

The problem the Cubs have, in addition to not being able to draft and develop their own pitchers, is that their payroll is high.  While MLB’s salary cap is not a hard one, the penalties increase every year if you keep going over it.  When Tom Ricketts said last winter there wasn’t any money for a closer, what he really meant was that the Cubs didn’t want to go over the salary cap, or at least not go over it too far.  (It’s too bad he could not have been a little more honest about it.)

“There Is No Planet B”. But What If You’re Poor on Planet A?

When I was having dinner at a local seafood restaurant recently, there was a little sign on the napkin holder that said “There is no Planet B.”  I don’t know if the restaurant was just trying to get me to use fewer paper napkins or if they were making a general comment on climate change, but I assume that it was mostly the latter and that the point of “There is no Planet B” is to get us to do more, and to push our government to do more, on climate change.

Which raises one of the conundrums with climate change.  It is easy for people who can afford to eat at an upscale restaurant in suburban Chicago to say the world needs to do more, and spend more, to fight climate change.  The problem is, however, if we are really going to do enough to stop climate change, it can’t be done just by rich people in rich countries.  Middle income and poorer countries have to do their part, too.  And that’s where it gets tricky.

Donald Trump and Impeachment. When – and How – Is It Going to End?

A few thoughts:

1. It shouldn’t be too big of a problem for the pro-impeachment forces to get the House of Representatives to impeach Donald Trump.  It only takes a majority, and there are 235 Democrats in the House compared to 197 Republicans.  (There are two vacancies and one independent.)  The Democrats can almost certainly pass an impeachment resolution if the House leadership wants to.

2. The Senate is a different story.  Because it takes a 2/3 vote to convict in the Senate, the pro-impeachment forces need to get 20 Republicans senators to vote to convict President Trump (assuming all 47 Democrats vote to convict).  In this regard, I think it is safe to say that President Trump has not built up much personal loyalty among Republican senators.  The key for them, instead, will be (i) the facts and (ii) how their pro-Trump constituents feel about impeachment.  If President Trump loses any significant portion of his base and/or those who  voted for him in 2016 because the alternative was worse, he could be in trouble.